Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"I understand your every point, and you make your case well, but you rest to much on the word 'Discredited'."

Last time over, I rested my case too much on the rain. Which is it going to be, Richard?

Read it through once more, and you will find that I rest my case on numerous parametres, and that not one single parametre swears against the possibility of a mistaken day! Don´t you think, Richard, that if my suggestion was wrong, it would have been easily managed to refute it? Would there not be something, anything that was impossible to overcome on my behalf?

But you see, there is not! Hatchett tells me that it equals to accept conjecture as fact, but it emphatically does not. I do not have to twist anything, turn anything, change anything - it all falls in place just the same. Those who speak of Hutchinson as the killer need to suggest that he was sheltering against the rain although he emphatically tells us he was not. They need to accept that he either missed out on Lewis entering the yard, a few metres from his nose, or he lied about it, for some unfathomable reason. They need to speculate that the heavy rain seized at the moment Hutchginson laid eyes on Astrakhan man. They need to take Dews words for nothing - just another opinion, I´m told. They speculate that Hutchinson was discarded because of an over-elaborate description of Astrakhan man - although Abberline tells us he believed in it. Over and over again the bits and pieces that all readily fit in to my scenario, needs an awful lot of squeezing - and still, they will not fit!

What will you suggest that I´m leaning too much on the next time, Richard? The fact that he did not see Sarah Lewis?

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi Fisherman,

Well that's fair enough.

We will agree to disagree.

Best wishes for Christmas.

[Hatchett]

Hi Fisherman,

Just one point.

That point you make about all your pieces fitting effortlessly into place. That is usually the expression used after the hammer has been applied vigorously.

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"That point you make about all your pieces fitting effortlessly into place. That is usually the expression used after the hammer has been applied vigorously."

Please exemplify, Hatchett. I´m all ears!

The best to you too, plus Seasons Greetings and all that!

Fisherman

[babybird67]

Babybird, are you deliberately misunderstanding? If so, we need not prolong this discussion at all.
I will give it one more try, and that is all:

YES, people go out when it rains.
NO, I am not saying that Hutchinson could not have done so.
NO, just because people sometimes go out into dark, windy, chilly, rainy nights - mostly out of necessity - that does not mean that they will behave exactly as they do under dry circumstances. It is, for example, not a very good idea to spend hours on end walking the streets, getting yourself soaked.
NO, the picture he paints of the night of the 8-9 November is not one of a rainy night. Ergo, he was not there on that night.

No ergo about it Fisherman. He doesn't mention rain in his testimony but then neither do many other witnesses yet we know it did rain some of the time. You are drawing false conclusions from mere assumptions. Just because in your opinion the picture he paints of the night is not one of a rainy night does not lead to the conclusion that he was not there. He could well have been there but lying about his activities that night. He may well not have been traipsing around London as he claims. He may well not have seen Mary with Astrkhan as he claims. He may well have been in her room murdering her...we do not know! You are jumping through hoops to come to untenable conclusions in my opinion.

Please adress the arguments I make, and not the ones you make up for me! And please read the essay - it will help immensely.

I have. And i have. I've quoted you and responded to those points.

"you are drawing the conclusion that Hutch must have been telling the truth when he said this is what he did that night therefore he must have got the date wrong."

I am working from that assumption, yes.

Ok. So Hutch was a truth teller in your view? And i ask again, do you believe he saw Astrakhan man...on any night?

This all - each and every bit of it - tallies with the suggestion that he was off on his timing by one day.

What does? There is nothing suggesting he was off in his timing by one day. In fact the actual EVIDENCE, which comes from an independent witness describing a man much like Hutchinson himself outside the Court that night doing precisely as Hutchinson said he was doing, suggests he was completely correct in his timings, that he was there on the night of the murder.

But you for some reason claim that it is much more credible that he lied about it...?

I believe he lied about Astrakhan man. This makes me regard his entire testimony as suspect. Do you believe he told the truth about everything but go the day wrong?

It is much more credible that you, 122 years after the occasion, are able to assess Hutchinsons level of credibility and honesty, than it would be that Frederick Abberline got things right; Abberline, who interrogated Hutchinson himself...?

