George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I did say that, and I stand by that.

We have established that they weren't "available" in 1888. They were "available" before 1882, but then they were discontinued."

Quotation marks, Ben? "Available"?

In what way, Ben, were they unavailable in 1888? They were on the market all over the world, for anybody who was interested.
And aren´t you forgetting the latter part of the quote; "Before then, they were comparatively primative open flames, flickering or not."

You, Ben, are talking of the technical qualities here. I´ll be interested to see how you are going to try to deny that.

They were available, and they were something quite different from a comparatively primitive open flame.


The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

In what way, Ben, were they unavailable in 1888? They were on the market all over the world, for anybody who was interested.
And aren´t you forgetting the latter part of the quote; "Before then, they were comparatively primative open flames, flickering or not."

I was speaking of gas lamps as used on the streets, Fisherman, given their obvious applicability to the discussion at hand, and "comparatively primative open flames" described the state of street lamps in the London of 1888. We know that because your source says so. "Unavailable" to the extent that they were not available as street lamps.

Again, your desperate and unsuccessful attempts to score some imagined "brownie points" or somehow "catch me out" are irritating me and no doubt marginalizing everyone else.

I don't appreciate that, and would ask you to refrain.

[halomanuk]

Interestingly, he initially named the pub as the "Ten Bells", accidentally forgetting that he would not have walked past the Ten Bells to get from Thrawl Street to Dorset Street.

Regards,
Ben

Thats why some of the things he has said should be taken with a pinch of salt.
He really is a strange character that one.

[Fisherman]

Ben, I am weary of it all, in fact so weary that I missed a clear opportunity to retract from all of this two posts ago.
It was unneccessary of me to push it further and I apologize for it. Since it has been established that the world knew bright gas lamps decades before the Ripper murders, there is no need for me to further rub that in.

Of course, from now on I will go to war with you whenever you state that no bright lamps could have been present on the East Ends streets in 1888. But that is another matter altogether. I can´t say I look forward to it all that much for the moment being...

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Since it has been established that the world knew bright gas lamps decades before the Ripper murders there is no need for me to further rub that in

That's something I never disputed or even presumed insight into, Fish, so no rubbing necessary. No bright street lamps in 1888 Commercial Street though.

from now on I will go to war with you whenever you state that no bright lamps could have been present on the East Ends streets in 1888

Well, we know that street lamps in 1888 were not "bright lamps", regardless of whether it was physically possible ("could have") to put them there.

Oh, and please don't threaten me, Fish,

Thanks,
Ben

[Fisherman]

No threat there, Ben - just plain simple reality.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

What made you decide to reintroduce this discussion again?

There is never any need for expression like "subhuman", Ben. And why is it wrong to state that I am right when I can actually prove that I am?

It is not wrong to believe you are, but when you insist that it must be so because you say so, despite it being patently obvious that I don't think you are right, you can't be too surpised if that doesn't fly. And trying to wear people out by threatening other posters with more arguments until they agree with your point of view is just completely outlandish. My belief in your wrongmess is something you're going to have to deal with, because on current evidence, I have no intention of retracting any of my observations. So you'll be wasting your time and engaging in some startling immaturity if think you'll achieve anything by repeating yourself "until" I change my mind. You're at it again here:

The moment you admit I am right on this topic, the discussion ends.

Nobody's going anywhere, Fisherman. Nobody's intimidated.

No, Ben, you said that there were no powerful gas lamps about in 1888. Read the thread, it is all VERY obvious.

Yes, I did, and "about" in the context of the discussion meant the streets of Victorian London since they were the lamps under contention. We learn that no gas lamps were available on the streets of London at the time of the murders.

to distort the discussion and lead it away from the fact that you had been effectively disproven.

Well no, Fisherman. That's just your fantasy.

No. No. No. No. NO! That was NOT what we were discussing. It was introduced by you LATER in the discussion, appropriately enough when you realized that it could be proven that there WERE powerful gas lamps about and that you had lost an argument out of ignorance.

This is obviously nonsense. Why would it interest or bother me what the lamps were like away from the streets of London. What would be the point of addressing those when we know that they were wholly inapplicable to the discussion of Hutchinson's alleged ability to notice this and that in the "glow" of a street lamp. Of course you had powerful light in 1888. You could get one by starting a bonfire.

You were emphatically, and I have quoted you a number of times, denying that there were powerful gas lamps about in 1888, and you were wrong. W-r-o-n-g.

