The Red Handkerchief...

[Ben]

It all depends on who George Hutchinson was...is he a unknown individual, or is he ''Topping''. if the former, then we have no character reference

It doesn't rely on any such thing, Richard, and with respect, this is a long-standing misconception of yours. Now, as you know, I utterly reject "Toppy" as a viable candidate for the real George Hutchinson, and believe the available evidence all but rules him out. However, let's pretend that he was, just briefly and for the same of argument. If you're relying on "character references" from members of his own family, then you need to be aware that you're forming hard and vast conclusions based on a biased source. BTK killer Dennis Rader was a suburban family man whose young children would no doubt have remembered him as an honest, church-going papa had he not been caught and identified using methods unavailable to the 1888 police.

Rader did not give the slightest indication to his family that he was a brutal killer, and yet that is precisely what he was.

I find it insulting to the memory of GWTH, that we should even contemplate such accusations

But I'm not contemplating any "accusations" against "GWTH". I'm contemplating them against the real George Hutchinson who introduced himself to the police. In fact, to be brutally honest, my impression of GWTH is far more favourable to his memory than yours. You suggest he was bumming around the East End, consorting with prostitutes and effectively stalking them in the small hours when the ripper was known to be active. You also suggest he may have withheld crucial evidence about the murder of a friend, and that he sought to exploit a brutal murder for financial gain.

I say he was working hard as a plumber elsewhere in London in 1888, following his father's occupation, being "rarely, if ever, out of work" (just as Reg remembered), and having nothing to do with the horrors of that part of the East End.

Which of these options do you honestly believe is kinder to the memory of "GWTH" - yours or mine?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish,

Thanks. Of course [as I think I remarked in my post to GUT above] we can always find a counterargument.

Overall, however, the point is that there is a substantial weight of evidence that should at least raise doubts over the truthfulness of Hutchinson's account.

That's it. Whether he was a murderer or not I leave to others to decide.

As such, Sally, I am not speaking of arguments and counterarguments. I am talking about faulty representations and correct ones.
As for doubts about Hutchinson´s veracity, I have never had any problems with that. I do, however, not conclude that he must have been a liar, like some others do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hutchinson also claimed to have seen the man at the market on the following Sunday, in broad daylight, if I am not mistaken - could it be that he picked up on some of the details and colours then?

And still harboured "uncertainty" that he saw the same man in Petticoat Lane, Fisherman? That doesn't seem very likely to me.

"Wait, let's just check, it was awfully dark when I saw him last. Oh I see now! It was a horseshoe pin, and I'm pretty sure...yes! It's a linen collar, and those are white buttons over button boots! But then again, maybe it's a completely different bloke wearing exactly the same clothes and exactly the same accessories?"

Nah, doesn't work for me.

Without wishing to get bogged down again in lamps again, it was observed by Rob Clack (if memory serves) that there were unlikely to have been two lamps - one for the street and one for the pub - in such close proximity to one another. There is a lamp on Fashion Street today, located a few yards from the junction with Commercial Street. It may not be the original, but I can't see any logical reason for altering its location. If the current one replaced "Hutchinson's" lamp, his was a less than favourable vantage point from which to observe minute details of boots and gaiters, especially if he was fixated on the man's mug during that fleeting moment.

Gas lamps emitted a very weak light in 1888 anyway.

And this is quite a separate discussion.

The description could - and, to my mind, would - have been given. It didn´t make it into the Badham report, however

It didn't make it into Abberline's report either, which tells us that it almost certainly never came up during the course of the "interrogation".

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

As for doubts about Hutchinson´s veracity, I have never had any problems with that. I do, however, not conclude that he must have been a liar, like some others do.

Splendid! Gdod for you - mustn't let the pesky Hutchinsonians wear you down.

This is nothing more than an exercise in futility, I think. But ok, there's a possibility that Hutchinson didn't derive his story from the earlier one; because anything is possible.

I'm happy with 'almost certainly.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

And still harboured "uncertainty" that he saw the same man in Petticoat Lane, Fisherman? That doesn't seem very likely to me.

Surely you cannot have missed that most of this thread is about how what you find unlikely, others find likely...?

However, you do have a point, but - as you know - Hutchinson said:" I believe that he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied I saw him in Petticoat Lane on Sunday morning...", implicating that he had seen the man on other occasions too.

In the end, we are at a loss to clarify exactly how much he could see and for how long, just as we are at a loss to try and establish how much light the gas lamp emitted in this exact instance.

