Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[The Good Michael]

To be perfectly honest, I will not be in any way surprised if one or two of the posters that represent the Hutchinsonians instead will choose to regard your post ...

But there are only one or two... not counting the parrots.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I said I would cut it up, Fisherman, not eat it."

Aha. Mind your fingers, then! Because I fail to see anybody conveying anything but an interest as such in an archway. I have but the fewest of insights into acting and the ability to portray different sentiments, but that does not hinder me from drawing the conclusion that it would be impossible to find a way to bodylanguagewise convey "waiting for somebody to come out."

"But you have remarked on it, Fisherman, many, many times. I get it. I’m astonished at your views on the subject, but I have at least resigned myself to the fact that you harbour those views. You should do the same for me, rather than going round in silly circles, which life should be considered too short for."

That is a very wise stance, Ben. How come you don´t live up to it yourself? Why do you, each and every time I say A, say B, if you harbour such a hot wish not to have things repeated? And when I tell you that there is nothing hindering you to drop it, you just answer that you enjoy it too much to consider such a thing.
What, Ben, is there to prove that you are any less stubborn than me, and any more willing to quit repeating - or as you sometimes put it "copy and paste" - your arguments? And if there is no such thing, then why do YOU tell ME not to repeat MY arguments? I find that somewhat strange.

"Ouch, Fisherman."

Well, you DID ask whether I had further americanisms to offer. And I DID consider that utterly irrelevant to the topic of the thread. You may have noticed that the one thing we are NOT discussing is whether Hutch got the day wrong or not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jane:

"No problems Fish. We East Enders have a very unique sense of humour.

I really don't have anything more to add to the thread, I've said my piece for what it was worth.

I've edited this because I've just seen your reply to Jen. I appreciate the compliments Fish, but these threads do seem to get over heated sometimes. Maybe we should all try and put up with each other's foibles and learn to rub along together?""

Agreed all around, Jane. I have expressed the same wish a number of times, but nothing good has come from it. In fact, the last time I suggested it, it rendered me a verdict of being sanctimonious for doing so.

Others too have expressed their hope to have a less heated debate, some of them from the camp that sees Hutchinson as anything but a killer, and some from the so called Hutchinsonian camp. The results, as you have noted, have been meagre, and this has meant that perhaps ten, twenty per cent of this thread has concerned itself with the question it set out to answer, whereas the rest has been a mixture of peripherally interesting questions that have been blown out of proportion, allegations that do not belong here and - the way I see it - argumentation for lost causes.

I hope this post of yours can help to get things back on track again. To be perfectly honest, I will not be in any way surprised if one or two of the posters that represent the Hutchinsonians instead will choose to regard your post as not a general call to all parties involved for a better tone but instead as a call directed to me personally, giving me the blame for the current state of affairs. If I am wrong - and I sincerely hope that I am - about that, nobody could be happier than me.

Many thanks, at the very least, for giving your true reasons for leaving the thread. Very much appreciated, Jane!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Jane,
Your one post contained a more detailed and plausible explanation than all the posts subscribing to the laughable contention that Hutchinson forgot the date.The joke is on those who took Dew,s statement,twisted it's meaning,and made a laughing stock of themselves.Music hall comedy at it's best.

[Ben]

“Bon appétit!”

I said I would cut it up, Fisherman, not eat it.

“Life´s too short not to remark on that”

But you have remarked on it, Fisherman, many, many times. I get it. I’m astonished at your views on the subject, but I have at least resigned myself to the fact that you harbour those views. You should do the same for me, rather than going round in silly circles, which life should be considered too short for.

“Get a life...?”

Ouch, Fisherman.

Very ouch.

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

No problems Fish. We East Enders have a very unique sense of humour.

I really don't have anything more to add to the thread, I've said my piece for what it was worth.

I've edited this because I've just seen your reply to Jen. I appreciate the compliments Fish, but these threads do seem to get over heated sometimes. Maybe we should all try and put up with each other's foibles and learn to rub along together?

Hugs

Janie

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"that human beings are quite capable of communicating through their body language that they are watching and waiting for someone. If I am not capable of conveying this impression myself, then I’ll cut up my Equity card tomorrow."

Bon appétit!

"Now, for goodness’ sake, if you still disagree after all this, leave it."

Why. I don´t see you leaving it?

"Resign yourself to my differing opinion, and adopt a “life’s too short for going round in circles in arguments about serial killers” approach to message board discussion."

I know you differ. You often do. I have no problems with that. The problems I have are with you asserting things that are unassertable. Life´s too short not to remark on that. You either do it in this life or you don´t do it at all.

"As a witness, yes.

