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: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 10 minutes ago.
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - by Wickerman 25 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 33 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Wickerman 34 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Simon Wood 47 minutes ago.
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - by Batman 55 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (29 posts)
Torso Killings: JtR failed amputation. Torso killer was successful. - (13 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (3 posts)
General Discussion: My profile of the ripper - (2 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
  #1651  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:23 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi Sam
which is odd. so either he:

1. wasnt there-which I doubt-she cooroborates he was there.
2. missedher/ forgot to mention: which seems strange, seeming as he had such a great memory
3. intentionally left her out-If he came forward because he thought she saw him there, and he was making up the story about Aman, I could see why he left her out. I go with this.
The problem with the latter (point 3) is... why would he leave her out, when mentioning her would only have reinforced his narrative?

It's for that reason that I'm more inclined to believe that he was never there at all. Lewis only saw SOMEONE opposite Miller's Court, but it need not have been Hutch. And, if it was, why didn't he mention HER, because it would only have backed up his story to do so?
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

Last edited by Sam Flynn : 09-20-2018 at 07:27 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1652  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:30 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,375
Default

Trevor, a contemporary newspaper report is a primary source:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1653  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:34 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Trevor, a contemporary newspaper report is a primary source:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source
Thank you, but I am not going to get into another argument over this issue save to say there is an obvious difference.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1654  
Old 09-20-2018, 07:48 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
The problem with the latter (point 3) is... why would he leave her out, when mentioning her would only have reinforced his narrative?

It's for that reason that I'm more inclined to believe that he was never there at all. Lewis only saw SOMEONE opposite Miller's Court, but it need not have been Hutch. And, if it was, why didn't he mention HER, because it would only have backed up his story to do so?
because he may not wanted the police to make the Lewis/hutch connection, because it may have led to her blowing a hole in his Aman/Mary story( among other things) as she was in the area at the time that supposedly Mary and Aman were.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Abby Normal : 09-20-2018 at 07:55 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1655  
Old 09-20-2018, 08:57 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
Thank you, but I am not going to get into another argument over this issue save to say there is an obvious difference.
Newspaper reports and official reports may differ in terms of authoritativeness, but they are both nonetheless "primary sources" as defined for the purposes of historical research.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1656  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:40 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
Newspaper reports and official reports may differ in terms of authoritativeness, but they are both nonetheless "primary sources" as defined for the purposes of historical research.
A primary source as you describe when found to be incorrect becomes a secondary source, and many newspaper reports in 1888 were found to be incorrect, and misleading, and therefore they become secondary sources, which people like you have wrongly been referring to as primary sources.

Or are you trying to say that a primary source that is wrong and conflicts with the original source still remains a primary source?

Its not rocket science !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1657  
Old 09-20-2018, 09:57 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,375
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
A primary source as you describe when found to be incorrect becomes a secondary source, and many newspaper reports in 1888 were found to be incorrect, and misleading, and therefore they become secondary sources
If a primary source is incorrect, it's simply an "incorrect primary source", and we should describe it as such. What we can't do is claim that a contemporary newspaper report morphs into a secondary source simply because it's wrong - it's a "deficient primary source", and that's all we can, and should, say about it.
Quote:
which people like you have wrongly been referring to as primary sources.
I posted the definition, which is used universally not just by "people like me", but by historians the world over. If ripperology is to be taken seriously, then we should be aware of such terminology and we should use it appropriately; if we don't, then "people like us" will continue to be looked upon as a bit of a joke in some quarters.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1658  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:38 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Quote:
It is not right for anyone to readily accept what a newspaper publishes in 1888, unless its source can be proven.
I couldn’t agree more, Trevor; which is why it would be such a grave mistake to accept uncritically the alleged Bowyer sighting of a man in the court, given that it only appeared in one single newspaper. Bowyer mentioned nothing of this sighting prior to or at the inquest, which seems a curious omission unless the police didn’t bother to ask him, which is curiouser still!

All the best,
Ben
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1659  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:39 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Hi Gareth,

If Hutchinson was indeed there that night, but not for the “innocent” reasons he would later relate, it made every sense not to mention Lewis; otherwise there was a heightened risk of the police putting two and two together and realising that he only came forward after discovering he had been seen.

If he had been there for nefarious purposes, the “not mentioning Lewis” gamble certainly paid off as he was ultimately discredited as a timewaster, which he obviously would/could not have been if he was identified as Lewis’s loiterer.

All the best,
Ben

Last edited by Ben : 09-20-2018 at 10:42 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1660  
Old 09-20-2018, 10:49 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 434
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varqm View Post
Agreed.As posted before Hutch was the most significant witness.Hutch could identify the possible "suspect",unlike Lawende,Long, and his sighting
was 15 minutes long compared to 10-30 sec for Lawende,Long,Schwartz.If Hutch was the most significant witness and subsequent inquiries proved
to be positive why then did not the police used him as a witness in the Sadler case and the seaside home identification? Lawende used in the Sadler case instead did not make sense since he "doubt he could identify the man again".Why then it's not clear in police documents/memoirs throughout the years that Astrakhan man was the killer they were looking for as seen by the most significant witness.
Speaking for myself,to me it's clear there was a resounding "no" to Hutch's testimony.If they just cast him aside even though he was the most significant witness, it does/didn't not make sense.
It makes perfect sense; you and Abby are simply looking at it wrong. Look at it from the perspective of a prosecutor.

In cases like this--where the victim is a street prostitute--the most important factor is time of death. If the time of death is in dispute or unknown, it doesn't matter how detailed the witness's description is; the defense will make mincemeat of it. The victim willingly goes with any number of strangers, so why are you picking on my client? The client was seen with her, but she could have had 2 or 3 other customers after he left.

Hutchinson's description may have been fantastic from an investigative point of view, but it had considerably less value from a legal point of view.

In the case of Kelly, the time of death was in great dispute. There were even witnesses willing to swear she was alive and well HOURS after Hutchinson saw the man with her. This puts Hutch's testimony on very shaky grounds if he was ever brought into a court room.

Ditto Mrs. Long. It is entirely possible that Long and only Long saw the actual murderer, but her testimony is completely undercut by the police surgeon's estimate time of death.

In the case of Schwartz, we see Swanson musing in his internal report about the possibility of Stride having picked up a second client after the alleged assault---Swanson was clearly wondering about the value of Schwartz as a witness in the case of a prosecution.

Only in the case of Kate Eddowes was there little or no doubt about the time of death, so Lawende was given a status as the most important witness. It has nothing to do with the detail of his description; it has to do with circumstances under which he saw the suspect. Rightly or wrongly, Scotland Yard was convinced that he saw the murderer. The same cannot be said of Long, Schwartz, or Hutchinson. This is why Lawende became Anderson's super witness. It in no way, shape, or form implies that Hutchinson, Long, or Schwartz were dismissed as potential witnesses.

Robert Anderson was first and foremost a lawyer...in fact, Scotland Yard specifically wanted a lawyer at the head of the C.I.D. so he would be sensitive to the legal aspects of an investigation.

Anderson is why Lawende is at the top of the heap and remained there.

Last edited by rjpalmer : 09-20-2018 at 10:53 AM.
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 02:57 PM.


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