Romford

[GregBaron]

Never choke thy chicken....

You are welcome... odd terminologies for "wristing".. eh? haha

Indeed Phil.......as you suggested poor Koz choked his way into becoming the world's most notorious serial killer.....no wonder our mother's warn us against it.......!


Greg

[babybird67]

Monty

my question to you earlier was a serious request for information, by the way.

Can you explain to me what is normal about Hutchinson's behaviour please? Why he would wait 45 minutes for Mary and not seek out another prostitute, if it was just a prostitute he was after?

Also, how we know he was actually interested in her sexual services and not just a friend, as he states he was.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Greg,

You are welcome... odd terminologies for "wristing".. eh? haha

kindly

Phil

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon,

As you know, I have no suspect and see Hutch as someone else in all this, not the killer. I don't need pats on backs either, by the way..hahaha ;-)

kindly

Phil

[GregBaron]

Hutchinson freed at last...

Hi all,

having a five-knuckle shuffle whilst bashing the bishop

Just wanted to thank Phil for the above. These were new ones on me and gave me a solid laugh........

Also, I've developed a bit of Holmes-ian deductive reasoning that will obviously solve the eternal Hutchinson reliability argument....it's very simple, it goes as follows...

1) Any man that notices that much detail about another man's clothing is obviously gay
2) Gay men don't murder female prostitutes
3) Therefore Hutchinson is exonerated from the Whitechapel murders

See how easy it is !....evidently Hutchinson thought Astro-Man was Hot....

Now throw me another suspect for Holmes-ian analysis....


Greg

[babybird67]

[still rude obnoxious and ignorant]

Oh I listen all right Wickerman. Then I make up my OWN mind. I don't allow other people to make it up for me, pet.

[Wickerman]

The mind-boggling thing here is that some think there are suspicions to be had here and so, Hutch is guilty. That is actually not only unfair and unreasonable, it is also plain stupid.

GM.
The overiding common denominator that I see is that Hutchinson is being judged on what we do not know, not, on what we do know.

This is ineptitude at it's worst (never mind bad scholarship), and on top of that we have 'followers' who claim that because they "cannot understand" something then this "something" is suspicious.
It couldn't possible be that they are just underinformed about the subject matter.

This is similar to what is termed the "Von Daniken" syndrome. Make up your mind first, then dismiss anything which contradicts your belief, while claiming that details which do not conform to your view are "suspicious".
I could think of far worse terms than your "stupid", but why bother.... fringe mentality, like a bad smell will always be with us.

Signed, someone else who doesn't need a pat on the back for support....

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

Nah.. you just comment on everything negatively. Oratorical and literary skill isn't quite your forte. You haven't exactly got the ability to use blandiloquence have you. Don't worry. Kakorrhaphiophobia is a common complaint amongst Ripperologists. I reckon Sir Robert Anderson suffered from it too, by the way..

Phil


Phil

[The Good Michael]

You guys!

The problem as always is that the people who reason well look at all possibilities, and those who don't only opine based on feelings. 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. In fact, they believed every thing he said. Why is that? 1. He was credible. 2. His alibi checked out (most assuredly). 3. His activities were normal and not suspicious in any way. 4. his statement was logical to those who questioned him.

Could Hutchinson have been the Ripper? Sure, but so could have Lusk or Abberline or any denizen of the East End.

The mind-boggling thing here is that some think there are suspicions to be had here and so, Hutch is guilty. That is actually not only unfair and unreasonable, it is also plain stupid.

Everything that is reasonable is dismissed in order to believe some nonsense. 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. They should be ashamed. Bull-dogged determination may have worked well in the case of a city being besieged, but this is hardly that, and the polarization that has occured because of people bllindly sticking to a suspect while disregarding real and more credible possibilites, makes me ashamed to associate with them, even in this forum that could be scholarly, but isn't because of them.

Did I piss off anyone? Not anyone that matters.

Mike

[Monty]

I'm not the one bleating that everyone is picking on me Philip,

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

Shame.. get over it.

Phil

[Monty]

Phil,

Get over yourself.

Thou is not the saviour of Ripperlogical research.

Not with posts like that.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

What do you find normal about hanging about for 45 minutes on a cold rainy winter night outside someone's property

...and if Mary was occupied he would be better able to spend his time elsewhere looking for a bed for the night.

Hello Jen,

I do sincerely hope you are well?

Rule No.1 in forum Ripperology. Never attempt to opine that anything is "wrong" or "odd" or even "stinks" with anything, even if the facts tell you that you have grounds for suspicion of comment, statement, scenario, behaviour or especially any possible police inability in 1888 to see any of the above.

All the policemen were perfect angels, never lied, never mis-lead the press nor the public, did the very best they could, did not show any form of incompetence and deciphered all information with the utmost professionalism.

Rule No. 2 is never, ever, suggest that the logic in the form of a man standing around in the cold night rain after a hell of a walk from Romford staring at a woman's place of abode for 45 minutes in downtown friendly Whitechapel is abnormal. Funny that.
(His counterpart Kosminski apparently sat around in gutters having a five-knuckle shuffle whilst bashing the bishop and factually once walked a dog without a lead.. and look what happened to him!... Labelled as a multi-murdering maniac!)

Especially as dear old Mr. Hutch has never been satisfactorily identified since 1888, and although the man claimed to have been a close friend of the lady in question for years, no other female friend ever mentioned the man. Women talk about the men they have hung around with, and who hang around them. It's called gossip. Yet dear old Mr. Hutch is a nobody. Funny that.

Rule No. 3. Always believe what you are told. Never, ever question it.

So welcome to the "stinkers" club. I once had the audacity to opine that Mitre Square and it's investigation "stinks", but that was of course, in my opinion... and got called for it. Oh naughty me. ....Shame.

You see, nothing apparently "stinks" in Ripperology Jen. Yeah right. Tell that to the persons who between them nicked loads of stuff from the archives from 1888-1982. (pssst.. some of them were policemen keeping stuff at home.. including Sir MM who destroyed papers, we are told, a certain policeman with a photo album with the victim's murder photo's in doing talks... etc etc etc)

There should be a sign in Ripperology.. "Please feel free to opine and investigate, research, comment upon and even publish...but No Boat Rocking Allowed!"
Mustn't let a wheel come off the bandwagon...;-)

If you detect a little ironic humour and cynicism in this post... do forgive me. It must be old age creeping on.

And it is posted with a smile, by the way.


kindly

Phil

[Wickerman]

[still nothing of value]
Jen

You and your 'gang' just do not listen do you!

[babybird67]

I do have experience, and its experience (not opinion) which indicates to me Hutchinsons behaviour was not entirely suspicious and quite normal.

Sure, people will suspect Hutchinson. However if these people were a litte less selective and take on all the facts/scenarios (which is what I suspect Stewart is suggesting-apologies if I'm wrong Stewart) the conclusion would not always result in clear cut guilt.

Your views are fine, however biased they seem to be.

Monty

Hi Monty

I'd like you to elaborate on which parts of his behaviour you don't find suspicious if you wouldn't mind. What do you find normal about hanging about for 45 minutes on a cold rainy winter night outside someone's property. To my perhaps naive mind, that doesn't make sense at all. I would assume if Hutchinson was a frequenter of prostitutes he would know more than one of them, and if Mary was occupied he would be better able to spend his time elsewhere looking for a bed for the night.

I'm quite willing to look at other scenarios, but it doesn't help me make sense of what I perceive to be anomalies in Hutchinson's version of events.

Bias is a curse we all must bear Monty. In fact I'd be suspicious of anyone who suggested they were free of it.

Jen