Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Malcolm X]

that's due to watching too much CSI New York on the tv

[Garry Wroe]

We have no paperwork from the police which calls Hutchinson a liar. Why do you think they did, because some modern theorists claim he was?

Walter Dew, an officer who was actively engaged on the case, not only rejected Hutchinson’s account, he went further and stated it as his belief that Blotchy was the killer. Anderson, too, undermined Hutchinson’s credibility when asserting that the Jewish witness used to make the Seaside Home identification was ‘the only person who had ever had a good view of the murderer’. Since Hutchinson’s putative Ripper sighting was superior in quality and duration to that of any other eyewitness, Anderson’s words leave no room for doubting that Hutchinson’s account had lost all credibility by the time of the Seaside Home affair.

When there is a book to defend, there is also a reputation at stake.

Well, Jon, since some of us base our reputations on integrity, we are prepared to evolve our thinking on the basis of emergent evidence rather than adhering dogmatically to outmoded views purely for the sake of it. If you or anyone else can produce some real evidence to substantiate either Hutchinson’s story or his continued status as a stellar witness, I’d be happy to accept it and modify my views accordingly.

If it suits 'the purpose' press stories are accepted, if something appears in the press which contests 'the purpose', it is rejected.

Agreed, Jon. And this selectivity of ‘evidence’ explains why your arguments continually fall on deaf ears.

If Hutch truely was JtR, he would leave the area and lay low like he did every other time.

Would you care to substantiate this statement?

The police had the best description yet of JtR (by Lawende), so coming forward (if Hutch looked like Lawende's suspect) was unbelievably stupid, and that means the police not to recognise him also had to be unbelievably stupid.

Given that Lawende openly admitted that he would be unlikely to recognize Eddowes’ companion again, the description he provided was almost certainly inaccurate. The killer thus had little to fear from Lawende.

[Garry Wroe]

Lets make this point.
Correct me if I am wrong , but Hutchinson reported to the police on the eve of the 12TH at 6pm, and proceeded to inform them of vital information,
One would assume, unless the investigating officers were void of any common sense, that Hutchinson would have been told to keep his mouth shut, especially with the press, as it would be vital to aid their enquiries for the media to be non informed .
It would be absolutely vital to not spook the killer.

The press was informed about the Hutchinson sighting by the police, Richard.

Why did George Hutchinson speak to the press?
Was that a ploy on the part of the police?
Was Hutchinson assisting them in relaying a false Identification, and movements, to give the killer confidence that they had the wrong person.

The narrative that Hutchinson conveyed to agency reporters on the Tuesday evening was an expanded version of his official police statement, Richard, so there was no deliberate ploy on the part of the authorities to transmit misinformation.

If Reg Hutchinson's tale of his father was true, if Topping was the witness, and the payment made to him was authentic[ also relayed in the Wheeling register] the sum of one hundred shillings, then I would suggest that a couple of walkabouts with police officers, would not have warranted such a lavish sum.

If.

But what if he had assisted the police far more then assumed?

Given that you believe Toppy to have been Abberline’s witness, your answer surely lies in the story related by Reg, a narrative that contains nothing in the way of undercover missions or hitherto secret agendas.

[Malcolm X]

Hello Jon.

"What the 'crowd' think is only the flavour of the moment, it is by no means an indicator of right & wrong."

.

Cheers.
LC

it's not ``only the favour the moment``, GH as JTR has been around for years, Ben and i first chatted about this at least 6 years ago.

what is totally rediculous is, LA DE DA leaving a crime scene dressed like that at 5 to 6am, realising that he could easily be stopped for simply looking like JTR....this also applies for a tamed down Black bag Man.

GH doesn't descibe JOE BARNETT, no of course not, he's trying to blame a Jew like he did at Ghoulston st.

i very much doubt Jacob Levy is your guy either, he probably doesn't have access to this type of clothing and is maybe too ramshackle/ scruffy, plus maybe too small, he's more likely to be the A.Chapman suspect, but only just!

[DVV]

Hi Garry

The killer thus had little to fear from Lawende.

Sorry for butting in, but I'm far from sure the killer had little to fear from Lawende.
I can tell, in any case, that he has less to fear from Sarah Lewis in this respect.
But that's not how it works, as long as Hutch was considered a witness (reliable or not), and not a suspect.
As long as he was not suspected, I agree he had nothing to fear from Lawende.

[DVV]

it's not ``only the favour the moment``, GH as JTR has been around for years, Ben and i first chatted about this at least 6 years ago.

Stop boasting, Malcolm. Hutch's candidacy is older than your oldest posts.
Bob Hinton's From Hell was published in 1998.

