Did Mrs Cox have the right day

[Sally]

The answer to these riddles is a very easy one - and it covers ALL the anomalies.

Yep, it never happened. See? Easy.

[Fisherman]

WHAT never happened, Sally? If the muddling of days is what you are referring to, how does that cover the anomalies? Eh?

It´s not THAT easy, Sally - some thought process is required.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Never mind Fisherman. We can speculate to our hearts content but we'll never really know - unless new evidence emerges.

You know, its funny how that can happen sometimes. Just when everybody is sitting comfortably in their ontologically secure comfort zone, along comes some new information that blows it all out of the water.

BOOM!

Just like that.

I would have put a laughing smiley in there, but no. Maybe I'll save that one for another time.

Happy Posting.

[Fisherman]

The evidence that relates to this case is that the meteorologist said that it did not rain on the morning before the murder morning. That means that there IS evidence around. End of story.

Fisherman

[Wickerman]

Its surprising is it not how people can be in the same spot , and not see each other, a bit like Hutchinson and Lewis.
Regards Richard.

This was Dorset St. in Whitechapel, the streets were never deserted. People were always coming and going at all hours. We have no idea whether Hutchinson saw Lewis or not. Negative evidence is not "evidence" at all. Because Hutchinson made no mention of seeing Lewis it does not mean he didn't see her, or anyone else for that matter. Hutchinson does mention seeing a man enter a lodging-house (to the press), but we don't know what the question was which prompted this answer.

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

..... He walked the streets all night afterwards, remember? Do you do that on a rainy, blustery night?

The best,
Fisherman

Fish.
There was some rule (law) that if you admit to sleeping on private property without permission, someone's doorway or under some stairs, you could be charged.
"I walked around all night" is just what you tell the police, it is not meant to be taken as literally true.
Lets face it, no-one walks about all night. There's no need to label him a liar just because we was possibly trying to avoid being charged.

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Jon:

" Negative evidence is not "evidence" at all. Because Hutchinson made no mention of seeing Lewis it does not mean he didn't see her, or anyone else for that matter. Hutchinson does mention seeing a man enter a lodging-house (to the press), but we don't know what the question was which prompted this answer."

I beg to differ somewhat here, Jon. Hutchinson, from his Daily News interview:

"When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three o'clock. One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, BUT NO ONE ELSE (my emphasis)."

This means that we are not dealing with "negative evidence". It is not as if he could have seen her but not commented on it. He DOES comment: he saw no one else than the PC and the lodger. He therefore nails the number of people he saw, and Lewis is not amongst them.

""I walked around all night" is just what you tell the police, it is not meant to be taken as literally true.
Lets face it, no-one walks about all night. There's no need to label him a liar just because we was possibly trying to avoid being charged."

Wherefrom did you get the idea that nobody walks about all night? What law of nature rules against such a thing? If Hutchinson for example was not warmly clad, he would have had a very good reason to walk about. And it need not have been more than perhaps three or four hours, Jon!

Of course, it may just as well apply that he moved from place to place, sheltering from the wind at times, finding himself a shortish sleep at some stage, etcetera. I don´t think he would have taken much care to avoid any retribution from the police over having slept roughly - they were first and foremost interested in getting it right. I think both parties would have realized that!

Anyhow, if he spent at least a significant amount of his night walking the streets, it would have been a better (and drier) idea to do so on the night before, than on the murder night. To what extent he really DID walk the streets all night or not, we will never know. And your guess is as good as mine - but tallies a little less well with the recorded evidence.

All the best, Jon!
Fisherman

[Sally]

Negative evidence is not "evidence" at all. Because Hutchinson made no mention of seeing Lewis it does not mean he didn't see her, or anyone else for that matter. Hutchinson does mention seeing a man enter a lodging-house (to the press), but we don't know what the question was which prompted this answer.

Correct.

In much the same way as Hutchinson failing to mention the rain does not imply its absence.

These days, I am increasingly reminded of the Enormous Crocodile...

[Cogidubnus]

I'm sorry Sally but it reminds me more of the Clatterpillar!

All the best

Dave

[Wickerman]

Correct.

In much the same way as Hutchinson failing to mention the rain does not imply its absence.

Correct Sally.
It is pretty desperate to try build a case on what was not wrote down in an interview. If he had been directly asked that would be another matter entirely.
In no case is a witness required to include a weather report, and specifically for Fisherman, Hutchinson said he saw "one man go into a lodging-house", but followed it by saying, "but no-one else" (go into a lodging-house?).

Was the question; "Did you see any other men in Dorset street?".

The Court was interested in whether there were any other potential suspects in the street at that hour, suspects = male!

Regards, Jon S.

[Fisherman]

Language - useful thing, that!

Of course Dorset Street may have been crowded, whereas Hutchinson simply provided the paper with a small sample of all the men and women he saw, having been asked who were in the street at 2.37 exactly.

Here´s how I read what Hutchinson said:

" One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street."

No policeman came down the street, but he saw one who went by at the Commercial Street End.

... and then he directly goes on:

" I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street,"

Since he had said that no policeman came down the street, he felt that he needed to add that this did not mean that he saw nobody at all doing so, for he HAD seen a lodger coming into the street, entering a lodging-house. But for this, however, he emphasizes " NO ONE ELSE" was about.

You read it differently. You could be right. I think you´re wrong. No big deal, thus, Jon!

"The Court was interested in whether there were any other potential suspects in the street at that hour, suspects = male!"

