Once you have eliminated the impossible

[curious4]

Hi C4
I'm far from convinced that evolution has regressed our eyesight...The eyes adjust to whatever light may be available at the time,constantly changing.It is far from common sense to me to believe human eyes are less efficient now than they were.I think people who spend a lot of time reading,on computer, phone etc may suffer but in general I'm afraid I just can't see your point at all. Do we have an ophthalmologist in the house??
As for Dickens I'm afraid I'm not a lover of reading fiction...other than Hutchinsons statement

As you say, you can lead a horse to water.....

[packers stem]

So you're both saying in all seriousness that hawkeye hutchinson could spot a red handkerchief in the dark from 200 feet?? because he was acclimatised to limited light....yet ,i'll bet Maxwell and Maurice Lewis have been written off as mistaken on a whim
Sorry ,just don't buy it and never will
and yep,absolutely you can lead a horse to water

[Patrick S]

Jack the Ripper was not caught. Despite what some rather distinguished police officials and investigators may have said later in life, I don't think his identity has every been known by any person, living or dead. In fact, I strongly suspect that his true name does not appear in any case files, media reports, tall tales, nursery rhymes, or local traditions. I do not believe he was suspected by his family. He had no frieinds. He confided in no one. He spoke when he had to, little more. He lived alone. His neighbors and co-workers knew OF him, but would not have professed to know him. I think relatively few people knew him by name. He did not chit-chat or make small talk. He didn't ask for directions or attend public gatherings. He took meals at home, alone. He was not married. He had no children. He was insane, but not outwardly so. He was aware of his insanity and accepted it. He did not wish to be caught, but not live in fear of being captured. He did not live to old age. He did not commit suicide. He likely died quietly, of disease or accident as many did in that time and place. His death was barely noticed, by those charged with renting his dwelling and selling or discarding his posessions, among which there were no trophies or keep-sakes from his crimes. He was not missed. He will never be suggested as the killer by some descendent who saw a photo in an album or read his confessions in a diary. There are no photos. There is no diary. There's likely no descendents. If there are, he's forgotten. He's an obscure great-uncle who's nothing but a name on someone's ancestry.com site.

Or he's Walter Sickert. Or Lewis Carroll.

[GUT]

Jack the Ripper was not caught. Despite what some rather distinguished police officials and investigators may have said later in life, I don't think his identity has every been known by any person, living or dead. In fact, I strongly suspect that his true name does not appear in any case files, media reports, tall tales, nursery rhymes, or local traditions. I do not believe he was suspected by his family. He had no frieinds. He confided in no one. He spoke when he had to, little more. He lived alone. His neighbors and co-workers knew OF him, but would not have professed to know him. I think relatively few people knew him by name. He did not chit-chat or make small talk. He didn't ask for directions or attend public gatherings. He took meals at home, alone. He was not married. He had no children. He was insane, but not outwardly so. He was aware of his insanity and accepted it. He did not wish to be caught, but not live in fear of being captured. He did not live to old age. He did not commit suicide. He likely died quietly, of disease or accident as many did in that time and place. His death was barely noticed, by those charged with renting his dwelling and selling or discarding his posessions, among which there were no trophies or keep-sakes from his crimes. He was not missed. He will never be suggested as the killer by some descendent who saw a photo in an album or read his confessions in a diary. There are no photos. There is no diary. There's likely no descendents. If there are, he's forgotten. He's an obscure great-uncle who's nothing but a name on someone's ancestry.com site.

Or he's Walter Sickert. Or Lewis Carroll.

Or van Gogh

[Abby Normal]

its not that he could see the color of the hanky or not (at 200 feet at night regardless of where the lamps were or how bright it still would not only be a great feat of eyesight, but along with everything else-of memory.)

Its why even bother remembering its color and mentioning it and emphasizing it.

Unless your story is bull **** and many details are culled from previous newspaper descriptions of suspects-like the red hanky of lawendes suspect.

or it was yours and you left it at the crime scene.

