PDA

View Full Version : Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?


Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7

Hunter
12-18-2010, 03:02 AM
In the recent Casebook Examiner #5, Ben Holme and Christer Holmgren (Fisherman) submitted excellent and provocative essays on George Hutchinson. It was a pleasure to see Ben get a chance to amalgamate his theory on Hutchinson's candidacy as a viable suspect and for Christer to offer a totally new thesis on Hutchinson as a witness.

Christer offers a scenerio which concludes with the idea that George Hutchinson may have gotten the dates wrong in regards to his stated encounter with Mary Kelly and 'Astrakan Man'.

After reading both essays, what are your views?

harry
12-18-2010, 10:06 AM
Because Hutchinson states a continuity of activity,beginning the 8th of November 1888,and ending sometime on the morning of 9th november 1888,is the claim of misplaced memory meant to include all that period?Presuming an early start on the 8th,Romford being quite a distance from Commercial street,that would entail a period near to a full day of 24 hours,and the times are not an exageration,as his statement ends with the claim of leaving Crossingham's at 3am on the 9th,and thereafter walking the streets for an unspcified time.
So we are not discussing one incident of a short duration concerning an uneventual happening,given some weeks or months later,but a very detailed recollection of several happenings,given a mere three days later.Happenings which included in it's time frame,the vicious murder of a reputed aquaintance,and a complete abscence from a normal place of abode for one full or near full day.
In addition, we can not excuse on the question of Hutchinson being suddenly confronted for an explanation,and being pushed for details,as it was himself who voluntary came forward of his own free will,and judging from the detailed information he supplied,after carefully considering the times and incidents he passed on.
Lastly,he gave his evidence to a seasoned and experienced policeman,who,if nothing else,can be expected to have given all help in e stablishing the times given were correct and referred to the night/morning of 8/9 November,and to no other date.
So if I oppose the presumtion of Hutchinson being confused or deficent in memory,then study what I have written,and tell me why I could be wrong.

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 10:53 AM
I will copy a part of my answer on this issue to Harry from another thread:

My text: "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."

And an addition:

"... we can not excuse on the question of Hutchinson being suddenly confronted for an explanation,and being pushed for details,as it was himself who voluntary came forward of his own free will".

You will notice from my other posts, Harry, that I think that this was exactly what happened: Abberline MUST have hauled Hutch in and asked him about the weather, once it became clear to him that the original police report speaks of a dry night. And if Hutch had stated that it rained - as it did -then the hunt for Astrakhan man would not have been blown off, and Hutch would not have been dropped, as witnessed about by the papers. Therefore, reasonably, the answer he gave Abberline was that it was a dry night - and that, Harry, was that.

The best,
Fisherman

Sally
12-18-2010, 11:31 AM
Morning Fisherman. If I may?

My text: "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?

I don't find the comparison in recollection of, say, fish for dinner, with, say, the murder of a woman known for the last three years, comparable, particularly. The former is a meal - something that happens very regularly (yes, we might argue about how often, if you were Hutchinson, but I vote we skip that bit of pedantry); and the latter is a rare and extreme event. Damnit, I forget what I had for dinner all the time - I can't imagine what I'll be like in old age! It's trivial. We are, as human beings, literally bombarded with countless experiences every day of our lives. The human brain makes sense of these many events by prioritising them. If we remembered all experiences with equal precision and clarity, we couldn't make sense of them at all, because they would become meaningless.

Dinner can generally be forgotten, more or less; as can a thousand similar small events. Being the very last person to see a friend alive, very shortly before she was brutally murdered, as Hutchinson claimed occurred, will not be forgotten under normal circumstances.

If Hutchinson was an habitual drunk, I could accept that he may have become confused; and I think that would make it more likely that he didn't realise what had happened until days later - in spite of the whole country talking about it.

But for this there appears to be not a shred of evidence - and in fact he himself stated that he was 'quite sober' when his alleged encounter with Kelly occurred.

And if Hutch had stated that it rained - as it did -then the hunt for Astrakhan man would not have been blown off, and Hutch would not have been dropped, as witnessed about by the papers. Therefore, reasonably, the answer he gave Abberline was that it was a dry night

It is reasonable, its a good answer. I think perhaps there might be another more mundane one on consideration though, and I'll try to find the time to post it later.

Best regards

Sally

The Good Michael
12-18-2010, 12:45 PM
A new possibility: Hutchinson created the Astrakhan story to earn some money, but when the police became frustrated with trying to find this man, Hutchinson himself said he'd been mistaken on the date to stop them badgering him. He'd already gotten some money for showing them around and really wanted to just be done with it.


A new conspiracy possibility: The police found Astrakhan man, didn't believe it possible that such a gentleman could have done it, pressed Hutch on the date: "You are SURE it wasn't the evening of the 7th? Mr....VIP says it was, and he doesn't like it when people disagree with him." "The 7th, you said? Aye, that was the night. Sorry for the confusion. In the excitement, I..." "Go on! Mum's the word, eh?"

That last was for Simon.

Mike

richardnunweek
12-18-2010, 12:46 PM
Hi,
I agree with Sally with the fish comparison hardly the same importance.
I still maintain that Hutchinson [ who was described as a man of military appearance] was the man that Lewis saw, which surely is not in dispute[ the day that is].
The hankerchief has some relevance to the date at least to me.
Hutchinson claims Kelly said in a loud voice.' Oh I have lost my hankerchief.
This was around 2am.
Maxwell says kelly informed her she was ill, and the missing document 'Her eyes looked queer as if suffering from a heavy cold' does infer that it is entirely plausible that a six hour gap was likely ie Hutchinsons account and Maxwells, and she may well have had a nasty cold.
Maxwells account was checked and verified, so there can be no doubt that she had the right day.
So was Hutchinson really one day out, would he really forget the day he trecked back from Romford, the morning he stayed out all night.
The police would have checked his account a quick visit to the Victoria home would have seen records of the full nights he stayed,
He clearly was on the streets that night as stated.
Regards Richard.

Sally
12-18-2010, 01:01 PM
A new possibility: Hutchinson created the Astrakhan story to earn some money, but when the police became frustrated with trying to find this man, Hutchinson himself said he'd been mistaken on the date to stop them badgering him. He'd already gotten some money for showing them around and really wanted to just be done with it.


A new conspiracy possibility: The police found Astrakhan man, didn't believe it possible that such a gentleman could have done it, pressed Hutch on the date: "You are SURE it wasn't the evening of the 7th? Mr....VIP says it was, and he doesn't like it when people disagree with him." "The 7th, you said? Aye, that was the night. Sorry for the confusion. In the excitement, I..." "Go on! Mum's the word, eh?"

That last was for Simon.

Mike

Mike - Sure, why not? Who knows why Hutchinson's story of a dry night encounter doesn't tally with the probable wet weather conditions on the 8th? The possibilities are several, at least.

I suppose if it really WAS Randolph Churchill that night you may be correct :scratchchin:

For myself, however, I'm just not completely comfortable with him mixing up the days, given the circumestances, unless he wasn't in full posession of his mental faculties, for some reason or another. Maybe he was in it for the money, assuming there was ever any to start with - or the hope of some at least. After all, he was down on his luck. Dishonesty doesn't equal murder, does it?

I don't think he has to have been a saint in order to be exonerated from suspicion - if that's the way this is going.

Sally
12-18-2010, 01:04 PM
Hi Richard


So was Hutchinson really one day out, would he really forget the day he trecked back from Romford, the morning he stayed out all night.
The police would have checked his account a quick visit to the Victoria home would have seen records of the full nights he stayed,
He clearly was on the streets that night as stated.

Exactly. They would have checked. How long would it have taken to nip over to the Victoria Home? A few minutes? Of course they would have checked.

Its a good point, Richard.

Best regards

Sally

The Good Michael
12-18-2010, 01:30 PM
Sally,

You are exactly right. The simplest explanation has always been that Hutchinson was looking to make a buck. That has always been the simplest explanation for city-dwelling ne'er-do-wells, to have some scheme to get them enough money for the day. The older one gets, the more elaborate the scheme and the more money wanted. this was a small potatoes, young guy, just looking for something to tide him over between gigs is how I look at it.

Mike

Fi Saint
12-18-2010, 01:57 PM
Could it be that Hutchinson knew astrakahn man? maybe he suspected a friend and wanted to put a stop to his activities. it would explain why he could describe him in such detail and why he got the night wrong.

Ben
12-18-2010, 02:01 PM
What I feel Fisherman should be commended most strongly upon is identifying yet another problem with Hutchinson’s account. I had never paid sufficient attention to the weather conditions until now, and as it now stands, the alleged Astrakhan description assumes a new hitherto unacknowledged dimension of sheer improbability. However, while Fisherman is inclined to attribute this anomaly to some vast, inexplicable confusion as to the entire day of the encounter, I see it as merely another example of Hutchinson failing to take into account certain practical considerations when putting together a fabrication. This really isn’t that complicated. If you want to invent an elaborate account of something that didn’t actually happen – a lie, basically – you’re not always going to take sufficient account of the physical conditions at the time.

How else would lies ever be exposed, if not for slip-ups such as this one?

One Titanic survivor claimed to have seen Captain Smith knocked over by a wave on the bridge of the ship as it made its final plunge, but it was later firmly established that this same survivor had entered one of the earlier lifeboats, and was at least a mile away as the ship sank. He couldn’t possibly have seen what he claimed to have seen, and the simplest explanation for this is that he lied about it. There has never been any great determination to resist this commonsense conclusion, and certainly nobody has ever dreamt of arguing that “nobody would be so stupid as to come up with THAT ludicrous a lie, so it must be true!”, but for some reason, all sorts of unlikely explanations are resorted to as substitutes in Hutchinson’s case; first they are proposed as tentative possibilities, but then they quickly mutate into confidently phrased certainties.

Besides the deeply unlikely suggestion that the high level of compatibility between the Lewis and Hutchinson accounts with respect to the loitering man and his preoccupation with the entrance to Miller’s Court was mere "coincidence", it also beggars belief that he could have misremembered the day he allegedly visited Romford. Given the distance from Whitechapel, it could only have been a journey planned in advance (i.e. Thursday, I’m off to Romford), drastically reducing the chances of him subsequently misremembering the date.

What also troubles me is the extent of inconsistency of approach to Maxwell and Hutchinson as witnesses with regard to the "wrong day" proposal. It has been argued for many years that Maxwell may have confused the date, but nobody has ever gone so far as to suggest that the police had procured proof to that effect. With Hutchinson, the goalposts change; it is no longer a case of the police merely suspecting a date mix up, but of suddenly acquiring a magic wand and determining for certain that this is what happened.

They posit the existence of some cast-iron alibi for Hutchinson without a scrap of evidence, relying instead on one of those “must haves”. If date-confusion is ever to be proposed in connection with Hutchinson, the better argument is that the police may have considered it a possibility at some stage, without having the goods to prove it, as was the case with Maxwell. I fear the power of that better argument is overlooked in the determination to “exonerate” Hutchinson.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 02:12 PM
Sally:

"I don't find the comparison in recollection of, say, fish for dinner, with, say, the murder of a woman known for the last three years, comparable, particularly.The former is a meal - something that happens very regularly (yes, we might argue about how often, if you were Hutchinson, but I vote we skip that bit of pedantry); and the latter is a rare and extreme event."

Hi Sally! I´m afraid, I can´t agree with you here. You see, I think the two things are quite comparable - and totally trivial.

Of course, I would never call a murder a trivial thing, but then again, when George Hutchinson saw his man with Kelly, it was nothing but a trivial encounter of a prostitute and a punter he witnessed. It´s notoriety as a possible sighting of a killer with his prey only came about when Hutchinson found out what had happened afterwards!

Twistin things around, if you have a fish dinner, and at the same time see a Rools-Royce passing outside your window, and three, four days later hear that a killer driving a Rolls-Royce has struck in your neighbourhood, you will instantly remember that you have seen such a car some days back, and you MAy remember that you were having fish for dinner as you saw it - but on what day did you have that fish ...? The fact that you now realize that a murder has been committed will not help you to remember that, I´m afraid. It is only when you have the relevance at hand from the outset that your memory may serve you better in such a case.

In the end, it all boils down to the quality of your sequential memory, Sally.

"I think perhaps there might be another more mundane one on consideration though, and I'll try to find the time to post it later."

Sounds intriguing, Sally!

the best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 02:16 PM
Richard:

"The police would have checked his account a quick visit to the Victoria home would have seen records of the full nights he stayed"

A very credible suggestion, Richard. And then they discredited him, right?

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 02:23 PM
Mike:

"The simplest explanation has always been that Hutchinson was looking to make a buck."

It is a good explanation, Mike. But it still remains that anybody who is going to tell porkies to the police makes at least a decent effort to get the surrounding circumstances right. Clearly, Hutchinson didn´t. I also think it is a compelling thing that we may pin him down as a very responsible member of society if we accept that he started his mission of telling what he knew from the moment he started believing that he could have seen the killer. And that would have been Sunday, by the looks of things.
There is a clear-cut path to walk if we want to agree with Abberline´s assessment of Hutchinson as an honest fellow, AND find a completely logical timeline for his behaviour. And until I see evidence for any culpability on his behalf in any sinister game, that is the path I am going to choose.

The best,
Fisherman

Sally
12-18-2010, 02:23 PM
Hi Sally! I´m afraid, I can´t agree with you here. You see, I think the two things are quite comparable - and totally trivial.

Hmm? What?

Of course, I would never call a murder a trivial thing, but then again, when George Hutchinson saw his man with Kelly, it was nothing but a trivial encounter of a prostitute and a punter he witnessed. It´s notoriety as a possible sighting of a killer with his prey only came about when Hutchinson found out what had happened afterwards!
OH, I see...

Yes, alright, you're arguing that he didn't realise the significance until long after the event - and only came to appreciate the significance in the light of later events? Possible, certainly.

Twistin things around, if you have a fish dinner, and at the same time see a Rools-Royce passing outside your window, and three, four days later hear that a killer driving a Rolls-Royce has struck in your neighbourhood, you will instantly remember that you have seen such a car some days back, and you MAy remember that you were having fish for dinner as you saw it - but on what day did you have that fish ...? The fact that you now realize that a murder has been committed will not help you to remember that, I´m afraid. It is only when you have the relevance at hand from the outset that your memory may serve you better in such a case.

I don't know about this. It would depend on how unusual or mundane the two events were - seeing a Rolls or eating a fish dinner. I agree that we are more likely as humans to link together pieces of information which seem to us to have special significance - its how we make sense of exceptional events and circumstances - I think!

In the end, it all boils down to the quality of your sequential memory, Sally.

I hope not mine, Fisherman, otherwise we'll all be in trouble!

"I think perhaps there might be another more mundane one on consideration though, and I'll try to find the time to post it later."

Sounds intriguing, Sally!

I doubt I'm the first to consider it, Fisherman, but I'll give it a go.

Best regards

Sally

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 02:25 PM
Ben:

"However, while Fisherman is inclined to attribute this anomaly to some vast, inexplicable confusion as to the entire day of the encounter, I see it as merely another example of Hutchinson failing to take into account certain practical considerations when putting together a fabrication."

Do you think that Abberline asked him about the weather at a later stage than the police report? If so, what do you think he answered?

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 02:28 PM
Sally:

"It would depend on how unusual or mundane the two events were - seeing a Rolls or eating a fish dinner."

Exactly. Which is why I say that a meeting between a punter and a prostitute is a very casual thing.

The best,
Fisherman

Ben
12-18-2010, 02:31 PM
Hi Fish,

I have no reason to suspect that any witness was quizzed in detail over the weather, for the obvious reason that no detective was likely to consider it necessary to determine whether or not a witness had confused an entire day. However, if Hutchinson was quizzed, he would probably have confirmed the presence of rain.

All the best,
Ben

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 02:42 PM
Ben:

"I have no reason to suspect that any witness was quizzed in detail over the weather, for the obvious reason that no detective was likely to consider it necessary to determine whether or not a witness had confused an entire day."

My bet, Ben, is that any detective or policeman who finds out that a police witness has described a murder night in meteorological terms that are incompatible with the truth - as Hutchinson did - will VERY soon realize that a dire need has arisen to discuss exactly the question of a confused date. It would not be the first time in history such a thing occurred either. On the contrary, it is a very common thing.

"However, if Hutchinson was quizzed, he would probably have confirmed the presence of rain."

Well, if he was there, he would have, and if he was not, he would not have. If he did confirm the rain, the reasonable outcome would be that the hunt for Astrakhan man would still be on, and Abberline would stand by his belief that Hutchinson had spoken the truth. It is not until he confirms the suspicion that he was wrong on the dates that the scenario is played out that we have on record today.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 02:51 PM
Ben, again:

"It has been argued for many years that Maxwell may have confused the date, but nobody has ever gone so far as to suggest that the police had procured proof to that effect. With Hutchinson, the goalposts change; it is no longer a case of the police merely suspecting a date mix up, but of suddenly acquiring a magic wand and determining for certain that this is what happened."

There are situations in which no proof can be aquired, Ben. I think that the obvious thing to believe here is that the police did everything they could to disprove Maxwell, but were unable to find that proof.

In Hutchinsons case, no "magic wand" was needed. All it took was the simple question: "Tell me, mr Hutchinson, the night you saw Kelly with the man in the wealthy attire - what was the weather like?" And when George Hutchinson told the police that it was perfectly dry, they would have secured, wait for it ... water-tight (!) proof that they could drop him.

Different persons, different circumstances, different approaches - and different results! If Maxwell gave the correct surrounding circumstances, then she would be much tougher to prove wrong.

the best,
Fisherman

Garza
12-18-2010, 02:51 PM
Exactly. Which is why I say that a meeting between a punter and a prostitute is a very casual thing.

The best,
Fisherman

Except though it wasn't a casual thing from what Hutchinson told us.

He seemed to be suspicious enough to wait for them under a light outside the Queen's Head, stoop down to see the man's face, then proceed to follow them and wait for them for an hour outside Kelly's place.

Hardly a casual reaction to a very casual thing.

I don't really have any strong Hutchinson views, just saying :scratchchin:

Ben
12-18-2010, 02:53 PM
Hi Fish,

My bet, Ben, is that any detective or policeman who finds out that a police witness has described a murder night in meteorological terms that are incompatible with the truth - as Hutchinson did - will VERY soon realize that a dire need has arisen to discuss exactly the question of a confused date.

Or, far more likely, that detective or policmean will "VERY soon realize" that the account is made of wholecloth, which neatly accounts for for the reduced importance attached to his account a day later, and the "discrediting" that occured a couple of days after that, in the wake of Hutchinson's contradictory and embellished press disclosures.

"If he did confirm the rain, the reasonable outcome would be that the hunt for Astrakhan man would still be on, and Abberline would stand by his belief that Hutchinson had spoken the truth."

Not if they decided to ditch him for other reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with "date confusion" and everything to do with the steadily emerging picture that Hutchinson had probably lied in his account. In that case, the Astrakhan hunt would still be aborted.

Cheers,
Ben

Ben
12-18-2010, 02:58 PM
And when George Hutchinson told the police that it was perfectly dry, they would have secured, wait for it ... water-tight (!) proof that they could drop him

Well, it's up to you if you want to conclude that such a hypothetical scenario constitues "proof", Fisherman. Certainly, if Hutchinson really did kill Kelly and knew that by giving an incorrect weather report, he'd be declared "proven innocent" of the ripper crimes, I'm sure he'd have jumped at the chance!

All the best,
Ben

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 02:58 PM
Hi Garza!

At the very least the man´s attire would be something out of the ordinary, yes. And Hutchinson did pay much attention to him, obviously. But that does not put the sighting on par with a murder!

And, as I keep stating, the whole question is very much dependant on the quality of Hutchinson´s sequential memory. People who have a very bad sequential memory may witness a murder on Tuesday and still be unable to pin it in time if asked about it on Wednesday. Or two hours later, for that matter. It´s why I exemplify with senile people, where the sequential memory often takes it´s leave long before the detail memory does. And inbetween time memory masters and senile people, all levels of sequential memories are represented.

Finally, I think we must realize that if you find out about a killing and realize that you have seen the killed person some days before, then maybe your memory is somewhat more likely than usual to play a trick on you and connect the two things. But that is just a suggestion.

the best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 03:04 PM
Ben:

"Or, far more likely, that detective or policmean will "VERY soon realize" that the account is made of wholecloth"

But that would be suggesting that the police would prefer to work from a premise of dishonesty on behalf of voluntary witnesses, instead of looking for an explanation that meant that they were honest but mistaken. I think it would boil down to a question of statistics in such a case, and I do believe that honest people are far more common than masquerading serial killers, Ben. Therefore I would say that things are the other way around totally, and frankly, I find your suggestion a strange one.

Moreover, when it emerged that the day before offered a very reasonable explanation for a mistake on Hutchinsons behalf, I fail to see that they would entertain any suspicions. Finally, they would have asked him, and when he said "dry", the would have said thank you very much, Sir, you´ve been most helpful - and sent him on his way. Which, incidentally, seems to be what they did.

the best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 03:08 PM
Ben:

"If Hutchinson really did kill Kelly and knew that by giving an incorrect weather wrong, he'd be declared "proven innocent" of the ripper crimes, I'm sure he'd have jumped at the chance!"

Are you, Ben? Don´t you realize that if he did, then he would have dispelled what he came to the police station for in the first place, according to you - to establish that he was the loiterer outside the court. And that would leave him open to the identification by Lewis that he feared so much, once again according to you, would it not?
Pondering that, why would he go to the police in the first place?

The best,
Fisherman

Ben
12-18-2010, 03:12 PM
But that would be suggesting that the police would prefer to work from a premise of dishonesty on behalf of voluntary witnesses

It's not a question of preference, Fisherman, but one of what the indications point to. I really don't know what you mean when you speak of "statistics", but I'd wager a hefty bet that lying witnesses are infinitely more common than honest witnesses who misremember an event by a full 24 hours. The fact that you consider the latter a "very reasonable explanation" doesn't mean that the contemporary police considered it so, especially when they were far more familiar with liars and publicity-seekers.

I still don't think you're quite processing the irony of your own suggestion that a claim by Hutchinson that the weather was dry was tantamount to total exoneration of any involvement in the ripper crimes. If he was the killer, then by following your logic, all he had to do was a give a false weather report, and he would have been ajudged both innocent and truthful.

On the subject of detail versus sequential memory, I think it's being somewhat overlooked that Hutchinson was just as meticulous as to the sequence of alleged events as he was when it came to clothing and accessory detail, so I'm afraid it still beggars belief that he could not got it so sequentially wrong when communicating to the police.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 03:12 PM
Ben:

"it's up to you if you want to conclude that such a hypothetical scenario constitues "proof", Fisherman. "

If Hutchinson told the police that a night they knew was rainy, was instead dry, then that would prove that he was not relating to the murder night. That is what I am saying. I cannot prove it as such - which I state in my essay - but I can easily see that this is a very, very viable suggestion. By the looks of things, many another poster are of the same opinion.

the best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 03:21 PM
Ben:

"It's not a question of preference, Fisherman, but one of what the indications point to. "

It always is, Ben. And the indications at hand tell us that Hutchinson was there on a dry night, plus we know that the night BEFORE was that sort of night. By reasoning, therefore, the indications are that he mixed up the dates. Abberline´s assertion that Hutchinson was truthful tells us that he saw nothing sinister at all in Hutchinson´s description of Astrakhan man.

"I'd wager a hefty bet that lying witnesses are infinitely more common than honest witnesses who misremember an event by a full 24 hours"

That is another way of saying that the vast majority of people who have mistaken a day for another when asked by the police are liars. You should try to disagree with yourself on that one, Ben, before you get too bogged down in that swamp.

"On the subject of detail versus sequential memory, I think it's being somewhat overlooked that Hutchinson was just as meticulous as to the sequence of alleged events as he was when it came to clothing and accessory detail, so I'm afraid it still beggars belief that he could not got it so sequentially wrong when communicating to the police."

Was he? And how do you suppose to prove that? You see, Ben, you are now working from the premise that all Hutchinson said that was timerelated was true. But we cannot possibly know that. He may have gotten any sequence wrong, without us being able to identify it.
What you are saying now is that he did not make one single other timerelated mistake - but how are you going to bolster that...?

the best,
Fisherman

Ben
12-18-2010, 03:32 PM
but I can easily see that this is a very, very viable suggestion. By the looks of things, many another poster are of the same opinion.

Some posters are of the same opinion, Fish, not "many".

Ben
12-18-2010, 03:34 PM
If Hutchinson told the police that a night they knew was rainy, was instead dry, then that would prove that he was not relating to the murder night.

Please see paragraph #2 of post #27, Fisherman. Still think your missing the irony.

Why would it prove anything of the sort?

And it was some others who thought it a viable suggestion, not “many”.

“And the indications at hand tell us that Hutchinson was there on a dry night, plus we know that the night BEFORE was that sort of night.”

The indications might tell you that, but they most assuredly tell me that Hutchinson slipped up when fabricating a series of events, and that it’s slip-ups like these then ensure that liars are exposed at all. It tells me that he forgot to factor in the weather when giving a false account.

“That is another way of saying that the vast majority of people who have mistaken a day for another when asked by the police are liars.”

No, I meant precisely what I said. The police, then and now, are far more commonly confronted with liars and fabricators than they are with honest witnesses whose “sequential memory” is so astonishingly and implausibly bad that they get it wrong by 24 hours.

“You see, Ben, you are now working from the premise that all Hutchinson said that was timerelated was true.”

Yep, that’s me all round. A zealous defender that Hutchinson reported the exact truth! Seriously though, the point was that he was quite specific about the order in which particular (alleged!) events took place, noting the time etc, and that he related this on more than one occasion. I don’t consider this very compatible with bad sequential memory.

Best regards,
Ben

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 03:47 PM
Ben:

"Some posters are of the same opinion, Fish, not "many"."

Quite a few, Ben. And it would seem they do not all belong to my "chums" - I just read that Tom Wescott thought that my essay would have put me in the contention for the Jeremy Beadle award if it was published in Ripperologist, and among all the things you can call Wescott, a chum of mine would not end up at the top of that list. Which is why I appreciate his praise very, very much, and which is why I find that he is somebody who very apparently puts a clear judgemant before any animosity our exchanges may have caused before.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-18-2010, 03:51 PM
..and by now I think, Ben, that you are once again going round in circles, and I fail to see that any further exchange between us would serve the discussion, at least not for the moment being. If you don´t mind my saying so, some of your arguments point to a degree of desperation on your behalf, which is why I suggest that you give it a rest and think things over much more deeply than you have done so far. After that, I will happily try and answer whatever objections you may have to my essay. Myself, I´m off to bake gingerbread. Jingle bells, jingle bells ...

The best,
Fisherman

Garza
12-18-2010, 04:09 PM
Hi Garza!

At the very least the man´s attire would be something out of the ordinary, yes. And Hutchinson did pay much attention to him, obviously. But that does not put the sighting on par with a murder!

And, as I keep stating, the whole question is very much dependant on the quality of Hutchinson´s sequential memory. People who have a very bad sequential memory may witness a murder on Tuesday and still be unable to pin it in time if asked about it on Wednesday. Or two hours later, for that matter. It´s why I exemplify with senile people, where the sequential memory often takes it´s leave long before the detail memory does. And inbetween time memory masters and senile people, all levels of sequential memories are represented.

Finally, I think we must realize that if you find out about a killing and realize that you have seen the killed person some days before, then maybe your memory is somewhat more likely than usual to play a trick on you and connect the two things. But that is just a suggestion.

the best,
Fisherman

First off I forgot to say how much I thoroughly enjoyed your article. Very rare to get a worthwhole fresh argument in the JtR case, so congrats!! :scholar:

If Mary Jane Kelly associated with this type of attire often then it would be normal I suppose. But why look intently? Maybe he was trying to look out for a friend due to the Ripper Killings and I guess Hutchinson had alot of time that night to make sure MJK was ok. And if you have the London meterological services on your side, who have all the data - and data is very rare to come by in JTR.

I personally always thought that any policeman worth his salt would have checked out Hutchinson as a suspect especially after admitting waiting outside for an hour, very weird way to deflect suspicion imo if he did murder MJK.

Meh, I find the whole Hutchinson is JTR theory as lazy reasoning to be honest:- Hutchinson lied, he was outside MJK's court, ergo he was the killer.

Ben
12-18-2010, 06:36 PM
Alright then, Fisherman. Yes, I'm happy to call it a day again. I must just be me "going round in circles", and you just happen to be joining me on them. I have no fatal objections if you really think that some of my arguments indicate "desperation", if it really is desperate to argue that Hutchinson probably didn't confuse the date of the encounter. In the meantime, I'll just smile thinly as I contemplate your advice to "think things over much more deeply". Obviously, anyone who doesn't share your conclusions is just not thinking deeply enough, dammit. Think deep, think really deep, and you can only end up with a date-confusing Hutchinson who didn't hear of Kelly's death until Sunday 11th November in Petticoat Lane.

Hi Garza,

Maybe he was trying to look out for a friend due to the Ripper Killings and I guess Hutchinson had alot of time that night to make sure MJK was ok.

Didn't do the most terrific of jobs if that were truly the case, though, did he? In this case, "looking out for a friend" consisted of waiting on the opposite side of the road from Miller's Court with no view into Kelly's room, rendering himself utterly useless in the event that the Astrakhan guest turned out to be the ripper, and attacked Kelly.

Hutchinson may well have been checked out as a suspect - we don't know, but if they did, they were very unlikely ever to have found themselves in a position to confirm or deny those suspicions. If and when you decide to conduct a bit more research on other serial cases, you may find the proposal that Hutchinson was the murderer and came forward to deflect suspicion considerably less "weird". I discussed a number of cases in my article in which serial killers have approached the police under the guise of a witness, and if you do get a chance to read my work, I hope you'll at least appreciate that there's a bit more to the "Hutchinson is JTR theory" than "Hutchinson lied, he was outside MJK's court, ergo he was the killer" and that the accusation of "lazy reasoning" is somewhat misplaced.

corey123
12-18-2010, 06:50 PM
Hello All,

I have yet to read Ben's or Fishermens articles, but I plan to, as I have a keen interest in the Kelly murder and in Hutchinsons statement.

Ben
12-18-2010, 07:04 PM
I'd very much appreciate your thoughts, Corey, and I look forward to having a proper read of your article, and Tom's for that matter!

All the best,
Ben

corey123
12-18-2010, 07:06 PM
Hello Ben,

I plan to read it either tonite after work, or tomorrow, then I will post fully on it. As I happen to believe Hutchinsons statement is actually the most important in the series, if valid. Also, when I first started researching ripperology, I obtained the police statement(well a facsimile of it) and that is facinating as well.

Will post soon.

Yours truly,

Corey

The Good Michael
12-18-2010, 07:15 PM
Corey,

Some advice for if I had to do it all over again: I wouldn't have read any suspect books until I'd read everything else. Suspect books are inherently one-sided. They can't help being that way. It's the nature of the beast. Read newspaper clippings on Kelly, look at Toppy's signatures without input of "experts" as you can eyeball them just fine, and compare them to at least one of the signatures on the police statement. Also, find out about any and all George Hutchinsons who are recorded to have lived in the East End in 1881 and 1891. Look at their signatures as well. Read Hutchinson's statement. Do all these things and then come to a reasonable conclusion about him. I'm sure you will. If after all that work you want to read dissertations which are similar to suspect books in one-sidedness, so so. But do what they don't do: Look for holes in logic in their theories.

Good luck,

Mike

The Good Michael
12-18-2010, 09:24 PM
Hutchinson lied, he was outside MJK's court, ergo he was the killer.

