Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Sally]

but in fact, who cares ? Surely this is supposed to be a serious debate about JTR theories using historical facts as a basis ? All this 'Clique' talk is a waste of time.

Absolutely. Or 'Camps'. Who has time for that crap? Not me.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Well, of course I can predict exactly who will turn up when you waffle on
(hands up, Mike!)..so in that sense, you are in a 'Clique'."

Yes - but in the right one, thank God. Or Richard Branson.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Richard Branson?"

Yep, thatīs him.

The best
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Ruby:

"As soon as some people's opinions coincide (after they have read the same evidence and have arrived at the same conclusions), then the cry of 'clique !' goes up."

Eh, no - as soon as you can PREDICT exactly who will turn up and thinking what, THEN you have a clique. And I can do that with ease

.

Well, of course I can predict exactly who will turn up when you waffle on
(hands up, Mike!)..so in that sense, you are in a 'Clique'. In fact, you are in a far more predictable clique than me, I'd say..

..but in fact, who cares ? Surely this is supposed to be a serious debate about JTR theories using historical facts as a basis ? All this 'Clique' talk is a waste of time.

If saying no amounts to a "successfull" refutation, then Iīm with you.

There ! We agree !

In your case, Ruby, I suspect that you would suggest company from down below on my behalf...?[/QUOTE

]

Nope. Or rather, Yes. Or, No. I'll have to ask my Clique....

[Sally]

there are those who think that there is good reason to believe that there is an old, bearded man up in the clouds, looking after us.

Richard Branson?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"As soon as some people's opinions coincide (after they have read the same evidence and have arrived at the same conclusions), then the cry of 'clique !' goes up."

Eh, no - as soon as you can PREDICT exactly who will turn up and thinking what, THEN you have a clique. And I can do that with ease.

"your arguments were sucessfully refuted by pople that have nothing to do with me "

If saying no amounts to a "successfull" refutation, then Iīm with you.

"I am also fascinated that you include yourself in the same paragraph as the 'bearded man up in the clouds'."

In your case, Ruby, I suspect that you would suggest company from down below on my behalf...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

Ruby:

"What did I read ? -your theory about Hutchinson getting the night wrong being quite conclusively trashed !"

Aha, thatīs what you mean! Well, Ruby, I would have been very surprised if a certain clique of people did not have a go at it.

fascinating ! I have seen this accusation before..

As soon as some people's opinions coincide (after they have read the same evidence and have arrived at the same conclusions), then the cry of 'clique !' goes up.

Speaking only for myself (since I don't have any 'clique' to fall back on), you can look at my 'history' on Casebook and see that my very first post on Casebook was arrived at all on my ownio, and I hadn't read Ben, Garry, Bob etc (the latter two's books only having been read fairly recently).

I'm not afraid to differ from them, and I think that they are often quick to distance themselves from me ; so just forget 'clique' (it stinks of 'conspiracy).

So, your arguments were sucessfully refuted by pople that have nothing to do with me (I note, independantly).

I am also fascinated that you include yourself in the same paragraph as the 'bearded man up in the clouds'. just as well that I've dropped the 'cod psychology' tack, eh?



















"Im suprised that no one did demolish it

[Rubyretro]

pps - Lechmere
I am still reeling under the realisation that, unlike most East End casual workers in doss houses, George Hutchinson had private 'lock up' facilities at his disposition !

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"What did I read ? -your theory about Hutchinson getting the night wrong being quite conclusively trashed !"

Aha, thatīs what you mean! Well, Ruby, I would have been very surprised if a certain clique of people did not have a go at it. But having a go at it and dispelling it are two different things altogether, as you may (no?) realize. And for your information, nothing has emerged that in any way prevents my theory being true. A few things have surfaced that make a few people thing that there is good reason to believe that I am wrong, but as you know, there are those who think that there is good reason to believe that there is an old, bearded man up in the clouds, looking after us.

