Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

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

  • “That is not an answer Ben, Hutch is not waiting because of any fixation, Astrachan is inside, he cannot see him, so what is he fixated on now?”
    It’s a bloody good question, Jon.

    Why don’t you ask discredited Hutchinson? He might be able to help.

    Unfortunately for your “extra report” theory, Hutchinson makes it clear in his statement that he stood there for 45 minutes “to see if they came out”. If you find this problematic, take it up with the spectre of Hutchinson as this was the specific reason he provided for his 45 minute vigil, and Abberline accepted it.

    “Three years prior, Kelly was living at Breezers Hill, so was this where he met her, and if so in what capacity, if not then where?”
    In the capacity of someone who gave her a few shillings on occasion, as Abberline related in his report. If you consider this too light on detail, take it up with Abberline for failing to extract additional juicy details when he had the opportunity to do so.

    “Abberline did not know he left the street at 3:00. And certainly, he needed to know the time as accurately as Hutch could provide.”
    If Hutchinson left the vicinity at 3.00am, he could have provided some degree of “precision” from the clock chimes, but if you’re talking about his alleged subsequent “all night” wanderings, you’d be dreaming if you’re expecting any time-keeping precision from an almost certainly watchless Hutchinson.

    “Abberline needs to know what direction, which streets, people seen, anyone spoken to?, etc.”
    Only if he's delusional enough to expect answers to such silly questions, maybe...

    An honest Hutchinson would likely not remember which streets he wandered at any specific time, and probably wouldn’t have spoken to anyone (this was 3.00am!), whereas a dishonest Hutchinson could easily have lied about which streets he wandered after aborting his Dorset Street vigil, knowing full well that nobody was in any position to catch him out or prove him wrong. Either way, the “street confirmation” is yet another impossible event, and one that I hope you won’t jump aboard in the same way you jumped far too hastily aboard the “Isaacstrakhan” train, i.e. as the sole occupant.

    “It was not the constable talking to Gallowey. The police fobbed the reporter off with an excuse.”
    According to…?

    Any evidence…?

    Nope. Just you, with nobody agreeing with you, as usual.

    In reality, Galloway’s blotchy road-crosser was working in concert with the police, and because Galloway himself was unaware of this, he was discouraged from pursuing him as a potential suspect.

    “Given the unsubstantiated "discredited" yarn from the Star, and the many unsubstantiated articles from the Echo, plus this last laugh from Lloyds, your entire charade is built on unsubstantiated press reports.”
    So you’ve argued repetitively and unconvincingly for years to no effect.

    Hutchinson’s discrediting is based on a proven communication with the police, and it is substantiated by numerous sources from senior police officials. If you want to embark upon yet another “discredited or not” argument, I’ll simply dredge up the relevant threads and copy and paste my responses. You’ve failed at every attempt you’ve ever made to win a repetition/stamina war, and I don’t foresee this occasion having a different outcome.

    How are the Druitt/Stride/GSG threads doing these days? You might have an opportunity to really shine with those, and I mean that very sincerely, without sarcasm or any belittling motive.
    Last edited by Ben; 03-23-2015, 11:04 PM.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
      "... and the importance they attached to this man's story may be imagined when it is mentioned that it was forwarded to the headquarters of the H Division as soon as completed by a special detective. Detectives Abberline, Nairn, and Moore were present when this message arrived, and an investigation was immediately set on foot."
      Hi Jon,

      Well certainly, according to the language used here, 'it' refers to Hutch's actual story, his statement, which was forwarded as soon as the special detective (Badham?) had got it down in writing and signed by the witness.

      I think the confusion with a telegram may have arisen because 'it' (Hutch's story) is then described as a 'message', which can imply brevity, though not in this context. In the true sense of the word it was a message, which required a response, which came in the form of Abberline hot-footing it to investigate the story he had just read, firstly by interrogating Hutch to assess its overall credibility.

      Oh, unless there is a specific mention of a telegram elsewhere that I have not seen. But then it would presumably have been a very much shorter version of the story, and was there an internal police telegram service to preserve confidentiality? Maybe that would not matter, though, since they were sharing all sorts with the press - not.

      Love,

      Caz
      X
      Last edited by caz; 03-24-2015, 09:45 AM.
      "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


      Comment


      • Originally posted by caz View Post
        I think the confusion with a telegram may have arisen because 'it' (Hutch's story) is then described as a 'message', which can imply brevity, though not in this context.
        Hi Caz.
        We do have examples in Stewart's "Ultimate" of cover sheets with added notes when mailing (internal police mail) memo's, reports, and other incidental pieces of paper. So, if the Detective was charged with hand delivering Hutchinson's statement of 3 pages, it would be enveloped in a cover sheet of some description, naturally with a brief covering message.


        Oh, unless there is a specific mention of a telegram elsewhere that I have not seen.
        No mention of any telegram being involved in this communication.
        Regards, Jon S.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post
          Unfortunately, Jon, unlike yourself, some of us have neither the time nor the inclination to spend virtually every waking moment on this site. The information is out there for anyone who is interested. Frankly, I'm not.
          "Not interested enough", but sufficiently interested try correct me regardless, even though you had nothing to correct me with. You lose interest once challenged - your integrity is in your own hands.

