Romford

[harry]

Hutchinson gave his status as labourer,resident at the Victoria home.Resident can be argued about,to me it means a person who stayed on a long term,permanent basis,as opposed to a casual or weekend stayer.
A lot of tripe has been passed down about achievements and staying powers of the Victorians and those living in the recession times.Well I was alive in the 1930's,my father and grandfather were Victorians,as were their friends,and I never saw or heard of any excessive efforts to walk 28 miles in a day,for any reason,and Hutchinson did state he walked the journey.In search of work?.Well work might have been there in Romford for skilled men,but a labourer?That being the easiest position to fill,then local vacancies would be quickly filled by local unemployed,a fact known to all,so labourers journying long distances was virtually unknown.It was not the norm.

[The Good Michael]

Harry,

Hutch wasn't unskilled. He has been a groom and was probably trained in plumbing as well. As far as his walking, it's not in his police statement and I don't want to trawl through newspapers, but I don't know what's known. The point is, if he said he walked, it wasn't unusual enough for the police, the newspapers, or his son Reginald to comment on. It is irrefutable that if he walked, it wasn't considered unusual. The point is, that entire component of the Hutchinson examination must not be included as it is nothing that any contemporaries cared to comment on.

People go places for all kinds of reasons. Maybe he had a girl Romford. Maybe his mates were going there. He wouldn't have just chosen Romford out of the blue, would he? Even if he were lying, he would have had to give a reson for Romford being his choice of place to be.

Now, there is nowhere that Hutchinson said he walked to and back in one day. He could have been there for several days or two days, and he could have pissed all his money away as many young Londoners still do.

There are so many possibilities that to blind oneself to the idea of Hutchinson making it up and then having a little clique of backslappers (not suggesting you) agreeing with everything, solely because it furthers a non-existent case for Hutchinson... well, who is the real liar here?

Mike

[Robert]

"If I'd had lyricists like you guys, I might have had more luck coaxing the birds from the trees. We don't need more of these."

In Hanbury St, Heneage Court and Hoxton
Hutchinsons hardly happen

[Colin Roberts]

I am beginning to wonder what kind of history this all is...

only serviing or ex-Police officers are competent enough to have a view on the Ripper case at all...only those with experience of prostitutes can decide if there is anything fishy about Hutchinson and his claims...what next? Only people who have been beheaded can empathise with what it was like to live under Henry VIII?

I guess this approach rules men out of having any views at all on childbearing since they can never experience the joy of giving birth!

And of course none of us is qualified to speak about any historical matter unless we were personally there to witness it.

Oh Intellectual Freedom, where art thou!

[Colin Roberts]

I am thoroughly convinced that ... Hutchinson was discredited!

It would certainly seem most probable that ... the man seen loitering by Sarah Lewis was George Hutchinson!

Etc.

[Ben]

In Hanbury St, Heneage Court and Hoxton Hutchinsons hardly happen

Good one, Robert!

"Now come on Eliza, once more try! Horrible whore-hating Hutchinson hacked happily in Hanbury Street"

"Oribble 'ore-ating.."

"No, no no!"

[Robert]

Of course, the killer nearly gave himself away when he called over the fence to the toilet-bound Cadosch :

Oh no, my reverberating friend...

[Ben]

“He has been a groom and was probably trained in plumbing as well. “

He only told the press that he was a groom, Mike. It is possible, but as far as we know unverified. I don’t know where you’re getting “plumbing” from, but there’s zero evidence for this. Oh no, wait, there’s the Ripper and the Royals…

“or his son Reginald to comment on.”

Ripper and the Royals AGAIN….

“The point is, that entire component of the Hutchinson examination must not be included as it is nothing that any contemporaries cared to comment on.”

