Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - by Paddy 40 minutes ago.
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - by Batman 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - by Amanda Sumner 3 hours ago.
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - by Paddy 3 hours ago.
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - by Batman 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): Can George Chapmam reform himself to being a calculating poisoner seven years later?. - (52 posts)
Doctors and Coroners: Sedgewick Saunders ....... why did he say the things he said ? - (14 posts)
Abberline, Inspector Frederick: Hinting at something? - (10 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: New suspect book. - (8 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (5 posts)
General Suspect Discussion: Photo ID - (1 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Suspects > Hutchinson, George

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #491  
Old 07-20-2018, 02:41 PM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,853
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
And how do you know he didnt do that verbally, because I have no doubt that senior officers would have asked that question of him
What would be the point of misleading his superiors only to admit that he had lied to them?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #492  
Old 07-20-2018, 03:11 PM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
What would be the point of misleading his superiors only to admit that he had lied to them?
You have missed the point totally

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #493  
Old 07-20-2018, 03:51 PM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Indeed, and "hair" sounds a bit like "ear", especially when pronounced by an h-dropping Cockney. Also, as her long hair was one of Kelly's distinguishing features, it would be an obvious thing by which to identify her. Barnett undoubtedly recognised her by 'er 'air and eyes, and this was misheard by some reporters.
Ripperology at it's worst I'm afraid .Not liking the 'ear' for obvious reasons so let's make it up .
It was ear ... the inquest transcripts say ear , virtually every press account including the more thorough ones such as the telegraph and the times say ear , there really shouldn't be any doubt about this .
The reason being is that .... it wasn't questioned at the inquest .
As they are similar sounding then the reason why it wasn't questioned is fairly obvious .
Barnett must have been a hand gesture speaker like most of us are at times .... happens by instinct
People talk about the weather , they look up at the sky .... they mention going north and they point for no obvious reason ....... called hand gestures.
When Barnett said 'ear' he must have gestured towards his own ear .
If he hasn't it would have been questioned for clarity ..... obvious really
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #494  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:21 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,758
Default

If you don't mind me saying P.S., it seems to me you are aware that Bond reported mutilation of the ears. In fact press accounts actually say her ears were cut off. So identification by the ears is unlikely, if not impossible.
Yet you insist this had to be the case, so you can call someone a liar?
That the body was only identified as Kelly because this was her room?

This argument just reads to me like a set-up.
You dismiss the obvious (hair) in order to promote a conspiracy - that the body was not that of Mary Kelly.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #495  
Old 07-20-2018, 05:58 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Quote:
“We can only criticize the PC after we know from him (which we can't), as to what was actually said.”
Not true, Jon.

We can criticise the PC, or rather conclude that Hutchinson made him up, on the basis that he would have been wretchedly derelict in his duty for failing even to make a note of Hutchinson and his story when the latter allegedly approached him on Sunday. It was not the responsibility of the bobby on beat to determine which witnesses were genuine and which weren’t.

Quote:
We don’t have the whole story he told to the police. That is the interrogation by Abberline where every line of the statement will be gone over with a fine tooth comb.
So what exactly do you contend was conveniently absent from the statement, but which came up in the “interrogation by Abberline” then?

GH: I told a policeman about it on Sunday.

FA: Really? That’s funny because this is the first I’ve heard of any of this. That must mean the policeman you spoke to essentially ignored you and took the matter no further, which is pretty fecking shocking given the circumstances. Where and when did you encounter this policeman? I would like a serious word with him immediately.

GH: Um, I think he was at the corner of....look! The Astrakhan man!

FA: Where!?!

GH: (Runs away)

A constable worth his salt would not have been content simply to “advise” a witness to go to the station and hope that he does so - that’s obviously nonsense, regardless of his other duties that day. At the very least, it would have been incumbent upon him to record Hutchinson’s key particulars in a notebook, and detain him until such time as an “available” officer could escort him to the nearest station. What you describe as acceptable behaviour for a uniformed police officer would, in fact, amount to borderline criminal negligence.

If you think it’s “too funny” for a witness to allow the trail of a murderer to grow cold, possibly to claim further victims thereafter, because he preferred to sit on his evidence for three crucial days rather than alerting the police the moment he learnt of the murder, by all means laugh away.

There is no possibility that a paper-reading, innocent Hutchinson justified his three-day failure to come forward on the grounds that the later morning (Maxwell) time of death was correct, in his mind, while the earlier version (Kennedy etc) must be wrong. If he read one, he cannot have failed to have read the other.

Quote:
The late morning assumption for a ToD was so widespread it didn't matter which paper he picked up - it was there right in front of him.
As were reports of an earlier time of death, as suggested by the cry of “murder”, which did the rounds very extensively. Regardless of whether he was listening to rumour or reading an actual paper, it would have taken some extremely selective hearing/reading for him to “filter” out all references to an early morning time of death, in common with the other victims.

While I’m reassured that you’re opposed to the idea that Hutchinson hoped to stay the night with Kelly (but failed to divulge such an innocent explanation to Abberline), I’m more than a little troubled by your suggestion that Hutchinson hovered outside Miller’s Court in anticipation of Kelly and Astrakhan re-emerging, after walking 12 hours in the small hours from Romford in miserable conditions...for “entertainment”.

Really, Jon?

