Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    Last edited by Fisherman; 01-22-2011, 09:59 AM.

    Comment


    • Harry:

      "FishermanI am not introducing elements that were not there."

      When you suggest that he may have walked about in the street, you are.

      "Sarah Lewis only mentions one male present,and he opposite the court."

      Yes, and Hutchinson claims he stood on the OTHER side. Deductions?

      "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."

      She would! And Hutchinson of course tells the Daily News that he saw three people as he waited, a lodger, a policeman and a woman, passing him by and entering ... No, wait a minute - he says nothing of any woman, but instead claims that he only saw TWO people...? Deductions, Harry, deductions!

      "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."

      Yes! If Hutch was there on the morning of the 9:th, he MUST have been the loiterer, regardless of the fact that he and Lewis placed the man on different sides of the street. In such a case, we MUST accept that Hutchinson at the stage of 2.30 had crossed the road to Crossinghams, and stood there as Lewis passed him by.
      But if Hutchinson was NOT there on the night in question - poof! - we have no reason at all to disregard the evidence, and nothing that urges us to say that he would have forgotten about both his intermittent vigil at Crossinghams and having Sarah Lewis pass him by.

      Deductions, deductions, deductions, Harry. Come on, which scenario tallies best with what Hutchinson tells us? It is a simple and straightforward question. And even if you can never accept that Hutchinson would have made a mistake on the days, surely you must realize that to those who allow for this, the whole story fits much, much better. No need to explain why he took to the streets walking in heavy rain and kept walking all night - because it was a DRY night! No need to explain why he remembered the cop and the lodger but NOT Lewis - as he stood there, 24 hours remained until she arrived! No need to start moving Hutch around in Dorset Street, ending up where he never told us he was - for he was there on the previous night! Does it not make you pause and wonder, Harry? Is it not uncanny how the bits and pieces all fit Dew´s suggestion, while they make for disatrous mismatchs with the Hutch-the-killer theory? One would have thought that one single thing of these could have gone that way, but no. Each and every call goes against it. For some - very funny - reason.

      The best,
      Fisherman
      Last edited by Fisherman; 01-22-2011, 09:58 AM.

      Comment


      • To all:

        I am taking a break from this exchange now, having said what I think needed to be said. I think that there is a huge risk that the same arguments will be thrown around, and I will not take part in that, at least not now. If I find something that needs to be tended to, I will do so, just as I will respond to new ideas and suggestions. Otherwise, I will refrain from it for a day or two.

        The best,
        Fisherman

        Comment


        • Dorset Street

          Dorset Street in 1902

          Click image for larger version

Name:	Dorset-street-1902.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	41.1 KB
ID:	661582

          It doesn't look as if it was very far from one side of the street to the other, to be fair. A person standing on one side of the street would have a clear view of a person standing opposite.

          Comment


          • Okay, Sally, I´ll bite since I have a minut to spare before heading for town.
            If we make the guess that the woman standing under the second lamp on the left side of the picture with her back to us was 150 centimetres, then the distance from wall to wall would have been about six metres. It is more or less exactly four times her height.
            We may of course quibble over centimetres, but my estimation will be roughly correct. The road in itself seems to be around 350 centimetres, equating roughly to some ten feet.

            The overall question here, though, is whether it can be said that standing on the southern side would somehow equate to standing on the northern side. Obviously it cannot.

            As a matter of fact, we can never say that standing on one side of the street equates standing on the other.

            I can´t believe we are discussing this, frankly.

            The best,
            Fisherman
            off for now

            Comment


            • Hi,
              This is just right off the top of my head, but lets assume Fish is right , and infact it was Thursday morning[8th]that he had encountered Kelly, and it was Thursday morning, that had him standing opposite, or at the court entrance, because of curiosity.
              I may be wrong but did not Mrs Harvey breakfast with Mary on the morning of the 8th, and spend most of the day with her?, which considering Kelly was entertaining a posh gent in the middle of the night, showed stamina on her part, to say the least.
              'Ok Maria, whats for breakfast?....
              Regards Richard.
              Wow this thread is getting heavy.

              Comment


              • I do not know what deductions are needed.At 2.30 am Lewis enters Millers Court.She sees only one person.Hutchinson claims to have been there from just after 2am untill about 3am.I do not have him walking about,just standing in two different places.What I do deduce is that'I stood there for about three quarters of an hour" to be a general description entered by the Sergeant who wrote the statement.Standing Where?In general the area adjacent Millers Court,and Hutchinson signs to that effect.Nothing dramatic or unusual.

