Innocent, By George!

[harry]

Fisherman,
Did you not make a big issue of the weather,(on another thread)to bolster your opinion that the weather was a factor in Hutchinson's memory becoming confused about whether it was 7/8 November or 8/9 November?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Fisherman, will all due respect, I really don’t know what on earth you’re going on about here. All I know is that the above is a drastic misapplication of “mathematics”. What is the “mathematical” basis for the claim that anyone is capable of noticing 72 items per minute? I highly doubt that the car-spotting boy registered, or was able to register, every fiddly detail about every little dent on a pick-up truck. "

He did not HAVE TO, to make for a useful comparison. We know that he for certain picked up enough details in enough short a time to have the police believing that he must have been lying. That makes for a nice comparison with what some other people I know think about witnesses who "must have been lying", if you follow my lead...?

"The sentence from my previous post should read: “All that needs to be taken on board that it was very dark at the time, punctuated at intervals by the occasional poor gas lamp. This constitutes more than adequate grounds to rule out the idea that he saw exactly what he claimed to have seen"

Yes! And it was very nice to find that in a post where you taunted me for not getting "maths" correct!

"The issue of noise on Dorset Street was discussed on the other thread, and if you still have some objections..."

Do I!!!

"That was a large newspaper parcel that almost certainly contained food"

It was not all that large, Ben. And from what I hear, the latest news is that it was a bunch of the Arbeiter Fraint, and not a bag of chips.

"Too short for what? For a reconsideration? On what basis do you make such an assumption? It is quite clear from the Echo that the authorities came to attach a “very reduced” importance to Hutchinson’s statement, for reasons they weren’t shy to state, very shortly after Abberline gave it the green light."

I´m glad you brought this up, since it urges us to have a closer look and see what we REALLY have here!

Now, Hutch arrived at around six in the evening, right? He was interrogated by Abberline, and when that was finished, our clock would have ticked on for perhaps another hour. That means we do not have many hours to spare before the Echo gets wind of Abberlines changed mood. Let´s say that we are talking about a span of perhaps 1-12 hours, out of which Abberline reasonably slept away a significant part.
Your bid, Ben, is that Abberline spoke to Hutch, made his mind up that Hutch was honest and that his story was truthful (this is something you HAVE to believe since we have it in writing, so there is no way back here). After that, he sat down and brooded on it. "My gosh", he reasoned, "what if I was wrong? Come to think of it, Hutchinson´s story is more or less completely incredible, and the man in the astrakhan coat simply must be a concocted bogey man. My God - I have to talk to the press about my newfound suspicions!"
And off he goes, to pay the Echo a visit. At their office, he sits down and informs the people there - and no other paper - that he thinks that he was gullible when speaking to Abberline, and that he now feels that it must have been a phony story from beginning to end. The Echo prints that the suspicion is now there, and Abberline goes back to work. Two days later, he reads Hutch´s interview in the Daily Mail, and exclaims: "Aha! What was it I said! He has changed the colour of the mans skin! Now I´ve got him!" He immediately scrambles over to the Star and tells them - and no other paper - that his suspicions that Hutch was not truthful have now been confirmed.

That would - broadly - correspond with your picture: An inspector thinks that a witness is truthful, the fewest of hours later he has a change of mind and tells the press that he may just be wrong, the interview on the 15:th clinches it for him, and that´s it.

My bid is that something surfaced soon after the interrogation that made the police more or less sure that Hutch was wrong. The press got wind of it, and printed it. Checkouts were made that confirmed that Hutch in all probability WAS wrong - on the day, to be more exact. It was considered rather conclusive by the police although it was not watertight as such - but tight enough for them to drop him.

Now, how do we conclude which is the better suggestion? Is there any way we can make a credible call to that question? Yes, there is: statistics.

