Casebook Examiner Number 5

[lynn cates]

good job

Hello Corey. Congratulations on your article!

When you attend university, I hope you can continue your study of psychology. The human mind is a fascinating thing.

Cheers.
LC

[corey123]

Thanks Lynn,

Yes, I will be taking a long(seven years)course in Cognitive psychology and psycholinguistics. Through the University of Tennessee, in Knoxville.

Again thanks my friend.

[Sally]

Many, many thanks for your kind words on my article!

Fisherman,

You are most welcome! I speak as I find, and will be the first to give credit where due. You have produced a solid piece of work based on sound research, for which praise should always be due. Your conclusions are reasonable, although I think you recognise there must always be a certain degree of conjecture - but so what? The same is true in many fields of historic enquiry -our understanding of the past, after all, must always be interpretative - that is in the nature of things.

I hope that your findings will encourage new debate in this area of Ripperology, as that is how it should be when the picture changes - as I think it has here.

Now, I confess that I read your article first, so have a lot more reading to do before coming back to this thread. I will be interested to see what Ben has to say on the topic of Hutchinson, to be sure.

[Abby Normal]

Glad you enjoyed the article, Mike.

I wasn't holding up the highest of hopes that I'd be converting you any time soon, but glad it was of some interest, at least.

I now very much look forward to reading the other articles!



So you also think that Hutchinson got the wrong day, Lynn?

Okay.

Best wishes,

Ben

Hi Ben
i just read your article-great ideas and a good read!

One thing that struck me-the idea that Hutch was Joe Fleming. i had not heard that intrigueing idea before and there does seem to be some striking similarities between the two.

On that point, I beleive i heard somewhere that Hutch's 3 sigs on his police statement don't really match each other. Is this true? If so, then i think that would add credence to the Fleming as hutch theory because if someone was writing a fake sig they might not be able to replicate it the same each time.

What do you think?

[mariab]

Abby Normal wrote:
One thing that struck me-that Hutch was Joe Fleming.
So this is Ben's theory? Hmmm. At least I'm glad that someone has thought of considering Fleming, even Paley totally neglected him.
I have no idea of when I'll manage to read Examiner 5, but I'm hopeful.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“Here ends our discussion for now. Once again, we have dug our trenches and fired our guns and I fail to see that we could produce any fruitful discussion by going over it one more time. If you are of a different meaning, please post your thought and I will respond.”

No worries there. I’m very much of the same meaning, and as soon as I’ve addressed your latest observations, I am more than happy to end our discussion. Mike’s had another one of his perplexing out-of-the-blue explosive outbursts again, and while I intend to address that later, he has at least reminded us that other posters here have written excellent articles that are worthy of just as much discussion as Hutchinson

“I also mentioned in my article that a signal system of some sorts may have been in use”

It’s a possibility that merits exploration, certainly, but in the absence of any evidence that this occurred; it remains interesting speculation at best. Certainly, if such a thing occurred, it would suggest that the signal-anticipating loiterers in question were waiting for a specific prostitute with whom they’d had a previous acquaintance, which, interestingly, would suggest someone like Hutchinson. That’s supposing, of course, that there was any truth to his “three year” claim.

The majority of Millers Court residents do not appear to have been prostitutes.

“Why not instead, if you need to see him as a liar, ponder the possibility that he was short on money - as he stated himself - and saw a chance to make a buck from the police. He gets word of the inquest, and he fabricates a story and tries to clinch it by claiming that he stood outside the court at 2.30, as witnessed about by Lewis.”

It’s not an unreasonable suggestion, but as I’ve explained before - and everyone’s mileage may vary on this - I doubt very much that Hutchinson noticed that a witness account had described a potential suspect, pretended that he was the individual described but claimed also to have been just a witness himself. Certainly, I’ve never encountered any comparable example of such behaviour in other criminal investigations. In contrast, there have been cases in which the offenders have recognised themselves in witness accounts, and who subsequently came forward with false excuses for their presence there, whether they were identified by name or not. I have always felt that Hutchinson could easily have been one such individual, and it would render him decidedly unremarkable in the annuls of true crime, where this and similar acts of subterfuge aren’t really that odd. It’s certainly no less “simple” that the other explanation, and we must take care not to make a false virtue out of "simplicity".

As for Joseph Fleming, I’ve never committed myself to this as a personal theory, but have submitted it as an intriguing possibility that warrants further exploration.

Setting aside your suggestion that the recollection of details has nothing to do with recollection of time and date (which I don’t really agree with – they can hardly be THAT divorced from each other) it also doesn’t seem likely that he’d misremember the date of the Romford excursion. Since those things are often days in advance (i.e. “Thursday – off to Romford”) it just doesn’t seem likely that he’d confuse this later.

