Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Ben]

Hi Ruby,

Your kind words mean a great deal, as always.

It's a real pity about Mike. I even have fond recollections of those bygone days when he used to be a decent bloke, rather than someone whose contributions to Hutchinson debates consist almost exclusively of insults and trolling behaviour. It's incredibly depressing, and suffice to say the old Mike was so much better, but this is the here and now, and if he really has that much of an aversion to Hutchinson debates, he needs to pop himself along to threads that he does find congenial.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

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.

“And as it could easily be predicted that you would opt for an "interpretation" of the story being absolutely ludicrous whilst George Hutchinson was an absolute genius in convincing people just the same, very little credibility can be awarded your argument”

Amazingly, I don’t particularly covet any “awards” that you dish out what for what you consider to be sound argumentation. Were I to be the recipient of such an award, I would be extremely worried, and would consider it a strong indication that I’ve gone terribly wrong somewhere. 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”. And yet just a day or two later, he was discredited, which strongly suggests that in spite of his good presentation and (presumably) communication skills, the content of his account let the side down irretrievably.

“Those who want to believe that the policemen that originally were approached by Hutchinson at the police station, plus all other officials involved, were all duped by a master con artist with a story that was embarrasingly bogus and incredibly easy to reveal”

Wait a minute…

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.

“The interview where Hutchinson speaks of the Sunday morning police was published the 14:th.

The Echo claimed that a reduced importance attached to Hutchinson´s story on the 13:th.”

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”. Given the coincidence of timing (always these “coincidences”), it seems obvious to me that Hutchinson’s press disclosures must have played a decisive role in his eventual discrediting.

[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?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I have met Ben, and he is..well, a list of superlatives..."

... but you DID see that one coming, yes? Mike?

Ruby, you lucky, lucky girl!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Why would it surprise you to know that I'm exactly the same as you ?"

You did not see that one coming, did you, Mike?

Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Mike , I am totally gobsmacked by your attitutude..

I think it was you..or maybe Fish..who said that they didn't have an agenda, and they took each Post on it's merits and they didn't need other people to tell them what to think..

Why would it surprise you to know that I'm exactly the same as you ?

I have set out my position many times, but maybe I should repeat it again
(how many times ?).

I came to Casebook and spent sometime reading around before coming to my own conclusion that Hutchinson was my favourite suspect.

I had never read Bob Hinton's book nor Garry Wroe's, until maybe a year after, so they didn't colour my opinions.

Ben did reply to my first Post, but he 'disappeared' from the boards for a while afterwards (to my chagrin).

I always consider the merits of each Post -and have changed my mind publicly, too many times to mention. However , no one has so far had a good enough argument to make me change my mind about Hutchinson.
I am willing to do so -but a debate either makes you change your mind
or it concretes it when the other party doesn't have a good enough argument.

I have met Ben, and he is..well, a list of superlatives...but that doesn't mean that I won't and don't disagree with him about some details. And they are
details (so don't get 'divide to rule' into your head).

So don't think that what I said on the 'Romford' thread is a..a..weakness ?
Some sort of seismic 'fault' between Hutchsonians ?
(do you really see these discussions as a power struggle ? Go fight with Heindrich on 'the Key' thread !).

[The Good Michael]

I'm afraid I can't go with you guys to the Romford thread, Mike.

I spent all my money going down to the Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting thread.

You were lucky. I lost time and sanity as well.

Mike

[Archaic]

Fish,

Go to Romford (the thread). Ruby is meeting us part way. Things are happening! Soon, you can bring out the signatures again!

Mike

I'm afraid I can't go with you guys to the Romford thread, Mike.

I spent all my money going down to the Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting thread.

Sigh.
Archaic

[The Good Michael]

Read it. Not impressed. Maybe I should be, but no.

dammit man! When a baby is learning ABCs, he has some steps forward and some steps back, and the progress must be viewed as a slow process. A baby step, here. A baby step there. Soon we have, "Yeah, Hutch could have been a murderer but there are many other possibilities as well." and isn't that all we want? I beg you.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Ruby is meeting us part way. Things are happening!"

