Tweet
Ben:
"Once again, you’re repeating an old argument that has already been challenged as though you are introducing it for the first time."
That is, Ben, because you are calling my argumentation "awful, ghastly dreadful nonsense". I can assure you that if you had written that I was right, that George Hutchinson never DID mention standing outside Crossinghams, I would not have had any interest in any further pointing out of this. If you had written that yes, the written evidence we have all seems to point to one place and one place only when looking for an answer to the question where George Hutchinson stood, and that place was at the entrance of the court, I would not have had any interest in any further pointing out of this. If you had admitted that the information we have points to Lewis´ loiterer and George Hutchinson standing on different sides of Dorset Street, I would not have had any interest in any further pointing out of this.
But although there is no way you can challenge these three truths without the introduction of elements constructed on your own, that are not evidenced in any shape or form in either police report or papers, you do not admit any of these things! Will you do so now?
You say that the street was so incredibly small and tiny that standing on the northern side equates standing on the southern side. To you, it is a difference of a few feet (not even yards, but feet - it´s a wonder you didn´t opt for inches!). You cook up sceneries where he chose leaning against Crossinghams to take the weight of his feet - something that is not in evidence. You claim that Hutchinsons walk into the court had it´s starting point at Crossinghams, and that this explains why he says he left the Corner of Miller´s Court as he left - something that is not in evidence. You say that this walk up the court would have been the last thing he did before he left - but that is equally unsubstantiated by the evidence and in no way the only logical explanation. You say that a man that have walked the pavement on the southern side of the street will be at the court as he stops at Crossinghams - but the evidence tells us that he went to the court and not to Crossinghams.
These, among other tings, are why I point to things I have already said: they did not come across. You present alternative solutions, constructed on your own, totally and utterly absent in the material we have, and you suggest that we replace the evidence with it, allowing for an "interpretation" of things that tells us that claiming that Hutchinson was never on the southern side of Dorset Street is "awful, ghastly dreadful nonsense". Just like that: “awful, ghastly dreadful nonsense”!
Well, Ben, it is not as if I cannot see why you think the evidence awful and ghastly, but please allow the ones who actually prefer the evidence to your version of things carry on with our business without being painted out as abominable because of it!
“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.”
…and there we go again, cherrypicking the most useful wording. Yes “opposite the lodging-house” would fit very well with Hutchinson´s statement. Because that would place the loiterer on the northern side of Dorset Street, where we know Hutchinson stood.
But I think it would be a lot more exciting to look at how it is worded in for example “The ultimate Jack the Ripper”, quoting the inquest:
“When I went in the Court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House”, or, if you prefer the wording from the police report: “there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street”
Would you agree, Ben that choosing the quote “opposite the lodging house” to place Sarah Lewis man is not the best of choices? Would you agree that it is in all probability a muddled version of where the loiterer stood? Would you agree that it is in all probability quite wrong to place him “opposite the lodging house” – since he was actually standing AT the lodging house, and perhaps even against it per all the other sources than the one you chose?
Can we agree that Sarah Lewis´loiterer was, by all accounts, standing at the door of Crossingham´s lodging house, and thus on the southern side of Dorset Street. Or are you having any doubts at all that this was where Lewis placed him?
“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.”
Aha. Now THIS parameter is more important than the factual stance of the two men. I hae been waiting for it, actually. Okay! Let´s have a look at it, then!
We know for certain that George Hutchinson went to the court and looked up it to see if he could spot the couple. If we may trust his story, this was what he did and why he did it.
But what about the loiterer?
He was standing at the door of Crossinghams, some yards away from that court entrance. As Lewis passed him by, she thought that he was looking up the court, as if he was waiting for somebody.
How, Ben, do we look when we are waiting for somebody? How can people passing us in the street tell that this is our sole intention? Do our eyes turn bright orange? No. Do we signal it in morse with our arms? No. Do we chant “waiting, waiting, waiting” in a low persistent voice? No.
The fact of the matter, Ben, is that when a person says of another person that they look up a court as if they are waiting, then that is something the observing party INTERPRETS into what she is seeing. Would you agree on this, or do you think that there was something special in the way the man used his glance that convinced Lewis that he was in the waiting business?
