Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

“Is there any rule saying that I cannot choose what lenght I want to use?”

No, but there’s some well meant advice to stop with the bulldozer tactics and attempts at repetition wars of the order that you professed an earlier eagerness to avoid. Your arguments are not "well built under", as far as I’m concerned. You simply revived Dew’s unpopular, hitherto-not-taken-seriously suggestion that Hutchinson confused the date after I told you about it. I was quite enjoying discussing the in's and out's of that theory's revival until you launched into battle mode, and kept complimenting yourself on an argument with no credible opposition (according to you).

“There is a very weak suggestion that he somehow would have thought it tactical to leave her out.”

Well you go ahead and consider it “weak” then. What am I supposed to do about it, care? But don’t, for pity’s sake, keep bringing up the “Hutchinson didn’t mention Lewis" argument as though it had never been addressed. I think the record ought to show a number of haughty comments on your behalf

“It is - since nothing really does” (argue against your theory).

“but the fact of the matter is that neither you nor nobody else has offered anything at all that goes to show that I am wrong in my suggestion. You may THINK that you have, but you have not. There´s a name for it...”

I don’t believe you really think that, nor do I believe you’re remotely open to any “useful criticism”. All you’ll do is ignore it and go straight back to stating with over-confidence that nothing interferes with your suggestion. I think you know full well that lots of things argue against the premise that Hutchinson confused the date, whether they prove it wrong or not. But it really is the height of arrogance to blitz-post away in a manner that suggests you’ve never even been argued against. Don’t threaten me to “watch my tongue”, Fisherman. It’s not becoming, and I’m certainly not intimidated.

“If he was told that the Astrakhan man hunt was off, then the obvious thing to do would be what? Exactly - ask the question why. And what reason would the police have not to tell him?”

Because they didn’t need to, and because they didn’t want to risk widespread knowledge that the police were initially taken in by a witness who was later considered to be unreliable, which would neatly explain why the reference to Hutchinson being discarded only appeared in a couple of newspapers. All Dew needed to be told, as a relatively junior official, was that Hutchinson had been discarded and that the Astrakhan hunt (or Astrak-hunt) was off. He was then left with his own personal speculation as to why this discrediting happened, hence his Hutchinson reference in his memoirs.

“There may not have been coloured drawing pins - but Abberline would have kept track of where the different people were in Dorset Street that night.”

But not to the extent that he was in a position, at the time of the Hutchinson interview, to recall every detail from every witness for instant cross-referencing with Hutchinson’s claims. That is just unrealistic.

“Hutchinson went TO THE COURT! He did NOT post outside Crossinghams! He also fills in that he stood "there" for about three quarters of an hour".”

Yes, he went “to” the court, not “inside” it, and “to the court” clearly refers to the area in narrow Dorset Street that afforded him the opportunity to “look up the Court”, and engage in precisely the same behaviour that Sarah Lewis reported of her loitering man. We don’t know precisely where in front of the court, but near Crossingham’s a few feet away seems the most logical choice as he could lean against a wall (with possible cover above) and take some weight off his poor, sore feet that had hoofed it all the way back from Romford. This location would more than qualify as “to the court” if he had walked there from the corner of Dorset Street. Attempting to distinguish between the southern and northern sides of Dorset Street is a silly thing to do considering that they were separated by a matter of feet. The only relevant criterion for assessing the general location is the detail that he looked “up the court”, the same description provided by Lewis of her loitering man.

The only reason he left the area from the corner of Miller’s Court is because, as per his claim, he went into the court itself but saw no light and detected no noise from within. Since this was so obviously his impetus for aborting his vigil in anticipation of them coming out again, it equally obviously follows that he left the corner of Miller’s Court upon returning from inside the court at 3.00am. If you want to conclude that he stood rooted to the “northern” side of Dorset Street for 45 minutes, you’re welcome, but this is not admitted by the evidence, and it’s only common sense to infer that “waiting” individuals tend not to stay rooted like statues to any one particular spot for as long as 45 minutes. To place Hutchinson in such a statue-like trance at one specific location for that duration necessitates a dogmatic an unimaginative approach to evidence assessment.

“The only resonable conclusion is that the two men were not one and the same. It is unescapabl”

Awful, ghastly dreadful nonsense, phrased with infuriating and undeserved overconfidence. The likelihood, of course, as recognised by most who study the case, is that Hutchinson was the wideawake man.