You really are wasting your own time here. It's stinkingly obvious that a discussion of gas lamps centred about the ones used in the streets of London at the time. We were discussing them because they - and only they - can possibly impact on the issue of Hutchinson's claims. I'm emphatically not wrong, and it doesn't matter how many times you claim I am, I'll be here to insist I'm not. If you want to argue that to perdition's flames, fantastic, I'll be here every time, most probably copying and pasting after a while, considering that it's all been discussed here anyway.

Which is why I have to ask you again: Were there powerful gas lamps around in 1888?

Not on the streets of London in 1888, Fish, no.

"And leave out the streets of London, since they never belonged to the discussion in the first place."

Of course they belonged to the bloody discussion. We were discussing whether the street lamps were powerful enough to have illuminated the "Astrakhan" scene. How on earth can you say they "never" belonged in the discussion? How could the lamps in a Parisien restaurant impact in the slightest on that question?

Ben

[Scott Nelson]

Nobody's going anywhere, Fisherman. Nobody's intimidated.

I'm not. I am.

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:

"What made you decide to reintroduce this discussion again?"

Not "what", Ben; who. You did, by once again trying to divert the discussion from actual facts into speaking about me as somehow obsessed by having a go at you. I distinctly dislike such antics, and since I have seen a lot of it before I thought (and think) it belongs to a discussion of how you conduct debates.

"It is not wrong to believe you are, but when you insist that it must be so because you say so, despite it being patently obvious that I don't think you are right"

Does that mean that you claim that there were no powerful gas lamps around in 1888? For that is the only question on which i could be potentially faulted in the discussion. No other topic belongs to it. It is very simple.

“It's stinkingly obvious that a discussion of gas lamps centred about the ones used in the streets of London at the time. We were discussing them because they - and only they - can possibly impact on the issue of Hutchinson's claims”

There is a stench about, yes, but not from me. Here is your statement again:

“Powerful lamps did not exist until 1891 with the distribution of the gas mantle, which was more powerful. No naked open flame can be described as "powerful". Some many be more powerful than others, but none of them can be considered powerful in isolation.
There were not powerful lamps available.”

There were not powerful lamps available, Ben. Thtat is what you said and that was what the discussion was all about. And that is where you burn your ships.

To further show how the discussion went, this is how it originated when I wrote:

“The points I have challenged here are as follows:
1. The gas lamps in Commercial and Dorset Street could not have shone bright enough to allow for Hutchs´m testimony to be true.
Answer: There were powerful gas lamps around many a decade before 1888, and we don´t know the light intensity of the ones we are interested in, just as we don´t know how many lamps there were, or whether the lamps of commercial enterprises shone more brightly than the others. One poster even remebered that Dorset Street had a reputation of being well lit.”

Your answer was:

“They were not powerful.
They were open flames, not the gas mantles that appeared from the 1890s onwards.”

If, Ben, you are only discussin London and the East end streets, I take it you mean that these streets were equipped with mantle lamps from the 1890s and onwards? If so, that is patently wrong.
Then again, what this passage proves is that we were NOT discussing the London streets in particular but gas light in general, just like I have stated a dozen times by now.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS, BEN, IF OUR DISCUSSION REVOLVED ONLY AROUND THE STREETS OF LONDON? Why would you suddenly speak in terms of general gas light, when you claim that it was never on the agenda?

Fisherman

PS. Apologies to Scott Nelson if he thinks this is too gory for the boards. I´m sorry, but Ben is being deceitful and dishonest for the umpteenth time dring our exchanges, and I won´t have it. Please look away!

[Ben]

You did, by once again trying to divert the discussion from actual facts into speaking about me as somehow obsessed by having a go at you.

But my increasingly well-founded suspicions in that regard have nothing whatsoever with the discussions over cutaway garments and the lamps in Whitechapel. You were simply clinging desperately at any opportunity under the sun to engage in a protracted and acriminious long-poost debate with me again. Y'know, the sort that tends to alienate all other posters. Well sorry, but you haven't given me any good reason to consider reciprocating that obvious crush you have one me. Think about; a discussion about Druitt playing cricket mutating into a continued war over gas lamps? That was your doing, Fisherman. You were looking for an excuse.

Does that mean that you claim that there were no powerful gas lamps around in 1888?

Not on the streets, you've discovered. Well done. The gas lighting on London's streets was actually poor as we learn from contemporary souces.

There were not powerful lamps available, Ben.

