Innocent, By George!

[Garry Wroe]

"That comment, Fisherman, was just this side of evil."

If so, Garry, in what category of comments do we place "Anencephalic - 'Characterized by partial or total absence of a brain.'"?

It seems that you have a short memory, Fish. Check out the Leander thread and you’ll discover where the ‘this side of evil’ phrase originated. So much, then, for your contention that Michael’s schoolyard tantrums are a recent phenomenon.

At the end of the day, topics like these are not what we should use the boards for. Anybody stating that will have my full support! A FAIR debate, with respect for the opponentīs view when this is called for is of urgent need here.

Couldn’t agree more. But I’d take you a little more seriously were it not for your consistent support of a poster whose sole contributions to the various Hutchinson threads amount to belligerence and insults directed at those who dare to uphold an opposing viewpoint. That seems like a clear case of double standards to my way of thinking.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

Once bitten, twice shy here. Maybe I'm old and cynical.

Many thanks for your post, Phil, and your analysis of the Toppy argument. I have to say that I'm with you on this one. Indeed, the whole case against Toppy appears to me to consist of wishful thinking and the bane of all empirical research - confirmation bias. To my mind, it's akin to someone placing a spirit level on their kitchen floor and then declaring The Earth to be flat.

Each to their own, I suppose.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

Indeed, the whole case against Toppy appears to me to consist of wishful thinking and the bane of all empirical research - .

Which puts the case head and shoulders above the case against Hutchinson.

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

Well, at least you're able to acknowledge that Hutchinson and Toppy were two different men. That represents progress of a sort, I suppose.

[The Good Michael]

Well, at least you're able to acknowledge that Hutchinson and Toppy were two different men. That represents progress of a sort, I suppose.

No, that would be the complete opposite of progress. That is what is known as delusion.

Mike

[Phil Carter]

No, that would be the complete opposite of progress. That is what is known as delusion.

Mike

Hello Mike,

Sums up the case against Kosminsky in two perfect lines that. Well done!

best wishes

Phil

[The Good Michael]

Phil,

I don't know about that. The man who had all access to all information, named Kosminski. We don't know why, but above all others, Swanson's knowledge should have been the greatest. It is a mystery, I grant you, but delusional? That's going too far. Let's see what Rob comes up with. It ought to be a cracker!

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Mike,

If there is NEW FACTUAL information against him, I'd welcome it! Have a feeling it will be circumstantial though, as indicated by the write up on Amazon.
But I will not pre-judge. Looking forward to it.

best wishes

Phil

[The Good Michael]

Phil,

I wouldn't disagree with you, but often a writer has a few tricks up his sleeve in the area of persuasion... much like all television producers. I mean we have seen what a few Hutchinson books have done and there was nothing even known about Hutchinson when they were written. I think there's a bit more that Rob will wring out of the Kosminski family archives.

Cheers,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Hello Micheal,

I agree... let us hope it brings some sort of evidence along with it. I like rob's writing style too.. could be a goodie.
Whoops..back to Hutch.

best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"Couldn’t agree more. But I’d take you a little more seriously were it not for your consistent support of a poster whose sole contributions to the various Hutchinson threads amount to belligerence and insults directed at those who dare to uphold an opposing viewpoint."

What you need to ask yourself, Garry, is whether Mike STARTED OUT discussing Hutchinson in this manner. When you have found the answer to that, you may not be quite as inclined to speak of MY short memory.

The very best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“That would - if this is correct - mean a capacity of registering, mathematically, 72 items per minute, or, mathematically, 360 items per five minutes, or, mathematically, 1080 items in the time Hutch took in his 30-40 items.”

Fisherman, will all due respect, I really don’t know what on earth you’re going on about here. All I know is that the above is a drastic misapplication of “mathematics”. What is the “mathematical” basis for the claim that anyone is capable of noticing 72 items per minute? I highly doubt that the car-spotting boy registered, or was able to register, every fiddly detail about every little dent on a pick-up truck. The major difference here, of course, is that the boy was at least in a position to notice the items that he later claimed to have committed to memory, which is more than can be said of Hutchinson and his man with the dark eyelashes.

The sentence from my previous post should read: “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 out the idea that he saw exactly what he claimed to have seen"

“Somehow, you treat it like the ever ongoing, semicriminal noise in Dorset Street”

Can’t you at least try to keep separate arguments on separate threads rather than merging them into one mammoth, generalized Hutch-fest? The issue of noise on Dorset Street was discussed on the other thread, and if you still have some objections, I suggest you address them there. I never used the expression “semicriminal noise”. I simply observed that the “vicious and semi-criminal” element reputed of Dorset Street is heavily at odds with your impression of the street as a place where all residents were tucked up in bed asleep late at night.

