Romford

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

.

[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.

[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 don´t 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, I´m 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, that´s 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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

It´s 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

[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