Romford

[harry]

Mike,
Fisherman answered for me.I haven't called you a liar.All I am saying is that I do not normally accept things without verification,and you and Fisherman haven't provided it.And Fisherman's reply illustrates itHe wasn't there.You walking to Romford and back would only prove to you and anyone with you that you did it,not that Hutchinson could have done it.So if you cannot understand that simple fact,it is you with the sycamore up the rear.However people can have a belief,in other peoples claims,and just as surely they can have disbelief,and it appears that in discussing Hutchinson,except for a couple of proven facts,that is what it boils down to.

[Rubyretro]

I didn't even suggest we had to believe 'everything' or nothing that Hutch said. I merely said that if one's case against Hutch depends on him being a rotten liar, one can't at the same time depend on something he said being the truth, without sound independence evidence that it was. That's all.

True. But when people say "he must have been checked out" , "the Police
would surely have verified such-and-such verifiable fact" -so they they probably did. It doesn't mean that Hutch didn't lie about some unverifiable facts. None of his story adds up overall. I do agree with Ben though, that Mrs Lewis's independant statement gives a pretty clear indication that he was hanging about Miller's Court on the night of the murder-as he said- and
we know for sure that he waited a suspiciously long time before coming forward with his version of events.

Hang on, he was the main suspect for years and the police never stopped watching him and waiting for the evidence to charge him! Clearly they did not write him off

Hold your horses Caz !
The Police believed Restivo as a witness, when they interviewed him.
They became suspicious when they found out about his previous history in Italy, via the internet.
Even his hair fetish was established after the Police went looking for witnesses ( Bournemouth women hadn't reported the crimes at the time).
Had we been in 1888, it is more than likely that Restivo would have gone on to kill other women in Bournemouth, and the Police would not have been on his traces at all.
Even if they suspected him, they could not have demolished his 'alibi', and they would soon have got bored following him, since he was able to 'wait' when he was in the public eye.

Oh, okay then. Well Hutch is regularly painted here as a master criminal who outwitted the cops with monstrous lies and went straight back to the obscurity from whence he came, a free man. At least he'd merit an O level in getting away with murder, something Restivo clearly failed.

Forget Hutch and let's talk in terms of The Ripper. The Ripper clearly did
outwit the 'cops' at the time, and -whoever he was -he clearly did use 'monstrous lies' (if not directly to Police, then to his family, friends, workmates, entourage -whatever) and he clearly did return to obscurity, since we don't know who he was.
Restivo -whilst coming over as 'childlike' (to some journalists, and Police listening in to conversations between him and his much older wife), and being a failure career wise, was obviously clever enough to be forensically aware, and meticulously construct a good false alibi. He was only caught because of advances in forensics and computer forensics -that's why he was only the 'main suspect' but not brought to trial for such a long time.


I repeat -if the Police hadn't of had modern technology to solve the Barnett case, they wouldn't have suspected this willing witness, Restivo, after taking his statement. This might well be the case with Hutchinson.

.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“And a case against Hutch needs more than your opinion if it's going to sway more than the small handful of posters who are already believers.”

But regardless of whether or not people believe Hutchinson had any involvement in the crime, it is generally accepted that he was the man seen by Lewis, and for very good reason. The recognition of which does not validate the entirety of his account, but merely cements his location at that particular moment in time.

“So it could be that you are right and Hutch did realise he had been seen by Lewis, but only came forward with a silly story about watching a faux toff because he didn't want to be suspected of a murder he didn't commit”

Could be, yes, but that wouldn’t render the alternative suggestion – that he came forward because he didn’t want to be suspected of a murder he did commit – any less likely. The existence of alternatives doesn’t mean that they “gang up” against the premise that Hutchinson might have been responsible for the murder(s). I don’t particularly set out to “convince” anyone of that particular suggestion, incidentally. I think he’s the closest anyone is likely to come to a realistic "person of interest" at this remove in time, yes, but I’m much more interested in ensuring that the baby isn’t thrown out with the bathwater, and that the possibility isn’t dismissed on spurious grounds. I’m not saying you’ve provided any, but they do crop up occasionally.

