Jack The Ripper solved?

[caz]

Oh no it's not, Abby. That red hanky doesn't 'bolter his tory' at all.

If it belonged to Hutch, and could be identified as his own, it would have been the very opposite of 'bingo' if he gave it to Kelly himself and wasn't sure he had retrieved it after murdering her.

If it belonged to Hutch, he'd only have mentioned it to bolster his story if he could be absolutely certain that nobody had seen him with it before, or could identify it as his, and that he could keep the police believing that A Man existed and it was his hanky that Hutch saw him give to Kelly.

If there was no red hanky, there was no need for Hutch to invent one if he was the killer, seeing as it would require his fictional A Man to have taken it back later.

Mentioning the red hanky only adds another risk if Hutch was guilty.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

It's truly astonishing that a very brief mention of the misplaced iconic image of Jack in a top hat and cape should have given rise to a lengthy repetitive Hutchinson debate, with Isaacs and chums making an unwarranted appearance...

Hi Caz,



No, not necessarily. He might have misplaced it temporarily and wrongly assumed he'd left it in the room, thus accounting for his need to vindicate its presence there when found. It would hardly have been a comfort to him that "nobody was asking about it". The fact it wasn't published in the press that a red handkerchief was found - and its owner accordingly sought - wouldn't have provided any measure of security to the killer if he owned it and thought he left it there, unless he was silly and deluded enough to believe that no mention in the press meant no interest at all on the part of the police. So yes, there is a compelling and logical argument for Hutchinson incorporating the hanky detail into his story if he was the killer and believed he'd left it by accident in the room.



Why?

An absent hanky need only indicate - for Hutchinson-believers - that Astrakhan man reclaimed it before he left.



There's "flowering things up" and there's inventing entire episodes involving objects that never existed. I don't know of too many examples of mere exaggerating witnesses doing the latter.



No, it wouldn't be much like that at all.

It would be far more like Hutchinson, being conscious of the need to make his fictional diversionary suspect very striking (in order to justify his fascination with the couple, and his subsequent loitering behaviour), was also aware that previous witnesses described a man of a very different appearance (and if Hutchinson himself was the killer, they were obviously describing him). In both scenarios - killer or mere attention-seeker - there was an obvious incentive to establish some sort of common ground that united his bogus, ostentatiously dressed individual with the genuine sightings of the ordinarily-dressed presumed ripper. The red rag would have done the trick in that regard.



Again, he was in absolutely no position to know whether or not the police were asking about it. If Hutchinson was guilty, it was already "imperative" in his mind that they believe his account. A bogus explanation of how the hanky made it into the room (if he mistakenly believed he'd left it there) would only have increased the likelihood of the police believing it.

All the best,
Ben

Great post ben. I agree with everything you say. Wether or not Hutch was the killer or not, the red hanky only bolters his tory. the last supect had one and so what if they dont find it in her room, hutch could just say the killer took it back.

And if he somehow knew she had one and the police found it in her room-well bingo.
One scenario is that he did see her that night and gave her the hanky but the rest of his Aman story is a lie.


Its win win for hutch on the red herrin.. I mean hanky.

[Monty]

Twentyfour words! Wow!

That HAS to be a new record.

Of course, and as usual, you make no facrtual point whatsoever, but instead point to how the Lechmere bid haas been "convicingly countered".

That would be, I suspect, your own declaration that he is a non-starter since he did not run for it.

You are an ex-cop, eh, Monty? I thought such men took an interest in factual evidence as regards the paths suspects move along and when they do it, the use of false names, possible lies told by suspects ... No?

Maybe, Monty, you should run for it yourself, while there is still time. There´s no shame in admitting that you may have been wrong.

For now, I´m trough talking to you, though.

The best,
Fisherman

I dont feel the need to spout a barrage of words to get my point across Christer, no need to hide behind the waffle, whereas you....

Your statement that Cross used a false name is erronous (this hasnt been proven at all), and the other evidences you cite are circumstantial, they can easily be countered. In fact, they were when we went through it all last year.

So its gone from lying to possible lies huh? My, you do flit between your words, depending on the mood. It seem even you are not that convinced in your mans guilt. I know Im not.

What you are through doing holds no interest to me. You seem to be under the false impression I hang on your every word.

However you shall return, you cannot help yourself.

Monty

[Sally]

No,

Lynn is right. We should have a poll.

[Fisherman]

Hello Christer, Neil. My instincts tell me that a poll is about to come off, pitting Lechmere against Hutch.

Cheers.
LC

... and such a poll may well see Hutch coming out on top. It´s not about the truth, it´s about convictions, when you make polls on Casebook. Anybody can compare the stuff relating to the respective men and see that there is no need for any poll.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The confidence is misplaced.