          I'll tell you what I thought was really odd.
          That you would protest about me questioning your integrity, while you think it's fine to question Hutchinson's integrity.

          Life is so unfair, isn't it Garry.
          Regards, Jon S.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Wickerman View Post
            You lose interest once challenged - your integrity is in your own hands.
            I lost interest long ago, Jon. It began with the Keeler as Gallagher nonsense, then intensified progressively with the Commercial Home admission policy argument, your assumed psychic connection with Anderson, the assertion of a whiter than white Metropolitan Police Force, false attributions regarding what Sarah Lewis saw on her way to the Keylers, and culminated with the Isaacs as Astrakhan rubbish.

            I'll tell you what I thought was really odd.
            That you would protest about me questioning your integrity, while you think it's fine to question Hutchinson's integrity.
            This would be the same Hutchinson who was rejected by police as a credible eyewitness, right?

            Life is so unfair, isn't it Garry.
            It must certainly feel that way when, in order to promulgate a pet theory, one feels compelled to resort to outlandish reasoning, the selective use of evidence and the rejection of historical reality.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by caz View Post
              I think the confusion with a telegram may have arisen because 'it' (Hutch's story) is then described as a 'message', which can imply brevity, though not in this context. In the true sense of the word it was a message, which required a response, which came in the form of Abberline hot-footing it to investigate the story he had just read, firstly by interrogating Hutch to assess its overall credibility.
              There's no confusion regarding the telegram, Caz. A potentially crucial eyewitness had walked into Commercial Street Police Station with a story which, if true, would likely result in the arrest of Jack the Ripper. Abberline was advised of such and made his way to Commercial Street to speak to the informant in person. This was standard procedure. Witness statements were not sent all over London on an ad hoc basis. They were bundled together and sent to Central Office collectively. No mystery. No confusion.

              Comment


              • Hi Garry,

                So this telegram presumably went the way of other police documents on Hutch that have not survived.

                I don't suppose Ben will be happy with that thought.

                Love,

                Caz
                X
                "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                Comment


                • Originally posted by caz View Post
                  Hi Garry,

                  So this telegram presumably went the way of other police documents on Hutch that have not survived.

                  I don't suppose Ben will be happy with that thought.

                  Love,

                  Caz
                  X
                  And then there's the use of uncorroborated press reports. Acceptable when used to criticize Hutchinson, but not acceptable when used to defend him.
                  Regards, Jon S.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post
                    I lost interest long ago, Jon. It began with the Keeler as Gallagher nonsense, then intensified progressively with the Commercial Home admission policy argument, your assumed psychic connection with Anderson, the assertion of a whiter than white Metropolitan Police Force,...
                    In other words, anything that exposes your ill-researched theory. Which once challenged appears to have little to no source to back it up. If it was not for uncorroborated press theories your book could not have been written.
                    So much for integrity.
                    Ironically, it is this very source you criticize ONLY when used against you, but where would your case be without it?


                    ...false attributions regarding what Sarah Lewis saw on her way to the Keylers, and culminated with the Isaacs as Astrakhan rubbish.
                    As much as you selectively reject anything in the press that exposes your theory, ironically, Inquest coverage is among thee most reliable of press coverages. As reliable as Parliamentary debates, Sports, Foreign News, Natural disasters, War in South Africa, and so on.
                    For all the huffing and puffing about the press coverage of the inquests, not once have you, or anyone who buys into your theory, ever demonstrated errors of content, nothing above mispronunciations, and misspellings.

                    What is less reliable are the press 'on the street' interviews. Reports which came from Diemschitz, Schwartz, Packer, and yes, Hutchinson, Kennedy, and the rest.
                    Any one of these stories could have been tampered with in order to 'excite' the reader, make an otherwise boring exchange into something worth talking about.

                    The worst type of press coverage is, Press Opinion, the very subject you put absolute faith in. The desire is all too obvious to present this particular newspaper as "one who knows", who have the inside track with the authorities. All unsubstantiated nonsense, yet without this your case would fall apart.


                    And to return to this little gem.
                    I first began researching Hutchinson and his part in the Ripper case in the mid-Eighties. I dare say that no-one has researched this man to anything like the length and depth as I have done over the decades. Perhaps this is something you ought to remember the next time you're tempted to demonstrate the extent of your Hutchinson-related knowledge.
                    Remind me, where was he born, when was he born, where did he live, where did he work?
                    Was he ever married, and was his real name George Hutchinson?
                    If you had truly spent 30+ years researching this man, shouldn't we expect that you would be able to provide some very basic answers to these questions?
                    Can you provide any factual answers to just one of those questions?

                    I dare say you have spent 30+ years looking for ammunition to build a case against him but don't try tell me you actually 'know' anything about him.

                    Maybe it's just me, but I think you can only begin to research a man, once you find him!
                    That, as they say, has become 'a Bridge too far' for you.


                    This would be the same Hutchinson who was rejected by police as a credible eyewitness, right?
                    Really Garry, so tiresome.
                    You have nothing but bluff.
                    Regards, Jon S.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X