The lamps that would be considered powerful by our standards were the ones that were introducted, in their most primative form and sold throughout Europe in 1891, and were powerful chiefly because they were gas mantles, not open flames. Yes, you could achieve a powerful open flame by lighting a huge bonfire, but there weren't powerful street gas lamps in 1888. It's takes only a little common sense to fathom that I was talking about street gas lamps in the quote you mentioned, since this was the topic under discussion.

If, Ben, you are only discussin London and the East end streets, I take it you mean that these streets were equipped with mantle lamps from the 1890s and onwards?

No, Fisherman, that isn't wrong. The modern gas mantle used in street gas lamps were not available until the 1890s.

There were powerful gas lamps around many a decade before 1888, and we don´t know the light intensity of the ones we are interested in,

Uh, yes.

Yes, we do. Thanks to that source from which we learned that the streets would have been dark in 1888 on account of the poor lighting. So no, there is no chance that the lamp in question could have been one of the "powerful" 800-watters you were talking about. It wouldn't have been a "commcerical enterprise" lamp either since Hutchinson claimed that he stood against it the lamp itself, rather than a wall, and an impoverished local East End pub forking out shedloads for an uber-light to attract customers who would have gone there anyway?

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS, BEN, IF OUR DISCUSSION REVOLVED ONLY AROUND THE STREETS OF LONDON?

I never said I was speaking of general gas lamps, because if they're not street lamps, they are obviously irrelevant to the topic under scrunity. I was only ever talking about gas lamps for streets.

Ben is being deceitful and dishonest for the umpteenth time dring our exchanges

Good grief, and that's after you spat your little dummy out after I accused you of being "wilfully misleading"? Out the window flies the moral high ground there, Fish, was it worth it?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

" You were simply clinging desperately at any opportunity under the sun to engage in a protracted and acriminious long-poost debate with me again. "

Nope. I decided that I had given up all hope on you ever becoming an honest poster and debator, and since I did not want to hang that wiew up solely on your reoccuring tries to point me out as a stalker, I brought a couple of your uglier moments up to complete the picture.

"The gas lighting on London's streets was actually poor as we learn from contemporary souces."

You teach, Ben - not "we learn". What we CAN learn is that the gaslight provided by the lamps paid for by the city of London was weak. Of the privately owned lights we know nothing, accept for the fact that they could potentially emmitt 800 watts of light. Quite a different story when you see it from all sides, is it not? But why would you; it does your case no good whatsoever. Best leave it, Ben, best leave it!

"you could achieve a powerful open flame by lighting a huge bonfire, but there weren't powerful street gas lamps in 1888. It's takes only a little common sense to fathom that I was talking about street gas lamps in the quote you mentioned, since this was the topic under discussion"

But the Bray lamp, Ben, WAS a street lamp, one of a number of treet gas lamps offered to London but rejected. All of these lamps were quite powerful, emmitting hundreds of watts of light. And if you have only little common sense, don´t blame me for it.

"Thanks to that source from which we learned that the streets would have been dark in 1888 on account of the poor lighting. So no, there is no chance that the lamp in question could have been one of the "powerful" 800-watters you were talking about"

There was MORE than the one lamp about, Ben. In fact, Dorset Street is said to be comparatively well lit, due to the many lamps of private ownership.

I think, Ben, that the statement that stands best up to scrutiny in this whole excahnge is where I lay down the fact that you are deceitful and dishonest. You constantly try and wriggle yourself out of the messes you put yourself in, and that is a disgrace to the boards.
I end by quoting an insightful thinker on these boards:

"I think you're deliberately trying to confuse matters", and, by the same author: "trying to have a sensible discussion with you is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling".

I could not have put it any better myself. It covers you very neatly. Striking, is it not, that you should have to fight these misconceptions in all sorts of directions?

Fisherman

[Mort Belfry]

Then the idea he just had to come forward to clear himself. That is a hard concept. A killer coming forward.

This has actually happened before. I can't actually remmeber the exact circumstances, which might hamper its aptness, but John Douglas described an event (I believe the book was Mindhunter) where a murder was committed on the side of the road and working with the press he helped invent a story about a unidentified witness seeing somebody, giving the opportunity for anyone in the area to come forward and explain their presence.

The murderer turned up the next day to clear his name and was arrested.



That said, are there many people who disbelieve Hutchinson's story but don't think he was JtR?

[Ben]

Right you are, Mort.

