Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help On Some Details

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

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Hello RP

    I fully understand what you're saying, and you may be right. Personally, I don't think that people would necessarily have gone to the police of their own accord to say that H was tucked up safely in bed on the night in question. Or, if there was a risk of their doing so, then Hutch needn't have been unduly fazed by it.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Perhaps he was still in Romford or staying with friends/family elsewhere. Neither of which is unrealistic.
    Hi Sam. But I never suggested that having an alibi was in itself unrealistic (if completely unproven); I said having an alibi without others knowing about it would be. So this theoretical group of family members and friends would immediately know that Hutchinson was lying once his story hit the papers. In which case, either he was dense or he was remarkably unconcerned about their opinions of his honesty.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    It's difficult to imagine a scenario where working-class stiff George would have a 'cast-iron' alibi
    Perhaps he was still in Romford or staying with friends/family elsewhere. Neither of which is unrealistic.
    In which case, if Hutchinson was lying, he would be risking immediate exposure from those who knew he hadn't been in Dorset Street
    Worth the risk for a cheap thrill and/or a few shillings, perhaps, and all he had to do if challenged by those who knew would have been to say he'd made a simple error rather than a lie. Assuming for the sake of argument that he had made up the encounter with Kelly, then passing his lie off as a mistake would have been easy in comparison.
    and could have been prosecuted for filing a false report. Lying to the police is hardly risk free.
    Indeed, but hardly a capital offence. I daresay Hutchinson wasn't the first or the last to tell the police a whopper in the course of this case.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Not too risky if he had a cast-iron alibi in the event that his porkies were found out.
    It's difficult to imagine a scenario where working-class stiff George would have a 'cast-iron' alibi without others knowing about it, otherwise it wouldn't be an alibi.

    In which case, if Hutchinson was lying, he would be risking immediate exposure from those who knew he hadn't been in Dorset Street, and could have been prosecuted for filing a false report. Lying to the police is hardly risk free.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    Why would anyone rush to put himself at the scene of this horrific crime, before thinking carefully about the consequences if the police were not satisfied that he had left the victim alive?
    Not too risky if he had a cast-iron alibi in the event that his porkies were found out.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post
    This was not the first time he had seen a man engaging openly with an unfortunate when on his way home after a night out.
    Nor, evidently, the first time he loped home at 1.30 a.m.

    I wonder how much wine Levy, Harris, and Lawende had for Havdalah? There's no biblical law forbidding alcohol consumption on the Sabbath, and somehow I doubt the Imperial Club was serving up herbal tea at midnight.


    Three entries into Mitre Square, a woman's back, a fleeting glimpse after a night out...not exactly a slam dunk for the prosecution.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Even Lawende (premier witness?) didn't come forward, like most witnesses he had to be sought out during a house-to-house search.
    The majority of witnesses do not come forward, whether they know the deceased or not.
    One of the most common reason's given is that they don't want to get involved. And those few who actually do know the victim are worried that they may become targets themselves - look how many tenants fled Millers Court following the murder.

    This holier-than-thou premise that an honest witness will waste no time in contacting police, oblivious of any potential threat to himself in doing so, is a myth.
    Agreed, Jon. Blotchy never came forward, presumably very much aware of the potential threat to himself in doing so, whether he was the killer or not. I'm only surprised Hutch came forward at all in his stated position, which, according to his own claims/admissions, was not that much better than Blotchy's, and in fact put himself close to the scene at a later time. But they couldn't both have been the killer.

    Why would anyone rush to put himself at the scene of this horrific crime, before thinking carefully about the consequences if the police were not satisfied that he had left the victim alive, to meet her death by another hand? If Hutch was really there that night, he'd have been in a predicament if he couldn't put MJK in another man's company.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman;468906)
    I don't promote the Maxwell argument. I am showing that Maxwell's sighting was the dominant theory over thaweret first weekend.
    Was it? I'd have thought that the earlier cries of "Murder" might have captured the public imagination rather more effectively than most of the stories flying around. Especially given that those cries emanated from the direction of Kelly’s room not long after Hutchinson had left her alone with a suspicious looking stranger toting a mysterious parcel.

    Besides, when asked about his not having come forward sooner, Hutchinson said that he had indeed told a policeman. No mention of his assuming a later time of death based on what he'd heard and/or read in the papers.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    So we have an 'unfortunate' standing underneath a street lamp on a Saturday night/Sunday morning in East London.

    Not, I would think, a particularly unique event.

    Yet this is the foundation stone of many a theory.
    One of the three witnesses, Levy, would have agreed with you, rj:

    "I don't like going home by myself when I see these sorts of characters about."

    This was not the first time he had seen a man engaging openly with an unfortunate when on his way home after a night out.

    Love,

    Caz
    X

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    A few people claimed to have seen Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday, and we do not have any evidence that any of them knew her or even what she looked like.

