Innocent, By George!

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It is pointless saying they don't when they manifestly do"

Do they now? "Worthless stories lead police astray" relates to more than ONE story to begin with, so we need to be aware of the need to involve all stories in a context that was not unfair.

Would Hutchinsons story be useful if it came from the wrong day? No it would not. Then what would it be? It would be worthless. Thatīt THAT part.

What would Hutchinsonīs story do to the police BEFORE they realized that it was not correct? It would lead them down the wrong path of investigation, in other words, it would lead them astray. And that was THE OTHER part.

You do a lot of "intrepreting", Ben. Please keep an open mind when doing so. It helps immensely.

And also keep in mind that if you make a test on Villers Street where a man cannot hear something that is shouted in his ear from two inches away, that does not prove that you cannot hear what is shouted in your ear from two inches away. It proves that the man you tested failed to do so. And thatīs how it goes - what we need to check is whether the type of conversation we are investigating COULD be heard, and I and Lechmere have both provided evidence that this is so. After that, it is totally useless to say that perhaps somebody else would not be able to hear things in the same fashion. So you may go on making more tests, but it is not until you realize the same thing that I and Lechmere have realized that it has any value at all.
Compare it to swimming the English Channel. If somebody accomplishes it, then that is evidence that it can be done. After that, no mattar how many swimmers drown trying to do the same you can record. We STILL know that it CAN be accomplished.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Letchmere,
As Fisherman does not seem to want to discuss with me anymore,and since you seem to have taken up the cudgeal on his behalf,I will address this post to you.

I have never said a raised voice could not have been heard as far as the corner of Dorset street.From the first I have questioned why Kelly,while standing with the male at the entrance to Miller's court, needed to do so(raise voice).Fisherman did not answer that question.Can you?

As to the matter of memory(and Mike can also take note here)I believe I have a good grasp of it.I have had over eighty three(83) years association with the subject.

The proposition was that Hutchinson,in his meeting with Aberline on the evening of the 12th November,was speaking of events that happened on 7/8 November,while maintaining that those events had in fact happened on 8/9 November 1888.The events were,going to Romford,returning late,being locked out of the Victoria home,meeting Kelly on Commercial street,seeing her meet a stranger,taking him to the court,following them into Dorset street,waiting near the court for 45 minutes,then walking the streets of Whitechapel.A series of events that from start to finish must have taken a whole day.

For Hutchinson to have mistaken the dates,he must have had a loss of memory of events that happened on 8/9,and replaced them in memory with what happened on7/8.That eqauls a loss of memory for a whole day,the8/9(whats the odds Mike,of a person forgetting a whole day of his life and substituting with another day.Just three days later.)Fisherman hasn't answered the why of how the memory was lost,Letchmere,Can you?

As to the braindead,Fisherman himself raised the issue.I concurred.

As to my honesty,you read back through his posts.

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"Assuming your final sentence to be true, Lechmere, Hutchinson must have come forward in total ignorance of Lewis’s testimony and yet still placed himself at the same location as the man seen staring intently into Miller’s Court. Unless (as I suspect you might) you dismiss this co-occurrence as nothing more than coincidence, it must be concluded that the Lewis account provides independent corroboration for Hutchinson’s claimed Dorset Street vigil. More to the point, it extinguishes any potentiality that Hutchinson confused the date on which this vigil occurred."

Over the years, very much has been said about the "independent corroboration" you speak of, Garry. And the loiterer and Hutchinson have come to be treated as one and the same, since all they did was "so very alike"
.
Letīs just stop for a minute and look at this once more.

1. They were there at the exact same time.

What we know is that Hutchinson said he was there from 2.15 to 3 AM, approximately. Dew tells us that he is of the meaning that Hutchinson was confusing the dates. Hutchinson himself never mentions standing at Crossinghams; he says he went to the court and stood there for the whole time. This is what we have on him.

On the loiterer, we have only Lewisīwords. She places him on the southern side of the street, at the door of Crossinghams, at about 2.15.

