Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If one reads Mrs Lewis's inquest statement, It could almost confirm Hutchinsons account, just a few yards out mayby.?
She states that she saw a man apparently looking up the court as if 'Waiting for somebody', with a man and woman further on , the latter in drink.
Could this have been Astracan and Kelly?
I appreciate again, that the time was slightly out, but Rolex was not around then, but it would, .. place three people in a small area, two men and one woman, and one man being seperate from the pair.
I do appreciate Fish, what you are getting at, but as Hutchinson places himself at the same spot Lewis mentions, on the night in question, it seems the obvious answer 'he was there' as logical.
There is one alternative which has only just occured to me' Breaking news' , so to speak.
What if Hutchinson was standing opposite the court at 230 am , but this was before he encountered Kelly in Commercial street?
He had just trecked from Romford,,his lodgings were not availble to him , so he decides to call on his friend Mary, knowing that her Ex Barnett had left, and perhaps a favour could be returned, he knocks , there is no reply, he returns out into Dorset street, and waits opposite for a few minutes, as he walks away back to commercial street , he observes Kelly and Astracan coming towards him, he nods at kelly, and looks at the man, who returns a stare, he then stands at the corner of the road , and hears the small talk from the couple, before venturing on , as they entered the passage.
Why the lies ?
He knew that he may have been seen loitering, but was worried about saying he was waiting for kelly to share a possible room, so he alters that to being 'Concerned' for her welfare.
In other words he saw Astracan , but in different areas, and time.
Regards Richard.

[babybird67]

hi Fish

But the argument does not posit any such thing, Babybird. I donīt think that anybody would argue that nobody goes out when it is raining.
What one can argue, though, is exactly what I did argue in my essay - that those who DO venture out or are cuaght out in rain, generally do not act as if it was still dry. Meaning that they do not stand about leaning on lampposts. Meaning that they do not stop for a chat out in the rain a mere five metres away from their dry and relatively warm and comfy rooms. Meaning that they do not walk the streets in pouring rain. And meaning that they do not walk about in unbuttoned clothing.
THAT is my argument, Babybird, and if you read my essay you will realize this.

I already pointed out i had not read your essay and was responding from what I had read on the boards. I also used the word 'if' because i was unsure as to what you were actually arguing. I have since read your essay and although well written, i find the conclusions illogical and unconvincing.

His alternative to "braving the weather" would reasonably be to shelter from the rain, Babybird. That is what people do when they cannot go inside.

Yet others went out in the rain that night? If we accept it was raining all night, which i do not. Why should Hutch be the exception and spend the whole night inside? Cox was out. Lewis was out. Mary herself was out. Blotchy was out. Hutch himself couldn't have been? Give me a break.

No, it is not, the main reason being that he very clearly stated that he instead walked the streets all night. THAT is what he said he did, and that tallies very, very well with what you do on dry nights, and terribly badly with what you do on cold, windy, rainy nights.

It was cold and no doubt windy most nights in late autumn/winter. Showers would not have made much difference i would imagine, when one has no-where to stay. Besides, you are drawing the conclusion that Hutch must have been telling the truth when he said this is what he did that night therefore he must have got the date wrong. It is equally, i would argue more, plausible that he lied about what he did that night and did not spend the entire night wandering abroad in all weather...my conclusion would be that he lied about most of his testimony, as regards Astrkhan, for whatever motives, and equally lied about his activities following his alleged departure from Miller's Court.

Thus your suggestion of him sheltering totally contradicts what he himself said that he did. We both agree, I think, that to shelter would be the one reasonable thing to do when it rains hard - but it seems we disagree on how to interpret the wording "I walked the streets all night".

No. We disagree as to how believable we find Hutchinson as a witness.

"the night itself was not one of continual rain as far as i can make out...but one of heavy showers punctuated by dry spells"

And you "make that out from....?" Myself, I contacted the Met Office in Devon, and this is the conversation we had:

"Hello!

I am a Swedish journalist researching the Jack the Ripper killings back in 1888, and I have a couple of questions regarding the weather back then.

On the night leading up to the 9:th of November 1888, it was, as far as I know, raining heavily over Londons East end. The rain started around one oīclock in the morning, and then it rained through the night.

Is this something you can confirm?

Furthermore, can you tell me whether it rained or not over the East end on the night before? And if so, during what hours.

I am not sure I am approaching the correct instance with my queries, so please forgive me if Iīm not.

