If Mary Kelly really WAS a prostitute....

[DJA]

Accusing three senior Police officials of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice WHILE IN OFFICE, and of literally allowing a brutal, sadistic killer to get off scott free =

Naming actual suspect who was enabled by the above conspiracy =

Some bizarre ethics going on there, I'm afraid.

Ever hear of The Cleveland Street Scandal!

Same officials minus Warren who resigned in 1888.

[Ben]

Give the Hutchinson threads a break, Jon; you're not very good at them. Try the Maybrick diaries, or the Eddowes "shawl", or literally anything else. That "last word" on the subject that you so crave will never be yours - trust me, it won't.

Hutchinson's view was considerably more than a passing glance, the encounter appears to have lasted approx. 15 minutes

That doesn't seem to be based on anything other than your own errant guesswork (and I suspect unfamiliarity with the physical location). The only opportunity for Hutchinson to have noticed anything other than a dark figure in a coat occurred as Astrakhan allegedly walked past him outside the pub at the corner of Fashion Street.

please share with us the source which indicates what Hutchinson's "life work" was

I don't know, but it obviously wasn't the "keen noting of details".

[DJA]

[QUOTE=Pierre;384989]

Hi Jeff,

you mean why I think this source was produced after the inquest on the very same day. My hypothesis is that Abberline, Monro and Warren knew who the killer was on 12 November. But since they could not go public with his name and identity they wanted to conceal that knowledge and to give the public the impression that they still had no clue. Therefore they found a witness who could tell them a story about a plausible suspect.


Pierre

Pretty close.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson's view was considerably more than a passing glance, the encounter appears to have lasted approx. 15 minutes, and please share with us the source which indicates what Hutchinson's "life work" was. The ability to pay attention to detail is a perfectly normal human trait not exclusive to any profession or the result of specific training.

[Ben]

Errr, nope.

Science has feck all to do with it, and even if it did, it certainly wouldn't come down on the side of those insisting that Hutchinson told the squeaky clean truth. Read it properly: "the contention is that it is impossible for a person whose life work is not the keen noting of details to have seen all this in what was little more than a passing glance".

The idea that only "modern" theorists subscribe to the above view is thus totally negated.

[Wickerman]

Interesting that the conclusion arrived at a hundred plus years ago is pretty much the same as is recognised today - "The general inference from this discussion seemed to be that this was like every other phase of memory, a question partly of natural gift but in a much greater degree a matter of habit and cultivation".

The more modern idea that the description given by Hutchinson was "impossible" is driven by theorists not willing to accept science.

[Ben]

No worries there, Jeff. I haven't looked at the 4th yet, and it's quite possible the story was visited more than once.

[Mayerling]

Many thanks, Jeff. I tracked down the website and the article - although it appeared in the Sunday 9th December edition. I particularly enjoyed the observation that the debate had been "thrashed out to utter weariness".

Some things never change.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

I'm glad you tracked it down - sorry if my date was off, but I actually thought I got the correct date.

Jeff

[Ben]

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle has a website, and I gave the date and page and column of the article.

Many thanks, Jeff. I tracked down the website and the article - although it appeared in the Sunday 9th December edition. I particularly enjoyed the observation that the debate had been "thrashed out to utter weariness".

Some things never change.

All the best,
Ben

[GUT]

From that response, my conclusion would be that your refusal to identify your suspect has absolutely nothing to do with morals or ethics, as you have repeatedly claimed, but is rather due to a realisation that your case against him is so weak that it would not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

I still don't believe he even has a suspect.

[Henry Flower]

You could ask me, David, if you were interested in knowing what I think.

Indeed, because, Pierre, you definitely do not have a reputation for simply ignoring awkward questions, or, when forced into a corner, offering absurdly generalised abstract answers (usually with tedious and irrelevant homilies on historical method) that avoid the question asked. No, no way. Always a clear, direct, honest answer from our Pierre.

I can't think why David did not simply ask you....

[David Orsam]

What exactly are the rest of us gaining by your bear baiting in every thread?

What exactly are the rest of us gaining by that post?

[Michael W Richards]

You had your chance in #58 to explain what you think but you didn't take it so I drew my own conclusions.

What exactly are the rest of us gaining by your bear baiting in every thread?

[David Orsam]

You could ask me, David, if you were interested in knowing what I think.

You had your chance in #58 to explain what you think but you didn't take it so I drew my own conclusions.

[Pierre]

From that response, my conclusion would be that your refusal to identify your suspect has absolutely nothing to do with morals or ethics, as you have repeatedly claimed, but is rather due to a realisation that your case against him is so weak that it would not stand up to a moment's scrutiny.

You could ask me, David, if you were interested in knowing what I think. But instead you make the wrong interpretation. That however does not change the past. And I think knowing that is comforting.