The Red Handkerchief...

[Michael W Richards]

Well Michael, it always comes back to the fact that over the weekend the press were reporting confusing times when Kelly is supposed to have been murdered. Some as late as 9:00am on Friday morning.

What possible reason would a witness seeing her at 2:30 am have for coming forward if her death was assumed to be as late as 9:00 in the morning?

Hi Jon,

Well lets play this out a bit....IF he thought that there was indeed a real possibility that Mary was killed at around 9am, then he would have nothing to fear from the man he says he saw in the middle of the night. Since people said they saw Mary herself alive after 8am then its improbable that the man he saw kills her....and by that timing it would suggest that any number of people could have been with Mary between Astrakan and whomever might have killed her at around 9 or 9:30.

So...he would have had no reason at all to wait 4 days before coming forward. Unless he wanted to assume the identity of the unknown man in the Wideawake hat for some reason.

IF he thought that the man he says he saw was indeed her killer...then he has every reason to come forward immediately, assuming of course that he was indeed a "friend" of hers...(I believe that may be alluding to a prior patron/provider relationship in reality... if any..). IF he fears for his own life then he can go directly to the police for protection after giving his story. But he doesnt.

The reality is Jon that the man waits too long and gives a description that is unrealistically specific about a man who could be the killer of someone he says he knew, was friends with, and in fact spoke with that night,...even though at 11:45pm Mary Ann Cox said Mary could barely speak she was so drunk, and no-one sees her leave that room, or that courtyard. Besides, Caroline Maxwell is warned in public, on the stand, that her evidence contradicts everyone elses, including the medical authorities. I dont think her story convinced any investigators that Mary woke up in her bed that morning.

Why George Hutchinson did what he did is an enigma...his story doesnt add up, and he fades into obscurity very quickly. The only thing that I can conclude about Mr H is that he came forward as an act of self preservation because he actually was wideawake and needed to provide an explanation for being there....an explanation that sounds very much like stalking by the by. What was he doing there? I know there are lots of ideas about his possible guilt as the killer, but to me, the man that Sarah Lewis saw sounds to me very much like a lookout, and I think that influenced the Pardon issuance on Saturday.

When you consider that the address had a 20-25 yard covered tunnel that led back to the courtyard a lookout seems a prudent and very helpful idea. A simple whistle could allow someone in that room valuable notice that someone was coming in.

All the best Jon, and Merry Xmas

[Wickerman]

Hi Michael.

Hi Jon,

Well lets play this out a bit....IF he thought that there was indeed a real possibility that Mary was killed at around 9am, then he would have nothing to fear from the man he says he saw in the middle of the night. Since people said they saw Mary herself alive after 8am then its improbable that the man he saw kills her....and by that timing it would suggest that any number of people could have been with Mary between Astrakan and whomever might have killed her at around 9 or 9:30.

Exactly, so why would anyone think to trouble the police by saying they saw her with a client 6-7 hrs before her murder?

IF he thought that the man he says he saw was indeed her killer...then he has every reason to come forward immediately, assuming of course that he was indeed a "friend" of hers...

Friend or not Michael, Hutchinson specifically said he thought the man looked harmless, so the man posed no obvious threat.

IF he fears for his own life then he can go directly to the police for protection after giving his story. But he doesnt.

Negated by the previous point, the man posed no threat to neither him or Kelly, in Hutchinson's opinion.

If Hutchinson was trying to create a potential killer (as a diversion) then describing Astrachan as "harmless" (para) is counter productive. Surely he is going to paint him as the evil looking villain he needs to be?

The reality is Jon that the man waits too long ....

The reality is Michael, that the police knew full well why Hutchinson waited so long, he told them. The police did not share this detail with the press, hence the media speculation at the time and fodder for future theorists.

...and gives a description that is unrealistically specific

That determination is subjective.

...about a man who could be the killer of someone he says he knew, was friends with, and in fact spoke with that night,...even though at 11:45pm Mary Ann Cox said Mary could barely speak she was so drunk, and no-one sees her leave that room, or that courtyard.

No-one saw Mary Cox either, at any of the times she claimed to be in Millers Court. Cox even contradicted her own testimony, first she claims to hear singing after 1:00am, then claims she heard nothing after 1:00am.
Maybe a bit of jealousy between the older, well worn Cox and her younger competition in the form of the prettier Kelly?