Regards,

Christer Holmgren
Helsingborg
Sweden

Dear Christer,
*
Many thanks for your request for information about the weather conditions, particularly rainfall, during the evening of the 8th November 1888 and overnight and also for the previous evening.
*
The weather on the evening of the 7th November 1888 in London was overcast but*dry. This trend continued overnight and into the morning of the 8th. The 8th itself started cloudy and dry and this general trend continued for much of the day. However, your were quite right in your assessment of the weather for the overnight period*of the 8th into the 9th in that,*rain, did indeed affect the London area soon after midnight.*
I hope this information*will be of assistance.
*
Regards
*
Steve
*
Steve Jebson ACLIP** Library Information Officer
Met Office** FitzRoy Road** Exeter** Devon** EX1 3PB** United Kingdom"

my emphasis

Well well well Fisherman. I did not want to believe my suspicions regarding another similar situation to the Leander Analysis fiasco were going to be confirmed but it looks like they have been. Far from being told by the meterological office that there was continual rain that night, you were merely told rain affected the London area after midnight. Newsflash! Everybody already knew that. Garry mentions it in his work. Witnesses mention showers that occurred that night. Showers do not equal continual rain - which completely undermines your contention that Hutch could not have been doing what he said he was doing that night...especially since Lewis corroborates the story of a man leaning on a lampost and watching the court for half and hour/forty five minutes! You have played a little loose with the interpretation of what you have been told here Fisherman. In fact the report you quote supports my contention that there was rain that night, but it was not continual.

That was the answer I was given - that I was quite right in my assessment of the weather for the overnight period between the 8:th and the 9:th. And, as you will note, that assessment was worded "On the night leading up to the 9:th of November 1888, it was, as far as I know, raining heavily over Londons East end. The rain started around one oīclock in the morning, and then it rained through the night."

I don't believe you were right in your assessment. You were told rain affected the London area. London is a large area for a start. And that it affected the area suggests to me showers, not continual and incessant rain. I would totally challenge your interpretation of the data you have been given, and i know i am not the only one.

But since the question has arisen about the exact amounts of rain, and the exact spot(s) it fell over, I have since sent another e-mail to the Met Office, asking them to go into as much detail as possible. When an answer arrives, I will share it immediately. Up til that time, though, it seems that the general picture is one of incessant rain and very ugly conditions.

my emphasis...no no no...incessant means not stopping. We know the rain stopped at times. People were out and about in the periods when there was no rain. There were showers! Not incessant rain.

At any rate, I wrote in my essay that Abberline may have felt uncertain to some degree about the rain; he would have had access to Lewis, who could give an exact picture of the rain at 2.30, but that would not cover for the period when Hutch made his observation of Astrakhan man. This I readily regognized, and brought up in my text! I also added, though, that even if it had not rained a drop in Dorset Street at the crucial time of the Astrakhan man observation, it STILL stands that Hutchinson gave away the fact that the night was dry by admitting to having walked the streets all night, waiting for the Victoria home to open. Nothing of this has changed.

Again no. You are assuming the night was dry by what Hutchinson said. There is no proof that this is so.

Your essay is pure conjecture based upon what i believe is faulty interpretation of the facts. Rain affecting an area does not equate to incessant rain. They are not the same thing. And even if you could establish that Hutchinson would only have behaved as he did on a dry night, it does not follow that he was wrong about the date; it is more plausible that he lied about his later activities, as he lied about seeing Astrakhan man in the first place. Especially as someone was out in the alleged rain and leaning on the lampost for a considerable period of time, as per Lewis's testimony.

[babybird67]

Babybird:

"Fish are you suggesting also that Sarah Lewis was mistaken about the date as well? Because she saw someone hanging about that night. Whether it was Hutchinson or somebody else...she saw a man hanging about there, so the contention that Hutch couldn't have been because of the weather cannot be logical. SOMEBODY was there that night, unless you are arguing all of the witnesses all got the date wrong?"

I never said that Hutchinson could not have been there because it rained. Anybody could have been there IN SPITE of the rain.

Exactly. As they were. Many people were there the murder night, out and about, despite the rain, wandering around doing their thing. Only Hutch seems to you to be unable to partake in activities on a night during which their were showers. Does this contention not seem illogical to you?

What I am saying is that he was not there because his testimony points to a dry night, and the night of the 8:th was anything but that!

No. His testimony points to a liar. It is very unlikely he saw Astrakhan man with Mary. That, for me, puts all the rest of his testimony in doubt. He could easily have been lying about anything or everything else in his account of that night, wandering the streets included. To conclude he must have actually wandered around as he said but on a different night, is your choice, but it doesn't logically follow, and there is no proof for it.