Not as a suspect."

That would be about right. I don´t think he ever made it to suspect land.

"Any more Americanisms you want to include in your posts?"

Get a life...?

"It is clear that according to Dew, Maxwell confused the date"

See? That´s exactly what I meant when I said that I dislike you asserting unassertable things.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben - check the Met Office report

[Ben]

“If the people of the courtroom had been asked to show what THEY believed body language portraying waiting for somebody to come out would look like”

They wouldn’t need to be asked, Fisherman. There was never any doubt at the time that Lewis’ impression was the correct one. Nobody at the time had a problem with it. Not one person scratched his silly head and said “Duh, boss! I don’t get it. How could she tell that the man was waiting for someone?” They would be morons for asking such an unutterably ludicrous question. 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. If I am not capable of conveying this impression myself, then I’ll cut up my Equity card tomorrow.

Now, for goodness’ sake, if you still disagree after all this, leave it.

Resign yourself to my differing opinion, and adopt a “life’s too short for going round in circles in arguments about serial killers” approach to message board discussion.

“...meaning that Hutch was checked out, yes.”

As a witness, yes.

Not as a suspect.

“Say what ...?”

Any more Americanisms you want to include in your posts?

Extraordinary.

“And of course that means that Maxwell could not have seen her at that stage. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SHE MUST HAVE CONFUSED THE DATES!!!”

Not “must have”. We don’t do those.

It is clear that according to Dew, Maxwell confused the date, hence his reference to the impossibility of her being alive at that late stage “that morning”, i.e. as opposed to any other previous “morning”. It could well be a language issue here, but I still don’t think you’ve properly understood Garry’s point.

All the best,
Ben

P.S. No evidence for non-stop continuous rainfall, though, Lechmere.

[Lechmere]

Babybird
The Met Office specifically said that the rain did not fall as showers on 9th – it was light and continuous according to their records.

[Ben]

Your kind words mean a great deal as always, Jen.

And I'm in fully agreement with everything you say. The accusation that you of all people were ever responsible for "scorn and mocking" will be very difficult to sustain. The only individual who has made it his mission to resort to "scorn" and "mockery" is "The Good Michael", whose insulting behaviour Fisherman has unfortunately sympathized with to the point of defending him as a "compassionate" poster.

The suggestion that you have done anything similar is absurd.

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

Fish,

You have a stronger stomach than I do. It must be the pickled herring.

Poor Toppy. No wonder his relatives don't come forward. The disparagement against an innocent family member is horrific.

Once again, and i have pointed this out before...how can Toppy be being accused of anything when those who beleve Hutchinson to have been the killer REJECT the identification with Toppy?

Thankfully, more and more people are turning in the direction of the light thanks to you and Lechmere and Richard and the legion of others.

Legion of others? Where are they?

[babybird67]

HI Fish

I started off my contributions to this thread praising your article but questioning the sources on which you had based your reinterpretation of the events. You were the one along with Mike who decided to bring out insults etc. If you cannot stand the heat stay out of the kitchen comes to mind.

That is not a very relevant picture of things. I do not judge what right people have to contribute, but I do reserve myself the right not to exchange with people that offer nothing but scorn. And when I look at your posts addressing my suggestion, that is all I see.

I admit I subjected your hypothesis to questioning, quite forcible questioning, which was vindicated when it led to the disovery that the conclusions you drew from your source material were not supported by the material themselves, and perhaps that explains why you did not disclose them in the body of your article, as perhaps if you had, it might have been pointed out to you earlier that your research was not supported by the primary data that we have.

“Well well well Fisherman. I did not want to believe my suspicions regarding another similar situation to the Leander Analysis fiasco were going to be confirmed but it looks like they have been.”

Yes. I stand by that statement. I have demonstrated that this is true earlier in the thread. I am not the only one who has noticed and commented on this either.

And like that it goes on, more or less, post by post. Scorn and mocking. And I see no other aim on your behalf this time, but trying to paint me out as worse as possible and passing of a suggestion that I would have chased Jane Coram away from this thread.

It's quite clear that you have. The way you responded to her postings was appalling but that is just par for the course right now isn't it.

Let me tell you, Babybird, that Jane Coram is a poster that I believe is VERY well equipped to stand her own ground. She has solid knowledge and a sharp intellect and is anything but easily intimidated. She is reasonable and normally argues a good case whenever she has something to say.

I agree absolutely with all your points about Jane. She is all those things. I do think it is hypocritical however, that you are insinuating that I should not post in defence of Jane, yet you positively encourage Mike to snap at everybody else in your defence!

