George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Fisherman]

I know that, Joel. Itīs just that I sometimes find there are too many "must":s around ...

The best, Joel!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Again, thanks for info, Joel. I just checked out the following, for what it's worth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_mantle

It seems that the original mantles were green-tinted and "not very successful". It seems it wasn't until the 1890s that they enjoyed widespread use in Europe. The gas lamps of 1888 London must then have been primative open flames.

Best regards,
Ben

[joelhall]

"It may reasonably be surmised that if gas lighting was primative in the 1940s, it must have been doubly so 60 years earlier."

Maybe we can even allow ourselves to guess that the efficiency of the light was doubled every tenth year, Ben. If so, the light emitted back in the 1880:s was only one 610:th part of the one that shone over Liverpool in the 1940:s! Itīs a wonder the Victorian lightkeepers could find the lamps in the mornings to put them out...

"Surely it must have dawned upon both of us that neither one is going to win the other around"

I havenīt given up on you yet, Ben...

...just joking!

The best,
Fisherman

to be fair, any gas lights still there would have been brighter & complimented by more modern lighting, so its hard to compare.

[joelhall]

the majority of gas lights were naked flames. it was only in 1885 that '...the Austrian scientist Carl Auer invented the gas mantle, which consisted of a fine ceramic gauze impregnated with rare earth metals. When heated to a high temperature by an aerated gas burner (invented 30 years earlier by Robert Bunsen), this produced a much brighter light than a naked flame.' [source: national gas museum].

i have to wonder if east london districts would have refitted all their lighting within 3 years of its invention on the continent (especially given manufacturing & export limitations of the time)? id imagine its possible there would be records and receipts still in existance. anyone shed some light? (pun intended)

[Fisherman]

"It may reasonably be surmised that if gas lighting was primative in the 1940s, it must have been doubly so 60 years earlier."

Maybe we can even allow ourselves to guess that the efficiency of the light was doubled every tenth year, Ben. If so, the light emitted back in the 1880:s was only one 610:th part of the one that shone over Liverpool in the 1940:s! Itīs a wonder the Victorian lightkeepers could find the lamps in the mornings to put them out...

"Surely it must have dawned upon both of us that neither one is going to win the other around"

I havenīt given up on you yet, Ben...

...just joking!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

gas lighting was still in use around liverpool in the 1910s, when my grandparents were children. they say it was awful.

Interesting stuff, Joel!

It may reasonably be surmised that if gas lighting was primative in the 1940s, it must have been doubly so 60 years earlier.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I donīt know how long it took, but Caz wrote: "it would have been all over in a flash because the man couldn’t afford to hang around when the girl screamed". Sounds like seconds to me.

Caz may have written that but the circumstances of the account suggests something longer than a flash. Certainly, she had ample time to observe the approach of the truck in daylight and more than a few moments in which to acquire a description of the man, again, in daylight, whereas with Hutchinson, his only "noticing and memorizing" time-frame occured under a gas lamp when he claimed to be concentrating on his face.

but we DO know that it seems from van Goghs painting and lots of other paintings, that it seems that gaslighting could provide lots of light.

I'm afraid it doesn't seem that at all. It seems that some painters may have made up for a lack of light with a paintbrush. For that reason, we can no more use Van Gogh to assess the lighting condition in night-time Victorian Spitalfields than we can use him to assess the gravity-defying potential of balconies in 1888 cafes.

Exactly so, Ben. But the trouble is that you use your imagination and then assert me that you are right

But if I try to force my imagination to "up" the brightness to a level that would facillitate Hutchinson noticing X, Y and Z, I'd be upping the brightness to a level that I know could not possibly have existed back then and back there, and no amount of "we just don't know" can bring me to acknowledge the possibility of such a level existing.

That's my sincere position on the subject, and I don't see it changing any time soon. Surely it must have dawned upon both of us that neither one is going to win the other around, and that it's probably better to simply agree to disagree? I'm much more interested in the fact that we're in agreement that the statement is a fabrication.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Joel!

