Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -
here are a few things on Spitalfield's men's lodging houses that I found :
the first one is from Casebook, and the other two from 'Spitalfield's Life'.

Hoare summed up the "charm" of a lodging house as follows: "A regular frequenter of a lodging-house would be often allowed to sit by the kitchen fire till one o'clock, even if he had not the fourpence to pay for his lodging, and at four he would begin again the heart-breaking business of looking for work. The complete freedom of the lodging-house has many charms which go far to compensate for its hardships. The lodging-house man is absolutely his own master, and has absolutely not ties. He has no property except what he has on his back; and when he goes out in the morning, there is no reason why he should come back to his old house rather than to any other in some different part of London. He can go to look for work, or not, just as he likes; he can go where he likes, and leave off when he chooses. If he is tired he can stop in bed; if it is wet he can stop indoors. In the evening he hears and tells the fortunes of the day, eats his tea, and has his pipe in the kitchen by the side of the fire, visits the public houses with his friend, or goes to a music-hall or a sparring match."

[

B]There is no need to knock, the door is open.[/B] At 4am, it swings back to let out the market porters and a whole posse of lodgers who carry under their arm the mark of their calling – a roll of newspapers, yesterday’s returns

.

The door at the foot of the stairs is locked but at intervals the deputy opens it and takes from each lodger as he passes the numbered metal check given to him earlier in the evening as a voucher for fourpence

As you can see, there is no book with ticks, the men come and go as they please, because the front door is open. They might sit in the kitchen until 1am
even without paying, and they only had to show a 'metal check' to get into
bedrooms. If they weren't there the next day nobody would know or care.
The working day started at 4am for casual workers looking for work.

One very interesting thing that I noticed while reading up on lodging houses :
they were nearly all full in the winter, but emptied in the summer when casual workers were looking for seasonal work in the country.

Has anyone ever researched all the seasonal work available in country areas
in the Spring/early Summer of 1888, and looked to see if there were any
murderous attacks on women ?

Incidentally Lechemere, how can you think that all carts only went at walking pace ?(only very rare overladen ones on dirt tracks, I should think).

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro – as interesting as those extracts were, they tell us very little about the Victoria Home.
The Victoria Home didn’t have an open door policy. We know that for sure.
I was interested to read about how sociable the inmates were towards each other. That is just how I pictured it.
Also interesting that many left for work at 4 am. But not surprising. It was more of a dawn till dusk society.

[Fisherman]

Ben"

"I just have, Fisherman.
I’ve outlined them already in very extensive detail."

You have mentioned a few sources of noise that may or may not have been about, end of story.

"Overwhelming commonsense informs us that there would have been background noise from the crowded dwellings on the streets and that the inclement weather would have affected Hutchinson’s ability to hear conversation. So obvious and inescapable is this reality that I am no more required to prove their existence than I am required to prove that there isn’t an alien from outer space hiding somewhere in my house. It’s just ridiculous to even contemplate arguing otherwise."

You do it the way you always do: with over the-top exaggeration. And your substantiation is the usual one: your "common sense".
My stance, Ben, is that your argumentation is, in all it´s flamboyancy, very flawed and extremely biased. That is why I advice you to find yourself some substantiation. Until you do that, you need to realize that one accoustics expert and one psycholinguist have BOTH told you that there is very good reason to believe that the conversation could have been made out by Hutchinson. So why is it that you recommend me to opt for your "common sense" instead? Why would I - especially since I think it represents the very opposite of such sense?

"I’m not doing anything at your behest, Fisherman, irrespective of how much you try to “lay it on” me."

That´s all very independent of you, Ben, I´m sure. But I´m afraid it´s main effect will be that I simply point out that you are offering guesswork and loose speculations of a seemingly very biased character, whereas there are experts on these matters that have offered a view that goes totally contrary to yours. The choice, Ben, is simple, which you will apprecciate.

