Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[babybird67]

Fish

have you tried watching Waiting for Godot? There's plenty of waiting around in that play if you're looking for actors to demonstrate how it can be conveyed.

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Maybe Hutchinson got the night wrong. I'm not saying he did or didn't but... maybe.

Mike

[Ben]

“...but you won´t post on it since you don´t like repetitions, right?”

I’ll repeat it for an eternity, if necessary, Fisherman. It just depends if you’re up for a repetition war. If you are, terrific! Let’s keep derailing this thread with back and forth repetitive debate about Lewis’ observation, which nobody challenged until you did so very unsuccessfully a few pages ago with your unimaginative claim that nobody is capable of communicating an impression that they are watching or waiting for someone. This is ludicrous. Do you honestly imagine that the police, jury and coroner in 1888 would all have benefited from your intervention: “Wait, stop everything, guys! Don’t listen to Lewis, she couldn’t possible have made this out!”…?

“I really cannot let such a thing stand unchallenged.”

But you’ve challenged it already, and I’ve addressed that terribly bad and unconvincing challenge already:

“when are you going to stop speaking about how convinced the listeners were back in 1888 that such a thing could be portrayed, and instead tell us exactly HOW it is done”

Peering intently into the court, craning the heck in that direction. Many different ways really. You just have to use some imagination and common sense. Certainly, no jury member or police official raised any objection to this impression when she imparted her evidence at the inquest, probably because they too were capable of using their imagination. Reasonable people accepted then – just as they accept now – that human beings are quite capable of communicating through their body language that they are watching and waiting for someone. But then what you do after I’ve addressed the “challenge”? That’s right, you go straight back to the original “challenge” as though it had never been addressed. This is what you should consider life too short for.

“...and there went another post that did not discuss the topic of the thread.”

And that’s how it’s going to continue at this rate.

I think we’re in for a lovely long evening.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’ll repeat it for an eternity, if necessary, Fisherman. It just depends if you’re up for a repetition war. "

Aha - it is just up to ME if it will come to an end, for YOU certainly will not stop posting. YOU must have the final word. So that is the bottom line here, is it, Ben? That´s how it works, in spite of your assertions that we should BOTH contribute to an ending of it.
Why am I not surprised?

"Peering intently into the court, craning the heck in that direction."

Why would that be interpreted as waiting for someone to come out of the court? Why could it not be evidence of:

1. The man looking out into the rainy night
2. The man looking at something on the immediate side of the archway
3. The man looking at somebody moving inside the court
4. The man looking at any object inside the court
5. The man contemplating a future move on his own part to Miller´s court
6. The man hoping to see some business, satisfying his lust for such things
7. The man thinking he had seen something move inside the court, and feeling spooked
8. The man having seen a rat run alongside the archway

Explain to me why any of these things could not have the man "peering intently into the court, craning the heck in that direction." And explain it well. Or else I amgoing to say that "Peering intently into the court, craning the heck in that direction" may have had a whole bunch of other reasons that the loiterer waiting for someone to come out. Moreover, I will also say that this effectively dismantles any suggestion that the loiterer must have done what Lewis casually suggested that he did.

"I think we’re in for a lovely long evening."

I don´t. I fear I am in for more untenable suggestions, thrown forward as if they somehow closely resemble the truth - or even equalled it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

1. The man looking out into the rainy night
2. The man looking at something on the immediate side of the archway
3. The man looking at somebody moving inside the court
4. The man looking at any object inside the court
5. The man contemplating a future move on his own part to Miller´s court
6. The man hoping to see some business, satisfying his lust for such things
7. The man thinking he had seen something move inside the court, and feeling spooked
8. The man having seen a rat run alongside the archway

Well, Fisherman -these seem believable, and you seem to be accepting that the man outside crossinghams WAS looking down the Court, so that's out of the way.

