Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Ben]

“The reason I counter your posts, Ben, is that I cannot get used to the idea of allowing somebody to state things that are more substanceless than a journeyman boxer´s brain as if they were state of the art facts.”

You can’t do anything about it, Fisherman. This may be gutting for you, but it’s the reality of the situation. You may squirm with frustration, but you are incapable of “disallowing” anything I post. In fact, the more you post, the more confidence I have in the validity of my observations. You can poo your pants with as much “annoyance” as you want, but the reality is that you are a very poor and eternally unsuccessful guide to the perceived wrongdoings of Ben. You sustain me in this regard, as I can always rely on your personal insults, your prolixity, and your attentive, bombastic long-windedness to make me look more credible by comparison. Be circumspect for one rare moment - do you really think that you are the man for this evidently arduous task of “countering my posts”? It’s about time I had a credible opponent to give me a run for my money, if that is the cherished agenda, which is appears to be.

You’re just not up to the job. I’m so terribly sorry, but you’re just not. No wonder you keep appealing to the imaginary masses. You’re the most “audience aware” poster of anyone I’ve discussed this issue with. Try the Stride threads. Seriously. You used to be quite passionate about those before you discovered me. We’ll see who wins that coveted stamina war eventually. You’ll never guess who my money’s not on….

“Come again? I listed them since you claimed that I was alone in pointing out, over the years, that you may need to reconsider the case every once in a while”

And you don’t?

So what advice do you give to yourself then? Stick with whatever conclusions you jumped to from the outset without any possibility of reconsideration? Oh no wait, very shortly after I first mentioned Dew in the context of Hutchinson, you decided to support Dew’s Hutchinson-related speculations.

“What I think I can be reasonably sure about, is that none of them would consider the proposition outlandish (it rests on a good many facts, it has the support of Dew and it has not been disproven in any single instance, so that would be a fair bet) or dismiss it out of hand.”

Seems rather doubtful to me, but I would bet lofty sums that few, if any of the people you’ve mentioned, buy into the Dew Spew as a probable explanation. It was met with a friendly nod and a wink when you dredged up those 1938 unpopular Dew speculations that originally appeared in a “riddled with mistakes” book that “got lots of things terribly wrong”, but the best we can say about that particular theory is “kan inte uteslutas”.

"...I asked what there was in THE POLICE REPORT that Abberline could not look at from second one and dismiss”

As James Tully observed, the police were ready to clutch at any straw at the time of Hutchinson’s appearance. It’s just a relief that the straw wasn’t clutched for long in this case, and that it was relinquished very shortly after it first appeared.

“Probably nothing in British, since you ask - but I pointed to the fact that Dew said that he would not reflect upon Hutchinson as a witness.”

Ah yes, the Dew Spew…

What was it you said about Dew again?

His book is “riddled with mistakes”.

He got lots of things “terribly wrong”.

You explicitly discouraged me from listening to Dew, but then very shortly after I made reference to his date-confusion hypothesis on a Hutchinson thread, you endorsed his theory and disavowed all your previous criticisms of Dew. The most hilarious thing here is that Dew never described Hutchinson as an "honest man", nor does he suggest that he had arsed-up the date of the Astrakhan encounter by 24 hours. He simply concluded that Hutchinson and Maxwell must have been wrong, but that’s only because he wedded himself very strongly to a 1.00am-ish time of death and the theory that Blotchy was the killer, both of which are obviously incompatible with Hutchinson’s and Maxwell’s evidence.

Dew offered his own speculations and nobody else’s. That much is obvious, otherwise he would not have appealed to his readers to agree with him. He was most assuredly not reporting a detail that the police as a collective had established, and it is, of course, complete nonsense to state that all contemporary sources spoke positively about Hutchinson. They didn’t. The police informed us, via the Echo, that his evidence was “considerably discounted” in part because of his failure to present his evidence earlier and at the inquest “under oath”. This was quite obviously a negative police commentary on his credibility, and worlds away from the Dew Spew.

