Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

"

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

That is not 'evidence' of anything except Hutch didn't mention her in his Statement -and there is a logical reason for that, if he were the killer. It's
not 'evidence' that he didn't see her.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
You have made a excellent and important point.
It has always been a suggestion of mine that hutchinson could have actually spent some time in room 13 during the early hours of the 9th, and therefore one of two incidents could have occured.
A] Hutchinson waited until Astracan had left, and descended on room 13, with Kellys permission, leaving around 6am.
B] Astracan did not exist, and he relayed to the police exactly what he himself did, ie, stopping Mary on the corner of thrawl street, she asking him for sixpence in order for him to doss down [ out of the rain Fisherman?], he having no money, she relenting, and saying 'You will be comftable', walking back to Dorset street, giving her a kiss[ what is more natural, he aged 22, she aged 24].
Why falsify accounts?
What would you do, if the true scenerio was A?
Knowing that Kelly was alive and well, between the hours of 2-6, but medical reports suggesting she was killed during that time, would you admit to being in room 13?
Scenerio B] pure panic, knowing he did not harm Mary, but remembering that some people may have noticed them together, he invents Mr A, for a alibi for being around. agin he could never admit being in her room.
So Rubyretro's point about the weather is excellent.
If Hutch was in room 13 between the hours 2-15-615am, he would have been oblivious to the weather outside, and would have made a error in informing Abberline that he walked around until 6am.
I am now of the strong opinion that GH , spent his alleged ''walking hours'' in room 13, but he was no killer... the police came to the conclusion that he was mistaken on the day[ like Dew] and he faded from importance.
What a relief that would have been to young George...
For the record , I believe Mrs Maxwell saw JACK around 845 am talking to kelly in Dorset street.
Regards Richard,

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"That is not 'evidence' of anything except Hutch didn't mention her in his Statement -and there is a logical reason for that, if he were the killer. It's
not 'evidence' that he didn't see her."

The fact that she did not figure in the police report belongs to the evidence. The fact that he stated that he only saw two other people during his vigil belongs there too, although press material is not as highly rated as the report. Taken together, we have not a picture where a mentioning of her was simply not put on paper, but instead an active denial to have seen any other people than the lodger and the PC during his vigil.

What is NOT in the evidence, though, is any confirmation that Lewis loiterer and Hutchinson were one and the same. That is where it often goes very, very wrong. The evidence speaks of two men having been in Dorset Street at approximately 2.30 on Friday morning. Either the men are the same, or the given dates are wrong. And as long as the latter suggestion remains a viable one, the evidence most certainly does not tell us that the loiterer and Hutchinson were the same man. Like it or not, but work with it with no preconceptions, Ruby!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Fish

You know, most people think that Hutch lied :

That would include people like Abby, who don't think that Hutch was the Ripper but do think that he didn't tell the whole truth; People like Lechmere who think that he "'embroidered i.e. lied"; And people like Richard who think that he lied, but only for innocent reasons.

It comes down to how people decide personally what, and to what degree, Hutch lied about.

So if Hutch was a liar, how can we believe who HE said he saw or didn't see in Dorset Street ?

On the other hand, there is nothing to suggest that Mrs Lewis was a liar.
Her simple and sketchy portrait of the 'Lurker' would suggest that she didn't 'embroider' either.

I know which one of them I believe !

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"You know, most people think that Hutch lied "

I have not counted them, Ruby, so I will have to take your word for it. You HAVE counted, have you not?
Anyway, what point are you trying to make here?

"if Hutch was a liar, how can we believe who HE said he saw or didn't see in Dorset Street ?"

Oh, NOW I see! Since you have counted and know that "most people" believe Hutchinson was a liar, he simply must have been a liar. And since (not if) he was, he would have lied about Lewis too, in order to... in order to ... ehhh, nope I cannot see whay he would lie about her. But lied he did, apparently!

"On the other hand, there is nothing to suggest that Mrs Lewis was a liar."

Aha. So she must have been truthful!

"I know which one of them I believe !"

