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: 36 Berner Street............... - by Joshua Rogan 2 minutes ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by MrBarnett 15 minutes ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by MrBarnett 26 minutes ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by MrBarnett 30 minutes ago.
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - by Robert 1 hour and 8 minutes ago.
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - by Fisherman 6 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Witnesses: 36 Berner Street............... - (18 posts)
Witnesses: Kennedy and Lewis - (4 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Why Didn't the Police Have Schwartz and/or Lawende Take a Look at Hutchinson? - (4 posts)
Non-Fiction: "Ripperland" by Andrew Firth - (4 posts)
Lechmere/Cross, Charles: So if you live in Bethnal Green, you won´t kill in Whitechapel? - (1 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Did Mary Kelly meet the Bethnal Green Botherer? - (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
  #1721  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:56 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Where are your direct quotes from anyone who accuses Hutchinson of lying?

I guess it doesn't matter now....right.
Square up bitch!

Lol
__________________
"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
  #1722  
Old 09-22-2018, 11:58 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 7,074
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjpalmer View Post
Being Scotland Yard men, they probably realized a man can grow a beard in under two-and-a-half years.
Double post
__________________
"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 : 09-23-2018 at 12:00 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1723  
Old 09-23-2018, 02:03 AM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,843
Default

Quote:
Being Scotland Yard men, they probably realized a man can grow a beard in under two-and-a-half years.
...and pawn his Astrakhan-trimmed coat.

Good point.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1724  
Old 09-23-2018, 07:31 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
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?
Oh, c'mon now modesty doesn't become you. You've been chomping at the Hutchinson bit for longer than I have.
You don't suggest I buy every Jack the Ripper book just because I have an interest in Jack the Ripper, surely?
Apply some discretion Ben, or at least permit others to do so.


Quote:
The suggested identification was not proved, but merely hypothesised.
Great, so why pay for an hypothesis when there is no evidence behind it?
You give yours out for free, I'm good with that.

Quote:
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.
I would normally excuse your faux pas on the word 'hypothesis', Senise provides nothing more than speculation.
There is no evidence whatsoever that G.H. the Witness was G.H. the Seaman. Therefore, it is pure speculation.
These boards are the place for speculation, it should be offered for free when there is no evidence behind it.
So, it doesn't matter how old the critique is, nothing has changed to firm up the connection, so it is just as relevant now as when written.

Quote:
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.
There's no point in beating your head against the wall. If Abberline had been interested in Bowyer's overnight activities it would have formed part of the witness statement on the 9th. It wasn't, so there is your evidence.

Had Bowyer seen Mary Kelly at that early hour, then just like Cox, we might expect an account to that end from Bowyer.
But, he provided no account of seeing Cox at midnight, or seeing Prater after 1:00, or more to the point, seeing Blotchy at all either coming or going. Yet you are insisting Abberline had to have questioned Bowyer about seeing anyone at 3:00?
The term, double standard, comes to mind, again.

Quote:
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.
That's what you say, I asked for what the doctors said, and the 'cry of murder' is already defunct as I explained previously.
So, where is this evidence?

Quote:
Where is the evidence that the police knew from experience that cries of “murder” were common?
In the press - false cries of murder. Several reports were posted on Casebook where the police were called just to find it was another false alarm. Yes, and the word used was "murder", but no murder had taken place.


Quote:
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?
What a witness said at the inquest is not an official suspect description.
The suspect seen by PC Smith in Berner street was published the next day - 1st Oct.

"A description has been issued by the police of a man who was seen in the company of the deceased about midnight on Saturday.

He is stated to have been about twenty eight years of age, 5ft 8in in height, of dark complexion, but having no whiskers. He was attired in a black diagonal coat, and had on a hard felt hat and a collar and tie. He was of respectable appearance and carried a newspaper parcel."

https://www.casebook.org/press_repor...l?printer=true

That, Ben, is an official police suspect release. It is taken from an internal police circular issued across all stations.
No such suspect description was issued by the police concerning Blotchy.