Next up: What did Lewis do to realize that the loiterer was looking up the Court? Exactamente – she turned her head to the left. She was walking through Dorset Street from east to west, she had the intention of turning right into Miller´s Court and therefore a man standing at the door of Crossinghams lodging house would have been standing to her left. Therefore, we may safely conclude that she looked to her left and saw the man looking over the street, in the general direction of the court.
But exactly how sure can we be that he was looking down the court archway? How do we know that he was not studying McCarthys shop, adjacent to the archway? Could Sarah Lewis measure the exact angle of the man´s glance? I think not. He MAY have looked up the court, and he may not.
So you see, Ben, trying to establish that he did look up the court as if waiting for somebody is something we cannot be very sure that he did at all. It is an interpretation of Lewis, and as such I am sure that it was her impression. But how much can we rely on this to be the only credible version of it? How much does Lewis´ suggestion that he seemed to wait for somebody really ensure that he actually did? How certain can we be that the loiterer gazed up the court passage? The opening in the wall was a very small one, and there were other points of interest to fix your gaze on the fewest of feet to it´s side.
And just how strong is the combined indicator of the two men, when they were on different sides of the street, and when we cannot establish where the man looked and what he looked for? Tell me!
I noticed on reading Sugden yesterday that he writes: “The man in the black wideawake hat, whom Sarah saw about 2.30 looking up Millers Court as if waiting for someone to come out”, was probably Hutchinson since by his account he stood outside the court from about 2.15 to 3.00”.
Sugden is a great read, and he is a very wise man, I think, judging most of the material in a fair manner. And in this instance, it is easy to see his reasoning. He says that Hutchinson may have been a liar, and that leaves him, unfortunately, with just the three classical options:
1.Hutchinson was a liar, he was not there, and Sarah Lewis´man was somebody else than him.
2. Hutchinson was a liar AND the killer, he was there, and he MUST have been the man Lewis saw.
2. Hutchinson was no liar or killer, he told the truth, and therefore Hutchinson MUST have been the man Lewis saw.
The problem with this is of course that he misses out on opportunity 4! “Hutchinson was NOT a liar, he was there – but not on the night he thought he was there. He was honestly mistaken, and the man Lewis saw was somebody else”.
You will notice that in version 2 and 3 we are not left with any possibility to tell the two men apart. If they applied, we either accept that there were TWO men there, each on his own side of the street, and Sarah Lewis only sees one of them, missing the one standing at the corner of the court. That makes no sense, of course, and so in these two instances everybody will look away from the implications of where the two men were said to have been standing, since they MUST have been one and the same. The evidence is suppressed in favour of the only logical solution, and that is how it should be.
But what happens when we do not NEED to suppress the evidence? When we realize that Hutchinson may have been out on the dates? Well, then we suddenly deal with a situation where the evidence very much goes to strengthen my suggestion. And that is how I mean we must treat it. Just because we thought it okay to throw the evidence overboard because since two men present at the same time was an impossibility, it is nothing of the sort to do so when we embrace the suggestion of a day missed. And Sugden HAS picked up on where Hutchinson was: “he stood about the entrance of Miller´s Court for about forty-five minutes” is how he words it. That was where he stood, and not at Crossinghams. Sugden knows this full well.
“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. Reasonable people can and will accept this”
Correct, on the whole.
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.”
A number of YARDS away, Ben. And yes, just as he may have run twenty brisk yards up the street or performed acrobatics in the archway, he MAY have done so. But the fact of the matter is that he does not say that he DID. He says that he stood at the entrance of the court for fortyfive minutes. And “reasonable people” will not necessarily draw the conclusion that the best way to warm yourself up or take the pressure of your aching feet is to try and find a lodginghouse door. “Reasonable people” will notice that he said that he stood at the court for fortyfive minutes. After that they will draw the conclusion that as he said he stood at the court for 45 minutes, then whatever exercises he performed to get warm or to rest, were undertaken THERE - at the court. He may have leaned against the archway corner, allowing him to look up the court, he may have exercised mildy on the pavement, allowing himself to look up the court. There is no need at all to cross the road to Crossinghams to take care of this, taking him further away from the court he wished to watch. None whatsoever. Therefore, what he says he did is what I think we need to accept he did: he stood at the court for 45 minutes, and when he left, he did so from the corner of the court.