Where is your evidence regarding why Abberline dismissed Hutchinson's testimony after its initial acceptance? Oh that's right you don't have any. You just conjecture it was because Abberline suddenly developed a metereological interest and began quizzing everyone in the East End about their interpetations of continual rain/showers/drizzle etc and how this would have impeded their going out and going about their business.

It is much more credible that Hutchinson forgot to mention Lewis than it is to accept that he never saw her - in spite of the fact that he clearly stated that he saw nobody but the two people he mentioned...?

He clearly stated he saw Mary with Astrakhan man...i don't believe he did. That gives me licence to disbelieve the rest of his witness testimony. You appear to believe everything he said for some strange reason.

It is suspect based wishful thinking with no support in the world I am living in.

I do not necessarily regard Hutch as a suspect and have never claimed to. I don't believe his witness testimony. Why he lied, i do not know as yet.

By the way, it would seem that you too fail to see the difference inbetween detail memory and sequential memory. I you feel up to it, you may read up on it in this very thread. It belongs to the discussion very much.

I'm aware of the differences. I suffer from that sort of memory myself. Where is your evidence that Hutchinson did? Nowhere.

Oh, and one more thing:

"it is more plausible that he lied about his later activities, as he lied about seeing Astrakhan man in the first place."

Who said conjecture? Was that you?

Absolutely Fish but then i havent had an essay published claiming "I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW" from the rooftops based on my conjecture have I? I know I have little evidence to go on and am happy to admit that my opinion is just that...an opinion...based on as much evidence as i can gather. But I don't go misinterpreting weather reports or making up conjecture about people's memories to bolster my views. I don't need to.

[Hatchett]

Fisherman,

Quite simply it is this, people who have to use the hammer to flatten the piecies always look up proudly after they have finished and say that the piecies have all fitted neatly, or as you would say, effortlessly.

They conveniently forget that they needed the hammer, or that the piecies are now all a little battered and mishapen,and that the over all frame just doesn't look right.

Happy hammering!

[c.d.]

I think there is another aspect to this that might have been overlooked and that is the subjective element. Is everyone going to be in agreement as to what rainy and raining mean? For instance, it is quite common to see some people with their umbrellas folded while other people have them open and in use. The amount of rain is the same for both groups yet if you asked them individually if it is raining you would probably get different answers. The same applies to someone's perception of cold. Under the same conditions, you see some people lightly dressed while others look like they are planning an assault on Everest. If you take individuals from both groups and ask them was it cold that day, most likely you would get different answers.

c.d.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"He doesn't mention rain in his testimony but then neither do many other witnesses yet we know it did rain some of the time."

We know not know if it rained all of the time or some of the time. We only know that the Echo had the night down as a night of heavy rain and cold wind.

"You are drawing false conclusions from mere assumptions."

Neither d we know this, I´m afraid. I am drawing viable conclusions from the material we have, as witnessed by by a number of posters. When you know that I am drawing false conclusions, you are welcome to say so, when you don´t you are not.

"Just because in your opinion the picture he paints of the night is not one of a rainy night does not lead to the conclusion that he was not there."

No, it does not. But taken together with all the other parametres, it makes for a very compelling case, methinks.

"He could well have been there but lying about his activities that night. He may well not have been traipsing around London as he claims."

That is a very comfortable suggestion to make, since it takes no substantiation at all to throw forward. It applies, though, that if he DID lie, he forgot to bolster his story with the bad weather as well as with Lewis, so we can at the very least conclude that he would have been a terrible liar. But since I sometimes unfortunately run into terrible liars, Babybird, I realize that we can of course not rule it out totally.

"You are jumping through hoops to come to untenable conclusions in my opinion."

THERE you go, Babybird, THAT is how you phrase it. Claiming that I draw false conclusions is how you DON´T go about it.

"I believe he lied about Astrakhan man. This makes me regard his entire testimony as suspect. Do you believe he told the truth about everything but go the day wrong?"

