The Red Handkerchief...

[GUT]

G'day Observer

Three more votes against Hutch being the Ripper I see. It stands 19 against 4 for at present. Pretty conclusive I'd say.

But only conclusive that the majority think no, the majority can be wrong.

[Ben]

It stands 19 against 4 for at present. Pretty conclusive I'd say.

But what you "say" is quite often nonsense, and here is no exception.

There is no such thing as a ripper suspect who enjoys majority support. If there was one, most people wouldn't be here. Every single suspect theory will be in the minority of opinion. As we've seen, there are those who recognise that Hutchinson is one of the better, if not the best suspect, but who haven't voted either way.

[Observer]

Hahaha. Sour grapes in evidence.

And quite honestly you know all about spouting nonsense. Every time you open your trap here in this forum the nonsense flows freely.

And now, not only are you capable of reasoning what was going through the minds of Abberline, and his comrades, you can now predict who has voted and who has not! You are a remarkable individual are you not?

[Observer]

But only conclusive that the majority think no, the majority can be wrong.

Not in this instance Gut

[GUT]

G'day Observer

I voted NO a long long time ago.

[Observer]

And rightly so Gut. Hutchinson wasn't even at the scene on the night of Mary Kellys murder.

[Ben]

Every time you open your trap here in this forum the nonsense flows freely.

Your simpering, infantile tone is of little interest to me, and your opinion is less than worthless, but I do consider it important to correct your irritating and sweeping misstatements. For instance, I never once "predicted" the votes on the poll. I pointed out that among those who voted "no", and among those who didn't vote at all, are those who recognise that Hutchinson is a reasonable suspect and considerably better than most.

Also, I never claimed I knew anything of Abberline's mindset (or those of his "comrades") beyond what the evidence tells us. I do know, however, that he was in no position to "verify" Hutchinson's claims a few hours after first meeting him.

[GUT]

G'day Observer

And rightly so Gut. Hutchinson wasn't even at the scene on the night of Mary Kellys murder.

On that question I am not so sure.

BTW I was first to vote on the poll and would still vote No.

[Ben]

BTW I was first to vote on the poll and would still vote No.

I think we've got the hang of that, Gut.

Most people would vote "no" to most suspects, such is the nature of an unsolved case.

Hutchinson, or rather the individual who introduced himself as such to the police, is among the best of a bad bunch, however, and I'm afraid nothing can interfere with that utterly irrefutable reality.

[GUT]

G'day Ben

But what sets him apart from the many others who gave dodgy, at best, evidence to the police, ie Packer, Schwartz, Maxwell and Lewis to name a few.

I would have more time for him as a suspect if he hadn't come forward, and had indeed been hanging around 'til all hours.

BTW I am open to persuasion, but I still don't understand what I think your hypothesis is. IE that Hutch and Flemming are one and the same. By that I don't mean I don't agree with it I just haven't been able to find an explanation of your line of thinking.

Of what you might call the current suspects there are a couple I'm looking at, but think that if we ever get the answer [and I don't think we will in this life] it will be an unknown.

[Observer]

Hahaha yada yada yada

However, likewise, your badly judged musings regarding this case is of little interest to me. Your reasoning beggars belief. I commented on the poll taking place on another thread, and just because it didn't suit old Benny boy he goes all tetchy, which is his wont. Well that's tough.

Regarding those who voted against Hutchinson being the Ripper, it matters not that they consider him a decent suspect. At the end of the day, they voted in the negative.

And oh yes you do consider yourself a mind reader when it comes to the police who were involved in the hunt for the Ripper. Decidedly so. Hutchinson not considered a suspect after his discrediting says Benny. Duh, the coppers were not au fait with the mindset of the serial killer injecting himself into an inquiry.

Bejabers. On your way George, you've told us a pack of lies, but we'll forgive you for being present at the crime scene and acting suspiciously, you see we have no inkling of the midset of the serial killer, this is 1888, and were all thick as two bleedin short planks. We only see you as a witness George. Now get out of here, and on the way out, mind you don't step on my hands wots trailing the ground. Grunt grunt.