The thing that of course springs to mind in all of this, is that IF it was really so very obvious and commonsensical that you had the best and most reasonable view on the issue, it would be very, very simple to bring an expert or historian in that could confirm that the noise levels of the dosshouses would travel through the walls and windows and still hold a dB level high enough to nullify Hutchinson´s possibilities to overhear and make out the conversation. I´m sure there must be lots of such people about, being able to establish this 123 years after the noise in question was created. Likewise, there will probably be other accoustic´s experts around than Erling Nilsson, who may establish that the wind in the street would have howled at a certain volume at the exact minute you dearly WANT it to have done so.
Or not.
Maybe the time has come to point out that it is completely and totally impossible to prove EITHER of these things. And maybe I should add that the resiliance you show in not admitting this, makes for a useless argument and an untenable position. For everybody KNOWS, Ben, that the doss-houses may well have been very quiet at 2.15. Indeed, my hunch is that they WERE. And we likewise all KNOW that there is not a chance in hell that anybody can prove anything about the sound made by the wind at the exact minute Kelly raised her voice. Just as it may have been windy in that very minute, it may likewise NOT have been windy. End ot THAT story. And this really is something that is glaringly obvious, contrary to what YOU think is obvious.
I can prove that winds are not constant at all times. I can prove that a doss house can be quiet at 2.15 today, and it could likewise have been quiet at 2.15 123 years ago. There endeth the argument. You lost it. Unless, that is, you can PROVE me wrong on this. But you can´t, can you? You can just ramble on about how OBVIOUS it is that I am so. Which is useless.

But by all mans, go ahead and believe that your argument is a good as the expert´s argument, and go ahead and tell us that if you are not correct about the volumes of the doss houses and the wind, you have an alien from outer space living in your house. I won´t come to visit anyway, so what do I care?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Interesting stuff, Raould, and I agree wholeheartedly"

Is this what you agree with, Ben:

"If the suspect spoke reasonably softly (and I think this is likely given the time, place and intent) and there was some low ambient noise (general street noise from commercial street, residents or wind for instance) then I would say it is very unlikely but possible that Hutch could hear it at that distance.

Given a normal voice (for a daytime chat with a friend 56db) and the above prevailing conditions I would say its possible for sure, maybe even likely."

That´s Raouls initial post.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Not the “lost report” syndrome, Lechmere, this is precisely what we want to avoid: arriving at conclusions based on what he want to have been contained in some conveniently lost to history “report”. "

Excuse me, but have you not expressed the view that you thought that there was a very good possibility that Hutchinson had told the police that he had seen Lewis, but, unfortunately, the report is lost to us...?

Just asking.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Hutchinson put himself at the crime scene at the time of the crime. He was subsequently dismissed.
There are several problematic aspects to his story that are likely to have raised eyebrows. I think it is virtually inconceivable that the police would have let him go once they decided his testimony was not reliable, without first satisfying themselves that he was not involved.
This does not mean that he had to have become a formal suspect.
This implies that it is likely that the police were satisfied that Hutchinson was not involved. We can speculate how they may have come to this conclusion, but I believe it is an almost certain that this is the case.
Building a case against Hutchinson that denies this is in my opinion slightly ridiculous and lacking in credibility. You can go on and on about there being no absolute proof in the remaining records that he was checked out but common sense and the way the police treated other people involved in the case tell a different story.

Given that the police would almost certainly have checked him out, I find it unlikely that Hutchinson was the culprit."

Exactly so, Lechmere. That´s as good a condensation of things as I have ever seen. I would only add that there is no need to be as cautious as to write that the police would "almost certainly" have checked him out - it is not almost certain to my mind, it is certain. The only thing that could have stopped such a check would be if information reached them that completely exconerated Hutch even BEFORE they had started their own checkout.

Otherwise, you are probably as spot on as anybody could be. Well done!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Ben! You do make me chuckle. Now you have argued yourself into believing that night is the same as day.
I can quite see that you have to make a dramatic leap of faith in order to try and make a case for your version of Hutchinson. But this is the best so far.
How many testimonies do you want me to produce from various witnesses at the various murder scenes to demonstrate that the streets were quiet and fairly empty – if not totally empty in the small hours of the morning? I could fill pages with it but I won’t. If you want to believe these things then be my guest.
Why would the streets be empty I wonder? It is because at night time Ben, and as I said, nearly everyone goes to sleep.
Night workers are the exception not the rule. It was the exception not the rule in 1888. It was the exception not the rule for residents of the Victoria Home, just as much as it was for residents in other lodging houses.
As you adopt absolutist positions and clearly assume I do also, I will emphasise that this does not mean that absolutely everyone was asleep at night. Clearly not. Some people did work at night, then just as now.

Another example of your projected absolutism is how you characterise my suggestion that someone may have noticed Hutchinson’s absence on the night of the murders (which undoubtedly were the major topic of conversation) as the various inmates “being in a position to scrutinize and monitor everyone else’s movements.”

