Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"There were too many things that happened that day to make it implausible that he mistook the day."

You know, Hatchett, in spite of the unfortunate grammar here (?), you may well be quite right.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"You can cite decibel levels until you’re blue in the face, but it counts for nothing unless wind interference and ambient noise levels are factored into the equation. "

You may count it for nothing, Garry, but I certainly donīt. Wind interference and ambient noise levels can no be factored in, which you know full well, since we do not have them on record. Therefore, the only sane thing to do is to check the audibility in similar architectonic surroundings and find out if they under normal conditions will allow for audibility. And in this case, they emphatically do. The only reasonable conclusion after that is to realize that if the conditions in Dorset Street were normal, with no much disturbances, then the couple could have been heard.
After that, yes, there may have been a fireworks display on an adjacent street between 2 and 3 AM that morning, and that may have made it totally impossible to hear a single bit of the conversation. But such a thing has to remain a POTENTIAL disturbance of which we have no record at all. And therefore it stands that the conversation may have been overheard and made out by Hutchinson. That is all we are going to be able to prove.

"I am that kind of man, Fish. However, since I merely quoted and commented upon what you yourself had written, I fail to understand how I misinterpreted anything – unless, of course, you think that I should apologize for your failure to properly express your intended meaning."

No. I think you should accept my pointing out that I full well know that 45 dB would not have sufficed to travel from the archway to the street corner, and my explanation as to why I mentioned that we can hear and make out a whisper: Because that makes it clear that since we can make out 30 dB, we most certainly can do so with 45 dB. It would have been a becoming thing to do. Instead you choose to claim that I have stated that a whisper can travel 30 meters. That is very UNbecoming, especially since I never wrote that it could.

Did you never ask yourself why I would be of the meaning the 30 dB could do what I stated I think 45 dB cannot? And if you did, did that never make you check what I actually wrote: that a whsiper as such can be picked up and made out, proving that 30 dB is all that takes?

In matters like these, your sort of interpretation only goes to inflame and throw unfair suspicions. It is not very productive, to say the least. And yes, I would expect better from you. Actually, I still do, for whatever reason.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Again you are not addressing what I wrote."

Oh yes, I am, Harry.

"I said the paper has Hutchinson standing at the corner untill Kelly and companion entered the court."

It does.

"Where he was standing when Lewis entered the court,was outside Crossinghams."

Not in my view, he wasnīt. In my view, he was not even in Dorset Street at that stage. Claiming anything else as proven is not correct, and believing Hutch and the loiterer must have been one and the same is simply presenting a preconception as fact.

"Where he was standing when Kelly spoke of the handkerchief was in Dorset Street,and in my estimation,no more than 30 feet distant"

But that is not what he says himself, is it? According to himself, he was at the corner of Dorset and Commercial.

"I have said how I came to those conclusions."

Yes, and I have told you that you have the distances wrong and I have shown that conversation can be heard from 32 meters away.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"He apparently DID hear of the murder, Fish !"

Yes, Ruby. Absolutely. Thatīs why he went to the police.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Ruby:

"He apparently DID hear of the murder, Fish !"

Yes, Ruby. Absolutely. Thatīs why he went to the police.

The best,
Fisherman

Morning Advertiser (London)
14 November 1888

He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police

This is what Hutch said to the Press. He was elaborating on the incident with Mr A Man at the time. It is clear that he states that he heard of the
murder after the vigil outside Miller's Court, and there is no suggestion that he could have mistaken the day.

Whatever the reason that he gave to the Press for not coming forward immediately, it was not something as simple as 'working' -which would be acceptable even to the suspicious minds of Casebookers..and easily found out
according to Lechmere.

The City Police and the Mayor of London did offer a huge reward after the Double Event, and it is sure that this would be more attractive than losing a day's meagre pay.

This mysterious reason for not coming forward did not apparently stop him from trying to tell an equally mysterious Policeman on Sunday morning (ho ! ho !).

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"t is clear that he states that he heard of the
murder after the vigil outside Miller's Court"

Yes, Ruby. Itīs a good thing he did not hear of it BEFORE the vigil. That would have me turning a Hutchinsonian in no time at all.

