Romford

[harry]

You see the problem with Mike is he doesn't really read or understand what is written,or bother to detail his thoughts.I haven't said 14 miles.I have put it nearer 38 miles,and not on my reckoning alone.Still Mike is wasting time here ,He should,if one believes HIS claims,be out on the track setting records.He wants no part of debate because he has nothing to offer,just silly little jibes.

[The Good Michael]

And I always have a lot of fun panning for gold in Mikeīs stream, Iīll say that much. As for the rest, I will only repeat my earlier message that whatever problems you have with Mike, it is him you should approach to have them straightened out, not me.

Hey! Why is my name brought up... but since it is. What I take issue with and what I don't wish to engage in, is the endless debate of whether or not Hutchinson is guilty of something with the same arguments being brought up over and over again, along with the same refutations, and the Hutchinson camp refusing to give an inch on anything. Even to get them to admit that Huthcinson as killer has many problems with the hypothesis becomes impossible without them filling in every issue against his candidacy with a 'yeah, but...' The latest example is Harry sticking to his guns about the near impossibility, in his fragile mind, of someone walking a MERE 14 miles in a day, and we are only talking about anyone being able to do it. After countless anecdotes and personal experiences showing that it was actually not much of a stroll after all, Harry remains unshaken/ Why is this? It is a pice of the Hutchinson puzzle for him and he's not dropping the bone.

Recently we've had discussion about the details of what Hutchinson says he saw. I don't even believe he saw everything he said he did, but we have shown through photos and just common sense that men often, maybe more often than not, wore coats opened and had jackets that fit differently than today, and all things could be seen in a half decent light, but this proof again takes a piece of the 'Lying Hutchinson' story and adds a bit of possibility to it.
What do we get from the Hutchinson camp? Acknowledgement that these are possibilities, but with the 'yeah, but' caveats that are ever present on that side.

If this is how debate is supposed to work, I wan no part of it because I am far superior to that way of doing things. I use logic, and that doesn't work in the Hutchinson threads where sticking to one's unloaded guns, and hanging in there for the long haul, and hovering over all of it as guardians of the myth is the most important things in their miserable lives.

So, why do I joke around? Maybe to lighten things up for me, and maybe as a satire on how absolutely ridiculous everyone is who takes their own opinions (though they are actually amalgamations of everyone's and hardly original) and processes them again and again ad nauseum until I can either laugh at or puke into the vomitorium they've created.

Let's see... I think that answers Harry's question. have a nice day.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"I would gladly take it up with Mike or anyone else,but it must be evident to all that Mike,with his supposedly funny comments,is unwilling or unable to do so.I am surprised though that you seem to favour his comments as useful."

I am a journalist, Harry, as I said. I rely very much on instinct (combined with hard work, sadly enough). And something tells me that our Kazachstan correspondent has a card or two up his sleeve that you may have failed to notice.
Just like you say, I at times think Mikeīs contributions are useful. Then again, I at times think that your contributions are useful too. And Benīs. And Stewart Evansī. I try to take each post on itīs own and assess it. It is, perhaps, like panning for gold. Some streams are richer than others, some are very nearly useless, others contain only catīs gold - but they all have att least something of interest to offer.

And I always have a lot of fun panning for gold in Mikeīs stream, Iīll say that much. As for the rest, I will only repeat my earlier message that whatever problems you have with Mike, it is him you should approach to have them straightened out, not me.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
I would gladly take it up with Mike or anyone else,but it must be evident to all that Mike,with his supposedly funny comments,is unwilling or unable to do so.I am surprised though that you seem to favour his comments as useful.

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Not if you look at it in a mirror while standing upside down on a baboon's backside."

Thatīs all good and well, Mike - but where do I find a baboon?? Wait a sec ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

However, I strongly suspect that you may have gotten Mike wrong - very wrong, in fact.

Not if you look at it in a mirror while standing upside down on a baboon's backside.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

Itīs good to hear that you are not opposing the walking pace I suggested after having consulted the net.
However, I strongly suspect that you may have gotten Mike wrong - very wrong, in fact. But I will leave you to sort that out with him!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
I am not disagreeing with you on the four miles or so of normal walking pace.I am glad,if you read my post above,to embrace it.Mike however can see the problems,and is hastily trying to backtrack from Hutchinson walking anywhere.

