Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

JAne:

"My apologies Fisherman. He didn't lose a day - He just woke up on Sunday morning, thought Saturday was Friday, thought Friday was Thursday and thought Thursday was Wednesday. It could happen to anyone."

Perhaps it could, Jane. But if I was of that meaning, I would appreciate if you left it to myself to say so, instead of placing words in my mouth. What I am proposing is that he, when backtracking, came to believe that something that had happened on Thursday morning had in fact happened on Friday, nothing else than that.

What we have on Hutchinson seems to propose a man that lived a vagabonding life, in order to try and make ends meet. We may well be looking at a guy who wandered long stretches and slept in various places in order to find the odd income - sometimes he would not have slept at all, as we well know.
Such a life is one that is perhaps not always easy to keep track of datewise. And in it, it would reasonably not always be easy to tell afterwards if he was in Lambeth on Tuesday morning or if that was on the Wednesday - unless that was the day he ended up in Bethnal Green...?

Unless he kept to a pattern where he returned to the same venue on the same day, week after week - and I find it extremely hard to believe that he did - it would have been a life that would have been nigh on impossible to keep track of afterwards, datewise. It would in all probability not take long before it became impossible to nail what he did and where he was on the various days. To remeber where he had been the day before would reasonably be rather easy, but after that, with each passing day, it would become harder and harder. And the result would not necessarily be that he forgot or swopped whole days, but instead that different things started to drift in his mind and could end up as belonging to the wrong day.

Now, this does not mean that he would have forgotten on the whole that he had been in Lambeth and Bethnal Green. Nor would he forget what he had done as such. What he could easily have done, though, would be to mistake WHEN AND WHERE he had done it. Maybe he fixed a leak in Bethnal Green and afterwards came to think that he had done so in Lambeth.
He would not "loose" a day as in forgetting about it totally - we are not speaking of any amnesia here. And his schedule would not move by one perfect click, turning Monday to Tuesday, Tuesday to Wednesday, Wednesday to Thursday and so on, as you propose. That would be rather ridiculous to propose, and I really hope that was not why you did it - to make my suggestion look ridiculous? That would not be like you, Jane.

I would also like you to take one more look at what Walter Dew says. He tells us that in his experience "many people" with the best of intentions (hinting at Hutchinson and the likes of him) are wrong, not necessarily to person (like Maxwell), but to DATE AND TIME.
So, Jane, Walter Dew, with heaps of experience, tells us that "many people" who come forward with good intentions are people who in actuality have gotten the dates and times wrong. And I think we can safely assume that these people have normally not been kicked intheir heads by donkeys or any such thing. Instead, they have made a very common mistake. One that a number of posters out here find it totally incredible that George Hutchinson would have made, for some reason, in spite of the fact that Dew tells us very clearly that he can see no other explanation.

One parameter that has so far not been etered here, and that I suspect may have had a large impact too, would be if Hutchinson spent his meager earnings to some extent on drink. My guess is that it would not help in the least bit to keep track of things if you are partially or totally intoxicated inbetween things. That is not to say that he was a drinker - but we must realize the possibility that this belonged to the overall picture.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Curious4:

"I STILL don´t see why he would have spent all his money there. Possibly hoped to find work?"

How much money did he have going there? That would have had an impact, methinks ...

"Romford is in Essex"

It is. Sorry about that.

"He was seen waiting around by another witness."

...namely ...? (this is not where you fill in Sarah Lewis)

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

I hope that nobody would disagree that it was possible for Toppy to have become a plumber through means other than an apprenticeship.

Not only this, but it is more probable for people to become plumbers through other means than a 7 year apprenticeship. And if you think some people don't think that apprenticeship is the only way, you haven't been involved in the Crystal threads... or have you?

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Ah I see, so you would be the clever “round-earther” in this equation, and will one day be championed and lauded as the originator and instigator of a new revolutionary way of thinking that will be accepted as the correct explanation for generations?"

Perhaps. And perhaps not. But that was not the issue here, was it? The issue was that you somehow seem to have gotten it into your head that ideas that are not mainstream are uncorrect ideas. I merely pointed out that this will be one od two things. Correct. Or wrong. And of course, you instead use that to try and paint me out as someone who has himself confused with geniouses. Nice, Ben. Thanks. But it really does not take any genious at all to see what I mean.