Then it's taken backwards to: He must have done the others too because it does look like an escalation.

It borders on implausible. Whereas Kazakhstan borders on Uzebkistan.

Mike

Ben
12-18-2010, 09:45 PM
Woah, just leave it for now, Mike!

Corey has demonstrated more than enough independent thought and discernment to draw his own conclusions, and I'm sure he does not require any external prompting from anyone. I really wouldn't advise people not to listen to experts, though!

Garry Wroe
12-19-2010, 03:18 AM
Having at last found the time to read Fisherman’s Examiner article, I have to confess to being somewhat troubled. The problem for me is that Fish is unequivocal in his assertion that Hutchinson has been ‘exonerated’ courtesy of a simple factor that has eluded everyone else. Indeed, the whole piece is littered with similarly confident declarations, as witness, ‘I know what made the police send George Hutchinson home. I know why he was not reprimanded, fined or jailed for wasting the police’s time. I know what the man in the wideawake hat was doing, taking a look up Miller’s court at 2.30 in the night. I know why George Hutchinson gave such a detailed description of his man, whereas Sarah Lewis saw nothing, or close to nothing, of hers. Finally, I know what the investigation mentioned in the Echo on the 13th was aiming to find; I know why Hutchinson’s story was not totally discredited at that stage, but only very much in doubt, and I know what it was that clinched things the following day.’ [My emphasis.]

No-one could accuse him of understatement, to be sure.

He knows something else too. Hutchinson did not encounter Kelly and Astrakhan on the night of the murder. He couldn’t have done, for the events he claims to have observed must have occurred under dry conditions. According to Fisherman, however, the night under scrutiny was continually wet.

Again and again reference is made to the ‘hard, dense November rain’ that was ‘incessantly pouring down’. The claim is even made that ‘it was raining cats and dogs as [Sarah] Lewis hurried through Dorset Street.’

And so it goes.

What should be abundantly obvious is that the continuously wet night scenario is pivotal to Fisherman’s new interpretation of events. Extraordinarily, however, despite repeated readings of his article, I could find no reference to this source of new information. Had Fisherman contacted the meteorological office? If so, why had he neglected to state as much? And why, as a seasoned journalist, had he failed to present the said information in the main body of text?

This mystery was partially resolved when I searched the relevant Casebook threads. The following is post number 116 from the Examiner Number 5 thread:-

Garry Wroe:

"Since the night of 8/9 November was punctuated by heavy showers rather than continual rainfall, I fail to understand the underlying logic of Fisherman's 'wrong night' argument."

It lies, to some extent, in the fact that Hutchinson chose to walk the streets through the night in spite of the conditions, Garry. That, if nothing else, points to a very irrational behaviour. Plus, of course, when I contacted the meteorological services in London, they stated that it rained throughout the night, more or less. Of course, it could have been a case of less dense rain, varying with heavy showers (few rains are very constant throughout), but no matter what, walking the streets would have been a very strange thing to do. And, in accordance with that, it would be a strange suggestion even if Hutchinson was telling porkies, since he would have been on safer ground if he claimed that he spent the night sheltering in a doorway on some street he could not name more exactly.

The best,
Fisherman
Evidently, then, Fisherman did contact the meteorological office, which informed him that ‘it rained throughout the night, more or less.’

Hang on a minute. More or less? And what’s this about ‘it could have been a case of less dense rain, varying with heavy showers’?

Oddly enough, I don’t seem to recall any such equivocation in the Examiner article. To repeat an earlier paragraph, ‘Again and again reference is made to the ‘hard, dense November rain’ that was ‘incessantly pouring down’. The claim is even made that ‘it was raining cats and dogs as [Sarah] Lewis hurried through Dorset Street.’’

Given my clear recollection of a weather report stating that the night of the Miller’s Court murder was punctuated by heavy showers (as opposed to continual rainfall), I would suggest that it would benefit all interested parties if Fish would consent to publish in full any information he has received from the meteorological office. Meantime, I’ll do some digging of my own.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

corey123
12-19-2010, 03:36 AM
Hello Mike,

I appriciate the advice. I will take extra care when coming to conclusions on this one. However, I plan to stay neutral, only to discuss the "facts: of this conundrum, if there are any.

Ben, Fishermen, et al,

I plan to read both articles, then, as Mike suggested, look over the basics of the Hutchinson case. The most I have breached upon thsi case is what I have skimmed on the boards, and in books, plus the police statement. So, I know only the common knowledge of Hutchinson. The most I have ever really theorized on his occasion is that perhaps Toppy and Hutch are the same? I have Hutchinsons signiture, but I have yet to see Toppy, I think. If I have, I don't recall. I should be ready to post tomorrow.

Have a good evening everyone.

harry
12-19-2010, 04:11 AM
Fisherman,
You are a poster that has been around for quite a while,and correct me if I am wrong,a person who has steadfastly maintained that any claim should have a basis in factual evidence.Where is there evidence of a man standing outside Crossingham's any time between 2am and 3am on the morning of the 8th,your revised time,or of Kelly spending the early morning hours of the 8th in the company of a man she met on Commercial street.
Your whole arguement is based on it could have happened,(this memory lapse),it was possible,but you produce no witnesses or shred of evidence that it did.Whereas there is at least one witness,who can place a person,claimed byHutchinson to have been him,outside Crossingham's in the early hours of the 9th.
Myself,I would be happy to have had Hutchinson there on both nights,for even if he was one night out in the telling,what is to say it was not him on the 9th also,a stalker who had been deprived of an opportunity the previous occasion,and had come again to try his luck.
You see,we can all conjure up fanciful solutions.

Hunter
12-19-2010, 04:38 AM
Here is a clip from the Echo November 9, 1888 in reference to the weather and the Lord Mayor's Show.



http://i981.photobucket.com/albums/ae297/crismalone/EchoNov91888.jpg

richardnunweek
12-19-2010, 09:53 AM
Hi,
Hutchinson reported his account to the police at 6pm on Monday 12th, he informed the police that he was standing opposite the murder scene, at a possible relevant time to medical opinion.
In order to take this witness seriously, they would firstly have to eliminate him as a suspect, by checking out his lodgings, the dates he occupied them, a search of his known clothing, when satisfied they would have to be certain that the person he saw was infact the dead woman, by having to view the body[ which he did on tuesday morning], and also give a description of clothing wore by the woman he spoke to, after all his description of the man, was detailed.
The very fact that on the monday evening he went on a search with police officers, would suggest that they were happy to eliminate him from enquiries, as a suspect ,and were provisionary happy that his account was true, without even viewing the body.
The fact is we simply do not know what was said off 'record' one would presume, that more was said then appeared on paper.
Was Hutch discredited?
Has any Police officer announced that he was?
Was TOPPING a hoax?
Did he receive a police payment as rumoured?
If he did.. he have hardly have received money for being discredited.
I put it to Casebook.
That the police were satisfied with Hutchinsons account, were satisfied that he was not involved with the murder, were satisfied that he saw the dead woman in Commercial street at the said time and place , and day.
And all this was before he even viewed the body.
The weather report as shown in that 'Lord Mayors ' report I agree with, it fits in with Pickert wanting to borrow kellys shawl at 730am.
But was it pouring at 2am?
If so why was kelly walking in it?
Why was Astracan standing on the corner of a street?
Why was Hutchinson walking out in it,? no shop doorway to shelter.
Why did kelly and Astracan stand for three minutes in Dorset street, and talk, when the passage /room was close by.?
Then Hutch waits for a further forty five minutes leaning against a wall, whats a bit of rain.?
Ah but of course it was the wrong day, Mr Hutchinson you really must be careful in the future before you make a statement concerning the date, it mucks up our enquiries...
Regards Richard.

Fisherman
12-19-2010, 10:19 AM
Good morning to you too, Garry!

I will try and provide some answers to your post. I realize that you have not taken much of a liking to it for a number of reasons.

For example, you are very much annoyed that I wrote that I now know what happened in the Hutchinson case.
Of course, you conveniently leave out that I ALSO wrote that I cannot prove it, since that passage does not serve your argument.
But there you are - one should not be over-confident, and if one feels that one has reached a conclusion that satisfies oneself, there must be no stepping on other posters toes!

Well, sorry for that, Garry, but I am a journalist and not a scientist. I do not aspire to being one such either. I make do with what I can and what I have, and if that is not to everybody´s liking, then so be it.
One interesting thing in this context is of course that I earlier posted two snippets from your own book, where you - amongst other things - make an exact description of George Hutchinson´s feelings as he waited to slaughter Mary Kelly, and tell us how he hung his dampened clothes up for drying in room 13, Miller´s Court. You were even well enough informed to tell us how he shook Kelly gently to establish how deep she was sleeping.

It made for great reading - I always did like your text, Garry.

But unfortunately, it also makes for a terrible background to produce the kind of criticism you now bestow upon me, as you will readily understand. Particularly when we take into account that you cut away the all-important part where I stated that there was no proof to bolster my suggestion.

I would very much like an answer from you, Garry, telling me why you chose to do so. The line in question comes immediately after the ones you castigate, and the inference is that you deliberately withheld this all-important parameter. Please tell me why!

As for the weather, I think that Hunter´s clipping makes for useful reading. That is how that night has always been described: as a particularly nasty one, weatherwise.
That aside, I did contact the meteorological services, yes. Unfortunately, I do not have the excange on this computer - it rests on another computer, to which I have no access until tomorrow, the weather allowing. But I can easily recount the gist of what was said.
When I sent over my mail to them - in October - I did so mainly to find out about the weather on the night before the murder night, for obvious reasons. That was the crucial parameter. In my post, I wrote that as far as I knew, the murder night had been one of very bad weather, with the rain arriving after midnight, and then increasing in power over the first few hours, to finally abade into a drizzle in the morning hours, but I had no idea about the night before. Could they help me?

Yes, they could. And their answer was that they confirmed my overall picture of the night of the 8:th, and then they added that the night before had been overcast but perfectly dry.

Just like I say, I cannot give the exact wording today, but this is the general picture with which you shall have to satisfy yourself for the moment being, Garry.

I would also like to point out to you, though, that I took great care in my text to emphasize that establishing the exact outcome of a rainfall in a particular street is a very hard thing to do.
I wrote that Abberline and his men may have been forced to realize that even if the rain was hard and dense generally, Dorset Street may for some reason perhaps - unlikely as it may sound - have been the one exception to the overall meteorological rule (or something to that effect; my essay is on the same computer as is the meteorological office´s answer).

Finally, I ALSO wrote that even if we were to deal with a situation where Dorset Street presented a completely dry and comfortable stage to play out the Hutchinson saga, it STILL applies that George Hutchinson gave away the fact that the night was a dry one as he told the press that he spent the remainder of the night walking the streets. THAT would have been the clincher for Abberline, if he had ever had any doubts on it all.

These parts and thoughts were also in my text, Garry. I put them there in order not to have to deal with the exact sort of post that you have now confronted me with, leaving any reference to the parts and thoughts in question out.

It is not the best and fairest way of going about things, if you ask me.

But then again, you don´t, do you?

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-19-2010, 10:21 AM
Harry:

"Where is there evidence of a man standing outside Crossingham's any time between 2am and 3am on the morning of the 8th,your revised time,or of Kelly spending the early morning hours of the 8th in the company of a man she met on Commercial street."

You got me there, Harry. Since the surveillance cameras had run low on batteries on that particular morning, I cannot prove it.

But I came pretty close,didn´t I?

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-19-2010, 10:33 AM
Richard:

"In order to take this witness seriously, they would firstly have to eliminate him as a suspect, by checking out his lodgings, the dates he occupied them..."

Yes, Richard. And already on the day after, the Echo reported that the police had started to suspect that things were not what they ought to have been. We are dealing with a short span of time!

"The very fact that on the monday evening he went on a search with police officers, would suggest that they were happy to eliminate him from enquiries, as a suspect ,and were provisionary happy that his account was true, without even viewing the body."

That it would, Richard.

"Did he receive a police payment as rumoured?
If he did.. he have hardly have received money for being discredited."

We do not have the payment confirmed - but I see no reason to accept that there was that time gap, that you yourself speak of, when Hutchinson was still believed, that could have seen him receiving money for helping out.

"But was it pouring at 2am?
If so why was kelly walking in it?
Why was Astracan standing on the corner of a street?
Why was Hutchinson walking out in it,? no shop doorway to shelter.
Why did kelly and Astracan stand for three minutes in Dorset street, and talk, when the passage /room was close by.?
Then Hutch waits for a further forty five minutes leaning against a wall, whats a bit of rain.?"

Incredible, is it not? And to top things off, he used the reamining hours of the night, among them the passage at 3:00 when we KNOW that it was raining hard, to merrily walk the streets.

The best,
Fisherman

richardnunweek
12-19-2010, 11:19 AM
Hello Fisherman,
Because many on Casebook, find it hard to accept witnesses at their word, we will always get scenerios invented, in an effort to make sense.
Hutchinson has always been a target for this.
His description of the man with Kelly,
His detail, his memory of words spoken, the 'red hankerchief'
The very fact that Hutchinson by his own admission was standing in the same spot , as Mrs Lewis observed, and her visit to the court was on the morning of the 9th, would suggest no error was made.
Its really that simple..
But how could he possible state a red Hankerchief?
Did the police find a hanky in kellys room, which confirmed Hutchies account ,and the colour was just recorded on the statement.
Did Hutch originally just say , 'he gave her his hankerchief'?
Before any investigation could take place, the police would have to be confident that
a] There were not dealing with a time waster.
b] That the person helping them in their enquiries, had the right woman, and the right day.
c] That he was not the actual killer.
Hutchinson must have convinced the police, for reasons not known to us, that he was the genuine article, something initially convinced Abberline.
How about this scenerio./
Information quickly came to light, to suspect another individual, making it then unlikely that Astracan was the killer, therefore Hutchinsons statement was then of non importance.
Regards Richard.

Fisherman
12-19-2010, 11:39 AM
Hi Richard!

"Because many on Casebook, find it hard to accept witnesses at their word, we will always get scenerios invented, in an effort to make sense."

My starting point when assessing witness testimony is aways that the witness is an honest one, getting things right.
Empirically we know that this is the best way to go about things. Equally empirically, though, we ALSO know that many a witness gets things wrong, and not all witnesses are honest.

Therefore we must be as thorough as possible when assessing witness testimony. And Hutchinsons testimony very clearly fits eminently with a dry night, whereas it does fit very poorly with a rainy night. And that is not a scenario I invented, it lies withing the testimony itself!

"Before any investigation could take place, the police would have to be confident that
a] There were not dealing with a time waster.
b] That the person helping them in their enquiries, had the right woman, and the right day.
c] That he was not the actual killer."

In a perfect world, these parametres can all be established, and in that same perfect world, the police always remember to ask all the relevant questions and are able to see all discrepancies involved. Then again, once more empirical insights tell us that it is not always possible to confirma all the bits and pieces and sometimes the police overlook a relevant issue.

So when you write:
"Hutchinson must have convinced the police, for reasons not known to us, that he was the genuine article, something initially convinced Abberline."

...you are spot on, Richard. But the fact that Abberline was satisfied does unfortunately not equal any certainty that all the right questions had been posed. For if they HAD, then George Hutchinson would never have been dropped the next day, would he? If Abberline had been infallable, such a thing would not have come about.
But id did, Richard! It did.

"How about this scenerio./
Information quickly came to light, to suspect another individual, making it then unlikely that Astracan was the killer, therefore Hutchinsons statement was then of non importance."

Until we have any confirmation at all of such a newcomer on the stage, I cannot believe in him. It would have left rings on the water! And it certainly would NOT mean that Hutchinson deserved to be "discredited", would it?

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-19-2010, 12:26 PM
Harry:

"You see,we can all conjure up fanciful solutions."

Perhaps so, Harry. But can you make it tally with what Walter Dew tells us must have been the case; that Hutchinson mixed the dates up? You see, whatever "fanciful solutions" we cook up, should preferably meet all the parametres involved, and this is where I think my suggestion applies very well. It corroborates Dew´s claim, it presents us with a solution to why Hutchinson was discredited but apparently not reprimanded, it tallies with the meteorological facts involved, it fits the dates of the Echo and the Star respectively, it uses only first hand source material as provided by the police report signed by Hutchinson himself to establish the main theory and it offers an explanation to why the ground for discrediting Hutchinson remained hidden to us.
Actually, since all these bits and pieces are tied together, I am at a complete loss to see what´s so "fanciful" about it. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me on that score?

The best,
Fisherman

richardnunweek
12-19-2010, 12:26 PM
Hi Fisherman,
I guess what it all boils down to is opinion.
The bad weather issue , has always been there, but both of us have often wandered about in the rain , have we not?
I am not disputing the weather forecast for that area , on the 8th /9th Nov, all I am suggesting is that does not necessarily mean that at 2am on the 9th it was raining hard, if it was,... why would Mary venture out, and why what a man dressed in Astracan finery, have his overcoat unbottoned.? mayby to attract the female walking towards him, the influential look. who knows, it might have been buttoned up to that point?
I would like to know where our George was heading to, once he realized he could not gain admisssion to his lodgings. he seemed to be heading for somwhere when he encountered kelly.?
I am not disputing the rainy night , neither the possibility of rain at 2am, alithough I would question perhaps the strength of the rain at that relevant period.
Regards Richard.

richardnunweek
12-19-2010, 12:43 PM
Hi again,
Hutchinson and Maxwell. have both throughout the history of the case been labled as mistaken, either on identity, or date, by officers such as Dew, and by nearly all of Casebook.
Maxwell was not mistaken on date, her movements on that morning were verified, and she did not claim to have just seen Kelly , but spoken to her, which suggests only two things,
Mjk was not the victim...unlikely
Mjk was killed around 9am... possible[ but thats another thread]
As for our George..
If a unknown ie Hutchinson identity ? then a time waster perhaps, a liar perhaps, mistaken perhaps, but if Topping a man that DID exist, a person that was honest and reliable[ sons reference] a man of detail, that recalled many times in later life, that he gave the police a statement as he 'knew one of the women', even received a payment of one hundred shillings for his efforts[ which was backed up by the wheeling report].
He never stated that he had made a mistake, he never mentioned that he was discredited, why not?
Because he made no mistake, and was not discredited, even if the press made that comment.
Regards Richard.

Fisherman
12-19-2010, 12:43 PM
Richard:

"I guess what it all boils down to is opinion."

Actually, no. It all boils down to using source material to establish a very credible explanation to George Hutchinson´s discrediting. It tallies with the only suggestion we have from a police officer involved in the case, Walter Dew. It answers to the reality of the meteorological assessment. That is not opinion.

"The bad weather issue , has always been there, but both of us have often wandered about in the rain , have we not?"

I have never spent a night walking on the streets in pouring rain, no. Nor have I stood about leaning on lampposts during such circumstances. I just don´t, and I don´t think that many people do. Generally, on nights like the one we are speaking about here, we do the best we can to avoid getting wet, and that would have applied even more so back in 1888, I suspect, since the means of warming up afterwards would not have been at hand the way it is today, and since back then it was agreed upon by all and sundry, doctor´s included, that we could catch dangerous diseases by getting soaked.
Otherwise, yes I have been out in the rain at occasion. Which is why I avoid it if I can.
And remember that it was not just raining - it was cold and very windy too, as witnessed by Hunters clipping, an endlessly miserable night, that is.

"I am not disputing the weather forecast for that area , on the 8th /9th Nov, all I am suggesting is that does not necessarily mean that at 2am on the 9th it was raining hard, if it was,... why would Mary venture out, and why what a man dressed in Astracan finery, have his overcoat unbottoned.?"

I don´t know how much more emphatic I can be about this then I already have, Richard: They-would-not!! That, as you surely must understand, is the whole, sole and only point I am making. Of course, if somebody felt very hard pressed, they could take to the streets in a hard rain, but they would make damn sure that they were buttoned up first, for example.

Dear, good Richard, I am actually presenting a scenario in which Hutchinson was completely honest, just like you have always claimed he was - but a scenario in which he was honestly mistaken! It is still there today, in writing, in the police report. It very clearly presents a picture of a dry night, with people standing about chatting in the open street, leaning on lampposts, unbuttoning their coats. It was not raining that night! The NEXT night, though, it was miserably cold, there was a hostile wind blowing and it rained heavily over the East End. And that night is NOT the night Hutchinson describes. So he got it wrong, so the police found out, so they corroborated the suspicions and so George´s story was "discredited" and he was sent on his way. And fifty years after that, Walter Dew writes that the only explanation to George Hutchinson´s scenario was that he was wrong on the dates. There can be no other explanation, he tells us.

Although it will have me castigated by a poster or two, I will easily say that this means that we have the solution to the Hutchinson enigma. It tallies all the way, piece by piece.

The best, Richard!
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-19-2010, 12:52 PM
Richard:

"he made no mistake, and was not discredited, even if the press made that comment."

Why, then, was not the Astrakhan man followed up upon? If there was an interest in him, it would have been VERY scant - but of course, since he spent the night before the murder with Kelly, he would have carried some interest, admittedly.
Why was it said that nobody ever got a good look at the Ripper?
Why was not Hutchinson mentioned by any of the officers in charge, save Dew, he corroborates Hutchinson´s being discredited, more or less?
Why did the papers write that he had been dropped, if this was not the case?

More importantly, why would we accept that Hutchinson was relied upon throughout, when all the evidence we have points us in the exact opposite direction?

"Maxwell was not mistaken on date, her movements on that morning were verified, and she did not claim to have just seen Kelly , but spoken to her, which suggests only two things,
Mjk was not the victim...unlikely
Mjk was killed around 9am... possible[ but thats another thread]"

What happened to possibility number three: That Maxwell DID speak to a woman who she mistakenly believed was Mary Kelly?

The best,
Fisherman

babybird67
12-19-2010, 02:49 PM
Apologies to both Ben and Fish as i don't have access to their articles so i am responding to what i have read on the boards.

The argument as far as i can see is that Hutchinson must have got the date wrong because nobody would have been out on a night like it was on the 8th, considering the weather conditions?

I'm sorry but I can't see the logic of this in several respects.

Firstly, as has been pointed out, 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. The fact that there was rain has always been acknowledged, as you point out yourself Fish, even by Garry Wroe...nobody before assumed the night was dry, it seems to be common knowledge that it had rained that night. So this sudden revelation that there was rain on the night seems a little strange to me. This isn't new knowledge.

Secondly, if the argument then goes on to posit that because there was rain it would have meant Hutchinson could not have been out on that night, because nobody would have been out on a night like that, and must have been mistaken as to the date, what about all the other people who were definitely out and walking the streets that night? Are we now suggesting Mary herself couldn't have been out walking the streets looking for punters? Are we suggesting punters wouldn't have been out there looking for prostitutes? The logical conclusion to this argument would be the whole date of the murder must be wrong, since nobody would have been out walking the streets and Mary herself couldn't have picked anyone up, let alone Astrakhan man, because nobody would be out in such bad weather would they? What about Mary's neighbours who were going out walking the streets? My understanding was they were going out when the weather was better, and coming back inside when it got too wet. The sighting of Mary and Blotchy doesn't seem to have occurred in rain as they seem to have come casually back carrying beer and meandering into her room...not scurrying in out of the rain.

If Hutch's account was true, that he had nowhere to stay, what was his alternative to braving the weather conditions anyway? Isn't it just as likely when he adopted his vigil outside the court it was dry, and he decided to move on when a shower came down, to look for slightly better shelter?

I don't know if i am missing something because i havent read the articles, and I apologise if I seem somewhat thick, but this seems to be an illogical twist on information which isn't particularly new...can someone tell me if i am missing something?

Hatchett
12-19-2010, 03:04 PM
I have read this thread with interest.

But I have to make a few observations.

Firstly, is it likely that both Hutchinson and Maxwell made a mistake on the days? Why would they? The day was not a normal day. It was a memorable one because it was the day of the Lord Mayor’s parade. Couple that up with Hutchinson’s trek to and from Romford and there is a double reason why for Hutchinson it would be memorable. In view of that I would say that it is highly unlikely that he made a mistake.

Even on days of heavy rain there are periods when the rain stops. Surely, we have all experienced that. That this was the case on that night appears to be borne out by the evidence of other witnesses. There were a lot of people abroad that night,one man it was reported who hung around Dorset Street and Millars court for almost an hour.
Not to mention that if it was raining that hard and that consistently there would have been no need for any street prostitute to have been out that night. Because if the rain was that bad any trade would either be indoors or making haste to get into shelter.
So the logic surely is that although the weather that night overall was bad, it did have relatively dry spells.

Any other scenario I would suggest doesn’t hold water.

Rain water especially.

Best wishes.

Ben
12-19-2010, 03:17 PM
I think you've both raised some thoroughly bloody good points there, Jen and Hatchett!

To all,

Firstly, an important word in Garry’s defence, lest the accusation that he dressed up opinion as fact be falsely and unfairly sustained. Before outlining his suggested version of events, he first stated:

“Setting aside any preconceptions, therefore, let us next explore an alternative to the scenario ordinarily associated with Mary Kelly’s death.”

This is from the final chapter of his book:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/garrywroe_full.html

Clearly, therefore, he wasn’t so incautious as to insist upon this explored “alternative” as fact, and he certainly never claimed to be in a position to “know” what he couldn’t “prove”. Indeed, I hope that a critical approach is accorded to anyone who does make such a claim.

Again, it has been pointed out, very reasonably, that the reported circumstances pertaining to Hutchinson’s account are arguably at odds with the weather conditions on that day. Unfortunately, in this case, this realisation has resulted in faulty conclusions being established, which is unfortunate, since the initial observation is a reasonable one. Liars have been exposed, since the dawn of time, when oddities and contradictions in their claims or versions are noticed. Fabrication is just the simplest and least outlandish explanation for the disparity between the account and the weather. Yes, the Astrakhan description is implausibly, if not impossibly detailed for a fleeting moment in darkness and bad weather, but then it should be considered so even if we remove the bad weather from the equation.

We’re already in probable fabrication territory before we even consider the weather, and once we’ve factored it in, those suspicions are merely compounded. What Fisherman has highlighted is further evidence that Hutchinson did not report the truth. It’s just unfortunate that this inevitable conclusion was rejected in favour of a deeply problematic “different day” hypothesis.

Dew’s claim is something I drew people’s attention to a few threads ago, and I’m glad it has generated interest. The point overlooked here, however, is that Dew was offering the “different day” hypothesis as personal suggestion only. Clearly this was never something that gained widespread acceptance on the part of the senior police officials, nor was it “proven” to have been the case, or else Dew would undoubtedly observed that the police had established that Hutchinson and Maxwell confused the date, rather than offering personal decades-late speculation.

Nearer the time, we have the Echo, which was first brought to the collective attention of the Hutchinson message board participants by Garry, which also made clear that the discrediting of Hutchinson owed more to the personal doubts and suspicions that the authorities were having over his account than anything that had been established for certain (i.e. nothing).

People keep insisting “it tallies!” with regard to their own conclusions, but there is nothing in the evidence that interferes even remotely with the commonsense, uncomplicated explanation that Hutchinson lied, was suspected of lying, and was accordingly discredited.

Best wishes,
Ben

FrankO
12-19-2010, 03:36 PM
It was not raining that night!
Even though I appreciate your inquiry into the weather conditions of the East End of the night of the murder and the night before, I still have to say it's quite a big step from no mention of any rain to a claim that it was not raining on the night of Hutchinson’s account, Fish.

Elizabeth Prater didn’t mention any rain, and according to her testimony she was standing at the corner of Miller’s Court by McCarthy’s shop for about 20 minutes.

Sarah Lewis didn’t mention any rain either, and she was the one who saw a man standing opposite the entrance to the court, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out. Apparently, that man had been standing there a while already when Lewis was approaching the court.

We know these 2 women weren’t mixing up two nights.

The only one actually mentioning any rain was Mary Cox. According to most papers, if not all, she only claimed that it rained hard or heavily around one a.m. and the official inquest papers give the impression that it was raining around three a.m.. No rain is mentioned between one and three. But even though it rained when Cox returned to her room at about one a.m., she had still gone out and did so again – for 2 hours! - after warming up a bit.

I’m not castigating you here, Fish, I just don’t see the solution neatly tally piece by piece with all that we know. Not mentioning any rain doesn't mean that it wasn't raining. People who had to go out, like Cox, did go out, despite the weather, and I bet she wasn't the only one. On the other hand, it may well have been dry or not have been raining much and heavily between 1.15 and 3 am, too.

All the best Fish!
Frank

babybird67
12-19-2010, 04:19 PM
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?

Garry Wroe
12-19-2010, 04:30 PM
For the record, Fish, I harbour no ill-will towards yourself, and neither am I protective of a theory or suspect. As I have made clear in the past, I simply look to establish the truth. Thus if you or anyone else uncovers evidence that takes us closer to the truth, I will be amongst the first to offer my congratulations.

Let me also say that I have spent the last twenty-five years arguing that Astrakhan was no more than a figment of Hutchinson’s imagination. The reality, therefore, is that, if correct, your assertion of continual rainfall on the night under scrutiny serves to reinforce my argument. In other words, it is to my benefit rather than detriment.

But, as I have said, I’m in search of truth rather than vindication, and it is for this reason that I apply a rigorous standard of proof when assessing the claims of anyone – myself included. If everyone adopted this approach, the crackpot theories that have long dragged Ripper studies into the gutter would never have seen the light of day.

The fact of the matter, Fish, is that you chose to write your article. You also agreed to its publication. This was an elective process wherein, so far as I’m aware, no-one held a gun to your head. The consequence, however, is that when you place your work in the public domain, you open up your work to public scrutiny. It’s the nature of the beast, I’m afraid, and there is absolutely no justification for any author to throw a strop when members of his or her readership offer up honest criticisms, questions or requests for clarification.

You have stated on a number of occasions, Fish, that you are a journalist of considerable experience. In view of this background, the very least I would have expected of you is that, when introducing a new theory, you would have cited and clearly defined the very information that is pivotal to this new interpretation of events. As a journalist, you are perfectly aware that this is standard procedure. On the basis of your response to my previous post, however, it would seem that you are unhappy because of my refusal to take putative evidence on trust alone. Sorry, Fish, but it doesn’t work like that. Authors are not always honest, and neither are they always correct in their interpretation of source material.

I am, of course, delighted that you have agreed to post the said source material. This will at least allow me to examine the precise wording of the report and hopefully make sense of the apparent contradictions between it and the one I saw years ago which specified showers rather than continual rainfall.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

richardnunweek
12-19-2010, 05:26 PM
Hello all.
This is turning into a very intresting thread, infact already so,
I am somewhat pleased, that others on Casebook are in agreement that its unlikely that Hutch made a mistake about the night, as I have previously stated , that would make Mrs Lewis mistaken also, which has no credence.
The doubt with Hutchinsons statement, is the description of Astracan, and his 'fancy' appearance, which many members of Casebook cannot accept, and the word 'suspicious' comes in, which is precisely why Hutchinson followed him and Kelly, he made him suspicious.
He could only describe what he saw.
Mrs lewis [ correct me if I am wrong] described the man she saw as of ''military appearance'
One newspaper described Hutchinson as of military appearance, was that confirmation of her seeing GH, or just taking Mrs Lewis in context.
Mayby its just me[ proberly] but I have never found Hutchinsons statement hard to swallow.
Regards Richard.

Garry Wroe
12-19-2010, 05:45 PM
No, Richard, it was actually a reporter who described Hutchinson as of military appearance.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

corey123
12-19-2010, 06:02 PM
Hello Ben,

One thing that does strike out to me is that your right, Hutchinson came after Sarah Lewis's statement, and the two are almost identical. I am not saying he was the ripper, but that he came to the police most likely after he read that in the paper, and out of a guilt of some kind. Perhaps to clear his name for some reason. Anyways, so far so good. I like it.

