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:
Torso Killings: torso maps - by MrBarnett 1 hour and 24 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by RockySullivan 1 hour and 27 minutes ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by harry 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by packers stem 2 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 2 hours ago.
Torso Killings: torso maps - by MrBarnett 2 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (36 posts)
Torso Killings: torso maps - (21 posts)
Other: Book on antique medical specimens - (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
  #301  
Old 12-26-2017, 03:13 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
????
I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court.
Daily News, 13th Nov. 1888

This does not say, AS THEY passed up the court.
If you read all the reports - as opposed to singling out this hopelessly garbled* account in the Daily News - the picture emerges of Lewis seeing the couple "further on" in Dorset Street, at around the same time she clocked the man standing outside the lodging-house opposite. Do you seriously believe that, if Lewis had seen a couple actually entering Miller's Court we wouldn't have heard more about it in the other papers, and in Lewis's official witness statement?

* Garbled to the point where the Daily News, in the very same report, has Lewis say that she saw Mr Widewake standing "in the doorway of the deceased's house", which is patently incorrect.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #302  
Old 12-26-2017, 07:31 PM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 427
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Exactly. Hutch says he followed Mary and arman as they lingered in front of the court and then they went into the court at which point hutch made his little vigil as waiting watching man, then Lewis comes, sees hutch and then goes into the court. Even the logistics don’t allow for Lewis to see Mary and aman go up the court.

But Aman is a figment anyway so it’s a moot point.

Hutch came to find Mary and was waiting for her, or her guest to leave, when Lewis appeared.

It ain’t rocket science, although some, or one wants to make it out to be.
Agree.This has been said numerous times.2:15 AM Kelly/Aman entered the court.They believe in Hutch but does not want to believe in the details
of his tale.Silliness.
__________________
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,steal (forced, otherwise people run back to the hills,no towns).
M. Pacana

Last edited by Varqm : 12-26-2017 at 07:35 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 12-27-2017, 01:57 AM
richardnunweek richardnunweek is offline
Superintendent
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,256
Default

Hi,
I shall always believe entirely in the statement of one George Hutchinson.
I cannot see what is so suspicious.
When he made his statement to the police on the Monday evening, he explained to them , that he hesitated coming forward, and a fellow in his lodging house , said he ought to.
I cannot see what is wrong with his account.
He saw a woman he knew, spoke to her, followed her back to Dorset street, as he was curious , that she was with a well dressed man.although it did not occur to him it smelt danger.
He waited [ most likely hoping the man would leave, and he could spend some time in the room].
When this did not occur, he moved on.
As it was rumoured over the weekend, that Kelly was killed during the hours of light, he did not consider anything suspicious.
But when he began to realise the medical reports stated otherwise, he considered he may have seen her killer, and finally plucked up courage to venture into the police station.
He assisted the police, and nothing materialised.
Regards Richard.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 12-27-2017, 05:19 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,218
Default

Jon,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
Lewis said she DIDN'T know Mary - so what on earth are you talking about now?

In my post it was the fact that she had no connection with Mary that was relevant, and the 4 women I mentioned did.

[b][I]No-one; not press, not the public, knew about Cox's sighting until the inquest - stop deluding yourself. It doesn't matter what WE know today - of course WE know Blotchy was with Kelly at midnight - BECAUSE WE'VE ALL READ THE BLOODY INQUEST, for goodness sake - wake up man!!![/[/i]B]

I wonder at times whether you had read it Jon. The police knew of the man Jon, and they had every reason to believe that this was the last person seen with Mary, so whether the press was told or not, Blotchy would OF COURSE be considered a suspect. That's SOP, and surely something you can grasp.

"I know you can't be bothered, or possibly you don't know how to do this - but if you think the police identified Blotchy as a suspect before the Monday inquest - go ahead and post the account - or sit back down and be quiet".

See the above.
Its abundantly clear that in the Inquest the presumption is that Mary was last seen with Blotchy Man. That's based primarily on the stories given by the women who actually knew Mary and were in closest proximity to her that night. Mary Ann Cox was the person called to give her story after the man closest to Mary, Joe, and the men who found Mary, gave theirs. Seems a logical way to set up the witness who saw Mary last. Or is that too logical and rational?

The manner in which the witnesses were introduced seems to vary in the proceedings and is not always delivered in the most logical fashion, i.e. most pertinent story immediately after the background is established....and Barnetts testimony shows us Mary was living alone,...pertinent to the question at hand, and Bowyer and McCarthy establish time and manner in which she is found, also pertinent. It was logically presented in this case.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 12-27-2017, 05:23 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardnunweek View Post
Hi,
I shall always believe entirely in the statement of one George Hutchinson.
I cannot see what is so suspicious.

Regards Richard.
How about a 4 day delay if he indeed was a friend of Marys and the fantastic and minute detail of the appearance of someone in the middle of the night with what had to be minimum lighting Richard. To start.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 12-27-2017, 06:53 AM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richardnunweek View Post
Hi,
I shall always believe entirely in the statement of one George Hutchinson.
I cannot see what is so suspicious.
When he made his statement to the police on the Monday evening, he explained to them , that he hesitated coming forward, and a fellow in his lodging house , said he ought to.
I cannot see what is wrong with his account.
He saw a woman he knew, spoke to her, followed her back to Dorset street, as he was curious , that she was with a well dressed man.although it did not occur to him it smelt danger.
He waited [ most likely hoping the man would leave, and he could spend some time in the room].
When this did not occur, he moved on.
As it was rumoured over the weekend, that Kelly was killed during the hours of light, he did not consider anything suspicious.
But when he began to realise the medical reports stated otherwise, he considered he may have seen her killer, and finally plucked up courage to venture into the police station.
He assisted the police, and nothing materialised.
Regards Richard.
Hi Richard
Despite that I have always vigorously voiced my opinion that hutch was full of ****, I actually have no problem with this, although I think it is by far the most unlikely scenario. It’s when people start twisting facts and cherry picking obvious erroneous press accounts that pisses me off.