You laud and magnify Dew as though he were the saviour of “ripperology” these days, but your previous opinion on Dew was as follows:

"To begin with, we both know that Walter Dews book came out when he was 75 years old. In it, he turns Thomas Bowyer into a young fellow, he has Diemschitz entering the club crying: "The Ripper! The Ripper!", etcetera"

"I think you will agree with me that if we are to sharpen the pictuce of what happened back in 1888, Walter Dew is not neccessarily the best tool for going about it ..."

"And, of course, if we choose to believe overall in what old Walter said in his book - which is riddled with mistakes."

"But we know for sure that Dew WAS mistaken in a number of instances."

"we know for a fact that the 75-year old Walter Dew got a number of things terribly wrong."

What makes you think he wasn’t largely ignorant about serial killers, on the whole?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

" People can be just as wrong whenever they live, in whatever circumstances - time has nothing to do with it. "

Yep. You are living proof of it. So I agree.

"You just choose to attach undue weight to it because it suits your purpose."

This time I must disagree. I attach weight to it because Walter Dew was a detective that worked the case, and beacuse he is the only official from that time that mentioned George Hutchinson in his memoirs. He did not do so in order to support my stance in advance, but instead because he had vital and relevant information to offer on the case.

As such, I wonder how you can establish that the weight I attach to Dew´s statement is "undue"? Have you got information telling us that he was wrong? For if he was not, I think that the weight I attach is instead very due.

But that could not be it, Sally, could it? For some reason, undue is the only alternative, right?

Did you, by the bye, notice that due and undue both rhyme on skew?

The best,
Fisherman

[Tecs]

"I frequently find myself being Shere Khan"

I often find myself in Shere Khan too. The Lamb Balti is excellent.


Regards,

[Sally]

Then again, QUALITYWISE, he lived in a time when all the files were there, when all of the men in charge of the case were around to ask questions and, last but not least, he WORKED THE CASE HIMSELF! If you think that puts him in an inferior position informationwise than the one we are in today, then think again.

Nah, Fish. People can be just as wrong whenever they live, in whatever circumstances - time has nothing to do with it. That Dew expressed an opinion - much as you are doing - after the fact is neither here nor there in the scheme of things. You just choose to attach undue weight to it because it suits your purpose.

Carry on.

[Fisherman]

Ruby, Ruby, Ruby ...

Why don´t you READ posts before you answer them...?

What is on the line here is NOT my stance about Hutchinson - it is Ben´s (and yours, for that matter). And that stance IS extremely skewed, as most people and posters would agree. Therefore, no matter what I think myself, it ought to be pointed out that your "truth" is a substanceless concoction.

Once that is pointed out, I am very fine with people disagreeing with me and challenging my theory. Thing is, I won´t call them halfwitted or - like you do - laughable for doing so.

I can also lean somewhat against the very clear fact that every contemporary source that has something to say about Hutchinson´s character, only speaks well of him, plus I have Dew to support this take on things! And for the life of me, I cannot see why my pointing to this, supporting Hutchinson as a very probably honest man, totally unguilty of any sinister involvment in Kelly´s deat, let alone of being her killer, should be "skewed".

I echo the contemporary sources for Christ´s sake, Ruby! How is that "skewed"? Please tell me!

"You shouldn't talk about Mike behind his back."

The quote you provided was Ben´s, so maybe you should lesson him instead . Or, alternatively, take my advice and read the posts before you answer them...? No?

" it is clear that Dew was perplexed by Hutchinson, even if he thought him innocent, and his 'wrong night ?' query was only a personal
supposition."

Is it? How can we tell that Dew was "perplexed"? What source do you use here? Where is it evidenced? Have you pondered the fact that people who wait fifty years to write their memoirs, are seldom "perplexed" at the time they sit down by their typewriters? Dew had had lots and lots of time to think, Ruby. Afterthought and experience would have been what he put on paper, not perplexion.

Likewise, how can you tell that the wrong night theory was a personal one on his behalf? Where is that evidenced?