"It’s pretty much only you who thinks date-confusion as the most likely explanation"

Well, to be perfectly honest, I was speaking of a future scenario. I happen to believe that in days to come, the suggestion that the police was of the meaning that Hutchinson had muddled up the days will be a suggestion that many people will consider a very viable one.

"But can it be said of people who loiter outside crime scenes shortly before the murder of a victim attributed to the work of a serial killer, that they were more likely to have confused an entire day than be responsible for the murder in question? "

I did not say he confused an entire day. The rest of the question is impossible to answer, but it hinges to a very large extent on the number of people loitering. Whenever the number is two or more, then yes, they are more credibly muddlers than killers.

"With pretty much everyone else accepting this as totally normal and therefore not even worth quibbling with"

This is so typical! You are SURE that nobody agrees with me on the muddled date issue, and equally SURE everybody agrees with you that there is a universal body language that can easily and unchallengably produce the image of somebody waiting for someone to come out from a court. And in neither case have you any evidence.

"Please don’t so silly invented numbers, I don’t have the patience for that sort of nonsense"

Then developit, Ben - it will help you follow my reasoning.

“police procedure” as a concept is essentially meaningless"

Aha. They did not check back in 1888: they just accepted what people told them. Eeeehhhh, lets see here, do I believe this...? Nope.

But I am sure that you just KNOW that every other poster agrees with you and sees the good common sense in your proposal.

"it’s irrelevant because the evidence suggests it happened in this case."

No, it does not. We HAVE no evidence, and a lack of evidence does not equal that you are right.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"On the contrary, Fish. According to Dew, ‘Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors … were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.’
That morning, Fish. That morning. The precise timing here is all but irrelevant. Dew was clearly inferring that a daylight sighting on 9 November was an impossibility."

Hello Garry! You amaze me by now, I must say. I have read your book and a good many posts by your hand, and I know that you are an intelligent man. This is why I find this post of yours baffling, to say the least. I have explained to you what I mean, and it just does not stick. But never mind, I will do it again!

Have another look at the passages I qouted. Now, listen carefully:

I do not question any of this. Not a bit. It is as correct as it can be. A daylight sighting on the morning of the 9:th was an impossibility. That is true. Very true!

Now, let´s show you what I mean. Exactly WHAT, Garry, was it that Maxwell could not possibly have seen in daylight on the morning of the 9:th?

I will fill it in for you: It was MARY KELLY! And why could Maxwell not have seen Mary Kelly in daylight that morning?

Because she was dead by then, that´s why!

But if Maxwell could not have seen Mary Kelly that morning since she was dead, then why is Maxwell telling us that she DID see Mary Kelly in daylight that morning?

Correct, because she BELIEVED that she saw Kelly in daylight that morning.

But all the rest of us KNOW that Maxwells belief would not have held any water. She MUST have been mistaken!

And WHAT could have she have been mistaken about?

And now it is time for the revelation: Maxwell could have been mistaken as to time (she saw Kelly another morning) or person (she DID see a woman in daylight on the morning of the 9:th and she BELIEVED that was Kelly - but it was NOT!)

And what does Dew say? He says that he knows from experience that people of the best intentions may be mistaken, not NECESSARILY to person, but instead to date and time. And who is Dew speaking about at this remove of the text? He is speaking about George Hutchinson.
And before that, he had spoken of Maxwell.
So what he says it that people with good intentions, like George Hutchinson, may be mistaken. He had discussed that earlier too, when he wrote about Maxwell. And when he wrote about Maxwell, he wrote about a person he believed to be mistaken as to person. For she could NOT have seen Kelly in daylight on that morning, something he strengthens by saying: "Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors … were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning." Ergo, MAXWELL could not have seen KELLY then. But that is not the same thing as saying that she could not have seen any OTHER woman in daylight on that morning, is it? No, it is just saying that Kelly herself would have had the best of reasons not to show up at that stage.

He then moves over to Hutchinson, speaking about THAT witnesse´s mistake, and Dew now finds it useful to say that not all witnesses are necessarily wrong as to person, but INSTEAD as to DATE AND TIME!