[Lechmere]

Three brief points to Ben.
1. You say the press didn’t pick up on Lewis’s wide awake hat man and that it was passed over. OK. But at the same time you also claim that this tiny snip, from all the gory evidence presented at the inquest, sped its way to Hutchinson’s eager and guilty ears within moments of the Inquest concluding. I don’t think so (I know you do).
2. The press say Hutchinson was dismissed as he was not credible etc. Actually two papers did. Others continued to report him as a credible witness (as late at least as the 17th). You can pick which you like to fit your theory.
3. I believe you have put it forward as a possibility that the police didn’t connect Hutchinson the loiterer with the Lewis wide awake man. Yet now the connection should be regarded as a given?

And sorry Sally, it has been established that the night of 8th /9th was almost certainly not punctuated by heavy showers and the evidence, such as we have, from the Met Office does suggest that it was continuously wet.
Also Hutchinson being mistaken as to date is supported by Dew, however it is legitimate to construe Dew differently or to believe Dew didn’t know what he was talking about.
In fairness to Fisherman, his theory about Hutchinson being out by a day has as much validity and is based on at least as much evidence as the claim that Hutchinson was the culprit. You could characterise all Ripper theories as stories on that basis.

[Fisherman]

My wording:

"“Is there any rule saying that I cannot choose what lenght I want to use?”

Your wording:

"No"

Fine. Thanks.

As for the rest of your post, I will skip all of it but for the one part that is new and very, very interesting.
You have told me that the one clincher in your case, when opting for Hutchinson being a liar and a killer, was that he stood at the exact same spot where Lewis saw her loiterer, and did the exact same thing. That was the fundament on which you built your belief.

And what happens? WHAT happens? Holy crap; we have George Hutchinson telling us that “They both then went up the court together. 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” - meaning that he tells us that where he started his vigil was also where he performed it on the whole - "I stood there for about three quarters of an hour". There is no other interpretation of this than the clear and simple one that he stood at the court for the time mentioned! And as he leaves, he is a little bit more precise by adding that he left ""the corner of the court" as the clock struck three.

At no stage, in no way, in no language, by no whisper does he even breathe the word "Crossingham´s" or "lodginghouse". He stood at the corner of the court, his vigil lasted for 45 minutes, and then he left.

There is nothing to discuss here. But you give it a try anyway. Let´s have a look at that effort!

"Yes, he went “to” the court, not “inside” it, and “to the court” clearly refers to the area in narrow Dorset Street that afforded him the opportunity to “look up the Court”, and engage in precisely the same behaviour that Sarah Lewis reported of her loitering man."

If he went to the OPPOSITE side of the street and positioned himself outside Crossinghams, Ben, then why would he say "I went to the court?" Correct - he would not. He said he went to the court and he went to the court. After having gone to the court, you arrive AT THE COURT. The court was at the court and not at Crossinghams.

"We don’t know precisely where in front of the court"

No? At the court, Ben, and at a place that allowed him to look down the passageway. So we know that he stood at the court, and he did so on either side of it. Which side, though, is something we don´t know.

"but near Crossingham’s a few feet away seems the most logical choice"

Why would it be more "logical" to stand at Crossinghams than it would be to stand where he said he stood? Measure the distance from Crossinghams to the entrance to the court, and you will know exactly how close to Crossinghams he was.

"... as he could lean against a wall (with possible cover above) and take some weight off his poor, sore feet that had hoofed it all the way back from Romford."

Oh, I had forgotten - the houses on the northern side of the street had no walls to lean against! Therefore, if he wanted to rest his poor feet, the only side of Dorset Street offering a wall was the southern side. And Crossingham´s wall was extra comfy!
How on earth did you come up with THAT argument, Ben?

"This location would more than qualify as “to the court” if he had walked there from the corner of Dorset Street."

No. It would qualify as Crossinghams lodging house.

"Attempting to distinguish between the southern and northern sides of Dorset Street is a silly thing to do"

It is nothing of the sort. It provides a very telling "either". Hutchinson stood EITHER on the southern side, outside Crossinghams, or on the northern side, at the corner of the court. And if you ask EITHER me or Hutchinson which side it was, you will get the same answer.