[The Good Michael]

Harry:

"Four miles or thereabouts is after all,Fisherman's estimate."

No, Harry, it is not. It is a figure I found on the net (and that was corroborated by a number of sites on the very same net). I have spent my entire working life as a journalist, and 14 years of it was dedicated to research, and so I am quite used to go looking for information in different newsbases and netsources.

I thought I would point this out, since I find it important that we do not ascribe things to people who are not as such responsible for their origins.

The sad thing is, it doesn't really matter. the idea of Hutchinson lying is not at all contingent upon his walking back from Romford, though to be fair, it isn't in the police report that he did so. This is one of those examples of Hutchinsonians hanging on to dear life for fear of losing a tiny piece of their tenuous argument. I am reminded of people who are against not being able to have grenades, machine guns, and high explosives because once they lose that right, everything else will be taken from them. The paranoia runs high in both cases.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Four miles or thereabouts is after all,Fisherman's estimate."

No, Harry, it is not. It is a figure I found on the net (and that was corroborated by a number of sites on the very same net). I have spent my entire working life as a journalist, and 14 years of it was dedicated to research, and so I am quite used to go looking for information in different newsbases and netsources.

I thought I would point this out, since I find it important that we do not ascribe things to people who are not as such responsible for their origins.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

So let us accept that he did go to Romford.What then.Did he just sit down for awhile,perhaps have a pint or two and then return.Or did he walk around at a steady four miles per hour.Then on his return,by his own words,and except for a forty five minute break outside of Crossingams,continue for another couple of hours at this steady four miles an hour.You see,what is conveniently not admitted by those that accept his story as the truth,is that 28 miles is the bare minimum he would have covered,but if it is all totalled up,we are looking at something like thirty eight miles minimum.Four miles or thereabouts is after all,Fisherman's estimate.
As far as disbelieving of witnesses Fisherman,you are quite correct,I do take that stance pretty often.I believe all claims should be treated with doubt untill proven,but who are you to judge me,or anyone else for that matter,when this site is littered with posters ,you among them,who have
often expressed doubt on the truthfullness of what is claimed,both by witnesses in 1888 and of posters today.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I suggest that after the police were confronted with Hutchinson’s various implausible press claims, including the mammoth pointless jaunt from Romford, they discredited the account in its entirety, including the detail that he was even present in Dorset Street that night. This is clearly what happened in the case of Emanuel Violenia, who despite alleging to have made an eyewitness observation on the street where the Chapman murder was committed – and at a time relevant to the murder – was dismissed as a liar who wasn’t there at all. The police would have been bombarded with liars and publicity-seekers, and it would have made logical sense on the surface of it to consign Hutchinson to this well-established and all-too-familiar group.

In so doing, they might have overlooked the possibility that Hutchinson came forward not to advertise a false claim that he was present at the crime scene, but to provide an innocent explanation to account for the fact that he was there. This is why he did not convert into a suspect once his account was discredited; because a by-product of that discrediting was that Hutchinson was “removed” from the crime scene in the minds of the police. Once his account was doubted, he was no more required to account for his movements than Violenia was required to account for his presence in Hanbury Street.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

First of all, I don't think that the Romford story has much importance.

I could, have, and do walk such distances -and I'm a 51 year old chain smoking, wine swilling, woman. it's more about being used to walking distances, and overall energy levels (?) more than anything else. People in the past were used to walking very long distances, and a labourer would work very long hours, without the benefits of modern machinery, and without modern junk food to damage his health. It is not inconceivable that Hutchinson was very fit.

In short, I believe that he could have done it.

Bob Hinton tells us, in his book, that there was alot of building work being done in Romford at the time (after flooding ?), and there was a motivation for a labourer to look for work there. Bob might have some fanciful theories, but he is a first-hand researcher. I have no reason to disbelieve him.

So Hutchinson most likely had both the physique and the motivation to walk to Romford.

Of course he might have 'hitched' too -and not told the Police. I imagine the road between Romford and the East end was well frequented, and I can't believe that a 'working man' trudging along on foot wouldn't ask another working man on a cart, going in the same direction, for a lift.

