Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Did He Lie ?

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

  • #16
    Morning All,

    I just can't believe Abberline was such a twit that when he read Hutch's detailed police statement, all his experience of the locality he policed and the criminals within it flew out of the window and he believed the supposedly unbelievable. If he had any reservations whatsoever about any part of Hutch's account, he had the chance to interrogate the witness and he did interrogate the witness. The full question and answer session, and how long it took, has not come down to us, but we do know Abberline was of the opinion that Hutch was telling him the truth at the time he was gathering those answers.

    If something subsequently changed Abberline's mind about Hutch's truthfulness we have no record of that either. He may have concluded for other reasons that, while Hutch had seen Kelly take Flash Harry back to her room, she was not killed by this man. Anna makes a good point about the blood, the bling, the clobber and the spats, and the likelihood that Kelly went back out again after 3am for more rent money. No money was found in her room, suggesting her killer robbed her of any previous takings and had no intention of paying her a bean.

    If we assume for the sake of argument that Hutch did indeed see Flash Harry, and was able to describe him precisely because his appearance made him stand out as a local wide boy [the Krays dressed smartly but were obviously not worried about potential muggers!], we can only assume it never occurred to him that someone like this could be the murderer and now had his sights on Kelly. Another reason why he didn't come forward until he'd had a rethink?

    Love,

    Caz
    X
    I wish I were two puppies then I could play together - Storm Petersen

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
      - That he was "discredited" by the police - a totally unsubstantiated claim!
      That isn't unsubstantiated, as there certainly is a directly contemporary press report which says as much, or at least says that Hutchinson's story was discredited. NB: the story, not the man himself, as some wrongly persist in saying.
      Kind regards, Sam Flynn

      "Suche Nullen"
      (F. Nietzsche)

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Caroline Brown View Post
        I just can't believe Abberline was such a twit
        I don't believe that he was a twit either, but he wasn't infallible. Remember that one of the few reasons he gave for suspecting Klosowski as the Ripper was because the former wore a sailor's cap. Presumably Abberline based his opinion on the photo of the be-capped Klosowski and "wifelet" Bessie Taylor, taken long after he'd lived in Hastings and took up sailing as a hobby, some 7 years after the Autumn of Terror. That photo in the sailors cap would have been taken more than a decade after the Ripper murders, so the importance Abberline attached to his headgear seems a little optimistic, if not somewhat credulous, on his part.

        In this context, it's worth recalling how George Oldfield was so readily taken in by the "Wearside Jack" hoaxes some 75 years later. Oldfield was vastly experienced, arguably more so than Abberline at the time, but he was overworked and under severe pressure to solve the high-profile Yorkshire Ripper case. Under such conditions, even the best among us can make errors of judgement.
        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

        "Suche Nullen"
        (F. Nietzsche)

        Comment


        • #19
          What if Mr. A.'s description was one known to the police? If he had much of a habit of dressing like that he surely would have been noticed by police in the area. Perhaps there was a group or a gang that dressed like that, kind of like the gangs that dressed in zoot suits in 1900s USA?

          If Abberline had an idea about the identity of Mr. A. maybe Hutch was invited to go to the pubs to point out the actual man if he was present and otherwise perhaps police worked behind the scenes to identify and contact him. A problem we have with Hutchinson's information is it seemed to not be mentioned much after the fact. However, press reports on JtR dropped off dramatically after Mary Kelly's murder, something else I find interesting though perhaps the short inquest led to this.

          What if Mr. A. had been identified by the police and there was some reason he was deemed innocent, would we know anything about it? If we had all the missing records from the investigation, what do we think we might learn about Mr. A.? Surely there would have been all kinds of memos about him and a consensus about his viability as a suspect?
          The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
            That isn't unsubstantiated, as there certainly is a directly contemporary press report which says as much, or at least says that Hutchinson's story was discredited. NB: the story, not the man himself, as some wrongly persist in saying.

            No Gareth.
            I know very well the press report you refer to, and when a story seemed to have "suffered diminuition" it means the story is not deemed as important as was first thought.
            Examples might be Maxwell's story, first thought highly important, but the medical evidence put a question over that story.
            Then Cox's story was deemed significant, but Hutchinson's story cast doubt on Cox seeing the murderer.
            Neither Maxwell nor Cox were proved wrong, neither were discredited.
            I know you know this, but you also know the "diminuition" claim was explained. It seemed connected to the activities of Scotland Yard in pursuing two suspects - Blotchy & Astrachan.
            That explains a lessening of importance for Hutchinson's suspect - he wasn't the only one hunted by police.