"The only relevant criterion for assessing the general location is the detail that he looked “up the court”

If you can sell that to anyone, you can sell canned porridge to the people in Beverly Hills. Why would it be irrelevant which side he was on?
Oh, NOW I see - because if he was on the northern side - as he says - and Lewis´s man was on the southern side - as she says - then the two would reasonably have been talking about different men. And if they talked about different men, then Hutchinson does not meet your criteria for the killer. And if ...Oh!

"The only reason he left the area from the corner of Miller’s Court is because, as per his claim, he went into the court itself but saw no light and detected no noise from within

Yes...?

"Since this was so obviously his impetus for aborting his vigil in anticipation of them coming out again, it equally obviously follows that he left the corner of Miller’s Court upon returning from inside the court at 3.00am."

Oh no. We have no record of this at all - it is something you guess/conclude/offer/ say with no substantiation at all. There is nothing militating against a suggestion that he went up the court after a quarter of an hour, noticed nothing, and said to himself: Well, I´ll just have to wait a bit longer, then. Nothing at all argues against such a suggestion.

"If you want to conclude that he stood rooted to the “northern” side of Dorset Street for 45 minutes, you’re welcome"

I don´t have to conclude anything. Hutchinson did it for me. Once again: "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” is an exact wording of a man who claims to have stood at basically the same point. It´s not me, Ben - it´s George Hutchinson speaking.

"this is not admitted by the evidence"

Sorry, Ben, but it is not only admitted but in fact laid down in exact wording by the evidence: "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”"
Exactly what is it in that evidence that does not "admit" him having stayed at the same general point for three quarters of an hour?

"and it’s only common sense to infer that “waiting” individuals tend not to stay rooted like statues to any one particular spot for as long as 45 minutes."

It´s only common sense to read the evidence before you start making plans for the witnesses. He would have changed his footing, he may have walked past the entrance to the court - the full meter or two - but he stood there for three quarters of an hour. He said so. He would not want to loose the opportunity to glance down the archway. At any rate, Ben, I know of no natural law that tells us that people who get worn out by standing statically in one place are drawn to lodging house doors ...

And there we are, Ben. You have been building your case on a picture that swears against the evidence! And all the while you did it, you took great care to point out to me that as long as my suggestion of a day lost was interesting, you thought that it seemed to imply that I had not evaluated the evidence before coming up with the suggestion, whereas you asserted me that your wiew was grounded on a very careful assessment of all the evidence.
How ironic! We have a case where I can prove that Hutchinson said that he went to the court, where I can prove that he said that he stood there for three quarters of an hour, where I can prove that he said that he left his vigil from the point of the Miller´s Court corner, and where I can prove that he never once mentioned standing outside Crossingham´s. All of this I can prove and point to.
You cannot prove in any way that George Hutchinson stood at Crossinghams, since there is not a shred of evidence to bolster such a claim. And when you try to find words to say what you think of my suggestion that this reasonably tells us that the two men were not one and the same, you come up with: "Awful, ghastly dreadful nonsense".

Aha. Following the evidence is awful, ghastly dreadful nonsense. And instead disregarding it makes for the only truly probable solution - that Hutchinson and the loiterer were one and the same.

A schoolbook example if I have ever seen one. You should be proud of yourself!

The best,
Fisherman

PS. What if Hutchinson was lying about it? No? DS.

[Sally]

And sorry Sally, it has been established that the night of 8th /9th was almost certainly not punctuated by heavy showers and the evidence, such as we have, from the Met Office does suggest that it was continuously wet.

Heavy Showers, Lechmere. Reported at the time. Showers do not equate to continuous rain. That isn't semantic acrobatics, acrobatical semantics, or anything other than a distinction which is commonly understood to be correct. Showers are intermittent. End of story.

Also Hutchinson being mistaken as to date is supported by Dew, however it is legitimate to construe Dew differently or to believe Dew didn’t know what he was talking about.

Dew does not state, nor does he imply, that Hutchinson was out by a day. I think it is fair to accept that he thought both Maxwell and Hutchinson were mistaken as to the time at which they saw Kelly. In Maxwell's case, a wrong day is an obvious conclusion - it is not so with Hutchinson. A does not equal B. To state that Dew thought Hutchinson had missed a day is to overstate the evidence considerably - and that, I'm afraid demonstrates nothing other than an under researched theory.

In fairness to Fisherman, his theory about Hutchinson being out by a day has as much validity and is based on at least as much evidence as the claim that Hutchinson was the culprit.

No it doesn't.

