Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Monty]

I wonder if you quotes of my posts show up Mike?

That would kinda balls up the plan.

Anyway, Hutchinsons Sunday jaunt.

Monty

[The Good Michael]

And he keeps returning to edit his last post, why?


)

Because he hasn't put himself on ignore yet? I agree about ignore. It works wonders for me and keep hair on my head.

Mike

[Monty]

Mike

Phil makes it sound like ignore is a bad thing. "This is being invoked...." Feck me, what pomposity.

And he keeps returning to edit his last post, why?


Mean ol badass Monty

[The Good Michael]

Monty,

I was going to put you on ignore, but that would leave me with no one to talk to... except for Fisherman, and he's kind of long-winded

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Abby:

"The only logical reason why George Hutchinson was not at that inquest that I can think of is that he did not want to be there."

It is all a product of how we reason, Abby. If you cannot think of any other logical reason for Hutchinson not to have come forward than a reluctance to do so, then that is your view and you are welcome to it.

Thing is, it makes every other potential reason, no matter what - work, not being present in London etcetera - "illogical", and this is simply not true. If this was true, then every time somebody is not present at an inquest, it must per definition owe to"illogical" reasons.

This is what happens when we judge without evidence. When we decide in advance that whatever we are going to hear, we will not accept it, since we have already made our minds up, and passed the verdict accordingly.

Does that work for you? It does not for me.

"And i might add, that everything we hear from Hutch is from his mouth only after this inquest is held-right after actually. An odd "coincidence", i think."

Is it? Odd, I mean? Then why did Hutchinson do it? We are being told that Hutchnson is a very wary fellow, taking the precaution not to mention having seen Lewis, since this would give away that he only came forward because of his knowing about her testimony. So why is it that he would act so "oddly" here, and - arguably - give away that he only came forward since he had knowledge of what was said at the inquest?

Why does he deflect in one move what he embraces in another? If you are truly interested in "logical" explanations, where is the logic in this one?

The best,
Fisherman

Spock should know.

[Monty]

My my, someone has spat the dummy.

For the record, I asked the question as clarification, not interpreted at all.

And I'm on ignore, which is quite a bonus, as I will not have to endure inane comments in response to my posts.

Quite a good day really.

However, I also apologise for side tracking this thread. I do not take veiled accusations lightly nor acts of hypocrasy.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Monty,

If that's what you are stating then you really should consider an apology or a retraction.

Suppositon.... as I said no such thing. Therefore I have no need to reconsider anything nor retract anything

I will not apologise for YOUR mis-interpretation and suggesting where, or even IF I place blame (I didn't). I don't need YOUR mind telling me what I mean either.

All I said was that it happened and you crossed swords with that person. She was upset and left. You were not the only one she was upset with.

Now try growing up yourself, try not deliberately trying to get people into trouble on here and try not being so presumptious.

You are now on ignore.. so any comment made will not be seen by me. This is being invoked by me in reference and in accordance with "Rules and Consequences, Rule No.6. which suggests..
" ...if you have a personal distaste for a particular poster/ theory/topic, ignore them/it."


I apologise again to the other ladies and gentlemen for having to repond. I shall not be commenting on this thread further.

kindly

Phil

[Monty]

Monty,

Do excuse me if I don't bow, scrape and pay homage.
From down here on the ground amongst the plebs, as a non-person in Ripperology, unworthy of valid comment, I will not be getting upset and leave the boards either, like another valid commentator you crossed swords with in discussion this week.


To all others incl Ben, Fish, Abbey, Lechmere, Jon,

My sincerest apologies, ladies and gentlemen for any thread disruption. I will retire from the thread.

kindly and respectfully

Phil

Grow up Phillip,

I hold no status within this field. I listed what I have done as proof that I am fully aware of how we all aide each other in the genre, how I have helped others and NOT to state I'm superior, which I am not. So quit the sarcastic self deprecation.

I assume the person you are referring to as having left the boards Babybird? It seems to me you are stating it was I who drove her away? If that is the case then I refute that allegation as there were others she crossed swords with. Also, just before she left we had an amicable exchange of posts.

Jen is a grown up and makes her own choices, however to suggest I am to blame for her departure is unfair and cruel.

If that's what you are stating then you really should consider an apology or a retraction.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Monty,

Do excuse me if I don't bow, scrape and pay homage.
From down here on the ground amongst the plebs, as a non-person in Ripperology, unworthy of valid comment, I will not be getting upset and leave the boards either, like another valid commentator you crossed swords with in discussion this week.


To all others incl Ben, Fish, Abbey, Lechmere, Jon,

My sincerest apologies, ladies and gentlemen for any thread disruption. I will retire from the thread.

kindly and respectfully

Phil

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"The only logical reason why George Hutchinson was not at that inquest that I can think of is that he did not want to be there."