Don´t give up, Garry! I promise you that I am not inventing something that is not there. It is there in a very obvious manner. And I am aCTUALLY glad that I missed it from the outset too, because if I had not, I would by now think that you were having me on. I realize that you are not, though.
I hope I came across this time. It would be frustrating not to, the way it always is when you know that you have got a fair point but cannot hammer it home. Try it on once more, Garry, please!

"Your initial interpretation of Dew’s words was that he had attributed date-confusion to Maxwell’s impossible sighting of Kelly"

Yes, it was! I even told Lechmere that I thought he would be wrong. That was before the coin fell down through the slot, though.

"Have you ever wondered why that was the case?"

Not for a second - that was because that was how I read it at the time, and I subsequently missed out on the fact that there were TWO solutions to how it could be read. Moreover, I am not now saying that my initial take on it must have been wrong: the possibility remains that Dew WAS of the meaning that both were out on the dates. But since there was material in circulation at the time that seemingly evidenced to a large extent that Maxwell was not wrong on the date, I think it is more credible that the second interpretation of the wording is the correct one. Dew was in the know back then, and would reasonably have remembered.

"I would remind you, however, that the central plank of your ‘wrong night’ argument was the claimed period of heavy and sustained rainfall commencing at midnight and continuing throughout the night. This, I’m afraid, you have failed to prove."

I would fail to DISPROVE it too, if I tried - we cannot establish the exact amount of rain or at what exact time it fell over a singled out street. We can only get a general picture that will hold more or less true for Dorset Street at the exact hour. But we DO have the hard rain at 3 AM, and THAT was where I laid my emphasis in the article, saying that whatever doubts Abberline may have had, he at least knew that it rained hard at the time Hutchinson said he started to walk the streets all night.

"your faith in Dew is problematic from my perspective. Dew’s reminiscences were written in old age and purely from memory and are thus of dubious reliability"..." If you don’t trust my judgement, then at least bear in mind what Dew himself wrote: ‘In writing of the "Jack the Ripper crimes", it must be remembered that they took place fifty years ago, and it may be that small errors as to dates and days may have crept in."

Mmm, Garry, that is correct. But he ALSO writes "I was on the spot, actively engaged throughout the whole series of crimes. I ought to know something about it."

"If Dew could admit as much, Fish, I would suggest that you are being somewhat injudicious in claiming him to be an impeccable source."

I think you are perhaps being slightly unfair now, Garry. When did I say that he was an impeccable source? I think I have at all times been very clear in admitting that the book has it´s flaws and errors. Would you not agree that this is so?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fisherman.

That was a joke.

This is also my last post on this thread.

Hugs

Janie

[babybird67]

Jane

Your posts have been thoughtful, rational, eloquent and patient. And I've agreed with everything you have said. We have to evaluate the situation with the primary sources first and foremost. Whilst an interesting angle, it really is exceptionally implausible that Hutchinson mixed up the days. Not only is it implausible, but more importantly, there is no evidence from the primary sources, or even evidence from secondary sources, that this is what happened.

Please don't take anything to heart that has been said on this thread. Passions get raised and perhaps now you can see why the thread has taken the direction it has at some junctures. It is a shame but Hutchinson seems to do this to people!

best wishes

Jen x

[Ben]

Hear hear, Jen!

I also find it very hard to accept the argument that the banality his "vagabond" existence made date-befuddlement more likely. The reverse is clearly more plausible. If his life was so mundane and full of repetitive work-seeking hard slog, the more significant events were likely to stand out, and a murder of an alleged three-year acquaintance, a 13-mile walk from Romford and the Lord Mayors Show all occurring on the same date would have been more than sufficient to embed that date it in the memory of a man accustomed to the tedium of a hard knock life.

Hi Fisherman,

“The issue was that you somehow seem to have gotten it into your head that ideas that are not mainstream are uncorrect ideas.”

This was never my contention. You stated that the connection between Lewis’s loiterer and Hutchinson would not be accepted as likely “any more”, which implied that some major change had taken place. I’m just confused as to why you consider this to be the case. Time and date muddling is a not a new theory as far as Hutchinson is concerned. Walter Dew was the first to suggest it in 1938, and even Bruce Paley brought it up as an outside possibility in 1996 despite acknowledging that fabrication was the most likely explanation. If "date confusion" hasn’t received much support or recognition for seven decades, I can’t see it offering much of a challenge to the wideawake=Hutchinson premise at this remove in time.