Keep in mind, Ruby, that if you cannot provide this evidence, it will do further damage to your trustworthyness. It will become painfully apparent that you throw things forward as evidenced or proven although they are no such thing!

But you perhaps DO have that proof on hand?

No?

Then suffer the consequences, Ruby, and try and understand why you come across as a poster with preconceived views, with an agenda, with a totally skewed picture. A Hutchinsonian, in other words.

"He would certainly have known far less about serial killers than we know today."

That would depend on who "we" are. Dew was in the game, he served on the force that investigated the most infamous serial killer case of all time, and he reached old age with a clear mind and huge amounts of experience, apparently always taking great interest in crime.
Yes, "we" have more cases, more experience and more collected knowledge to lean against - but I warn very much about regarding Dew as being in any fashion ignorant about serial murderers.

"It's probable that he had less access to information about the case (globally) than some modern researchers."

The "knowledge" about this case grows by the minute, Ruby. As such, we have much more material collected quantitywise that Dew was able to take part of.

Then again, QUALITYWISE, he lived in a time when all the files were there, when all of the men in charge of the case were around to ask questions and, last but not least, he WORKED THE CASE HIMSELF! If you think that puts him in an inferior position informationwise than the one we are in today, then think again.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I feel I owe it to myself and the ones who are interested in an unskewed picture of the case to supply

a completely skewed version of the case -but skewed in a different direction. Infact systematically skewed to 'innocent' Hutchinson at all costs, even if that means 'reinterpreting' facts.

"There are an equal number of people who agree with many of my views, but I’m not so gauche and immature as to list them all."

You shouldn't talk about Mike behind his back.

Probably nothing in British, since you ask - but I pointed to the fact that Dew said that he would not reflect upon Hutchinson as a witness. To Dew - who was THERE, who worked the case, who was inside Kelly´s room, who became a celebrated detective - Hutchinson was in the clear.

However, it is clear that Dew was perplexed by Hutchinson, even if he thought him innocent, and his 'wrong night ?' query was only a personal
supposition.

He would certainly have known far less about serial killers than we know today.

It's probable that he had less access to information about the case (globally) , than some modern researchers.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Then I can only assume you particularly enjoy engaging in discussions that are neither “fair” nor “intelligent”, Fisherman."

The reason I counter your posts, Ben, is that I cannot get used to the idea of allowing somebody to state things that are more substanceless than a journeyman boxer´s brain as if they were state of the art facts. It annoys me, simple as that, and much as I have realized that my pointing it out won´t make you change your mind, I feel I owe it to myself and the ones who are interested in an unskewed picture of the case to supply the information that you are working from a strict perspective of Hutch-guilt. I nourish the hope that somebody may be thankful for having a balanced alternative presented every now and then.
I does not make me a saint or a narcissist, you need not worry about that. It merely makes me an occasionally outraged poster.

"Certainly: I never said that I wanted you to leave Casebook."

Thanks. Twice.

"You’re obviously rather insecure in the validity (or lack thereof) of your own arguments if you feel you have to list those people who disagree with my stance on Hutchinson"

Come again? I listed them since you claimed that I was alone in pointing out, over the years, that you may need to reconsider the case every once in a while.

On a separate note, do you really perceive that I feel insecure on my stance? If so, I´m afraid you´ve got one more thing to reconsider...

" I’m certain that all those people you’ve listed disagree with some aspects of your views of the case"

So am I! ... but what does that have to do with the point I was making...? Nothing, actually. Nothing at all.

" I wonder how many of those listed would agree with date-befuddlement or "Lewis the liar" as probable explanations, for example? "

Me too, in some cases. In others, I have the answer. What I think I can be reasonably sure about, is that none of them would consider the proposition outlandish (it rests on a good many facts, it has the support of Dew and it has not been disproven in any single instance, so that would be a fair bet) or dismiss it out of hand. I am equally sure that none of them would call it "unpopular" or other, much more derogatory things. The mere thought of anyone of them questioning my sanity over it or insulting me is quite ridiculous, of course. As far as I can tell, they do not belong to that category of posters.