    The last person who saw Mary that we know knew her well saw her at 11:45pm going into her room with Blotchy, thats the only sighting that has value. Maybe you should re-read how Maxwell was warned on the stand before you make the same mistakes.
    To suggest I don't know what Macdonald said to Maxwell is a pretty feeble statement Michael.

    I don't promote the Maxwell argument. I am showing that Maxwell's sighting was the dominant theory over that first weekend.
    The newspapers were the only source available for the public, and the press were reporting Kelly was seen alive after 9:00 am.

    Thats just a blatant fact, like it or not.
    So, like everyone else, that is what Hutchinson would have read too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
    I'm point out that both are the same level of credibility. If you religiously believe the Star, why not the Echo?
    Yet, we have corroboration for the Echo account, but none for the Star.
    But you choose the Star - why?

    It was the first to report it.
    First?, how about the ONLY one to report it.

    Then, the following day (16th) the Star publish the Galloway story which includes the statement that the Met. constable was looking for a man "of a very different appearance."
    There were only two suspects, Blotchy (in the Galloway story), and Astrachan, who looked very different to Blotchy.
    So the Star don't seem to justify their own "discredited" report of the previous day.
    Clearly, Hutchinson's story was not discredited when the Met are still looking for him.


    Jon, I said "Its a fact that George was reported to be discredited". How could you misread that? I cannot be clearer than that.
    I know what you wrote Michael, but there's no credibility in you saying "it was reported in the Star, so it must be a fact".
    So you must believe the report itself was factual - which as we can see, it was not.

    I stand by my posts.
    Which is nothing to be proud of when it's demonstrably false.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    No, between Friday morning & Sunday Hutch knew what everyone else knew (or thought they knew), Kelly was alive until after 9:00 am Friday morning.
    A few people claimed to have seen Mary Kelly after 11:45pm Thursday, and we do not have any evidence that any of them knew her or even what she looked like.

    The last person who saw Mary that we know knew her well saw her at 11:45pm going into her room with Blotchy, thats the only sighting that has value. Maybe you should re-read how Maxwell was warned on the stand before you make the same mistakes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    I'm point out that both are the same level of credibility. If you religiously believe the Star, why not the Echo?
    Yet, we have corroboration for the Echo account, but none for the Star.
    But you choose the Star - why?

    It was the first to report it.


    You believe all press reports as 'factual'?

    Jon, I said "Its a fact that George was reported to be discredited". How could you misread that? I cannot be clearer than that.
    I stand by my posts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by packers stem View Post
    Oh ok Jon
    That works .....
    If you believe he didn't see a police officer or didn't pass a police station between Friday morning and Sunday .
    No, between Friday morning & Sunday Hutch knew what everyone else knew (or thought they knew), Kelly was alive until after 9:00 am Friday morning.

    The change in the supposed time of death was only published on Sunday morning.
    Two other small points.
    Beat constables do not work for Scotland Yard.
    This beat constable may have not read the Lloyds article.

    How do you suppose the ordinary beat constable receives updates on these murder inquiries?
    Updates were posted on a noticeboard at the station. If he went on duty before the update was posted - he wouldn't know.
    Alternately, if he didn't read the notice board - he wouldn't know.

    Conversely, was the Lloyds article even true?
    We can believe there was a change, because Dr. Bond's report to Anderson on Saturday suggested a time of death between 1:00 - 2:00 am. But was this adopted by Scotland Yard as a fact by Sunday?
    If it was, then why does Macdonald call Maxwell to the inquest, or witnesses who heard a cry of murder between 3:30-4:00?
    If she was dead by 2:00, none of that mattered, and neither would Hutchinson's story.
    So it comes down to what did this beat constable believe on that Sunday?

    We can't be 100% sure about anything. Therefore, we cannot so easily dismiss a witness because some modern theorist thinks "he didn't do the right thing".
    We don't even know what the right thing to do was.

    Leave a comment:


  • packers stem
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Not knowing the circumstances makes it hard to judge. Police reports admit people were coming forward all the time with accusations and stories, we don't know what the exchange was between Hutchinson & this constable.

    If the constable was on point duty (likely, if this was at the market), then he might have suggested Hutch go to the station himself. Though, if Hutch was working there at the time (also likely, as he was in no regular employment), then he can't just walk off the job when he chooses.
    So, at the end of his work day he didn't go to the station after all, maybe he was too tired to be bothered.

    The police can't be accused of secrecy if they have not yet received a statement from the witness.
    There's nothing unique about a witness going to police with a, "I think I know something...." story.
    The constable may have taken down some notes, we'll never know. Hutch did decide to go to the station the next day.
    Oh ok Jon
    That works .....
    If you believe he didn't see a police officer or didn't pass a police station between Friday morning and Sunday .

    The most pressing need for the police in the area at that time was ????
    To believe that this officer who Hutchinson allegedly approached would have let him out of his sight when half of his colleagues were supposedly interviewing everyone in Dorset street looking for even the slightest sniff of info is pure fantasy

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X