Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why Did He Lie ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
    Caroline Brown
    Author

  • Caroline Brown
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Wicker Man
    Researcher

  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Anna Morris
    Registered User

  • Anna Morris
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Mr. Poster
    Ph.D. Ripperologist

  • Mr. Poster
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Wicker Man
    Researcher

  • Wicker Man
    replied
    Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Trevor Marriott
    Author & Researcher

  • Trevor Marriott
    replied
    Originally posted by Anna Morris View Post
    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

    Leave a comment:

  • Sam Flynn
    Owl Catcher

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Anna Morris
    Registered User

  • Anna Morris
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

  • Wicker Man
    Researcher

  • Wicker Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Sam Flynn
    Owl Catcher

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Sam Flynn
    Owl Catcher

  • Sam Flynn
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:

  • Anna Morris
    Registered User

  • Anna Morris
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Wicker Man
    Researcher

  • Wicker Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Anna Morris
    Registered User

  • Anna Morris
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

  • Wicker Man
    Researcher

  • Wicker Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X