George Hitchinson: a simple question

[joelhall]

Joel writes:

"if they were any good why bother inventing brighter ones?"

Sly question, Joel! If the world record on the 100 metres sprint was any good, why would Usain Bolt run faster? Same type of question, but the difference in time is extremely small.
Reasons for swopping, Joel:
Gas is dangerous - it can burn and it can explode.
Electricity is cheaper.
Electricity DOES provide more light. But the rate of the improvement does not affect the light strength of the gas lamps, does it?

"as for the painters, yes they did paint things they couldnt see. people far away wouldnt stop to pose all night for an artist."

Brilliant! But since van Gogh put up his canvas at night, painting away, do you really think that he could not see the houses down the street, or the people walking on it? Do you believe that it would have been pitch dark there, and that he added a city landscape instead of painting what he saw?

Of course not. He saw the street, he saw the houses, he saw people walking in the street, and he painted what he saw. He would of course not give an exact measure of the light available, but a rough estimation of what he could see are easily discernible. If he wanted to paint what he did NOT see, why in Godīs name do you think he put the canvas up outside the café in the middle of the night for, Joel? If he wanted to fantasize away, he never had any need to leave home, did he?

The best,
Fisherman

firstly, you should read my other posts. if electricity is better, why invent a better gas version? because as stated before they were not bright enough. inventions in lighting systems were created to solve problems, not make world records or win races, so the logic fails there im afraid.

as for van gogh... maybe he liked sitting outside at night in the fresh air? many do (myself for one). maybe it was his muse? but i fail to see him painting someone in the distance in a few moments as they flitted past (as the subjects are walking). artists give license to their work, same as writers, film makers, musicians etc.

one thing you can tell, even from his paintings was that he didnt put down a true image of what was in front of him. he added his own character to it.

one thing i can say from his outdoor work though is the amount of light coming from windows (in fact they appear brighter than youd see with electric lighting - something im pretty sure isnt accurate). the cobbles in cafe terrace at night are so light it looks like day time. hes not in a dark street with a few gas lamps. in the starry night, he even paints huge stars and what looks like the sun, as well as a big spiral across the sky... im pretty sure thats not what he saw, unless stars were bigger & the moon yellow in the 19th century.

[Fisherman]

Joel writes:

"as for van gogh... maybe he liked sitting outside at night in the fresh air? many do (myself for one). maybe it was his muse? but i fail to see him painting someone in the distance in a few moments as they flitted past"

Joel, van Gogh was a man obsessed with painting. He spent all his money (which was not much - he sold two paintings in his lifetime, both of them to his own brother Theo)and all his time painting. He did not take his painting to the night time street because he was an outdoors type of guy who liked fresh air - he did so in search of motives to paint. And of course the people in the painting did not stand still as he painted them. But he would of course not paint people in a spot of the street that he could not see! In the distance the street darkens so much that nothing is discernible there, but that is a loooong way away, is it not? He could see the street clearly enough to make out people and colours for a long distance, that is obvious. It is not about artistic freedom, Joel, it is about simple logic.

The best!
Fisherman

[Varqm]

I agree with JMenges. GH easily could have been just a nobody who wants some cash and a bit of fame, with no fear of prosecution,no laws broken,and just like multitudes of other useless witnesses. No ripper suspect bluff the police drama, and a labyrinth of speculations and explanations.
If after Abberline's initial belief in Hutchinson no other evidence were found related to GH,his story,or the Astrakhan man the police's opinion,reaction, or recollection of the GH story would have been different.

[Ben]

I agree with JMenges. GH easily could have been just a nobody who wants some cash and a bit of fame, with no fear of prosecution

And he could just as easily have been a killer who realized he'd been seen and came forward with a bullshit story to deflect suspicion away from himself, Varqm. If he was just a "nobody who wants some cash and a bit of fame" why did he assume the identity of a real person observed at the scene and then claim to be a witness? Did multitudes of other witnesses do this? And cash? What cash was he honestly expecting from the capture of a non-existent suspect?

Hi Fisherman,

Van Gogh painted a picture using a paintbrush. If he wanted to paint a yellow dress on a lady when the garment in question wasn't even a dress yet alone a yellow one, he could have done so. If he wanted to incorporate a dog into the foreground when there wasn't really a dog there, he could have done so. Similarly, if we wanted to improve the lighting conditions, he could have done so, with his paintbrush.

Please tell me you're getting this now?

Best regards,
Ben

[Mitch Rowe]

And he could just as easily have been a killer who realized he'd been seen and came forward with a bullshit story to deflect suspicion away from himself
If so. It was a very dumb thing to do. His chances of being caught go up fast the longer he keeps in contact. If Hutchinson were the Ripper then the chances he could pull off the charade are not very good in my opinion. Certainly no better than staying home. Im not saying it didnt happen. Im saying it would be unusual.

If he was just a "nobody who wants some cash and a bit of fame" why did he assume the identity of a real person observed at the scene and then claim to be a witness? Did multitudes of other witnesses do this? And cash? What cash was he honestly expecting from the capture of a non-existent suspect?

