Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Thing is, Ruby, that Dew never says "I can only conclude" anywhere in his book, as far as I can tell.

Anyway, if I say that I am of the firm belief that the world is round and not flat, it does not mean that I claim this as my own idea. It means that this is what I think.

Oh, and one more thing. I think most of us agree that there seemingly never was any total agreement that Hutchinson WAS wrong, only a convicement on behalf of the police that made them confidently drop Hutchinson. So in that context, if Dew HAD said "I can only conclude" it would more sort of point to a confirmation of this stance on behalf of the police than anything else: They thought so, and after having pondered it for half a century, Dew could only conclude that the police were correct.

Linguistics are slippery, Ruby. What seem like a life buoy may turn out to be a cast iron noose.


The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Linguistics are slippery, Ruby.

Yours certainly are:

"And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.” if you prefer.

It is entirely personal speculation, made a long time after the case.

There is never any hint of an allusion that the Police collectively ever thought any such thing.

[Fisherman]

Once again, if he could not see any other explanation, then he could not see any other explanation. It is a statement that alludes to himself only, and as such, it tells us nothing about what he believed Jenny Lindström, William Pitt or his milkman thought about it. In no way whatsoever does it go to show that the police generally would have been of another meaning.

The people on my round earth donīt fall off it, in spite of the fact that the New Zealanders stand feet up and head down on itīs surface when I do the polar opposite. And believe it or not, I can see no other explanation to this than the force of gravity.

There, Ruby: Does this convey that gravity is something I thought up myself, or that I am the only one who ascribe to my stance? Or am I simply confessing to a stance that billions of people agree on - some of them policemen?

Do I have to do this much longer? It seems a rather unrewarding exercise to me, since you do not pick up on what I say.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

since you do not pick up on what I say.

Sadly, I can't quite seize it, it all seems a little too slippery and tricky to me.

If I were to quote that journalist from the Star who saw Hutch as a possible future suspect and suggest that, although he was the only journalist to write
down his suspicions, other journalists were also thinking this (although they gave not the slightest indication to us that they did), and the Star journalist only just presented his thoughts as his own but was really reflecting prevailing journalistic thoughts -and they'd all be right, because they all thought the same thing at the same time...

this would be acceptable reasoning to you, would it ?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"If I were to quote that journalist from the Star who saw Hutch as a possible future suspect and suggest that, although he was the only journalist to write
down his suspicions, other journalists were also thinking this (although they gave not the slightest indication to us that they did), and the Star journalist only just presented his thoughts as his own but was really reflecting prevailing journalistic thoughts -and they'd all be right, because they all thought the same thing at the same time...

this would be acceptable reasoning to you, would it ?"

Whoa there! Iīm not quite sure what you are after, Ruby. And I am even less sure in what way it relates to Dew!

To begin with, it was not the Star we are used to, but the Washington Star, methinks. To continue, I have no idea to what extent the journalist would have been correct in his suspicion that other journalists were also suspicious about Hutchinson. Thirdly, why would they all be right for thinking the same thing at the same time....??? What if they made up 12 per cent of the total amount of journalists? Would that implicate that they were right or wrong? No, it would not - the truth lies not in how many followers an idea has.

But speaking of time AND returning to the true issue here - Dew and the police and what they thought - it deserves to be mentioned that the stage at which Dew worded himself "I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong" was a stage that was fifty years AFTER the killings. Let us realize that most of the men that investigated the case were dead and gone by then; Abberline, Anderson, Monro, Swanson, Warren ... Even people who had taken these menīs places, like Macnaghten, were dead. Dew had had a phenomenal career, topped off by finishing as a freelancing agent.
When he wrote his book, why would he write about an "us" that had not been around for decades? Why would he pass himself off as a policeman, something he had not been for nigh on three decades? At the stage of writing, he was pretty much a retired agent with a long since passed history of policing. Therefore, what he offered was his stance, filtered down to a personal view. But that does not mean that he did not use knowledge aquired back in 1888. And at that stage, there would have been information circulating inbetween the policemen and detectives telling the story about why Hutchinson was dropped. And to work from the premise that Dewīs stance in 1938 would not have been coloured by his experiences of the case and his cooperation and discussions with his colleagues at the time is not a very viable thing to do.

How hard can this be to understand?