The evidence against your man can be and, in fact, has been, convincingly countered.

It wouldn't get through CPS.

However, we all know this.

Monty

Twentyfour words! Wow!

That HAS to be a new record.

Of course, and as usual, you make no facrtual point whatsoever, but instead point to how the Lechmere bid haas been "convicingly countered".

That would be, I suspect, your own declaration that he is a non-starter since he did not run for it.

You are an ex-cop, eh, Monty? I thought such men took an interest in factual evidence as regards the paths suspects move along and when they do it, the use of false names, possible lies told by suspects ... No?

Maybe, Monty, you should run for it yourself, while there is still time. There´s no shame in admitting that you may have been wrong.

For now, I´m trough talking to you, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

high class poll

Hello Christer, Neil. My instincts tell me that a poll is about to come off, pitting Lechmere against Hutch.

Cheers.
LC

[Tom_Wescott]

Stephen White, Bob Hinton, and Chris Miles have written 'suspect books' on Hutch. Other than the Royal Conspiracy, has any suspect had more suspect books written on him by different authors? Just a thought that occurred to me this morning.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Monty]

The confidence is misplaced.

The evidence against your man can be and, in fact, has been, convincingly countered.

It wouldn't get through CPS.

However, we all know this.

Monty

[Fisherman]

TWO words, Monty? My, we are chatty today, are we not?

Anyways, I try to a be a bit more discerning than our friend Ben (which is not all that hard). Plus I have the far better contender, so there´s a lot more learoom for confidence on my behalf.

Fisherman

[Sally]

Indeed.

[Monty]

Since you speak of posters - plural - I cannot really myself voice everybody´s opinions. I can only speak for myself, and I am under no pressure at all.

I just dislike having lofty conjecture passed off as "near certainties", that´s all. That´s why I repeatedly remark on that when it crops up. I don´t want other/new posters to be elft with an unchallenged impression of something that I believe to be rather preposterously wrong.

So, Sally, maybe you should turn your TLC to other posters, who are not at ease the way I am?

Fisherman

The irony

Monty

[Fisherman]

Let’s take Hutchinson, for example – since you seem ever happy to bring him up all over the place – I’ve noticed how there are some posters who, on seeing any mention at all of Hutchinson on the boards (and even without such mention on occasion) immediately leap in, all guns blazing!

Perhaps they are themselves under pressure, and this explains it?

Since you speak of posters - plural - I cannot really myself voice everybody´s opinions. I can only speak for myself, and I am under no pressure at all.

I just dislike having lofty conjecture passed off as "near certainties", that´s all. That´s why I repeatedly remark on that when it crops up. I don´t want other/new posters to be elft with an unchallenged impression of something that I believe to be rather preposterously wrong.

So, Sally, maybe you should turn your TLC to other posters, who are not at ease the way I am?

Fisherman

[Sally]

As for the cannibalistic cats of Stepney, I am not familiar with them.

Not familiar with the Cannibalistic Cats of Stepney? A pity. I’m sure that they knew more about the Whitechapel Horror than anybody at the time realised. Teeth and claws, you know?

I do know, however, that many mammals can become cannibalistic when under pressure, cats being one such example. And human beings are much the same!

Yes, you know,I’ve noticed that myself. Let’s take Hutchinson, for example – since you seem ever happy to bring him up all over the place – I’ve noticed how there are some posters who, on seeing any mention at all of Hutchinson on the boards (and even without such mention on occasion) immediately leap in, all guns blazing!

Perhaps they are themselves under pressure, and this explains it?

As for gnawing… well, I have biscuits, so I don’t really feel the need. I worry about you though.

Actually, there was once another cannibal called Fish, believe it or not. But don´t have him mistaken for me - I´m the nice guy around here.

Whatever you say, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Nonsense Fisherman.

I know much more than Ben.

Besides, how do we know we're not talking about the legendary cannabilistic cats of Stepney? Ah! You hadn't thought of that, had you?

Really? More than Ben?
Can there be such a thing as extended omnipotence? Wouldn´t that border on what some people call religion?

As for the cannibalistic cats of Stepney, I am not familiar with them. I do know, however, that many mammals can become cannibalistic when under pressure, cats being one such example. And human beings are much the same! I´ll give you two examples:

1. That plane crash in the Andes, when a Chilean football team started munching away on their dead comrades.

2. You, gnawing away at Ben, as per the above - and he isn´t even dead yet!

Actually, there was once another cannibal called Fish, believe it or not. But don´t have him mistaken for me - I´m the nice guy around here.

Fisherman