But Hutchinson’s account was discredited, which is sufficient “commentary” from which to conclude that his claims weren’t accepted as gospel in the long run. Anyway, I don’t remember anyone casting doubt on his claim to have visited Romford. The problem lies with his claim to have ventured all the way back on foot in the small hours of a miserable night with no money and no pass for a bed at the other end. If he was lying about Romford, he probably chose that location because it was some distance away, and therefore appeared to validate his presence on the streets in the small hours without having been on those particular streets (i.e. in Spitalfields) all night.

"and had to walk back to Whitechapel without even the price of a bed in his pocket."

For what possible reason? Why did he "have" to walk back at that particular time without money for a bed?

Or he took the train back, or he hopped a wagon going back and there went the last bit of coin.

Contradicted by Hutchinson's very own words, I'm afraid. He stated that he had walked "all the way".

There are so many possibilities that to blind oneself to the idea of Hutchinson making it up and then having a little clique of backslappers

But the whole point is that you're "blind" to the idea of Hutchinson making it up, which is presumably why you keep coming up with disastrously bad excuses for dismissing the idea as unlikely.

[babybird67]

I am thoroughly convinced that ... Hutchinson was discredited!

It would certainly seem most probable that ... the man seen loitering by Sarah Lewis was George Hutchinson!

Etc.

[ATTACH]12478[/ATTACH]

What's your point Colin dear?

1/ I have never claimed, nor set myself up to be, an 'expert' on this case. If I had, I would have written a book on it or submitted my knowledge in some kind of formal, professional presentation for the public to digest.

2/ This is a message board forum. It's a place for people to informally share information, ideas and opinions about all aspects of the case. Hutchinson areas for discussion of Hutchinson, which includes whether he was telling the truth or lying, since Casebook itself draws attention to the aspects of his statement which do not add up.

3/ Many many kind, honourable and decent researchers share their knowledge here which I personally have benefitted from and I am very grateful for that, because I myself am not an expert in any way shape or form, nor would I expect anybody to defer to my opinion as such. Said researchers are usually very kind and encouraging to those of us who do not have as much knowledge, however you do get the odd one or two who think anybody who is starting off now, as they did years ago, without the breadth of knowledge they have (now) is an upstart and arrogant to even dare to breath an opinion about something at all. I don't subscribe to that view of things I'm afraid. I do think everyone's opinion is valid, and the only way people will learn is by experessing those opinions, seeking feedback and further information which consolidates and sometimes changes what they know and believe.

4/ As I said to Stewart, I am not going to write *in my opinion* in front of or after everything I write, as most growns ups with an ounce of common sense can take it as read that what I am posting here is my opinion. If I want my postings proof-read, I will submit them formally to a publisher. Otherwise, I will continue to post as I am doing. If you find that problematic I suggest you put me on ignore.

[Monty]

There's informed opinion and there's uninformed opinion Jenn,

Whilst having either is fine, projecting one as the other is not.

I would dream of stating childbearing is easy. I would state, quite clearly, why I think its a doddle. However if any Mums out there put me right I certainly would take them on board and accept they know a little bit more about giving birth than I.

Monty, who doesn't frequent prositutes, despite the poorly worded phrasings of another.

[babybird67]

There's informed opinion and there's uninformed opinion Jenn,

Whilst having either is fine, projecting one as the other is not.

I would dream of stating childbearing is easy. I would state, quite clearly, why I think its a doddle. However if any Mums out there put me right I certainly would take them on board and accept they know a little bit more about giving birth than I.

Monty, who doesn't frequent prositutes, despite the poorly worded phrasings of another.

HI Monty

Indeed there is.

And I would certainly defer to researchers in this case who know more than me and take their information and opinions on board, as I have done many times. That doesn't mean I have to come to the same conclusions they do (which would be impossible as they all come to different conclusions anyway). It also doesn't mean I am not entitled to have an opinion based on the (limited) knowledge I have. It also doesn't mean people interested in one aspect of the case should suddenly have to give up that interest because someone else doesn't find it worthy of attention.

