Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Innocent, By George!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Bloody hell, its Ben off on one again.
    This time I'll ignore him.

    Comment


    • #47
      *cavalery blowing horns*

      Comment


      • #48
        Ben:

        "“Things in” in terms of general observations maybe, but he clearly wasn’t scrutinizing the Astrakhan man for the whole of that 15 minutes"

        Of course not - who says he was? But this discussion came up as I mentioned that boy who took in heaps of things about a car, dents, rust, Missouri plates, colour, roof, missing hubs, towing device and all. That is why I say that if this boy managed all that in the fewest of seconds, then the time afforded Hutch would have been ample to take in what he witnessed about.

        "the only opportunity he had to take anything “in” beyond a dark figure in an overcoat and hat holding a bag (oooh, knife-shaped!) was when he passed fleetingly in close proximity to a lamp at the corner of Fashion Street."

        There would have been other lamps too, Ben, on the way to the court. And perhaps at the place where Hutch first saw the man. We have no exact description of how the involved people moved, and Dorset Street was fairly well lit. There are far too many unknown elements to rule out that Hutch was truthful, at least to my mind. Others have expressed the same sentiments too over the years,as you will know.

        "Then he must have been scrutinizing him very closely at close quarters with the man’s fineries on unbuttoned proud display on a previous no-evidence occasion."

        Reasonably, yes.

        "This clearly didn’t happen, or else Hutchinson would have said so."

        And if he saw Lewis, he would have said so? Or else it "clearly didnīt happen"? We may wish, but we cannot know.

        "I don’t need to guess the reason. I simply recognise that the discrediting came shortly after his press disclosures, which the police must have realised undermined his initial statement"

        Good on you! Myself, I need to guess the reason. For I donīt KNOW what happened. And to be perfectly honest, nor do you. For one thing, we donīt know when the discrediting as such originated, do we? It may well have been there BEFORE the press disclosures on Hutchinsonīs behalf. The Echo was in print on the 13:th, and that does not mean that they got wind of things on that day - they may have been in the know already on the 12:th and before Hutchinsonīs press interviews. And I think they DID know before, for one thing. So, convenient though it would have been for your suggestions, we cannot really place things along any safe timeline, can we?

        "I’m not trying to silence anybody, Fisherman."

        Then donīt go around asserting anybody who feels like debating a subject that you will do them to death, and that your incredible stamina will always prevail. Even if this is so, itīs as depressing an invitation to discuss things that you are ever likely to encounter.

        "I do seem to be able to get people antler-locked in a determined battle to outlast me in increasingly repetitive and interminable Hutchinson discussions for some reason"

        Itīs not your after shave, believe me, Ben. But some afterthought as to what it really IS may perhaps be of use to us all.

        "There never seems to be any suggestion that it’s just Ben off on one again. If we ignore him, hopefully he’ll go away."

        Do you really think that somebody - anybody - would realistically hope for that?
        And that means that people are arguing with you for some other reason than holding such a forlorn hope.

        "Initally, yes, but apparently not in the long run."

        YES!!!! We agree on something!!!! So screw the underlying mechanisms and letīs go celebrate! Larkinīs Porter, was it?

        The best,
        Fisherman
        Last edited by Fisherman; 02-16-2011, 06:12 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Initally, yes, but apparently not in the long run.

          Ive been around here long enough to know better Ben.

          Nice try.

          Monty
          Monty

          https://forum.casebook.org/core/imag...t/evilgrin.gif

          Author of Capturing Jack the Ripper.

          http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/1445621622

          Comment


          • #50
            “That is why I say that if this boy managed all that in the fewest of seconds, then the time afforded Hutch would have been ample to take in what he witnessed about.”
            Well, no Fisherman, that doesn’t follow at all. I only have it on your say so that this "car-spotting boy" episode happened as you related it, and even more significantly, we don’t know the circumstances involved. I strongly suspect, for example, that the alleged sighting did not occur in poor weather conditions in Victorian darkness at 2:00am-ish on a November morning. Nor did it involve such minute accessories as linen collars, horseshoe tie-pins, red stone seals, and light buttons over button boots all at the same time when he was supposed to be paying attention to the man's surly face.