Why George Hutchinson did what he did is an enigma...his story doesnt add up, and he fades into obscurity very quickly.

Nothing he says "doesn't add up", clearly Abberline knew a great deal more than we know and he believed Hutchinson. And there is no evidence he was ever disbelieved, at any time after.

... I know there are lots of ideas about his possible guilt as the killer, but to me, the man that Sarah Lewis saw sounds to me very much like a lookout, and I think that influenced the Pardon issuance on Saturday.

But Michael, how would that work, what do you expect a lookout to do standing out in Dorset St. while (presumably?) his accomplice is inside room 13, out of reach and out of earshot?
A whistle will bring every copper in earshot, and draw everyone's attention in the street.
So much for sleuthing

All the best Jon, and Merry Xmas

All the very best to you Michael, Merry Xmas.

[Ben]

Some good points there, Mike.

Hi Jon,

Thats fine Ben, your reputation is unmatched for one who makes a lot of noise, its (sic) the substance that needs work.

Whoah there, Personal Attacky…says the bloke whose ideas regarding Isaacstrakhan, Bond's time of death, and the Daily News are generally considered wholly devoid of “substance”, if not totally impossible, by the few bored enough to register the full, hopelessly implausible implications of his claims, buried as they usually are within a generic, long-winded Hutchinson thread. And yes, I fully intend to make "a lot of noise" on the Hutchinson threads, but I can only do so with your help, Jon. Yours. I know you won't let me down. When most people are spending the dwindling hours of Christmas Eve with their loved ones, I find you sitting in front of your computer, doggedly attending to a spat with me - a total stranger. I'm honestly flattered and rather humbled by the attention, but really…

And of course, Arnold, Abberline & Nairn will see every face in that small room throughout the following hours of the Inquest.

No.

No, they wouldn't have done.

They would not, and could not, have scrutinised the faces of every single occupant of the room, which we know was described as "overcrowded", even if they had the inclination to. Try to work with the actual evidence, i.e. that the room was overcrowded, and that the witnesses due to give evidence were the focus of both press and police. An unremarkable face in the crowd was unlikely to make waves, believe it or not, and nor was it likely to be noticed by those whose attention was focused in a completely different direction. Realistically, Hutchinson would not have attracted any interest at all at the inquest if he attended it under the guise of an ordinary, unremarkable member of the public.

“No, the more you think it through the worse the proposal becomes. Not worthy of serious consideration.”

But you’re not “thinking it through”, that’s the problem, and I’ve told you before that I don’t value your view of my proposals, based as they are on personal animosity towards me and an entrenched position on the Kelly murder. None of this is your benefit, shockingly enough, so if you don’t think it “worthy of serious consideration” don’t waste your own time discussing it. Go and find an avenue of interest that you do find productive, like “Mrs Kennedy.” ()

“If Hutchinson was trying to create a potential killer (as a diversion) then describing Astrachan as "harmless" (para) is counter productive. Surely he is going to paint him as the evil looking villain he needs to be?”

He couldn’t have done. Just think about it. If he had told the authorities that he considered the man a “potential killer”, they would immediately have challenged him as to why he didn’t alert the police there and then, and why he didn’t think to warn Kelly of the danger. It would also have made a complete nonsense of his alleged skulking outside the court, with no view into Kelly’s room, thus rendering himself utterly useless in the event of the “evil looking villain” attacking his friend/acquaintance of three years. If Hutchinson wanted to avoid those awkward questions being asked of him, it was necessary to go for a more subtle sell – by making it clear through the description (and tightly-grasped knife-lenghthed parcel) that Astrakhan’s the bogeyman whilst at the same time maintaining that curiosity, rather than fear for Kelly’s life, prompted his own behaviour.

“The reality is Michael, that the police knew full well why Hutchinson waited so long, he told them. The police did not share this detail with the press, hence the media speculation at the time and fodder for future theorists.”

I think you’ll find that this alleged “reality” is nothing of the sort, and that Michael and a great many others would acknowledge as much. No, there was not a super-special secret reason for Hutchinson coming forward late. In fact, we know for certain that this very detail – his late appearance and late presentation of his evidence – was a chief factor in “the authorities” attaching a “very reduced importance” to his account. It was “considerably discounted” for this reason.

