Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Did He Lie ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Did He Lie ?

    Some of you buy the astrakan man description? (I find it hard to believe that no one noticed such a character) If so, what motives do you think that lead him to lie? I'm new at ripperology, and I don't know how risky it was to go to the police, and how much did he know of Lewi's description of the prowling man outside Miller's Court..

  • #2
    Hi Verogarlin

    Hutchinson would have the inquest reports at his disposal by the time he offered his statement, and would have known about the sighting across the road from Millers court

    It is surprising then, if he was covering his tracks, that he did not mention seeing Lewis

    I'm one of the few who think that a man dressed as Astrakhan may well have been at that location at that time

    Most seem to think that he would have been robbed if not killed within minutes due to the nature of the area

    Comment


    • #3
      I can prolly. only think of one reason of him going to the police, and that reason is he read Lewis' testimony. Innocent o culprit, that sure scared him.
      Now, about why he lied about the astrakan man:
      Maybe there wasn't a man and
      1) He didn't wanted to say he was the last man who saw Kelly alive. Wanted to make sure police didn't blame him. Or he himself was the killer.
      or maybe there WAS a man, and Hutchinson gave a false description. Why?:
      2) He was involved in something illegal while waiting outside Kelly's house and didn't want that man to be found. Hutchinson was a pimp? Wanted to robe a man who entered the room with Mary?
      3)He was an accomplice of the killer
      4)He was afraid that the killer will go after him, what with that rumor of Eddowes wanting to denounce the killer and getting herself killed

      What do you think?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Verogarlin View Post
        Some of you buy the astrakan man description? (I find it hard to believe that no one noticed such a character) If so, what motives do you think that lead him to lie?
        I think it unlikely that he was an attention-seeker or profiteer, Verogarlin, otherwise he wouldn't have waited three days before coming forward. Neither do I consider it coincidental that he appeared at Commercial Street Police Station shortly after the termination of the Kelly inquest. The most plausible scenario to my way of thinking is that he saw Sarah Lewis either enter or leave the inquest, was unsure about the significance the police had placed on her sighting of him, and decided to come forward with a cock and bull story before police came looking for him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Nemo View Post
          Hutchinson would have the inquest reports at his disposal by the time he offered his statement, and would have known about the sighting across the road from Millers court
          Originally posted by Irene Adler View Post
          I can prolly. only think of one reason of him going to the police, and that reason is he read Lewis' testimony.
          Hutchinson entered the police station at six o'clock and is thus unlikely to have read any report relating to Sarah Lewis's inquest testimony. As I said in my previous post, I think the greater likelihood is that he saw Lewis at the Town Hall and assumed the worst.

          Comment


          • #6
            Good idea! I don't say (and never will) "I'm sure that Hutchinson is the killer" but, well, I don't buy his astrakhan man. And don't think he was an attention seeker. So...

            Comment


            • #7
              Well, Irene, he claimed to have entered Miller's Court and stood directly outside Kelly's room for a few minutes at about three o'clock. This would place him at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper killing. There have been worse Ripper 'suspects'.

              Comment


              • #8
                If George Hutchinson was the ripper, he won't go to the police after they had the witness Schwartz.

                Schwartz story was in the press, the police will only need to ask Schwartz to identify Hutchinson and this will be the end of him.



                It is that simple, but I haven't seen this mentioned before.


                Tammy

                Comment


                • #9
                  Hi Tammy


                  OR : George Hutchinson was the Ripper but neither of the men seen by Schwarz was?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    They have all the witnesses from the double event, he cannot be sure he will not be identified, besides, He cannot be sure he was not been seen with Strides or that he was not one of the two men seen by Schwartz.


                    Tammy

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      "They have all the witnesses from the double event"


                      Not quite true. They never traced Pipeman - or BS for that matter, unless you think that BS was the killer rather than a witness.


                      "he cannot be sure he will not be identified"


                      If he came along after BS left, he can be reasonably sure.




                      "besides, He cannot be sure he was not been seen with Strides or that he was not one of the two men seen by Schwartz."


