Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Garry Wroe]

Of course, in the absense of any supporting evidence, a theory is unprovable. It is certainly not unsustainable as long as it cannot be DISPROVEN either.

With respect, Fish, a theory lacking in supporting evidence is no theory at all. It is no more than a working hypothesis. And a weak one at that.

I would like to - once again - point out that the night we are discussing was a night of heavy rain, as testified by the Echo.

But The Echo fails to confirm the hard, unabated rainfall that assumes critical importance to your ‘wrong night’ hypothesis.

Have a look at you[r] serial killer Hutchinson, Garry. Just how much supporting evidence can you come up with in his case? meaning that the theory is ... unsustainable?

Yet again you have imputed to me a belief that I have never stated publically. And then you have the nerve to contend that I have misrepresented you. I have to confess, Fish, that this ‘do as I say and not as I do’ approach is becoming increasingly wearisome.

In my essay, I VERY CLEARLY state that as uncertainty must attach to whether it really DID rain at these crucial hours …

Then I suggest that you re-read your article, Fish, because again and again you alluded to the certainty of your argument based in no small measure upon the official information provided by the Meteorological Office. You even went so far as to assert that you had ‘exonerated’ Hutchinson.

… the most important factor is Hutchinson´s walking the streets "all night", as he stated. For we - once again - know full well that it rained heavily one quarter of an hour after he left Dorset Street.

Again, Fish, sloppy research. The heavy shower to which you refer occurred at approximately three o’ clock. Since Hutchinson departed the scene more or less as the church clock chimed on the hour, he left at three o’clock, not at a quarter to three.

Oh, and since you are or have been in the possesion of a metorological report on events that were not recorded by the metorologists, it would be very interesting if you would ponder sharing it with us. It certainly belongs to the assessment of the weather.

There’s that bullish attitude again, Fish. So now you want me to do your research for you?

When in a hole, stop digging.

And on that note I’d like to leave the present debate by wishing you a pleasant and thoroughly overindulgent Christmas.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[caz]

Once Astrakhan is removed from the equation, the weather conditions become an irrelevance.

Hi All,

I took the above quote from:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=158535&postcount=167

Apparently, Hutch's entire account of his own movements on the night of the murder suddenly became an irrelevance as far as Abberline and co were concerned, once they had mentally removed his Mr A from the scene (assuming it wasn't an account of Hutch's movements the night before, as Fish proposes).

What I cannot get my head round is how easily Garry and Ben can dismiss as irrelevant the fact that with Mr A removed, bang goes Hutch's explanation for being so close to the murder scene three hours after Blotchy was seen going in.

All we ever get is a) the police had no experience of a killer coming forward as a bogus witness so this one was most probably wrongly dismissed as a mere fantasist and time waster (despite the mischief involved in telling such detailed lies and taking the boys in blue on a wild goose chase round Whitechapel looking for Mr Nobody), or b) in the less likely event (yeah, right) that the police did wonder what legitimate business he had there, now there was a Mr A-shaped hole in his evening, they were powerless to do anything about it, because 'at that stage' they were not sticking any suspects in front of Lawende and co.

In effect, whether they made a connection with Lewis's lurker or not, with no Mr A left, and still no progress, they would still have wanted to eliminate Lewis's lurker from their enquiries, whoever he was, right?

One wonders if they would have been as completely useless if Hutch had walked in dripping with blood, a heart in one pocket and knife in the other, still claiming to be a mere witness. "Not currently using any of your witnesses to look over anyone? Unthinkable that the killer would be mad enough to walk in posing as a witness? Bingo!"

The only sensible explanation is that they were quickly able to resolve the bleedin' obvious problem of elephant-in-room proportions, associated with the removal of Mr A from the scene but leaving Hutch very much in situ with no legitimate excuse this time.

The arguments here just don't wash.

Love,

Caz
X

[Garry Wroe]

What I cannot get my head round is how easily Garry and Ben can dismiss as irrelevant the fact that with Mr A removed, bang goes Hutch's explanation for being so close to the murder scene three hours after Blotchy was seen going in.

