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:
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - by caz 3 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 4 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - by caz 5 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 5 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Elamarna 11 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by MrBarnett 12 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (126 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (18 posts)
Non-Fiction: Jack and the Thames Torso Murders: A New Ripper? - (11 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (1 posts)
Bury, W.H.: The Spooners - (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
  #1271  
Old 08-21-2018, 06:22 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Exactly. And no one is 'blaming' anything. It is a simple statement of fact.

We have precisely ONE internal report discussing police opinion about Hutchinson.

And what does that one report state, Abby? Any guesses?

Yup, you guessed it! Abberline grilled the witness and ended up believing him.

Up against this we have vague claims in the press stating the witness was discreditted without any official confirmation that this was, in fact, the case.

It's called the historical method. Try it sometime. The official documents always get precident over vague claims in the press.

It's really that simple. And two years later "gullible" Fred Abberline was promoted to Chief Inspector.
or vague claims that there was more in there exonerating him if it weren't for those dastardly lost files!


and if Abberline ended up believing him to his dying day-why no more mention of his stellar witness?


Even when hes giving an extensive interview about his suspect and the witnesses. Even when his suspect actually resembled Aman to a degree.


the only thing we have is Dew-and he really is not endorsing hutch as reliable is he?
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1272  
Old 08-21-2018, 11:43 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Quote:
But really, Ben, I'm still amused by your belief that the murderer hiding out in common lodging houses would have been ideal!
But you would be amused, RJ, given your belief in a “toff” ripper (unaccountable in this day and age), who no doubt stashed his organs under the billiard table of his Belgravia mansion, after tipping off his portcullis operator to open up for his carriage once the deed was done.

The Victoria Home’s kitchen was situated below street level and open all hours of the night for lodgers to cook their unappetising meat victuals and dispose of anything potentially incriminating on the “great fire”. After flashing his bed ticket to the night deputy, he could then gain access to the upper floors, and for a couple of extra pence secure for himself a “cubicle”; not glamorous or expansive by any means, but it at least afforded him four walls away from prying eyes.

It’s little wonder that Inspector Reid considered the Victoria Home a viable ripper’s bolt hole.

Quote:
That he walked back from Romford. That his usual digs were closed. That he knew Kelly for three years. That he contacted a PC on Sunday, etc. etc.
You reckon all of that was investigated and confirmed between the termination of Abberline’s interrogation and the writing of his report - a time frame of about two hours, if that? Well, you scored a whopping one out of four (the closing time of the Victoria Home being very easy to ascertain).

As far as “official documents” are concerned, would police interviews and reminiscences qualify as such? I’m assuming they must do, in your view, given the content of the Littlechild letter. It might be of interest to you, therefore , that none of these (with the exception of Dew, already discussed) ever referred to Hutchinson even when recounting the witness evidence. The only person to get a good view of the murderer was Jewish, according to Anderson (and presumably Swanson too); nobody saw the Whitechapel murder unless it was the City PC from Mitre Square, observed Macnaghten; they “only saw his back” said Abberline in 1903.

How do any of these observations make the slightest sense if star witness and ripper-spotter extraordinaire George Hutchinson continued to be considered credible?

The Echo/Star reports are not at odds with Abberline’s 12th November - it’s simple chronological succession; first Hutchinson was believed (evening of the 12th), but then later, in the wake of “later investigation”, that belief was markedly reduced.

All the best,
Ben

Last edited by Ben : 08-21-2018 at 11:49 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1273  
Old 08-21-2018, 04:22 PM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
There's nothing to be gained by Hutch mentioning a woman walking down Dorset street. Women out at that hour are often unfortunates anyway. There's no reason to mention her at all.

