Hutchinsons statement....

[andy1867]

It's not easy to understand where you are going with this.
My first question would be, why use the New York Tribune?

Simply because that's the newspaper I saw the statement in on 10th Nov
If it's in others fair enough
But I was simply saying I couldn't see a witness report before Hutchinsons that said Kelly was with a well dressed man, and simply asking if someone could point me to it.
I wasn't actually GOING anywhere

[Wickerman]

Simply because that's the newspaper I saw the statement in on 10th Nov
If it's in others fair enough
But I was simply saying I couldn't see a witness report before Hutchinsons that said Kelly was with a well dressed man, and simply asking if someone could point me to it.
I wasn't actually GOING anywhere

Ah, ok.
Well that story is placed about 10:30 Thursday night, and you can read it in the Star, or Daily News of 10th Nov.

[andy1867]

Ah, ok.
Well that story is placed about 10:30 Thursday night, and you can read it in the Star, or Daily News of 10th Nov.

Ok Wickerman cheers
I was simply wondering because I hadn't seen a witnes statement purporting seeing a "Well dressed man" before Hutchinsons on the 12th

[DJA]

It's never been clear who broke open the door.. some sources say the police, other sources (including McCarthy) say it was him.

McCarthy and his son attended Abberlines' retirement party? I didn't know that. I'm behind on my reading.

I'll stick with George Bagster Phillips' testimony at the inquest.

Apart from a press report of J. McCarthy and son at the Three Nuns,it is mentioned in A-Z.

[Scott Nelson]

Are you David Anderson?

[Wickerman]

Ok Wickerman cheers
I was simply wondering because I hadn't seen a witnes statement purporting seeing a "Well dressed man" before Hutchinsons on the 12th

Yes, some members have tried to make a case for Hutchinson using a few details from a handful of press reports to create his story. Which is a funny position to take, as if anyone needs to read the papers to "invent" a well-dressed man. However, the more unique details like gaiters, horse-shoe tie-pin, Astrachan collars & cuffs, thick gold chain with red seal, etc., are nowhere to be found in print, associated with the victim, over that weekend.

So we are supposed to believe Hutchinson was too dumb to come up with a "well-dressed" character of his own, but then had sufficient imagination to give this man some very noticeable accoutrements.
Sounds like another silly idea to me.
Some people are so desperate to have him pictured as a liar they invent these ridiculous scenario's.

[DJA]

Are you David Anderson?

Does he live on some Australian mountain range?

[Bridewell]

Yes, some members have tried to make a case for Hutchinson using a few details from a handful of press reports to create his story. Which is a funny position to take, as if anyone needs to read the papers to "invent" a well-dressed man. However, the more unique details like gaiters, horse-shoe tie-pin, Astrachan collars & cuffs, thick gold chain with red seal, etc., are nowhere to be found in print, associated with the victim, over that weekend.

So we are supposed to believe Hutchinson was too dumb to come up with a "well-dressed" character of his own, but then had sufficient imagination to give this man some very noticeable accoutrements.
Sounds like another silly idea to me.
Some people are so desperate to have him pictured as a liar they invent these ridiculous scenario's.

Hutchinson is one of two witnesses I feel sorry for.

On the one hand we say what a shame it is that nobody ever got a close enough look at JtR to give us a detailed description. On the other we dismiss Hutchinson's account because his description is too detailed.

[Abby Normal]

Hutchinson is one of two witnesses I feel sorry for.

On the one hand we say what a shame it is that nobody ever got a close enough look at JtR to give us a detailed description. On the other we dismiss Hutchinson's account because his description is too detailed.

whose "we". good lord. are you speaking for all of casebook???
i swear people lose all sense of sanity when speaking about hutch.

I dont say it, thats for sure.

the other witness descriptions are detailed enough-whats not detailed about Cox or Schwartz description for example-its just they went no where because no one knew who they were looking at. and the police never had a strong enough suspect to compare it with. and London has a lot of people.

