Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Help On Some Details

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

  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post

    The Pardon was dated Nov. 10th, signed by Warren.
    The bit concerning a potential accomplice was described as:

    ".....By "accomplice" is meant - the police take care to explain - any person who may know of the murderer's design, but who yet is afraid of surrendering him to justice from fear of implicating himself as an accessory before or after the commission of the crimes."

    That doesn't sound like pardoning a lookout to me.

    Im not sure how you decided that someone helping the killer by being a lookout isnt a potential accomplice Jon, there is NO other reason for finally offering this Pardon
    after choosing not to do so in the previous murders,...in one we have 2 weapons and in another we have a potential cover-up by club members. Wideawake Man is essentially the ONLY reason to suspect others in this case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curious Cat
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    In which case, Abby, why would he risk coming forward if he was the ripper himself?

    Assuming he was there, and felt obliged to come forward - albeit belatedly - to say so, he arguably needed to come equipped with a 'last man in', or risk being suspected himself. He put himself very close to the scene, and later than Blotchy. I can't see the ripper doing that lightly, and certainly not doing it for the 'fun' of injecting himself into the investigation.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    My current line of thought regarding George Hutchinson has come out of a developing idea while bashing out a few theories in the Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement thread.

    The idea is that Hutchinson, rather than covering his tracks as the killer, was instead deflecting from being identified as an individual hired to reignite a bit of Ripper fever after a lull in the killings. He may have happened to bump into Mary while out that night but the rest of his statement makes sense as a piece of fiction if Hutchinson was the man Sarah Lewis saw as she passed the Britannia on her way into Dorset Street and in Bethnal Green just the night before.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    Originally posted by caz View Post

    In which case, Abby, why would he risk coming forward if he was the ripper himself?

    Assuming he was there, and felt obliged to come forward - albeit belatedly - to say so, he arguably needed to come equipped with a 'last man in', or risk being suspected himself. He put himself very close to the scene, and later than Blotchy. I can't see the ripper doing that lightly, and certainly not doing it for the 'fun' of injecting himself into the investigation.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Hi Caz
    In which case, Abby, why would he risk coming forward if he was the ripper himself?
    I can only assume that perhaps he was worried that sarah lewis could ID him, perhaps knew who he was, and felt it was better to come forward as a witness than to be sought out as a suspect.
    That being said, I basically agree with you that more than likely the killer would not come forward, and I actually see hutch coming forward as check mark against him being the ripper, although not, of course as a check mark against him being a lying attention seeker.

    Leave a comment:


  • caz
    replied
    Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
    hutch did not have an alibi. let alone a rock solid one.

    on the contrary, he was near the victim around a possible TOD, followed her, waited outside her abode and then said he walked around the rest of the night.
    not an alibi-nothing to prove he was with someone else that could alibi him or any other type of record.

    he could just as well been in marys home carving her up and leaving in the morning before daybreak to head back to the Victoria home.
    In which case, Abby, why would he risk coming forward if he was the ripper himself?

    Assuming he was there, and felt obliged to come forward - albeit belatedly - to say so, he arguably needed to come equipped with a 'last man in', or risk being suspected himself. He put himself very close to the scene, and later than Blotchy. I can't see the ripper doing that lightly, and certainly not doing it for the 'fun' of injecting himself into the investigation.

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    Last edited by caz; 02-22-2019, 01:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Yes, this Act is applicable, but as you can see "Aid" is the only clause that would apply to a family member who has only suspicions.

    We read:
    The natural meaning of "to aid" is to "give help, support or assistance to" and it will generally although not necessarily take place at the scene of the crime.

    The Pardon in this case would pacify a close relative at home from fears of being implicated if their suspicions turn out to be correct.
    A mother washing bloodstained clothes is not going to be arrested as an accomplice, even though this may be her fear.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    The Pardon was dated Nov. 10th, signed by Warren.
    The bit concerning a potential accomplice was described as:

    ".....By "accomplice" is meant - the police take care to explain - any person who may know of the murderer's design, but who yet is afraid of surrendering him to justice from fear of implicating himself as an accessory before or after the commission of the crimes."