Now, it has been suggested that George Hutchinson was the killer of Mary Kelly, and I have refuted that, stating that he was not in Dorset Street on the morning of the 9:th, but the day before.

Yes because he was such a simpleton he would have forgotten a whole day's trek down to Romford. Forgotten the date he was so suspicous of a man he followed back to his friend of three year's lodgings. Forgotten that he tried and apparently managed to get a microscopic view of this man right down to the colour of his eyelashes. Unlikely.

The main arguments against my suggestion have been, I think, A/ that maybe it was not raining at the crucial time, and we shall see in the future what the meteorological office has to say on that. But as it stands, it would seem that they confirm my wiew of the night.

I dispute that as it stands your view is supported by the meterological office. They said rain affected the London area. That's not specific enough as regards area and certainly does not support a conclusion of incessant rain that you keep maintaining was there.

The second argument B/ would be that the two sightings of men opposite Millerīs Court must refer to one and the same individual.

I am not saying they MUST be the same man, however i find it very likely. What i am saying is that you are suggesting because of the weather conditions, people wouldn't be hanging about in wet weather, leaning on lamposts...well somebody was, whether that was Hutch or someone else....on that murder night, a man was hanging about the Court, loitering on this cold rainy night on which you find loitering so implausible. If only Hutch had mentioned loitering, maybe you could argue that wouldn't be feasible. But Lewis saw someone loitering for an extended period of time. Either you need to contend that she was mistaken as well about the date, or you need to admit that indeed people were out despite the weather, loitering despite the weather, and that therefore that man could as well have been Hutch as anyone else. Because it certainly was somebody.

But George Hutchinson did not see her!

He did not mention her. That's not the same thing.

Does the detail that he never mentioned Lewis IN SPITE OF HIS OBVIOUS EFFORT TO NAIL ALL THE ONES HE SAW DURING HIS VIGIL, speak very clearly of him having mixed up the nights?
I would say that it does so in a very loud and clear manner.

Your conclusions are your own to draw. My own conclusion, based on the whole of what Hutch said he saw and did that night, was that he was a liar. His motivation for doing so is more difficult to establish, but liar he most definitely was. Do you believe he saw everything he said he saw, just on the night before? Do you believe in Astrakhan man and if so do you believe also in the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny? Because if you believe that Hutch was just an honest witness mistaken only on the date then maybe you should.

[Fisherman]

Babybird, are you deliberately misunderstanding? If so, we need not prolong this discussion at all.
I will give it one more try, and that is all:

YES, people go out when it rains.
NO, I am not saying that Hutchinson could not have done so.
NO, just because people sometimes go out into dark, windy, chilly, rainy nights - mostly out of necessity - that does not mean that they will behave exactly as they do under dry circumstances. It is, for example, not a very good idea to spend hours on end walking the streets, getting yourself soaked.
NO, the picture he paints of the night of the 8-9 November is not one of a rainy night. Ergo, he was not there on that night.

Please adress the arguments I make, and not the ones you make up for me! And please read the essay - it will help immensely.

"you are drawing the conclusion that Hutch must have been telling the truth when he said this is what he did that night therefore he must have got the date wrong."

I am working from that assumption, yes. Abberline was of the meaning that he was truthful, and Dew tells us that he was definitely mistaken on the dates. Therefore, I move with the impressions of the police who handled the case. We know that Hutchinson was "discredited" and it would still seem that he was not reprimanded - which is what would happen if you were honestly mistaken. We know that he ought to have seen Lewis - but he did not. We know that he would reasonably have gone to ground and sheltered against the rain - but he tells us he walked the streets "all night" instead. We know that it was not gleaned to the press what caused his dismissal - and surely, Abberline et al would have been none to proud of their missing out on the weather factor. We know that it rained on the 8:th - but the 7:th was perfectly dry. We know that he spoke of a man with his coat open - on a windy, rainy, cold night. We know that Millerīs Court was known as McCarthyīs rents - conveniently explaining why men loitered outside it.

This all - each and every bit of it - tallies with the suggestion that he was off on his timing by one day. But you for some reason claim that it is much more credible that he lied about it...? It is much more credible that he forgot to put the scene in a rainy setting...? It is much more credible that he left out the clincher Sarah Lewis when he spoke of who he saw during his vigil...? It is much more credible that Walter Dew had gotten it wrong...? It is much more credible that you, 122 years after the occasion, are able to assess Hutchinsons level of credibility and honesty, than it would be that Frederick Abberline got things right; Abberline, who interrogated Hutchinson himself...? It is much more credible that Hutchinson forgot to mention Lewis than it is to accept that he never saw her - in spite of the fact that he clearly stated that he saw nobody but the two people he mentioned...?

