Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did GH actually go up to Mary's Room?

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

  • Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post

    You might like to think you've just discovered something that doesn't really exist, but some of us who have been around this case since Adam was a lad know just a little bit more.
    Says the man who recently decided newspapers are better than unambiguous police records based upon...... His own self belief?

    I guess being around since Adam inflated your ego or something?

    If youd been around since Adam however youd be aware that police records take precedence over newspapers.

    P

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sam Flynn View Post
      Well, the jambs at the entrance of an archway have corners, so maybe that's what he meant?

      I think your suggestion of "the corner of Dorset Street" makes eminent sense, however.
      If you had to locate McCarthy's shop, where would you say it was?

      Thomas Bowyer located it thus:
      "McCarthy's shop is at the corner of Miller's-court."
      Daily Telegraph, 13 Nov.
      So, it could have been a legitimate expression.....
      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


      • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
        Says the man who recently decided newspapers are better than unambiguous police records based upon...... His own self belief?

        I guess being around since Adam inflated your ego or something?

        If youd been around since Adam however youd be aware that police records take precedence over newspapers.

        P

        I never said they didn't.

        That does not mean you dismiss the press reports unless there is conflict - there is no conflict.
        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


        • Im afraid there is. You ignore it because you cannot explain it.

          Its not uncommon in ripperland so dont feel alone.

          Maybe you will eventually get around to taking a stab at explaining the two major problems Ive listed below?

          That would be time better spent than sticking your fingers in your ears and telling yourself there is no conflict.

          But on some level you are correct.....there is no conflict as police reports are better sources than newspapers and if one is intrinsically better than the other then there is no competition at all.

          P

          Comment


          • One of the other mistakes you are making, which we haven't even touched on yet, is the wording of Hutchinson's statement to police.

            Your interpretation relies on the words being verbatim from Hutchinson. As was explained by a policeman on CB some years ago, who did conduct interviews, this is not always the case.
            The witness can and often does ramble on offering details he/she thinks are important to the story.
            The policeman takes a different view, and needs to record all the pertinent points in a more condensed and pointed fashion.
            The recording officer will paraphrase the words of the witness when he deems it necessary.

            The reason for this is the statement may be used in a court of law and needs to be brief.
            So you say that the words, "up the court", as opposed to later saying, "to the court", actually prove your case, is merely an assumption on your part.
            Either one, or both these expressions may be due to the officer paraphrasing Hutchinson's own words.
            We can take the meaning of each line or sentence as reflecting what Hutchinson told the officer, but we cannot trust each individual word or phrase belongs to Hutchinson himself.
            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


            • Thats getting a bit desperate........ still dont see you explaining the polices ignoring Georges being outside her window either.

              Or maybe someone on CB years ago explained how the police often left vital details out or something.

              P

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post
                Thats getting a bit desperate........ still dont see you explaining the polices ignoring Georges being outside her window either.

                Or maybe someone on CB years ago explained how the police often left vital details out or something.

                P
                Like I've been saying all along, it wasn't left out.
                And, even if you think it was, what was vital about it?, he didn't see or hear anything.
                He's already placed himself at the scene of the crime. It's not like he is being deceptive.
                He went to the court to see if he could see them, but couldn't - what could be more plainer than 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


                • Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
                  Like I've been saying all along, it wasn't left out.
                  And, even if you think it was, what was vital about it?, he didn't see or hear anything.
                  He's already placed himself at the scene of the crime. It's not like he is being deceptive.
                  He went to the court to see if he could see them, but couldn't - what could be more plainer than that?
                  If it wasnt left out as you assert, perhaps you could kindly show where its covered in the report? Thanks in advance.

                  Its impossible to conclude that his UP the court wouldnt have been included in the report had it happened for a number of reasons.

                  1. The dereliction of duty required on the part of the police to omit details of it had it happened is too serious to contemplate.

                  2. Less significant detail is included - romford et etc.

                  3. Had he gone up the court, details of his sojourn could have served to corroborate other testimonies, it would have put him even closer to kelly and AM, etc etc.

                  4. Even if he wnt up the court and observed, heard or experienced nothing.... Its still worth recording. Evidence of that being that they recorded other aspects of his tale where he saw nothing.....such as when he went TO the court but saw nothing. Or his non-productive vigil outside on the street.

                  P

                  Comment


                  • Isn't your argument stonewalled by the fact you cannot be certain which phrases belong to Badham, and which, if any, belong verbatim to Hutchinson?
                    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


                    • In the greater scheme of things, Im pretty comfortable that the official police record of what George had to say is an accurate and true representation of what he had to say and what Abberline signed off on.

                      Its a bit of stretch to argue that when an official police record of a witnesses statement doesn't match what you want to it say (and it clearly doesn't as has been pointed out a hundred times) that you decide to argue that the record might not actually be an accurate record of what the witness said.

                      Its more likely that the press snippets that you are according more credibility had in fact no credibility at all.

                      And on top of all that.... you think its likely that Badham just forgot or arbitrarily decided to omit the bit about George having been UP the yard (that being what you insist was actually what George did that night) and instead decided his having walked from Romford was mmore important?

