George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Rob Clack]

No, wait!

Huge balls-up on my part, I'm afraid. The Queen's Head was at the corner of Fashion Street and Commercial Street, not Thrawl Street. Any lamps there, Rob?

Thanks,
Bne

There's an old style street lamp there now but it's not gas operated, also it's slightly more in Fashion Street than Commercial Street. The only gas lamp I know of is the one Monty mentioned in Folgate Street. The only way of knowing where these lamps were (as far as I know) is from the Large Scale 1873 O.S. Maps. The later versions didn't carry this information.

Folgate Street



And the Queens Head



Rob

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben.
None of us in the twenty first century can verify lighting conditions around the area in question, but H division certainly could have.
Are you dismissing the fact that Abberline formed the opinion initially that Hutchinson was telling the truth, and that would have included what you have stated was impossible, ie.. the lack of visibility.?
Is it likely that he would have just accepted this witness as just extremely fond of ''Carrots'?
By suggesting that Hutchinsons story is a load of hogwash, you are not only suggesting the streets were on the 'dim side' but also the police.
It is obvious Ben that the lighting afforded to Gh, was enough to have allowed him to give a description which satisfied the police.
Regards Richard.

[harry]

Manufacturers most always quote the maximum performance of their products,while buyers tend to be cost concious.I want to drive a car at 70 klm's an hour,I cannot buy one that only does that.I have to buy one that can attain much more.But I can adjust it to 70.So with gas burners.Now gas lights at the time(1888) were not expected to cast large areas of illumination.They were intended to be beacons only.That is why they were staggered on each side of the street where possible.Why?because in the dark any obstruction or danger was more likely to be on the pavement,so walking in the roadway was a safety measure,and keeping between the lights ensured one was walking on the road.
Horse drawn vehicles were rare at night,but the sound of hoofs on cobbled stones alerted a person should one be out,and lanterns were attached to carts to show their presence.
But let us take the simple route if we cannot agree on the above.Just accept that because the witnesses,Paul,Cross,Lewis ,Tabran ,Diemschultz,etc remarked on the darkness of the locations,and police had to use lanterns to get a close up view,and still missed details,it must have been very murky indeed.Those people were there,they should know.

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:
"Just accept that because the witnesses,Paul,Cross,Lewis ,Tabran ,Diemschultz,etc remarked on the darkness of the locations"

Well, Harry, if "Tabran" is Tabram, you would be very much right here - hers WAS a dark situation.
On the other witnesses, I think we must accept that the testimony they gave was specific to the spots they were talking about. Diemschitz, for example, described the darkness inside Dutfields yard, and that does not apply to the situation in Dorset Street, does it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

police had to use lanterns to get a close up view,and still missed details,it must have been very murky indeed.

True enough, Harry - although the salient question is how well-lit a main road like Commercial Street would have been. It's not even about the Fashion Street corner as such, more one of how many other lamps there were on Commercial Street itself that might have contributed to the ambient illumination - or at least offered pools of light under which a pedestrian might have been better observed as he walked up the street.

In terms of the Hutchinson observation (meeting Kelly at F&D, her heading towards Thrawl Street where Astrakhan was approaching, and Hutch's subsequent vantage point at the Queen's Head, then Kelly and Astrakhan turning into Dorset Street) the relevant sections of Commercial Street are shown in green in the following map, with the Queen's Head shown in red:



Where, along those green lines, were there lamps? Surely the one outside the Queen's Head wasn't the only light-source for that entire stretch of Commercial Street?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

The whole issue has been to establish whether there were bright gas lamps on the market back in 1888, and Ben has refuted this, saying that since the lamps before 1891 were open flame lamps, they could not possibly have been bright

Can't you understand why I'm getting upset here? You seem to crave the satisfaction of saying "Aha, Ben has said this, and I've shown him to be wrong!", but it just hasn't happend here. I said there were no such things as "powerful lights" in circulation on the streets, and that proved correct. Of course there are powerful lights in existence. If you light a bonfire, that's a powerful light, and there were bonfires in 1888.

We do not know that, and one of the things that ought to make us realize this is that we KNOW that technology allowed for VERY bright gas light, even in them days.

But militating very heavily against that is the fact that the brighter lamps you spoke of were not is use in 1888, which means they don't impact in the slightest on the issue of Hutchinson's statement.

There were, though, very bright gas lamps to be had, and therefore that argument of yours is gone.

No, Fish.

Bonfires were bright lights which we know existed in 1888. We know that there wasn't a bonfire next to Hutchinson during that alleged sighting, so the existence of bonfires counts for nothing.

