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:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Batman 36 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Trevor Marriott 52 minutes ago.
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - by Fisherman 54 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Darryl Kenyon 60 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by Darryl Kenyon 1 hour and 7 minutes ago.
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - by harry 1 hour and 27 minutes ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Motive, Method and Madness: Geoprofile of Jack the Ripper reveals Tabram and Nichols connection. - (62 posts)
Mary Ann Nichols: What Direction Was Polly Travelling When She Was Killed? - (13 posts)
Klosowski, Severin (George Chapman): special k and George yard - (4 posts)
Scene of the Crimes: The Bucks Row Project Summary Report. - (4 posts)
Motive, Method and Madness: JtR was Law Enforcement Hypothesis - (2 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
  #311  
Old 12-27-2017, 12:44 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
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.




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.



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.
That’s quite a little dance you’ve got Lewis, hutch, Aman and Mary doing wick.
Unfortunately it’s physically impossible.
__________________
"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
  #312  
Old 12-27-2017, 12:59 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herlock Sholmes View Post
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
That’s more than likely all he was. And yes the whole looked in his face bit, is just another way for hutch to bend over backward in his description of the aman story to seem very credible to the police.

Great look at his face, incredible detailed description, looked like a Jew, thinks he saw him before, knows where he lives. Bullshit.
__________________
"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
  #313  
Old 12-27-2017, 03:50 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is offline
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,772
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
The press coverage IS her official testimony, which is better detailed that the court version.
But the Daily News is demonstrably garbled in its reportage of Lewis's testimony. It's not good having more detail in a press report, when the press report in question is clearly in error on a number of points.

Plus, as I've repeatedly observed, it's odd that the remarkable and hugely significant fact that Lewis saw a couple directly proceed her into Miller's Court is only picked up by one paper. Unless, of course, it wasn't a "fact" at all, but a journalistic balls-up... which it almost certainly was.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 12-28-2017, 07:07 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
That’s quite a little dance you’ve got Lewis, hutch, Aman and Mary doing wick.
Unfortunately it’s physically impossible.
It's easy to say it was physically impossible, and then not explain why - that is taking the easy way out.
Care to complete your sentence by explaining why, in your view, it is physically impossible?
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #315  
Old 12-28-2017, 07:25 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael W Richards View Post
Jon, why do you insist on posting nonsense and acting as if your perspective is the obvious one.
It isn't that my view is the obvious one. What I am trying to impress on you is there is a right way and a wrong way to view the historical record.
Your approach is not the approach adopted by serious researchers.
There is not one account of the inquest which is superior to another, and I explained the reasons why - all to no avail it seems.
It's like they say, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.
I've been trying to get a bunch of you to understand this for years, but as is always the case collectively you refuse to understand anything that shows your theories to be wrong.

In all other cases, the experienced researcher looks to the press coverage of an inquest AS WELL AS the court record, because it is in the press where we can obtain the most detail.
It isn't just "my view", that is just the professional the way to do it.

Once all the accounts are obtained the entire record is reviewed as a whole, and an attempt is made to sequence out the events, and if there are any contradicting points of detail they need to be identified.
This is all I'm saying.

What I'm hearing from some of you is there is a preferred source, and there are sources to be dismissed - which is totally wrong, and typically the approach adopted by those who have a theory to defend rather than showing a genuine interest to find the truth.

I don't expect you to understand, all I can do is explain why these myopic views show a lack of experience in research, which subsequently leads you down the wrong path.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 12-28-2017, 07:44 PM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Flynn View Post
But the Daily News is demonstrably garbled in its reportage of Lewis's testimony. It's not good having more detail in a press report, when the press report in question is clearly in error on a number of points.

Plus, as I've repeatedly observed, it's odd that the remarkable and hugely significant fact that Lewis saw a couple directly proceed her into Miller's Court is only picked up by one paper. Unless, of course, it wasn't a "fact" at all, but a journalistic balls-up... which it almost certainly was.
There are errors in all reports, which in no way invalidates the entire report - which is what you seem to be saying. That is just plain and simply wrong.
The reason it is necessary to collate ALL the press reports is precisely to allow us to identify errors. But, because one press account reports that "they pass up the court", does not mean it is an error. There would be an error if another report said "they walked to the end of Dorset St".
Now you would have a direct contradiction.

From what I understand you have been trying to argue that because Lewis said this couple were "further on", means in your view "further on" passed Millers Court. Which it doesn't, that is what you are preferring to read, but as I explained, Lewis is behind this couple as both her & this couple are walking west along Dorset St., then clearly this couple are "further on" than Lewis was, until they turn into Millers Court.
These two remarks, that the couple were "further on", and they "they passed up the court", do not contradict each other.
They are simply two different observations from an edited record of her testimony. Not one record is complete.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 12-28-2017, 08:08 PM
Abby Normal Abby Normal is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,620
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post
It's easy to say it was physically impossible, and then not explain why - that is taking the easy way out.
Care to complete your sentence by explaining why, in your view, it is physically impossible?
Hi wick
Sure no problem.

Lewis couldn’t have seen Mary and aman “pass up the court” if hutch’s story is true because they had already done that long before she arrived because hutch had already taken up his post waiting and watching when she saw him. Nor could he have been outside Mary’s door at the same time unless he’s in two places at the same time. So unless you would have us believe that time travel, a person being in two places at the same time and wormholes spontaneously opening up in Victorian England white chapel then I am sure your scenario is physically impossible.

