Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Lechmere]

Yes Dew is ambiguous – I am fairly sure he meant Hutchinson was out in date and Maxwell by person, but we will never really be sure. I am fairly sure Hutchinson isn’t the culprit which is the main point of contention here.
If I had a time machine I don’t think going back to check what Dew really meant would be my priority though.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Lechmere,

To be honest Lechmere, I'm not quite sure what he was postulating, because it's very poorly worded. I think that's one of the reasons I'm so dubious about reading anything too much into it. It's just not specific enough. I personally wouldn't want to hang too much on something that can be interpreted in more than one way. It's great for a lively discussion (and we've certainly had that), but I don't think it really affects any of the established evidence we already have. That's my take on it anyway.

I think perhaps I should have put 'Dew seems to be suggesting that Hutch might have got the time or date wrong.'

It's one of those time you wish you had a time machine!


Hugs

Janie

xxx

[Lechmere]

Jane
Very even handed, even down to liking both articles, and I essentially agree with this viewpoint.
I couldn't help noticing that you accept that Dew postulated that Hutchinson got the date wrong

[Jane Coram]

Hi All,

I've been with this debate from the beginning, and it's certainly been interesting, if a little gruelling at times. I think I've had enough opportunity to see the arguments from both sides and can give a fair opinion on what I've gained from it personally. I have no intention of getting involved in this debate, I've got more sense. You lot can fight it out amongst youselves. Lol.

I have to say, that nothing posted has changed the opinion I already had on the matter, although I've picked up a few snippets on the way, which were quite enlightening, so it's been time well spent.

I would like to make it clear that I have no axe to grind about Hutchinson - I actually don't care if he was the Ripper or Mary's fairy godmother - I don't have the slightest interest in the suspects, only the victims. So this is a totally unbiased opinion.

I've always been taught that to be a good researcher you need to first look at the primary sources and take more notice of them than of secondary and more dubious sources. You just use the secondary sources to confirm primary source material or to use in a discussion as conjecture or speculation. If it conflicts with primary source material, then the primary source material takes precedence, unless there is very good reason to think that the primary source material is in error. That just seems like plain old common sense to me.

Hutchinson's statement to the police makes it clear that he was standing outside Mary's on November the 9th, not the 8th. I don't care if he was standing at the entrance to the court the whole time, over by Crossingham's or doing a soft shoe shuffle between the two - the official report is that he was there on the 9th. Subsequent newspaper reports state the same. Therefore the weight of evidence is overwhelming that Hutchinson was standing outside on the 9th and not the 8th. I've not seen any evidence on this thread to prove that it was the 8th and not the 9th; no official document, no newspaper report, nothing that proves he wasn't there on the night he said he was. Present me with irrefutable evidence that it couldn't possibly have been the 9th, or definitely was there on the 8th and I'll revise my opinion.

The question of the weather hasn't proved anything, although it was an interesting idea and made a good article. It's been shown that there were dry spells on the night of the 9th as well as the 8th. Incidentally Fish, I did enjoy your article very much, even though I didn't agree with your conclusions.

Just using good old common sense, people might forget whole days if they are trying to remember something that happened years ago, but to do it after just a couple of days, just strikes me as nonsensical - sorry. The day in question was just too exceptional for someone to completely wipe it from his mind and we still have to account for that missing day.

Okay, common sense isn't evidence, but to claim that Hutchinson lost an entire day, you need proof that was the case, solid proof, if you want to present that in opposition to the official statement. Otherwise his statement to the police still takes precedence. Hutchinson might have done this and might have done that - he might have been kicked in the head by a mule and got amnesia, but I need to see a Whitechapel infirmary admission record to that effect if I am going to believe he lost an entire day from his memory.

Not only that, but are we really to believe that Hutchinson could remember every single thing about Astrakhan man, right down to his horse shoe tie pin, but can't even remember what day it is? That really is stretching things beyond the limit of anyone's credulity in my opinion.

And onto dear old Wally.