It was not the Court asking, Jon - it was the Daily News. And maybe they were that prejudiced, I don´t know. It makes some sort of sense, I guess. But it is not a longer or harder phrase to ask "Did you see anybody else around?" That would cover for it all, accomplishes to begin with, and - not least - if Hutchinson had added that Queen Victoria had stood in the street all night, it would be a shame not to ask her what she had seen, would it not? Even if it was only the press asking, I think they would have wanted all details, and not only the ones relating to men. And I do hope that the Court and the police, when they asked, took an active interest in ALL people around. Anything else would be very unprofessional.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Correct Sally.
It is pretty desperate to try build a case on what was not wrote down in an interview. If he had been directly asked that would be another matter entirely.
In no case is a witness required to include a weather report, and specifically for Fisherman, Hutchinson said he saw "one man go into a lodging-house", but followed it by saying, "but no-one else" (go into a lodging-house?).

Was the question; "Did you see any other men in Dorset street?".

The Court was interested in whether there were any other potential suspects in the street at that hour, suspects = male!

Regards, Jon S.

Correct Jon

We do not know what Hutchinson was asked, only what was written down. What was recorded on his statement was the information considered to be of importance and relevance in that context. His press statement contains more detail, but then his press report is not for the purpose of apprehending the Ripper but for the entertainment of the public.

It is all context specific - and in neither case is either the weather, which everybody knew about anyway; or the number of people on the street, of any relevance.

I see this is fast becoming a Hutchinson thread. What is the fascination, eh?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"We do not know what Hutchinson was asked, only what was written down. "

Which is why we need to ask ourselves why the press would be anxious to convey a picture of just the two persons being seen by Hutchinson, if they in fact knew that he had mentioned many others.

Or, similarly, we must ask ourselves why the press would have asked about a very limited passage in time (and which passage, one wonders ...?), and printed who Hutchinson saw then. If so, did they only ask for, say, the period between 2.20 and 2.23? Or did they ask for ALL periods, whereas they wrote only about the one?

We can - and must - always see the shortcomings in the material we are looking at. But we need to apply logic to it too. Logic won´t take us all the way in all instances - but it helps immensely.

The same applies in the rain thing. It is correct to say that not speaking of rain is confirming that no rain was about. Good thinking! But more thinking can be applied. We have a night of unbuttoned coats described, a night of leaning against lampposts, a night of stopping not inside, but OUTSIDE an arch for a longish chit-chat, a night spent walking the streets etcetera, etcetera. The proof is NOT there, thus - but the inference and the circumantantial evidence is. It very much seems like a dry night, since the signs we have point in that direction.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Which is why we need to ask ourselves why the press would be anxious to convey a picture of just the two persons being seen by Hutchinson, if they in fact knew that he had mentioned many others.

Anxious? That's your take on it Fisherman. Your'e missing the point, what relevance would those other people have to the story? The whole point of the press account, other than providing a bit of background information on Hutchinson himself (most enlightening, ta, Press) was to provide an account of the suspect for the public. You write as if it was a without agenda or bias - it wasn't. Extraneous detail does not sell papers.
You ought to know that, I should have thought.

The same applies in the rain thing. It is correct to say that not speaking of rain is confirming that no rain was about.

What? No. Not referring to rain is no confirmation of anything at all. It doesn't tell us whether there was rain, or not.

We have a night of unbuttoned coats described, a night of leaning against lampposts, a night of stopping not inside, but OUTSIDE an arch for a longish chit-chat, a night spent walking the streets etcetera, etcetera. The proof is NOT there, thus - but the inference and the circumantantial evidence is. It very much seems like a dry night, since the signs we have point in that direction.

Well, you think so. But then, your vision of life on the streets at the time isn't very realistic.

And besides, if all these glaring disparities were truly present, don't you think the interrogating police at the time would have noticed? Obviously, any issues were resolved at the time, even if we now have no documentary source to give us the details. There is a great deal of assumption in general when faced with aspects of the case that don't seem to make up - as if the police at the time were senseless retards. Almost certainly, if we notice a problem, so did they.
The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Your'e missing the point"

Not true, I´m afraid. The point is - and has been from the outset - a discussion about so called negative evidence. And I am not missing that at all, I can assure you that.

Jon - cheered on by you - stated that negative evidence is no evidence at all, whereas I say that the circumastantial evidence in this case is useful enough to deduct from.

Actually, when Jon said that the court would have been interested in any other men specifically, he enters the world he asks me to leave - for this is negative evidence. He establishes that the court would have asked something on the meager knowledge we have that it was never said that they did NOT ask about it. Ad following the rules laid down, we may just as well deduce that the court never asked anything at all about any other people in the street.

Of course, in Hutchinsons´case, he never even went to court - he went to the police station, so it is the police who could have asked him about this - or not.

Of course, I think that they DID ask him. And this I base on circumstantial evidence - they normally do; it´s procedure.

However, there is ALSO circumstantial evidence involved in the press interview - Hutchinson tells us that he saw a PC and a lodger, but no one else. And experience tells us that this would normally mean that he professed to having seen just these two men, and nobody more. He is not saying "no other men", he is saying "no one else".

You have a point there - I left out a "not". My bad.

"you think so. But then, your vision of life on the streets at the time isn't very realistic. "

Says who? Ah, YOU, Sally...? So you are of the view that people in the Victorian days relished to lean against lampposts during cold rains? And that they buttoned up in bad weather, that they stood around chit-chatting in hard rain ...?

If this was so, then you are correct - then I am mistaken and ignorant. Then again, I think you are wrong.

"And besides, if all these glaring disparities were truly present, don't you think the interrogating police at the time would have noticed?"

I think they were initially very enthusiastic about Hutchinson, and that may have slowed the process of putting his testimony to the test somewhat - but not for long. It took them not many hours to come to the conclusion that the elements involved in his tale meant that he had muddled the days. So there´s your answer for you, Sally. I have nothing more to say to you on this, so you may now try that "Off you go then", once again - if you feel the need.

All the best,
Fisherman