George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Ben]

Gas lighting was widely in use in my young days,the 1930's.The street lighting was usually a globe on a high hollow column.The lamplighter turned them on and off by use of a long pole with a hook attached.In towns and cities they could be attached to buildings,in which case they could be relatively low.The distance between varied,but few were less than 50 yards apart.The lower they were,the light appeared more intense,but covered a very small arc.The higher they were the larger the arc but weaker the light.
The light,in any case was poor,with the distance between at times in total darkness,depending on the weather and moonlight if any.Another factor which minimised their effectiveness,is that they were prone to fouling both inside and otside the globe.They were rarely cleaned.In places of high density housing ,the fouling of the globes was more pronounced,due to smoke and dust.In periods of fog they were useless.
I have walked just a few feet from persons I knew well, saw them pass under the lights,but had difficulty in identifying them.

Good post, Harry, and one which Fisherman dismissed too hastily.

Yours was an interesting recollection based on actual experience with gas lamps in the 1930s.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'm troubled that you're not understanding this."

Thatīs ever so sweet of you, Ben. Not to worry, though!

"Yes, because you knew what everything looked like already!
They were your colours. You know which object was what colour beforehand. Are you seeing the problem with this comparison yet?"

Ben, I have hundreds of books, many of them my wifeīs. I do not keep record of what colours the backs of all them books have, just as I donīt know their titles and authors more than to a certain extent. I could see the colours, alright, with no trouble at all. I even found out that my wife had bought a Peter Robinson book that I had not read before - perhaps you are implying that I had seen it, and remembered it subconsciously...?

Surely, Ben, you must have some candles at home, or the economical means to get hold of them. Then light five of them while I get on the plane to you, and when I arrive I will read you the names of YOUR books to, from "The eternal scepticist" to "The heart of darkness" from four metres away. It is a piece of cake. Or try it yourself if you donīt belie ... course you donīt. Silly of me.

The trouble around this thread, Ben, is highlighted by Harrys last post. You donīt know **** about the real conditions of the light, you donīt know **** about if it was a clear or clouded sky over the East End, and you donīt know **** about how much time Hutch had at his hands - but you still take the liberty to draw conclusions from the **** you donīt know.

And no - I did not dismiss Harry too hastily. He took care of it himself by admitting that the lighting supplied by gas lamps varied a lot. That too was an observation from real life - but one that did not suit your chosen purpose...

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Caz,
That description of the girl witness.How does that paper account compare with the official police account?What paper was it?The 'Local one" doesn't mean anything really,if one wanted to check.

Hi Harry,

It's a reasonable point, but the paper (the Croydon Post, which is associated with the Croydon Advertiser) does use quite a substantial direct quote from the Detective Sergeant dealing with the case, along with the official e-fit image, and at the end of the serious, no-nonsense report, anyone with additional information is urged to call what I assume to be a local police phone number or Crimestoppers.

Please remember that I was simply helping Fisherman with his enquiries into the detail given in witness accounts and making no comment about their accuracy or Hutch's honesty.

If Ben is right about the girl's 'very detailed description of the suspect' (to use the Detective Sergeant's words) being no better than 'bog-standard', it would actually bring down Hutch's supposed super powers to a more manageable level.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Exactly so, Caz!

But then again, if the time elapsed at the incident you mention was just a matter of seconds, Ben much prefers to settle for a verdict of yet another impossibility. Thatīs what he tells me, at least.

All the best, Caz!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Ben, I have hundreds of books, many of them my wifeīs. I do not keep record of what colours the backs of all them books have, just as I donīt know their titles and authors more than to a certain extent.

How do I know that? How does anyone else know that? 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. Let's assume not. You'd be studying it at leisure, and "leisure" was not a commodity that Hutchinson had at his disposal, nor did he have close walls for lights to dance off.

The trouble around this thread, Ben, is highlighted by Harrys last post

Harry highlighted the nature of gas lamps; "the light, in any case, was poor". That's based on the experiences of someone who was once accustomed to gas lamps.

You donīt know **** about the real conditions of the light

Yes, I ******* do.

Dark, November, poor weather conditions, Victorian London, small hours, night time, dim primative gas lamps thinly dispersed throughout a dark street.

That's having an incredibly good idea about the conditions that existed at the time.

donīt know **** about how much time Hutch had at his hands

Yes, I ******* do.

I have a brilliant idea of the time Hutchinson had on his hands.

It's in the statement he signed.

but you still take the liberty to draw conclusions from the **** you donīt know.

I have a damnably good idea based on

1) The conditions in the area, as described above.

