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:
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - by packers stem 5 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - by Herlock Sholmes 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Robert 2 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - by Andrew Firth 2 hours ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Robert 2 hours ago.
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - by Herlock Sholmes 3 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - (20 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (4 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (4 posts)
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - (4 posts)
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (4 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (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
  #1711  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:12 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,458
Default

Can we keep discussion of Mizen etc for the Lechmere threads, please?
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1712  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:29 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 11,458
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trevor Marriott View Post
The Western Mail was not a London paper, and the article conflicts with the Echo article, so which is the more likely to be an accurate?
They both had access to press agency reports, which is almost certainly where the WM got its story from.
Quote:
The Stride murder was six weeks before. Is Bowyer likely to remember a description as given by Packer after that length of time?
The comparison was made by the journalist, not Bowyer.
Quote:
Researchers should perhaps stop believing all they read in newspapers
Who said I believed it? I was just pointing out what was said in the press.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1713  
Old 09-22-2018, 08:38 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Quote:
Researchers who DID read the book provided that conclusion.
Where is this going?
Into a very deep hole of your own digging, as you continue to provide one bad excuse after another for not reading that which you’re critiquing. It’s a Hutchinson book, Jon, and you have a monomaniacal attitude towards all things Hutchinson, remember? It ought to be right up your street. The suggested identification was not proved, but merely hypothesised. Your criticisms of that hypothesis are based on outdated and thus inaccurate message board reactions to a three year old article, which don’t relate to the book under discussion.

Quote:
The day of his statement the only prevalent theory was Kelly was murdered in the late morning. There was no cause to ask about men coming and going through the night, and his statement basically testifies to that.
Firstly, experienced detectives are not generally so stupid as to only ask questions pursuant to whatever “prevalent theory” they happen to subscribe to. They are interested in ALL evidence that may have a bearing on an investigation. Secondly, even if they were the ninnies you’re anxious to depict them as, there was ample opportunity to reinterview Bowyer before the inquest, once this supposedly “prevalent theory” had subsided.

Quote:
If you think it happened before the inquest then show me the report - prove your assertion
Two doctors, attesting to a death that occurred hours before the Maxwell sighting, and two mutually corroborative witnesses who recalled a cry of “murder” in the small hours. Assertion proved. Thanks for coming.

Quote:
Cries of "murder" were common place, many testified to that, and the police knew it from experience, so that was no firm indication
Many? What, all two of them? Where is the evidence that the police knew from experience that cries of “murder” were common? I’m sure cries in general were common, but cries of that specific word “murder” emanating from the very same court in which an actual murder takes place shortly thereafter? I hardly think it coincidence somehow.

Blotchy’s description was published in the press along with the other inquest details; there was no sense in publishing it beforehand. How long after the Eddowes murder was the Lawende description published in the Police Gazzette?

Quote:
if you know a case where two witnesses are brought to an inquest to make the same statements, then show me.
I’ve told you already; Lewis and Prater.

They made very different statements, but both testified to a cry of “murder” in the small hours; just so with Maurice Lewis and Maxwell.

Quote:
The coroner is not charging anyone with murder, he only needs to know if the victim was alive after 9:00 am. Only one witness is necessary
This is frightening nonsense.

If the coroner “needs to know if the victim was alive after 9.00am”, it was absolutely essential to obtain as much corroboration as possible. It would therefore have been absolute gold to find more than one witness to that version of events, and put them on the stand accordingly.

It’s as though the very concept of corroboration, and the obvious value it entails, is a completely alien one to you.

All the best,
Ben

Last edited by Ben : 09-22-2018 at 08:42 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1714  
Old 09-22-2018, 08:44 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Exactly, Abby.

Whatever “sighting” may have been bogusly attributed to Bowyer in the form of second-hand hearsay, it is quite clear from his actual quoted words that he saw nobody in the court at 3.00, and was instead somewhat rueful that he didn’t.

Hi Bridewell,

Speaking strictly for myself, I make no presupposition that Hutchinson was a murderer, nor have I ever insisted that he was one. I don’t even recall ever starting a Hutchinson discussion or opening a new thread on the subject. I have merely responded reactively to various claims along the lines that “if Hutchinson was the killer, he would have gone about things in this way rather than that way” or “If he lied, he would have told a better lie, therefore he didn’t lie at all”. That sort of thing.

It tends to be those with a paranoid aversion to the notion of Hutchinson as a suspect - and he is an irrefutably reasonable one from a criminological perspective - who go out of their way to pick the fights, from my experience.

You accept uncritically Hutchinson’s claim to have been out of pocket. Why then did he walk 13 miles in the small hours when he knew he couldn’t gain access to his “usual” lodgings or any other? You also say he had “nothing to do” upon arrival in the district; how about seeking to remedy his homeless predicament as soon as possible, as opposed to engaging in fruitless voyeurism for the best part of an hour followed by more fruitless “walking about”?

All the best,
Ben

Last edited by Ben : 09-22-2018 at 08:47 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1715  
Old 09-22-2018, 08:56 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Quote:
if I had known he was there" - meaning if he had known the killer was "there", in this court...
My point exactly, Jon.