But I have no evidence of it, of course! So you are free to interpret it in any way you like, and claim anything you wish!

"There are an equal number of people who agree with many of my views, but I’m not so gauche and immature as to list them all."

I actually did not list them all, Ben. And I did it only because you explicitly claimed - falsely, of course - that noboy agreed with me, more or less. All in all, a rather clumsy and uncalled for try to make me look like the one with the Bonaparte complex. Thanks. Appreciated.

"All sorts of things – polar opposite contradictory descriptions, a claim to have walked up to Kelly’s window, walks all the way from Romford, American cloth, “red stone seals” and the disappearing, negligent oddball of a Sunday policeman, amongst other goodies."

I am not sure what you are answering here, Ben? But it sure is not my question, for I asked what there was in THE POLICE REPORT that Abberline could not look at from second one and dismiss. So I am going to need another effort on your behalf here.

"There’s that fallacy again that we must wait for proof until we can assess that which is probable and improbable, with Hutchinson’s statement falling into the latter category. Of course we can opine on the basis of the extant evidence."

There´s that fallacy again that Hutchinson´s stament "falls into the latter category". It doesn´t. If it HAD, you would not be having this discussion with me.

"What does “beyond reflection” mean?"

Probably nothing in British, since you ask - but I pointed to the fact that Dew said that he would not reflect upon Hutchinson as a witness. To Dew - who was THERE, who worked the case, who was inside Kelly´s room, who became a celebrated detective - Hutchinson was in the clear.

So I guess it´s a case of believing in you or in Dew. Nuff´said.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“When it comes to you? Nothing whatsoever. Not a chance.”

Then I can only assume you particularly enjoy engaging in discussions that are neither “fair” nor “intelligent”, Fisherman.

Fair enough.

Bit weird, though…

“Could you rephrase that?”

Certainly: I never said that I wanted you to leave Casebook.

“Eh - no. Sam Flynn, Stewart Evans (two of my many "occasional hangers-on, I take it...?), The Good Michael, Caz, Marlowe, Stephen Thomas, Lechmere, Wickerman”

You’re obviously rather insecure in the validity (or lack thereof) of your own arguments if you feel you have to list those people who disagree with my stance on Hutchinson (perhaps in an attempt to encourage their participation so they can help you out?). I’m certain that all those people you’ve listed disagree with some aspects of your views of the case, assuming they've even bothered to familiarize themselves with them. I wonder how many of those listed would agree with date-befuddlement or "Lewis the liar" as probable explanations, for example? There are an equal number of people who agree with many of my views, but I’m not so gauche and immature as to list them all. I am no more “disagreed with” than you are, although I'm always grateful for the attention.

“What was there in it that Abberline could not look at from second one?”

All sorts of things – polar opposite contradictory descriptions, a claim to have walked up to Kelly’s window, walks all the way from Romford, American cloth, “red stone seals” and the disappearing, negligent oddball of a Sunday policeman, amongst other goodies. It obviously detracted from Hutchinson’s already tenuous credibility in the minds of the police. As James Tully observed the following in his book:

“Abberline expressed the opinion that the statement was both true and important, but that is hardly significant because by then the police were ready to clutch at almost any straw.”

And I don’t think anyone’s about to accuse Tully of being a hardened Hutchinsonite.

“But we normally wait until it is proven before we point fingers at people and call them liars and killers”

There’s that fallacy again that we must wait for proof until we can assess that which is probable and improbable, with Hutchinson’s statement falling into the latter category. Of course we can opine on the basis of the extant evidence. That’s what discussion forums such as these are for.

What does “beyond reflection” mean?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"But Gary if Hutchinson gave himself away on Monday night why was he allowed to see Kelly’s body in the mortuary on the Tuesday morning and why did he go out with policemen looking for the A-man again on Tuesday daytime?"