“Cox even contradicted her own testimony, first she claims to hear singing after 1:00am, then claims she heard nothing after 1:00am.”

No, she did not.

She heard singing at around 1.00am but left the Court around that time too. She didn’t hear any singing after that time because she wasn’t there to hear it, obviously. That is absolutely not a contradiction. Cox’s evidence was taken seriously by the police and was given the inquest under oath, and it is annoyingly fallacious to assert that discredited Hutchinson has more credibility.

“Nothing he says "doesn't add up", clearly Abberline knew a great deal more than we know and he believed Hutchinson. And there is no evidence he was ever disbelieved, at any time after.”

There is strong and compelling evidence that he was “disbelieved”. He was discredited shortly after his evidence appeared, as we learn from impeccable sources. If Abberline was in possession of other evidence that materially affected Hutchinson’s credibility for the better, it would have appeared in the private, confidential support. But do let’s go through all this again.

""

[Varqm]

Ben,

Ok.I'll quit. Lol. The facts are small enough and becomes a gateway so you can indulge in your fantasy. Absolutely there is no points to argue with you since it all just are unfounded speculation, supposition and fantasy. And more than that you behave like it's the truth. Too much. I'm not gonna be drawn to it .I'll stick to the little facts that we know and draw as little inference as possible. That way I'll keep myself honest.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,
Whoah there, Personal Attacky…

On the contrary, here I am offering you Kudo's for all your hard work and trying to alleviate any feelings of being isolated, and you see it as a personal attack - there's just no pleasing some people.

... And yes, I fully intend to make "a lot of noise" on the Hutchinson threads, but I can only do so with your help, Jon. Yours. I know you won't let me down.

You can always count on my support for that Ben, so long as you persist in making claims you are unable to substantiate, you can rely on my input to expose such behaviour

...They would not, and could not, have scrutinised the faces of every single occupant of the room, which we know was described as "overcrowded", even if they had the inclination to.

Your conviction would be more believable if it were known that you actually knew how small the room was, and how many people were inside.
Since you do not know the size of the room, and do not know the number of people therein, an assertive response is another example of exaggeration on your part.
You do not know but, consistent with your overall approach, you must insist on a detail you cannot substantiate.
Given this fact, being assertive does not strengthen your argument Ben, it weaken it.

....He couldn’t have done. Just think about it. If he had told the authorities that he considered the man a “potential killer”, they would immediately have challenged him as to why he didn’t alert the police there and then, and why he didn’t think to warn Kelly of the danger.

In your scenario Hutchinson does not come forward over the weekend because he knows that this killer lives nearby. And, in fear of his own life, he chooses to lay low rather than expose himself to retaliation from an elusive murderer.
His loitering then is explained by his concern, waiting to check on her after the client leaves, and if necessary follow him.
At no point dare Hutchinson challenge him knowing he was armed and what he was capable of.

.... by making it clear through the description (and tightly-grasped knife-lenghthed parcel) ....

Where does "knife-length" come into it?
The parcel was "small", the press said "8 inch". Thats not big enough for a knife Ben. In previous murders the blade alone is given as minimum of 6 inch long, and not of the folding variety.
Besides, anything of that sort would be in his pocket, not wrapped up in a parcel with a strap around it.

I think you’ll find that this alleged “reality” is nothing of the sort, and that Michael and a great many others

Oh, here we go again with this "great many" supporters.
Yes, well we know the truth about that, don't we Ben

She heard singing at around 1.00am but left the Court around that time too.

You can't whitewash over it Ben. In the original GLRO version we read.

Cox, when coming in at 11:45am:
"I remained a quarter of an hour in my room. Then went out she was still singing. I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing."

She went out after 1:00am, and Kelly was still singing.

"...I heard nothing whatever after one o'clock."

She is not being too clear is she?
Why, because, as I have suggested before, Cox was unclear as to the actual time.

..There is strong and compelling evidence that he was “disbelieved”.

- There is NO evidence Hutchinson was disbelieved by the police at any time.
- There is NO evidence that Hutchinson was discredited, by anyone at anytime.

I love your faith in the press that they are an impeccable source, that is sure to add lots of well needed credibility to your argument.