The only true guidance we have in this errand is the fact that Abberline, who knew very much more than we do, and who was quite aware about all the parameters involved, had nothing at all to object to when he heard Hutchinson´s story.
If he had deemed it impossible to see what Hutch saw, and under the circumstances he saw it, all matters where Abberline could check things thoroughly, then he would not have said that he was of the meaning that Hutchinsons story was a truthful one.

That is what we know, and we can go no further without speculating.

Without wishing to get bogged down again in lamps again, it was observed by Rob Clack (if memory serves) that there were unlikely to have been two lamps - one for the street and one for the pub - in such close proximity to one another. There is a lamp on Fashion Street today, located a few yards from the junction with Commercial Street. It may not be the original, but I can't see any logical reason for altering its location.

Many lamp positions have been altered, and not all of them have followed everybody´s logic, I´m afraid.

If the current one replaced "Hutchinson's" lamp, his was a less than favourable vantage point from which to observe minute details of boots and gaiters, especially if he was fixated on the man's mug during that fleeting moment.

"That fleeting moment" ...? Semantics are a useful tool to shape impressions with. I am very wary of that. If the couple was walking towards Hutchinson fairly slowly, he would have a number of seconds to take in things. We can call it a fleeting moment, but we can also call it a fairly extensive amount of seconds. The choice of expression will have a lot to do with what we claim.

Gas lamps emitted a very weak light in 1888 anyway.

And this is quite a separate discussion.

Very weak? Extremely weak? Incredibly weak? Or sufficient light to make the observation Hutchinson made?
Never, Ben - we will never know. But we DO know that Dorset Street was described as fairly well lit!

It didn't make it into Abberline's report either, which tells us that it almost certainly never came up during the course of the "interrogation".

"Almost certainly" - ahem! How does that tally with my assertion that the police almost certainly ALWAYS did this check, as a matter of routine? I´ll tell you how it tallies: It almost certainly tallies very badly.

We are going over the same old grounds again, Ben, and that will get us nowhere.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

"We are going over the same old grounds again, Ben, and that will get us nowhere."

1,190 posts in this thread and you are only just now coming to that conclusion.?

Seriously, you guys might want to give it a rest. Just sayin'.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

I'm happy with 'almost certainly.

That´s much more clever, Sally - no matter how odd a wiew we have, we must be allowed it, as long as it is not claimed to be a certainty.

So you are on dry land with this. Wrong, but on dry land. If you ask me, that is.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"We are going over the same old grounds again, Ben, and that will get us nowhere."

1,190 posts in this thread and you are only just now coming to that conclusion.?

Seriously, you guys might want to give it a rest. Just sayin'.

c.d.

Well, C.D., we DID actually break a bit of new ground, when it comes to the admittance that money or any other compensation for sex was never mentioned in the Hutchinson story.

Otherwise, I absolutely love the idea of a rest. But if there are things that disturb my well earned slumber, then I will react.

The best,
Fisherman

[Observer]

Yes, I rather thought so.

But then you waded in with your usual inflammatory and painfully ineloquent nonsense, offering the fascinating revelation that the Hutchinson suspect theory belongs in the minority of overall opinion. Yes. Well done. It does. Along with every single suspect theory that has ever been put forward.

Ineloquent, I? I believe I was nearing the age of ten when I was taught not to start a sentence with the word "but", or any other conjunction. However, I believe you have been reprimanded previously on your use of the English language, so nothing new here.

Yours was an annoyingly redundant observation designed to antagonise. It backfired, it made you look silly, and I'm afraid I responded accordingly. You'll just have to get over it.

Get over what? How did it backfire? It antagonised you. Bulls eye in fact.

I used the plural when describing those who didn't vote but still considered him one of the better suspects, because that is the reality, as you'll discover when you go back to the poll thread. I didn't say anything about a "reminder" or even a remainder of posters having little or no insight into serial killers. I merely noted that among those who reject Hutchinson as a suspect are those who are demonstrably clueless on the subject. You, for instance.

I don't need to go back to the thread in question. You are the one who should go back and have look at the thread. One poster, Abby Normal expressed an opinion that he was a good candidate for the murder, but who still voted no. By the way, some of the keys on my keyboard stick, hence the unintentional mistake. Far removed from your appalling use of the word "but".

I have no idea which voter you're attempting to insult by calling him a "lanky Fleminsue 1.", but I'm sure sure his self-esteem is in tatters...!

