Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[harry]

There is only one man that can be placed,by eyewitness testimony,outside Crossingham's about 2.30a.m,on the 9th.There is only one man that admits to being in that area at 2.30a.m on the 9th.It is pure speculation that there could have been another man present,in that same small area at that time.As Aberline is already aware of Lewis having entered the court about 2.30a.m,it is not neccessary to ask Hutchinson if he saw a woman enter at that time,and if the question is not put to Hutchinson,there is no need for Hutchinson to state such.In any event we do not know what might have been asked,but was not recorded.One thing seems sure.That is that Hutchinson that evening was believed,as a description of the man he states entered with Kelly,was circulated.

[DVV]

Dear Jen, I'd like to change my mind, and had good confidence that Mike or Fish would come with a sensible reply.
But they did not.

So, as painful as it is, I'm still with you.

[babybird67]

awwwwww David

I can't, Jen. Will you forgive me ?

Bestest

I am sure you tried your best for me.

Maybe you failed because said evidence just doesn't exist eh?

Ah well, I forgive you anyway.

Jen x

[babybird67]

Babybird:

"It was not class you were making a distinction on. Are you claiming Hutchinson and Lewis were of different classes now? You made a specific comment that Lewis would be seen as untrustworthy by the Police because she was a prostitute, a certain type of woman..."

This, Babybird, will be my last post to you until further notice. It will be rather long. I hope to be perfectly clear in what I say.

Will it? Oh good. Less irrelevant waffle to wade through for me. Although I sincerely doubt you will have the will power to carry that through as you've announced several last posts to me on several threads and yet they still keep coming.

You are correct in your statement that I was not alluding to a certain class when I spoke of Lewis, other than in a secondary meaning. Prostitutes do normally belong to the lower social class in society, and the ones we are aquainted with through our mutual interest in the Ripper certainly did. And that is vital information.

Yes but as usual you are missing the point. You were trying to suggest Hutch would have been believe but Lewis would not because she was a certain class of woman. You couldn't disintinguish between Hutch and Lewis on class alone because a groom/labourer is about the same class as a laundress. Your comment was not class based, it was gender based.

Black people in the US will not be taken a seriously as white people will by the courts of law. They will suffer harder penalties of law than their white compatriotes for the same types of crimes. This is on record, it has been researched numerous times. Black people do more often belong to the lower classes in the US than white people will. Therefore, the deduction that lower classes get a worse treatment by the judicial system becomes an unevitable solution.

Don't patronise me or presume to give me a lecture on civil rights, especially after posting such sexist claptrap as you have. I'm a working class woman who has fought and struggled my whole life, the first in my family to obtain a degree, which is first class etc. I am quite aware of the struggles and prejudices in the class system. Your comment, and my reaction to it, was NOT about class. It was about GENDER.

That was the underlying knowledge that formed my expression about Lewis.

Rubbish. It was not about class at all.

I also added that "correct or not" to show that I made no calls of my own as to whether it would be righteous not to award Lewis the same status as Hutchinson on behalf of the police. That should - one would think - clinch where I stood.

No because even though I have asked, what, three or four times for you to substantiate what you claim the Police did, which was to pay no heed to Lewis because she was a certain class of woman yet put supreme faith in Hutchinson, even though he was the same CLASS of person, yet male, you have yet to provide it. All you do is lecture me about civil rights and evade once again your responsibility to substantiate the claims you make. IF you are arguing that this was the Police position, and Lewis was discriminated against, then PROVE IT. Otherwise, my 'allegation' that you were being sexist by imparting an attitude to the Police towards Lewis that is not substantiated by the evidence is correct. And until you do substantiate your claims, that is the position, and I stand by it.

Unfortunately, this was not so. You somehow tried to accuse me of sexism anyway.

See above. I see no evidence of a sexist and dismissive attitude towards Lewis in the Police records; I do see it in your posting.

This has me wondering what your true interest in this business is. Why do you engage in this at all? To try and damage me or to discuss with me? I think you need to give that question a long hard afterthought, Babybird.