[Ben]

On the contrary, here I am offering you Kudo's (sic) for all your hard work and trying to alleviate any feelings of being isolated, and you see it as a personal attack - there's just no pleasing some people.

Again, in terms of support for my views, I have considerably more for mine than you have for yours. I don't point this out to be spiteful, but to highlight the futility of making frequent and tedious references to those who have disagreed with me in the past.

You can always count on my support for that Ben, so long as you persist in making claims you are unable to substantiate, you can rely on my input to expose such behaviour

But you don't ever succeed in doing anything of the sort, that's the problem. If you want to have the imaginary error of my ways "exposed", you'll need to do a better job yourself or recruit a more effective debater. At the moment all I'm seeing is a petty, obsessive, and eternally unsuccessful defense of your highly controversial, hastily conceived, and extremely unpopular views of the Kelly murder. And it is a defense, make no mistake about that, albeit one that not-so-subtly masquerades as a guide to the wrongdoings of Ben. But you keep squabbling with me, Jon, every step of the way. I'm sustained by your attention. And in the meantime, I'll be doing precisely the same with you: responding to every single instance of you "making claims you are unable to substantiate". You are on the defense here, not the attack.

Your conviction would be more believable if it were known that you actually knew how small the room was, and how many people were inside.

I'm working purely on the strength of the evidence - small and overcrowded being two contemporary definitions of the room. There is no "exaggeration" on my part at all. I don't need to be "assertive" when I'm simply repeating the very words used. The idea that the detectives had the ability of inclination to study and memorize the features of every single member of that room is so preposterous that it is scarcely worth typing these words in order to refute it.

And, in fear of his own life, he chooses to lay low rather than expose himself to retaliation from an elusive murderer.

I've dealt with this nonsense already. Bear with me a sec...ah, yes, here it is:

So, Hutchinson conveniently arrives back in the area at around the time the ripper was active, and despite being fully aware that stories abounded of sinister Jewish types murdering prostitutes, he never so much as contemplates the idea that the surly-looking man in the flashy clothes might just be the sinister prostitute-murdering Jew in question? And yet he still manages to find the spectacle of Kelly hanging around with such a person so intensely fascinating that he spends 45 minutes loitering outside her home, but not before following this man and stooping to look into his face? Here we have a surly sinister stranger, and yet Hutchinson never once considered the possibility that he might be the surly sinister stranger that everyone is after.

If this doesn’t whiff mightily at the moment, it gets worse.

Then, after learning of Kelly’s murder, he only then contemplates the possibility that the man in question was the murderer – Jack the Ripper, no less – and then his bollocks disappear entirely. Gone is the aggressively inquisitive Hutchinson who stuck to the man like a limpet on the night in question, even the point of rudely staring right into his mug and stalking him for three quarters of an hour, and behold, a sissy emerges. Suddenly, this man from the labouring classes (and with a military appearance) is scared of a poncy, flashily-dressed, swaggering peacock dodging all the nocturnal police and vigilante activity, avoiding the muggers who might like his gold chain, breaking into the Victoria Home and unwrapping his American cloth parcel to Hutchinson’s detriment?

I really, really don’t think so, somehow.

“His loitering then is explained by his concern, waiting to check on her after the client leaves, and if necessary follow him.”

“Waiting to check on her” – what, to see if she's been murdered? Wow, that’s really taking “concern” to the limit, isn’t it?

So “concerned” was he, according to you, that he makes no effort whatsoever to prevent a potential murder, but simply waits for the man to leave in order to check whether she’s been murdered or not. So if you and a friend went to the circus one afternoon, and you saw your friend accidentally enter the lion enclosure, you’d be the “concerned” chum who doesn’t warn him or drag him away or even alert anyone else, but just waits it out, listening for the screams and a final liony burp to confirm that – yes! – the worst has happened and your friend has been eaten. Then you come forward a few days later and report the incident, concerned mate that you are.

“At no point dare Hutchinson challenge him knowing he was armed and what he was capable of.”

Oh heaven forfend, no, don’t challenge him. Don’t even alert anyone else to your suspicions, don’t raise the alarm, don’t do anything. Just wait for the anticipated murder of your friend to happen, and then follow Jack the Ripper without raising the alarm of alerting anyone. Atta boy, Hutch (according to Jon, anyway).

