The Red Handkerchief...

[Sally]

And besides...

My own belief is that Hutchinson does belong to the list of bad suspects - almost all of them do.

When he was identified as Toppy - yes, that HAS happened - he went further down the list. Before that, he belonged to the top ten, but after it, he must settle for a lesser role.

All the best,
Fisherman

I don't see what difference it makes who he was. You endorse a suspect with a very similar domestic background, after all.

Out of interest, did Toppy have a particularly bad memory?

[Fisherman]

So this is one occasion when you don't agree with Wikipedia?

That will depend - I usually donīt employ Wikipedia to form an opinion, so I donīt know what they say about Hutchinson.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

I don't see what difference it makes who he was. You endorse a suspect with a very similar domestic background, after all.

As such, it makes little difference who he was - he could have been the killer anyway. It was, however, inferred before (and still is, I believe) that Hutchinson lied about his identity, and that George Hutchinson was an alias he used, whilst in fact being somebody else. Like Joe Fleming.
Once that has been negated - and it has - he of course travels down the list of suspects in terms of viability. A man who purposefully hides his identity from the police is a better suspect than one who does not.
That, by the way, is one of many points where Lechmere is of far more interest. We KNOW that he did not use his real name when speaking to the police, so he qualifies on that point.

Out of interest, did Toppy have a particularly bad memory?

Do you? Have you forgotten that I have on lots of occasions pointed out that it was apparent that he had a very good memory for details, as evinced by his description of Astrakhan man, and as confirmed by his son Reg who claimed that his father never needed to write lists of the things he was going to need at a working site. He was able to memorize very many details, in other words! Without missing out on a single one of them - otherwise he would have needed a written list.
However, our detail memory is one thing, and our sequential memory (dealing with the order in which things happen, and manifesting itself in our ability to keep track of days, events and such things) is another one altogether.

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

In what sense is he not a good suspect?

I guess this is where we enter one of your repetitive "sigh's"

When the police at the time, who clearly knew more about his actions and his claims than we do, cleared him of suspicion, then any contrary modern suspicions leveled against him are only based on poor, inaccurate or incomplete information. Therefore such suspicions do not make 'good' arguments.

They may make sense to those who are not so choosy, but the more discerning theorist will acknowledge the difference.
There is no more evidence that Hutchinson 'may have' lied about something significant in this case, than there is that any witness 'may have' lied.
It all boils down to what you want to see.

[Fisherman]

There is no more evidence that Hutchinson 'may have' lied about something significant in this case, than there is that any witness 'may have' lied.
It all boils down to what you want to see.

And that, Sally, is another point where Lechmere makes much more sense than Hutchinson - it is reasoned that Hutchinson lied about Astrakhan manīs clothing, but there is no other source contradicting Hutchinson on the point.

In Lechmereīs case, we know that he and Mizen contradict each other, so in this case we can be certain that at least one of them MUST have been wrong. We thus have confirmed misinformation on record. That does not hold true in Hutchinsonīs case.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

I donīt know how you do your maths, Sally, but I think that if Hutchinson was wrong on the days, then arguably I am left with just the one well-dressed man to account for on the murder night.
The other one would belong to the night before.

Given what Iīm constantly - and with no substantiation - is told about how rare these men were, I would have thought that my theory should be warmly received since it halves the number of such men per day.

Of course, if the two stories could both have happened on one day, then they could just as well have happened on two days - in fact, it should all fit a lot better with the Hutchinsonain argument that these stories could not have played out on the same day without one being a paraphrase of the other.

So if we dilute the errand into TWO days, then we are suddenly dealing with a perspective that should be extremely appealing to you, right? Or would it be out of the question that she had to relatively respectably clad men as clients on two different days? And that she could have met them both on Dorset Street and taken them back to her room?
Is that too much of a coincidence?

Glad to be of help,
Fisherman

yes it is.

But to be fair fish, Eventhough I find your hutch out on the days idea very unlikely, it is possible and it is supported by evidence(Dew), so I give you that, although I find the reminisces of the senior officers somewhat dubious across the board.

[Abby Normal]

My own belief is that Hutchinson does belong to the list of bad suspects - almost all of them do.

When he was identified as Toppy - yes, that HAS happened - he went further down the list. Before that, he belonged to the top ten, but after it, he must settle for a lesser role.

All the best,
Fisherman

Nope, Toppy or not Toppy. it makes no difference-many (most) serial killers can have apparently normal female relationships.

Lech included so Im not sure why you cling to the Toppy aspect???

[Abby Normal]

I guess this is where we enter one of your repetitive "sigh's"

When the police at the time, who clearly knew more about his actions and his claims than we do, cleared him of suspicion, then any contrary modern suspicions leveled against him are only based on poor, inaccurate or incomplete information. Therefore such suspicions do not make 'good' arguments.

They may make sense to those who are not so choosy, but the more discerning theorist will acknowledge the difference.
There is no more evidence that Hutchinson 'may have' lied about something significant in this case, than there is that any witness 'may have' lied.
It all boils down to what you want to see.

"Sigh"
just Kidding ; )

cleared him of suspicion

Nope, never happened. There are many other reasons do dismiss Hutch as a suspect, but this aint one of them. As a someone who is a stickler for evidence and good with details and historical sources, im surprised you mention this.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I thought I'd already explained to you that the Daily News account related to an event that did not happen in reality. It is a account comprised of confusion and outright invention, as the earliest press reports invariably were. It did not "belong to" any night, and as such, you're absolved of the necessity of having to explain the preposterous "coincidence" of two identical sequences of events playing out with exactitude (and reported with identical phraseology) on two successive nights. Unfortunately, you would still need to explain how Hutchinson's supposedly genuine account managed to be so astonishingly similar in content to a fictional story provided in the press a few days earlier, without the latter influencing him in any way.

