Romford

[Stewart P Evans]

Point

You missed my point, Stewart.
Why would he find it so surprising that he would voluntarily set up a vigil in the middle of the night outside the court. Are you suggesting that isn't suspicious behaviour?
I could quite easily swallow he was surprised so took more than a brief glance as Atrakhan, but the vigil after? Then completely forgetting about it until Sunday. Then suddenly remembering and trying to alert a Policeman (to what? this man surprised me on Friday night Officer, can you arrest him please?), to the failure to attend the inquest of the murder of a friend he had known three years and allegedly had seen shortly before she was brutally murdered with a man carrying a parcel which was knife-shaped!
Sorry, but the whole thing stinks.

No I didn't miss your point. I have addressed all aspects of Hutchinson's statement, on these boards, many years ago (they will be found in the archives) and I don't intend to start again. 'The whole thing stinks', in your opinion. Your opinion is not fact. I can accept, "In my opinion the whole thing stinks." I cannot accept, "Sorry, but the whole thing stinks." Perhaps you need to re-think the way you word things.

[Monty]

I'm guessing you have little experience with prostitutes and the act of soliciting.

Hutchinsons behaivour isn't that suspicious at all.

Monty

[babybird67]

No I didn't miss your point. I have addressed all aspects of Hutchinson's statement, on these boards, many years ago (they will be found in the archives) and I don't intend to start again. 'The whole thing stinks', in your opinion. Your opinion is not fact. I can accept, "In my opinion the whole thing stinks." I cannot accept, "Sorry, but the whole thing stinks." Perhaps you need to re-think the way you word things.

I am not going to put *in my opinion* in front of everything I write Stewart. Most people can take it as read that what I am expressing here is my opinion and my opinion alone. But thanks for the advice.

[babybird67]

I'm guessing you have little experience with prostitutes and the act of soliciting.

Hutchinsons behaivour isn't that suspicious at all.

Monty

HI Monty

you forgot the golden phrase, IN YOUR OPINION Hutchinson's behaviour wasn't suspicious at all.

Whilst I have no experience of prostitutes, I don't need it to find his behaviour suspicious (in my opinion) a view which I share with a great many other people, many of whom I am assuming also don't have any experience of prostitutes.

From Casebook's page on Hutchinson:

George Hutchinson has since become a controversial witness and issues have been raised about several aspects of his statement:

Why he waited 3 days before volunteering his information.
Why he waited for so long outside Miller's Court that morning.
His extremely detailed description of the man seen with Kelly.

He has also been suggested by several authors as a suspect for the Whitechapel Murders.

So some people have OPINIONS which show there is suspicion to be attached to Hutchinson's version of events.

You're welcome to have an opinion that disagrees with that. As I am to have one which accords with it.

[Monty]

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

[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

[Wickerman]

[still nothing of value]
Jen

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

[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

[Monty]

Phil,

Get over yourself.

Thou is not the saviour of Ripperlogical research.

Not with posts like that.

Monty

[Phil Carter]

Hello Monty,

Shame.. get over it.

Phil

[Monty]

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

Monty

[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

[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

[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.

[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.