I know that you can throw forward suggestions that cover the problem, Ben. But they remain suggestions, nothing else. The hard facts are against you, and if you are really, really determined to let the evidence rule what you think of Hutchinson, it beggars belief to go with convictions instead of with evidence. It spells disaster to me, I must say.
“There was a detailed discussion about this on the archived forums, and my understanding was that as little as eight feet separated the pavements.”
Look at the pictures of Dorset Street on the boards, Ben. That would be the longest eight feet in the world! And in reality it means nothing – the pavements do not enter an interchangeable stage as longs as there is a road inbetween them. But it would be interesting at any rate if you could fix the width of Dorset Street. To my eye, from facade to façade, we may be looking at five to six, seven yards. But don´t make that any main issue, for it is not and it will never be. And I don´t want to spend endless posts quibbling over inches.
My wording:
“
“It´s not me, Ben - it´s George Hutchinson speaking.”
Your wording: “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.”
Aha! We have suddenly established that Hutchinson was a liar, and therefore we need not care about him stating that he stood at the court! But we MUST believe that he was in Dorset Street on that morning, because, ehrm … well, because he said so.
This is strange!
According to you, he got wind of the inquest, and chose to use Lewis statement. But how does that make us sure that he was there, if he was a liar? He could have cooked it all up, could he not? So if we are to treat his testimony like potential lies, why not skip him from the outset? Why would he be truthful about this one detail, but not about the others? No, Ben, Abberline is the man we need to listen to, HE was the one who interrogated and subsequentially judged Hutch, and he got an impression of truthfulness. Plus, of course, if Hutch REALLY had heard Lewis say that the loiterer stood against Crossinghams lodging house, or at least heard about it, then why in the whole world would he be stupid enough to opt for THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET when trying to put on the loiterer´s suit?
Was he, once again, just a terrible, terrrible liar?
Do you agree that it would have made more sense on his account to claim that he stood at the lodginghouse? Do you agree that he would have done so if the material was at hand for him? Or do you think that he just did not want to seem to self-secure…?
Related to this:
“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?”
That is YOUR elephant. It´s not mine, and it was certainly not Abberlines when he sent the description out to the police stations. Nor does Dew reflect on him as a witness. I stedfastly claim that he may – and probably was – an honest man. But mistaken on the dates.
“In your highly controversial opinion, which I reject as nonsense.”
There is nothing controversial in it at all. It is a lot less controversial than any suggestion that he was the killer, I can tell you that much. Mine is a new suggestion, yes, but there are no controversial elements involved in it at all.
“And once again, you resort to triumphalist rhetoric”
Do I? I guess I could have, but I really don´t think I do. I point out that the evidence we are looking at detracts from the wiew that Hutch was the loiterer, and that it fits my suggestion in a very onvious way. But that´s not triumphalist rhetorics, that´s the simple truth.
“Oh, terrific.
You can “prove” that someone “said” something.
Well done you.”
There´s really nothing much to it, Ben. You could manage it yourself.
“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.”
Yes. And so can I! Well done us!
“But can I prove it actually happened?
No.”
Oh, I see! You mean that he cooked up Astrakhan man, and that it therefore follows that he also cooked up standing at the court! Well, a cooked up killer is an interesting suggestion, and as such, if we work from the assumption that Hutch WAS a killer who wanted to blame the Jews, we can all see the ploy he was trying at.
But if he was the killer, and lied about standing at the court, I really cannot see what sinister aim he would have had for doing so. You see, it does not equate. We may, using your lofty assumption that he was a killer, recognize an intelligent (well…) move on his behalf when he deflects the guilt and places it on the shoulders of the Jews. But if he lied about where he stood, I fail to see what the use would have been. The only effect it could have had was to tell Abberline that he was either the stupidest liar he had come across or that he was not there on the night. And thinking about it, that effect is not half bad. Or to be more to the point, it is EXACTLY half bad.
The best,
Fisherman
"Once again, you’re repeating an old argument that has already been challenged as though you are introducing it for the first time."