Why? Why should I justify myself to you or anyone else? It's not your decision what I wish to talk about and discuss. If you don't wish to partake in discussions with me, there is the ignore button or there is that thing called willpower. Just ignore me. I don't give a rat's behind if you do or don't reply to me, but if you do, and if you post up inaccuracies and sexism then I reserve the right to comment upon it, as I would with anyone else.

Anyway, where were we? Ah, yes - you accuse me of being sexistic since I have said that there is reason to believe that prostitutes were not awarded the same credibility by the police as other parts of society back in 1888.

Evidence please that Lewis was considered a witness who:

a/ was not credible; and
b/ that her credibility was questioned because she was a certain class of woman.

It is because both these things are lacking that I did say your comments were sexist. Because they were.

Okay! And what is a prostitute? Well, you write, and I quote "she was a prostitute, a certain type of woman..."

But that is not what a prostitute is, Babybird. A prostitute is a person that accepts to trade sex for money or other payments. And it most certainly is not neccesarily a woman. There are male prostitutes today, and there were male prostitutes back in 1888. Ask Tumblety, he would have known!

Indeed there were but we were talking about Lewis, and as far as the evidence shows she was female. Again if you wish to dispute this please provide some evidence.

So when I say that prostitutes were not awared the same credibility as other parts of society in 1888, but were in fact moulded together with tramps, penniless alcoholics and petty crooks in the eyes of the police, I am not speaking of women specifically, but instead of people, women AND men who traded sex for gain.

I fail to see how that makes me a "sexist". And don´t bother to explain.

I will chose what I bother to do and what I don't bother to do. As I have explained, you were making a comparison between Hutch and Lewis and specifically stating that Lewis was not considered a trustworthy witness as Hutchinson would have been, because she was a woman and a prostitute. As far as the evidence allows, precisely the OPPOSITE of this contention seems to be actually TRUE. I do not know of any source which questions Lewis' integrity or credibility DESPITE her being a woman who prostituted herself, yet we DO have evidence that Hutchinson's credibility and integrity was questioned. Therefore your comments were not based on reality, but on transposing your views back onto a situation which does not bear them out. Whether you ever 'get' this or not I doubt, and even if you do it is nigh on impossible that you would ever admit it.

This is why I say that you cast false allegations in my direction

Well you are wrong. Everything I have ever said to you I have substantiated, unlike the insults etc yourself and your minion have thrown in my direction. If you believe otherwise allow Admin to deal with it. I have justified what I have said rationally over and over and stand by what I have said.

and it is also why I will not respond to your posts any more

Like I said, Fish, fine. Just do it. Put me on ignore. I don't care.

I originally answered your point about sexism since I dislike being called things. That was stupid of me. I should have done what I aim to do in in the future: leave it to the administrators to take care of any further false allegations or slights about me that may surface in any of your posts. I see no problem with this, since I am convinced that your aim is to discuss matters according to the rules and stipulations adhering to these boards, and thus we should have no problem.

Absolutely.

You may now post whatever you want to post in responce to this, but please observe that it will go unanswered on my behalf at present.

Thanks for the permission.

[DVV]

Provide evidence that the Police "put little stock" in Sarah Lewis's testimony please.

I can't, Jen. Will you forgive me ?

Bestest

[The Good Michael]

You may now post whatever you want to post in responce to this, but please observe that it will go unanswered on my behalf at present.

Fisherman,

There are people who just hold grudges. Tom will tell you. If you put them on ignore because nothing positive is gained by communicating with them, life becomes less... dirty, somehow. I'm not naming names, but I am a much happier poster these days since erasing constant nonsense from my life.

Just a thought. Try a trial run.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Jane Coram:

"The fact that I am now happily debating with you on another thread, must show that it wasn't the insults as such that drove me away from the thread, rather more the fact that if we'd carried on, then they would have continued and probably escalated."

I have no wish to do anything but debate fairly with any other poster, Jane. Nor have I any history of having had any sort of relation to you but the best one. Mike has told you that I have always held you high in regard, and that is true. It has come about as a result of a combination of your very levelheaded and well-informed posting and the very clear fact that nobody seems to have one bad word to say about you.

