Originally Posted by Garry Wroe
I lost interest long ago, Jon. It began with the Keeler as Gallagher nonsense, then intensified progressively with the Commercial Home admission policy argument, your assumed psychic connection with Anderson, the assertion of a whiter than white Metropolitan Police Force,...
In other words, anything that exposes your ill-researched theory. Which once challenged appears to have little to no source to back it up. If it was not for uncorroborated press theories your book could not have been written.
So much for integrity.
Ironically, it is this very source you criticize ONLY when used against you, but where would your case be without it?
...false attributions regarding what Sarah Lewis saw on her way to the Keylers, and culminated with the Isaacs as Astrakhan rubbish.
As much as you selectively reject anything in the press that exposes your theory, ironically, Inquest coverage is among thee most reliable of press coverages. As reliable as Parliamentary debates, Sports, Foreign News, Natural disasters, War in South Africa, and so on.
For all the huffing and puffing about the press coverage of the inquests, not once have you, or anyone who buys into your theory, ever demonstrated errors of content, nothing above mispronunciations, and misspellings.
What is less reliable are the press 'on the street' interviews. Reports which came from Diemschitz, Schwartz, Packer, and yes, Hutchinson, Kennedy, and the rest.
Any one of these stories could have been tampered with in order to 'excite' the reader, make an otherwise boring exchange into something worth talking about.
The worst type of press coverage is, Press Opinion, the very subject you put absolute faith in. The desire is all too obvious to present this particular newspaper as "one who knows", who have the inside track with the authorities. All unsubstantiated nonsense, yet without this your case would fall apart.
And to return to this little gem.
I first began researching Hutchinson and his part in the Ripper case in the mid-Eighties. I dare say that no-one has researched this man to anything like the length and depth as I have done over the decades. Perhaps this is something you ought to remember the next time you're tempted to demonstrate the extent of your Hutchinson-related knowledge.
Remind me, where was he born, when was he born, where did he live, where did he work?
Was he ever married, and was his real name George Hutchinson?
If you had truly spent 30+ years researching this man, shouldn't we expect that you would be able to provide some very basic answers to these questions?
Can you provide any factual answers to just one of those questions?
I dare say you have spent 30+ years looking for ammunition to build a case against him but don't try tell me you actually 'know' anything about him.
Maybe it's just me, but I think you can only begin to research a man, once you find him!
That, as they say, has become 'a Bridge too far' for you.
This would be the same Hutchinson who was rejected by police as a credible eyewitness, right?
Really Garry, so tiresome.
You have nothing but bluff.