Actually I take that back, this is an example of your ‘over exaggeration’ technique.

I have no doubt the residents of the Victoria Home were poor. Dark blue meant – very poor casual work, chronic want.
It did not mean – mind own business and don’t speak to anyone.
In modern day ‘doss houses’ such as Booth House, you often see groups of ‘residents’ animatedly talking to each other outside.
I don’t think we have to believe the inmates of the Victoria Home behaved as if they were extras in Oliver Twist to understand that these fellows we able to communicate with each other and even form friendships. Has anyone suggested that it was like the ‘Consider Yourself’ sequence? Has anyone come anywhere near to suggesting it? I don’t recall reading anything even approaching this.

I am left having to draw the conclusion that this is an example of your ‘over exaggeration’ technique – yet again.

I like this new notion of yours ‘alibi-disposal’. You are a first in criminology Ben, that’s for sure. Who needs to bother with an alibi, when you can just have an ‘alibi-disposal’ instead?

Having said that, I personally don’t think any new terms need be invented for what is an obvious distinction – between someone who has an alibi (and so is in the clear), and someone who doesn’t (and so isn’t in the clear). I don’t think ‘alibi-disposal’ will get the second class off the hook somehow. Particularly when the police force was in its infancy and hadn’t heard of Ben’s new concept.
Hutchinson didn’t have an alibi. Apparently until Ben came up with 'alibi-disposal' apparently no one, least of all me, realised Hutchinson didn’t have an alibi. We certainly didn’t realise Hutchinson had employed ‘alibi-disposal’. Now I’m beginning to think Hutchinson was Moriarty, what with all these fiendish schemes of his.

Yes I make ‘zero-evidence assumptions’, just as you do, just as everyone does in this case. I try to base mine on common sense and as I have spelt out to you from extrapolating from how we know the police behaved in this case.

“if their checking abilities were not nearly so extensive as to enable them to rule a suspect in or out with even the remotest degree of confidence, how can you possibly argue that any meagre checking that they could have conducted has any effect on the probability of Hutchinson being the murderer?... they were unlikely to have been in a position to progress with those suspicions?”
I would suggest that any police force at any given time uses the means at its disposal to check people to the extent of their, then, abilities. If they pass their checks, as then constituted, then the person is likely to be in the clear. It is clear that Hutchinson must have passed the tests as they were then constituted.
It is exceptionally unlikely that he failed to pass the test and the police let him walk regardless.
Just because DNA testing and CCTV hadn’t been invented, that would not have inhibited the police. It is pointless mentioning any future advances. Utterly, utterly pointless.
If someone failed to pass whatever tests were then in place, then the police would not have just thought: ‘oh well our tests are primitive, we better let him go, as we can't progress our suspicions'.
No they would have kept their eye on him in some way. They would have progressed matters that way.

You will claim that they will not have looked seriously at him – as you must.
I will contend that it is obvious that they will have checked him out with whatever level of tests they deemed appropriate and he will have passed those tests. Lack of an alibi would not be a ‘pass’. Nor would they have thought ‘hold on, he voluntarily came to us, and therefore can’t be a suspect.’

Now of course Hutchinson could have slipped through their net and it is true the net in those days had bigger holes than the net used today.
Nevertheless it still makes him a less likely suspect as he did pass the tests circa 1988 after coming under the maw of the police - unlike virtually all his 100,000 male neighbours.

As I said, your wriggling on this obvious point (as your night = day argument) merely demonstrates the weakness of Hutchinson as a suspect.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"...they could not have “satisfied” themselves of any such thing for the simple reason that the 1888 police did not have the “checking” facilities that could have enabled them to come to any hard and fast conclusion with regard to his guilt or innocence".

Wrong. If Hutchinson said to the police that he kept watch over the archway entrance all the time, and if the police asked him whether anybody entered that archway during his vigil, and he subsequently swore that nobody had even been close to that entrance for the 45 minutes he stood there, then the police would have had proof that he was not there on the night.

If the police knew that it was raining hard between 2.15 and 3 AM, something they could have found out by interviewing people like Lewis and others who were up and about in Dorset Street and it´s surroundings, it would have been quite enough to dismiss Hutchinson´s proposal that he was there.

If Hutch said that he was there on the night of the 8:th, whereas the Victoria Home had him recorded as sleeping at their premises at that stage, they would have proof that he was wrong.

If he had been in to a pub in Romford, for example, then the proprietor of that pub may have been able to tell that he was off on the days.

