Tweet
Harry!
When I did my military service, I did it in close company with paratroopers who marched 160 kilometres in rough terrain in four days, carrying nigh on 80 pounds on their backs, and who returned to our quarters, some of them with sore feet but most of them fit as a fiddle. Now, THAT is what I would call remarkable men! A guy who manages London - Romford - London in a day wearing an overcoat plays in another league methinks. Of course, it may have made him somewhat fatigue, but where does it say that he was not? Also, just like there are thin arguments, there are thin overcoats too.
You also write that almost everything of Hutch´s statement can be challenged as to it´s truthfulness, but such challenges are left unproven in each and every instance, I´m afraid - there is no question that there are somewhat strange elements incorporated in his story, but I for one would not say that going down to Romford is such an element. We know full well that Eastenders made long walks to find the odd job; it was a practice brought about by the harsh monetary conditions under which they lived.
So why would we place a perfectly reasonable claim, historically corroborated by lots and lots of similar stories, near the head of a sort of list of things we find utterly hard to believe? To me, such a thing speaks much more of a lack of substance than of any tenable suspicion.
There is nothing wrong in questioning the veracity of people´s testimonies in the Ripper case - for sure, somebody probably WAS using a false facade to obscure his real intentions. But do we really need to read something sinister into Hutchinson doing what leagues of other Eastenders did - find job wherever they could?
Finally, if Hutch had been the criminal some hold him to be, then why would he speak of going down to Romford over the day? He must have had a purpose for doing so - looking for a job, seeing relatives, buying something that was only available there - all of these things carrying the common denominator that he must have contacted somebody in Romford to go through with his purpose. And in such a case, there would in all probability have been people who could have corroborated his story, if asked by the police. He also stated that he spent his money going to Romford, and there we have the second category of corroborating witnesses - somebody would have been on the receiving end of Hutch´s money.
Surely there must have been other stories to tell, if you needed an alibi for the Thursday that would stand up without any neccessary corroboration. And - not least - why on earth would he need an alibi for that Thursday in the first place?
The best,
Fisherman
When I did my military service, I did it in close company with paratroopers who marched 160 kilometres in rough terrain in four days, carrying nigh on 80 pounds on their backs, and who returned to our quarters, some of them with sore feet but most of them fit as a fiddle. Now, THAT is what I would call remarkable men! A guy who manages London - Romford - London in a day wearing an overcoat plays in another league methinks. Of course, it may have made him somewhat fatigue, but where does it say that he was not? Also, just like there are thin arguments, there are thin overcoats too.
You also write that almost everything of Hutch´s statement can be challenged as to it´s truthfulness, but such challenges are left unproven in each and every instance, I´m afraid - there is no question that there are somewhat strange elements incorporated in his story, but I for one would not say that going down to Romford is such an element. We know full well that Eastenders made long walks to find the odd job; it was a practice brought about by the harsh monetary conditions under which they lived.
So why would we place a perfectly reasonable claim, historically corroborated by lots and lots of similar stories, near the head of a sort of list of things we find utterly hard to believe? To me, such a thing speaks much more of a lack of substance than of any tenable suspicion.
There is nothing wrong in questioning the veracity of people´s testimonies in the Ripper case - for sure, somebody probably WAS using a false facade to obscure his real intentions. But do we really need to read something sinister into Hutchinson doing what leagues of other Eastenders did - find job wherever they could?
Finally, if Hutch had been the criminal some hold him to be, then why would he speak of going down to Romford over the day? He must have had a purpose for doing so - looking for a job, seeing relatives, buying something that was only available there - all of these things carrying the common denominator that he must have contacted somebody in Romford to go through with his purpose. And in such a case, there would in all probability have been people who could have corroborated his story, if asked by the police. He also stated that he spent his money going to Romford, and there we have the second category of corroborating witnesses - somebody would have been on the receiving end of Hutch´s money.
Surely there must have been other stories to tell, if you needed an alibi for the Thursday that would stand up without any neccessary corroboration. And - not least - why on earth would he need an alibi for that Thursday in the first place?
The best,
Fisherman
Comment