I first read Walter Dew's memoirs about 40 years ago, and even then realised that it left a lot to be desired. Great bloke, enjoyable read, but when I'm told that Liz Stride and Kate Eddowes were killed just a few days after Annie Chapman, I started to get a bit worried. I did once count how many inaccuracies there were in the book - and it ran into dozens. So Dew's book was put into the 'interesting, but not to be trusted' pile. His suggestion that Hutch got the date or time wrong was just conjecture. It still doesn't take precedence over the official police reports. It was just his opinion, delivered many years after the event.

Fact: We know that the police changed their minds about the validity of Hutchinson's testimony for some reason. As Hatchett said, we don't have an official reason as to why it was discredited. It could have been any reason, but it was not pursued for very long. In some newspapers the testimony was deemed as valueless. Some were far more vocal about why they thought Hutchinson was telling fibs. The Graphic of November 17th says this:

It is true that on this last occasion a man [Hutchinson] has given a very precise description of the supposed murderer. The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as "a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots," and "a red stone hanging from his watch-chain," must possess the eyes of a born detective. Granting, however, that this description is accurate, and not due to the after-effects of a lively imagination, it is evidence that the clue thus given is an important one, inasmuch as it shows that the murderer belongs to a superior class.

The fact that Huctchinson's statement to the police is significantly different to his statements to the newspapers in the following days must be taken into consideration as well.

Did Hutchinson get the day wrong? No. His official statement says it was the 9th, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it was the 9th, unless I see very solid contemporary evidence to the contrary.

Very enjoyable thread anyway, keep the pot boiling, it's good stuff.



Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

Oh by the way Ben, I thoroughly enjoyed your article as well, I didn't want you to think I enjoyed Fisherman's and not yours!

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
The only new point worth responding to relates to the washing – Frau Retro was saying that the Hutchinson Ripper could have used the washing facilities at the Victoria Home to clean himself or his clothes up. I was merely stating that as these facilities would not have been private, the facility would not have been useful to a knife murderer. I am sure you will disagree.
Frau Retro also said that the fact that the Victoria Home rules (you know, the same ones that mention those bloody special passes) mention that inmates could leave possessions in the keeping of the deputy was of some significance – I took this to imply that the Hutchinson Ripper could perhaps leave a body part trophy, a sharp knife, some rings or something else incriminating in the safe keeping of the deputy.

One other minor point – I find it strange that you say (with typical civility):

“Oh, for eff’s sake, Lechmere.
I’m not “putting” any emphasis on anything.”

And then quote passages with certain sections emphasised in bold. Hmmmm.

[Hatchett]

Hello Fish,

The issue that the Police lost interest in Hutchinson does not come from any extent Police source. Even the much quoted Inspector Dew doesnt mention it. It comes from the Press.

There could be a number of explanations why the Press reported this. One could be that no information was forthcoming from the Police about Hutchinson. It could be that the Police followed their investigations and they came to a full stop. It could be that the Police feared that certain papers were starting to suspect Hutchinson of being the killer and wanted to avoid another situation like the one which had occurred with Pizer.

What ever the reason, I would suggest, that suspicions that Hutchinson had got the wrong night is most unlikely. That would have been something that Abberline would have been very careful about when he interviewed Hutchinson.

If there had been any suspicions at all that Hutchinson had muddled the date then they would have been raised at the time and the Police would not have not lost interest in Hutchinson, they would not have had any interest in him to start with.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

Glad to see we’re in agreement over the maths issue!

How I wish I could say the same about the Victoria Home. Here it seems we’re still having problems.

“The point of contention is that very few inmates at the Victoria Home would have had special passes to grant them access between 12.30-1.00 am and the normal opening hours.”

I disagree very strongly. The Victoria Home catered for as many as 500 lodgers, and most of the time, it would have been full of lodgers all coming and going at various hours of the night, either for work or for other reasons that they would not have been required to cite to any doorman or deputy.

“Very few will have paid for their beds and not bothered to go back there to sleep.”

I realise that, but there would have been a large number of lodgers who paid there and then, and a large number of lodgers who paid in advance, rather like purchasing a theatre or cinema ticket.

“If Jack the Ripper (whether that person was Hutchinson or not) lived at the Victoria Home the combination of the rules and the social nature of such establishments for long term inmates, would probably have made his absence or late entry noticeable.”

