Casebook Examiner Number 5

[Tom_Wescott]

Good thoughts, Sally and Richard. This is the kind of stuff I'd like to talk about with Fish, Ben, and Garry Wroe if he's willing. These men have obviously put a lot more thought into the Queen's Head Incident than I have.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Garry Wroe]

I'm certainly willing, Tom, but not until such time as I've had the opportunity to assess Fish's contentions with the thoroughness they deserve. Instinctively, however, I feel that the preponderance of evidence is indicative of a night punctuated by heavy showers rather than one of continuous rainfall, a factor which in itself would appear to scupper the 'wrong night' hypothesis. Added to this is the near-certainty that the Astrakhan encounter was a fiction concocted by Hutchinson in order to provide justification for his Miller's Court fixation. Once Astrakhan is removed from the equation, the weather conditions become an irrelevance. Finally, assuming that Hutchinson was somewhere within the East End on the night under scrutiny, he simply must have been aware of the prevailing weather conditions and is therefore unlikely to have misremembered or misrepresented them in order to sustain a lie under police or press interview. Were this not the case, he must have been an idiot of the first magnitude and would never have impressed Abberline as he most certainly did under interrogation.

Hopefully, I'll get the chance to read Fish's essay over the weekend and will come back in due course with something a little more substantial.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Supe]

Just like to take advantage of this lull to suggest that while both Hutchinson articles are compelling, Corey's tour de force thought-provoking and Tom essay on Wilde and his friends very interesting, they all constitute but half the magazine and there are a lot of gems yet to be discussed. These include an important announcement in "On The Case" about subscription funds.

Don.

[corey123]

Hello Don,

I am truly honered by your words. You are kind indeed. Yes, I agree, I would love to discuss either Tom's or my own pieces, as they, as Don pointed out, constitute half of the magazine. I understand that the two Toppy pieces are very interesting, and natural that the discussion would happen, but the rest of the magazine derserves it's discussion too, not just Tom and I, but also Rob's and other gems featured in this wounderful issue of the Casebook Examiner

Thanks

[corey123]

Don,

I think it's wounderful that the team at the Examiner find need to help vulnerable women with funds obtained from the subscription fee. Just one more good reason to buy this magazine, I believe. Good entertainment, and paying in part to a good cause.

Thank you

I also want to say congradulations to Mark Ripper, Ali Bevan, Debra Arif, and Andrew Firth for joining the editorial team. It just gets better and better.

[harry]

Fisherman,
It is accepted that persons can have lapses of memory,and that time will further diminish the ability of recall,but the subject commented on,was a whole 24 hours of a man's life,subject to recall only a mere three days later.Not three weeks,three months or three years but three days.Sure,isolated incidents of a few minutes duration are natural,but a whole day?,and with an experienced detective to guide,
No need for further debate,Mike.

[Hunter]

I have started a new thread to discuss the articles written by Ben and Fisherman so the debate can proceed in a proper manner.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=158545#post158545

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott:

"I find Fish's evidence very persuasive, but I'm not totally convinced and have a few questions. I apologize if these have been brought up on this thread, but as mentioned before I avoided reading commentary posts so that I could read the articles and develop my own opinions uninfluenced.

1) If Hutch was standing in the pouring rain at that time, so must Sarah Lewis have been, but she doesn't mention anything about rain.

2) Was it dry a day or two BEFORE the night of the murder? It's too much to suggest that Hutch was mistaken about not only the day but also the identity of the woman he spoke to, so he must have seen Mary a day or two BEFORE the murder (any more would be pushing it). So what do we know of the weather on those days?

3) Is there anything in the record of Mary's movements that would preclude her having been near the Queen's Head around 2:30am on the day or two preceeding the day of her murder?

Hi Tom, and thanks for your praise of my essay! I will try and answer your questions, and I will add a little something that carries weight in this issue.

You are correct about Lewis. She does not tell us that it rained. But I do think that the very sketchy reminiscense she has of the man points to a clear possibility of a restrained visibility - which is what rain would bring about. Saying, as she did to the police, that she noticed that there was a man opposite the court, but that was all she could say (no physical description at all), points my thinking in the direction of A/ reduced visibility - caused by the rain, and B/ a fast passing by on behalf of Lewis - caused by the rain.

The night and morning (7-8 of November) before the murder was perfectly dry, though overcast. Not a drop of rain fell. And believe me, although I was pretty sure about that answer, it was a tense day or two before the meteorological services in London came through and confirmed my suspicion!

I know of nothing that takes Mary out of the picture at 2.30 on the night before the murder.

And here is what I would like to add, in response both to you and to those who speculate that we may still have a case of Hutchinson being in Dorset Street, being the killer and fishing for an alibi as the loiterer:

Hutchinson very clearly speaks of a dry night. This could be either because A/ it WAS a dry night, that is to say the night of the 7:th, or B/ because he told porkies and got things wrong, forgetting that it had been raining (myself, I find it implausible that he would have forgotten to add that detail, but if he was a terrible liar, then perhaps).

Faced with this choice, I think we must ask ourselves what Abberline and the police did to confirm their suspicion that Hutchinson had mixed the dates up. Of course, they would have asked the meteorological services, but, more importantly, I think that as the meteorological services could provide only the general picture, they would have hauled in the ones they knew had been in Dorset Street around 2.30, Sarah Lewis being one of them, and asked about it. After that, they would finally have asked George Hutchinson himself. There was always the possibility that he would say, yes it rained, but I still stood against the lamppost, and the couple still stood outside the court in the rain, Astrakhan man still wore his coat open and I still walked the streets all night, since I was already soaked after walking from Romford, and I could not care less.