Then perhaps, Caz, you should reflect on why Hutchinson admitted to having been in Dorset Street and directly outside Kelly’s room in the first place. His movements, or so he claimed, were motivated by the appearance of Astrakhan. But if Astrakhan did not exist, Hutchinson’s explanation for having been at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder must by necessity have been untrue. It’s really not that difficult to understand.

Less easy to understand is the perceived relevance of the three hour interval between the sighting of Blotchy and Hutchinson’s presence on the scene.

And here’s another thing, Caz. Ben and I are not joined at the hip, and neither do we speak as one. Once this is understood, one will be better placed to appreciate why I fail to recognize some of the arguments and opinions you have attributed to me. Perhaps, then, it might be an idea if you addressed future questions to one or the other of us rather than collectively.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Hello again, Garry!

I note that you keep forgetting that I wrote that I could not prove my suggestion of Hutchinson getting the days mixed up. This is of no interest at all to you,obviously. Instead, you for some reason try to pass yourself off as some sort of judge over how things may be written and how they cannot.

I don´t know what you think you are yourself, Garry - some sort of top scientist, writing rocket science in the British Journal of Medicine? You are welcome to play that charade if you feel a need to, Garry, but when you do, you should take great care to weigh in ALL the important elements of a text, and not just the ones you pick and choose.

As it stands, you try to paint my suggestion out at as a weak working hypothesis, and you even claim that there is no evidence speaking in favour of it. This you ground mainly on the fact that it cannot be decisively proven that it rained at two o clock in the morning of the 9:th. You even go as far as to suggest that my whole suggestion stands or falls with it, more or less.

That is terribly wrong, as anybody with an unbiased mind will realize. You know full well that I wrote that rain is something that may vary very much locally, and that it thus could be hard to tell whether it could be established on behalf of Abberline that it DID rain at that exact hour. Which is why we instead may use Hutchinson´s nightly streetwalking as the deciding parameter to make our minds up about the night´s weather. This is made very, very clear in my text, but you habitually disregard it, in the same manner that you habitually omitt to mention that I actually DID admit that I could not prove my suggestion. These things are not useful to your approach - that I have been totally unscientific and that I have claimed to know the exact amount of rain that fell over Dorset Street. I must have, since I worded myself the way I did.

And you are perfectly free to do so, of course. You may pick and choose exactly the parts that you need to defend whatever agenda you may have. It is everybody´s prerogative, if they feel they become better persons for doing so. We all have our different ways to reach catharsis, I guess.

In the end, it will not matter just how you go about things in this errand. Despite of your disparaging remarks, I am fully confident that I have opened up an avenue of research that has been inexplicably overlooked over the years. Others have realized this and been graceful enough to say as much. And why shouldn´t they? It offers a clear cut possibility to explain all the riddles that used to be connected to the case; why a man like Dew would write that George Hutchinson was mistaken on the day, why Hutchinson did not see Lewis, why he did not see the couple Lewis saw, why Mary Kelly was much drunk at midninght but sober two hours later, why Hutchinson was not reprimanded for approaching the police with a story that did not hold up, why the papers never got wind of what had truly happened, why Abberline had Hutchinson down as an honest man, why the story Hutchinson told was under suspicion on the 13:th but totally discredited the day after and last, but not least, why the scenario of the murder night, as described by Hutchinson is a totally dry one, sending Hutchinson himself out to walk the streets of the East end "all night", including the crucial moment of 3 Am, when we know it rained hard.
I am fully confident that this line of research will prove fruitful, and that in the end, even the Garry Wroes of this world will either share in the good news, or wither away, preaching good form and stylistics in a dusty study in the land of Oblivion. To state that a scenario that explains all of these things - something no other scenario has been able to do without resorting to totally unsubstantiated suggestions like "Dew must have gotten things wrong, and the suggestion of a mixing up of dates must be something he dreamt up at old age", "Hutchinson probably lied about Lewis not being there, not to seem to overconfident", "He probably lied about walking the streets too; highly suspicious!", "Hutchinson must have concocted Astrakhan man himself - it is almost proven that such things cannot happen and no comparison will be exact enough to bear such a thing out at any rate" and the obviously faulty assumption that "Nobody can forget a date when something really, really important happens" - to state such a scenario is a weak one, is to grossly mislead.