                      Or that Badham decided on his own bat that it was worth noting that George saw nothing when he peered up the court from the entrance to the passage, where he is recorded as having been, but decided not to bother his arse recording that George neither saw nor heard anything when he went UP the court (that being indicative of the fact that George in fact never went UP the yard but rather, as is entirely coherent with the rest of his statement, went TO the court meaning the entrance) despite the fact that anything he might have seen or heard had he been UP the court would have been of infinitely more interest than what he saw as Kelly went UP the court with AM?

                      But anyhoo…..any chance you have had any insight as to why you think George distinguished between Kellys going up the court and his having only gone to the court?

                      Or have you any evidence that that was Badhams phrasing which seems to be the entirely unevidenced or unsupported tack you seem to be taking now?

                      P

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Mr. Poster View Post

                        1. The dereliction of duty required on the part of the police to omit details of it had it happened is too serious to contemplate.
                        The answer to your question is right at your fingertips.
                        I'm assuming you have a copy of The Ultimate Jack the Ripper, by Stewart Evans?

                        Police statements do not capture everything. A statement is a record of the participation of a witness. It is always expected the witness will be questioned intently at a later date.

                        Look at the police statements given to Abberline in Millers Court on 9th Nov.
                        Compare what Barnett told Abberline, with the more extensive story he told the Coroner.
                        Likewise Sarah Lewis, she gave Abberline barely a page of statement, while she gave the Coroner two pages of testimony.

                        Badham interviewed Hutchinson, the statement was forwarded to Scotland Yard, and received by Abberline, who returned directly to Commercial St. Stn. and interrogated Hutchinson. The result of which has not survived.

                        By the way, statements given to police are not sworn. Omissions and errors are not a great concern. The statement is more of an introduction of the witness to police.
                        You are making far more of this than is necessary, and you are demonstrably mistaken if you believe a statement to police must be all inclusive.
                        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


                        • Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
                          Badham interviewed Hutchinson, the statement was forwarded to Scotland Yard, and received by Abberline, who returned directly to Commercial St. Stn. and interrogated Hutchinson. The result of which has not survived.
                          Could this be why Abberline favored George Chapman as the murderer? Did Chapman fit the description of AM as described by Hutchinson to Abberline?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                            Could this be why Abberline favored George Chapman as the murderer? Did Chapman fit the description of AM as described by Hutchinson to Abberline?
                            I've thought that myself, there was no cause to believe Chapman was the W.M., him poisoning his wives bears no similarity to the mutilator of prostitutes. It's the description of Astrachan in my view that he never let go of.
                            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


                            • Originally posted by Wicker Man View Post
                              The answer to your question is right at your fingertips.
                              I'm assuming you have a copy of The Ultimate Jack the Ripper, by Stewart Evans?

                              Police statements do not capture everything. A statement is a record of the participation of a witness. It is always expected the witness will be questioned intently at a later date.

                              Look at the police statements given to Abberline in Millers Court on 9th Nov.
                              Compare what Barnett told Abberline, with the more extensive story he told the Coroner.
                              Likewise Sarah Lewis, she gave Abberline barely a page of statement, while she gave the Coroner two pages of testimony.

                              Badham interviewed Hutchinson, the statement was forwarded to Scotland Yard, and received by Abberline, who returned directly to Commercial St. Stn. and interrogated Hutchinson. The result of which has not survived.

                              By the way, statements given to police are not sworn. Omissions and errors are not a great concern. The statement is more of an introduction of the witness to police.
                              You are making far more of this than is necessary, and you are demonstrably mistaken if you believe a statement to police must be all inclusive.
                              So we are back to the great McGuffin of ripperology.......the extant material in relation to the police is probably not accurate.

                              And it is perchance so. BUt I doubt it in this case.

                              As there is no way Badham could ignore Georges having gone UP the court - as that puts him closer than ever to Kelly, right outside her window, in a position to corroborate or counter other testimony given in perhaps the closest proximity yet to a possible killer and his victim.

                              An aspect - had it actually occurred - that could not be overlooked, is too important to be omitted and which would - assuming it is how you contend - consitute an important aspect in relation to whether George was worth interviewing farther.

                              That it was not overlooked is of course supported by the language "to the court" and "up the court" in relation to Kelly which are entirely consistent with his not having gone any farther towards Kelly than the entrance of the court where the passage meets the street.


                              While there is perhaps the possibility that Badham somehow put himself at risk of a bollocking from his betters for omitting the single m ost important aspect of Georges story (and I have never really been convinced by Evans' arguments, expecially as they tend to get trotted out everytime someone needs to ignore primary documents).... there is the definite probability that the papers just got it wrong, mixed up witness testimony, were lazy, embellished, tried to spice up their copy, etc etc etc.

                              p

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post
                                Did Chapman fit the description of AM as described by Hutchinson to Abberline?
                                Doesn't look like it, because Abberline only mentioned that Chapman wore a peaked cap and that, although witnesses estimated the suspect's age as between 30 and 40, said witnesses only saw him from the back. None of this appears to sit well with Hutchinson as a source
                                Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                                "Suche Nullen"
                                (F. Nietzsche)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X