Brace yourself, Babybird: Yes, I do believe that this was exactly what happened. I do not rule out that he may have been at the inquest or have had access to the material from it, and thus tried to make a bob or two by placing himself in the loiterers role, but I also would advice to ponder the fact that IF he had access to the inquest, he ALSO had access to the fact that it rained that night. Cox said so.

"Where is your evidence regarding why Abberline dismissed Hutchinson's testimony after its initial acceptance? Oh that's right you don't have any. You just conjecture it was because Abberline suddenly developed a metereological interest and began quizzing everyone in the East End about their interpetations of continual rain/showers/drizzle etc and how this would have impeded their going out and going about their business."

Correct. But I actually think that somebody else than Abberline saw the discrepancy. AFTER that, the police would have started investigating it. That is my suggestion, and it is a suggestion that tallies perfectly with the discrediting with no known reprimands as well as with the fact that the press was never given the whole truth.

"He clearly stated he saw Mary with Astrakhan man...i don't believe he did. That gives me licence to disbelieve the rest of his witness testimony. You appear to believe everything he said for some strange reason."

The reason is anything but strange - it makes the bits and pieces fit together. Take the issue with the mystical disappearance of Sarah Lewis, for example. Your suggestion: He lied or he forgot. My suggestion: What you cannot see, you cannot report. And he pressed the point that he had seen no other person than the lodger and the policeman.
But I am not saying that you are not welcome to your wiew - just that I am convinced more than ever that it is the wrong wiew. Mathematically, I´d say we are just as entitled to out respective wiews.

"I do not necessarily regard Hutch as a suspect and have never claimed to. I don't believe his witness testimony. Why he lied, i do not know as yet."

A small correction: IF he lied, you do not know yet. And that´s okay, since you are in the company of the rest of the world - nobody has offered a functioning explanation to that one, as far as I can tell.

"I'm aware of the differences. I suffer from that sort of memory myself. Where is your evidence that Hutchinson did? Nowhere."

Abso-friggin-lutely, Babybird. I have NO evidence at all for any deficiency in either type of Hutchinsons memory capacities. But that was not the point. The point was that lots of posters make the remark that if he could remember all the things Astrakhan man wore, he would not forget about the date. But just like confess to knowing from your own experience, the two parametres should not be confused with each other. They remain apart, and it remains that Hutchinson MAY have had more problems with dates than with details. If the two had been interconnected, it would have been relevant to put his observation powers as a pawn for his sequential memory - but it is not.

"Absolutely Fish but then i havent had an essay published claiming "I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW"

You should try it - it´s heaps of fun! Seriously speaking, Babybird, you have not read my article, and therefore it is slightly unfortunate that you go by Garrys words only. The passage you refer to is followed up by the wording: "Do I have absolute proof? I have not", and then I state that I see little reason to doubt that I am right. That means that I myself am satisfied that I know what happened, and that I myself have little doubt that I am correct. You see, I take full repsonsibility for the text, and I am of the meaning that this clears up the hutchinson case. That is not to say that I crave any subordinance on your on any other persons behalf. It is instead to say that I feel so sure about it, that I welcome any challenge, since I am of the meaning that no factual evidence exists or has ever existed that can prove me wrong.
My undertaking, Babybird. My conviction. You are free to frothe at the mouth of disgust for my wording of it, or - much better - to argue something that can overthrow the suggestion I am making. George Hutchinson was discarded because the police came to believe that he had gotten the wrong day. That is what I say and that I will stand by.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

C.d:

"I think there is another aspect to this that might have been overlooked and that is the subjective element. Is everyone going to be in agreement as to what rainy and raining mean? For instance, it is quite common to see some people with their umbrellas folded while other people have them open and in use. The amount of rain is the same for both groups yet if you asked them individually if it is raining you would probably get different answers. The same applies to someone's perception of cold. "

Hi C.D! Good to see you chime in!

I think you are quite correct in what you say here - I have seen people rush out into the rain and turn their faces to the sky with a smile oon it, and my middle son can walk out into freezing winter days with only a t-shirt on his upper body.