    That doesn't sound like pardoning a lookout to me. More like aimed at a family member, neighbor or close friend who has not actually taken part in the murder.
    A lookout is aiding and abetting the killer, not someone who "may know the murderer's design".

    On the same day (10 Nov.) the Echo offered a theory attributed to the doctors.
    "That he is a homicidal lunatic, with an abnormal passion and a "love for killing," there is now little doubt in the minds of some of the six medical men who are professionally connected with the case."

    That seems to suggest his family (wife/brother/sister?) or guardian may suspect their 'patient' embarks on suspicious activities coincident with the nights of the murders, and has witnessed bloodstained clothing.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access...ttors_Act_1861

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    He only has to know that someone did see someone, what they looked like, and at what time and place they were there. Which was known since Friday.
    So what if Cox or Prater (in the street), or Bowyer (in the Court) had also mentioned seeing this loiterer. One of them may have been able to identify him, one may have spoken to the loiterer as they passed.
    Hutch will look a right 'Charley' in front of Abberline if he is caught trying to impersonate a character who has been described in detail by others. Especially, if Hutch is too tall, thin or old to be the real loiterer.

    An impersonator needs to know who else, if anyone, has seen him. And he cannot know this by learning the testimony of ONE witness (Lewis).

    He avoided the Inquest Jon,....
    He "missed" the inquest, no-one was to know an inquest would be terminated after one sitting.
    To argue he "avoided" the inquest presumes intent which cannot be demonstrated.


    ....and the only chance we would have of having him confront others that provably did know Mary, and her friends.
    C'mon now Trevor, the police are very capable of interrogating a witness, and having Hutchinson take part in a lineup. They do not need the inquest to test the veracity of a witness, and you know it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael W Richards View Post
    I have a very plausible possible reason why someone would knowingly adopt the very suspicious Wideawake character, and Ive posted it here before.

    Simply put, before Monday around dinner time Wideawake was almost certainly the figure that was the catalyst for the Accomplices pardon offer. There is no other reason within the known evidence to speculate whether 2 or more men were involved here than there is at any "Ripper" murder, yet this one gets the Pardon offer...as Warrens last hurrah no less.

    After Hutchinson gives his statement, Wideawake, at least for a few days until the mans story is reported to be discredited, he becomes a benign character. A friend perhaps overly curious about the well being of a friend.

    Thats a dramatic change for a storyline character, and only due to Hutchinson. Hutchinsons statement was given to diffuse the idea that there was more than one man involved, which means they stopped looking for Wideawake and a possible conspiracy to commit murder.
    The Pardon was dated Nov. 10th, signed by Warren.
    The bit concerning a potential accomplice was described as:

    ".....By "accomplice" is meant - the police take care to explain - any person who may know of the murderer's design, but who yet is afraid of surrendering him to justice from fear of implicating himself as an accessory before or after the commission of the crimes."

    That doesn't sound like pardoning a lookout to me. More like aimed at a family member, neighbor or close friend who has not actually taken part in the murder.
    A lookout is aiding and abetting the killer, not someone who "may know the murderer's design".

    On the same day (10 Nov.) the Echo offered a theory attributed to the doctors.
    "That he is a homicidal lunatic, with an abnormal passion and a "love for killing," there is now little doubt in the minds of some of the six medical men who are professionally connected with the case."

    That seems to suggest his family (wife/brother/sister?) or guardian may suspect their 'patient' embarks on suspicious activities coincident with the nights of the murders, and has witnessed bloodstained clothing.

    Leave a comment:


  • DJA
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    If Hutchinson was not there on Friday he wouldn't know anything about a 'loiterer'.

    In response we are told that Hutch must have overheard Lewis's story, but what about every other witness?

    He wouldn't know whether any other witness had passed this loiterer and had a conversation with him. Going to the police under the pretense of being this loiterer is risky if Abberline had already interviewed a witness who spoke with the loiterer face to face.