If all posters were like her, we would be a lot better off! And if she IS sometimes intimidated by anything, I don´t think my asking whether she was trying to ridicule me would be such a thing. And that, Babybird, means that I am very unhappy about you drawing conclusions and throwing allegations my way –whatever right anybody has to do so, it does not belong to a poster that writes things like the ones I quoted above and who has repeatedly been very aggressive on earlier threads.

I have not been aggressive Fish. I have been passionate. I passionately refute research based on misinterpretation of the evidence. I passionately refute conclusions based on skewed analysis of the evidence we do have. I passionately refute your continual distortion of sources and of other evidence that we have. It is the mark of a poor researcher and if you find that unpalatable I am sorry but it has to be pointed out when you are so blind that you won't look at any reasonable criticism and respond to it without being abusive to the person offering it.

Finally, allegations like the ones you are engaging in do not belong to the discussion of the thread. They belong to the dingiest and most sordid backyards of Ripperology, and as such they should not be allowed to darken the days for those who are trying to have a useful discussion about the topic giving it´s name to the thread.

The thread you are chasing people away from because when they do offer their reasonable contributions you attack them, you mean? Yeah right Fish.

Therefore I will make no other comment on it than this one post. But I will comment on your post to Jane, saying:

“It is a shame but Hutchinson seems to do this to people!"

He does no such thing. What we say and do out here should not be blamed on a man that has been long dead. We have only ourselves to blame for it, and we must ourselves carry the full responsibility for each and every thing we add. I intend to do my best in this department from now on by returning to my policy of having as little to do with you as possible. If you can manage to do the same for me – and I am asking nicely – I would be very grateful.

You're right. You're totally responsible for sending a skewed sample of signatures to Leander and for even now continually trying to claim a proper analysis was made of it. You're responsible for taking a source which states the weather was one of showers and actually representing in your paper as being a night of unceasing and contrinual rain.

And I am responsible for what I say too. And i stand by everything i have said, passionately and without being bullied out of these discussions.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This was never my contention. You stated that the connection between Lewis’s loiterer and Hutchinson would not be accepted as likely “any more”, which implied that some major change had taken place."

I can see a future where the connection will be much questioned by many Ripperologists, yes.

" I’m just confused as to why you consider this to be the case."

No, you are not. You know it full well, I suspect.

"Time and date muddling is a not a new theory as far as Hutchinson is concerned. Walter Dew was the first to suggest it in 1938, and even Bruce Paley brought it up as an outside possibility in 1996..."

Yes, but by your own admission, you are of the meaning that nobody at all puts any stock at all in it, or at least they have not up til now. THAT is why I am speaking of a possible change in that respect.

2we do have evidence that Lewis imparted her evidence inquest, and that nobody raised any objection to her stated impression of the wideawake man’s behaviour when she did so. There is no mystery as to why they didn’t object. They just used their not inconsiderable collective imagination, and decided that people are perfectly capable of communicating a “waiting for someone to come out” stance with their body language."

They did nothing of the sort, since all rational people know full well that no such body signal is at hand. You may be aware that you have failed to disprove this. It is all in the interpretation - in this case Lewis´. If the people of the courtroom had been asked to show what THEY believed body language portraying waiting for somebody to come out would look like, I fail to see that they would have acted like air hostesses demmonstrating how to put on lifejackets. But you are of course of the opinion that they all held the key to this understanding...?

"On the contrary, Fisherman. Packer, Violenia and Hutchinson were all discredited, which wouldn’t have happened if the police “just accepted what people told them”.

...meaning that Hutch was checked out, yes.

"It’s clear that you missed Garry’s point"

No. But it´s clear that you missed that I did NOT miss his point, but instead explain to him why it may well be wrong.

"Dew’s reference to “that morning” was obviously used in the context of date-confusion rather than any other type of confusion. Were it otherwise, he would simply have stated “the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock” without the extraneous and unnecessary reminder “that morning”.

Say what ...? Of course she could not have been, Ben. And of course that means that Maxwell could not have seen her at that stage. BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT SHE MUST HAVE CONFUSED THE DATES!!! It means that she must have been wrong, and no more than that.

"The inclusion of that phrase, however, implies very strongly that he meant “that morning” as opposed to any other morning."

Yes - for all the following mornings, Mary Kelly was dead.

Read my post to Garry once again. If you then understand what I say, good. If not, read my post to Garry again. Und so weiter ...

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

You have a stronger stomach than I do. It must be the pickled herring.

Poor Toppy. No wonder his relatives don't come forward. The disparagement against an innocent family member is horrific.

Thankfully, more and more people are turning in the direction of the light thanks to you and Lechmere and Richard and the legion of others.

Peace out.

Mike