Mr Astrachan = The Bethnal Green man

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Gacy did not dress up as a clown when on the hunt for victims.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben.
It was more the frame of mind I was getting at. That frivolous insignificant scary anticts might personify themselves as a passtime in the mind of even the most vicious serial killers.
To them, it's Play-time?

Best wishes, Jon

[Ben]

but must have is and remains wrong

"Almost certainly did" seems a good compromise.

Hi Jon,

Gacy did not dress up as a clown when on the hunt for victims.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

....
With his behaviour, the first policeman he met, would probably want to look in his bag !

He was reported, the police stopped him, they did check his bag, and they let him go!

BGM sounds like a harmless loony to me, who enjoyed giving the girls a fright
at the height of the Ripper 'spree'....

Oh, you mean like John Wayne Gacy, who changed his clown makeup to add a little menace to his character, for the kiddies, - just for Jolly!


Is that a face you could love?

Sometimes, we only think we know...

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" Since he must have heard about MJK's murder"

He "must" not. How anyone could claim something like this is beyond me. Would have, fair enough, should have, the same, probably would have, yes - but must have is and remains wrong.

"we cannot accept that he woud 'forget' the sequence of events unwillingly."

We?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Hutchinson did not have to remember a day 21 years before. Since he must have heard about MJK's murder not even 24 hrs afterwards, and he had some other unusual events to help him pinpoint it, and given that there is no suggestion by the police or press that he was mentally impaired -we cannot accept that he woud 'forget' the sequence of events unwillingly.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"With excellent memory for detail, but who's other sort of memory is poor (the type that gets days mixed up)?"

Senile people, for example, do this, Lechmere: They often remember in exact detail what clothes they were wearing when they applied for a job sixtyfive years earlier - but think that they are living in that self same, long gone age. They confuse dates totally and habitually - but remember details.
This is because our memory is split in two independant parts: The detail memory and the sequential memory. And having an excellent detail OR sequential memory, does not in any way mean that you have the other part too.
I, for one, worked for a very long time with press research, and I often did so together with a colleague of mine. We made an excellent couple - he always forgot names and such, but was very good at nailing WHEN things had happened, whereas I was the other way around - I am having trouble many times to pinpoint at what stage something in history happened, but I very rarely forget names and such. I can remember lyrics to songs I heard thirty years ago, word by word, I can tell which actors were in a movie that I did not see fifteen years ago, and I can tell which telephone number my grandmother had - and she died in the eighties. I can tell what telephone number she had before that too - it was changed, see.
But working from memory, I cannot tell what year she died. Somewhere around 1980 - 1985 is the best I can do.

This is what I am talking about in Hutchinson´s case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

I think that's an issue a lot of commentators have had with Hutchinson's account, isn't it? I have to say it's not so much that which concerns me though - because although we might find it implausible now, nobody appeared to at the time.

Several newspapers expressed considerable scepticism with regard to this very issue, Sally.

[Sally]

Hutchinson’s “great gift for taking in many details” fails to take into consideration the obvious truth that Hutchinson almost could not even have seen many of the details that he later claimed to have memorized. "Dark eyelashes", anyone? At 2:30am in Victorian London in poor weather conditions?

I think that's an issue a lot of commentators have had with Hutchinson's account, isn't it? I have to say it's not so much that which concerns me though - because although we might find it implausible now, nobody appeared to at the time.

I could even (trying hard) accept that Citizen Hutch had an eye for detail - trouble is, those details changed when he spoke to the press, didn't they?

Personally, I find an account (like that of Lewis, perhaps - although not just hers) whuch progressed from being initially vague to containing further detail in some respects more plausible than an account that was near-perfect in its detail to begin with - but subsequently altered in that detail.

At very best, I think it lends weight to initial over-elaboration, shall we say.

But anyway, slightly off topic.

[Ben]

Hutchinson almost could not

Almost certainly could not, I meant.

[Ben]

“If WA-man does not equal Hutch then of course Lewis could have seen the A-man on Commercial Street prior to going into Miller’s Court.”

Which is nothing short of impossible, unless people seriously wish to accept that that there were two entirely separate individuals monitoring the court as though waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court at the same location, at the same time on the same night. I’m personally very suspicious of people who claim that they are prepared to accept such fanciful ideas, and I refuse to accept that people can honestly be that resistant to the patently obvious.

My point about Grainger and Kosminski was that the witness who was called in to attempt to identify them was very obviously Lawende, and he provided a considerably weaker description than Hutchinson. Astrakhan man clearly did not remain a suspect for the simple reason that Hutchinson’s account was discredited. Irrespective of whether you think the “denunciation” of Hutchinson was too early, it was clearly precisely what happened. The Echo report to this effect was indisputably based on a direct communication with the police.

Hutchinson’s “great gift for taking in many details” fails to take into consideration the obvious truth that Hutchinson almost could not even have seen many of the details that he later claimed to have memorized. "Dark eyelashes", anyone? At 2:30am in Victorian London in poor weather conditions? That discussion, however, can be found in many other Hutchinson debates, and I would encourage interested parties to have a look through these rather than embarking upon yet another “Did Hutchinson lie” thread.

“Toppy” and “wrong dates” should also be confined to their relevant threads.

[Lechmere]

With excellent memory for detail, but who's other sort of memory is poor (the type that gets days mixed up)?

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"If WA-man does not equal Hutch then of course Lewis could have seen the A-man on Commercial Street prior to going into Miller’s Court."

Bingo!

"Hutch giving A-man a too wealthy looking exterior? Maybe just embellishment to sell a story or attract a few shillings from the police as an ultra observant informant."

Or he was a man with a great gift for taking in many details. A man, perhaps, that would go on to become a plumber who did not have to take notes of the material he would need for a job - since he remembered it all anyway, detail by detail.

Who knows?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Maybe but his description does seem over elaborate and flamboyant (but not genuinely Upper Class, maybe an ignorant man's vision of the upper crust).

[richardnunweek]

Hi
We are all accusing Hutchinson as exaggerating , but what if the police asked him to assist them, by doing just that?
What would be the point of giving out a accurate description of the man he saw with Kelly , simply that person would alter his appearance, but if the description differed deliberately, it would give the killer a false sense of security, leaving apprehension more likely.
That would surely be the most sensible route.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Hmmm
A-man and BG-man cannot be the same as the police didn’t make the connection... but then neither did they make the connection between WA-man and Hutch...

If WA-man does not equal Hutch then of course Lewis could have seen the A-man on Commercial Street prior to going into Miller’s Court.

I suppose it is possible that the police could have been open minded enough to harbour suspicions against a variety of suspects and when presented with Grainger they would have been negligent indeed not to investigate further. Not a good argument against the A-man remaining a suspect. Same goes for Kosminski.

On the subject of press nonsense could be added the sole very early (far too early in my opinion to be credible) denunciation of Hutchinson.

Hutch giving A-man a too wealthy looking exterior? Maybe just embellishment to sell a story or attract a few shillings from the police as an ultra observant informant.