Your brayburner existed in 1882. We know that there would not have been a super-brilliant-candlepower brayburner next to Hutchinson during that alleged sighting, so the existence of such lamps counts for nothing.

To leach on somebody, by the way, is to try and gain something, and I fail to see that I have gained anything from you but faltitudes and slanderous language.

I don't dislike you at all, Fish, but I strongly resent the unpleasant insintuation that you've "shoved things down my throat" - inflammatory terminology - and that I've had to admit I'm wrong and Fisherman's right.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Well, Harry, if "Tabran" is Tabram, you would be very much right here - hers WAS a dark situation.

Side note: spelling of Tabram's name varied, even in the censuses before and after her death (the entries for her sons aren't invariably spelt "Tabram" in subsequent censuses).

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Rob.

What are the chances of that gas lamp having been there in 1888, would you say?

Hi Richard,

Are you dismissing the fact that Abberline formed the opinion initially that Hutchinson was telling the truth, and that would have included what you have stated was impossible, ie.. the lack of visibility.?

No, I'm highlighting the fact that Hutchinson's evidence dropped off the map very shortly after it appeared, with the seniority of the MEPO apparently deciding to discard it as having little to know value.

By suggesting that Hutchinsons story is a load of hogwash, you are not only suggesting the streets were on the 'dim side' but also the police.

No, because his account was clearly discredited.

It is obvious Ben that the lighting afforded to Gh, was enough to have allowed him to give a description which satisfied the police.

No, because his account was clearly discredited.

The report was penned shortly after Hutchinson made his statement, at a time when the police had no tangible leads and an arguable preference for conspicuous foreigners with medical or butchery skills.

Best regards,
Ben

[harry]

Fisherman,
Yes Tabran was a mistake.Take heart from that,even I can make one.I meant of course Prater.Sounds very much like Tabran,do you not agree.

Sam,
The distance between lamps,is from my recollection where I lived in UK.They might well have been closer in a business thoroughfare such as commercial street,though not neccessarily.Local population would be familiar with properties that interested them,so street lighting was of little aid.
Places such as Hospitals,police stations and fire stations had their own coloured lamps to denote where situated,so again no need for extra illumination.
Saturated lighting,was more likely to be at railway stations and platforms,though the minor stations were ill equiped.
Regards,
Harry.

[claire]

when you write:
"Even if, even if they had a Bray light on Dorset Street in 1888, this proves absolutely nothing"

...you are really moving away from the subject at hand. The whole issue has been to establish whether there were bright gas lamps on the market back in 1888, and Ben has refuted this, saying that since the lamps before 1891 were open flame lamps, they could not possibly have been bright.
But they could! It all owes to the material used in the lamps, as you will find out when reading about it. That, and that only, is what I have been seeking recognition for, Claire.

Now, the matter of what lamps were really there in Dorset Street and Commercial Street, is a totally different thing, and I am the first to realize and admit that. No matter how much I dig up about gas lamp strengths it won´t do me a bit of good if I am trying to prove that Hutch had good lighting conditions, making his observation. Even if we KNEW that he WAS standing under a Bray lamp, we could never be sure that it was not malfunctioning on the evening, and I realize that. I am not pushing any point that involves phrases like "must have" or "could not have been", I am in fact totally opposed to such things when we have no way of being sure. And that opposition of mine is what I have been fighting for here, since I refute what Ben is saying - that the conditions could never have allowed for Hutch to make the observation. We do not know that, and one of the things that ought to make us realize this is that we KNOW that technology allowed for VERY bright gas light, even in them days.

...and NO, I am NOT using Wikipedia if I can avoid it - I know how it is constructed and that it is riddled with faults. But surely a Youtube film that shows us how a gas lamp works is something that adds valuable insights and information, Claire?

But for what point, Fisherman? I mean, if it's not to substantiate or refute arguments about Hutch and his situation, then what's the point? Surely that debate could be put in pub chat, or general discussion? The fact of something's existence, if we're not even trying to establish whether it existed in this or other pertinent cases, is sort of beside the point, isn't it? I mean, if you went along to Wilton's Music Hall (just off Cable St) in 1859, they had a gas-lit chandelier powered by 300 gas jets which lit the hall. But if I started rambling about that in this thread, people would justifiably claim me to be, if not insane, utterly distracted.

I mean, to be honest, I find the whole conversation about light sources fascinating; but to keep on about it here when it's not even relevant to the Hutch issue seems foolhardy and inflammatory, no?