This means that we do not know that they were there at the same time. There is a possibility that a minute of Hutchinsonīs vigil coincides with the time Lewis observed the loiterer, but of the latter we know not how long he was there.
Is there even a chance that they were two different men, there on the same night? I canīt see why not. People back then often got their timing wrong, as shown by for example Spooner in the Stride case. Therefore, Lewis may perhaps have passed into Dorset Street some minutes BEFORE Hutchinson got there, and the loiterer may have vanished before "our" scenario was played out.
I donīt know how much water this holds. Maybe it can be disspelled, but I see no immediate reason to regard it totally impossible.
I do, however, think it a lot more credible that Hutchinson was there on Thursday morning.

At any rate, the notion that both men were there at the exact same time is a fragile suggestion.

2. They stood at the same spot.

There is no corroboration for this. What we have points away from it.

3. They did the exact same thing.

Once again, we have Hutchinsons words telling us that he DID observe the entrance to the yard (although from another vantage point than that of the loiterer, if Iīm correct!). But how about the loiterer? How does one portray that one is waiting for someone to come out? I sure canīt tell. Can you?
It was a rainy, blustery night. If the loiterer had stepped out of Crossinghamīs entrance seconds before Lewis saw him, how do we know that he was not simply peering out into the rain, waiting for it to subside? How do we know that he looked up the archway, and not at McCarthyīs shop? And how unexpected is it for a man with his back to the door of Crossinghams to seemingly look across the street?
I have also said before, and will say again, that Millerīs Court was comparable to a brothel, more or less. That would have attracted many a man, some of them regular punters, while others may just have gotten a kick out of watching the business.

In conclusion, even if the witnesses were right in their estimations, we should not ask ourselves how credible it is to find two men at the exact same spot at the exact same time doing the exact same thing. We should ask ourselves: If a man stands in a street in a place from which he can monitor an archway for 45 minutes, how credible is it that another man could be standing at a slightly different spot, allowing for the same monitoring, for one or two minutes, corresponding at some stage with the full time frame of 45 minutes on the following night?

Ouite credible. That is my answer. And, of course, even more credible if the street was as crowded in the dead of the night by lodgers as Ben will have it ... But I donīt buy into that particular bit for a minute!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Fisherman
I think Lewis said she was there at 2.30 and she claims to have checked the church clock. However throughout the Ripper investigation witnesses frequently seem to be out by 15 minutes here and there, so I guess we cannot be sure. Time recording wasn’t what it is now!
One thing occurred to me – in the police testimony Hutchinson didn’t mention Miller’s Court. Miller’s Court is however mentioned in various newspaper reports that purport to be interviews with him. What if Hutchinson knew some other local prostitute as Kelly. As we know it was a common nom de plume for prostitutes. It has always struck me as odd that he claimed to know her for 3 years (I doubt he knew Mary Jane Kelly that long) yet referred to her as just ‘Kelly’.
Anyway maybe Hutchinson was waiting outside a different court – which the newspapers named Miller’s Court on the assumption that he was outside that one. It isn’t mentioned in direct speech where I have seen the location mentioned. This is another possibility as to why Hutchinson was dismissed – short of him being regarded by the police as a liar.

Harry
I haven’t taken up a cudgel on anyone’s behalf – and haven’t always agreed with Fisherman and have sometimes agreed with Ben.
The issue as to why Kelly may have raised her voice was discussed. The point was made that she was drunk and drunken persons often raise their voice. I made the point that they can be prone sometimes to whispering seemingly intimately one minute, shrieking the next. It is not out of the ordinary behaviour.

Back to the issue of missing dates – if Hutchinson was out all night (Wednesday night, Thursday morning) and went looking for work the next day as a casual labourer and worked on auto pilot due to sleep deprivation, then went to sleep like a log on Thursday night/Friday morning and then went out early again looking for work as a casual labourer, and again on Saturday, you can easily see how potentially he just got the days mixed up in his head. It does not mean that a day was missing completely from his memory.
Fisherman has made the point that tiredness can exacerbate confusion over dates – which is a fair enough in my opinion. Sometimes it just happens for no real reason. Maybe he wanted to think that he was the last person to see her alive and so convinced himself that it was the same day when it wasn’t. These things do happen.
I don’t have a problem with someone getting muddled over what they did one each day. It is in my opinion a commonplace thing to happen and sometimes I do it myself.

[Ben]

“What does that matter - the observations the boy made were unique to that particular truck They did not ALL have the same dents and the same shapes of rust patches, Iīm afraid.”