Yeah right. Not likely chum.

It's late, and I need to get my beauty sleep, and seeing as I'll get a puerile, infantile, pathetic answer to this post, I'll answer it tomorrow. But don't worry I'll get back to you.

[Ben]

Hi GUT,

But what sets him apart from the many others who gave dodgy, at best, evidence to the police, ie Packer, Schwartz, Maxwell and Lewis to name a few

...is that the evidence tells us that he loitered fixatedly opposite the scene of the Miller's Court crime scene shortly before the murder, and that he came forward after discovering from the inquest that he had been seen and described by an independent witness - Sarah Lewis. This is significant, from a criminological point of view, insofar as serial killers have been known to loiter near their crime scenes before committing the murders, and they have been known to inject themselves into their own police investigations - usually as superficially co-operative witnesses - out of self preservation, and in order to "legitimise" potentially incriminating links to the scene of the crime.

I apologise for my tardy response to your question regarding a possible connection between Fleming and Hutchinson, which you originally asked several months ago. I want to be quite sure that the latest Hutchathon is dying down before I can accord your query the attention I feel it deserves. Here on Hutchbook, that can often prove difficult as you;d appreciate. If I can single-handedly generate 200 pages of posts just by saying "Jack the Ripper wasn't a toff" imagine the decades of posting wars that would result from a suggestion that "George Hutchinson" might not have been the man's real name!

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Of course, Gut, another potential deterrent to the airing of one's views is the presence on internet message board discussions of potentially "troubled" people - those who threaten violence against other contributors; who express the intention to tack down the location of others and make their urine turn to blood. I've had that happen to me, and it's not especially pleasant, especially when they their unsavoury antics prompts the abusive characters in question to slink away for a while, only to re-emerge later under a pseudonym.

I like to Observe Clemency with such people, but it's tough.

[Ben]

Hahaha yada yada yada

In English we say "good evening"...

However, likewise, your badly judged musings regarding this case is of little interest to me.

Could have fooled me, Obs.

The poll "suits me" fine, thank you. Some people believe that Hutchinson was the ripper and voted accordingly, whereas others believee he was a plausible enough candidate to prevent them voting either way. Then there were those who voted "no" despite conceding that he's one of the better bets of a bad bunch. Then there are those who know nothing about serial crime and its perpetrators.

So nice poll, all in all.

Lovely poll.

Duh, the coppers were not au fait with the mindset of the serial killer injecting himself into an inquiry.

No, they wouldn't have been "au fait" with it, because they had absolutely no experience of it - hence, no "duh" required. We reserve the "duh" for those who spend hours of their lives talking utter nonsense on serial killer message boards without ever troubling to educate themselves on the behaviour of known serial killers. The 1888 police had an excuse for not knowing "the mindset of the serial killer". You don't.

Hutchinson was not considered a suspect after his discrediting for the same reason that Violenia wasn't after his, but are you going to argue that Violenia "must" have been so considered, and that the evidence for his being treated as a suspect is conveniently lost to history, as in Hutchinson's case? Please don't tell me that your unfunny, attempted-cockney monologue extends inexplicably to Hutchinson only..!

But don't worry I'll get back to you.

I await it with an intense and burning interest...."chum".

All the best,

"The Waffleator" (Remember all that? Yeah, you remember).

[Wickerman]

It wasn't a "conclusion", it was just an "opinion", which was all he was capable of at that stage, pending possible further investigation.

If further investigation was pending, ie; necessary, he would have said so, to his superior.

Yes it was, Jon.

And please don't accuse me of lying. It's not very friendly.

I don't need to Ben, your persistent claim of having proof, yet failing to provide such, is more than sufficient.
And that goes for all those who follow in your shadow.

The irony is that you are the one who talks about a timewasting bull$hitter.....