"oh yes and he gave her a red hanky, and she said she lost her hanky, and he said here my dear have my red hanky, and he gave her his red hanky. did I mention it was a red hanky?yes very red."

what a bunch of crap.

[GUT]

So you're both saying in all seriousness that hawkeye hutchinson could spot a red handkerchief in the dark from 200 feet?? because he was acclimatised to limited light....yet ,i'll bet Maxwell and Maurice Lewis have been written off as mistaken on a whim
Sorry ,just don't buy it and never will
and yep,absolutely you can lead a horse to water

Or all three could be telling the gospel truth.

The big problem I have with Maxwell is the claim she knew MJK from the rooming houses. Did she have the wrong woman?

[GUT]

The on thing that prevents me saying outright that Maxwell got it wrong is Lewis, who reported seeing her coming out of the house.

[packers stem]

its not that he could see the color of the hanky or not (at 200 feet at night regardless of where the lamps were or how bright it still would not only be a great feat of eyesight, but along with everything else-of memory.)

Its why even bother remembering its color and mentioning it and emphasizing it.

Unless your story is bull **** and many details are culled from previous newspaper descriptions of suspects-like the red hanky of lawendes suspect.

or it was yours and you left it at the crime scene.

"oh yes and he gave her a red hanky, and she said she lost her hanky, and he said here my dear have my red hanky, and he gave her his red hanky. did I mention it was a red hanky?yes very red."

what a bunch of crap.

I agree totally

[packers stem]

Or all three could be telling the gospel truth.

The big problem I have with Maxwell is the claim she knew MJK from the rooming houses. Did she have the wrong woman?

She did turn up at the inquest though GUT and was adamant and unswerving unlike Hutchinson who missed it conveniently by..... Minutes lol

[GUT]

She did turn up at the inquest though GUT and was adamant and unswerving unlike Hutchinson who missed it conveniently by..... Minutes lol

And how many witness do you think turn up at court honestly believing the evidence they are giving is right but it turns out they are ....... Wrong?

I am not one of those who say she was hiding something but I allow for the possibility she made an honest mistake.

But either way that doesn't impact Hutch's relabilty.

I know some people can tell colors almost 109% in Black and White photos, so don't rule out that Hutch could tell red on a dark night. I also know people with an incredible eye for detail.

Do I believe Hutch?

[packers stem]

And how many witness do you think turn up at court honestly believing the evidence they are giving is right but it turns out they are ....... Wrong?

I am not one of those who say she was hiding something but I allow for the possibility she made an honest mistake.

But either way that doesn't impact Hutch's relabilty.

I know some people can tell colors almost 109% in Black and White photos, so don't rule out that Hutch could tell red on a dark night. I also know people with an incredible eye for detail.

Do I believe Hutch?

I don't...you couldn't spot a handkerchief at 200 feet never mind see the colour and it must have been a fairly calm night to have heard what was said I guess

[Rosella]

It depends on how loudly they were talking, doesn't it, as to whether Hutch could hear them or not? Some people have excellent sight and hearing, even at night.

Also people have given testimony at inquests and in criminal trials that they are 100% sure of, would bet their lives on, and it turns out they are mistaken. I think that's the case with Caroline Maxwell. I think she mistook the vomiting woman for Mary that morning.

[GUT]

It depends on how loudly they were talking, doesn't it, as to whether Hutch could hear them or not?

Yes

Some people have excellent sight and hearing, even at night.

Yes

Also people have given testimony at inquests and in criminal trials that they are 100% sure of, would bet their lives on, and it turns out they are mistaken.

You better believe that one.

I think that's the case with Caroline Maxwell. I think she mistook the vomiting woman for Mary that morning.

At the very least possible more likely probable.

[GUT]

I don't...you couldn't spot a handkerchief at 200 feet never mind see the colour and it must have been a fairly calm night to have heard what was said I guess

Unless you were deaf, they were talking softly or there was a lot of noise around, yes I think you would hear them.

The bloke over the road leaves home every night just after midnight, we (almost every night) hear him saying goodnight to his partner.

[GUT]

Oh and that's about 250 foot