Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of identity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • richardnunweek
    replied
    Hi Crystal,
    I agree with that figure, i originaly got the impression you were interpreting Hutchinsons Five pounds, as equivilent to Two thousand five hundred pounds, and four hundred pounds would obviously be the correct figure.
    Regards Richard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Richard -

    it depends on which index you use. RPI, the £5 in 1888 would have been worth £399.32 in 2007

    Leave a comment:


  • richardnunweek
    replied
    Hello Crystal,
    I must dispute your conversion .
    Are you suggesting that one pound in 1888 =five hundred pounds in todays currency?
    That would make a unskilled labourer earning a good wage even today.
    McCarthys rents [ marys room ] approx one hundred and thirteen pounds p/w
    Over four pounds for a 2d glass of gin.
    I am glad i did not live around then.
    Regards Richard.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Good Michael
    replied
    Crystal,

    but nowadays £2,512.11d won't even buy one a decent salmon.

    Mike

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    If Hutch was paid £5 for his trouble, it would have been the equivalent, in real terms (purchasing power) to £2,512.11d.

    It's a pity a fiver doesn't go so far these days, hey?

    Leave a comment:


  • DVV
    replied
    Richard,
    you're really a nice and civil man.
    My views on Hutch are completely different to yours, but I enjoy the way you share your own memories.
    Once again, I have no doubt you've heard Reg on the radio.
    This only explains your personal interest and unshaken opinion.

    Amitiés,
    David

    Leave a comment:


  • Malcolm X
    replied
    Fisherman raises good points, because i've had these very same thoughts too (when i was most suspicious of Chapman)

    but none of these made sense to me, until i thought that maybe HUTCH was the RIPPER....then for me, it all fell into place..

    FISHERMAN doesn't need me to explain myself, it's all here on this forum and he knows exactly what my replies would be anyway...exactly the same as Ben's

    Richard sais :- ``He could be a cold , vicious , sadistic killer, who like many serial killers in the past have introduced themselves into the investigation, for reasons known only to their sordid little minds.........They are the choices folks. pick one``


    yes it's called the ``thrill/attention`` seeker, there's quite a few like that in the U.S.A


    ``They are the choices folks. pick one.....``

    yes, that's about all we can say right now
    Last edited by Malcolm X; 04-14-2009, 08:02 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Ben writes:

    "Not really, Fisherman."

    Well, Ben, it may not seem strange to you. But is DOES to me.

    I am obviously very well aquainted with your interpretation of the events in and outside Miller´s Court. My own way to look upon things does not tally with it, however, and the development on the "Hutch in the 1911 census"-thread lies behind it to a very significant degree, as you may have guessed.

    The best,
    Fisherman

    Leave a comment:


  • Ben
    replied
    If his sole incentive was to get off the hook himself, that was rather a strange thing to do.
    Not really, Fisherman.

    It would be a fairly logical thing to do, since it would reinforce the suspicion that Astrakhan man was ensconced in room #13 with Mary Jane Kelly for a great deal longer than the average knee-trembling encounter. This was a necessary ingredient if he wanted to convey the impression that the surly Jewish man with a small black parcel was the ripper. It was also useful to account for the "unseen witness" factor. There was also the possibility that he was seen by other witnesses besides Lewis, so it's arguable that he needed to vindicate his presence for those occasions too, which meant acknowledging that he remained there for as long as he did.

    Moreover, if he wanted to throw suspicion in a decidedly Jewish direction, then that did not have to involve admitting an aquaintance with Kelly either
    But then if he didn't claim to have known Kelly, his preoccupation with the court for 45 minutes would be all the more difficult to explain and justify rationally. If he was following them because he knew Kelly, his apparent fixation would make more sense.

    Best regards,
    Ben

    Leave a comment:


  • richardnunweek
    replied
    Hi,
    I would say we would all agree that Hutchinson , had a reason for arriving on the morning night to issue a statement to the police.
    Reasons include.
    To relay exactly what he saw , to the best of his ability, a honest account.
    To offer the police an explanation , why he may have been seen in the immediate vacinty, this may have been because of the inquest reports[ if gh was present] or he may have encountered others, who saw him with Mary Kelly alone on the streets in the early hours of the 9th.
    It is even possible that no Astracan man ever existed, and he man was invented by Hutch, because he himself had spent time in kellys room during the night, and may have left his own hankerchief there...
    The above 7 lines, does not make Hutchinson her killer, he could have left her room at 6am ,to go back to the Victoria home, leaving Mary asleep , and very much alive, and upon hearing of her murder, and the estimated T.O.D, he was paranoid in becoming a suspect, and therefore fear made him intoduce that elaborate account.
    But of course.
    He could be a cold , vicious , sadistic killer, who like many serial killers in the past have introduced themselves into the investigation, for reasons known only to their sordid little minds.
    They are the choices folks. pick one.....
    Regards Richard.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fisherman
    replied
    Malcolm X writes:

    "this suspect unlike Maybrick, Sickert, Tumblety was actually hanging around far too long outside Mary's room and that's far more than any other suspect."

    He hung around for three quarters of an hour, Malcolm. But how do we know that? Because he himself told us so, that´s why. If he only needed to provide an explanation to Lewis´observation, he could have said that he stood there for a minute or two, and he could have given another reason altoghether for doing so than monitoring Kellys moves. He did not even have to tell the police that he knew Kelly.
    And yet, this is precisely what he did - he told the police about how he kept an eye on the entrance to Miller´s Court for the better part of an hour, and he freely admitted that he knew Kelly.
    If his sole incentive was to get off the hook himself, that was rather a strange thing to do.
    Moreover, if he wanted to throw suspicion in a decidedly Jewish direction, then that did not have to involve admitting an aquaintance with Kelly either - he could have described her looks and clothing, and then he could have said that he had observed this woman in company with Astrakhan man.

    And, not to forget: he could have stayed away from the police station altogether! But he didn´t, did he?

    The best, Malcolm!
    Fisherman

    Leave a comment:


  • Malcolm X
    replied
    i agree too, that attack by Bob Hinton was way over the top..... proof? there is precious little of it, so all we have is speculation.

    7 years i've been here and in that time i've discovered little........ just learnt a lot more about Victorian London...and a lot more about the night of Kelly's murder

    but discovering HUTCH's identity is important, my guess is that we're very close... and he was outside Mary's for one of two reasons only..

    i've ceratainly got enough for a decent book, because this suspect unlike Maybrick, Sickert, Tumblety was actually hanging around far too long outside Mary's room and that's far more than any other suspect.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pablito
    replied
    Hi Richard, don't worry about ridiculous bullying non - entities like the above, i don't post much but read a lot and find your contributions fascinating and illuminating. Maybe we can organise a petition to get Casebook to ban those who continously hound, bully and spout venom like the no - marks who keep victimising you and others on these boards and spoil everyone else's fun

    Leave a comment:


  • Brenda
    replied
    Mr. Nunweek,
    Unless you've been banned, you are perfectly within your rights to post here. Hopefully you'll stick around and not be bullied off the boards.

    Leave a comment:


  • richardnunweek
    replied
    Bob Hinton.
    This is my last post to you on Casebook, your attitude is one of extreme bad manners, and any respect i may have for you in the past, has now dried up.
    I can assure you sir that to be called a 'Silly, Whiny, incompetent child, on a message board, that i have actively posted on for ten years, has actually [ belief it ] rather annoyed me.
    So goodbye, and butt out of my posts, like i yours.
    Richard Nunweek

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X