I offer explanations to all of these things, and explanations that are extremely simple. The overwhelmingly most common reason for a witness not observing another person that they WOULD have observed since the person in question actually passes right through their field of vision and walks into a venue that the witness in question is actually monitoring sharply, is actually NOT that the witness is lying to try and conceal that he is really a mad eviscerator.
The more - infinitely more - sound and common explanation is that you cannot see people who are not there. Which is why, Garry, if you had been in Dorset Street on that night, you would have made Lewis´aquaintance, but not Hutchinson´s.
And you would have been wet.

Refute as much as you want. And do enjoy your superiority when it comes to the linguistic joys of it.

A very good Christmas to you too, Garry. It is the season when the weapons should be laid to rest. I also wish you a prosperous new year, with new insights and achievements.

Fisherman

[Tom_Wescott]

This has been an enjoyable and educational thread. Speaking as someone with no horse in the race, I personally think all the major contributors to the thread (such as Fish, Garry, and Caz) make a lot of sense.

I have not wavered in my feeling that Fish has made a real contribution with his essay, and I hope he is enjoying all the feedback, particularly the negative. The fact that some individuals (Hatchett and Babybird) are literally offended that he thought to publish his findings means that he's struck a nerve. Speaking as someone who's published a whole bunch of essays, I can say it's the rare one that sparks this much controversy. Most go by with little more than polite comments, if that.

Having said that, Garry has written some excellent counterpoint posts, and I think he's been very civil in his exchange.

I personally think the entire thing hinges on the rain. Fish has done a good job of providing us with a factual foundation for his theory - that Hutch was taken seriously at first then discredited for reasons that suggest he was not caught in a provable lie. The fact that Fish thought of the rain angle shows he's got a good mind for this stuff, and in time further research might just prove him correct. Having said that, Garry is correct in pointing out that the theory has not be proved, and the internal evidence (i.e. the description of AM) suggest a likelier possibility to be that Hutch was lying. Nevertheless, I think Fish should be congratulated on one of the most thought-provoking sophomore efforts I've seen.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

As it stands, you try to paint my suggestion out at as a weak working hypothesis, and you even claim that there is no evidence speaking in favour of it. This you ground mainly on the fact that it cannot be decisively proven that it rained at two o clock in the morning of the 9:th. You even go as far as to suggest that my whole suggestion stands or falls with it, more or less.

As I have already stated, Fish, I will be the first to commend you if you succeed in presenting evidence which confirms your contention of heavy and continual rainfall on the night under scrutiny. Meantime, I'd like to think that you will be able to set aside the present debate and get on with enjoying the Christmas period.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

Speaking as someone who's published a whole bunch of essays, I can say it's the rare one that sparks this much controversy. Most go by with little more than polite comments, if that.

It's standard procedure on Hutchinson threads, I'm afraid, Tom. They almost invariably end up in a bloodbath.

I do, however, agree with your view that Fisherman's article has merit. Whilst I cannot agree with his conclusions on the basis of current evidence, he has at least opened up a new and interesting area of debate - and very few succeed on that score.

Here's hoping that you have an excellent Christmas.

Garry Wroe.

[babybird67]

I have not wavered in my feeling that Fish has made a real contribution with his essay, and I hope he is enjoying all the feedback, particularly the negative. The fact that some individuals (Hatchett and Babybird) are literally offended that he thought to publish his findings means that he's struck a nerve. Speaking as someone who's published a whole bunch of essays, I can say it's the rare one that sparks this much controversy. Most go by with little more than polite comments, if that.