It is all a product of how we reason, Abby. If you cannot think of any other logical reason for Hutchinson not to have come forward than a reluctance to do so, then that is your view and you are welcome to it.

Thing is, it makes every other potential reason, no matter what - work, not being present in London etcetera - "illogical", and this is simply not true. If this was true, then every time somebody is not present at an inquest, it must per definition owe to"illogical" reasons.

This is what happens when we judge without evidence. When we decide in advance that whatever we are going to hear, we will not accept it, since we have already made our minds up, and passed the verdict accordingly.

Does that work for you? It does not for me.

"And i might add, that everything we hear from Hutch is from his mouth only after this inquest is held-right after actually. An odd "coincidence", i think."

Is it? Odd, I mean? Then why did Hutchinson do it? We are being told that Hutchnson is a very wary fellow, taking the precaution not to mention having seen Lewis, since this would give away that he only came forward because of his knowing about her testimony. So why is it that he would act so "oddly" here, and - arguably - give away that he only came forward since he had knowledge of what was said at the inquest?

Why does he deflect in one move what he embraces in another? If you are truly interested in "logical" explanations, where is the logic in this one?

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Hi Lechmere,

Do you have figures on negligence, inefficiency, unreliability, unwillingness, etc. among PC’s working in the streets in ‘Ripper territory’ during October/November 1888?

I mean, I'm not saying that it's impossible - nothing is impossible - but until someone produces some reliable figures that show that PC’s were in fact particularly negligent, etc. then & there, I think it would be fair to suggest that the majority of them just did their work as best as they could.

But even regardless of those figures, if a PC didn’t feel like bothering about people approaching them with stories of potential sightings, potential suspects and such, he could simply have advised them to go to the nearest police station. That wouldn’t have taken much effort, if any at all.

Plus, how is it that we should believe that the eagerness Hutchinson displayed early Friday morning after he’d met Kelly (presumably to help if help was needed) by Sunday had evaporated to such an extent that he let himself be buffed by a PC? That doesn’t make sense.

You seem to forget that Hutchinson went out of his way to take in as much details as he could about Kelly and her punter in particular. Are you suggesting that, as soon as he got the chance of doing something with what he had so actively taken in, it was perfectly logical that he was reluctant to come forward? That wouldn’t make sense.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank

Plus, how is it that we should believe that the eagerness Hutchinson displayed early Friday morning after he’d met Kelly (presumably to help if help was needed) by Sunday had evaporated to such an extent that he let himself be buffed by a PC? That doesn’t make sense.

You seem to forget that Hutchinson went out of his way to take in as much details as he could about Kelly and her punter in particular. Are you suggesting that, as soon as he got the chance of doing something with what he had so actively taken in, it was perfectly logical that he was reluctant to come forward? That wouldn’t make sense.

Exactly.

As i also pointed out earlier in the thread:

Hutchinson, went through the trouble of following Aman and MK, noting very many details about the man and his encounter with MK, said this man caught his attention, followed them back to her place, stood out side for 45 minutes.

Later he says he thought the man lived in the area, looked for him, thought he saw him again. He hears of the murder at least by Sunday where he says he then told a policeman. And then does-Nothing.

He took such an active interest in A-man and MK before he even hears of the murder, but after he hears of the murder all he does is casually mention it to a PC on the street? This does not seem to be the likely action (or non-action) of a man who got involved to such an extent before he even hears she was murdered.

And once he does come forward after missing the inquest once again he really gets involved-walks into the station, accompanies police on a search, goes to the newspapers. So lets not use the excuse that he did not want to "get involved".

The only logical reason why George Hutchinson was not at that inquest that I can think of is that he did not want to be there.


And i might add, that everything we hear from Hutch is from his mouth only after this inquest is held-right after actually. An odd "coincidence", i think.

[Fisherman]

Excuse me for butting in here, Frank, but I would like to comment on your suggestions!

You write:

" how is it that we should believe that the eagerness Hutchinson displayed early Friday morning after he’d met Kelly (presumably to help if help was needed) by Sunday had evaporated to such an extent that he let himself be buffed by a PC?"

I´m at a loss here languagewise, Frank, so you are going to have to help out: What does "buffed by" mean? Does it mean that he was put off by the PC, or something such?
What he said to the papers was: "I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station", and as far as I can make out, nothing at all is said about the policemans reactions. Where does the "buffing" come in?
At any rate, we don´t know how Hutchinson told his story, and we can´t tell how common it was for people to feed PC:s stories (maybe the PC:s had a tough task trying to sort things out in this context).
I fail to see why it would be in any way illogical to tell the story to a PC. It would seem that most people on this thread are of the meaning that any discerning PC would have acted upon it accordingly and immediately, and why Hutchinson would have been of another meaning escapes me!