                Comment


                • Kelly

                  Kelly is different from the other victims of the Ripper in that she was killed in her own private space. There are certain implications in that - not least in that we must be looking at a murder in which more planning was present - by default, this cannot have been a blitz attack - or at least, it is very unlikely. Entering another person's private space at random is not impossible - but less likely I feel than if he was either invited in on the night, or knew (of) the woman who lived there.

                  A relationship of some sort between Kelly and the Ripper should certainly not be ruled out. I am using the term 'relationship' in a very broad sense.

                  I do not believe that Kelly knew Hutchinson - I think he made that bit up, at least. However, there is no reason to suggest that he didn't know her - or of her, at least. Remember that he lived at the Victoria Home. It is quite likely that her old boyfriend, Joseph Flemming, who she apparently still saw, was also living there at the time.

                  Whilst there are certainly other scenarios for examination, the premise that Kelly had a stalker is quite plausible.

                  Unfortunately for the theory that Hutchinson was entirely innocent, he fits into the stalker scenario pretty well. I think that's one of the reasons that people find him suspicious.

                  Comment


                  • Market.

                    Go on then, Sally, tell us.
                    I have decided that Lechmere is right. Take note of this - it may not happen twice.

                    Wednesday was market day in Romford - that's all.

                    Comment


                    • Sally you are beginning to sound like one of those characters on ‘Ello ‘Ello.
                      (I was also right about the bricks being black - please take note and faint)

                      I am glad you seem to have taken cognisance of the various possibilities that I put forward – that Hutchinson may not have known Kelly or that he was a stalker etc (OK I know others may have said these things before – except perhaps that he didn’t know here for three years).

                      Was Wednesday the only market day in Romford in 1888?
                      It helps Fisherman’s theory a little bit in providing a plausible reason for Hutchinson going here. However if he walked at a constant pace, he must have set off at about 9.30 and it must have got dark at about 6 ish. The market would have been over long before. If you were writing a fictionalised version of Hutchinson’s movements you could credibly weave the market into the account but that is about it

                      It is my belief that Jack the Ripper went to where ever his targets took him. It is difficult to paint a scenario where he led them to the murder sites. I think he took it that where the site was suitable and discrete enough for a liaison with a prostitute, it was also suitable for murder. If he found it unsuitable or they were disturbed, then I am sure he would cancel if he had time (e.g. he didn’t have time to cancel with Stride).
                      So Kelly in the room was, for him I think, fortuitous. He took advantage of a situation that presented itself to him.

                      Incidentally I don’t think this makes him a disorganised killer. The level of organisation depends upon what resources are available. For example, if he was poor, he couldn’t provide his own space in which to commit the crimes.

                      Comment


                      • Lechmere

                        Wednesday was the market day in Romford from the 13th Century. Although other market days were added and subtracted in recent centuries, Wednesday remains the traditional market day in Romford still - granted by royal charter.

                        So yes, it was the market day in 1888.

                        Comment


                        • Harry:

                          "I do not know what deductions are needed.At 2.30 am Lewis enters Millers Court.She sees only one person.Hutchinson claims to have been there from just after 2am untill about 3am."

                          Harry, what you are saying is that since we know that Lewis´man stood at Crossinghams, and since we know that Hutch said that he stood on the other side, we can safely deduce that Hutch at some time crossed the street.

                          But we cannot do so. The trouble with your seemingly watertight suggestion is that you work from the presumption that Hutchinson was there on the morning of the 9:th, and therefore, he MUST have been the loiterer.
                          You need to free yourself from that prejudice before you can assess the material in a fair manner!

                          Now, make the assumption that Hutchinson was NOT there on that night. What happens? Well, to begin with, we suddenly understand why he did not tell the Daily News that he had seen Lewis - because she was not there that night. After that, we should realize that all th evidence we have about where he stood, tells us that he stood at the corner of Miller´s court throughout his vigil. He CHOSE THAT SPOT, and he did so for a reason: it offered the best surveillance possibilities. And when you have chosen the optimal spot to enable you to do something - in this case overlook the court - the why would you move away from it? Why would you cross the street, when it would make for a worse point of observation? That´s right, Harry - you would not.

