George Hitchinson: a simple question

[joelhall]

Most establishments that had gas lighting of a private nature outside their premises,were very concious of the cost of keeping them lit.If it was neccessary to have them lit, such as advertising being open,or to display wares ,they were turned off as soon as business closed for that day.At 2am in the morning,there would not be other than corporation street lighting.

i agree with fisherman. it would seem sensible that private dwellings or doss houses, which saw people come & go at all hours would surely leave some lights lit.

[Ben]

I wrote:

"See, that's the problem with these little desperate experiments; we only have your word for it, and frankly you might be making it up to score points."

That's not an accusation. It doesn't mean I "believe" you're making it up. It's an acknowledgement that you could have been. For all you know, I could have been doing precisely the same thing with the experiments I carried out in Spitalfields. That's neither an accusation or an implication. It's a caution, and no, I don't feel embarrassed for making it. We can't take Richard's "I heard Reg on the radio" as any sort of evidence for precisely the same reason. We only have his word for it, but that doesn't mean we think he's making it up. You might have taken umbrage at the suggestion that that your efforts were "desperate", but then you did swear at me repeatedly in the preceding post.

So, Ben, when I make a perfectly reasonable comparison of how you allow yourself to treat two perfectly uncontroversial remarks in totally differing manners

I disputed the comparison and disputed that I treated them differently, as I explain above. I don't think that constitutes any sinister tactic on my part.

Having said that, I think this is not something that should take up too much space on a thread unintended for it.

Absolutely agreed.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I never accused you of making things up to bolster your arguments."

The only way to find out what you did is to quote you, Ben. And here it is:

"See, that's the problem with these little desperate experiments; we only have your word for it, and frankly you might be making it up to score points."

What I said about this is that you have implied that I may be making things up. And the implication is there.

Besides, no matter what you choose to call it, implication, theoretical experiment, "cautioning against the use of personal experiments" (ha!) or what, it is embarrasing - though not as much to me as it is to yourself.

So, Ben, when I make a perfectly reasonable comparison of how you allow yourself to treat two perfectly uncontroversial remarks in totally differing manners, I think that the best you could come up with is some afterthought, instead of a statement that you don´t take lightly to having this pointed out to you.

Having said that, I think this is not something that should take up too much space on a thread unintended for it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I never accused you of making things up to bolster your arguments.

I'm saying that for all any of us know, you could have done, which is why I caution against the use of personal experiments, interesting though they may be. I conducted some experiments at the crime scene itself in relation to the distances, and I don't expect anyone to take the conclusions I drew from them as gosepl for the same reason. For all you know, I could have made it up to point-score.

That's not the same as accusing someone of resorting to dishonest tactics.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I don't take very kindly to the insinuation that I'm resorting to "tactics"

If those are your sentiments, Ben, I´m afraid it´s time to remind you that you have twice during these last months implied that I make things up to bolster my thinking, the last time being when you threw forward such a suggestion as I stated that I could read the names on my books from four metres away by the light of a chandelier.

I could not care less what you take kindly to, if you will not accept arguments from other posters that use the same methodologies that you apply to the case yourself.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

But then again, there were not so many other suggestions you could come up with to defend this tactic of yours, was there...?

I don't take very kindly to the insinuation that I'm resorting to "tactics".

I didn't describe anything as "controversial". I would suggest that a respectable appearance would have been somewhat conspicuous in St. George-in-the-East. That relates to Stride, though, and therefore belongs on a Stride thread.

[Fisherman]

HArry writes:

"Most establishments that had gas lighting of a private nature outside their premises,were very concious of the cost of keeping them lit.If it was neccessary to have them lit, such as advertising being open,or to display wares ,they were turned off as soon as business closed for that day.At 2am in the morning,there would not be other than corporation street lighting."

Sensible suggestion, Harry, and it would probably apply in most cases. When it comes to boarding houses and other establishments where people lived, I would expect that they may have left their gas lamps burning for the benefit of their customers returning home in the dark.

"If I say it is My opinion that Hutchinson was lying,it can be construed that I leave room for doubt,that I also believe,that no matter how small that doubt is ,it could be otherwise."