And I’m not even including the phantom “ Kennedy”.

Tolkien would be impressed though I’m sure.
__________________
"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
  #318  
Old 12-28-2017, 11:08 PM
Varqm Varqm is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 552
Default

3:00 am (he said he went home) - 45 (minutes he waited) = 2:15 am (kelly/astra went in the court).The calculator almost broke.
__________________
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
  #319  
Old 12-29-2017, 03:49 AM
Michael W Richards Michael W Richards is offline
Assistant Commissioner
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,318
Default

Hello Jon,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickerman View Post

It isn't that my view is the obvious one. What I am trying to impress on you is there is a right way and a wrong way to view the historical record.

The primary point I was making was that there needn't be any press confirmation about who was the primary suspect in the investigation up until 6pm on Monday, it would be of course the person last seen with her. Records are words on a page, the story comes from logical and reasonable consideration of them.

Your approach is not the approach adopted by serious researchers.
There is not one account of the inquest which is superior to another, and I explained the reasons why - all to no avail it seems.
It's like they say, 'you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink'.


I'm afraid that the first line is for me a relief. Ive found some that seem to feel they have a superior perspective on the issues based on accumulated research, but they often lack the vital step of digesting and processing it.

I've been trying to get a bunch of you to understand this for years, but as is always the case collectively you refuse to understand anything that shows your theories to be wrong.

I don't have a theory after all these years, in fact I find myself almost 30 years in and I'm still bewildered by what people choose to believe. Maybe if you've been arguing your point with a "bunch" of us then the real issue is your own inflexibility.

In all other cases, the experienced researcher looks to the press coverage of an inquest AS WELL AS the court record, because it is in the press where we can obtain the most detail. It isn't just "my view", that is just the professional the way to do it.

Ive done all that Jon, and you often try to tell me that you see something that I, and a "bunch" of others, don't. That makes us bad, inexperienced researchers I suppose?

Once all the accounts are obtained the entire record is reviewed as a whole, and an attempt is made to sequence out the events, and if there are any contradicting points of detail they need to be identified.
This is all I'm saying.


I find that interesting when considering the Stride case for example. There is absolutely no way to reconcile the timings provided by the witnesses, therefore any sequencing approach wouldn't work. That's when the logical review comes in Jon. What witnesses are most trustworthy based on the circumstantial evidence. If you believe the answer is just the words on paper that's your call.

I don't expect you to understand, all I can do is explain why these myopic views show a lack of experience in research, which subsequently leads you down the wrong path.

Again with the condescension.
I find that your arguments in many cases lack the insight into human nature and the logical reasoning that takes raw data and makes it into something readable, intelligible, and believable.

Take for instance the assumption you made that Blotchy was never a suspect because we have no press issuance to that effect. Reason should tell you that as of Monday afternoon the ONLY suspect they had was the man last seen with Mary entering her room. That is briefly superseded by the story given by Hutchinson later that day. The officer who dismissed Galloway erred, and he erred based on the statement given Monday night which by the 15th, was then discredited.

Blotchy was the suspect at the beginning, and to this day based on the most believable accounts of that night....(a rating bestowed by their historical prior contacts with Mary and their proximity to her physically on that street and night)...he remains the greatest person of interest.

In my humble, untrained and inexperienced point of view, that is.
__________________
Michael Richards
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 12-29-2017, 05:43 AM
Wickerman Wickerman is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 9,759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Abby Normal View Post
Hi wick
Sure no problem.

Lewis couldn’t have seen Mary and aman “pass up the court” if hutch’s story is true because they had already done that long before she arrived because hutch had already taken up his post waiting and watching when she saw him.
There's nothing in Hutchinson's statement to indicate that - you are making that assumption.
1 - Due to the fact Hutch makes no mention of Lewis, we have no independent view of where Lewis was on Dorset St.
2 - Because Hutch makes no mention of Lewis does not mean he did not see Lewis.


Quote:
Nor could he have been outside Mary’s door at the same time unless he’s in two places at the same time.
Not "at the same time", but sometime in his 45 minute vigil.

From the above, it is clear to me you have adopted certain assumptions, and it is those assumptions that lead you to make incorrect conclusions.

From both statements by Lewis & Hutch it seems Lewis was following on behind this couple as they walked west along Dorset st. Therefore, this couple was "further on", but as they came to Millers Court, they stopped, then walked up the passage. As Lewis herself approached the court she then noticed a man standing opposite looking up the court.
Lewis entered the passage and noticed that the court was empty - there was no-one in the court. Which suggests this couple she saw must have gone indoors.
There is no reason to invent another "couple" to the couple (Astrachan & Kelly) seen by Hutch, as some have chosen to do.
Neither is there any cause to say Lewis's "couple" walked passed Millers Court - especially when Lewis clearly said they entered the court.

How you arrive at that convoluted interpretation you tried to explain is beyond me, but then you have no intention of accepting Hutchinson's story was true - that much is pretty obvious.

There is far too much ducking & weaving in attempts to avoid accepting the obvious, that Hutch seems to have been telling the truth - and as Abberline did see it that way then contrary views are the views which need justifying.
From what I've read, apart from a continuous barrage of misinformation, none of these anti-Hutchinson arguments stand up to scrutiny.

Second guessing the man in charge of this case, the man who interviewed Hutchinson, is not getting you guys anywhere - it never will.
__________________
Regards, Jon S.
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 02:59 AM.


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