You could characterise all Ripper theories as stories on that basis

No, you couldn't.

[Lechmere]

I think Sally you made my point.
A report says heavy rain showers, the Met Office says no heavy rain and no showers. Construct your theory (or story) with which version you prefer.
Same with how you wish to read Dew.
Same with which papers you wish to believe about the reliability of Hutchinson.
Same with whether you wish to believe the Lord Mayor's Day played on Hutchinson's mind.
Same with whether Lewis's wide awake man equals Hutchinson.
Same with whether you want to believe Hutchinson head about Lewis's testimoney
Etc etc etc
Theories that make stories.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
For many years now I have been somewhat applauded, by standing by my convictions on many topics, and I must admire you for your steadfast attitude, and good speed typing.
Bob Hinton initially introduced Hutchinson in a different light, and set the ball rolling for major doubts concerning this witness ie Hutchinson.
I have never felt suspicion about this gentleman, and feel he assisted the police to the best of his abilities, albeit I feel that certain parts of his statement might have been issued to the press deliberately, in an attempt to flush out the killer.
The police and the media, even today on several cases, have been known to follow that line.
The weather is irrelevant in my opinion, and although fair play Fish, for introducing it in connection with Hutchinsons account, I cant see how you can overturn the facts, the morning of the 9th still stands, dispite the weather.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

I think Sally you made my point.
A report says heavy rain showers, the Met Office says no heavy rain and no showers. Construct your theory (or story) with which version you prefer.
Same with how you wish to read Dew.
Same with which papers you wish to believe about the reliability of Hutchinson.
Same with whether you wish to believe the Lord Mayor's Day played on Hutchinson's mind.
Same with whether Lewis's wide awake man equals Hutchinson.
Same with whether you want to believe Hutchinson head about Lewis's testimoney
Etc etc etc
Theories that make stories.

Well, Lechmere, you certainly made my point for me (not really sure it works the other way around)

None of your examples above should ever be a question of what you 'wish' to believe. Every one ought to be judged on the evidence. That's how it works. Anybody stating that they know the answer without that evidence to underpin their claim does so at their peril.

A theory should not be constructed on 'which version you prefer'. That is patently ludicrous.

Unfortunately, that appears to be what has happened here.

The weather, of which much has been made, is, as Richard has just pointed out, irrelevant. It rained on the night of the 8th/9th. Not continuously. Hutchinson's honesty, or dishonesty, is thus unaffected by the weather. It is irrelevant.

The premise that Hutchinson forgot an entire day - one which had just gone by, mind you, not one recalled a year, five or ten in the future - is completely uncorroborated.

The notion that Dew said Hutchinson had missed a day is simply wrong.

There is no theory. There does appear to be a wish.

The absolute irony is that the one thing which might have lent support to the missed day 'theory' has been totally, utterly missed.

Hilarious.

[Ben]

Fisherman, again:

“And what happens? WHAT happens? Holy crap; we have George Hutchinson telling us that “They both then went up the court together. 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”

Why do you keep doing this? I’m so anxious to know what motivates you sometimes. Once again, you’re repeating an old argument that has already been challenged as though you are introducing it for the first time. “To the court” clearly refers to the area in front of the entrance to the Miller’s Court in Dorset Street – in this case, it referred specifically to somewhere that enabled Hutchinson and the loitering man to peer “up” the court. The area outside Crossingham’s most assuredly fits this bill. Hutchinson later stated to the press that he ventured “up the court” which differs from “to the court” insofar as it referred to entry inside the court itself.

The location described by Sarah Lewis, “opposite the lodging house”, would most assuredly fit the description “to the court”, especially for anyone who had arrived there from the south-eastern corner of Dorset Street, so there is no disparity as to the location of Hutchinson and the loitering man seen by Lewis. The descriptions could easily apply to the same location, but more importantly, the account of their behaviour as imparted by Lewis and Hutchinson is practically identical: both Hutchinson and the man seen by Lewis were “looking up the court” as though watching or waiting for someone to come out.

The most rational behaviour for anyone waiting as long as 45 minutes does not consist of being rooted to one spot like a constipated hippo, but rather of moving about somewhat, pacing up and down a bit, lighting a fag, whatever. Or, if he really wanted to row the boat out and do the unthinkable, he could even have made the perilous trek to the other side of the road, a few feet away. Reasonable people can and will accept this, which neatly account for why so many more people support the premise that Hutchinson was Lewis’ man than they do the different-date hypothesis.

