Hutchinson's Sunday Sighting

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Just where is the 'problem' ?"

You have to read the thread to get the hang of that, Ruby. Thing is, even if you do, chances are that you STILL will not see the relevance of questioning the value of Lewis´evidence. That, Ruby, is how it goes - but it depends on who you ask!

Maybe that is why this discussion exists? People don´t agree, sort of?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"engaging me obsessively in yet another interminable Hutchinson-discussion is obviously the priority for you here"

I think that a lenghty discussion could be held about who is obsessive here, Ben. Not that you´d learn from it, though, so I digress ...

"There’s that detestable repetition of previously challenged nonsense again"

Challenge? WHAT challenge? You are wawing a flyswatter at a T-rex, Ben. And it´s not even a very fresh and useful swatter.

"Philip Sugden was aware of this, and yet he still considers Lewis a genuine witness just as everyone else does."

Up to the inquest we are obliged to see her as a genuine witness for obvious reasons. After that, your armada of cheerers-on will thin significantly. Was it not Paul Begg, for instance, that wrote that Lewis testimony could not be taken seriously after the change of it?
You see, Ben, I am not as alone in the world as you will have it. But if one of us MUST do the walk alone, let´s pray it will be me. I can do it. I don´t need myriads of perceived devotees and hoards of thought-up followers.

"Is “balderdash” a new word that you’ve looked up in English, and are suddenly very proud of being able to use?"

Oh no - it is not new at all. It´s been around for a long, long time. Did you not know? It means, roughly, craptalk.

"Hutchinson didn’t even specify a man of “gentlemanly” appearance, so the 19th November Echo description couldn’t have applied to Hutchinson even if he did attend the inquest. "

Balderdash. He did not HAVE to say gentleman after having spoken of all the attires relating to the guy. And it was the press, not Hutchinson that spoke of a gentleman in their articles on the 19:th. Do you think it VERY odd if they drew that conclusion from a description like Hutchinsons, Ben? WOuld it be filthy, preposterous nonsense if they read about thick goldchains, seal stones, horseshoe pins, spats, kid gloves and astrakhan trimmings and deducted that they were dealing with the description of a gentleman? Try selling that some place else, but not here!
What is also all-important here is that the man was described as one that portrayed gentlemanly manners. Lewis man was a horrific Ripper-in-spe, so he can easily be thrown out - but astrakhan man very gentlemanly offered Kelly his handkerchief, for example, meaning that HE fits the description. Plus he WAS seen in Kellys company, reportedly. If you think the jury is out, let me tell you they are out laughing.

"I go with Lewis’ impression, not yours."

I KNOW that, Ben. I like it. It means you will be wrong once again. Making the deduction that only people who have had the word "gentleman" used about them in a paper description, can actually pass as gentlemen is ... no, I won´t say it. But it commences with a b!

"It seems very much as though “the loiterer” was eclipsed in terms of importance by the more superficially sinister man from Bethnal Green Road."

Yeah, that sounds logical! Of course! Why would the police bother about a man that stands outside a murder site at a moment very close in time to when the victim would have died? It makes no sense.

"If Lewis wanted to parrot Cox’ evidence (for what possible reason?), she would certainly have used Cox’s “Billycock” in preference to “wideawake”, and she would certainly have referred to a blotchy face and/or carroty moustache."

Let´s see here, you think that Hutch did not mention Lewis because it would have made it soooo obvious that he had come forward because he knew of her testimony - but Lewis would of course describe the blotchy face and the carroty moustache of her loiterer. Hmmm, good thinking ...

By the way, much as Cox said billycock at the inquest, how do you know that she did not say wideawake to Lewis afterwards? You just know? That´s funny, for I know of a poster on these boards who has gone out of his way to prove that the twine were interchangeable... Does that not count now, for some reason...?

"If it’s such an “obvious misconception”, why does virtually nobody agree with you then?"

How can you tell? The interesting quiz that was concocted on the boards related to the question "Did Lewis lie?". Such a thing is controversial. It is NOT controversial, however, that she DID change her testimony radically. One cannot make a poll of such things - it would be like asking "WAS Churchill a politician?". It is not up for discussion, Ben.

"I realize this seems to be your cherished pursuit and main reason for so much of your time on discussions in which I participate, but you’ve never been at all successful at it. "

Maybe, Ben, you should not ask your own good self about this. It may come as a surprise to you, but there is some reason to believe that you perhaps cannot see this issue clearly. Over the years, there has been some little hint here and there that you may perhaps not be all you hope to be in this respect. Never mind, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sister Hyde]

sorry ben the reply to your first line got into the quote

[Sister Hyde]

Absolutely, SisterHyde, with no food to purchase in the whole of Tower Hamlets, he might have needed to walk 48 miles to find some.

