Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

“Ben – let me tell you that newspaper editors do deliberately take different lines on stories just to be different.”

But you’re not talking about a mere “different take” are you, Lechmere?

You’re referring to deliberate fabrication on the part on the part of the Echo and suggesting that the Star independently came up with the same fabrication. That’s rather a hefty accusation with very little to back it up. As for the Star taking a different line, we know that they were initially enthusiastic about Hutchinson’s account when they provided it in full on the 14th. It would only have hindered their own credibility if they did a U-turn the next day and claimed falsely that the account had been discredited. So the evidence is not ambiguous – it is wholly supportive of the obvious reality that Hutchinson’s statement was discredited.

“The fact that Abberline didn’t mention Hutchinson at a later date means what exactly?”

Quite a bit if you actually examine the evidence and note the context in which his remarks were made, particularly in his 1903 Pall Mall Gazette interview. Gosh, acquainting people with widely known source material from which they then draw errant conclusions has been a major feature in this thread! Abberline claimed that the witnesses all agree that he was a foreigner, but that they only saw his back. This obviously rules out Hutchinson who claimed a full frontal view of his foreign suspect. Then we have Macnaghten’s statement that nobody saw the ripper unless it was the City PC from Mitre Square – clearly an amalgamation of the Lawende and PC Smith sightings, but which clearly had nothing to do with Hutchinson. Finally, Robert Anderson was of the clear opinion that the only person to have acquired a “good look” at the ripper was Jewish. But none of the Jewish witnesses alleged anywhere near as good a look as Hutchinson.

Despite the various disagreements between the police officials, all effectively exclude Hutchinson, which lends tremendous support to the contention of the Echo and the Star that the account was discredited. Dew was seemingly aware of this discrediting, but was apparently not informed as to why, and far from me “disregarding” Dew, it just happened to be me who introduced this extract of his memoirs to you and my other naysayers.

“Also Ben, you seem to be slightly ill-informed as Dew did not claim that Thomas Bowyer was ‘young’, he didn’t mention Thomas Bowyer by name at all”

It doesn’t matter if he didn’t mention Thomas Bowyer by name. Walter Dew was clearly referring to him and nobody else - as everyone knows, and as everyone has accepted, correctly, for years - because it was Bowyer who ran to alert the police at the Commerical Street police station. Dew referred to Bowyer as a “young fellow” which he most assuredly wasn’t. As such, Dew’s claim that Hutchinson was also “young” should be treated with extreme caution.

“I would suggest that 2.15 isn’t materially outside the range of Dew’s estimation of time of death being before 2.00 am.”

Yes, it is. He stated that Kelly was murdered before 2.00am according to medical evidence. Clearly, anyone of this mindset cannot believe that a person murdered before 2.00am was up and about after 2.00am, so according to Dew, Hutchinson’s account of Kelly’s post 2.00am movements on the night in question must be wrong.

“She claimed to know Marie Kelly”. The inference is that she claimed to, but in fact didn’t.”

Um, no.

He was simply making a statement of fact – that she claimed to know Kelly. He wasn’t expressing personal doubt about it all, but rather simply avoided creating a misleading impression that it had been proven beyond doubt that Maxwell knew Kelly. He stated that from his experience, witnesses can be wrong NOT necessarily as to identity, but as to time and date; the logical inference being that Maxwell and Hutchinson both erred in this regard, in his controversial opinion.

“He realised he’d been seen at the crime scene by another witness and came forward with a fabricated account designed to both legitimise his presence and deflect suspicion in a spurious direction.”
I will quite readily accept that is a possibility. An unlikely possibility though.

Nope, an extremely likely one – in fact the only one that doesn’t necessitate the acceptance of “coincidence” as an alternative explanation. No, it doesn’t follow that he would have come sooner if he was worried about Lewis’ evidence making the inquest, because if he came forward before the inquest, he would have called to attend it, and this carried the very obvious risk of other witnesses from previous murders being in attendance. It is complete nonsense to argue that his appearance at the police station so soon after the inquest makes the putative link less likely. Obviously time was of the essence in order to minimise the chances of being fingered before he had a chance to play the “cooperative informer” hand, and he could easily have got wind of her testimony.

The evidence of Sarah Lewis is inextricably linked to that of “Mrs, Kennedy” who was interviewed by the police and whose evidence appeared in the newspapers from 10th November. Kennedy was either Lewis herself incognito or another women Chinese-whispering her account, but whether Hutchinson was aware of this or not, he could easily have picked up on the detail (in Kennedy's account) that the court occupants for the night were effectively interned there early the next morning while the police searched for witnesses. Hutchinson would have picked up the detail that whoever the woman was who passed him, she would certainly have been quizzed by the police the next morning.