If he had lef the Victoria Home on the morning of the Wednesday, telling one of his fellow lodgers that he was off to Romford, then that lodger would have been able to help the police secure that Hutch was wrong on the days.

All of these are examples of hard and fast evidence that the police could easily have obtained with very little effort. Why claim that such a thing could not be done, when it´s perfectly simple to show that it may well have been done. Moreover, the hasty dismissal of Hutchinson very clearly tells us that he was let go, not because the police had realized that they were never going to be able to nail him for timewasting, but for the much more credible reason that they knew he was in the clear. This conclusion would have been reached after one thing such as the ones above dawned on the police. After that, they would have run checks to have their suspicions confirmed, and that would have been it.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Why do fools fall in love?

Mike

[Lechmere]

Fisherman – don’t you realise that exact contemporary evidence is not required in the Hutchinson –Ripper. It is only required if you argue Hutchinson was innocent.
So Lewis’s wide-awake man IS Hutchinson.
Hutchinson DEFINITELY HEARD Lewis’s testimony outside Shoreditch Town Hall
Etc etc

“The only thing that could have stopped such a check would be if information reached them that completely exconerated Hutch even BEFORE they had started their own checkout.”
If you are alluding to the day out theory (which I presume you must be!), if that was the case then I would presume it would have come to light as a result of routine ‘checks’ and so form part of the notional ‘checking out process’.

Also, I do believe Hutchinson said he hadn’t been drinking that day, so he wouldn’t have been in a pub in Romford (as an alibi) nor in ‘The Romford'.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Fisherman – don’t you realise that exact contemporary evidence is not required in the Hutchinson –Ripper. It is only required if you argue Hutchinson was innocent."

Oh-oh. My bad.

"So Lewis’s wide-awake man IS Hutchinson."

I don´t think he was. But I see now that he had to be.

"Hutchinson DEFINITELY HEARD Lewis’s testimony outside Shoreditch Town Hall"

I don´t think he did. But I see now that he had to have heard it.

"If you are alluding to the day out theory (which I presume you must be!), if that was the case then I would presume it would have come to light as a result of routine ‘checks’ and so form part of the notional ‘checking out process’."

In a sense, yes. I was just speculating that the door may have opened behind Abberline before he had the time to tell Badham to have Hutch checked out, and a little old lady stepped in, saying "Jesus, how it rained between 2 and 3 Am last Friday morning!" In that case, it could perhaps be argued that the police itself never even had the time to run any checkout ...

"I do believe Hutchinson said he hadn’t been drinking that day, so he wouldn’t have been in a pub in Romford (as an alibi) nor in ‘The Romford'."

But you can have a bite to EAT both in Romford and in ´The Romford´, can you not? But I digress - the point is a good one, Lechmere. I should have chosen some other business establishment that did not rely on drink to provide an income!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Can’t you condense all your “counter-arguments” to me into one post, rather than spreading them out into four? It’s not necessary. This is not me having a go at your style or anything sinister. I'd just like to keep better track of your interesting points a little more easily.

“You have mentioned a few sources of noise that may or may not have been about, end of story”

No. I have mentioned some sources of noise that would almost certainly have been about, end of story.

“Until you do that, you need to realize that one accoustics expert and one psycholinguist have BOTH told you that there is very good reason to believe that the conversation could have been made out by Hutchinson.”

They didn’t “tell me” anything because their posts were not addressed to me, so kindly refrain from asserting what I have personally been “told”. The reality of the situation, of course, is that the acoustics expert doesn’t disagree with me at all. You simply did not acquaint him with the amazingly strong likelihood that background noises were present and would have had an effect on the results. The psycholinguist has very sensibly acknowledged that he is “torn” on the issue and has accordingly avoided taking “sides” or coming to any hard and fast conclusion on the subject.

“But I´m afraid it´s main effect will be that I simply point out that you are offering guesswork and loose speculations of a seemingly very biased character”

And when you do, I’ll “simply point out” that I’m doing nothing of the sort; that the experts in question haven’t even challenged anything I’ve said; and that I’ve never pooh-poohed their expertise, only the manner in which they were contacted. So if you’re up for a repetitive “yes it is, no it isn’t” type of debate or a stamina war, I can tell you in advance that this is precisely how it will pan out. Just depends if you’re up for it. I hope you are. The fact it that no expert thus far has offered a view that is “totally contrary” to my own. It is for this reason that I don’t wheel in a “rival” expert of my own in a petty, point-scoring exercise. What’s the point? The current ones don’t disagree with anything I’ve said – they were simply fed faulty information, unintentionally I’m sure.

