Hi Fisherman,
Sally’s post was bang-on, to my mind.
I will say again, and a great many more times if necessary, Hutchinson was not “known” to have been the last person to see Kelly alive. This is only what he claimed. Violenia was not “known” to be the last person to see Chapman alive. That is only what he claimed. The latter was never proven to have lied about his sighting and proximity to the murder scene; it simply came to be accepted by the police that he probably wasn’t. There is absolutely no evidence (and no good reason to think) that Violenia ever converted from a discredited witness who was not believed to have told the truth, into a potential suspect. The same was evidently true of Hutchinson.
No offense, Fish, but if there’s one suspect theory that relies very heavily on the police NOT following “procedure” and failing to treat as suspicious those who ought to be treated as such, it’s Crossmere, who was proven to have been at the crime scene, unlike Hutchinson. I’ve even heard it suggested that Robert Paul was considered a potential suspect, but that the thought never occurred to anyone to treat the first person to discover the body in a similar fashion. If they suspected Paul, it is impossible that they never suspected Cross (yes, I said “impossible”, not “almost certainly impossible”, but actually impossible).
I agree entirely.
I’m sure you’ll also agree that people who come forward of their own free will can be, and have been, killers. People who “give a very honest and straightforward impression” can be, and have been, killers. People who get given a “green flag” by acquaintances, relatives etc can be, and have been, killers. In other words, the fact that Hutchinson meets all three criteria does not detract in the slightest from the possibility of him being the killer. In fact, a serial killer who gives an instantly dishonest, dodgy impression, and who has a bad and dangerous reputation among “acquaintances”, is far less likely to continue evading capture than one who doesn’t. This particular killer evaded capture indefinitely, probably because he wasn't known as a dodgy geezaaarr.
You’ve been claiming that Dew described Hutchinson as a “respected citizen” and an “honest citizen” for far too long now, and I'd like it if you stopped. All Dew was offering was his 1938 personal hunch that Hutchinson was wrong, possibly as to time or date. He didn’t say anything about his character, and he didn’t say anything about what the police thought of him. Dew’s book was “riddled with mistakes” according to you, and “got lots of things terribly wrong” and your sage advice has remained with me to this day.
He wasn’t “cleared” in the eyes of the police, because he was obviously never considered a suspect in the first place.
You keep ignoring my point – if Astrakhan was a man he had “met/seen on a number of occasions", it is ludicrous for Hutchinson to claim that he wasn’t sure if he saw the same man again on Sunday. This holds especially true for those who wish to argue, quite inexplicably, that he noticed minute details such as horseshoe tie pins, linen collars, dark eyelashes and all that rhino bollocks, and managed to get a better look at these same articles – ascertaining precisely what they were – in daylight. If he say the same specific accessories and clothing again, there is no possibility of it being a different man. I don’t know what “case” you think you’re "resting", but I do wish you’d pay attention to what I’m saying.
That’s right, and fortunately, it wouldn’t have taken long – less than 24 hours – for the police to scrutinise his statement and arrive at a similar conclusion, even by those who believed that such an unusual and demonic series of crimes would have an equally unusual and demonic perpetrator. While I’m on the subject, Abberline’s initial faith in Hutchinson is far less surprising than his opinion that Klosowski-the-ripper was an organ harvester acting on commission from an American, specimen-seeking doctor. Even the idea of Astrakhan as a real person described faithfully by Hutchinson is less outlandish than that.
No, Fish.
Money was offered on both occasions – the sources make that obvious, one in words, the other in actions.
Oh, come on! Bor-ring! how am I going to reach my goal of 13,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum with you asleep? I can’t have that! I’m a secret Hutch zealot on the quiet, truth be told, and my hidden agenda is ensuring that Hutchinson dominates ripper discussion. I can’t achieve this without you, mate.
All the best,
Ben
Sally’s post was bang-on, to my mind.
I will say again, and a great many more times if necessary, Hutchinson was not “known” to have been the last person to see Kelly alive. This is only what he claimed. Violenia was not “known” to be the last person to see Chapman alive. That is only what he claimed. The latter was never proven to have lied about his sighting and proximity to the murder scene; it simply came to be accepted by the police that he probably wasn’t. There is absolutely no evidence (and no good reason to think) that Violenia ever converted from a discredited witness who was not believed to have told the truth, into a potential suspect. The same was evidently true of Hutchinson.
No offense, Fish, but if there’s one suspect theory that relies very heavily on the police NOT following “procedure” and failing to treat as suspicious those who ought to be treated as such, it’s Crossmere, who was proven to have been at the crime scene, unlike Hutchinson. I’ve even heard it suggested that Robert Paul was considered a potential suspect, but that the thought never occurred to anyone to treat the first person to discover the body in a similar fashion. If they suspected Paul, it is impossible that they never suspected Cross (yes, I said “impossible”, not “almost certainly impossible”, but actually impossible).
“My own stance on the matter is that two things would have weighed heavily in Hutchinson´s favour:
He came forward of his own free will.
He gave a very honest and straightforward impression.
A third factor may well have contributed: He may have been given the green flag by aquaintances, working comrades, doss house keepers and relatives.”
He came forward of his own free will.
He gave a very honest and straightforward impression.
A third factor may well have contributed: He may have been given the green flag by aquaintances, working comrades, doss house keepers and relatives.”
I’m sure you’ll also agree that people who come forward of their own free will can be, and have been, killers. People who “give a very honest and straightforward impression” can be, and have been, killers. People who get given a “green flag” by acquaintances, relatives etc can be, and have been, killers. In other words, the fact that Hutchinson meets all three criteria does not detract in the slightest from the possibility of him being the killer. In fact, a serial killer who gives an instantly dishonest, dodgy impression, and who has a bad and dangerous reputation among “acquaintances”, is far less likely to continue evading capture than one who doesn’t. This particular killer evaded capture indefinitely, probably because he wasn't known as a dodgy geezaaarr.
You’ve been claiming that Dew described Hutchinson as a “respected citizen” and an “honest citizen” for far too long now, and I'd like it if you stopped. All Dew was offering was his 1938 personal hunch that Hutchinson was wrong, possibly as to time or date. He didn’t say anything about his character, and he didn’t say anything about what the police thought of him. Dew’s book was “riddled with mistakes” according to you, and “got lots of things terribly wrong” and your sage advice has remained with me to this day.
He wasn’t “cleared” in the eyes of the police, because he was obviously never considered a suspect in the first place.
“Can you also perfectly understand if Astrakhan man was someone Hutchinson had met/seen on a number of occasions (I believe he lives in the neighbourhood)?”
“It is, if I remember correctly, "arsenumbingly" obvious that what Hutchinson did could not be done - nothing even near it could be.”
“That didn´t do your cause any favours at all, since we have at long last arrived at the insight that you were wrong to claim that money was offered on both occasions. Eh - "we" meaning Ben and me.”
Money was offered on both occasions – the sources make that obvious, one in words, the other in actions.
“And please don´t wake me up again if you can avoid it. If somebody needs their beauty sleep, it´s me!”
All the best,
Ben
Comment