"Im suprised that no one did demolish it "

Yes, how strange that this has not been achieved, in spite of all that good will!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

ps -an apt comment for St Valentine's Day ! -

I was gobsmacked that it is the men that put forward the 'romantic' theory that Hutch may have had a 'crush' on Mary !!

[Rubyretro]

Ruby:

"your other theories are simply so weak that they are easily demolished"

Strange, then, donīt you think, that nobody has demolished them. It canīt be because of any lack of a wish to do so, if I am not much mistaken!

The best,
Fisherman

Yes, well I was so busy Dec-late January that I didn't get to read all of the earlier posts, and being curious as to all Lechmere's alleged information about the Victoria Home, which would prove to me how that lodging house was so vastly different to the others (and prove that Hutch couldn't have lived there
and been the murderer), I took the time to go back and read the lot..

What did I read ? -your theory about Hutchinson getting the night wrong being quite conclusively trashed !

I did have a little laugh at your patently ridiculous scenario about Hutch being walled up with nothing but horses after the murder and inquest (?)...I would have enjoyed answering it, and I'm suprised that no one did demolish it ...I suppose that they didn't think that it was worth answering.

Lechmere -I went back and read everything about the Victoria ..and where is that book of ticks ?? The only difference I can see with that lodging house and other [B]slightly [/B ]better places, such as Crossinghams, was the potted history on the lodgers when they were first admitted -excluding all known bad characters. No doubt they didn't just have the information that the lodgers chose to give them as info (they probably simply googled them !).

Otherwise the 4d price, the fact that you needed to pay for a metal pass between 5.30pm and 12.30am or else apply for a night pass to get in after 1am seems much the same as all the rest. My two little scenarios on Berner and Hanbury fit very well.

Hang about, though ! There WAS an interesting bit of info in Harry's very interesting link..
You could leave personal effects with the deputy and sign for them..now considering that this deputy didn't use microscopes and forensic on items left with him..and I wonder if he wrote the contents of a 'bag' down, or not simply issue 'numbers' like we do at a swimming pool.? .this would be a very good way of keeping anything vaguely incriminating 'safe' until you got to the pawnbrokers.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have said many times , it all depends on the face you are putting on Hutchinson.
Is it one of a unknown, or is it Topping.?
If a unknown, then we could well be talking about a major suspect for being JTR, If Topping, I would suggest we lower our sights.
For the record I believe one of these possibilities..
Topping was our man, and he told the absolute truth, and waited as stated because of curiosity, before moving on.
Or to be in 'Hitchcock' mode.
Hutchinson reported to the police on the monday evening, with a very dangerous statement, ie, He met Mary kelly in Commercial street and told her that he had just walked back from Romford, and she offered him shelter in her room until his lodgings reopened at 6am, an offer in which he took.
He was reluctant to come foreward for obvious reasons.
He informed the police that she was alive at 6am.
So where did Astracan come into it.?
He may well have been the man Hutchinson passed standing on the corner of Thrawl street, before George encountered Mary, infact it is possible that initially the offer of a room to Hutchinson may not have happened, only after kelly had been stopped by the loitering stranger, and hastened back to Hutch, wary of his advances.
'George will you stay with me the night, that man is walking our way?
I am suggesting that the police, after some reservations accepted Hutchinsons account, and began to realise the possible significance of Maxwells sightings, however they first had to try and trace the loitering well dressed man , and eliminate him from their enquiries, thus the walkabout.
The statement was made up, for two reasons.
To prevent having to admit that GH was in room 13, for his own obvious safety, and the statement would suggest to the assassin, that the police were looking for a man that entered room 13 around 230am, which would have given a daylight killer a false sense of security.
That is fiction is its rawest, and I prefer the honest George.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"your other theories are simply so weak that they are easily demolished"

Strange, then, donīt you think, that nobody has demolished them. It canīt be because of any lack of a wish to do so, if I am not much mistaken!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"'Quiet' is a value judgement."

Yes it is!