That is, Ben, because you are calling my argumentation "awful, ghastly dreadful nonsense". I can assure you that if you had written that I was right, that George Hutchinson never DID mention standing outside Crossinghams, I would not have had any interest in any further pointing out of this. If you had written that yes, the written evidence we have all seems to point to one place and one place only when looking for an answer to the question where George Hutchinson stood, and that place was at the entrance of the court, I would not have had any interest in any further pointing out of this. If you had admitted that the information we have points to Lewis´ loiterer and George Hutchinson standing on different sides of Dorset Street, I would not have had any interest in any further pointing out of this.
But although there is no way you can challenge these three truths without the introduction of elements constructed on your own, that are not evidenced in any shape or form in either police report or papers, you do not admit any of these things! Will you do so now?
You say that the street was so incredibly small and tiny that standing on the northern side equates standing on the southern side. To you, it is a difference of a few feet (not even yards, but feet - it´s a wonder you didn´t opt for inches!). You cook up sceneries where he chose leaning against Crossinghams to take the weight of his feet - something that is not in evidence. You claim that Hutchinsons walk into the court had it´s starting point at Crossinghams, and that this explains why he says he left the Corner of Miller´s Court as he left - something that is not in evidence. You say that this walk up the court would have been the last thing he did before he left - but that is equally unsubstantiated by the evidence and in no way the only logical explanation. You say that a man that have walked the pavement on the southern side of the street will be at the court as he stops at Crossinghams - but the evidence tells us that he went to the court and not to Crossinghams.
These, among other tings, are why I point to things I have already said: they did not come across. You present alternative solutions, constructed on your own, totally and utterly absent in the material we have, and you suggest that we replace the evidence with it, allowing for an "interpretation" of things that tells us that claiming that Hutchinson was never on the southern side of Dorset Street is "awful, ghastly dreadful nonsense". Just like that: “awful, ghastly dreadful nonsense”!
Well, Ben, it is not as if I cannot see why you think the evidence awful and ghastly, but please allow the ones who actually prefer the evidence to your version of things carry on with our business without being painted out as abominable because of it!
“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.”
…and there we go again, cherrypicking the most useful wording. Yes “opposite the lodging-house” would fit very well with Hutchinson´s statement. Because that would place the loiterer on the northern side of Dorset Street, where we know Hutchinson stood.
But I think it would be a lot more exciting to look at how it is worded in for example “The ultimate Jack the Ripper”, quoting the inquest:
“When I went in the Court I saw a man opposite the Court in Dorset Street standing alone by the Lodging House”, or, if you prefer the wording from the police report: “there was a man standing over against the lodging house on the opposite side in Dorset Street”
Would you agree, Ben that choosing the quote “opposite the lodging house” to place Sarah Lewis man is not the best of choices? Would you agree that it is in all probability a muddled version of where the loiterer stood? Would you agree that it is in all probability quite wrong to place him “opposite the lodging house” – since he was actually standing AT the lodging house, and perhaps even against it per all the other sources than the one you chose?
Can we agree that Sarah Lewis´loiterer was, by all accounts, standing at the door of Crossingham´s lodging house, and thus on the southern side of Dorset Street. Or are you having any doubts at all that this was where Lewis placed him?
“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.”
Aha. Now THIS parameter is more important than the factual stance of the two men. I hae been waiting for it, actually. Okay! Let´s have a look at it, then!
We know for certain that George Hutchinson went to the court and looked up it to see if he could spot the couple. If we may trust his story, this was what he did and why he did it.
But what about the loiterer?
He was standing at the door of Crossinghams, some yards away from that court entrance. As Lewis passed him by, she thought that he was looking up the court, as if he was waiting for somebody.
How, Ben, do we look when we are waiting for somebody? How can people passing us in the street tell that this is our sole intention? Do our eyes turn bright orange? No. Do we signal it in morse with our arms? No. Do we chant “waiting, waiting, waiting” in a low persistent voice? No.
The fact of the matter, Ben, is that when a person says of another person that they look up a court as if they are waiting, then that is something the observing party INTERPRETS into what she is seeing. Would you agree on this, or do you think that there was something special in the way the man used his glance that convinced Lewis that he was in the waiting business?