That, though, does not change the fact that I have been somewhat disappointed by a few of your posts lately. I cannot remember when I have ever been better read up on any source than you - but it did happen now; you wrote about mrs Reeves as somebody of whom you had never seen any report of having been spooked, whereas I remembered that and provided the source. I did so in response to your claim that there was seemingly no corroborating report for Dew´s statement.

When I found it, David (DVV) acknowledged a corroboration and congratulated me - and you wrote that it showed us that Dew had been reading faulty material in the Echo and thrown it forward in a failed attempt to represent the truth!

The span between your assessment and David was immense. And I don´t mind admitting I was astounded. With no proof at all, you wanted us to regard it as established that Dew had gotten his view from the Echo...? A detective that served in the force that searched for the Ripper!
Why would we not accept that he would have been on the receiving end of information circulated inside the police force? Why on earth would we instead surmise that he used press articles to try and knit together a picture of what happened and pass it off as his own experience? Precisely where in the material do we have something pointing in that direction?

Likewise, when I stated that Dew would have spoken in a very general sense when he described Nichols´and Chapmans´wounds as similar, you instead said that such a thing ought to have the trustworthyness of Dew and his book thrown out. And after that, I have quoted Dew from a passage that tells us that he knew very well that the different witnesses had received differing damages. Thing is, the Jane Coram I have come to respect would have KNOWN that this passage was there and contradicted your view. And to be perfectly honest, I would have thought that the Jane Coram I much value would have realized that there would be TWO ways in which to interpret Dew´s words on the similarity inbetween the wounds on Nicholls and Chapman. I have never known you to throw out ANY viable suggestion in ANY case, Jane. That, in fact, lies behind my respect for you to a very large degree too, just as it lies behind my stance not to accept your bids in these issues.

I am in no way saying that you must agree with me before I think you make a good point. But I don´t think these ARE good points, since they leave other, very viable suggestions unconsidered and very much related material unquoted. And that has me baffled, Jane.

It is my sincere hope that we can have a rewarding discussion on any topic fortwith, and my aim not to insult you or any other poster that presents a case in good faith. I may have aquired somewhat rugged edges by walking too long in Hutchinson country, but I´ll make my best to soften them when that is called for.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"It was not class you were making a distinction on. Are you claiming Hutchinson and Lewis were of different classes now? You made a specific comment that Lewis would be seen as untrustworthy by the Police because she was a prostitute, a certain type of woman..."

This, Babybird, will be my last post to you until further notice. It will be rather long. I hope to be perfectly clear in what I say.

You are correct in your statement that I was not alluding to a certain class when I spoke of Lewis, other than in a secondary meaning. Prostitutes do normally belong to the lower social class in society, and the ones we are aquainted with through our mutual interest in the Ripper certainly did. And that is vital information.

Black people in the US will not be taken a seriously as white people will by the courts of law. They will suffer harder penalties of law than their white compatriotes for the same types of crimes. This is on record, it has been researched numerous times. Black people do more often belong to the lower classes in the US than white people will. Therefore, the deduction that lower classes get a worse treatment by the judicial system becomes an unevitable solution.

Similar research with similar results have been made in the whole of the Western world, Sweden and the United Kingdom included - the people living at the bottom of society´s ladder are unfairly treated by the law, proportionally seen.

That was the underlying knowledge that formed my expression about Lewis. I also added that "correct or not" to show that I made no calls of my own as to whether it would be righteous not to award Lewis the same status as Hutchinson on behalf of the police. That should - one would think - clinch where I stood.

Unfortunately, this was not so. You somehow tried to accuse me of sexism anyway.
This has me wondering what your true interest in this business is. Why do you engage in this at all? To try and damage me or to discuss with me? I think you need to give that question a long hard afterthought, Babybird.

Anyway, where were we? Ah, yes - you accuse me of being sexistic since I have said that there is reason to believe that prostitutes were not awarded the same credibility by the police as other parts of society back in 1888.
Okay! And what is a prostitute? Well, you write, and I quote "she was a prostitute, a certain type of woman..."