Who would have done this “noticing”? Other lodgers from his part of the building waiting up for him in darkness, despite the fact that he could have used a private cubicle for a couple of extra pence? No, that doesn’t work. What about one of the doorman? Was a doorman in a position to remember in mid-November whether or not one lodger in 500 flashed his generic metal cheque and entered the building way back in late September? Clearly not. So his late entry wouldn’t have been remotely “noticeable”.

“Also it is abundantly clear that the police took extra notice of lodging houses inmates.”

No more notice than any other type of resident, and probably less in the wake of Dr. Bond’s “profile” of the killer.

The “pros” associated with the suggestion that the Victoria Home made for a likely ripper’s lair vastly outweigh the cons, with Edmund Reid incognito suggesting that it may have housed the real killer.

“I would argue that it is very weak putting any emphasis on Lewis’s suggestion that the wide-awake man (of non-military bearing) was there purposefully staring down Miller’s Court”

Oh, for eff’s sake, Lechmere.

I’m not “putting” any emphasis on anything. I’m simply relaying the evidence in its untarnished, unfilddled-with form, and in Lewis’ case it read:

“the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out”

And now here’s Hutchinson’s version of events:

“I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out, they did not so I went away.”

Same time.

Same date.

Same location.

Precisely the same behaviour.

“evidential correlation is meagre” my rosy red behind, Lechmere.

It is for the tiresome naysayers to fiddle with Lewis’ evidence if they’re hell-bent on it and deny her an ability to discern what she claimed to have discerned and could easily have discerned. Otherwise, the logical deduction, short of sickeningly outlandish “coincidence, is that Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis. Doing a Fetchbeer and "not setting much store" in inconvenient evidence such as Lewis' won't lessen the coincidence factor, nor will the preposterous "Hey I know, maybe it was someone taking a breath of fresh-air who just happened to look like he was engaging in identical behaviour to Hutchinson for a brief moment in time?" These are immature and gauche attempts at evading the obvious.

The conclusion that Abberline did not make the connection is simply the evidence, and not an accusation of “idiocy”. If people have problems with this, reflect that back in 1888, not all sources were so instantly retrievable on a computer screen at a click of a button, nor was a century’s worth of knowledge of serial killers.

“The sensible conclusion is that there is a piece of missing evidence that ‘unconnected’ them. One of those convenient missing documents.”

Oh, but of course, the “lost document” that must have existed once upon a time and must have said exactly what you wanted it to say. Damn those nasty Nazis for bombing that particular filing cabinet, eh?

“It is also weak to always rely on the 'it has always been thought that such and such is so, therefore it must be', or the similar 'I was discussing this in 2006, therefore I must be right' line.”

Not nearly as weak as “Here I come to save the day, and alter previously-held conceptions forever!”

“Keep consistent Mr Ben, you don’t think there were any guidelines, do you?”

I do. I simply disregard your confused misinterpretation of them

“It looks like various witnesses were confused about when they saw Kelly given the variety of statements about when and where she was seen.”

No.

It doesn’t look like that at all. More likely, they confused the person or lied about it, and false witnesses weren’t exactly a rare phenomenon throughout the ripper investigation.

“They don’t usually hang around because they are about to murder someone – although very rarely this does happen.”

Who cares about “usually”? On this occasion, somebody really was murdered very shortly after this man was seen “hanging around” near the crime scene.

“However I don’t think the non private washing facilities at the Victoria Home nor the prospect of giving up any incriminating items of property to the deputy’s care would have been beneficial to a killer.”

Washing what?

The “blood-spattering” that reliable medical opinion informs us wouldn’t have been present?

And what is this “property” argument all about that I keep seeing crop up? Obviously if he was the killer, he wouldn’t have given up any “incriminating items of property to the deputy’s care”.

“The most suspicious person that Lewis mentioned in her testimony was a man she saw on Bethnal Green Road on the Wednesday before, and not the man she saw opposite the murder scene on the Friday morning roughly when the murder took place?”

Absolutely, because according to Sarah Lewis’ inquest testimony, the man who accosted her and a companion on the previous Wednesday was the same man observed outside Ringers’ a stone’s throw away from the crime scene on the night of Kelly’s murder. If true, this man would obviously have been the investigative priority with his demonstrated interest in accosting women, black bag and all.

