George Hitchinson: a simple question

[Ben]

Hello Fisherman,

Iīm afraid that there is no way that you can come up with any assertions of what kind of lamps that would have been present on the streets we are discussing.

I can come up with assertions aplenty as to what kind of lamps would not have been on the streets we are discussing, and your 800-watt lighthouse torch made out of a whale blubber is a good example of a street lamp that Hutchinson would not have been leaning against.

There were a number of opportunities open to those who wanted to invest in bright gas lamps back in 1888, and had been so for a couple of decades.

But here we're talking about a normal street lamp, not a private affair purchased by a truly clueless landlord who confuses his customers for moths and believes he won't secure the punters any other way. The clue here lies in the fact that Hutchinson leaned against the lamp, identifying it as a street lamp, not a privately owned one attached to the pub wall. It's a street lamp, as would be found on a street corner. It may even be the one Rob snapped, or at least resided in the same location.

Just as I wonīt move an inch from my wiew on the lighting issue

Doesn't look like I'm about to, either.

So, in the interests of avoiding further aggro or alienating other posters, that means it's probably best to agree to disagree (sensible suggestion).

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Harry writes:

"Tabran was a mistake.Take heart from that,even I can make one.I meant of course Prater.Sounds very much like Tabran,do you not agree"

I suspected as much, Harry. And I donīt take heart from it. That would be a much more obvious mistake, Harry.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Claire asks:

"The fact of something's existence, if we're not even trying to establish whether it existed in this or other pertinent cases, is sort of beside the point, isn't it?"

No, Claire, it is not. To be able to judge Hutch from a perspective involving all possibilities, we must of course assess what the possibilites were. And it is by no means impossible that there were lamps of the bright type outside some establishment or other in the area we concern ourselves with. There were other makes than the Bray too, as I have shown.
So, you see, I am not saying that lamps like these were not there - that would be to establish unestablishable things - I am only saying that I have no trouble with people BELIEVING that they werenīt.

The best,

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I can come up with assertions aplenty as to what kind of lamps would not have been on the streets we are discussing"

Yes, you can - all the lamps manufactured after November 9, 1888. Theoretically - and perhaps practically - the whole bunch of the rest COULD have been there.

And like Sam said in his earlier post, we donīt know how many lamps there were and of what brightness they were.

"in the interests of avoiding further aggro or alienating other posters, that means it's probably best to agree to disagree (sensible suggestion)"

Absolutely, Ben, as long as that donīt involve you getting "upset" about me speaking for my wiew on the matter.

The best!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hello Richard,

being approached by a man who I was curious about, and proceeding back to her room, also the fact that the man remained in her room all the time I waited opposite the court approx forty five minutes

So curious about her that he completely neglected to alert any constable? By loitering outside her home, he isn't actually acheiving anything. He isn't acting on his curiosity, and he's rendering himself useless as a preventative measure against her death.

You highlight the fact that Hutchinson alleged a "good look" at the suspect, but don't you find that a little unusual? Along came the supposed "real" killer, we're told. He dresses himself in the most conspicuous attire possible for the district, and advertised his wealth with a thick gold chain. He is also, coincidentally of course, an absolute dead ringer to the press-conjured image of what Jack the Ripper might look like; sinister, conspicious, foreign. He even carries a knife-shaped black parcel that he clasped tightly.

You don't find it a trifle odd that such a man would continue with his grisly plans in the certain knowledge that a witness had observed him at close quarters thence to follow him the court? What if Hutchinson had gone off to retrieve a constable or a vigilante? What if he was one?

What do i do?
Do I say nothing to anyone?
But what if someone saw me talking to Mary, and in Dorset street?
Was the man I saw her killer, aka Jack the Ripper?
Would he come after me?
Would I get into trouble If I kept away?

So after pondering all these questions, he decides to sit on this information, allowing the trail of his friend's murderer to grow colder by the hour.

Until...

Sarah Lewis makes reference to a man she saw at 2:30am or the morning of the murder, standing outside the court apparently watching or waiting for someone. That's his cue. That's when Hutchinson comes forward and says he was there at 2:30am on the morning of the murder; that he stood outside the crime scene; that he was watching and waiting for someone.

Are we to believe that it was just a casual random coincidence that a lodger advised him to go to the police station, and that it just "accidentally" followed hot on the heels of the inquest's termination and Lewis' evidence being published? Of course we don't. That's too much of a far-fetched coincidence. He could have come forward at any time after the murder, including, say, a week afterwards, but he only came forward when it became public knowledge that he'd been seen.

Approached a constable, was dismissed, but because he had then come clean, had to muscle up courage to enter the staion the following evening.

He did not approach a constable.

If he approached a constable with eyewitness evidence, he would not have been dismissed. If a constable behaved in so negligent a fashion, he'd be traced according to his delineated beat and fired from the force on the grounds of incompetence.

That didn't happen.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Theoretically - and perhaps practically - the whole bunch of the rest COULD have been there.

Could have been, but wasn't.