The event referenced by Douglas was also quoted in Garry Wroe's excellent "Person or Persons Unknown" which can be read in its entirety here:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/garrywroe_full.html

Interestingly, the behaviour was actually predicated by the authorities who laid a successful trap to snare him. Obviously, they would not have done so unless they had precedent of similar behaviour from other offenders. I've researched a number of similar cases myself, many of which were mentioned on the Hutchinson podcast as well as on Casebook.

Hi Fish,

I decided that I had given up all hope on you ever becoming an honest poster and debator, and since I did not want to hang that wiew up solely on your reoccuring tries to point me out as a stalker

So, in other words, when I raised my suspicions again that you had perhaps entrenched yourself in a cyberquest to target me at all costs, you decided that this was the best reaction: "I haven't got an obsessive vendetta against you, Ben! And just to prove it, I'm going to dredge up two of the most acrimonious exchanges we've had, insist that we continue it (with all the attendant insults) and that you meekly concede that I've proven you wrong!"

Surely you're seeing what's wrong with this picture, Fisherman?

Was that really the best way of illustrating that you don't have an obsessive vendetta?

Surely you can understand that you're damaging the whole "Fisherman hasn't got an obsessive, Ahabian vendetta desire to get one over on another poster" hypothesis? You really do walk into these situations. If you disliked my insinuation, don't behave in a manner that's going to give the impression that my insinuation was spot on. It's not rocket science.

Of the privately owned lights we know nothing, accept for the fact that they could potentially emmitt 800 watts of light.

Right, but they wouldn't have been on the streets of London as we learn from a contemporary source, and the notion that the most superb and state-of-the-art 800-watters was purchased by an impoverished pub in one of the worst slums in London is obviously lightyears away from the truth.

But the Bray lamp, Ben, WAS a street lamp, one of a number of treet gas lamps offered to London but rejected.

If it was rejected, it obviously wasn't on the streets of East London in 1888, was it? Indeed we know it wasn't. So what's the gist of your observation? You could create huge light-emitting bonfires if you wanted but you wouldn't have stuck one of those up a pole in the East End.

In fact, Dorset Street is said to be comparatively well lit, due to the many lamps of private ownership.

I'm sure it was, comparatively speaking, albeit markedly less to towards the Eastern end of it. That doesn't mean that any of them were fitted with vast, torch-like 800 watters filled with whale bone or flesh or spunk of whatever it was.

I think, Ben, that the statement that stands best up to scrutiny in this whole excahnge is where I lay down the fact that you are deceitful and dishonest.

Again, if you're going to come out with these ridiculously gauche character assasinations, you're obviously onto a losing wicket when you piddle and moan at me for suggesting that your silly "experimentation" - where you tackily used members of your own family as pawns to try to score points against me - amounted to wilful dishonesty.

"I think you're deliberately trying to confuse matters", and, by the same author: "trying to have a sensible discussion with you is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling".

Well boo-hoo, isn't my self-esteem permanently deflated? See, I could easily do that if I was as patently desperate as you are. I could have a whale of a time copying and pasting the occasions where you were called out by other equally "insightful thinkers" for conducting yourself like a prize nipple on the Stride threads, but then I guess I'm not the one with a malicious agenda.

[Fisherman]

So its all about "obsessions" again, is it, Ben?

Let me inform you once and for all that I have no obsession with you whatsoever. But I do suffer from a form of obsession, admittedly. It lies in fighting stupidity, disallowing dishonesty, and pointing out when prestige gets the better of sense.
That provides the best possible explanation of why I often end up in debates with you.

Throughout my time here on Casebook, I have always been the first to state that there are other posters about who knows a lot more about the Ripper case that I do. So when you start speaking about conducting myself like a "prize nipple" on the Stride threads, you are not causing the pain you hope to - I come to the boards with an amount of knowledge that is surpassed by some and not by others, and that is fine by me; that goes for 999 promille of us, and not having the greatest knowledge should not disqualify you from having your say. I do not deal in prestige.

In your case, Ben, I will stand by what I have always said; your knowledge of the case is deep. Not very many can match or surpass it.
The trouble is that you seem not to realize that the moment you join a discussion board, having that sort of knowledge comes with a responsibility - the responsibility not to corrupt yourself at any given time, just to rid yourself of the embarrasment of not having been right. When a newbie resorts to such things, it is something that does not matter all that much. But when somebody like you do it, it becomes unforgivable.