Fishermen,

After I read Ben's I shall read yours, which no doubt is just as good.

Thanks

Ben
12-19-2010, 07:28 PM
Many thanks for that, Corey!

One thing that does strike out to me is that your right, Hutchinson came after Sarah Lewis's statement, and the two are almost identical.

Absolutely. Whether Hutchinson murdered anyone or not, the conclusion that he was motivated into coming forward by Sarah Lewis' evidence seems inescapable to me.

All the best,
Ben

Sally
12-19-2010, 08:01 PM
Ben

Whether Hutchinson murdered anyone or not, the conclusion that he was motivated into coming forward by Sarah Lewis' evidence seems inescapable to me.

To me too. There you go, colours nailed to the mast - not that they're very significant colours on this occasion :rolleyes2:

I continue to question his motivation, all the same. Fear just doesn't cut it for me, I'm afraid.

I haven't read your article yet - I will, no doubt.

Regards

richardnunweek
12-19-2010, 08:59 PM
Hi Sally,
The only motivation that I could think of , was if it was he,.. that accompanied Mary to her room that night, it was he who offered her his red hanky, it was he that Left the room at 615 to return back to his lodgings, and it was he that left his red hanky in her room ... oh a problem, being that when he left she was very much alive and sleeping.
So one Astracan was invented.
I should add that I dont believe that occcured , but it might explain the paranoid GH, especially if he believed he had been seen, mayby waiting for Mary to get rid of the drunken Blotchy, and he no longer had his hanky, mayby he panicked .
Regards Richard.

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 08:10 AM
Babybird:

"Secondly, if the argument then goes on to posit that because there was rain it would have meant Hutchinson could not have been out on that night, because nobody would have been out on a night like that"

But the argument does not posit any such thing, Babybird. I don´t 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.

"If Hutch's account was true, that he had nowhere to stay, what was his alternative to braving the weather conditions anyway?"

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.

"Isn't it just as likely when he adopted his vigil outside the court it was dry, and he decided to move on when a shower came down, to look for slightly better shelter?"

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.

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".

"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 o´clock 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 I´m 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"

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 o´clock in the morning, and then it rained through the night."

Please keep in mind that this was something I have not heard questioned before - the night of the 8:th has always been described as a particularly nasty one, weatherwise, with not only heavy rain, but also a cold, unpleasant wind. What I chiefly wanted to know, was what the weather was like on the day before the murder night, since that was something I had never heard about. The murder night weather was something I simply had confirmed.

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.

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.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 08:14 AM
Hatchett:

"is it likely that both Hutchinson and Maxwell made a mistake on the days?"

The question of Maxwell´s testimony should not afffect our assessment of Hutchinson´s ditto, Hatchett. The two are separate events, and must be judged according to that. It is not as if a mistake on Maxwells behald would affect Hutchinson´s inclination to get things wrong. This is exactly what I have pressed before, and a detail that has affected Ripperological deductions in a very unbecoming way.

The rest of your questions are ones that I have already addressed in earlier posts.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 08:30 AM
Hello Frank!

How very good to hear from you! And how nice that you offer criticism - I much value your good judgement, as you will know!

So here goes:

"Even though I appreciate your inquiry into the weather conditions of the East End of the night of the murder and the night before, I still have to say it's quite a big step from no mention of any rain to a claim that it was not raining on the night of Hutchinson’s account, Fish."

It lies in the details. Hutchinson clearly described people going about things in a manner that speaks of a dry night. That is what we have to go on, and coupled with the rest of the bits, Dews book, for example, it makes for a compelling case. I am quite convinced myself that he was not there. I have no doubts about it.

"Elizabeth Prater didn’t mention any rain, and according to her testimony she was standing at the corner of Miller’s Court by McCarthy’s shop for about 20 minutes."

She does, although it is a little uncertain what happened since she also states that she went inside the shop. That could well have been during them 20 minutes.

"Sarah Lewis didn’t mention any rain either, and she was the one who saw a man standing opposite the entrance to the court, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out. Apparently, that man had been standing there a while already when Lewis was approaching the court."

And still it would seem that it DID rain, judging by the meteorological report I posted to Babybird.
The period in which she would have observed her loiterer would not be a very long one. Long enough, though, to establish that he seemingly was posted outside and opposite the court.

"The only one actually mentioning any rain was Mary Cox. According to most papers, if not all, she only claimed that it rained hard or heavily around one a.m. and the official inquest papers give the impression that it was raining around three a.m.. No rain is mentioned between one and three. But even though it rained when Cox returned to her room at about one a.m., she had still gone out and did so again – for 2 hours! - after warming up a bit."

That is true. But we must be aware that there are many parametres to weigh in. It may have been raining, but less heavy, during this time, of course. But it may also be a case, perhaps, of Cox simply needing to warm up during what was a very nasty night. Reasonably, she would not have gone out and stood in the middle of the pouring rain in some street, that much we should realize. But I think that a very viable scenario is one where she heads out into the night, spends some time soliciting in a place close to her lodgings where she could shelter from the rain, she returns home at one o clock to warm herself up a bit and perhaps eat a little something, then goess out again, into the wind and the rain. She manages to stay out another two hours, and then she has become chilled to the bone, and gives up for the night.

Incidentally, it was not at one o clock Cox said it was raining hard - that was at three o clock!

"I’m not castigating you here, Fish"

You don´t have to add that, Frank! I know full well that you would not.

The best, my friend!
Fisherman

harry
12-20-2010, 08:48 AM
"Rain did indeed affect the london area soon after midnight" That statement could easily be applied to where I am living.For the last two days rain showers have been forecast,and indeed it has rained at times,once or twice heavily,but there has been quite long dry periods in between.So relying on such a report,seems more like desperation than a genuine attempt to bolster a proposition.
As for Dew's Opinion,Garry has more than adequately answered that one.Dew,like yourself fisherman,allows for nothing in the way of evidence to back that opinion.It is simply another, could have,not was.A berline,who spoke with Hutchinson,opines of no such situation.
No need for me to comment on your other points,other posters have done that very well.

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 08:49 AM
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.

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!

But since you seem to be making the same mistake as many other posters have done over the years - to conclude that Lewis´man and George Hutchinson must have been one and the same, I can only say that I am very happy that you bring this up. Here is the answer to your query, from the Daily News of November 14 1888:

"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."

And a very good answer it is too!

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

Take another look at the clipping above. Hutchinson gives us a picture of people he saw during his vigil. He comes up with a policeman that passed by on Commercial Street and a man who went into a lodging house. Nobody else.
Now, please remember that his focus was fixed upon the entrance of Miller´s Court. After that, also remember that Sarah Lewis walked through Dorset Street at 2.30, and, arriving at the very place Hutchinson was standing, she turned into Miller´s Court.
Apparently, she walked right by Hutchinson´s nose, and walked into the very passageway he was focusing his full attention on.

But George Hutchinson did not see her!

That is nothing short of amazing, don´t you think? Would he have forgotten about her, almost treading on his own toes, and entering the court where Mary was entertaining Astrakhan man?
I think not.
Would Hutchinson, if he was the killer, trying to establish that he trule was where he said he was at the night, have forgotten to hammer his message home and put it beyond questioning by saying that "there was this woman too, that went into the court as I stood there"?
I think not.

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.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 08:55 AM
Harry:

""Rain did indeed affect the london area soon after midnight" That statement could easily be applied to where I am living.For the last two days rain showers have been forecast,and indeed it has rained at times,once or twice heavily,but there has been quite long dry periods in between."

Yes, Harry, but it is not the weather where you live that we are talking about. It is the weather of the nasty night of the 8:th of November 1888. And like I say, the Meteorological Office has already stated that my assessment of that night was correct, but I have still sent over an e-mail to get things as exact as possible.

"Dew,like yourself fisherman,allows for nothing in the way of evidence to back that opinion."

Aha. So a detective, closely connected to the case, who adamantly states that George Hutchinson must have mixed the dates up, does not amount to evidence?
How very, very interesting! You must tell me more about that sometime!

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 09:00 AM
Garry!

You now have the report I spoke of in the first post I wrote to Babybird. I also state in there that I have asked for more thorough information, although I find that they confirmation they gave me in the first post would be enough to settle the matter. But let´s be as thorough as we can, of course!

Now, can I please once again ask you why you chose to leave out a number of crucial elements when you cited and castigated me in your former post. Firstly, I would like to know why you did not cite me as saying that I had no proof, since that passage is totally crucial to add to the part you DID cut out and post.
I am thrilled to hear that you harbour no animosity against me, but I would much prefer to instead have your answer to this question. I am quite happy to be challenged about things, as you point out that one will be (and SHOULD be, if you ask me), but I really wish that quotations and such are made in a manner that encompasses the WHOLE argument. It makes for better understanding on behalf of all people involved. So if you please ...?

I would very much like to see the report from years back you are referring to,Garry, if this can be achieved. I suspect you are looking for it already? Can you remember if it was a report from after the night in question, or if it was a forecast? And do you know the source?

The best,
Fisherman

richardnunweek
12-20-2010, 09:44 AM
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
12-20-2010, 10:34 AM
But the argument does not posit any such thing, Babybird. I don´t 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 o´clock 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 I´m 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 o´clock 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
12-20-2010, 10:49 AM
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 Miller´s 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
12-20-2010, 11:19 AM
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 Miller´s Court was known as McCarthy´s 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
12-20-2010, 11:23 AM
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
12-20-2010, 11:24 AM
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
12-20-2010, 11:28 AM
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 Mayor´s show. And all the evidence points AWAY from Hutch being there on the murder night, as does Dew´s 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
12-20-2010, 11:45 AM
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
12-20-2010, 12:02 PM
Hi all!

Here it is, the information from the Meteorological Office. It tells us precious little, I´m 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
12-20-2010, 12:05 PM
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
12-20-2010, 12:17 PM
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. I´m 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
12-20-2010, 12:31 PM
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 don´t need any tin helmet, Richard.

The best,
Fisherman

Hatchett
12-20-2010, 12:48 PM
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
12-20-2010, 12:55 PM
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
12-20-2010, 01:07 PM
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 Cates´ 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

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 01:16 PM
Richard:

"I understand your every point, and you make your case well, but you rest to much on the word 'Discredited'."

Last time over, I rested my case too much on the rain. Which is it going to be, Richard?

Read it through once more, and you will find that I rest my case on numerous parametres, and that not one single parametre swears against the possibility of a mistaken day! Don´t you think, Richard, that if my suggestion was wrong, it would have been easily managed to refute it? Would there not be something, anything that was impossible to overcome on my behalf?

But you see, there is not! Hatchett tells me that it equals to accept conjecture as fact, but it emphatically does not. I do not have to twist anything, turn anything, change anything - it all falls in place just the same. Those who speak of Hutchinson as the killer need to suggest that he was sheltering against the rain although he emphatically tells us he was not. They need to accept that he either missed out on Lewis entering the yard, a few metres from his nose, or he lied about it, for some unfathomable reason. They need to speculate that the heavy rain seized at the moment Hutchginson laid eyes on Astrakhan man. They need to take Dews words for nothing - just another opinion, I´m told. They speculate that Hutchinson was discarded because of an over-elaborate description of Astrakhan man - although Abberline tells us he believed in it. Over and over again the bits and pieces that all readily fit in to my scenario, needs an awful lot of squeezing - and still, they will not fit!

What will you suggest that I´m leaning too much on the next time, Richard? The fact that he did not see Sarah Lewis?

The best,
Fisherman

Hatchett
12-20-2010, 01:17 PM
Hi Fisherman,

Well that's fair enough.

We will agree to disagree.

Best wishes for Christmas.

Hatchett
12-20-2010, 01:23 PM
Hi Fisherman,

Just one point.

That point you make about all your pieces fitting effortlessly into place. That is usually the expression used after the hammer has been applied vigorously.

Best wishes.

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 01:40 PM
Hatchett:

"That point you make about all your pieces fitting effortlessly into place. That is usually the expression used after the hammer has been applied vigorously."

Please exemplify, Hatchett. I´m all ears!

The best to you too, plus Seasons Greetings and all that!

Fisherman

babybird67
12-20-2010, 01:46 PM
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.

No ergo about it Fisherman. He doesn't mention rain in his testimony but then neither do many other witnesses yet we know it did rain some of the time. You are drawing false conclusions from mere assumptions. Just because in your opinion the picture he paints of the night is not one of a rainy night does not lead to the conclusion that he was not there. He could well have been there but lying about his activities that night. He may well not have been traipsing around London as he claims. He may well not have seen Mary with Astrkhan as he claims. He may well have been in her room murdering her...we do not know! You are jumping through hoops to come to untenable conclusions in my opinion.

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

I have. And i have. I've quoted you and responded to those points.

"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.

Ok. So Hutch was a truth teller in your view? And i ask again, do you believe he saw Astrakhan man...on any night?



This all - each and every bit of it - tallies with the suggestion that he was off on his timing by one day.

What does? There is nothing suggesting he was off in his timing by one day. In fact the actual EVIDENCE, which comes from an independent witness describing a man much like Hutchinson himself outside the Court that night doing precisely as Hutchinson said he was doing, suggests he was completely correct in his timings, that he was there on the night of the murder.


But you for some reason claim that it is much more credible that he lied about it...?

I believe he lied about Astrakhan man. This makes me regard his entire testimony as suspect. Do you believe he told the truth about everything but go the day 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...?

Where is your evidence regarding why Abberline dismissed Hutchinson's testimony after its initial acceptance? Oh that's right you don't have any. You just conjecture it was because Abberline suddenly developed a metereological interest and began quizzing everyone in the East End about their interpetations of continual rain/showers/drizzle etc and how this would have impeded their going out and going about their business.

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...?

He clearly stated he saw Mary with Astrakhan man...i don't believe he did. That gives me licence to disbelieve the rest of his witness testimony. You appear to believe everything he said for some strange reason.

It is suspect based wishful thinking with no support in the world I am living in.

I do not necessarily regard Hutch as a suspect and have never claimed to. I don't believe his witness testimony. Why he lied, i do not know as yet.

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.

I'm aware of the differences. I suffer from that sort of memory myself. Where is your evidence that Hutchinson did? Nowhere.

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?

Absolutely Fish but then i havent had an essay published claiming "I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW" from the rooftops based on my conjecture have I? I know I have little evidence to go on and am happy to admit that my opinion is just that...an opinion...based on as much evidence as i can gather. But I don't go misinterpreting weather reports or making up conjecture about people's memories to bolster my views. I don't need to.

Hatchett
12-20-2010, 02:01 PM
Fisherman,

Quite simply it is this, people who have to use the hammer to flatten the piecies always look up proudly after they have finished and say that the piecies have all fitted neatly, or as you would say, effortlessly.

They conveniently forget that they needed the hammer, or that the piecies are now all a little battered and mishapen,and that the over all frame just doesn't look right.

Happy hammering!

c.d.
12-20-2010, 02:18 PM
I think there is another aspect to this that might have been overlooked and that is the subjective element. Is everyone going to be in agreement as to what rainy and raining mean? For instance, it is quite common to see some people with their umbrellas folded while other people have them open and in use. The amount of rain is the same for both groups yet if you asked them individually if it is raining you would probably get different answers. The same applies to someone's perception of cold. Under the same conditions, you see some people lightly dressed while others look like they are planning an assault on Everest. If you take individuals from both groups and ask them was it cold that day, most likely you would get different answers.

c.d.

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 02:23 PM
Babybird:

"He doesn't mention rain in his testimony but then neither do many other witnesses yet we know it did rain some of the time."

We know not know if it rained all of the time or some of the time. We only know that the Echo had the night down as a night of heavy rain and cold wind.

"You are drawing false conclusions from mere assumptions."

Neither d we know this, I´m afraid. I am drawing viable conclusions from the material we have, as witnessed by by a number of posters. When you know that I am drawing false conclusions, you are welcome to say so, when you don´t you are not.

"Just because in your opinion the picture he paints of the night is not one of a rainy night does not lead to the conclusion that he was not there."

No, it does not. But taken together with all the other parametres, it makes for a very compelling case, methinks.

"He could well have been there but lying about his activities that night. He may well not have been traipsing around London as he claims."

That is a very comfortable suggestion to make, since it takes no substantiation at all to throw forward. It applies, though, that if he DID lie, he forgot to bolster his story with the bad weather as well as with Lewis, so we can at the very least conclude that he would have been a terrible liar. But since I sometimes unfortunately run into terrible liars, Babybird, I realize that we can of course not rule it out totally.

"You are jumping through hoops to come to untenable conclusions in my opinion."

THERE you go, Babybird, THAT is how you phrase it. Claiming that I draw false conclusions is how you DON´T go about it.

"I believe he lied about Astrakhan man. This makes me regard his entire testimony as suspect. Do you believe he told the truth about everything but go the day wrong?"

Brace yourself, Babybird: Yes, I do believe that this was exactly what happened. I do not rule out that he may have been at the inquest or have had access to the material from it, and thus tried to make a bob or two by placing himself in the loiterers role, but I also would advice to ponder the fact that IF he had access to the inquest, he ALSO had access to the fact that it rained that night. Cox said so.

"Where is your evidence regarding why Abberline dismissed Hutchinson's testimony after its initial acceptance? Oh that's right you don't have any. You just conjecture it was because Abberline suddenly developed a metereological interest and began quizzing everyone in the East End about their interpetations of continual rain/showers/drizzle etc and how this would have impeded their going out and going about their business."

Correct. But I actually think that somebody else than Abberline saw the discrepancy. AFTER that, the police would have started investigating it. That is my suggestion, and it is a suggestion that tallies perfectly with the discrediting with no known reprimands as well as with the fact that the press was never given the whole truth.

"He clearly stated he saw Mary with Astrakhan man...i don't believe he did. That gives me licence to disbelieve the rest of his witness testimony. You appear to believe everything he said for some strange reason."

The reason is anything but strange - it makes the bits and pieces fit together. Take the issue with the mystical disappearance of Sarah Lewis, for example. Your suggestion: He lied or he forgot. My suggestion: What you cannot see, you cannot report. And he pressed the point that he had seen no other person than the lodger and the policeman.
But I am not saying that you are not welcome to your wiew - just that I am convinced more than ever that it is the wrong wiew. Mathematically, I´d say we are just as entitled to out respective wiews.

"I do not necessarily regard Hutch as a suspect and have never claimed to. I don't believe his witness testimony. Why he lied, i do not know as yet."

A small correction: IF he lied, you do not know yet. And that´s okay, since you are in the company of the rest of the world - nobody has offered a functioning explanation to that one, as far as I can tell.

"I'm aware of the differences. I suffer from that sort of memory myself. Where is your evidence that Hutchinson did? Nowhere."

Abso-friggin-lutely, Babybird. I have NO evidence at all for any deficiency in either type of Hutchinsons memory capacities. But that was not the point. The point was that lots of posters make the remark that if he could remember all the things Astrakhan man wore, he would not forget about the date. But just like confess to knowing from your own experience, the two parametres should not be confused with each other. They remain apart, and it remains that Hutchinson MAY have had more problems with dates than with details. If the two had been interconnected, it would have been relevant to put his observation powers as a pawn for his sequential memory - but it is not.

"Absolutely Fish but then i havent had an essay published claiming "I KNOW I KNOW I KNOW"

You should try it - it´s heaps of fun! Seriously speaking, Babybird, you have not read my article, and therefore it is slightly unfortunate that you go by Garrys words only. The passage you refer to is followed up by the wording: "Do I have absolute proof? I have not", and then I state that I see little reason to doubt that I am right. That means that I myself am satisfied that I know what happened, and that I myself have little doubt that I am correct. You see, I take full repsonsibility for the text, and I am of the meaning that this clears up the hutchinson case. That is not to say that I crave any subordinance on your on any other persons behalf. It is instead to say that I feel so sure about it, that I welcome any challenge, since I am of the meaning that no factual evidence exists or has ever existed that can prove me wrong.
My undertaking, Babybird. My conviction. You are free to frothe at the mouth of disgust for my wording of it, or - much better - to argue something that can overthrow the suggestion I am making. George Hutchinson was discarded because the police came to believe that he had gotten the wrong day. That is what I say and that I will stand by.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 02:28 PM
C.d:

"I think there is another aspect to this that might have been overlooked and that is the subjective element. Is everyone going to be in agreement as to what rainy and raining mean? For instance, it is quite common to see some people with their umbrellas folded while other people have them open and in use. The amount of rain is the same for both groups yet if you asked them individually if it is raining you would probably get different answers. The same applies to someone's perception of cold. "

Hi C.D! Good to see you chime in!

I think you are quite correct in what you say here - I have seen people rush out into the rain and turn their faces to the sky with a smile oon it, and my middle son can walk out into freezing winter days with only a t-shirt on his upper body.

What I am speaking about s the general picture that people do normally not wish to go out on cold, rainy, windy nights, and if they have to, they seek shelter.
Plus, C.D, the weather is only ONE of the points I am making. Dews´ assessment, Lewis´disappearance together with the couple she saw, the discrediting with no reprimands, the sudden total loss of interest, Hutchinsons nightly swimming tour on the East end streets, etcetera, all mentioned on this thread make for a compelling case TAKEN TOGETHER!

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 02:32 PM
Hatchett:

"Quite simply it is this, people who have to use the hammer to flatten the piecies always look up proudly after they have finished and say that the piecies have all fitted neatly, or as you would say, effortlessly.
They conveniently forget that they needed the hammer, or that the piecies are now all a little battered and mishapen,and that the over all frame just doesn't look right."

You misunderstand me - I wan´t you to give an example of where I have distorted one of the puzzle pieces you speak of. Without such a thing, I think your suggestion is a very poor one. So please...?

the best,
Fisherman

babybird67
12-20-2010, 02:46 PM
Babybird:

"He doesn't mention rain in his testimony but then neither do many other witnesses yet we know it did rain some of the time."

We know not know if it rained all of the time or some of the time. We only know that the Echo had the night down as a night of heavy rain and cold wind.

We don't know? But i thought you DID know Fish. You've claimed there was "incessant rain" that night. Incessant means not stopping. There is no evidence to support your claim. There is evidence from witnesses that were there that night that there was some rain, but that is was not constant. The source you failed to quote in your article states that rain affected the London area after midnight. That means we know there was SOME rain. There is no evidence it was unceasing or incessant rain however.The EVIDENCE suggests there were showers that night, as has been accepted by many authors before you on this topic. Your 'discovery' is not a discovery at all...just a misreading of the extant facts.

"You are drawing false conclusions from mere assumptions."

Neither d we know this, I´m afraid. I am drawing viable conclusions from the material we have, as witnessed by by a number of posters. When you know that I am drawing false conclusions, you are welcome to say so, when you don´t you are not.

LOL! Don't tell me what I can and cannot say! You conclusions do not follow from the alleged facts you claim to have discovered. Even if you could establish that it rained incessantly that night, which you cannot and have not, it does not follow that Hutchinson could not have been doing precisely what he said he was doing, because you are not Hutchinson and nobody knows how he could have or would have behaved. We can only judge for ourselves how persuasive his witness testimony is.

"Just because in your opinion the picture he paints of the night is not one of a rainy night does not lead to the conclusion that he was not there."

No, it does not. But taken together with all the other parametres, it makes for a very compelling case, methinks.

What other parametres [sic]? Taken together with what? This is what I do not understand. There is no EVIDENCE you are presenting for what you are claiming. Even the weather report you quote undermines your own stated case as per your article (and don't tell me to read it again, I've told you in my last couple of posts I HAVE READ IT!!!!)


"He could well have been there but lying about his activities that night. He may well not have been traipsing around London as he claims."

That is a very comfortable suggestion to make, since it takes no substantiation at all to throw forward. It applies, though, that if he DID lie, he forgot to bolster his story with the bad weather as well as with Lewis, so we can at the very least conclude that he would have been a terrible liar. But since I sometimes unfortunately run into terrible liars, Babybird, I realize that we can of course not rule it out totally.

Precisely. And it is more consistent a suggestion than the one you have come up with.

"You are jumping through hoops to come to untenable conclusions in my opinion."

THERE you go, Babybird, THAT is how you phrase it. Claiming that I draw false conclusions is how you DON´T go about it.

Your conclusions are false, because there are equally valid, no, more valid, conclusions that can be drawn from the information we have, with the same amount of evidence, if not more.

"I believe he lied about Astrakhan man. This makes me regard his entire testimony as suspect. Do you believe he told the truth about everything but go the day wrong?"

Brace yourself, Babybird: Yes, I do believe that this was exactly what happened. I do not rule out that he may have been at the inquest or have had access to the material from it, and thus tried to make a bob or two by placing himself in the loiterers role, but I also would advice to ponder the fact that IF he had access to the inquest, he ALSO had access to the fact that it rained that night. Cox said so.

Ahhhh well then...if you believe in Astrkhan I can only apologise for interrupting your precious time which must now be spent in composing your Christmas list for Santa. I do apologise.

"Where is your evidence regarding why Abberline dismissed Hutchinson's testimony after its initial acceptance? Oh that's right you don't have any. You just conjecture it was because Abberline suddenly developed a metereological interest and began quizzing everyone in the East End about their interpetations of continual rain/showers/drizzle etc and how this would have impeded their going out and going about their business."

Correct. But I actually think that somebody else than Abberline saw the discrepancy. AFTER that, the police would have started investigating it. That is my suggestion, and it is a suggestion that tallies perfectly with the discrediting with no known reprimands as well as with the fact that the press was never given the whole truth.

Yes. Correct. Thank you. You admit it is pure conjecture based on not a scrap of evidence. Now we are getting somewhere.

The reason is anything but strange - it makes the bits and pieces fit together. Take the issue with the mystical disappearance of Sarah Lewis, for example. Your suggestion: He lied or he forgot. My suggestion: What you cannot see, you cannot report. And he pressed the point that he had seen no other person than the lodger and the policeman.

Were the sightings of the logder and the policeman corroborated?

But I am not saying that you are not welcome to your wiew - just that I am convinced more than ever that it is the wrong wiew. Mathematically, I´d say we are just as entitled to out respective wiews.

Indeed we are and yours as published views are more than usually subject to scrutiny and question, especially when based upon a weather report the wording of which does not support the contentions in your essay.

"I do not necessarily regard Hutch as a suspect and have never claimed to. I don't believe his witness testimony. Why he lied, i do not know as yet."

A small correction: IF he lied, you do not know yet. And that´s okay, since you are in the company of the rest of the world - nobody has offered a functioning explanation to that one, as far as I can tell.

Equally you do not know he told the truth. Admitting that undermines the entirety of your essay.

"I'm aware of the differences. I suffer from that sort of memory myself. Where is your evidence that Hutchinson did? Nowhere."

Abso-friggin-lutely, Babybird. I have NO evidence at all for any deficiency in either type of Hutchinsons memory capacities.

Excellent. More progress. More admission that the entire premise of the essay was subjective conjecture and not a jot of evidence. It shocks me that the Beadle prize could have been even mentioned in reference to your essay...one only has to look at the contributions of previous winners such as Rob Clack to see the research steeped in reality that usually is deserving of such plaudits.

But that was not the point. The point was that lots of posters make the remark that if he could remember all the things Astrakhan man wore, he would not forget about the date. But just like confess to knowing from your own experience, the two parametres should not be confused with each other. They remain apart, and it remains that Hutchinson MAY have had more problems with dates than with details. If the two had been interconnected, it would have been relevant to put his observation powers as a pawn for his sequential memory - but it is not.

No. The point is nothing about whether Hutch has a sequential or detail memory is relevant, since we know nothing about how his memory operated at all. It is pure and utter conjecture to try to pretend we know and can differentiate between parts of his memory.


You should try it - it´s heaps of fun! Seriously speaking, Babybird, you have not read my article, and therefore it is slightly unfortunate that you go by Garrys words only.

Again, for the second or third time...I HAVE READ YOUR ESSAY. And i have had essays of my own published thank you.

The passage you refer to is followed up by the wording: "Do I have absolute proof? I have not", and then I state that I see little reason to doubt that I am right.

Many posters here have given you many reasons to doubt that you are right. If you cannot comprehend the difference between evidence and conjecture, there is not much hope any of us are going to get through to you.

That means that I myself am satisfied that I know what happened, and that I myself have little doubt that I am correct. You see, I take full repsonsibility for the text, and I am of the meaning that this clears up the hutchinson case. That is not to say that I crave any subordinance on your on any other persons behalf. It is instead to say that I feel so sure about it, that I welcome any challenge, since I am of the meaning that no factual evidence exists or has ever existed that can prove me wrong.

And none that proves you right either.

My undertaking, Babybird. My conviction. You are free to frothe at the mouth of disgust for my wording at it, or - much better - to argue something that can overthrow the suggestion I am making. George Hutchinson was discarded because the police came to believe that he had gotten the wrong day. That is what I say and that I will stand by.

Yes but when you assert such things without a scrap of evidence, there are going to be people who do and will challenge you. As i have done. And will continue to do.

babybird67
12-20-2010, 02:59 PM
H
You misunderstand me - I wan´t you to give an example of where I have distorted one of the puzzle pieces you speak of. Without such a thing, I think your suggestion is a very poor one. So please...?

the best,
Fisherman

Interpreting a weather report that states :

rain, did indeed affect the London area soon after midnight.

to

From the meteorologists,they would have been able to get the information that the rain had started to fall sometime after midnight, and that it kept falling at an increasing speed, raining through the night.

and incessantly pouring down

How do you get either of the two contentions in your essay from the weather report you have quoted on this thread? You have taken liberties with it, and you know you have. You have certainly used the hammer here! Nowhere does the report support your conjecture that the rain "kept falling at an increasing speed, raining through the night."

Bang bang, Fish, bang bang!

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 03:10 PM
Babybird:

"We don't know? But i thought you DID know Fish. You've claimed there was "incessant rain" that night. Incessant means not stopping. There is no evidence to support your claim. There is evidence from witnesses that were there that night that there was some rain, but that is was not constant. The source you failed to quote in your article states that rain affected the London area after midnight. That means we know there was SOME rain. There is no evidence it was unceasing or incessant rain however.The EVIDENCE suggests there were showers that night, as has been accepted by many authors before you on this topic. Your 'discovery' is not a discovery at all...just a misreading of the extant facts."

The night has always been described as one particularly nasty one. Nothing is gainsaying this wiew, I´m afraid. Therefore, we cannot conclude whether I have "misread" anything at all. And the rain is by no means my only parametre to reach my conclusion by - as you may have noticed?

"Don't tell me what I can and cannot say!"

It would be much neater if you could show me where I have been "false" as you claim. After that, we shall see.

"What other parametres [sic]? "

If you have not read them, there is no further use in exchanging with you. Read up, and come back.

"Ahhhh well then...if you believe in Astrkhan I can only apologise for interrupting your precious time which must now be spent in composing your Christmas list for Santa. I do apologise."

As open-minded as it gets...

"Equally you do not know he told the truth. Admitting that undermines the entirety of your essay."

Aha. But the suggestion that Hutchinson was a serial killer is not? Come on, Babybird - not a word of my essay is undermined. It remains a very viable suggestion - although you cannot see it - and like most of the essays written on the Ripper, it contains elements that remain unproven, but they tally and make for a useful solution.
Others have realized this, as you will see if you read the whole thread through, and I have no aspirations to sway you. In fact, I have no aspirations to any further discussion with you, after this post. You have nothing new to offer, and I prefer answering the same questions when they are asked in a civil manner.

" It shocks me that the Beadle prize could have been even mentioned in reference to your essay..."