But that is not what a prostitute is, Babybird. A prostitute is a person that accepts to trade sex for money or other payments. And it most certainly is not neccesarily a woman. There are male prostitutes today, and there were male prostitutes back in 1888. Ask Tumblety, he would have known!

So when I say that prostitutes were not awared the same credibility as other parts of society in 1888, but were in fact moulded together with tramps, penniless alcoholics and petty crooks in the eyes of the police, I am not speaking of women specifically, but instead of people, women AND men who traded sex for gain.

I fail to see how that makes me a "sexist". And don´t bother to explain.

This is why I say that you cast false allegations in my direction and it is also why I will not respond to your posts any more - many people ask me for answers, and I must rationalize my work somehow. I begin doing so by sorting you away from the people I discuss with, for the simple reason that false allegations do not add anything at all to the topic we were supposed to be discussing.
If and when it takes a turn for the better, and you bring something that is interesting topicwise to the table, I will immediately reconsider and answer that potential point. Until that happens - no.

I originally answered your point about sexism since I dislike being called things. That was stupid of me. I should have done what I aim to do in in the future: leave it to the administrators to take care of any further false allegations or slights about me that may surface in any of your posts. I see no problem with this, since I am convinced that your aim is to discuss matters according to the rules and stipulations adhering to these boards, and thus we should have no problem.
You may now post whatever you want to post in responce to this, but please observe that it will go unanswered on my behalf at present.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

. And if you believe that the police throughout history has not been less inclined to listen to the socially deprived classes, you may need to look again. Naïvety is the name for it.

The best,
Fisherman

It was not class you were making a distinction on. Are you claiming Hutchinson and Lewis were of different classes now? You made a specific comment that Lewis would be seen as untrustworthy by the Police because she was a prostitute, a certain type of woman, and that Hutch would have been more readily believed. Either provide evidence that this actually was the case or just accept you made a sexist comment and imposed that back on the Victorian Police without having any evidence to do so.

You might like to take a note of Jane's postings here too which state 'Babybird was right'. You're right in one respect. An apology should be forthcoming. But it certainly isn't due from me.

[babybird67]

Babybird:

"Provide evidence of a false allegation please."

You called me a sexist. End of story.

The best,
Fisherman

Which I substantiated. Fully. You've ducked out, as usual, of substantiating your claim.

I don't make assumptions about what the Police did or did not think about the witnesses, as you have. I certainly dont make sexist assumptions about what might or might not have thought either, which you have.

I'll ask again...please substatiate your claim that Lewis was disbelieved or disregarded as unreliable because she was a prostitute whereas Hutchinson was given more credibility. Otherwise the sexism in those comments is all your own.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Provide evidence of a false allegation please."

You called me a sexist. End of story. And if you believe that the police throughout history has not been less inclined to listen to the socially deprived classes, you may need to look again. Naïvety is the name for it.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

No hugs! I don't want girls' germs! Yuck.

Mike

[Jane Coram]

Hi Mike,

You're the first man to make me blush in a long time Mike.

I really didn't want to post and wouldn't have said anything, but I could see things getting out of hand again if I didn't and thought it best to just straighten things out. No offence intended to Fish at all.

I have to say, this thread is the equivalent of a wild party in Hollywood. I just can't stand the pace these days. I prefer a cup of cocoa and a jumper to knit.
It's fun to read, but I think I'll leave it at that!

Kind regards, oh sod it, have a hug,

Janie

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fisherman,

I know you don't like edits, or I would have put this on the last post, but Babybird was also correct when she said that I have changed my salutation to you on posts. This is simply because I thought that it would be inappropriate to put 'hugs' to you after that, as I wasn't sure if you would want me using such an affectionate and informal term. I work on the premise, 'if in doubt, leave it out'. If you're happy with me ending the email with 'hugs' then I'm more than happy to do so.

Kind regards

Janie

[The Good Michael]

Jane,

Just so you know, Fisherman thinks very highly of you... as does everyone on this site. If anyone is safe from the slings and arrows, it has to be you. You're a peach.

Mike