                      He can be sure he was not one of the two men seen by Schwarz if he wasn't, in fact, one of the two men seen by Schwarz.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Robert Linford View Post
                        "They have all the witnesses from the double event"

                        I mean Lawedne, Levy, Schwartz, the policeman..

                        Not quite true. They never traced Pipeman - or BS for that matter, unless you think that BS was the killer rather than a witness.


                        "he cannot be sure he will not be identified"


                        If he came along after BS left, he can be reasonably sure.

                        Two men assaulting Stride at the same time is incredible for me , I cannot see that happening

                        "besides, He cannot be sure he was not been seen with Strides or that he was not one of the two men seen by Schwartz."


                        He can be sure he was not one of the two men seen by Schwarz if he wasn't, in fact, one of the two men seen by Schwarz.
                        No he cannot be sure, and no criminal will put himself at this position and wait for the mercy of the police


                        Tammy

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Have it your own way, Tammy...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            The theories against Hutchinson have been successfully challenged. This is apparent by the deflective accusations.
                            First he was accused of being the Ripper, when that didn't go over too well other accusations were offered.

                            Some now see Hutchinson as a timewaster, and question whether he even saw what he claimed to see. As that wasn't good enough he is also accused of being a lookout for the real killer.

                            The real bottom line here is that some are intent on sticking it to Hutchinson regardless of what is known, or not known about him.

                            In each case considerable speculation is required to promote these individual theories, nothing wrong with that in itself. What eventually happens though is these speculations turn into assumed 'facts' by his accusers.
                            - That he delayed coming forward too long - suspicious!
                            - That he couldn't have seen the detail he claimed to see, no-one could!, really?
                            - That he was "discredited" by the police - a totally unsubstantiated claim!
                            - That he was a liar, though collectively these theorists cannot agree among themselves just what he is supposed to have lied about.


                            Then we are off to the races where they all take the position, "you can't prove me wrong", and gibberish like that.
                            Regards, Jon S.
                            "
                            The theory that the murderer is a lunatic is dispelled by the opinion given to the police by an expert in the treatment of lunacy patients......."If he's insane
                            " observed the medical authority, "he's a good deal sharper than those who are not".
                            Reynolds Newspaper, 4 Nov. 1888.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Little by little, things have been explained that make Hutchinson look shady or guilty.

                              The police interview process elicited details. As I recall there were two parts to the interview. The witness gave his information and then he was questioned about his information. Recently a list of suggested questions was posted here.

                              Mr. A. was too well dressed to be true? The press seemed to inflate Hutch's description and it produced among other drawings, the famous JtR with skull head, wearing a long black coat trimmed with fox fur. For a long time I had a mental picture of Mr. A. wearing a beautifully tailored coat, elegantly trimmed with the low pile caracal. Then someone posted a few pictures of astrakhan coats of the day, the type "foreigners" wore. They tended to shaggy and shabby. Someone else once noted that "bling" was available in those days, fake jewellery just for show. Perhaps he only showed it when he wanted to impress a woman and otherwise it was under his shaggy coat.

                              In some scenarios much is made of Hutch being the last person who saw Mary alive except the killer and that Mr. A. was the killer. I cannot accept Mr. A. as the killer because he wore too many clothes and decorations. He would have needed a list to make sure he took everything with him. Surely he did not risk spattering his spats with blood? It took quite a while to put button spats on and off.

                              This opens the door for the actual killer being someone after Mr. A. and there is some evidence to support this.

                              Another reason to believe Hutch innocent can also be applied to Joe Barnett. Poor people did not have many clothes in those days. I would guess both men had only one set of clothes which they wore every day. Police could check for blood stains and ask companions if there had been any change in clothing.

                              Hutchinson also made an interesting comment. He said he had spent all day Monday looking for the man he had seen and he only came forward because someone at his rooming house said he should. IMO, Hutch was hoping to find the man in hopes of gaining a reward.

                              As has been pointed out, some of the first reports of the murder indicated Mary had been killed much later than when Hutch was watching and he may not have only had suspicions his man was the killer. There is some evidence to indicate Mary went back on the streets after Hutch had left the area.
                              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X