I just guess anyone who needs to walk 48 miles every morning on an empty stomach would move closer to the food


Oh, come on, you're not telling me that the man's Astrakhan fur wasn't of some temptation?

Oh my!! yes it sure must have been!! I would have ruined his coat kneading on the fur and drueling... but such a behaviour from Hutch would have probably resulted in him ending up in the coucou nest

[Ben]

And don't forget Lady-Kee-Kee Keyler

Ah yes, Lesley. That's Keeeeler, which sounds almost exactly like Ga-La-Gher...apparently!

And of course, I agree entirely with your thoughts on Lewis.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

cause he was not a rich guy and who knows sometimes what you have to do in order to get some food but it would seem weird that he would be doing it every day

Absolutely, SisterHyde, with no food to purchase in the whole of the East End, he might have needed to walk 48 miles to find some.

Anyway I hardly see Hutchinson going and snuggling up against the guy when he comes out of MJK's room.

Oh, come on, you're not telling me that the man's Astrakhan fur wasn't of some temptation?

[Rubyretro]

Blimey, this thread is getting boring...

How can you be fighting about Mrs Lewis ??

Garry wroe pointed out logically that she had to have been the originator
of her own Statement.

There is not a whiff of anything to even suggest that she was a liar, nor did anyone suggest so -until Fish found he needed to support his 'wrong night' theory by chucking out contrary evidence.

Mrs Lewis's story has a totally believable ring of truth about it.

The very sketchiness of her description also rings true, compared to Hutchinson's over embellishments.

Just where is the 'problem' ?

[Sister Hyde]

Sister Hyde:

"I seriously wonder how he got to know that!"

He just knows things, Sister. And he won´t let go of Hutchinson for anything in the world.

He ought to let go of that translation programme, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

when will people understand that the scandinavian grammar is even too simple and easy to be handled by a program? that's how I see it, once you now your vocabulary and the gender of the words, once you know when to use "på", "för" and all the adverbials and prepositions used in expressions, it becomes a piece of cake.

Anyway I hardly see Hutchinson going and snuggling up against the guy when he comes out of MJK's room... It's ok for me to do that kind of things, but not for humans!

[Fisherman]

Sister Hyde:

"I seriously wonder how he got to know that!"

He just knows things, Sister. And he won´t let go of Hutchinson for anything in the world.

He ought to let go of that translation programme, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sister Hyde]

I have it on top authority from Melvyn Fairclough, Joseph Gorman Sickert, the Morning Advertiser, the Wheeling Register and some bloke named Terry from Romford.

Men allvarligt, var han enligt uppgift mycket gosig. Han vandrade också 48 miles varje dag före frukost.

ok then these people must have had very very VERY weird relations to Hutchinson.
wandering 48 miles daily ok it's not so weird. but before breakfast every day?? probably it did happen sometimes, maybe even often, cause he was not a rich guy and who knows sometimes what you have to do in order to get some food but it would seem weird that he would be doing it every day. spnding a lot of energy while having nothing in the system is not something "fun" I can tell you

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

I have it on top authority from Melvyn Fairclough, Joseph Gorman Sickert, the Morning Advertiser, the Wheeling Register and some bloke named Terry from Romford.

And don't forget Lady-Kee-Kee Keyler

[Ben]

So engaging me obsessively in yet another interminable Hutchinson-discussion is obviously the priority for you here, rather than recognizing that the better thing to do would be to steer the thread back on topic after you derailed it.

“We all KNOW that Lewis went from claiming that she could not say one single thing about the man she saw - not a shred, not a scrap, not nothing, that is - to suddenly being able to point out that he was a shortish, stout guy clad in dark clothes,”

There’s that detestable repetition of previously challenged nonsense again, so off we go again: Clearly nobody has any problem with the minor discrepancies between her police statement and inquest evidence. Clearly nobody has any problem with her impression of the man’s interest in the court. Clearly, nobody considers a black hat a “detailed description”, and so on. If anything, an earlier witness statement is likely to be less reliable than a later inquest testimony, especially if s/he was an unwitting or unwilling participant in an extremely traumatic affair such as Lewis would have been in the morning of 9th November, after a harrowing discovery and a sleepless night. Again, nobody rejected Lewis’ testimony, then or now, nor has anyone asserted – until you showed up – that her police statement invalidates her inquest testimony.

People who have confidence in their own arguments tend to let them stand on their own merits, rather than pleading the same redundant, unpopular, never-to-be-seriously-entertained drivel about Sarah Lewis, who continued to be taken seriously as a witness. This horrible nonsense about a colossal change on Lewis’ part is your fantasy alone, and one the contemporary police did not invest in. The man was “not, tall but stout”, wore a wideawake, and was apparently “watching” and “waiting”. Besides the numerous explanations behind Lewis’ omission of those details on the morning of the murder, when her egress from the court was physically prevented, it might be borne in mind that she was preoccupied at the time of the sighting by the other man from Bethnal Green Road, who had spooked her considerably more than the wideawake man.