                          Taken on it´s own, even if he had only said "I went to the court", I would say that this would have pointed very much to the corner of the court having been the chosen point of observation throughout. But as it stands, we have more to go on - Hutchinson very clearly tells us that he went there, and subsequentially stood there for the three quarters of an hour that his vigil lasted. Plus he says that when he left, he did so from the corner of the court!

                          After this we may throw forward any number of suggestions to support the belief that he may have stood at Crossinghams as Lewis passed by, but that will not take anything away from the combined facts that A/he clearly stated that he stayed at the court for them fortyfive minutes, and B/he would have opted for a point of observation that was inferior to the one at the corner of the court if he went to Crossinghams.
                          And Lewis´ loiterer is not something we may use to say that Hutch DID stand at Crossinghams. That is the whole point here, Harry, that they would have been different men. You cannot use Lewis testimony to bolster that Hutchinson was at Crossinghams! That is what has been done for many a year now, and it is totally unviable methodologically. It could apply under one circumstance and one circumstance only: If we accept that Lewis made her observation on the 9:th, if we accept that Hutchinson was there on the 9:th and if we assume that Hutchinson was truthful and correct about this.
                          If this applies, then we MUST accept that the two men were one and the same, and that Hutch MUST have stood at Crossinghams at 2.30.

                          But the second we open up for another solution, and one such solution is that Hutchinson was out on the days, we must look at things in a totally unbiased manner, and accept the evidence for what it is - a very strong implication that Hutchinson never was on the southern side of Dorset Street and that the logical deduction that follows from this is unavoidable: The two men were not one and the same.

                          The best,
                          Fisherman

                          Comment


                          • Sally you are beginning to sound like one of those characters on ‘Ello ‘Ello.
                            Eh? Is this supposed to mean something to me? What on earth are you wittering about now, Lechmere??

                            (I was also right about the bricks being black - please take note and faint)
                            Still baffled. I don't believe I ever said you were wrong. If you're rather childishly looking for a victory, I'm not sure there's one to have, there.

                            I am glad you seem to have taken cognisance of the various possibilities that I put forward – that Hutchinson may not have known Kelly or that he was a stalker etc (OK I know others may have said these things before – except perhaps that he didn’t know here for three years).
                            Please don't feel you have to take credit for my opinions, Lechmere. I can safely say that none of them have altered because of anything you've said so far.

                            Was Wednesday the only market day in Romford in 1888?
                            Yes. See above.

                            [It helps Fisherman’s theory a little bit in providing a plausible reason for Hutchinson going here. However if he walked at a constant pace, he must have set off at about 9.30 and it must have got dark at about 6 ish.
                            Apparently so, yes.

                            The market would have been over long before.
                            So it would. Fancy that.

                            If you were writing a fictionalised version of Hutchinson’s movements you could credibly weave the market into the account but that is about it
                            As you say, Lechmere, it's a plausible reason for Hutchinson to have visited Romford for the day on a Wednesday. But since he didn't do that to our knowledge - because he went on a Thursday, the point is moot.

                            It is my belief that Jack the Ripper went to where ever his targets took him. It is difficult to paint a scenario where he led them to the murder sites. I think he took it that where the site was suitable and discrete enough for a liaison with a prostitute, it was also suitable for murder. If he found it unsuitable or they were disturbed, then I am sure he would cancel if he had time (e.g. he didn’t have time to cancel with Stride).
                            I think it's pretty clear that the victims did the leading. I'm not sure many people would disagree with that. I don't subscribe to the 'disturbed' view regarding Stride.

                            So Kelly in the room was, for him I think, fortuitous. He took advantage of a situation that presented itself to him.
                            This is of course quite possible. However, I have reservations as to whether Kelly would have taken a stranger, who she did not know at all, back to her room in the circumstances. Blotchy may have been known to her, therefore. He may not have been her killer 0 we don't know. If it was not him, then Kelly either took another man back to her room later that night, let somebody in who she knew, or somebody let themselves in whilst she was asleep.

                            It is quite possible that Kelly was targetted. The hiatus between the Double Event and the Kelly murder allows time for change in the murderer's MO.

                            Incidentally I don’t think this makes him a disorganised killer. The level of organisation depends upon what resources are available. For example, if he was poor, he couldn’t provide his own space in which to commit the crimes
                            Not entirely. Although clearly if certain resources are not available to a killer, he can't use them.