As the inquest approached, it could have been an incredibly simple case of observing – physically observing - that the woman who had spotted him that night was due to be called as a witness. Either that or he observed her departure from Shoreditch Town Hall after having provided her evidence. This is by no means outlandish given the crowds that hovered in the area at the time, and which threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s court. In any case, the moment Lewis provided her account to the inquest, it was effectively public knowledge, and there were plenty of avenues available for ascertaining the details, several of which I’ve already mentioned. My point about Leather Apron was purely to illustrate the extent to which rumours travelled far as wide in the district.

“To be ill-informed or even similarly ill-informed, I must have been informed by someone. Who?”

Someone who doesn’t understand the Victoria Home guidelines, apparently!

“The only relevance is that the Victoria Home required a special pass in order to gain entry after 12.30/1.00 am.”

I’m well aware of this, but then you make the extraordinary leap that it meant Hutchinson had alibis for the murders. To claim as much is to misunderstand the nature of “special passes”. As we learn from every source that comments on the nature of passes that has been presented thus far, it is clear that they took the form of metal cheques that could be handed in to the doorman for resale to other lodgers. This was probably done to eradicate excess waste (which would be the inevitable result if the tickets were all personalized). If a lodger had purchased a weekly pass, the likelihood is that he would have been supplied with a "weekly pass" metal ticket that was shown to the doorman to enable entry. Once the week was over, the pass was then considered to have expired and was handed over to the doorman for resale.

“There must have been some personal aspect to the pass or anyone could have come in late.... errrr and they wouldn’t be special anymore.”

No.

No personal aspect.

There is no evidence, anywhere, for a “personal aspect” to any pass. What do you mean anyone could have come in late? We know it wasn’t anyone – it was anyone with a generic metal cheque that either had “weekly pass” engraved on it, or was a certain colour to differentiate daily from weekly passes. Obviously, the Victoria Home would have regulated the number of these available in order to prevent overcrowding. It sounds like you’re just getting carried away with the word “special” for some reason.

“Again, it is my opinion that as it was not straight forward to gain access to the Victoria Home after 12.30/1.00 am it is an implausible location for a night murderer, when there were many other lodging houses near-by that let people come and go at any time.”

And I reject that opinion as lacking in anything like adequate evidence to back it up. All a night murderer had to do was flash his chunk of “special” metal and in he went.

“I would humbly suggest that if you need to progress your theory that Hutchinson did it, then to gain credibility you must move him out of the Victoria Home. Also work out a better explanation as to why he appeared at Commercial Street nick after the inquest – one that doesn’t rely on him hearing Lewis’s testimony.”

I will humbly disregard that advice, since you’ve failed to come up with anything like a good reason for dismissing the Victoria Home as a suitable venue for a murderer, and you’ve certainly failed to nullify the coincidence-factor between Lewis’ wideawake loiterer and Hutchinson’s account of his activities and behaviour. Sorry.

Best regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

I am afraid nothing is clear about the contradictory reminiscences of the various policemen involved in the case and the absence of Hutchinson in all but Dew’s memoirs is not remarkable.

By the way, when you said: “Gosh, acquainting people with widely known source material from which they then draw errant conclusions has been a major feature in this thread!”
I take it that was a self revelatory remark regarding my re-acquainting you with the time Hutchinson passed St Mary’s church?

As for Bowyer – he was supposedly 63 or so. It is not exactly unlikely that he asked a local lad to run on ahead to Commercial Street Police Station while he staggered up the road. The whole episode of Bowyer and McCarthy going to the police station is confused anyway. The fact Dew didn’t mention Bowyers’ name and said it was a youth either implies he got mixed up with another event or a youth was sent to run on ahead. Neither possibility invalidates his account of Hutchinson which tallies with other records.

Kennedy may or may not be Lewis incognito, we have no way of knowing who she was. We can hypothesize, but you seem very certain who or what Kennedy was.
But the Kennedy press account on 10th November certainly doesn’t mention a Hutchinson-like personage so that wouldn’t be a factor in his appearance.
If we presume that Hutchinson saw a woman go into Miller’s Court and then he read the Kennedy interview, he would have assumed he was off the hook.