One more thing: Walter Dew became something of a celebrity during his career. Reasonably, his audience expected to hear the great crimesolverīs OWN view, and it stands to reason that he would express things the way he did: "I am of the opinion..." etcetera. What does NOT stand to reason is to believe that he would somehow change a view that corresponded with the general police view from 1888 just for the purpose of presenting a "Dew view" - speculating that he DID share the 1888 police view throughout.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Sally – I reposted it as Mr Wroe seemed to have missed it and it was buried somewhere.
I am consciously trying to avoid repeating my arguments – and pass on when the same rebuttal is put back. I think it is obvious who is the main ‘offender’ in making long repeated posts.
Patience Sally, patience. The plumbing thing will be along soon enough.

Hatchett
There is a bit of a mystery within the mystery (well in the Ripper case there are loads of them) – why did the police dismiss his evidence. The reason is lost. All that can replace it is speculation.

Frau Retro
I would suggest the piece you quoted from Casebook is the opinion of who wrote it.
There are lots of ‘accepted facts’ about the Ripper case that aren’t facts.
Hav e you ever read this...
‘many "facts" are actually opinions by the various writers who have written about the case during the past century. Many aspects of the case are therefore contested’

The person that Lewis saw, could have been someone who was waiting for someone else – a friend maybe who was having a pee in an alleyway while they were on their way home, someone who couldn’t sleep in Crossinghams and wanted some fresh air, he may have been one of those people who had to get to work early and he was waiting for his work mate to meet him so they could walk together. Maybe he wanted some time to ponder some private thoughts away from the coughing and snoring in Crossinghams.

How many people lived down Dorset Street ? It isn’t unlikely that one would have had a restless night.
If you went down a street at night and stopped every person who was seemingly standing aimlessly then you would get a wide variety of answers.
I don’t put much store in Lewis’s suggestion that the little stout fellow was staring down Miller’s Court like he was waiting for someone, as she can only have given him a fleeting glance and that will only have told her of his posture for the duration of that brief glance.

[Rubyretro]

he may have been one of those people who had to get to work early and he was waiting for his work mate to meet him so they could walk together.

It seems like such a short time ago that day work was day work, and night work was night work, and never the twain might meet..

Lets hope his 'friends' didn't report him as being the Ripper for asking for a 'night pass' which suspiciously fell on the night of a murder, eh ?

[Rubyretro]

a friend maybe who was having a pee in an alleyway while they were on their way home, someone who couldn’t sleep in Crossinghams and wanted some fresh air, he may have been one of those people who had to get to work early and he was waiting for his work mate to meet him so they could walk together. Maybe he wanted some time to ponder some private thoughts away from the coughing and snoring in CrossinghamsHow many

people lived down Dorset Street ? It isn’t unlikely that one would have had a restless night.

...such a short time ago that we had deserted streets and no background noise to interfer with hearing..ah, yes, I remember it well..

[Fisherman]

Iīm sorry to interfere, Ruby, but could you please tell me how much noise would be disturbing the silence in Dorset Street if it was produced by:

A/ Somebody peeing in an alleyway off Dorset Street
B/ Somebody coughing or snoring INSIDE Crossinghams
C/ One (1) dosser who had a restless night and decided to get a breath of air outside a dosshouse

After that, please tell me how it would crowd Dorset Street if:

A/ Somebody had a pee in an alleyway off Dorset Street
B/ Somebody coughed and snored INSIDE Crossinghams
C/ One (1) dosser had a restless night and took a breath of air outside Crossinghams

I think, Ruby, that this post of yours was very unconsidered. In fact, no noise at all need have been added by these things, and no further person would be added than the one we have outside Crossinghams. So why try your luck at irony when you have nothing to show for it?

Just curious.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[

I don’t put much store in Lewis’s suggestion that the little stout fellow was staring down Miller’s Court like he was waiting for someone, as she can only have given him a fleeting glance and that will only have told her of his posture for the duration of that brief glance.

I'm not terribly suprised that YOU don't 'put much store by it'.

Mrs Lewis seemed rather sure of what the man was doing, and I suggest that my idea -is a more logical idea -that, being 'nervous' about approaching a lone man at 2am in a quiet street in spitalfields at the height of the Ripper scare made her look quite intentionally at the man to see exactly why he was lurking, when afar, and made her hurry past without looking as she got closer.

[Rubyretro]

As you're curious, Fish..

A/ Somebody peeing in an alleyway off Dorset Street

B/
The suggestion by senor Lechmere was that the peeing was done by 'lurker's' mate. So that makes two people, in noisy boots, who probably exchanged a few words.