Yes, but it was still a commonplace sight to behold in such a place, Fisherman, unlike the Astrakhan man in one of the worst streets in London. The other obvious difference is the sheer amount of detail Hutchinson alleged to have noticed and memorized. Hutchinson claimed to memorized items he couldn’t even have noticed in those conditions, which isn’t true of truck boy.

“And I still say that you wonīt find another example of the behaviour you think Abberline stod for.”

And I still say, firstly, that your knowledge isn’t nearly extensive enough to make such a determination, and secondly, it is still not a question of what I “think” but what actually happened. As early as the 13th November, the authorities came to attach a reduced importance to Hutchinson’s account, despite the fact that Hutchinson had only made himself known on the evening of the previous night. Whatever it was that prompted the authorities to revise their opinion of Hutchinson and his account, it clearly was not of a nature that either ruled him out conclusively, and certainly didn’t permit the inference that he was “honestly mistaken”, or anything of that nature.

We don’t know exactly why Hutchinson’s account was discredited, but I would suggest the clues are extremely obvious, and were hinted at in the Echo article. They actually provided some of the reasons the authorities had for doubting the account, including his delay in coming forward, his failure to attend the inquest and appear under oath (why mention this if their reason for this "reduced importance" had nothing to do with the question of his truthfuless or lack thereof?), and the absence of any other Astrakhan types in the district. I’ve already mentioned the Star account, which lumped his “worthless story” in with the lying Matthew Packer. I didn’t say that this revision of opinion occurred in the complete absence of further evidence. I acknowledged the Echo’s observation that it was fuelled by “later investigations”.

“Thatīs as bad as a suggestion gets. Itīs rock bottom.”

I don’t place any value in your judgement on such matters, so your silly hyperbole is water off a duck’s back. Hutchinson probably avoided mentioning Lewis on purpose in order to prevent or delay the revelation that he had come forward in response to Lewis’ evidence. If my interpretation is correct, and I strongly suspect it is, his deliberate omission appears to have resulted in the outcome he hoped for, since nobody appeared to have inferred a parallel between Hutchinson and Lewis’ wideawake man, not even the press who were accustomed to making their own judgements and “connections” with regard to the eyewitness evidence.

As we’ve seen – or should have seen – Lewis’ evidence appears to have been bypassed in terms of significance in certain key areas, although it is very apparent that her Bethnal Green man was considered the prime suspect in her account. She mentioned him on two occasions, and his behaviour may well have been construed as more immediately “suspicious”. The wideawake man was clearly eclipsed as an investigative priority as a consequence.

“If Hutch was there and forgot to mention Lewis, the police would ask him. Specifically. Over and over again”

This is baseless nonsense which I utterly reject.

There is not a scrap of evidence that the police ever quizzed Hutchinson over his failure to mention Lewis, and not a scrap of evidence that this clearly overlooked aspect of Lewis’ testimony was compared to Hutchinson’s account. In fact, even more likely, the police would probably not have asked whether or not a woman entered the court. He wouldn’t have been required to say “no no and no again”. It would have been a case of withholding the information, rather than denying a Lewis sighting if asked about it, and he almost certainly wasn’t.

“This is how it goes.”

Only according to you, which doesn’t carry much weight, unfortunately.

“Worthless stories lead police astray" relates to more than ONE story to begin with,”

Yes, it related to Hutchinson and Packer, and the latter was clearly considered to have lied in his account – the obvious implication in lumping them together being that both discredited stories were discredited for the same reason. They wouldn’t have used the expression “lying” as I explained to Lechmere. Even Donald Swanson’s report observed only that Packer had given divergent accounts. If Hutchinson had muddled the day, it wouldn’t be a worthless story as the police would still be in pursuit of Astrakhan man if that were the case. In reality, however, it appears that any interest in this “suspect” disappeared with Hutchinson’s discrediting. Ill-informed journalists and members of the public might well have been on the Astrak-hunt afterwards, but there’s no evidence that the police were ever interested in future suspects on account of their Astrakhan resemblance.

“what we need to check is whether the type of conversation we are investigating COULD be heard, and I and Lechmere have both provided evidence that this is so.”

