Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another George Hutchinson

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    I guess the press were in on the fake George Hutchinson conspiracy too. good grief
    Well, theoretically the press could have been duped by someone pretending to be a witness calling himself GH.
    But “good grief” is right

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

      And yet you just did! lol and grrrrrr..
      hi Fish!
      hope you are holding up well in these troubled times. As usual you make some good points, I just dont agree with them.
      Im sure its not lost on you and many others the incredible similarities between Hutch and lech as "witnesses" (AKA as suspects) and as you know I consider lech a very viable suspect also. As a matter of fact ive bumped him up on the list to my first tier of most viable candidates along with Hutch and several others! Congrats!!!
      Im sure ive made your day. ; )

      Now im not going to rehash all the arguments con hutch now that weve gone over ad nauseum in the past but at least one thing that Im sure we can agree on is that George Hutchinson was indeed a real person lol. (although im aware you think he might have been out a night on his Mary sighting).

      Hows the lech/torso book coming? looking forward to it!
      You should look to Edward Stow for the book, Abby - and if you cannot wait, then you need to take a look at his Youtube presentation: https://youtu.be/w4GaHD0QrXA

      The latest contribution deals with Verrey´s restaurant and it´s ties to Charles Lechmere. It opens up a VERY interesting perspective, plus it - it just so happens - manages to pinpoint the location of Kahns anatomical museum.

      Thanks for asking about how I am holding up, by the way - I am just fine (so far, so good...) and I hope that goes for you too.

      The similarities between Hutchinson and Lechmere remind me about the similarities between Lake Michigan and my own bathtub; both hold water, but one infinitely more so.

      I am stoked to see that you have bumped Charles up on your list. Don´t make him spend too much time in that company, though - he needs to keep moving up, double quick.

      Do I agree that George Hutchinson was a real person? ´Deed I do! I can see his face as we speak, even. And his signature. A person does not get more real than that. There are other people whose existence I am much less inclinded to believe in. Some of them post out here, and they don´t always seem real to me.

      I agree that we need not rehash the arguments pro and against GH. But I cannot remember your answer to the riddle of how Hutchinson managed to miss out on/forget/deny Lewis´ existence. Have you made your case on that one?

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

        Does that mean Abberline was duped by someone playing a witness or was Abberline in on the conspiracy?
        Abberline was desperate enough to stand by Schwartz when he obviously had no perceived bearing on the question into how Liz Stride died, so...desperate is your anwer. The man who graduated from these very streets, the one who they threw a promotion party for complete with parting gifts...yeah, he wanted to solve this for them desperately.

        Comment


        • #49
          I think all should bear something in mind when people are identifying themselves as someone....these are pre-birth certificate, pre-licenses times folks. People who could prove they were who they said they were...letter from church, letter from some government agency-local or national, etc...were the minority. Anyone could reinvent themselves by just changing their name on a register at a new address down the street. Same goes for people unrelated to the deceased ID'ing the victims...most know who the victim told them they were, and that's all. I don't recall people id'ing any of these women who also knew the victims blood line family members.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
            I think all should bear something in mind when people are identifying themselves as someone....these are pre-birth certificate, pre-licenses times folks. People who could prove they were who they said they were...letter from church, letter from some government agency-local or national, etc...were the minority. Anyone could reinvent themselves by just changing their name on a register at a new address down the street. Same goes for people unrelated to the deceased ID'ing the victims...most know who the victim told them they were, and that's all. I don't recall people id'ing any of these women who also knew the victims blood line family members.
            And many didn’t even go to all that much trouble just used a different name, the world of
            Ripperology has so many examples
            G U T

            There are two ways to be fooled, one is to believe what isn't true, the other is to refuse to believe that which is true.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

              I agree that we need not rehash the arguments pro and against GH. But I cannot remember your answer to the riddle of how Hutchinson managed to miss out on/forget/deny Lewis´ existence. Have you made your case on that one?
              Hey Christer.

              Your question may have been answered if Abberline's interrogation of Hutchinson had survived.
              As we only have his initial statement to police we can't expect him to provide every detail.

              You can read through all the initial witness statements to Abberline in Millers Court, then compare them with what those same witnesses told Macdonald in court. Under questioning all witnesses provide better detail. Is that so surprising?

              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                Abberline was desperate enough to stand by Schwartz when he obviously had no perceived bearing on the question into how Liz Stride died, so...desperate is your anwer. The man who graduated from these very streets, the one who they threw a promotion party for complete with parting gifts...yeah, he wanted to solve this for them desperately.
                Hello Michael,

                I am not sure what you mean when you say Abberline stood by Schwartz. How did he do that exactly?

                Your sarcasm and use of "desperately" seem to indicate that you believe that Abberline did not want to solve the Ripper case. Is that correct?

                c.d.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                  Hey Christer.

                  Your question may have been answered if Abberline's interrogation of Hutchinson had survived.
                  As we only have his initial statement to police we can't expect him to provide every detail.

                  You can read through all the initial witness statements to Abberline in Millers Court, then compare them with what those same witnesses told Macdonald in court. Under questioning all witnesses provide better detail. Is that so surprising?
                  Hi Jon!

