Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Abby Normal]

What actually happened...

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

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

hahahaha! Good one Sam

[rjpalmer]

By the way, Ben, I am the sort of guy that if I spent the entire afternoon in your company, I probably wouldn't be able recall whether you were dressed like a lumberjack or a dressed like a wedding singer. But my ex-wife would quickly pass someone walking down the street and then discuss for the next 5 minutes in astonishing detail how the woman's scarf clashed with her socks and that the jacket she was wearing was currently on sale at Freddy's and those were the cutest black flats she had ever seen her life and she must buy a pair. Some people notice clothing. I don't have that talent. Maybe Hutch had it. It doesn't make him a murderer.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Hi rj

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.

It has nothing to do with altering ones memory-YOU claimed he could have seen more detail on this supposed second sighting. One which he says "I think" I saw him again. How is he supposed to remember more detail when its obviously only a fleeting glimpse-one where hes not even certain its the same man.

If anything this second sighting would have only confused his description (and his certainty) more.

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?

Its not having it both ways-Hutch is the one who said he saw and remembered that much detail the first time and then wasn't sure the second. were not saying it-he did! If he saw and remembered that much detail the first time in the dark then he should have honed on to him during the day like a face recognition machine the second time shouldnt he? no need for ambiguity then on this second sighting.

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.

This actually works for me too. I don't agree with the first part of that paragraph, but even if hutch did see him again, whether fleeting or not, this does hold together and makes sense.

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

witnesses often turn out to be the killer, RJ, its a well know fact in criminology. These are exactly the types of suspects(except cohen perhaps) one needs to take a careful look at-I would add Richardson and Bowyer to that list to. At least they have connection and locality to victims.


you favor Tumblty? what part of "realities of witness identifications" do you adhere to with this suspect RJ, seeing as he is polar opposite of ANY of the witness descriptions and cant even be connected to any of the victims or placed near them?

[Scott Nelson]

That's it, RJ. You've got to join the Holm-Smyth Summit on Hutchinson. I could be there too, with a few emissaries for good measure.

[Wickerman]

...Still let's look at the question of risk.'He (Hutchinson)wouldn't risk coming forward'. Well the killer had already taken the biggest risk.THat of murdering Kelly.

That's not really true though is it.
It might be true if Blotchy was the killer, Cox saw him enter the room with Kelly, so to then go on and murder Kelly would be risky.
It might also apply if Astrachan had been the killer, having been stared in the face like he was, then go on to murder the woman he was seen with.
Somehow I doubt you believe in either of those scenario's.

From what we have no-one saw this killer enter the room with Kelly. So, where was the risk, beyond someone knocking at her door in the middle of the night? Which is quite easy to avoid - just stay quiet & still.

If Kelly was a ripper Killing(I believe it was)he took the risk of killing indoors,argueably a riskier undertaking than killing outdoors.He changed his method.He didn't have to but he did.

It was his choice to move indoors. Unless you think someone shoved him in there and threw him a knife.
As it was his choice, then he cannot have believed what he did was more risky.
In fact it might be argued to have been less risky. Contemporary opinions in the press on that issue are divided.

Now what is the Characteristics of many criminals after commiting a criminal act.It is to avoid detection,and in cases where the criminal fears he/she can be connected,to supply an alibi.Donald Hulme(I believe the surname is correct)although admitting being present at the Stanley Setty murder,blamed the killing on an unamed person who he(Hulme)claimed was present.
That person was never found either,nor was he believed to exist.

First we are presented with arguments suggesting the more likely, obvious, or common reason's for Hutchinson doing what he did. Now you resort to special pleading, offering an example that rarely ever happens.
Which are we supposed to believe?

Did Hutchinson do what any liar or criminal would do, or - did he do what is very rare for a criminal to do?
Can you guy's get your heads together to come up with something consistent?

[Sam Flynn]

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.

Not an interpretation at all. It's preceisely the sort of thing that tends to happen when one thinks one sees someone on a busy street in daytime. Such encounters tend to be fleeting almost by definition.

[Wickerman]

Yet he told the Star on the 10th

He himself had been taken by the police down to Dorset-street, and had been kept there for two hours and a half. He saw the body by peeping through the window.

Correct, this is consistent with the previous report that said "Barnet was sent for.....".
He could only have been sent for if he was at a known location. So, that was not his lodgings. They only found out his address from him. Therefore it had to be the police station.
We know he arrived at Millers Court because Abberline took his statement.

Someone, presumably Abberline or Reid "sent for" Barnett, but at what time is the crucial question.
Him viewing her body through the window only indicates he was not allowed inside by the police.
It doesn't prove the door was still locked.

