George Hitchinson: a simple question

[joelhall]

Joel writes:

"i dont know why i bother as you clearly cant stand anyone disagreeing with you."

Oh, Joel, that I can. I am very much open for the possibility that the conditions did not allow Hutch to see what he said he saw. But I am also open for the possibility that there was light enough to see it all.

I am staying open-minded on the matter. I have not made my mind up. Those who say that it was impossible, THEY are the ones with a made-up mind, who won´t tolerate anybody disagreeing.

In fact, like Ben says, I lean very much to the belief that Hutch´s story was a fabrication. So, you see, I am so little opposed to somebody disagreeing with me, that I am prepared to argue against and disagree even with myself. How is that for tolerance, Joel?

The best,
Fisherman

a load of b****cks to be frank. you should re-read some of your arguments.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"It could only vary if you fiddle and change the content of the account to an unaccaptable extent"

Unacceptable to who, Ben? You? As I have already pointed out a X occasions, it is not unacceptable to numerous weighty authors. Go tell them they are all wrong!

"please don't go on and on and on about it"

For the love of God, Ben - YOU GO ON AND ON JUST AS MUCH AS I DO!!!!! Surely it can not have evaded you that every time I write a post saying that I think you are wrong, YOU POST BACK!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I hoped that people woould be receptive enough to see that all of these paintings give us a pretty good indication that this would probably not be true

They don't.

Because it's a painting, and paintings aren't real life.

A painter can add more light if he wants to, and where the light is deficient, he is obviously inclined to add more, specially when light is the artist's interest. I think you're forced to admit now that using Van Gogh as a barometer for assessing the light intensity that night was a bad idea.

[Fisherman]

Joel writes:

"a load of b****cks to be frank. you should re-read some of your arguments."

I don´t mind your being frank, Joel - long as you are correct. In this case you are not. All of this posting on my behalf has come about for the simple reason that Ben is trying to close a case that cannot be closed. I am the one who tries - in spite of the fact that I believe that Hutch fabricated the story - to refrain from concluding from data that we do not have.

I am NOT saying Ben has to be wrong in essence. He may well be right. The one and only thing I am saying is that he has not got the stuff he needs to back up a verdict of a false description, and therefore he must wait with that verdict. As simple - and as bitterly hard - as that.

The best, Joel!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Agreed wholeheartedly, Claire.

Just to be clear to Fish and all; I'm not saying I can "prove" that Hutchinson lied. It is, however, self-evident that the statement cannot have been correct in the sense that he noticed and memorized everything that he claimed in that situation. That's just obvious.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"I think you're forced to admit now that using Van Gogh as a barometer for assessing the light intensity that night was a bad idea."

Don´t be daft, Ben. I did not post the link to establish the light intensity that night. I posted it to remind us all that much as we don´t have any useful photos of the exact scenery we are interested in, we DO have hundreds of paintings that show us that gas lighting could be very much more efficient than what you are saying was to be found in Dorset Street in 1888. Now, please don´t jump into the wrong barrel, believing that I suggest that the light from the van Gogh painting was equal to that in Dorset Street. That is not something I am saying.

To put it otherwise, I was trying to introduce an external element into the discussion, taking it to a more theoretical level, holding at least some hope that it was not throwing pearls for pigs.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

we DO have hundreds of paintings that show us that gas lighting could be very much more efficient

But they don't "show" us that, Fisherman, because it's a painting, not a photograph.

It also doesn't "show" us that cafe balconies can defy gravity, or that cobblestones all have a thick layer of black stuff on them, or that the stars appear that large. We all know that none of this can possibly mirror reality despite what it "shows".

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

The moon was a couple days past new, so would have afforded little light...

Indeed, Claire - and the fact that it was in the Southern Hemisphere at the time wouldn't have helped matters much in Spitalfields, even if the sky were clear

[joelhall]

Joel writes:

"a load of b****cks to be frank. you should re-read some of your arguments."

I don´t mind your being frank, Joel - long as you are correct. In this case you are not. All of this posting on my behalf has come about for the simple reason that Ben is trying to close a case that cannot be closed. I am the one who tries - in spite of the fact that I believe that Hutch fabricated the story - to refrain from concluding from data that we do not have.

I am NOT saying Ben has to be wrong in essence. He may well be right. The one and only thing I am saying is that he has not got the stuff he needs to back up a verdict of a false description, and therefore he must wait with that verdict. As simple - and as bitterly hard - as that.