You say Hutchinson may have been worried about being called as a witness at the inquest in case a witness from a previous case was there. A strange worry I think.
But apparently he wasn’t worried about hanging around Commercial Street Police Station, because I presume witnesses are never found in police stations. Is that right? And he went back next day, just to make sure he wasn’t spotted there by a witness I suppose. Is that right?

I am not sure you have given a reasonable explanation as to how Hutchinson learnt of the detail of Lewis’s testimony so quickly. No avenues at all in fact. I can accept he could have seen her going in or coming out. But would he have even recognized her - it being dark, and a fleeting glimpse?

I will try one last time... just in case.
The Victoria Home issued metal tickets to inmates for their beds. For all inmates. These are the items you chose to refer to as passes for some reason.
They also issued another thing described as a pass or a special pass in order that an inmate who had already purchased his metal bed ticket could gain access after 12.30 or 1.00 am.
It is abundantly clear that these are two separate things.
Thing 1 – the standard metal bed ticket.
Thing 2 – the pass if you needed to get in late (sometimes referred to as a special pass).
Lack of ‘Thing 2’ meant no access after 12.30/1.00 am and the poor soul would have to spend the night walking the streets or curled up on a landing.
The Victoria Home discouraged its inmates from getting in late which is why it had this curfew system.
Which is why it is fairly obviously an unsuitable lodging house for a night stalking serial killer.
But I won’t labour the point any further.

Incidentally I don’t claim that being an inmate at the Victoria Home is an alibi. I think however the likelihood is that in a well regulated and strict lodging house, it would be awkward. He could have stayed out those nights, but I think that would have drawn attention to himself.

[Ben]

“I am afraid nothing is clear about the contradictory reminiscences of the various policemen involved in the case and the absence of Hutchinson in all but Dew’s memoirs is not remarkable.”

Yes, it is.

For the reasons I’ve outlined above.

The salient point about the senior police officials is that despite their various disagreements, the collective observations of all of them appear to preclude the possibility of Hutchinson still being considered a ripper-spotting witness in the years after the murders. This obviously supports the articles that appeared in the Echo and the Star on the 13th and 15th respectively.

“By the way, when you said: “Gosh, acquainting people with widely known source material from which they then draw errant conclusions has been a major feature in this thread!” I take it that was a self revelatory remark regarding my re-acquainting you with the time Hutchinson passed St Mary’s church?”

No, it was a self-revelatory remark regarding the frequency with which the most vocal naysayers appear to draw highly questionable conclusions from sources that I’ve introduced them to. You didn’t acquaint me with the detail regarding St. Mary’s church. I've discussed the Hutchinson police and press reports well before you became a member here. I simply misremembered a detail, not that it makes any difference to the observation regarding Walter Dew’s adherence to the medical evidence attaching to Kelly’s murder, and how it almost certainly influenced his controversial views on Hutchinson.

“As for Bowyer – he was supposedly 63 or so. It is not exactly unlikely that he asked a local lad to run on ahead to Commercial Street Police Station while he staggered up the road.”

It is unlikely, because it’s completely lacking in evidence. Here’s what Bowyer said at the inquest:

“We both went to the police-station, but first of all we went to the window, and McCarthy looked in to satisfy himself. We told the inspector at the police-station of what we had seen. Nobody else knew of the matter. The inspector returned with us.”

There is no doubt that Bowyer went to the police station in person. Significantly, it was only the inspector (Walter Beck) who was reported to have returned with Bowyer and McCarthy, and there’s no evidence that Dew was there as well. It is entirely possible that Dew fabricated this aspect of his account to “involve” himself more in the action, hence his make-believe reference to a “young fellow” who almost certainly never existed. Of course it’s also possible that he confused this encounter with another, but we can forget the idea that a youth was “sent ahead” as this is not remotely in evidence.

“Kennedy may or may not be Lewis incognito, we have no way of knowing who she was. We can hypothesize, but you seem very certain who or what Kennedy was”

Well, we can certainly narrow down the realistic possibilities to two, given the amazing compatibility between her account and Lewis’. “Mrs. Kennedy” was either Lewis incognito or another women who had learned of Lewis' account and attempted to parrot it off as her own. I personally favour the latter because a reporter observed this phenomenon himself when he went to interview the Miller’s Court witnesses. Hutchinson would certainly not have assumed that he was “off the hook” on account of Kennedy’s evidence, since the latter gave her time of arrival as 3.00am, as opposed to Lewis’ 3:30am. Her revelation that the court occupants were prevented from leaving until the police had rounded up the witnesses would have informed him that the woman who spotted him was very likely to have been included amongst them.