Next up: What did Lewis do to realize that the loiterer was looking up the Court? Exactamente – she turned her head to the left. She was walking through Dorset Street from east to west, she had the intention of turning right into Miller´s Court and therefore a man standing at the door of Crossinghams lodging house would have been standing to her left. Therefore, we may safely conclude that she looked to her left and saw the man looking over the street, in the general direction of the court.
But exactly how sure can we be that he was looking down the court archway? How do we know that he was not studying McCarthys shop, adjacent to the archway? Could Sarah Lewis measure the exact angle of the man´s glance? I think not. He MAY have looked up the court, and he may not.
So you see, Ben, trying to establish that he did look up the court as if waiting for somebody is something we cannot be very sure that he did at all. It is an interpretation of Lewis, and as such I am sure that it was her impression. But how much can we rely on this to be the only credible version of it? How much does Lewis´ suggestion that he seemed to wait for somebody really ensure that he actually did? How certain can we be that the loiterer gazed up the court passage? The opening in the wall was a very small one, and there were other points of interest to fix your gaze on the fewest of feet to it´s side.
And just how strong is the combined indicator of the two men, when they were on different sides of the street, and when we cannot establish where the man looked and what he looked for? Tell me!
I noticed on reading Sugden yesterday that he writes: “The man in the black wideawake hat, whom Sarah saw about 2.30 looking up Millers Court as if waiting for someone to come out”, was probably Hutchinson since by his account he stood outside the court from about 2.15 to 3.00”.
Sugden is a great read, and he is a very wise man, I think, judging most of the material in a fair manner. And in this instance, it is easy to see his reasoning. He says that Hutchinson may have been a liar, and that leaves him, unfortunately, with just the three classical options:
1.Hutchinson was a liar, he was not there, and Sarah Lewis´man was somebody else than him.
2. Hutchinson was a liar AND the killer, he was there, and he MUST have been the man Lewis saw.
2. Hutchinson was no liar or killer, he told the truth, and therefore Hutchinson MUST have been the man Lewis saw.
The problem with this is of course that he misses out on opportunity 4! “Hutchinson was NOT a liar, he was there – but not on the night he thought he was there. He was honestly mistaken, and the man Lewis saw was somebody else”.
You will notice that in version 2 and 3 we are not left with any possibility to tell the two men apart. If they applied, we either accept that there were TWO men there, each on his own side of the street, and Sarah Lewis only sees one of them, missing the one standing at the corner of the court. That makes no sense, of course, and so in these two instances everybody will look away from the implications of where the two men were said to have been standing, since they MUST have been one and the same. The evidence is suppressed in favour of the only logical solution, and that is how it should be.
But what happens when we do not NEED to suppress the evidence? When we realize that Hutchinson may have been out on the dates? Well, then we suddenly deal with a situation where the evidence very much goes to strengthen my suggestion. And that is how I mean we must treat it. Just because we thought it okay to throw the evidence overboard because since two men present at the same time was an impossibility, it is nothing of the sort to do so when we embrace the suggestion of a day missed. And Sugden HAS picked up on where Hutchinson was: “he stood about the entrance of Miller´s Court for about forty-five minutes” is how he words it. That was where he stood, and not at Crossinghams. Sugden knows this full well.
“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. Reasonable people can and will accept this”
Correct, on the whole.
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.”
A number of YARDS away, Ben. And yes, just as he may have run twenty brisk yards up the street or performed acrobatics in the archway, he MAY have done so. But the fact of the matter is that he does not say that he DID. He says that he stood at the entrance of the court for fortyfive minutes. And “reasonable people” will not necessarily draw the conclusion that the best way to warm yourself up or take the pressure of your aching feet is to try and find a lodginghouse door. “Reasonable people” will notice that he said that he stood at the court for fortyfive minutes. After that they will draw the conclusion that as he said he stood at the court for 45 minutes, then whatever exercises he performed to get warm or to rest, were undertaken THERE - at the court. He may have leaned against the archway corner, allowing him to look up the court, he may have exercised mildy on the pavement, allowing himself to look up the court. There is no need at all to cross the road to Crossinghams to take care of this, taking him further away from the court he wished to watch. None whatsoever. Therefore, what he says he did is what I think we need to accept he did: he stood at the court for 45 minutes, and when he left, he did so from the corner of the court.