Yes, I was very happy about that too. Goes to show how stupid Tom Wescott is. Or not.

"Many posters here have given you many reasons to doubt that you are right."

Ehrm, no - the same posters as usual have tried to mend the Hutchinson coat. But it is coming apart at the seams. Nobody, however, has produced anything at all that has given my any reason to doubt that I am right - and you belong very firmly to that score.

"Yes but when you assert such things without a scrap of evidence, there are going to be people who do and will challenge you. As i have done. And will continue to do."

I have no doubt whatsoever that you will do so. Bye, bye Babybird.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman
12-20-2010, 03:43 PM
A few final words for you, Babybird:

I have written an essay.

In it, I state that I cannot prove the suggestion I put to my readers.

I work from the supposition that it was raining heavily that night, since the sources we have speak of heavy rain that night.

I take care to point out that even if it did NOT rain in Dorset Street at 2 - 2.30, it still stands that Hutchinsons admittance to having walked the streets all night firmly puts him out in the pouring rain. We know that it did rain hard at 3 AM - at the very least.

Now, tell me what it is you are having trouble with?

Incidentally, Ben wrote an essay in the same issue. He too wrote on Huchinson. He actually stated that there was a good chance that old George was a serial killer. I find that actually amounts to nothing but conjecture. But I don´t see you yelling your head off in that direction?

So once again, what´s the itch, Babybird?

The best,
Fisherman

babybird67
12-20-2010, 03:43 PM
The night has always been described as one particularly nasty one. Nothing is gainsaying this wiew, I´m afraid. Therefore, we cannot conclude whether I have "misread" anything at all. And the rain is by no means my only parametre to reach my conclusion by - as you may have noticed?

Exactly. The night has always been described as nasty weatherwise. It has always been acknowledged it was a cold and rainy night. I conclude you have misread the weather report as i have quoted above, when you interpret the phrase which states that rain affected the London area after midnight to actually mean it started raining at midnight, got every heavier and never stopped, none of which contentions you have provided any evidence for!


It would be much neater if you could show me where I have been "false" as you claim. After that, we shall see.

I've already demonstrated your conclusions are false, since even if you could demonstrate that it did rain all night, which you cannot and have not, it does not follow that Hutchinson got his days muddled up. There is no logical progression from the one contention to the other, therefore your conclusion is false.


If you have not read them, there is mo further use in exchanging with you. Read up, and come back.

Do you mean the conjecture that the Police investigated and quizzed everyone about the weather and that their conclusions, of which we know nothing, were the reason they discredited Hutchinson? Do you mean the conjecture that Hutchinson had a bad sequential memory but an exceptionally good one for detail? I am talking about EVIDENCE Fish not conjecture and fairy tales. There is not one item of evidence which you can use to justify the conclusions you come to in your article, and that is the fact of the matter. By all means, conjecture all you like. But don't dress it up as newly discovered facts and evidence, of which there are none that i can see in the article.


As open-minded as it gets...

I'm not open minded as to Astrkhan's existence. I don't think many people are. His description is far too implausible.

"Equally you do not know he told the truth. Admitting that undermines the entirety of your essay."

Aha. But the suggestion that Hutchinson was a serial killer is not?

Is not what? Again you are confusing me with others who perhaps have argued Hutch might have been the Ripper. I have never posted such a contention. Your argument is with the wrong person, Fish. I have no suspect drum to bang. Nor do I need a hammer to bang it.

Come on, Babybird - not a word of my essay is undermined.

You said i must use the word 'if' Hutch was lying; equally you must use the word 'if' Hutch was telling the truth. Neither of us can prove he was either truthful or a liar. Such an admission undermines your essay, which is based on the faith that Hutchinson was telling the truth about what he was doing that night.

It remains a very viable suggestion - although you cannot see it - and like most of the essays written on the Ripper, it contains elements that remain unproven, but that tally and make for a useful solution.

It is conjecture. I cannot see any evidence in it. If i have missed the evidence on which you are relying kindly point it out to me.


Others have realized this, as you will see if you read the whole thread through, and I have no aspirations to sway you. In fact, I have no aspirations to any further discussion with you, after this post. You have nothing new to offer, and I prefer answering the same questions when they are asked in a civil manner.

I was not aware i had been uncivil to you. Challenging, yes. Uncivil? Not sure about that.

" It shocks me that the Beadle prize could have been even mentioned in reference to your essay..."

Yes, I was very happy about that too. Goes to show how stupid Tom Wescott is. Or not.

Well yes. Shocking.

"Many posters here have given you many reasons to doubt that you are right."

Ehrm, no - the same posters as usual have tried to mend the Hutchinson coat. But it is coming apart at the seams. Nobody, however, has produced anything at all that has given my any reason to doubt that I am right - and you belong very firmly to that score.

Not the same posters at all. Quite a few new posters have emerged, and even Richard has seen the holes in your argument, and he is normally on your side of the Hutch debate.

"Yes but when you assert such things without a scrap of evidence, there are going to be people who do and will challenge you. As i have done. And will continue to do."

I have no doubt whatsoever that you will do so. Bye, bye Babybird.

Bye bye Fish. I have no article i need to defend. I am happy to stand by the comments i have made and the questions i have asked regarding the quality of the research in your article. I did give you a compliment earlier that you had written it well, which i note you passed by, but that doesn't mean i am going to nod at the conclusions it draws when they just do not make sense nor have any evidential basis to back them up either. If you are unable or unwilling to respond to my questions, that is always your choice, and i dont doubt there will be others willing to put the same questions to you, however uncomfortable those questions are.

have a good Christmas

babybird67
12-20-2010, 03:48 PM
Incidentally, Ben wrote an essay in the same issue. He too wrote on Huchinson. He actually stated that there was a good chance that old George was a serial killer. I find that actually amounts to nothing but conjecture. But I don´t see you yelling your head off in that direction?

So once again, what´s the itch, Babybird?

The best,
Fisherman


Title of this thread, Fisherman, is DID HUTCHINSON GET THE NIGHT WRONG. This thread was set up to discuss your article which contends that he did. I am sorry you are finding my questions to you searching and uncomfortable...if you wish to discuss Ben's essay you can always set up a thread to do so. This thread isn't it.

Ben
12-20-2010, 05:10 PM
Some excellent points raised here, Jen.

I too considered it very strange at the time that the meteorological evidence was omitted from the article, although it should be clear by now that there was never any suggestion that the rain was continuous over the night of 8th/9th and never abated, and I’m grateful to Garry for drawing our attention to this. Certainly, Steve Jebson never conveyed the impression that the night was entirely devoid of any “dryness”.

Even if it truly was a case of non-stop relentless rain, the most logical explanation by far for the incongruities in terms of weather is that he lied about it, and forgot to factor in certain practical considerations such as the weather. How else is anyone supposed to expose or even infer a lie if not for the existence of oddities such as this? But despite the obvious reality that “continual” rain supports the contention that Hutchinson lied far better than it supports the “mistaken by 24 hours” theory, we must heed Garry’s advice and seek the truth rather than vindication of previous suspicions. As such, it is only responsible to point out that we have no evidence whatsoever that the rain never stopped.

I’ve noticed that Fisherman considers it odd that Hutchinson never referred to Lewis, but we don't know that he didn't mention her. He might well have done, with Abberline et al deciding that it wasn't relevant or noteworthy enough to include in the report. On the other hand, if Lewis' wideawake sighting provided the incentive for Hutchinson to come forward and "explain" his presence at a crime scene, it might not have been a wise move to mention her specifically, since doing so would only make it more obvious that he came forward as a direct result of her evidence.

He subsequently related to the press that he had seen other men in the area, but then men were germane to the inquiry as possible suspects, whereas Lewis would not have been.

I’m also troubled by his misappropriation of worlds like “adamantly” and “emphatically”. He tells us that Walter Dew was “adamant” when he “stated” that Hutchinson “must have” mixed up the dates, when in reality, Dew merely suggested that this could have been the case, and nothing in his observations indicate that he was “adamant” about anything. A few posts later, Dew suddenly becomes “definite” about it! Lest any confusion linger on this issue, Dew was not remotely "definite". He was making his own speculative suggestion decades after the murders, clearly demonstrating that no certainty had ever been expressed by the contemporary police over the issue.

Fisherman also tells us that Hutchinson “emphatically tells us” he was not sheltering from the rain that night. Where did this come from? Where did Hutchinson say anything akin to “I was most assuredly NOT sheltering from the rain, dammit!”? If he’s referring to the alleged “walking about all night”, yes, that seems an odd thing to do in bad weather after having walked 13 miles already, but then it’s an odd thing to do in dry weather too, so the most likely explanation is that he lied about it. To eschew this in favour of a “different day” hypothesis is just avoiding the obvious, and the argument that a lie is so bad it must be true remains an absurd argument.

I think people have a right to be sceptical of anyone who resorts to misplaced or exaggerated terminology in an effort to bolster their argument, and I notice I’m not the first to find those “I know”s problematic. If you’ve already acknowledged that you can’t prove your theory, why then claim that you “know” it to be true?

It has also been claimed that Hutchinson would have been “reprimanded” if the police thought he was lying, but what about other probable liars such as Packer and Violenia? Were they ever reprimanded? No, we have no evidence of this at all, so why change the goalposts for Hutchinson? This is then followed by a claim that “we know” (yep, we’re on the “knows” again!) that the police failed to disclose the reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting to the press, whereas in fact, the Echo reported some of the very reasons that prompted the authorities to attach a “very reduced importance” to his account.

There’s just been too much insistence on Fisherman’s part that his theory “tallies”, that everything “fits”, that nobody has offered a reasonable challenge to his argument, and that the only posters to have disagreed with his conclusions must be supporters of Hutchinson-as-ripper. It amounts to protesting just a bit too much, in my opinion, and is not necessarily the language preferred by those who really consider themselves on steady ground. Since it was those pesky old Hutchinsonians who introduced him to some of his key source material, I don’t think he ought to be too disparaging about us!

“Incidentally, Ben wrote an essay in the same issue. He too wrote on Huchinson. He actually stated that there was a good chance that old George was a serial killer. I find that actually amounts to nothing but conjecture. But I don´t see you yelling your head off in that direction?”

Oh, cheers for that, Fish. “Leave me alone and pick on Ben instead”. ;)

Best regards,
Ben

Tom_Wescott
12-20-2010, 06:07 PM
I'm not willing to discount Fish's theory too easily. After all, it appears Abberline caught Packer in his lie based on the rain and certainly he corrected him as to the time of the event (the correction is noted in the police report). In the case of Hutchinson, he associated the event with his trip to Romford. Surely this trip would have been investigated? Is it more likely that he would have made such a trip on a dry day or a wet day?

On the other hand, there's still the suspicious description of Astrakhan Man to attend with. If Hutch was merely mistaken about the day, then he was telling the truth and his extremely detailed description of AM was legit. Is this what Fisherman is attesting? Because if the event itself was a lie, then obviously no mistake was made, although it is possible that Hutch's lie was found out partly due to his not noting that it was raining at the time.

It's very possible that other newspaper reports the day after mentioned the rain at various times - reports that have nothing to do with the murder, but could help us pinpoint the rainfall.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Sally
12-20-2010, 06:28 PM
Honestly?

I don't think the weather is the issue, personally. Whether it rained, say, 30% of the time on the night of the 8th/morning of the 9th; 50% of the time or 100% of the time; it isn't the problem. How much and often it rained is now beyond recovery anyway, except in broad and general terms.

My understanding of what Fisherman was suggesting was that Hutchinson's account of his movements that night were better suited to a dry night - and with this I actually agree.

I doubt the explanation he puts forward for it, however, as I have already stated. I just don't find it plausible that a man in Hutchinson's self-alleged position would mistake the day.

I think Fisherman has hghlighted a fatal flaw in Hutchinson's story - and I'm afraid I must conclude that story it was - whatever his motivations may have been.

c.d.
12-20-2010, 06:40 PM
I have to admit that I have a problem with all these Hutchinson threads. They all seem to be based on an if A then B argument. But the focus always seems to be on the if A premise, attempt to show that Hutchinson was lying or in the alternative attempt to put his veracity in question. But even if we are able to do so, it is the then B part where the argument falls apart. There are simply to many options for then B namely:

1. Hutchinson killed Mary.

2. Hutchinson simply wanted to be involved in a high profile murder.

3. Hutchinson was mentally unbalanced.

4. Hutchinson simply wanted to see if he could collect a reward.

5. Hutchinson was simply trying to cover his behind because he was there that night but was not Mary's killer.

I am sure that there are other options as well. The point is that no matter how strong of an argument you make for the if A part of the premise, it doesn't lead you to an inescapable then B conclusion. I think that this gets overlooked sometimes in the desire to prove if A.

c.d.

caz
12-20-2010, 06:54 PM
A good, balanced post there, Tom. :)

I have yet to open my latest Examiner, but I would like to ask babybird about the following:


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.

Where does Lewis say how long she spent watching Hutch - sorry, getting carried away there - watching the man who appeared to be watching the court?

It seems to have morphed into fact that she provided some sort of confirmation for Hutch's 45 minutes spent waiting in vain in the rain (or the dry) for another man to exit the murder room. Yet her testimony came first and Hutch the liar is meant to have learned about it and added to it, without mentioning her, which brings its own problems if true.

If we imagine for one second that he killed Kelly after waiting for nearly an hour outside in the elements, it would be pretty hard for him to have forgotten if it had been pelting down during his patient vigil. Okay if it was dry at that time and he didn't think to mention it in his statement.

But if Lewis had stated it was pouring at the time, for example, while Hutch said dry - or nothing at all; or if Lewis had said dry, while Hutch said "cats and dogs for the whole miserable 45 minutes, how could I forget?" (or any of a hundred other reasons why their accounts may not have tallied, including the possibility that Hutch bore no physical resemblance to Lewis's man), that might well have made any reasonably alert cop want to know what the weather had really been doing and to investigate any obvious discrepancy in their star witness's account. After all, it was Hutch's man they were so intent on finding again. If they had Lewis's man, in the form of Hutch, they were either never aware of it, or her account of this man watching the court at that late hour made no impact whatsoever.

There must be some explanation, weather it involves the whether, or weather it doesn't.

And that was a horrible spell of 'whether'.

Incidentally, I do wonder why the police didn't cover any embarrassment over Hutch by making a simple announcement that he had got his dates wrong, if that had been the case.

Love,

Caz
X

The Good Michael
12-20-2010, 08:01 PM
Caz and Tom,

Back to back voices of reason. Who'da thunk it?

Seriously. Tom's post is very thoughtful and of course Caz brings up many questions, not the least of which is how the police could have been so utterly, unquestionably stupid and lax on such a high-profile case as to not connect Lewis' testimony and Hutch's. The obvious answer is that they did connect them, but found there was no connection. It really can't have been any other way.

Sorry to take your words and warp them, Caz. It won't happen again... until next time:hiya:

Mike

Ben
12-21-2010, 01:45 AM
Hi Tom,

“it is possible that Hutch's lie was found out partly due to his not noting that it was raining at the time.”

Yes, this is the far stronger argument as far as Hutchinson and the weather are concerned. The Echo reported on the 13th that the authorities had already attached a “very reduced importance” to his account for reasons that had nothing to do with any indication that he had confused the date of the alleged encounter. Indeed, these reasons were far more concerned with his failure to alert the police earlier or present himself at the inquest where he could have been quizzed under oath etc. If Hutchinson had been removed conclusively from the equation because he’d confused the date, his potential “importance” would have been nullified altogether as opposed to being merely "reduced" in terms of importance.

The Star ran an article on the 15th November that reported that Hutchinson’s account was “now discredited”, and its headline was something like “Worthless stories lead police astray”. Packer’s tall tale appeared in the same article – the implication being that both accounts were being lumped into the same category.

Hi Caz,

Lewis’ evidence only establishes the presence of the loitering man for as long as she was able to observe him. It doesn’t permit us to conclude that he was there for a long as Hutchinson claimed to have been. If Hutchinson was the loiterer, I agree that, “it would be pretty hard for him to have forgotten if it had been pelting down during his patient vigil” but that doesn’t mean that anything significant needs to be read into his failure to mention the weather conditions at all. The accounts “tally” already far too well for any suggestion that they were different people to be seriously considered, in my view, but that isn’t to negate the possibility that (for example) two physically dissimilar individuals just happened to have engaged in the same activity at the same location, and with the same apparent fixation with Miller’s Court.

“Caz brings up many questions, not the least of which is how the police could have been so utterly, unquestionably stupid and lax on such a high-profile case as to not connect Lewis' testimony and Hutch's.”

But once you actually research some of these “high profile cases”, Mike, you’ll find that seemingly trivial details and connections have been overlooked, and it’s rarely, if ever, due to any excess of stupidity on the part of the police. The two-fold assumption that the police must have connected them, and must have then found a way to rule out the possibility of them referring to the same person is just filling in blanks with “Must haves” for which we have no evidence, and are to be strictly avoided - on pain of being growled at by aggressive Hutch-hassling me - for that reason.

All the best,
Ben

Garry Wroe
12-21-2010, 02:46 AM
First of all, Fish, many thanks for posting the details of your communications with the Meteorological Office. And most illuminating they are too. But before proceeding further, please allow me to encapsulate your position as I understand it.

Essentially, you maintain that, on the night of Kelly’s murder, it began raining heavily at midnight and that the rain continued unabated throughout the night. Indeed, at several points during the course of your essay you describe this precipitation as ‘hard, dense November rain’. In another passage you assert that it was ‘raining cats and dogs’ as Sarah Lewis walked along Dorset Street.

The source of this belief, as you have now made clear, lay in information conveyed by the Meteorological Office which stated that ‘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.’

To your credit, you again contacted the Meteorological Office subsequent to publication in an attempt to elicit further information. In response, it was stated that ‘the records we have from 1888 are not sufficiently detailed to answer your question fully, because observations were not usually taken during the night.’ On the basis of this response, you observed, ‘It tells us precious little, I’m afraid.’

Oh no, Fish. On the contrary. It tells us a great deal.

The key phrase here is: ‘observations were not usually taken during the night.’ This being the case, the Meteorological Office could not possibly have confirmed ‘your assessment’ of a midnight deluge which continued throughout the night as defined in your first e-mail to them. And neither were they in a position to differentiate between a night of continual rain and one punctuated by a series of heavy showers. In other words, the certainty expressed within your article regarding the prevailing weather conditions is sorely misplaced. In the absence of any supporting evidence, moreover, your theory of the ‘wrong night’ is quite simply unsustainable.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

harry
12-21-2010, 02:46 AM
Fisherman,
In reply to your post 74.The weather patterns where I live are in no way entirely different from England,and having lived in both countries a considerable number of years,I am in a good position to compare.
Dew was a detective constable during the Ripper murders,with a year's experience in that position,and except for a claim,not substanciated,of being one of the first officers at Millers Court,nothing much is known of his activities during the Ripper investigations..A further claim of his that the open eyes of Kelly were photographed,is nowhere confirmed.
Dew however had a good reason for an opinion of faulty memory on the part of Hutchinson.Dew's stated suspect,the midnight companion of Kelly,loses credibility if Hutchinson can place an entirely different person in her room at 2.30am.So I think your reliance on Dew as a backing for your supposition of a day's loss of memory on the part of Hutchinson,is decidedly shaky.
As for the rain,well it has also been stated that it rained heavily on the evening of Stride and Eddowe's deaths.Proves nothing really,except that perhaps the Ripper was quite at home on such nights,and that the populance in general still defied the elements.
As for Hutchinson's trip to Romford,there is no suggestion that it rained during all that day,but again,there is no evidence that Hutchinson did really go to Romford.

The Good Michael
12-21-2010, 10:44 AM
As for Hutchinson's trip to Romford,there is no suggestion that it rained during all that day,but again,there is no evidence that Hutchinson did really go to Romford.

The evidence is explicit in its absence. There is no possibility that the police didn't check Toppy's story out. None. Could he have lied? yes if he had co-conspirators.

Mike

caz
12-21-2010, 01:25 PM
Hi Caz,

Lewis’ evidence only establishes the presence of the loitering man for as long as she was able to observe him. It doesn’t permit us to conclude that he was there for a long as Hutchinson claimed to have been.

Absolutely, Ben. That was exactly my point to babybird, who got the impression from somewhere that Lewis had seen her lurker lurking for some considerable time, when it may have been for 45 seconds or less. We don't know that Hutch was even there to be seen by Lewis as she passed that way, and we only have his word for a 45 minute vigil.

The accounts “tally” already far too well for any suggestion that they were different people to be seriously considered, in my view, but that isn’t to negate the possibility that (for example) two physically dissimilar individuals just happened to have engaged in the same activity at the same location, and with the same apparent fixation with Miller’s Court.Well you see, Ben, the two accounts only tally 'far too well' to feature different individuals if you make a bunch of assumptions. If Hutch was lying, based on his knowledge of the earlier account (what an assumption to make - lol), he could have lied about a) being there at all, or b) what time he got there and what time he left, or c) what he did while there, or d) why he was watching the court, or e) fill in the blank, and the truth need not have tallied remotely with what and who Lewis saw. In addition, if Lewis had secretly told the cops that her lurker had a huge strawberry birthmark on his face and a distinct limp, and Hutch turned up without either - or vice versa - well, you get the picture.

I wonder if you are missing a crucial point about Hutch's account, once a reduced importance was attached to it. Forget for a moment whether a Lewis connection was never made for whatever reason, made and taken into account, or quickly broken due to something obvious (now lost to us) that didn't tally. Think about it. If the police no longer believe that Mr A was in the murder room when Hutch claimed to leave the court, around 3am, this witness's entire reason for being anywhere near the crime scene (which wasn't great to start with) goes up in smoke. If they still believe he was there, they have to be brain dead not to ascertain what the hell his business was there, if he hadn't followed Kelly and her latest squeeze back to the court, and he wasn't there waiting out of sheer curiosity for him to leave the building.

Did Abberline perhaps use a bit of Victorian discretion and leave out the part where Hutch finally admitted being there because he did have some money on him and was hoping to spend it on Kelly when the last man (possibly Blotchy) had left? Did they soon twig that he probably never saw who was in that room, but used his considerable imagination to conjure up his own idea of what the brute must have looked like?

This would still have its problems, as it would make Hutch a proven liar and therefore someone essential to investigate further, because he could so easily have been the last man to enter that room, for all they knew when he first came forward with his tall story.

And there's the rub, because we will never know if that's all they ever knew. For all we know, they were quickly able to eliminate him from any involvement.

Love,

Caz
X

Fisherman
12-21-2010, 01:58 PM
Garry Wroe:

"In the absence of any supporting evidence, moreover, your theory of the ‘wrong night’ is quite simply unsustainable."

I have very little time to spare these days, and so I will choose carefully what to respond to. Hopefully, in ten day´s time or so, after having visited Berlin, I shall be able to give a more full response to the questions raised.

First of all, Garry, I will once more ask you for your answer to the question I keep putting to you. You know well which one it is.

After that, I will go on to say that the above is generally almost correct, but specifically wrong. Of course, in the absense of any supporting evidence, a theory is unprovable. It is certainly not unsustainable as long as it cannot be DISPROVEN either. Have a look at you serial killer Hutchinson, Garry. Just how much supporting evidence can you come up with in his case? meaning that the theory is ... unsustainable?

Having settled THAT matter, I would like to - once again - point out that the night we are discussing was a night of heavy rain, as testified by the Echo. It was a night when much rain fell over the East end, it was a night when the rain started to fall after midnight, it was a night when it rained hard at 3 AM. It is everything but untenable to suggest that it could have rained substantially at 2 AM too. Meaning that if the weather had been the only evidence at hand, it would still be anything but unsustainable to suggest that it could have rained at the crucial hour.

Next: In my essay, I VERY CLEARLY state that as uncertainty must attach to whether it really DID rain at these crucial hours, the most important factor is Hutchinson´s walking the streets "all night", as he stated. For we - once again - know full well that it rained heavily one quarter of an hour after he left Dorset Street.

Being aware,as we are, that the Echo states that heavy rain fell on the night, ending with a drizzle in the morning hours, I think that rain is the much better guess for a 2 o clock scenario than no rain - but I do not have to guess at all when it comes to 3 AM, for we KNOW that Hutchinson claimed to have acted irrationally at that stage by walking the streets.

And it is not as if my scenario builds on the weather only! I would say that Hutchinson´s failure to see Lewis is very good evidence to one thing and one thing only - that she was not there on the night. I would say that Kelly´s sudden sobering up indicates the same thing. I would say that Dew´s assertion is lead heavy. The treatment in the papers speak a language that tallies totally with a mistaken day too; the story itself was discarded, but we know of no reprimands directed towards Hutchinson.

So I think you had better think twice, Garry, before you speak of unsustainable theories. If you think three times, you may also be able to send Hutch the eviscerator on his way. And if you manage four moments of afterthought, then please answer my question about how you quote - and why.

Oh, and since you are or have been in the possesion of a metorological report on events that were not recorded by the metorologists, it would be very interesting if you would ponder sharing it with us. It certainly belongs to the assessment of the weather.

The very best, Garry!
Fisherman
leaving other posters to wait - sorry about that, but that´s my schedule ...

Garry Wroe
12-21-2010, 02:47 PM
Now, can I please once again ask you why you chose to leave out a number of crucial elements when you cited and castigated me in your former post. Firstly, I would like to know why you did not cite me as saying that I had no proof, since that passage is totally crucial to add to the part you DID cut out and post.
This, Fish, is the passage to which you refer:-

Having at last found the time to read Fisherman’s Examiner article, I have to confess to being somewhat troubled. The problem for me is that Fish is unequivocal in his assertion that Hutchinson has been ‘exonerated’ courtesy of a simple factor that has eluded everyone else. Indeed, the whole piece is littered with similarly confident declarations, as witness, ‘I know what made the police send George Hutchinson home. I know why he was not reprimanded, fined or jailed for wasting the police’s time. I know what the man in the wideawake hat was doing, taking a look up Miller’s court at 2.30 in the night. I know why George Hutchinson gave such a detailed description of his man, whereas Sarah Lewis saw nothing, or close to nothing, of hers. Finally, I know what the investigation mentioned in the Echo on the 13th was aiming to find; I know why Hutchinson’s story was not totally discredited at that stage, but only very much in doubt, and I know what it was that clinched things the following day.’ [My emphasis.]
Contrary to your assertion, the text stands precisely as it was written by you. I omitted no elements, ‘crucial’ or otherwise, and certainly made no attempt to ‘castigate’ you. Read it again and the underlying rationale should be obvious. I was merely highlighting those elements over which you expressed certainty prior to an exploration of the evidence that had led you to formulate such conclusions. As we now know, however, that evidence has proven to be anything but robust.

Perhaps, Fish, rather than getting yourself into a state of agitation over what I have written, you would do better to temper the bulldozer style of writing that has proved problematic for you again and again. Failing that, the alternative is that you bring what you consider to be the offending post(s) to the attention of the site administrators.

I would very much like to see the report from years back you are referring to,Garry, if this can be achieved. I suspect you are looking for it already? Can you remember if it was a report from after the night in question, or if it was a forecast? And do you know the source?
The report was a newspaper description of the weather conditions that prevailed on the night of Kelly’s death, Fish. I also seem to recall that the 1988 Ripper documentary fronted by Christopher Frayling featured weather reports relating to each of the so-called C5 murders. As I write, I’ve had no luck in tracing either. Hopefully, however, you or someone else will succeed where I have failed.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Ben
12-21-2010, 04:56 PM
Hi Caz,

“Well you see, Ben, the two accounts only tally 'far too well' to feature different individuals if you make a bunch of assumptions.”

Not so much “assumptions” as the recognition of two crucial non-coincidences: first, the strong similarity between Hutchinson’s report of his own movements and the behaviour of the wideawake loitering man as observed by Sarah Lewis, and second, the fact that he approached the police very shortly after the termination of the inquest where Lewis’ evidence was made public knowledge. It can only be argued that they might not refer to the same individuals if we “assume” that these were just random coincidences. I perfectly accept the observation that Lewis’ evidence doesn’t confirm other aspects of his account, such as the reason for his presence there, but it may at least be observed that for the 2:30 period, the behaviour of Hutchinson and the wideawake man are remarkably similar.

“In addition, if Lewis had secretly told the cops that her lurker had a huge strawberry birthmark on his face and a distinct limp”

But we know that Lewis didn’t make any such disclosure, secretly or otherwise, or else it would have appeared in the police report, which Hutchinson would not have been privy to. It was Hutchinson who had justifiable reason to fear that Lewis’ vague description did not reflect its full extent.

“If the police no longer believe that Mr A was in the murder room when Hutch claimed to leave the court, around 3am, this witness's entire reason for being anywhere near the crime scene (which wasn't great to start with) goes up in smoke.”

Absolutely, but the indications are that the police came to believe - not prove! - that Hutchinson was nowhere near the crime scene when he claimed to have been; that his account suffered a “very reduced importance” and was subsequently discredited because they didn’t believe it, after which he was most likely bunged into the ever-burgeoning dustbin of false witnesses who make bogus claims about having anything to do with the crime or crime scene. Emanuel Violenia was certainly a recipient of this treatment. Despite his claim to have been near the Chapman crime scene at a time critical to the murder, he was dismissed as a liar who wasn’t there. A precedent had clearly been set by that stage, and it would understandably have been tempting for them to cast Hutchinson in a similar mould. Yes, I believe they were wrong to have done so, but that doesn’t mean that any blame or accusations of stupidity should be levelled in their direction.

As for Abberline using a bit of Victorian discretion, he may have done so as a general rule, but that would hardly have extended to “leaving out” material that was intended exclusively for his police superiors. Deliberate omissions on the part of Abberline would have made no sense at all.

As ever, though, there is always possibility that they did conclude Hutchinson was there and lied about his reasons for being there, but in that scenario, they’d have been very hard pushes to progress with those suspicions.

“There is no possibility that the police didn't check Toppy's story out. None.”

Yes there is, Mike. Yes there most certainly, indisputably is. Debate crushed for eternity there, I’m afraid.

Best regards,
Ben

Garry Wroe
12-21-2010, 05:45 PM
Of course, in the absense of any supporting evidence, a theory is unprovable. It is certainly not unsustainable as long as it cannot be DISPROVEN either.

With respect, Fish, a theory lacking in supporting evidence is no theory at all. It is no more than a working hypothesis. And a weak one at that.

I would like to - once again - point out that the night we are discussing was a night of heavy rain, as testified by the Echo.
But The Echo fails to confirm the hard, unabated rainfall that assumes critical importance to your ‘wrong night’ hypothesis.

Have a look at you[r] serial killer Hutchinson, Garry. Just how much supporting evidence can you come up with in his case? meaning that the theory is ... unsustainable?

Yet again you have imputed to me a belief that I have never stated publically. And then you have the nerve to contend that I have misrepresented you. I have to confess, Fish, that this ‘do as I say and not as I do’ approach is becoming increasingly wearisome.

In my essay, I VERY CLEARLY state that as uncertainty must attach to whether it really DID rain at these crucial hours …
Then I suggest that you re-read your article, Fish, because again and again you alluded to the certainty of your argument based in no small measure upon the official information provided by the Meteorological Office. You even went so far as to assert that you had ‘exonerated’ Hutchinson.

… the most important factor is Hutchinson´s walking the streets "all night", as he stated. For we - once again - know full well that it rained heavily one quarter of an hour after he left Dorset Street.
Again, Fish, sloppy research. The heavy shower to which you refer occurred at approximately three o’ clock. Since Hutchinson departed the scene more or less as the church clock chimed on the hour, he left at three o’clock, not at a quarter to three.