Nerve? Yeah Fish tends to do that when he distorts evidence and then claims facts have been established and that he now KNOWS things. He did it with Leander. He has done it with this essay. I'm sorry you find it 'negative' for some people to care about truth rather than misrepresentation, however i make no apologies for it. When people take a weather report which states that rain affected the London area after midnight, and stretch that to mean rain started at midnight and got ever heavier until it was incessant, then yes i am offended, and yes i am fully justified in challenging that as i think anyone concerned with truth and accuracy of research should be. I think it was wrong of you to speak of the Beadle prize in reference to a theory which has no real basis in evidence, but is just a hypothesis like many others.Fish is entitled to present whatever theory he wants, but without evidence, others are entitled to question its credibility.

And yes, Caz, i was wrong about the times, thanks for pointing that out. However the man was there when Hutch said he was and was described as looking up at and watching the court as if waiting for someone, which suggests loitering for some time, not just standing there for a second and moving on.

I fully accept it might not have been Hutch. It's possible it was. I don't believe in the Astrakhan description and that means i have to treat everything that Hutch said with the same disbelief, or I am making the decision to arbitrarily chose what i believe he was and wasnt telling the truth about.

[Hatchett]

May I just say that I am not literally offended by what Fisherman has published. Nor has he struck a nerve. Neither do I have a horse in the race.

But the point is that Fisherman put his article in the public domain, and so it is open to public scrutiny.

Not only that he entered into discussion on this thread to support his theory and to answer and reply to views that both agreed or disagreed to what he was saying.

He was been congratulated by another poster on the debate that his article fostered. That debate could never have happened or continued if there was not an alternative view. To say that view is negative because it disagrees with Fisherman’s theory is clearly dictatorial and unhelpful in this world of discussions.

After all if Fisherman didn’t want alternative views then why publish it in the first place?
The whole point of this debate as has been pointed out is to do with the rain. But the rain has always been there. We have all known that. So it is not the rain. It is whether the rain was continual or were there dry periods. The evidence of other witnesses points to the stance that there were. Fisherman’s new theory does not produce conclusive proof that this was not case.

It is not negative pointing this out. Surely, it has to be helpful for others reading the thread, particularly newcomers. If Fisherman is a conscientious researcher then surely it is beneficial to him.

Or am I missing something here?

Is that some people cannot be challenged no matter what they say?

Surely, everyone has a democratic right to express their own view and their own counter arguments?

To say that an opposing view is negative is taking a stance. You cannot sit on the fence and make a comment like that. Because it betrays the stance.

If an opposing view is negative then what is a positive view? That one accepts the theory? Is that really what has been said?

Give me a break!

[Tecs]

Hi Fish,

I have no reason to suspect that any witness was quizzed in detail over the weather, for the obvious reason that no detective was likely to consider it necessary to determine whether or not a witness had confused an entire day. However, if Hutchinson was quizzed, he would probably have confirmed the presence of rain.

All the best,
Ben

Absolutely.

I've always found it annoying the way people today say things such as "Oh Maxwell must have confused the day" or "Hutchinson may have confused the dates" etc as if the Victorians were idiots!

They may not have been sophisticated people when viewed from our standpoint today. No they didn't own mobile phones, no they never had computers and yes there may still have been a few weird superstitions around, (Kosminski's masturbating madness for example.) But, these were practical people who lived their lives as best they could in very harsh circumstances. The idea that they were some kind of idiotic bumpkins who couldn't tell one day from the other is ridiculous.

And when people suggest this they are overlooking one massive point. This wasn't any ordinary day, it was the day of the lord mayor's parade, one of the very few public holidays that they had. Maxwell's social diary was probably:-

Boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/Neighbour murdered and Lord Mayor's parade/Boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/ etc

Still think she got the date wrong!

But to be 100% serious, as pointed out above, the Police had no reason to question the date as they were there at the time and could see things as they were, not with 120 years of fog.