2) The statement he signed.

3) The human conditions.

I can draw pretty safe conclusions based on the above, thankyou very much.

And no - I did not dismiss Harry too hastily. He took care of it himself by admitting that the lighting supplied by gas lamps varied a lot.

Harry said: "The light, in any case, was poor". Hardly ambiguous terminology.

[Ben]

If Ben is right about the girl's 'very detailed description of the suspect' (to use the Detective Sergeant's words) being no better than 'bog-standard', it would actually bring down Hutch's supposed super powers to a more manageable level.

If they compared in any way shape or form with the level of detailed Hutchinson recorded, yes. If they compared in any way shape or form with the conditions (specifically time and lighting), then maybe it would.

Unfortunately, however....

[caz]

Hi Ben,

You can’t get away from the fact that the description given by the alleged victim of an attempted abduction in July this year was ‘a very detailed’ one, still being taken ‘extremely seriously’ by the local police a month later when the article appeared. The whole tone of it reflected the optimism that such a detailed account would produce results. You may think you know better, when you claim that this girl’s description was ‘bog-standard, if anything’. But the people trained to know such things (come in Monty! ) evidently don’t share your view. Sorry.

I think I’m beginning to understand why you are so sceptical about other people’s powers of observation and recall. Yours are not very good at all. You even had my post to refer back to and yet you described the victim as a ‘woman’ (she was ‘a girl aged 13’); Fisherman had to pick you up on the ‘one black/one white boot lace’ detail, which you conveniently forgot when specifically comparing footware descriptions; and you remembered her being pulled into the truck and then having to escape from it, giving her plenty of time to take in the man’s appearance and commit it to memory. Not true at all, but it confirms that you, like many others, see what you want to see.

The girl told the police that the man pulled up at the bus stop where she was standing. He jumped out and grabbed her, causing her to scream, which in turn spooked him back into his truck and away down the road. Now can you honestly say that he could have stood posing for her on the pavement for more than a few seconds?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

You can’t get away from the fact that the description given by the alleged victim of an attempted abduction in July this year was ‘a very detailed’ one, still being taken ‘extremely seriously’ by the local police a month later when the article appeared.

So was Joseph Lawendes.

If you look at the description that was circulated by the Police Gazzette on thre 19th October, you'll see that the clothing description was actually very detailed. You have then, found a detailed description that can be compared to Lawende's. Of course, here we have something different from Hutchinson. If it is to be treated seriously in the long run, it's obviously different from Hutchinson's account, which was discredited.

The girl in question had an opportunity to observe the truck approach and stop before the attack in daylight, so the very notion that that it took a second to notice the physical particulars of the van and the physical particulars of the offender at the same time is silly nonsense.

and you remembered her being pulled into the truck and then having to escape from it, giving her plenty of time to take in the man’s appearance and commit it to memory. Not true at all, but it confirms that you, like many others, see what you want to see

What nonsense. The suspect attemped to drag the girl into the truck after approaching in the scene and stopping outside the bus stop beforehand. That was ample time in which to observe the suspect's appearance in broad daylight in good conditions, neither of which were available to Hutchinson.

He jumped out and grabbed her, causing her to scream, which in turn spooked him back into his truck and away down the road

Err...no.

First he had to emerge from his truck which was already under observation, then he attempted to pull her into the truck, which would have taken more than the "flash" that you were trying to foist upon us earlier, at least according to the article I read in the Croyden Guardian.

[joelhall]

Incidentally, I brought out some candles and lit them inside my dark house yesterday evening. A room of some eighteen square metres was lit very efficiently by five candles in a chandelier in the middle of the room. I could easily identify most colours, the only problematic ones being the darker shades of blue and green, which were hard to tell apart. I could read the names of the books on my bookshelf from three-four metres. When I opened a newspaper, and brought it away from the chandelier, I could only just make out the text in that paper five metres away from the light.
I could easily have described mr Astrakhan, goldchain, red seal stone and all from across the room, a distance of four and a half metres.
Of course, I donīt know how five lit candles would compare to a lit gaslamp in the East End, but I donīt think it would be too far off the mark.
So maybe we donīt even need van Gogh to reach some clarity, Ben?