            “There would have been other lamps too, Ben, on the way to the court.”
            Oh, you mean when he was following the couple from behind? When all he could have seen was the back of the man’s overcoat and maybe his hat? According to Hutchinson’s police statement, he first saw a man “coming in the opposite direction” from Thrawl Street. As far as I’m aware, there were no gas lamps on the eastern side of Commercial Street between Thrawl Street and Flower and Dean Street, and I’m not even sure about the corner of Thrawl Street. In any case, the lamps in question emitted a negligible amount of light.

            “The Echo was in print on the 13:th, and that does not mean that they got wind of things on that day”
            I know, but what we see is a two-day downgrading from the 13th, when the authorities were already having doubts, and the 15th, when it was announced that he was “discredited” and where he was described, along with Packer, as having been responsible for providing a worthless story that led the police astray. I’ve only suggested that the press versions of Hutchinson’s account might have been the catalyst behind Hutchinson’s ultimate discrediting.

            “Then donīt go around asserting anybody who feels like debating a subject that you will do them to death, and that your incredible stamina will always prevail.”
            I don’t think I’ve threatened to “do” anyone “to death”, Fisherman. I have only made light-hearted commentary on the propensity of certain people to argue with me for pages and pages despite knowing full well that I am very unlikely to alter feelings on the subject, and despite knowing full well that the debate in question has already been stewed over and repeated many times already. This is why I occasionally joke about hypnotizing people into posting battles.

            “Itīs not your after shave, believe me, Ben. But some afterthought as to what it really IS may perhaps be of use to us all.”
            I’m genuinely curious.

            But seriously, don’t think I’m trying to put people off.

            If people are really that fascinated/challenged/emboldened/outraged into posting at length by my views, I can only express gratitude and hope that this almighty Hutch-fest continues for as long as possible.

            Larkinīs Porter, was it?
            I think they've run out, very annoyingly, and it is getting towards the end of the winter season. I'll see if they've got any minipins left at the brewery.

            All the best,
            Ben
            Last edited by Ben; 02-17-2011, 03:29 AM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Ben:

              "I only have it on your say so that this "car-spotting boy" episode happened as you related it"

              Is that not enough for you? If so, why?

              "even more significantly, we don’t know the circumstances involved."

              Where did you get that from? The circumstances involved are at least just as well recorded in this case as in the Ripper case.

              "I strongly suspect, for example, that the alleged sighting did not occur in poor weather conditions in Victorian darkness at 2:00am-ish on a November morning."

              Nope. Daylight.

              "Nor did it involve such minute accessories as linen collars, horseshoe tie-pins, red stone seals, and light buttons over button boots all at the same time when he was supposed to be paying attention to the man's surly face."

              Of course not - the boy never was as close at it would have taken to record such small things. But what he DID record is amazing, including the actual shape of rust patches. He told what he saw since he saw it. Hutch would have done the same, I think. If he said he saw a horse-shoe tie pin, the obvious bet is that he did so because he actually saw it. And people are very resourceful, Ben. Many of us can take in more than a face even if we focus mainly on that face.
              Have a look at the so called memory artists, who have finetuned their ability to take in and remember heaps of things, by looking at them for a very short period. They get half a minute to study perhaps fifty things, their view of the things is shut down, and then they list all of it or almost all. Naturally, they are doing this in full light and they have trained extensively and developed methods to achieve this feat - but it goes to show the resources we have in this department. If they can do that in good light after half a minuteīs observation, we may need to offer Hutch the possibility of doing what he did after a much longer observation in poorer light. To just say that he could not have seen a horse-shoe tie pin in the circumstancs offered is not a very viable suggestion for obvious reasons - we cannot establish the level of light, we do not even know how many light sources there were or how near to them astrakhan man passed, just as we do not know where Hutch was as this happened. There are way too may uncertainties involved to rule anything out.