                  I would find it unlikely in the extreme if he did not mention Lewis. He is quite adamant in his press interview: "One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else."

                  To me, it remains case closed on the Hutchinson/Lewis matter: he did not see her and if he HAD seen her, he would have said so. There is also the fact that he said that he went to "the corner of the court" and that he also left from that same corner, clearly implicating that he did NOT stand on the other side of the street. Ergo, if Lewis did see a man outside the boarding house, then that man was not George Hutchinson.

                  It is not necessarily surprising if witnesses provide more detail when in court than they do when speaking to the police. Then again, it is what they tell the police that decides if they are to testify at the inquest or not, and the salient points will have been made before that inquest. What we need here is a man who remembers "ah, yes, there was a PC in the distance" and "I also remember that I saw a man entering one of the lodging houses", but fails to remember that a woman has stepped on his feet while making her way into the very doorway he was focusing on.

                  It is remembering that shots were fired while forgetting that you were hit, Jon. It does not work on any level, and to amend it, we have to contrive various odd explanations. Which we can always do - but SHOULD we? More pertinently, should we choose them over the basic facts?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Kattrup View Post

                    Great, thanks.
                    The illustration you posted is from study in scarlet, from 1891.
                    How did Abberline in 1888 know that Geo H was a Hutchinson?

                    If Abberline was not duped, why did he write a memo detailing his examination of GH?
                    Hi Simon

                    have you had time to consider the questions above?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
                      The police already had an obvious jew for a suspect two months earlier, in the form of Leather Apron, yet went to the trouble of publicly exonerating him. Why bother?
                      Maybe because he had witnesses giving him an alibi and they knew his life was in danger?

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by c.d. View Post

                        Hello Michael,

                        I am not sure what you mean when you say Abberline stood by Schwartz. How did he do that exactly?

                        Your sarcasm and use of "desperately" seem to indicate that you believe that Abberline did not want to solve the Ripper case. Is that correct?

                        c.d.
                        Abberline backed Schwartz's story. How can you interpret someone that I said was desperate to have answers for the public did not want the cases solved? No official wanted an answer to these cases more than Abberline because of his relationship with these people and these street. Therefore, he was willing to believe anything that might solve the cases.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          There was one Wideawake man, and George Hutchinson places himself in his shoes. There are not 2 loitering men. That's the real Case Closed here....not the goobledy gook posted in # 53.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post

                            Abberline backed Schwartz's story. How can you interpret someone that I said was desperate to have answers for the public did not want the cases solved? No official wanted an answer to these cases more than Abberline because of his relationship with these people and these street. Therefore, he was willing to believe anything that might solve the cases.
                            Hello Michael,

                            I was not trying to put words in your mouth. I was simply asking for clarification because what you wrote was not clear to me.

                            I am still not sure how Abberline "backed" Schwartz's story. Even if he believed it initially we don't know if that belief might have changed over time.

                            c.d.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Fisherman View Post

                              Hi Jon!

                              I would find it unlikely in the extreme if he did not mention Lewis. He is quite adamant in his press interview: "One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else."
                              Hi Christer.

                              Yes, of course. Hutchinson is touching on two points.
                              First, the fact these streets are supposed to be patrolled by police at all hours of the day & night, and Dorset street apparently was not - he is making a complaint.
                              Second, unless you believe the killer was a woman, or alternately, unless you think that the police believed the killer was a woman, then Hutchinson only makes reference to seeing a man because that is what the police are interested in.
                              In other words he is likely responding to an obvious question - "did you see any other suspicious characters that night?" Hence, his reply to only seeing one man.

                              ... There is also the fact that he said that he went to "the corner of the court" and that he also left from that same corner, clearly implicating that he did NOT stand on the other side of the street.
                              Ok, at the risk of being pedantic here. He makes no reference to "the corner of the court" in his police statement, that came in the press interview.
                              So, first lets deal with what he DID say in his police statement.

                              "I then went to the court to see if I could see them, but could not.
                              I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away"


                              Which suggests he was standing outside (re: he said "came out") the court for 3/4 of an hour, so that is where he left from - somewhere in Dorset street.

                              Now, what do we read in the press statement?

                              "I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not.
                              I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."


                              Which also suggests he was outside the court in Dorset street, as he said "came down", meaning down the passage. So obviously he is waiting out in the street.
                              His story is equally applicable to a man standing on either the north side or the south side of Dorset street.

                              It strikes me as you are struggling very hard to eliminate Hutchinson as a reliable witness.

                              I had managed to stay out of this Hutchinson thread for almost three days.....
                              Maybe we shouldn't turn this into another "lets stick it to Hutch" thread?
                              Last edited by Wickerman; 05-14-2020, 05:13 PM.
                              Regards, Jon S.

                              Comment


                              • #60

                                So let's see if I've got it right:

                                Lechmere killed Nichols
                                Cadosche killed Chapman
                                Schwartz killed Stride
                                Lawende killed Eddowes
                                Hutchinson killed Kelly

                                Looks like case closed, final solution to me!



                                Martyn

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X