Tweet
Ben!
It´s a good thing we dont offend each other with our respective views! And it goes without saying that I respect your stance on this matter, just as I do on other issues where we have differed.
Clearly, I see your point when you compare the magnitude of the witnesses involved, but I will stand my ground when it comes to this; Hutch WAS a different thing than Violenia, Maxwell et consortes.
I do not for one moment think that you are right in writing "And Hutchinson's impossibe description gave him away effectively", since the only written proof we have points in the exact opposite direction. We KNOW that Abberline readily accepted it from the outset, and we KNOW that it resulted in firing the starting shot for a search for Astrakhan man.
You yourself is very adamant on the issue; to you, there is no way that Hutch could have recorded all them details, and so you are a firm believer in what you write, of course - that the testimony gives him avay. Maybe you are right on the point - from what I have learnt about different witnesses and "memory champions" and such, I think that I will only go as far as to say that it was a massively improbable feat - but even if you ARE right, then we are speaking present tense: Today such a testimony would have been very much questioned. Back then, you were obviously wrong, at least from the outset.
"It certainly wasn't a 3:30 "alibi".
Not agreed, Ben. You will be hard pressed to come up with proof of that assumption. And like I said, it never had to be an alibi, since it could have been the simple recognition of Hutch being a very unreliable character, coming from somebody on the force who had had previous experience of Hutch. Bearing the silent exit of Hutch in mind, it is perhaps more probable, but to rule out what can´t be ruled out does nobody any good.
Finally, you write:
"For what possible reason? What a bizarre, inexplicable and totall implausible act of self-sacrifice on Hutchinson's part. It's quite possible that wideawake and billycock were one and the same - I can't rule that out - but it's equally possible that both descriptions referred to Hutchinson himself. Better than any silliness involving accomplices, especially if we're being asked to believe that Blotchy went there not expecting to kill Kelly but eventually did so over a financial dispute!"
Let´s skip Blotchy´s motive, Ben, and just make the assumption - as Osbourne does - that he did kill Kelly, only to forget that he left a clue in her room. Later he returns, takes a long peek into the court to see if the coast is clear, is seen by Lewis - something he may have recognized himself - and thereafter returns to the court to retrieve whatever it was that he left.
Aware of the fact that he has been seen, he turns to his friend Hutch, and the latter agrees to masquerade as the loiterer.
Now, dubbing all of this "silliness" only functions til you realize that nobody has seen through the scam for 120 years - if it is what happened. And the motivation on Hutch´s part could have been a number of things. He could have been payed for the trouble, he could have owed Blotchy a favour or he could have been very uninterested to find out whether Blotchy was mad enough to take a look inside a male abdomen.
Of course it is all conjecture, but it is conjecture that makes use of a man with short, stout stature in the role as Lewis´ loiterer, a man who we know can be put at the scene earlier that night. I have seen worse tries to explain what happened that night - much, much worse.
The best, Ben!
Fisherman
It´s a good thing we dont offend each other with our respective views! And it goes without saying that I respect your stance on this matter, just as I do on other issues where we have differed.
Clearly, I see your point when you compare the magnitude of the witnesses involved, but I will stand my ground when it comes to this; Hutch WAS a different thing than Violenia, Maxwell et consortes.
I do not for one moment think that you are right in writing "And Hutchinson's impossibe description gave him away effectively", since the only written proof we have points in the exact opposite direction. We KNOW that Abberline readily accepted it from the outset, and we KNOW that it resulted in firing the starting shot for a search for Astrakhan man.
You yourself is very adamant on the issue; to you, there is no way that Hutch could have recorded all them details, and so you are a firm believer in what you write, of course - that the testimony gives him avay. Maybe you are right on the point - from what I have learnt about different witnesses and "memory champions" and such, I think that I will only go as far as to say that it was a massively improbable feat - but even if you ARE right, then we are speaking present tense: Today such a testimony would have been very much questioned. Back then, you were obviously wrong, at least from the outset.
"It certainly wasn't a 3:30 "alibi".
Not agreed, Ben. You will be hard pressed to come up with proof of that assumption. And like I said, it never had to be an alibi, since it could have been the simple recognition of Hutch being a very unreliable character, coming from somebody on the force who had had previous experience of Hutch. Bearing the silent exit of Hutch in mind, it is perhaps more probable, but to rule out what can´t be ruled out does nobody any good.
Finally, you write:
"For what possible reason? What a bizarre, inexplicable and totall implausible act of self-sacrifice on Hutchinson's part. It's quite possible that wideawake and billycock were one and the same - I can't rule that out - but it's equally possible that both descriptions referred to Hutchinson himself. Better than any silliness involving accomplices, especially if we're being asked to believe that Blotchy went there not expecting to kill Kelly but eventually did so over a financial dispute!"
Let´s skip Blotchy´s motive, Ben, and just make the assumption - as Osbourne does - that he did kill Kelly, only to forget that he left a clue in her room. Later he returns, takes a long peek into the court to see if the coast is clear, is seen by Lewis - something he may have recognized himself - and thereafter returns to the court to retrieve whatever it was that he left.
Aware of the fact that he has been seen, he turns to his friend Hutch, and the latter agrees to masquerade as the loiterer.
Now, dubbing all of this "silliness" only functions til you realize that nobody has seen through the scam for 120 years - if it is what happened. And the motivation on Hutch´s part could have been a number of things. He could have been payed for the trouble, he could have owed Blotchy a favour or he could have been very uninterested to find out whether Blotchy was mad enough to take a look inside a male abdomen.
Of course it is all conjecture, but it is conjecture that makes use of a man with short, stout stature in the role as Lewis´ loiterer, a man who we know can be put at the scene earlier that night. I have seen worse tries to explain what happened that night - much, much worse.
The best, Ben!
Fisherman
Comment