Nor do I need an “expert” to highlight the obvious reality that the streets of the East End in the small hours of the night were not “silent”. The idea is so ludicrous that it merits only instant dismissal by reasonably informed commentators on the subject. Of course there would have been background noise from the incredibly crowded doss houses and other buildings both on an off Commercial Street, and of course there would have been a strong wind present on the night of the 9th. Both would have had an effect on Hutchinson’s ability to discern conversation from 30 metres away, irrefutably so. Levy and Lawende couldn’t even hear conversation from a couple conversing less than ten feet away.

Hutchinson stated in his police report that Kelly had said “come along my dear, you will be comfortable”. No “loud voice” was specified. Clearly, this was very unlikely to have been discerned from 30 metres away in those conditions.

“Maybe the time has come to point out that it is completely and totally impossible to prove EITHER of these things.”

But based on the conditions that were almost certainly present on the night in question, such as a background noise from the crowded East End dwellings and the strong wind, it is not probable that Hutchinson could have heard conversation from that distance. No proof is required to recognise this obvious reality. Of course, vast improbability is a very consistent theme when it comes to Hutchinson’s discredited claims with regard to the Astrakhan man’s appearance and movements.

"Is this what you agree with, Ben”

I didn’t call him “Raould”. I called him Raoul, thank you so much.

I agree with this:

“I would say that if I was the suspect I would be speaking softly (people generally speak softer at night time because there is generally less environmental noise, and additionally I'm speaking to a prostitute/potential victim with another man in sight). Given that, I would say you are absolutely correct and it wouldn't have been heard.”

And this:

“As I understand it Dorset street ran east west, so I think the strong winds would have rushed down the 'corridor' like street making it much more difficult to hear speech.”

This is what I agreed with.

“Excuse me, but have you not expressed the view that you thought that there was a very good possibility that Hutchinson had told the police that he had seen Lewis, but, unfortunately, the report is lost to us...?”

You’re excused, but no, I never stated that there was ever a “lost” report that contained Hutchinson’s reference to Lewis. I suggested that it might have been withheld from the body of an existing report because it wasn’t of any particular significance. I don’t think it’s the most likely explanation, however. It is much more plausible that Hutchinson deliberately avoided any mention of Lewis to avoid making it appear glaringly obvious that it was her evidence that spurred him into coming forward.

“There endeth the argument.”

Oh, you’re done then?

That's a shame.

Well, it’s been a joy and blast as always, Fisherman. Sorry you’re delighting to imagine that I’ve “lost” the argument when I’ve clearly done no such thing. Of course I can’t “prove” you’re wrong, but I think it’s astoundingly obvious that you are. I’ve noticed you’ve written another couple of posts with “Ben:” at the top, so I’ll just address those and then, who knows? Maybe I’ll decide to “endeth” my part in the argument too?

“You can just ramble on about how OBVIOUS it is that I am so.”

I might just do that. We’ll see what happens.

“I won´t come to visit anyway”

But I’ve just put the kettle on!

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Can’t you condense all your “counter-arguments” to me into one post, rather than spreading them out into four? "

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don´t . It´s not a question of what I can do or not. It´s what I choose to do.

"No. I have mentioned some sources of noise that would almost certainly have been about, end of story."

That´s the same, unless you noticed: Sources that may have been about and may not have been about. I am of the meaning that they would almost certainly NOT have been about, but alas, that only goes to prove the same.

" The reality of the situation, of course, is that the acoustics expert doesn’t disagree with me at all. You simply did not acquaint him with the amazingly strong likelihood that background noises were present and would have had an effect on the results."

And this you know how? Actually, I told him that we do not know of any more obvious sources of noise, and that it was a night where - according to the testimony - not very many people seem to have been up and about in the street. So he would have reckoned with the same thing I (and the very logically reasoning Lechmere) reckon with, a reasonably quiet nightly street.
Of course, I left out the dosser´s riot going on outside Crossingham´s just as I did not mention the Abba part. I did that on purpose.

"The idea is so ludicrous that it merits only instant dismissal by reasonably informed commentators on the subject."

Go find them, then.

"I agree with this": "“I would say that if I was the suspect I would be speaking softly (people generally speak softer at night time because there is generally less environmental noise, and additionally I'm speaking to a prostitute/potential victim with another man in sight). Given that, I would say you are absolutely correct and it wouldn't have been heard.”