I dont dismis hutch just because its too detailed-but also because its the nature of the detail. The script like events, an amalgam of previous supects along with over zealous claims to be able to recognize the man.
He may have even cribbed the exact wording of his statement from the papers.

added to that he waits until inquest is over-3 days later-plenty of time to perfect his story-to come forward.

Hog wash.

[Bridewell]

whose "we". good lord. are you speaking for all of casebook???
i swear people lose all sense of sanity when speaking about hutch.

I dont say it, thats for sure.

the other witness descriptions are detailed enough-whats not detailed about Cox or Schwartz description for example-its just they went no where because no one knew who they were looking at. and the police never had a strong enough suspect to compare it with. and London has a lot of people.

I dont dismis hutch just because its too detailed-but also because its the nature of the detail. The script like events, an amalgam of previous supects along with over zealous claims to be able to recognize the man.
He may have even cribbed the exact wording of his statement from the papers.

added to that he waits until inquest is over-3 days later-plenty of time to perfect his story-to come forward.

Hog wash.

I speak only for myself and my post was tongue-in-cheek as I'm sure you must realise. Opinion is divided over Hutchinson, as in so much else on this forum.

He may have even cribbed the exact wording of his statement from the papers.

I've not seen a paper which includes the exact wording of his statement but if you can show me one that does I'll concede that he probably cribbed it.

[Abby Normal]

I speak only for myself and my post was tongue-in-cheek as I'm sure you must realise. Opinion is divided over Hutchinson, as in so much else on this forum.



I've not seen a paper which includes the exact wording of his statement but if you can show me one that does I'll concede that he probably cribbed it.

Ok sorry. Those nuances are missed sometimes when written.
In terms of his wording being suspiciously similar to what was in the papers, earlier in this thread and in previous threads direct comparisons are made and they're to similar to be coincidence in my opinion. "The murdered woman Kelly" etc. is one I remember Off hand.

[Sam Flynn]

I've not seen a paper which includes the exact wording of his statement but if you can show me one that does I'll concede that he probably cribbed it.

Papers, plural, and not exactly exact. However, a case could be made for his having elaborated on previous press reports.

[Wickerman]

Ok sorry. Those nuances are missed sometimes when written.
In terms of his wording being suspiciously similar to what was in the papers, earlier in this thread and in previous threads direct comparisons are made and they're to similar to be coincidence in my opinion. "The murdered woman Kelly" etc. is one I remember Off hand.

How does that work Abby?

"I'll rehearse phrases already published in the press, and commit them to memory, to make my story more believable"????

Hutchinson can't put a simple phrase together now?

[andy1867]

Yes, some members have tried to make a case for Hutchinson using a few details from a handful of press reports to create his story. Which is a funny position to take, as if anyone needs to read the papers to "invent" a well-dressed man. However, the more unique details like gaiters, horse-shoe tie-pin, Astrachan collars & cuffs, thick gold chain with red seal, etc., are nowhere to be found in print, associated with the victim, over that weekend.

So we are supposed to believe Hutchinson was too dumb to come up with a "well-dressed" character of his own, but then had sufficient imagination to give this man some very noticeable accoutrements.
Sounds like another silly idea to me.
Some people are so desperate to have him pictured as a liar they invent these ridiculous scenario's.

Or
He could have been simply worried that he had been seen near the murder site and supposed that if he used a description that was similar to to other descriptions they would validate each other and throw the light of suspicion on that character.
Doesn't make him dumb doesn't make him guilty, makes him maybe worried though.

[FrankO]

Exactly my thoughts, Andy. He may very well have come up with the idea of using bits & pieces from other descriptions to make it more believable and give him the golden watch, horse-shoe tie-pin, gaiters etc. to make him so outstanding (with regards to Kelly as well) to explain why he took notice of him in the first place and why it wasn’t odd to keep a good eye on the man and follow the couple. Smart rather than dumb, I'd say.

All the best,
Frank