I will say without the shred of a doubt that no matter how long and hard you seek, you will not find one other example that tallies with your proposed scenario. At no other occasion has it ever occured that a senior policeman heading a murder investigation has backed down on his belief after the fewest of hours and spoken to the press about his misgivings, unless something NEW has been added to the material. The only exception to that rule is if the original material has contained something that was in itself obviously impossible but in a hidden manner, whereas this was not possible to know for the police. An example would be if a witness said that he dined at Fat Moe´s on the evening investigated, whereas it was later discovered that Fat Moe´s was closed due to sickness on the evening in question.
But what YOU are suggesting is that Abberline had a change of heart about the description of astrakhan man and the surrounding circumstances - just like that, to put it Cooperish. And I challenge you to find ONE SINGLE CASE in which this has happened - a total change of mind on behalf of the investigation senior policeman within hours of a total acceptance and a verdict of truthfulness!

Incidentally, you will never find such a thing, but IF you should miraculously do so, I will offer a thousand OTHER cases where that policeman had his view swayed by ADDED EVIDENCE!

Therefore I say, that when you put all your corroborating cases in the scales, whereas I put mine on it´s other side, your side will remain firmly glued to the ground. There is not a single example for you to mention in corroboration of your view. Therefore it is exactly what I said: silly.

I do not, by the way, reccommend the method of trying to convince me that it is "bloody obvious" and "common sense" that policemnen heading murder investigations backtrack on their claims and beliefs with no added evidence at all, and goes to the press and speaks of it. I think you will have to admit that such a thing would be absolutely unique.

"It wasn’t a “failure to spot” Lewis, as far as I’m concerned, so much as a failure to mention her"

A failure to mention her coincides with a failure to spot her. It is the easiest thing in the world to understand. A failure to mention her also coincides with a total lack of credibility. It would have been exactly the thing to do to put the police off.

"There is still no evidence that Hutchinson ever confined himself – or said he confined himself - to the “north side of the street” only."

And there is still not a word about the south side on his behalf. But he would have known it in detail himself, and may well have offered information in this respect that made it impossible for him to be the loiterer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"I don’t need to ask myself anything, Fisherman. What I KNOW is that Michael’s very first post to me ..."

But I am not speaking of any first post to YOU, Garry. I am speaking of Mikes contributions to the Hutchinson debate on the whole.

"either practice what you preach or leave the pulpit to someone a little more accomplished in the dubious art of justifying the unjustifiable"

Any contenders in mind, Garry?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Did you not make a big issue of the weather,(on another thread)to bolster your opinion that the weather was a factor in Hutchinson's memory becoming confused about whether it was 7/8 November or 8/9 November?"

Not unless I was temporarily braindead, Harry. The weather as such does of course not have any impact people muddling the days. You are most welcome to find any post on my behalf claiming the opposite, but I cannot see where you should find it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

"I don’t need to ask myself anything, Fisherman. What I KNOW is that Michael’s very first post to me ..."

But I am not speaking of any first post to YOU, Garry. I am speaking of Mikes contributions to the Hutchinson debate on the whole.

From which I can only conclude that you are prepared to condone an unprovoked ‘outburst’ directed at a ‘new’ poster. In Michael’s defence, Fisherman, he at least had the decency to apologize for his behaviour. You, on the other hand, appear quite content to excuse such conduct whilst simultaneously demanding civility in the various Hutchinson debates.

Tell me, what is the Swedish word for hypocrite?

[harry]

Fisherman,
On the question of you being braindead,I wouldn't oppose that,(I think the theory of wrong day is the most laughable one published in regards to Hutchinson)and I do not need to repeat your long posts on the weather and how you affirm it affected Hutchinson.It is there on another thread.

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"From which I can only conclude that you are prepared to condone an unprovoked ‘outburst’ directed at a ‘new’ poster."

That´s a whole new way of concluding things. What I have said and what I keep sayying is that when I first saw Mike posting on Hutchinson threads, he did so in a very productive manner, and in a very polite tone. On other words, that was before he got pissed. If that equals any sentiment on my behalf of condoning "unprovoked outbursts" against "new" posters, I have to say you have come up with a whole new offence.

"In Michael’s defence, Fisherman, he at least had the decency to apologize for his behaviour. You, on the other hand, appear quite content to excuse such conduct whilst simultaneously demanding civility in the various Hutchinson debates."

I could see - and still can see - where the frustration has come from. Long as it may not be an excuse, it works as an explanation in my eyes. And I am not "demanding" civility, Garry - only pointing out that it would be a nice thing to have around. If you do not agree, or choose to speak of me being sanctimonious, there is very little I can do about it. It will not, however, in any way contribute to a better debating climate out here, that´s for sure.

