Hi Fish,
Absolutely not, and it would crazy for anyone describe it as such. The area between the southern edge of Itchy Park and Fashion Street encompassed the Queen’s Head. As far as I’m aware, it was just one terrace as it is today. Anyone standing on the eastern pavement on Commercial Street between these two locations was indisputably “near the Queen’s Head”, not the Britannia. There would have to be something disastrously wrong with Sarah Lewis if she passed the Britannia herself, noticed a sheltering couple further down the round on the opposite side, obviously and conspicuously nearer another pub, and still describes them as being “near the Britannia”.
There’s really no dishonour in saying “point taken” occasionally.
Continued…
“Yes, pity this doorway faces east in the direction of all this terrible wind and rain. I’m soaked”.
“You’re soaked? Look at me! I’m the total numpty who forgot to wear an overcoat!”
Or, this conversation never took place because there was no need for shelter or an overcoat at that time because it was raining, a scenario that seems very plausible indeed given the lack of sheltering options (from an easterly wind and rain) anywhere on Commercial Street that could reasonably be described as near the Britannia. The couple were clearly already there when Lewis arrived and showed no sign of parting company or moving off, unlike the other couple she described in Dorset Street who “passed along”.
But you’re right. This is getting silly, so I’m quite prepared to embrace your suggestion to “leave it” after this. Unless etc.
Yes, they would have been standing about in an exposed location, just as the Britannia couple were doing on what was ascertained for certain to have been the 9th November, although that said, I don’t believe Hutchinson saw Kelly standing with anyone outside the court at the time he alleged. I think he lied about it.
It’s not a question of physical distance in isolation from any other considerations. It’s a question of the logicality of describing a location as “near the Britannia”, when it was so screamingly obviously nearer the Queen’s Head, another pub located a few feet away. The possibilities are indeed endless, but unfortunately, these endless possibilities seem to include deeply unlikely suggestions of the order you’re suggesting with regard to the location of the couple. The probabilities, on the other hand, are really quite limited
Yes, Fish.
I would. I would argue that it points to Hutchinson lying out “walking about all night”. Even if it could be proved beyond any semblance of doubt that it was piddling down relentlessly all night, non-stop, the simplest explanation for what you take to by a non-compatibility between Hutchinson’s account and the weather conditions is that Hutchinson lied and forgot to factor in the practical consideration that was the weather when putting together that lie.
You argue that “people who have been soaked walking from Romford do not spend the remainder of such nights walking the streets endlessly”, but people who walk from Romford in the small hours of the morning without getting soaked are also very unlikely to spend the remainder of the night “walking the street endlessly”. All you’re doing here is providing more compelling ammunition for those who would argue that Hutchinson did not tell the truth because his account didn’t add up.
There’s no evidence that he told the police that he walked about all night – only the press.
I really couldn’t be more astonished that you’d consider an unbuttoned overcoat to be “an illogical choice” when you don’t seem to have any problem with the report of a man wearing NO overcoat at 2:30am on what was definitely the 9th November. At least try to engage with the inconsistency here.
I have. I’ve observed that it seems implausible because it’s Billy Bull$hit. It doesn’t add up because he probably lied about it, and was consequently discredited. Nothing could be less complicated. I’m in bewildered astonishment that anyone could spot this implausibility, and still exhibit a preference for date-confusion over fabrication. You can be my guest if you really harbour any serious doubts that "lying witnesses are more common than the ones who mix up dates". I cannot extort common sense out of anyone who fiercely resists the obvious for what strikes me as no good reason at all - with respect.
Hi Varqm,
With common sense and the bleedin' obvious, one would dearly hope.
This is somewhat off-track from the central premise of the thread, but I explained my reasoning in this regard here:
Probably best to address any response you might have there, rather than here.
All the best,
Ben
“it cannot be described as near the Britannia...?”
There’s really no dishonour in saying “point taken” occasionally.
“There are a number of differences here, Ben. To begin with, we do not know where Lewis couple stood, and they may well have been sheltered. To carry on, we do not know for how long they spoke. It could have been ten seconds, involving just a "Good Lord, what a rain!" and a "Heavens, yes - it´s a good thing we found this doorway!".”
“Yes, pity this doorway faces east in the direction of all this terrible wind and rain. I’m soaked”.
“You’re soaked? Look at me! I’m the total numpty who forgot to wear an overcoat!”
Or, this conversation never took place because there was no need for shelter or an overcoat at that time because it was raining, a scenario that seems very plausible indeed given the lack of sheltering options (from an easterly wind and rain) anywhere on Commercial Street that could reasonably be described as near the Britannia. The couple were clearly already there when Lewis arrived and showed no sign of parting company or moving off, unlike the other couple she described in Dorset Street who “passed along”.
But you’re right. This is getting silly, so I’m quite prepared to embrace your suggestion to “leave it” after this. Unless etc.
“But when it comes to Astrakhan man and Kelly, we know that they were standing about for around three full minutes. We know, from sketches for example, that the building they stood outside did not offer any shelter at all from the elements - no protruding roof or such.”
“Once again, how many yards away from the Britannia are you, standing at the northern end of the buildings between Fashion Street and Itchy park?”
“Would you for a second, Ben, argue that this points to anything but Hutch speaking about a dry night?”
I would. I would argue that it points to Hutchinson lying out “walking about all night”. Even if it could be proved beyond any semblance of doubt that it was piddling down relentlessly all night, non-stop, the simplest explanation for what you take to by a non-compatibility between Hutchinson’s account and the weather conditions is that Hutchinson lied and forgot to factor in the practical consideration that was the weather when putting together that lie.
You argue that “people who have been soaked walking from Romford do not spend the remainder of such nights walking the streets endlessly”, but people who walk from Romford in the small hours of the morning without getting soaked are also very unlikely to spend the remainder of the night “walking the street endlessly”. All you’re doing here is providing more compelling ammunition for those who would argue that Hutchinson did not tell the truth because his account didn’t add up.
There’s no evidence that he told the police that he walked about all night – only the press.
I really couldn’t be more astonished that you’d consider an unbuttoned overcoat to be “an illogical choice” when you don’t seem to have any problem with the report of a man wearing NO overcoat at 2:30am on what was definitely the 9th November. At least try to engage with the inconsistency here.
“But we DO know that George Hutchinson incredibly claimed that his solution to his lodging problems was to head out on the streets in the hard rain, the cold and the storm, walking about "all night". For some reason, nobody seems to comment on that...?”
Hi Varqm,
How did you measure this?
I maybe ruining the thread but Hutchinson only came forward after being spotted by Sarah Lewis ? How was this figured out?
Probably best to address any response you might have there, rather than here.
All the best,
Ben
Comment