When I hear people attempting to create some vast chasm between the northern and southern pavements of Dorset Street, it immediately rings warning bells for me, as I realise I’m arguing with the outrageously obstinate, the geographically ignorant, or some terrible combination of the two. There was a detailed discussion about this on the archived forums, and my understanding was that as little as eight feet separated the pavements. Either way, it’s clear that anywhere on Dorset Street that stood in front of the court and enabled a view up the passage very obviously qualifies as “to the court”.

“Oh no. We have no record of this at all - it is something you guess/conclude/offer/ say with no substantiation at all.”

Well, try to use some commonsense, rather than filibustering and posturing.

Think about, if Hutchinson had been waiting for Kelly and/or Astrakhan to emerge for 45 minutes with no success, why would he venture into the court itself? Logical deduction: he had grown bored of waiting and so investigated for himself. When he got there, he discovered no light and no noise – an obvious incentive to abort any more waiting around and depart the area. Or are you going to argue that it was more likely that Kelly was going to emerge with her customer despite the absence of light or noise? Gosh, I hope not. Logically, therefore, he intended meaning was that he left the corner of the court after entering it. Before that time, he could have been anywhere that met the criteria “to the court” which irrefutably encompassed the area outside Crossingham’s.

“It´s not me, Ben - it´s George Hutchinson speaking.”

Well, that’s reassuring!

If it’s Hutchinson speaking – that paragon of non-discredited virtue – anything he says must naturally be treated as gospel. Or you can join us on our planet.

Which introduces the elephant in the room; if Hutchinson lied in certain aspects of his account – as he can be demonstrated to have done beyond any reasonable doubt with “Mr. Astrakhan” at the barest minimum – why are we suddenly using him as an accurate barometer for precision of location?

“And there we are, Ben. You have been building your case on a picture that swears against the evidence!”

In your highly controversial opinion, which I reject as nonsense. And once again, you resort to triumphalist rhetoric that belies your credentials as a journalist.

“I can prove that he said”

Oh, terrific.

You can “prove” that someone “said” something.

Well done you.

Well, I can prove that Hutchinson made reference to the colour of his alleged suspect’s eyelashes and well as allegedly observing his gaters, linen colour, horseshoe tiepin and other items at the same time.

But can I prove it actually happened?

No.

You are vastly confused about what you’ve convinced yourself you can “prove” about the alleged – yes, it’s only alleged! – location of Hutchinson at the time in question, and the dogmatic conclusions you’ve drawn in that regard are eccentric to say the least. Thank goodness they will never, ever, enter mainstream thinking with regard to Hutchinson and Lewis’ loitering man.

I'm afraid we're seeing the Fisherman of two years ago.

[Lechmere]

Go on then, Sally, tell us.

My point by the way is that evidence – e.g. conflicting versions of how much it rained, or alternative interpretations of what someone said (e.g. Dew) and so on and so forth are used as appropriate to back up theories. Nearly every theory is constructed in this manner. Some are obviously more tenuous than others.
All credible alternative viewpoints or alternative explanations or readings of situations should be taken into account (e.g. the possibility that Hutchinson couldn’t give a damn about the Lord Mayor’s Show). We should also guard against theories that are not backed up by facts, becoming facts by default (e.g. that the Lord Mayor’s Show was the occasion of a public holiday – unless you can prove otherwise, or that wide-awake must equal Hutchinson.)

That is why I prefer bricks.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

“You say the press didn’t pick up on Lewis’s wide awake hat man and that it was passed over. OK. But at the same time you also claim that this tiny snip, from all the gory evidence presented at the inquest, sped its way to Hutchinson’s eager and guilty ears within moments of the Inquest concluding.”

Yes, because it would have assumed a very significant resonance for Hutchinson if he was the man seen by Lewis loitering outside the court, and was involved in her murder. Obviously, he couldn’t have known at that stage how much investigative focus would eventually be placed on the loitering man, but it would have been imprudent to chance the possibility that this detail would receive scant attention.

That is why I contend he came forward with a fictional account designed to legitimise his presence (as seen by Lewis) and used the Astrakhan man as a means of deflecting suspicion elsewhere. That way, the potential significance of the wideawake man would have taken a further backseat in the Astrak-hunt, and if any awkward questions were asked, Hutchinson had only to say, “Well, the loitering man must have been innocent, co-operative suspect-spotting me of course, as I would have been right there by own innocent account”. This phenomenon of real offenders coming forward with "I was there because..." voluntary "witness" statements that also incorporate a fictional suspect most assuredly has precedent.

