Romford

[Monty]

The same factors did not apply to GH?

Packer was interviewed because he stated he saw the victim with a man just before she was found dead.

To state he was interviewed because he was making the Police look incompetent shows a lack of understanding of Police procedure.

Both were witnesses, the factors are irrelevant.

Monty

[Abby Normal]

The same factors did not apply to GH?

Packer was interviewed because he stated he saw the victim with a man just before she was found dead.

To state he was interviewed because he was making the Police look incompetent shows a lack of understanding of Police procedure.

Both were witnesses, the factors are irrelevant.

Monty

Hi Monty
When assessing witness credibility, how possibly can the factors be irrelevant?

[Wickerman]

So why not label him as unreliable, as they did with Packer?

The principal difference there is that Hutchinson was quite sure of the time, Packer changed his times, he was not sure.
Packer's story was of little value if he couldn't be sure when his "well-dressed" man bought the grapes, 11:00pm or 12:00?
There was no question about whether the man existed, nor whether he bought the grapes. Swanson acknowledged the discovery of a grape stalk in his 19th Oct. summary, which doesn't 'prove' Stride had grapes, but it demonstrates the police held no contrary opinion on the matter.

Packer's failing was his inability to provide consistent times.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Funnily enough, I agree with you Jon. And I think that "both schools of thought" were not easily compatible in Bob's book.

I was very interested in the research and the ideas, and I personally agreed before reading the book with his opinion that Hutchinson was the killer -but that of course was only his opinion (which he was entitled to hold).

Still, I think that the book should hold a warning on the cover !

My mother and sister both read the book and were utterly convinced by the conclusion, bolstered by Bob's research and his experience as a magistrate.
It may be a surprise to you to know that I found myself playing 'Devil's Advocate' and trying to point out the opposite points of view held by people like yourself on Casebook !

The book is very interesting for people with a wide knowledge of the case, and/or as entertainment (it's a good read, full of personality and personal experience, and the basic facts of the case) -but it is dangerous to mix the research in with the subjective opinions for people finding out about the case for the first time. It made me feel uneasy at times -even thought I would
recommend it to anyone reading the arguments and counter arguments on Casebook.

Thankyou for that Lesley, and funnily enough from reading many of your posts I have wondered more than once how we came to be on opposite sides of the fence on some issues - such is life. Perhaps we should 'wipe the slate clean' so to speak, and start again?




Meanwhile, does anyone have a reasonable (real world, believable) explanation why "Astrachan's description" could have been inspired by a tailor's dummy?
"It's a good idea, because......(what)....?"

No argument, this is the Romford thread, not the Tailor's Dummy thread, I am just interested to hear the idea explained as to why it makes sense.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

Meanwhile, does anyone have a reasonable (real world, believable) explanation why "Astrachan's description" could have been inspired by a tailor's dummy?
"It's a good idea, because......(what)....?"

I think that one fascinating aspect of Astrakhan man is that, if Hutchinson made him up, then where did the description come from ?

It is an incredibly detailed description, and Hutchinson didn't budge on it
(except to add the red stone on the watchchain), and he could list the clothing from the tie pin down to the spats. It certainly seems as if he had
memorised the items and was visualising them as he gave them in his statement and then reiterated them to the Press (otherwise we would surely have errors, omissisions and discrepencies).

The jewellery can (I believe) be explained by Hutchinson wanting to reinforce the idea of a jewish suspect. The horseshoe 'hamsa' was a symbol that jews
even had painted over their shops at the time (try googling jewish horseshoe
and hamsa) and I think that the association would be more readily made at the time. I believe that it was Errata that did a very interesting post showing that fobs made of garnet were from the Middle East (you can probably find it, if it was her -it was a very detailed history).

I used to think that Hutchinson could have got the clothing from someone he used to work for and hated -but then he would surely have made mistakes..

Bob's idea of the tailor's dummy is better, because Hutchinson could have stood in front of the shop window and conciously learn't the details very recently before going to the Police station.
-a shop window dummy would have the coat pinned back to show the clothes underneath
-if it was wearing spats, Hutchinson wouldn't have known that they were only worn in the morning, not being 'au fait' with clothing etiquette for the rich
-he would have plenty of time and a good view to see such items as the shirt and the feet at the same time

Of course, a tailor's dummy is headless and it's when we get to the description of the face that Hutchinson starts coming unstuck (since he didn't have a visual image in his mind), so we get a pale complexion and a dark complexion, a slight moustache and a heavy moustache etc..

I think that the tailor's dummy is a pretty good suggestion, and Bob has others.

[Monty]

Hi Monty
When assessing witness credibility, how possibly can the factors be irrelevant?

Apologies Abby,

I wasn't cler as I missed a word. I meant the differing factors are irrelevant.

And I refer to the process rather than the individual.

Monty

[Wickerman]

I think that one fascinating aspect of Astrakhan man is that, if Hutchinson made him up, then where did the description come from ?

It might surprise you to know that I am not such a Hutchinson supporter as might be assumed by the content of recent exchanges. In the past, I mean back in the late 90's, I discussed the description Hutchinson gave with, among others, Alex Chisholm, who has spent many years and is an authority on the Jekyll & Hyde.

