Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Some posters seem to be working from an if A then B mindset. In other words, show that Hutchinson lied and that therefore makes him Mary's killer and possibly the Ripper. The reality is however that that only shows he lied. A case still needs to be made for the latter.

    c.d.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ben View Post
      Yes we do, Jon.

      We know for an absolute certainly that the place where he “usually slept” was the Victoria Home,...
      The fact remains, we do not. The strength of your conviction does not change that fact.

      ..... thus rendering all the more perplexing his decision to saunter 12 miles in frigid conditions, in the small hours of a November night, in the certainly that his lodgings would be closed to him by the time he arrived “home” in Whitechapel.
      You call 36 deg F, 'frigid'?
      We do not know when he set off, or why, or whether he even intended to go straight to his "usual place", where ever that was.
      You're guessing again in order to make his story appear suspicious.


      In winter? In southern Ontario? I don’t believe you, Jon.
      What does a Canadian winter have to do with this?
      It was London, it was November, the temp. was 36 deg F.
      I don't really care if you believe me. If I say black, you'll say white. If I say up, you'll say down. I know what goes on here in Fall (Autumn), and I wouldn't say this if it wasn't true. The exasperation of Red Cross workers is repeated every year because many of the homeless refuse their help.


      Damn, you got me there. I must have foolishly ruled out the possibility that the PC in question made a note of Hutchinson’s story, but deliberately neglected or forgot to alert his superiors about it.
      So, is this the fact you talked about? Another assumption?
      You don't 'think' the PC made any notes, you don't 'think' he told his superior?
      And what exactly, do you 'think' his superior would do if the PC had passed this information on?
      Along with all the other stories, and theories, and accusations, coming in from all manner of directions every day.
      Perhaps, his superior just thought the same as you?


      ...... the idea that if people refuse to buy what you’re selling, it must be because they are “unable to think for themselves”.
      Who's refused anything?, and why does the old 'pat-on-the-back' matter to you so much?
      Stand on your own two feet for a change.


      So you keep saying, but what was his excuse for not coming forward on Saturday morning then, when you agree he would have been “exposed to both theories”?
      How many years have you been pushing this question?
      Ie; "there is no way a 'friend?', or acquaintance, would not have come forward".
      Yes, you and others.

      Yet, time and time again you have been educated on the fact that witnesses in murder cases, whether friends, or neighbours of the victim have not come forward for days, or weeks or even years.
      Some don't want to get involved, other feel they may be victimized themselves. It doesn't matter what the reason is, the fact remains your 'belief' is not true.
      Didn't RJ give examples this time?, I do remember others in previous years. Bridewell was another who gave you the benefit of his experience, but no, here you are again regurgitating the same false argument.
      It's like you guy's never learn anything.
      Regards, Jon S.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rjpalmer View Post
        Hi Simon. Thanks for the article; it’s a good one. But of course, this only addresses whether Hutchinson was accurate in calling the hanky red; it has no bearing on whether he was honest in calling the hanky red—if you see the distinction. The gaslight may have played tricks on his eyes, but he believed what he was telling Badham. By contrast, I think Hinton’s argument was that there can be no color in poor lighting (due to the lack of wavelengths, etc) so someone claiming to have seen any color is inherently a liar.

        Abby – ‘fig’ only requires three asterisks, not four.
        Lol..
        "Is all that we see or seem
        but a dream within a dream?"

        -Edgar Allan Poe


        "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
        quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

        -Frederick G. Abberline

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Ben View Post
          I’m sorry to say that it’s a good deal easier to spot nonsense written on the subject of Hutchinson’s visual and recollective abilities than it was to register not only a handkerchief, but its colour and pattern, from 120 feet away on a darkened Victorian street at night time.
          Hutchinson was standing across the street, not even 25 ft away.
          Lewis saw him there, remember?
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
            Some posters seem to be working from an if A then B mindset. In other words, show that Hutchinson lied and that therefore makes him Mary's killer and possibly the Ripper. The reality is however that that only shows he lied. A case still needs to be made for the latter.

            c.d.
            Absolutely cd.

            If i had a gun pointed at my head and was asked did he tell the whole truth, lied because he was an attention getter, or killer. Id go with liar/attention seeker.
            "Is all that we see or seem
            but a dream within a dream?"