Oh, and since you are or have been in the possesion of a metorological report on events that were not recorded by the metorologists, it would be very interesting if you would ponder sharing it with us. It certainly belongs to the assessment of the weather.

There’s that bullish attitude again, Fish. So now you want me to do your research for you?

When in a hole, stop digging.

And on that note I’d like to leave the present debate by wishing you a pleasant and thoroughly overindulgent Christmas.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

caz
12-21-2010, 06:11 PM
Once Astrakhan is removed from the equation, the weather conditions become an irrelevance.

Hi All,

I took the above quote from:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=158535&postcount=167

Apparently, Hutch's entire account of his own movements on the night of the murder suddenly became an irrelevance as far as Abberline and co were concerned, once they had mentally removed his Mr A from the scene (assuming it wasn't an account of Hutch's movements the night before, as Fish proposes).

What I cannot get my head round is how easily Garry and Ben can dismiss as irrelevant the fact that with Mr A removed, bang goes Hutch's explanation for being so close to the murder scene three hours after Blotchy was seen going in.

All we ever get is a) the police had no experience of a killer coming forward as a bogus witness so this one was most probably wrongly dismissed as a mere fantasist and time waster (despite the mischief involved in telling such detailed lies and taking the boys in blue on a wild goose chase round Whitechapel looking for Mr Nobody), or b) in the less likely event (yeah, right) that the police did wonder what legitimate business he had there, now there was a Mr A-shaped hole in his evening, they were powerless to do anything about it, because 'at that stage' they were not sticking any suspects in front of Lawende and co.

In effect, whether they made a connection with Lewis's lurker or not, with no Mr A left, and still no progress, they would still have wanted to eliminate Lewis's lurker from their enquiries, whoever he was, right?

One wonders if they would have been as completely useless if Hutch had walked in dripping with blood, a heart in one pocket and knife in the other, still claiming to be a mere witness. "Not currently using any of your witnesses to look over anyone? Unthinkable that the killer would be mad enough to walk in posing as a witness? Bingo!"

The only sensible explanation is that they were quickly able to resolve the bleedin' obvious problem of elephant-in-room proportions, associated with the removal of Mr A from the scene but leaving Hutch very much in situ with no legitimate excuse this time.

The arguments here just don't wash.

Love,

Caz
X

Garry Wroe
12-21-2010, 07:01 PM
What I cannot get my head round is how easily Garry and Ben can dismiss as irrelevant the fact that with Mr A removed, bang goes Hutch's explanation for being so close to the murder scene three hours after Blotchy was seen going in.
Then perhaps, Caz, you should reflect on why Hutchinson admitted to having been in Dorset Street and directly outside Kelly’s room in the first place. His movements, or so he claimed, were motivated by the appearance of Astrakhan. But if Astrakhan did not exist, Hutchinson’s explanation for having been at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder must by necessity have been untrue. It’s really not that difficult to understand.

Less easy to understand is the perceived relevance of the three hour interval between the sighting of Blotchy and Hutchinson’s presence on the scene.

And here’s another thing, Caz. Ben and I are not joined at the hip, and neither do we speak as one. Once this is understood, one will be better placed to appreciate why I fail to recognize some of the arguments and opinions you have attributed to me. Perhaps, then, it might be an idea if you addressed future questions to one or the other of us rather than collectively.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Fisherman
12-21-2010, 10:01 PM
Hello again, Garry!

I note that you keep forgetting that I wrote that I could not prove my suggestion of Hutchinson getting the days mixed up. This is of no interest at all to you,obviously. Instead, you for some reason try to pass yourself off as some sort of judge over how things may be written and how they cannot.

I don´t know what you think you are yourself, Garry - some sort of top scientist, writing rocket science in the British Journal of Medicine? You are welcome to play that charade if you feel a need to, Garry, but when you do, you should take great care to weigh in ALL the important elements of a text, and not just the ones you pick and choose.

As it stands, you try to paint my suggestion out at as a weak working hypothesis, and you even claim that there is no evidence speaking in favour of it. This you ground mainly on the fact that it cannot be decisively proven that it rained at two o clock in the morning of the 9:th. You even go as far as to suggest that my whole suggestion stands or falls with it, more or less.

That is terribly wrong, as anybody with an unbiased mind will realize. You know full well that I wrote that rain is something that may vary very much locally, and that it thus could be hard to tell whether it could be established on behalf of Abberline that it DID rain at that exact hour. Which is why we instead may use Hutchinson´s nightly streetwalking as the deciding parameter to make our minds up about the night´s weather. This is made very, very clear in my text, but you habitually disregard it, in the same manner that you habitually omitt to mention that I actually DID admit that I could not prove my suggestion. These things are not useful to your approach - that I have been totally unscientific and that I have claimed to know the exact amount of rain that fell over Dorset Street. I must have, since I worded myself the way I did.

And you are perfectly free to do so, of course. You may pick and choose exactly the parts that you need to defend whatever agenda you may have. It is everybody´s prerogative, if they feel they become better persons for doing so. We all have our different ways to reach catharsis, I guess.

In the end, it will not matter just how you go about things in this errand. Despite of your disparaging remarks, I am fully confident that I have opened up an avenue of research that has been inexplicably overlooked over the years. Others have realized this and been graceful enough to say as much. And why shouldn´t they? It offers a clear cut possibility to explain all the riddles that used to be connected to the case; why a man like Dew would write that George Hutchinson was mistaken on the day, why Hutchinson did not see Lewis, why he did not see the couple Lewis saw, why Mary Kelly was much drunk at midninght but sober two hours later, why Hutchinson was not reprimanded for approaching the police with a story that did not hold up, why the papers never got wind of what had truly happened, why Abberline had Hutchinson down as an honest man, why the story Hutchinson told was under suspicion on the 13:th but totally discredited the day after and last, but not least, why the scenario of the murder night, as described by Hutchinson is a totally dry one, sending Hutchinson himself out to walk the streets of the East end "all night", including the crucial moment of 3 Am, when we know it rained hard.
I am fully confident that this line of research will prove fruitful, and that in the end, even the Garry Wroes of this world will either share in the good news, or wither away, preaching good form and stylistics in a dusty study in the land of Oblivion. To state that a scenario that explains all of these things - something no other scenario has been able to do without resorting to totally unsubstantiated suggestions like "Dew must have gotten things wrong, and the suggestion of a mixing up of dates must be something he dreamt up at old age", "Hutchinson probably lied about Lewis not being there, not to seem to overconfident", "He probably lied about walking the streets too; highly suspicious!", "Hutchinson must have concocted Astrakhan man himself - it is almost proven that such things cannot happen and no comparison will be exact enough to bear such a thing out at any rate" and the obviously faulty assumption that "Nobody can forget a date when something really, really important happens" - to state such a scenario is a weak one, is to grossly mislead.

I offer explanations to all of these things, and explanations that are extremely simple. The overwhelmingly most common reason for a witness not observing another person that they WOULD have observed since the person in question actually passes right through their field of vision and walks into a venue that the witness in question is actually monitoring sharply, is actually NOT that the witness is lying to try and conceal that he is really a mad eviscerator.
The more - infinitely more - sound and common explanation is that you cannot see people who are not there. Which is why, Garry, if you had been in Dorset Street on that night, you would have made Lewis´aquaintance, but not Hutchinson´s.
And you would have been wet.

Refute as much as you want. And do enjoy your superiority when it comes to the linguistic joys of it.

A very good Christmas to you too, Garry. It is the season when the weapons should be laid to rest. I also wish you a prosperous new year, with new insights and achievements.

Fisherman

Tom_Wescott
12-21-2010, 10:48 PM
This has been an enjoyable and educational thread. Speaking as someone with no horse in the race, I personally think all the major contributors to the thread (such as Fish, Garry, and Caz) make a lot of sense.

I have not wavered in my feeling that Fish has made a real contribution with his essay, and I hope he is enjoying all the feedback, particularly the negative. The fact that some individuals (Hatchett and Babybird) are literally offended that he thought to publish his findings means that he's struck a nerve. Speaking as someone who's published a whole bunch of essays, I can say it's the rare one that sparks this much controversy. Most go by with little more than polite comments, if that.

Having said that, Garry has written some excellent counterpoint posts, and I think he's been very civil in his exchange.

I personally think the entire thing hinges on the rain. Fish has done a good job of providing us with a factual foundation for his theory - that Hutch was taken seriously at first then discredited for reasons that suggest he was not caught in a provable lie. The fact that Fish thought of the rain angle shows he's got a good mind for this stuff, and in time further research might just prove him correct. Having said that, Garry is correct in pointing out that the theory has not be proved, and the internal evidence (i.e. the description of AM) suggest a likelier possibility to be that Hutch was lying. Nevertheless, I think Fish should be congratulated on one of the most thought-provoking sophomore efforts I've seen.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Garry Wroe
12-21-2010, 11:11 PM
As it stands, you try to paint my suggestion out at as a weak working hypothesis, and you even claim that there is no evidence speaking in favour of it. This you ground mainly on the fact that it cannot be decisively proven that it rained at two o clock in the morning of the 9:th. You even go as far as to suggest that my whole suggestion stands or falls with it, more or less.
As I have already stated, Fish, I will be the first to commend you if you succeed in presenting evidence which confirms your contention of heavy and continual rainfall on the night under scrutiny. Meantime, I'd like to think that you will be able to set aside the present debate and get on with enjoying the Christmas period.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Garry Wroe
12-21-2010, 11:34 PM
Speaking as someone who's published a whole bunch of essays, I can say it's the rare one that sparks this much controversy. Most go by with little more than polite comments, if that.
It's standard procedure on Hutchinson threads, I'm afraid, Tom. They almost invariably end up in a bloodbath.

I do, however, agree with your view that Fisherman's article has merit. Whilst I cannot agree with his conclusions on the basis of current evidence, he has at least opened up a new and interesting area of debate - and very few succeed on that score.

Here's hoping that you have an excellent Christmas.

Garry Wroe.

babybird67
12-21-2010, 11:52 PM
I have not wavered in my feeling that Fish has made a real contribution with his essay, and I hope he is enjoying all the feedback, particularly the negative. The fact that some individuals (Hatchett and Babybird) are literally offended that he thought to publish his findings means that he's struck a nerve. Speaking as someone who's published a whole bunch of essays, I can say it's the rare one that sparks this much controversy. Most go by with little more than polite comments, if that.

Nerve? Yeah Fish tends to do that when he distorts evidence and then claims facts have been established and that he now KNOWS things. He did it with Leander. He has done it with this essay. I'm sorry you find it 'negative' for some people to care about truth rather than misrepresentation, however i make no apologies for it. When people take a weather report which states that rain affected the London area after midnight, and stretch that to mean rain started at midnight and got ever heavier until it was incessant, then yes i am offended, and yes i am fully justified in challenging that as i think anyone concerned with truth and accuracy of research should be. I think it was wrong of you to speak of the Beadle prize in reference to a theory which has no real basis in evidence, but is just a hypothesis like many others.Fish is entitled to present whatever theory he wants, but without evidence, others are entitled to question its credibility.

And yes, Caz, i was wrong about the times, thanks for pointing that out. However the man was there when Hutch said he was and was described as looking up at and watching the court as if waiting for someone, which suggests loitering for some time, not just standing there for a second and moving on.

I fully accept it might not have been Hutch. It's possible it was. I don't believe in the Astrakhan description and that means i have to treat everything that Hutch said with the same disbelief, or I am making the decision to arbitrarily chose what i believe he was and wasnt telling the truth about.

Hatchett
12-22-2010, 12:05 AM
May I just say that I am not literally offended by what Fisherman has published. Nor has he struck a nerve. Neither do I have a horse in the race.

But the point is that Fisherman put his article in the public domain, and so it is open to public scrutiny.

Not only that he entered into discussion on this thread to support his theory and to answer and reply to views that both agreed or disagreed to what he was saying.

He was been congratulated by another poster on the debate that his article fostered. That debate could never have happened or continued if there was not an alternative view. To say that view is negative because it disagrees with Fisherman’s theory is clearly dictatorial and unhelpful in this world of discussions.

After all if Fisherman didn’t want alternative views then why publish it in the first place?
The whole point of this debate as has been pointed out is to do with the rain. But the rain has always been there. We have all known that. So it is not the rain. It is whether the rain was continual or were there dry periods. The evidence of other witnesses points to the stance that there were. Fisherman’s new theory does not produce conclusive proof that this was not case.

It is not negative pointing this out. Surely, it has to be helpful for others reading the thread, particularly newcomers. If Fisherman is a conscientious researcher then surely it is beneficial to him.

Or am I missing something here?

Is that some people cannot be challenged no matter what they say?

Surely, everyone has a democratic right to express their own view and their own counter arguments?

To say that an opposing view is negative is taking a stance. You cannot sit on the fence and make a comment like that. Because it betrays the stance.

If an opposing view is negative then what is a positive view? That one accepts the theory? Is that really what has been said?

Give me a break!

Tecs
12-22-2010, 01:23 AM
Hi Fish,

I have no reason to suspect that any witness was quizzed in detail over the weather, for the obvious reason that no detective was likely to consider it necessary to determine whether or not a witness had confused an entire day. However, if Hutchinson was quizzed, he would probably have confirmed the presence of rain.

All the best,
Ben

Absolutely.

I've always found it annoying the way people today say things such as "Oh Maxwell must have confused the day" or "Hutchinson may have confused the dates" etc as if the Victorians were idiots!

They may not have been sophisticated people when viewed from our standpoint today. No they didn't own mobile phones, no they never had computers and yes there may still have been a few weird superstitions around, (Kosminski's masturbating madness for example.) But, these were practical people who lived their lives as best they could in very harsh circumstances. The idea that they were some kind of idiotic bumpkins who couldn't tell one day from the other is ridiculous.

And when people suggest this they are overlooking one massive point. This wasn't any ordinary day, it was the day of the lord mayor's parade, one of the very few public holidays that they had. Maxwell's social diary was probably:-

Boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/Neighbour murdered and Lord Mayor's parade/Boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/ etc

Still think she got the date wrong!

But to be 100% serious, as pointed out above, the Police had no reason to question the date as they were there at the time and could see things as they were, not with 120 years of fog.

It is just too easy to say that they must have been wrong. How would we feel if in 122 years some writer said sweepingly that we must have been wrong when we described something that happened today, just because it's easier than accepting another possibility?

"So Mrs Maxwell, how can you be sure it was the morning of the murder?"

"The bleedin' brars bahnd tunin' up rahnd the cownah. Drove me bleedin' mahd it did."

Regards,

Ben
12-22-2010, 01:48 AM
And when people suggest this they are overlooking one massive point. This wasn't any ordinary day, it was the day of the lord mayor's parade, one of the very few public holidays that they had.

Spot on, Tecs.

It just doesn't bear scrutiny that anyone would misremember the day of so notable a public holiday as the Lord Mayor's show, nor is it remotely likely that a person why really did go all the way to Romford (a journey of about 13 miles) would forget which day s/he went there.

The idea that Hutchinson mixed the dates was first advanced as a tentative suggestion in the non unproblematic, decades-after-the-event account of the murders by Walter Dew, and it hasn't been resurrected until now. I bear much of the responsibility for drawing people’s attention to Dew’s thoughts on Hutchinson, which had hitherto received only scant, if any, attention. Fisherman developed a new theory from this new information, and has thrown it into the mix in the form of a recent article. It was engagingly written, and has rightly earned him some praise, but its ultimate conclusions belong firmly in the “probably not” pile for the very reasons you highlight.

All the best,
Ben

harry
12-22-2010, 01:53 AM
Mike,
We cannot be sure of anything concerning the Romford trip.Abscence of a supporting confirmation does not prove a positive answer,and for perhaps the hundreth time on these boards,there is no evidence that any element of Hutchinson's statement was checked,certainly not the Romford trip.
And a Merry Xmas to all.See you next year.

Hunter
12-22-2010, 04:26 AM
I had already mentioned this on the Examiner thread, but I don't believe Caroline Maxwell got the date wrong because she gave her deposition to the police on that very day. One of the first papers to publish anything substantial on the murder was the Echo in their evening edition that same day. According to them, there were several people who thought they had seen Mary Kelly earlier that morning. The police certainly took notice of that and, thus, Maxwell's statement.

Where it goes awry is when she claimed that Kelly had thrown up in the street at about 8:30. The autopsy revealed that Mary's stomach contained the remnants of a meal (fish and potatoes I think). It would be hard to imagine that she would have eaten this so soon after being sick and then be found murdered little more than 2 hours later.

Sara Lewis told the police that she could not describe the man standing by the lodging house between 2 and 3. Her memory enhanced a bit during the inquiry. It could be that she, after having more time to recollect, was able to supply more details by then; we don't know. Nor do we know what the police thought about her testimony as nothing in that regard survives... or whether Abberline caught the possible link to George Hutchinson when he gave his statement on the 12th.

We do know that, after his testimony was taken, Inspector Abberline reported that he 'interrogated' him. From his forwarding statement, we can ascertain that he asked Hutchinson as to how he knew Kelly and why he was interested in the man that was said to acompany her from the answers that Abberline reported. There is a good reason why investigators do that and it was not just for the sake of conversation. We only know that when the interrogation was over, Abberline believed him... and that's where the police files that have come to us ends as to what they thought of Hutchinson.

If there had been a summary report a few weeks later that had survived (as was given by Swanson after the previous murders) then we might have seen how the police fleshed out the case to that point. But, we don't have that. In Packer's case, for example, we not only have the press statements but the statements of the police as well.

We have 2 press reports that state a reduced importance and then a discrediting of Hutchinson's account. None of the other papers mention this. They may have been correct, or they may have been mislead. There were many things reported after the Kelly murder. The police intended to keep a lid on this one as far as they could and the abbreviated inquest accentuates that.

Hutchinson's statement would naturally mean little once it was put in the public domain as tipping off a potential suspect with a description of him would negate the reason for using the testimony itself.

A viable theory would be that the police were dismayed at Hutchinson's going to the press with his story. We should remember that they sought for Lawende's details to be contained until they had ample time to follow up on his description. They were given almost no time to really follow through with Hutchinson.

In the following weeks there were press and police reports stating that certain individuals were detained and the word 'astrakhan' was mentioned. The fact that this description was even given should at least give someone some discern. Since men with black bags are also included ( despite the fact that Goldstein cleared himself) I believe that at this stage the authorities were inclined to grasp at anything that might be helpful. They really didn't have much to work with in the face of mounting pressure from the public and the Home Office.

With this individual in particular, George Hutchinson, objectivity routinely takes a back seat to supposition that on many occasions turns into blind passion... on both sides of the asle. One person's theory or hypothesis is as good as another's and can be easily lauded or scorned by the proclivities of others because the various loose ends will never be tied into a complete thread unless information that is yet to surface...does.

Both Ben and Fisherman have accounted for themselves extremely well within the parameters they have had to work with. I enjoy discussing and debating each one of them and I guarantee that they let me know when they believe I'm in error... and that's a good thing... makes me study harder... and thus, broaden my perspective. That's something I hope we can all aspire to achieve.

Merry Christmas everybody.

Fisherman
12-22-2010, 07:27 AM
Hello all! It would seem that a few comments are asked for at this stage.

Hatchett:

"After all if Fisherman didn’t want alternative views then why publish it in the first place?"

I welcome alternative views, Hatchett. They present me with opportunities to show that my suggestion of Hutchinson getting the dates mixed up is a functional one. What I am having very much trouble with is the ongoing discussion of form and linguistics, since it gets in the way for this discussion that really, really ought to be the focus of attention here.
I wrote my piece in an unacademic fashion, the way I generally do since I am a journalist. It is how I work, and it does not cut with all posters out here. I can live with that. But it would be a truly sad thing if this thread was only to contain public floggings of my academic shortcomings, since I am profoundly convinced that the suggestion I have put forward has the capacity to reshape the foundations of our conception of George Hutchinson. So as long as the discussion focuses on the main question here - bring it on! The more, the better.

Tom Wescott:

"I have not wavered in my feeling that Fish has made a real contribution with his essay, and I hope he is enjoying all the feedback, particularly the negative. The fact that some individuals (Hatchett and Babybird) are literally offended that he thought to publish his findings means that he's struck a nerve. Speaking as someone who's published a whole bunch of essays, I can say it's the rare one that sparks this much controversy. Most go by with little more than polite comments, if that."

Again thanks, Tom!

"I personally think the entire thing hinges on the rain. Fish has done a good job of providing us with a factual foundation for his theory - that Hutch was taken seriously at first then discredited for reasons that suggest he was not caught in a provable lie. The fact that Fish thought of the rain angle shows he's got a good mind for this stuff, and in time further research might just prove him correct. Having said that, Garry is correct in pointing out that the theory has not be proved, and the internal evidence (i.e. the description of AM) suggest a likelier possibility to be that Hutch was lying. Nevertheless, I think Fish should be congratulated on one of the most thought-provoking sophomore efforts I've seen."

...and again! But I must say that I am not equally convinced about the rain angle. My own stance is that even if we can establish that the rain over the East end was falling throughout the night, we will always be faced with the possibility that it fell in a more forgiving manner at the crucial hour. Moreover, the border limit, if you will, of a rainfall will always be in place somewhere. There have been times when it rained over Flower and Dean Street, but not over Dorset Street. It is the nature of the beast, and there is nothing we can do about that. Surely, if it can be established that it DID rain very much, and if we can prove that the clouds were not scattered, my case may be somewhat reinforced - but even then we cannot prove beyond doubt that much rain fell over Dorset Street at the exact point in time we are researching.
That is why I say that Hutchinson venturing out onto the streets for a nightly tour de force in the wet walking business is the best parameter we have.

Returning, though, to my disagreement on the rain angle, I think there are other things that must be wowen into the tapestry - take, for instance Mrs Lewis. I am of the meaning that Abberline would not have overlooked the suggestion of a corroboration in her evidence and Hutchinsons ditto about the loiterer. Therefore, it may have provided Abberline with a very good opportunity to see through Hutchinsons story.
Abberline will have asked Hutchinson about what other persons that were moving in the street that night, and when he weighed things together, he may well have realized that Hutchinson never mentioned Lewis - who would have stepped on Hutchinson´s toes, more or less, plus she would have entered the court he was watching. At that stage, Abberline would reasonably have realized that he had one more question to ask, and if Hutchinson, when hauled in, answered that one with a "No, I am quite sure that nobody entered the court as I stood there", it would have been game over too. No rain needed there!

But yes, by all means, let´s find out all we can about the weather, from all sources imaginable. It can´t hurt.

Garry Wroe:
”I do, however, agree with your view that Fisherman's article has merit. Whilst I cannot agree with his conclusions on the basis of current evidence, he has at least opened up a new and interesting area of debate - and very few succeed on that score.”

You have me confused now, Garry. The last time I looked, my suggestion was unsustainable and a very weak one, put forward in an unacceptable manner.
But who am I to complaint? Things are looking up, apparently! A million thanks for that, Garry.



Tecs:

”I've always found it annoying the way people today say things such as "Oh Maxwell must have confused the day" or "Hutchinson may have confused the dates" etc as if the Victorians were idiots!”

Then you should be relieved to hear that it has nothing to do with intelligence, Tecs!

”How would we feel if in 122 years some writer said sweepingly that we must have been wrong when we described something that happened today, just because it's easier than accepting another possibility?”

We shall never know, I´m afraid – we will all be dead by then. But I can assure you that simplification never entered my equation – what I find compelling is that all the bits make sense in my scenario.

Hunter:

”Both Ben and Fisherman have accounted for themselves extremely well within the parameters they have had to work with. I enjoy discussing and debating each one of them and I guarantee that they let me know when they believe I'm in error... and that's a good thing... makes me study harder... and thus, broaden my perspective. That's something I hope we can all aspire to achieve.”

Thanks, Hunter. I will freely admit that I am more impressed by Ben – to keep that theory of his on it´s feet over such a long time is nothing short of fantastic, and he deserves acknowledgement for it! :coooool: (No offense, Ben – you are a truly skilled debater with a sharp bite, and noone knows that better than me...)

Now go check out that weather, all of you. The weather here borders on ridiculous; -18,5 degrees Celcius as I got up this morning!

The best,
Fisherman

richardnunweek
12-22-2010, 09:22 AM
Hello Hunter,
Your post mirrors my thoughts entirely.
Maxwell could not have confused the dates.. full stop.
In my opinion she also did not get the wrong woman.
She had ample opportunety to alter her mind throughout the weekend, also leading up to her evidence... she did not.
That is my stance on Maxwell, always has, always will.
Hutchinson [ alias GWTH] I believed told the truth, about the sighting , which includes the correct date, he delivered this information to the police, and they took it seriously, however being a twenty two year old, and lacking in funds, its more then possible as Hunter remarks he [ for a fee..one hundred shillings] fed that information to the press, which would have resulted in that line of enquiry being terminated , for obvious reasons, for eg, the killer going to ground , and a dramatic change of appearance, which could not aid the police in apprehending the culprit.
That is proberly why Hutchinsons account was descredited , not because it was false, but that avenue of search would be closed.
I have always talked about the payment issue, but believed it to have been police funds, but a newspaper handout seems very logical. and would expalin how the Wheeling article came about, ie knowledge that Hutchinson had been paid , and the sum involved.
The sum which I have always maintained was mentioned on Radio in the mid 1970s.. the same also From Reg Hutchinson in 1992, in Faircloughs publication.
There is still no doubt whatsoever thatTopping was our witness, but is becomes clearer now that the reason he was cancelled out by the police, is him selling out to the press, which would have halted any further police investigation.
Was Astracan Kellys killer, was Hutchinson the last person to see Mjk Alive.?
Not unless Mrs Maxwell was a utterly confused woman.... note here the press opinion..'A level headed woman , of respectable character .
What do you all think?
Regards Richard.

Tecs
12-22-2010, 09:33 AM
Spot on, Tecs.

It just doesn't bear scrutiny that anyone would misremember the day of so notable a public holiday as the Lord Mayor's show

All the best,
Ben


Hi Ben,

I've always thought that this was obvious too.

Regards,

Tecs

Tecs
12-22-2010, 09:45 AM
Hello all! It would seem that a few comments are asked for at this stage.



Tecs:

”I've always found it annoying the way people today say things such as "Oh Maxwell must have confused the day" or "Hutchinson may have confused the dates" etc as if the Victorians were idiots!”

Then you should be relieved to hear that it has nothing to do with intelligence, Tecs!

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman,

I've only just realised that my above comments would naturally be seen as a criticism of you and your work, especially when appearing on a thread discussing your piece!

Just for the record, I wasn't actually referring to you or this particular article. I was talking about the people who do just sweepingly say that they must be wrong because they were stupid drunken idiots, or insinuations to that effect.

As far as I can see, your piece is a fair appraisal and an opinion which has been deduced from looking at evidence and then coming to a conclusion, even though others may, and do disagree.

Just to clear that up!

Regards,

Tecs
12-22-2010, 09:54 AM
Was Astracan Kellys killer, was Hutchinson the last person to see Mjk Alive.?
Not unless Mrs Maxwell was a utterly confused woman.... note here the press opinion..'A level headed woman , of respectable character .
What do you all think?
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard.

For me, the clincher is that she stood in the most intimidating of situations (the coroners court) which at the time was a female free zone, apart from witnesses and was warned by the coroner about her evidence but still stood by her story.

How easy would it have been for her to acquiesce and just say, "oh alright I probably got the date wrong."?


Regards,

Tecs
12-22-2010, 10:12 AM
The way I see it, there are a set of scales.

On one side there is the fact that Mary was supposedly seen by two sensible, decent witnesses who had nothing to gain by their story, so was therefore alive after the body in Miller's court was dead.

On the other side there is Joseph Barnett's identification of the body as Mary.

If we flip it around, then the debate is that either two independant witnesses were wrong, or a traumatised man wrongly identified a hacked up corpse.

We've all seen the photo of the Miller's court body. Would you like to glance at that for longer than you had to? In real life, in colour it would be much worse remember.

And we know that there were other women using the room.

Mary was seen supposedly with Barnett later that morning. We simply cannot rule out the possibility that she really did discover the corpse and use it as an opportunity to run away, after confiding in Barnett and a few friends maybe?

It really isn't as mad a theory as most people believe.

As I said above with regards to the scales, either Barnett made a perfectly understandable mistake, or two independant witnesses were both completely wrong.

Regards,

Tecs
12-22-2010, 10:16 AM
Also, as well as Lewis and Maxwell, she was seen by the man who looked like a market porter (who was almost certainly Barnett) if Maxwell's testimony is correct. (This is probably confirmed by Lewis later on)

As this man didn't come forward like Lewis and Maxwell did, we have to wonder why?

Was it Barnett saying his goodbye's to Kelly as she pleaded with him to keep her secret?

Regards,

richardnunweek
12-22-2010, 10:37 AM
Hi Tecs,
We must not stray to far off thread, however what a script for a horror movie, complete with a 'Hitchcock' ending.
As For Barnett being the market porter with Kelly. that seems most unlikely for two reasons,
He was in his lodgings apparently, then a pub, and there was informed of a murder in Millers court, and en-route was informed by a relation that it was Mary.
Also Maxwell knew of Joseph Barnett, and knew who he was.
I would suggest that if Maxwell is right , then this man[market porter]was kellys killer, suspect number one...
I agree Tecs about the inquest, she was forewarned, and still proceeded, she was absolutely certain thats for sure.
What Casebook has to do is contemplate what all of this means.
Kelly doing a runner,
Kelly killed around 9am.
That is my only solutions.
Regards Richard.

lynn cates
12-22-2010, 12:45 PM
Hello Tecs. In post #139:

"Mary was seen supposedly with Barnett later that morning. We simply cannot rule out the possibility that she really did discover the corpse and use it as an opportunity to run away, after confiding in Barnett and a few friends maybe?"

Would her decision to flee come before or after her alleged discussion with Maxwell? Surely it would come after? It strikes me that it would be counter-productive to:

1. Have someone hacked to death in your house.

2. Discover her remains.

3. Decide to abscond and let the victim be taken for you.

4. Appear to an acquaintance AFTER the fact, thus letting it be known that you are alive and well, and hence spoil the plan.

Cheers.
LC

Abby Normal
12-22-2010, 03:35 PM
In the recent Casebook Examiner #5, Ben Holme and Christer Holmgren (Fisherman) submitted excellent and provocative essays on George Hutchinson. It was a pleasure to see Ben get a chance to amalgamate his theory on Hutchinson's candidacy as a viable suspect and for Christer to offer a totally new thesis on Hutchinson as a witness.

Christer offers a scenerio which concludes with the idea that George Hutchinson may have gotten the dates wrong in regards to his stated encounter with Mary Kelly and 'Astrakan Man'.

After reading both essays, what are your views?

My view is that when I saw 2 articles on Hutch I subscribed to Casebook!


Thouroughly enjoyed both articles and while I agree much more with Ben (and have in the past) in regards to Hutch, I respect and liked reading what Fish put forth as a possible (but unlikely IMHO) answer to the puzzle.

Have not gotten to the other articles yet-but look forward to them also over the break.

Tom_Wescott
12-22-2010, 05:42 PM
But the point is that Fisherman put his article in the public domain, and so it is open to public scrutiny. Not only that he entered into discussion on this thread to support his theory and to answer and reply to views that both agreed or disagreed to what he was saying.

Absolutely.

He was been congratulated by another poster on the debate that his article fostered. That debate could never have happened or continued if there was not an alternative view. To say that view is negative because it disagrees with Fisherman’s theory is clearly dictatorial and unhelpful in this world of discussions.