“You say Hutchinson may have been worried about being called as a witness at the inquest in case a witness from a previous case was there. A strange worry I think.”

No, not a strange worry.

A very obvious, very realistic, and therefore very legitimate worry.

“But apparently he wasn’t worried about hanging around Commercial Street Police Station, because I presume witnesses are never found in police stations.”

Who said he was ever “hanging around” the police station? Certainly not me. I only observed that he went there very shortly after the inquest finished, and that this was very unlikely to have been a mere coincidence. I certainly never claimed that he was loitering in the vicinity of the police station the day before he came forward, and can’t understand why you’re suggesting I have.

“No avenues at all in fact. I can accept he could have seen her going in or coming out. But would he have even recognized her - it being dark, and a fleeting glimpse?”

No evidence for “fleeting”. While we have some indication of how intently Lewis observed her loiterer (not very), we have absolutely no idea of how much attention he paid to her. If he was involved in the murder and realised she could be a potential witness, it would naturally have been in his interest to pay attention to her physical particulars. Once again, it’s completely wrong to claim that there were “no avenues” available to Hutchinson if he wanted to ascertain details from the inquest.

“They also issued another thing described as a pass or a special pass in order that an inmate who had already purchased his metal bed ticket could gain access after 12.30 or 1.00 am.”

And this is the interpretation I find so questionable. What on earth is the point of having a bed ticket if you can’t use it to get in without an additional pointless pass? The whole point about a bed ticket is that it constituted proof of purchase, and in that respect it acted as a pass for those who had paid in advance either for a bed that night, or for a week’s lodgings, but who intended to come back and make use of that bed later. It’s the same principle as theatre or cinema tickets. You can buy them in advance, or you can buy them on the night, on the door. Jack London clearly did the latter – he was ready for bed then, and so bought his ticket intending to make use of it there and then. Others could purchase tickets during the day and use them as a pass when a bed was required. The last opportunity to buy a ticket was 12:30am or 1.00am.

All that was required was a proof of purchase.

But for some reason, you posit the existence of personalized documents relating to each lodger, which would have been hopelessly impractical. There’s no evidence that the Victoria Home discouraged “inmates” from getting in late. There’s only evidence that ticket/pass sales ceased at 12:30am when presumably the seller went home to bed, after which time it would have been a case of flashing your proof or prior purchase at the doorman and gaining entry.

No obstacle to a serial killer whatsoever.

Best regards,
Ben

[harry]

Fisherman,
I have attempted to access the reference you gave.For some reason the 1894 ordinance map doesn't show,while the other one does not show yardage of street or dwellings.As i said previously,my calculations,besides maps and photos,(none of which show yardage)was from actually standing on that particular corner of the Commercial and Dorset intersection.I calculated Dorset street to have been at least 150 yards long,and the court to have been about one third of the way along.It is interesting to know that your calculations seem to be based on using the passage of Miller's court.I wonder if that is because you do not have a map showing yardage of street or buildings?
As for the rest of your drivel,we have been over and over the relevent points.I stand by the signed statement of Hutchinson taken by a police officer.Whether we use your calculations or mine,to be in earshot of people talking at the entrance to the court,only his claim of following the couple into Dorset Street and being near enough to overhear words spoken,make sense,and it's what he said he did.
At no time have I slandered you,or claimed you lied.I have said you have used the words of others.That's not slander,nor does it proclaim you a liar.Just a fool.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
It is correct that Bowyer was in his sixties, it is also correct that Dew mentions a youth.
Obviously he was not refering to that gentleman, so who was he refering to?
Dew also mentions that he interviewed the 'Youth' once again when they arrived back at the court when he had calmed down.
Clearly there had to be a youth present, memory can play tricks , but the mentioning of a youth twice, indicates that there was a person in the court of more 'tender years',
And there was,.. as Young McCarthy Fionas grandfather, was collecting rents when the body was discovered along with his mother.
So the possibility that he, being more fleet of foot then a man 49 years older, might have proceeded Bowyer, and his name was kept out of the press reports to spare the lad more trauma, as McCarthy was a local man of status.
If Bowyer and McCarthy both went to the station , who remained outside the room? to await the police, and to keep possible intrusions from the other residents away from the scene?, his wife, his 14 year old son.. I doubt that.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

I don't think you understand the main argument. It goes like this: Hutchinson lied about absolutely everything except those things which point to his being the murderer and that can be forced into a semblance of corroboration (peceived) by what Lewis appeared to have seen. Nothing else matters, and logic will get you nowhere in this argument. The loonies are running the HUtchinson asylum and can't be dislodged.