Garry is clearly correct with regard to Walter Dew’s speculations. Dew had nailed his colours to the Blotchy-as-killer mast, and accordingly deduced that Hutchinson must have been wrong as to time, rather than being an implausible 24 hours out. Why else would Dew have specified "time and date"?

Mr Ben – there is no evidence that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis.

Yes, there is. Very compelling evidence.

[Lechmere]

Frau Retro
Fisherman seems to have beaten me to it on most points, but I will add for good measure:

I haven’t said that the streets were deserted at night or noiseless. I have said they were considerably less well populated and considerably quieter than at daytime. I take it you are with Mr Ben in denying this?
This does rather illustrate the ludicrous direction the argument goes here sometimes.
Also my hypothetical loiterer wasn’t staying at the Victoria Home so he wouldn’t need a night pass – he was staying at Crossinghams!
Anyway several people from lodging houses were dobbed in to the police after the Kelly murder. I wouldn’t be surprised of their erstwhile friends did the dobbing. The police will have ‘checked them out’ but as they were innocent they will have ‘assed their tests’ and they walked free. Just as the Crossingham man would have done if his mates had dobbed him in.
Here’s a thought, one of them might have really been the villain. Most culprits tend to have been involved in the case at some point you know. Maybe the cunning devil falsely convinced the police as to their innocence. Worthy of some research I a sure.

We know that Lewis could make good descriptions of people – like that man she met on Bethnal Green Road, but she failed with wide-awake man. Now you say she saw him and he was ‘a way off’. But it was a narrow road. It couldn’t have been far away. We had a great big discussion about how wide Dorset Street was (well some did, I didn’t join in that one)

Also there are accounts of people having silent boots or shoes.

Mr Ben – there is no evidence that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis. There is a possibility. It is a fact that he didn’t mention her in his statement. His statement is evidence.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“There is very good reason to speculate that the men were not one and the same.”

No there isn’t. There are only very tenuous and unconvincing reasons for resisting the obvious – that George Hutchinson and the man in the wideawake were one and the same. What’s this “not any more” business, anyway? What big exciting "change" do you think has occurred? You’ve reminded us all about Dew’s baseless speculations that have been around for decades and which few people have taken seriously for good reason. Thanks for that, but don’t expect that reminder to bring about any lasting change in mainstream thinking on the subject, because it’s not going to happen.

“But how would that add up to waiting for somebody to come out?”

I've told you. It's obvious. You just have to use your imagination. I’ve seen people in my lifetime that gave the distinct impression of waiting for someone to emerge from a particular location, and they conveyed that impression very easily with their body language. Clearly the combined imagination of every jury member and every police official who interviewed her was happy to embrace her impression as accurate. There were no exclamations of “Really? This makes no sense! How could you tell?!” and I don’t find that very surprising.

“We donīt . We know that Lewis THOUGHT he looked up the court, and that has a lot going for it - but not all, Iīm afraid.”

I’ve addressed this already. She didn’t merely “think” the man was looking up the court. She said so explicitly: “the man standing in the street was looking up the court”. Once we remind ourselves of just how narrow Dorset Street was, we might understand how difficult it would have been for Sarah Lewis to have been mistaken as to the focus of the man’s attention. Again, her impression of the loiterer’s behaviour coincided precisely with Hutchinson’s later account of his own behaviour at that location and that time. It is ridiculous to suggest that when Lewis only "thought" that the man she saw loitering opposite the court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder was watching or “waiting for someone to come out” Hutchinson actually was. This is the “random coincidence” explanation, and is totally ludicrous.

It is startlingly obvious that something about the loiterer’s behaviour conveyed the impression that he was preoccupied with the court. He clearly looked as though he was watching or waiting for someone, and there are clear and easy ways to communicate this interest with your body language.

“After that, thi8s clarification changes nothing: the only thing that would have seemed odd to the police would be if he was there and did NOT register and mention Lewis.”

