The Red Handkerchief...

[harry]

One question is,did Hutchinson know Kelly as well as he implies.The giving of a shilling appears to be a not infrequent claim,and enough in itself to fear that he would be connected at sometime.Would Aberline then have had an opinion of honesty,if the police had to seek him,and he gave the same story?
It was come forward ,be sought or scarper,and it took three days to decide.Not exactly an eager beaver,was he?or concerned one.

[caz]

maybe he forgot about her. he was out and about for a while and surely we cant expect someone under those circumstances to remember everyone they saw-especially 3 days later.

Entirely reasonable, Abby.

But that would put paid to the argument that he came forward because he had just found out she had dropped him in it at the inquest.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Hi Caz and Fish
you make good and valid points about hutch not mentioning lewis-he places himself there anyway so why not mention her to make it more believable and be corroborated. I see your point.

On the other hand he may have thought that mentioning lewis would tip his hand to the police on WHY he came forward. and the police might find it suspicious if they thought he came forward because he had been spotted, rather out of the goodness of his own heart.

or perhaps, as in my previous post, he forgot about her.

Thanks Abby.

Of course, Ben would argue that because Hutch came forward as a witness, it would not have dawned on the police in those days to suspect that he might have been involved in some capacity in the crime itself. If this has any basis in truth at all, then mentioning Lewis should merely have helped support his account rather than cause them to suspect him of murder.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

I´m sorry, Ben, but I am not wasting any more time on the discussion. You add nothing new, opting instead to cling to your old misconceptions. I have pointed it out, but change it I cannot.
It´s discussion over for this time.

Fisherman

You know what, Fishy? I'm with you. I can't even be bothered to read another of Ben's long, repetitive, cut-and-paste jobs. And I think the last thing he really wants is for us to respond, which then compels him to come back with more of the same.

Let's give him a break, shall we, and leave him talking to himself.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

If this has any basis in truth at all, then mentioning Lewis should merely have helped support his account rather than cause them to suspect him of murder.

All well and good until he dropped a bollock with his contradictory and embellished press account, drastically undermining his initial version of events, only this time (i.e. in the "mentioned Lewis" scenario), he'd be a liar who was at the scene of the crime - according to police - as opposed to a liar who wasn't.

[Ben]

All this conjecture would require Lewis to have known Hutchinson and Hutchinson to have known Lewis and Hutchinson to have thought that Lewis recognized him in Wideawake Man.

No, it wouldn't.

All it would require was a concern on Hutchinson's part that Lewis might recognise him subsequently as the man she had seen loitering opposite the court on the night of the murder. If you set eyes on a stranger once, there exists the possibility of you being able to recognise him again. So why would the two have needed to "know" one another for that to happen?

She didn't even offer any conjecture, so the idea of Hutch trying to nip a problem in the bud doesn't really register as more than conjecture.

It is not "conjecture" to reject random coincidence as a "palatable" explanation for an obvious evidentiary link. On the contrary, given the obvious congruity between Lewis' wideawake man and Hutchinson's account, it would be foolhardly "conjecture", in my opinion, to dismiss the two as unrelated. It's the acceptance of a connection, which is the opposite of conjecture. Similarly, it is far more outlandish and controversial to argue that Hutchinson's appearance at the police station so soon after the release of inquest details pertaining to this loitering man was yet another odd "coincidence".

I quite agree that accepting the above as obvious causal events (as opposed to unrelated, deeply weird coincidences) need not turn Hutchinson into a killer. Yes, he could have been spooked at being seen by Sarah Lewis for other reasons that don't involve him being the killer, but at the same time, it could have been because he was culpable, and like it or not, the "culpable" interpretation of his behaviour has a firm footing in established serial killer behaviour.

Have a problem with those "suspects" who need "conjecture" to get them anywhere near London at the time of the murders, let alone maintaining solitary vigils outside a crime scene shortly before a murder. Have a problem with those "suspects" who don't fit the local gentile "everyman" demographic favoured by experts in serial crime who have studied the case. Just be honest, concede that Hutchinson's one of the saner bets out of a very bad bunch, and then watch the Hutchinson output on the forum halve.