Of course, placing this innocent man outside Crossinghams on the 8/9 is still relying on 3 huge coincidences
1) that another man was doing the exact same thing as Hutch was doing, at the same time, but 24h before
2) that the innocent man just happened to be surveilling a place where a woman was murdered very shortly afterwards.
3) that Hutch just happened to be a witness that lied in his Police statement

None of your reasons as to why the man was looking down the Court satisfactorily explain why the innocent man was standing there, alone, on a rainy night, at that hour, in the first place.

Neither do they explain what Hutch would be waiting for -and please don't bring out that feeble 'cup of tea' argument.

Your whole scenario still has to be built on complicated conjectures as to how Hutch could have not heard about Kelly's murder, and could have 'forgotten' on what day a series of remarkable events happened.

Isn't it just far more probable that the man outside Crossingham and Hutch were simply one and the same, and that his presence was directly linked to the murder ? What an earth is your reason for tying yourself in knots trying to explain away these coincidences and inventing flimsy theories ?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"these seem believable, and you seem to be accepting that the man outside crossinghams WAS looking down the Court, so that's out of the way."

Have another look at point 2, Ruby.

"Of course, placing this innocent man outside Crossinghams on the 8/9 is still relying on 3 huge coincidences
1) that another man was doing the exact same thing as Hutch was doing, at the same time, but 24h before
2) that the innocent man just happened to be surveilling a place where a woman was murdered very shortly afterwards.
3) that Hutch just happened to be a witness that lied in his Police statement"

Three wrongs out of three - amazing! Let´s unwrap it:

1. We do not know if the loiterer DID the "exact same thing as Hutchinsom claimed to have done". That´s sort of my whole argument here, which I hope you noticed. We only know that Sarah Lewis and George Hutchinson spoke of activities that may have taken the approximate same shape of behaviour - but may likewise not have done so.
2. We do not know that the loiterer was "surveilling" Miller´s Court. We only know that Lewis was of the meaning that he glanced in that direction. That does in no way amount to any surveillance.
3. To lie is an active and conscious thing. There is nothing at all that bolsters any such thing in Hutchinson´s case. He may have been honest throughout, but honestly mistaken. There is no record of any disbelief about that honest on behalf of any of the polimen involved, whereas there are two men, Abberline and Dew, pointing to an absolute truthfulness.

You really managed to mess that up, Ruby! And you did not do anything to dissolve the picture of an agenda-ridden interest on your behalf. On the contrary.

"None of your reasons as to why the man was looking down the Court satisfactorily explain why the innocent man was standing there, alone, on a rainy night, at that hour, in the first place."

Correct. A listing of answers to THAT question has been posted before. You may remember it?

"Neither do they explain what Hutch would be waiting for -and please don't bring out that feeble 'cup of tea' argument."

You are right. It´s much, much more credible that he waited to cut Kelly to shreds. I´ll remember that the next time a neighbour asks me if I can spare a cuppa´.

"Your whole scenario still has to be built on complicated conjectures as to how Hutch could have not heard about Kelly's murder, and could have 'forgotten' on what day a series of remarkable events happened."

No. It rests on a very uncomplicated and human mistake. It´s your counterargument that rests on a very complicated and totally unproven suggestion that the combination of a long walk and a party about which we don´t even know if he cared a iota or was there would somehow make it impossible for him to muddle the days. Now, please don´t go stating this again without substantiation, Ruby. It´s a world full of competent scientists and researchers, and a small but significant deal of them will know a whole lot about the tricks our memories sometimes play on us. Don´t guess - find out.

"Isn't it just far more probable that the man outside Crossingham and Hutch were simply one and the same"

If Hutch was there the day before, I would say that this suggestion is about as improbable as a suggestion gets!

"What an earth is your reason for tying yourself in knots trying to explain away these coincidences and inventing flimsy theories ?"