It is just too easy to say that they must have been wrong. How would we feel if in 122 years some writer said sweepingly that we must have been wrong when we described something that happened today, just because it's easier than accepting another possibility?

"So Mrs Maxwell, how can you be sure it was the morning of the murder?"

"The bleedin' brars bahnd tunin' up rahnd the cownah. Drove me bleedin' mahd it did."

Regards,

[Ben]

And when people suggest this they are overlooking one massive point. This wasn't any ordinary day, it was the day of the lord mayor's parade, one of the very few public holidays that they had.

Spot on, Tecs.

It just doesn't bear scrutiny that anyone would misremember the day of so notable a public holiday as the Lord Mayor's show, nor is it remotely likely that a person why really did go all the way to Romford (a journey of about 13 miles) would forget which day s/he went there.

The idea that Hutchinson mixed the dates was first advanced as a tentative suggestion in the non unproblematic, decades-after-the-event account of the murders by Walter Dew, and it hasn't been resurrected until now. I bear much of the responsibility for drawing people’s attention to Dew’s thoughts on Hutchinson, which had hitherto received only scant, if any, attention. Fisherman developed a new theory from this new information, and has thrown it into the mix in the form of a recent article. It was engagingly written, and has rightly earned him some praise, but its ultimate conclusions belong firmly in the “probably not” pile for the very reasons you highlight.

All the best,
Ben

[harry]

Mike,
We cannot be sure of anything concerning the Romford trip.Abscence of a supporting confirmation does not prove a positive answer,and for perhaps the hundreth time on these boards,there is no evidence that any element of Hutchinson's statement was checked,certainly not the Romford trip.
And a Merry Xmas to all.See you next year.

[Hunter]

I had already mentioned this on the Examiner thread, but I don't believe Caroline Maxwell got the date wrong because she gave her deposition to the police on that very day. One of the first papers to publish anything substantial on the murder was the Echo in their evening edition that same day. According to them, there were several people who thought they had seen Mary Kelly earlier that morning. The police certainly took notice of that and, thus, Maxwell's statement.

Where it goes awry is when she claimed that Kelly had thrown up in the street at about 8:30. The autopsy revealed that Mary's stomach contained the remnants of a meal (fish and potatoes I think). It would be hard to imagine that she would have eaten this so soon after being sick and then be found murdered little more than 2 hours later.

Sara Lewis told the police that she could not describe the man standing by the lodging house between 2 and 3. Her memory enhanced a bit during the inquiry. It could be that she, after having more time to recollect, was able to supply more details by then; we don't know. Nor do we know what the police thought about her testimony as nothing in that regard survives... or whether Abberline caught the possible link to George Hutchinson when he gave his statement on the 12th.

We do know that, after his testimony was taken, Inspector Abberline reported that he 'interrogated' him. From his forwarding statement, we can ascertain that he asked Hutchinson as to how he knew Kelly and why he was interested in the man that was said to acompany her from the answers that Abberline reported. There is a good reason why investigators do that and it was not just for the sake of conversation. We only know that when the interrogation was over, Abberline believed him... and that's where the police files that have come to us ends as to what they thought of Hutchinson.

If there had been a summary report a few weeks later that had survived (as was given by Swanson after the previous murders) then we might have seen how the police fleshed out the case to that point. But, we don't have that. In Packer's case, for example, we not only have the press statements but the statements of the police as well.

We have 2 press reports that state a reduced importance and then a discrediting of Hutchinson's account. None of the other papers mention this. They may have been correct, or they may have been mislead. There were many things reported after the Kelly murder. The police intended to keep a lid on this one as far as they could and the abbreviated inquest accentuates that.

Hutchinson's statement would naturally mean little once it was put in the public domain as tipping off a potential suspect with a description of him would negate the reason for using the testimony itself.

A viable theory would be that the police were dismayed at Hutchinson's going to the press with his story. We should remember that they sought for Lawende's details to be contained until they had ample time to follow up on his description. They were given almost no time to really follow through with Hutchinson.