              "you mean when he was following the couple from behind? When all he could have seen was the back of the man’s overcoat and maybe his hat? "

              Donīt do the math for me - I do it better. I mean that we do not have the exact movements on record. We do not have the exact timeline on record. We do not have the exact amount of light sources on record. And we do not have the exact light emittment on record. But we DO have on record that Abberline heard the man, gave it some thought, and decided that yes, this is probably true.

              "what we see is a two-day downgrading from the 13th, when the authorities were already having doubts, and the 15th, when it was announced that he was “discredited”

              It may be seen as a downgrading, just as you say. The trouble, though, is that the snowball started rolling VERY early on. Presumably, Abberline decided that Hutch was telling the truth at, say, about 7 PM, and then, the fewest of hours afterwards, he had suddenly come to the chilling insight that he had been totally wrong to do so...? That, Ben, is a very short timespan, and to my mind, it is not realistic to believe that the initial contentment on Abberlines behalf would have turned into grave suspicions of a false tale. He had weighed things up and made his decision on professional grounds.
              It is much more credible that the checkout following upon the interrogation turned up the goods that made Abberline see that something was wrong. And in this case, surfacing evidence that told a story of a lie on Hutchīs behalf would not have been the thing. Instead, whatever it was, it was something that both discredited Hutch AND gave Dew good reason to state fifty years after that he would not reflect poorly on Hutch as a witness.
              To me, when Dew says that Hutch would have been a day off, we get the by far best explanation to all of this. And, of course, the downgrading you speak of, would reasonably have corresponded to the surfacing crucial detail at first, and then, two days later, to that detail having been checked out and confirmed. It makes better sense that way, and corresponds nicely with the timeline.

              "I don’t think I’ve threatened to “do” anyone “to death”, Fisherman. I have only made light-hearted commentary on the propensity of certain people to argue with me for pages and pages despite knowing full well that I am very unlikely to alter feelings on the subject, and despite knowing full well that the debate in question has already been stewed over and repeated many times already. This is why I occasionally joke about hypnotizing people into posting battles."

              There may be another way to look at this, Ben. Just saying.

              "I think they've run out, very annoyingly, and it is getting towards the end of the winter season."

              Thatīs a shame! And thatīs where British beer culture differs from Swedish; we donīt have the same season-related stuff here. What you can have in May, you can also have in November. Or February. The odd micro-brewery has popped up, though, and that has changed the picture somewhat. But if I really feel like taking a deep dive into the world of differing beers, I normally take the ferry over to Denmark. Twenty minutes, and youīre there.
              Doubt that they have Larkins porter, though ...

              The best,
              Fisherman
              Last edited by Fisherman; 02-17-2011, 07:07 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Of course we must ask for evidence of verification of Hutchinson's statement.For this we look to the police of that time,and Aberline in particular,and all we get is an 'opinion' of truth being told.Not,"I have checked mr Hutchinson's claims and found them to be true",but"I am of opinion etc,etc'.
                Presume all you want about what the police would have done,or what they did,or whether Aberline was correct in his opinion,but make judgement on what is known to have been done.Anyone know what that was?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Just one more observation on why Hutchinson attracts attention.He is the only male to claim to have been in the company of a victim shortly before the victim's death.A claim that would even today,make him a person of interest.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Harry, as of today:

                    "Presume all you want about what the police would have done,or what they did,or whether Aberline was correct in his opinion,but make judgement on what is known to have been done."

                    The same Harry, three days ago:

                    "While there is doubt,it is surely not unreasonable to presume guilt of some sort."

                    My presumption is that this combination of presumption-related stances is quite telling.