The more likely candidate to confirm Hutch's story is the constable he saw in Commercial street, though why that constable should remember Hutch is another question.
The reason the lodger & the constable are mentioned by Hutch is because they were male, and in his opinion not suspicious characters.
Nonsense.There is nothing to be gained by mentioning the lodger and policeman either.But the woman could help,not the other two.The reason/curiosity Hutch was looking up the court that woman,who went in the court a few seconds later,could answer and could have observed more.He wanted to help,using most of his initial statement to Badham describing a possible "suspect".

-----
__________________
Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
M. Pacana
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1274  
Old 08-21-2018, 04:27 PM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Apples and oranges. Nothing in Hutchinson's story contradicts either the cry of murder or contemporary medical opinion.

You seem to be falling into the same trap as Walter Dew. Maxwell was wrong, so Hutchinson must have been wrong, too. In reality, the logic is bizarre considering that the two sightings were some six hours apart, and the medical evidence in no way disagreed with Hutchinson, and modern medical opinion might not even disagree with Maxwell (Dr. Hocking, et al).
No Hutch and Maxwells' stories are different.The argument is if a witness's story cannot be shaken then therefore it's true which is nonsense.Maxwell's story contradicted the doctor's estimated time of death.I do not understand your point.

---
__________________
Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
M. Pacana
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1275  
Old 08-21-2018, 04:46 PM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 569
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Exactly. And no one is 'blaming' anything. It is a simple statement of fact.

We have precisely ONE internal report discussing police opinion about Hutchinson.

And what does that one report state, Abby? Any guesses?

Yup, you guessed it! Abberline grilled the witness and ended up believing him.

Up against this we have vague claims in the press stating the witness was discreditted without any official confirmation that this was, in fact, the case.

It's called the historical method. Try it sometime. The official documents always get precident over vague claims in the press.

It's really that simple. And two years later "gullible" Fred Abberline was promoted to Chief Inspector.
The witness statement is wrong not mentioning the woman,there is a newspaper clip that he says he saw no one else which clearly point to he did not see a woman passed by in front of him which could not have happened judging from Lewis statement so therefore it was a different day.This is the most important.from the horse's mouth.
Compare that to the internal police report which shows "nothing" as to whether Abberline grilled him on why he missed the woman. Abberline could have screwed up.So a policeman does not screw up? At least Dew put 2 and 2 together.

And where is the law in 1888 that says Hutch could be put in jail for making false statements to the cops and not in court.Was Packer jailed? It only started in 1911 Perjury Act.

----
__________________
Clearly the first human laws (way older and already established) spawned organized religion's morality - from which it's writers only copied/stole,ex. you cannot kill,rob,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
M. Pacana
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1276  
Old 08-21-2018, 05:03 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
Nonsense.There is nothing to be gained by mentioning the lodger and policeman either.But the woman could help,not the other two.The reason/curiosity Hutch was looking up the court that woman,who went in the court a few seconds later,could answer and could have observed more.He wanted to help,using most of his initial statement to Badham describing a possible "suspect".

-----
If he gave her name & address it might help, how on earth is he going to do that? This was just a woman in the shadows on the other side of the street.
Hutch wasn't on trial, he was not defending himself. No-one told him to prove he was there.
Like I said, he mentioned men in the street because only men were under consideration as the killer. He saw no suspicious men in Dorset street.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1277  
Old 08-21-2018, 05:34 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,804
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post

You’re still not getting to grips with the basic concept of nondescript people and objects being recognised again. What if there was nothing in particular to distinguish him from other nondescript looking people?
It's precisely because the description she gave was 'non-descript' that he had nothing to worry about.

Quote:
It’s also nonsense to argue that Lewis couldn’t have seen his face from 20 feet away (whereas Hutchinson is perfectly capable of noticing the pattern on a handkerchief from 120 feet away apparently!).
What is "nonsense" is your repeated assertion that he was 120ft away when he saw & heard the exchange. He was standing across the street.
Another one of your 'straw-man' arguments.


