Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Abby Normal]

Surely Aman would have to qualify as one of the stupidest killers in history Abby? He has Hutchinson not just spotting him and Mary from a distance but right up close. And not just passing them in the street but stooping down to look right into his face, immediately indicating to the ‘ripper’ that he was suspicious of him in some way. The killer is then seen by Hutchinson taking his future victim into the place where he kills her. Surely this isn’t believable?

HI HS

Aman and hutch didn't know each other, Aman is about to have all his sick dreams come true with a young attractive female with a private room.

The ripper killed victims before when he had been seen with them(I admit not as well as hutch). He went on to kill Stride even after being seen attacking her by a witness.


killers will often go on to kill there victims, eventhough when they are known by a witness as being the last one seen alive with them.


Just off the top of my head Dahmer went on to kill the young boy even after the boy escaped naked in the street and had the cops stop and question with Dahmer present!


compared to this and the great risk the ripper was taking all along--being seen well by someone who was a stranger and then going on to kill the victim is peanuts.

[Wickerman]

Hardly. The grapevine would have been buzzing with gossip aplenty, entirely independently of the press.

But how can that be the basis for an argument when you do not know what this gossip was about?
Unless it captured the attention of the press there will be no record of it. So on what grounds are you suggesting the subject of this assumed gossip?

[Wickerman]

You’ve suddenly become rather adversarial, RJ, which is a shame because initially you were enjoying the discussion and intended “no mockery”.

Take a look at where & when the adversarial comments, and mockery began in recent days in this thread Ben.
As I've said before - you reap what you sow.

[Herlock Sholmes]

HI HS

Hi Abby

Aman and hutch didn't know each other, Aman is about to have all his sick dreams come true with a young attractive female with a private room.

But, if Hutch is telling the truth, he could give a remarkably accurate description of Aman. It’s perhaps also noticeable that no-one else mentioned seeing the distinctive Aman. Serial killers take risks by the very nature of what they do but as the ripper remained at large it’s reasonable to assume that he exercised some caution which, for me, doesn’t square with Aman’s actions.

The ripper killed victims before when he had been seen with them(I admit not as well as hutch). He went on to kill Stride even after being seen attacking her by a witness.

I don’t think that we can be certain that the man that Schwartz saw was actually the killer. I admit that I’m applying the same criteria though Abby. I can’t see Jack drawing attention to himself by fighting with his victim in the street in front of witnesses minutes before she was found dead almost in the same spot.


killers will often go on to kill there victims, eventhough when they are known by a witness as being the last one seen alive with them.

I don’t know how many examples there are of that Abby but you may be right. I just don’t see the ripper as being that reckless and stupid. Let’s face it, prostitutes were plentiful and a very easy target. If one looked too risky it would have been no problem to move on and find another.

Just off the top of my head Dahmer went on to kill the young boy even after the boy escaped naked in the street and had the cops stop and question with Dahmer present!

But wasn’t that young boy the unfortunate type that might have gone a long time before anyone even noticed that he was missing? So if it was say 2 months down the line when he was finally reported missing Dahmer might have argued that hundreds of people might have been with the boy after him? I can’t recall the details Abby so I’ll happily stand correcting on this.


compared to this and the great risk the ripper was taking all along--being seen well by someone who was a stranger and then going on to kill the victim is peanuts.

I take your points Abby. For me though I just feel that it’s less likely that the ripper would have taken unnecessary risks. He wanted to remain at large to continue doing what he was doing. Every time I read Hutchinson’s statement I can’t help hearing a man trying for his 15 minutes of fame. I could be wrong of course....we all could

[Abby Normal]

But how can that be the basis for an argument when you do not know what this gossip was about?
Unless it captured the attention of the press there will be no record of it. So on what grounds are you suggesting the subject of this assumed gossip?

your kidding I hope. probably not.

umm I don't know word of mouth?

[Sam Flynn]

But how can that be the basis for an argument when you do not know what this gossip was about?

