Gosh, people are still up for this Dorset Street red hanky-panky business, aren’t they? Extraordinary.
A “loud” voice, Fisherman, according to the press versions of Hutchinson’s account. Interestingly, this “loud voice” observation did not appear in his original police statement, which suggests very strongly that he added this “loudness” to make his account seem less implausible. Clearly it didn’t work, and his statement was still discredited.
No, this is very outlandish, Fisherman. All Hutchinson needed to realise was that normal conversation would not have travelled from the entrance to Miller’s Court to the corner of Dorset Street. I’m suggesting he lied about it in a transparent effort to incorporate Lawende’s evidence into his account, that he forgot to consider the sound-related and geography-related shortcomings associated with the lie, and that he accordingly added variants when speaking to the press, “tidying up” his earlier claims, in effect.
No, you did it wrong. Or perhaps the ones you spoke to were "just lousy listeners".
No, probably not, Fisherman. Dew’s unpopular theories have been known about for decades by serious researchers. They’ve simply been rejected by them, that’s all, and the image of Hutchinson as a honesty mistaken befuddler of times a dates is a classic example of this. The theory has been around since 1938, and nobody has considered reviving it until a few weeks ago when Dew's memoirs were brought up by me on the message board – I wonder why? What amazes me is your suggestion that the only people who have argued against the decades-long rejected muddled-date theory are “Hutchinsonians”. I’m sure that’ll be news to Richard Nunweek who correctly discerned that such an idea was “clutching at straws”.
I really would caution against telling Ruby that the Astrakhan man was “sought after for quite some time after Hutchinson´s appearance”. This is not the case at all, as I’ve demonstrated on a great many threads, and will tirelessly do so again. There is absolutely no evidence that the police were still interested in Hutchinson’s suspect after the account had been discredited. Whatever the number of men brought in for questioning who happened to own Astrakhan coats, it is quite clear that their attire had absolutely nothing to do with the police interest attaching to them. Generally, these men were reported by members of the public who would not have been au fait with Hutchinson’s discrediting, or by similarly ill-informed journalists. It certainly doesn’t show that “men in Astrakhan overcoats were walking the East End streets back then”
Best regards,
Ben
“A good thing, then, that she did NOT shout, but just spoke in a raised voice.”
“He knew that a normal conversation is held at about 60 dB”
“Then you did it wrong. Or perhaps the ones you spoke to were just lousy listeners.”
“The MOST credible solution, though, would be that Hutchinson mixed up the days, he DID see Astrakhan man but on the 8:th”
I really would caution against telling Ruby that the Astrakhan man was “sought after for quite some time after Hutchinson´s appearance”. This is not the case at all, as I’ve demonstrated on a great many threads, and will tirelessly do so again. There is absolutely no evidence that the police were still interested in Hutchinson’s suspect after the account had been discredited. Whatever the number of men brought in for questioning who happened to own Astrakhan coats, it is quite clear that their attire had absolutely nothing to do with the police interest attaching to them. Generally, these men were reported by members of the public who would not have been au fait with Hutchinson’s discrediting, or by similarly ill-informed journalists. It certainly doesn’t show that “men in Astrakhan overcoats were walking the East End streets back then”
Best regards,
Ben
Comment