That sentence, Harry, contains a world of wisdom! I bow deeply to it.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Most establishments that had gas lighting of a private nature outside their premises,were very concious of the cost of keeping them lit.If it was neccessary to have them lit, such as advertising being open,or to display wares ,they were turned off as soon as business closed for that day.At 2am in the morning,there would not be other than corporation street lighting.
Window display lighting, as we have it today,is of more recent,post world war 2 history.
The Witness statement from Bucks Row,illustrate the strength of street lighting,Even up close details were obscure.In Dorset street Lewis could not clearly see details and she was about 20 feet away.Of course he was in shadow,but so would people be on the other side of the street from Hutchinson.Would a red hanky be recognisible?
If I say it is My opinion that Hutchinson was lying,it can be construed that I leave room for doubt,that I also believe,that no matter how small that doubt is ,it could be otherwise.So it was with Aberline.He expressed an opinion of Hutchinson's truthfulness,signaling that conciously,or unconciously,there was a doubt.experienced people do it regularly,even on these boards.

[Fisherman]

Which is where I disagree, of course - it is and remains totally uncontroversial. A comment stating: "He looked perfectly respectable to me" is so neutral that it is ridiculous.
But then again, there were not so many other suggestions you could come up with to defend this tactic of yours, was there...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

It is interesting, Ben, that this mundane and non-sensational detail is something you swallow without blinking

I don't, Fish.

I think Hutchinson lied. I don't think he saw the couple from any angle or any distance. You agree. Remember? If you're asking if the press invented the "corner of Dorset Street" detail, my answer is I don't know. If pressed though, I'd say that a press addition of "respectability" arguably adds a degree of spice to an account. More interesting that local shabbiness.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

I have been digging a bit in the field of gas lamps. There is actually a very nice little film on youtube on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EOxkgjHnDA showing a Victorian gas lamp, a so called Bray gas burner.

These burners were around early. On http://search.rubylane.com/search?ss...b=Find+an+Item
there is an 1860:s gas lamp with bray burners for sale.

There is also a beautiful ad on http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2138/...21a404.jpg?v=0
where a cigarsmoking gentleman reads his paper with the aid of a bray burner gas lamp lit outside his window.

http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255-s01/mapping-paris/images/renoir.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist255-s01/mapping-paris/Gaslights.html&h=330&w=450&sz=48&hl=sv&start=2&um=1&usg=__HXQEn51ouKx8zuN2jxQYLRIdF_4=&tbnid=coxLJe0WbR64oM:&tbnh=93&tbnw=127&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522the%2Bchanging%2Bstreets%2Bof%2Bparis%2522%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dsv%26sa%3DN

also provides an interesting glimpse – or flame – about gaslighting, with a drawing showing an extremely well-lit Paris street crossing in 1842, among other things.

And yes, guys and gals, I DO realize that this is just a drawing, and I DO realize that the artist may well have exaggerated things. But to round off with, it makes for interesting reading!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Oh, true.
But the press tended to sensationalize existing evidence, and "standing on the corner of Dorset Street" was a pretty mundane and non-sensational detail."

It is interesting, Ben, that this mundane and non-sensational detail is something you swallow without blinking, when you on a Stride thread some time ago, in an exchange with me, would not accept for a second that the Star reported Schwartz saying that BS man was of a respectable appearance...?

Could you elaborate on why the latter detail is so much more sensational than the first?

The best!
Fisherman

[dougie]

Did Hutchinson seemingly just dissapear after his "moment of fame",or was he possibly labouring under an assumed name,or a non de plume given to him by the police?
regards

[Stephen Thomas]

I wonder how many people here believe in Mr Astrakhan... the man seen twice by Hutchinson... and by Hutchinson only...
I recall one James Hadley Chase: "Believe this, you believe everything"...

Amitiés,
David

Hi David

Did James Hadley Chase get published in France?

No Orchids For Miss Blandish is a quite astonishing piece of literature.

Have you read the George Orwell essay on it?

The English phrase is 'If you believe that you'll believe anything'.

And Hutch may quite well have been telling the truth.

Best wishes

(et allez les rosbifs)

[Ben]

Again, you're most wecome, Greg.

If Hutchinson was protecting anyone, it was himself, rather than someone else in my view. That said, there may be an argument for identifying the "red moustache man" with the loitering man seen by Lewis. Both were short and stout, and both wore the same headgear; a wideawake or billycock.

Cheers,
Ben