“Clearly it was if the police, to a man, found his Romford romp a 'detail' and a 'relatively minor issue'.”

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.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

...In other words, there can be very little doubt, in my opinion, that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis. This would mean that at the very least, he told the truth about where he was that night. Unfortunately, all the rest remains unverified...

Precisely so, Ben. And a case against Hutch needs more than your opinion if it's going to sway more than the small handful of posters who are already believers.

The contention is that Hutchinson realised he’d been seen at the crime scene by another witness, and consequently came forward with a false excuse to explain why he’d been there.

Again, the contention is as the contention does, and this one doesn't do it for those of us who are not yet believers. As Rubyretro was seeking to get across, in a rather teaching-granny-to-suck-eggs kind of way, a liar will tell the truth in parts. So it could be that you are right and Hutch did realise he had been seen by Lewis, but only came forward with a silly story about watching a faux toff because he didn't want to be suspected of a murder he didn't commit, but was not inclined to admit (at least not at first, nor "on the record") that he had been hoping to bed down for the night with the latest friendly neighbourhood prostitute to be slaughtered.

I don’t believe that’s the case at all.

There you go again. You have to make a few others believe, preferably with hard evidence, or you'll be writing posts like these to unconvinced newbies until the crack of doom or you expire from old age, whichever is the sooner.

I believe it started “whiffing”...

The strongest indications suggest that the account...

...was most probably lumped into the same category as...

...it is possible that the police may have overlooked the question of his potential culpability in the crime, and the possibility that he lied for that reason rather than attention-seeking.

I think their focus was understandably sustained, at that time, on the description of the possible perpetrator, and the Romford detail was a relatively minor issue to them.

All very laudable to put it in terms of your opinion concerning the various possibilities, but that's all you have essentially - a theory not backed with too much in the way of evidence.

One lie you have managed to nail here all by yourself is the one that says Hutch's claim to have walked "all the way" back from Romford, then "walked about" for the rest of the night was simply not credible. Clearly it was if the police, to a man, found his Romford romp a 'detail' and a 'relatively minor issue'.

Well done for that.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

And goodness, how could I have missed this “gem” from the archives:

“In Hutchinson's case, there are several people like Badham and Abberline and whatever desk sergeant was there, and the blokes who ferried George around the area, who didn't see anything about his testimony or behaviour that they though was suspect”

Abberline didn’t initially, no, but this was expressed in an internal missive a few hours after he’d met Hutchinson for the first time. An insufficient period of time had elapsed in which to investigate his claims or even scrutinize his statement. Once this period had elapsed, a “very reduced importance” was attached to his statement, and he was eventually “discredited”. The obvious inference being that the police probably didn’t “believe everything he said” in the long run.

“We have a man who almost without a doubt is the same man who fathered Reginald, but some, for their absolute blindness and retarded adherence to an idea, can't see it or anything else.”

Yuck.

Not this toxic nonsense again.

Just deal with the fact that you’re in the minority of opinion as far as the suggestion goes that Hutchinson had a son called Reginald. You therefore insult the majority of students of the case when you describe them as “blind” and “retarded”, including those who consider Hutchinson to have been a squeaky-clean, honest-to-goodness eyelash-shade spotting witness. There are numerous threads dedicated to “Toppy”, and if you wish to waste more time arguing about it here on an off-topic thread, please let’s go round in circles on that particular topic.

[Ben]

“Knowing why he went to Romford is essential”

No it isn’t.

The reason for going to Romford (whatever that may be, and assuming he ever provided one) has never been a particularly contentious issue. The implausible element is his claim to have walked all the way back, despite the time and weather conditions, despite having no money to access the place where he usually slept, and despite the lodging house being closed. When you say I know “nothing” of the circumstances, you are factually in error. Of course we know the circumstances – a miserable November night (fact), the small hours of the morning (fact), a 14 mile walk or thereabouts (fact). Hutchinson’s claim to have embarked upon such a journey with no money, and with the home closed by that stage, may be treated with extreme scepticism in light of those facts.