Because it sank in veeeeery slowly, and was only suspicions from the start - and then, when the 14:th of November interviews were published, then BOOM - they had their liar. Slow people, the police.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No, what you did was provide highly questionable assertions and speculations, which I rejected. You’re providing more highly questionable assertions and speculations here, which I’m also rejecting. You obviously think that what you’re saying is sensible, which is your privilege, but if you aborted the lying Lewis discussion because you couldn’t extract “an intelligent and fair discussion”, what makes you think you’re going to have better luck with the Sunday bunking-off bobby of Hutchinson’s creation?"

When it comes to you? Nothing whatsoever. Not a chance. But you make a useful example for others reading the threads. They will pick up on the extremes and hopefully avoid them themselves.

"I didn’t say I wanted to you leave Casebook"

Could you rephrase that? I don´t wish to misrepresent you.

"The “so many people” have consisted of pretty much just you and the occasional hanger-on who gets bored and disappears very quickly."

Eh - no. Sam Flynn, Stewart Evans (two of my many "occasional hangers-on, I take it...?), The Good Michael, Caz, Marlowe, Stephen Thomas, Lechmere, Wickerman ... - the list is long and I feel very certain that it would have been even longer if people had not felt intimidated by the very thought of having their criticism of you slandered.
But don´t make me dig deeper, Ben. You won´t like the results. But since you consistently paint me out as a totally unsupported maniac, I think it is only fair to say that you yourself HAVE managed to find yourself quite a few opposers. Then again, you have had followers too - Crystal, Romford Rose, Jane Welland ... All discerning researchers, I´m sure!

"You haven’t provided any reason to doubt the “thesis put forward” by me."

Yes I have. And I have also said that it is difficult to argue with somebody who always says "No!" when he has it suggested to him that the world is round.

"Please don’t put words in my mouth."

I didn´t – I took them out of it. It is not my vocabulary at all - it is yours.

"I would be very surprised if a statement such as Hutchinson’s was invested in as credible for any length of time"

Then why should it be trusted for any time at all? What was there in it that Abberline could not look at from second one? Nothing. Obviously faulty is obviously faulty, and the police recognize the obviously faulty.

"This is arguably less credible than Hutchinson’s description."

Who would have thought it? Is that even POSSIBLE?

"I frequently find myself being Shere Khan"

I know. Get help.

"Don’t run away with the fallacy that experienced detectives aren’t capable of being duped by liars"

I would never do such a thing, and I have not done so in this case either. Empirical evidence tells us that this happens. But we normally wait until it is proven before we point fingers at people and call them liars and killers, especially if we have it on record that the people in question were considered beyond reflection many years later, by detectives who served on their cases.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“What I did was to acknowledge that it had become apparent to me that you would not accept the facts I provided about Lewis and her testimony”

No, what you did was provide highly questionable assertions and speculations, which I rejected. You’re providing more highly questionable assertions and speculations here, which I’m also rejecting. You obviously think that what you’re saying is sensible, which is your privilege, but if you aborted the lying Lewis discussion because you couldn’t extract “an intelligent and fair discussion”, what makes you think you’re going to have better luck with the Sunday bunking-off bobby of Hutchinson’s creation?

I didn’t say I wanted to you leave Casebook, or even the thread. Nor do I desire the cessation of these extremely long-winded exchanges that you delight to engage me in. I’m Ben the zealous Hutch-hassler, remember? There are over 10,000 posts in the Hutchinson forum now. With your eager, attentive help, we’ll be able to double that in no time, and my diabolically cunning plan of ensuring that Hutchinson dominates the message board will be fully realized. I’m particularly anxious for more lovely 60+-line posts.

One thing I very genuinely don’t want you to do, though, is say silly things like:

“And that is why you over the years have had so many people telling you that rethinking things is not always a bad thing.”

The “so many people” have consisted of pretty much just you and the occasional hanger-on who gets bored and disappears very quickly. By all means perpetuate the fallacy that everyone’s ganging up on Ben, but it’s a very long way from reality. Of course people are welcome to disagree with me, but if they keep repeating the same disagreements, I’m simply going to be provide the same responses. If that’s how people wish to spend their time…

You haven’t provided any reason to doubt the “thesis put forward” by me. I have stated the obvious reality - not put forward by me, but advanced well before I had even heard about George Hutchinson - that no policeman would ignore a purported eyewitness sighting that related not only to the victim, but to the time and location of the murder. Your press reports do not cast doubt on or challenge this in the slightest, as the stories in question related to weirdos from Aldgate, not crime scene evidence, and were thus very likely to be dismissed. I’ll give you a point though for using the Echo, and demonstrating yet again that this particular paper was in direct communication with the police.

