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:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Varqm 12 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Varqm 27 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - by Herlock Sholmes 1 hour and 25 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - by Yabs 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by Wickerman 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: Lechmere was Jack the Ripper - (40 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (13 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (10 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Was the ripper and also the torsomans crimes totally non sexual in nature? - (9 posts)
General Discussion: What Would an "Investigation" Consist of? - (2 posts)
Rippercast: Colin Wilson: Jack the Ripper Conference in Ipswich, 1996 - (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
  #541  
Old 07-22-2018, 01:45 AM
packers stem packers stem is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 841
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
In the London Daily News, 10 Nov. we read:

".....Barnet was sent for, and he at once identified the body as that of Kelly or "Ginger", as she was called owing to the colour of her hair".

This sentence was preceded by a description of the preliminary examination conducted by the doctors, and the photographer taking pictures...

Following the mention of Barnet, we read that the body was taken away at four o'clock.

So it seems that Barnet was brought in to the room to identify the body while it lay on the bed. And her hair was the most noticeable feature still evident.
HI Jon
Pleased to see you've stepped away from the mortuary nonsense now but all the piece you've posted there really confirms is that Barnett identified her in the room .... it does not say he identified her by hair ,not by any stretch .
It just goes on, after identification, to suggest that she was nicknamed Ginger (this was apparently one nickname of many) because of the colour of her hair .This doesn't relate to the ID in any way and the report doesn't even hint at such .

On the subject of the hair anyway , we've got ginger , fair and dark appearing ..... they can't all be correct .
We can rule out fair by looking at MJK1
Even with a b/w photo you can see the difference between fair hair and dark ....
Even for red , it would be dark red .
Having said all this, the hair was "matted with blood" according to Gabe ... giving any dark hair a red tint ..... and we have to remember how dark that room would be on a November afternoon with north facing windows showing that any supposed 'hair' ID (especially from the window) would be pretty much a nonsense
__________________
You can lead a horse to water.....
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #542  
Old 07-22-2018, 05:11 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post

I will add,in agreement with some posters,that no matter when and how you look at it,with no other testimonies,that the man known to be with Kelly around an hour before her death (closest to the doctors's estimated time of death) was a prime suspect and the witness a main witness.Since this was not the case then the whole story was discredited.
And that's your conjecture.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #543  
Old 07-22-2018, 05:18 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
HI Jon
Pleased to see you've stepped away from the mortuary nonsense now but all the piece you've posted there really confirms is that Barnett identified her in the room .... it does not say he identified her by hair ,not by any stretch .
It just goes on, after identification, to suggest that she was nicknamed Ginger (this was apparently one nickname of many) because of the colour of her hair .This doesn't relate to the ID in any way and the report doesn't even hint at such .

On the subject of the hair anyway , we've got ginger , fair and dark appearing ..... they can't all be correct .
We can rule out fair by looking at MJK1
Even with a b/w photo you can see the difference between fair hair and dark ....
Even for red , it would be dark red .
Having said all this, the hair was "matted with blood" according to Gabe ... giving any dark hair a red tint ..... and we have to remember how dark that room would be on a November afternoon with north facing windows showing that any supposed 'hair' ID (especially from the window) would be pretty much a nonsense
Kelly herself was described as "fair", wasn't she? That is fair as in "pretty", not as in "blonde".
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #544  
Old 07-22-2018, 05:37 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by packers stem View Post
HI Jon
Pleased to see you've stepped away from the mortuary nonsense now but all the piece you've posted there really confirms is that Barnett identified her in the room ....
Hi Nick.
The sequence of events dictated by the story seem to suggest this. And, the fact Barnet showed up at Millers Court while the body was still inside the room would lend itself to that interpretation.

You had raised a point I don't think had been discussed before, that of "where" exactly did Barnet identify her body.
It is quite reasonable to assume it was at the mortuary, as we know this was the normal procedure.
However, given the sequence of events dictated by that report, and I can't think of any statement which contradicts it. I can concede that he likely identified her in the room. But you have to concede it was not through the broken window - deal?

There is another well known detail which seems to contest the "through the broken window" argument, the door still being closed.
That argument would suggest Barnet arrived before they broke the door down.
Yet, we are told Barnet knew the door could be opened by reaching through the window. So, if Barnet had been there before the door was forced, it wouldn't have had to be forced, would it?

So, both points considered, Barnet identifying her "through the broken window" is just plain wrong.


Quote:
Having said all this, the hair was "matted with blood" according to Gabe ... giving any dark hair a red tint ..... and we have to remember how dark that room would be on a November afternoon with north facing windows showing that any supposed 'hair' ID (especially from the window) would be pretty much a nonsense
It seems to me you are trying to resist the obvious
If it wasn't by her 'hair', and it can't have been by her 'ear' (them being cut off), then the identification was false, he can't identify her.
Yet the clothes in the room must have been what she usually wore, and the physique must have been consistent with that of Kelly. There are other details which contribute to an identification, or contest it.