It would only seem “odd to the police” if they had Lewis’ evidence in front of them at the time of the Hutchinson interview for instant cross-referencing with his emerging claims. The likelihood, of course, is that this never happened. If you have evidence to the contrary, that would be another matter, but your continued assertions that the police “would have” spotted this and “must have” taken X or Y action are completely without value in the absence of any supporting evidence. As much as we would like to believe in an infallible police force who dotted every “i” and crossed every “t” (unlike Lambeth George!), the reality is often very different, and high profile investigations in particular are often vulnerable to oversights, and seemingly minor details not receiving sufficient attention. As some of us have pointed out on a number of occasions, policing in general was in its relative infancy in 1888 – all the more reason to dismiss any confident assertion to the effect that Abberline would not have missed certain details.

There is evidence that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis, and there is evidence that he didn’t mention Lewis in his police statement. I am simply relaying the evidence and rejecting the silly “coincidence” proposals. That doesn’t amount to me getting “tangled” at all. Clearly he neglected to mention her either deliberately or by accident, and I think the former considerably more likely for the reasons I’ve mentioned before, and might have to mention again. (We’ll see who’s up for more repetition wars first). There is always the slim possibility that he did mention a woman heading into the court, but it didn’t feature in the main body of text that made up the statement.

“I sometimes stress things when doing this, and there is no rudeness involved”

Well it comes across as rude, so try to find different ways of “stressing” things in future, please.

“Of course, every case is specific, but if you are correct, one would expect to see something remotely alike in at least some other case. One doesnīt though”

I’m afraid it’s very obvious that you’re in no position to assert whether “one does” or “one doesn’t”, not that it makes a scrap of difference to the actual evidence in this case.

“Okay, then, letīs hear the evidence that tells us that Hutch was not regarded as an honset man after he was dropped!”

The Echo is very revealing in this regard, and the Star is particularly revealing in that regard. We’ve had this argument before, and if you bring it up again here, I’ll simply copy and paste my previous response(s). Let’s hope that won’t be necessary. I’m not optimistic.

“Plus you may need to realize that this whole discussion took itīs start when YPU lectured ME about my SECOND language.”

I didn’t lecture you. I just thought you Swedes studied maths over there, but if you want to do “math” instead, you’ll get no further complaints about it from me.

"It only follows that we have something looking like being close to absolute certainty that the information telling us that the connection was made has gone lost."

Oh, here we go.

The "lost report" syndrome strikes again.

"Yes, Ben, I have no evidence that this report ever existed, but trust me it did once upon a time, and trust me, it would have said exactly what I'm claiming it said!"

Condoning such a suggestion would amount to even more idiocy.

If you accuse me of "idiocy" again, I shall report you to the authorities, Fisherman! Is that what you want? Is it? Really? Eh?

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

"It is a shame that you obviously don't know that body language can be stronger than words."

If I say "Iīm waiting for someone to come out" it will take me two seconds and leave nobody in doubt as to what I mean. If you can top that with body language, Iīm impressed. So much for strong body language.

I'm sure that I don't need to teach you anything, Fish, but if a woman said to you " I'm very attracted to you..", but she never touched you, or looked at you directly in the face, or became a bit shy or flustered, or listened to you intently,or made any kind gestures for you..what would you think ?

If she said " I'm not attracted to you at all.." but did all of the above things..

Would you go with the words or the body language ?

[Rubyretro]

Donīt add things, Ruby. People who pee donīt go for a noisy walk at the same time.

They have to walk to where they're going to pee !

people had noisy OR silent boots, an we donīt know what would have applied here,

Not even the Police had silent boots ! Boots generally had nails in the soles, and were very noisy at the time.

but we must of course make sure to ask that fictive mate of the loiterer what he had on

This is Lechemere's 'fictive mate' (and there were probably four) -so be careful what you say !

Plus, of course, people who wish to pee can do so without having a conversation at the same time.

I was thinking from a girl's perspective.

And Lechmere spoke of an alleyway off Dorset Street.

And this would be which particular alley right next to Crossinghams ?

No. Coughing and snoring does not necessarily reach over the 30-45 dB that would have been shut out by walls and windows."

Except when it's in tandem.

Oh, he would have slept in it. But not necessarily all night. He could have awakened and gone out for a breather. (Much) stranger things have happened. So no once more.

So -is this a possibility for the Ripper ? Or is there a prison guard at the Victoria ?

