George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Jon Guy]

the second point is windows. outside the pub one would expect light to be coming from windows, particularly on this main street. note: the description comes at the end of his statement, & it is not clear where he took note, but being so close, and seeing the couple on commercial road, where there would be light spill, one can assume that he would have observed them for some minutes.

Hello Joel

Wouldn`t the pubs and shops etc have all been closed at 2.00 am.

Just a thought.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"It isn't necessary for the Astrakhan character to be complete invention in order for Hutchinson to be considered suspicious"

Seconded. Of course it isnīt. The description fed to the police may well have been a lavishly embellished version of somebody.
Not that it touches on the question of the lighting, though...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Joel writes:
"ok heres my 'pro-hutch' argument"

...and then he takes us for a fascinating ride!

I wonīt judge the scenario you put forward, Joel, any more than that - a good read at the very least.

In the picture you offer, the lamps are quite close to each other are they not? Under such an array of lamps, most things would have been visible I guess. Are they all pub lamps?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Since we have no photos of how much light the gas lamps on the streets provided, it makes sense to take a look at the paintings from the time, depicting scenes with gas lighting at night involved

It makes no sense.

Let's say we have no photographs of the balconies in cafes in 1888.

Would we say "Aha! They defy gravity, are almost wafer-thin, and hang down at a jaunty angle becaue that's what the painting says". No, we'd say "It's a painting. He's changed things with his paintbrush to make the painting more interesting."

The "fleeting" observation is something I have been forcefed by Ben, and I think it may be a totally incorrect description.

How can it be? Walking under a gas lamp takes a fleeting moment, unless he was walking at glacier speed (with a nod to Claire's earlier coinage there!)

What seems very clear to me is that Hutch took great interest in the man and that he went to some lenghts to get a good look at him.

At his face under the gas lamp. If he was concentrating on his face, he couldn't also have concentrated on lots and lots and lots of other fiddly cack at the same time. It just doesn't work like that.

But you think he lied.

[claire]

so he watches the room, astracan leaves, and a very angry hutch knocks on the door. 'oh murder!', cries kelly realising who it is. no wonder he left bits out.

thats how you do it fisherman

Quite. Very good...(not convinced of your last scene, but hey!) and I second Ben's point about Hutch's story not having to be a complete fabrication (I think I said, or meant to say, at some point before I started debating something totally pointless, that I do think GH cultivated Astrakhan out of someone he'd seen earlier. And this scenario of yours, joel, would certainly give him a darned good reason for using this guy's description.)

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:

"Oh my God"

Thanks, Claire, but you are overestimating me!

Really, Claire, I am getting tired of explaining this over and over again, but OK:

I am not suggesting that van Goghs lighting in that picture would have applied for Dorset Street. Got it? Iīll take it again, just so we are totally clear on it: I am not suggesting that van Goghs lighting in that picture would have applied for Dorset Street.

I AM however saying that since we have no photos of how much light the gas lamps on the streets provided, it makes sense to take a look at the paintings from the time, depicting scenes with gas lighting at night involved. One more time: Since we have no photos of how much light the gas lamps on the streets provided, it makes sense to take a look at the paintings from the time, depicting scenes with gas lighting at night involved.

Are we clear on it all now? I donīt want to do this again, Claire, so please...?

"Oh, and this: Fisherman wrote:
'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.'
What wording? Was I reporting direct speech? Huh?
'Dude, I'm totally whacked out.' = He said he was tired."

Thanks for clarifying that, Claire. And yes, you did say that Hutch had said that he had only seen the couple fleetingly. And yes, if that had been the case, it would have changed the picture of what happened in a very dramatic way. The "fleeting" observation is something I have been forcefed by Ben, and I think it may be a totally incorrect description. What seems very clear to me is that Hutch took great interest in the man and that he went to some lenghts to get a good look at him.

The best, Claire. And mind your head!

Fisherman

[c.d.]

Thanks for that, Sam. I don't suppose that you would care to do the math and put the one sixty-fourth amount into some type of perspective as to its relative buying power?

c.d.

[Ben]

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me for that it's worth, Joel.

If you can now manage the short step to realizing....that gas lighting could provide more light than something that would just suffice to light up a bypasser for a second.

I just can't make that leap, Fish. Not on the basis of a painting. Sorry.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"That painting is utterly useless - utterly useless - for the purposes of assessing Hutchinson's credibility."

Yes, it is, Ben. Iīm glad you finally found that out. If you can now manage the short step to realizing that paintings actually do depict reality - sometimes very closely so - you will be home and dry on the issue I am after - that gas lighting could provide more light than something that would just suffice to light up a bypasser for a second. Youīre getting there, Ben, Iīm sure!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

anyone want to comment on my post on page 11 by the way, cos im having trouble finding logical flaws in it?

I am - according to my browser, you haven't got any posts on page 11, Joel.

[joelhall]

anyone want to comment on my post on page 11 by the way, cos im having trouble finding logical flaws in it?

cheers

joel

[joelhall]

reward money? i didnt know there was any?

[Sam Flynn]

This makes me think about the reward money being offered. Was it an all or nothing deal meaning that the iformation provided had to lead to the capture and conviction of the Ripper or could you get some money by providing leads to the police?

Apparently one sixty-fourth of the reward money was set aside for information leading to the whereabouts of the Ripper's socks. The remaining sixty-three sixty-fourths would be yielded up on the proviso that the Ripper was still in them

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

He recognised himself and knew that others would too, so he went to a solicitor and made a statement to the effect that when they reached the victim’s home there was another man already there so he left them to it.

Fascinating stuff.

Here we have a case in point. Colin Ireland feared that inciminating evidence would connect him with the crime or crime scene so he injected himself into the invetigation with a story designed to vindicate and legitimize that connection.

Just what I'm talking about.

Thanks, Caz.

Best regards,
Ben

[Leighton Young]

do we have any more evidence about Mr Hutch other than the rubbish in the ripper and the royals?