What do you think they'd be talking about on the day of an 'orrible murder in Miller's Court?

[Abby Normal]

I take your points Abby. For me though I just feel that it’s less likely that the ripper would have taken unnecessary risks. He wanted to remain at large to continue doing what he was doing. Every time I read Hutchinson’s statement I can’t help hearing a man trying for his 15 minutes of fame. I could be wrong of course....we all could

Hi HS
I take your points too-agree to disagree my friend!

and I also agree that hutch very well have just been an attention seeker!

[Abby Normal]

What do you think they'd be talking about on the day of an 'orrible murder in Miller's Court?

I believe wick is trying to say the only way news of her murder could have gotten out to the public is through the press!

[caz]

Caz,in reply to your post 397.
It goes without arguement that Hutchinson was the person claiming he could identify the man.

It goes without arguement,that the phrase,"Can be identified",was used by either Hutchinson or Badham.Hutchinson orally, Badham in wriiten form.


There is no evidence that either one of them did not understand the meaning of the Phrase.So I ask you again,why a need for change?

Brevity,or shorthand will not suffice,unles you can prove that (1) it was police practice to do such changes,or(2)it was a concious decision by Badham for some reason you or Jon have not disclosed.


Some years ago a study was conducted in England as to the amount of misconduct by police in the taking and reporting of witness statements,and interrogation procedures.The findings were that five per cent were found to be corrupt,or not in accordance with law.95% showed honesty and compliance with both the law and police directives.

I see no reason why things would be different in 1888.

Apologies for the delay to my response, Harry.

I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Hutch says to Badham: "I can identify the man" [if he sees him again].

Or, if you insist, the more awkward construction: "The man can be identified by me" [if he sees him again].

Badham then writes down the three little words: 'Can be identified', because it's concise and speaks for itself. He's not changing the meaning, is he?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

...This from the Morning Advertiser, 10 Nov.

"JANE KELLY, it is believed, was killed between eight and half-past ten o'clock yesterday morning. There is some conflict of testimony on this head, but it would appear that in this interval the woman was seen alive, and, according to one statement, Kelly must have been abroad in the streets in company with a man with whom she returned to her lodging only a few minutes before her mutilated body was found"...

I expect Kelly had gone 'abroad' to look for Monty Druitt.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Abby - The man with the peaked cap outside Mitre Square never existed. He is an obvious figment created from the 'sailor' theory that was being kicked around in the press at the time. The timing is such that Harris, Lawende, and Levy obviously murdered Eddowes and then made up this sailor chap to cover their tracks.

That's basically the Hutchinson theory, transposed onto the Eddowes murder. And one can play the game all day long.

The paradox of the Hutchinson theory is that if his statement is a plate of porkies, as many seem to believe, then there is no good reason to believe he was even in Dorset Street on the morning of the murder. Why believe the word of a man who, to you, is such an obvious liar?

Using your same arguments, I can claim Georgie never made it back from Romford until the following day, and is nothing more than a publicity hound who decided to become the star witness when he heard about an unidentified wall lounger.

Thus, the Hutchinson theory has been stuck on 1st base for twenty years, and there is no chance of it advancing to 2nd without being tossed out by the catcher.

I wish I'd written that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not sure what the problem is here.

Hutch says to Badham: "I can identify the man" [if he sees him again].

Or, if you insist, the more awkward construction: "The man can be identified by me" [if he sees him again].

Badham then writes down the three little words: 'Can be identified', because it's concise and speaks for itself. He's not changing the meaning, is he?

What actually happened...

Hutchinson: I'd know that flashy, fur-trimmed fvcker anywhere!

Badham: Very good, sir. [Writes: "Can... be... identified".]

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Phil does a far better job as announcer, he's even funny.
Don't quit your day job.

Well, since my actual “day job” involves announcing things and trying to be funny, I’m rather wounded to hear this! On a more serious note, though, I’m sorry to hear I’ve been the cause of offence. I certainly didn’t intend any mockery or belittlement.

