Hutchinsons statement....

[Herlock Sholmes]

Help

Could I ask a technical question please.

If I post a reply here how can i include a partial quote of the post I'm replying to. Including a full quote is easy. I have an IPad in case that makes a difference.

With thanks

HS

[Herlock Sholmes]

Sam has just added 2 quotes in her reply. How?

I feel like a caveman

HS

[GUT]

Could I ask a technical question please.

If I post a reply here how can i include a partial quote of the post I'm replying to. Including a full quote is easy. I have an IPad in case that makes a difference.

With thanks

HS

Click quote then delete the part you don't want to quote between the /QUOTE IN [] symbols.

[Harry D]

Sam has just added 2 quotes in her reply. How?

I feel like a caveman

HS

In the bottom right of each post you should see this icon:

Click it for each post you want to quote, scroll down and click Post Reply.

It should pull all of the quotes in your post.

[GUT]

In the bottom right of each post you should see this icon:

Click it for each post you want to quote, scroll down and click Post Reply.

It should pull all of the quotes in your post.

Only two I think Harry.

But you can multi quote more by resorting to copy and paste.

[Flower and Dean]

I think it shows how easy it is to make up your mind about something and then not revisit it assuming that you have sussed it, which is what I'd always done with Hutchinson. That's why I looked at the grape story and Packer again. Most people just assume that his testimony can't be trusted. Maybe he wasn't being truthful but....he made 2 statements, if he lied why is the 1st one true but not the 2nd? Why not the other way around? As I said earlier maybe, just maybe that in his first statement he just didn't want to get involved. Then, for whatever motive he changed his mind.
Regards
HS

Well, even if he could be trusted, he gave somewhat different versions of the story. He was probably making up at least one of those versions, which was my point -- even if he was making things up for profit, his statement keeps him in the clear at all times. Even in the more colourful version of his story, he's working at his stall and minding his own business, not following anyone around or waiting near the crime scene.

I honestly don't know what to think about Packer... I'm inclined to think he was lying but I'm willing to consider otherwise. I could understand him not wanting to get involved at first, but then he does and increasingly so. If he didn't want to get involved but eventually decided to talk about what he'd seen, why not just tell everything he knew once and leave it at that?

[jerryd]

Well, even if he could be trusted, he gave somewhat different versions of the story. He was probably making up at least one of those versions, which was my point -- even if he was making things up for profit, his statement keeps him in the clear at all times. Even in the more colourful version of his story, he's working at his stall and minding his own business, not following anyone around or waiting near the crime scene.

I honestly don't know what to think about Packer... I'm inclined to think he was lying but I'm willing to consider otherwise. I could understand him not wanting to get involved at first, but then he does and increasingly so. If he didn't want to get involved but eventually decided to talk about what he'd seen, why not just tell everything he knew once and leave it at that?

Regarding Packer. In November of 1888 he saw the same man (Berner street suspect)and the man was threatening Packer at his stall. Then, if IIRC, Packer was attacked in 1889 near the time of the Pinchin torso incident for knowing the address of the man that was menacing him. He always claimed the man he saw lived close to him and he had seen him many times in the area but had not seen him as of late. I believe he was also involved with a man or a man's cousin that claimed to have a relative (American) using the phrase "Dear boss". Sorry to be so vague, I am going off memory. The point is he was involved even after his coming forth in the Stride incident.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Firstly, thanks to GUT,Harry D and Flower and Dean for the help about the quotes. Let's see how I can mess that up!

The whole Packer/grape thing is a pretty strange string of events. Nothing new in this case! I understand that Packer had other involvements at a later dates. I don't recall the details either. I might have a look into them tomorrow if my brain can take it. Things like this make me start weaving possible scenarios to fit the facts and I don't want to become the David Icke of Ripperology. I even thought today about the possible reasons why none of Blackwell, Johnston or Bagster Phillips mentioned grapes at the inquest (apart from the fact that there might have been no grapes of course!) I thought 'why, hypothetically, might the police have asked them not to mention them.' Well... Le Grand and Batchelor allegedly found grape stalks in Dutfields Yard. This led to one of them speaking to Packer. This led Packer to admit that he'd sold grapes to a man with a woman. This led one of the detectives to take Packer to the mortuary where he identified Stride as the woman. This got into a report by Alexander Carmichael Bruce. The police believed that Le Grand and Batchelor were being paid by the Vigilance Comittee and the press. Perhaps they didn't relish the public knowing that the only certain sighting and true description of the ripper was discovered by an alliance of dodgy private detectives in the pay of the press and the public.
I want to stress that I'm not saying that I believe this to be true. I just like looking at alternative
scenarios.
Regards
HS

[harry]

Would't Sgt Badham have asked for his full name? It was customery even then to do so.I believe he would,and the reply was as is written,George Hutchinson.

One can argue about Hutchinson's reasons for coming forward,but what was his intent? My opinion is he wanted a false suspect recorded,whose description was totally at odds with the true killer.It seems to let Cox's visitor,Blotchy,off the hook,but w hat if Blotchy and Hutchinson were one and the same person?

[Wickerman]

Hi:

As a guy who has always dismissed Hutchinson as a fantasist I have had a bit of a re-think. My main question, the one that's playing on my mind, is:

If Hutchinson simply invented Astrakhan Man.....

The point I have been making for what seems like forever is, that Sarah Lewis confirms that part of Hutchinson's story.

In the abbreviated court version of her Inquest Testimony Lewis is reported as saying:
"When I went in the court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House........another young man with a woman passed along".

Thankfully, the press covered the inquest and we get a little more information from a variety of press sources.
The Daily Telegraph added:
"Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."

The Daily News added a little more:
"I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

The Morning Advertiser simply wrote:
"A young man went along with a young woman."

From this we can see that Hutchinson did not invent Astrachan, the man existed (regardless of his appearance), Sarah Lewis confirms that her unknown loiterer (Hutch?) was in position while a man & woman (who was the worse for drink), did walk up the court just as Hutchinson described.

[The Good Michael]

Sam has just added 2 quotes in her reply.

Gareth is a her? Say it ain't so, Joe.

Mike

[cnr]

One can argue about Hutchinson's reasons for coming forward,but what was his intent? My opinion is he wanted a false suspect recorded,whose description was totally at odds with the true killer.It seems to let Cox's visitor,Blotchy,off the hook,but w hat if Blotchy and Hutchinson were one and the same person?

See the recently published, Jewbaiter Jack The Ripper: New Evidence & Theory, Chapter 7 'Muddy Waters', for a full discussion along these very lines.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Apology

Apologies to Sam Flynn. In an earlier post I said 'her' and have been informed that he's a guy. Sorry about that. HS

[Harry D]

Only two I think Harry.

But you can multi quote more by resorting to copy and paste.

Nope, you can multi-quote as many as you want.

[GUT]

Nope, you can multi-quote as many as you want.

Must be a fairly recent (but welcome) change for a long time it was limited to two.