What I am speaking about s the general picture that people do normally not wish to go out on cold, rainy, windy nights, and if they have to, they seek shelter.
Plus, C.D, the weather is only ONE of the points I am making. Dews´ assessment, Lewis´disappearance together with the couple she saw, the discrediting with no reprimands, the sudden total loss of interest, Hutchinsons nightly swimming tour on the East end streets, etcetera, all mentioned on this thread make for a compelling case TAKEN TOGETHER!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"Quite simply it is this, people who have to use the hammer to flatten the piecies always look up proudly after they have finished and say that the piecies have all fitted neatly, or as you would say, effortlessly.
They conveniently forget that they needed the hammer, or that the piecies are now all a little battered and mishapen,and that the over all frame just doesn't look right."

You misunderstand me - I wan´t you to give an example of where I have distorted one of the puzzle pieces you speak of. Without such a thing, I think your suggestion is a very poor one. So please...?

the best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

Babybird:

"He doesn't mention rain in his testimony but then neither do many other witnesses yet we know it did rain some of the time."

We know not know if it rained all of the time or some of the time. We only know that the Echo had the night down as a night of heavy rain and cold wind.

We don't know? But i thought you DID know Fish. You've claimed there was "incessant rain" that night. Incessant means not stopping. There is no evidence to support your claim. There is evidence from witnesses that were there that night that there was some rain, but that is was not constant. The source you failed to quote in your article states that rain affected the London area after midnight. That means we know there was SOME rain. There is no evidence it was unceasing or incessant rain however.The EVIDENCE suggests there were showers that night, as has been accepted by many authors before you on this topic. Your 'discovery' is not a discovery at all...just a misreading of the extant facts.

"You are drawing false conclusions from mere assumptions."

Neither d we know this, I´m afraid. I am drawing viable conclusions from the material we have, as witnessed by by a number of posters. When you know that I am drawing false conclusions, you are welcome to say so, when you don´t you are not.

LOL! Don't tell me what I can and cannot say! You conclusions do not follow from the alleged facts you claim to have discovered. Even if you could establish that it rained incessantly that night, which you cannot and have not, it does not follow that Hutchinson could not have been doing precisely what he said he was doing, because you are not Hutchinson and nobody knows how he could have or would have behaved. We can only judge for ourselves how persuasive his witness testimony is.

"Just because in your opinion the picture he paints of the night is not one of a rainy night does not lead to the conclusion that he was not there."

No, it does not. But taken together with all the other parametres, it makes for a very compelling case, methinks.

What other parametres [sic]? Taken together with what? This is what I do not understand. There is no EVIDENCE you are presenting for what you are claiming. Even the weather report you quote undermines your own stated case as per your article (and don't tell me to read it again, I've told you in my last couple of posts I HAVE READ IT!!!!)

"He could well have been there but lying about his activities that night. He may well not have been traipsing around London as he claims."

That is a very comfortable suggestion to make, since it takes no substantiation at all to throw forward. It applies, though, that if he DID lie, he forgot to bolster his story with the bad weather as well as with Lewis, so we can at the very least conclude that he would have been a terrible liar. But since I sometimes unfortunately run into terrible liars, Babybird, I realize that we can of course not rule it out totally.

Precisely. And it is more consistent a suggestion than the one you have come up with.

"You are jumping through hoops to come to untenable conclusions in my opinion."

THERE you go, Babybird, THAT is how you phrase it. Claiming that I draw false conclusions is how you DON´T go about it.

Your conclusions are false, because there are equally valid, no, more valid, conclusions that can be drawn from the information we have, with the same amount of evidence, if not more.

"I believe he lied about Astrakhan man. This makes me regard his entire testimony as suspect. Do you believe he told the truth about everything but go the day wrong?"

Brace yourself, Babybird: Yes, I do believe that this was exactly what happened. I do not rule out that he may have been at the inquest or have had access to the material from it, and thus tried to make a bob or two by placing himself in the loiterers role, but I also would advice to ponder the fact that IF he had access to the inquest, he ALSO had access to the fact that it rained that night. Cox said so.

Ahhhh well then...if you believe in Astrkhan I can only apologise for interrupting your precious time which must now be spent in composing your Christmas list for Santa. I do apologise.

