Romford

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Not if you look at it in a mirror while standing upside down on a baboon's backside."

Thatīs all good and well, Mike - but where do I find a baboon?? Wait a sec ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
I would gladly take it up with Mike or anyone else,but it must be evident to all that Mike,with his supposedly funny comments,is unwilling or unable to do so.I am surprised though that you seem to favour his comments as useful.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"I would gladly take it up with Mike or anyone else,but it must be evident to all that Mike,with his supposedly funny comments,is unwilling or unable to do so.I am surprised though that you seem to favour his comments as useful."

I am a journalist, Harry, as I said. I rely very much on instinct (combined with hard work, sadly enough). And something tells me that our Kazachstan correspondent has a card or two up his sleeve that you may have failed to notice.
Just like you say, I at times think Mikeīs contributions are useful. Then again, I at times think that your contributions are useful too. And Benīs. And Stewart Evansī. I try to take each post on itīs own and assess it. It is, perhaps, like panning for gold. Some streams are richer than others, some are very nearly useless, others contain only catīs gold - but they all have att least something of interest to offer.

And I always have a lot of fun panning for gold in Mikeīs stream, Iīll say that much. As for the rest, I will only repeat my earlier message that whatever problems you have with Mike, it is him you should approach to have them straightened out, not me.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

And I always have a lot of fun panning for gold in Mikeīs stream, Iīll say that much. As for the rest, I will only repeat my earlier message that whatever problems you have with Mike, it is him you should approach to have them straightened out, not me.

Hey! Why is my name brought up... but since it is. What I take issue with and what I don't wish to engage in, is the endless debate of whether or not Hutchinson is guilty of something with the same arguments being brought up over and over again, along with the same refutations, and the Hutchinson camp refusing to give an inch on anything. Even to get them to admit that Huthcinson as killer has many problems with the hypothesis becomes impossible without them filling in every issue against his candidacy with a 'yeah, but...' The latest example is Harry sticking to his guns about the near impossibility, in his fragile mind, of someone walking a MERE 14 miles in a day, and we are only talking about anyone being able to do it. After countless anecdotes and personal experiences showing that it was actually not much of a stroll after all, Harry remains unshaken/ Why is this? It is a pice of the Hutchinson puzzle for him and he's not dropping the bone.

Recently we've had discussion about the details of what Hutchinson says he saw. I don't even believe he saw everything he said he did, but we have shown through photos and just common sense that men often, maybe more often than not, wore coats opened and had jackets that fit differently than today, and all things could be seen in a half decent light, but this proof again takes a piece of the 'Lying Hutchinson' story and adds a bit of possibility to it.
What do we get from the Hutchinson camp? Acknowledgement that these are possibilities, but with the 'yeah, but' caveats that are ever present on that side.

If this is how debate is supposed to work, I wan no part of it because I am far superior to that way of doing things. I use logic, and that doesn't work in the Hutchinson threads where sticking to one's unloaded guns, and hanging in there for the long haul, and hovering over all of it as guardians of the myth is the most important things in their miserable lives.

So, why do I joke around? Maybe to lighten things up for me, and maybe as a satire on how absolutely ridiculous everyone is who takes their own opinions (though they are actually amalgamations of everyone's and hardly original) and processes them again and again ad nauseum until I can either laugh at or puke into the vomitorium they've created.

Let's see... I think that answers Harry's question. have a nice day.

Mike

[harry]

You see the problem with Mike is he doesn't really read or understand what is written,or bother to detail his thoughts.I haven't said 14 miles.I have put it nearer 38 miles,and not on my reckoning alone.Still Mike is wasting time here ,He should,if one believes HIS claims,be out on the track setting records.He wants no part of debate because he has nothing to offer,just silly little jibes.

[curious]

You see the problem with Mike is he doesn't really read or understand what is written,or bother to detail his thoughts.I haven't said 14 miles.I have put it nearer 38 miles,and not on my reckoning alone.Still Mike is wasting time here ,He should,if one believes HIS claims,be out on the track setting records.He wants no part of debate because he has nothing to offer,just silly little jibes.

Actually, Harry, that is not that great a distance -- even for some folks today. I know that because I have hung around a hiking club for years, and they hike some rugged territory. I don't recall them hiking 38 miles in one day, but a walk along a road is just a stroll. For most of us, the distance the hikers on the Appalachian Trail cover in one day seems incredible, esp. to those of us who are not in that kind of shape. One of my grandfathers worked away from home during the depression and would walk home occasionally. If I remember correctly, he covered right at 30 miles in one day -- that was his goal. Now, back in the 1888, when people walked everywhere much more than now, well, they simply thought nothing of it. They just went where they needed to go. I agree with whoever also suggested that perhaps he had managed to hitch a ride in a cart part of the way. Logical and possible.

[Ben]

So, why do I joke around? Maybe to lighten things up for me, and maybe as a satire on how absolutely ridiculous everyone is who takes their own opinions (though they are actually amalgamations of everyone's and hardly original) and processes them again and again ad nauseum until I can either laugh at or puke into the vomitorium they've created.

But that's not joking around, though.

It's just more insults and feigned exasperation at those naughty, nasty "Hutchinsonites"

"If this is how debate is supposed to work, I wan no part of it because I am far superior to that way of doing things."

So I guess it's back to pub-talk for you then.

Again, the distance alone has never been the problem. The problem concerns the alleged distance when embarked upon at that time of the morning, in those miserable conditions, when he knew the Home would have been closed to him by the time he arrived, penniless and with no lodging pass, back in Spitalfields.