“and equally SURE everybody agrees with you that there is a universal body language that can easily and unchallengably produce the image of somebody waiting for someone to come out from a court. And in neither case have you any evidence”

But crucially, we do have evidence that Lewis imparted her evidence inquest, and that nobody raised any objection to her stated impression of the wideawake man’s behaviour when she did so. There is no mystery as to why they didn’t object. They just used their not inconsiderable collective imagination, and decided that people are perfectly capable of communicating a “waiting for someone to come out” stance with their body language.

“Aha. They did not check back in 1888: they just accepted what people told them.”

On the contrary, Fisherman. Packer, Violenia and Hutchinson were all discredited, which wouldn’t have happened if the police “just accepted what people told them”.

It’s clear that you missed Garry’s point, which was that Dew’s reference to “that morning” was obviously used in the context of date-confusion rather than any other type of confusion. Were it otherwise, he would simply have stated “the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock” without the extraneous and unnecessary reminder “that morning”. The inclusion of that phrase, however, implies very strongly that he meant “that morning” as opposed to any other morning. Perhaps even more significantly, since this leaves less room for time-confusion on Maxwell’s part, there was no reason to mention “time and date” (which we know he did) unless the former applied to Hutchinson. In other words, Maxwell confused the date and Hutchinson the time, according to Dew’s highly speculative and seldom-taken-seriously thoughts on the subject.

Certainly, he gave no impression that he thought Maxwell was confused as to the woman’s identity.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

hi Ben

you've made some really good points on here about the relative infancy of policing at the time of these highly unusual murders. I think that salient point is quite often forgotten, and when you factor in modern understanding of investigations whereby police can and unfortunately do overlook things by not investigating situations thoroughly enough, it is not difficult to conceive of how they could easily have overlooked the significance of Hutchinson's presence at a murder scene at the vital time.

I must say I do admire the research yourself and Garry have done into serial killers typical behaviour and am beginning to reappraise my stance in the light of this, having done a lot of recent thinking about it. I have always believed Hutchinson lied; I have never come to any conclusions as to his motives until now, but your well argued and consistent research is beginning to tip the balance and, gulp, I may even be turning into one of these dreaded pesky Hutchinsonians! Ah well, may as well embrace the label as it has been flung at me plenty of times merely because I haven't swallowed the tale of Astrakhan man hook line and sinker!

I'd like to just say to Fish that perhaps you ought to take a little step back and reappraise your method of debating with other posters? You've already more or less told me I have no business contributing, which I thoroughly reject, but when you are also chasing highly valued posters such as Jane Coram from the debate when the only contributions from her have been highly intelligent, rational, good natured posts which you have responded to in a thoroughly inappropriate manner, perhaps it is time to take a step back that you always say you will until you find a little perspective once more? Just a thought.

Jen x

[Fisherman]

Jane Coram:

"Hi Fisherman."

Hi!

"That was a joke."

Thank God! Good!

"This is also my last post on this thread."

Oh - not so good! Reconsider any time you like, Jane!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"You've already more or less told me I have no business contributing, which I thoroughly reject, but when you are also chasing highly valued posters such as Jane Coram from the debate when the only contributions from her have been highly intelligent, rational, good natured posts which you have responded to in a thoroughly inappropriate manner, perhaps it is time to take a step back that you always say you will until you find a little perspective once more?"

That is not a very relevant picture of things. I do not judge what right people have to contribute, but I do reserve myself the right not to exchange with people that offer nothing but scorn. And when I look at your posts addressing my suggestion, that is all I see. One example:

”you know Fish...
________________________________________
your theory seems to be relying more and more on changing the testimony of the witnesses...changing the date of Hutchinson's, re-interpreting Mrs Lewis and suggesting you know better than she what someone she SAW was doing.

Why not just throw all witness testimony out completely and rewrite history altogether? Then all the people who enjoy fairy stories can just pull up a chair by the log fire and get comfy and enjoy their evening without any further qualms.”

…and another prime one:

“Well well well Fisherman. I did not want to believe my suspicions regarding another similar situation to the Leander Analysis fiasco were going to be confirmed but it looks like they have been.”