They use gas lighting even today in places, Berlin for example has gas lighting in some streets. And of course, the gas lighting of the 1880:s does not compare to electrical lighting. Nobodyīs questoning that.

Whether it would have been bad enough to only offer a bystander under a gas lamp a seconds observation of a man passing by, however, is an entirely different thing. Therein lies the rub!

Oh, and Goofy is a dog too...!

The best, Joel!

Fisherman

[joelhall]

gas lighting was still in use around liverpool in the 1910s, when my grandparents were children. they say it was awful. i think i remember my dad talking about a few in liverpool & london during the 1940s too, though ill haveto check on that.

though all i can say is that the lighting they gave off was very very poor indeed.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"She couldn't have remembered all she claimed if it was "over in a few seconds""

I donīt know how long it took, but Caz wrote: "it would have been all over in a flash because the man couldn’t afford to hang around when the girl screamed". Sounds like seconds to me.

"Who is ridiculing Van Gogh? I really think that's below the belt as accusations go, Fish."

īcourse it is - but I never meant that you would ridicule van Gogh, I meant that I expected to be ridiculed myself for bringing a painting into the discussion.

"I point out that Northern Commerical Street would have been very dark at that time of the morning, in poor weather conditions, with the gloom being punctuated by the occasional dim gaslight. You contradict this on the basis of a painting."

No. No, no, no, no - what I am saying - and surely you must have noticed it - is that we donīt KNOW just how dark Commercial Street and Dorset Street were, but we DO know that it seems from van Goghs painting and lots of other paintings, that it seems that gaslighting could provide lots of light.

"We use our imagination."

Exactly so, Ben. But the trouble is that you use your imagination and then assert me that you are right; it would have been way too dark and it would have been just a fleeting second or two.
MY imagination tells ME that the streets may have been sufficiently lit to allow for significantly MORE than a seconds observation. But I allow for the possibility that I may be wrong, something you wonīt do, Ben.

"I don't much care seeing as we both agree that Hutchinson's statement is a fabrication.
That's the important thing."

It is, Ben, since that is what we both are working from. But it does not mean that other things are unimportant. I am not arguing for arguings sake. I am arguing for an open mind and an approach that does not lock ourselves in a position that just may be wrong.
And, like you say:

Disagree if you wish.

The best!

Fisherman

[Ben]

I'm not at all sorry you're back, Fisherman. Hope you enjoyed it.

That we do not know, do we? It was a smash-and-grab thing, and could have been over in seconds.

It can't have been. She couldn't have remembered all she claimed if it was "over in a few seconds". It was a struggle, she was pushed into the van (as I recall) but she escaped. I'd say that took a great deal longer than a few seconds, and it occured in daylight where certain items can be noticed, if not necessarily memorized, unlike in Hutchinson's situation where the details he alleged to have noticed could be neither noticed nor memorized. There was also ample time for the girl to have noticed the physical particulars of the truck as it approached and pulled up before the attack, which wouldn't have been feasible in Hutchinson's predicament.

Who is ridiculing Van Gogh? I really think that's below the belt as accusations go, Fish.

I point out that Northern Commerical Street would have been very dark at that time of the morning, in poor weather conditions, with the gloom being punctuated by the occasional dim gaslight. You contradict this on the basis of a painting.

I say you can't do that, because the painting isn't real life. He's adding more light with a paintbrush, just as he clearly made the stars bigger than they actually appeared with a paintbrush, because he can. The painter can do precisely what he wants because he has a paintbrush. Hutchinson had no paintbrush.

Let's say you made the assertion that certain cafes have gravity-defying balconies that miraculously don't fall upon the cafe patrons below. I say no, that's impossible. Balconies don't defy gravity. Would you then refer to the exact same painting to prove me wrong, because the painting says otherwise?

The balcony couldn't possibly have looked as it does in the painting (and how boring the painting might appear if it did!), and we may reasonably assume the same thing about the stars, the cobblestones and the lighting. The fact that they didn't and couldn't look like that it reality only enhances the painting. We like it because it isn't - can't possibly be - a photographic representation of real life.

