George Hitchinson: a simple question

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
The fact is Abberline at least initially believed Gh, which included the fact that whilst his story may have seemed too good to be true, it surely had to have been possible with the lighting present to have been plausible, otherwise it would have not been taken as seriously as it originaly was.
We were not there folks,neither can we ask people that were, so lets just assume that 'Topping' [ oops Sorry Ben] was being truthful, and go from there....
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Makes pretty good sense to me, Richard. Letīs see if that is a majority decision...?

The best, Richard!
Fisherman

[Ben]

The painter probably could see the whole street in bright light, but for some reason chose to paint them in a darkish tone.

Right you are, Fish. The painter was probably seeing all manner of gentlemanly accessories all the way to St. Pauls, from horseshoe-tie pins to gold tooth fillings, but decided to expunge them from the painting. Righty-ho...

Many museums and institutions clean their paintings, restoring the original brightness of the colours, and these painting may well have been cleaned. If not, however, they will be very much darker today than they were when they were painted.

Well, any lighter and they'd be pretty lousy and unrealistic paintings. I can't envisage the painter in question thinking "Ah, this looks a bit naff now, but with any luck, the painting will fade many decades after my death and viewers can get the full effect of my genius."

Seriously, it's only reasonable to assume that the paintings in question have been preserved as they should have been, and they they appear as the artist intended them to have appeared.

And the only reasonable verdict that can come out of that, is that we can not say that what he described was something that he could not have seen - and remembered

Yes, we can.

Yes, empahtically we can.

We don't know the exact conditions, but we do know the following: poor weather, Victorian London, Victorian gas lighting, dark, small hours, the normal human capacity for observation and recollection. That's more than enough. We can't change any of that, and to whatever proposterous extent we wish to stretch the conditions to accomodate Hutchinson, they still wouldn't surmount the problems. Do not keep repeating your original objection as though it were never addressed, please.

The claim would still be beyond the realms of possibility - indisputably so.

Ben

[Ben]

Makes pretty good sense to me, Richard. Letīs see if that is a majority decision...?

Did you not read what Richard said?:

"lets just assume that 'Topping' [ oops Sorry Ben] was being truthful, and go from there"

You don't assume anything of the sort, so it doesn't make "pretty good sense to you", does it? It doesn't matter what Abberline initially believed when we reflect that this view was clearly short-lived. The notion that X believed it so it must be so is obvious nonsense. Abberline also believed that Klosowski the ripper embarked on an organ-harvesting spree at the behest of an American doctor, and that he eventually went to America himself when he realized he didn't have enough innards.

Now, I think Fisherman believes that to be nonsense despite the fact that Abberline said it. We'll see...

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Seriously, it's only reasonable to assume that the paintings in question have been preserved as they should have been, and they they appear as the artist intended them to have appeared."

Ben, I donīt think you are following here. No oil paintings from that age are preserved "as they should have been" without the help of restoration. They inevitably grow darker with time. The museums have staff that take care of it, but they canīt clean all paintings all the time, and thus many paintings are much darker than they were when fresh. No intentions on the artistīs behalf has ever changed that, Iīm afraid.

Next point, Ben: No, we do not know what conditions of the Hutch/Astrakhan man encounter to such a degree as to allow us to rule out Hutchīs description. Nor will we ever do so.

On the last point, Ben, the thing I liked in Richards argument was the bit about Abberline and the police weighing in the conditions under which Hutchīs observations were made before opting for a verdict of "truthful". If the streets had resembled the inside of a sack of coal, then logically they would not have believed in the guy.

"The notion that X believed it so it must be so is obvious nonsense"

Right! Ben believes that Hutch could not have achieved it all, so how does that apply here...hmmm..letīs see now..

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Ben, I donīt think you are following here. No oil paintings from that age are preserved "as they should have been" without the help of restoration

I agree wholeheartedly, Fish, but it's difficult to envisage the paintings in question not being subject to continual restoration. In any case, they were all depicting London in the dusk, with the artist in question having gone to evident lengths to create an accurate reflection of London at dusk. It surely can't be the case that the whole thing just "accidentally" looks realistic.

