Hi Fisherman,
He’s wrong. He wasn’t intimately involved in the investigation on a senior level. He was offering personal speculation several decades after the event, confirming at least that the police had never procured proof with regard to the Hutchinson affair. His book is littered with mistakes, as you reminded me when I first presented you his opinions on Hutchinson, and he offers other personal speculation that is at odds with the preponderance with the views of the senior police officials at the time of the murders.
That would be my explanation.
Many of us have been aware of Dew’s memoirs and that Hutchinson excerpt for several years, and yet you’re the very first to claim, very controversially, that “the best bet is that he is right”. Incidentally, the more you try to press the view that he had “access to vital information”, the more you underscore the obvious likelihood that the police were only in position to speculate with regard to Hutchinson, in the absence of proof.
By the way, I’m not personally a fan of the debating strategy you’re currently engaging in, just for the record. What you’re doing is providing two suggested explanations, describing the first one in very succinct terms in order to make it look the simplest and therefore the “best”, while describing the second one in with unnecessary verbosity and facetiousness in order to make it look worse. Don’t do it any more, please. It looks like special pleading, which in turn suggests that you’re really not that confident about your conclusions.
Hutchinson didn’t mention Lewis because he didn’t want to make it look too obvious that it was her evidence that prompted him to contact the police. That is my view on that subject.
Nor is it depicted in the scene "painted" by Sarah Lewis, who described a man in no overcoat standing in an exposed location with a woman, and yet for some unfathomable reason, you think no overcoat is perfectly compatible with stormy, windy weather but an unbuttoned overcoat cannot be. Your reasoning here is baffling in the extreme. And on the subject of the Britannia couple (about whom you previously wanted to stop talking, but are now reviving anyway), here’s an interesting excerpt from Lewis’ account from the inquest papers:
"On our running away we did not look after the man - On the friday morning about half past two when I was coming to Miller's Court I met the same man with a female - in Commercial Street near Mr Ringer's Public House - near the market - he had then no overcoat..”
Near the market.
There we are – this sheds interesting new light on the location of the couple. On Commercial Street, near the Britannia, near the market, which was further UP Commercial Street on the Eastern side. In other words, they were definitely opposite Itchy Park and thus definitely exposed to any wind and rain swept from the east. Please reassure me that you’re not still trying to place them near the Queen’s Head near Fashion Street.
This is very misleading, and really rather annoying. You know full well that I accept neither of those explanations, just as you know full well that a rejection of the “wrong-night” hypothesis is not remotely the same thing as accusing the meteorologists of getting anything wrong. Garry has tried to explain in patient detail why the meteorological information argues very heavily against your assertion that it rained “incessantly” on the night in question. Steve Jebsen assures us that this was not the case: “It wasn't until after midnight that showers or intermittent outbreaks of rain moved across the capital. On the whole it remained overcast throughout the period”.
This information is perfectly compatible with Lewis’ evidence for the 2:30am period that involved a man in no overcoat (never mind an unbuttoned one!) standing in an exposed location near the market on Commercial Street. If you take the trouble to contact the experts, at least try to accept the information they are providing, otherwise it looks like you were only hoping to extract a desired response from them that was, in the event, unforthcoming. And I'm sure this is not the case.
You can't just demand that people either accept your view or an outlandish alternative that nobody ever suggested.
My “version” is that Hutchinson lied, was believed by the police to have lied, and was accordingly discredited. Simples (meerkat squeak).
It makes no difference how “simple” something is if it’s so obviously wring, and I certainly don’t respond to Dew’s evidence with “Aha, so that was wat (sic) happened” for the same reason that almost every other researcher with access to Dew’s memoirs hasn’t reacted to his suggestion in that manner: because it is very likely to be wrong. If you think that “all that has ben (sic) thrown at me is the suggestion that it may not have rained”, you clearly haven't been paying attention to the various other reasons for rejecting your proposal. I suspect you know full well that the significance of the date for other reasons (Romford, Lord Mayors Show), the strong coincidence between Lewis’s loiterer and Hutchinson, and the commonsense premise that he simply lied have featured just as prominently.
There’s really nothing strange about my suggestion with regard to John Balioll. I simply observed that you’re less likely to misremember a date that has already passed (when you actually have something to remember) than one that hasn’t yet happened (where you’re not in a position to “remember” anything about its events).
My personal guess is that this was another attempt by Hutchinson to reinforce the man’s “Jewishness”, hence his “placing” him in Petticoat Lane, a well-known Jewish hotspot. But thanks for highlighting another aspect of Hutchinson’s account that ought really to be considered suspicious. Just what led to his “belief” that the Astrakhan man lived in the area if it was based on two sightings only? Or if he was in possession of additional evidence that Astrakhan lived locally, why was this not provided?