You and Lechmere are biased sources, Fisherman. That’s not an accusation; it’s simply a statement of fact. You had both shown yourselves to be not only the two most vocal detractors when addressing my thoughts on the Hutchinson issue, but vocal advocates of the idea that Hutchinson could have detected the conversation before any of these experiments or tests were conducted. The outcome of both of your “tests” was that, lo and behold, what you were earlier asserting at great length to be the case turned out to be so. I exercise a legitimate right to be sceptical about the validity of these so-called tests for that reason. Obviously you are more than welcome to treat my claims with the same caution if you wish.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Oh, good, are people still challenging the likelihood that Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis?

My favourite.

Off we go again then.

Sarah Lewis had noticed a man standing opposite the court at 2:30am that night:

“He was not tall - but stout - had on a black wideawake hat…the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out”

And now here’s Hutchinson’s version of events:

“I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out, they did not so I went away.”

As we’ve already noted, Hutchinson claimed to have been at that location from around 2:15am to 3.00am, so that deals with Fisherman’s objection to the premise that they were standing there at the “exact same time”, unless he thinks that the time frame doesn’t encompass 2:30am. Lewis placed the loitering man near the lodging house in her police statement, but in the vast majority of press versions of her inquest testimony, she placed her man “opposite the lodging house”. Logical deduction: ambiguity exists as to exactly where the loitering man stood, and the same may be said of Hutchinson, who stated only that he went to the court and waited there for 45 minutes. Since “to the court” refers to the area in front of the court on narrow Dorset Street, it follows that he could have been anywhere along the width of the street during that time frame, and given the length of it (the time frame) it is likely that he moved about a bit.

The “north side” “south side” distinction is a decidedly meaningless one borne of a misunderstanding of the geography of the area, and in particular the neglible width of the street. The bottom line of course, is that nothing relating to the locations reported of Hutchinson and the wideawake man suggests they were different people - quite the reverse. The only objection people are now resorting to is that maybe someone’s watch went wrong, or mistook the time, a suggestion for which we have no evidence, and no reason to suppose for a moment that it occurred. It is just an obstinate resistance to the blatently obvious.

This topic was debating at considerable length on another thread, and yet people want to start it up again here. Why?

Both Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson were alleged to have been looking up the court (identical wording) as though watching or waiting for someone to come. You advance a rather unconvincing argument in an effort to dampen this coincidence by suggesting that Lewis only thought her loiterer was watching or waiting for someone, but actually wasn’t.

I have considerable trouble with this suggestion.

So when Lewis only thought that the man she saw loitering opposite the court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder was watching or “waiting for someone to come out” some real person actually was? Her confused misreading of the lodger’s reason for hovering there just happened to coincide accidentally with Hutchinson’s reasons for waiting opposite the court at 2:30, watching or “waiting for someone to come out”.

This explanation belies the term “coincidence”.

It is startlingly obvious that something about the loiterer’s behaviour conveyed the impression that he was preoccupied with the court. He clearly looked as though he was watching or waiting for someone, and there are clear and easy ways to communicate this interest with your body language. Similarly, if he wasn’t interested in the court, then anyone standing outside Crossingham’s (a few feet away) could have made this perfectly obvious too. You’re quite right that there would have been “other points to gaze on” but as far as Lewis was concerned, the loiterer’s preoccupation was with the entrance to Miller’s Court. Hutchinson later claimed to have been at the same – yes, the same – location at the same time, with the same preoccupation.

Coincidence? No way.

And two independent men both watching or waiting for someone to come out of Millers Court at the same time? I won’t even deal with that one.

[Ben]

Hi Harry,

Suffice to say, I fully agree with your well-expressed thoughts on the “misremembered date” issue. It was interesting to see Dew’s thoughts aired again, but in all circumspection, it isn’t difficult to see why his “honestly mistaken” premise had received little if any support over the decades since it was first published in 1938. There were simply too many memorable events coinciding on that same date for “date confusion” to be a credible explanation. His monster Romford trek, the Lord Mayor’s Show and the brutal murder of an alleged three-year acquaintance were three decidedly date-crystallizing occurrences, and difficult to confuse for that reason. Lechmere using himself as an example of a date confuser is not applicable, unless he's alleging that he misremembered something anywhere near as significant or calamitous as Hutchinson's experiences.