Read it. Not impressed. Maybe I should be, but no.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

You make up stories as you go along, garnish them with "clearly´s", "obviouse´s" and all sorts of unappropriate drivel.

Yes, and that's exactly why I need to dredge up mockery, insulting (in a kind way), and ridicule to combat that neverending string of crap.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

" As soon as the police did get to hear of the “Sunday policeman” episode, Hutchinson’s account was discredited!

Or is that yet another of those extremely striking coincidences again?"

The interview where Hutchinson speaks of the Sunday morning police was published the 14:th.

The Echo claimed that a reduced importance attached to Hutchinson´s story on the 13:th.

Therefore it applies that the police telepatically understood the importance of the Sunday morning policeman one day before it was published, and accordingly began to doubt Hutchinson because of this detail one day in advance.

You make up stories as you go along, garnish them with "clearly´s", "obviouse´s" and all sorts of unappropriate drivel. It is very clear that whatever made the police doubt the story IT WAS NOT the Sunday morning police detail! This is beyond dispute.

Of course, you are not adverse to painting over the tarnishes in your canvas of concoctions by claiming that the police would have sensed the bluff early, and had confirmation on the 14:th. But that only goes to show how you work, and not what would have happened. The spellbinding Hutchinson would surely have had the police around his finger before the revelation about the policeman, Ben! He had that influence on senior police officers, remember?

There is no way that the articles of the 14:th can be tied to the dismissal of Hutchinson´s story. To claim otherwise is to be very economical with the truth and very generous with loose assumptions. Fact. End of story.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

Go to Romford (the thread). Ruby is meeting us part way. Things are happening! Soon, you can bring out the signatures again!

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I thought that Fish's assertion
that the Police would be grateful for lowly coppers filtering out time wasters
just laughable.
Can you imagine any vast organisation like the police Force functioning if
there was no structured hierarchy, and the least qualified members were allowed to make arbitrary decisions on what information from the public they decided to pass on, or not ?"

Yes, I can. It would much look like any police organization in the world, where policemen make their own calls day in and day out, judging by way of their experience what needs to be forwarded and what can be discarded. And every time the police is absolutely flooded for some reason, more material will be left unattended to.

Taike a look at teh Sutcliffe case, for example. After that, if you still feel like laughing, well, more fool you.

You are embarrasing yourself, but I am told that some people thrive on such stuff.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You raise a very important distinction, and one that some people aren’t able to get to grips with for some reason. While the content of Hutchinson’s statement may have been extremely bogus, there can be little doubt that his presentation was considerably more convincing. It is a misconception that liars will always appear hesitant and nervous when lying, and that a policeman will always be able to distinguish the truth from falsehoods accordingly."

It is a good thing that not everybody "get to grips" with things the way you do, Ben. And it is equally good that others refrain from making preconceived deductions.

From a not preconceived wiewing angle, it must be laid firmly down that none of us - and I expect least of all you - knows or can make any assertions about parameters of "little doubt".

I doubt you enormously and soundly so. The reason is, amongst other things, that your ansers are always predictable. There is never any doubt about in which way the will go.

The funny thing about it is that you are always totally perplexed when somebody argues or suggests things that go against their normal way of thinking- such things are apparently extremely exotic to you?

Anyway, let´s just establish the fact that nobody knows whether the police judged Hutchinsons appearance and manners more or less convincing than his story. We may suggest and debate it, but it won´t move this fact a millimeter. And as it could easily be predicted that you would opt for an "interpretation" of the story being absolutely ludicrous whilst George Hutchinson was an absolute genius in convincing people just the same, very little credibility can be awarded your argument, as usual.

Those who want to believe that the policemen that originally were approached by Hutchinson at the police station, plus all other officials involved, were all duped by a master con artist with a story that was embarrasingly bogus and incredibly easy to reveal - had it not been for George the wiz and his hypnotizing abilities! - are free to do so.

Nobody can tell what swayed the police most to believe Hutchinson. Fact. End of story.

The best,
Fisherman