                            Comment


                            • Good points there, Sally and Harry.

                              Harry, you are quite right. There has never been any compelling evidence that Hutchinson and Lewis’ loiterer were different people. Some have urged caution to avoid treating the match as fact, which is fair enough, but it’s not until this thread that is it has ever seriously been forward that the “inescapable conclusion” must be that they were different people. This, of course, is outlandish, and yet for certain people’s theories to work – such as the wrong-day hypothesis – it becomes necessary to downplay the commonsense deduction that Hutchinson was the man in the wideawake seen by Sarah Lewis.

                              Hutchinson almost certainly did not confuse the dates, because the indications against it are overwhelming.

                              He was almost certainly the man seen by Lewis because to conclude otherwise would necessitate a monster coincidence of timing and detail. Rejecting confused dates as outlandish, then, this coincidence would mean two men peering into the court at exactly the same time, for ostensibly for the same purpose of waiting for “someone to come out”. It would mean that one peeper was standing in the way of the other peeper’s view! It would make a humorous spectacle, but was unlikely to have reflected reality.

                              He almost certainly didn’t root himself fixatedly to one particular spot, but probably moved about a bit, assuming he really did wait there for as long as he claimed.

                              “To the court” means anywhere in front of Miller’s Court in Dorset Street that enabled people to look “up” the court, and this obviously encompassed the region in front of the entrance to Crossingham’s. Anyone who claims this offered any potential court-monitors a “worse point of observation” is simply not familiar with the geography of the area. He could not have viewed Kelly’s room whether he was at the archway or on the other side of Dorset Street.

                              Hutchinson’s reference to the “corner of the court” only appears because he claimed to have entered the court itself and waited outside Kelly’s room for a couple of minutes (suspiciously, no such claim appears in his police statement). Obviously if you’ve been inside the court, you can’t escape leaving it via the “corner” of Miller’s Court.

                              Hutchinson probably omitted any reference to Sarah Lewis deliberately to avoid making it obvious that it was her evidence that forced his hand.

                              The attempt to separate the wideawake man from Hutchinson is only a thinly veiled attempt to make Dew’s unusual idea about date-confusion seem less outlandish, and it isn’t working in my opinion.

                              Best regards,
                              Ben
                              Last edited by Ben; 01-23-2011, 08:07 PM.

                              Comment


                              • Fisherman,

                                I am incredibly surprised that you should claim, with what strikes me as no good reason, that the “inescapable” conclusion is that Lewis’ loiterer and George Hutchinson were different people. If you had submitted this idea as a possibility only, it would simply amount to an opinion with which I happen to disagree, and I’d have no problem, but the moment you try to mutate it into an “inescapable conclusion”, you have no right to be surprised when this is dismissed as being nothing of the sort.

                                “I can assure you that if you had written that I was right, that George Hutchinson never DID mention standing outside Crossinghams”
                                But surely you must understand that you can’t really argue that if only everyone had the sense to acknowledge that you’re right, there would be no need for further discussion? That’s why people are taking the trouble to discuss this matter with you – because they don’t think you are. Most people don’t think you’re right about Hutchinson mixing the days. Most people don’t think you’re right about Hutchinson not being the wideawake man.

                                Of course Hutchinson never specified that he was standing outside Crossingham’s, but then nor did he specify that he stood on the northern side of Commercial Street, which is what you attempted to assert as established fact in defiance of the evidence and an apparent lack of familiarity with the geography of the area. I have tried to assist your knowledge on the subject. Anywhere on Dorset Street that occupied the area in front of Miller’s Court most assuredly meets the criteria “to the court” from the perspective of someone who had arrived there from Commercial Street. This is an obvious commonsense deduction based on the width of the street that existed in 1888, and is startlingly apparent to anyone visiting the location today, which I did. It is misleading to draw a distinction between the “northern” and “southern” sides of Dorset Street as though it were a great distance, when it reality, we’re only speaking in terms in a matter of feet.

                                If someone made it his intention to move from Commercial Street to a position than enabled him to look up the court, then he had most assuredly moved “to the court”, regardless of whether he stood nearer the Miller’s Court archway or the lodging house on the other side of the road. “To the court” meant anywhere on Dorset Street in front of the court that wasn’t actually “in” or “up” the court, as I am prepared to reiterate many more times hereafter, if necessary. There is simply no evidence that Hutchinson must have stood in a trance for 45 minutes at the Miller’s Court arch.