What we’re seeing now, unfortunately, is a pocket of sustained resistance to the conclusion that at the very least, Hutchinson fabricated key aspects of his account. We’ve moved on from “Did Hutchinson get the wrong night?” to “Did Hutchinson get the wrong prostitute? and “Did Hutchinson get the wrong court?”. These are all very outlandish and improbable suggestions, but what they have in common is a determination to resist at all costs any consideration that Hutchinson may have lied. It's a classic case of trying to get from A to predecided C using an implausible B.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"One thing occurred to me – in the police testimony Hutchinson didn’t mention Miller’s Court. Miller’s Court is however mentioned in various newspaper reports that purport to be interviews with him. What if Hutchinson knew some other local prostitute as Kelly. As we know it was a common nom de plume for prostitutes. It has always struck me as odd that he claimed to know her for 3 years (I doubt he knew Mary Jane Kelly that long) yet referred to her as just ‘Kelly’.
Anyway maybe Hutchinson was waiting outside a different court – which the newspapers named Miller’s Court on the assumption that he was outside that one. It isn’t mentioned in direct speech where I have seen the location mentioned. This is another possibility as to why Hutchinson was dismissed – short of him being regarded by the police as a liar."

Interesting - but we Do have him saying that the couple went into Dorset Street and he stood at the corner and overheard them speaking. If it was not at Millerīs court, we have o move the couple a fair way further down teh street to find the next court, and that would have diminshed the accoustic opportunities offered. But a raised voice surely could have bridged that too, so the possibility is there. And if so, Hutch would not have stood at Crossinghamīs!
My own stance is that Hutch DID know Kelly well enough not to make that kind of a mistake, though. I think Abberline will have tried to confirm this before buying the testimony.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"it was still a commonplace sight to behold in such a place, Fisherman, unlike the Astrakhan man in one of the worst streets in London."

Not sure what you are getting at - how does that diminish the boys gift for picking pick-upīs up detailwise?

"Hutchinson claimed to memorized items he couldn’t even have noticed in those conditions"

Hutchinson claimed to memorized items THAT YOU THINK he couldn’t even have noticed in those conditions. Not nearly as serious a crime.

"your knowledge isn’t nearly extensive enough to make such a determination"

The assumption is a very viable one. It will not be far from the truth. In fact, if you DO find me such an example, Iīll buy you a large case of Larkinīs porter next season!

" it is still not a question of what I “think” but what actually happened."

I can tell you what happened: He was discarded. And that was due to either something that was always there, easy to see and judge, in the testimony - or to something new that surfaced. And just as we know that case of porter will illude you, we ALSO know that history is absolutely crammed with examples of policemen changing their views as a result of added evidence.

So why would we opt for fairytale country, when the true world endorses another picture altogether? There is nothing at all in the material itself (disregarding statistics, that is) we have that even remotely hints at one of these choices being the more viable one here, so Iīd say that when statistics are completely, utterly and outstandingly onesided, thatīs that. And the wording "in the light of later investigations" goes eminently to show that what was found was NOT there from the outset. It took investigations to pop up. New. Added. Fresh.
Oh, and it is not all too strange that nobody saw Astrakhan on the morning of the 9:th, by the way - he was not there (but he WAS on the 8:th, in all probability).

"There is not a scrap of evidence that the police ever quizzed Hutchinson over his failure to mention Lewis"

No! So once again, itīs either or. And my advice is the same as last time over: go with the statistics. How usual is it that the police, after an inquest with the fewest of people, out of whom only two mentioned a man in the absolute vicinity of the murder site, misses to make the connection when a new witness places another man at just about (not totally!) the same spot as one of these witnesses? Nope. Njet. No way.

"Only according to you, which doesn’t carry much weight, unfortunately."

Long as it easily outweighs YOUR view, I am happy to accept that.

"Yes, it related to Hutchinson and Packer, and the latter was clearly considered to have lied in his account – the obvious implication in lumping them together being that both discredited stories were discredited for the same reason."

"Obvious". Now, thereīs a word that keeps coming up when discussing with you! "Obvious" and "screamingly obvious" and "common sense" and such! Obviously, whatīs obvious to you is not obvious to others. No, the two were lumped together because they both furnished worthless stories that led the police astray. Thatīs what it says, and thatīs what it means. Moreover, that is how journalists work to cover things in a limited headline. The REASON for this worthlessness and leading astray is NOT given, however. You are "interpreting" again, Ben!

