The Red Handkerchief...

[Abby Normal]

How about an ostrich with it's head in the sand?

Yeah that's just as worthless

[Abby Normal]

I agree Richard the endless pontification on Hutchinson is a waste of time.

Cheers John

Hi John
But not about bury?
(who I by the way, think is also a valid candidate)


I would suggest that statements like wastes of time would be better suited to candidates like maybrick, Sickert and royal conspiracies and the like.

[John Wheat]

Hi John
But not about bury?
(who I by the way, think is also a valid candidate)

I would suggest that statements like wastes of time would be better suited to candidates like maybrick, Sickert and royal conspiracies and the like.

To Abbey

Fair point Hutchinson is a better suspect than Maybrick and Sickert etc.

Cheers John

[Mr Lucky]

Hi,
In my opinion Hutchinson is one of the worst suspects ever fingered.

Nonsense, he's actually at the crime scene. That fact alone blows away most of the other 'suspects'

[Wickerman]

Nonsense, he's actually at the crime scene....

Apparently, but was he there before, during, or after the crime took place.

[Sally]

Apparently, but was he there before, during, or after the crime took place.

Not after, surely Jon?

Then we'd know for sure that he was telling porky pies

[Fisherman]

Apparently, but was he there before, during, or after the crime took place.

Before - a whole day before.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Before - a whole day before.

The best,
Fisherman

At least you stick to your guns, Fish [even if I do think they're misfiring on this occasion]

[Fisherman]

At least you stick to your guns, Fish [even if I do think they're misfiring on this occasion]

Actually, Sally, I make it a point not to stick to my guns no matter what. When something crops up that goes to show me that I have been strolling down the wrong path, I make a quick turn, leaving my guns behind.

I find that is the best way of going about things, instead of committing any fundamentalist suicide.

... but before I drop my guns, I need to be shown that I am probably wrong. On the Hutchinson business, that has not happened so far, and so I will hang on to those particular one-day-off guns until I am proven right or until something tells me that I am more probably wrong than right.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Not after, surely Jon?

Then we'd know for sure that he was telling porky pies

Listed under 'before' would be Christer's 'wrong day' argument, and Hutchinson's claim to have left the scene at 3:00am, almost an hour before the cry of 'murder'.

Under 'during' would be the theories that Hutchinson was somehow involved, as either the murderer or, as a lookout.

Finally under 'after' are those who uphold Blotchy as being the murderer, and that Hutchinson's story is entirely fiction.

As there are parties on all three sides of the debate then the certainty that he is a good suspect is not as firm as some might think.

[Sally]

As you will, Fish.

Of course, if you are correct, and Hutchinson was just an honest Joe who mistook the day; I'm afraid that you're still left with two near identical encounters involving The Friend, The Victim and the Well-Dressed Man to account for.

Unless you think that they were really one and the same and Hutchinson got the time wrong; to say nothing of gender assignment. Or perhaps the original reporting journalist responsible for the earlier story of the 10th only mistook Hutchinson for a woman?

Anything is possible, I guess...

[Sally]

Hello Jon

Listed under 'before' would be Christer's 'wrong day' argument, and Hutchinson's claim to have left the scene at 3:00am, almost an hour before the cry of 'murder'.

Wrong day. Sigh... See above. Fish and I discussed this at length, I seem to recall. I think it fits in well with some of the other theories I've seen manufactured to support of an innocent, truth-abiding Hutchinson: like the one in which he didn't hear about the murder for three days because he was locked away in a stable in Romford, too absorbed in his 'orses to notice a thing, for example.

My second-best wideawake hat is up for grabs if you can find more than a nominal number of people who endorse the likelihood of Hutchinson misplacing a day in his recent history in which he'd [allegedly] been witness to extraordinary events.

Under 'during' would be the theories that Hutchinson was somehow involved, as either the murderer or, as a lookout.

Or because he knew Blotchy and wanted to deflect attention away from him by constructing a Spring-Heeled Jack type bogeyman who was trending at the time.

Finally under 'after' are those who uphold Blotchy as being the murderer, and that Hutchinson's story is entirely fiction.

Yes, that's what I meant about the 'after' scenario. Was Blotchy Kelly's killer? He was never identified, so who knows who he was?

As there are parties on all three sides of the debate then the certainty that he is a good suspect is not as firm as some might think

Sorry Jon, but your last sentence doesn't make sense. The different 'sides' of the Hutchnson debate have no bearing on whether we should objectively consider him a good suspect or not - that's effectively suggesting that the opinion of the individual takes precedence over the facts.

Facts here are that Hutchinson claimed to have witnessed Kelly in the last hours of her life in the company of a man strongly implied to have been her killer. He puts hiimself at the murder scene by admission. There is, whether you accept the contention that his story was wholesale invention or not; certainly sufficient cause for doubt, as many have observed over the years.

In what sense is he not a good suspect?

There are plenty of bad suspects out there - not sure Hutchinson goes on the list. Anyway, he makes it into the Wikipedia list, and that's good enough for me!

[Fisherman]

As you will, Fish.

Of course, if you are correct, and Hutchinson was just an honest Joe who mistook the day; I'm afraid that you're still left with two near identical encounters involving The Friend, The Victim and the Well-Dressed Man to account for.

Unless you think that they were really one and the same and Hutchinson got the time wrong; to say nothing of gender assignment. Or perhaps the original reporting journalist responsible for the earlier story of the 10th only mistook Hutchinson for a woman?

Anything is possible, I guess...

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

[Fisherman]

There are plenty of bad suspects out there - not sure Hutchinson goes on the list.

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

[Sally]

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

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