Because at the moment, it's the throwing of the baby out with the bathwater that I'm finding slightly annoying, and I think that much of the resulting repetition and argy-bargy can be mitigated with a less obstreperous approach from the admittedly very few detractors of the "Hutchinson theory".

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

You know what, Fishy? I'm with you. I can't even be bothered to read another of Ben's long, repetitive, cut-and-paste jobs. And I think the last thing he really wants is for us to respond, which then compels him to come back with more of the same.

Let's give him a break, shall we, and leave him talking to himself.

Love,

Caz
X

Yes, let´s Caz - I am confident it´s the best solution. I trust we will not go glip of anything we havent heard before.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Scott Nelson]

What's "argy-bargy" mean?
What's "obstreperous" mean?
Who are the "very few detractors of the Hutchinson theory"?
And why are you slightly annoyed?

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Ben,

... given the obvious congruity between Lewis' wideawake man and Hutchinson's account, it would be foolhardly "conjecture", in my opinion, to dismiss the two as unrelated. It's the acceptance of a connection, which is the opposite of conjecture. Similarly, it is far more outlandish and controversial to argue that Hutchinson's appearance at the police station so soon after the release of inquest details pertaining to this loitering man was yet another odd "coincidence".

I just thought of something. The inquest was up in Shoreditch.

George Hutchinson may not have known there was an inquest into the death of Mary Kelly that day. In Shoreditch.

Roy

[harry]

Perhaps Hutchinson didn't even know Kelly was dead until a short time before he appeared,like a good honest citizen,at the police station to give his information.Maybe some posters even believe that,they seem to believe most everything about him,except guilt. Very few,if any,and I can't recall one,serial killer,or indeed any other type of killer,attempts to flee.Most inject themselves,by the very act of killing,into the proceedings,and some,invent imaginary figures who they cast suspicion on,in attempts to clear themselves.What Ben has shown is that HUtchinson stands as a good suspect,because there is good grounds for believing he lied,among other things,and he can be placed,on his own admission,at the scene of the Kelly murder,the night she died.What more needs to be known,to raise suspicion.

[Roy Corduroy]

Hello Harry,

To demonstrate, it is 1.3 Kilometers from the inquest at Shoreditch Town Hall to the Victoria Workingmen's Home (V) where George Hutchinson may have lodged. The Kelly murder site is marked in Red

[The Good Michael]

Because at the moment, it's the throwing of the baby out with the bathwater that I'm finding slightly annoying, and I think that much of the resulting repetition and argy-bargy can be mitigated with a less obstreperous approach from the admittedly very few detractors of the "Hutchinson theory".

You've just admitted that you react to what annoys you, and that you force the repetition because you are annoyed. You always want the last word. Do you think that's healthy in any relationship?

Cheers,

Mike

[harry]

Roy,
About a twenty minute walk,and Hutchinson didn't appear at the police station until about 6.30PM.Can't see a problem.

[Abby Normal]

Good evening Ben,



I just thought of something. The inquest was up in Shoreditch.

George Hutchinson may not have known there was an inquest into the death of Mary Kelly that day. In Shoreditch.

Roy

Hi Roy
that may be the case. but then why wait so long to go to the police?
In one of hutchs statements he said he thought the man lived in the area and that he had seen him again, that he spoke to a PC in the street about it, and that a friend at the lodging house gave him advice he should go to the police.

Does not really sound as if hutch was clueless as to what happened until the last second he went to the station does it?

[Abby Normal]

Entirely reasonable, Abby.

But that would put paid to the argument that he came forward because he had just found out she had dropped him in it at the inquest.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz. thanks and of course.

I have to admit that the way I look at hutch is that I actually do see his coming forward like he did as a negative against his validity as a suspect, however not so much that it totally It rules him out-especially when balanced against IMHO the three big red flags of stalking behavior, almost impossible too detailed a description and the huge coincidence of showing up just after the inquest was over.

If I had a gun to my head I would say Hutch-just an attention seeker who lied about aman. I think he was there per lewis, probably looking for a place to crash and or the companionship of Mary, but that he probably never saw her or Aman as he described.

But out of the list of weak suspects I think hes one of the least weak for the ripper.
and at the very least lied about Aman.
The scenario I find hardest to believe is that he was a totally honest witness, although its possible, but just barely in my opinion.