The good thing about it is that you don´t have to choose!
But let´s expand on things somewhat and work from the premise that we needed to pick one liar, Ruby. Then how to go about it?
What do we know about Sarah Lewis? She was a "laundress", consorting with people in a court where prostitution was a common thing. We can, for example, find Maria Harvey in St James´Gazette, described thus: "Maria Harvey, laundress, living at No 3, New court, Dorset street...", and I think most of us are of the meaning that Maria Harvey prostituted herself at least occasionally.
So, arguably Sarah Lewis may have belonged to a class of women who the police - correct or not - put little stock in when it came to truthfulness.
We also have her strange story: "On Wednesday night I was going along the Bethnal-green-road, with a woman, about eight o'clock, when a gentleman passed us. He followed us and spoke to us, and wanted us to follow him into an entry. He had a shiny leather bag with him.
[Coroner] Did he want both of you ? - No; only one. I refused. He went away and came back again, saying he would treat us. He put down his bag and picked it up again, saying, "What are you frightened about ? Do you think I've got anything in the bag ?" We then ran away, as we were frightened."

A man with a shiny black leather bag, hinting at carrying knifes, perhaps? The Gladstone bag doctor, anybody? It is often said that Hutch´s man portrayed the vulgar picture of the Ripper, but I would say that Lewis´ "gentleman" comes a whole lot closer with that bag in hand! Would it not be correct to say that this man seems very much an embellishment on behalf of Sarah Lewis? Hmm? Sort of a desperate will to draw attention to her and her testimony?

And on top of this, she tells the police that she can describe nothing about her loiterer, whereas she at the inquest suddenly knows that he was short and stocky and wore a wideawake...? It´s a pity there was no follow-up, for that would perhaps have had us furnished with his footwear and the colour of the shirt too.

Wow. The picture that emerges is not exactly that of a reliable star witness, Ruby, is it?

And Hutchinson? A man with the best of intentions according to Dew, a trustworthy character as judged by Abberline, a man of military appearance, living in the Victoria home.

You know, I think I will take my chances with him. He seems by far the better choice.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

And Hutchinson? A man with the best of intentions according to Dew, a trustworthy character as judged by Abberline, a man of military appearance, living in the Victoria home.

Uh Fish, you forgot the part where Reg said he was honest, and that he had an established family and was rarely, if ever out of work. Stalwart (but not stout) citizen, I would say,

Mike

[babybird67]

lol

so a woman who prostitutes herself is an unworthy witness but a man who uses them ooops I mean sorry, one who knew her as a 'friend' for three years and was maybe hanging about outside her dwellings at 2.30am in the morning for a 'cup of tea' (pmsl) is far more upstanding and trustworthy.

Right.

Sexism is alive and well and living in Casebook.

Is there any official statement/reference etc to show any EVIDENCE of this sort of opinion of Mrs Lewis was held at the time and that her testimony was questioned or even 'discredited' as their is evidence of HUtchinson's being? Kindly post it up if there is Fisherman.

By the way there's any easy way to count how many people believe Hutch's statement wholesale and who believe he embellished/lied/however you want to phrase it...Ruby could always post a poll. Then we would see the numbers you wish to see Fisherman as you seem to be doubting yourself and Mike are in the minority.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"so a woman who prostitutes herself is an unworthy witness but a man who uses them ooops I mean sorry, one who knew her as a 'friend' for three years and was maybe hanging about outside her dwellings at 2.30am in the morning for a 'cup of tea' (pmsl) is far more upstanding and trustworthy.
Right.
Sexism is alive and well and living in Casebook."

You know that I normally avoid your posts, Babybird. But since a good deal of them are crammed with false allegations I sometimes must get my pliers out and deal with them anyway. And now it has happened again - you accuse me of being a sexist.

Please read again:

"arguably Sarah Lewis may have belonged to a class of women who the police - correct or not - put little stock in when it came to truthfulness."

Did you notice that little passage: "Correct or not"? No? That was a phrasing I used to make sure that nobody would call me a sexist.

And did it help? So far, yes - nobody has come up with the idea of doing so but you. So I draw the conclusion that most posters out here are perfectly capable of realizing that the passage I flicked in went to show that much as I don´t condemn prositutes as being of lesser value than other people myself, I am f the meaning that the police back then would probably have done just that. I know from experience that other posters, such as for example Ben, hold the same opinion: that Mrs Lewis was not a person the police were much impressed by.