Good luck

Mike

[jason_c]

Hi,
It is correct that Bowyer was in his sixties, it is also correct that Dew mentions a youth.
Obviously he was not refering to that gentleman, so who was he refering to?
Dew also mentions that he interviewed the 'Youth' once again when they arrived back at the court when he had calmed down.
Clearly there had to be a youth present, memory can play tricks , but the mentioning of a youth twice, indicates that there was a person in the court of more 'tender years',
And there was,.. as Young McCarthy Fionas grandfather, was collecting rents when the body was discovered along with his mother.
So the possibility that he, being more fleet of foot then a man 49 years older, might have proceeded Bowyer, and his name was kept out of the press reports to spare the lad more trauma, as McCarthy was a local man of status.
If Bowyer and McCarthy both went to the station , who remained outside the room? to await the police, and to keep possible intrusions from the other residents away from the scene?, his wife, his 14 year old son.. I doubt that.
Regards Richard.

Richard, that doesnt explain Bowyers appearance at the inquest and his then subsequent lies. All with the connivance of the police.

The authorities expected Barnett to appear im sure they would have expected McCarthy jnr to appear also.

[babybird67]

Lechmere,

I don't think you understand the main argument. It goes like this: Hutchinson lied about absolutely everything except those things which point to his being the murderer and that can be forced into a semblance of corroboration (peceived) by what Lewis appeared to have seen. Nothing else matters, and logic will get you nowhere in this argument. The loonies are running the HUtchinson asylum and can't be dislodged.

Good luck

Mike

Absolutely Mike. Whereas of course it is perfect sanity to believe in Astrakhan man, the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, and to believe that a man would hang around waiting indefinitely for a woman in the (recently discovered) rainy and cold conditions of a typical November night. Rooted to one spot apparently as well now.

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -

I would like to ‘inform’ you that Lewis lived ordinarily at Great Pearl Street (a bit of a trek away from the Victoria Home). Do you think that Hutchinson knew her at all? The name Lewis would have meant nothing to him.

Mrs Lewis evidently knew her friends in Miller's Court well enough to feel able to turn up in the early hours of the morning (would you be able to do that to mere acquaintaince ? I think not). She also knew their address, not somewhere that she could have passed without going there specifically, and that infers that she had been there before. The people who lived in this tiny area, in this strata of society, seem to have frequented the local Public Houses (for a variety of reasons). Hutchinson lodged a very short distance from Miller's Court. He infers from his statement of having given Mary money in the past that he had been a client of hers (see my previous post on the subject), and Mary was a neighbour of Mrs Lewis's friends It is likely that he would have also frequented the same pubs as them. I would think that the chances of Hutch having seen Mrs Lewis in the past were high.

I am disputing the likelihood that of all the very lurid testimony made at court, her rather routine and boring statement would have been repeated through the crowd.

I think that the excited crowd milling around outside of the inquest would have been very interested in gleaning each and every detail. IF Hutch was the killer, no one would have been more interested than he in making it his business to find out who testified and what was said. Furthermore, he lodged in the same place as Joe Barnett's brother, and I would think that news of what was said at the inquest was passed around the Victoria Home.

It was not highly regarded evidence as is shown by the police seemingly failing to tie Wide-Awake man to Hutchinson.

Well, this is where I differ from Ben and Gary ; I think that they would have tied Hutch to Wide-Awake -otherwise,Wide-Awake would surely have been a major suspect. However, in accepting Hutch as innocent, they effectively discounted Wide-Awake at the same time; In short, Huch coming forward was the reason that the police appear not to have tried to find Wide-Awake, and this is exactly what Hutch wanted.

I would humbly suggest that if you need to progress your theory that Hutchinson did it, then to gain credibility you must move him out of the Victoria Home.

Personally, I cannot think of a better place for the killer than the Victoria Home. Geographically, there is nowhere more convenient -whether popping back from Bucks Row via Old Montague Street, or Mitre Square via Goulston Street, and of course using Commercial Road ; It feels like All Roads Lead to Rome. Then we know that Hutch looked for work quite far afield (as evinced by the Romford story), so presumably didn't come back some nights. He had worked as a Night Watchman ! As a 'labourer' looking for casual work, he probably worked at markets and docks sometimes,and I should say that he didn't keep 'regular' hours and would be far from missed amongst a floating population of working men, living hand to mouth , in a lodging house.