I guess you would have to ask him that. Others got drunk and confessed to being the Ripper in front of an angry crowd.

All I can say is that if Hutchinson described what was written in his Statement then he was probably treated as a Suspect. If not then he should have been.

[Varqm]

"If he was just a "nobody who wants some cash and a bit of fame" why did he assume the identity of a real person observed at the scene and then claim to be a witness? Did multitudes of other witnesses do this? And cash? What cash was he honestly expecting from the capture of a non-existent suspect?"

He did not have anything to lose. He just went for it ,amomg other things,partly hoping that it will bear fruit.Better than not doing anything at all. There would have been no consequences whatsoever.

"And he could just as easily have been a killer who realized he'd been seen and came forward with a bullshit story to deflect suspicion away from himself"

Too much Hollywood in this particular case.

[The Good Michael]

It seems as if GH was believed and then not believed and after that, run out of town on a rail. My guess is that he went to Canada or Australia, and probably the latter as it was a place for common laborers to gain rapid employment. I don't think a murder suspect would be asked to get out of London, that is, if there were any niggling suspicions at all.

We don't know where Hutch went, nor do we know why he went (if he did), but we do know that we've lost complete track of him, and that means to me that he left of his own accord, or of someone else's.

I can even imagine him spending his ill-gotten money at a pub and bragging to an undercover officer about how clever he was.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Van Gogh painted a picture using a paintbrush. If he wanted to paint a yellow dress on a lady when the garment in question wasn't even a dress yet alone a yellow one, he could have done so. If he wanted to incorporate a dog into the foreground when there wasn't really a dog there, he could have done so. Similarly, if we wanted to improve the lighting conditions, he could have done so, with his paintbrush.
Please tell me you're getting this now?"

He was painting on the spot, Ben. And much as he had all the artistic freedom that anyone could ask for, that did not change the distance he could see down that street. I am not saying that he did not change colours on things - he may have done that. I am not saying that he did not exaggerate the light in places - he may have done that. What I AM saying is that if he could see the street fifty yards down, he would paint the street fifty yards down, whereas if he could only see it five yards down, he would paint the street five yards down.
There is little you can teach me about art, Ben. I have studied it at university level for a couple of years. When you get that, Ben, you may see what I am talking about.
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

[Sam Flynn]

I am not saying that he did not change colours on things - he may have done that.

Indeed he did - unless he periodically suffered from a distinctly greenish discoloration of his face

[harry]

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.
All.
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.
I say Hutchinson was lying.

[Fisherman]

There is, Sam, the occasional clever remark that can turn MY face green, so I would not bet on your being right here - maybe he had received mail from one of your ancestors before making that portrait?

Anyway, itīs a good thing I did not choose the Kandinsky or opt for Jackson Pollock ...

The best, Sam!

[Fisherman]

Right, Harry!

So the lamp was either high - or low.
They were either emitting a more intense light - or emitting lesser light.
They were either clean - or fouled.

But Hutchinson - he was lying no matter what.

Great analysis. Totally unbiased, and allowing for all possibilities.

The best, Harry!

Fisherman

[Ben]

If so. It was a very dumb thing to do. His chances of being caught go up fast the longer he keeps in contact

Dumb or not, it's what a number of serial killers have done, and is a recognizable behavioural trait. So much so that the authorities have oftimes predicated it, laying traps accordingly, with successful results. I'd dispute that it would have been dumb, though. It wasn't as if the police were expecting Jack the Ripper to waltz into a police station requesting an interview, and by playing the co-operative hand earlier on, he'd have created a favourable impression if and when his name comes up as a person of interest in the future.

[Ben]

Too much Hollywood in this particular case.

What filthy nonsense you spew.

If it was Hollywood, it wouldn't occur in real life as we know it does. Offenders coming forward under false guises and/or giving false witnesses accounts as a measure of self-preservation occurs in real life, whereas I've yet to encounter a single example of a publicity seeker assuming the identity of a real person and then coming forward as a witness. It's just never happened.

It might be preferable to learn from the past before asserting with unearned authority as to which version of events constitute "Hollywood".

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

What I AM saying is that if he could see the street fifty yards down, he would paint the street fifty yards down,

How do you know?

Maybe he didn't. Maybe he had only a vague general impression of what the street looked like fifty yards down, and decided to fill in the blanks with his paintbrush? He could do that if he wanted to. He could add stuff and change stuff that he didn't really see. I'm troubed that you're not understanding this.

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

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?

I could read the names of the books on my bookshelf from three-four metres

Because they were your books. You knew what the words said already.

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.

So you say. But I bet you could have described anything of the sort in the small hours of a November morning in Victorian Spitalfields morning, where the darkness of the street was punctuated only very occasionally by a sparsely distributed a dimly burning, primative gas lamps.

I'd bet all my worldly goods and swear on everything I hold dear that you wouldn't be able to notice and record all that Hutchinson alleged in the time and conditions available.

It matters not, ultimately, since you believe Hutchinson's account to be a fabrication.

Phew!

Best regards,
Ben