“how easily it is revealed as a lie, how arse-numbingly incredible it is that anybody at all could believe in it, even for a split second”

Please don’t put words in my mouth. You know full well that I never once suggested that nobody should believe it for a “split second”. Yes, I would be very surprised if a statement such as Hutchinson’s was invested in as credible for any length of time, but we know it wasn’t. He had suffered a “very reduced importance” less than 24 hours after providing his initial statement. The only reason Ruby and I highlighted Hutchinson’s convincing presentation was to illustrate that it could have off-set some of the more glaringly outlandish claims. When it came to his even-more-bogus press claims, however, it is clear that even a superficially truthful exterior couldn’t avail him, hence his swift discrediting shortly thereafter.

“the street-wise, widely experienced Frederick Abberline still accepted it!”

He also accepted that Klosowski the ripper was an “expert surgeon” and organ-harvester acting on instructions from a specimen-seeking doctor, and that he went to America after the Miller’s Court murder with the intention of collecting more innards, all because he hadn’t garnered enough in London.

This is arguably less credible than Hutchinson’s description.

“It makes you think of that section in Disney´s "The Jungle Book", where Kaa the snake has Bagheera the panther´s eyes spinning around in bright colours, hypnotized beyond help and repeating all the snake says in a murmuring voice.”

I much prefer the bit when Kaa tries the rolling-eyes routine on Shere Khan, only to get walloped on the head and told “I can't be bothered with that. I have no time for that sort of nonsense”. I frequently find myself being Shere Khan in that particular equation, especially when posting on Hutchinson threads. Gotta love George Sanders, though!

“and I strongly suspect that being able to tell them apart was what got him to the top, amongst other things. Would you not agree?”

Don’t run away with the fallacy that experienced detectives aren’t capable of being duped by liars, especially in serial killer investigations, because it is an age-old misconception. Just consider George Oldfield’s faith that the John Humble hoax tape was from the real killer.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

There we are then, Garry and Harry!

Fisherman

[harry]

Garry,
When was it that Harry first expressed his belief that Hutchinson was a Killer.?From the first,though because I could not place him in Kelly's room,I had to moderate it to 'Best suspect".

[Fisherman]

Of course, "I left the discussion of Lewis´ testimony, thus, since I considered it utterly useless to have an intelligent and fair discussion with you about it" should read: I left the discussion of Lewis´ testimony, thus, since I considered it utterly IMPOSSIBLE to have an intelligent and fair discussion with you about it.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It is interesting that you are accusing me of predictability despite the fact that I successfully predicted a few pages ago that the temptation to continue the ongoing battle with Ben would prove too compelling for you to resist. And here you are, as I fully anticipated, all set for a brand new prolonged slanging match. As I said, regular as clockwork."

Wrong again. Regular as clockwork. What I did was to acknowledge that it had become apparent to me that you would not accept the facts I provided about Lewis and her testimony, and that you were furnishing concocted "truths" of your own as an excuse for it, although it could be positively proven that they were not correct.
I left the discussion of Lewis´ testimony, thus, since I considered it utterly useless to have an intelligent and fair discussion with you about it.

It would now seem that you are of the meaning that I thereby committed myself to leave Casebook on the whole? Well, I am sorry, Ben, but this is not going to happen.

I reentered the thread - but not the discussion with you over Lewis - since I was able to provide evidence showing us that considerable doubt must be applied to the thesis put forward by you (amongst others - guess who ...) that no PC would ever ommitt to forward statements they had received from the general public. The article from the Echo tells another story.

