Why Did He Lie ?

[Trevor Marriott]

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?

Not forgetting the fact that he is "purported" to have also taken a uterus from Chapman, so why take another?


www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wicker Man]

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.

What mistake?
Two different claims cannot substantiate each other.
A story which is devalued yet remains under investigation, is not discredited. The meanings are quite different.
"Discredit" and "Diminuition" (devalued), have different meaning in any English dictionary.
Check it out.

You should admit when you are wrong, and move on.

[Mr. Poster]

I don't believe that he was a twit either, but he wasn't infallible.

he probably wasnt infallible. But unfortunately GH as anything but an innocent witness does not just require Abberlines fallibility.

It requires a collective (on a very large scale), specific, simultaneous and persistent (over a period of decades) fallibility on the part of large sections of the societal structures most interested in the case.

The police, the judiciary in so far as they tended to express opinions, the media, the press, and both the unwashed public and the ones who were writing letters to newspapers with their views on various matters.

All of them must have been concurrently fallible with respect to GH and remained blissfulluy so for at least a couple of decades and perhaps until the first person, scraping the bottom of the suspect barrel, decided they would write the usual type of book on GH in order to earn a few quid.

I wish people would stop saying that Gh's candidature as anything is somehow solely reliant on Abberlines being capable of making a mistake when it is painfully and persistently apparent that the press and public were quite capable of coming up with their own opinions and which didnt always coalesce with the police view.

p

[Anna Morris]

Mr. P. suggests an excellent point in the post below, indicating the public at the time believed in Hutchinson's innocence.

People who lived in rooming houses and such had very little privacy. I remember discussions before about if JtR could have been a dosser and the general consensus that he could not have been because of the lack of privacy and being so close to so many other people.

I have made the point several times that people of this class probably only had one suit of clothes and it would be easy to ask roommates about clothing. One suit of clothes and no bloodstains would go a long way to prove innocence I think.

Men like Hutchinson and Barnett roomed with many other people, ate their meals and drank their drink in public. It may have been fairly easy in many cases, on relevant dates, to find out what such men did even from hour to hour.

[Wicker Man]

Mr. P. suggests an excellent point in the post below, indicating the public at the time believed in Hutchinson's innocence.

At the time there was no suggestion Hutchinson was suspected of anything, by the press, public or police.

I have made the point several times that people of this class probably only had one suit of clothes and it would be easy to ask roommates about clothing. One suit of clothes and no bloodstains would go a long way to prove innocence I think.

And you are quite right about that. The lodgers even slept in their clothes. If they took anything off, even their boots, they'd be gone by morning.

Men like Hutchinson and Barnett roomed with many other people, ate their meals and drank their drink in public. It may have been fairly easy in many cases, on relevant dates, to find out what such men did even from hour to hour.

The police did go through a number of lodging-houses for this very reason. These places were all eyes & ears, and a good location for picking up on any rumours.
Locals were often pointing the finger at others for the slightest suspicion. A lodging-house would be a dangerous place for such a killer to try hide.

[Caroline Brown]

In addition to this, I firmly believe organs were removed from Chapman and Eddowes to serve as trophies, which would enable the killer to relive the experience at leisure, wherever he called home. He had to work too quickly at the crime scenes to savour what he was doing to the full [aside perhaps from Miller's Court, which might explain why he didn't cram his pockets with organs on that occasion], because every second spent with his victim put him at greater risk of discovery. I figure it must therefore have been important to him to take away those souvenirs from Hanbury Street and Mitre Square despite the associated risks, in which case it makes little sense that he would have had nowhere private to take them, or would have quickly disposed of them.

For me that would tend to rule out men of no fixed abode, regular lodging house residents, and especially anyone who sometimes found he had no option but to "walk about all night" or sleep rough on the streets.

Love,

Caz
X