Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hutch evidence

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by MrTwibbs View Post

    I agree with this. I posted on another thread about officer Donald Fouke's description of a suspect (the zodiac) at night time in the Presidio heights area of San Fran in the 1960s. He description was detailed but no way as detailed as Hutch. The difference being is that Fouke was an experience police officer (Hutch is not. He's a Victorian labourer),....
    Steady on Mr. T.
    Until Hutchinson is identified we do not know what his profession had been.
    I'm not sure if you know this but a Groom (for horses) must have an eye for detail. A Groom represents the owner (at horse shows), he must be well dressed, polite, respectful and have the same standards as his boss - the owner of the stables.
    If this was his true profession, as he claimed, then this explains why he was described as "of military appearance".

    ...... I have run Hutch's suspect description past a few friends who are serving police officers. Their responses were "this is absolute BS", "i've been working homicide for 4 years and usually when we hear stuff like that it sends up a big red flag"
    I'm not sure if you know Stewart Evans, career police officer, author of The Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, but he was on here for a few years and he saw no problem with the level of detail. Another policeman, writes under 'Bridewell', equally had no problem with what Hutchinson said.

    I personally have no problem either, it's not like Hutch only caught a passing glimpse of the man. He passed right under his eyes, beneath a street light, and was in view for maybe 5 minutes or more, before the couple walked up Mitre Square passage.
    If you stood and stared at a stranger for about 5 minutes or more I'll bet you could make a list of details too.



    Regards, Jon S.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

      Absolutely, my thoughts exactly.
      In my mind it's one of the biggest questions of the case.

      In fact, I do think it was PC Smith whom Macnaghten meant when he wrote about the only witness who saw the killer, "was the City PC in Mitre Square".
      He misremember Berner st. for Mitre Sq.

      Of course, if this is the case then the man with the parcel was the killer, which has been my belief all along.
      agree. wonder why they apparently didnt use him as a witness?
      "Is all that we see or seem
      but a dream within a dream?"

      -Edgar Allan Poe


      "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
      quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

      -Frederick G. Abberline

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

        I do think it was PC Smith whom Macnaghten meant when he wrote about the only witness who saw the killer, "was the City PC in Mitre Square".
        He misremember Berner st. for Mitre Sq.

        Macnaghten didn't say "the only witness who saw this killer"


        And Druitt was Not the suspect, and will never be.


        The Baron

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post

          agree. wonder why they apparently didnt use him as a witness?
          To be fair, we wouldn't know whether they did or not. All we know is they used Lawende.

          You & I both agree they should have, so perhaps they did, an identity parade is not a public affair so the press wouldn't know if the PC was called to the cell as the witness for the ID.
          No police paperwork has survived to tell us that part of the story, but the press had access to Lawende so maybe that is why we have his story in the papers. Lawende could have been the second choice of police, neither him nor the press would have known this.
          It was mentioned in the press that reporters would often sit at the station watching who came and went, ready to pounce on the next chapter of the case as it unfolded.
          If they saw Lawende walk in, they would pounce on him as he walked out, thats why we have the story. But, PC Smith worked there, so no pressmen at the front lobby of the station would think anything unusual was going on. So they wouldn't be aware of any ID parade involving PC Smith.

          If Smith was used, as their first choice, his response must have been, "it isn't him" (Sadler). Otherwise, no need to use Lawende for a second opinion.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            All we know is they used Lawende.
            We don't even know that.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

              We don't even know that.
              This is true....

              Circumstantially though, the sparse details fit the only witness to provide the description.

              Regards, Jon S.

              Comment


              • #22
                I'll bet we can't find one other news story of this event (other that a paper that copied the original). It was mostly bogus (confronting Sadler). It even fooled Sugden.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                  I'll bet we can't find one other news story of this event (other that a paper that copied the original). It was mostly bogus (confronting Sadler). It even fooled Sugden.
                  There are a few stories that we only have one example of, a circumstance in itself which proves nothing.
                  Newspapers often reject more stories than they print, though if you have evidence of this being bogus, that would be of interest.
                  Then again, it might be just your gut feeling?
                  By the way, Sugden would have been the last author to claim he was infallible.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Hutchinson only talks of spending all his money going down to Romford and walking all the way from Romford, he doesn't say he walked both ways or spent his money on the way back. If he walked both ways, what's he spending all his money on?

                    It could be that he spend his money going to Romford by train, travelling from Liverpool Street Station, but didn't have enough for a return ticket so walked back instead.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                      Steady on Mr. T.
                      Until Hutchinson is identified we do not know what his profession had been.
                      I'm not sure if you know this but a Groom (for horses) must have an eye for detail. A Groom represents the owner (at horse shows), he must be well dressed, polite, respectful and have the same standards as his boss - the owner of the stables.
                      If this was his true profession, as he claimed, then this explains why he was described as "of military appearance".



                      I'm not sure if you know Stewart Evans, career police officer, author of The Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, but he was on here for a few years and he saw no problem with the level of detail. Another policeman, writes under 'Bridewell', equally had no problem with what Hutchinson said.

                      I personally have no problem either, it's not like Hutch only caught a passing glimpse of the man. He passed right under his eyes, beneath a street light, and was in view for maybe 5 minutes or more, before the couple walked up Mitre Square passage.
                      If you stood and stared at a stranger for about 5 minutes or more I'll bet you could make a list of details too.