Quote:
Sorry, Jon, I can’t even begin to decipher what you’re talking about here. I was responding directly to the argument that he would not have engaged in X or Y activity if he was the killer, and I thought my point was a reasonable one; why would he “use” previous descriptions of himself to help create a fictional suspect?
You are changing horses in mid-stream.
As you don't argue that Hutch was the killer, only a timewaster, then your reply is evasive.
As a timewaster, not the killer, then those previous 'wanted' descriptions are not of him. So, why didn't he use them?

Quote:
Not without getting caught, which I certainly would have been if I had been as absurdly conspicuous and unsubtle as you claim Hutchinson was,...
What makes you think they didn't see him?
He intentionally looked under the man's hat, stared him in the face, as he passed by. Why shouldn't Hutch make it clear he was following him?
Was Hutch trying to intimidate Astrachan?



Quote:
So it’s my fault that Hutchinson’s own account of his own location during the “lost my handkerchief” conversation made it impossible for him to hear it? It couldn’t be the simplest and most obvious explanation, that he made up the encounter.
It makes no sense to invent a scenario that could not have happened. So, obviously, Hutch did walk down Dorset street to stand where Sarah Lewis placed him.
That's why it is your "fault' that the scenario does not make sense.

Quote:
Why would she mention the time of 2.30am if it didn’t relate to her arrival? She was “there” at 3.00, 3.30, 4.00, 4.30 etc too - why didn’t she randomly volunteer the information that she was in the same room at those times? What was so special about 2.30 that it warranted inclusion in her statement and testimony?
Because 2:30 is the nearest time to her arrival, she doesn't have to say she was there at 3:00, 3:30, etc. if she was there at 2:30. That question also made no sense Ben.

Quote:
Considerably more than you, Jon. If there’s one thing your omnipresence on Casebook Hutchinson discussions makes clear, it’s that opportunities for outdoor recreation must be at a premium.
So you don't see me walking around with an ipad?
Ah well, maybe not. The point being, you are the one who thinks a 12 mile walk is extreme, whereas I do not. Regardless whether I walk 12 miles a day or not.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1278  
Old 08-22-2018, 07:50 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,652
Default

I’ll persist...

Was Astrakhan Man Jack The Ripper or was Hutchinson Jack The Ripper? Or were neither of them...?

With AM the question is more one of existence and the reliability of Hutchinson’s evidence as that is all that we have. If AM was the Ripper then we have a killer not at all concerned with drawing attention to himself or at least making himself very easily describable and recognisable. A killer quite happy to dress as a semi-toff in one of the most down-at-heel and dangerous areas in London. Yet despite this there was no sighting, or suspected sighting, of him at or near to any of the other murder sites. Hutchinson describes his strange action of stooping down to look into AM’s face. He doesn’t mention Mary telling him to “sod off” because he might be at risk of scaring off her client which there must have been a more than reasonable chance of her doing. And in that poorly lit street, with this fleeting glimpse he even describes AM’s eyelashes. There maybe other examples of this but can anyone name any witness or witnesses in any other crime investigation where under similar circumstances that Sherlock Holmes described the suspects eyelashes? Then we have, according to Hutchinson, a killer who despite having this annoying bloke stooping down to get a good close look at his face then goes on to commit a horrible murder. Again not bothered in the least about being identified. Surely this should lean us very heavily in favour of this being, at the very least, exaggerated and therefore unreliable or, at worst, simply unbelievable? Yes, Abberline felt his testimony was honest. So Hutchinson gave the ‘impression’ of being honest to a senior police officer under tremendous pressure from his superiors and from the public to find the ripper. A public that largely felt that the ripper was likely to be foreign or specifically Jewish (just like the description given by Hutchinson.) How would Abberline have been criticised if he’d have dismissed Hutchinson as unreliable?