And the YouTube vid...wasn't that filmed inside? And with no wind? And a nice little backing track which I presume wasn't available to 1888 purchasers? Okay, we understand there were reasonable light sources available. If Hutch had described MJK and Astrakhan after observing them during a night at Wilton's, I'd be right there and inclined to listen. But, as it was, it was bloody dark in the Whitechapel Streets...contemporary commentators weren't nuts, and I'm inclined to think that it was darker there than the rest of London given that such writers bothered to comment. You even say that these bright lights weren't there...so why keep flogging the same old cart pony just to prove things existed?

So. It was dark for most of the observation period. But let's say Hutch had a reasonable look at MJK and her companion. Why the bloody hell wouldn't he go to the police on day 1?? If he was that obsessed with her to follow her and her mate to get a description, he would sure as hell know, right, that she'd been killed? So where was he that very morning, esp. given he didn't have a bed? He couldn't have gone far...why hold back? And please don't say, well, they had vows of silence back then...

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
By using the term Discredited, it implies that he was not believed, could not it simply be the case of moving on with another inquiry, have we any reason to believe that he was not in the background for a while longer then a couple of days?.
Just because there are not daily reports mentioning witnesses throughout the murders, does not mean that private contact was not happening, or they were discredited...
Regards Richard..

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

A report in The Star of 15th October stated that Hutchinson's account was "now discredited". If you examine subsequent police memoirs, reports and interviews with some of the senior police officials involved in the murder investigation, they all seem to bear out the Star's claim. A Jewish witness was used in subsequent identity attempts, but we know that none of the Jewish witnesses even came close to matching Hutchinson in terms of detail and ability to recognise the suspect again. So why not use Hutchinson? They must have had good reason.

Macnaghten stated that nobody saw the ripper unless it was a witness (the "City PC")at Mitre Square, not "nobody apart from that brilliant witness we were all so exited about called George Hutchinson".

Then there's Abberline, Hutchinson's original advocate. By 1903, he stated that the only witnesses to have described a foreigner had only acquired a rear view. Then he talks about comparisons between Klowoski and sailor's caps (of the order described by non-discredited witness Joseph Lawende). This obviously rules out Hutchinson.

I can't prove that he was discredited because he was ultimately ajudged a liar, but that's one of the more obvious reasons for discarding witness evidence, and it happened with Packer, possibly Violenia and a few others.

Hope this helps.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:
"Can't you understand why I'm getting upset here? "

No, Ben, I really can´t. And I´m not sure that I would opt for such a mild description of it as "upset".

I´m afraid that there is no way that you can come up with any assertions of what kind of lamps that would have been present on the streets we are discussing. I will not go through a discussion (well...) like the one I have had with you, only to have the facts supressed afterwards.

There were a number of opportunities open to those who wanted to invest in bright gas lamps back in 1888, and had been so for a couple of decades. We are not at liberty to categorically state that nobody opted for those opportunities. It is a simple, logical deduction made from simple facts.

That is where I stand, and it is where I will keep standing until somebody effectively proves that it is in any way wrong. When that day comes, I will adjust to whatever proof that comes along.

Now, from this point on, I am willing to discuss any theory anybody has on the matter, and I would much appreciate if you are amongst those who contribute to such a discussion. Just as I won´t move an inch from my wiew on the lighting issue, I won´t move from my conviction that you have insights, knowledge and experience that is something I prize highly.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Claire,
I will put myself in Hutchinsons shoes.
Late morning on the 9th November, I hear that there has been a murder in millers court, shortly after the name Mary kelly was named as the victim.
First reaction as I knew her quite well...shock, then instantly recalling seeing her, and speaking to her less then twelve hours previous, not only that but being approached by a man who I was curious about, and proceeding back to her room, also the fact that the man remained in her room all the time I waited opposite the court approx forty five minutes.
Whilst taking all that in , I would be extremely concerned that not only I put myself at the crime scene with no alibi, but also her killer would know who I was, not only by name, but by sight, having known I had a good look at him..
Question.
What do i do?
Do I say nothing to anyone?
But what if someone saw me talking to Mary, and in Dorset street?
Was the man I saw her killer, aka Jack the Ripper?
Would he come after me?
Would I get into trouble If I kept away?
To say the least I would be very anxious, I would proberly tell someone, and see what they advised, and rather approach a copper on the beat , then walk into Commercial street police station.
And do you know what that is exactly what George Hutchinson did.
Informed a mate, who said he must present himself.
Approached a constable, was dismissed, but because he had then come clean, had to muscle up courage to enter the staion the following evening.
Regards Richard.

[halomanuk]

Thats well put Richard and very logical.