“The press say Hutchinson was dismissed as he was not credible etc. Actually two papers did. Others continued to report him as a credible witness (as late at least as the 17th). You can pick which you like to fit your theory.”

No need to “pick” at all. Firstly, there was absolutely no need for two independent press sources to have come up, coincidentally, with the same fabrication that Hutchinson had been discredited, and secondly, the “discrediting” explanation is very consistent with subsequent police memoirs, reports and interviews from senior police officials.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Go on then, Sally, tell us.

Well, you know Lechmere, I would. Except that if I did it would only start yet another round of overconfident posturing and sweeping generalisations.

I don't want the responsibility.

My point by the way is that evidence – e.g. conflicting versions of how much it rained, or alternative interpretations of what someone said (e.g. Dew) and so on and so forth are used as appropriate to back up theories. Nearly every theory is constructed in this manner. Some are obviously more tenuous than others.

You're kidding me! And I could have sworn your point was that theory depended on whatever you fancied. Silly me.

All credible alternative viewpoints or alternative explanations or readings of situations should be taken into account (e.g. the possibility that Hutchinson couldn’t give a damn about the Lord Mayor’s Show).

Yawn. Once again, whether Hutchinson cared about the Show or not is not relevant. That he would have had difficulty in forgetting it, given the circumstances, is not.

We should also guard against theories that are not backed up by facts, becoming facts by default (e.g. that the Lord Mayor’s Show was the occasion of a public holiday – unless you can prove otherwise, or that wide-awake must equal Hutchinson

The Lord Mayor's Show was not an official public holiday as far as we know at present. To be honest, I don't think it matters very much. It is quite apparent that it was a big day in London by tradition. Your faith that Hutchinson wouldn't have given a damn about it appears to be based primarily on an assumption that only girls went to see it. Tut tut.

That is why I prefer bricks

Honestly, I can't say I blame you.

[Lechmere]

Come on - take the responsibility!

I don't, incidentally, have faith in Hutchinson not giving a damn about the Lord Mayor's Show (and as such it not having a bearing on his recall of dates, or of it being a public holiday and similarly having an impact on his recall of dates) - I merely put it forward as a credible alternative viewpoint.

[harry]

FishermanI am not introducing elements that were not there.Sarah Lewis only mentions one male present,and he opposite the court.Had Hutchinson stood in the court or at the entrance to the court,she would have had to brush by him,the court being so narrow.Therefore the'I stood there for about three quarters of an hour' can reasonably be accepted as covering both Hutchinson's and Lewis's account.The onus,if any,is on you to prove the presence of two males.
Taking it a bit further,Hutchinson also said he stood against the lamp of the Queens head public house.He does not say it was lit.Are we to take that literally,and argue about whether it was lit or not,or use a bit of common sense.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"although fair play Fish, for introducing it in connection with Hutchinsons account, I cant see how you can overturn the facts"

Nor can I, Richard! That is something none of us ccan do. But I fail to see what facts I have overturned, so I am going to need your help with that. If, for example, you mean that it is an established fact that George Hutchinson was in Dorset Street in the early morning hours of the 9:th, then I must say that it is no such thing. It IS a fact that he said so, yes - but that does not mean that it is a fact that he was correct on that score. If it was always a fact that people were correct on the dates, well, then we would not be having this discussion, would we? Nor would Walter Dew have suggested that this was what had happened, both to Mazwell and Hutchinson, for if people are never mistaken in these issues, we would be not be having this source of faults.
But I am not sure that this was the fact you mean I cannot overturn, so please tell me what it was, and we will see what I can do about it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Come on - take the responsibility!

I don't, incidentally, have faith in Hutchinson not giving a damn about the Lord Mayor's Show (and as such it not having a bearing on his recall of dates, or of it being a public holiday and similarly having an impact on his recall of dates) - I merely put it forward as a credible alternative viewpoint.

Yes, Lechmere, but the trouble is that it really isn't a 'credible alternative viewpoint'.

As an aside, Harry mentioning Hutchinson standing outside the Queen's Head Pub reminds me that he initially told the police it was the Ten Bells. Trouble with his memory, perhaps.