Romford

[Phil Carter]

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.

Hello Chris,

Yes, so am I, and so do I on medical advice... But in Ripperology there's a difference between the random commentator and any comment from one that bears a certain degree of knowledge...it should not be looked down upon from any self imposed perch on high, by anyone.

The absolute elite that encourage participation are indeed looked up to, but not those who stifle it and even belittle the bearers of such opinion.

It is late here. I have to get some shut eye.
Have a nice evening.

kindly

Phil

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I'm afraid you perpetuate the fallacy that because we lack proof, we cannot arrive at reasonable conclusions based on the evidence we have at our disposal. If that's the line you take - "you don't know, therefore you cannot opine" - you are simply wasting your time here. A message board is not designed for simple regurgitation of facts and nothing more. We have to assess that which is probable and improbable based on the available evidence, and Hutchinson's claims fall firmly in the latter category, in my opinion. I'm not particularly trying to "sell" anything, but unless you can do better than reminding me of what we do and don't "know", I'm afraid the conclusion that Hutchinson probably - not definitely! - lied is sustained as a reasonable one at the very least.

And you're welcome to think that it is only my "assumption" that the Victoria Home was the place that Hutchinson usually slept, but I think you'll find that it is pretty well established. You'll also find that most people agree with me on that detail, regardless of their views of Hutchinson's credibility, or lack thereof.

[The Grave Maurice]

Clever, Mike.

[The Good Michael]

Don,

That is a very astute observation. When I was young and foolish, as opposed to what I am now (old and foolish), if I had a crush on a girl I used to walk by her house repeatedly, or stand outside as long as possible, in the hope that she would come out. You've provided me with a new way to explain Hutch's behaviour. Ta.

Or he had a crush on Astrakhan Man, hence the vivid description.

Mike

[The Grave Maurice]

Don,

That is a very astute observation. When I was young and foolish, as opposed to what I am now (old and foolish), if I had a crush on a girl I used to walk by her house repeatedly, or stand outside as long as possible, in the hope that she would come out. You've provided me with a new way to explain Hutch's behaviour. Ta.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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