... and there is no suggestion that he could NOT have mistaken the day, is there?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

... and there is no suggestion that he could NOT have mistaken the day, is there?

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

The clear implication is that he admits to hearing about the Kelly murder
straight afrerwards (because it would be impossible to deny that) but offers
some sort of justification to the Press for not coming forward, which is not as clearcut as not wanting to lose a day's pay.

I signal that you have been arguing that he could have mistaken the days
because he hadn't heard of the murder in it's aftermath, and so he could have confused the days at an interval. It has been argued that he may have been working, and have been worried about finances.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"The clear implication is that he admits to hearing about the Kelly murder
straight afrerwards"

Is it? I can not see any timetable in it at all. You, on the other hand, have the solution at hand in a very exact manner with no effort at all: Hutchinson admitted to hearing about the Kelly murder straight after it had been committed. A matter of minutes, probably!

I wish I could sort things out with the same light hand!

Myself, I can only see an article from the Morning Advertiser that makes no statement about the timeline in this issue, and - much more importantly - that tallies very badly with what the Daily Telegraph wrote about the same thing: "It has not been ascertained why the witness did not make this statement – much fuller and so different from the others that have been given – immediately after the murder was discovered."

The Daily Telegraph, mind you Ruby, is a paper that has a considerably better rumour that the Advertiser. So when the Telegraph tells me that the question about why Hutch came forward at a relatively late stage reamined unanswered, I tend to lean in that direction. It was something that was not established, quite contrary to the bold statement in the Morning Advertiser. To me, the "imprudent reason bit" sound very much like sensation journalism. It will have sold copies, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

If one is to listen to the Advertiser, though, it does corroborate the Manchester Guardian on the question about at what stage Hutchinson went up the yard. It is said that "In consequence of the recent crimes his suspicions were aroused by the man's appearance, and he did not leave the vicinity, but watched the couple and saw them enter Miller's-court. After the lapse of a few minutes he went to the court, but could see no one about, and after waiting sufficient time he concluded that all was right and retired from the scene."

So, once again, we have it mentioned that Hutchinson did not finish off his vigil by the promenade into the court - it came about at an early stage. If we are to trust the Advertiser, it is. And I normally advice against too much of a belief in a paper that carries sensationalist news that are not in accordance with other, better reputed, papers ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

"You can cite decibel levels until you’re blue in the face, but it counts for nothing unless wind interference and ambient noise levels are factored into the equation. "

You may count it for nothing, Garry, but I certainly donīt. Wind interference and ambient noise levels can no be factored in, which you know full well, since we do not have them on record.

Which is precisely why, Fish, I have advised that you exercise extreme caution when claiming scientific validation for your claims.

Therefore, the only sane thing to do is to check the audibility in similar architectonic surroundings and find out if they under normal conditions will allow for audibility. And in this case, they emphatically do. The only reasonable conclusion after that is to realize that if the conditions in Dorset Street were normal, with no much disturbances, then the couple could have been heard.

Really? Perhaps, then, Fish, you might care to define ‘normal conditions’, particularly given your recent assertion that there was a gale force wind blowing at the time of Kelly’s death.

In matters like these, your sort of interpretation only goes to inflame and throw unfair suspicions. It is not very productive, to say the least. And yes, I would expect better from you. Actually, I still do, for whatever reason.

If there was any confusion over your assertion concerning the audibility of whispers, Fish, it was purely down to the way in which you worded your post. To avoid any further confusion, I would suggest that you concentrate less on quantity and more on the quality of those posts.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

"The clear implication is that he admits to hearing about the Kelly murder
straight afrerwards[Is it? I can not see any timetable in it at all. [/QUOTEI

I certainly can :
In the Press reports(s), Hutch says that he went back to the Victoria Home on Friday morning (verifiable according to Lechmere). Friday was the day that a major Police day was present in Dorset Street, crowds flocked there,
the Lord Mayor's Show took place and Hutch was knackered from either
walking to Romford or staying up all night, or both.
An unusual thing happened to him during the evening as well -he saw a very well dressed man venture into Dorset Street with a prostitute that he was friendly with -a very unusual event !
Therefore when he woke up the next afternoon he could hardly have forgotten the night before -could he ?