[Malcolm X]

``Given that Lawende openly admitted that he would be unlikely to recognize Eddowes’ companion again, the description he provided was almost certainly inaccurate. The killer thus had little to fear from Lawende.``

plus, GH has nothing to fear from Sarah Lewis either, because her description is one of the worst ever !!!

there is no conspiracy going on here, GH went to the police when he didn't need to at all, he went to cause trouble, but he knows far too much to not have been there.

finally, he did not see LA DE DA, simply because his description is suspiciously far too good, he's made this up very accurately, from his mind's eye!

[Malcolm X]

Stop boasting, Malcolm. Hutch's candidacy is older than your oldest posts.
Bob Hinton's From Hell was published in 1998.

no, because back then i hadn't even heard of someone called Bob Hinton ... so there you go, i copied nobody.

the only book i had was Sudgen's and that book about James Kelly

[DVV]

... so there you go, i copied nobody.

I'm not saying you copied anybody, I'm pointing out that your conversations with Ben, 6 years ago, aren't the ultimate sources for Hutch's candidacy, contrary to what your post seemed to imply.

[lynn cates]

Q & A

Hello Malcolm.

"What is totally ridiculous is, LA DE DA leaving a crime scene dressed like that at 5 to 6am"

How do we know he left then?

"realising that he could easily be stopped for simply looking like JTR"

What did "JTR" look like?

"GH doesn't descibe JOE BARNETT, no of course not, he's trying to blame a Jew like he did at Ghoulston st."

Hutch did that?

"I very much doubt Jacob Levy is your guy either."

My guy? Well, no one who is supposed to be "Jack the Ripper is my guy." But if one buys into the lone serial killer rot, Levy is one of the least bad suspects I've seen.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hi Lynn

"What is totally ridiculous is, LA DE DA leaving a crime scene dressed like that at 5 to 6am"

How do we know he left then?

Because he didn't feel like spending the whole day in the room, I presume.

My guy? Well, no one who is supposed to be "Jack the Ripper is my guy." But if one buys into the lone serial killer rot, Levy is one of the least bad suspects I've seen.

Your old methodological problem again.

[Abby Normal]

The statement is all about what Hutchinson saw that night, from begining to end. Not where he was before, nor where he went after. Certainly not an unsure sighting on Sunday. You do recall he did say he was not sure. Abberline is only concerned with what a witness is sure about.



Walking around all night, and not being able to enter the Victoria Home is also not part of the police statement, and only appears in the press. Yet both points are used against him in constructing this 'liar' hypothesis.

If it suits 'the purpose' press stories are accepted, if something appears in the press which contests 'the purpose', it is rejected.
What do you think Hutchinson had to gain by suggesting he saw this character on Sunday morning? - that needs considering.



The alternative is to believe the police were naive beyond belief.
Lewis describes a man loitering opposite the court just before her murder and Hutch comes forward to admit it was him, ....and they treat him as a star witness?
In such circumstances what Hutch claimed to do and where he went after 3:00 am is of prime importance, yet nothing of that nature appears in his statement, why?

They had to have a good reason not to throw him in the slammer. If Hutch truely was JtR, he would leave the area and lay low like he did every other time. The police had the best description yet of JtR (by Lawende), so coming forward (if Hutch looked like Lawende's suspect) was unbelievably stupid, and that means the police not to recognise him also had to be unbelievably stupid.
The scenario just does not hold water.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker

What do you think Hutchinson had to gain by suggesting he saw this character on Sunday morning? - that needs considering.

To bolster his claims that he could identify what he looked like and where he lived and increase his chances of being seen as an important witness and increase his chances of being paid by the newspapers and police.

[lynn cates]

no problem

Hello David. Sorry, no methodological problem here.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

I find it ironic that on a thread concerned with narrowing down some Ripper 'facts' we have the Hutch fanciers again indulging in baseless speculation about a witness they know virtually nothing about, beyond what he claimed in his statement, and what Abberline claimed to find believable. We even have someone at t'other extreme, stating as fact that there was no serial killer: "if one buys into the lone serial killer rot..."

For those of you who appear to have completely lost the plot, may I suggest you open your own new threads, respectively:

Let's hang Hutchinson and bugger the facts

Let's stick our fingers in our ears and repeat: There were no serial murders on the streets of Whitechapel in 1888

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Well, Caroline, I find equally ironic that you have yourself written Hutch-related posts on this very thread.
Extremist views prevent to "narrow down Ripper-facts", I agree, but then the Sunday sighting believers are extremists, imo.
Countering a theory make some more biased than any theorist, sometimes.

Anyway, when people doubt there was a serial killer, when they say Stride isn't a Ripper victim, or that the GSG has nothing to do with the murders, there seems to be no fact we can narrow down.