I'm sure the police did contemplate the veracity of Hutchinson's account before giving him a temporary, short-lived, clean bill of health, but we also know that the report was penned only a few hours (if that) after Hutchinson delivered the statement at 6.00pm that night. The fact that the evidence, and Hutchinson himself, disappeared from the radar so soon may offer a reasonable indicator of how the account came to be treated in the long run.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"I agree wholeheartedly, Fish, but it's difficult to envisage the paintings in question not being subject to continual restoration."

They may have been restored, Ben, and they may not have. The world is full of paintings, billions of them, that need restoration, and there are only so many restorers around. Plus the audience magnets are given priority.
The sad result of all of this is that more insignificant paintings are only restored when they have grown significantly dark. We are speaking of spaces inbetween restorations of many a decade, Ben, and many old paintings have never had a restoration at all.
The quality of the varnish differs to a great extent too, as do the conditions in which the paintings have hung. Some paintings appear quite fresh two hundred years after they were painted, without restoration, while others half their age have grown quite dark. All in all, it is hard to say how time has fared with these paintings, and to what extent it is of weight to the topic we are discussing. I just thought it vital to mention, since it could well play a major role.

On the point of the haste of the police, and all the things it may have carried with it, I am the first to agree that Hutchīs carreer as a star witness was cut short at a seemingly quite early stage. But that does not affect the point that the police would have judged the sighting conditions at the murder night good enough to allow for Hutchīs observation. It would be a very embarrasing mistake otherwise, swearing against the most basic of police procedures. That is why I like Richardīs point. I think it shows us that the probable reason of the police dismissing Hutch lay somewhere else.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
You suggest that because Gh vanished of the radar screen , soon afterwards he must have invented the whole thing..., does that also refer to Barnett, Maurice Lewis, Caroline Maxwell, Schwartz, Mrs Cox, Prater,and the entire cast of alleged witnesses throughout that autumn.
Were they not Ben , all one hit wonders?
GH, was sent on the rounds of the district , but to no avail, simple as that, that does not make him a confirmed liar.
Sorry to be awkward mate, but I regard Hutchinson as just a witness, and a good one at that.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

They may have been restored, Ben, and they may not have. The world is full of paintings, billions of them, that need restoration, and there are only so many restorers around.

I realize that, but the paintings Joel shared with us look very much like they've been subject to restoration, hence the excellent quality we're seeing from the scanned images. No obvious blemishes or staining of any nature, coupled with the fact that the paintings just happen to depict what London would have looked like in the dusk, and still does, to a certain extent. It would obviously look even darker at 2:30am and with far fewer gas lamps around.

Regardless, it would not have impacted significantly on the images of people at street level, since the obvious impression is one of dim shadows and indistinct forms.

But that does not affect the point that the police would have judged the sighting conditions at the murder night good enough to allow for Hutchīs observation.

There's no indication that they did in the long run, Fish, and that is what matters. Abberline was also responsible for the Klosowski organ-harvesting theory I expounded earlier, which also included claims that were factually incorrect and/or very likely to be wrong. Unfortunately, that's something you'll have to take up with the ghost of Abberline, rather than expecting me to explain it.

I'm not sure why Abberline must be perpetually regarded as some sort of sacred cow. If Macnaghten and Anderson are to be the subject of legitmite criticism as far as their personal theorising goes, I don't see why Abberline should be considered "untouchable". It's a bothersome trend I've noticed, not that I'm suggesting for a moment that you're an offender in that regard.

I think it shows us that the probable reason of the police dismissing Hutch lay somewhere else.

Yes, I agree.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Were they not Ben , all one hit wonders?

No, Richard. We know that other witnesses were referred to, either by name or description, as providers of useful evidence in subsequent police interviews, memoirs and reporrs. We know that some were used it police efforts to identity later suspects.

Hutchinson features in none of this.

You speak of his accomanying police round the district being of "no avail", but that's what one would expect if the suspect being tracked either didn't exist or was heavily embellished.

but I regard Hutchinson as just a witness, and a good one at that

Fair enough. I personally think you've been given more than enough incentive to revise that view or, at the very least, contemplate the alternative.

Best regards,
Ben

[Mitch Rowe]

The fact that the evidence, and Hutchinson himself, disappeared from the radar so soon may offer a reasonable indicator of how the account came to be treated in the long run.