When he recounts the story to the Advertiser in which he says that he indeed heard about the murder, immediately following on with a veiled reason for not coming forward, the two are clearly linked. It is superfluous for the Advertiser to state the timeline because it is 'understood' in the article.

- that tallies very badly with what the Daily Telegraph wrote about the same thing: "It has not been ascertained why the witness did not make this statement – much fuller and so different from the others that have been given – immediately after the murder was discovered."

On one hand it simply reiterates that Hutchinson didn't come forward straight away, but also a veil is mysteriously drawn over Hutchinson's reasons for not coming forward -and they are not so simple as 'working' -indeed it would seem that he gave a cloudy reason to the Telegraph !

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"Which is precisely why, Fish, I have advised that you exercise extreme caution when claiming scientific validation for your claims."

My claim is very simple: If two people are standing in a street of Dorset Streets dimensions and general architecture, having a conversation at normal conversation level (60-65 dB), then that sound will have diminished to 45-50 dB as it reaches a listener standing in the same street, but 32 meters away. This model does not take into account any potential disturbances, for the simple reason that we have no such disturbances on record. We cannot tell to what extent they would have been about, but we CAN tell that there is absolutely nothing showing us that the conversation Kelly had with Astrakhan man could not have been picked up and made out bu Hutchinson if it was held in a street free from disturbances. In fact, if no disturbances were about at all, there would even have been quite ample margins to ensure this.
And this is important, since it dispells the notion that the distance itself would have been too far to bridge no matter what the ambient soundlevels in Dorset Street were.
To suggest, like you have done, that this information is useless is anything but true. It is instead very useful in establishing the most important factor attaching to the issue of audibility or not.
After that, caution should be exercised, yes - but I would suggest that "extreme caution" sounds a tad uptight - normal caution will do very well.

"Perhaps, then, Fish, you might care to define ‘normal conditions’, particularly given your recent assertion that there was a gale force wind blowing at the time of Kelly’s death."

I did that in the same paragraph you are quoting: when I say normal conditions I mean conditions that offered no or very little disturbances. The sound of a normal wind, the footsteps of the odd bypasser and such, would not have shut out the audibility. And it is a completely uninteresting point and an utter wase of time to speculate in just how loud any ambient sound may have been in Dorset Street. I know of no source of sound that I can place there with any certainty at all, but for the coupleīs conversation. I suspect much the same goes for you too.

As for the gale force wind and the rain, Garry, surely you must by now have realized that that wind blew and that rain fell the night AFTER the one I suggest Hutchinson was there. And winds that blow and rain that falls 24 hours after an occurence, do not affect that particular occurence soundwise.

You are perfectly free to argue that YOU think Hutchinson was there on the morning of the 9:th, Garry. But donīt you think it is a bit silly to ask me to explain why I do not take into account the wind and the rain that was in place 24 hours after I mean that Hutchinson was there? It will make for a totally useless debate, Iīm afraid.

"If there was any confusion over your assertion concerning the audibility of whispers, Fish, it was purely down to the way in which you worded your post. To avoid any further confusion, I would suggest that you concentrate less on quantity and more on the quality of those posts."

Itīs either that, or itīs you who are in dire need of some linguistic understanding and the good will to realize that I would not argue that 30 dB could be heard under circumstances where 45 couldnīt. There are two sides to the coin, Garry, as always. And Iīm afraid I canīt let you decide these things on your own, as you have already proven that you may not be up to the task.

Here is the relevant snippet again:

"Peopleīs conversation in a normal voice can be heard and made out from 32 meters away. We do not know the conditions of the morning Hutch was in Dorset Street; we do not even no WHICH morning it was. There was a margin in the material the accoustic expert supplied. He used 32 and not 30 meters, and since a normal whisper of 30 dB can be heard and made out, it stands to reason that a dB value of inbetween 45 and 48 dB is more than enough to provide hearing and making out of conversation."