What I AM after is to show that we cannot say that Dorset Street MUST have been very dark, or to put it otherwise - we simply donīt know just HOW dark - or light - it was.

We use our imagination. Dark, night time, small hours, November, poor weather, Victorian London, dim gas lamps. We use that knowledge to inform our judgement as to the probable lighting conditions at the time and place of Hutchinson's sighting.

It is possible to gauge the exact degree of darkness intensity at the time? No.

Is it possible to arrive at an extremely reasonable estimation? Yes.

As for the time Hutchinson had at his disposal to observe things, we go on the basis of the statement he signed, and the conditions he claimed to have found himself in.

just as it is impossible to say how good a memory for details he had

Of course it is. He could have been brilliant. He could have been useless. He could not, however, have been superhuman. That is impossible, and a claim to have noticed and memorized all that he could in the time and conditions available (which is something we have a very good idea of without being able to gauge with absolute specificity) places him firmly in the "superhuman" catergory.

Disagree if you wish.

I don't much care seeing as we both agree that Hutchinson's statement is a fabrication.

That's the important thing.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

" That was a very short trip."

Sorry, Ben - that was all there was time for.

"Just to be clear to everyone: Fisherman believes Hutchinson's statement to be a fabrication."

Spot on.

"Probably because you've seen it before, knew your son had a coat with a black zipper. It was a worthy attempt, but difficult to recreate the circumstances of Hutchinson's sightings if you knew what most of the items looked like before you conducted the test."

Yes, and no. I could make out the zipper, alright. And I did not know it was black in advance, at least I had never thought of it.
But of course it is impossible to recreate Hutchīs conditions. Then again, we will have to make do with what weīwe got.

"For example, where Hutchinson spoke of "white buttons over button boots" and "gaiters", our modern witness spoke only of "black boot"

No, Ben - we got the colour of the shoelaces too: black and white.

"The sighting occured with more time at the witness's disposal in the modern case."

That we do not know, do we? It was a smash-and-grab thing, and could have been over in seconds.

"If the actual circumstances were too dark to notice individual items, obviously the artist will naturally create more light. It's vividly lit because he, the artist, chose to "vividly light" it. It's not a photograph and isn't real life. Presumably the man wearing all black with a blackened-face wasn't really only one third the height of the cafe's door?"

It is not as if I did not anticipate having the van Gogh picture ridiculed. I was actually expecting worse.
Of course, Ben, the picture will not tell us exactly what van Gogh could see. Of course there will be details that are not one hundred per cent the right size, shape or colour.
Then again, I think that most people will realize that without being told so.
The thing is, however, that this picture and heaps of others from the same period, depict street scenes that are quite well lit. And van Gogh would not have painted people and houses he could not make out in the dark. He saw, and he painted, as have other painters done.
The one thing I am after is not to state that this is how Dorset Street would have looked, nor to say that these were the conditions in which Hutch made his observation or that it is wrong to say that Dorset Street was very dark. Maybe it was. An educated guess is that it would at least have been darker than an amusement street in Arles where the café owners could cough up the money to create an extravagant lighting.
What I AM after is to show that we cannot say that Dorset Street MUST have been very dark, or to put it otherwise - we simply donīt know just HOW dark - or light - it was. And your assertion, Ben, is to a very high degree depending on the light conditions. What I want to show is that it is impossible to say where on the scale between stygian darkness and the Arles brightness Dorset Street lay on the night in question, just as it is impossible to say just how long time Hutch had at his disposal to make his observations, just as it is impossible to say how keen an observer he was, just as it is impossible to say how good a memory for details he had - and just as it seems impossible for you to grasp that such things make an immense difference.
Nothinīmore than that.
Come spring, me and my boys have decided to take a longer fishing trip to another lake. Thereīs something for you to look forward to!

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Welcome back, Fish. That was a very short trip.

Just to be clear to everyone: Fisherman believes Hutchinson's statement to be a fabrication.