In the following weeks there were press and police reports stating that certain individuals were detained and the word 'astrakhan' was mentioned. The fact that this description was even given should at least give someone some discern. Since men with black bags are also included ( despite the fact that Goldstein cleared himself) I believe that at this stage the authorities were inclined to grasp at anything that might be helpful. They really didn't have much to work with in the face of mounting pressure from the public and the Home Office.

With this individual in particular, George Hutchinson, objectivity routinely takes a back seat to supposition that on many occasions turns into blind passion... on both sides of the asle. One person's theory or hypothesis is as good as another's and can be easily lauded or scorned by the proclivities of others because the various loose ends will never be tied into a complete thread unless information that is yet to surface...does.

Both Ben and Fisherman have accounted for themselves extremely well within the parameters they have had to work with. I enjoy discussing and debating each one of them and I guarantee that they let me know when they believe I'm in error... and that's a good thing... makes me study harder... and thus, broaden my perspective. That's something I hope we can all aspire to achieve.

Merry Christmas everybody.

[Fisherman]

Hello all! It would seem that a few comments are asked for at this stage.

Hatchett:

"After all if Fisherman didn’t want alternative views then why publish it in the first place?"

I welcome alternative views, Hatchett. They present me with opportunities to show that my suggestion of Hutchinson getting the dates mixed up is a functional one. What I am having very much trouble with is the ongoing discussion of form and linguistics, since it gets in the way for this discussion that really, really ought to be the focus of attention here.
I wrote my piece in an unacademic fashion, the way I generally do since I am a journalist. It is how I work, and it does not cut with all posters out here. I can live with that. But it would be a truly sad thing if this thread was only to contain public floggings of my academic shortcomings, since I am profoundly convinced that the suggestion I have put forward has the capacity to reshape the foundations of our conception of George Hutchinson. So as long as the discussion focuses on the main question here - bring it on! The more, the better.

Tom Wescott:

"I have not wavered in my feeling that Fish has made a real contribution with his essay, and I hope he is enjoying all the feedback, particularly the negative. The fact that some individuals (Hatchett and Babybird) are literally offended that he thought to publish his findings means that he's struck a nerve. Speaking as someone who's published a whole bunch of essays, I can say it's the rare one that sparks this much controversy. Most go by with little more than polite comments, if that."

Again thanks, Tom!

"I personally think the entire thing hinges on the rain. Fish has done a good job of providing us with a factual foundation for his theory - that Hutch was taken seriously at first then discredited for reasons that suggest he was not caught in a provable lie. The fact that Fish thought of the rain angle shows he's got a good mind for this stuff, and in time further research might just prove him correct. Having said that, Garry is correct in pointing out that the theory has not be proved, and the internal evidence (i.e. the description of AM) suggest a likelier possibility to be that Hutch was lying. Nevertheless, I think Fish should be congratulated on one of the most thought-provoking sophomore efforts I've seen."

...and again! But I must say that I am not equally convinced about the rain angle. My own stance is that even if we can establish that the rain over the East end was falling throughout the night, we will always be faced with the possibility that it fell in a more forgiving manner at the crucial hour. Moreover, the border limit, if you will, of a rainfall will always be in place somewhere. There have been times when it rained over Flower and Dean Street, but not over Dorset Street. It is the nature of the beast, and there is nothing we can do about that. Surely, if it can be established that it DID rain very much, and if we can prove that the clouds were not scattered, my case may be somewhat reinforced - but even then we cannot prove beyond doubt that much rain fell over Dorset Street at the exact point in time we are researching.
That is why I say that Hutchinson venturing out onto the streets for a nightly tour de force in the wet walking business is the best parameter we have.

