Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help On Some Details

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

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
    The fact she was a Prostitute or at least resorted to prostitution when in need and the fact that a) she asked Hutchinson for sixpence(reading between the lines propositioning him and b) he in the past had given her a few shillings says to me that he had very possibly used her services on a number of occassions. Not certain of course- but possible. In Abberlines report he does not mention them being friends. Anyone know the law in 19th century Britain in regards those who used prostitutes. i.e was it illegal to pay for sexual services?
    Paying for the service of a prostitute is a relative new offence. Nothing of the same in 1888.

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunny Delight
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    No, is the short answer for the above in bold, and he was also single, so he had no family reputation to protect.

    I respect Rj's reply, but there is no reasonable reason for his waiting 4 days IF he really knew Mary Kelly on "friendly terms"...that last bit in quotation is for Jon.

    My feeling has been for some time that Hutchinson used a "known" as his entrance into this investigation...on Friday they already knew of Wideawake. Why he chose to do that is up for interpretation, but my sense is that, since he alluded to being on friendly terms with Mary, that his statement was intended to downplay any idea that Wideawake was a dangerous suspect, "if only after the fact". Wideawake was the overwhelming reason for the Pardon for Accomplices offer. If people believed Hutch, then Wideawake becomes perhaps a friendly stalker, but not someone involved in the crime.

    I also believe he may have been paid to do that.


    Hi Michael,

    I respect your opinion but of you see my post above it sums up my thoughts.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunny Delight
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
    Hi Sunny. Which is probably why he hesitated. Rather than this 4 day delay proving that Hutchinson was dishonest, it probably just shows that he was worried about becoming involved. If we believe his story, he had earlier told a constable about what he had witnessed. When another two days passed and nothing came of it, he went to the station in person. He also discussed the matter with a fellow lodger. 'Reading between the lines,' I see a young man who was worried, but eventually worked up the gumption. It may not make him a model citizen, but it also doesn't make him a false witness, let alone the killer. Witnesses come forward days later, weeks later, even months later, and some who most eagerly rush forward turn out to be crack-pots, 'crime' junkies, or publicity hounds, so coming forward quickly, in itself, is not proof of any good intention.

    Prostitution was legal; soliciting was not.

    I would agree with your analysis RJ. I see Hutchinson as an honest witness. Someone who met Mary Kelly and saw her with a man who then proceeded to enter the court with her. As it was he was probably in shock for a few days over the murder- maybe he was even deeply saddened. He obviously knew the girl. The age of the two is of some significance to. We don't know Hutchinsons age but Kelly was 25-26. A young woman. Hutchinson may have been a few years older or younger. If he was a little younger may he have been a little immature and scared. Even slightly older the same? I see a young man whose conscience worked on him over the weekend. He tells a policeman on the Sinday hoping to purge that guilt of saying nothing. Obviously that didn't work so on the Monday night he speaks to a fellow lodger- he advises him to go to the Police. He must have told him- man you have got to tell the Police this, it might help them. And so he does. Abberline believes him. No official document comes to light discrediting him(only Dew who felt he had the wrong night maybe so not a question of truth). And yet 130 years later here we are discrediting a man no one ever met let alone questioned, claiming we know more than a seasoned detective who worked 15 years in Whitechapel and had 85 commendations on retirement about this man and the accuracy of what he saw. It is to fantastical a story that a man with this experience believed it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
    The fact she was a Prostitute or at least resorted to prostitution when in need and the fact that a) she asked Hutchinson for sixpence(reading between the lines propositioning him and b) he in the past had given her a few shillings says to me that he had very possibly used her services on a number of occassions. Not certain of course- but possible. In Abberlines report he does not mention them being friends. Anyone know the law in 19th century Britain in regards those who used prostitutes. i.e was it illegal to pay for sexual services?
    No, is the short answer for the above in bold, and he was also single, so he had no family reputation to protect.

    I respect Rj's reply, but there is no reasonable reason for his waiting 4 days IF he really knew Mary Kelly on "friendly terms"...that last bit in quotation is for Jon.

    My feeling has been for some time that Hutchinson used a "known" as his entrance into this investigation...on Friday they already knew of Wideawake. Why he chose to do that is up for interpretation, but my sense is that, since he alluded to being on friendly terms with Mary, that his statement was intended to downplay any idea that Wideawake was a dangerous suspect, "if only after the fact". Wideawake was the overwhelming reason for the Pardon for Accomplices offer. If people believed Hutch, then Wideawake becomes perhaps a friendly stalker, but not someone involved in the crime.

    I also believe he may have been paid to do that.

    Leave a comment:


  • rjpalmer
    replied
    Originally posted by Sunny Delight View Post
    The fact she was a Prostitute or at least resorted to prostitution when in need and the fact that a) she asked Hutchinson for sixpence(reading between the lines propositioning him and b) he in the past had given her a few shillings says to me that he had very possibly used her services on a number of occassions.
    Hi Sunny. Which is probably why he hesitated. Rather than this 4 day delay proving that Hutchinson was dishonest, it probably just shows that he was worried about becoming involved. If we believe his story, he had earlier told a constable about what he had witnessed. When another two days passed and nothing came of it, he went to the station in person. He also discussed the matter with a fellow lodger. 'Reading between the lines,' I see a young man who was worried, but eventually worked up the gumption. It may not make him a model citizen, but it also doesn't make him a false witness, let alone the killer. Witnesses come forward days later, weeks later, even months later, and some who most eagerly rush forward turn out to be crack-pots, 'crime' junkies, or publicity hounds, so coming forward quickly, in itself, is not proof of any good intention.

