Why did he lied?

[lynn cates]

Semitic appearance--from Tyrone

Hello Malcolm. But the bloke in question was an Irishman and, this one in particular, might be thought to look Jewish (whatever that means).

And given MJK knew him, their meeting would have been natural.

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

the thing that stands out most is his description of the bloke, he even sees gloves in his hands/ parcel etc, it's amazing.

it's a stereotypical fully loaded anti-semetic decription that's fixated in his mind, and probably from the tabloids/inquest too.

but is this bloke too suspicious looking, especially with a parcel in his hand, to be invited in by MJK, because my guess is that she would have told this creepy looking guy to clear off.

[lynn cates]

thoughts

Hello Malcolm.

"it's more like I'm trying to figure out what's going on with him."

Now you're talking!

"do you dress the same every day[?]"

Well, the lad pointed out to me by Norma Buddle and Simon Wood ALWAYS wore an astrakhan trimmed coat. He could afford to since he had a good supply of money.

"walks the streets until Victoria Home opens.... I very much doubt it"

And yet John Kelly claimed that both he and Kate did the same on occasion.

Finally, if Christer is right--and I think he is--it was not raining then, not till the next day when MJK was killed.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

respondeo quod

Hello Richard. You are quite right. How many have seen the "Times" report from October 2 (if I recall properly) where there was a bit of dismissal of the lone killer hypothesis?

Incidentally, I read Sugden early on and he dismisses my lad, Isenschmid. And so I followed his example. I have since rethought it.

But it is difficult to get away from early training and impressions (I think I feel a Wordsworth poem coming on--heh-heh), as you say.

You are also right about oral accounts--but these must be handled with a good bit of discretion.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

A-Man

Hello Morgana. Well, no one saw him who came forward--at least so far as we know.

Eye for detail? Yes, but I daresay he got one thing wrong--I doubt that was a horseshoe pin he was wearing.

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

Hello Richard.

"Instead of being so negative, we should do a turn about, and actually believe what he said, and ask what this would imply."

Excellent point.

Cheers.
LC

i'm not really a GH fanboy, it's more like i'm trying to figure out what's going on with him.

1.... GH could indeed be telling the truth, to understand this you really need to take a close look at ``unexplained mysteries``and keep your mind open.

2....but i have to say that all my ``neutral thinking``still points to him being JTR

No one else saw LA DE DA, of course they didn't, because for JTRs lie to work, there must have been nobody else around at that time of the night in Dorset st, finally, do you dress the same every day!

GH stalks MJK as a killer would, either to break in later on, or to wait for her to come out again, it is very spooky how well he's done this, he has also inserted himself into this case just like a modern serial killer might do, again almost perfectly.

unfortunately he has also made himself look very suspicious doing so, there are glaring mistakes that make you think, ``this guy is squirming like a worm on a hook``, especially his excuses for not turning up till 2 days later.

unfortunately if he was there his description would feel far more realistic, its basically too good and over embellished, but in his description, he's also revealing that he's a stalker too.

1..... he's returning from Romford (cruising Whitechapel looking for a victim)
2..... he's waiting way too long outside MJK, very odd, this is highly suspicious behaviour from a young man, if you saw this today you'd probably call the police, it reminds me of that bloke that was infactuated with JILL DANDO
3..... he leaves this location but doesn't bed down anywhere, walks the streets until Victoria Holmes opens.... i very much doubt it, he'd be walking bloody miles, his legs would be killing him..... SORRY NO WAY !

he thus has no Alibi for 3am onwards, how convenient.....Victoria Homes was closed, didn't he realise that he was running out of time before he left Romford..... i very much doubt that GH gives two sods about the home being closed, because this GH loves being out after 2am in the soaking rain, after all; that's why he waited outside for an hour; he couldn't care less, this GH was intending to stay out all night long if he had to..... this is the sort of guy that would still be out on the streets at say 6 to 7am..... uuum a bit like Hanbury st, or somewhere like that

no residents saw anything major out on the streets between 2 and 3am, only him, but nothing major to refute his story, so the window of opportunity for him was there, he would have found this out at the inquest, he would also have found out that he was seen too...... GREAT, HE WAS THERE EXCELLENT, this makes him appear innocent, but only you the reader can decide if he's telling the truth, or going to the inquest as JTR, just checking to make sure that everything is ok before going to Abberline.

this is just the start, there's flipping loads of stuff going against him.

yes it's true, there's loads of stuff portraying him as JTR, far more than i've mentioned here, but unfortunately there's loads of stuff that sais he's innocent too..