Having these identical sequence of events occurring on different days doesn't "dilute" the ludicrous nature of the "coincidence" being proposed here in the slightest. They would still be suspiciously similar whether they happened on the same day or ten weeks apart. But again, that needn't concern us because the Daily News episode didn't even happen.

But then my heart sinks when I see the fight you are now trying to pick:

When he was identified as Toppy - yes, that HAS happened

No, that has most assuredly NOT happened - quite the reverse, in fact. In is an absurdly ludicrous, minority-endorsed idea that was hurled to the wolves back in 1993, so don't you dare suggest that the possibility of a pseudonym has been "negated". You can disagree, but dispense with the baseless absolutes. The inconsistent signatures and absence of a credible candidate in the census records lend weight to the suggestion that "George Hutchinson" was not his real name. Even if it was, it wouldn't detract from his candidacy in the slightest. Dennis Rader's real name was Dennis Rader, ditto Gary Ridgway etc etc.

There is no evidence that the real Hutchinson had any special capacity for observation and recollection, and he would need to be superhuman at both in order to notice and recall all that he claimed. Not even the tests for photographic memory require such a feat in order to demonstrate its presence in individuals thought to be in possession of that ability. On the other hand, very few people bollocks up their "sequential memory" to anything like the extent you're proposing. Reg said lots of things, including the detail that his father was a plumber who was "rarely, if ever, out of work". Unfortunately for the conclusions of a distinct minority, this is hopelessly incompatible with the reported particulars of the real "witness".

Cross did not use a pseudonym. He used the name of his stepfather, as he had done previously. He certainly wasn't concealing his identity, unless he seriously thought the police were incapable of obtaining his "Lechmere" surname after visiting his address.

I've seen better examples at "concealment" from a man in a luminous orange suit standing in the middle of a park and holding a twig in front of his face in an effort to blend into the foliage.

In Lechmereīs case, we know that he and Mizen contradict each other

Yes, and virtually everyone who isn't a Lechmere proponent accepts that Mizen was in error on that point, not Cross who, incidentally, was considered a serious suspect by the police and never once discredited, unlike Hutchinson, who was evidently dismissed as a publicity seeker.

But if you could kindly desist from derailing the thread in the direction of Toppy, Lechmere and date-confusion, I'm sure we'd all be most appreciative. Persist in this only if you want verbatim regurgitation from earlier threads.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Nope, never happened. There are many other reasons do dismiss Hutch as a suspect, but this aint one of them. As a someone who is a stickler for evidence and good with details and historical sources, im surprised you mention this.

Yes, Abby's right: Hutchinson can't have been 'cleared of suspicion' because so far as we know he was never a suspect to begin with.

In fact, that's one point on which we can't disagree with Wikipedia. He's a modern suspect - there's evidence that his story was viewed with suspicion at the time; but the suspicion seems to have been that he was a time-waster - doubtless there were many of those who have never come to our attention because they were simply dismissed as such at the time.

There is no contemporary suggestion that Hutchinson was suspected of worse.

[Ben]

Couldn't agree more, Sally and Abby.

I'm saddened to see the reintroduction of yesteryear's nonsense.

Hi Jon,

When the police at the time, who clearly knew more about his actions and his claims than we do, cleared him of suspicion, then any contrary modern suspicions leveled against him are only based on poor, inaccurate or incomplete information.

He wasn't "cleared of suspicion".

For that to happen, he would have needed to be under suspicion in the first place, and there's not a scrap of evidence that he was (but excellent reasons for concluding that he wasn't).

You say the police "clearly knew more about his actions and claims than we do", so enlighten me - what details pertaining to Hutchinson's credibility did Abberline negligently and incompetently withhold from his superiors for no good reason?

Contrary to your alarming claim, not all witnesses are considered equal in terms of the likelihood of their stories being true, then or now. Were it otherwise, Joseph Lawende would be considered on a par, credibility-wise, with "Sarah Roney". Is that what you now suggest?

It's thinky-through time again.

Regards,
Ben

P.S. Edit: "...not Cross who, incidentally, was considered a serious suspect.."

I meant witness, of course.

[Fisherman]

yes it is.

But to be fair fish, Eventhough I find your hutch out on the days idea very unlikely, it is possible and it is supported by evidence(Dew), so I give you that, although I find the reminisces of the senior officers somewhat dubious across the board.

Thatīs all as it should be, Abby. Exactly as it should be, actually. Iīm quite fine witn anybody not putting much faith in it, as long as they do not llo away from the actual evidence involved.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Nope, Toppy or not Toppy. it makes no difference-many (most) serial killers can have apparently normal female relationships.

Lech included so Im not sure why you cling to the Toppy aspect???

What makes him a less good suspect over time is that he was revealad to have used his true name. That clears up the misconception that he would have been masquerading under a false identity, diminishing his value as a suspect.

It does not exclude him from being a potential killer, anyhow.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

Nobodyīs "picking a fight" here. I am discussing the viability of Hutchinson as a suspect, and I am convinced that he was Toppy since the signatures are matches.

There will be no fight over this, since I will not discuss it with you.

All I want from you is an answer to the question whether money was mentioned in Hutchinsonīs story, or whether an affair involving sex for money or any other compensation was spoken about.

Nothing more.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

could kindly desist from derailing the thread in the direction of Toppy, Lechmere and date-confusion, I'm sure we'd all be most appreciative.
Best regards,
Ben

Sally brought up Lechmere, Ben, not me. And I discuss whatever I want to discuss, as long as it is related to the thread topic.

I do not wish to discuss it with you, however, since I donīt think anything productive would come from it. It never does.

All the best,
Fisherman