                                The idea that Hutchinson – or anyone – should remain glued to one spot is something I cannot agree with, as I explained here: The most rational behaviour for anyone waiting as long as 45 minutes does not consist of being rooted to one spot, 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. It takes a strange, and vaguely sad individual not to accept this obvious reality, and conclude instead that “there”, must refer to a rooted-to-the-spot location that he could not possibly move away from.

                                “If you had admitted that the information we have points to Lewis´ loiterer and George Hutchinson standing on different sides of Dorset Street”
                                But why would I do that? It doesn’t remotely reflect my views on the subject – as you know full well – so why expect me to make a public claim that it does? Certainly, your professed belief that nobody can “challenge these three truths” seems to be sorely misplaced.

                                “You cook up sceneries where he chose leaning against Crossinghams to take the weight of his feet - something that is not in evidence.”
                                And what about walking all the way back from Romford just to pick up some belongings only to head out again to some far flung location where he spent several days in the company of horses, only learning of Kelly’s death when he arrived back in Petticoat Lane on Sunday. Is this “in evidence”? No. And yet you take issue with interpreting “to the court” as somewhere that absolutely and irrefutably lends itself to precisely that description – the area in Dorset Street in front of the court that encompassed the region in front of Crossinghams.

                                “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’re wrong about the first one. I never claimed his starting point was at Crossingham’s. I’ve merely used the “to the court” criterion, and since this refers to anywhere in front of the court on Dorset Street, I’m more than willing to accept that he could have been anywhere within that small circumscribed area, as opposed to being rooted like a statue at one location for 45 minutes. As for the second, yes, I would stand by that as the most logical inference from his claims. He waited around the entrance to the court (not glued to the archway, but more likely, pacing about a bit), before venturing into the court itself. After detecting no noise and no light, off he claimed to have gone, hence his reference to leaving the “corner of Miller’s Court” at 3.00am. Venturing into the court was simply the last thing he did.

                                “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”
                                This is simply untrue. I’m going precisely by the material we have. I’m simply refusing to be as unrealistic and dogmatic about it, and an assumption that a 45-minute “wait” in the cold meant super-gluing your feet to one spot without considering any possibility for moving about a bit is both unrealistic and dogmatic. I have no hesitation as dismissing yours as a ludicrously restrictive interpretation of the evidence.

                                “Would you agree, Ben that choosing the quote “opposite the lodging house” to place Sarah Lewis man is not the best of choices?”
                                Look again at my previous posts Fisherman, and observe that I was the first to mention publicly that Lewis’ account mentioned that the loiterer was observed to be near the lodging house at the time of the Lewis sighting. This was something never contradicted by me, since it has been observed by at least one author that “opposite” often meant “adjacent to” in those days.

                                “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!”
                                Yes, let’s, and we’re still confronted with the reality that both Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson were alleged to have been looking up the court (identical wording) as though watching or waiting for someone to come. You advance a rather unconvincing argument in an effort to dampen this coincidence by suggesting that Lewis only thought her loiterer was “watching or waiting for someone”, but actually wasn’t.

                                I have considerable trouble with this suggestion.

                                So when Lewis only thought that the man she saw loitering opposite the court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder was watching or “waiting for someone to come out” some real person actually was? Her confused misreading of the lodger’s reason for hovering there just happened to coincide accidentally with Hutchinson’s reasons for waiting opposite the court at 2:30, watching or “waiting for someone to come out”.

                                This explanation belies the term “coincidence”.

                                It is startlingly obvious that something about the loiterer’s behaviour conveyed the impression that he was preoccupied with the court. He clearly looked as though he was watching or waiting for someone, and there are clear and easy ways to communicate this interest with your body language. Similarly, if he wasn’t interested in the court, then anyone standing outside Crossingham’s (a few feet away) could have made this perfectly obvious too. You’re quite right that there would have been “other points to gaze on” but as far as Lewis was concerned, the loiterer’s preoccupation was with the entrance to Miller’s Court. Hutchinson later claimed to have been at the same – yes, the same – location at the same time, with the same preoccupation.

                                Coincidence? No way.

