Casebook Examiner Number 5

[Tom_Wescott]

When's it coming to us? Issue 5 that is.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[mariab]

I hope not too soon, 'cause I'm stuck up to the top of my head with must read Rip lit, including Examiner 4, which I still haven't gone through properly.

[mariab]

Wow! It just reached me. (Initially I thought it might have been an email warning from the admin.)

[lynn cates]

Barlas

Hello Tom. I just finished your article. Bravo!

When I encountered Barlas and his shooting at the House of Commons in Quail's book, I couldn't help but think, "Poor loser." Didn't realise he was suffering from syphilis.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Wow!

Ben and Christer's articles were great! Christer's article had a new, fresh perspective on Hutchinson, and I think anyone would be hard-pressed to come away from the argument not leaning in the direction of Hutchinson's innocence. This is without mentioning the signatures of Toppy. To his credit, that contentious element, though in my mind the deal sealer, has been left off the agenda, and the focus is purely about the possibility of Hutchinson's being in error.

As for Ben's part, it is the same argument that has been on the boards for ages, and when the subject of signatures comes up, we are left only with Iremonger's opinion which is based only upon Hutchinson's testimony and not upon the several other signatures that have been uncovered since her aside. This weakens Ben's argument, and should not have been included.

The winner: Hutchinson, as he has been exhonerated.

Cheers,

Mike

[mariab]

I have to confess I'm interested in the Hutchinson debate, having missed the legendary Toppy thread. Good that the current issue contains not one, but two articles on Hutchinson.

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"To his credit, that contentious element, though in my mind the deal sealer, has been left off the agenda, and the focus is purely about the possibility of Hutchinson's being in error."

I chose to do it "the police way", Mike, for a number of reasons, the main one being that I felt that I would like to honour Abberline´s assertion that George Hutchinson was an honest man. That is why I left out the signature part, and that is why I did not bring up the obvious possibility that Hutchinson came forward in order to make a buck or two from the police. This always must remain a consideration worthy of suggestion. But it does have an obvious hole in it: IF George Hutchinson had access to what was said at the inquest - or if he attended it himself, as has been suggested - then he would also have had access to the knowledge that it was raining hard that night! Cox said as much. Therefore I am inclined to believe that he WAS mistaken as to the time, just like Dew suggests.

And no matter if he was just mistaken or if he was looking for fast cash, the fact remains that his story is a story of a dry night in the East End, a night when you could unbutton your coat, and when you would opt to walk the streets all night, when conversations were had in the street since there was no rush to get out of the rain, and when men spent their time leaning on lamp-posts.
He was never there on the night.

The best,
Fisherman

[mariab]

Wait a minute, I REALLY don't wish to get all personal and indiscreet here, but is Christer Holmgren Fisherman?! Interesting...

[Fisherman]

Maria:

"Is Christer Holmgren Fisherman?"

The last time I looked, I was.

Then again, I was once Clive Johnson, courtesy of Tom Wescott.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One small point has to be made, and I would much prefer to make it myself:

In my piece in the Examiner, there is a fault. I write that the weather on the night of the 6:th was overcast and dry. Of course, it should be the night of the 7:th! That was the night I researched together with the 8:th.

To begin I was very annoyed with myself for this. You check and you check, and what happens?
But after having pondered it a bit more, I´m actually quite pleased with that flaw by now; The whole article is about a man who is one day off, and my mistake kind of confirms the viability of such a suggestion ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

snap

Hello Fish. Bravo! I once remarked that a piece in a jigsaw puzzle must not only fit, but it must fit with a proper "snap." Another one has.

Cheers.
LC

[corey123]

Great issue, so far, loving the Hutchinson article and Tom's is great as well. Another winner.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
So Hutchinson was 'one day off' , so too then was.. Ma Maxwell, even though she stated she was carrying plates, which she returned to the owner on the morning of the 9th[ comfirmed].
Her eyes looked queer, as if suffering from a heavy cold, interpreted by McCormack as 'All muffled up in cold' [ part of missing part of Maxwells statement] would suggest that both parties ie, Hutch/Maxwell, saw Kelly on the same night. ie the morning of the 9th.
'Dont forget.. 'Oh I have lost my hankerchief'
Two independant witnesses, with similar accounts of their encounters with the victim, suggest no mistake was made.
What happened to the missing part of statement.
No idea... but I read those precise words . ie 'Her eyes looked queer' around1974. so it came from somewhere, can someone on Casebook enlighten me where,?.. McCormack seemed familiar with the account when he published in 59.
Regards Richard.

[mariab]

My oh my, Lynn, I'm so envious of you, you seem to have all the time in the world to read this and that this week. (Which is most well-deserved, after the horribly hectic workload you've been having in the last months.)

Fisherman,
no idea who this Clive Johnson dude is/was. Another question I'm kinda burning to ask (even if that might get me banned) is, who is/was Michael Beers and what is the significance of post #28-29 in this thread?
Fish, you should see the HUGE pieces of nice smelling red snapper and other fish I have in my fridge right now. I'm gonna grill them later tonight with dry herbs from J-Bay AND white wine from Stellenbosch, South Africa and have a DVD-fest. We're all snowed-in in knee high pow and I'm afraid I slept all day, as did my neighbor too. Nobody went to work in Berlin today, and no cars can start in my neighborhood.

[Fisherman]

Lynn Cates:

"Hello Fish. Bravo! I once remarked that a piece in a jigsaw puzzle must not only fit, but it must fit with a proper "snap." Another one has."

Thanks, Lynn - I am so pleased to hear that, since it very much resembles my own take on things - once all the pieces fall in place, there is that loud "snap" and you just know. I´m delighted that I´m not the only one hearing it!

The very best,
Fisherman