            When a story is discredited, it is of no use what so ever. A discredited story is a rejected story. An example might be Packer.

            Given we know from later press reports that the Hutchinson suspect was still being sought by Scotland Yard days after the singular press claim of it being "discredited", then we know the story was not dismissed or rejected.

            The "discredited" claim was false.
            Besides, it came from the Star newspaper, which should provide a clue to it's questionable credibility.
            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


            • #21
              Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post

              In this context, it's worth recalling how George Oldfield was so readily taken in by the "Wearside Jack" hoaxes some 75 years later. Oldfield was vastly experienced, arguably more so than Abberline at the time, but he was overworked and under severe pressure to solve the high-profile Yorkshire Ripper case. Under such conditions, even the best among us can make errors of judgement.
              Oldfield was Assistant Chief Constable, Abberline was only an Insp. 1st Class.

              Donald Swanson was Chief Inspector in overall charge of the Whitechapel Murder Investigation.

              Oldfield's responsibilities far out weigh those of Abberline, a century before - probably not a fair comparison.
              However, Oldfield might be compared with Swanson.
              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


              • #22
                Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                A problem we have with Hutchinson's information is it seemed to not be mentioned much after the fact. However, press reports on JtR dropped off dramatically after Mary Kelly's murder, something else I find interesting though perhaps the short inquest led to this.

                What if Mr. A. had been identified by the police and there was some reason he was deemed innocent, would we know anything about it?
                Hi Anna.

                Two minor reports in the press could offer a clue as to the eventual drop-off in press reports of the Hutchinson suspect.

                The police seem to have been aware of Mrs Kennedy's claim to have seen Kelly about 3:00 am, which would be after Kelly's liaison with Astrachan.

                The police also appear to have returned to Millers Court on the 13th to re-interview the tenants, some claimed to have seen Kelly out after 2:00 Friday morning.

                "Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour."
                Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, Nov 14th 1888.

                I suspect it was Hutchinson's story which prompted them to go back to Millers Court and speak to the residents.

                If Kelly was seen at 3:00 am, it would cast a little doubt on the Astrachan suspect, and, they couldn't find Blotchy.
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
                  Hi Anna.

                  Two minor reports in the press could offer a clue as to the eventual drop-off in press reports of the Hutchinson suspect.

                  The police seem to have been aware of Mrs Kennedy's claim to have seen Kelly about 3:00 am, which would be after Kelly's liaison with Astrachan.

                  The police also appear to have returned to Millers Court on the 13th to re-interview the tenants, some claimed to have seen Kelly out after 2:00 Friday morning.

                  "Although no evidence was produced at the inquest as to her having left her room after one o'clock, at which time she was heard singing, the police have obtained statements from several persons who reside in Millers Court, that she was out of her house and
                  in Dorset street between two and three o'clock. It appears almost certain that her life was taken about the last named hour."

                  Morning Advertiser, Irish Times, Nov 14th 1888.

                  I suspect it was Hutchinson's story which prompted them to go back to Millers Court and speak to the residents.

                  If Kelly was seen at 3:00 am, it would cast a little doubt on the Astrachan suspect, and, they couldn't find Blotchy.
                  Thanks for that, Wicker Man. I had read those things before but my mind had jumped ahead and mixed these short, plain reports with stories like Mrs. Maxwell's. Somewhere I developed the opinion that if Mr. A. didn't kill Mary, we had to accept a much later time. But we don't. She could have done whatever with Mr. A., perhaps for a longish period of time, gotten rid of him and found another all before 6:00 AM. I hope Mr. A. paid her well for her time.

                  How is this for a thought?=> What if Blotchy paid with a shared pot of beer? What if Mr. A. paid with coins? What if Mary sought a cheap, as in, the shop or cart was closing for the night cheap, almost leftover fish and chip dinner with a coin from Mr. A.? Then after she had eaten she found her last client? (I know it has been pointed out that Mary was seen coming from Thrawl Street at some point and there was a fish and chip place there.) IMO, she had not eaten very long before she was killed as fish and potatoes were still in her stomach. So I question whether she could have eaten before Mr. A. and been killed around 4:00 AM. (I am absolutely not qualified to have much of an opinion on stomach contents.)