Wow, I was being dictatorial by pointing out the FACT that you and the bird were offended by Fish's work? I think both of you made a lot of great points; what I was reacting to was the hateful nature in which they were shared - as though Fish was a leper for publishing his thoughts.

Is that some people cannot be challenged no matter what they say?

Whoa now. All work should be responsibly challenged. I even posted questions and doubts pleaded for responses not only from Fish, but from Garry and Ben. Ben didn't have much to say at that point, but I found Garry's responses to be very civil, well thought out, and extremely insightful and helpful. However, it appeared to me that you and Babybird were just being mean.

Don't get me wrong, I've slapped Fish around more than once over his handling of the Stride case. I just thought he did a pretty good job this time of making me think about something from a new perspective. That doesn't happen as much any more as it used to.

Surely, everyone has a democratic right to express their own view and their own counter arguments?

Undecided.

To say that an opposing view is negative is taking a stance. You cannot sit on the fence and make a comment like that. Because it betrays the stance.

First of all, keep telling me what I can't do. Second of all, do I know you by another name? It seems you just came out of nowhere. I've addressed the 'negative stance' issue above. My own posts on this thread have included my own doubts regarding Fish's theory. But consider that Fish's research led him to notice that a) Hutch was dismissed quickly as a viable witness for unknown reasons, and that b) A policeman of the time suggested as a possibility that Hutch had his days wrong. As Fish calls himself a writer/researcher, I would have considered it irresponsible had he not followed up these hints and shared with us his findings. But he researched it and produced a highly readable essay that most certainly deserves consideration and a good pounding with the facts to see if it stands up. Perhaps it DOESN'T stand up, but I'd certainly enjoy seeing more insightful and investigatory essays like this one in the mags I subscribe to.


If an opposing view is negative then what is a positive view? That one accepts the theory? Is that really what has been said?

If it's been said, it hasn't been said on this thread.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tecs
12-22-2010, 09:27 PM
Hello Tecs. In post #139:

"Mary was seen supposedly with Barnett later that morning. We simply cannot rule out the possibility that she really did discover the corpse and use it as an opportunity to run away, after confiding in Barnett and a few friends maybe?"

Would her decision to flee come before or after her alleged discussion with Maxwell? Surely it would come after? It strikes me that it would be counter-productive to:

1. Have someone hacked to death in your house.

2. Discover her remains.

3. Decide to abscond and let the victim be taken for you.

4. Appear to an acquaintance AFTER the fact, thus letting it be known that you are alive and well, and hence spoil the plan.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

If we suspend judgement for a moment and consider that the body wasn't Mary, then one possibility is that she was taken by surprise by Maxwell on the way out. She may have made every effort to avoid being seen but found herself face to face with Caroline as she walked into the court just as she (Mary) was on the way out. In that situation she would have no option but to have a chat with Caroline. She couldn't very well say "Oh balls, my cover is blown. Oh well, I'll have to dispose of the body and try again tomorrow."

One theory of course is that the vomit in the road was her reaction to finding the body earlier on. This could tie in with the cry of murder, heard in the middle of the night. If you think about it, a woman crying out "Murder!" is more likely to be from somebody discovering a body than somebody faced with a knife wielding killer. A woman coming face to face with Jack would surely either just scream or cry "Help!" although I do agree that who knows what you would say in that situation? Anything is possible, but that sounds promising to me. Stagger in, see a mutilated corpse on your bed, cry "Oh murder!" stagger outside, vomit, then calm down and think "Hmmmm....."

If you add in that Mary may then have taken a knife and been the one to totally destroy the face of the corpse in order to prevent a positive I.D, now Hitchcock would be interested!

The other option would be that she hadn't yet found the body and did so after speaking to Caroline, but this does seem unlikely.

Either way, the "problem" of Maxwell's testimony is the most fascinating what-if in the whole case.

As I've described in previous posts, she has no right to be dismissed out of hand and if her testimony is to be believed, then we have to consider these options seriously.

Regards,

Tom_Wescott
12-22-2010, 09:33 PM
Hi Tecs. Are you a newbie? A common mistake of newbies is to assume that the rest of us haven't already considered such an idea from every angle and dismissed it (or not) based on the weight of the evidence. In the case of Kelly, the fact that two people who knew her well identified her, and the fact that she was laying on her own bed, pretty much require us to accept as fact that the woman slaughtered at 13 Millers Court was none other than Mary Kelly. The idea you're putting forth has been around for years and is a fringe favorite, but has no substance to it.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

lynn cates
12-22-2010, 10:29 PM
Hello Tecs.

"As I've described in previous posts, she has no right to be dismissed out of hand and if her testimony is to be believed, then we have to consider these options seriously."

Agreed.

1. I don't think any one's testimony should be dismissed out of hand, but only for the weightiest of reasons.

2. I have considered her testimony very seriously.

Now, when I consider a problem, I try to devise possible scenarios to see if some of them fit the problem. Now, if MJK were not killed that night but, say, someone else was, we need to determine:

1. Who was that other person?

2. Was MJK the target or was it a random killing?

Let's begin with #1. My ruminations allow 2 decent possibilities.

A. A friend of MJK.

B. Someone trying to take the place of MJK whilst she is taken to safety.

(Note that A aligns roughly with a random killing; B, with MJK as target.)

Let's dispose now with A. If her friend has been killed and she discovers it ("Oh, murder!"--say between 3 & 4 AM), would she not go to the police straight away? Why loiter for a few hours first? Surely that would seem suspicious later when the police finally were summoned?

Now, let's try B. Say that MJK is a mole and passing information to Irish Special Branch. Her cover is blown and ISB realises she is a target of the Fenians or clan-na-gael (recall that Barnett claimed that she was afraid of someone). Very well. Let's say that ISB sends an adept lady to pass as MJK so that she can catch the assassin in the act whilst Mary is spirited away to, say, Ireland. The adept lady is not adept enough and fails.

1. Why does MJK even come back to Miller's Court?

2. Given that she returns (around 4) and discovers the body, why wait about? Might not the assassin return and get it right this time? And this says nothing about possible recognition during the 4 or so odd hours between her discovery of the murder and her chatting up Mrs. Maxwell.

All this seems to militate against MJK being a target AND surviving.

So, perhaps it was a random killing? (Incidentally, this seems to be the consensus with Casebook posters.)

But again, why not go to the police?

Finally, what if it were random and MJK had something to hide, hence precluding her going to the police? Then why not flee shortly after the discovery of the body?

Of course, if there are other scenarios that I may have overlooked, I'd be delighted to hear them.

Cheers.
LC

Vingle
12-22-2010, 10:50 PM
From an amateur perspective.

Two people who claim to have known Mary Kelly by sight say that they saw her after the proposed time of death, as well as Barnett who identifies the body as MJK. It is possible that both sets of witnesses were correct. Places time of death and escape of murderer in daylight. Seems daringly risky in the realms of 'I want to be caught' or 'I'm untouchable'.

From Casebook inquest transcription - Sarah Lewis says she saw a man who frightened her previously, whilst walking along Commercial Street at 2.30am on Friday* on the way to Millers Court. (*I've assumed she means 9th here as it follows a description of that date) She says he wore no overcoat - that might give a further indication to the weather at the time Hutchinson says he was hanging about, particularly as she says he had an overcoat when she saw him before. Maybe it wasn't raining at 2.30am.

Vingle
12-22-2010, 11:09 PM
2. Was MJK the target or was it a random killing?

Fun time.

What if Mary Kelly was not a mole but a Fenian agent. What if Astracan man was real and was actually part of Special Branch. He tracks Kelly down and tortures her for info - goes too far - he covers it up by making it look like it is a ripper victim. Maybe he taunts her by having her sing Irish songs - she starts to realise the meaning of them and sings whilst she tries to think of a way out.
Maybe Hutchinson's story was not discounted but was actually confirmed later as being correct. He's paid off with a reward - he's happy - the story leaked to the press so Abberline finds him useless and doesn't have to use him again. Not a massive conspiracy but a carefully manufactured one by special branch, Warren knew though and he quit.

Garza
12-23-2010, 01:41 AM
2. Was MJK the target or was it a random killing?

Fun time.

What if Mary Kelly was not a mole but a Fenian agent. What if Astracan man was real and was actually part of Special Branch. He tracks Kelly down and tortures her for info - goes too far - he covers it up by making it look like it is a ripper victim. Maybe he taunts her by having her sing Irish songs - she starts to realise the meaning of them and sings whilst she tries to think of a way out.
Maybe Hutchinson's story was not discounted but was actually confirmed later as being correct. He's paid off with a reward - he's happy - the story leaked to the press so Abberline finds him useless and doesn't have to use him again. Not a massive conspiracy but a carefully manufactured one by special branch, Warren knew though and he quit.

Oh good lord,

Ben
12-23-2010, 01:53 AM
My grateful thanks again for your kind words, Hunter, and for setting the ball rolling with this thread.

I agree with many of your points, and your suggestion that the “a viable theory would be that the police were dismayed at Hutchinson's going to the press with his story” is very persuasive, especially since the timing of Hutchinson’s press disclosures coincided perfectly with the Star’s revelation the following day that the account was “now discredited”. My strong suspicion is that whatever doubts the authorities were having with the account when it first came to the fore, his communication with the press almost certainly compounded them.

I doubt very much that either the Star or the Echo were wrong in that they reported viz a viz the doubting and subsequent discrediting of Hutchinson, since they mesh up so closely with later reports and memoirs from police officials, all of which fail to mention Hutchinson, and include the claims that nobody saw the Whitechapel murderer unless if was a witness from Mitre Square, and that the only witness of any value was Jewish. Even Abberline himself appears to have "forgotten" him when addressing the subject of eyewitness evidence in 1903.

The Star was indeed the only newspaper to use the “D-word” specifically, but then they were also the only newspaper have ran Schwartz “to earth” and obtain an interview from him.

I even posted questions and doubts pleaded for responses not only from Fish, but from Garry and Ben. Ben didn't have much to say at that point

Apologies for that, Tom, although I did address some of your points on post #113 of this thread.

All the best,
Ben

Garry Wroe
12-23-2010, 01:00 PM
I agree with many of your points, and your suggestion that the “a viable theory would be that the police were dismayed at Hutchinson's going to the press with his story” is very persuasive, especially since the timing of Hutchinson’s press disclosures coincided perfectly with the Star’s revelation the following day that the account was “now discredited”.

The only problem being, though, Ben, that the Echo reported similar official misgivings on the Tuesday - in other words before the appearance of Hutchinson's press disclosures. It is for this reason that I believe the more plausible explanation for Hutchinson's fall from grace relates to something he said or did whilst searching for Astrakhan in the company of detectives on the Monday evening. If as a consequence he was suspected of being another Packer and dropped like the proverbial stone, we also have an explanation as to why police paid little attention to the inherent contradictions of his press disclosures. It may simply have been the case that investigators were disinclined to waste yet more time on a perceived time-waster. If so, this was a classic case of the baby being thrown out with the bathwater, and elements that were crying out for further investigation were either disregarded or overlooked - the claim that Hutchinson had ventured into Miller's Court at three o'clock, for example.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

The Good Michael
12-23-2010, 01:36 PM
perhaps the hundreth time on these boards,there is no evidence that any element of Hutchinson's statement was checked,certainly not the Romford trip.


Harry,

You're right there's no evidence. There's no evidence that I'm typing this message, only evidence that there is a message. There's no evidence that Abberline had regular bowel movements. There's certainly no documentation saying that detectives had to be be above the level of congenital idiot to be detectives. There's no evidence that they all just rested on their ever-expanding backsides, eating jelly donuts while dismissing all possible leads, because congenital idiocy and jelly donuts are not conducive to proper investigation, but that's what you want us to believe. You can believe it. Your mind follows a different path than mine. As for me, I'm having a jelly donut.

Mike

The Good Michael
12-23-2010, 02:24 PM
Officer: Inspector Abberline, there's a bloke here wot says 'e saw the killer.

Abberline: Killer?

Officer: Y'know sir, the murderer.

Abberline: There's been a murder?

Officer: Sir, the East End murders. Jack the Ripper. Leather Apron. The stuff in the papers, sir.

Abberline: Yes, of course. Well don't be an idiot. Send him in.

(The officer leaves returning with a young man of military bearing)

Abberline: Well, who are you?

Man: Name's Hutchinson sir. George Top...

Abberline (interupting): Hutchinson, you say. Do you have any papers that identify you.

Man: No sir, not to speak of.

Abberline: Never mind that. What do you have to tell us?

Officer: 'E says 'e was out an about during the 8th of November, just having got back from Romford, and...

Abberline: Romford, you say? What were you doing there?

Man: I was picking hops, sir.

Abberline: That reminds me of when I was a youth. I'd pick hops on weekends just to make a little cash while I was going to school. Those were the days (reclining in his chair and smiling whistfully).

Officer: Well sir, 'e had just come back from Romford and was 'anging about the...

Abberline: Oh heavens Brown! Don't bore me with this stuff. Get to the point.

Officer: 'e saw Kelly with the killer sir.

Abberline: Kelly?

Officer: The latest victim, sir.

Abberline: Dear God! You mean there's been another?

Officer: These 3 days past, sir.

Abberline: Well, take his statement and get investigating.

Officer: Should we check 'im out sir?

Abberline: Of course, you idiot! He murdered another woman!

Officer: I meant Hutchinson sir.

Abberline: Of course you did. What's the normal procedure?

Officer: well, we'd try to corroborate 'is story by asking at the Victorian Home and various places that e's been. We'd also try to get some character references. If the times and days match up, we'd compare 'is activities to other witness statements.

Abberline: Other witnesses?

Officer: yes sir, like that Sarah Lewis woman for example. She saw someone lingering about Miller's Court on the 9th at about 2:30 AM. It was as near as we know, about the same time that Kelly was murdered.

Abberline: Hutchinson, were you hanging about Miller's Court at 2:30 am on the 9th?

Man: No sir. I was there between 2 and 2:45, not at 2:30, sir.

Abberline: You see, Brown. Young Hutchinson here is an honest sort. Just look at that military bearing. Oozes truth and Britishness, he does. Dispense with this whole procedure nonsense and take him about to the murder scene and stimulate his recall.

Officer: yes sir. Er... 'e was asking about some sort of remuneration for 'is efforts sir.

Abberline: If he can't remunerate, then walking around the court will stimulate his recall.

Officer: No sir. You're thinking of 'memory', sir. What I meant was that Hutchinson was hoping for some recompense for 'is coming forth.

Abberline: Coming forth? I would suggest drinking some warm milk. That will slow the course of recompense.

Officer: Sir, 'e would like some money.

Abberline: Damn it, man! Why didn't you say so. I will draw something out of petty cash. You just take him around as I asked. Good day!

Officer: Yes sir. (leaving with Hutchinson)

Abberline: One more thing Brown.

Officer: Yes sir.

Abberline: On the way back, stop at the cleaners and pick up my astrakhan coat. It looks to be a cold night.

Officer: Will do.

Garza
12-23-2010, 02:32 PM
^^^^^^^^^

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your right though, could not believe that the police did not check hutchinson out.

Ben
12-23-2010, 06:36 PM
A very reasonable suggestion there, Garry.

The reason I considered the possibility of the press accounts of Hutchinson's statement hastening the "discrediting" process concerned the fact that the Echo was not as robust in its terminology when describing the current police views on Hutchinson as the Star was two days later. On the 13th November (as reported by the Echo) the account had suffered a "very reduced importance", but just two days later, it was downgraded even further to "now discredited", and I wondered if the divergent press accounts may have served as a catalyst for this.

On the other hand, your suggestion that the Echo's revelations may have been the result of "something he said or did whilst searching for Astrakhan in the company of detectives on the Monday evening" would make perfect sense of the claim made in the same article that this very reduced importance came about as a result of "later investigation".

All the best,
Ben

Ben
12-23-2010, 06:43 PM
Gosh, are people still having trouble with this "checking out", business?

Why?

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the police would have done their best to "check out" Hutchinson and his claims as far as they were able to, but that doesn't mean that this "checking out" ever produced any tangible results, and there's certainly no reason to conclude that they were ever in a position to prove whether or not he lied or murdered anyone. It's just naive to assume otherwise, especially in the total absence of any evidence that this happened. In real life, everyone accepts that investigations don't always result in proof being secured - take the attempt to identify and capture Jack the Ripper as an obvious example - but with Hutchinson, people tend to adopt a magic wand approach and make all sorts of rash and unwarranted conclusions to the effect that the truth about Hutchinson must have been uncovered.

Tom_Wescott
12-23-2010, 07:34 PM
Mike, that was so classic. I hope you save these.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Hatchett
12-23-2010, 08:18 PM
Hello Tom,

I have read your post.

Some of the points I have made you appear to have agreed with. That is good. Sound thinking.

I will address the ones where you appear to have difficulties.

“Do I know you by another name?”

No, you do not know me by another name. That is not allowed on casebook. If there is a veiled accusation there I wish you would make it clear so that it can be investigated by Admin.

“It seems you just came out of nowhere.”

I have not come out of nowhere. I have been here for a while. Although I did have a break away for about a year.

I am not too sure what difference it would make if I had come out of nowhere. Unless you are suggesting that people who have been here longer get special treatment or are granted licence that others don’t get.

If you are suggesting that, It would seem that it is elitist thinking that I believe has no place in a debating forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hatchett
To say that an opposing view is negative is taking a stance. You cannot sit on the fence and make a comment like that. Because it betrays the stance.

I thought the above was elementary logic. I notice that you appear to have studiously skirted around that and instead listed a number of points in Fisherman’s theory. I am not too sure what the reason for that was.

Despite what you say you have still not defined what you mean by negative thinking.

“I was being dictatorial by pointing out the FACT that you and the bird were offended by Fish's work?”

You were dictatorial because it was not a fact. As I said in my post, Fisherman’s article has not offended me, nor has it struck a nerve. Please go back and read my post.

Incidentally, I presume that you are referring to Baby Bird as “the bird ...”
It strikes me as being very disrespectful in not calling someone by the name they have chosen, but by another that you have chosen for them.

If this was a sort of attempt at belittling I find it very immature and crude.

“what I was reacting to was the hateful nature in which they were shared - as though Fish was a leper for publishing his thoughts.”
“it appeared to me that you and Babybird were just being mean.”

These are emotive words and phrases that are completely unwarranted. The case was simply of counter arguments and frustration in trying to find the solid proof on which Fisherman’s theory relied.

If passions over spilled then perhaps you ought to read again Fisherman’s response to what where counter arguments or questions. I would suggest that he was a little less than cool, calm and collected.

I think this perhaps is a case that if a person builds a house of cards they should not complain about the breeze that blows it down. It was always going to happen. Some time or later.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

Tom_Wescott
12-23-2010, 09:01 PM
Hi Hatchett. Why the extra 't'? You're fun and I hope you stick around for a while.

“Do I know you by another name?”

No, you do not know me by another name. That is not allowed on casebook. If there is a veiled accusation there I wish you would make it clear so that it can be investigated by Admin.

I meant in the past, or perhaps I know you from published essays. Many users had different names in the past. I was Red Demon when I first joined. I wasn't even suggesting you had multiple user names now. Relax. But now that you mention it, Admin also goes by Ally and Supe also goes by Casebook Examiner. I think I'll have them investigated.

Despite what you say you have still not defined what you mean by negative thinking.

My name's Wescott, not Webster. Where did I use the term 'negative thinking'?

You were dictatorial because it was not a fact. As I said in my post, Fisherman’s article has not offended me, nor has it struck a nerve. Please go back and read my post.

Incidentally, I presume that you are referring to Baby Bird as “the bird ...”
It strikes me as being very disrespectful in not calling someone by the name they have chosen, but by another that you have chosen for them.

If this was a sort of attempt at belittling I find it very immature and crude.

Why does it matter to you if I'm 'dictatorial'? Just fall in line with my thinking. I didn't call her 'The Baby', did I? And why don't you call me out for referring to Fisherman as 'Fish'? If my practice of shortening names is rude and belittling, surely you're not picking and chosing who deserves to be spared such horrendous treatment? Should I feel belittled that you called me Tom and not Tom_Wescott?

I am not too sure what difference it would make if I had come out of nowhere. Unless you are suggesting that people who have been here longer get special treatment or are granted licence that others don’t get.

If you are suggesting that, It would seem that it is elitist thinking that I believe has no place in a debating forum.

Actually, where I was going was that you seemed to know your stuff and have a comfort level talking openly with tenured posters that one often doesn't see with newbies, yet you only had 37 posts to your name. Because of this I thought you might be a tenured poster who previously posted under a different name. Why are you so insecure and paranoid? Having said that, I'm not a communist and do feel that certain respects are earned and not given.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Garry Wroe
12-23-2010, 11:58 PM
The reason I considered the possibility of the press accounts of Hutchinson's statement hastening the "discrediting" process concerned the fact that the Echo was not as robust in its terminology when describing the current police views on Hutchinson as the Star was two days later.
As I’ve said before, Ben, to my mind the Echo disclosure bears the hallmark of an illicit police tip-off. If so, the somewhat understated nature of the piece may simply have been a journalist protecting his source. Irrespective of whether this is a valid interpretation, however, the journalist concerned certainly revealed an awareness of investigative suspicion regarding Hutchinson at a stage when other newspapers were depicting him as a stellar witness.

On the 13th November (as reported by the Echo) the account had suffered a "very reduced importance", but just two days later, it was downgraded even further to "now discredited", and I wondered if the divergent press accounts may have served as a catalyst for this.
But if the ‘divergent press accounts’ had been noted by investigators, Ben, surely Hutchinson’s assertion that he had stood directly outside Kelly’s room at 3-00am would also have been picked up on. The apparent reality that he wasn’t immediately hauled in for reinterview suggests several possibilities to my way of thinking. Either the revelation was entirely overlooked, it was spotted but its significance went unrecognized, or it was spotted but disregarded because Hutchinson was at this stage being regarded as a Packer-like fantasist. My money, I have to say, is on the latter possibility.

On an altogether different note, I’d like to congratulate you on your Examiner article. I know that it has been a long time in the making and am therefore disappointed that you have yet to receive the recognition you deserve. Hopefully, now that the rain-related furore has begun to recede, a little more attention will be forthcoming.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Observer
12-24-2010, 12:18 AM
Gosh, are people still having trouble with this "checking out", business?

Why?

Yes, it is reasonable to assume that the police would have done their best to "check out" Hutchinson and his claims as far as they were able to, but that doesn't mean that this "checking out" ever produced any tangible results, and there's certainly no reason to conclude that they were ever in a position to prove whether or not he lied or murdered anyone. It's just naive to assume otherwise, especially in the total absence of any evidence that this happened. In real life, everyone accepts that investigations don't always result in proof being secured - take the attempt to identify and capture Jack the Ripper as an obvious example - but with Hutchinson, people tend to adopt a magic wand approach and make all sorts of rash and unwarranted conclusions to the effect that the truth about Hutchinson must have been uncovered.

Hi Ben

Do you consider it likely that they checked out his Romford story? I mean, discredited for his Astrakhan chappie, wouldn't they then have tried to establish whether or not he had actually been in Romford?

Observer

Hatchett
12-24-2010, 01:11 AM
Hello Tom Wescott,

There appeared to be some sort of praise in your post. If that is correct then I thank you.

You did not call Baby Bird Baby or Bird. You did not abbreviate the name at all. In fact without the capital B you didn’t show respect for a name at all. For instance, have ever you ever called Fisherman “the fish,” or has anyone ever referred to you as “the westcott?” I doubt it. I don’t know how literate you are. If it was a mistake then I will make allowances.

About the dictatorial, it matters because you claimed to use a fact as a chide when in fact it was not a fact and you had no right to use it as such.

You still seem to be edging around your use of the “negative stance.” In your previous post you claimed that you had addressed it, but you hadn’t. In this one you have shied away from it. I asked you a question. At the end of the day if you cannot define it then why should you use it? I suppose it all comes down to the literacy. If it is another mistake then I will make allowances.

Insecure and paranoid? Again emotive words. Now what is the reason for that? Could it be perhaps that you have already nailed your colours to the mast in stating that you believed that Fisherman’s article deserved the Beadle prize?

Are you trying now to regain some peer respect? Is that why you use the emotive language and pretend to be sitting on the fence but use crudely disguised phraseology to support the theory?

Just a thought.

Why the extra T? Because it is my name. Why it is my name could be a challenge for you.

Best wishes.
Hatchett.

harry
12-24-2010, 03:11 AM
Mike,
Have you never asked a poster to support a post by citing evidence?Sarcasm is the last refuge of a person devoid of a meaningful reply.If you support Fisherman's contention that Hutchinson might have suffered some sort of memory lapse,give reasons for this lapse.It is nonsense to claim that rain was the cause.Far from supporting Fisherman,you are only adding distractions to a poster,who,though I think is wrong,at least has the intelligence to set his thoughts out in a clear,concise manner.
Now let me add something that might help.If it could be proven a case of 'A state of altered conciousness'on the part of Hutchinson,I could go along with Fisherman,but that would entail showing proof that Hutchinson suffered from that malady.
Now Mike,if you do not understand the meaning of the term,and what might cause it,why not spend the Xmas period studying it,and then try convincing the rest of us that is really what happened.

tnb
12-24-2010, 03:25 AM
Hello all,

I have only just caught up with this thread, having been 'away' for a while, and so forgive me if I initially backtrack a little. I must say that it is a wonderful early Christmas present to see a 'Hutch' thread which has not (yet? Please no) descended into chaos. Ben and Christer both deserve praise for their articles which in part made that possible.

For what it is worth, I completely agree with Lynn that Maxwell's evidence should be taken seriously, which is of course not the same as saying it is correct. I would just like to add, for the benefit of anyone following this thread without a minute knowledge, that it is important to remember that Maxwell stands alone amongst the 'problematic' witnesses with which the Police had to contend (many more than we are aware of, I am sure) in being called to the relevant inquest AND repeatedly challenged over her evidence. That McDonald, who seemed either determined and/or under orders to get this particular inquest over quickly, took the time to do both these things, must put her on a different level to the wooden-arm and knife-up-the-sleeve merchants, and probably Packer too, even if her evidence does seem bizarre, or even spiritual.

With regard to Lynn's dual hypothesis, I have a few points to make. Some of these agree with Lynn, some don't, but all are meant respectfully, of course. I hope people are able to follow this, as I unfortunately have no ability to quote on my current 'mobile device' (I hate technology...).

If MJK was supposed to have discovered the body, perhaps explaining the 'murder' shout (an excellent thought) I do however agree completely that she is extremely unlikely to have hung around Miller's Court long enough to be seen by Maxwell. Further, WHERE exactly is she supposed to have been for upwards of 5 hours? In the room with the body???? I find it likely she would have left Miller's Court 'asap' and I can't see her venturing back just to have a casual conversation. She certainly wouldn't have done so if she was planning to disappear, and if she wasn't 1) where did she go then, and 2) wouldn't it have made sense to inform McCarthy, and wouldn't she mention this distressing fact to Maxwell?

I also struggle to see that she could have discovered the body closer to the time of Maxwell's sighting, as the other residents of the court would surely have noticed her arrive and, presumably, exit in something of a hurry, probably screaming? One was woken by a cry in the middle of the night, remember, and this wasn't a big or thick-walled place.

I also doubt that if she discovered the body AFTER speaking to Maxwell, the escape plan would have crossed her mind, as her cover would already have been pretty spectacularly blown.

I also find it extremely unlikely that if some shadowy organisation was behind the 'swap plot' that they would have risked it all by sending the supposedly dead woman herself to check whether the deed had been done. It would make a wonderful plot for a farce, but a crap escape plan. With all the comings and goings around the Court, and McCarthy's shop remember, it would have been easy enough to send another operative in to check. In an astrakhan coat perhaps, or a wideawake hat... ;-) Even listening for word on the street would probably be enough.

All in all, and to my mind - let me know if I have missed anything - belief in Maxwell's
sighting actually mitigates AGAINST Kelly having discovered the body, far from the latter being a plausable explanation for the former, and indeed probably against any scenario where MJK wasn't the woman on the bed. Therefore, we come back to the discrepancy with the forensic evidence, which unfortunately appears fairly insurmountable. Maxwell remains a mystery.

There is of course the enigmatic detail of MJK being 'afraid of something', and it is possible she came home, spoke to Maxwell, found the body and fled not to deceive anyone but simply out of terror, but again surely someone would have noticed her running down the passageway screaming?

One thought re Hutchison which I have not seen raised before but which has always struck me. Remember that one reason he gave for his late 'disclosure' was that a fellow Victoria Home resident, on hearing his story, had encouraged him to inform the Police. Is it not possible that he was 'spinning a yarn' - either plain invention, or embellished from the actual events of that or, yes, another night) and that when his companion suggested the Police he realised he had put himself in a corner? He had to get to the Police before the other man did, saying 'this bloke at the Home says he knew the victim and saw her just before the murder and was out all night hanging around the scene', didn't he? It would not have taken a less gullible Police force to ascertain the truth, however, with only minimal 'checking'. Any thoughts?

Merry Christmas one and all, lastly but not leastly.

lynn cates
12-24-2010, 04:14 AM
Hello Trevor. I tried hard to find a disagreement in our thinking here, but have failed. I think you sum up matters admirably.

But, lest one give credit where NOT due, permit me to say that having MJK alive, discover the body, cry "Oh, murder!" is hardly original with me. That said, your observation about the subsequent time lapse completely disposes (in my mind) of the possibility of Maxwell's sighting time being accurate. Indeed, I have interjected just about every bizarre/unlikely scenario known to the (devious) mind here--but nothing fits.

I must conclude, therefore, that Mrs. Maxwell was off by a day.

Nor should this be, I think, considered strange--as also Hutch, if he were off by a day. As Fish points out, some people have a great recall of fine detail but will forget something really broad like the day of the week. This happens to me much more frequently than I care to admit. But I suppose that such a phenomenon as this is alien to a good many posters. Hence the resistance to Fish's thesis vis-a-vis Hutch.

Thanks for a well thought out post.

Cheers.
LC

The Good Michael
12-24-2010, 04:32 AM
Mike,
Have you never asked a poster to support a post by citing evidence?
Harry,

I never ask for evidence when something is so clear. In that case, it would be insulting to ask for evidence. Much like anyone asking for evidence that the police did their job when presented with a situation in the highest profile case in London for that year is insulting. Hence the sarcasm. To me it is as clear that Hutchinson's story was checked out as it is that today is the 23rd... or is it the 24th? Oops. Another point for forgetfulness.

Mike

lynn cates
12-24-2010, 04:38 AM
Hello Michael.

"To me it is as clear that Hutchinson's story was checked out as it is that today is the 23rd... or is it the 24th?"

Oh dear! You also?

Cheers.
LC

The Good Michael
12-24-2010, 04:45 AM
"To me it is as clear that Hutchinson's story was checked out as it is that today is the 23rd... or is it the 24th?"

Oh dear! You also?



When did you say that? Yesterday or the day before? Oh, it happened again!

Mike

Sally
12-24-2010, 04:59 AM
Ok - I agree that of course the police would have checked out Hutchinson's story. However, I do think that some parts of that story would have been easier to affirm than others.
For example, it wouldn't have been hard to establish that Hutchinson was a regular residant of the Victoria Home - they kept records, I believe, and it was only around the corner from the station. And so on, and so forth.

But Romford - about that I'm not sure. Exactly how would the police have been able to corroborate that? Hutchinson may have told others that he was off to Romford in advance of actually going there, so that would add weight to his story. But as to him actually having been there - well, I think it depends entirely on what he was doing there, and how visible he was. If he had been in a situaiton whereby he had given his name, for example; then yes, it could have been confirmed that he was in Romford. But I can think of lots of scenarios whereby he would have been all but invisible.