    Prostitution was legal; soliciting was not.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sunny Delight
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Not quite all. He also said that he'd been in her company and had given her a few shillings on occasion. Doesn't make them friends, necessarily, but it appears to have been more than a passing acquaintance.

    The fact she was a Prostitute or at least resorted to prostitution when in need and the fact that a) she asked Hutchinson for sixpence(reading between the lines propositioning him and b) he in the past had given her a few shillings says to me that he had very possibly used her services on a number of occassions. Not certain of course- but possible. In Abberlines report he does not mention them being friends. Anyone know the law in 19th century Britain in regards those who used prostitutes. i.e was it illegal to pay for sexual services?
    Last edited by Sunny Delight; 01-18-2019, 10:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    The police are still investigating Hutchinson's suspect 4 days after the Star falsely claimed he had been discredited.
    Thats not my guesswork, its what we call a 'fact', as reported in the Echo.
    This has nothing to do with any "two women", I think you are confusing arguments here.

    Clearly, the Star were not in the picture, and why should they be, they openly criticize the police for telling them nothing.

    So here again, you choose to believe in guesswork.
    Oh, so its Facts from the Echo and just Balderdash from the Star? Both being press agencies? Choosing one press account over another is one thing Jon.

    And the 2 women comment refers to the fact that you routinely state that Lewis and Kennedy were different women, when their stories are virtually identical and its obvious that 2 women didn't arrive in the courtyard at the same time and not see each other. Belief vs "facts", as you say.

    Its a fact that George was reported to be discredited, whether you believe that or the Echo story is up to you. Belief, not fact.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Not quite all. He also said that he'd been in her company and had given her a few shillings on occasion. Doesn't make them friends, necessarily, but it appears to have been more than a passing acquaintance.
    Thanks Sam. His statements do suggest that they shared a relationship that enabled her to hit him up for money on occasion, and that alone suggests a "friendly" environment.

    I can only judge these things by my own conscience, but if I was in Georges position...the one he describes...and I had a sighting of what amounts to a friend on the night she was brutally murdered, I would come forward with that information to help the investigation. Its almost like he came forward after his story couldn't possibly be of any help...Astrakan Man could have travelled very far in 4 days.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman
    He said he had known her for three years, thats all.
    Not quite all. He also said that he'd been in her company and had given her a few shillings on occasion. Doesn't make them friends, necessarily, but it appears to have been more than a passing acquaintance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    There is a press report on I believe that by Wednesday he was discredited. I am not under any pressure to adopt your position on this matter or the "twin" reports from 2 different women Jon, your belief isn't enough. Hutchinson gives us many reasons to doubt his story anyway, beginning with the delay in giving it.
    The police are still investigating Hutchinson's suspect 4 days after the Star falsely claimed he had been discredited.
    Thats not my guesswork, its what we call a 'fact', as reported in the Echo.
    This has nothing to do with any "two women", I think you are confusing arguments here.

    Clearly, the Star were not in the picture, and why should they be, they openly criticize the police for telling them nothing.

    So here again, you choose to believe in guesswork.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    Because its a fact and that does not fit with someone who claimed to be Marys friend. Claimed being the operative word there.
    And there's another falsehood you keep repeating. He never said he was her friend.

    It's obvious you want to make their relationship sound closer than it was so you can set him up to be a lair.
    Thats called a straw-man argument, insist on something that is not true so you can shoot it down.

    He said he had known her for three years, thats all.
    I've known dozens of people for much longer, none of them are actual 'friends'.

    So who's the one making false claims now?

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    You keep repeating that too. In spite of the fact the police were still looking for Astrachan 4 days after that bogus claim in the press.

    I don't understand this blind faith in something proven false.
    There is a press report on I believe that by Wednesday he was discredited. I am not under any pressure to adopt your position on this matter or the "twin" reports from 2 different women Jon, your belief isn't enough. Hutchinson gives us many reasons to doubt his story anyway, beginning with the delay in giving it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    Why do you keep repeating that?
    Because its a fact and that does not fit with someone who claimed to be Marys friend. Claimed being the operative word there.

    Leave a comment:


  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post

    Anyway, let me make a completely agnostic observation. In the general scheme of things, witnesses are brought to where the suspect is being held. Yet Swanson, a man of vast police experience, is describing a suspect being brought to the witness. It's odd. He must have been aware of this oddness, no? But whether that's a mark against it, or a mark in favor of it, I cannot say. RP
    In the grand scheme of things it is a big mark against, just think about the logistical issues in transporting a suspect down to the coast, the manpower needed in the first instance, certainly Swanson and Anderson would not have been involved in that. so that would have entailed extra officers being drafted in. Those officers would have been present when the ID took place, and if it was as positive as has been described why would they not have come forward in later years, why would the city officers supposedly keeping watch on suspect not have come forward.

    Someone would have spoken, but no one did, so what does that tell us about this seaside ID? and more importunity the marginalia?

    www.trevormarriott.co.uk

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
    If they had been jointly involved surely such and event would have been documented by Major Smith in his memoirs, but in those memoirs he states they didnt have a clue.
    And, given that Smith was so full of himself, you'd think that something as important as a positive ID would definitely have found its way into his book.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X