            -Edgar Allan Poe


            "...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
            quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."

            -Frederick G. Abberline

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
              Hutchinson was standing across the street, not even 25 ft away.
              Hutchinson doesn't say precisely where he was in relation to Kelly and Astrakhan when the conversation/hanky business happened.
              Lewis saw him there, remember?
              She saw a man standing alone outside Crossinghams, opposite the entrance to Miller's Court. If it was Hutchinson, this must have been some time after Kelly and Astrakhan had entered her room, otherwise why was he staring at the entrance to the court in the first place?
              Kind regards, Sam Flynn

              "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

              Comment


              • Hi Jon,

                "However, you may incur the wrath of some anti-Hutchinson posters who demand it must be red to connect Hutch with the Eddowes murder."

                Is that a typo on your part? Or have I blinked and missed something, or possibly entered the twilight zone?

                Regards,

                Simon
                Never believe anything until it has been officially denied.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Abby Normal View Post
                  That's as much if not more, speculation regarding Hutch than anything else, is it not?

                  Mine is speculation (as to why Hutchinson might have been waiting). Yours is a statement of fact about his body language, the nature of which I was hoping you might explain.
                  "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                    Certainly, Caz.

                    I suspect Abberline’s reaction was one of immediate doubt and suspicion.

                    Cheers,
                    Ben
                    That may have been a conclusion that he came to at a later time, but his immediate reaction, as I recall, was to document a belief that Hutchinson's story was true.
                    "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Simon Wood View Post
                      Hi Jon,

                      "However, you may incur the wrath of some anti-Hutchinson posters who demand it must be red to connect Hutch with the Eddowes murder."

                      Is that a typo on your part? Or have I blinked and missed something, or possibly entered the twilight zone?

                      Regards,

                      Simon
                      "Blinked"?
                      That might depend on what you see as a typo.
                      Regards, Jon S.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Ben View Post

                        In winter? In southern Ontario? I don’t believe you, Jon. With the best will in the world, I won’t buy it a million years. The immediate priority of any homeless person is to remedy their homeless predicament, and that is especially true of people who find themselves in such circumstances during freezing cold winter conditions - the majority of them not being great lovers of hypothermia and all that.
                        Hey Ben.

                        Read this....
                        "It's safer out here," Barb said. "There's no bugs. No one's going to beat you up or steal your ****."

                        In January, it was -23C. yet safety trumps comfort.

                        https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ticle37601534/

                        You can do your own research, please just for once, surprise me.
                        Regards, Jon S.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Bridewell View Post
                          That may have been a conclusion that he came to at a later time, but his immediate reaction, as I recall, was to document a belief that Hutchinson's story was true.
                          True but there are varying degrees of belief.

                          c.d.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ben View Post
                            Obviously it’s all perfectly credible, as some will no doubt insist, because Hutchinson said she used a “loud voice” when making this exclamation, but why would she over-vocalise such a casual and everyday complaint(?), is surely the more immediately pressing question.
                            If she did so might it have been because she was drunk?
                            "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                            Comment


                            • Hi Simon - Are you familiar with the Whiteinch murder? Let us harken back to the year 1904. A red handkerchief was found near the murder victim; it had been used to gag her. I am only interested in the last two sentences. It was the pattern of the red hanky, and not its color, that made it distinctive enough to allow the police to trace it to a type manufactured in the UK, but sold primarily to South Africa. "10 or 12" years ago would be 1892ish. So, like I've been trying to express, the 'classic' red hanky had a pattern, and this helped Hutchinson distinguish what he was seeing just as much as any hue he discerned in the glow of the gas lamp in Dorset Street. I don't think we have to accept Ben's vision of Astrakhan as some sort of stage magician pulling a long string of silk scarfs out of his top hat, asking us to distinguish whether they are blue, yellow, or green. Red hankies were the common type carried around at the time and distinguishable by both their color and their pattern. Note also the competency of the police who were able to successfully trace the handkerchief's manufacturer. I've been led to believe that the British detective was a dullard.
                              Attached Files

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by c.d. View Post
                                True but there are varying degrees of belief.

                                c.d.
                                Maybe, but Abberline's report was "I am of opinion his statement is true". That's pretty categorical for someone who who harbours any significant doubt.
                                "It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins twisting facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts." Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (as Sherlock Holmes).

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X