“And as I explained to you previously, the police statement is only concerned with details pertinent to his sighting at the time & location in question.”

You didn’t explain that to me. Bob Hinton explained it to you after you queried the absence of any policeman on beat from the Kelly inquest. It’s pretty poor from to keep pretending that I was responsible for a mistake that you know full well you made yourself.

[caz]

I repeat: it's because these tricksters can mix 'truths' with their lies that they are so convincing. So in no way can we say that we have to either believe everything a liar says , or chuck the lot out as prevarication.

Hi Rubyretro,

But I didn't suggest we had to 'believe everything a liar says' or chuck the lot out (the first part being a logical absurdity that makes me look a twat when you imply I did suggest anything of the sort - so apology assumed and accepted).

I didn't even suggest we had to believe 'everything' or nothing that Hutch said. I merely said that if one's case against Hutch depends on him being a rotten liar, one can't at the same time depend on something he said being the truth, without sound independence evidence that it was. That's all.

I don't want to bore you all with bringing up Danilo Restivo once again...

snip

...but the Police wrote him off as a "bumbling local idiot" and believed him.

Hang on, he was the main suspect for years and the police never stopped watching him and waiting for the evidence to charge him! Clearly they did not write him off and did not believe him or you would not be able to use his name today as a shining modern equivalent of Hutch - not. Now that is a paradox. There is no evidence that the police ever suspected or kept an eye on Hutch after his 15 minutes of infamy, nor any evidence that there was ever any evidence against him to find.

Let's go back to Restivo...

Let's not. No point. See above.

Restivo wasn't even very bright intellectually.

Oh, okay then. Well Hutch is regularly painted here as a master criminal who outwitted the cops with monstrous lies and went straight back to the obscurity from whence he came, a free man. At least he'd merit an O level in getting away with murder, something Restivo clearly failed.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"This weekend, I will take my camera and take photos aabout every 13 minutes and call it the kilometer mark, though I actually walk faster than that, and I will send them all to you and a google map showing the distance."

How do we know you don´t fake it?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Mike,Fisherman,
Not one example that you give can be verified.they are just claims.

Harry,

Are you calling me a liar when I say that most assuredly I could walk to Romford? In fact, I could do it every day.

This weekend, I will take my camera and take photos aabout every 13 minutes and call it the kilometer mark, though I actually walk faster than that, and I will send them all to you and a google map showing the distance. Would that help you take the mighty sequoia out of you rear end?

Mike

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Not one example that you give can be verified.they are just claims."

Aha. So this one, for example, stating in detail the facts surrounding William Conways everyday-25-mile walk, is just an "unverifiable claim"?

Interesting.

The best,
Fisherman
+++

"This is William Conway of Crab Tree Row, Bethnal Green, who walked twenty-five miles every day, calling, “Hard metal spoons to sell or change.” Born in 1752 in Worship St, Spitalfields, he is pictured here forty-seven years into his profession, following in the footsteps of his father, also an itinerant trader. Conway had eleven walks around London which he took in turn, wore out a pair of boots every six weeks and claimed that he never knew a day’s illness."

[harry]

Mike,Fisherman,
Not one example that you give can be verified.they are just claims.These claims usually start in school,with each schoolmaster and pupil trying to outdo others.It was favourite when I was a lad.I can do better than you,my dad can do better than your dad,my pupils can do better than your pupils etc.The city man claiming to be more intelligent than the country bumpkins,and the country man claiming feats of strength and endurance over the city weaklins.In example I have provided sources of evidence that anyone can see.The tv screening of distance walks.Up to date and real,with commentators impartial.I have also accessed computor sites dealing in fitness,and without exception,they stress the need in distance walking,not only of fitness but of gradual build up..You show me proof that Hutchinson was both fit and had trained himself in distance walking,and I'll accept he went to Romford.Till then I will stick with the probability that he didn't.