Where do I write that a whisper can be heard FROM 32 METERS AWAY? Just how hard can it be to read this correctly?
A normal conversation is held at 60-65 dB, low key conversation is held at around 45 dB, and a whisper at 30 dB, and the fact of the matter is that, given that there a no disturbances around, these sound levels ALL ensure that we can hear and make out what is said. Therefore, since we KNOW that the sound level reaching Hutchinsonīs ears may have been 45 dB, and since we KNOW that 30 is enough to do the trick, there was more than enough sound about to open for this possibility.

The thing is, Garry, that I have pointed out to you how I reason, just as I have pointed out to you that I have firmly stated that if the sound level at the source (the couple) had been only 45 dB, then we would not have had a very safe case of Hutch being able to make things out - on the contrary. Now you can choose between accepting this and proceeding with your argumentation with that in mind, or you can erroneously go on bickering about my wording having left you with a doubt as to what I meant. I am not saying that you are not free to make any choice you want to, but I AM saying that my picture of your true will to debate in a fair manner will be extremely (and this time "extremely" IS the appropriate term) coloured by your decision.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"In the Press reports(s), Hutch says that he went back to the Victoria Home on Friday morning"

Oh, please, Ruby! He went there as the place opened! And that was many an hour before Kell was found dead! He would have had five hours or so before the word about Kelly was out on the street!

"when he woke up the next afternoon he could hardly have forgotten the night before -could he ?"

Tecnically, Ruby, he could. But - Hallelujah! - we KNOW that he didnīt. He told the police about his encounter, remember? Therefore, we can be very, very, very sure that he had not forgotten it.

And, if you have a fresh new look at this thread, from beginning to end, you will see that I have never suggested that he forgot ANYTHING at all. What I am suggesting is that he MIXED UP THE DAYS. And please, please tell me that you realize that forgetting days is not the same thing as mixing them up, Ruby. It is immensely vital that you grasp the difference, because if you donīt, you shall never even be able to understand what it is I am suggesting. So please be a dear and pick up on it this time, for I will not be very tempted to once more explain it.

"it would seem that he gave a cloudy reason to the Telegraph"

It would seem, Ruby, that there is no reason whatsoever to accept that he gave ANY reason to the Telegraph. Please leave the "veils" out of this. They obscure - but you know that, donīt you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;164374]Ruby:

Another attempt to catch me out on semantics Fish -rather than concrete on the
argument..well I agree that it is much easier for you, the journalist, to fight on this terrain..

If Hutch 'mixed the days up', then that equates to him forgetting the events of each day in order. There is absolutely nothing cited by by Police, Press ,quoting Hutch himself or otherwise, to suggest it likely or even possible. of course, technically he could have been suffering from the early onset of alzheimers..but we have no such indications.

To the contrary we do have quotes pointing to him knowing about Kelly's murder immediately after, and not coming forward for veiled/cloudy/obscure reasons.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Another attempt to catch me out on semantics Fish -rather than concrete on the
argument..well I agree that it is much easier for you, the journalist, to fight on this terrain.."

Itīs NOT about semantics, is it? There would have been plenty of time to visit the Victoria Home and leave it. And I am not saying that Hutch forgot anything, just as I think that the Daily Telegraph is quite clear about it not being clear at all why he did not come forward earlier.

There are not "semantics", Ruby. Plus there are a number of posters who donīt give much for me as a writer or journalist at any rate ...

"If Hutch 'mixed the days up', then that equates to him forgetting the events of each day in order."

No, Ruby - these things may come about in many a different manner, if I read the material correctly. And loosing sleep (as he did) is often instrumental in it. It is not the case of forgetting it in some sort of straight line - itīs about confusing things with each other: "When did I do that? Mustīnt that have been ...? Or did that come before? No, it couldnīt, could it ...? Oh dear ... Iīm lost!"

Itīs not Alzheimers, itīs completely normal and much reoccuring. We all do it, more or less - depending on the circumstances, I guess.

"we do have quotes pointing to him knowing about Kelly's murder immediately after, and not coming forward for veiled/cloudy/obscure reasons."

Yes, we do - but the information is contradictory, and therefore not much to lean against. And the way I see it, the Advertiser is the worst source, comparing it to the Daily Telegraph.

The best,
Fisherman