Philip Sugden was aware of this, and yet he still considers Lewis a genuine witness just as everyone else does. This “major-major” change is a fantasy you’ve invested in a month of two ago because you panic that the Lewis-Hutchinson connection establishes beyond reasonable doubt that neither confused the date. In fact, all these crazy new theories you’re currently espousing are all borne of a desperation to salvage Dew’s “date confusion” speculations, which is something else you decided to revive a few posts after I mentioned him for the first time in connection with Hutchinson.

Is “balderdash” a new word that you’ve looked up in English, and are suddenly very proud of being able to use?

“It is very clear that the man spoken of here is Astrakhan man. The paper made the mistake of believing that he belonged to the inquest, which he didn´t.”

Don’t be preposterous.

The Echo knew few well that Hutchinson did not attend the inquest, and would not, therefore, have described him as a witnesses who attended it. They were already fully aware by then, as a result of direct communication with the police, that Hutchinson was discredited in part because of his failure to attend the inquest. What sane newspaper would report this police-supplied detail which focussed specifically on Hutchinson’s no-show at the inquest, only to describe him a few days later as a witness who attended the inquest? Clearly they did no such thing, and yet you have the gut-wrenching gall to accuse me of lying, and pretend that I “know” this isn’t true.

You are talking yet more nonsense, Fisherman, and YOU know it.

Hutchinson didn’t even specify a man of “gentlemanly” appearance, so the 19th November Echo description couldn’t have applied to Hutchinson even if he did attend the inquest. Lewis was the only witness to describe a “gentleman” suspect, a detail that you oh-so-conveniently omit from your reproduction of Lewis’ evidence.

From the Daily Telegraph, 13th November:

“On Wednesday night I was going along the Bethnal-green-road, with a woman, about eight o'clock, when a gentleman passed us. He followed us and spoke to us, and wanted us to follow him into an entry. He had a shiny leather bag with him.”

It doesn’t matter in the slightest whether or not you think the man had gentlemanly appearance and manners, but Sarah Lewis, who was able to observe and listen to the man at close quarters, still described him as a “gentleman”. I go with Lewis’ impression, not yours.

Also, since Lewis was the only inquest witness who referred to a “gentleman” suspect, it follows that the 19th November Echo article could only have been in reference to Lewis, thus demonstrating continued police endorsement of her evidence a week after the inquest. There is no other explanation. Rotten, beastly luck for your recently conjured up Lewis-bashing agenda.

“I also fail very much to see why you should use the BG man as a sign that the police followed up on Lewis tip about a loiterer. It is not the same man at all, is it?”

It seems very much as though “the loiterer” was eclipsed in terms of importance by the more superficially sinister man from Bethnal Green Road.

“Of course not - the fact that her man is a twin of Cox´s is just a twist of fate, nothing else ...! Dark clothing, not tall but stout, wideawake hat”

Ah yes, what an astonishingly detailed description that was? Good grief. If Lewis wanted to parrot Cox’ evidence (for what possible reason?), she would certainly have used Cox’s “Billycock” in preference to “wideawake”, and she would certainly have referred to a blotchy face and/or carroty moustache.

“So, Ben, you try to pull off the very obvious misconception that Lewis only changed her testimony to a very small extent, and top it of by calling me shameless?”

If it’s such an “obvious misconception”, why does virtually nobody agree with you then? Try to cultivate a bit of humility when you post these extremely controversial, brand new, and minority endorsed ideas, please.

“Well, let me tell you that it only takes a fraction of a second to outwit you”

I realize this seems to be your cherished pursuit and main reason for dedicating so much of your time to discussions in which I participate, but you’ve never been at all successful at it. That doesn’t mean I’m not grateful that I can command such extremes of attention from some people. The desire to “outwit” me clearly has a hypnotic appeal for some.

Let's have another very long post please, Fisherman.

[Ben]

how do you know THAT ??

I have it on top authority from Melvyn Fairclough, Joseph Gorman Sickert, the Morning Advertiser, the Wheeling Register and some bloke named Terry from Romford.

Men allvarligt, var han enligt uppgift mycket gosig. Han vandrade också 48 miles varje dag före frukost.

[Sister Hyde]

JAG är gosig.
Now Fish, maybe he really meant to say that Hutchinson was a very cuddly witness... then I seriously wonder how he got to know that!

[Fisherman]

Not to ask "How did you PHRASE that ... Computerized translation programmes obviously have some serous shortcomings.

The best,
Fisherman