I'm not sure this is all that important. We know that people travelled for the purposes of commerce, for work, and many other sundry purposes. The police would have been accustomed to this as part of the social milieu in which they operated. Would they have cared all that much where Hutchinson was on the day before? Or paid it all that much attention?

I think they would have wanted more to establish that he was who he said he was, and had been where he said he had been on the night of the 8th/9th.

The only interesting thing about the trip to Romford is why he took pains to come back so late at night when he could have stayed where he was until the nest day - and that is easily explained.

On another matter entirely - Mike, you arre either a comic genius, or you have a secret cache of previously undiscovered Jtr files. Now, which is it?? :lol:

The Good Michael
12-24-2010, 05:19 AM
- Mike, you arre either a comic genius, or you have a secret cache of previously undiscovered Jtr files. Now, which is it?? :lol:

I'm a Cosmic Genus from an endangered species, Rippus Interruptus. By the way, you must either be a pirate or a Scot with your 'arre', though the two are never mutually exclusive.

Mike

Sally
12-24-2010, 05:31 AM
I'm a Cosmic Genus from an endangered species, Rippus Interruptus. By the way, you must either be a pirate or a Scot with your 'arre', though the two are never mutually exclusive.

Mike

No, not a Scot, a pirate, quite possibly!

So, How much does a pirate pay to get his ears pierced?

A buck an ear!! :lol:

The Good Michael
12-24-2010, 05:46 AM
Trick or treater dressed as a pirate captain rings the doorbell. A lady answers the door, "Oh aren't you cute? A little pirate captain. Say, where are your buccaneers?"

"They're alongside my buccan head, lady."

Observer
12-24-2010, 08:07 PM
Hi Mike

Ever heard of the phrase "Resting on one's laurels"? I would have retired after the Abbeline comedy, very good it was too !!!

Regards

Observer

Observer
12-24-2010, 08:27 PM
But Romford - about that I'm not sure. Exactly how would the police have been able to corroborate that? Hutchinson may have told others that he was off to Romford in advance of actually going there, so that would add weight to his story. But as to him actually having been there - well, I think it depends entirely on what he was doing there, and how visible he was. If he had been in a situaiton whereby he had given his name, for example; then yes, it could have been confirmed that he was in Romford. But I can think of lots of scenarios whereby he would have been all but invisible.


Hi Sally

Hutchinson was residing in Spitalfields, wouldn't a trip down to Romford a distance of about 13 miles suggest that he was intending to visit someone? I can think of far more scenarios whereby he was seen by, or contacted someone who knew him, than I can whereby he would be all but invisible.

Of course all the police had to do was ask him what his business was in Romford, they would have asked this question wouldn't they?

Observer

Stephen Thomas
12-24-2010, 08:49 PM
Hutchinson was residing in Spitalfields, wouldn't a trip down to Romford a distance of about 13 miles suggest that he was intending to visit someone?

Maybe good Mr Crossingham who lived in Romford, perhaps

richardnunweek
12-24-2010, 09:06 PM
Hi,
I love the Hutchinsons threads, simply because the majority of Casebook have decided that this individual , who to the majority, has no identity but the surname.
I have with great frustration, attempted to put foreward a name, but have received a cannot ''be proved reply.
I will state now.. that Topping was the witness, and I offer this information on a plate.
If any of you care to visit a establishment that has copies of the Radio times, from 1972-75, and look on the left hand side of the rear pages, one will find such a radio broadcast' that features the ' The man that saw Jack'.
It featured either personally Reg Hutchinson[ son of Gwth], or someone quoting on his behalf.
This you have my word on.
I spent two hours at Brighton University with my wife and daughter [ a couple of years ago] doing just that ie, looking at the relevant Radio Times, but silly me only looked at the front pages leading up to the radio lists, and it was only after.. once we returned home[ rather frustrated] that I remembered my error.
What would that prove?
If nothing else.. that I am a right/ in suggesting that the Topping saga was long before 1992 , and faircloughs contribution to Ripperology, came to the fore.
Regards Richard.

lynn cates
12-24-2010, 09:28 PM
Hello Richard. You've finally located it then? Good job!

Cheers.
LC

richardnunweek
12-25-2010, 06:49 AM
Hello Lynn,
I assume you have mistaken my post, I was remarking where the preview of that programme could be found, I have not seen it since my initial view in the 70s.
Basically.. I was giving all keen researchers on Casebook ,a map where the treasure can be found, as mentioned, my only visit had myself and two members of my family searching through the wrong sections of the magazines.
Regards , and Happy Xmas
Richard.

lynn cates
12-25-2010, 10:55 AM
Hello Richard. Thanks for clarifying.

The same to you.

Cheers.
LC

Sally
12-26-2010, 08:18 AM
Hi Sally

Hi Obsever

Hutchinson was residing in Spitalfields, wouldn't a trip down to Romford a distance of about 13 miles suggest that he was intending to visit someone?

Woud it? Well it might, yes, but equally, it might suggest some other purpose - perhaps he went with the hope of some money. I think that could actually be suggested by his self-attested statement to Kelly that he spent all his money going down to Romford - perhaps he took the train. Do you think he expected to have no money on the return trip? Who would have chosen to walk those 13 or so miles in the cold, wet night unless there was no better option?

It's conjectural, naturally - at the end of the day it could have been for any reason that he went down to Romford, assuming that he was telling the truth about going.

I can think of far more scenarios whereby he was seen by, or contacted someone who knew him, than I can whereby he would be all but invisible.

Oh good. Would you mind enlightening me? I don't mean that insincerely - I really can't think of 'far more scenarios' whereby his presence could have been confirmed. It is possible that it was, of course.

Of course all the police had to do was ask him what his business was in Romford, they would have asked this question wouldn't they?

Oh, I'm sure they did, Observer, and I'm sure he gave a good answer. As I said though, I don't know how important his day trip to Romford would have appeared. A more interesting question might have been - and certainly should have been - why he chose to set off for London so late in the day? Particularly without any money to secure a night's lodgings when he got there. He would have been able to answer that one too, I expect.

I have decided that I really don't think he got the nght wrong in his statement to the police.

Regards

Sally

harry
12-26-2010, 09:01 AM
If on checking Hutchinson's story,and finding elements of that story true or false,would not Aberlaine have then appraised his seniors in his report of that night,or at a later time,that he had found his opinion of honesty to be confirmed.Perhaps he didn't,because he couldn't,as there had been no checks.
Conjecture is alright,we can all use it,but when did it replace verification as the solution to an opinion.
The most funny bit Mike,is that after urging a moving of these Hutchinson posts from a thread where you were fed up with Hutchinson and wanted posters to p#ss off as you wanted no part of it,here you are.
Hilarious.

richardnunweek
12-26-2010, 11:05 AM
Hi,
All we know is that a man named George Hutchinson made his statement on the Monday evening [12th], we can assume that it was an honest interpretation of what he saw.
But wait a minute..
What if, the police had reason to believe that the deseased my have met her end during daylight hours, what if they had a solid base when it came to believing Maxwell.
I have found it somewhat unusual for the police force[ of any era] to discredit their own police doctors, and in this case they did, by allowing Mrs Maxwell to give evidence ...under oath, which they knew fully well would contridict medical opinion.
Why did they believe Mrs Maxwell, and doubt the medical evidence.?
With this in mind would it not be possible for the police to fabricate a description, and recruit young GH in, as the witness to the fabrication.
For what aim?
To give the killer a false sense of security...in believing that the authorities were looking for a Astracan clad man, who may have committed the act in the middle of the night.
What if... the police believed that Mrs Maxwell saw the killer around 845am on the morning of the 9th, and it was for this man they were after... not the evidence of a fabricated statement.
Some will say .
How come the GH statement was forwarded to Abberlines superiors then?
Answer.. Why not, they would have been intrested in what H division were attempting to achieve wouldnt they?
I would say a lot of cummunication was going on, between all sorts of parties, that we will never be aware of.
This might explain why any payment was paid to Hutchie, he could be trusted in assisting the police, and done his bit in the deception.
OK.
If Hutch was Topping...how come he repeated the fabricated story in later years?
Not only, would he then admit to being part of a lie statement, but in the 1920s/30s the killer could be still very much alive.
Regards Richard.

Garry Wroe
12-26-2010, 12:15 PM
I have found it somewhat unusual for the police force[ of any era] to discredit their own police doctors, and in this case they did, by allowing Mrs Maxwell to give evidence ...under oath, which they knew fully well would contridict medical opinion … Why did they believe Mrs Maxwell, and doubt the medical evidence.?
It is abundantly clear from the evidence, Richard, that investigators attached no credence whatever to Carrie Maxwell’s claim of having seen Kelly alive in the hours immediately preceding Bowyer’s discovery of the body in Miller’s Court. And neither did they ‘allow’ Maxwell to present her story at the inquest hearing. The fact of the matter is that jurisdiction over inquest proceedings lay with the Coroner, and it was the statutory obligation of the police to provide him with the details of anyone whose evidence might shed light on the death under investigation. It was the Coroner, therefore, who decided who would and who would not appear at the hearing. The police were merely agents of the court.

Bearing this in mind, Carrie Maxwell’s appearance at the Kelly inquest hearing should in no way be taken as confirmation that investigators believed her story, nor that the story itself led to a police dismissal of the medical evidence provided by Phillips and Bond. Indeed, we have overwhelming evidence that investigators trusted the medical evidence and mistrusted that provided by Maxwell.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

lynn cates
12-26-2010, 12:44 PM
Hello Garry. In fact, wasn't Mrs. Maxwell warned at the inquest to be careful since her testimony was different from the rest?

Cheers.
LC

Sally
12-26-2010, 12:53 PM
Indeed, we have overwhelming evidence that investigators trusted the medical evidence and mistrusted that provided by Maxwell

Because they were in contradiction, and the medical evidence was considered to be scientific evidence - and so more objective than the subjective account of a witness.

There will always be conspiracy theories - clearly this case lends itself to them. I don't see any immediate need to discount contemporary opinion in this case, myself.

All the best.

Sally.

Hunter
12-26-2010, 04:18 PM
Thank you Garry, for clarifying the witness proceedure at an official inquest. That is exactly correct. One only has to look at the inquests that Baxter held to see that the police were not often happy about what surfaced there. They were fortunate that MacDonald was a more 'by the book' coroner and was dealing with a hostile jury that didn't want to be there to start with.

There's one observation I'd like to throw in... a possible clue as to what the police eventually thought about Hutchinson's veracity. In 1903, in an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette Abberline metioned that he thought JTR was of foreign appearance. So, of course, was Hutchinson's man. What do some of you think about that statement of Abberline's?

Garry Wroe
12-26-2010, 05:21 PM
In fact, wasn't Mrs. Maxwell warned at the inquest to be careful since her testimony was different from the rest?
Absolutely, Lynn. But for all of that she stuck to her story steadfastly. The significant factor in Kelly’s rise from the dead, I believe, lay in the description provided by Maxwell defining Kelly as short, dumpy and afflicted by a speech impediment. Contrast this with the description provided by Mary Ann Cox – tall, attractive, and with lily-white skin – and it is fairly self-evident that Maxwell and Cox were describing different women. It is for this reason, therefore, that I have long believed Maxwell confused Kelly with another female resident of Miller’s Court. And for Carrie Maxwell, read also Maurice Lewis.

There's one observation I'd like to throw in... a possible clue as to what the police eventually thought about Hutchinson's veracity. In 1903, in an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette Abberline metioned that he thought JTR was of foreign appearance. So, of course, was Hutchinson's man. What do some of you think about that statement of Abberline's?
Well, of course, Hunter, the ‘foreign appearance’ could have been influenced by Elizabeth Long’s description of the man purportedly seen with Annie Chapman in the moments immediately preceding the Hanbury Street crime. But the link to Astrakhan is less tenuous when one considers Abberline’s suspect of choice. Whenever I see a photograph of Chapman, I cannot help but be struck by the resemblance to Astrakhan. There again, we have no way of knowing why Abberline believed Chapman to have been the Whitechapel Murderer, nor indeed what his eventual opinion of Hutchinson might have been. As with many areas of the case, informed opinion is often frustrated by the lack of official documentation.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

richardnunweek
12-26-2010, 05:25 PM
Hello Garry,
You are correct of course, with the police having a 'duty' to bring to the inquests attention, all those that may have a bearing on the case in question.
But that does not mean.. that Abberline did not have reasons for believing Caroline Maxwell, and privately felt her evidence ought to be heard.
You are giving the impression that the investigators[ which included Abberline] attached no credence to her sighting, I was always under the impression that Abberline remarked. that 'He could not break the woman', which obviously does not necessary suggest 'belief', but the very fact that Maxwell stood her ground against authorative figures such as the latter gentleman , and the coroner, would speak favourably for her character.
even the press had her as respectable, and level headed.
I feel we use the term 'Mistaken' too freely on Casebook, when we come against a problem that has no easy solution.
Regards Richard.

richardnunweek
12-26-2010, 05:41 PM
Hello Garry,
Mrs Cox also described kelly as wearing completely different clothing then she was wearing that night, she also described to her neice , she was with a 'fine looking gentleman' , which hardly depicts Blotchy.?
She states that she followed kelly and companion into the court, then again she was waiting at her door, for her drunken husband.
Mrs Maxwell stated a speech impediment, which would have been noticeable to other court residents, who would have able to verify such , making the wrong identification impossible.
Wrong day... her movements were checked, and verified has having occured on the morning of the 9th.
Mary kelly was described as having a pronounced false tooth, which may have accounted for a speech impairment.
We are all making excuses.
Regards Richard.

Garry Wroe
12-26-2010, 06:03 PM
You are correct of course, with the police having a 'duty' to bring to the inquests attention, all those that may have a bearing on the case in question.
But that does not mean.. that Abberline did not have reasons for believing Caroline Maxwell, and privately felt her evidence ought to be heard.
But if these were Abberline's private thoughts, Richard, how is it that you are privy to them? How do you know that Abberline believed Maxwell and doubted the medical evidence? I'm intrigued.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Ben
12-26-2010, 07:08 PM
Many thanks indeed for the kind words about my article, Garry, and for your generous encouragement when putting it together.

For what it’s worth, I agree entirely with your view that Maxwell was likely to have confused the identity of the woman rather than the date of the encounter.

Hi Hunter,

“In 1903, in an interview with the Pall Mall Gazette Abberline metioned that he thought JTR was of foreign appearance.”

Very true, although even more significant is Abberline’s next observation:

“…the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view”

As far as Abberline was concerned, therefore, the only witnesses still being considered as such who described a man of that age group were only able to obtain a rear view, and since Hutchinson described a man from this age-bracket and claimed a full-on frontal view, he can’t have been considered a potentially ripper-spotting witness at this stage. He is effectively ruled out by Abberline’s criteria.

All the best,
Ben

richardnunweek
12-26-2010, 07:47 PM
Hi Garry,
Patently I am not privy to the thoughts of anyone, especially someone living in 1888, I was just making the point that if an experienced officer such as Abberline 'could not 'break the woman'. one would presume, that he would imagine that she was telling the truth.
With regard to the right day,.. wrong woman. would that not have been easy to check.?
Police officer to J Barnett. Did the deseased speak with a lisp etc..?
police officer to McCarthy .Did the deseased have a speech impediment?
police officer to several court residents the same question.
Answer no.
Mrs Maxwell you have got the wrong lady ..honest mistake.
Police to inquest.
A Witness stated that she saw the deseased after the medical T.O.D, but it was not the deseased, so does not appear at this inquest.
But guys she did attend.
So explain that?
Regards Richard.

Observer
12-26-2010, 09:49 PM
Hi Obsever

Woud it? Well it might, yes, but equally, it might suggest some other purpose - perhaps he went with the hope of some money. I think that could actually be suggested by his self-attested statement to Kelly that he spent all his money going down to Romford - perhaps he took the train. Do you think he expected to have no money on the return trip? Who would have chosen to walk those 13 or so miles in the cold, wet night unless there was no better option?

With the hope of some money? A bit vague, could you elucidate? And even if he was chasing some money the odds tip in the favour of being recognised in his pursuit of said money than they do should he remain "invisible". To recieve some money in Romford would mean someone would have to give him the money wouldn't it? Regarding his option whether to walk back to the East End or no. It could be that Hutchinson totally underestimated the time it would take to get back to Spitalfields. As he set off he might well have felt confident that he could have made it back to the Victoria Home before it closed.



It's conjectural, naturally - at the end of the day it could have been for any reason that he went down to Romford, assuming that he was telling the truth about going.



Of course it is, but I would again state there's more chance of him being seen by someone that to have remained anonymous.

.

Oh good. Would you mind enlightening me? I don't mean that insincerely - I really can't think of 'far more scenarios' whereby his presence could have been confirmed. It is possible that it was, of course.



Funny I get the distinct feeling that your being a tad condescending. Anyhow, meeting freinds, or family, finding work, doing a job of work. And now name one instance whereby he would have remained "invisible".

I'm pretty sure that he went down to Romford on the 8th and returned on the 9th, and that he had booked his nights lodging before he left to go to Romford.

Regards

Sally[/QUOTE]

Observer
12-26-2010, 10:13 PM
“…the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view”

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben

How about Lawende? He saw his suspect face on. Are you saying that Abberline disregarded his sighting also.

Observer

Phil Carter
12-26-2010, 10:16 PM
Hello Richard,

Nail on the head that one. Mrs Maxwell shouldn't have been there, as she had nothing to actually report if she didn't actually see Mary Kelly. But she was there, and under pressure, insisted that she had seen Kelly. Not once, but twice.

She wasn't the only one who saw MJK that morning either. Two more people got the day wrong, the person wrong, the identification wrong. Had Maxwell been the only person to have seen MJK, mistaken identity is far more plausible. But another independant witness? Two more independant witnesses? (Mauice Lewis and an unnamed woman mentioned in the Times)

Walter Dew said she was on the level, but still didn't believe Maxwell's story.
The inquest gets closed double quick time with indecent haste without all the legally required evidence presented about the cause of death, time of death and all injuries made, and finally neither the Coroner nor the jury's signatures appear on the Inquest Certificate. And the infamous George Hutchinson, witness extraordinaire, chooses to turn up with his statement after the Inquest is closed.
I get the distinct feeling the police were happy to see this inquest go away very quickly...
I also get the distinct feeling the police didn't want Maxwell's evidence at that Inquest...and they didn't even get Lewis in on it, nor chase down the third person talked of in the Times.
I also get the distinct feeling that the Hutchinson evidence did a remarkable job in limiting and then deflecting the Maxwell evidence into the realms of mistaken identity, in the minds of the public. Almost, although not provable, seemingly planted, and very convenient. Then again, I am a suspicious person.

best wishes

Phil

Sally
12-26-2010, 10:30 PM
Hi Observer

With the hope of some money?

Yep, that's it.

A bit vague, could you elucidate?

A money making opportunity. How would I know what that was, exactly? If it was the case, it's probably lost to us now. The man was out of work, according to him. Yet clearly he did make money, if we accept that he was living at the Victoria Home - otherwise how did he pay for that? No regular employment - means he took what he could get.

And even if he was chasing some money the odds tip in the favour of being recognised in his pursuit of said money than they do should he remain "invisible".

I'm not sure I see this, Observer.

To recieve some money in Romford would mean someone would have to give him the money wouldn't it?

Yes, but that doesn't imply that they knew who he was. Casual labour is, well - casual. You know, no questions asked, cash in hand. That sort of thing, I imagine.

Regarding his option whether to walk back to the East End or no. It could be that Hutchinson totally underestimated the time it would take to get back to Spitalfields. As he set off he might well have felt confident that he could have made it back to the Victoria Home before it closed.

Possible, but probably not if he did the journey regularly.

I would again state there's more chance of him being seen by someone that to have remained anonymous.

I genuinely don't know why you think so, sorry. I think that depends entirely on what he was doing. And we don't know what that was. You seem to think somebody must have known him whilst in Romford, or at least that he must have identified himself whilst there - why?

Funny I get the distinct feeling that your being a tad condescending.

I'm not.

Anyhow, meeting freinds, or family, finding work, doing a job of work. And now name one instance whereby he would have remained "invisible".

See above.

I'm pretty sure that he went down to Romford on the 8th and returned on the 9th, and that he had booked his nights lodging before he left to go to Romford.

I'm not sure about any of that. Really, I'm not that concerned with what he was doing there. Perhaps the police checked out what he was doing in Romford and found he was visiting friends. Perhaps they checked out what he was doing in Romford and nobody remembered him. Perhaps they didn't bother. He wasn't a suspect, was he? Maybe they just took his word for it.

Hunter
12-26-2010, 10:47 PM
I'm sorry Phil, but the inquest did fulfil its legal obligations as to the cause of death, which was all that was required. It was left up to the jury to decide whether to continue or not. They decided not.

The names of the jurymen do appear on the inquest certificate as reproduced in 'The Ultimate'.

We really don't know if Maxwell's testimony was dismissed by the police. There is no mention of it either way in the surviving documents. That Abberline believed Hutchinson does not suggest that they didn't check Maxwell's story out.

What dismisses all of the statements that Kelly was seen out and about on the morning of the 9th is the forensics themselves. There were five physicians involved in this investigation and not one placed her murder at such at late stage. She had food in her stomach, believed to have been eaten at least a couple of hours before death.

One paper that did report on the day of the murder was the Echo. It is not available here, on Casebook, but makes interesting reading as to the confusion and hysteria that took place that day... including the statements of those very people that said they saw Kelly that morning. News reports and witnesses are interesting, but do not trump actual forensic evidence.

Observer
12-26-2010, 11:15 PM
If he took casual work in Romford he would have been in contact with other workers, the man who employed him etc, then his story could have been been checked by the police.

We don't know if he travelled to Romford regularly, and never will, he might of been in the habit of using public transport both ways though.

Wasn't a suspect? He tells a **** and bull story regarding a man he saw with Kelly on the morning of her murder i.e. Astrakhan, is disbelieved by the police regarding this sighting, yet is stood opposite Millers Court on the morning of the murder, indeed within an hour of her probable TOD, and he wasn't a suspect?

Observer

Ben
12-26-2010, 11:15 PM
Hi Observer,

How about Lawende? He saw his suspect face on. Are you saying that Abberline disregarded his sighting also

No. Lawende described a man younger than "thirty-five or forty", whereas Abberline was referring specifically to those witnesses who had described men from that age-bracket - observing that they had only seen the man's back. The omission of any mention of a witness who had described a frontal view of a man fitting this age-group is conspicuous, unless Hutchinson was discredited as reported in the 1888 papers, and remained so until 1903.

It is clear from Abberline's comments in the same article that he considered Lawende a viable witness. I'm thinking specifically of his suggested comparison between Severin Klosowski and and a suspect seen wearing a "P&O" cap - an obvious reference to Lawende's description of a man in a cap with a "sailor-like" peak.

On the Romford issue, I agree with Sally. Hutchinson could have come up with any number of false reasons for the non-confirmation of his presence in Romford; that we went there seeking work only to find the establishment closed; that he went there to meet up with family only to find nobody home, and so on and so forth. In such a scenario, the police were powerless to contradict him.

It is unlikely in the extreme that he "accidentally" left it too late for his lodgings. The Victoria Home closed its doors to non ticket-holders at 12:30am, and it just isn't likely that he'd misjudge the journey by one and a half hours.

I'm pretty sure that he went down to Romford on the 8th and returned on the 9th, and that he had booked his nights lodging before he left to go to Romford.

But if he'd booked in advance, he wouldn't have had any trouble gaining entry to the Victoria Home at any hour of the day or night.

All the best,
Ben

Chris
12-26-2010, 11:49 PM
Lawende described a man younger than "thirty-five or forty", whereas Abberline was referring specifically to those witnesses who had described men from that age-bracket - observing that they had only seen the man's back.

No - he's not referring to any specific group of witnesses, but simply to "the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another." Of those people, he says both that they "state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age" and that they "state that they only saw his back ..."

Obviously Abberline's recollection of the witnesses' descriptions was incorrect in at least two respects.

Ben
12-27-2010, 12:00 AM
Of those people, he says both that they "state that he was a man about thirty- five or forty years of age" and that they "state that they only saw his back ..."

Indeed, and my point was that Hutchinson claimed to have acquired a frontal view of a man belonging to that age-group. If Abberline knew he was in a position to bolster his eyewitness/Klosowski case with a reference to a witness who described a foreign-looking man who he saw his suspect from the front, and was aged between 34 and 35, he'd doubtless have leapt at the chance - that is, of course, unless Hutchinson was no longer considered a viable witness, at least not one who was likely to have seen the murderer.

Observer
12-27-2010, 12:07 AM
Hi Ben

Abberline stated that


“…the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view”

The people who alleged they saw Jack the Ripper. For the life of me I can not see why Lawende has been left out of this, Abberline does not specify that he refers to the 35 to 40 year age group in the above statement.

Should Hutchinson have returned from Romford on the night of the 8th November it's quite possible that he only just missed the 12 30 closure time, for he did not specify his time of arrival, merley stating that he saw Kelly at 2: 00 a.m.

Regarding the Victoria Home, I think it's time for another perusal of the rules of house.

Observer

Garry Wroe
12-27-2010, 12:23 AM
Nail on the head that one. Mrs Maxwell shouldn't have been there, as she had nothing to actually report if she didn't actually see Mary Kelly. But she was there, and under pressure, insisted that she had seen Kelly. Not once, but twice.
But that’s the issue, Phil. Whereas she insisted that she had seen Kelly, the police clearly felt otherwise. And neither can I concur with the suggestion that her story must have been true merely because she was called before the inquest hearing and remained steadfast under cross-examination. If such criteria are to represent the benchmark for honesty or reliability, then it must be concluded that Mary Malcolm was indeed the sister of Liz Stride.

She wasn't the only one who saw MJK that morning either. Two more people got the day wrong, the person wrong, the identification wrong. Had Maxwell been the only person to have seen MJK, mistaken identity is far more plausible. But another independant witness? Two more independant witnesses? (Mauice Lewis and an unnamed woman mentioned in the Times)
There were many more besides, Phil, such that several newspapers openly complained that they were being overrun with bogus or genuinely mistaken information. But that doesn’t alter the fact that medical opinion was unanimous in stating that Kelly was long dead when these daylight ‘sightings’ were said to have occurred.

Walter Dew said she was on the level, but still didn't believe Maxwell's story.
For what it’s worth, I believe that Carrie Maxwell was an honest witness. Unfortunately, I also think it highly likely that the woman she believed to have been Kelly was someone else entirely.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Ben
12-27-2010, 12:25 AM
Hi Observer,

I agree, it does seem rather unusual for Abberline to have omitted Lawende, or rather the key particulars of his description. As I mentioned, though, he does make up for this omission by drawing parallels between Klosowski's sailor hat and the one described by Lawende. His evidence was at least alluded to, which is more than can be said for Hutchinson, whose description would have been far more suitable for Abberline's task of inferring similarities with Klosowski - that is, if it was still considered reliable by that stage. My contention, of course, is that it wasn't.

Should Hutchinson have returned from Romford on the night of the 8th November it's quite possible that he only just missed the 12 30 closure time

He later made clear to the press that he returned at about 2.00am though, and claimed to have noted the time from the clock of St. Mary's Whitechapel, which would have been enroute for anyone heading from the Romford direction to the vicinity of the Victoria Home. Sticking with the Pall Mall Gazette, this time from the 14th November 1888:

On Thursday I had been to Romford, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way. I came down Whitechapel road into Commercial street.

Best regards,
Ben

Roy Corduroy
12-27-2010, 12:55 AM
Good evening Ben and congratulations on your article,

I like the final exclamation point you included, the excerpt from the the Evening Star. I assume the evening edition of the Star. Seems like a new clip which I've not heard before. Any help would be appreciated.

Happy holidays to you and yours,

Roy

Ben
12-27-2010, 01:07 AM
Cheers, Roy! Glad you enjoyed it.

Here's the excerpt in question:

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/evening_star/881114.html

It's from the 14th November 1888 edition of Washington DC's Evening Star.

Hope you had a great Christmas Day.

All the best,
Ben

richardnunweek
12-27-2010, 09:09 AM
Hi Garry,
Again you state that Maxwell proberly got the wrong person, also adding that she was proberly a honest witness.
But no mention of the speech impediment?
That would be the gem in identification would it not.
If Carrie was adamant in that , and all the others had not noticed that in kelly, then not only the police , but the good woman herself, would have known instantly wrong person ....full stop.
Not to mention Kellys distinctive hair, and the fact that she had all weekend to realize her error, yet.
a] she was still called to the inquest
b]she was still sworn under oath....even if she was describing a completely different person to all the others.
I cannot buy that Garry.
The only other alternative is wrong day.
Does anyone on Casebook really believe that?
It would be nigh impossible, she stated she was returning plates when she talked to kelly, which the police verified on that very same day.
Regards Richard.

Sally
12-27-2010, 09:10 AM
If he took casual work in Romford he would have been in contact with other workers, the man who employed him etc, then his story could have been been checked by the police.

Yes, quite correct. But 'could have' isn't the same as 'would have', is it? I started off by assuming that Hutchinson's story - the Romford bit in this instance - would have been checked out by the police as a matter of course. Now I'm not sure of that - lazy thinking, you see. Actually, checking out Hutchinson's story of travelling to, and doing whatever he said he was doing in Romford might have involved quite a lot of effort - although how much is dependent on a set of circumstances to which we do not have access. At worst, he walked there, interacted with people there who he did not know personally (but who might have got his name from him). The police would most likely have had to go themselves to check out the story - a lot of effort at a very busy time. If he took the train on the way down, maybe the ticket inspector remembered him, etc.

We don't know if he travelled to Romford regularly, and never will, he might of been in the habit of using public transport both ways though.

Well, it makes sense that he did travel to Romford regularly - for whatever reason. This was not a special trip. As far as I know, his reasons for going were never once commented on anywhere. I think this is probably because the trip, and his reasons for taking it, were mundane and attracted little attention.

Wasn't a suspect? He tells a **** and bull story regarding a man he saw with Kelly on the morning of her murder i.e. Astrakhan, is disbelieved by the police regarding this sighting, yet is stood opposite Millers Court on the morning of the murder, indeed within an hour of her probable TOD, and he wasn't a suspect?

No, Observer, as far as we know, he wasn't a suspect. The police thought he was a time waster, like the other 50 odd people who turned up between the 9th and the 13th November with stories of 'witness' sightings. There's safety in numbers, you know.

Regards

Sally

Sally
12-27-2010, 09:38 AM
Hi Ben.

It is unlikely in the extreme that he "accidentally" left it too late for his lodgings. The Victoria Home closed its doors to non ticket-holders at 12:30am, and it just isn't likely that he'd misjudge the journey by one and a half hours.

But if he'd booked in advance, he wouldn't have had any trouble gaining entry to the Victoria Home at any hour of the day or night.

Is that so? :scratchchin:

Well then, how curious. We must presume that, although he lived at the Victoria Home, he had not booked in advance on this occasion.

Perhaps that was because he had no money - hence the trip to Romford to get some! And yet, that money-making trip (if such it was) seems to have gone badly, since he had no money at all when he saw Kelly. Not even the sixpence he would have needed to get a decent bed at his usual place (if it had been open, that is).

Why did he choose to walk back from Romford, when presumably he know he wouldn't get a bed for the night when he got back? It would have taken him, assuming average walking pace, about 4 hours - 5, maybe. So he set off at 9pm, 10? I'm assuming he didn't stop on the way - but other than the pub, where would he have stopped on the way? In any case, he said in his statement to the police that he hadn't had a drink all day, didn't he?