“The parcel was "small", the press said "8 inch". Thats not big enough for a knife Ben.”

Yes, it most certainly is, if the knife folded. A clasp knife is an extremely feasible weapon for the Whitechapel murders, and it is potentially very significant that this type of knife was mentioned as having been used in the unsolved Millwood and (if memory serves) Wilson attacks. I’m not sure how it is even possible to deduce that a folding knife could not have been responsible, but it might be as well for you to trot along to a more appropriate thread if you want to discuss this in more depth.

“Besides, anything of that sort would be in his pocket, not wrapped up in a parcel with a strap around it.”

The real ripper? Yes, probably. An invented bogeyman ripper conjured up in the knowledge that tales of sinister men with black bags were doing the rounds? Not necessarily.

“Cox, when coming in at 11:45am:
"I remained a quarter of an hour in my room. Then went out she was still singing. I returned about one o'clock. She was singing then. I warmed my hands and went out again, she was still singing."

She went out after 1:00am, and Kelly was still singing.

"...I heard nothing whatever after one o'clock."

And the “contradiction” here is…?

Look, it’s perfectly simple. There is no contradiction, and as with many issues, it’s only you who thinks there is. Mrs. Cox returned home at about 1.00am to warm her hands, which takes a couple of minutes, if that. With her hands warmed, she ventured straight out again, at around 1.00am. Since she wasn’t anywhere near the court after that time (i.e. after 1.00am but before 3.00am when she finally returned), it follows logically that she heard nothing after 1.00am. The only way you can possibly get a “contradiction” out of this is if you’re determined to argue that 1.01 or 1.02 can only be described as “after 1.00am”, and never “about 1.00am”, which is just as ludicrous as claiming she made it up because Kelly was prettier, or whatever bad reason you dreamed up.

There is NO evidence Hutchinson was disbelieved by the police at any time.
There is NO evidence that Hutchinson was discredited, by anyone at anytime.

There is strong, compelling, and conclusive evidence that Hutchinson was discredited by the police just a few days after his first appearance at the police station, as I’m prepared to reiterate and demonstrate for so much longer that you’re capable or persisting fruitlessly to the contrary.

“I love your faith in the press that they are an impeccable source”

Not the press generally. Just the newspapers that happened to have had a proven communication with the police, and who extracted information that was only obtainable from the police which we know for certain to be true. But I’m just gagging to go through all this again, so get responding to me immediately, Jon. Immediately!

""

[Ben]

“Ok.I'll quit”

Oh, bye bye then, Varqm.

Thanks for coming.

And thank you for leaving me to my "fantasy" that an ordinary local man with a connection to the crime scene might be a viable contender. It’s so complicated and juicily conspiratorial that I’m expecting Hollywood to call any moment.

“I'll stick to the little facts that we know and draw as little inference as possible.”

You do that.

If you do ever decide to go crazy and “draw and inference”, I find it’s often helpful to do so after conducting a bit of research into the habits of known serial killers.

[Wickerman]

Again, in terms of support for my views, I have considerably more for mine than you have for yours.

See, it's comments like this that make a joke of your position - my gang is bigger than your gang. Then you complain when I remind you of the real situation.
Those who have & still do disagree with you carry more influence on the subject - mainly because they actually do know what they are talking about.

The idea that the detectives had the ability of inclination to study and memorize the features of every single member of that room is so preposterous that it is scarcely worth typing these words in order to refute it.

Right, so why suggest it?
The police can tell the difference between the witnesses, the press, and the jury. The few members of the public in the room are the only faces the police have not seen before.
The police are always looking at faces Ben, I dare say even off duty. It is part of their makeup to always be on the lookout for those in society who are wanted for something.

Yes, it most certainly is, if the knife folded.

If the knife folded, the knife would be in his pocket out of sight.

The real ripper? Yes, probably. An invented bogeyman ripper conjured up in the knowledge that tales of sinister men with black bags were doing the rounds? Not necessarily.

Why?

There is strong, compelling, and conclusive evidence that Hutchinson was discredited by the police

No there isn't!

Not the press generally. Just the newspapers that happened to have had a proven communication with the police, and who extracted information that was only obtainable from the police which we know for certain to be true.