"Tell me, what is the Swedish word for hypocrite?"

Hycklare!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"On the question of you being braindead,I wouldn't oppose that"

Thanks, Harry - how civil of you. It´s always good to know that one can rely on a fair treatment.

I will not resort to the same, though, but I will say that if you claim that I have said that the weather as such affects the ability to get the days right, you are simply not being truthful. I will also point out that your failure to produce any clip on my behalf stating so, is not due to any laziness on your part, but instead to the fact that you have misrepresented me, and no such post is to be found, no mater how long and hard you look.
Now, since you clearly get many things completely wrong, from the distance between the corner to the court to what I have said and what I have not said, I see no use in debating further with you. People who get the simplest of facts wrong (and who are not clever enough to admit it when they have it pointed out to them) really cannot afford to try and make fun of other posters.
Besides, Harry - which is the more ridiculous thing in the end: to suggest that a witness got his dates muddled up, something that is supported by a contemporary police officer - or to suggest that he was Jack the Ripper? Think about it. Long and hard.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

which is the more ridiculous thing in the end: to suggest that a witness got his dates muddled up, something that is supported by a contemporary police officer - or to suggest that he was Jack the Ripper? Think about it. Long and hard.

Oh, I think I know the answer to that! Let's see... percentage of people that forget things....maybe 99.999996. Percentage of people who commit multiple murders while removing organs and flesh and stuff.... .000001, as a rough guess. It's a tough one but I'd go with... geez.... maybe.... the first option? Final answer.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Harry
It is clear that Fisherman is proposing a theory that Hutchinson actually visited Dorset Street and saw Kelly in the small hours of Thursday morning when it was not raining.
Therefore it is not logical to suggest that part of Fisherman’s theory is that the rain water seeped into Hutchinson’s brain and affected his memory – which is the implication I take from your post.
Clearly Fisherman has made no claim about the weather or the rain being the cause of Hutchinson’s memory lapse. I don’t recall Fisherman giving any explanation for this memory lapse beyond it being a simple matter of a commonplace muddle and mix up, as anyone can potentially do from time-to-time.

Incidentally I was at ‘Dorset Street’ last night and tried a very unscientific sound test. It was less than perfect as the road was quite busy and there is a club in what were the public bogs across Commercial Street (outside the church) and a lot of revellers were smoking fags outside (upstairs actually) and kicking up a din.
I could hear the loudest of them word for word and that was without the benefit of a sound corridor and with cars passing between. And they were further away than Miller’s Court would have been.
Anyway, despite this, I could hear a raised voice (not shouted) from where Miller’s Court was when I was standing on the corner where the Britannia used to be.

[The Good Michael]

Anyway, despite this, I could hear a raised voice (not shouted) from where Miller’s Court was when I was standing on the corner where the Britannia used to be.

Did you record this or are we supposed to accept this hearsay?

-A Hutchinsonian-

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I don’t recall Fisherman giving any explanation for this memory lapse beyond it being a simple matter of a commonplace muddle and mix up, as anyone can potentially do from time-to-time."

What I have seen stated in articles on the subject is that sleep deprivation is often a key factor in this. And we actually know that Hutch WAS deprived of a nights sleep in connection with what happened. The other nights we do not have on record.

"Incidentally I was at ‘Dorset Street’ last night and tried a very unscientific sound test. It was less than perfect as the road was quite busy and there is a club in what were the public bogs across Commercial Street (outside the church) and a lot of revellers were smoking fags outside (upstairs actually) and kicking up a din.
I could hear the loudest of them word for word and that was without the benefit of a sound corridor and with cars passing between. And they were further away than Miller’s Court would have been.
Anyway, despite this, I could hear a raised voice (not shouted) from where Miller’s Court was when I was standing on the corner where the Britannia used to be."

Thanks for this, Lechmere! Now we´ve even got a test made in the very street where the murder was committed! And I think it stands to reason to suggest that Dorset Street in 1888, at 2.15 AM, with no cars about, would have been a much more quiet affair than todays Commercial Street with traffick on it.
Just to get the picture clear - at what time did you do this test? And, before somebody says that they never contested that conversation could be HEARD from 30 meters - did you only HEAR the raised voice, or could you make out what was said?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Yes pure hearsay evidence - literally.