I’m still very astonished that you can give any credence to the suggestion that Hutchinson managed to miss the news of Kelly’s death until some point on Sunday when he claimed to have been in the heart of the murder district. It would have been nigh on impossible for Hutchinson to avoid any mention of the murder after emerging from the Victoria Home, where he claimed to have returned to after it opened “in the morning”. Besides the implausibility of the suggestion, it also relies heavily on backing up Hutchinson’s claims with Hutchinson’s claims.

The idea that he contacted a policeman, and nothing came of it, makes no sense whatsoever, for reasons outlined in detail on other threads, and in my article.

As for Abberline’s initial belief in Hutchinson’s account, we know that the Echo reported a day later that the authorities, i.e. Abberline et al, had now attached a “very reduced importance” to his account, which would be extraordinary terminology if they knew he was elsewhere at the time. You would have had a much stronger argument if you claimed that the police dismissed Hutchinson because they came to believe he got the wrong day, not because they had procured proof to that effect. Nobody makes that claim with regard to Maxwell, so we shouldn’t really expect any miracles with Hutchinson.

“... but I really cannot think of what to say. Perhaps that I have seemingly done a lot of work for no good reason, since you had already done it for me.”

That wasn't what I meant, and my comments were not intended to be at all disparaging, Fish. I only observed that you seem to have first become that acquainted with the Dew reference when I mentioned it during the course of the “Van der Hutchinson”, which, if anything, is complimenting you as demonstrates that you formulated some of your ideas during the course of our discussions, as opposed entering the discussion with an unshakable view.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

My appreciative thanks for your kind words on the article, Abby.

On that point, I beleive i heard somewhere that Hutch's 3 sigs on his police statement don't really match each other. Is this true? If so, then i think that would add credence to the Fleming as hutch theory because if someone was writing a fake sig they might not be able to replicate it the same each time

That's my thinking on the subject, certainly. The signer of the statement certainly does not appear to have been accustomed to writing "George Hutchinson", and there has been no satisfactory explanation for the signature disparity. It seems unusual, for example, that he suddenly decided to appreviate to "Geo" on the second page, and dispense with the florid "H" on the third.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

I've been working long hours the last few days , and have, as yet, only had time to read Fish's and Ben's articles (although I'm a huge fan of Corey -I've been saving 'a treat', and I love the look of Tom's piece -so I think this will be my fave issue..)

What Fisherman should be commended for is bringing something new into the equation

-
I agree -It gave great 'food for thought'. I have considered it at length.

that stands easily as a refutation of the Hutchinson-as-ripper argument

...but sadly, that's what it didn't. It DID hammer home the point that Hutch never saw A Man on the night of Kelly's murder

I certainly have no problems with the fact that it was raining on the night Kelly was killed.

Ben is right

if Hutchinson wished to depict a wealthy and conspicuous outsider, the “unbuttoning” was necessary to expose those items that indicate wealth and ostentation. Again, it would simply mean that he didn’t think through certain aspects of his invention,

I agree totally with Harry:

As far as getting the day wrong,one might,if they were telling the truth,be fully aware of the day they performed a marathon distance walk,be it as much as a week afterwards.Such things stick in the mind and are easily recounted. Even more so if they wanted the story to tally with some other major event.
I do not think that Hutchinson acted on a whim and entered that police station simply because he was passing.Seems to me more like he went there with a prepared statement,and if we talk about what Aberline might have questioned him about,I would conjecture that it would have been about being sure of that particular day and night

Since Maxwell gave her deposition on the day of the murder I doubt that she got the days mixed up but was more likely mistaken about whom she had seen

I'm totally with Hunter here -so I can't compare Hutch with Maxwell, and use the comparison to illustrate any part of Hutch's story.

[QUOTE]

Just how striking is it to find men outside the gateway to a court that more or less functions like a brothel, Ben? My suggestion is that you will find many of them there every day in the week.[/QUOTE

Looking at the photos of the extremely narrow gateway to Miller's Court, I can't see how any man could have seen any ' signal' from any prostitute within the Court. Hutch would have naturally have stood within the Court (and I bet couldn't have resisted a sneaking peek through the window),had he been a simple punter looking for a 'signal'. He said that he was waiting for someone to leave the room, and Mrs Lewis described someone doing the same thing -looking up the Court as if waiting for someone : it was impossible from the spot where Wideawake AND Hutch stood (on the same night ? at the same time ? How come Hutch ever saw Wideawake) to have seen a 'signal' in a window. I just can't believe that Hutch was looking for a 'signal' from Mary.