I am not the knotted one, Ruby. You are. Saying that peopla sometimes muddle dates is anything but flimsy. Saying that people with nowhere to sleep who stand about in streets where friends live are most probably serial killers with a wish to eviscerate is not flimsy either. There are other names for that misconception.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Aha - it is just up to ME if it will come to an end”

Yep, that's pretty much how we're going to play this puppy. You’re going to take the lead if you want the repetition to end, Fisherman. I merely suggested that it might be a good idea, but if you’re not up for it, and only want to go round in repetitive circles instead, I’ll play of course. Remember that I only resort to unyielding repetition when I sense that I’m arguing with someone whose preference is for sheer verbosity and “wear ‘em out” bulldozer tactics when attempting to score points. I simply point out that I'm better than them at that particular strategy if they want to employ it, which you clearly do.

“Why would that be interpreted as waiting for someone to come out of the court”

It clearly can be, and was in this case. If you really struggle with something pretty much nobody else struggles with, then or now, you just have to broaden your imaginative horizon, or if you can’t do that, take up some acting lessons. I charge Equity minimum for those sorts of services, though.

“1. The man looking out into the rainy night”

But this wasn’t in the evidence. Lewis stated that the man was looking up the court as though waiting for someone to come out. If you want to reduce and generalize it, you have the unenviable task of manipulating contemporary sources and changing what was actually said into what you want to have been said.

“2. The man looking at something on the immediate side of the archway”

Again, this is clutching at straws. A desperate attempt at evading or obfuscating the actual evidence, which was that the loitering man was looking “up the court”, not to the left or right of it.

“3. The man looking at somebody moving inside the court”

Lewis stated that there was nobody in the court when she entered it just seconds after the sighting. So no.

“The man contemplating a future move on his own part to Miller´s court”

"Gosh, those estate agents weren’t lying! This really does look like a pleasant place to move to, and what better time than 2:30am in the morning of a miserable November night to suss out the joint?"

No.

“6. The man hoping to see some business, satisfying his lust for such things”

Which would obviously meet the “waiting for someone to come out” criterion.

“7. The man thinking he had seen something move inside the court, and feeling spooked”

These "alternatives" are becoming more and more bizarre and ridiculous. Obviously he wouldn’t have been “spooked” if it was a mere “someone” moving in the court as this would not have been remotely unusual, so it must have been something! The Witch-king of Amgmar perhaps?

“8. The man having seen a rat run alongside the archway”

Oh, for the love of…

It's a rat now, is it?

Gotta be.

It’s all right, everyone. Apparently, Lewis’ man could not have been Hutchinson because of the existence of a rat that Fisherman has just conjured up, scurrying up the archway and into infamy.

“Or else I amgoing to say that "Peering intently into the court, craning the heck in that direction" may have had a whole bunch of other reasons that the loiterer waiting for someone to come out.”

And if you do, I’ll simply repeat all of these objections to those spurious reasons and disastrous attempts to avoid the screamingly obvious all over again.

“Moreover, I will also say that this effectively dismantles any suggestion that the loiterer must have done what Lewis casually suggested that he did.”

And I will also say that it does no such thing, and the very notion that it “dismantles” anything has only recently been cooked up by someone whose outlandish version of an already outlandish theory is dependant on Hutchinson and the wideawake being two different people.

You repeat, and I’ll repeat.

That’s the fun game we’re going to be playing here if you don’t fancy the “agree to disagree” option.

Too bad it’s going to take us miles away from the central premise of your article and way off topic.

[Ben]

Hi Ruby,

A very sensible post.

The very notion that Lewis was somehow incapable of detecting that her man was seemingly “waiting for someone to come out” is both nonsensical and unimaginative. This piece of evidence was given under oath and evidently considered accurate by all who heard in first-hand in 1888. It was accepted by the police who both interviewed her alone and listened to her evidence on the inquest witness stand. It was accepted by the members of the jury. It was accepted by the coroner.

It has been accepted by virtually every student of the case until Fisherman showed up and claimed, quite irrationally, that she couldn’t have detected what she claimed to have detected, and what everyone else accepted that she had detected. Horseshoe tiepins and dark eyelashes and other aspects of Hutchinson’s sighting that he could not possibly have noticed, let alone memorized with exactitude? Not a problem at all, as far as he is concerned, but when it comes to the simple expedient of noticing another human conveying the impression that he was waiting for someone, Fisherman dismisses it. This makes me rather cross.