And it is by no means impossible that there were lamps of the bright type outside some establishment or other in the area we concern ourselves with.

No, I'm afraid the lamps of the bright type were not on Commercial Street in 1888. We know from the source that you generously provided that London was very dimly lit after 1882, and that street lamps of the order that Hutchinson allegedly lent against were not bright.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

It seems, Ben, that not only those streets were dimly lit ...

What you have been doing so far, Ben, is to say that bright gas lamps did not exist back in1888, and therefore they could not have been present at Dorset Street and Commercial Street.

Now, you use another solution to your problem: Bright gas lamps DID in fact exist back in 1888 - but absolutely not in these streets.

...and YOU ask ME why I canīt see that you are upset....?

A source saying that London was dimly lit in 1888 cannot be used to prove that this applied at each and every street of the city, Ben. It does not work that way.
But I am speaking for deaf ears here, and I am quite pleased to have shown the true state of it all to anybody who is receptive enough to embrace it. As for those who are for some reason unable to do so: Have a wonderful life ...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

What you have been doing so far, Ben, is to say that bright gas lamps did not exist back in1888

No, with respect Fish, I didn't say that.

I said they weren't "around" in 1888, i.e. not in use for street lighting. If my terminology was unclear, I apologise, but the existence of bonfires in 1888 is an obvious indicator that bright lights could potentially "exist". That was my meaning from the start, and I stand by it, just as I stand by super-lights not being present in the steet lamps in Commercial Street.

I guess the "upset" stems from the insinuation that I've been resorting to clandestine "tactics" or being in any way dishonest. This is suggested by the following example; "Now, you use another solution to your problem"

See, that annoys me.

It isn't a "problem", and as such, I haven't changed the "solution".

A source saying that London was dimly lit in 1888 cannot be used to prove that this applied at each and every street of the city, Ben.

Your source says that your mega-watt lamps were not in use after 1882. I've arrived at the logical conclusion based on that source.

Regards,
Ben

[Rob Clack]

Thanks for that, Rob.

What are the chances of that gas lamp having been there in 1888, would you say?

A good chance I'd say. Probably not that one itself, but there may have been a lamp on that spot. It wouldn't strike as logical to have one right on the corner especially if there is already a wall lamp projecting from the Queens Head. Just my opinion though.

Rob

[Ben]

Thanks, Rob.

I agree; it does seem illogical to have had two lamps on the corner in such close proximity. Since Hutchinson specificed Fashion Street and the fact that he stood "against" the lamp, he was probably referring to the street lamp rather than anything mountd to a wall.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

(My wording):
"What you have been doing so far, Ben, is to say that bright gas lamps did not exist back in1888"

"No, with respect Fish, I didn't say that."

With respect, Ben, you did:

"I don't know when the Bray burners were patented, but we have established that gas lamps were not available in the form of a bright, shining flame until after 1891. Before then, they were comparatively primative open flames, flickering or not."

No unclear terminology about that, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Your source says that your mega-watt lamps were not in use after 1882. I've arrived at the logical conclusion based on that source."

Evolution, Ben, is something that moves forwards, and not backwards. The fact that the city council of London thought the lamps too expensive, would in no way influence any private buyer who took a liking to them. And indeed, I think that it is a very reasonable suggestion to say that brighter lamps would have increased over the years - not decreased.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

but we have established that gas lamps were not available in the form of a bright, shining flame until after 1891

Yes, I did say that, and I stand by that.

We have established that they weren't "available" in 1888. They were "available" before 1882, but then they were discontinued.

The fact that the city council of London thought the lamps too expensive, would in no way influence any private buyer who took a liking to them

And a private buyer would not have forked out ludicrous sums in the povery-stricken East End to attract punters for pubs and lodging houses, as though they were moths. Candeliers in Buckingham Palace - maybe. Besides which, Hutchinson's lamp was a conventional street lamp.

And indeed, I think that it is a very reasonable suggestion to say that brighter lamps would have increased over the years - not decreased.

But we know they didn't. Your source says so. Lighting in London got worse after 1882 to become "the dull and dark streets of London".

Did you not listen to my suggestion to agree to disagree?

Best regards,
Ben

[halomanuk]

It's common sense to presume that Hutchinson was leaning against a lampost outside or close to the Queen's Head'.

As to the brightness factor,that is another matter suffice to say that it was obviously bright enough for him to see MJK and her 'companion',not forgetting the light from the pub itself illuminating the area..

[Ben]

As to the brightness factor,that is another matter suffice to say that it was obviously bright enough for him to see MJK and her 'companion'

I don't know quite what you mean by "obviously", Barry.

I'm afraid it isn't "obvious" just because Hutchinson said it happened. The Queen's Head was almost certainly closed at the time of the alleged sighting, and as such would not have illuminated the area. Interestingly, he initially named the pub as the "Ten Bells", accidentally forgetting that he would not have walked past the Ten Bells to get from Thrawl Street to Dorset Street.

Regards,
Ben