George Hitchinson: a simple question

[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 isn´t. 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

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

Based on a £100 reward, CD, Hutchinson would have got roughly 32 shillings. If only Hutchinson had acted more quickly, and caught the Ripper with his socks off, he could have saved Mary's life and settled her rent arrears with money to spare. As it was, Hutchinson missed out on a golden opportunity - the dopey bastard.

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:
"I do think GH cultivated Astrakhan out of someone he'd seen earlier."

That is a good point, Claire! It would help to explain how he got things right both at the police station and with the reporters. If he knew somebody by sight that looked like this, then it would facilitate such things.
Then again, if there was somebody around displaying such looks, surely somebody would have reacted to the description in the papers?

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

Okay, Fish...but you still have to admit (you do! really!) that that choice of painting was bloomin' awful. Don't you? Find me a few of the East End that are painted to provide a realistic (small 'r') representation of their subjects and I'm happy to indulge the argument. Until then, we just may as well wheel out Picasso's Demoiselles d'Avignon and suggest that nothing untoward happened to Mary Kelly since all hookers have eyes on the side of their heads and grotesquely contorted limbs, right? Tsk

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Walking under a gas lamp takes a fleeting moment, unless he was walking at glacier speed "

They walked slowly, Ben - Hutch said so in the interwiews with the press. And I was not saying that you were trying to forcefeed me a fleeting "moment" - you have out forward a second only, or two at the most.

"But you think he lied."

Yes, Ben - but why in the world should that stop me from arguing that we cannot go to the lengths you are suggesting? The two facts are not connected in any way!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:

"Until then, we just may as well wheel out Picasso's Demoiselles d'Avignon..."

Yeah, yeah, Claire - have your fun while you can, it´s on me

I would have preferred a more realistic picture. I would have preferred one of London. But the van Gogh was the only one where I had information saying that it was painted IN 1888, AT NIGHT, AT THE VERY SPOT, AND THAT THE LAMPS WERE GAS LIGHTS!
It is not easy to come by all those parametres in a painting if you have ten minutes to do the search. And I still say that though the measures are not correct, though the colours are probably not correct in all cases and though he will have exaggerated the light outside the café (since that was what fascinated him - it is easy to see), the fact remains that he depicted a long strech of that street for the simple reason that the light available allowed him to see it. In the background, the light disappears and turns into black night. That is what he would have seen.

If I can pump up adrenaline enough, I will look for other paintings to display - for Ben to scorn (it´s only a picture, Fisherman, it was made by a brush, Fisherman, you can´t use that, Fisherman...- yyaaaaawn!)

The best, Claire!
Fisherman

[joelhall]

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

wierd, according to mine i have 3

[Ben]

They walked slowly, Ben - Hutch said so in the interwiews with the press

Oh, phew! Well, if Hutchinson said so, Fish....

Seriously, though, there's slowly and there's an implausible snail's pace. They would have been in and out of that gas lamp's emitting radius very quickly, regardless of the speed with which the couple walked. Oh, and by the way, the lamps were sparsely distributed, not closely clustered, and the Queen's Head was likely to have been closed at that time.

the fact remains that he depicted a long strech of that street for the simple reason that the light available allowed him to see it.

Wait - how do you know? How do you know he didn't start ealier and just added the rest when it got darker. How do you know it wasn't too dark to see all that appeared in the painting? What if he just added in what he couldn't see? Who would know?

but why in the world should that stop me from arguing that we cannot go to the lengths you are suggesting?

You have, bud. But then I argued back that I can go to such lengths, and then you said no, and then I said yes, and then it was back and forth and back and bloody forth and oh, my giddy giddy aunt we're still here arguing the same thing. It's hardly surprising that we were called nerds a while back.

Best,
Ben

[c.d.]

Based on a £100 reward, CD, Hutchinson would have got roughly 32 shillings. If only Hutchinson had acted more quickly, and caught the Ripper with his socks off, he could have saved Mary's life and settled her rent arrears with money to spare. As it was, Hutchinson missed out on a golden opportunity - the dopey bastard.

...and 32 shillings could buy you what? How many shillings would it take for a bed in a doss house or how many pints could you buy?

c.d.

[claire]

Yeah, yeah, Claire - have your fun while you can, it´s on me

Oh, you've got to admit, it was worth a laugh

And then...you write:
'And I still say that though the measures are not correct, though the colours are probably not correct in all cases and though he will have exaggerated the light outside the café (since that was what fascinated him - it is easy to see), the fact remains that he depicted a long strech of that street for the simple reason that the light available allowed him to see it. In the background, the light disappears and turns into black night. That is what he would have seen. '

Still he persists!! Where's that damned wall again?

[joelhall]

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

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

I won´t 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

fair enough, though theres no real reason to suggest its any less plausible than any other theory. its certainly workable with the current information.

no, theres just the one lamp, the one hutch says he stood by - the one outside the queens head. other light would be spilled from windows. the photo is actually of dorset street if i remember rightly,so that gives an idea of spacing.

Hello Joel

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

Just a thought.

to be honest jon ive absolutely no idea, as i dont recall when licencing laws restricted opening times (help me out . however, it seems it was not unusual for the people in this area to be up and about during the night so it seems reasonable there were at least dwellings giving out light. however im not sure the pub would be completely dead after hours either. something ill look into.

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.)

to be honest i only put that in to account for the cry. seems more likely if you assume hutch is fleming.

still, not a bad idea for 5 minutes guesswork. and i only did it as a joke

[Sam Flynn]

no, theres just the one lamp, the one hutch says he stood by - the one outside the queens head. other light would be spilled from windows. the photo is actually of dorset street if i remember rightly,so that gives an idea of spacing.

At least the spacing of lamps at the western end of Dorset Street, Joel, which appear to coincide with the entrances to lodging-houses - there appear to have been fewer lamps on the southern side of the road (right of picture), apart from one in the distance which might have been near Crossingham's "A". (I've often wondered whether that first house in the left foreground where the two women and the baby are, was Crossingham's "B", or 35 Dorset Street, where Annie Chapman lived. But I digress.)

[joelhall]

i did wonder about this. i only see what i believe to be two lamps on the right:

[Fisherman]

Claire writes:

"Still he persists!! "

Yep - that´s me!

"Where's that damned wall again?"

It´s clearly visible at the café, Claire - bathing in gaslight

The best, Claire!
Fisherman