Yes, we can add those to the list while your on the hook.

- Proven communication with police.
- Proof they obtained exclusive information.
- Proven to be true.

You're digging a deeper hole for yourself.
Still, as you don't have any supporters willing to come to your aid, making the list longer won't do any harm I suppose.

[Ben]

See, it's comments like this that make a joke of your position - my gang is bigger than your gang. Then you complain when I remind you of the real situation.

My gang is bigger than your gang, though, Jon.

There are far more people who accept that Hutchinson lied and may have been a murderer than there are adherents to the faintly ludicrous Isaacstrakhan cause, and let's not forget the Daily News (actually let's forget the Daily News!). I don't point this out mean-spiritedly, but rather to illustrate the folly of constantly referring to the fact that other people have disagreed with me in the past. Some people disagree with me - Whoopty-fecking doo. They get disagreed with too, and a lot of the "elder statesman" - whose participation in the ongoing battle against Ben you are constantly trying (and failing) to recruit - have minority-endorsed suspect theories of their own that are regularly challenged.

The police can tell the difference between the witnesses, the press, and the jury.

They would make a broad and generalized scan of the room's layout, and make of note of where the particular groups (jurors, witnesses, Great Unwashed) were sitting, but they would not have been scrutinizing and memorizing the features of every single member of that room, and they certainly wouldn't have been focussing inordinate attention on the general public, i.e. the least important occupants of that room at the time. That's just obvious.

The police are always looking at faces Ben, I dare say even off duty. It is part of their makeup to always be on the lookout for those in society who are wanted for something.

Right... because all the known criminals in the area were just bound to make a bee-line for a front seat at a public inquest, with several senior police officials in attendance, and Abberline and chums were bound to have anticipated precisely that.

If the knife folded, the knife would be in his pocket out of sight.

Again, this was undoubtedly true of the boring old actual ripper, but wouldn't it be so much more interesting and devilish and brazen and sinister if he carried it in a black bag or parcel, as suggested by the various crap press accounts that included a man telling the woman he accosted that his bag carried "something the ladies don't like"?

Yes, we can add those to the list while your on the hook.

- Proven communication with police.
- Proof they obtained exclusive information.
- Proven to be true.

Yes, we can add those to the list of factual realities. Well done. The penny's dropped. I've discussed this at great length already, where I demolished your objections, and I'll do so again depending on the extent of my irritation, but I'm certainly not repeating it all now at your behest.

If I'm on the "hook", I'd be fascinated to know who's holding that mean old rod, and putting me under this oh-so-unbearable pressure.

""

[Wickerman]

My gang is bigger than your gang, though, Jon.

There are far more people who accept that Hutchinson lied and may have been a murderer .....

Please do not try to whitewash this Ben, the issue of Hutchinson as a suspect is not what our continued disagreements are about.

You have made several very specific claims to me within that 'Hutchinson as a suspect' umbrella. It is those claims which are the source of our continued debate and which remain to be substantiated.

... faintly ludicrous Isaacstrakhan cause,

Only you describe it as ludicrous Ben. The reason my suggestion causes no concern with anyone else is because, unlike yourself, I do know that the correct way to present an idea is to keep it as a possibility and not to try claim it as proven.
Isaac's as Astrachan is a possibility and all what we know about Isaacs, and what has been confirmed, is consistent with the possibility.

Right... because all the known criminals in the area were just bound to make a bee-line for a front seat at a public inquest, with several senior police officials in attendance, and Abberline and chums were bound to have anticipated precisely that.

You might want to talk to a policeman about their training, to always be aware where they are and with whom.

Again, this was undoubtedly true of the boring old actual ripper, but wouldn't it be so much more interesting and devilish and brazen and sinister if he carried it in a black bag or parcel, as suggested by the various crap press accounts that included a man telling the woman he accosted that his bag carried "something the ladies don't like"?

The Britannia-man carried a bag, but Astrachan did not. He carried a small parcel, like Isaacs who carried a musical instrument around with him.
Why would Hutchinson invent a parcel when the real killer(?) is reputed to carry a black medical bag?
Really, your scenario has more holes than a sieve.