And, the police are not going to accept, "this was her room, so it must be her'. They already knew from several witnesses that other women slept in that room along with Kelly - they were not stupid.
And, we have no account of them locating this "Julia", who was mentioned both by M.Lewis & Barnet. So it wasn't like "only" Kelly couldn't be traced after the murder.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #545  
Old 07-22-2018, 07:54 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by harry View Post
What would have been the opinion of police,on Monday 12th about the man reported by Lewis as standing outside Crossinghams,in the period before Hutchinson fronted up.?
In what way, can you be more precise?

Quote:
When they found he was residing only a few minutes from a police station,and that there had ben innumerable members of the police force in the area,anyone of whom could have been approached? What then?If that had been thought of as suspicious,as I think it is,fronting up at about six pm would not on it's own be enough to dispel such suspicions.So it's his story that is the focal point of Aberline's opinion?
It seems you are returning to the fact Hutchinson did not come forward on the day of the murder?

I appreciate that in order to follow my argument you would need to subscribe to the BNA, the Press Section here on Casebook does not offer much by way of local newspapers on Nov. 9th.

On the day of the murder, only the evening papers carried any mention of the crime. There is absolutely no suggestion the murder took place overnight.

The Star (here on Casebook) writes the following:
"...The story of the crime current among the neighbors is that this morning - what time cannot at present be precisely ascertained, but at any rate after daylight, she took a man home to her own room, presumably for an immoral purpose. At a quarter to eleven the landlady of the house went up for the rent, and found her murdered."

No mention of Maxwell or of M.Lewis, or any suggestion the murder took place in the night.

The Echo (on Casebook), wrote:
"Mary Ann Kelly was seen about the streets at one o'clock this morning....
when the mother returned to the room with the assassin.....
... the man who is suspected of having committed the murder sent the child out to buy sweets and playing he found the place in commotion, for his mother had been discovered lifeless and bleeding, and the murder had fled. There is no trace whatever of the murderer."


Nowhere to buy sweets in the middle of the night. This murderer stayed the night, and murdered her in the morning.

We also read:
"At half past ten this morning the dead body of a woman was found in an untenanted outhouse or shed in Dorset-court, Dorset-street, Commercial-street, Spitalfields. It had evidently been there for some hours, but several scavengers who were in the court at nine o'clock this morning declare that the body was not there then. They might, however, have been mistaken as the place is very dark."

"Morris Lewis, a tailor, states that he was playing "pitch and toss" in the court at nine o'clock this morning, and an hour before that he had seen the woman leave the house, and return with some milk. There is no evidence as to who was in the house with her."

"....It is confidently stated that the deceased was seen after ten o'clock this morning in company with a paramour, when they were both drinking at the public-house at the corner of Dorset-street."

There is no mention of an early morning murder theory.

Another evening paper, The Globe, wrote:
"As far as can be ascertained, she was met this morning at a quarter-past eight o'clock. She was then walking down the court with a jug, and returned shortly after with some milk. In a few minutes she came out of the house and went to a small public house, where she remained drinking for about half an hour, when she went back to meet her frightful end".


"At half past ten this morning, the dead body of a woman with her head almost severed from her body was found in an untenanted outhouse or shed in Dorset court, Dorset street, Commercial street, Spitalfields. It had evidently lain there for some hours, but several scavengers who were in the court at nine o'clock this morning declare the body was not there then. They might, however, have been mistaken, as the place is very dark."
Evening News, 9 Nov.

Other evening papers like The Standard, St. James Gazette make no mention of the crime. The Pall Mall Gazette mentions the crime with details to come in a later issue.

So, if Hutchinson is going to pay any attention to what the theories were, when she was killed, it is the very day of the murder.
And, on the day of the murder he reads that all circumstances suggest she died late in the morning.
So, should he come forward to make his presence known when it wasn't necessary, or just stay away?
Then the Sat. morning papers repeat the same, c/w a few suggestions of an overnight crime.
What is he to do?
It's only on Sunday morning when the press begin to make a firm suggestion of an overnight murder.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #546  
Old 07-22-2018, 08:19 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,242
Default

At what time did the widely-reported screams of "Murder!" occur in Miller's Court? Surely the screams would have registered with Hutchinson, who'd departed Miller's Court not long before the screams were heard. Was Kelly seen with any other man after Hutchinson's alleged sighting, let alone a suspicious looking one?