Sometimes it blazed high and I could spot the black zipper (!) of my youngest sonīs jacket from four, five metres away

Probably because you've seen it before, knew your son had a coat with a black zipper. It was a worthy attempt, but difficult to recreate the circumstances of Hutchinson's sightings if you knew what most of the items looked like before you conducted the test.

But there was more, was there not? Hereīs your own list, compared with Cazī- I think she deserves a lot more credit than you were willing to extend:

There was more, but the vast majority of the account allegedly recalled (and as with Hutchinson, it's still "allegedly") didn't pertain to specific items and details as they did in Hutchinson's case. For example, where Hutchinson spoke of "white buttons over button boots" and "gaiters", our modern witness spoke only of "black boot", and when it comes to clothing and facial features, the woman's observations are scant on detail compared to Hutchinson. You're also highlighting absences of detail, which I could also have superadded to Hutchinson had I been inclined; no lettering on the van; no facial hair. You can't use an "absence" of detail as an example of a detail. You've also specificed "white", which I could also have mentioned had I been inclined.

The sighting occured with more time at the witness's disposal in the modern case.

The lighting conditions were vastly superior; daylight as opposed to darkness in Victorian London.

She was the victim of the attack as opposed to an alleged passer-by.

As with Hutchinson, we don't know how much of her description reflected what she actually noticed and memorized, so it would be irresponsible to use her as a gauge of accuracy against which to assess Hutchinson.

I make it something that starts resembling much of a tie, Ben...

I make it something that doesn't compare in any shape of form to the level of detail Hutchinson alleged to have noticed and memorized, and something that doesn't compare in any shape or form to the conditions Hutchinson found himself in.

Since I could not recreate the typical Victorian gas light out on that island, I came to think of artistic images of gas-lit streets.

Well, that's a problem isn't it, Fisherman.

If the actual circumstances were too dark to notice individual items, obviously the artist will naturally create more light. It's vividly lit because he, the artist, chose to "vividly light" it. It's not a photograph and isn't real life. Presumably the man wearing all black with a blackened-face wasn't really only one third the height of the cafe's door?

But since Iīm being told that the Victorian lamps only gave a flickering light that allowed for very little observation, I thought that this painting tells quite a different story of the gas light

Of course it does.

It isn't real life.

If real life is too dark, the artist adds a bit of light in his painting, which isn't real life.

Come on...

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben! Iīm back, with a full report on how much my campfire allowed me to see in the darkness of an unihabited island at night.
The answer is: all sorts of things, but in very varying degree. A campfire or a torch is obviously not the best source of light to make comparisons with. Sometimes it blazed high and I could spot the black zipper (!) of my youngest sonīs jacket from four, five metres away. At other times it flickered, making the samy boy nothing more than a silhouette.
All in all, a worthless experiment – but since we had freshly caught perch grilling over the fire, it was not too bad ...!

Returning to the topic, I noticed Cazīpost where she mentioned a girl with a good memory, describing her assailant. You answered by saying that a white blob is not very hard to remember.
But there was more, was there not? Hereīs your own list, compared with Cazī- I think she deserves a lot more credit than you were willing to extend:

Astrakhan man:
5"6' in height.
34 or 35 years of age.
Dark complexion.
Dark, heavy moustache turned up at the ends.
Long dark coat trimmed with Astrakhan
Dark felt hat turned down in the middle.
White linen collar
Black necktie
Horseshoe tie-pin
Dark spats
Light buttons over button boots
Waistcoat
Massive gold chain
Watch with big seal.
Red stone hanging from seal.
Bushy eyebrows
No side whiskers.
Cleanshaven chin.
Appearance of a foreigner
Small parcel about 8 inches long (woah, knife-shaped everyone!)
Covered in dark American cloth.
A pair of brown kid gloves.
Walked softly.
Red handkerchief.