Flemingesque, my typo again. And not intended as an insult, more a confirmation that you had incorrectly stated that there was more than one voter who considered Hutchinson one of the better suspects, but who decided to abstain.

Have an actual argument, at least.

No, I don't "appreciate" that. I'm quite sure that it is nonsense.

If you don't "appreciate" that the era in which the police were operating can impact directly on the treatment of witnesses and suspects, I'm afraid there's little helping you.

Ok Benny boy, take no heed of me, but consider this. I quote Fisherman.

"Is it Evans or Sugden who says that the fact that Abberline interrogated Hutchinson points to an early suspicion of possible guilt?"

Care to comment oh magnificent one? I believe it was Mr Evans who took you down a peg or two on a previous occasion was it not?

It didn't "remain" that he was "acting suspiciously at the scene of the murder". Not according to the police, who evidently discredited the entirety of his story, i.e. including the claim that he was even there at the time.

Oh changed your mind then? I distinctly remember you posting that the reason Hutchinson was discredited was due to the fact that he was extremely late in coming forward to give his evidence.

That's what happened with Violenia, who you unthinkingly and wrongly dismiss as incomparable with Hutchinson. Despite the former's claim to have been the last person to see Chapman alive, he was dismissed as a liar with no connection to the crime scene at all.

Oh for goodness sake. Violenia was alone when he alleged he saw Chapman arguing with a man in Hanbury Street. Hutchinson, as you rightly contend, was corroborated by Lewis, at least in the minds of the police. That is the reason they are not comparable. Although I suspect you are now going to tell me that the police did not connect the sighting of Lewis' wideawake loiterer with Hutchinson.

The vast majority of bogus witnesses - and there were plenty thwarting the progress of the ripper investigations - were motivated by money and publicity, and it was all too easy for the police to cast Hutchinson in the same role, even if they did so in error.

They sure were; which is why, after a modicum of investigation, they eliminated him from their inquiries altogether. My guess being that he was either in bed at the VWMH, or, that he spent the night in Romford, and therefore was never at the scene of the crime on the night in question.

I don't remember saying that.

I'm sure there are others equally capable, if not more so.

It's just that you're not one of them, sadly.

No I did. And I reiterate, it was hardly a capable attempt at mirth. As I said a gag fest

But you keep trying, Obs! It'll be like those fun times in 2007 all over again.

Keep trying to do what? You don't need me to help you display your continuing flawed logic.

[Observer]

If anyone finds any grammatical/typo errors in the above post, please let it be known I've just sacked my secretary ! One just cannot get the staff these days. :-(

[Observer]

"We are going over the same old grounds again, Ben, and that will get us nowhere."

1,190 posts in this thread and you are only just now coming to that conclusion.?

Seriously, you guys might want to give it a rest. Just sayin'.

c.d.

You're quite correct c.d. it was very wrong of me to suggest that the objectors to Hutchinson's guilt were ahead in the poll. A heinous crime. To my shame it was the ship that launched a thousand hissy fits. As you say, time to give it a rest. Nary a one of us is prepared to give an inch.

Regards

Observer

[Wickerman]

Oh for goodness sake. Violenia was alone when he alleged he saw Chapman arguing with a man in Hanbury Street.

Quite so, and I'm glad Packer has dropped out of this exchange, not being the last person to see Stride alive he is absolutely no comparison to Hutchinson no matter what Ben tries to conjure up.

[Wickerman]

I will not try and voice why other people challenge you on these boards. But my own choice between the two alternatives listed above inevitably falls on number 2.

Seconded...

[Wickerman]

There is no evidence that the police ever considered Hutchinson as a suspect.

I'm sure you are well aware that in every close relationship murder (mariticide, uxoricide, ambicide?) the spouse/partner is the first suspect.
The same consideration applies to the last known witness to see the victim alive. Providing (at the very least):
1 - the victim t.o.d. is approx to the time you claim to be present.
2 - you have no alibi to confirm the time you left the scene.

And, in Hutchinson's case, if there are any other witness's who can confirm the existence of this mystery couple walking up Millers Court.
Hence, the right step to take would be to re-interview Sarah Lewis, that very night if necessary.

[Sally]

Jon,

Please explain where the evidence is for Hutchinson ever having been considered a suspect at the time.

As far as I can see, the known facts point decidedly to the reverse.

No woolly answer please - no 'must haves' based on your personal opinion - just the evidence.

Thanks in advance.