And then we have Hutchinson the ripper who, despite the randomness of the other murders, appears to be obsessively determined that it had to be Mary Kelly that would die that night. He was quite prepared to loiter about for ages for her to become ‘available’ when a simple stroll would have easily have found him another victim. He would then stand across a fairly narrow street from Miller’s Court where he was observed and, as he was looking toward the entrance to the court, he would likely have known that he’d been observed, yet despite this he would still go on to murder. And if he was telling the truth about knowing Mary is it not possible that he might have even be known by some in the area thus increasing his risk of being identified.

Isn’t it more likely that Hutchinson was trying to paint himself as a Good Samaritan looking out for a poor unfortunate that he occaisionally gave money to (money that he was unlikely ever to have spare) out of the goodness of his heart. That he let this dodgy AM know that “yes, I’ve got my eye on you mate.” That he stood bravely on guard outside Miller’s Court to keep an eye on her only to leave when he believed that Mary had asked AM to stay the night?

For me everything points to Hutchinson being a fantasist who gave the police a ridiculously detailed description of a non-existent potential ripper. A description that tallied with the common perception of the ripper as a foreigner; a Jew. Or someone from the better levels of society. I think that he did this because he knew that he’d been seen and so he decided to paint himself in the role of Mary’s protector rather than someone who either had a ‘thing’ for her or someone that was hoping for a roof over his head for the night.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1279  
Old 08-22-2018, 08:34 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,769
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
I’ll persist...

Was Astrakhan Man Jack The Ripper or was Hutchinson Jack The Ripper? Or were neither of them...?

With AM the question is more one of existence and the reliability of Hutchinson’s evidence as that is all that we have. If AM was the Ripper then we have a killer not at all concerned with drawing attention to himself or at least making himself very easily describable and recognisable. A killer quite happy to dress as a semi-toff in one of the most down-at-heel and dangerous areas in London. Yet despite this there was no sighting, or suspected sighting, of him at or near to any of the other murder sites. Hutchinson describes his strange action of stooping down to look into AM’s face. He doesn’t mention Mary telling him to “sod off” because he might be at risk of scaring off her client which there must have been a more than reasonable chance of her doing. And in that poorly lit street, with this fleeting glimpse he even describes AM’s eyelashes. There maybe other examples of this but can anyone name any witness or witnesses in any other crime investigation where under similar circumstances that Sherlock Holmes described the suspects eyelashes? Then we have, according to Hutchinson, a killer who despite having this annoying bloke stooping down to get a good close look at his face then goes on to commit a horrible murder. Again not bothered in the least about being identified. Surely this should lean us very heavily in favour of this being, at the very least, exaggerated and therefore unreliable or, at worst, simply unbelievable? Yes, Abberline felt his testimony was honest. So Hutchinson gave the ‘impression’ of being honest to a senior police officer under tremendous pressure from his superiors and from the public to find the ripper. A public that largely felt that the ripper was likely to be foreign or specifically Jewish (just like the description given by Hutchinson.) How would Abberline have been criticised if he’d have dismissed Hutchinson as unreliable?

And then we have Hutchinson the ripper who, despite the randomness of the other murders, appears to be obsessively determined that it had to be Mary Kelly that would die that night. He was quite prepared to loiter about for ages for her to become ‘available’ when a simple stroll would have easily have found him another victim. He would then stand across a fairly narrow street from Miller’s Court where he was observed and, as he was looking toward the entrance to the court, he would likely have known that he’d been observed, yet despite this he would still go on to murder. And if he was telling the truth about knowing Mary is it not possible that he might have even be known by some in the area thus increasing his risk of being identified.

Isn’t it more likely that Hutchinson was trying to paint himself as a Good Samaritan looking out for a poor unfortunate that he occaisionally gave money to (money that he was unlikely ever to have spare) out of the goodness of his heart. That he let this dodgy AM know that “yes, I’ve got my eye on you mate.” That he stood bravely on guard outside Miller’s Court to keep an eye on her only to leave when he believed that Mary had asked AM to stay the night?