Thing is, if that was what George answered, then the hunt for Astrakhan man would not be stopped, and the papers would not have told us that Hutch had been discredited, would they? For in that case, he would have provided a reasonable explanation to the riddle dwelling in his testimony.

Therefore, I suggest that he was asked, he did answer that it was a dry night, and he was dropped. And that - as my essay points out - ties the threads together, leaving nothing more to ask.
But, much more importantly, we must realize that the very second George Hutchinson said that it was dry - thus confirming that he was NOT there on the morning of the 9:th, and laying to rest any suggestion that he could have been - he ALSO dropped the suggested alibi of being the loiterer! After that, he could never have said, if recognized by Lewis, that "yes, I was there, but I was a harmless loiterer".

If he had been the killer, then he would immediately have recognized the importance of claiming that it had rained in Dorset Street, to confirm his loiterer alibi, and then the hunt for Astrakhan man would have continued. But the dismissal in the papers clearly points out that we do not have to ask ourselves what Hutch answered when Abberline asked him about the weather.
To me, it is game over and end of story. George Hutchinson has - at least to my mind - been exonerated. I accept that I will never find a universal understanding and acceptance for it, for such is Ripperology. I have done what I can do, and I´m satisfied myself that I have the correct answer.

Once again thank you for your kind words on my essay, Tom. Coming from you, and pondering our mutual background, it felt very good!

Finally, since you ask: No, I had no idea that Ben would appear in the same issue as I would, and with the same general topic. Ben and I have discussed the coincidence on the boards, and it would appear that we were both unaware of what was going to be said by our opponent´s, if you will.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"It is accepted that persons can have lapses of memory,and that time will further diminish the ability of recall,but the subject commented on,was a whole 24 hours of a man's life,subject to recall only a mere three days later.Not three weeks,three months or three years but three days."

Sometimes, Harry, if you have had, say, fish for dinner in the week, and somebody asks you on Saturday "When did we have that fish for dinner?" - can you always readily answer that question? Would you find the question itself totally impossible for anybody to come up with, since nobody would ever forget about such things?

My feeling is that you are getting hooked up on something that apparently means no obstacle to other posters. Perhaps, Harry, you have an excellent sequential memory (a memory for time, that is) and thus you find it strange that not all people have it. I see that Ben argues that the two types of memories would not be too much separated, but they ARE. The easiest way to understand that, is to take a look at senile people, who sometimes remember each and every small detail of a tv show they saw fifty years ago - but they think that is still on, missing out on the time perspective by half a century.
Detail memory and sequential memory are two totally different things, and one of them may give way totally while the other is impeccable. Until we have this knowledge, we cannot fully understand the possible implications of the Hutchinson case.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

And after this, I will follow Hunter´s good advice and discuss this matter on the new thread!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Corey's Article.

Hi Corey

Many congratulations on your article, which I think is an important piece of work. I truly hope that you will remain a contributor to this field of research, as I have no doubt that Ripperology will be the richer for your contributions.

Your article raises several questions for me. Here is one - probably the easiest to address simply -

If Jtr was a narcissist, as you consider possible; I wonder whether the hiatus between Eddowes and Kelly may perhaps in part be due to him receivng sufficient attention and recognition for his 'work'; even whilst he was able to satisfy his own desires for confirmation of superiority by remaining undetected?

Perhaps the answer to Kelly is that all the fuss was by then starting to ebb? Perhaps, as the media fuelled hysteria began to calm, and the people of London began to think that the murders may have ceased; the murderer felt the need to recapture all that recognition?

What are your thoughts?

Regards

Sally

[corey123]

Hello Sally,

Many thanks for the kind words. I plan to write a sequal to it, probably to be published somewhere around April, if your interested.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Also, glad you brough that point up. Actually, I discussed that issue in part-two, question three of the essay. Indeed I think that, if he was a narcissist or had traits of narcissism, the attention would do either of two things, lull or increase his murderous tendencies.

Thanks again and hope you enjoyed it.

Corey

[Sally]

Hi Corey

Many thanks for the kind words. I plan to write a sequal to it, probably to be published somewhere around April, if your interested.

I look forward to it. I'm happy to see a sound theoretical framework being applied to the case.

Indeed I think that, if he was a narcissist or had traits of narcissism, the attention would do either of two things, lull or increase his murderous tendencies.

I think that therein may lie an explanation for the hiatus - which is important, because it can lend weight to the theory of one serial killer in preference to a number of murders by two or more perpetrators.

Good luck with your work.


Regards

[Celesta]

Thanks Examiner

Many thanks to Casebook Examiner for their donation to Eaves, the charity for vulnerable women. I think this is a good idea, and I wanted to show appreciation. I'm posting the link to Eaves here, but which is also in the Examiner, for convenience for anyone who wants to take a look.

http://www.eaves4women.co.uk/index.php

[Supe]

Celesta,

Thank you (and Corey earlier) for noticing. When we began planning for Examiner we wanted to do some things differently and that included being truly non-profit and helping those in need. Indeed, everyone who has subscribed has helped in this worthy cause.

It seemed that this year's recipient, Eaves, which helps women at risk, was an especially apt charity for a magazine that focuses so often on Jack the Ripper. And, if you go to the website you will notice that Eaves can also use clothes, linens, toys and books that anyone would like to donate.

Don Souden,
Editor Casebook Examiner.