“If I had known the killer was there, I would have stopped him” was what he was saying in essence, whereas if he had seen an actual man in the court, he would have said “If I had known that the man I saw was the killer, I would have stopped him.

Regardless of the hearsay attributed to him, his actual quoted words make quite clear that he saw nobody in the court at 3.00am.

All the best,
Ben
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1716  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:30 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,760
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
But hutch didnt have funds, and quickly got dumped for another man, classic circs for a stalking situation. Which IMHO hutch then does, following her around, waiting in the middle of the night watching for her, and in his press account, even going next to her door to see if he could here anything.
Man without funds hangs around in the hope that, when A-Man leaves, MJK might take pity on him. If that's a one-off then it's not stalking which is a course of conduct over a significant period of time. It might be creepy and prurient but, as a one-off, it's not stalking. That's assuming that it was MJK he wanted and not A-Man's thick gold chain of course.

Quote:
Re your second point. Hutch lying to mizen about being wanted in bucks row dosnt mean Neil lied about it too. Not sure of your reasoning there at all.
I concede that my line of reasoning is somewhat convoluted (for which I apologise) but it runs something like this:-

Mizen said that the two men had told him that he was wanted by a PC in Bucks Row. Pc Neill says he as he was passing along Bucks Row he "didn't notice anyone about" - so he didn't see or speak to two men. It follows that, as they were supposedly looking for a policeman, they didn't see him either; had they done so they would have reported the body to Neil rather than continuing their search. Neil didn't see them and they didn't see him. So either Neill did see and speak to them and Mizen was right about that or Neill didn't see and speak to them, in which case Mizen was lying and Neil must have been too. Much more likely though that Neil was right in saying that he didn't see Lechmere & Paul and that Mizen was justifying a delay in his response.

I suspect you may not agree but I thought I should at least explain why I'm thinking as I do.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.

Last edited by Bridewell : 09-22-2018 at 12:38 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1717  
Old 09-22-2018, 12:57 PM
Bridewell Bridewell is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Bottesford, Leicestershire
Posts: 3,760
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
But hutch didnt have funds, and quickly got dumped for another man, classic circs for a stalking situation. Which IMHO hutch then does, following her around, waiting in the middle of the night watching for her, and in his press account, even going next to her door to see if he could here anything.
Man without funds hangs around in the hope that, when A-Man leaves, MJK might take pity on him. If that's a one-off then it's not stalking which is a course of conduct over a significant period of time. It might be creepy and prurient but, as a one-off, it's not stalking. That's assuming that it was MJK he wanted and not A-Man's thick gold chain of course.

Quote:
Re your second point. Hutch lying to mizen about being wanted in bucks row dosnt mean Neil lied about it too. Not sure of your reasoning there at all.
I presume you mean my point that if Lechmere (not Hutch) was lying then Neil must have been too? I concede that my line of reasoning is somewhat convoluted (for which I apologise) but it runs something like this:-

Mizen said that the two men had told him that he was wanted by a PC in Bucks Row. Pc Neill said that, as he was passing along Bucks Row, he "didn't notice anyone about" - so he didn't see or speak to two men as Mizen claimed. It follows that, as they were supposedly looking for a policeman, they didn't see him either; had they done so they would have reported the body to Neil rather than continuing their search for a policeman. Neil didn't see them and they didn't see him. So either Neil did see and speak to them and Mizen was right about that, in which case Neil must have lied when he said he didn't see them. Robert Paul couldn't be clearer about it - they looked to see if there was a constable but one was not to be seen.

Much more likely that Neil was right in saying that he didn't see Lechmere & Paul and that Mizen was justifying a delay in his response by inventing a report that the police were already in attendance.

I suspect you may not agree but I thought I should at least explain why I'm thinking as I do.
__________________
Regards, Bridewell.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1718  
Old 09-22-2018, 02:24 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,885
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Wicker or trevor
Both you have said bowyer corroborates hutches story by somehow also mentioning aman or someone who looked like him. Balderdash.

Please provide a direct quote and source of bowyer that includes a description of a man that fits the description if Aman.

Where are your direct quotes from anyone who accuses Hutchinson of lying?

I guess it doesn't matter now....right.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1719  
Old 09-22-2018, 05:35 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Returning to the issue of the Lawende identification(s), it’s worth pointing out that the bearded over-fifty Sadler did not resemble Lawende’s man in the slightest. He was no better a fit in that regard than he was for Hutchinson’s Astrakhan man, but the police went ahead with the attempted identification anyway, if only to follow proper police procedure and tick another official box.

It wasn’t just the aforementioned identify parades that provide additional evidence of Hutchinson’s reported discrediting; it was the actual remarks on the subject from senior police officials that hammer home the final nails in that particular coffin. Unless they all suffered from very selective amnesia on the subject, the collective observations of Anderson, Swanson, Macnaghten and Abberline, when remarking on the subject of eyewitness evidence, all make very clear that the early press reports of Hutchinson’s “considerable discounting” were perfectly accurate.

All the best,
Ben
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1720  
Old 09-22-2018, 06:47 PM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
the bearded over-fifty Sadler did not resemble Lawende’s man in the slightest
Being Scotland Yard men, they probably realized a man can grow a beard in under two-and-a-half years.
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 06:00 PM.


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