For me everything points to Hutchinson being a fantasist who gave the police a ridiculously detailed description of a non-existent potential ripper. A description that tallied with the common perception of the ripper as a foreigner; a Jew. Or someone from the better levels of society. I think that he did this because he knew that he’d been seen and so he decided to paint himself in the role of Mary’s protector rather than someone who either had a ‘thing’ for her or someone that was hoping for a roof over his head for the night.
HI HS
Good post!

Quote:
With AM the question is more one of existence and the reliability of Hutchinson’s evidence as that is all that we have. If AM was the Ripper then we have a killer not at all concerned with drawing attention to himself or at least making himself very easily describable and recognisable. A killer quite happy to dress as a semi-toff in one of the most down-at-heel and dangerous areas in London. Yet despite this there was no sighting, or suspected sighting, of him at or near to any of the other murder sites.

I don't have a problem with killers being seen with there victims moments before the crime-especially by strangers. Even killers who are seen by people they know will go on to commit the crime.


I also don't really have a problem with well dressed men in that area at night, although it does raise my eyebrows a bit. Especially when they seem to be a amalgam of previous witness sightings (bag in hand, red hanky, jewish etc).


That being said- a well dressed man was seen in the area around the same time-the bethnal Green botherer that Sarah lewis saw. Now if it wasn't impossible for BGB to be Aman because of the logistics, I would place more credibility with Aman. of course there is a chance that hutch got wind of this suspicious well dressed character and incorporated him into Aman as well.

But I believe Sarah lewis and her story about the BGB and to me he remains an intriguing character.


Quote:
Hutchinson describes his strange action of stooping down to look into AM’s face. He doesn’t mention Mary telling him to “sod off” because he might be at risk of scaring off her client which there must have been a more than reasonable chance of her doing. And in that poorly lit street, with this fleeting glimpse he even describes AM’s eyelashes. There maybe other examples of this but can anyone name any witness or witnesses in any other crime investigation where under similar circumstances that Sherlock Holmes described the suspects eyelashes?

oddly enough there are even witnesses in the ripper case who describe eyelashes/eyebrows. Best and gardner who say they saw Stride with a man. Something about him having weak eyelashes. I think there are actually others too in the case, but cant remember.


Quote:
Surely this should lean us very heavily in favour of this being, at the very least, exaggerated and therefore unreliable or, at worst, simply unbelievable? Yes, Abberline felt his testimony was honest. So Hutchinson gave the ‘impression’ of being honest to a senior police officer under tremendous pressure from his superiors and from the public to find the ripper. A public that largely felt that the ripper was likely to be foreign or specifically Jewish (just like the description given by Hutchinson.) How would Abberline have been criticised if he’d have dismissed Hutchinson as unreliable?
Under the circs probably a lot if Abberline dismissed him immediately-until he could verify what Hutch said and or other circs arose that would impinge on his credibility whats Abberline supposed to do-so he simply said after the initial questioning he believed him. big wup.


You must remember Abberline had just come from the inquest where he heard Lewis talk about waiting man (AKA wide awake man) the man waiting and watching the court-"as if waiting for someone to come out"-and lo and behold in he strolls? I would have believed him too-his story (at least about being there) is corroborated.

Quote:
Isn’t it more likely that Hutchinson was trying to paint himself as a Good Samaritan looking out for a poor unfortunate that he occaisionally gave money to (money that he was unlikely ever to have spare) out of the goodness of his heart. That he let this dodgy AM know that “yes, I’ve got my eye on you mate.” That he stood bravely on guard outside Miller’s Court to keep an eye on her only to leave when he believed that Mary had asked AM to stay the night?