You then ruin your own sensible observation by simply deciding, with no evidence, that Hutchinson must have seen him on a “number of occasions” wearing the very same accessories, despite his earlier claim that the novelty of the man’s appearance was what prompted his 45-minute vigil outside Miller’s Court. This is another attempt to back up what Hutchinson says with what Hutchinson says.
Yes, which isn’t remotely unusual.
Yes, once it had been established that Lewis had come forward, and had mentioned the loitering man in her testimony. Obviously, it would have been hopelessly imprudent to make it look glaringly obvious that the purpose of his visit to the police station was to “clear his name”, and this would account for his failure to mention Lewis. It was crucial to convey the impression that he came forward willingly of his own volition, and not because his hand was forced.
Dropped from the investigation? That’s a bit extreme, isn’t it? I would like to think that Abberline had a bit more imagination than that. It isn’t remotely likely that at the time of the Hutchinson interview, Abberline had memorized every single piece of eyewitness with which to cross reference instantly with Hutchinson’s claims. That’s unrealistic. The likelihood is that Lewis’ evidence was not in his mind at the time of the interview.
Best regards,
Ben
“Walter Dew tells us that Hutchinson was a day off. Explanation?”
That would be my explanation.
Many of us have been aware of Dew’s memoirs and that Hutchinson excerpt for several years, and yet you’re the very first to claim, very controversially, that “the best bet is that he is right”. Incidentally, the more you try to press the view that he had “access to vital information”, the more you underscore the obvious likelihood that the police were only in position to speculate with regard to Hutchinson, in the absence of proof.
By the way, I’m not personally a fan of the debating strategy you’re currently engaging in, just for the record. What you’re doing is providing two suggested explanations, describing the first one in very succinct terms in order to make it look the simplest and therefore the “best”, while describing the second one in with unnecessary verbosity and facetiousness in order to make it look worse. Don’t do it any more, please. It looks like special pleading, which in turn suggests that you’re really not that confident about your conclusions.
Hutchinson didn’t mention Lewis because he didn’t want to make it look too obvious that it was her evidence that prompted him to contact the police. That is my view on that subject.
“It was a rainy, stormy night by the looks of things, but none of thisis depicted in the street scene Hutchinson paints.”
"On our running away we did not look after the man - On the friday morning about half past two when I was coming to Miller's Court I met the same man with a female - in Commercial Street near Mr Ringer's Public House - near the market - he had then no overcoat..”
Near the market.
There we are – this sheds interesting new light on the location of the couple. On Commercial Street, near the Britannia, near the market, which was further UP Commercial Street on the Eastern side. In other words, they were definitely opposite Itchy Park and thus definitely exposed to any wind and rain swept from the east. Please reassure me that you’re not still trying to place them near the Queen’s Head near Fashion Street.
“1/ He got the nights wrong, and was in Dorset Street on the morning of the 8:th, not the 9:th. On that night and morning, it was overcast but perfectly dry. This, incidentally, tallies with what Dew tells us.
2/ The meteorologists are the ones who got things wrong”
2/ The meteorologists are the ones who got things wrong”
This information is perfectly compatible with Lewis’ evidence for the 2:30am period that involved a man in no overcoat (never mind an unbuttoned one!) standing in an exposed location near the market on Commercial Street. If you take the trouble to contact the experts, at least try to accept the information they are providing, otherwise it looks like you were only hoping to extract a desired response from them that was, in the event, unforthcoming. And I'm sure this is not the case.
You can't just demand that people either accept your view or an outlandish alternative that nobody ever suggested.
“Your version, Ben, is to some extent ingenious. It is definitely entertaining. It is very enterprising. But simple, it is NOT.”
It can never be simple to choose to look away from the only wiew offered by a policeman who actually worked the case, for example. The much, much simpler thing to do is to say "aha - so that was wat happened!".
There’s really nothing strange about my suggestion with regard to John Balioll. I simply observed that you’re less likely to misremember a date that has already passed (when you actually have something to remember) than one that hasn’t yet happened (where you’re not in a position to “remember” anything about its events).
“Hutchinson stated that he believed that the man lived in the area. Why would he do that?”
You then ruin your own sensible observation by simply deciding, with no evidence, that Hutchinson must have seen him on a “number of occasions” wearing the very same accessories, despite his earlier claim that the novelty of the man’s appearance was what prompted his 45-minute vigil outside Miller’s Court. This is another attempt to back up what Hutchinson says with what Hutchinson says.
“Or are you saying that he may have hoped/thought that Lewis would simply be reluctant to testify?”
“Are you saying that he saw Lewis, hoped/believed she would play no further important role, then pondered the Eddowes case and came up with the potential possibility to "clear his name" anyway?”
“Either he said "No" (and I feel fully convinced that he did, since that is the one answer that corroborates and reinforces Dew´s assertions), and then he would be dropped from the investigation”
Best regards,
Ben
Comment