Quote:
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.
No, Lewis also saw a loiterer, and a suspicious looking gent outside the Britannia.
Whereas Prater also gave evidence that Kelly's room was in darkness, raising the important question as to whether Kelly was already dead, or out on the streets.
So no, those two witnesses are not duplicates.


Quote:
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.
Corroboration is done by the police. They have already investigated their stories and have provided a reliable (as best as can be ascertained) list of witness statements to the coroner.
It isn't the coroner's place to corroborate testimony, merely ensure that reliable testimony is produced to the jury.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.

Last edited by Wickerman : 09-23-2018 at 07:36 AM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1725  
Old 09-23-2018, 07:45 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
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.
???
You just wrote the same comment in two different ways. The meaning is the same.
He had no way of knowing the man he saw was the killer. More especially as the prevalent rumors at the time was that she was killed in the late morning.
Remember, this was not a quote, Bowyer's comment was related by a reporter, so his precise words are not used.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1726  
Old 09-23-2018, 07:57 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is online now
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben View Post
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.
Yet some use this pointless? attempt at identifying the Ripper as evidence Hutchinson was not believed.
Sadler didn't fit either suspect description in possession of the police.

Quote:
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 those points have been addressed before, nothing stands up to scrutiny.
Most officials chose their own type of suspect formed years after the case, none of which fit any suspect description that has survived.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1727  
Old 09-23-2018, 08:47 AM
rjpalmer rjpalmer is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 437
Default

Hi Wickerman. Here is how I look at it. When Macnaghten states that no one ever saw the Ripper, he is simply making a statement of fact.

He means that no one ever saw the murderer in flagrante delicto, standing over his victim with a blood-stained knife, and thus none of the eyewitnesses, in themselves, could prove a suspect's guilt. He then qualifies this by acknowledging that the 'City PC' near Mitre Square was the best bet; which most take to be a garbled reference to Lawende, who is thus given the honor of being the 'super witness' we see in the Swanson marginalia. [Anderson and Swanson seem to be insisting that this man COULD prove guilt. As such, it is really no mystery why they would rely on Lawende, but I would just as not as soon "go there" in this discussion].


It would be foolish in the extreme to take Mac's statement, as some do, and try to use it as evidence that Hutchinson (and Long and Packer and Schwartz) were all discredited and proven to be liars, or that their accounts were otherwise considered without value. That's not what he is saying or implying.

What Macnaghten is actually admitting is that the police were just as much in the dark as we are as to which witness saw what, and he and his colleagues were quite willing to concede the murderer might have looked like Monty Druitt or even Michael Ostrog, because there was no witness, including Hutchinson, who saw the man in flagrante delicto .

Obviously this does not mean that we shouldn't consider Hutchinson, Long, Schwartz, etc. to be valuable from an investigative point of view.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1728  
Old 09-23-2018, 09:45 AM
Simon Wood Simon Wood is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 4,605
Default

It would be helpful to first discover for whom Macnaghten wrote his 1894 memorandum.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1729  
Old 09-23-2018, 10:18 AM
Trevor Marriott Trevor Marriott is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,256
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post

Corroboration is done by the police. They have already investigated their stories and have provided a reliable (as best as can be ascertained) list of witness statements to the coroner.
It isn't the coroner's place to corroborate testimony, merely ensure that reliable testimony is produced to the jury.
But much of what was obtained by the police, and produced as witness testimony at the various inquests was conflicting, and much of which should in my opinion have been clarified, it was not, and so we are left to deduce as best we can, as to who was telling the truth, and what accounts to believe.

If the police lied in some of their statements, which clearly some did, what chance do we have of believing civilian testimony.

Walter Dew in his book states ;

"As always happens in such cases, so many people were eager to give information. The majority were well-meaning enough, but some notoriety seekers made statements which were patently untrue, with no other object than to get their names into the newspapers.

I have never been able to understand the mentality of such people. Our job was big enough in all conscience without having to waste time exploring false clues."


www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #1730  
Old 09-23-2018, 11:41 AM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 603
Default

Fame/notoriety seekers or like the people charging for a view into the backyard of 29 Hanbury St.,locals trying to make a bit of money off the interest in the case/murders.

--
__________________
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
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 06:26 AM.


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