                    The best,
                    Fisherman

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Here, Ben, are the details adahering to the case I mentioned, which made yiou tell me that you only had my word for it. Here are a few other words, from a few other sources:

                      ”During the search for Ben Ownby, Mitchell, now 16, provided authorities with
                      the most important clue - their only clue - a description of the white
                      Nissan truck.

                      Hults saw the truck speeding out of his neighborhood the day Ben
                      disappeared, and though he glimpsed it for only a few short moments, he was
                      able to remember key details, such as the rust marks and dents, Missouri
                      plates and camper shell. Authorities traced the truck to kidnapper Michael
                      Devlin.

                      Since Ben and Shawn were rescued, Mitchell has basked in new-found
                      celebrity. A radio station gave him a $1,000 reward. Chrysler Group bestowed
                      him with a new $30,000 pickup. He got free tickets to see his favorite
                      comedian, Larry the Cable Guy, and $6,000 in college scholarships. He was
                      even a guest of honor at Gov. Matt Blunt's State of the State speech.”

                      Source:
                      http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Arch.../msg01384.html

                      ”Ben’s harrowing ordeal began a week ago when he got off his school bus and started walking alone down this road. He then went out of sight. But moments later, a friend on the bus, Mitchell Hults, noticed in great detail, a white Nissan truck speeding away.
                      Mitchell Hults: Coming down this road, and I seen a white Nissan pick up sideways in the road down here. I guess it seen me coming it took off down the hill.
                      The trail went cold for four days until two Missouri police officers, working an unrelated case, saw a white pick-up matching Mitchell’s description near Devlin’s apartment. Later that day, the boys were found.”
                      Source:
                      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16660005/ns/dateline_nbc/

                      ”Friends of Mitchell Hults express little surprise at the uncanny ability he had to describe the Nissan truck that was used as the getaway vehicle in the abduction of Ben Ownby last week. Mitchell is known amongst is friends for being obsessed with pickup trucks, and he talks about them all the time. His obsession led to a description of the pickup truck used in the abduction including the rust marks, dents, Missouri plates, camper shell, and “Nissan” lettering on the back, that it became an integral part in helping the Missouri police locate the truck; its owner, Michael J. Devlin, Ben Ownby’s alleged abductor; Ben Ownby himself; and another young boy who had been abducted more than four years earlier, Shawn Hornbeck.”
                      Source:
                      http://notebookmainboard2011.yumor.a...k-cars-images/

                      ”All that changed when fifteen-year-old Mitchell Hults stepped forward with a detailed description of a truck. Mitchell had stepped off the school bus soon after Ben. The high school freshman told investigators that as he got into the Chevy pickup he'd parked near the bus stop that morning, he spotted an aging white Nissan pickup with a camper shell in the middle of the road, as if it were turning around. But as Mitchell approached, the truck aborted the maneuver and headed down the street, he said. Mitchell told investigators that as he pulled into his family's driveway, he saw the truck reverse direction and speed away.”
                      Source:
                      http://roadskater.net/node/386/backl...C0%2C0%2C0%2C1

                      and finally, as I searched the subject, I found this on Casebook:

                      ”The F.B.I. interviewed Hults, and the agents later admitted rolling their eyes and looking at each other in disbelief when the young man began giving his description of the speeding pickup. In their words, it was “too detailed to be true.” For one thing, Hults had no reason whatsoever to have taken any interest in the truck, yet he was not only able to give the color and 'make' of the vehicle, he was able to describe the canopy, the shape of the rust stains around the wheel wells, and even the 2” x 2” square trailer hitch on the back tailgate. The only thing he couldn’t describe was the license plate number. Some called Hults a liar; to which the young man blurted out “I’ve never told a lie in my life!!” Others dismissed him as the typical publicity-hound witness that often comes forward in many major criminal investigations.