[Darryl Kenyon]

So, Mr Hutchinson, he was wearing a thick gold chain and a black tie on the ninth - Yes. And he was about 35 with dark eyes and lashes when you saw him on the ninth - Err no I didn't really notice his approximate age and eyes on the ninth until I got another look at him on the eleventh in Petticoat-lane. But Mr Hutchinson you said you only thought it was him on the eleventh. How do you know he is the right man? If it is the wrong man, the man you saw on the ninth could be more like 25 with blue eyes.
Either hutch is describing the man from the ninth or not at all.

[rjpalmer]

Not an interpretation at all. It's preceisely the sort of thing that tends to happen when one thinks one sees someone on a busy street in daytime. Such encounters tend to be fleeting almost by definition.

Sam, we haven't the foggiest notion of the circumstances of this sighting. It was in Middlesex Street on a crowded market morning. People are milling around slowly in front of stalls. Many people are simply loitering. Most are stopping to look. If Hutchinson had seen the man who supposedly killed his alleged "friend," then it would have taken very little tenacity to edge closer to the man and study him.


The assumption is that this sighting was 'fleeting' and it is a further assumption that Hutchinson approaching a PC the same morning are unrelated. Why assume that? Is there something in the case evidence that shows that interpretation to be the correct one? Personally, I think they could be related. We don't have enough information to know.

Hutch is the one who said he saw and remembered that much detail the first time

Really? Where does he state this? Or is this merely what you've been assuming all these years?

And what do you mean the 'first time'?

Hutchinson gave his statement on the 12th--the day after he saw the man in Middlesex Street. So there is no 'first time' and 'second time.' Hutchinson's statement to the police came after both events.

And that being the case, dear boy, I hope you would appreciate what the concept of 'pollution' means.

As I say, if Hutch were the ideal witness he would be able to block the 11th out of his mind and state ONLY what he had witnessed on the morning of the 9th.

But we know from experience and scientific studies that that is not what happens in the real world. Between his encounter on the 9th and his coming forward on the 12th another significant encounter may have occurred and so we are left with the very real possibility that this second event may have significantly colored his witness statement, particularly if he was trying his hardest to give as much useful detail to the police as possible.

And it certainly looks like that was the case.

As for your claim that it is "well-known" fact that killers come forward as witnesses then you should have no difficulty in providing the statistics.


How often, exactly? 1% of known cases? 8%? 0.003%? Ben has been unable to provide these numbers, but I have every confidence that you will be able to do better. Thanks.

[Wickerman]

Perhaps it was the accomplices job to watch the courtyard until it was dead quiet and then notify the killer all was clear...or perhaps the accomplice was to ensure that no-one followed the couple into the courtyard, once he was satisfied no-one did, he left. Perhaps Sarah saw Wideawake waiting for Blotchy to come out safely, and Mary never really left her room again after she entered it just before midnight. .....

How does this lookout get a warning to Astrachan, at the other end of the passage, inside the room?

[Abby Normal]

That's not really true though is it.
It might be true if Blotchy was the killer, Cox saw him enter the room with Kelly, so to then go on and murder Kelly would be risky.
It might also apply if Astrachan had been the killer, having been stared in the face like he was, then go on to murder the woman he was seen with.
Somehow I doubt you believe in either of those scenario's.

From what we have no-one saw this killer enter the room with Kelly. So, where was the risk, beyond someone knocking at her door in the middle of the night? Which is quite easy to avoid - just stay quiet & still.



It was his choice to move indoors. Unless you think someone shoved him in there and threw him a knife.
As it was his choice, then he cannot have believed what he did was more risky.
In fact it might be argued to have been less risky. Contemporary opinions in the press on that issue are divided.




First we are presented with arguments suggesting the more likely, obvious, or common reason's for Hutchinson doing what he did. Now you resort to special pleading, offering an example that rarely ever happens.
Which are we supposed to believe?

Did Hutchinson do what any liar or criminal would do, or - did he do what is very rare for a criminal to do?
Can you guy's get your heads together to come up with something consistent?

LOL! you do realize that people that argue from the opposite side may have different ideas?

[Wickerman]

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.

Only if we assume BS-man was her killer. Swanson wasn't so sure.

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!

Was the boy's body found in Dahmer's room, tying the boy to Dahmer and the last time they were seen together?

[Wickerman]

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

Lets not sidestep the issue

Your argument requires the gossip to be of the 'cry of murder', or anything suggesting an early time of death.
As nothing was in the press on that Friday indicating this, then where does this gossip come from?

[Wickerman]

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!

Once again, you are two steps behind.
Gareth's point is the public would be gossiping about an early time of death on Friday, in part due to the rumored 'cry of murder'.
On what evidence?

No suggestion of a cry of murder in the Friday evening press.

[Wickerman]

I wish I'd written that.

Love,

Caz
X

Indeed Caz, RJ has got their number already