"If Hutchinson had muddled the day, it wouldn’t be a worthless story as the police would still be in pursuit of Astrakhan man if that were the case"

...and Packers story would not be "worthless", since the police would have a lot to learn from it anyway! But BOTH stories were worthless as prime clues to the killings. And believe me, if thepress may choose between "not so very valuable" and "worthless", they soon realize that the latter wording will sell more copies.

"You and Lechmere are biased sources, Fisherman."

We are not, Iīm afraid, much as you would like us to be. Unless you mean that I accepted Erling Niilssons bid from the outst. That I did, but if thta makes me biased, then the word is full of biased scholars. And a bias would not change the laws of accoustics. Was Erling Nilsson biased? Had I perhaps pestered him so much that he said what I wanted to hear to get rid of me? And what about Lechmere overhearing and making out what was said from across Comemrcial street under a period of much car traffick and other noise? Was it his "bias" that helped him to make out the words? Or are you perhaps saying that he is lying about it all, since he is biased?

"I exercise a legitimate right to be sceptical about the validity of these so-called tests for that reason."

Not really, Ben. You are trying to exercise a right to question the laws of accoustics. That is not the same thing.

"you are more than welcome to treat my claims with the same caution if you wish."

As if it was an even battle, you mean? It is not. But rest assured that I treat ANY claim you may feel like making about accoustics with the very greatest of caution!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"As we’ve already noted, Hutchinson claimed to have been at that location from around 2:15am to 3.00am, so that deals with Fisherman’s objection to the premise that they were standing there at the “exact same time”, unless he thinks that the time frame doesn’t encompass 2:30am."

Itīs within the time frame alright - IF the time frame was correctly assessed. I have gone through old threads today, and I found that Gareth actually made the same claim as I did - that we MAY be looking at the people involved getting their times wrong. The more credible thing, though, is that they did not, but it may be unwise rule the other option out totally.

"The “north side” “south side” distinction is a decidedly meaningless one borne of a misunderstanding of the geography of the area, and in particular the neglible width of the street."

Aha: the "geography of the area" did not allow for a south side and a north side on that street. How strange! I could have sworn they were both on that photo!

"This topic was debating at considerable length on another thread, and yet people want to start it up again here. Why?"

Poor you! Iīll help you out: if you do not wish to discuss it, then donīt! Much as I sympathize with your getting exhausted, I really donīt think you need to take on such a mammoth job, Ben. Get a rest, have some coffee, skip the debate for a month or two!

"So when Lewis only thought that the man she saw loitering opposite the court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder was watching or “waiting for someone to come out” some real person actually was? Her confused misreading of the lodger’s reason for hovering there just happened to coincide accidentally with Hutchinson’s reasons for waiting opposite the court at 2:30, watching or “waiting for someone to come out”."

Not really, Ben. Hutch, you see, muddled the days and was not even THERE on the morning of the 9:th!
You must have forgotten this?

Now, please tell me how one can assess that somebody is waiting for someone to come out, only by looking and interpreting their gaze! I am not much of an "interpreter" myself, so maybe you will do the honors?

"It is startlingly obvious that something about the loiterer’s behaviour conveyed the impression that he was preoccupied with the court."

What, Ben, what?

"He clearly looked as though he was watching or waiting for someone, and there are clear and easy ways to communicate this interest with your body language."

How, Ben, how?

Letīs assume that he was holding one of his hands against his eybrows, the way a military man greets an officer, and stooping down. That is the closest thing I can think of, if I want to portray somebody who is watching and waiting.
But how do I know that he was not just peering out into the rainy night, to try and make his mind up whether he should step out into the street??? In exactly what way does putting your hand against your eyebrows and stooping forward in order to see if somebody is coming out DIFFER from putting your hand against your eyebrows and stooping forward in order to see if the weather allows for stepping into the street?
Iīll be damned if I can make that call.

"two independent men both watching or waiting for someone to come out of Millers Court at the same time? I won’t even deal with that one."

Nor should you have to - I donīt think anybody would suggest such a thing. Unless I have? It sometimes seems that you are of the meaning that I have suggested things I have not even remotely hinted at.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Not sure what you are getting at - how does that diminish the boys gift for picking pick-upīs up detailwise?”

I don’t think it was a “gift”, Fisherman, personally speaking. I can see nothing extraordinary or unlikely in the detail recorded by the boy. Hutchinson is another matter entirely.