As to the job descriptions - there's great deal of effort, time, money, personal interest that goes into a 'metier'.. and 'groom' and 'plumber' can't be confused...you can't just substitute one for the other as you like !
To recapitulate : I really enjoyed your article, Fish, but...finally...I'm with Ben.

[Tom_Wescott]

Corey

Corey is a genius. Great instinct and probably does well with the ladies. Reminds me a lot of myself when I was his age. Actually, reminds me of how I am right now too.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Tom_Wescott]

Ben and Fish

I spent a truly enjoyable hour last night reading both essays back to back. I have one question - were Ben and Fish aware of what the other was writing and was this planned, or just a happy coincidence?

BEN'S ARTICLE - A very well-written and responsible view of Hutchinson as Ripper suspect, and some of the ideas were quite new to me. Others I thought were stretching things a bit. I think Garry Wroe would be proud. Unfortunately, there's no where else to go with Hutch as the Ripper. I very much appreciated the examples of killers who inserted themselves into an investigation only when spotted and then tried to send the police on a false trail. A much clearer example of this occuring in the Ripper investigation is, of course, with Le Grand, so perhaps Ben would like to join us on the 'Grand game'? His instinct and intellect would certainly be welcome.

FISHERMAN'S ARTICLE - Fisherman and I have a colorful past, and our conversation usually end in loud disagreement. This is one definite exception, because this is one of the best essays I've read this year. If he had published it in Ripperologist, he'd be a clear-cut winner for the Beadle award. This is not sarcasm, I think Fisherman has produced a very fresh and vital interpretation of the data surrounding Hutch. At first, it looked like he was about to cut off more than he could chew, but then as he spread out the evidence, my jaw dropped a little more each time. I was particularly moved by Fish's observations regarding the rain. Why haven't I read this before? Better yet, why didn't I think of this? Too busy in Berner Street, I guess.

I find Fish's evidence very persuasive, but I'm not totally convinced and have a few questions. I apologize if these have been brought up on this thread, but as mentioned before I avoided reading commentary posts so that I could read the articles and develop my own opinions uninfluenced.

1) If Hutch was standing in the pouring rain at that time, so must Sarah Lewis have been, but she doesn't mention anything about rain.

2) Was it dry a day or two BEFORE the night of the murder? It's too much to suggest that Hutch was mistaken about not only the day but also the identity of the woman he spoke to, so he must have seen Mary a day or two BEFORE the murder (any more would be pushing it). So what do we know of the weather on those days?

3) Is there anything in the record of Mary's movements that would preclude her having been near the Queen's Head around 2:30am on the day or two preceeding the day of her murder?

In short, I loved both essays, but I have to give Fish extra marks for producing something that is both fresh and, from here on out, required reading for anyone looking at Hutch with suspicion.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[corey123]

Hello Tom,

You are too kind.

[corey123]

Hello Leslie,

Hope you enjoy it when you read it.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If and only 'If' it was a absolute fact that it was somewhat damp around 2am in Commercial street on the morning of the 9th would I think twice about my stance on Hutchinson.
Hutch in his statement makes no account of it.
Mrs cox.
Mrs Lewis,
Mrs Prater.
All no reference.
The only person in Millers court that may have hinted at rain was Catherine Pickert , who called on Mjk around 730-8am to borrow her shawl, although that may have been because of the coldness in the air.
I am reluctant to dismiss my all time candidate for Hutch, as a liar, a fraudster, just because of a local weather report.
After all Astracan was wearing an overcoat, I have in my time been out in overcast weather wearing such a garment, better protection then any of the other witnesses had on that night/morning.
I appreciate the suggestion , and it is a welcomed one, although until it is an established fact that it was fowl weather, at that relevant time, which would be a plus for ruling out Hutchinsons account, I still believe. what I have always ie.. Hutch was Topping, and told the truth.
Its that radio airing guys....
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Many thanks, Tom.

Glad you enjoyed it.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Rain

Hi Richard

I've got no dog in this race, but perhaps it's worth considering that:

It was a particularly wet Autumn - rain being the default weather setting, it doesn't much surprise me that most people had given up commenting on it - even knowing how we English love to talk about the weather

There was a lot of rain, rivers bursting banks, flooding, that sort of thing. A dry night, now, that would have been something to remark on.

It was also November. How likely would you be to wander about with your overcoat unbuttoned in November? In the rain? (perhaps). At 2.am in the morning?

Something to consider.