Romford

[Lechmere]

"naturally I'm foaming at the mouth"

Surely not - that would be truly filthy

[Ben]

To look at this behavior as odd today because many lazy people do nothing but sit on the computer all day while eating chocolates and sipping cocktails

What's even lazier is accepting something at face value on the unthinking, crass assumption that there must be some cozy, reassuring non-suspicious explanation behind it. It's the opposite of a critical approach. Whatever explanation might have been lost to history (?), anyone is quite entitled to observe that on the basis of the extent evidence, this particular claim does not add up.

[Phil Carter]

What's even lazier is accepting something at face value on the unthinking, crass assumption that there must be some cozy, reassuring non-suspicious explanation behind it. It's the opposite of a critical approach. Whatever explanation might have been lost to history (?), anyone is quite entitled to observe that on the basis of the extent evidence, this particular claim does not add up.

Hello Ben,

Hear hear! Well spoken. (in my opinion, of course ;-) )


kindly

Phil

[Wickerman]

I may have misconstrued your intention as implying that Kelly was making an invitation to actually spend the night.

Thats ok Lechmere, I didn't make it clear but I did not mean to imply it was an overnight invitation, merely that it was an extended, in bed, invitation. I think they charge more for that....... so I've heard..

As for the Romford walk...
While it may be 14 miles as the crow files,

Google Earth provides a route via principal roads, not straight as the crow flies unless you draw a direct line, which I did not.

Romford Station opened in 1839 and by 1888 trains ran from Liverpool Street under Great Eastern Railways. I am certain that anyone regularly working in Romford and residing in the Spitalfields area would have let the train take the strain. That is not to say that someone who was skint and had overstayed in Romford wouldn’t find himself in a one off situation of having to walk back in the middle of the night.

Exactly, and he said he had spent his money "going down to Romford", which may mean he took the train or some alternate means of transport.
The only direct statement we have is that he "walked all the way (back)".

With no money and no pass to enable him access to the Victoria Home, the journey seems even more bafflingly pointless.

And may I ask again,....what makes you think he was headed for the Victoria Home, where do we read that he stayed there before the 2nd week of November?

Regards, Jon S.

[babybird67]

Babybird – Hutchinson said he had no money, so if true he wouldn’t be able to go with a prostitute.

That was my point Lechmere. I am being asked to accept that it is 'normal' behaviour for a man with no money to solicit a prostitute by keeping a 45 minute vigil outside her place of residence, even though five minutes before she actually approached him and asked him if he could lend her money.

I still can't see the 'normality' in the behaviour and I just wish someone who can would point it out to me and relieve me of my ignorance.

[Ben]

And may I ask again,....what makes you think he was headed for the Victoria Home, where do we read that he stayed there before the 2nd week of November?

Hutchinson stated to the press that after leaving the court, he "walked about all night" because the place where he "usually" slept had closed. This was clearly the Victoria Home, which was the apparent location of the press interview, and the address given to the police when he provided his statement. The closure of the home is irrelevant if Hutchinson had no money to access it in the first place, which suggests to me - in my humble, unassuming, shy and retiring opinion - that Hutchinson gave inconsistent reasons (in essence "no money" turning into "too late") for his failure to secure lodgings that night.

Cheers,
Ben

[babybird67]

I'm afraid the great danger of the modern age is precisely the opposite one - that everyone with an Internet connection thinks their opinion is just as "valid" as anyone else's, regardless of whether they have any knowledge or experience of the subject under discussion.

Of course, some areas are still still immune - for example translating ancient Greek, tensor calculus, neurosurgery and a few others - but no doubt some software will soon be developed to mop up these last bastions of elitism.

One does not gain knowledge or experience of a subject by being excluded from it, nor the confidence to explore one's own theories or thoughts on matters by being told one isn't worthy to have an opinion.

We are talking about contributions to a message board here. Not published books or academic journals.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

You mentioned the "last bastion of elitism".. well, as far as I know, lesser mortals stand on the shoulders of giants in order to expand on theories. Sir Isaac Newton did precisely that, to paraphrase his own words, when unaccepted by the "elite".

kindly

Phil

[babybird67]

it should also be remembered...

that experts are made, not born. They aren't wrenched into the world bearing libraries and weighty tomes, but were all novices at one point.

Encouragement of interest is what I believe in. I don't believe in elitism or exclusion.

But then each to his own, some people do and they are entitled to their own opinions.