One thing on this thread that goes very well to prove what I am speaking about is this passage is this quotation from post 353. This is your wording, Ben:

”Just a quick reminder to everyone: Fisherman still believes Hutchinson´s statement and description to be a fabrication.”

This irony of yours was spat out since you could not for the life of you believe that somebody who had ascribed to a certain wiew could be stupid enough to apparently argue against it. It defied your own twisted logic. In short, it was something you would never do.

”Intelectually corrupt”. That is the term that best describes such a stance, Ben. It is the exact opposite of open-mindedness, and it is something you display time and time again on these boards. Parallel to our debate has run a debate on the ”tight” schedule of Druitt, and it is obvious that your counterpart there has reached exactly the same decision as I have: as long as the truth is not ”your” truth, you wont touch it with a pair of pliers.

Another phenomenon that goes hand in hand with the point mentioned above is the already pointed-to occasion when you thought me a fool for providing the text where it said that the London Street lighting was poor back in 1888, due to the fact that the powerful gas lighting in existance was not put to use by the London Council. Again, it was obviously incredible to you that someone who had nothing to gain from a passage, actually chose to publish it anyway. My guess is that you actually believe I did so by mistake, thereby giving you a weapon I could have denied you.

But it was no mistake, Ben. It was honesty, and honesty must be the number one guideline in all we do out here. Naïve? Perhaps, but without that sort of naïvety we are all at a loss. When somebody has travelled so far from this objective as you have, it is a sad thing.

I am convinced that more and more posters will see through these antics of yours, Ben, as revealed on parallel threads as I write this. My own stance on it all remains that you are exactly what I have already written: a sadly and unneccesarily deceitful and dishonest poster.

This, however, does not mean that I will put you on ”Ignore”. I will keep reading your posts and I will keep challenging them whenever I feel it called upon for the reasons outlined in this post. Much as I hope to have as few dealings with you as possible, I have little hope that this will be the case.

Fisherman

[Ben]

But I do suffer from a form of obsession, admittedly. It lies in fighting stupidity, disallowing dishonesty, and pointing out when prestige gets the better of sense.

Yes, but surely you have to admit that if you took objection to my intimation that you had perhaps singled me out just that bit too often for disagreement, there were more sensible ways of demonstrating that you haven't - if you felt you had to demonstrate it - than by dredging up two of the most acrimonious discussions we've ever had with a view to continuing them?

This is where ego tends to get the better of common sense. You know as well as I do that you were looking for an excuse to revist those unpleasant threads. The sort of "Look at me! I'm fighting fire with fire, and my goal is to show everyone what a bastard Ben is!" pugnancious dogma is not only anthithetical to good relations and your defense that you don't have a crusade against me, it will not be a productive long-term sustainable strategy for you because I will always be fighting back. You know that, you've seen it, and you know that two blokes going crazy at eachother using interminably long posts and aggression is ever so slightly alienating to other posters.

I'd appreciate it very much if you didn't keep referencing other discussions where you were not a participant in an effort to score points. I used one very small and casual word on a podcast, and I entertained no prospect of conflict or ugly exchanges when I did so, nor was I attempting to ridicule Druitt's suspect candidacy. I regret that I did not elaborate further and qualify what I meant by "tight", but since we were chiefly discussing Sickert, I didn't wish to persue that tangent.

Another phenomenon that goes hand in hand with the point mentioned above is the already pointed-to occasion when you thought me a fool for providing the text where it said that the London Street lighting was poor back in 1888

Where did I accuse you of being a fool for quoting that source?

From my recollections, I thanked you profusely for it, as it (quite literally) shed light on the topic under discussion. No, I didn't question your intentions, and no, I didn't think you posted it in error, but if you chose to read mocking and scorn into my reaction, that is your perogative.

My own stance on it all remains that you are exactly what I have already written: a sadly and unneccesarily deceitful and dishonest poster.

Considering the risible nature of the critic and criticisms, I doubt I'm going to embrace or be overly saddened by your view of me. In future, don't throw your rattles out of the pram when you're accusing of being wilfully misleading. It just doesn't make sense, when you're prepared to throw up whatever character assassinations suit your fancy.

I will keep reading your posts and I will keep challenging them whenever I feel it called upon for the reasons outlined in this post

And I'll be straight back at you, and then the vicious cycle will commence again. Your recent posts and sign-off with a threat of further belligerence against me have wholly vindicated my observation that you're currently entrenched in a thoroughly mean-spirited crusade against me.