[Ben]

I agree with whoever also suggested that perhaps he had managed to hitch a ride in a cart part of the way. Logical and possible.

But unfortunately contradicting Hutchinson's own claim to the press that he had "walked all the way" back from Romford.

[Rubyretro]

Here's my take on Romford :

Basically, it has no bearing at all on whether Hutchinson was the killer , if he had been to Romford or not.

All that matters is whether he was lurking for 3/4 of an hour outside Mary Kelly's room just before the killing (and his story appears to be corroborated by Mrs Lewis -an undoubtedly honest witness), his believable story of being an aquaintance of Mary, his unbelievable statement about Astrakhan Man, his failure to go to the Police until after Lewis had testified, his unverifiable 'alibi' of "walking around all night" for the time of the killings, his behaviour (involving himself in the case -which dovetails with what we know about modern Serial Killers), and the fact that the (canonical) murders stopped after he became a known to Police , Press, and Public. Oh, yes, and his geographical home, right in the centre of the killings.
(there are more details -that's a synopsis).

Still, the Romford story is extremely interesting -just because he chose to give it as the reason for not being tucked up in bed at the Victoria Home that night.

There are any number of stories -equally plausible or implausible that he might of given -but he chose that one.

When he volunteered to be interviewed by the Police as a major witness, he knew very well that he would be questioned at length (albeit as a witness and not a suspect), so why lie about his daytime movements, prior to the murder, on which he might be caught out as a liar (so his veracity as a witness called into question) but which had no real bearing on his guilt -except to possibly attract suspicion ?
So I think that he really did go to Romford. He had a work reason to go Romford, and it was physically possible.

If he was actively looking for work in Romford, he would have met people who could verify it.

He must have had contact with mates, officials, at the lodging house who were aware that he intended to look for work in Romford.

Had he not come forward to Police to volunteer the fact that he had been in Miller's Court on the night of Kelly's death (following Lewis's statement at the inquest), I would speculate that people who knew him might assume that he had been in Romford at the time of the murder.

Maybe the whole jaunt to Romford was something to do with the fact that he had planned in advance to kill Mary, and wanted to be known to have been out of London at the time ? -until someone he knew passed close to him at the murder site at the crucial time, and
came forward at the inquest, and he started worrying about the possible implications and imagining 'damage limitations' ?

[The Good Michael]

So I think that he really did go to Romford. He had a work reason to go Romford, and it was physically possible.

Maybe the whole jaunt to Romford was something to do with the fact that he had planned in advance to kill Mary, and wanted to be known to have been out of London at the time ? -until someone he knew passed close to him at the murder site at the crucial time, and
came forward at the inquest, and he started worrying about the possible implications and imagining 'damage limitations' ?

Ruby,

Congratulations! You are the first Hutcher to admit that his going to Romford would have been checked out by the police and that would mean that he most probably did go. And your next conclusion that he planned to be away or at least to make it look as if he were away in advance. Now, of course the idea of a premeditated murder is less likely than one of the moment, but it is possible. And his goling to Romford is definitely more likely than his not. You are the first of the Hutchers to give ground. It is important that the rest follow suit.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It's just more insults"

Are you opposed to insults, Ben?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"All that matters is whether he was lurking for 3/4 of an hour outside Mary Kelly's room just before the killing (and his story appears to be corroborated by Mrs Lewis -an undoubtedly honest witness), his believable story of being an aquaintance of Mary, his unbelievable statement about Astrakhan Man, his failure to go to the Police until after Lewis had testified, his unverifiable 'alibi' of "walking around all night" for the time of the killings, his behaviour (involving himself in the case -which dovetails with what we know about modern Serial Killers), and the fact that the (canonical) murders stopped after he became a known to Police , Press, and Public. Oh, yes, and his geographical home, right in the centre of the killings. (there are more details -that's a synopsis)."

Faults:

1. Nobody can establish that Lewis was "undoubtedly" honest.

2. He DID go to the police BEFORE Lewis stement - on Sunday morning, by his own admission. This is contested, but in no way proven false.

Doubtful:

No, I wonīt even bother. The bottom line is that much as anybody is welcome to any wiew, may it be ingenious or halfwitted, nobody is welcome to state as facts things that are totally and utterly unproven.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

But Fish... a little credit for the other...you know? c'mon.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

Nobody can establish that Lewis was "undoubtedly" honest.

I am sorry, I will amend that to "was historically always accepted as an undoubtedly honest witness until Fisherman needed to discredit her in order to support his personal theory. Something that he failed to do for the majority of people who are interested in the case, the evidence being a public Poll".

Better ?

2. He DID go to the police BEFORE Lewis stement - on Sunday morning, by his own admission. This is contested, but in no way proven false.

On his say so alone, and I adore your understatement -"this is contested".

[Rubyretro]

I have always taken this position, Mike.

Now, of course the idea of a premeditated murder is less likely than one of the moment, but it is possible

.

I think for Mary Kelly, it's very possible indeed. Probable, even. She certainly denotes from the other murders.

The fact that Kelly might well have been premeditated, doesn't mean that the killer wasn't also an opportunist when it suited him.

You might have noticed that I became fascinated by the Danilo Restivo trial recently. His murder of Heather Barnett was definitely planned and premeditated..but he still 'opportunistically' stalked random potential victims in a park. One method doesn't exclude the other.