                      Over the last 30 odd years, I have been directly involved in many criminal cases involving identification issues, and I have had real grave concerns about this identification and his statement to the police.

                      There are several reasons why his statement may be false, the first is that he described, amongst other things, the colour of the suspect’s eyelashes and the colour of the stone on the watch chain the man was wearing. All of these things would be very difficult to see in poor lighting conditions.

                      To prove or disprove his story I carried out a controlled experiment using three different coloured pendants. I used a volunteer to wear each one separately in poor lighting conditions at night under a street light and asked the volunteer to walk past me. I was unable to distinguish the different colours, all dark colours i.e. red and blue and black, all looked the same under my controlled lighting test. So based on that I would say that Hutchinson’s statement in its entirety is unsafe to be relied upon.

                      As to identifying the colour of eyelashes that is an absolute non-starter.

                      I also believe the police also had their doubts about his testimony, but due to the fact their investigation up until that time had proved negative, they had no choice other than to initially accept and act upon his statement.

                      www.trevormarriott.co.uk



                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

                        To be fair, we wouldn't know whether they did or not. All we know is they used Lawende.

                        You & I both agree they should have, so perhaps they did, an identity parade is not a public affair so the press wouldn't know if the PC was called to the cell as the witness for the ID.
                        No police paperwork has survived to tell us that part of the story, but the press had access to Lawende so maybe that is why we have his story in the papers. Lawende could have been the second choice of police, neither him nor the press would have known this.
                        It was mentioned in the press that reporters would often sit at the station watching who came and went, ready to pounce on the next chapter of the case as it unfolded.
                        If they saw Lawende walk in, they would pounce on him as he walked out, thats why we have the story. But, PC Smith worked there, so no pressmen at the front lobby of the station would think anything unusual was going on. So they wouldn't be aware of any ID parade involving PC Smith.

                        If Smith was used, as their first choice, his response must have been, "it isn't him" (Sadler). Otherwise, no need to use Lawende for a second opinion.
                        I believe a cell ID would not have been a legal ID in 1888 and would have been of no evidential value.

                        There were police codes in operation back then I only have the later version. Perhaps someone could post them in full that relate to ID procedures in 1888. If anyone has Montys book titled "Sir Howard Vincents Police code 1889" written in 1888 they are in there.

                        www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Hutchinson had only a fleeting glance of a few seconds under the light of the Public house.There after he had only the back of the person in sight,for those who believe him.No five minutes , no other close proximity,and no other direct lighting.Just a case of a person(Hutchinson) making up a story without first checking the possibilities.My opinion.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            To prove or disprove his story I carried out a controlled experiment using three different coloured pendants. I used a volunteer to wear each one separately in poor lighting conditions at night under a street light
                            I just wondered what kind of street lighting: until recently this would be sodium based where all cats are ginger toms. Hutch would be in gas light, which depends on the mantel used, but from my recollection of the Wandsworth Ram Inn (ouch) during the 1970s blackout (where they still had gas lights!) is that gas gives very accurate colouring.

                            I have no view on Hutch, but there does seem to be (in general) a view that he was just an ordinary chap, and as bosses tend to think, all chaps are interchangeable. In fact some chaps have undiscovered talents, and it is possible that Hutch had what used to be called a photographic memory, able to see an image in his mind. (Certainly I used to be able to do this, which I found to great advantage in my English Lit O level, being able to read off vast wodges of MacB. )

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
                              Steady on Mr. T.
                              Until Hutchinson is identified we do not know what his profession had been.
                              I'm not sure if you know this but a Groom (for horses) must have an eye for detail. A Groom represents the owner (at horse shows), he must be well dressed, polite, respectful and have the same standards as his boss - the owner of the stables.
                              If this was his true profession, as he claimed, then this explains why he was described as "of military appearance".

                              I'm not sure if you know Stewart Evans, career police officer, author of The Jack the Ripper Sourcebook, but he was on here for a few years and he saw no problem with the level of detail. Another policeman, writes under 'Bridewell', equally had no problem with what Hutchinson said.

                              I personally have no problem either, it's not like Hutch only caught a passing glimpse of the man. He passed right under his eyes, beneath a street light, and was in view for maybe 5 minutes or more, before the couple walked up Mitre Square passage.
                              If you stood and stared at a stranger for about 5 minutes or more I'll bet you could make a list of details too.
                              Good post, Jon.

                              There is also the point that if Hutchinson was being truthful about his powers of observation, he probably did know MJK as well as he claimed, in which case he was much more likely than any random witness to have paid attention to her encounter with this Flash Harry and commit his description to memory. Not because it dawned on Hutch at the time that she might be in danger, but from natural curiosity concerning someone he knew and the man she was picking up.

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X

                              PS: Miller's Court passage

                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by caz View Post

                                Good post, Jon.

                                There is also the point that if Hutchinson was being truthful about his powers of observation, he probably did know MJK as well as he claimed, in which case he was much more likely than any random witness to have paid attention to her encounter with this Flash Harry and commit his description to memory. Not because it dawned on Hutch at the time that she might be in danger, but from natural curiosity concerning someone he knew and the man she was picking up.

                                Love,

                                Caz
                                X

                                PS: Miller's Court passage
                                Conjecture, lets not make it up as we go along !

                                www.trevormarriott.co.uk

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X