Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

Ruby:

"your other theories are simply so weak that they are easily demolished"

Strange, then, don´t you think, that nobody has demolished them. It can´t be because of any lack of a wish to do so, if I am not much mistaken!

The best,
Fisherman

Yes, well I was so busy Dec-late January that I didn't get to read all of the earlier posts, and being curious as to all Lechmere's alleged information about the Victoria Home, which would prove to me how that lodging house was so vastly different to the others (and prove that Hutch couldn't have lived there
and been the murderer), I took the time to go back and read the lot..

What did I read ? -your theory about Hutchinson getting the night wrong being quite conclusively trashed !

I did have a little laugh at your patently ridiculous scenario about Hutch being walled up with nothing but horses after the murder and inquest (?)...I would have enjoyed answering it, and I'm suprised that no one did demolish it ...I suppose that they didn't think that it was worth answering.

Lechmere -I went back and read everything about the Victoria ..and where is that book of ticks ?? The only difference I can see with that lodging house and other [B]slightly [/B ]better places, such as Crossinghams, was the potted history on the lodgers when they were first admitted -excluding all known bad characters. No doubt they didn't just have the information that the lodgers chose to give them as info (they probably simply googled them !).

Otherwise the 4d price, the fact that you needed to pay for a metal pass between 5.30pm and 12.30am or else apply for a night pass to get in after 1am seems much the same as all the rest. My two little scenarios on Berner and Hanbury fit very well.

Hang about, though ! There WAS an interesting bit of info in Harry's very interesting link..
You could leave personal effects with the deputy and sign for them..now considering that this deputy didn't use microscopes and forensic on items left with him..and I wonder if he wrote the contents of a 'bag' down, or not simply issue 'numbers' like we do at a swimming pool.? .this would be a very good way of keeping anything vaguely incriminating 'safe' until you got to the pawnbrokers.

[Rubyretro]

ps -an apt comment for St Valentine's Day ! -

I was gobsmacked that it is the men that put forward the 'romantic' theory that Hutch may have had a 'crush' on Mary !!

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"What did I read ? -your theory about Hutchinson getting the night wrong being quite conclusively trashed !"

Aha, that´s what you mean! Well, Ruby, I would have been very surprised if a certain clique of people did not have a go at it. But having a go at it and dispelling it are two different things altogether, as you may (no?) realize. And for your information, nothing has emerged that in any way prevents my theory being true. A few things have surfaced that make a few people thing that there is good reason to believe that I am wrong, but as you know, there are those who think that there is good reason to believe that there is an old, bearded man up in the clouds, looking after us.

"Im suprised that no one did demolish it "

Yes, how strange that this has not been achieved, in spite of all that good will!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

pps - Lechmere
I am still reeling under the realisation that, unlike most East End casual workers in doss houses, George Hutchinson had private 'lock up' facilities at his disposition !

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

Ruby:

"What did I read ? -your theory about Hutchinson getting the night wrong being quite conclusively trashed !"

Aha, that´s what you mean! Well, Ruby, I would have been very surprised if a certain clique of people did not have a go at it.

fascinating ! I have seen this accusation before..

As soon as some people's opinions coincide (after they have read the same evidence and have arrived at the same conclusions), then the cry of 'clique !' goes up.

Speaking only for myself (since I don't have any 'clique' to fall back on), you can look at my 'history' on Casebook and see that my very first post on Casebook was arrived at all on my ownio, and I hadn't read Ben, Garry, Bob etc (the latter two's books only having been read fairly recently).

I'm not afraid to differ from them, and I think that they are often quick to distance themselves from me ; so just forget 'clique' (it stinks of 'conspiracy).

So, your arguments were sucessfully refuted by pople that have nothing to do with me (I note, independantly).

I am also fascinated that you include yourself in the same paragraph as the 'bearded man up in the clouds'. just as well that I've dropped the 'cod psychology' tack, eh?



















"Im suprised that no one did demolish it

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"As soon as some people's opinions coincide (after they have read the same evidence and have arrived at the same conclusions), then the cry of 'clique !' goes up."

Eh, no - as soon as you can PREDICT exactly who will turn up and thinking what, THEN you have a clique. And I can do that with ease.

"your arguments were sucessfully refuted by pople that have nothing to do with me "

If saying no amounts to a "successfull" refutation, then I´m with you.

"I am also fascinated that you include yourself in the same paragraph as the 'bearded man up in the clouds'."

In your case, Ruby, I suspect that you would suggest company from down below on my behalf...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

there are those who think that there is good reason to believe that there is an old, bearded man up in the clouds, looking after us.

Richard Branson?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Ruby:

"As soon as some people's opinions coincide (after they have read the same evidence and have arrived at the same conclusions), then the cry of 'clique !' goes up."

Eh, no - as soon as you can PREDICT exactly who will turn up and thinking what, THEN you have a clique. And I can do that with ease

.

Well, of course I can predict exactly who will turn up when you waffle on
(hands up, Mike!)..so in that sense, you are in a 'Clique'. In fact, you are in a far more predictable clique than me, I'd say..

..but in fact, who cares ? Surely this is supposed to be a serious debate about JTR theories using historical facts as a basis ? All this 'Clique' talk is a waste of time.

If saying no amounts to a "successfull" refutation, then I´m with you.

There ! We agree !

In your case, Ruby, I suspect that you would suggest company from down below on my behalf...?[/QUOTE

]

Nope. Or rather, Yes. Or, No. I'll have to ask my Clique....

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Richard Branson?"

Yep, that´s him.

The best
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Well, of course I can predict exactly who will turn up when you waffle on
(hands up, Mike!)..so in that sense, you are in a 'Clique'."

Yes - but in the right one, thank God. Or Richard Branson.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

but in fact, who cares ? Surely this is supposed to be a serious debate about JTR theories using historical facts as a basis ? All this 'Clique' talk is a waste of time.

Absolutely. Or 'Camps'. Who has time for that crap? Not me.

[Rubyretro]

It's Valentine's Day , Fish -so here's a big kiss to you..

**** ! I forgot ! You're not in my clique ?! your swedish slobbers are reserved only for swedish 'experts' ...

here's a quick 'peck' anyway...

[Lechmere]

I think Hutchinson was probably Toppy – and if he was he probably romanced up his story to his son (he would have been an elderly father) some 40 or 50 years after the events unfolded. If he did anything slightly unsavoury (e.g. being a bit of a peeping tom – trying to look into Kelly’s room, or having a pitiful crush on her, or making up a load of embellishments to get an allowance from the police) then he is hardly likely to admit this to his son.

‘Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day.’

[Sally]

I think Hutchinson was probably Toppy – and if he was he probably romanced up his story to his son (he would have been an elderly father) some 40 or 50 years after the events unfolded. If he did anything slightly unsavoury (e.g. being a bit of a peeping tom – trying to look into Kelly’s room, or having a pitiful crush on her, or making up a load of embellishments to get an allowance from the police) then he is hardly likely to admit this to his son.

‘Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day.’

Ah! The Folly of Youth! What a romantic tale for Valentine's Day, Lechmere.

[Rubyretro]

[

I]‘Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day.’[/I]

[/QUOTE]

Thank's for quoting that verse; it's very beautifiul..I really enjoyed reading it again..

Still, it doesn't give a convincing scenario as to what Hutchinson was actually waiting for, for such a long time, outside Mary's room on the night of her murder..?