“Perhaps the same people who find nothing strange in the parcel PC Smith saw in the hands of a man in Berner Street?”

That was a large newspaper parcel that almost certainly contained food, not a tightly grasped parcel of knife-shaped dimensions wrapped in American cloth with a “sort of strap round it”. If Hutchinson was going for the “subtle sell”, it is clear he over-egged the pudding very badly here.

“The time span is too short, simple as that.”

Too short for what? For a reconsideration? On what basis do you make such an assumption? It is quite clear from the Echo that the authorities came to attach a “very reduced” importance to Hutchinson’s statement, for reasons they weren’t shy to state, very shortly after Abberline gave it the green light. I really couldn’t care less if you find any of this “silly”. It is what the evidence tells us, and tough if you don’t like it.

“Iīd say the failure to spot Lewis is a good bid. Even if Huch firmly stated that he had not seen her, the police must have recognized the odd chance that he simply had missed her was there, small but still.”

Not this again. It wasn’t a “failure to spot” Lewis, as far as I’m concerned, so much as a failure to mention her, and if he was responsible for the murder or had something else to hide about the reasons behind his Dorset Street vigil, it would obviously have been less than prudent to make specific reference to her, since doing so would draw attention to his coming forward in response to her inquest evidence, thereby compromising his professed reasons for being there and inviting possible suspicion. His deliberate omission in this regard (if such it was) appears to have done the trick, as there is no evidence that either police or press ever connected Hutchinson with Lewis’ wideawake figure.

There is still no evidence that Hutchinson ever confined himself – or said he confined himself - to the “north side of the street” only.

“Aha. And the initial suspicion, echoed in the Echo, was due to the fact that Abberline had a feeling that Hutch would surely say something strange whe speaking to the press, and thus discredit himself...?”

No, I never said or implied any such thing.

I just pointed out exactly what the evidence tells us – that the doubts surrounding Hutchinson’s statement appear to have surfaced even before the Star’s “discrediting” announcement, and that Hutchinson’s press versions may well have fuelled those already existing doubts.

“Heīs just dead tired of the Hutchinsonian debate technique. Iīm sure I will end up in the same situation too, not giving a damn about anything.”

I can’t help but be sceptical about this claim – can’t think why!

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

I certainly share Garry's and Abby's views on Mike's invective-packed posts. There can be little doubt that they amount to troll-like behaviour, since the posts themselves rarely offer any insight into the actual issues under discussion, and are instead focussed on the personalities involved. I find it particularly insufferable when this behaviour is both defended and lauded, with the troll championed as a "compassionate poster". I can't help but notice that those with an overeagerness to hit the "report post" button after every perceived slight from me are quite happy to let stand such insults as "they're thick as posts", "ignoramuses", and suggestions that those who see the merit in Hutchinson as a suspect have no other reason to live.

The defense that insults are only resorted to in exasperation over the "Hutchinson debating technique" is pathetic. If people have a particular dislike for the nature of Hutchinson debates or don't consider them "useful", the solution is an obvious one: go away. Nobody is forcing anyone to read the threads here, let alone contribute to them.

[Ben]

Hi Bob,

I too am rather bemused to see the suggestion that signatures “tally” crop up on occasions. It is quiet clear to me that they don’t tally, and as you observed in your book, a professional document examiner, Sue Iremonger, examined the signatures herself and came to the conclusion that George William Topping Hutchinson’s marriage certificate signature was not written by the man who signed the 1888 statement. She detailed her findings, along with her analysis of the Maybrick diary, at the World Conference of Document Examiners in 1993.

This is more than good enough for me, and has been good enough for most people interested in the subject, but it seems that a vocal minority are determined to argue otherwise.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

What you need to ask yourself, Garry, is whether Mike STARTED OUT discussing Hutchinson in this manner. When you have found the answer to that, you may not be quite as inclined to speak of MY short memory.

I don’t need to ask myself anything, Fisherman. What I KNOW is that Michael’s very first post to me (see page 232 or thereabouts of the 1911 thread) constituted what he himself later admitted to have been an ‘outburst’. So please, spare me the sanctimonious claptrap and either practice what you preach or leave the pulpit to someone a little more accomplished in the dubious art of justifying the unjustifiable.