Just to be clear on the money issue, are you saying that Hutchinson was lying about having no money to lend Kelly, and that he actually had sufficient funds to pay for his doss than night?

Why, then, did he “walk about all night”? Why didn’t he seek shelter at one of the many lodging houses that proliferated the district? They would certainly have been open to anyone with cash to splash. As far as I’ve been able to ascertain, it was only the Victoria Home who operated a closed-door policy after 1.00am to anyone not in a possession of a pass (consistent with his claim that the place where he “usually” slept was closed).

Overnight “cleaning” may well have occurred, but it would certainly not have impeded entry to the dormitories. The kitchens and dining area at the Victoria Home, for instance, were situated below street level, and accessed through an entirely different entrance to that which led to the bedrooms.

If Hutchinson’s intended lodging house that night was anywhere other than the address listed on his statement, Abberline would certainly have ascertained its location and mentioned it in the report.

All the best,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

I wish I'd written that.

Love,

Caz
X

you did. about Mike Barrett. ; )

[rjpalmer]

If Hutchinson was using this alleged second sighting as an opportunity to confirm, amongst other things, that the man’s tie-pin was indeed of a horseshoe shape, why would he then state that he only "fancied" it was the same individual from the Miller's Court encounter, but "could not be certain"? Was he seriously wondering that it might have been a different person wearing identical clothes and accessories?

You're ignoring the science of observation and witness testimony, Ben. Since this second sighting of the toff took place on the 11th and Hutch didn't make his statement until the 12th, there is no way of knowing whether this second sighting didn't inform and/or pollute (take your pick) the description Hutch subsequently gave to Badham. If you don't think that subsequent events can't alter one's memory, then you aren't reading your psychology books, old man.

No, I don't accept the opinion or conjecture that this had to be a "fleeting" sighting in Middlesex Street. That’s just the interpretation that you and Sam wish to give it. I can imagine an entirely different scenario. As Caz points out above, Hutch does later state that he could identify the suspect again. But to me, this is merely either standard “cop talk” wording to indicate a witness that has the potential to give evidence in court, or, if you prefer, standard witness bravado. You and your fellow Hutchinson theorists have spent the last 20 years telling the world that Hutchinson’s observations took place in terrible ambient lighting conditions and in such a fleeting and carefree manner that there is no way in Hades he could have come up with that sort of detail, and yet you are now arguing that this image was so perfectly planted in his brain that 55 or 60 hours later (Sunday morning) he would be able to know with exact certainty whether or not the man in Middlesex was the same bloke!!!? Are you kidding me?? Which way is it Ben? Or do you want it both ways?

The first sighting took place, by your own theory, in poor ambient light; the second sighting took place in what may well have been broad daylight. If his sighting of Astrakhan is as bad and untrustworthy as you lot always say it is, then of course he would have had some doubts if he was seeing the same man. But to me, the very fact that he THINKS he saw the man again, tells me he observed him and took great notice of him. After all, in your theory this man murdered his close friend of 3 years, yet he is just going to let it drop at a fleeting glimpse? For all I know he stared the man down for 5 minutes and then went to find a constable. And indeed, according to Hutch’s interview with the press, he DID talk to a constable that very same morning about the suspect he had seen. It works for me.

Most everyone has always assumed that Hutch’s detail description is based on what he witnessed in Dorset Street on Friday night, and if he was a good witness, that is all it should have been based on, but as I don’t care to run with the herd, I can't dismiss the very real possibility that he really wasn’t such a great witness and this second event in Middlesex Street informed/polluted his witness statement. It only makes sense that what he saw in daylight would have left more of a visual impression than what he saw in darkness. And that, my dear chap, if you think it through clearly, entirely demolishes your "too much detail” argument which I nevet bought anyway. I am interested in the realities of witness identifications, and not merely trying to “Agatha Christie” my way to a case solution by fitting up the next local chap that comes along, be it Lechmere, Barnett, Cohen, or Hutchinson. The wheels are falling off your cart, old man.