                  It looks more and more to me that Mary had a client after Mr. A. and that could explain an awful lot. I had never seriously considered that till you pointed out these things awhile ago.
                  The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
                    ........Then after she had eaten she found her last client? (I know it has been pointed out that Mary was seen coming from Thrawl Street at some point and there was a fish and chip place there.) IMO, she had not eaten very long before she was killed as fish and potatoes were still in her stomach. So I question whether she could have eaten before Mr. A. and been killed around 4:00 AM. (I am absolutely not qualified to have much of an opinion on stomach contents.)
                    There was another fried fish shop at 98 Commercial St., just 6 or 7 doors north of the Ten Bells pub.
                    The owner was called Harris Levy - how's that for a coincidence?

                    It looks more and more to me that Mary had a client after Mr. A. and that could explain an awful lot. I had never seriously considered that till you pointed out these things awhile ago.
                    Exactly, and the man she was seen with at 3:00 am was someone who had previously tried to entice women down a dark ally, very suspiciously.
                    The women ran off scared after another man interjected to stop whatever was about to happen. So what better candidate could there be for a murderer of prostitutes?
                    Yet, most modern theorists don't even consider him a candidate. They are too consumed with their own personal theories.
                    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


                    • #25
                      Wicker Man: If Mr. A. was NOT the last client then it is rather pointless to dissect every crumb of Hutchinson's information. A last client around/after 3:00 AM might also be a reason neither Hutchinson or Joe Barnett seem to have been considered serious suspects. Maybe their whereabouts at that time was clearly established.
                      The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
                        I know very well the press report you refer to, and when a story seemed to have "suffered diminuition" it means the story is not deemed as important as was first thought...
                        The "discredited" claim was false.
                        Besides, it came from the Star newspaper, which should provide a clue to it's questionable credibility.
                        Be that as it may - and it's only your opinion - it was not "totally unsubstantiated" as you stated. Why didn't you simply acknowledge that your assertion was incorrect?
                        Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                        "Suche Nullen"
                        (F. Nietzsche)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
                          Oldfield was Assistant Chief Constable, Abberline was only an Insp. 1st Class.
                          Oldfield was still an experienced detective who was taken in by a hoax.
                          Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                          "Suche Nullen"
                          (F. Nietzsche)

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
                            Be that as it may - and it's only your opinion - it was not "totally unsubstantiated" as you stated. Why didn't you simply acknowledge that your assertion was incorrect?

                            I prefer not to stretch the meaning of words just to make a point.
                            The two sources (Echo & Star) made two different claims. The Star, in my view, merely exaggerated what the Echo wrote, but in doing so they changed the intent.
                            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


                            • #29
                              If Mary Kelly hooked up with her LAST client around 3:00 AM-ish to a bit later, we can develop a pattern of three from the C-5. That basic time figures in the murders of Polly and Annie. Like JtR was a fellow coming back from work. (Of course I know about the idea of JtR going TO work...at Pickford's.....)

                              The Double Event was radically different from these three murders in many ways yet Kate was horribly disfigured and had missing organs. Or the killer had the night off from work and could do what he did a bit earlier. Part of me wants to think the Double Event was done by a different hand except that facial mutilation entered the picture for the first time and was certainly done to MJK who fit the basic pattern.

                              The damage done to the abdomens of Polly, Annie and Mary fit the old description of Jack's "disgusting rummaging" but there is great argument over the skill needed to remove Kate's kidney. (Of course there is that other theory about organs going missing in the mortuary shed. I think I need to look closer at the missing kidney, when it was discovered missing, etc.) If the killer took a uterus and kidney from Kate he had two bloody organs to manage during his escape. No reason he couldn't or wouldn't but one would be easier. And why would he want a kidney? Other than to prove he had surgical "skill"? But would a JtR-type serial killer really care about anything like that?
                              The wickedness of the world is the dream of the plague.~~Voynich Manuscript

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
                                I prefer not to stretch the meaning of words just to make a point.

                                The two sources (Echo & Star) made two different claims. The Star, in my view, merely exaggerated what the Echo wrote, but in doing so they changed the intent.
                                I don't care if there were two hundred different claims, the truth is that the Star DID carry a report that Hutchinson's story was discredited. Your statement that the idea was "totally unsubstantiated" was therefore factually incorrect.

                                You should have acknowledged your mistake, rather than weasel around the issue and imply that it's ME who's stretching the meaning of words.
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen"
                                (F. Nietzsche)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X