That we BOTH agree with. Soft spoken voices do not travel 30 meters.

"As I understand it Dorset street ran east west, so I think the strong winds would have rushed down the 'corridor' like street making it much more difficult to hear speech.”

Mmm. I agree with that too. And I realize that Raoul says "much more difficult" instead of "impossible". Moreover, I do not agree that any strong wind was about at all on the night Hutch was REALLY there ...

"I suggested that it might have been withheld from the body of an existing report because it wasn’t of any particular significance."

Of course not - totally insignificant!

" I don’t think it’s the most likely explanation, however. "

Nor do I, Ben - nor do I!

"Sorry you’re delighting to imagine that I’ve “lost” the argument when I’ve clearly done no such thing."

Of course you have not. The argument is not settled. I only point out that you have produced the worse argument by far, and that points very much to you loosing it if we ever get the answer. That is not the same as saying that you have ALREADY lost it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

And here it is, Fisherman. That last post that I promised you I'd address before you "endethed" the argument.

“and he subsequently swore that nobody had even been close to that entrance for the 45 minutes he stood there, then the police would have had proof that he was not there on the night.”

That most emphatically not “proof”, Fisherman.

That is his word against someone else’s, and thus not a situation that could ever result of the acquisition of “proof”. This is an example of misunderstood or misappropriated terminology. He could have lied about nobody having been “close to that entrance for the 45 minutes he stood there” but still have been close to the entrance that night himself. Surely everyone can see this? You’re just not processing the irony of your own attempts to exonerate Hutchinson. According to you, all Hutchinson had to do was make a false claim that he hadn’t seen anyone else, and it would prove that he was not there on the night! According to you, all Hutchinson had to do was claim falsely that the night was a dry one, and the police would consider it “proof” that he wasn’t there. Honestly, I’ve never before seen the P-word misapplied quite so hideously. Hutchinson had only to lie about these things, while still being there in reality, in order to be completely exonerated, according to you.

Hutchinson would not have been “recorded” as having slept in the Victoria Home because, as discussed ad nauseam (and on many more occasions, if necessary) the establishment did not make registers of names upon entry, but only received generic metal cheques sold in advance, and which would have entitled the lodgers to a bed for the night.

“If he had lef the Victoria Home on the morning of the Wednesday, telling one of his fellow lodgers that he was off to Romford, then that lodger would have been able to help the police secure that Hutch was wrong on the days.”

Well, no, because if Hutchinson did announce his intentions to visit lodgings, it could easily have been a lie, and certainly not an alibi. But of course, this is just a fill-in-the-blank, isn’t it? The conjuration of an imaginary non-existent hoped for alibi with not a scrap of evidence to support its existence. If we operate within the confines of the evidence, rather than relying on “must haves” and hoping for the existence of reports that got conveniently destroyed or whatever, wisdom instead lies in accepting that there’s no evidence that Hutchinson was ever suspected. It’s very clear from Dew’s evidence that whatever the police thought about Hutchinson at the time, they lacked proof either way. Their suspicions were not confirmed, whatever they might have been, which is why Dew was only in a position to offer personal speculations rather than announcing what the police had established for certain.

[Ben]

Oh, you're back!

Great!

You just said a moment ago "there endeth the argument".

But you're actually up for slogging it out some more.

Thought so.

Onwards, then...

“I am of the meaning that they would almost certainly NOT have been about, but alas, that only goes to prove the same.”

And I am of the opinion that this is nonsense; that the idea of the crowded vice-ridden East End streets of 1888 being "silent" at that time is a preposterous concept. There would clearly have been background noise that would have interfered with conversation being detected from 30 metres away, and when coupled with the type of strong wind that we know affected the area at the time, the likelihood of it being heard is even further reduced. It doesn’t matter who was out and about on the streets (although I really wouldn’t use Hutchinson as the ultimate authority on this!), there would still have been a general background murmur from the crowded dwellings on Dorset Street and in the surrounding streets.

“Moreover, I do not agree that any strong wind was about at all on the night Hutch was REALLY there ...”

But that was 9th November, when there were strong winds. I mean, all hastily conceived pet theories aside.

“Of course you have not. The argument is not settled.”

Ah, looking for excuses for continuing an argument after you avowed to end it MUCH?

You did say very confidently that I had already “lost” the argument, Fisherman.

Best regards,
Ben