Personally the theories involving trains, carriages, sewers, toffs, ' tourists' etc seem alot wilder than
a known face in the local pubs, living in the Victoria Home, frequenting prostitutes and keeping irregular hours. Add in the fact that he inserted himself into the case (as Serial Killers are wont to do), and that the murders stopped after he became known to the Police and Press, and I can't see anything 'insane' in the theory at all.

[The Good Michael]

Absolutely Mike. Whereas of course it is perfect sanity to believe in Astrakhan man, the tooth fairy and the Easter bunny, and to believe that a man would hang around waiting indefinitely for a woman in the (recently discovered) rainy and cold conditions of a typical November night. Rooted to one spot apparently as well now.

Right, he didn't lie about waiting around, did he? Thanks for illustrating my point.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=The Good Michael;163312]Right, he didn't lie about waiting around, did he? Thanks for illustrating my point

.

So -are you suggesting that Mrs Lewis lied about seeing Wide-Awake Man ?

If you think that she didn't lie...then who was that man? what was he doing and why ? And why weren't the Police pulling out all stops to find him ?

[The Good Michael]

I think the police heard Hutchinson's story, asked Lewis if this was the wideawake man to corroborate both stories, and she said it wasn't. So we have Hutchinson believed because he told his story, and Lewis, via her story, vouched for his being there, but later, when Lewis was asked if this was the man she saw, she said, "No." Then they dismissed Hutchinson. In fact, I'm very sure the police would have gotten Lewis to look at him despite her inability to give a great description.

But, that isn't the point. The point is, for loonies, Hutchinson lies about everything but that which they want to believe he was honest about, and then because they've made him into a liar, he must be a murderer. I hope you know how absolutely ridiculous that is; to have utter faith that HUtchinson is the Ripper based upon... his being on Dorset Street? It's beyond goofy.

MIke

Addition: Everyone should feel really stupid for arguing against the possibility that someone got the night wrong. Accept it as a possibility then go have a life for God's sake. I must be insane for even trying to beat sense into the dead of brain.

[Sally]

Ruby

Well, this is where I differ from Ben and Gary ; I think that they would have tied Hutch to Wide-Awake -otherwise,Wide-Awake would surely have been a major suspect. However, in accepting Hutch as innocent, they effectively discounted Wide-Awake at the same time; In short, Huch coming forward was the reason that the police appear not to have tried to find Wide-Awake

Agreed. Indeed I think that his correspondence with Lewis' account is one of the reasons - perhaps the main reason - that his account was initially accepted without reservation.

[babybird67]

Right, he didn't lie about waiting around, did he? Thanks for illustrating my point.

Mike

Huh? You're misunderstanding me Mike. We don't know what he did and didn't lie about. He SAYS he was there for forty five minutes. How do we know he was? Would you trust anything he said after his relation of seeing Astrakhan man? I know I wouldn't. As i have argued consistently, his witness testimony is not to be believed. He could easily have only been standing there for the moment that he was spotted by Mrs Lewis and have claimed he was there that long to create himself an alibi. Who knows.

[babybird67]

But, that isn't the point. The point is, for loonies, Hutchinson lies about everything but that which they want to believe he was honest about, and then because they've made him into a liar, he must be a murderer. I hope you know how absolutely ridiculous that is; to have utter faith that HUtchinson is the Ripper based upon... his being on Dorset Street? It's beyond goofy.

Not sure your paraphrasing accurately represents anyone's position that posts here...let me ask you something Mike...do you believe in Astrakhan man?

Addition: Everyone should feel really stupid for arguing against the possibility that someone got the night wrong. Accept it as a possibility then go have a life for God's sake. I must be insane for even trying to beat sense into the dead of brain.

Again think this is a slight misrepresentation. Nobody is saying it isn't a possibility. What is being argued is that it is distinctly unlikely considering the myriad of unsual things that happened that day which would fix it in somebody's mind (the murder of a friend of three years standing, the Lord Mayor's Show and the epic journey from Romford). A man would have to be very intellectually challenged to mix up that day with the one before it, don't you think? There's a big difference between what's possible and what's plausible. And the fact that his stated presence was corroborated by an independent witness also argues against the contention that the days were muddled up. Sorry, but possible is one thing, likely and plausible something else entirely.