And like that it goes on, more or less, post by post. Scorn and mocking. And I see no other aim on your behalf this time, but trying to paint me out as worse as possible and passing of a suggestion that I would have chased Jane Coram away from this thread. Let me tell you, Babybird, that Jane Coram is a poster that I believe is VERY well equipped to stand her own ground. She has solid knowledge and a sharp intellect and is anything but easily intimidated. She is reasonable and normally argues a good case whenever she has something to say. If all posters were like her, we would be a lot better off! And if she IS sometimes intimidated by anything, I don´t think my asking whether she was trying to ridicule me would be such a thing. And that, Babybird, means that I am very unhappy about you drawing conclusions and throwing allegations my way –whatever right anybody has to do so, it does not belong to a poster that writes things like the ones I quoted above and who has repeatedly been very aggressive on earlier threads.

Finally, allegations like the ones you are engaging in do not belong to the discussion of the thread. They belong to the dingiest and most sordid backyards of Ripperology, and as such they should not be allowed to darken the days for those who are trying to have a useful discussion about the topic giving it´s name to the thread. Therefore I will make no other comment on it than this one post. But I will comment on your post to Jane, saying:

“It is a shame but Hutchinson seems to do this to people!"

He does no such thing. What we say and do out here should not be blamed on a man that has been long dead. We have only ourselves to blame for it, and we must ourselves carry the full responsibility for each and every thing we add. I intend to do my best in this department from now on by returning to my policy of having as little to do with you as possible. If you can manage to do the same for me – and I am asking nicely – I would be very grateful.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

You have a stronger stomach than I do. It must be the pickled herring.

Poor Toppy. No wonder his relatives don't come forward. The disparagement against an innocent family member is horrific.

Thankfully, more and more people are turning in the direction of the light thanks to you and Lechmere and Richard and the legion of others.

Peace out.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This was never my contention. You stated that the connection between Lewis’s loiterer and Hutchinson would not be accepted as likely “any more”, which implied that some major change had taken place."

I can see a future where the connection will be much questioned by many Ripperologists, yes.

" I’m just confused as to why you consider this to be the case."

No, you are not. You know it full well, I suspect.

"Time and date muddling is a not a new theory as far as Hutchinson is concerned. Walter Dew was the first to suggest it in 1938, and even Bruce Paley brought it up as an outside possibility in 1996..."

Yes, but by your own admission, you are of the meaning that nobody at all puts any stock at all in it, or at least they have not up til now. THAT is why I am speaking of a possible change in that respect.

2we do have evidence that Lewis imparted her evidence inquest, and that nobody raised any objection to her stated impression of the wideawake man’s behaviour when she did so. There is no mystery as to why they didn’t object. They just used their not inconsiderable collective imagination, and decided that people are perfectly capable of communicating a “waiting for someone to come out” stance with their body language."

They did nothing of the sort, since all rational people know full well that no such body signal is at hand. You may be aware that you have failed to disprove this. It is all in the interpretation - in this case Lewis´. If the people of the courtroom had been asked to show what THEY believed body language portraying waiting for somebody to come out would look like, I fail to see that they would have acted like air hostesses demmonstrating how to put on lifejackets. But you are of course of the opinion that they all held the key to this understanding...?

"On the contrary, Fisherman. Packer, Violenia and Hutchinson were all discredited, which wouldn’t have happened if the police “just accepted what people told them”.

...meaning that Hutch was checked out, yes.

"It’s clear that you missed Garry’s point"

No. But it´s clear that you missed that I did NOT miss his point, but instead explain to him why it may well be wrong.

"Dew’s reference to “that morning” was obviously used in the context of date-confusion rather than any other type of confusion. Were it otherwise, he would simply have stated “the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock” without the extraneous and unnecessary reminder “that morning”.

Say what ...? Of course she could not have been, Ben. And of course that means that Maxwell could not have seen her at that stage. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SHE MUST HAVE CONFUSED THE DATES!!! It means that she must have been wrong, and no more than that.

"The inclusion of that phrase, however, implies very strongly that he meant “that morning” as opposed to any other morning."

Yes - for all the following mornings, Mary Kelly was dead.

Read my post to Garry once again. If you then understand what I say, good. If not, read my post to Garry again. Und so weiter ...