The best,
Fisherman

actually, to recreate a victorian street lamp, youd have to go outside to somewhere pitch black, put a few candles on top of a ten foot pole, then try and see. lighting a room is much different from street lighting. the lamps in the late 19th century did not vary as much as in later years, as the technology was just not there. they were high up to be easily visible. the intention was not to use them to light up everything, it was so people could find their way.

candles give off photons as the wax vapour combusts. this light goes in straight lines. it also does not travel far from such a low intensity source before they photons are so spread that the light diminishes quickly.

in a confined definite space, there would be reflection, from walls (especially lighter coloured ones) which intesifies the light given off. if your candle was low down, youd see most of the room. if high up, mostly youd see reflected light from the ceiling, and everything would be dimmer. if you put a plate under the candle (appropriate to how early lamps were constructed), there would be shadow beneath.

regardless of what you think, street lighting was in its infancy & of extremely low quality, nothing like victorian paintings make out.

as regards the painters & their techniques, this has already been answered, if you dont like that answer thats your concern, but there it is.

still, i dont know why i bother as you clearly cant stand anyone disagreeing with you.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"we only have your word for it"

We only have your word for Hutchīs description as something that could not be done, so that kind of makes us equal. After that, though, I propose that we leave the benefit od a doubt, whereas you propose "case closed - on uncertain grounds. That is where we are NOT equal.


Yes, I ******* do.
Dark, November, poor weather conditions, Victorian London, small hours, night time, dim primative gas lamps thinly dispersed throughout a dark street.
That's having an incredibly good idea about the conditions that existed at the time."

Give it to me in lux, Ben.

"Yes, I ******* do.
I have a brilliant idea of the time Hutchinson had on his hands.
It's in the statement he signed."

Give it to me in seconds, Ben.

It could have varied A LOT in both cases, and donīt try to tell me otherwise. If I say that Hutch looked at Astrakhan man for three seconds only as he passed underneath the lamp, there is no way in the world that you can disprove it - and the same thing applies if I tell you that he studied the man for a full thirty seconds.
Donīt tell us that we have the time from the reports existing, for we have not as you well know. In your mind, I am certain that you have all the details worked out, lighting, timelines and all, but Iīm afraid it borders on fraud to try to sell such things to other posters!

There is and remains an uncertainty when it comes to Hutchīs sighting and what he could possibly have noted. That has been recognized throughout the years, and it will do so in the future too if Iīm not much mistaken.

Oh, and what Harry said actually involves the fact that the light emitted by the gas lamps varied. Gas light is poor, compared to electrical light, Ben, and we all know that. But if the variation Harry speaks of is one that could be compared to that inbetween a lit candle and five lit candles, for example, then this provides us with yet another good pointer in the direction I have supported all along: We have no way of knowing how much light Hutch was dealing with. And so far, we have not even taken the possibility of a lit-up window or two into account. The more elements we drag into this equation, the more uncertain we will be of what kind of conditions that faced people in that particular area at that particular time. How hard can that be to understand, Ben?

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Ben.
Good point. I did indeed say poor light.But I wiil elaborate seeing that Fisherman cannot seem to read and understand information of even of the simplest form
The INTENSITY of the light given off by street gas lights,differed from poor to extremely poor.
Now does that improve Hutchinson's honesty?
By the way,a witness describes rain as falling heavily the night Kelly was killed.
Yes I know Fish.But was it at 2am?I don't know.I was abed asleep.
Goodnight Fish.

[claire]

all artists concern themselves with light, Claire. With you name, you should know that - colour is nothing but reflected light.
What is you explanation to the fact that there are hundreds of nightly scenes on canvases from that time, showing people rather far away, showing colours? Did the artists paint what they did not see? Are the houses down the street in van Goghs painting something he just filled in? If it was totally dark in the background, why did he not paint it that way?

Oh dear. My point was the principle focus on light (rather than symbolism; unconscious desire; socio-political conditions, yada yada).

In any case, with your name, you should know that you're really just fishing here.

You seem to be labouring under the delusion that artists are faithful to nature, or natural conditions. You know as well as I do that that is absolute nonsense. Have you never heard of composition, for example? Don't you remember, from your extensive study of 'art' to the extent that no-one could teach you anything (two years, wow! Well, shall I give up trying to teach my postgrads anything at all?? sheesh.), all that stuff about perspective? Remember when Degas started cropping his pictures, to mimic both photography and oriental art? If natural conditions provided an artist with a wonderful view of a woman bored silly over a glass of absinthe, but behind her was a blackened window, do you think it possible that he mightn't use his expertise to create a more resonant composition and, um, change the wall or put in some reflections or some optics?

Art is not life, Fisherman. It is far superior, far more considered. Artists will always invent, introduce extraneous elements to make more sense of a scene, to illuminate an allusion or a point they wish to make (Manet's black cat in 'Olympia,' for example). Van Gogh did not nip out, paint what he saw and go home, work complete. He wasn't some Sunday watercolourist. He worked and reworked his canvases extensively. But, of course, you know all this. You just wanted to point score.