Somebody coughing or snoring INSIDE Crossinghams

C/
There were hundreds of people asleep in Crossinghams, with no double glazing, so no doubt there would not be just one cougher or snorer but lots, audible outside.

One (1) dosser who had a restless night and decided to get a breath of air outside a dosshouse

Unlikely to pay for a bed and not to sleep in it -says Lechmere.

How would the Streets be more crowded ? -now we have Mrs Lewis, Hutchinson, the lurker, the lurker's mate, and wasn't there a drunken couple somewhere..? Dorset Street is filling up !

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Mrs Lewis seemed rather sure of what the man was doing"

How does it show that she was "rather sure" about it?
Lies it in the fact that Lewis did not manage a shred of a description when speaking to the police?
Or is it that she made the assumption that this was what the man did that impressed you much enough to tell us that she was in fact "rather sure" about her suggestion?
Maybe you have something else to bolster it with, something that has illuded me so far? I am very interested in any suggestion, since I think that very, very little can be made from her words, and I myself have never seen that Lewis at any stage claimed to be "rather sure" that her suggestion was correct. In fact, as it stands, Iīd be quite inclined to believe that she said nothing of the sort - and reasonably she could not have been rather sure either, unless she had psychic gifts. She MAY very well have been correct about the direction of his gaze (just as she may have been wrong about what he actually looked at), but I find it very difficult to see how she would know that the man was waiting for somebody. That would require a universally accepted signal system that was used ONLY when waiting for somebody. And unless you know of such a system, I suggest that we bury the "rather sure" part. Deep.


The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"The suggestion by senor Lechmere was that the peeing was done by 'lurker's' mate. So that makes two people, in noisy boots, who probably exchanged a few words."

Donīt add things, Ruby. People who pee donīt go for a noisy walk at the same time. It would be uncomfortable and wet. And people had noisy OR silent boots, an we donīt know what would have applied here, but we must of course make sure to ask that fictive mate of the loiterer what he had on! Plus, of course, people who wish to pee can do so without having a conversation at the same time. And Lechmere spoke of an alleyway off Dorset Street.

Donīt add. Be honest.

"There were hundreds of people asleep in Crossinghams, with no double glazing, so no doubt there would not be just one cougher or snorer but lots, audible outside."

No. Coughing and snoring does not necessarily reach over the 30-45 dB that would have been shut out by walls and windows. If they screamed at the tops of their voices, it would travel outside in low tones, reaching up to 40-45 dB. And we are not speaking of screaming people are we. So no again.

"Unlikely to pay for a bed and not to sleep in it "

Oh, he would have slept in it. But not necessarily all night. He could have awakened and gone out for a breather. (Much) stranger things have happened. So no once more.

"now we have Mrs Lewis, Hutchinson, the lurker, the lurker's mate, and wasn't there a drunken couple somewhere..? "

And, doing the MATH, we notice that you have added ONE (1) person to the earlier perspective, and that is a person who was suggested as a fictive reason for the loiterer being there. It is not a verified and recorded person, Ruby - you may have noticed that? And Lechmere suggested other reasons, not adding anybody, for the loiterers presence, did he not? Once again: no.

"Dorset Street is filling up!

Holy madness. No.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Ruby:

"Mrs Lewis seemed rather sure of what the man was doing"
Maybe you have something else to bolster it with,

Certainly, Fish -she swore to this at the inquest. She did not suggest in a
hestitant way " maybe..I'm not sure, but.." "perhaps" or "it is my opinion" or "I thought". She stated clearly what she saw the man doing.

Lies it in the fact that Lewis did not manage a shred of a description when speaking to the police?

She offered the sort of description that one might see from a way off.

I think that very, very little can be made from her words,

I think that whilst she did not look directly at the man's face as she drew abreast, she was pretty certain as to his body language.

It is a shame that you obviously don't know that body language can be stronger than words. Maybe this is the difference between an actor and a journalist (say) ?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Certainly, Fish -she swore to this at the inquest"

She SWORE at the inquest that she was rather sure? Really? And you are not being less than truthful now? Ruby, Ruby ... what are things coming to, when we are claiming things like these?

"It is a shame that you obviously don't know that body language can be stronger than words."

If I say "Iīm waiting for someone to come out" it will take me two seconds and leave nobody in doubt as to what I mean. If you can top that with body language, Iīm impressed. So much for strong body language.

The best,
Fisherman
off for now