[Supe]

I think part of the problem with our failure to understand Hutchinson's actions is in applying Mannichean logic. That is, suggesting something is either normal or abnormal without allowing for a wide range of possible behaviors that are not readily classifiable. As, for instance, if Hutchinson had a "thing" for Mary Jane (he did admit to knowing her for some time). For a love-lorn chap to stand "vigil" for some time before concluding he is a fool while the object of his affection is otherwise engaged is not, doubtless, the normal "survey says . . ." response, but is also not at all unheard of.

There is, I fear, too much either/or thinking involved in analysing the JtR mysteries, especially when most of human experience is not so Mannichean.

Don.

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson stated to the press that after leaving the court, he "walked about all night" because the place where he "usually" slept had closed. This was clearly the Victoria Home,...

This is your assumption, my humble, unassuming, shy & retiring respondent.

There is nothing to indicate that his usual residence was the Victoria Home.
- You do not know why he went to Romford.
- You do not know why he walked back overnight.
- You do not know his intended destination address.
- You do not know if he carried or was even issued an overnight pass.
- You do not know where he usually resided before Nov. 12th.
- You do not know what he was doing to earn money over the weekend.

The entire basis of your charge against Hutchinson is built on what you do not know, this exposes the futility of your argument. What makes no sense to you, and those who think like you, is totally your (and our) own lack of knowledge about the whole episode.
If and when you find solutions to those issues, and those solutions are deemed to be contradictory, only then do you have reason to charge Hutchinson with lying.

Theories are constructed from facts, the theorizing you are proposing is constructed from questions (and your own feelings/experiences, which you have recently raised objections at others for doing), which are not theories at all.
Until you provide answers instead of mountains of questions you have nothing to sell.

Regards, Jon S.

[Chris]

Oh dear. My reference to "elitism" was meant to be ironical. Never mind.

For the rest, perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't seen anyone suggesting that people should be "excluded" from discussions, and I haven't seen anyone described as "unworthy" of having an opinion. Certainly I've seen suggestions that informed opinions are worth more than uninformed ones, and that it's unwise to teach one's grandmother to suck eggs, but that's hardly the same thing.

Then again, I realise that straw men are easier to knock down than real ones.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris,

Your irony is now seen. Thank you for that explanation.

Of course, there are certain other degrees at work here. Logical positivism and positive logicalism, as opposed to negative factualism and at times, factual negativism.

On the question of adding to any known perception, the stifling of any theory expansion is indeed done by some with intent, which raises the question as to whom is entitled to be classed as one who bears uninformed opinion, therefore deemed unworthy of recognition in any given genre. How therefore are those "underlings" allowed to add?

That attitude itself can be seen as non-complimentarist and also pro-elitist. Some would even call it pomposity, given certain applicable attitudes.

I stand therefore aside the attitude of said Isaac Newton.

kindly

Phil

[Lechmere]

‘Hutchinson stated to the press that after leaving the court, he "walked about all night" because the place where he "usually" slept had closed. This was clearly the Victoria Home, which was the apparent location of the press interview, and the address given to the police when he provided his statement. The closure of the home is irrelevant if Hutchinson had no money to access it in the first place, which suggests to me - in my humble, unassuming, shy and retiring opinion - that Hutchinson gave inconsistent reasons (in essence "no money" turning into "too late") for his failure to secure lodgings that night.’

Ben
Need I point out that this conundrum isn’t a conundrum at all. The closure of the Victoria Home isn’t irrelevant if he had no money. If he had paid weekly in advance for a metal bed ticket (which were was issued each night – and we know that most inmates paid weekly) then he would also require a special late night pass in order to obtain access after 12.30 or 1.00 am.
This is unquestionable and explicitly stated in the rules. But this doesn’t fit your theory does it so that rule is to be simply imaged away. That is why Hutchinson wasn’t being inconsistent and another reason why that aspect of his testimony wasn’t derided at the time.

I am of the opinion that he stayed at the Victoria Home as the Victoria Home was about the only establishment with this rule and the whole weekly ticket thing fits with his pressumed movements and his availablity of lodgings despite lack of money on Thursday morning.

[Chris]

Phil

Sorry, there were too many long words in that post for my liking. To be honest, I don't even know the difference between "Logical positivism and positive logicalism."

I'm just a plain simple man who goes to see a doctor when he feels ill, rather than stopping a random person in the street for medical advice.