And, doing the MATH, we notice that you have added ONE (1) person to the earlier perspective, and that is a person who was suggested as a fictive reason for the loiterer being there. It is not a verified and recorded person, Ruby - you may have noticed that? And Lechmere suggested other reasons, not adding anybody, for the loiterers presence, did he not? Once again: no.[/QUOTE

I'm sorry ? Who is the 'fictive person' ? I don't think that either Hutchinson/lurker is...so you must mean Lechmere's 'imaginary friend' ?
I shall have to agree with you.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Certainly, Fish -she swore to this at the inquest"

She SWORE at the inquest that she was rather sure? Really? And you are not being less than truthful now? Ruby, Ruby ... what are things coming to, when we are claiming things like these?

"It is a shame that you obviously don't know that body language can be stronger than words."

If I say "Iīm waiting for someone to come out" it will take me two seconds and leave nobody in doubt as to what I mean. If you can top that with body language, Iīm impressed. So much for strong body language.

The best,
Fisherman
off for now

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Ruby:

"Mrs Lewis seemed rather sure of what the man was doing"
Maybe you have something else to bolster it with,

Certainly, Fish -she swore to this at the inquest. She did not suggest in a
hestitant way " maybe..I'm not sure, but.." "perhaps" or "it is my opinion" or "I thought". She stated clearly what she saw the man doing.

Lies it in the fact that Lewis did not manage a shred of a description when speaking to the police?

She offered the sort of description that one might see from a way off.

I think that very, very little can be made from her words,

I think that whilst she did not look directly at the man's face as she drew abreast, she was pretty certain as to his body language.

It is a shame that you obviously don't know that body language can be stronger than words. Maybe this is the difference between an actor and a journalist (say) ?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"The suggestion by senor Lechmere was that the peeing was done by 'lurker's' mate. So that makes two people, in noisy boots, who probably exchanged a few words."

Donīt add things, Ruby. People who pee donīt go for a noisy walk at the same time. It would be uncomfortable and wet. And people had noisy OR silent boots, an we donīt know what would have applied here, but we must of course make sure to ask that fictive mate of the loiterer what he had on! Plus, of course, people who wish to pee can do so without having a conversation at the same time. And Lechmere spoke of an alleyway off Dorset Street.

Donīt add. Be honest.

"There were hundreds of people asleep in Crossinghams, with no double glazing, so no doubt there would not be just one cougher or snorer but lots, audible outside."

No. Coughing and snoring does not necessarily reach over the 30-45 dB that would have been shut out by walls and windows. If they screamed at the tops of their voices, it would travel outside in low tones, reaching up to 40-45 dB. And we are not speaking of screaming people are we. So no again.

"Unlikely to pay for a bed and not to sleep in it "

Oh, he would have slept in it. But not necessarily all night. He could have awakened and gone out for a breather. (Much) stranger things have happened. So no once more.

"now we have Mrs Lewis, Hutchinson, the lurker, the lurker's mate, and wasn't there a drunken couple somewhere..? "

And, doing the MATH, we notice that you have added ONE (1) person to the earlier perspective, and that is a person who was suggested as a fictive reason for the loiterer being there. It is not a verified and recorded person, Ruby - you may have noticed that? And Lechmere suggested other reasons, not adding anybody, for the loiterers presence, did he not? Once again: no.

"Dorset Street is filling up!

Holy madness. No.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Mrs Lewis seemed rather sure of what the man was doing"

How does it show that she was "rather sure" about it?
Lies it in the fact that Lewis did not manage a shred of a description when speaking to the police?
Or is it that she made the assumption that this was what the man did that impressed you much enough to tell us that she was in fact "rather sure" about her suggestion?
Maybe you have something else to bolster it with, something that has illuded me so far? I am very interested in any suggestion, since I think that very, very little can be made from her words, and I myself have never seen that Lewis at any stage claimed to be "rather sure" that her suggestion was correct. In fact, as it stands, Iīd be quite inclined to believe that she said nothing of the sort - and reasonably she could not have been rather sure either, unless she had psychic gifts. She MAY very well have been correct about the direction of his gaze (just as she may have been wrong about what he actually looked at), but I find it very difficult to see how she would know that the man was waiting for somebody. That would require a universally accepted signal system that was used ONLY when waiting for somebody. And unless you know of such a system, I suggest that we bury the "rather sure" part. Deep.


The best,
Fisherman