[richardnunweek]

Hello Lynn.
The trouble with all of us[ without exception] is we initially educated ourselves on this subject from the first book we read, and that along with [ in my case] countless books since.
We have all in our suspicious minds formed opinions, which have remained imprinted ever since.
Bob Hinton's ''From Hell'' was a very good book, and turned many a head, but despite it being ''pure speculation'' cast a giant shadow over the witness Hutchinson's honesty, and turned a strange encounter, into ''The lying George''.
It has come down to what is, either not in a book on the subject, or from 1888 newspapers, could not have happened.
All oral History is dismissed.
Any point that only appears in one edition , has to be of non importance,
Without sounding ''sour grapes'' points like clothing worn on the eve of the 8th by Kelly, and that implication.
The burning of the velvet jacket and bonnet[ Mrs Harveys] because of being bloodstained.
The polices view that the Kelly's murder was committed in daylight.
All this is never discussed, simply because it is not in any previous commercial book, and the majority have never come across.
We should all remember that all authors past and present, have researched from newspaper archives, and not every aspect of this case ever appeared in print, leaving oral history a distinct possibility that would be foolish to dismiss,
especially if it has hallmarks of truth.
Regards Richard.

[Morgana LeFay]

My problems with Astrakhan man? No one else saw him. And was for sure a striking character for Whitechapel. And of course, so much details.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Richard.

"Instead of being so negative, we should do a turn about, and actually believe what he said, and ask what this would imply."

Excellent point.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

nosy

Hello Mac.

"The problematic part of the story for me is that he hung around for 3/4 of an hour. I find it hard to accept that he was a concerned citizen prepared to watch over her due to a 'suspicious' man entering her home, only to walk away when said suspicious man is clearly doing far more than a 5 minute love-in."

Used to be a problem for me. But he could be just a nosy fellow.

"The other part I'm struggling with a touch is Mary asking H for money: is this how it worked in those days? H, un unemployed man, needing every penny he could get his hands on, is seen as good for a sub by Mary?"

But this happens even today. Society is still populated with chronic givers and takers.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

A-Man

Hello Morgana.

"I sure do NOT buy his astrakhan man"

What do you find most problematic about his story?

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
As a staunch Hutch was ''innocent'' person , I naturally find all of these threads tedious, I am as confident as can be, that Topping was GH, and because of this, most certainly not a killer..
The lying eyes of George, and now Why did he lie?, suggest his whole story was a fabrication, and he placed himself into police hands ''just or jolly'', or for five minutes of fame.
This I cannot buy.
Instead of being so negative , we should do a turn about, and actually believe what he said, and ask what this would imply.
The police were not fools [ even then] and what seems unusual to us, would apply to them.
What we do not have in his statement is all the questions he would have been asked, such as the clothing Mary was wearing at 2am[ 9th]
How he could be sure of colouring.
Was the man overcoat undone?
What he knew about kelly's background?
There is no way that they would have accepted such a tale, from pure frustration alone.
As for MJK asking for money on a regular basis , we have reports from a Dorset street lodging house, of her always being on the ''cadge'' infact one man claimed that she asked for money towards her rent, that was drunk away.
I would say it is a certainty that Hutchinson saw Kelly as stated, and from his initial identification of her, from clothing found in her room. and from tuesday mornings morgue identification, they had no doubt of his sighting, and from interrogation no doubts about his honesty.
So the only question is was Hutchinsons' man her killer,[ many doubts] or was their someone else about to appear on the scene?
Regards Richard.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Are there other witnesses going themselves to the police after 3 days?.

BTW...I don't say that Hutchinson was the killer. But I sure do NOT buy his astrakhan man and don't think he was an attention seeker (too much risk, what if they charged him).

I'm not convinced that going to the polis after the event is suspicious. Perhaps he was busy; perhaps he was deciding what to do as he may have realised it could have raised a few eyebrows.

Nor do I necessarily write off A Man as a fantasy, nor the idea that H couldn't have remembered such detail.

The problematic part of the story for me is that he hung around for 3/4 of an hour. I find it hard to accept that he was a concerned citizen prepared to watch over her due to a 'suspicious' man entering her home, only to walk away when said suspicious man is clearly doing far more than a 5 minute love-in. The idea that H was all set to relieve A Man of his valuables isn't a bad solution to this scenario.

The other part I'm struggling with a touch is Mary asking H for money: is this how it worked in those days? H, un unemployed man, needing every penny he could get his hands on, is seen as good for a sub by Mary?

All things considered, I feel the likely scenario is that H was in it for a few quid.

As a wild card, who remembers Sports Personality of the Year when a dead man with little claim to a sporting gift or a personality won most votes? A few people got together and for a laugh urged people to vote for that man and they did in droves. Perhaps it's a peculiarily English trait to want to make a mockery of the established wisdom and much loved institutions. Perhaps Hutch and his mates were sat in the pub, bored senseless, and for a laugh just went to the polis with a likely story so they could read about their comedic capacity in the papers. Long shot I know (before anyone comes in with: "utter nonsense, you should be shot!")

[Morgana LeFay]

If he was an attention seeker, why did he waited 3 days?

Couldn't he have been OUTSIDE the place where the inquest was being done and seen Sarah Lewis enter the building...and assume the worst? Too little time between the inquest and his going to the police....

[Morgana LeFay]

Are there other witnesses going themselves to the police after 3 days?.

BTW...I don't say that Hutchinson was the killer. But I sure do NOT buy his astrakhan man and don't think he was an attention seeker (too much risk, what if they charged him).