Personally, I don't think that Hutchinson would have told the Police that he had been in Romford, if he hadn't of been, and he risked being caught out.

I also think that- were he the murderer, and planned Kelly's murder in advance- 'working away in Romford' was a good way of explaining why he was not back at the Victoria Home that night.

This is about cause and effect, and you have yet to explain how the logical effect in 1888, of anyone giving an unbelievable account of his movements, before and after nosing about Miller's Court on the murder night, was for that individual to drop off the police and historical radar like a stone.

Because the murders stopped after Miller's Court, and his face was known to Police and Press (and so Public).....we know that some 'Serial Killers' can 'wait' before committing another murder. He waited a while, moved away, and probably died or was incarcerated for another crime,
before he struck again.

[caz]

But the “Romford romp” only appears in press versions of his testimony, which appeared very shortly before the Star’s announcement that the account was “now discredited”. There is only one reference to Romford to be found in the police statement itself, and that is Hutchinson’s alleged claim to Kelly that he’d “spent all (his) money” going there. Nothing about how he got there and back.

Hi Ben,

I think you missed my point and the original objection, both of which stand.

It matters not when it dawned on Abberline and co that Hutch's account could not help with their ripper enquiries. If they were on the ball concerning his own claimed movements, they could have gathered from the beginning that getting back from Romford after spending "all" his money must have involved walking, getting a free lift or begging, borrowing or stealing the fare. If not, never mind, they would soon gather his mode of transport from what the papers said.

And if, as you keep insisting, walking "all the way" from Romford followed by "walking about all night" was just so much obvious BS, the police would have been slapped round the face with it by the time they'd finished their eggy soldiers and breakfast newspapers, and you seem to be implying a direct link between the reported romp and Hutch's whole account being discredited - which would actually be quite odd if the police still thought he might have been near the scene of the murder, even if his faux toff wasn't.

So if they had ever attached any importance to this witness, at such a crucial stage of the investigation, why do you think they didn't haul his lying arse back in to go over his own movements again, from his trip to Romford onwards, if you think his collective perambulatory claims were simply not credible, then or now?

This is about cause and effect, and you have yet to explain how the logical effect in 1888, of anyone giving an unbelievable account of his movements, before and after nosing about Miller's Court on the murder night, was for that individual to drop off the police and historical radar like a stone.


Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Alright, Harry, I will go on! Next up from the net:

"Normal walking pace is a little under four miles per hour (six kilometers per hour). Power walking raises that to around five miles per hour (seven to nine kilometers per hour), which produces worthwhile benefits."

... meaning that you would reach Romford in three and a half hours if you did it in normal walking pace.

Then again, it can be argued that we do not know how fast Hutchinson walked, specifically. We donīt know how well nutritioned he was, how his muscular status was, how much walking training he had.

But we DO know that normal walking pace is almost 4 miles/hour. And we DO know that this results in taking you to Romford in three and a half hours. We also know that people who enjoy walking, backpackers and such, very often spend a lot more than three and a half hours walking each day. I know I used to walk significantly longer than 14 miles per day with a 30-pound rucksack on my back when I was in my twenties.

But this, Harry, is of course a potential lie. I may be trying to deceive you, just as every clipping I sent you from the net may have been written by people equally determined to lie to the readers. Or, for that matter, I may have manipulated the clippings in order to make an unfair case. So whatever you do, do not believe anybody who tells you that 14 miles is a piece of cake to manage walking, and never put any faith in any sources, no matter the numbers of them or their credibility, that tells you it can be done. If you can manage that, and live with it, you will have found your Nirvana, Iīm sure.

Incidentally, did you know that the world record in walking 20 kilometers (corresponding roughly to 12,5 miles) is 1.17 hours? One hour and seventeen minutes, that is. You knew this? That means that a fully trained athlete would walk to Romford in an hour and a half. Therefore, I would say that a young man like Hutchinson would at least ... Oh, no, thatīs right, I forgot; Hutchinson could NOT have walked to Romford. Of course not. How silly of me!
Anyways, THE REST of us normally fit people could do the walk in three and a half hours if we walked at a normal pace. If we quickened things, we would get there faster, if we took a pause or two, it would take a bit longer.

But not Hutchinson! God forbid! If he said he did it, then he lied!!!

The best,
Fisherman