Innocent, By George!

[Ben]

Come on, Fisherman.

Be circumspect about this.

It is very obvious to me that you didn't know anything about Dew's Hutchinson reference until I introduced you to it.

You started off by pooh-poohing it, and making comments akin to "And, of course, if we choose to believe overall in what old Walter said in his book - which is riddled with mistakes."

But then you changed your mind and decided you could harness Dew, after all, as a power to both uphold the very implausible Toppy theory, and cast imagined doubt on the notion that Hutchinson lied or was responsible for Kelly's murder.

With respect, it hasn't worked very well.

Very interesting, but no.

You wrote in your article that Iremonger was the only useful document examination done on Hutch.

Yes, I did, because it's true as far as I'm concerned.

Signature fight, anyone?

I will even tip you off on the Stride issue - I used to believe she was a Ripper victim.

Is there any evidence for this former belief in writing anywhere? Not a witch-hunt. Just curious.

Regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

have I missed something?

has there been another document examination of the Hutchinson signatures? And by document examination I rather bizarrely mean examination of the actual documents, not comparison of selected and doctored signatures over the medium of email.


Or is it a case of conveniently rewriting history once again?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Come on, Fisherman.

Be circumspect about this."

What are you trying to do, Ben - have me walking in a leash of yours? Well, good luck with that! I am happy to take much advice from many circumspect people on many matters, some advice from slightly less circumspect people on other matters and no advice at all from some people, especially on matters where I don´t believe them to be in the least circumspect themselves.

"It is very obvious to me that you didn't know anything about Dew's Hutchinson reference until I introduced you to it."

"Obvious"? Now where have I heard that word before...?

I will say this to you one time only, Ben, and to the administrators the next, should you find it interesting to bring it up again: I have read Dew´s book before, more than once, and I was fully aware of the reference, although I had not payed much interest to it. It was not until I realized the connotations offered by Hutchinsons remarks about the weather that I backtracked and saw it in another light. Before that, it was just a piece of information with jagged edges - after that, I realized that the jagged edges fit in with other pieces of the puzzle.
Surely you have experienced the same thing at times: you find some piece of information rather uninteresting, and it is stored in the back of your head as such. Then, somewhere down the line, some other information is added that makes you realize that the former information that you had deemed of low value may in fact have been something totally different.

I do not wish that I had never said anything derogatory about Dew´s book. If I had claimed that it was the best Ripper book ever, I would have been lying. It has it´s apparent faults and flaws. That was true when I pointed it out, and it is no less true now.

So you are - once again - totally wrong, Ben. And since I very much dislike your reoccurring hints at me not having been able to do any thinking of my own were it not for your "help", I promise you that any further such hint will be placed in the administrators lap as an example of pure harrasment. I hope this is "obvious" enough for you.

"Is there any evidence for this former belief in writing anywhere? Not a witch-hunt. Just curious."

Yes there is. I have mentioned this on other threads. But I won´t look for them for you - that is something you will have to sort out yourself.

Now, if we instead of trying to belittle opponents can return to analyzing the arguments connected to the thread/s, I would be very pleased. I am trying very hard myself to judge only the quality of the arguments instead of questioning what right my opponents have to hold their beliefs. I do not claim that anything an opponent says only will go to strengthen my conviction that it must have been the other way around without first looking at the argument, and I do not suggest that they are braindead. For some reason, different posters ascribing to the Hutchinson-was-a-dodgy-killer theory do precisely that. Other posters from the same camp present nothing at all of their own that is case-related, but instead are quite happy with trying to ridicule me, just for the joy of it. And much as I can appreciate that an individual poter can get a kick from things like these, I take comfort in my belief that the overall reaction on the boards will be one of great dislike.

I would at any rate prefer to have a discussion about the quality of the arguments only. Can I please have that?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Letchmere,
All she said was that she had lost her handkerchief,a half dozen words.Why shout that information to a man standing at her side.The most that can be said is that she was under the influence of drink,not drunk.