                      Despite their doubts, the police circulated Hults’ description of the pickup truck. The owner of a restaurant in St. Louis noticed the description, and thought it was very similar to a vehicle owned by one of his employees..a man who just happened to have went home sick on the day the Ownby boy went missing. Curious, the man drove out to his employees’ apartment complex, where he noticed red dust on the tires of the man’s white pickup...which meant it must have been out driving on rural roads. To make a long story short, he then contacted the police who eventually discovered the kidnapped Ownby boy alive in the suspect’s apartment, along with Shawn Hornbeck, who had been abducted four years earlier.

                      Hults’ “too good to be true” description was, in reality, accurate & truthful, while the FBI agents who doubted it had to later eat their words. The city of St. Louis later rewarded Hults by buying him a new pickup of his own.”

                      Uncanny, that is how Hults observation is described. And still it happened, and he got all of these details correct after having seen a car hastily speed away. At least THAT would now be established, so that you need not harbour any further suspicions that I just made it up.

                      The best,
                      Fisherman

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        As I rather suspected, Fisherman, the comparison is not remotely apt.

                        A boy observed, in daylight:

                        The shape of the rust marks, dents, Missouri plates, camper shell, and “Nissan” lettering on the back describe the canopy, 2” x 2” square trailer hitch on the back tailgate.

                        Hutchinson claimed to have described, at night-time, in darkness, in Victorian London, in bad weather conditions, and during a fleeting moment near a gas lamp:

                        Age about 34 or 35.
                        Height 5ft6
                        Complexion pale
                        Dark complexion
                        Dark eyes
                        Dark eye lashes
                        Slight moustache, curled up each end
                        Dark Moustache
                        No side whiskers, and cleanshaven chin
                        Hair dark
                        Very surley looking
                        Long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan.
                        Dark jacket under.
                        Light waistcoat
                        Dark trousers
                        Dark felt hat turned down in the middle.
                        Button boots and gaiters with white buttons.
                        Very thick gold chain
                        Big seal, with a red stone hanging from it
                        White linen collar.
                        Black tie
                        Horse shoe pin.
                        Respectable appearance
                        Walked very sharp.
                        Walked very softly.
                        Jewish appearance
                        a pair of brown kid gloves
                        red handkerchief
                        Carried a small parcel in his hand about eight inches long, and it had a strap around it. He had it tightly grasped in his left hand. It looked as though it was covered with dark American cloth.

                        I think there can be no argument as to which is the more ridiculous, if not impossible, of the two descriptions.

                        The crucial observation regarding the boy’s sighting is that the things he recalled were at least things that he could realistically have noticed. Spotting so minute an accessory as a horseshoe tiepin in the conditions that existed on the 9th November is nigh on impossible, doubly so when we’re expected to believe that he recorded other aspects of his appearance at the same time. The only moment Hutchinson had to observe his man in any form of light at all was when he passed close to a lamp near the corner of Fashion Street, and at that time, he was stooping down to monitor the man’s face. He couldn’t have noticed the smallest details of the man’s lower body at the same time.

                        Not even the tests for photographic memory demand anything like as much superhuman powers of observation and memorization. In this case, he claimed to have noticed items that were virtually impossible even to notice. As you note, “trained” individuals are told to memorize as much as possible in very controlled and well-lit conditions. No, we can’t establish the degree of light with any degree of precision, but we don’t need to. All that needs to be taken on board that it was very dark at the time, punctuated at intervals by the occasional poor gas lamp. This constitutes more than adequate grounds to rule the idea that he saw exactly what he claimed to have seen, which is why I do precisely that.

                        I do rather wish you’d confine these Astrakhan-description debates, which you insist on bringing up again, to their relevant threads.

                        “Donīt do the math for me - I do it better”
                        Maths. Nah, you do it worse in my opinion, but it’s not maths we’re talking about here. It’s common sense. Obviously, if Hutchinson was following the couple from behind, he couldn’t have spotted horse shoe tiepins and red stone seals from that vantage point. I sometimes feel silly arguing about the very existence of the Astrakhan man – a less subtle, laid-on-with-a-trowel, pantomime bogeyman type figure is difficult to envisage. Who, honestly, is still taken in by a dark tightly-clutched parcel of unsubtly knife-shaped dimensions? Do people really want to avoid the obvious conclusion that it was invented to convey an obvious impression, or are people really still thinking “Duh, boss! Maybe it was the ripper with his knife!”?

