Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[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]

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

[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 !).

[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

[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

[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?

[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 Hutchinsonīs 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.

[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.

[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 Lewisī 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, Hutchinsonsīs 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 Disneyīs "The Jungle Book", where Kaa the snake has Bagheera the pantherīs 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

[Fisherman]

Of course, "I left the discussion of Lewisī 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 Lewisī testimony, thus, since I considered it utterly IMPOSSIBLE to have an intelligent and fair discussion with you about it.

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]

There we are then, Garry and Harry!

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 Disneyīs "The Jungle Book", where Kaa the snake has Bagheera the pantherīs 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]

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 donīt 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 donīt make me dig deeper, Ben. You wonīt 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, Iīm 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 didnīt – 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

[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