There are so many if's in the other part of your latest post to me,that i could only reply IF it was clear what you really inferred.No one elses memory(apart from Maxwell,and that was not as to day)is questioned.Why question Hutchinson's?He would have lost a whole day's memory,if that day was replaced with the happenings of a previous day.Simple conclusion.

[Lechmere]

Harry
On the hearing issue all I am prepared to say is that it is probable that someone standing on the corner of Dorset Street where the Britannia used to be could hear someone speaking in a loud voice on a quiet night at the entrance to where Miller’s Court used to be.
That does not mean that I believe Hutchinson overheard what he said he overheard.

I personally am not ‘very happy’ with Hutchinson’s story of seeing Kelly that night, the A-man description, the following around, the hearing and seeing of hanky and so forth. It seems unlikely and in my opinion is probably a naive over exaggeration of a young man on the make – who may have seen something and embellished it. The something he may have seen may have been on a previous day even.
The whole Hutchinson thing – as I have repeatedly said - is based on ‘ifs’ and conjecture and ‘must haves’. I will be honest and state that, as I have done before.

Incidentally four different people claim to have seen Kelly after Hutchinson. One was Maxwell. Were the other three confused as to person or as to date – or time? Or where they liars?

[harry]

Lechmere,
No,the whole Hutchinson thing is not based on if's.Hutchinson's presence in Dorset street is based on testimony.Firstly the testimony given by Lewis,under oath at the inquest.That she saw a male person outside Crossinghams about two-thirty on the morning of 9th November 1888.Eyewitness testimony.

Hutchinson's written witness testimony, made to police, that he was in Dorset St,on the morning of 9th November 1888,and near Millers Court ,from just after 2am untill about 3am,.Admissive testimony.

From the two separate statements, there is strong circumstantial evidence that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis.

Now let us hear from you three sets of testimony or evidence that says Hutchinson was not there.No if
s,no maybe's,no might have beens.

You can follow your leader,Fisherman,and his crazy theory taken from Walter Dew,till the cows come home,but the wrong day nonsense simply will not work.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

You really must stop threatening to alert the moderators at every perceived slight – this too can be construed as a form of harassment and intimidation, as far as I’m concerned. Did you alert the moderators for posts that actually do break the Casebook rules, such as Mike’s reference to me as an “ignoramus”, “thick as a post”, or the claim that I’ll have no reason to live if people stop arguing with me about Hutchinson? No, you didn’t. You even “sympathised” with Mike, and took his comments to be a perfectly natural by-product of exasperation over the “Hutchinson debating technique”.

My latest post, to which you took offence, was not an attack on your character at all. I merely observed that you only started to talk extensively about Dew’s theories after I mentioned them on this thread:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=150478&highlight=walter#post150478

That’s a fact, as evinced by the most cursory perusal of that page on that thread. If you say you knew about Dew’s Hutchinson-related musings before them, I’m not going to accuse you of lying about it here, but it seems clear to me that at the very least I jogged your memory of the Dew reference. After cautioning me not to listen to Dew, whose memoirs “got a number of things terribly wrong” you shortly thereafter used his theory as the basis for an article. I say this not to imply for a moment that you are incapable of doing any thinking without my help – which I don’t believe for a moment – but merely to illustrate that your theory was very hastily conceived, which makes it all the more surprising your prediction that you will one day be “proven” correct.

None of this equates to an attack on your character. I am commenting strictly your arguments, and nowhere in the rules is it stated that posters are forbidden from any speculation as to how or why other posters formed their theories.

With respect, you have no case for accusing me of “harassment”. I contributed to this thread before you did, and I was decidedly “on-topic” when I did so. It was you who decided to start yet another argument with me about Dew and the wrong day-hypothesis. I merely took your bait. If you agreed to disagree and just “left it” occasionally, I can guarantee you that these unpleasant disputes would not arise with their present frequency.