I tentatively proposed that due to the publicity given for Mansfield's portrayal, and a competing production, who's name escapes me at the moment (yes, there were two productions), if theatrical posters had been made and posted around the city, IF, any of these posters showing Jekyll and/or Hyde in theatrical costume MIGHT, with emphasis, might, have inspired Hutchinson to add a little "icing" on his "cake", so to speak.
I have never been wholly in favour of accepting the depth of detail, but I have no grounds for questioning it, especially as the police never appeared to do so at the time.
Maybe, some of the more 'defined' details (morning ware, spats?) are what Hutchinson added to his descriptions from seeing the man a second? time on Sunday morning?
In other words the description he gave to police on Monday night could have been a composite from his two sightings, one at night, the other in the morning.

Nevertheless, at one time it had occured to me that there might have been theatrical posters published around town to promote the Jekyll & Hyde productions which might have, if seen by Hutchinson, given him a little inspiration for his description.
Alex, being an authority on Jekyll & Hyde, I thought might have been aware of any contemporary posters, but back in the late '90's Alex could offer no input. I never reprived that suggestion or ever pushed it as a solution because it was only an idea.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

Maybe, some of the more 'defined' details (morning ware, spats?) are what Hutchinson added to his descriptions from seeing the man a second? time on Sunday morning?

The thing is though, when you look at photographs of Petticoat lane market, the people were packed in like sardines and I don't see how Hutch could get enough distance combined with a clear view of A Man's feet to see whether
he was wearing spats or not. Hutchinson would have had to have been standing hard up against A Man and looking directly down. And in that case he would have been able to see the man's face clearly, and in daylight.

That would give a whole other (hypothetical) scenario, full of holes, which I don't want to get into unless forced to !!

Otherwise the Jekyll/Hyde idea isn't bad (but I still prefer the 'tailor's dummy' !). It's sure that the description whiffs of 'villain from a Victorian Melodrama'.

[The Good Michael]

What is funny here is the thought that Hutchinson could memorize what a dummy was wearing, but not have an eye for detail about a real human being who he says he had a keen interest in and who he was observing for a very lengthy amount of time. If the former is possible, the latter is equally possible.

I'm with Jon in being a bit uncomfortable with the details, but having a lot less knowledge about Toppy than the police did, am also unable to say he wasn't telling the truth. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't a leg to stand on, and that's where the George William Topping Hutchinson-as-ripper argument falls apart.

Mike

[Wickerman]

The thing is though, when you look at photographs of Petticoat lane market, the people were packed in like sardines and I don't see how Hutch could get enough distance combined with a clear view of A Man's feet to see whether
he was wearing spats or not.

Now Lesley, c'mon, ...what kind of pictures have you been looking at?
As with any market, people tend to cluster around stalls.
Anyhow, what about this shot of a contemporary Sunday(?) morning Market in Petticoat Lane?



Might this change your opinion about whether anyone can see peoples feet?

And here's a plus, proof positive of a PC on duty in Petticoat Lane !




Howzat, for a home run?

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE][QUOTE]

What is funny here is the thought that Hutchinson could memorize what a dummy was wearing, but not have an eye for detail about a real human being who he says he had a keen interest in and

who he was observing for a very lengthy amount of time[/QUOTE

Don't exaggerate ! A minute or so in the dark, with A Man trying to keep his head down (the time needed for a well-off man to make a deal with a desperate poor prostitute -unless you think that He and Mary were comparing thoughts on 'A Study in Scarlet' or something).

The tailors dummy could be viewed, at leisure, in daylight, with all the time needed to memorize details.

p.s. Mike there is a thread on MJK where I'd like you to clarify whether you think that some of Mary's brothers were at her funeral, and if so, where you got that from..

[Rubyretro]

Quick ! Question that Policeman ! -or arrest him for dereliction of duty !

What date is this ?

I shall have to see what I can find -back in a while...

(ps having difficulty straight away -everyone seems to crowd around when they see a camera and refuses to 'act natural')

[Rubyretro]

But I don't know why I'm bothering to search for photos anyway -the proof for my contention would have been found in the Records...sadly bombed in the war...and even it wasn't , I'm sure that Abberline must have known 'off record' that I am right..(and since he never said that whatever I said was wrong, and he obviously checked it, and was full of experience, then my theory is certainly right
whatever you say).

[Rubyretro]

I still haven't found the best photo -and I'm toying with the idea of either boring you into submission with a page long post of verbal justification
for my lack of concrete proof but still getting the last word, or just sulking on another thread for a while..

...choices choices..

[Fleetwood Mac]

[QUOTE=Rubyretro;188445][QUOTE][QUOTE]

Don't exaggerate ! A minute or so in the dark, with A Man trying to keep his head down (the time needed for a well-off man to make a deal with a desperate poor prostitute -unless you think that He and Mary were comparing thoughts on 'A Study in Scarlet' or something).

The tailors dummy could be viewed, at leisure, in daylight, with all the time needed to memorize details.

p.s. Mike there is a thread on MJK where I'd like you to clarify whether you think that some of Mary's brothers were at her funeral, and if so, where you got that from..

In all fairness, Hutchinson's description isn't furnished with a great deal more in the way of details than Lawende's, and Lawende doubted he'd be able to recognise him again.