I had to really concentrate to hear but it was very noisy. I could hear the people over the road more easily and they were further away. They were drunk and drunk people often raise their voices. It was about 9.30 pm.

[Ben]

“We know that he for certain picked up enough details in enough short a time to have the police believing that he must have been lying.”

But there’s “enough” details to enable the police to conclude that he was lying, and there’s an absurd amount of details that couldn’t even be noticed let alone memorized. In addition, it’s not as though a grotty pick-up truck was remotely out of ordinary for the surroundings in which the boy made his observations, unlike a gold chain-wearing amalgamation of pretty much every sinister press account associated with the ripper’s likely appearance waltzing into one of the worst areas in the whole of Greater London at the height of the ripper scare.

“I´m glad you brought this up”

I didn’t bring it up, you did; presumably because you didn’t think the hundreds of pages of threads devoted to this very subject satisfactorily addressed the issues, and decided instead that the most sensible thing to do would be to regurgitate it all again. What you describe as my “bid” is precisely what the evidence tells us, which is that very shortly after Abberline penned his report outlining his initial acceptance of Hutchinson’s account, the Echo reported on the 13th November that the authorities came to attach a “very reduced importance” to his account. This is not personal speculation. This is what the evidence tells us, and despite your silly invented monologue that you ascribe to Abberline, it needn’t necessarily follow that it he was he who communicated with the Echo. It could just as easily have been the case that that another police official who knew of Abberline’s reconsideration was simply “ran to earth” by a reporter from the Echo. If you have any problem with any of this, take it up with the Echo, because it is they who provided the evidence that the initial faith in Hutchinson came to be reduced a relatively short time after Hutchinson's initial appearance.

As we know, two days after the Echo published its report, the Star observed that Hutchinson's account had been “discredited”. This announcement was published in an article with the headline “Worthless stories lead police astray”. Mentioned in the same article was Matthew Packer – the astoundingly obvious implication being that both witnesses were being lumped into the same category, i.e. probable liars and not hapless, honestly mistaken, date befuddling numpties. Again, none of this is “my bid”. It is simply what the evidence informs us, unambiguously. Note also the wording that appeared in the Echo (which Garry Wroe drew everyone’s attention to in the first instance). There is not the slightest suggestion that the police had established for certain that Hutchinson was “wrong”, or “honestly mistaken” or any of the other things you want to be true of Hutchinson. Most tellingly, the Echo cited some of the reasons the authorities had for casting doubt on the account, and not so surprisingly, none of them had anything to do with any suspicion that Hutchinson had confused the day, nor were they reasons that "proved" Hutchinson wrong.

“I will say without the shred of a doubt that no matter how long and hard you seek, you will not find one other example that tallies with your proposed scenario.”

It is not my “proposed scenario”. It is what the evidence tells us occurred, so your laughably irrational demand that I provide an example of something that I know for certain occurred is akin to demanding other examples of East End eviscerating serial killers. We know it happened, so it makes not a scrap of difference is there are no other obvious examples of East End eviscerating serial killers. That does not mean, necessarily, that something “new” had not been introduced to cause Abberline to reconsider his views. I’ve already suggested that some sort of dissenting feedback may have been offered from his colleagues and superiors, and that Hutchinson may well have dropped a bollock when on his walkabout with police in search of the almost certainly fictional Astrakhan bogeyman.

If you’re irrationally demanding examples from me, why not provide an example of a witness who muddled up an event by a full 24 hours, in spite of other events happening on that same date that would cement the time and date beyond any reasonable doubt. As far as "statistic"s are concerned, you couldn’t be in a worse position to start waxing lyrical about "examples" of a phenomenon you wish to be true, and to be brutally honest, I frankly doubt the extent of your knowledge of “statistics” when it comes to true crime, and I’m particularly sceptical of your embarrassingly exaggerated and obviously false claim to be able to list “a thousand” examples of police being swayed against a witness with evidence proving they were honestly wrong. However, if you wish to prove me wrong (and this is something you’ve demonstrated an extreme eagerness to do for a couple of years now), please trot along to a more suitable thread and fill your boots.