White pick-up truck man:
a small white pick-up truck
with no lettering on the side
with green bars
tools in the back
black seats
white zigzag pattern
coming from the Overbury Crescent direction
aged in his late 20s to early 30s
white
very pale skin
5ft 10ins or 5ft 11ins tall
very skinny
clean-shaven
dark eyes
a bruise or a scratch on his cheek
wearing a black soft fabric round neck jumper with long sleeves
It had a blob of white paint on the front
black trousers, possibly tracksuit bottoms, with white paint on them
black boots
one white lace and one black lace.

I make it something that starts resembling much of a tie, Ben...

Since I could not recreate the typical Victorian gas light out on that island, I came to think of artistic images of gas-lit streets. It of course has no value as conclusive proof, but it is interesting just the same. I found a painting of van Gogh, purportedly painted in september 1888 in Arles, showing a café at night. The streets are lit by gas lamps. The scene is very vividly lit, and that stands to reason considering it was a man who loved light and colours who painted it. He used no black in this painting.
What interests me is that we can see figures from a long way, on a street that is by no means badly lit, making out colours and such. If Astrakhan man came walking down this street, there would be ample opportunity to take in a lot of details, which I think you will agree on.
Now, the fact of the matter is that he did NOT walk down this street, he walked down an East End street that may have been lit much more sparsely. I realize that no direct comparison can be made. But since Iīm being told that the Victorian lamps only gave a flickering light that allowed for very little observation, I thought that this painting tells quite a different story of the gas light. It was painted on the spot at night, and not from memory or something like that, so I think it is relevant to make a guess that van Gogh actually could see people from far away, and that he could make out lots of details in the night.
I think that some of the pictures that are given of the lighting conditions in Jackīs London are perhaps exaggerating the darkness. The gas lamps brought a revolution to the western world when they came, rendering for example Paris the title "Cité de lumičre". And yes, I realize that such an epiteth never was awarded Whitechapel...
Anyways, hereīs the (long) link to the picture. I could not figure out how to load it.

http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://www.artquotes.net/masters/vangogh/vangogh_cafe1888.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.artquotes.net/masters/vangogh/vangogh_nightcafe.htm&h=600&w=471&sz=105&hl=sv&start=1&um=1&usg=__H4hJqDsDXEvZrRUfaDLDe50s5s8=&tbnid=9WWlzcm5o8073M:&tbnh=135&tbnw=106&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcafe%2Bgogh%2Bnight%2Bscene%26um%3D1%26hl%3Dsv%26sa%3DN

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

That hits the nail on the head. Why oh why can we not simply accept that George Hutchinson was just a observant witness

You must get it out of your mind than anyone who queries me on anything I've posted must be of the persuasion that Hutchinson was a "just an observant witness". You ask why oh why he cannot be thus regarded, and I answer: because nobody can observe all that he alleged in those conditions, besides which the police discarded his evidence shortly after it was circulated.

One must remember, the police and the vigilante committee , after the kelly murder were a hungry pack of wolves, and it would have taken a lot of courage to present oneself at the scene, armed with a description of what could be 'Jack The Ripper'.

But what did those "wolves" do initially? Take the bait. Swallow the worm on the hook. Get all excited about the prospect of Jack the Ripper being a surly, out-of-place wealthy Jewish menace with a black parcel. Subtle stuff.

Hutchinson admitts that he was encouraged by a fellow resident at the Victoria home to go to the police, also he states that he told a police officer on sunday, who dismissed him.

And you're honestly not whiffing some serious horse plop at this point? Hutchinson says he told a policeman. Policeman does nothing, despite knowing he can be traced according to his beat and hauled over the coals for incompetence?

I have never seen Gh as anything more then a observant witness, to be honest all these asumptions of foul play stems from Bobs excellent 'From Hell', before that he was looked upon as obviously someone with a remarkable memory

Surely that's a good thing, Richard?

In irrational truism is allowed to remain unassailed for decades, and then a work is published that causes us to ponder, to reflect, to reassess, with the result being that the initial irrational truism is no longer popular, or at least not as popular as it once was.

That's just progress.

Best regards,
Ben