“Hutchinson claimed to memorized items THAT YOU THINK he couldn’t even have noticed in those conditions.”

Yes, and I “think” he was very unlikely to have noticed things like the colour of people’s eyelashes in those conditions for good reason – he couldn’t!

“In fact, if you DO find me such an example, Iīll buy you a large case of Larkinīs porter next season”

Please remember though that you’re asking me to find an example of a phenomenon that I haven’t even argued with regard to the police’s treatment of Hutchinson.

“He was discarded. And that was due to either something that was always there, easy to see and judge, in the testimony - or to something new that surfaced.”

This is not unreasonable as far as it goes, as long as we avoid that temptation to “fill in the blanks” with mythical alibis or proof of "wrong days". The Echo at least provided some of the reasons the authorities had for attaching a reduced importance to Hutchinson’s account, and they had nothing do with any proof secured to the effect that he had confused the dates or was “honestly mistaken” in any other capacity. Whatever the results of these “later investigations” reported in the Echo, they were clearly not of a nature that could feasibly “rule him out”. They merely cast doubt on his account, and as Garry has suggested, these doubts might have arisen when Hutchinson made some slip-up or other when on his walkabout with police. I’m still very confused at your continued reference to “statistics”.

“Oh, and it is not all too strange that nobody saw Astrakhan on the morning of the 9:th, by the way - he was not there (but he WAS on the 8:th, in all probability).”

Please don’t be ridiculous, Fisherman. This isn’t “probable” at all. It's just another one of your “outside possibilities”. It’s very interesting, and a good opportunity to give ol’ Dew’s views a bit an airing, but you’re about the only person who thinks that Hutchinson “probably” got the day wrong.

There is still no evidence that the police ever established a connection between Lewis’s wideawake man and Hutchinson, and the same may be said of the press and everyone else from the period. I’m sorry if this is problematic for you, but if you have evidence to the contrary, all you have to do it provide it, rather than harping on about “statistics”, of which you very clearly know nothing.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the Star’s account. I consider it astoundingly obvious that Hutchinson and Packer were deliberately lumped together in the same article to convey the impression that the police accorded them the same treatment; discredited witnesses assumed to be lying. If Hutchinson had merely confused the day like a silly addle-minded sausage, his account would hardly have been dismissed as worthless as there was still plenty of potential “worth” in the Astrakhan man sighting if the police still invested belief in it.

As for Erling Nilsson, no, I don’t consider him biased. I’ve stated from the outset that I have never disagreed with any of his views, nor have I questioned “the laws of acoustics”. I have only reminded those who need reminding of the likely conditions that existed in the crowded East End of Victorian London, and how they would affect people’s ability to overhear conversations, as the Lawende, Levy and PC Smith examples aptly demonstrate. I was in Sevenoaks this evening, and mindful of the “debate” in session, I tried to overhear actual conversation from a few metres away outside a pub at midnight. Suffice to say the noise was audible only, but not to the point that conversation could be distinguished.

“As if it was an even battle, you mean?”

Do try and remove the concept of “battles” from your approach to message board debates. It indicates a deliberately confrontational approach to your dogma.

Poor you! Iīll help you out: if you do not wish to discuss it, then donīt! Much as I sympathize with your getting exhausted, I really donīt think you need to take on such a mammoth job, Ben. Get a rest, have some coffee, skip the debate for a month or two!

Oh dear, here you are again. I realise that you may want me to skip the debate for a month, but if you think I'm remotely exhausted, you must really have a short memory when it comes to debating matters Hutchinson with me. Where did I say I did not "wish to discuss" it? I would absolutely love to discuss it. I just wanted to know why you're instigating an almost exact duplication of another thread, still in session. It's extremely telling, however, that you're envisaging these threads continuing at their present rate for the next few "months".

"Now, please tell me how one can assess that somebody is waiting for someone to come out, only by looking and interpreting their gaze!"

You're missing the point yet again, Fisherman, which was the irrespective of whether Lewis was right or wrong in her interpretation of the wideawake man's behaviour, her actual impression was that he seemed to be watching or waiting for someone to emerge from Miller's Court. This impression just happened to coincide with what Hutchinson claimed to have been doing at that location at that time - watching and waiting for someone to come out. What an amazing non-coindicence.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I don’t think it was a “gift”, Fisherman, personally speaking. I can see nothing extraordinary or unlikely in the detail recorded by the boy."