The best, Joel!

Fisherman

fair enough, but your arguments dont give the credibility you think they do.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But they don't "show" us that, Fisherman, because it's a painting, not a photograph."

Ben, you are hilarious. You are ready to take any route of discrediting those who oppose you, no matter how ridiculous it is.

I used van Gogh because it was an 1888 painting, painted at the very spot it represents. But I could equally have chosen hundreds of other pictures, painted in a more realistic fashion, showing the exact same thing - that gas lighting can produce a lot more light than the light you state was present in Dorset Street.

Ever wondered why the portraits of Churchill resemble...you know, ehrm ... Churchill?
Ever wondered why paintings of London look like London? Why paintings of Buckingham palace display the exact same amount of windows as the rreal thing have? Quite a coincidence!
Ever asked yourself why?

Of course you havent!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Joel writes:

"fair enough, but your arguments dont give the credibility you think they do."

If my arguments are badly put, Joel, so much the worse, since they represent a case that MUST be made. If I fail linguistically, I am sorry, since I really ought to present my case as well as I can. I welcome any knight in shining armour who can take over and push the point that the case Ben puts forward MUST be judged "not proven" - for sanity´s sake.

The best, Joel!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn writes:

"the fact that it was in the Southern Hemisphere at the time wouldn't have helped matters much in Spitalfields"

Yes, Sam, but does that clinch things? I don´t think we can afford to say that. Too many uncertain factors about, I say!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Ben, you are hilarious. You are ready to take any route of discrediting those who oppose you, no matter how ridiculous it is.

Right, because it isn't ridiclous at all to use a painting to show much much light existed in reality. Oh no...

But I could equally have chosen hundreds of other pictures, painted in a more realistic fashion, showing the exact same thing - that gas lighting can produce a lot more light than the light you state was present in Dorset Street.

It's a painting.

Not real life.

So whatever it "shows", it's not real life.

The balcony can't possibly have appeared as it did in that painting, otherwise it would fall down on top of the patrons heads. The cobblestones in that painting had a think layer of "black" on top of them, unlike real cobblestones..

It doesn't matter what the painting "shows".

It cannot reflect reality.

Ever wondered why the portraits of Churchill resemble...you know, ehrm ... Churchill?

Because he was sitting there for the duration. Are you seriously suggesting the same thing for the individuals in that painting. "Sorry madam, I know you're in mid-stride but could you remain in that spot in that pose for the next few hours? Thanks!".

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

Blimey, I see what Joel means.

Best regards,
Ben

[joelhall]

Joel writes:

"fair enough, but your arguments dont give the credibility you think they do."

If my arguments are badly put, Joel, so much the worse, since they represent a case that MUST be made. If I fail linguistically, I am sorry, since I really ought to present my case as well as I can. I welcome any knight in shining armour who can take over and push the point that the case Ben puts forward MUST be judged "not proven" - for sanity´s sake.

The best, Joel!
Fisherman

ok ill give it a try a bit later

[caz]

The girl in question had an opportunity to observe the truck approach and stop before the attack in daylight, so the very notion that that it took a second to notice the physical particulars of the van and the physical particulars of the offender at the same time is silly nonsense.

But Ben, why do you mention the truck in this context? We were discussing how long the girl could reasonably have had to take in the physical particulars of the offender himself. It was your silly nonsense about her being in the truck with him for some unspecified length of time before managing to escape that I was exposing.

Are you now seriously suggesting that she didn’t scream the instant he grabbed her, but waited a few more seconds to establish that his intention was to get her in that truck and not to give her a friendly hug and walk her to school? Or that he didn't stop the instant she screamed, but carried on pulling her towards the vehicle for a few more seconds before the sound finally penetrated his consciousness? Perhaps you were there with your stopwatch!

This is getting quite ridiculous. I only posted the details for Fisherman for Gawd's sake. I wasn't saying the cases were identical or proved anything about Hutch's reliability as a witness. Personally I think he was paid to pop a Jew in that room after Blotchy was seen with Mary; paid for his story in the papers; and at least hoped to make a bit out of helping the cops look for the Jew too. I'm open to other suggestions but the more they are shoved down our throats the less palatable they become and the weaknesses in the reasoning take on a more distinctive flavour.

Love,

Caz
X