"Where is your evidence regarding why Abberline dismissed Hutchinson's testimony after its initial acceptance? Oh that's right you don't have any. You just conjecture it was because Abberline suddenly developed a metereological interest and began quizzing everyone in the East End about their interpetations of continual rain/showers/drizzle etc and how this would have impeded their going out and going about their business."

Correct. But I actually think that somebody else than Abberline saw the discrepancy. AFTER that, the police would have started investigating it. That is my suggestion, and it is a suggestion that tallies perfectly with the discrediting with no known reprimands as well as with the fact that the press was never given the whole truth.

Yes. Correct. Thank you. You admit it is pure conjecture based on not a scrap of evidence. Now we are getting somewhere.

The reason is anything but strange - it makes the bits and pieces fit together. Take the issue with the mystical disappearance of Sarah Lewis, for example. Your suggestion: He lied or he forgot. My suggestion: What you cannot see, you cannot report. And he pressed the point that he had seen no other person than the lodger and the policeman.

Were the sightings of the logder and the policeman corroborated?

But I am not saying that you are not welcome to your wiew - just that I am convinced more than ever that it is the wrong wiew. Mathematically, I´d say we are just as entitled to out respective wiews.

Indeed we are and yours as published views are more than usually subject to scrutiny and question, especially when based upon a weather report the wording of which does not support the contentions in your essay.

"I do not necessarily regard Hutch as a suspect and have never claimed to. I don't believe his witness testimony. Why he lied, i do not know as yet."

A small correction: IF he lied, you do not know yet. And that´s okay, since you are in the company of the rest of the world - nobody has offered a functioning explanation to that one, as far as I can tell.

Equally you do not know he told the truth. Admitting that undermines the entirety of your essay.

"I'm aware of the differences. I suffer from that sort of memory myself. Where is your evidence that Hutchinson did? Nowhere."

Abso-friggin-lutely, Babybird. I have NO evidence at all for any deficiency in either type of Hutchinsons memory capacities.

Excellent. More progress. More admission that the entire premise of the essay was subjective conjecture and not a jot of evidence. It shocks me that the Beadle prize could have been even mentioned in reference to your essay...one only has to look at the contributions of previous winners such as Rob Clack to see the research steeped in reality that usually is deserving of such plaudits.

But that was not the point. The point was that lots of posters make the remark that if he could remember all the things Astrakhan man wore, he would not forget about the date. But just like confess to knowing from your own experience, the two parametres should not be confused with each other. They remain apart, and it remains that Hutchinson MAY have had more problems with dates than with details. If the two had been interconnected, it would have been relevant to put his observation powers as a pawn for his sequential memory - but it is not.

No. The point is nothing about whether Hutch has a sequential or detail memory is relevant, since we know nothing about how his memory operated at all. It is pure and utter conjecture to try to pretend we know and can differentiate between parts of his memory.

You should try it - it´s heaps of fun! Seriously speaking, Babybird, you have not read my article, and therefore it is slightly unfortunate that you go by Garrys words only.

Again, for the second or third time...I HAVE READ YOUR ESSAY. And i have had essays of my own published thank you.

The passage you refer to is followed up by the wording: "Do I have absolute proof? I have not", and then I state that I see little reason to doubt that I am right.

Many posters here have given you many reasons to doubt that you are right. If you cannot comprehend the difference between evidence and conjecture, there is not much hope any of us are going to get through to you.

That means that I myself am satisfied that I know what happened, and that I myself have little doubt that I am correct. You see, I take full repsonsibility for the text, and I am of the meaning that this clears up the hutchinson case. That is not to say that I crave any subordinance on your on any other persons behalf. It is instead to say that I feel so sure about it, that I welcome any challenge, since I am of the meaning that no factual evidence exists or has ever existed that can prove me wrong.

And none that proves you right either.

My undertaking, Babybird. My conviction. You are free to frothe at the mouth of disgust for my wording at it, or - much better - to argue something that can overthrow the suggestion I am making. George Hutchinson was discarded because the police came to believe that he had gotten the wrong day. That is what I say and that I will stand by.

Yes but when you assert such things without a scrap of evidence, there are going to be people who do and will challenge you. As i have done. And will continue to do.