I did not think you frequented prostitutes. My assumption was you had experience in a professional sense (maybe working in the Police like Stewart, i don't know). I disagree strongly that such experience is necessary for someone to be able to assess Hutchinson's statement as suspicious or otherwise as I am still puzzling as to how a man without money who is approached by a prostitute and turns her down because he has no money is behaving normally by following the same prostitute back to her lodgings and setting up at 45 minute vigil there (again, for what, charity?) - and then doesn absolutely nothing to alert the Police to a potential suspect for three days after he finds out she has been murdered, and that he was most likely the last person to see her alive.

For the life of me I cannot see anything normal in that behaviour at all. But of course being an ignorant worthless piece of ****, nobody is obliged to take any notice of what I think.

[Chris]

Said researchers are usually very kind and encouraging to those of us who do not have as much knowledge, however you do get the odd one or two who think anybody who is starting off now, as they did years ago, without the breadth of knowledge they have (now) is an upstart and arrogant to even dare to breath an opinion about something at all.

But really, has any actually said you are "an upstart and arrogant to even dare to breath an opinion about something at all"? Has anyone said you are "not entitled to have an opinion"? Has anyone said you should "suddenly have to give up that interest because someone else doesn't find it worthy of attention"?

I haven't seen anyone say anything like that, though admittedly I haven't read anything like the whole discussion.

[The Good Michael]

I have just discovered where I've failed to help the Hutchinsonians along in the path to open-mindedness. I have failed to use Socratic reasoning with them. Instead of providing vast amounts of possibilities and alternatives to Hutchinson, as so many do on these boards, they need to find theses alternatives for themselves. An example: So, aside from making up a story to cover up a murder, why would someone walk back from Romford? List all possible reasons.

I think this is what we all should have done long ago and I am such a dunce as to not have thought of it before. My apologies.

Mike

[Monty]

QUOTE=babybird67;186195]HI Monty

Indeed there is.

And I would certainly defer to researchers in this case who know more than me and take their information and opinions on board, as I have done many times. That doesn't mean I have to come to the same conclusions they do (which would be impossible as they all come to different conclusions anyway). It also doesn't mean I am not entitled to have an opinion based on the (limited) knowledge I have. It also doesn't mean people interested in one aspect of the case should suddenly have to give up that interest because someone else doesn't find it worthy of attention.

I did not think you frequented prostitutes. My assumption was you had experience in a professional sense (maybe working in the Police like Stewart, i don't know). I disagree strongly that such experience is necessary for someone to be able to assess Hutchinson's statement as suspicious or otherwise as I am still puzzling as to how a man without money who is approached by a prostitute and turns her down because he has no money is behaving normally by following the same prostitute back to her lodgings and setting up at 45 minute vigil there (again, for what, charity?) - and then doesn absolutely nothing to alert the Police to a potential suspect for three days after he finds out she has been murdered, and that he was most likely the last person to see her alive.

For the life of me I cannot see anything normal in that behaviour at all. But of course being an ignorant worthless piece of ****, nobody is obliged to take any notice of what I think.[/QUOTE]

Ok Jenn,

The first part of your post above I agree with, that's fair comment. Of course you're entitled to your opinion and, I actually feel its a valid one.

My point, regarding Hutchinson loitering, is there are many reasons and all valid depending on certain aspects.

Hutchinson coud have been waiting to roll the man, demand monies from Kelly, hope she'd take pity, etc, etc, etc.

All valid and not really suspicious when considered.

Now would he admit to the first two? Maybe not, or maybe he thoughty on it a while and decided to come forward.

Equally the police could have reassured Hutchinson that they weren't interested in any potential crime in return for information (a ploy still used today).

Now this may not be enough for you however they cannot be dismissed out of hand, nor labelled as suspectious.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

Don,

That is a very astute observation. When I was young and foolish, as opposed to what I am now (old and foolish), if I had a crush on a girl I used to walk by her house repeatedly, or stand outside as long as possible, in the hope that she would come out. You've provided me with a new way to explain Hutch's behaviour. Ta.

Yes
Its called stalking