The police sure could!

"This is not unreasonable as far as it goes, as long as we avoid that temptation to “fill in the blanks” with mythical alibis or proof of "wrong days"."

We DO have Dew, thank God! He is our best pointer.

"Whatever the results of these “later investigations” reported in the Echo, they were clearly not of a nature that could feasibly “rule him out”."

And still he was ...?

"you’re about the only person who thinks that Hutchinson “probably” got the day wrong."

Long as Iīm correct, what do I care? I am not running a popularity show. And I do believe that there are followers, Ben.

"There is still no evidence that the police ever established a connection between Lewis’s wideawake man and Hutchinson, and the same may be said of the press and everyone else from the period. I’m sorry if this is problematic for you, but if you have evidence to the contrary, all you have to do it provide it, rather than harping on about “statistics”, of which you very clearly know nothing."

What a sad thing to say. Of course statistics is what we turn to when the evidence is not there IN EITHER WAY.

"If Hutchinson had merely confused the day like a silly addle-minded sausage"...

Have you never been "a silly addle-minded sausage"? I believe you have - most of us have.

"I was in Sevenoaks this evening, and mindful of the “debate” in session, I tried to overhear actual conversation from a few metres away outside a pub at midnight. Suffice to say the noise was audible only, but not to the point that conversation could be distinguished."

Totally uninteresting. Well, not uninteresting as such, but totally unviable as evidence in our debate.

"I realise that you may want me to skip the debate for a month"

I want us both to. Or letīs change the tone.

"You're missing the point yet again, Fisherman, which was the irrespective of whether Lewis was right or wrong in her interpretation of the wideawake man's behaviour, her actual impression was that he seemed to be watching or waiting for someone to emerge from Miller's Court."

Then YOU are missing the point - since impressions may be wrong. That is MY point. And itīs not missed.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

I entirely agree with you Ben.IF we can be sure of one thing Aberline would have been anxious to establish,it was that Hutchinson was talking about Friday morning.

Aberline. " How can you be positive it was friday morning,mr Hutchinson?"

Hutchinson. Mr Aberline,on Thursday I went to Romford.I was late returning,and the Victoria house was closed.I walked on and the woman Kelly stopped me and asked for sixpence.It's preety much all in Hutchinson's and Aberline's statements.

[Ben]

We DO have Dew, thank God! He is our best pointer.

You've certainly changed your tune from a few months ago, Fisherman, before I introduced you to his theory which you then quickly embraced. Previously you were saying things like:

"To begin with, we both know that Walter Dews book came out when he was 75 years old. In it, he turns Thomas Bowyer into a young fellow, he has Diemschitz entering the club crying: "The Ripper! The Ripper!", etcetera"

"I think you will agree with me that if we are to sharpen the pictuce of what happened back in 1888, Walter Dew is not neccessarily the best tool for going about it ..."

"And, of course, if we choose to believe overall in what old Walter said in his book - which is riddled with mistakes."

"But we know for sure that Dew WAS mistaken in a number of instances."

"we know for a fact that the 75-year old Walter Dew got a number of things terribly wrong."

These were your thoughts on Dew as recently as 13th October last year, but now, according to you, he's now upgraded to "our best pointer".

That's really quite a U-turn!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Since he is our ONLY pointer, it is not too hard a call to make, Ben. And I can of course once more write, as I have before, that yes, Dew gets a number of things wrong in his book, just as he gets most things right. I think that you will be hard pressed to find any author of any Ripper book that getīs all things correct - I am reading Fiona Rule right now, and she has Eddowes doing the fire engine impersonation. I like my fellow countryman Glenn Anderssons book too - although he missed out on the provenance of the George Yard buildings. You wrote in your article that Iremonger was the only useful document examination done on Hutch. We all get things wrong from time to time.

But donīt let that stop you! I can from the top of my head recall at least a handful of subjects where I have changed my mind that you can go looking for on the boards. I will even tip you off on the Stride issue - I used to believe she was a Ripper victim. Ooooh, everybody - U-TURN!!!
Every time I have changed my mind, though, I have done it because I thought it made good sense. Drop Hutch, and you will know what I mean.

The best,
Coconut Collector

formerly Fisherman (I changed it - but since I donīt like the new name very much, I may change it back again)