Bearing these factors in mind, no amount of Caroline Maxwell or Maurice Lewis reportage could have had much of an impact on Hutchinson's coming forward with his story. Indeed, he claims to have first done so on the Sunday, so he clearly wasn't put off by stories of alleged daylight sightings of (a rather different-looking) Mary Kelly.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 07-22-2018 at 08:25 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #547  
Old 07-22-2018, 09:02 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,502
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
At what time did the widely-reported screams of "Murder!" occur in Miller's Court? Surely the screams would have registered with Hutchinson, who'd departed Miller's Court not long before the screams were heard. Was Kelly seen with any other man after Hutchinson's alleged sighting, let alone a suspicious looking one?
On Saturday the press were reporting claims of a cry of "murder" at 1:45, 2:00, 3:00, and around 3:45. These reports made it clear to the reader that such cries are common place and do not indicate the act of an actual murder. It being more of a way of drawing attention to some lesser crime or activity.

As Hutchinson was with Kelly at 2:00, he can see how unreliable such screams were. These reports obviously didn't suggest she was murdered before he met her (1:45), or while he was with her (2:00).
So why should any others be any more accurate, especially when witnesses were reporting Kelly was in the Ringers after nine o'clock Friday morning.

Even the Daily Telegraph on Saturday threw out a passing line:
"Still, the crime had apparently been but recently committed at the time of its discovery, and the scent of the criminal should be fairly fresh".

The Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov. wrote:
"On Thursday night she was seen in conversation with a man of rather respectable appearance, and it is believed that he spent the night in her house. The murderer made his escape apparently without exciting any attention."

Does that suggest an early morning murder to you?
Could Kelly have have had several liaisons over night before she was killed the next morning?
I would think so, so being seen with a man Thursday night indicates nothing beyond the fact she was plying her trade.

That same paper included this opinion:
"JANE KELLY, it is believed, was killed between eight and half-past ten o'clock yesterday morning. There is some conflict of testimony on this head, but it would appear that in this interval the woman was seen alive, and, according to one statement, KELLY must have been abroad in the streets in company with a man with whom she returned to her lodging only a few minutes before her mutilated body was found."

Not forgetting the stories by M.Lewis & Maxwell.

Then another conclusion:
"The victim is a woman of the "unfortunate" class, and the murder was committed under her own roof in broad daylight, but notwithstanding the publicity of the movements of the murderer, no reliable clue has been discovered as to the perpetrator of the crime. "

The impression is well founded, probably wrong in our view. But the public wouldn't know this at the time. The press are their only source and the number of late morning sightings far outweigh the various different times attributed to this cry of murder, whether it signified anything or not is another question.
Seeing Kelly alive the next morning certainly does signify something, she had to be alive, on that their can be no dispute.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 07-22-2018 at 09:06 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #548  
Old 07-22-2018, 09:12 AM
Joshua Rogan Joshua Rogan is offline
Chief Inspector
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1,803
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Bearing these factors in mind, no amount of Caroline Maxwell or Maurice Lewis reportage could have had much of an impact on Hutchinson's coming forward with his story. Indeed, he claims to have first done so on the Sunday, so he clearly wasn't put off by stories of alleged daylight sightings of (a rather different-looking) Mary Kelly.
Hutchinson claimed to have possibly spotted his suspect again in Middlesex Street on Sunday morning...might that have prompted him to report his story to a PC?
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #549  
Old 07-22-2018, 09:26 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshua Rogan View Post
Hutchinson claimed to have possibly spotted his suspect again in Middlesex Street on Sunday morning...might that have prompted him to report his story to a PC?
Not if the press reports about the morning sightings of Mary Kelly put him off, as per Jon's suggestion. Why bother, if it was obvious from the papers that she was alive and well several hours after he'd seen her with a surly-looking weirdo carrying a suspicious parcel?

Taking my tongue out of my cheek, the answer to your question is "yes", although I still find it odd that Hutchinson didn't come forward independently as soon as the news hit the streets and before the confusing/conflicting press reports started to appear. This could have been as early as Friday afternoon or evening; Saturday at the latest.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #550  
Old 07-22-2018, 10:19 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 350
Default

Dear Harry and/or other Hutchinson theorists,

Perhaps this has been addressed, but I don’t recall. I don’t quite understand one point, so perhaps someone can explain it.

If Hutchinson’s suspect did not exist, if he was just an imaginary Jewish Music Hall performer as Simon suggests, why is Hutchinson loitering across from Millers Court?

Or do you think he was standing for two hours waiting for Blotchy Client #1 to come out?

Or do you think he was never standing there at all?

Does a person stand across from a court waiting for his own imaginary suspect? If not, why is he loitering?

I don’t quite understand what is being argued.

In other words, how do you explain the hour delay between the spotting of the wall lounger across from the court at 2 a.m and the alleged cry of “murder!” at 3 a.m.? Was he waiting to get up his nerve?

And is this the modus operandi of the Ripper? Did he similarly stand around Bucks Row and Mitre Square for an hour or two before striking?

Or do you think Blotchy has been in that room for two hours and the Ripper is remarkably patient?

The existence of Astrakhan could explain why a man was waiting across from the court. What is your explanation for it?

No mockery intended. It’s a serious question.
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 05:54 PM.


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