So, yesterday it was an allegation of me having chased Jane Coram from a thread, something that she took the trouble to deny herself. Not that it had you apologizing, though. And today, I am a sexist.
What next, Babybird - what next?

"Ruby could always post a poll."

Like the one you worded, you mean? Leaving out bits and pieces that did not fit your reasoning and asking the wrong question? Of course she could do that, Babybird. But you see, I am of the meaning that people who are in a majority are not always correct as a consequence of this. So by and large, I could not care less what "polls" you publish and how you shape them.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

You know that I normally avoid your posts, Babybird. But since a good deal of them are crammed with false allegations I sometimes must get my pliers out and deal with them anyway. And now it has happened again - you accuse me of being a sexist.

(my emphases)

Where? Provide evidence of a false allegation please.

"arguably Sarah Lewis may have belonged to a class of women who the police - correct or not - put little stock in when it came to truthfulness."

Provide evidence that the Police "put little stock" in Sarah Lewis's testimony please. Where is it written or recorded that they did? Provide ONE example of her being disbelieved or her testimony being 'discredited' as we have proof that Hutchinson's was. As far as I can see the evidence supports the contention that Hutchinson's testimony was disbelieved and discredited. As far as I am aware there is no such contemporary reference discrediting Lewis. You are the one doing that, and simply because she was a 'laundress' and a prostitute. You are therefore the one being sexist whilst trying to offload this onto the Victorian Police.

Did you notice that little passage: "Correct or not"? No? That was a phrasing I used to make sure that nobody would call me a sexist.

Yes Fish I noticed it. The problem, however, is highlighted above. That you have no evidence or proof that indeed the Police did approach Lewis as someone who was not telling the truth. You, therefore, are simply asserting something based on your own bias.

And did it help? So far, yes - nobody has come up with the idea of doing so but you.

And? How do you know how many people are thinking the same thing as me? What does it matter if it is only me that finds that appraisal of witness reliability incredibly offensive? Offensive enough to post on?

So I draw the conclusion that most posters out here are perfectly capable of realizing that the passage I flicked in went to show that much as I don´t condemn prositutes as being of lesser value than other people myself, I am f the meaning that the police back then would probably have done just that.

(My emphasis)

Ah there we have that word again that you are so fond of using. Don't Fish. Either the Police did have this attitude toward Lewis, which if you are arguing they did you need to provide some evidence of it not just assume that they 'probably' did, or there is no evidence of such a contention, and we can just dismiss it like all the other probablies and might be's that plague the issue. Also, why are you drawing such conclusions about what the 'majority' of posters must think? Shall i refer you to the conclusion of your post in which you state that

I am of the meaning that people who are in a majority are not always correct

Haven't caught you applying hypocritical principles again have I?

I know from experience that other posters, such as for example Ben, hold the same opinion: that Mrs Lewis was not a person the police were much impressed by.

Ben seems to think Lewis was a more trustworthy witness than Hutchinson. As would most people I should think.

So, yesterday it was an allegation of me having chased Jane Coram from a thread, something that she took the trouble to deny herself.

Are you saying your bad tempered posts to her did not discourage her from posting? I don't think that's true.

Not that it had you apologizing, though.

No because I don't agree with your assessment of the situation. Some people are sometimes just polite Fish because they have better things to do than argue with you. You may notice, or may not, PROBABLY, that Jane used to sign her posts to you with hugs and kisses, as she does to most people because she is a kind and friendly person. Have you noticed how she signs them to you since the way you responded to her on that thread? Some of us are capable of reading between the lines and making true assessments of given situations Fish so if you really think you behaved correctly towards Jane on that thread I'd advise you to think again. (Sorry to drag you into this Jane but something people can't see the wood for the trees and Fish seems to think i should be apologising to him for something which was then and is now quite clear to most people who can read).

And today, I am a sexist.

Yep. Saying a woman who is a prostitute is less reliable than a man who uses them is sexist in my opinion. Sexist and as big an example of double standards as I have seen. As I've said if you are arguing it is factually accurate that the Victorian Police did not believe Lewis because of this, yet believed Hutchinson, then please post up your evidence. Otherwise you are putting your own sexist assumptions where they do not belong.