We know how it was treated in the long run:

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."

[perrymason]

Perhaps another tact........aside from some comments made initially by Fred Abberline, what other senior staffer, or journalist, or in passing while reminicing in autobiographies or articles... ever mentions either George Hutchinson, or Caroline Maxwell, or Mathew Packer, as a de facto source of relevant data. If George Hutchinson was believed and believable, there is no question he is the star witness for a "Jack" murder if they ever caught anyone. By far the best head to toe description...at 2 in the morning in the near dark.

If Caroline Maxwell was correct, she is the most sensational post murder witness....and she would be responsible for having the woman in room 13 denounced as being Mary Kelly...after her recent live-in, landlord and assistant all identified her.....and if Mathew is correct, we have a witness account of Liz being in the company of someone not Broadshouldered Man near the time of her murder.

None of those three things occurred, none of those 3 witnesses are testimony that shaped the cases in any long term appreciable manner, and 2 have been relegated to the proper place for them....some background noise in a confused neighbourhood. One still remains a mystery, based if anything, on his coming forward at all.

Best regards all.

[joelhall]

Those are lovely paintings, Joel! Thanks for posting them.

I notice that Ben writes that it would be interesting to see the same kind of light under a totally dark sky. But since they are only paintings, Ben, made by a brush and a painters whims, we can of course not read anything of value into them at all. The painter probably could see the whole street in bright light, but for some reason chose to paint them in a darkish tone.

precisely haha

Joking aside, I think we must accept that a lot of information can be reached, studying the paintings made at the time.
In this case, we have a number of canvases that portray a darkish London, especially the one with the few lighting points in it. It is tempting to think that this is a scene that may have resembled what could be seen in Dorset Street.

could be, though this is a different part of london. however, it is a more likely representation than van gogh could give us.

I think, though, that we must keep (at least) two things in mind before we opt for a painting like this being a good representation of the conditions Hutch met in the street.
Firstly, the painting with St Paulīs cathedral in the background shows very clearly that the London Streets could be very well lit, using only gaslight.

true, though more densely & with different types of lamp than we see in dorset street.

Secondly, we donīt know the condition of these paintings. If they are oil paintings, there will be a coating of varnish on their surfaces, and that varnish turns darker with the years.
Many museums and institutions clean their paintings, restoring the original brightness of the colours, and these painting may well have been cleaned. If not, however, they will be very much darker today than they were when they were painted.
Just a remark.

one or two things to consider. depending mainly on the paint, though in this case we know the time it was painted. the outer layers would turn slightly yellow, giving not a darker image, but one with less character and slightly duller. the cleaning you refer to restores the luster, sharpness & hue of the image, rather than making it lighter. however, for obvious reasons, galleries & print makers make their copies under the best possible conditions to give the best images, such as these here, so this should not be an issue.

And my main objection of course stands - we are not able to tell what amount of light was shed over Astrakhan man as Hutch observed him, we are not sure of how many lighting points there were around, we have no way to establish at how slow (for slow it was) pace he walked alongside Kelly, and we have no way to assess how good and keen an observer Hutch was. And the only reasonable verdict that can come out of that, is that we can not say that what he described was something that he could not have seen - and remembered. Doubtless, if he did, it was a remarkable feat. But there you are.

The very best, all!
Fisherman

no arguments there, though from photographs we have an idea of the light placings. definitely something to look more into.

[joelhall]

The fact that the evidence, and Hutchinson himself, disappeared from the radar so soon may offer a reasonable indicator of how the account came to be treated in the long run.

We know how it was treated in the long run:

"No one ever saw the Whitechapel murderer; many homicidal maniacs were suspected, but no shadow of proof could be thrown on any one."

this is true but of course does not prove he lied, only how his statement was accepted. of course we will probably never know if hutch could be considered a 'homicidal maniac'.

[joelhall]

Hi Greg,
Do you mean that all low-class people couldn't read? And that they were even unable to lie without help?
Strange enough!

Amitiés,
David

good point as from what ive read, there is little to the idea that the working class couldnt read or write well. some even had very good educations, even by todays standards. there were lots of newspapers around whitechapel at any rate