                        “But we DO have on record that Abberline heard the man, gave it some thought, and decided that yes, this is probably true.”
                        Initially, yes. He also thought that Klosowski the ripper went on an organ-harvesting mission on behalf of an American doctor in pursuit of specimens, and that he then went to America for more innards once he realised he hadn’t collected enough in London for his boss.

                        “Presumably, Abberline decided that Hutch was telling the truth at, say, about 7 PM, and then, the fewest of hours afterwards, he had suddenly come to the chilling insight that he had been totally wrong to do so...?”
                        This is not what I’ve suggested at all. I’ve suggested that the more time that elapsed between the initial interview and the 15th November, the more Hutchinson’s statement came to be “reduced” in terms of importance. Perhaps he had discussed the matter with his superiors and colleagues who urged reconsideration. Either way, we know that by the 13th the statement had suffered a reduced importance only, not “we can safely dismiss it on the grounds that..”, and by the 15th, it is clear from the Star that he was lumped into the same category as Matthew Packer. Obviously, if there was ever a reason to place Hutchinson in a different category from the one reserved for purveyors of “worthless stories” that “led police astray”, it would have made sense to mention it. It is clear to me that he came to be considered dishonest, and therefore akin to Violenia and Packer (with whom he shared article space), and not “honestly mistaken” as touted by the notoriously unreliable Walter Dew in his 1938 memoirs.

                        Clearly his suspicion was never “checked out and confirmed”, or else Dew would have stated as much, rather than appealing to his readership to endorse his personal speculations.

                        More likely, the catalyst for Hutchinson’s discrediting arrived in the form of the press variations that could only have cast doubt on his initial police statement.

                        “Thatīs a shame! And thatīs where British beer culture differs from Swedish; we donīt have the same season-related stuff here. What you can have in May, you can also have in November”
                        Some you can find all year round, and even the seasonal ones can be found in bottle-conditioned form throughout the year, but for draught ale, you’re more likely to find the seasonal beers reserved for the appropriate time of year, such as the Christmas ales at 8.4%!

                        All the best,
                        Ben
                        Last edited by Ben; 02-17-2011, 04:16 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally Posted by Lechmere
                          Yes and by extension one would presume that when Hutchinson was deemed to be of less significance to the investigation this must have been due to contradictory verification. This would probably have raised other questions, which it seems likely were satisfactorily answered in order for Hutchinson to disappear into the sunset.
                          That is my best guess anyway.

                          Originally posted by Monty View Post
                          Exactly.

                          Monty
                          Hi Lechmere/Monty
                          OK so now we have the police not only finding "contradictory Verification" of Hutchs story, they then view him as a suspect and then clear him?

                          So:
                          Believable witness to
                          Unbelievable witness to
                          Suspect to
                          Cleared suspect to
                          No further record


                          Thats quite a trajectory.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            What the F? Every time Fish mentions something, the Hutch Hunch Bunch ask him for proof. When he presents his proof in the form of articles or analyses (Leander), they twist the meaning or doubt the veractity. Why do they ask for proof if proof doesn't exist to them? Why even try? They are as thick as posts, the few of them that there are. Deceitful gamesters.

                            MIke
                            huh?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              well I've been through a looooooot of threads by now, and it seems to me that everyone is kinda doing that all the time.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by The Good Michael View Post
                                What the F? Every time Fish mentions something, the Hutch Hunch Bunch ask him for proof. When he presents his proof in the form of articles or analyses (Leander), they twist the meaning or doubt the veractity. Why do they ask for proof if proof doesn't exist to them? Why even try? They are as thick as posts, the few of them that there are. Deceitful gamesters.
                                Anencephalic - 'Characterized by partial or total absence of a brain.'

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X