For me everything points to Hutchinson being a fantasist who gave the police a ridiculously detailed description of a non-existent potential ripper. A description that tallied with the common perception of the ripper as a foreigner; a Jew. Or someone from the better levels of society. I think that he did this because he knew that he’d been seen and so he decided to paint himself in the role of Mary’s protector rather than someone who either had a ‘thing’ for her or someone that was hoping for a roof over his head for the night.
[/quote]


totally agree. at very least hutch was an attention seeking liar and made up the story of Aman, although I believe he was there waiting and watching for mary. Im about 50/50 on whether he even spoke with her though.
__________________
"Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"

-Edgar Allan Poe


"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

-Frederick G. Abberline
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1280  
Old 08-22-2018, 01:41 PM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,652
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
HI HS
Good post!

Hi Abby, thanks


I don't have a problem with killers being seen with there victims moments before the crime-especially by strangers. Even killers who are seen by people they know will go on to commit the crime.

But are there such specific examples? What I mean is that in those circumstances, 4 murders into a series that’s all over the news, someone who is very distinctly dressed is seen accompanying the next victim down a narrow passage that leads to her room. For me the killer would have to have been almost suicidally reckless to have continued.

I also don't really have a problem with well dressed men in that area at night, although it does raise my eyebrows a bit. Especially when they seem to be a amalgam of previous witness sightings (bag in hand, red hanky, jewish etc.

The ‘raising of eyebrows’ is a good way of putting it Abby. I’m not suggesting that a well dressed man couldn’t have been there but I just feel that the killer wouldn’t have wanted to draw attention to himself. This is one of the reasons why I’m not keen on Tumblety as a suspect. I’m not suggesting that it dismissed him as a suspect but it lessens the likelihood for me.


That being said- a well dressed man was seen in the area around the same time-the bethnal Green botherer that Sarah lewis saw. Now if it wasn't impossible for BGB to be Aman because of the logistics, I would place more credibility with Aman. of course there is a chance that hutch got wind of this suspicious well dressed character and incorporated him into Aman as well.

Im a bit vague on the story of the BGB Abby but it does ring a bell. I’ll have to refresh my memory.

But I believe Sarah lewis and her story about the BGB and to me he remains an intriguing character.

oddly enough there are even witnesses in the ripper case who describe eyelashes/eyebrows. Best and gardner who say they saw Stride with a man. Something about him having weak eyelashes. I think there are actually others too in the case, but cant remember.

To be honest Abby as I was typing this point something at the back of my mind was telling me that eyelashes had been mentioned somewhere in the case but I just couldn’t place it. Now I can. I still feel though that it’s a little far fetched to think that Hutchinson could have noticed this detail under the circumstances. It’s not impossible of course though.

Under the circs probably a lot if Abberline dismissed him immediately-until he could verify what Hutch said and or other circs arose that would impinge on his credibility whats Abberline supposed to do-so he simply said after the initial questioning he believed him. big wup.
You must remember Abberline had just come from the inquest where he heard Lewis talk about waiting man (AKA wide awake man) the man waiting and watching the court-"as if waiting for someone to come out"-and lo and behold in he strolls? I would have believed him too-his story (at least about being there) is corroborated.

Accepted. The only points that I was making though was that just because Abberline felt that he was honest doesn’t necessarily mean that he was. And that it’s also possible that under the circumstances he might have been more willing to latch onto a possible suspect.



totally agree. at very least hutch was an attention seeking liar and made up the story of Aman, although I believe he was there waiting and watching for mary. Im about 50/50 on whether he even spoke with her though.

This is one of my doubts. The other victims were apparently chosen at random so why was Hutchinson the ripper so determined that it had to be Mary that night? Why was he willing to undergo the inconvenience of loitering around when he could easily have found another victim.

[/quote]

Im not suggesting certainties here but I just feel that, on balance, neither AM or Hutchinson were the ripper. I tend to think that Hutchinson wanted somewhere to stay for the night and he thought that Mary was an option. He gave up waiting and then felt guilty that he hadn’t done anything that might have helped his ‘friend’ so he made up the AM story to paint himself in a better light.
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
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 06:10 AM.


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