"There is also the distinction to be made as to what people mean when they use the term. 'Quiet' may refer to a lack of sound. 'Quiet' may refer to an absence of people."

Absolutely.

"All the murder sites were relatively 'quiet' in the latter sense."

Rasonably, yes. And it would seem that most were "quiet" in the first sense too. Thatīs what is inferred by wordings like "not a sound was heard" and "quite quiet" and "the voice faded away and all was quiet" and "No, not a sound; it was unusually quiet" and "“Witness, however, did not hear any noise that night. The streets were very quiet” and "Not a sound disturbed the ear of the watchman in the warehouse" and "Had a cry for help been raised he must have heard it, but everything was very quiet till he heard a whistle".
You see, Sally, being quite aware of the different meanings of the word "quiet", I took great care to pick out qoutations where we are left in no doubt that what is spoken of is the level of sound and not the amount of people. And in the end, it of course applies that when a street is very quiet as regards the amount of people, there will be little noise. Nobody describes a street where there are only two people about as "quiet" if these two people are having a ferocious row.

"'Quiet' in terms of ambient noise is very difficult to measure objectively"

Actually, it is even worse, Sally. It is impossible.

"But anyway - its all a bit vague and difficult to draw hard and fast lines around to be certain of anything, I think. Just my opinion."

Oh no - that is my opinion too. We can never establish the exact levels of ambient noise in the streets at that time. What we can do, however, is to realize that the nighttime streets of our own cities today can - in spite of this being a time with a lot more ambient noise - be very, very quiet. We have all heard the echoing footsteps of lonely people walking home through an empty street where nothing else is to be heard, have we not? And the East end streets of 1888 are witnessed about, as I have pointed out, in many cases as streets where not a sound was heard.
When we combine this with the information provided by Erling Nilsson on how far sounds travels, we still cannot make a specific call for the exact scene we are investigating, since we can never aquire the exact elements involved. But we CAN make a very certain call that applies generally, and that call says that IF we are dealing with a noiseless or quiet street, then we KNOW that normal conversation could be easily made out from 30 meters away.

I hope you can see the sense in this, Sally. Physically, there can be no disputing it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I'll tell you what your big problem is Fish -it is trying to force both Hutchinson and Toppy into the same puzzle.

Abby Normal put her finger on it when she asked the very pertinent question
'what exactly was Hutch waiting FOR ?' -for 3/4 of an hour !

An anti -Hutchinsonian who didn't believe in the Toppy-connection might have a very strong argument that he was waiting to mug A-Man for example :
here is another extract about that lodging house, credited to Dorset street

I asked my manager to watch on four consecutive Saturday nights, between twelve and one, from the top windows, and he reported to me that in those four hours he had seen twelve robberies committed, or an average of three for each night

Trouble is, that if you used that one, you'd have to argue that our respectable plumber from Norwood was not only dishonest, but a violent thief !

I notice that you weren't happy with Lechmere's suggestion that Hutchinson wasn't even waiting in Dorset street at all-because that would also make Toppy a liar and a fantasist, wouldn't it. Unless you admitted that Hutch and Toppy weren't the same person at all ? (despite your Swedish expert !)

So your big problem is to find an innocent reason for Hutch to be waiting for such a long time, at such an hour, outside the room of a woman later found murdered -and that is very very hard to do and be in any way convincing. The same goes for then finding an innocent reason why an innocent man would wait so long before making himself known to the Police, if he really did have such a very good description of the best suspect, a man what's more that he'd 'know anywhere' and that he thinks 'lives in the area' !

I would play the 'devil's advocate' for you, and write you a scenario (I enjoy doing that), but I just can't think of one scenario that is convincing.

It is much easier for you to fixiate on a detail like accoustics -where you really can't be proved either wrong or right, however many 'experts' you consult- because your other theories are simply so weak that they are easily demolished.

Hutchinsonians are in a much stronger place because they only need use the facts of the Case to support their argument, and all the bits of puzzle slip into place without having to shoehorn and hammer them down.