Best regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Harry
In my opinion the fact that the contemporary police and the press did not say Hutchinson equals wideawakeman is counter evidence that they were one and the same. That is why it is conjecture - it makes the assertion that they are the same an 'if'.

I didn't say there were three sets of testimony that said Hutchinson wasn't there. I said there were three witnesses that claimed to have seen Kelly after he saw her. I mentioned it to illustrate that witness statements are often contradictory, for a whole variety of reasons.

Also as I have pointed out before - I think Fisherman has a good theory that fits in with a lot of what we know about the two days in question, but it is not what I think happened.

[Scorpio]

So what constitutes a ' Good suspect '?. There is a sort of value system here, and Hutch is, as such a contentious choice, a good example. Being acquanted with the victim and seeing her on the night of her death according to his own voluntary evidence does not make a good suspect to me. But there does not seem to be much agreement on exactly what criteria makes an individual a suspect or the value or rating within those criteria.
One criteria might be ' familiarity with victim ', but Barnett knew Kelly better than Hutch did. Does that make him a better suspect?.
Besides ' familiarity with victim ' other criteria might include ' criminal history ', ' alterior motive ', ' proximity to crimescene ' or ' lack of physical or psychiatric illness '. For browsers on this site, who maybe have a suspect in mind, perhaps there should be a ' Good suspect guide ' thread with contributions from as many people as possible instead of the usual suspects list.

[DVV]

A 29 year old paranoid Eastender who used to ill-use MJK and ended in the loony bin isn't a bad suspect imo.

[Ben]

"Being acquanted with the victim and seeing her on the night of her death according to his own voluntary evidence does not make a good suspect to me"

But these are precisely the sort of suspects that modern investigators would home in on first, Scorpio. We have no way of ascertaining whether or not Hutchinson really was acquainted with Kelly, let alone for three years, but there is compelling evidence that he gave false reasons for loitering outside Miller's Court shortly before Kelly's murder. There is also evidence that he only came forward after discovering that he had been seen by Sarah Lewis. This would make him a good suspect in the minds of any modern professional investigator. The fact that the evidence was "voluntary" in Hutchinson's case would hardly have given him a clean bill of health, since other serial killers have provided "voluntary" information to the police when they thought it might help their cause.

One criteria might be ' familiarity with victim ', but Barnett knew Kelly better than Hutch did. Does that make him a better suspect?

I have never suggested that the extent of "familiarity" that a suspect might have with one of the victims should be considered proportional to the likelihood of that suspect being the real killer.

Regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Scorpio
Do you mean that you want a suspects list that isn’t compiled by the usual suspects?

DVV
Do you mean a 29 year old East Ender who may have ill-used Kelly – as we cannot be certain the ill-used reference referred to Flemming.

Mr Ben
“Being acquainted with the victim and seeing her on the night of her death”.
I think you will find that most murderers fit this criteria and I am certain that this will not have been lost on the police in 1888.
Also there is no evidence that Hutchinson came forward as a result of Lewis’s testimony. There is a casual relationship between the two events which you propose are linked.

[DVV]

DVV
Do you mean a 29 year old East Ender who may have ill-used Kelly – as we cannot be certain the ill-used reference referred to Flemming.

Hi Lechmere

What is certain is that I see no reason to disbelieve Venturney.
Why should we ?

[Ben]

Also there is no evidence that Hutchinson came forward as a result of Lewis’s testimony.

Yes there is, Lechmere, and very persuasive evidence at that.

I have proposed that the two events are linked because there's no other realistic alternative, and "amazing super-coincidence" doesn't count.

[The Good Michael]

A 29 year old paranoid Eastender who used to ill-use MJK and ended in the loony bin isn't a bad suspect imo.

Whoever killed her ill-used her. Flemming is just one mentioned from her past, and he certainly wasn't Hutchinson, but he is interesting.

Mike