I is nothing of the sort. It is a very bad suggestion, that that does NOT tally with the police sources and that swears against the factualities. It is suspect based wishful thinking with no support in the world I am living in.

By the way, it would seem that you too fail to see the difference inbetween detail memory and sequential memory. I you feel up to it, you may read up on it in this very thread. It belongs to the discussion very much.

Oh, and one more thing:

"it is more plausible that he lied about his later activities, as he lied about seeing Astrakhan man in the first place."

Who said conjecture? Was that you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hello Fisherman

This buusiness about whether Maxwell and Hutchinson made a mistake about the days. They are lumped together in the fact that for both of them it is unlikely that they made a mistake. Because for both of them it would have been a day out of the norm. It was the day of the Lord Mayor's Show.

It is quite right that the two witnesses should be judged seperately in considering what they said, but the common element is still the same.

Why should they have made a mistake about the day, when there was every reason that they should remember it, because for one reason, the Lord Mayor's Show, it was a day to remember. Let alone the murder of Mary Kelly.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"as Hutchinson places himself at the same spot Lewis mentions, on the night in question, it seems the obvious answer 'he was there' as logical."

And why, Richard, did he remember that he saw a man entering a boarding house, and a policeman patrolling by on Commercial Street, but forgot Lewis, who would have almost stumbled over him, and who entered the court he was watching? Why did he adamantly state that he saw nobody else on his watch? Is that "logical" too - or is it a very good pointer that he did not see Lewis because he was there one day before her?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"What should they have made a mistake about the day, when there was every reason that they should remember it, because for one reason, the Lord Mayor's Show, it was a day to remember."

If you live your life the way it should be lived, Hatchett, then EVERYDAY is a day to remember! But we do not know what happened to Hutchinson during them days, just as we do not know how much interest he took in the Lord Mayorīs show. And all the evidence points AWAY from Hutch being there on the murder night, as does Dewīs assertion. Plus we know not how good his sequential memory was. Plus he was forced to walk the street one full night, meaning that it may have been a harder task to keep the days and nights and dates apart. Try and look at all the things that speak FOR a mistake on his behalf, and you will be baffled.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi Fisherman,

I must say I am baffled by your reasoning on this, Fisherman. I can't see how I live my life or you live yours has anything at all to do with the memories of Hutchinson and Maxwell.

Surelly it has to be a fact that a day that contains something extre has more chance of being remembered. For Hutchinson there was the Lord Mayor's Show, the trek to and from Romford, the murder of Mary Kelly who he said he had known for three years, and a night walking the streets.

As for Dew, well that certainly can't be classed as evidence. It wasnt given in a court of law, but was written in his memoirs without any supporting verification. In other words it is just an opinion that he may not have even had at the time.

That there were people abroad that night is borne out by the evidence of seperate witnesses. In fact, from what they say there was a lot of activity that night.

That taken along with your weather report must conclude that the night was plagued by rain, but with intermittent dry periods.

That is the only thing that makes sense.

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

Here it is, the information from the Meteorological Office. It tells us precious little, Iīm afraid:

"Dear Christer

thank you for your enquiry. Unfortunately the records we have from 1888 are not sufficiently detailed to answer your question fully, because observations were not usually taken during the night.

Sorry that I cannot provide anything more detailed.

Regards
Joan

Joan Self Archive Information Officer"

After this, I doubt very much that we can use any archives to gain any certain knowledge. We are left, as I understand things, with the newspaper recordings of the night. And Hunter has provided the only one so far, from the Echo:

"During the preceding night neavy rain fell, and the morning dawned with a damp, drizzly atmosphere, the air being raw and cold and a sharp north-east wind blowing."

What remains is a picture of a particularly nasy night, weaterwise. To this we may add our certainty that George Hutchinson claimed to have walked the streets all night - and we know that it rained hard at 3 AM. That is where I put my emphasis in my essay, and that is where it remains. Every scrap of knowledge that could be presented is very welcome, of course. And if Garry Wroe can bestow upon us what the Meteorological Office cannot, it would of course be very welcome!