I know that you can throw forward suggestions that cover the problem, Ben. But they remain suggestions, nothing else. The hard facts are against you, and if you are really, really determined to let the evidence rule what you think of Hutchinson, it beggars belief to go with convictions instead of with evidence. It spells disaster to me, I must say.
“There was a detailed discussion about this on the archived forums, and my understanding was that as little as eight feet separated the pavements.”
Look at the pictures of Dorset Street on the boards, Ben. That would be the longest eight feet in the world! And in reality it means nothing – the pavements do not enter an interchangeable stage as longs as there is a road inbetween them. But it would be interesting at any rate if you could fix the width of Dorset Street. To my eye, from facade to façade, we may be looking at five to six, seven yards. But don´t make that any main issue, for it is not and it will never be. And I don´t want to spend endless posts quibbling over inches.
My wording:
“
“It´s not me, Ben - it´s George Hutchinson speaking.”
Your wording: “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.”
Aha! We have suddenly established that Hutchinson was a liar, and therefore we need not care about him stating that he stood at the court! But we MUST believe that he was in Dorset Street on that morning, because, ehrm … well, because he said so.
This is strange!
According to you, he got wind of the inquest, and chose to use Lewis statement. But how does that make us sure that he was there, if he was a liar? He could have cooked it all up, could he not? So if we are to treat his testimony like potential lies, why not skip him from the outset? Why would he be truthful about this one detail, but not about the others? No, Ben, Abberline is the man we need to listen to, HE was the one who interrogated and subsequentially judged Hutch, and he got an impression of truthfulness. Plus, of course, if Hutch REALLY had heard Lewis say that the loiterer stood against Crossinghams lodging house, or at least heard about it, then why in the whole world would he be stupid enough to opt for THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET when trying to put on the loiterer´s suit?
Was he, once again, just a terrible, terrrible liar?
Do you agree that it would have made more sense on his account to claim that he stood at the lodginghouse? Do you agree that he would have done so if the material was at hand for him? Or do you think that he just did not want to seem to self-secure…?
Related to this:
“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?”
That is YOUR elephant. It´s not mine, and it was certainly not Abberlines when he sent the description out to the police stations. Nor does Dew reflect on him as a witness. I stedfastly claim that he may – and probably was – an honest man. But mistaken on the dates.
“In your highly controversial opinion, which I reject as nonsense.”
There is nothing controversial in it at all. It is a lot less controversial than any suggestion that he was the killer, I can tell you that much. Mine is a new suggestion, yes, but there are no controversial elements involved in it at all.
“And once again, you resort to triumphalist rhetoric”
Do I? I guess I could have, but I really don´t think I do. I point out that the evidence we are looking at detracts from the wiew that Hutch was the loiterer, and that it fits my suggestion in a very onvious way. But that´s not triumphalist rhetorics, that´s the simple truth.
“Oh, terrific.
You can “prove” that someone “said” something.
Well done you.”
There´s really nothing much to it, Ben. You could manage it yourself.
“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.”
Yes. And so can I! Well done us!
“But can I prove it actually happened?
No.”
Oh, I see! You mean that he cooked up Astrakhan man, and that it therefore follows that he also cooked up standing at the court! Well, a cooked up killer is an interesting suggestion, and as such, if we work from the assumption that Hutch WAS a killer who wanted to blame the Jews, we can all see the ploy he was trying at.
But if he was the killer, and lied about standing at the court, I really cannot see what sinister aim he would have had for doing so. You see, it does not equate. We may, using your lofty assumption that he was a killer, recognize an intelligent (well…) move on his behalf when he deflects the guilt and places it on the shoulders of the Jews. But if he lied about where he stood, I fail to see what the use would have been. The only effect it could have had was to tell Abberline that he was either the stupidest liar he had come across or that he was not there on the night. And thinking about it, that effect is not half bad. Or to be more to the point, it is EXACTLY half bad.
The best,
Fisherman
Comment