"Are you suggesting that, as soon as he got the chance of doing something with what he had so actively taken in, it was perfectly logical that he was reluctant to come forward?"

But how soon was "as soon as"?
How do we know that he could have come forward earlier?
How do we establish the point of time when he knew what had happened to Kelly?
How can we be certain that he was in a position to come forward any earlier than he did?

I will not settle for any claim that he "must have known". Of course he must not - to deduct that would be to make a deduction for a specific person from what we suppose (logically!) to be true for the general public. And we can´t do that.
It is not and can never be a case of Hutchinson having had to have known because a certain - unestablishable - percentage of the population on the whole would have known.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Yes Monty, I have, but waaaaay back then, when I was a teenager, the researching was far more limited. For everybody. I it wasn't before I was 18 when Stephen Knight published what he did. Before that, only "certain" people were allowed to go into "certain" archives, and take "certain papers" home for the weekend, returning the stuff on the Monday.

And as for your petty comment (my opinion, note) about asking others to provide...

We all rely on each other to enhance each others knowledge..... for the good of the genre. We are all trying to gain a little more insight, all trying to sort out things here and there.. for the good of the genre.

Like I said, you do yourself an injustice by continually taking the p*ss too..
we can all do it.. even playing with silly name changes to see if it gets an effect.... "Montgomery"

In my opinion, of course.

Now. Please desist. Thank you.


kindly


Phil

Phillip,

Desist what exactly?

Yet again you have diverted a thread.

You managed to ascertain the IPN article, thus wasting my time in the process trying to obtain it for you, and with NO thanks I add.

As for your arrogant comment about the good of the genre, I have provided you with an image for your article, took photos of related sites, organised free tours of the more obscure yet connected Ripper sites, contributed articles expanding on the lives of various case related Bobbies, conducted experiments with regards the lighting situation in Mitre Square, spoke at the Woverhampton Conference at request, obtained and provided information to numerous other brilliant writers and even relatives of those connected to the case as well as recently passing on copies of PC Thompson warrant to Wiki for sharing.

I have also been fortunate to have received information too.

So please, don't preach to me about assistance.

As for your opinion, you are entitled to it, as hypocritical as it is.

Montgomery

[Phil Carter]

And if your researching began waaaaay back when, surely you have your own resources to refer to rather than asking others to provide.

Yes Monty, I have, but waaaaay back then, when I was a teenager, the researching was far more limited. For everybody. I it wasn't before I was 18 when Stephen Knight published what he did. Before that, only "certain" people were allowed to go into "certain" archives, and take "certain papers" home for the weekend, returning the stuff on the Monday.

And as for your petty comment (my opinion, note) about asking others to provide...

We all rely on each other to enhance each others knowledge..... for the good of the genre. We are all trying to gain a little more insight, all trying to sort out things here and there.. for the good of the genre.

Like I said, you do yourself an injustice by continually taking the p*ss too..
we can all do it.. even playing with silly name changes to see if it gets an effect.... "Montgomery"

In my opinion, of course.

Now. Please desist. Thank you.


kindly


Phil

[FrankO]

Do you suppose that policemen on their beat – or returning to the station from their beat – were never accosted by passers-by with tales that they knew who the Ripper was or that they had some vital clue?

Do you think that if they were so accosted that they reported every incident?

Do you think that every policeman was efficient and reliable and that none were ever dismissed for drunkenness or for lack of attention to their duty?

Do you think that every policeman in Whitechapel and Spitalfields knew the area well and was keen to be there - and hadn’t been grudgingly seconded from a more salubrious area of London?

Hi Lechmere,

Do you have figures on negligence, inefficiency, unreliability, unwillingness, etc. among PC’s working in the streets in ‘Ripper territory’ during October/November 1888?

I mean, I'm not saying that it's impossible - nothing is impossible - but until someone produces some reliable figures that show that PC’s were in fact particularly negligent, etc. then & there, I think it would be fair to suggest that the majority of them just did their work as best as they could.

But even regardless of those figures, if a PC didn’t feel like bothering about people approaching them with stories of potential sightings, potential suspects and such, he could simply have advised them to go to the nearest police station. That wouldn’t have taken much effort, if any at all.

Plus, how is it that we should believe that the eagerness Hutchinson displayed early Friday morning after he’d met Kelly (presumably to help if help was needed) by Sunday had evaporated to such an extent that he let himself be buffed by a PC? That doesn’t make sense.

There are lots of people near the scenes of crime who didn’t come forward.
...
People often had good reason not to want to come forward.

You seem to forget that Hutchinson went out of his way to take in as much details as he could about Kelly and her punter in particular. Are you suggesting that, as soon as he got the chance of doing something with what he had so actively taken in, it was perfectly logical that he was reluctant to come forward? That wouldn’t make sense.

All the best,
Frank