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
I hope you have got your tin helmet on , there is a lot of shrapnel flying around.
I trust you agree, that people were out per norm that night, the pubs were frequented etc, the whole argument revolves around Astracans unbottoned top coat, which you assume means a dry night?
You talk of the wrong day, because of the weather report, unless we have a report of torrential downpours, with people running along commercial street at 2am, its impossible to say that there was not a lull in the weather at that relevant time.
You talk about the wrong day, how about Mrs Cox... or mayby Mrs Prater,
Mrs Prater says she met kelly at 9pm on the 8th at the bottom of the passage, they had a chat , and kelly left wearing her jacket and bonnet.
At Midnight, Mrs Cox observes Kelly wearing completly different clothing.
So someone got the wrong day.
Take your pick.
Prater
Cox.
The clues are there,
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"Surelly it has to be a fact that a day that contains something extre has more chance of being remembered. For Hutchinson there was the Lord Mayor's Show, the trek to and from Romford, the murder of Mary Kelly who he said he had known for three years, and a night walking the streets."

That amounts to a good deal of things to keep track of, some of them perhaps occurring on different days. In itself, that may well have had him muddling things up.

"As for Dew, well that certainly can't be classed as evidence. It wasnt given in a court of law, but was written in his memoirs without any supporting verification. In other words it is just an opinion that he may not have even had at the time."

It is the ONLY opinion we have on offer by a police officer who was closely connected to the case. And by reasoning, his opinion may very well be grounded on the prevailing sentiments of the police at the time. To me that carries immense weight. To others, it is just an opinion as any other opinion, no matter who it came from.
And that is fine by me - the role Dew plays in my suggestion is one of corroborating all the other material that ALSO points to Hutchinson mixing up the dates. Iīm fine with that.

"That there were people abroad that night is borne out by the evidence of seperate witnesses. In fact, from what they say there was a lot of activity that night."

That "lot of activity" is decribed by Hutchinson himself as one policeman and one lodger in 45 minutes - not a soul more. No Lewis, though. Then again, we would be speaking of two separate nights.

"That taken along with your weather report must conclude that the night was plagued by rain, but with intermittent dry periods. That is the only thing that makes sense."

Well, TO YOU, it makes sense, Hatchett. But I have seen so very many very strange things passed of as sense, that I think we may have to agree to disagree on that point.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"You talk of the wrong day, because of the weather report"

I do? I was under the impression that I talk of the wrong day because:

1. It rained heavily that night, as per the Echo.
2. Walter Dew tells us that Hutchinson must have been mistaken on the day.
3. The police dropped him with no discernable reprimands, in spite that it was not looked gently upon to mislead the police.
4. The papers wrote that his testimony had been "discredited".
5. He said that he stood opposite the court at 2.30, when Lewis passed by - and yet he never saw her, even though she entered the court he was watching.
6. He did not see the couple Lewis spoke of either - in fact, all he saw were persons that Lewis did NOT speak of.
7. We KNOW that he claimed to have been walking the streets "all night", in spite of that heavy rain.
8. We get a neat explanation to why the real reason for Hutchinsons dismissal was never gleaned to the press.

I donīt need any tin helmet, Richard.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hello Fisherman,

I think we will have to disagree. The activity I was referring to was not the word of Hutchinson but the testimony of the other witnesses.

At the end of the day Dew's opinion is just that. An opinion. It is grounded on nothing. Because it was not given in a court of law it was not tested by cross examination, neither did Dew give any supporting evidence.

It is the reasoning behind your arguements that I find hard to take seriously.

You appear to accept conjecture as fact and re read everything else into it to try and make it fit. Like a jig saw puzzle that you need a hammer to flatten down all the pieces.

Best wishes.

[richardnunweek]

Hi again Fisherman.
I understand your every point, and you make your case well, but you rest to much on the word 'Discredited'.
Its quite possible that other information came to light that made any sighting Hutchinson made as non relevant.
That is not the same as saying that he was a hoaxer, or got the wrong day, and you know fully well, that Walter Dews accounts in his book has been considered the ramblings of a old man[ a view I dont fully accept].
He may simply have assumed that as his office did not pursue Hutchies sighting, they must have not thought it as not worthwhile, the wrong day was an explanation from Dew , but no confirmation from any other source.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"At the end of the day Dew's opinion is just that. An opinion. It is grounded on nothing."

That is an interesting passage, Hatchett. I did not know that it was grounded on nothing. Apparently, you do.

After that, you speak of hammering jigsaw puzzles to make them fit. In that context, I would recommend you to read Lynn Catesī post after he had read my essay. You both speak of puzzles, so it should be interesting.

Incidentally, I have done no hammering at all on any of the pieces. They fall into place by themselves. The latest one to do so was the fact that Hutchinson never saw Lewis, in spite that she was there - I did not bring that up in my article, actually. But I feel quite confident that each and every bit that emerges will fit in the same effortless manner into the wider frame. So far, they all have.

So yes, I would very much like to agree to disagree.

The best,
Fisherman