With this you are having problems, I notice - why would not people whose input you slander, insult and try to ridicule get that they should feel intimidated enough to learn to stay away from the boards? Especially if they on a specific topic have stated that they have been worn down by the total lack of receptivity on behalf of their counterparts?

Well, believe it or not, Ben, but people have the right (and, intellectually, the duty) not to agree with you. And they equally have the right to state that on Casebook. And that is why you over the years have had so many people telling you that rethinking things is not always a bad thing.

Now that we have concluded that you were once again wrong, and that you ought to have taken in the context before talking crap about other posters - in this case me - we may move on!

"I don’t particularly covet any “awards” that you dish out what for what you consider to be sound argumentation. "


I know that. If you HAD, you would have accepted that when there are two options open, one needs to pay attention to both.

"It is not just “my argument” that Hutchinson’s presentation was good. This reality is borne out by statements made in the contemporary press to that effect. It was observed in various accounts that his assertions were “straightforward” and that his story “could not be shaken”."

Yes. And to ME that implicates that he was a straightforward man with a story that held up to intense scrutiny, whereas it to YOU implicates that he was a liar and a killer.

The more interesting facet of this, though, is the barrel of baloney you have managed to immerse yourself into. For you have, over and over and over and over again, put all effort possible into declaring how formidably impossible and ludicruously stupid, Hutchinsons´s story was - how easily it is revealed as a lie, how arse-numbingly incredible it is that anybody at all could believe in it, even for a split second ...
... and now, you have to defend the idea that the story as such was not something a PC or any police along the line would have thrown out of the window in order not to embarass himself by delivering it to the top officials leading the investigation, just as you need to make us believe that although the story was formidably impossible and ludicruously stupid, easily revealed as a lie, arse-numbingly incredible and something no sane person would believe in, even for a split second, the street-wise, widely experienced Frederick Abberline still accepted it! It makes you think of that section in Disney´s "The Jungle Book", where Kaa the snake has Bagheera the panther´s eyes spinning around in bright colours, hypnotized beyond help and repeating all the snake says in a murmuring voice.

Is this what you think happened? Do you find that credible? That a story that could be revealed as ridiculous by a four-year old, could not be seen through by Abberline, since Hutchinson was such a fantastic, hypnotizing character?

Hutchinson: "You WILL believe me, detective Abberline!
Abbeline (murmuring, with his eyes almost closed): Yes. Yes, I will believe you.
Hutchinson: The man that killed Kelly wore a cloud on his head, and was a medicinman from the yumba-bumba tribe!
Abberline: ...cloud ...yumba-mumba ... zzz
Hutchinson: When I snap my fingers, you will wake up and tell the world that you have the solution.
Abberline: ... solution ...

I somehow sense that you may be on the wrong track here. I think that Abberline would have met convincing fellows that lied and unconvincing fellows that told the truth during his carreer - and I strongly suspect that being able to tell them apart was what got him to the top, amongst other things. Would you not agree?

"How do you know what the “policeman that originally were approached by Hutchinson” thought of his account? How do you know what “all other officials involved” thought of it? I presume you’re speaking here of the evening of 12th November, before the statement was discredited, but you make a grave mistake if you assume that Abberline’s initial “opinion that his statement is true” was shared by any of his colleagues or subordinates at that time. We don't even know what Edward Badham thought if it, for example."

I am not the guy who "knows" thing, Ben - you are, remember? What I am saying is that I find it strange if Hutchinson did not have to go through any filters at all before meeting Abberline. Agreed?

"Yes, that's true, well done, but even before the police were aware of Hutchinson’s press interview, they had attached a “very reduced importance” to his account due to his failure to present his evidence earlier, a detail that other newspapers, such as the Daily Telegraph and the Star picked up on. It was only after Hutchinson’s press account was published in the press – including the mystery PC detail – that this “very reduced importance was downgraded even further to “now discredited”."

Like I said - I am not the guy who just "knows" things - you are, remember?

When I snap my fingers, Ben, you will wake up and realize that you have been hypnotized for years by Hutchinson.

Sna ........!

Fisherman