    To inject himself into a case he doesn't only have to know which witness saw him, he has to know if any witnesses saw him and even spoke with him.
    He has to know the whole damn inquest testimony - ridiculous.

    There's so many holes in this 'Hutchinson the liar' suggestion, it simply doesn't work.

    However if Hutchinson was hired by Jack the Ripper as an accomplice,he may have been "blotchy" and "wideawake", then "A man" prolly did not exist.

    Who was the pardon meant for !

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
    If Hutchinson was not there on Friday he wouldn't know anything about a 'loiterer'.

    In response we are told that Hutch must have overheard Lewis's story, but what about every other witness?

    He wouldn't know whether any other witness had passed this loiterer and had a conversation with him. Going to the police under the pretense of being this loiterer is risky if Abberline had already interviewed a witness who spoke with the loiterer face to face.

    To inject himself into a case he doesn't only have to know which witness saw him, he has to know if any witnesses saw him and even spoke with him.
    He has to know the whole damn inquest testimony - ridiculous.

    There's so many holes in this 'Hutchinson the liar' suggestion, it simply doesn't work.
    He only has to know that someone did see someone, what they looked like, and at what time and place they were there. Which was known since Friday.

    He avoided the Inquest Jon, and the only chance we would have of having him confront others that provably did know Mary, and her friends. He may well have been Wideawake too, but not there for what he later said he was. He needed to have the police stop looking for that person as a suspect..what better way than to assume the role of a friend and putting him in a Wideawake Hat...watching the court.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael W Richards
    replied
    I have a very plausible possible reason why someone would knowingly adopt the very suspicious Wideawake character, and Ive posted it here before.

    Simply put, before Monday around dinner time Wideawake was almost certainly the figure that was the catalyst for the Accomplices pardon offer. There is no other reason within the known evidence to speculate whether 2 or more men were involved here than there is at any "Ripper" murder, yet this one gets the Pardon offer...as Warrens last hurrah no less.

    After Hutchinson gives his statement, Wideawake, at least for a few days until the mans story is reported to be discredited, he becomes a benign character. A friend perhaps overly curious about the well being of a friend.

    Thats a dramatic change for a storyline character, and only due to Hutchinson. Hutchinsons statement was given to diffuse the idea that there was more than one man involved, which means they stopped looking for Wideawake and a possible conspiracy to commit murder.
    Last edited by Michael W Richards; 01-22-2019, 09:50 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    If Hutchinson was not there on Friday he wouldn't know anything about a 'loiterer'.

    In response we are told that Hutch must have overheard Lewis's story, but what about every other witness?

    He wouldn't know whether any other witness had passed this loiterer and had a conversation with him. Going to the police under the pretense of being this loiterer is risky if Abberline had already interviewed a witness who spoke with the loiterer face to face.

    To inject himself into a case he doesn't only have to know which witness saw him, he has to know if any witnesses saw him and even spoke with him.
    He has to know the whole damn inquest testimony - ridiculous.

    There's so many holes in this 'Hutchinson the liar' suggestion, it simply doesn't work.

    Leave a comment:


  • Wickerman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    Was it?
    It was.

    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.
    I'm surprised you would say that. I know you've read these claims yourself, so I know you are aware that these reports of a cry of 'murder' often include the caveat that the witness took no notice of it as you hear these cries all the time.
    You know this, yet you offer a post that attempts to make these cries of murder sound so alarming. Why?

    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.
    That is something he would have told Abberline under questioning, not necessary in his initial statement.
    A police statement generally does not concern itself with the "why's" you did something. The police just want a brief record of what you saw, what you heard & what you did.

    Leave a comment:


  • Abby Normal
    replied
    hutch did not have an alibi. let alone a rock solid one.

    on the contrary, he was near the victim around a possible TOD, followed her, waited outside her abode and then said he walked around the rest of the night.
    not an alibi-nothing to prove he was with someone else that could alibi him or any other type of record.


    he could just as well been in marys home carving her up and leaving in the morning before daybreak to head back to the Victoria home.

    Leave a comment:


  • 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:

Working...
X