Returning, though, to my disagreement on the rain angle, I think there are other things that must be wowen into the tapestry - take, for instance Mrs Lewis. I am of the meaning that Abberline would not have overlooked the suggestion of a corroboration in her evidence and Hutchinsons ditto about the loiterer. Therefore, it may have provided Abberline with a very good opportunity to see through Hutchinsons story.
Abberline will have asked Hutchinson about what other persons that were moving in the street that night, and when he weighed things together, he may well have realized that Hutchinson never mentioned Lewis - who would have stepped on Hutchinson´s toes, more or less, plus she would have entered the court he was watching. At that stage, Abberline would reasonably have realized that he had one more question to ask, and if Hutchinson, when hauled in, answered that one with a "No, I am quite sure that nobody entered the court as I stood there", it would have been game over too. No rain needed there!

But yes, by all means, let´s find out all we can about the weather, from all sources imaginable. It can´t hurt.

Garry Wroe:
”I do, however, agree with your view that Fisherman's article has merit. Whilst I cannot agree with his conclusions on the basis of current evidence, he has at least opened up a new and interesting area of debate - and very few succeed on that score.”

You have me confused now, Garry. The last time I looked, my suggestion was unsustainable and a very weak one, put forward in an unacceptable manner.
But who am I to complaint? Things are looking up, apparently! A million thanks for that, Garry.



Tecs:

”I've always found it annoying the way people today say things such as "Oh Maxwell must have confused the day" or "Hutchinson may have confused the dates" etc as if the Victorians were idiots!”

Then you should be relieved to hear that it has nothing to do with intelligence, Tecs!

”How would we feel if in 122 years some writer said sweepingly that we must have been wrong when we described something that happened today, just because it's easier than accepting another possibility?”

We shall never know, I´m afraid – we will all be dead by then. But I can assure you that simplification never entered my equation – what I find compelling is that all the bits make sense in my scenario.

Hunter:

”Both Ben and Fisherman have accounted for themselves extremely well within the parameters they have had to work with. I enjoy discussing and debating each one of them and I guarantee that they let me know when they believe I'm in error... and that's a good thing... makes me study harder... and thus, broaden my perspective. That's something I hope we can all aspire to achieve.”

Thanks, Hunter. I will freely admit that I am more impressed by Ben – to keep that theory of his on it´s feet over such a long time is nothing short of fantastic, and he deserves acknowledgement for it! (No offense, Ben – you are a truly skilled debater with a sharp bite, and noone knows that better than me...)

Now go check out that weather, all of you. The weather here borders on ridiculous; -18,5 degrees Celcius as I got up this morning!

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Hunter,
Your post mirrors my thoughts entirely.
Maxwell could not have confused the dates.. full stop.
In my opinion she also did not get the wrong woman.
She had ample opportunety to alter her mind throughout the weekend, also leading up to her evidence... she did not.
That is my stance on Maxwell, always has, always will.
Hutchinson [ alias GWTH] I believed told the truth, about the sighting , which includes the correct date, he delivered this information to the police, and they took it seriously, however being a twenty two year old, and lacking in funds, its more then possible as Hunter remarks he [ for a fee..one hundred shillings] fed that information to the press, which would have resulted in that line of enquiry being terminated , for obvious reasons, for eg, the killer going to ground , and a dramatic change of appearance, which could not aid the police in apprehending the culprit.
That is proberly why Hutchinsons account was descredited , not because it was false, but that avenue of search would be closed.
I have always talked about the payment issue, but believed it to have been police funds, but a newspaper handout seems very logical. and would expalin how the Wheeling article came about, ie knowledge that Hutchinson had been paid , and the sum involved.
The sum which I have always maintained was mentioned on Radio in the mid 1970s.. the same also From Reg Hutchinson in 1992, in Faircloughs publication.
There is still no doubt whatsoever thatTopping was our witness, but is becomes clearer now that the reason he was cancelled out by the police, is him selling out to the press, which would have halted any further police investigation.
Was Astracan Kellys killer, was Hutchinson the last person to see Mjk Alive.?
Not unless Mrs Maxwell was a utterly confused woman.... note here the press opinion..'A level headed woman , of respectable character .
What do you all think?
Regards Richard.