[Wickerman]

Context is essential.

Knowing why he went to Romford is essential, before you talk about context..

Undertaking such a journey at that time, in those conditions, and with no chance of getting in the Victoria Home is obviously implausible, because it would mean that he endured all that sleep deprivation, exposure and energy expenditure for no reason.

You are in no position to judge, when you know nothing of the circumstances. It's that simple.

The walking bit was only included in press versions of his testimony

And as I explained to you previously, the police statement is only concerned with details pertinent to his sighting at the time & location in question. Not how he got there, nor what he did afterwards.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Because some people have some sense of pride and he wouldn't want it posted in the paper for all the world to see that despite having legged all day for work

But Hutchinson did tell the press that he was "spent out" going to Romford, so he can't have been too concerned about this "no money" detail being accessed by the general public. Later, in the same press interview, he claimed to have "walked about all night" because the place where he usually slept had closed. Obviously, the closure of the home is irrelevant if he had no money to sleep there, and vice versa. I simply wonder why he made reference to the closure of the home at all.

[Ben]

A couple of “spot-on” posts there, Lesley.

Hi Caz,

“The problem with making a case for Hutchinson being a vicious killer, by speculating that he lied to the police or the papers, is that you can't then rely on any part of his story being true, unless it is backed up to the hilt by some pretty sound independent evidence.”

Absolutely, but I believe this “pretty sound independent evidence” comes from Sarah Lewis, who described a man loitering opposite Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the night of the murder, apparently watching and waiting for some to come out, tying in precisely with Hutchinson’s post-inquest claims of his own actions and movements that night. In other words, there can be very little doubt, in my opinion, that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis. This would mean that at the very least, he told the truth about where he was that night. Unfortunately, all the rest remains unverified, including the question of why he was loitering outside the entrance to Miller’s Court that night.

“It’s a paradox: you have to argue for a killer who came forward and volunteered the God’s honest truthful information that he was pretty much at the crime scene at the right time to commit the murder, but then had to lie through his teeth about pretty much everything else to explain away his presence, which only he was seeking to establish.”

Where’s the paradox?

The contention is that Hutchinson realised he’d been seen at the crime scene by another witness, and consequently came forward with a false excuse to explain why he’d been there. Other serial killers have behaved in a similar fashion before, so we needn’t consider it an unrealistic proposal with regard to Hutchinson. This is what tends to get overlooked in some of these Hutchinson debates. Very rarely does anyone set out to present a case for Hutchinson being the killer. What you see more often is people challenging some of the arguments that seek to depict such a case as unlikely, which it really isn’t.

“Why would it only start whiffing more than a century later?”

I don’t believe that’s the case at all.

I believe it started “whiffing” on 13th November 1888 when it was first reported in the press that a “very reduced importance” had been attached to Hutchinson’s evidence. The strongest indications suggest that the account was discredited very shortly after it appeared, and was most probably lumped into the same category as Emanuel Violenia and Matthew Packer, i.e. money/publicity seekers and timewasters. In making this connection, it is possible that the police may have overlooked the question of his potential culpability in the crime, and the possibility that he lied for that reason rather than attention-seeking.

But it wouldn’t have anything to do with “moronic incompetence” on the part of the police if that were the case. Policing in general was in its infancy in 1888, let alone investigations into serial crime.

“Do you not think that when Hutch told the police he had spent all his money down in Romford, they would have instantly asked him what transport he used to get back to Whitechapel and how he had intended to spend the night when he finally arrived?"

No, I don’t.

I think their focus was understandably sustained, at that time, on the description of the possible perpetrator, and the Romford detail was a relatively minor issue to them.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

A pathological liar is one who makes up his lies on the spot and there is nothing pre-planned. Yet, he can create the lie so quickly and with such believability that he's hard to figure out. It is also known as compulsive lying. These things don't sound like what has been suggested of George William Topping Hutchinson. If he lied, he made some kind of plan, don;t you think?

Mike