[babybird67]

I'll give you one example of hammering the pieces until they distort...

H
You misunderstand me - I wan´t you to give an example of where I have distorted one of the puzzle pieces you speak of. Without such a thing, I think your suggestion is a very poor one. So please...?

the best,
Fisherman

Interpreting a weather report that states :

rain, did indeed affect the London area soon after midnight.

to

From the meteorologists,they would have been able to get the information that the rain had started to fall sometime after midnight, and that it kept falling at an increasing speed, raining through the night.

and

incessantly pouring down

How do you get either of the two contentions in your essay from the weather report you have quoted on this thread? You have taken liberties with it, and you know you have. You have certainly used the hammer here! Nowhere does the report support your conjecture that the rain "kept falling at an increasing speed, raining through the night."

Bang bang, Fish, bang bang!

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"We don't know? But i thought you DID know Fish. You've claimed there was "incessant rain" that night. Incessant means not stopping. There is no evidence to support your claim. There is evidence from witnesses that were there that night that there was some rain, but that is was not constant. The source you failed to quote in your article states that rain affected the London area after midnight. That means we know there was SOME rain. There is no evidence it was unceasing or incessant rain however.The EVIDENCE suggests there were showers that night, as has been accepted by many authors before you on this topic. Your 'discovery' is not a discovery at all...just a misreading of the extant facts."

The night has always been described as one particularly nasty one. Nothing is gainsaying this wiew, I´m afraid. Therefore, we cannot conclude whether I have "misread" anything at all. And the rain is by no means my only parametre to reach my conclusion by - as you may have noticed?

"Don't tell me what I can and cannot say!"

It would be much neater if you could show me where I have been "false" as you claim. After that, we shall see.

"What other parametres [sic]? "

If you have not read them, there is no further use in exchanging with you. Read up, and come back.

"Ahhhh well then...if you believe in Astrkhan I can only apologise for interrupting your precious time which must now be spent in composing your Christmas list for Santa. I do apologise."

As open-minded as it gets...

"Equally you do not know he told the truth. Admitting that undermines the entirety of your essay."

Aha. But the suggestion that Hutchinson was a serial killer is not? Come on, Babybird - not a word of my essay is undermined. It remains a very viable suggestion - although you cannot see it - and like most of the essays written on the Ripper, it contains elements that remain unproven, but they tally and make for a useful solution.
Others have realized this, as you will see if you read the whole thread through, and I have no aspirations to sway you. In fact, I have no aspirations to any further discussion with you, after this post. You have nothing new to offer, and I prefer answering the same questions when they are asked in a civil manner.

" It shocks me that the Beadle prize could have been even mentioned in reference to your essay..."

Yes, I was very happy about that too. Goes to show how stupid Tom Wescott is. Or not.

"Many posters here have given you many reasons to doubt that you are right."

Ehrm, no - the same posters as usual have tried to mend the Hutchinson coat. But it is coming apart at the seams. Nobody, however, has produced anything at all that has given my any reason to doubt that I am right - and you belong very firmly to that score.

"Yes but when you assert such things without a scrap of evidence, there are going to be people who do and will challenge you. As i have done. And will continue to do."

I have no doubt whatsoever that you will do so. Bye, bye Babybird.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

A few final words for you, Babybird:

I have written an essay.

In it, I state that I cannot prove the suggestion I put to my readers.

I work from the supposition that it was raining heavily that night, since the sources we have speak of heavy rain that night.

I take care to point out that even if it did NOT rain in Dorset Street at 2 - 2.30, it still stands that Hutchinsons admittance to having walked the streets all night firmly puts him out in the pouring rain. We know that it did rain hard at 3 AM - at the very least.

Now, tell me what it is you are having trouble with?

Incidentally, Ben wrote an essay in the same issue. He too wrote on Huchinson. He actually stated that there was a good chance that old George was a serial killer. I find that actually amounts to nothing but conjecture. But I don´t see you yelling your head off in that direction?

So once again, what´s the itch, Babybird?