What next, Babybird - what next?

I don't know Fish. You're the one who says and does these things. You cannot blame me for commenting on them. It all depends what nonsense you come out with next doesn't it.

Like the one you worded, you mean? Leaving out bits and pieces that did not fit your reasoning and asking the wrong question?

I didn't realise you and Mike were the arbiters of what questions should be asked in polls Fish. Maybe you should pm me your email address so i can run the next one past you and get your permission and approval to post it up (thats a joke by the way). I asked the question I wanted the answer to, which was directly relating to the evidence and whether and examination of it would support Dew's theory that Hutchinson got the wrong day. Looks like a majority of people considering the evidence so far believe that the evidence we have does not support the theory. That answers MY question, for which I posted MY poll. If you don't like my poll there is no need to take part in it. If you believe a different question should have been asked, there is nothing preventing you or your drooling rottweiler from asking it, is there.

And for someone who allegedly avoids me, what made you contribute to my poll and my thread in the first place? There is an ignore facility on this site. If you find my questions that difficult to deal with, I suggest you find out how to use it. You won't need any of that pesky self-control that apparently keeps failing you then.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Yes, I know I said I wasn't going to post on this thread again, but it would be very wrong of me not to in order to clear matters up.

Fisherman, you are an astonishingly good debater, and it's fun debating with you, but with the best will in the world you do often upset people with your rather over enthusiastic manner, which comes over as sarcasm and even insults at times. I'm sure you don't mean it, but nevertheless that is how it comes over.

You did insult me, although, perhaps patronize me might be more accurate, as your comment came over as the sort of thing you would say to a six-year-old that had just wet her knickers, but I laughed it off with a joke. I really don't give a toss what people think of or say to me. I'm a big girl.

You then came back with the accusation I was putting words into your mouth, with the joke. Obviously East Ender humour doesn't translate to Swedish. I realised at that point that further debate on that thread was pointless, because if I did post up again, then more insults would follow and we would just get into a slanging match. I didn't want that to happen, so I thought it best to walk away. Baby bird was correct when she pointed out that my last post had a subliminal message to you. Perhaps it's simply that English isn't your first language (although your English is astoundingly good) that you didn't pick up on it. My fault for not making it clearer.

The fact that I am now happily debating with you on another thread, must show that it wasn't the insults as such that drove me away from the thread, rather more the fact that if we'd carried on, then they would have continued and probably escalated. So I retired from the thread working on the assumption that discretion was the better part of valour. I hope this clears up the misunderstanding.

This thread is way too wild for me I'm afraid!

Look forward to seeing you over on the Hutchinson poll thread.

All the best

Janie

[babybird67]

thanks for clearing that up Jane

and sorry Fish brought you back into the thread and made it necessary. Hugs.

The other thread is building up substantial evidence though. And much more focused debate over there. Your posts are extremely helpful in building up an accurate picture so I am glad you are finding the time and inclination to post them. I am sure I am not the only person benefitting from them either.

love

Jen xxxx

[The Good Michael]

Jane,

Just so you know, Fisherman thinks very highly of you... as does everyone on this site. If anyone is safe from the slings and arrows, it has to be you. You're a peach.

Mike

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fisherman,

I know you don't like edits, or I would have put this on the last post, but Babybird was also correct when she said that I have changed my salutation to you on posts. This is simply because I thought that it would be inappropriate to put 'hugs' to you after that, as I wasn't sure if you would want me using such an affectionate and informal term. I work on the premise, 'if in doubt, leave it out'. If you're happy with me ending the email with 'hugs' then I'm more than happy to do so.

Kind regards

Janie

[Jane Coram]

Hi Mike,

You're the first man to make me blush in a long time Mike.

I really didn't want to post and wouldn't have said anything, but I could see things getting out of hand again if I didn't and thought it best to just straighten things out. No offence intended to Fish at all.

I have to say, this thread is the equivalent of a wild party in Hollywood. I just can't stand the pace these days. I prefer a cup of cocoa and a jumper to knit.
It's fun to read, but I think I'll leave it at that!

Kind regards, oh sod it, have a hug,

Janie

xxxxx

[The Good Michael]

No hugs! I don't want girls' germs! Yuck.

Mike