Now, that being said, the only point you make that I would have an issue with in your scenario is hutch not coming forward until he heard about Night time TOD.
I think anyone who had seen that late night activity with AMAN, regardless of what the consensus was favoring a morning murder, would know that it’s important enough to come forward ASAP.
__________________
"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
  #307  
Old 12-27-2017, 07:52 AM
Herlock Sholmes Herlock Sholmes is online now
Superintendent
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: The West Midlands
Posts: 2,104
Default

Hi Abby,

This part of Hutchinson’s statement has always concerned me. I may be alone in this?

“I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern.”


This isn’t normal behaviour (whatever normal is of course ). It’s always seemed to me like an attempt by Hutchinson to validate himself as a witness. He doesn’t mention Kelly commenting on this behaviour but you would have thought that she’d have been non-too-pleased at H intimidating a client and potentially scaring him off. I could imagine Mary telling him to p*#* off!

Also, is it really likely that Hutchinson, who lived hand to mouth in dosshouses, could afford to give her a few shillings now a then?

For thirty years or so I’ve struggled to avoid the impression that Hutchinson was just a nobody who wanted to feel important, or like a generous benefactor and maybe earn a few pints for his story while he was at it. I could be wrong of course but it’s hard for me to think otherwise
__________________
Regards

Herlock






"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact!"
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 12-27-2017, 07:57 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,314
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
If you read all the reports - as opposed to singling out this hopelessly garbled* account in the Daily News -...
I didn't single this out Gareth - you did!
If you recall, it was you who claimed she didn't say she saw anyone pass up the court.

The press coverage taken as a whole is quite consistent with Lewis walking down Dorset St. behind this couple, seeing them pass up the court, then when she reached the court, as she said, she saw a man standing opposite, and there was no-one in the court, which there wouldn't be had this couple gone into one of the rooms - exactly what Hutchinson claimed they did.
Of course this couple will be "further on", when Lewis is walking behind them, so that is perfectly correct too.


Quote:
Do you seriously believe that, if Lewis had seen a couple actually entering Miller's Court we wouldn't have heard more about it in the other papers, and in Lewis's official witness statement?
The press coverage IS her official testimony, which is better detailed that the court version. Ignoring the reason why this happens, especially when it has been explained to you several times, does you no favors.

This couple entering the court was not important at the time her testimony was being given as no-body believed either had a role to play in this murder, not forgetting the fact Lewis had no idea the drunk & hatless woman was Mary Kelly herself.

Quote:
Garbled to the point where the Daily News, in the very same report, has Lewis say that she saw Mr Widewake standing "in the doorway of the deceased's house", which is patently incorrect.
Hutchinson does admit to walking up to her room to stand and listen, but could hear nothing. So, he must have gone up the passage to stand outside her door.
Each newspaper provided different parts of her testimony, edited down, while the court recorder only concerned himself with select points of interest to the coroner.
All the versions need to be put together to obtain the complete story.

Reporters who covered the inquests had to rely on shorthand or pay scribes to transcribe the testimony, and then they faced a choice between paraphrase and direct quotation. Whichever method they selected, not even the most in-depth published reports contained a full version of the exchanges between the coroner and the surgeon being interrogated.
Jack the Ripper and the London Press, Perry, 2001.

There are plenty of sources for you to look up that will tell you the press used shorthand, whereas the court recorder at an inquest used longhand - so to keep up with the proceedings he had to skip entire lines of testimony.

We have this same situation with the Eddowes case - I'm sure you know this too, so why you keep repeating this obviously false line of argument must be intended as a distraction as it adds no value to the discussion.

The court record is only a brief account, not the full account.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 12-27-2017, 11:04 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post

1. The press coverage IS her official testimony, which is better detailed that the court version. Ignoring the reason why this happens, especially when it has been explained to you several times, does you no favors.

2. This couple entering the court was not important at the time her testimony was being given as no-body believed either had a role to play in this murder, not forgetting the fact Lewis had no idea the drunk & hatless woman was Mary Kelly.
Jon, why do you insist on posting nonsense and acting as if your perspective is the obvious one.

For 1, the press coverage is not the official version, the printed version of the Inquest is. The press obviously did not always print every word and every line verbatim, they were taking notes. They are not the definitive record at all. We do not have the complete Inquest documents created by the body in charge, but we do have lots of accounts that mirror each other.

2, any account of any couple entering the courtyard after midnight would be important, considering that the police wanted to interview anyone who was in that court during that night. Its like claiming Israels story was absent from the Inquest because it wasn't important to the germane question, when in fact, if it was believed, it would have been the MOST important statement.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 12-27-2017, 11:11 AM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,066
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
I didn't single this out Gareth - you did!
You're the one who quoted the inaccurate Daily News report, not me.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
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 03:35 AM.


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