But seriously, what you describe as “my bid” is simply a recital of precisely what the evidence tells us. If you think that’s “silly”, it’s up to you, but don’t expect me to take your thoughtless condemnations very seriously.

“A failure to mention her also coincides with a total lack of credibility.”

No it doesn’t. It coincides with a determination to avoid making it absurdly obvious that it was her evidence that spurred him since doing so would draw attention to his coming forward in response to her inquest evidence, thereby compromising his professed reasons for being there and inviting possible suspicion. His deliberate omission in this regard (if such it was) appears to have done the trick, as there is no evidence that either police or press ever connected Hutchinson with Lewis’ wideawake figure. And again, and again, and again if necessary. Whenever you bring this up as though it were never addressed, I will simply provide the same response I’ve always provided. So please repeat this stuff about “not mentioning Lewis”, and please give me the excuse I crave for addressing it again.

“But he would have known it in detail himself, and may well have offered information in this respect that made it impossible for him to be the loiterer.”

And if my auntie had bollocks, she “may well” be my uncle. What I lack is any good evidence or even any vaguely compelling reason for inferring that she has some.

[Ben]

Is it really asking that much to expect people to confine the nonsense about “decibels” and “distance” to the appropriate thread? We’ve just spent 140 pages arguing over this very issue. What possible motivation could people have for bringing it up again here? I really think a few people around here need to cultivate more of a “life’s too short” approach, because it really is.

First we have Mike, who professes to deplore “Hutchinsonians” and their debating techniques, but who is clearly incapable of keeping away from either, observing of Lechmere’s observations:

“Did you record this or are we supposed to accept this hearsay?”

Well, it’s really up to you, Mike, but if you want to treat it as accurate, I can only assume that you extended me the same courtesy when I made the following observations regarding Villiers Street, in the heart of the West End:

I have recently returned from London where I traversed the length of Villiers Street (look it up). It struck me that the street was unusually quiet on account of the fact that it was 11:30am on a Sunday night, and the practically adjacent Charing Cross station was closed. It was “unusually quiet”, and yet the despite this, the chances of me discerning even the vaguest snippets of conversations from people chatting several feet away was effectively zero, despite the fact that I could detect that they were at least conversing. It was both “quieter than normal” and quiet in isolation from any other considerations, and yet it was still the heart of London, and there was still too much competing outdoor sounds for me to hear conversations a short distance away.

Or are you sceptical of my claim because of my wickedly nefarious Hutch-hassling “agenda”. In which case, by the same token, I exercise the right to be sceptical about Lechmere’s claims, considering that he is one of only three extremely aggressive and vocal naysaysers to the suggestion that Hutchinson may have lied or was responsible for one or more of the ripper-attributed murders. I was one of the very first to discuss the comparison tests I had conducted, and well in advance of that, I learned that other researchers and authors had visited the site and came to similar conclusions, i.e. that Hutchinson must have been very close to the couple in order to detect conversation and the colour of a handkerchief – too close to avoid being noticed by Kelly and Astrakhan, obviously.

I’m slightly confused by the nature of Lechmere’s observations. First he tells us he could hear clubbers “across Commercial Street (outside the church)”, but then informs us that he “could hear a raised voice (not shouted) from where Miller’s Court was when I was standing on the corner where the Britannia used to be." As far as I know, there is no “club” a third of the way down former Dorset Street, and the location in question certainly isn’t “outside the church”! Detecting a raised voice is of course very different to discerning actual words, but I suspect I will soon be treated to a "sentence" uttered by one of the "clubbers" in question!

Finally, a word about the very crass observation that memory-befuddlers are more common that serial killers. It is essential to take on board the case-specific observations. Somebody murdered Kelly that night, and somebody was loitering outside Miller’s Court just over an hour before Kelly was murdered. It’s reasonable to surmise that the killer was the loitering man, and it is reasonable to surmise that that the loitering man was Hutchinson – more reasonable that it is to conclude that he confused the dates and wasn’t there at all as this defies coincidence and it most implausible given the circumstances.

But please, “Wrong dates”, distances and decibels have been discussed in painful detail on the other painfully long thread, and if you want to continue the fun, I strongly suggest you continue it there rather than creating a near-identical thread.