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

HI Fish

I started off my contributions to this thread praising your article but questioning the sources on which you had based your reinterpretation of the events. You were the one along with Mike who decided to bring out insults etc. If you cannot stand the heat stay out of the kitchen comes to mind.

That is not a very relevant picture of things. I do not judge what right people have to contribute, but I do reserve myself the right not to exchange with people that offer nothing but scorn. And when I look at your posts addressing my suggestion, that is all I see.

I admit I subjected your hypothesis to questioning, quite forcible questioning, which was vindicated when it led to the disovery that the conclusions you drew from your source material were not supported by the material themselves, and perhaps that explains why you did not disclose them in the body of your article, as perhaps if you had, it might have been pointed out to you earlier that your research was not supported by the primary data that we have.

“Well well well Fisherman. I did not want to believe my suspicions regarding another similar situation to the Leander Analysis fiasco were going to be confirmed but it looks like they have been.”

Yes. I stand by that statement. I have demonstrated that this is true earlier in the thread. I am not the only one who has noticed and commented on this either.

And like that it goes on, more or less, post by post. Scorn and mocking. And I see no other aim on your behalf this time, but trying to paint me out as worse as possible and passing of a suggestion that I would have chased Jane Coram away from this thread.

It's quite clear that you have. The way you responded to her postings was appalling but that is just par for the course right now isn't it.

Let me tell you, Babybird, that Jane Coram is a poster that I believe is VERY well equipped to stand her own ground. She has solid knowledge and a sharp intellect and is anything but easily intimidated. She is reasonable and normally argues a good case whenever she has something to say.

I agree absolutely with all your points about Jane. She is all those things. I do think it is hypocritical however, that you are insinuating that I should not post in defence of Jane, yet you positively encourage Mike to snap at everybody else in your defence!

If all posters were like her, we would be a lot better off! And if she IS sometimes intimidated by anything, I don´t think my asking whether she was trying to ridicule me would be such a thing. And that, Babybird, means that I am very unhappy about you drawing conclusions and throwing allegations my way –whatever right anybody has to do so, it does not belong to a poster that writes things like the ones I quoted above and who has repeatedly been very aggressive on earlier threads.

I have not been aggressive Fish. I have been passionate. I passionately refute research based on misinterpretation of the evidence. I passionately refute conclusions based on skewed analysis of the evidence we do have. I passionately refute your continual distortion of sources and of other evidence that we have. It is the mark of a poor researcher and if you find that unpalatable I am sorry but it has to be pointed out when you are so blind that you won't look at any reasonable criticism and respond to it without being abusive to the person offering it.

Finally, allegations like the ones you are engaging in do not belong to the discussion of the thread. They belong to the dingiest and most sordid backyards of Ripperology, and as such they should not be allowed to darken the days for those who are trying to have a useful discussion about the topic giving it´s name to the thread.

The thread you are chasing people away from because when they do offer their reasonable contributions you attack them, you mean? Yeah right Fish.

Therefore I will make no other comment on it than this one post. But I will comment on your post to Jane, saying:

“It is a shame but Hutchinson seems to do this to people!"

He does no such thing. What we say and do out here should not be blamed on a man that has been long dead. We have only ourselves to blame for it, and we must ourselves carry the full responsibility for each and every thing we add. I intend to do my best in this department from now on by returning to my policy of having as little to do with you as possible. If you can manage to do the same for me – and I am asking nicely – I would be very grateful.

You're right. You're totally responsible for sending a skewed sample of signatures to Leander and for even now continually trying to claim a proper analysis was made of it. You're responsible for taking a source which states the weather was one of showers and actually representing in your paper as being a night of unceasing and contrinual rain.

And I am responsible for what I say too. And i stand by everything i have said, passionately and without being bullied out of these discussions.

[babybird67]

Fish,

You have a stronger stomach than I do. It must be the pickled herring.

Poor Toppy. No wonder his relatives don't come forward. The disparagement against an innocent family member is horrific.

Once again, and i have pointed this out before...how can Toppy be being accused of anything when those who beleve Hutchinson to have been the killer REJECT the identification with Toppy?

Thankfully, more and more people are turning in the direction of the light thanks to you and Lechmere and Richard and the legion of others.

Legion of others? Where are they?