                                “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”.”
                                He doesn’t “miss it out”. Missing something out implies overlooking something. I don’t think that applies in Sudgen’s case. A more likely explanation is that he knew of Dew’s explanation, and thought it so unlikely that it didn’t even deserve a mention in the list of possibilities for Hutchinson’s behaviour. You’ll notice, of course, that Sugden is of the opinion that Lewis’ man was probably Hutchinson, so in that respect, I very much agree that he’s a wise man.

                                “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”
                                No, nobody gives this any credence whatsoever, because it means we embrace implausible coincidence. I disagree with you very strongly when you draw unwarranted attention to different sides of a narrow street as though it means something, and only you that’s using this as a means of separating wideawake from Hutchinson. It is considerably more likely that Hutchinson’s description of his location is perfectly compatible with Lewis’ description of her loiterer, and this explanation had been accepted as a probable one for years. I rather suspect that you may be arguing otherwise in an effort to endorse Dew’s seldom-considered-valuable opinion that Hutchinson was an honestly mistaken witness.

                                “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.”
                                From which we conclude what?

                                That he remained rooted with his feet to one particular location that you’ve decided upon with no evidence for the whole 45 minutes? This is only because you’ve decided that your definition of “to the court” must be the correct once, despite knowing full well that this has been extensively challenged.

                                “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.”
                                But the fact that Sarah Lewis described someone in the very near vicinity engaging in exactly the same behaviour as reported by Hutchinson should certainly enable the conclusion that he moved from the Miller’s Court arch, if he even went there initially, which is not admitted by the evidence. I’m surprised that you invest any significance in his moving away from the court as though it hampered his ability to peer into it, which it most emphatically did not.

                                “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.”
                                Not to me, not remotely. Yes, I’m really really determined to let the evidence govern my judgement with regard to Hutchinson’s probable actions and movements, which is why I have no problem whatsoever placing him outside Crossingham’s, and which is why I have even less trouble dismissing the “wrong day” hypothesis as incredibly unlikely. A very great number of researchers and enthusiasts have been analyzing Hutchinson and Lewis for several decades now, and it seems most have come to the conclusion that Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson were probably the same individual, whether he murdered anybody or not. You’ve already brought up Philip Sugden, and he happens to be an historian who subscribes to the view that Hutchinson and the wideawake man were probably one and the same.

                                “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.”
                                No. Not because he said so, but because Sarah Lewis described a man loitering opposite the court apparently waiting for someone to come out at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder, and because Hutchinson came forward after the inquest (very soon after it closed) and claimed to have done precisely that, a logical deduction would be that Hutchinson recognised himself in a witness account and came forward with an account designed to explain his presence. This doesn’t make us “sure” he was there, but it does increase the probability, since the explanation that he “ used” her account despite not being there carries the problems I recently outlined to Observer.

                                “Why would he be truthful about this one detail, but not about the others?”
                                But that’s what liars do, Fisherman. They stick the truth as much as possible unless it’s central to the lie. Soham murderer Ian Huntley DID know the girls, DID recognise their clothes and DID drive a dirty red Ford Fiesta, but his role in the events surrounding the death of the girls wasn’t the innocent one he tried to paint when attempting to pass himself off as a helpful informer.

                                “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.”
                                But then Hutchinson was discredited, so that “impression of truthfulness” cannot have lasted very long.

                                “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?”
                                But he didn’t, in my opinion. Why don’t you read what I’m posting? I don’t think for one moment that Hutchinson and Lewis’ loiterer were on other side of the streets, as I’ve argued extensively already. I really think we might be going round in unnecessary circles over this issue now. I think we should agree to disagree over the location of Hutchinson/wideawake.

                                “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.
                                I disagree, and regardless of what you think you’ve told me, I’m still firmly of the opinion that your theory is controversial, considerably more so than the suggestion that he may have been the murderer (which, rightly or wrongly, has at least proved more popular). For my part, I have no difficulty understanding with Dew’s “muddled date” premise has not been revived for decades despite the material being accessible to all.

                                “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.”
                                I don’t think he lied about where he stood. I think he lied about why he stood there. I’m not making dogmatic assertions as to exactly which spot he must have been glued to, and then basing this on an overly rigid and difficult-to-justify interpretation of the evidence. There’s nothing in Hutchinson’s claims that would pinpoint his liar as “stupid” either, less still “the stupidest”.

                                Best regards,
                                Ben
                                Last edited by Ben; 01-24-2011, 12:09 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X