Yes, we can add those to the list of factual realities. Well done. The penny's dropped. I've discussed this at great length already, where I demolished your objections, and I'll do so again depending on the extent of my irritation, but I'm certainly not repeating it all now at your behest.

You have discussed these issues at great length because you were compelled to defend your claims. Your defense failed miserably because the issues are still there.
Your claims are false, your interpretations are not facts, and your sources remain unproven.

This is why we are here Ben, not because you think Hutchinson 'may' have lied, and that he 'may' have been involved in the murder.
But, because the claims you so tiresomely repeat ad nauseam are never proven and are certainly not factual.

If I'm on the "hook", I'd be fascinated to know who's holding that mean old rod, and putting me under this oh-so-unbearable pressure.

You are on the hook!

[Ben]

The reason my suggestion causes no concern with anyone else is because, unlike yourself, I do know that the correct way to present an idea is to keep it as a possibility and not to try claim it as proven.

Setting aside the fact that Isaacstrakhan isn't even a "possibility", you must have one heck of a selective memory if you've somehow remained oblivious to the criticism that theory has received on threads we've both contributed to. That's not to say a weird and controversial idea should cause anyone "concern". Good grief! On the contrary, the more obviously wrong the theory, the less people are likely to show "concern" over it, which pretty much explains why Isaacstrakhan invariably sinks without trace, buried within a mammoth Hutchinson debate that I'm given the power to create. And yet you seem to be so terribly "concerned" over me and my views, which makes me feel all puffed-up and important.

The Britannia-man carried a bag, but Astrachan did not. He carried a small parcel, like Isaacs who carried a musical instrument around with him.

Isaacs carried around his musical instruments in a black parcel? The evidence for this, of course, is...? Is...? Oh. None. Awkward. Never mind. But what eight-inch instrument would it be anyway? A harmonica? A tuning fork? A fold-up piccolo? Something requiring tight-grasping in American cloth at any rate.

Why would Hutchinson invent a parcel when the real killer(?) is reputed to carry a black medical bag?
Really, your scenario has more holes than a sieve.

Your originality of insults has me in bewildered awe, but I think you're just being pedantic here. A black bag and a black parcel obviously convey the same impression, and it will be remembered that a parcel featured in the Stride inquest, which Hutchinson could easily have read about and amalgamated with the "black bag" stories you like so much.

You have discussed these issues at great length because you were compelled to defend your claims.

Somewhat to my amusement, you continue to convince yourself that I bestow you and your views with such incredible importance, and that I'm somehow under pressure from you. But you mistake my "compulsion". I point out basic historical realities in order that those with minority-endorsed and highly erroneous views on the Kelly murder are not permitted to lead the uninitiated astray. When those on the defensive attempt to obfuscate their true intentions by pretending that it's all about Ben trying to make Hutchinson look guilty, I get angry and respond accordingly.

But, because the claims you so tiresomely repeat ad nauseam are never proven and are certainly not factual.

If you're tired and finding this exhausting, find something else to do or discuss.

I'm not saying it has been proven that Hutchinson lied.

I'm not saying it has been proven that Hutchinson lied.

I'm saying it has been satisfactorily established that, rightly or wrongly, Hutchinson was discredited at the time.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm saying it has been satisfactorily established that, rightly or wrongly, Hutchinson was discredited at the time.

Strictly speaking, Ben, it appears that his statement was discredited. This needn't be taken to mean that serious aspersions were cast on the man himself.

[Wickerman]

I'm saying it has been satisfactorily established that, rightly or wrongly, Hutchinson was discredited at the time.

By whom?

[Wickerman]

Strictly speaking, Ben, it appears that his statement was discredited. This needn't be taken to mean that serious aspersions were cast on the man himself.

Since part of his statement is consistent with that given by Sarah Lewis, strictly speaking, it may only be a portion of his statement that is questioned.
However, the bottom line in this elusive game we play is to pin down what exactly is supposed to have been questioned, why, and by whom?

Seeing as there is a distinct lack of evidence beyond media speculations, this is likely to be a long haul.

[Ben]

Seeing as there is a distinct lack of evidence beyond media speculations

No, Jon.

Not media "speculations".

Media reports that were both accurate and based on contemporary police opinion.

And there is no evidence of any police or media acknowledgment that "part of his statement is consistent with that given by Sarah Lewis".