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

The night has always been described as one particularly nasty one. Nothing is gainsaying this wiew, I´m afraid. Therefore, we cannot conclude whether I have "misread" anything at all. And the rain is by no means my only parametre to reach my conclusion by - as you may have noticed?

Exactly. The night has always been described as nasty weatherwise. It has always been acknowledged it was a cold and rainy night. I conclude you have misread the weather report as i have quoted above, when you interpret the phrase which states that rain affected the London area after midnight to actually mean it started raining at midnight, got every heavier and never stopped, none of which contentions you have provided any evidence for!

It would be much neater if you could show me where I have been "false" as you claim. After that, we shall see.

I've already demonstrated your conclusions are false, since even if you could demonstrate that it did rain all night, which you cannot and have not, it does not follow that Hutchinson got his days muddled up. There is no logical progression from the one contention to the other, therefore your conclusion is false.

If you have not read them, there is mo further use in exchanging with you. Read up, and come back.

Do you mean the conjecture that the Police investigated and quizzed everyone about the weather and that their conclusions, of which we know nothing, were the reason they discredited Hutchinson? Do you mean the conjecture that Hutchinson had a bad sequential memory but an exceptionally good one for detail? I am talking about EVIDENCE Fish not conjecture and fairy tales. There is not one item of evidence which you can use to justify the conclusions you come to in your article, and that is the fact of the matter. By all means, conjecture all you like. But don't dress it up as newly discovered facts and evidence, of which there are none that i can see in the article.

As open-minded as it gets...

I'm not open minded as to Astrkhan's existence. I don't think many people are. His description is far too implausible.

"Equally you do not know he told the truth. Admitting that undermines the entirety of your essay."

Aha. But the suggestion that Hutchinson was a serial killer is not?

Is not what? Again you are confusing me with others who perhaps have argued Hutch might have been the Ripper. I have never posted such a contention. Your argument is with the wrong person, Fish. I have no suspect drum to bang. Nor do I need a hammer to bang it.

Come on, Babybird - not a word of my essay is undermined.

You said i must use the word 'if' Hutch was lying; equally you must use the word 'if' Hutch was telling the truth. Neither of us can prove he was either truthful or a liar. Such an admission undermines your essay, which is based on the faith that Hutchinson was telling the truth about what he was doing that night.

It remains a very viable suggestion - although you cannot see it - and like most of the essays written on the Ripper, it contains elements that remain unproven, but that tally and make for a useful solution.

It is conjecture. I cannot see any evidence in it. If i have missed the evidence on which you are relying kindly point it out to me.

Others have realized this, as you will see if you read the whole thread through, and I have no aspirations to sway you. In fact, I have no aspirations to any further discussion with you, after this post. You have nothing new to offer, and I prefer answering the same questions when they are asked in a civil manner.

I was not aware i had been uncivil to you. Challenging, yes. Uncivil? Not sure about that.

" It shocks me that the Beadle prize could have been even mentioned in reference to your essay..."

Yes, I was very happy about that too. Goes to show how stupid Tom Wescott is. Or not.

Well yes. Shocking.

"Many posters here have given you many reasons to doubt that you are right."

Ehrm, no - the same posters as usual have tried to mend the Hutchinson coat. But it is coming apart at the seams. Nobody, however, has produced anything at all that has given my any reason to doubt that I am right - and you belong very firmly to that score.

Not the same posters at all. Quite a few new posters have emerged, and even Richard has seen the holes in your argument, and he is normally on your side of the Hutch debate.

"Yes but when you assert such things without a scrap of evidence, there are going to be people who do and will challenge you. As i have done. And will continue to do."

I have no doubt whatsoever that you will do so. Bye, bye Babybird.

Bye bye Fish. I have no article i need to defend. I am happy to stand by the comments i have made and the questions i have asked regarding the quality of the research in your article. I did give you a compliment earlier that you had written it well, which i note you passed by, but that doesn't mean i am going to nod at the conclusions it draws when they just do not make sense nor have any evidential basis to back them up either. If you are unable or unwilling to respond to my questions, that is always your choice, and i dont doubt there will be others willing to put the same questions to you, however uncomfortable those questions are.

have a good Christmas