If he had been waylaid in Romford, and knew that his Whitechapel lodgings would close well in advance of his estimated arrival home, what was preventing him from engaging in a spot of prostitute-client watching in Romford if that was his thing (pervy voyeurism being the natural precursor to radio as a source of casual entertainment, argues Jon)?

I think you’ll find that “entertainment” was the very last thing on Hutchinson’s mind if he was truly homeless and had been trudging for hours.

Last edited by Ben : 07-20-2018 at 06:21 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #496  
Old 07-20-2018, 06:11 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Hi RJ,

Quote:
Did Sutcliffe, Shawcross and Ridgeway inject themselves into the investigation?
Gary Ridgway did so in 1984 when he approached the police as a helpful informat regarding a victim he claimed to have known.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #497  
Old 07-20-2018, 06:56 PM
harry harry is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,857
Default

People outside chatting,or men idly standing around outside buildings,might have been a familier sight in Dorset street,in the warmer summer nights,,but on a cold inclement November morning between 2 and 3 am? Are you serious Jon?

Many criminals,including killers,have been allowed to leave after an initial interview,some even leaving behind a feeling of suspicion among the interviewer,and as has been said,we do not know what the thoughts of Aberline might have been,or what verbal expressions of guilt or innocence were expressed afterwards.


You Jon base almost all your arguements of a trustworthy Hutchinson on one word written by Aberline,opinion.A word that conveys a message that Aberline was not completely convinced.Then there is the other word,interogatted.I presume Aberline would have reread his(Aberline's) repoert before submitting it,but the word was left without any attempt at alteration.I wonder why?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #498  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:54 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
Hi RJ,
Gary Ridgway did so in 1984 when he approached the police as a helpful informat regarding a victim he claimed to have known.
Hi Ben. Thanks. I'm not trying to give you grief, but there appears to be something wrong with either your chronology or the published accounts of the Ridgway case. I've been doing a little reading in the archive and elsewhere you mentioned that Ridgway innocently approached the police with information in 1984. If you have time this weekend perhaps you could chase down your source?

You see, in the accounts I've read, Ridgeway was already a suspect in May 1983 after the disappearance of a young woman named Marie Malvar. She was seen getting into his truck and arguing with Ridgway. Her boyfriend and Malvar's father were deeply concerned, did a search of the area, andsuccessfully traced Ridgway's truck to his house. He was then questioned by the police and his name entered their data base of suspects. This was in May 1983.

See the New York Times account:

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/u...-killings.html

This makes your reference to him contacting the police in 1984 seems like an entirely different situation than someone who wasn't even on the radar yet. Perhaps there is an explanation? Thanks for the response.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #499  
Old 07-20-2018, 08:56 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 420
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
Hi RJ,
Gary Ridgway did so in 1984 when he approached the police as a helpful informat regarding a victim he claimed to have known.
Hi Ben. Thanks. I'm not trying to give you grief, but there appears to be something wrong with either your chronology or the published accounts of the Ridgway case. I've been doing a little reading in the archive and elsewhere you mentioned that Ridgway innocently approached the police with information in 1984. If you have time this weekend perhaps you could chase down your source?

You see, in the accounts I've read, Ridgeway was already a suspect in May 1983 after the disappearance of a young woman named Marie Malvar. She was seen getting into his truck and arguing. Her boyfriend and Malvar's father were deeply concerned, did a search of the area, and successfully traced Ridgway's truck to his house. He was then questioned by the police and his name entered into their data base of suspects. This was in May 1983.

See the New York Times account:

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/26/u...-killings.html

This makes your reference to him contacting the police in 1984 seems like an entirely different situation than someone who wasn't even on the radar yet. Perhaps there is an explanation? Are you sure this was 1984? The details might tell us something interesting. Thanks.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #500  
Old 07-21-2018, 12:46 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 962
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
If you don't mind me saying P.S., it seems to me you are aware that Bond reported mutilation of the ears. In fact press accounts actually say her ears were cut off. So identification by the ears is unlikely, if not impossible.
Yet you insist this had to be the case, so you can call someone a liar?
That the body was only identified as Kelly because this was her room?

This argument just reads to me like a set-up.
You dismiss the obvious (hair) in order to promote a conspiracy - that the body was not that of Mary Kelly.
Jon
Ripper theorists have been cherry picking their facts for far too long .
With regards Kelly she was identified by 'eyes and ear' the idea that it was hair comes from theorists realising ,like you have just metioned , that identifying a partially severed ear is quite a ridiculous notion .
I go into things looking at the facts ... this is what I've done for a number of years .
I'm not interested in picking a theory and then twisting the known facts to fit the theory .
Look at the facts and then see what likely possibilities remain , it's not rocket science.
The facts we have suggest that the identification was unsound .Can you see the eyes on the photo ?
IF the evidence leads to a conclusion that people were lying then so be it .... start looking for reasons why they would .... it's called investigation .
It is clear to me that the body was identified by the room, and if she was found on a street half a mile away ,anyone on here would be fighting a losing battle trying to convince anybody because of Maxwell and Lewis .
Stride incorrectly identified by Mrs Malcolm as her sister
Eddowes incorrectly identified by the woman from Rotherhithe as her sister
And yet with Kelly ,the only one of the three who really was unrecognizable you seem to have no hesitation in accepting Barnett's 'peep through the window' ..... not for me , sorry
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.