Regarding light conditions, once more...the gas lights on Dorset Street were, from what I can gather from the few photos I've seen that were relatively contemporary, affixed to buildings. According to what Harry has said, this means that the light would have been more intense but in smaller pools (assuming they were working and clean...let's be generous and assume they were). There was a strong wind earlier in the day, but given that it was raining during the early hours and it was very overcast for the Lord Mayor's do, it's very, very reasonable to suppose there was cloud coverage at the time of the 'sighting.' The moon was a couple days past new, so would have afforded little light, even if the sky had been clear. The ambient light would be very, very minimal.

Now. Hutch's subjects were moving, meaning they'd unlikely be illuminated for more than a second, unless they were moving at glacier speed. He said himself he saw them only fleetingly. It is what? very unlikely? to recall this amount about a stranger under such appalling visual conditions.

Finally, Caz's example...I do believe that this was a coherent account that police officers would need to act upon. The possibility nevertheless remains, though, that there was a certain amount of 'blank-filling-in.' For the purposes of identifying a possible subject, it's not as if someone who actually had a grey lace and a blue one would have been ruled out. For me, if GH was at his best, he did a bit of honest augmentation. At worst, he fabricated someone who he knew would and could never be found.

Whew. Long post. Sorry guys.

[Fisherman]

Joel writes:

"i dont know why i bother as you clearly cant stand anyone disagreeing with you."

Oh, Joel, that I can. I am very much open for the possibility that the conditions did not allow Hutch to see what he said he saw. But I am also open for the possibility that there was light enough to see it all.

I am staying open-minded on the matter. I have not made my mind up. Those who say that it was impossible, THEY are the ones with a made-up mind, who wonīt tolerate anybody disagreeing.

In fact, like Ben says, I lean very much to the belief that Hutchīs story was a fabrication. So, you see, I am so little opposed to somebody disagreeing with me, that I am prepared to argue against and disagree even with myself. How is that for tolerance, Joel?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

We only have your word for Hutchīs description as something that could not be done, so that kind of makes us equal.

And you only have my word for it that there isn't an alien in my loft, but I guess some things are so stinkingly obvious.

After that, though, I propose that we leave the benefit od a doubt, whereas you propose "case closed - on uncertain grounds. That is where we are NOT equal.

We're not equal, so why can't you just grit your teeth and resign yourself to that not-equalness as I suggested earlier, you who does not believe Hutchinson told the truth?

It could have varied A LOT in both cases, and donīt try to tell me otherwise.

No, it couldn't.

It could only vary if you fiddle and change the content of the account to an unaccaptable extent in order to make it more plausible, which is completely irresponsible, but even if you do change it to a ridiculous degree, the purported level of observation and recollection would still be impossible. Hey, if you disagree and think "improbable" instead, fine, but please don't go on and on and on about it. You've said it all before: Yes, it's a probable fabrication but how silly that Ben thinks it's impossible. Well, I do. Sincerely, so let's agree to disagree (for the love of shyte!).

If I say that Hutch looked at Astrakhan man for three seconds only as he passed underneath the lamp, there is no way in the world that you can disprove it

I agree, but he claimed to have been concentrating on the suspect's face for those assumed three seconds, and if you're concentrating on someone's face, you can't also be concentrating on other minute details of his lower body.. It's either or. If he noticed the particulars of the face, it would have been at the expense of noticing all the other crap.

By all means, call it three seconds if you wish.

We have no way of knowing how much light Hutch was dealing with

But we do know that if was not sufficient to facilliate the purported level of observation and recollection in this case.

Best,

Ben

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:

"You seem to be labouring under the delusion that artists are faithful to nature, or natural conditions. You know as well as I do that that is absolute nonsense. Have you never heard of composition, for example?"

The delusions, Claire, I will happily leave to you. I donīt want them, I donīt need them.
The van Gogh painting was just one example of hundreds of examples on paintings depicting night scenes from gas-lit venues all over the world, showing that people could see long distances in the gas-lit streets.
The implications made on this thread went so far as to state that there was only a second for Hutch to take in all he saw, and since we have no photos around showing us Dorset Street at night in November 1888, I hoped that people woould be receptive enough to see that all of these paintings give us a pretty good indication that this would probably not be true. But then, receptivity is only so common - some people have it, some donīt and some use it at will.

By the way:
"He said himself he saw them only fleetingly."

Where did he say that, Claire? I canīt find that wording in the statement he gave to the police nor in the papers.

The best, Claire!
Fisherman