The evidence, given under oath, as endorsed by everyone from the period and almost everyone afterwards, must be wrong if we listen to Fisherman.

This is a reckless and irresponsible approach to the analysis of source material.

And all to uphold a ludicrous and deservedly unpopular theory touted by a minor police official who “got things terribly wrong” and who offered this piece of baseless speculation 50 years after the event.

As such, I hope you’ll treat Fisherman’s accusation that you “messed things up” with the contempt it richly deserves.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

I have no time for things like this, so I will just pick one small part:

"Lewis stated that there was nobody in the court when she entered it just seconds after the sighting. So no."

Aha. So nobody could have gone inside before she went into the archway? We have the time at which she made her observation on record, and we know that it does not allow for somebody moving in the court?

The quality of some of your reasoning is simply embarrasing, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hi Ruby,

A very sensible post.

Thanks , Ben !

Still, I'm very excited by this new 'suspect' that Fisherman seems to have
found..it certainly explains the mutilatilations of Mary Kelly's body -she was evidently gnawed to death by the rat...

[Fisherman]

OOooops - one more:

"The evidence, given under oath, as endorsed by everyone from the period and almost everyone afterwards, must be wrong if we listen to Fisherman.
This is a reckless and irresponsible approach to the analysis of source material."

It is. I agree. One should never do that.

On the other hand, if I have NOT said it MUST be wrong, but simply pointed out that it MAY be, then it is another thing. Then it amounts to no more than a reckless accusation on your behalf.

The quality of some of your reasoning is simply embarrasing, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

OOooops - one more:

"The evidence, given under oath, as endorsed by everyone from the period and almost everyone afterwards, must be wrong if we listen to Fisherman.
This is a reckless and irresponsible approach to the analysis of source material."

It is. I agree. One should never do that.

On the other hand, if I have NOT said it MUST be wrong, but simply pointed out that it MAY be, then it is another thing. Then it amounts to no more than a reckless accusation on your behalf.

The quality of some of your reasoning is simply embarrasing, Ben.

The best,

Fisherman

Fine -but you have to produce the counter evidence to support your theory.

Quoting the Dubious Dew isn't 'counter evidence'.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Fine -but you have to produce the counter evidence to support your theory."

I have. And it is not in any way "fine" to have people misrepresenting you, Ruby. It is in fact quite annoying, and it should have no place here..

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Ruby:

"Fine -but you have to produce the counter evidence to support your theory."

I have. And it is not in any way "fine" to have people misrepresenting you, Ruby. It is in fact quite annoying, and it should have no place here..

The best,
Fisherman

I guess that you must mean the rainfall ?

Well, I accept fully that it was raining -to what extent it was hard and continuous over Dorset Street precisely between -say- midnight and 2.30am, I couldn't say with certainty, and I seem to remember that you couldn't.

But I do accept that it was pouring down whilst Mary was being butchered.

All it showed me was that, contrary to drier nights, there were far fewer people out on the streets. It would mean that there were far less streetwalkers (so less choice of victim), and that it would be more comfortable for the Ripper to get into a warm room, rather than cut someone up in driving rain. It would also mean that there were less witnesses to see him 'lurking' in Dorset street.

If you think, as I do, that Hutchinson was in Kelly's room when it was raining hardest, he would hardly be thinking about the weather outside anymore -so
he might neglect to mention it when concocting 'A Man', and 'walking about all night'.

At any rate, I don't think that the weather is any sort of evidence at all for your theory
- it helps mine, though.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I guess that you must mean the rainfall ? "

Don´t guess. I have listed my reasons at many occasions. Lewis´ absense is one of them, to begin with.

"I do accept that it was pouring down whilst Mary was being butchered."

Don´t. None of us can know. It could just as easily have been drizzling or dry, and the amounts of rain measured GENERALLY over the south-east, do not allow for any longer period of continuous heavy rainfall (although we cannot be certain what the picture SPECIFICALLY was in Dorset Street). So why draw conclusions that cannot be substantiated?

The best,
Fisherman