A mystery. He could have stayed where he was - I bet he'd have had more chance of securing a bed for the night if he had. Now, I do think the police might have asked him why he walked back at all that night. Whereas what he was doing in Romford might have been of little interest, what he was doing in Dorset Street at 2.30am in the morning of the 9th surely was - and why he was there at that particular time.

The decision to take the journey back from Romford when he did, in poor weather conditions, would probably have required an explanation by the police, I think. What do you think he told them?

Best.

Sally

richardnunweek
12-27-2010, 10:05 AM
Hi Sally.
The mention of sixpence gave me a thought.
What if it infact was Hutchinson, who asked Kelly to lend HIM sixpence, with the remark 'Hello Mary Jane , could you lend me sixpence, i have been down to Romford and have spent out.
That would make more sense then Kelly approaching him at 2am, after all she had a room to sleep in, he hadnt.
I find it strange that here we have two people of approx age, who knew each other meeting at 2am in commercial street, one tired and in need of a roof, the other in need of money and company.
If one takes Astracan out of the equasion, what a solution.
If I promise to give you a shilling tommorrow night, could I spend the rest of the night in your room?
All right my love , you will be comftable..
Two friends in the night, innocent scenerio, that is until he realizes Mary was butchered, but she was alive when he left her room at 615, shutting the door on his way out, en-route to the Victoria home.
Fear can make a person react in all sorts of ways, mayby placing a innocent man, who he saw at the corner of Thrawl street , just before he encountered Mjk, and elaborating him into a suspicious character, making him the man who entered that room, with all the conversation, that proberly he had spoken to Mary.
All possible??
Regards Richard.

jason_c
12-27-2010, 03:05 PM
Many thanks indeed for the kind words about my article, Garry, and for your generous encouragement when putting it together.

For what it’s worth, I agree entirely with your view that Maxwell was likely to have confused the identity of the woman rather than the date of the encounter.

Hi Hunter,



Very true, although even more significant is Abberline’s next observation:

“…the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view”

As far as Abberline was concerned, therefore, the only witnesses still being considered as such who described a man of that age group were only able to obtain a rear view, and since Hutchinson described a man from this age-bracket and claimed a full-on frontal view, he can’t have been considered a potentially ripper-spotting witness at this stage. He is effectively ruled out by Abberline’s criteria.

All the best,
Ben

Abberline gives no reason for ruling out Hutch. Too long a time gap between the sighting and Kelly's death is as good a reason as any.

Ben
12-27-2010, 03:24 PM
Hi Sally,

Very good points – agreed all round.

It doesn’t make any sense for Hutchinson to have set off on a very extensive trek in the certain knowledge that the place where he “usually slept” would have been closed for well over an hour by the time he arrived. He claimed to have had no money, thus “explaining” his failure to secure lodgings at another establishment, and yet he later informed the press that he “walked about all night” from 3.00am onwards because the Victoria Home was closed. But what relevance has the closure of the home to a person with no money to pay for a bed? Hutchinson had quite simply changed the reason for his failure to gain entry to the Victoria Home. The implication, therefore, is that he was in possession of some money, and could have secured a bed had he wanted one. The whole Romford claim strikes me as an attempt to legitimize his presence on the streets in the small hours, and to provide a superficially credible reason for his failure to secure lodgings.

The police might well have come to doubt the Romford tale, but the likelihood is that any such doubts would have been used as additional fuel for their suspicions that Hutchinson was yet another time-waster of the Matthew Packer variety.

“Too long a time gap between the sighting and Kelly's death is as good a reason as any.”

I strongly disagree, Jason.

This would have been a terrible reason for ruling out a witness.

If the police still accepted Hutchinson’s account, they couldn’t possibly have ruled Astrakhan out as the killer purely on the assumption that he must have left the scene before the real murderer arrived unseen shortly afterwards. He would still have been the last person observed in Kelly’s company.

Best regards,
Ben

Sally
12-27-2010, 03:45 PM
Hi Ben

It doesn’t make any sense for Hutchinson to have set off on a very extensive trek in the certain knowledge that the place where he “usually slept” would have been closed for well over an hour by the time he arrived. He claimed to have had no money, thus “explaining” his failure to secure lodgings at another establishment, and yet he later informed the press that he “walked about all night” from 3.00am onwards because the Victoria Home was closed. But what relevance has the closure of the home to a person with no money to pay for a bed? Hutchinson had quite simply changed the reason for his failure to gain entry to the Victoria Home. The implication, therefore, is that he was in possession of some money, and could have secured a bed had he wanted one.

Spinning a yarn, wasn't he? Well, in any event, he appears to have acquired some money by the time the Victoria Home opened the next morning, since that's where he said he went. Hmm...

The whole Romford claim strikes me as an attempt to legitimize his presence on the streets in the small hours, and to provide a superficially credible reason for his failure to secure lodgings.

He'd still have needed a reason to have set off so late though - lucky for him there was one to hand, wouldn't you say?

The police might well have come to doubt the Romford tale, but the likelihood is that any such doubts would have been used as additional fuel for their suspicions that Hutchinson was yet another time-waster of the Matthew Packer variety.

Which is clearly the conclusion they did come to. Hardly surprising.

Best


Sally

Garry Wroe
12-27-2010, 05:27 PM
Again you state that Maxwell proberly got the wrong person, also adding that she was proberly a honest witness.
But no mention of the speech impediment?
That would be the gem in identification would it not.
If Carrie was adamant in that , and all the others had not noticed that in kelly, then not only the police , but the good woman herself, would have known instantly wrong person ....full stop.
The speech impediment, Richard, was mentioned by Maxwell during the course of at least one press interview, but not, so far as I’m aware, in her official police statement. It may well be the case, therefore, that investigators were unaware of this particular aspect of her story. There again, had they been aware of it, it would have represented yet another reason for scepticism regarding her Kelly-related claims.

Not to mention Kellys distinctive hair, and the fact that she had all weekend to realize her error, yet.
a] she was still called to the inquest
b]she was still sworn under oath....even if she was describing a completely different person to all the others.
I cannot buy that Garry.
As I’ve already stated, Richard, Maxwell’s appearance at the inquest hearing should in no way be taken as confirmation of her veracity.

The only other alternative is wrong day.
Maxwell was interviewed within hours of her last alleged meeting with Kelly, on the basis of which it is nigh on impossible that she confused the day of this encounter. Thus we can only infer that she either fabricated her story or told the truth to the best of her knowledge. Personally, I plump for the latter option. But the fact that she had only ever met Kelly twice, encountered her when the medical evidence clearly stated that Kelly was dead, then described the tall Kelly as short and dumpy (throwing in a speech impediment just for good measure), means there is every indication that the Kelly sighting was no more than a case of mistaken identity.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Tom_Wescott
12-27-2010, 06:09 PM
For instance, have ever you ever called Fisherman “the fish,”

Yes. And Fish Stix, etc. Wow, you really are new to the boards.

You still seem to be edging around your use of the “negative stance.”

No edging, just waiting for you to provide me with the quote of me using the term 'negative stance'. You do that and I'll be able to explain my meaning. As it stands, I don't recall using those words, so no explanation is therefore possible.

Insecure and paranoid? Again emotive words. Now what is the reason for that?

Your posts reaked of insecurity and paranoia, so I asked you why that is.

Could it be perhaps that you have already nailed your colours to the mast in stating that you believed that Fisherman’s article deserved the Beadle prize?

What's that mean? I stand by it. But to be fair, Rip's output over the last year has left much to be desired, so Fish's competition would be light. It's all a moot point since he didn't publish in Rip. And as for nailing my colo[u]rs to a mast, I'd say the only colors I see are the ones you're using to paint me into a corner.

Are you trying now to regain some peer respect?

Wow, you really are new to the boards.

Since you're asking silly questions, here's one - why are all your posts to me edited? You in the habit of second guessing yourself?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. The poli-sci crap gets old quick, so experiment with different approaches.

jason_c
12-27-2010, 06:15 PM
Hi Sally,

Very good points – agreed all round.

It doesn’t make any sense for Hutchinson to have set off on a very extensive trek in the certain knowledge that the place where he “usually slept” would have been closed for well over an hour by the time he arrived. He claimed to have had no money, thus “explaining” his failure to secure lodgings at another establishment, and yet he later informed the press that he “walked about all night” from 3.00am onwards because the Victoria Home was closed. But what relevance has the closure of the home to a person with no money to pay for a bed? Hutchinson had quite simply changed the reason for his failure to gain entry to the Victoria Home. The implication, therefore, is that he was in possession of some money, and could have secured a bed had he wanted one. The whole Romford claim strikes me as an attempt to legitimize his presence on the streets in the small hours, and to provide a superficially credible reason for his failure to secure lodgings.

The police might well have come to doubt the Romford tale, but the likelihood is that any such doubts would have been used as additional fuel for their suspicions that Hutchinson was yet another time-waster of the Matthew Packer variety.



I strongly disagree, Jason.

This would have been a terrible reason for ruling out a witness.

If the police still accepted Hutchinson’s account, they couldn’t possibly have ruled Astrakhan out as the killer purely on the assumption that he must have left the scene before the real murderer arrived unseen shortly afterwards. He would still have been the last person observed in Kelly’s company.

Best regards,
Ben

I agree it would be terrible to rule out such a witness in the short term. This of course did not happen. All we know is that Abberline had reached such a conclusion nearly 20 years later.

babybird67
12-27-2010, 08:17 PM
Your posts reaked of insecurity and paranoia, so I asked you why that is.

Really Tom? I think Hatchett's posts are always admirably assured, competent and professionally worded. Not surprising to me as I know what he does for a living. You even said yourself in one of your posts you were surprised he was new because of the apparent assurance and confidence he appears to have for a newbie. Yet now you think he's insecure and paranoid? There is only one person on this thread whose posts reek of that, and it isn't Hatchett.

Since you're asking silly questions, here's one - why are all your posts to me edited? You in the habit of second guessing yourself?

Lol! And you accuse Hatchett of paranoia and yet you are reading something sinister in to his use of the edit facility? Wow. Just wow.


It's understandable you have to stand behind the article you described as worthy of the Beadle prize. Backtracking now would mean admitting you were wrong and not many people are capable of that. However, the article, which i originally described as being well written, being the mean cruel bitch that I am lol, is not based on any new evidence or any solid evidence in fact, and i would assume for the Beadle prize a slightly higher standard would be required, going on past recipients. I expressed that view with passion. It's no secret Fish and I clashed on the other Hutchinson thread however had he produced any evidence for his article i would have been happy to congratulate him.

You say i was offended by the article and have been mean. Yes i was offended by the fact that Fish took liberties with his primary sources, and suggested they supported his hypothesis which, when access to the primary source was provided, was actually untrue. So yes, that offends me, and yes i say so with passion. Does that make me mean? Well i have a hell of a long way to go to rival some people who post here. And if defending truth and wanting evidence for published claims makes me mean, then I can certainly live with being 'mean' once in a while.

Hope you had a lovely Christmas.

Observer
12-27-2010, 11:28 PM
No, Observer, as far as we know, he wasn't a suspect. The police thought he was a time waster, like the other 50 odd people who turned up between the 9th and the 13th November with stories of 'witness' sightings. There's safety in numbers, you know.

Regards

Sally

Hi Sally

I think it best to leave the Romford story, you have your views, I have mine, we'll never agree.

Regarding Hutchinson the suspect, how many of the 50 odd people who turned up between the 9th and 13th November were stood opposite the murder site, acting suspiciously within an hour of Kelly's death? How many of those witnesses were found to be lying regarding a sighting of Kelly with a potential vital suspect? There is another inconsistency in Hutchinson's story, he maintained that he had failed to gain entry to the Victoria Home citing the fact that the Home was shut when he arrived back in Spitalfields. Wouldn't he have needed money to gain entrance? In the next breath he's saying that he had no money to give Kelly. A clear inconsistency. Would the police have picked up on that? I think they would have. I have speculated that it's possible he paid for his nights lodging on the morning of the 8th, which would tally with his assertion that he had no money to give to Kelly. However I have been reliable informed that this is unlikely, for if he he had paid for his nights lodging in advance, then entry to the Home was possible at any time.

There are several posters to this site who believe that Hutchinson murdered Mary Kelly, Ben is one of those posters. They have used the available evidence to make a good case against Hutchinson, why then didn't the police make the same assumption in 1888? I believe they eventually found out a lot more about Mr Hutchinson and his story, than we know today. In my opinion, if Hutchinson was eventually labelled a time waster, then some other factor emerged. I believe his whole story fell apart, including his presence in Dorset Street, he wasn’t there, he made it all up.

Observer

Sally
12-28-2010, 09:02 AM
Hi Observer

I think it best to leave the Romford story, you have your views, I have mine, we'll never agree.

Fair enough. I don't think its worth arguing about, myself.

Regarding Hutchinson the suspect, how many of the 50 odd people who turned up between the 9th and 13th November were stood opposite the murder site, acting suspiciously within an hour of Kelly's death? How many of those witnesses were found to be lying regarding a sighting of Kelly with a potential vital suspect? There is another inconsistency in Hutchinson's story, he maintained that he had failed to gain entry to the Victoria Home citing the fact that the Home was shut when he arrived back in Spitalfields. Wouldn't he have needed money to gain entrance? In the next breath he's saying that he had no money to give Kelly. A clear inconsistency. Would the police have picked up on that? I think they would have. I have speculated that it's possible he paid for his nights lodging on the morning of the 8th, which would tally with his assertion that he had no money to give to Kelly. However I have been reliable informed that this is unlikely, for if he he had paid for his nights lodging in advance, then entry to the Home was possible at any time.

Agreed, Observer, its a load of old cobblers.

There are several posters to this site who believe that Hutchinson murdered Mary Kelly, Ben is one of those posters. They have used the available evidence to make a good case against Hutchinson, why then didn't the police make the same assumption in 1888?

Observer, I don't know if Hutchinson was a killer. I would say though that hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can look back at the events of the day in the past tense. The police on the ground at the time had no such luxury. They had no idea what was going to happen next - there was no indication then that the murder of Kelly would be the last. Indeed, there was some uncerrtainty about that in the months that followed. For the most part, we believe today that Kelly was the last victim. That could place the actions of Hutchinson, were he the killer, in a rather different light - as an attention seeker who just couldn't resist the lure of his own fame (if I understand the arguments correctly)

I believe they eventually found out a lot more about Mr Hutchinson and his story, than we know today. In my opinion, if Hutchinson was eventually labelled a time waster, then some other factor emerged.

Observer, you are clearly right. The police did know more about Hutchinson and his story than we know today - therein lies the rub.

I believe his whole story fell apart, including his presence in Dorset Street, he wasn’t there, he made it all up

I think thats what the police probably concluded - and that's why they didn't consider him a suspect: they thought he was just another time-waster, albeit one with an initially convincing story. I have considered that he might never have been in Dorset Street at all that night - in fact I think I might have said as much at one point.

There are some points in favour of that explanation - he seems to have seen neither Lewis, nor the other people on the street seen by her. He mentions in his statements to the press only a policeman and a man entering another lodging house. If he had really been there when he said he was, how did he miss the other people on the scene?

I suppose also that, although he claimed to have known Kelly for 3 years, and certainly gives the impression in his statements of having known her quite well; nobody appears to have known about him. Lewis didn't recognise him, if he was indeed the man outside Crossinghams. Barnett didn't mention him. Perhaps the police doubted that he had even known Kelly.

But, there are some problems with that explanation too. If he wasn't there at all, why say he was? He would have had to have been terminally stupid or entirely deranged to put himself in the picture for no other reason than to be famous for a day. What if he had become a suspect? What then? A very high-risk strategy if he wasn't even there.

Besides which, Lewis saw somebody. Somebody was standing opposite Millers Court on that night.

Best regards, Observer.

Sally

Hatchett
12-28-2010, 11:40 AM
Thank you Baby Bird for coming to my defense. Your very kind words are much appreciated.

Now Tom Westcott

“ Since you're asking silly questions, here's one - why are all your posts to me edited? You in the habit of second guessing yourself?”

Well you are right there. I think that is a silly question. After all, there is the edit facility and there is not a warning notice saying that anyone using it can be accused of “second guessing.”

It is not at all clear to me at what you mean by second guessing. Perhaps you should consider editing your posts and then they may make more sense.

“Yes. And Fish Stix, etc. Wow, you really are new to the boards”

Is that an answer? I don’t think so.

“As it stands, I don't recall using those words, so no explanation is therefore possible.”

Then perhaps you can provide an explanation for “negative stance,” which is what I asked you for and the words that you did use.

“Your posts reaked of insecurity and paranoia, so I asked you why that is.”

So the emotive phrase is extended. Are you trying to bait me? What are you afraid of Mr. Westcott?

“I'd say the only colors I see are the ones you're using to paint me into a corner.”

Not particularly good imagery, but I will say that I have not painted you in any colours. If anything I have merely reflected the colours that you have painted yourself. If they force you into a corner then that is your own doing.

“Wow, you really are new to the boards.”

That is the second time you have answered a question with that. To be helpful could I point out that that is not an answer at all.

“The poli-sci crap gets old quick, so experiment with different approaches.”

I am not at all sure what you mean by poli-sci. That you describe it as crap would imply that rather than getting old quick it is already a waste product. That it appears to be offered as advice deepens the vagueness and mystery. Because of this I am unable to respond.

Incidentally, going back to an early comment you made concerning Communism. I am not a Communist. I am a Socialist. But that has nothing to do with it. I have always made it a principle of life that everyone is deserving of respect, unless they prove themselves to be undeserving.

Best wishes for the New Year.

Phil Carter
12-28-2010, 02:28 PM
Hello all,

With apologies to both Ben and Fisherman, but I feel it perhaps correct to introduce other possibilities into the discussion. Both their ideas are most intruiging and compelling.
On the Jtr Forums site a while ago, I had a few ideas about Hutchinson, following the following article:-

Morning Advertiser (London)
14 November 1888

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
IMPORTANT CLUE.

The Press association says that since the termination of the coroner's inquest on Monday the police have become possessed of a most important link in the chain of evidence in the case of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. This information may not result in the immediate capture of the assassin, but it will, it is thought, place the police in a position to guard effectually against further outrages. For obvious reasons certain particulars are withheld.

The person who has had an opportunity of being within speaking distance of the supposed assassin is an individual whose veracity is not doubted for a moment. It is now conclusively proved that Mary Jane Kelly, having spent the latter part of Friday evening in the "Ringers," otherwise the "Britannia" public-house, at the corner of Dorset-street, returned to her home about midnight with a strange man, whose company she had previously been keeping. Nothwithstanding that no evidence was produced at the coroner's inquiry to show that she left her apartment after one o'clock, at which hour she was heard singing, there is every reason to believe that she came out after that hour. This circumstance will account for the fact that no light was observed in the room after one o'clock, as stated by one of the witnesses at the inquest. The police have received statements from several persons, some of whom reside in Miller's-court, who are prepared to swear that the deceased was out of her house and in Dorset-street between the hours of two and three o'clock on the morning in question. It has been established to the satisfaction of the police that the unfortunate woman had been murdered at three a.m. or thereabouts on Friday morning. The name of the man who has given the information referred to to the police is purposely withheld for reasons which are necessary for his own safety. He states that he knew Mary Jane Kelly well, and that on the morning of Friday last he was in Dorset-street shortly after two o'clock. There he saw the deceased with a strange man. He spoke to the murdered woman. In consequence of the recent crimes his suspicions were aroused by the man's appearance, and he did not leave the vicinity, but watched the couple and saw them enter Miller's-court. After the lapse of a few minutes he went to the court, but could see no one about, and after waiting sufficient time he concluded that all was right and retired from the scene. He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police. He took elaborate notes of the man's appearance, from which it appears that the supposed assassin's age is about 35 years, height 5 feet 6 inches, pale complextion, dark hair, curly dark moustache. He was wearing dark long overcoat, trimmed on collar and cuffs with astrachan, dark short coat beneath, light waistcoat, check trousers, white collar, black necktie with horseshoe pin, hard felt hat, and button boots with gaiters and light buttons. He also displayed from his waistcoat a gold chain. The detective officers engaged in the case attach the utmost importance to this statement, and are acting accordingly.

(my emphasis)

IF, and I say if delicately, "Hutchinson" was an informant, vigilance man, amateur detective in disguise or even a Met Policeman in plain clothes and underway with a surveillance operation, then there are obvious reasons for him NOT appearing at the inquest, and his real name NOT being given.
It would explain (apart from the later introduction of Topping) the fact that the man cannot be traced, it would explain the apparent ease that Abberline dismissed him being an obvious candidate for being a murderer desite him being possibly the last to see MJK alive.

I note the comments.. "his suspicions were aroused", "The name of the man who has given the information referred to to the police is purposely withheld for reasons which are necessary for his own safety.", "He states that he knew Mary Jane Kelly well" even though no one else knew of him, it seems,
"for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police.", and " He took elaborate notes of the man's appearance"...

Now that sounds like an undercover policeman/informant at work.

However. He made no notes, as far as we are aware of. So there is a plausible possibility the man "Hutchinson" was an independant amateur.
He could also be a vigilance man. He could also be a Special Branch informant.
The description of the man Hutchinson gave is SO detailed. Do I detect a trained eye here?

Without taking the man as a Special Branch detective (which is doubtful)... where do we lie, plausibility wise?

(to be continued on next post...)

Phil Carter
12-28-2010, 02:29 PM
(continued from previous posting)

The problem with this suggestion, is the consequences that possibility leads to.

For the sake of the comment only, which some may find interesting, allow me to follow the possibility a little?

"George Hutchinson" is either...

a) a Metropolitan policeman wearing plain clothes
b) a police informant
c) a vigilance member
d) a private detective

1. We first look at his name. Obviously, we know of nobody with that name pertaining to a, b, c, d.
Police informants (b) are not generally known to us (at the present moment in time )

2. Do any of those titles above use "nom-de-plumes"? (b and d may well do)

3. Would the publishing of this name affect further work , given that is a false
name? In my opinion, it is not the name that would be revealing, if it were false.
More likely a wide-spread description and public sighting of that person would.
Appearance, however, at the inquest would bring a detailed drawing or
two in the newspapers, possibly a written description as well. (We do have
one drawing of Hutchinson, but as we do not know the true appearance of
MJK in the same drawing, nor her "aquaintance" apparently proposing her
as they walk, is the "George Hutchinson" drawing reliable?)

4. To keep the true identity of this man quiet from the general public, is it
likely that reasons for his being in Dorset Street are concocted?

5) If there is concoction of a story, a background, would this explain the fact
that nobody of whom MJK was connected with ever gave a comment
about this man, even though he claimed to have known her on a regular
basis for many years?

6) The details of the statement, when examined, are very descriptive. Does
this indicate a trained eye? Also, the statement was changed "Jewish
appearnce" being replaced. Are these things significant in light of any of
the above possibilities?

7) Would publishing the description be logical if any of the above were
realistic? Is it a case of the police using the press for their own use,
whatever the role of this man?

8) Do any of the above explain the apparent problem with tracing this person
in the years after the event?

9) Would any of the above explain the reason for Abberline taking this man's
statement personally?

10) This man is possibly the last known person to have seen MJK alive. That
puts him in a precarious position. Therefore, three things are
questionable here. If he was NOT a member of the general public, and his
story is concluded as true, then it would be logical for the police to
corroberate his story, by trying to find the man he mentioned the story
to during the weekend at the Victoria home. We have no record that
they did this. "Hutchinson" would logically have been a suspect by sheer
dint of timing and appearance very near the scene of the crime. Abberline
stated that he "believed" the story to be true. Would any of the above
explain Abberline's decision about the story and the man?

11) Is there a possibility of a noted line in the Special Branch ledgers if
the man were one of the above, possibly under his real name which
would corroberate this man being one of the above?

12) Has the sighting of Hutchinson from a woman in her statement a bearing
on all of this in terms of revealing, on the Friday, the sighting of a man
working undercover? Would this mean the man be publically "found" and
a statement presented?

13) Finally. Would the police use this type of under-cover surveillance, be he
Met Police informant, private detective or Vigilance
man?

Of course, some of the above give answers that are clearer than others. If undercover, then the possibility is that "Hutchinson" may have been in the area for other reasons. That would limit one or two of the above possibilities. (Vigilance man, Met Policeman in plain clothes).

I only do this in light of the article presented, which I find singular in many ways, I do not know the answer, but I would delicately leave the possibility open.

As stated before, undercover work by it's very description means varying degrees of secrecy. All normal rules are thrown out of the window. As in the case of an informant.

Plausible? Possible? I do not know. I do not think it should be discounted out of hand, given that article description. That is just a personal opinion though.

Something to think about and discuss perhaps? Enjoy!!

best wishes

Phil

PS My apologies to both Ben and Fisherman, but felt it perhaps correct to introduce other possibilities into the discussion. Both their ideas are most intruiging and compelling.

Hunter
12-28-2010, 05:00 PM
That is, indeed, thought provoking Phil... so please excuse me for making this statement...

Would the individuals that have chosen to conduct a personal diatribe beyond the intended discussion of this thread please do so in the future through the PM option so the train of discussion on this subject will not be interfered with or other posters be unnecessarily exposed to such behaviour.

Thank you

Tom_Wescott
12-28-2010, 09:15 PM
Hi Hatchett. Who's this 'Westcott' person you're talking to?

Babybird,

You must be a parrott because your post read like a poor mimic of things Hatchett had already said. Now be a good girl and get us some drinks.

A wonderful New Year to you both.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Tom_Wescott
12-28-2010, 09:17 PM
Would the individuals that have chosen to conduct a personal diatribe beyond the intended discussion of this thread please do so in the future through the PM option so the train of discussion on this subject will not be interfered with or other posters be unnecessarily exposed to such behaviour.

Hi Hunter. Our posts crossed or I just missed yours, but I agree with what you say. I felt the criticism of Fish's essay was pretty mean from the start, and when I commented, I became the target for this vitriol. I guess that's my Xmas present to Fish. LOL. But yeah, I'm pretty much bored with them any way.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

richardnunweek
12-28-2010, 09:19 PM
Hi Conspiracy lovers,
How about taking the word of GH
How about taking the word of Cox,
Ditto with Prater,
Ditto with Mrs Lewis,
Ditto with Maurice Lewis,
Ditto with Caroline Maxwell.
And uncle Tom C and all.
What have we got?
Who lied, who was mistaken, who got the wrong day/time?
The clues have been recorded for us, but we are not doing to well are we?
Personally.
I believe in Hutchinson.
I believe in Prater.
I believe in Mrs Lewis.
I partially believe in Mr M Lewis.
I do not believe in Cox,
I absolutely believe Maxwell.
Taking all, into account.
I admit ,I can only speculate.
Is it possible, that there were two people involved in the kelly murder.?
Did Botchy exist.?
Did a toff exist.. as via Coxs version to her neice?
Did Mr Lewis actually see Mjk at any time in daylight on the 9th.?
Did a woman named as. Mrs Goode ever exist?
How could Maxwell be so positive, when it would have been so much simpler not to have been.?
My mind hurts guys...
Regards Richard.

Garry Wroe
12-28-2010, 10:08 PM
Perhaps this will help, Richard.

The Star, 13 November, 1888:-

As to the time of the murder, it is now generally admitted that Kelly could not, as some have stated, have been alive on Friday morning. The police have come to the conclusion that the woman who made the most positive statement to this effect must have been mistaken as to the day. Dr. Phillips's evidence, together with that of Mary Ann Cox, Elizabeth Prater, and others, proves that the murder was committed SHORTLY AFTER THREE O'CLOCK …

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

babybird67
12-28-2010, 10:51 PM
Babybird,

You must be a parrott because your post read like a poor mimic of things Hatchett had already said.

Squawk! Haha. And no answers to the points either. Priceless.

Now be a good girl and get us some drinks.

Because you're too lazy or incompetent to get your own? Nahh. Too busy standing up for research based on TRUTH and HONESTY in my mean ole ways to lower myself to serve the poor excuse for a man you seem to be.



A wonderful New Year to you both.



And to you! :)

Sorry Hunter but i cannot let comments like that pass. The Westcott has done nothing but insult me since he joined this thread...and i hadn't said anything to insult him first. Have to have right of reply. Apologies just skip our posts. :)

Hatchett
12-28-2010, 11:00 PM
Well considering that there are no answers coming, and that there has even been the attempt to turn the reason for the debate into a sort of martydom,
there is no point in continuing.

Hunter
12-29-2010, 02:36 AM
Hi Babybird,
I think your signature quote is most profound.

"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."

Happy New Years everybody... and don't drink moonshine unless you know where it came from.

harry
12-29-2010, 05:33 AM
Phil,
That reporting must have been in error.Kelly could not have spent the latter part of Friday in the Ringers,because,unless I am wrong she was killed in the early hours of that Friday morning.
Another point.As is most likely the report is describing Hutchinson,if Hutchinson's identity and involvement is not as in the report he made to police,how was this to be covered when the inquest was resumed(the inquest had only been adjourned),as surely Hutchinson could not escape being called if and when the Inquest was resumed.

Sally
12-29-2010, 09:11 AM
Hi Conspiracy lovers,
How about taking the word of GH
How about taking the word of Cox,
Ditto with Prater,
Ditto with Mrs Lewis,
Ditto with Maurice Lewis,
Ditto with Caroline Maxwell.
And uncle Tom C and all.
What have we got?
Who lied, who was mistaken, who got the wrong day/time?
The clues have been recorded for us, but we are not doing to well are we?
Personally.
I believe in Hutchinson.
I believe in Prater.
I believe in Mrs Lewis.
I partially believe in Mr M Lewis.
I do not believe in Cox,
I absolutely believe Maxwell.
Taking all, into account.
I admit ,I can only speculate.
Is it possible, that there were two people involved in the kelly murder.?
Did Botchy exist.?
Did a toff exist.. as via Coxs version to her neice?
Did Mr Lewis actually see Mjk at any time in daylight on the 9th.?
Did a woman named as. Mrs Goode ever exist?
How could Maxwell be so positive, when it would have been so much simpler not to have been.?
My mind hurts guys...
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard - sorry I didn't get around to replying to your last post, I'll reply to this one instead.

I'm afraid I don't believe Hutchinson, and I don't think he got the night wrong, either, on reflection. I'm sure you've had this conversation many times before, and are probably sick of it - but if Hutchinson was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so to speak, then why did the police perform such a spectacular U-turn in a matter of a day? They appear to have gone from having total faith in his story to having absolutely none.

I'm sorry to say I have to believe that was because they thought he was making it up - the clues, as you say, are there.

Exactly why that was? Well, he might have lied for many and various reasons about which we are free to speculate.

As to getting the night wrong? No, I don't think so. The 9th was the day of the Lord Mayors Show. Not any ordinary day, but a day of major local celebration, a highlight in the year of the londoner, when countless people lined the streets. It wasn't just a Friday. Perhaps the show was the reason Hutchinson wanted to get back from Romford, even though he must have known he wouldn't have a place to stay when he got there - he may have had plans of his own on this special day. Mistaken the night? Unlikely.

As I have said before, lying doesn't equate to murder. It makes people suspicious though, that's the thing. So rightly or wrongly, it appears that several people do suspect Hutchinson of doing more than telling a few porkies.

Personally, I don't favour conspiracy so much as a rule - I don't need a special explanation for unexplained events. In this case, assuming that Hutchinson was not the murderer of course - the most likely explanation is that he lied for a mundane reason.

Regards, Richard, and Happy New Year to you!

Sally
12-29-2010, 09:21 AM
For the sake of the comment only, which some may find interesting, allow me to follow the possibility a little?

"George Hutchinson" is either...

a) a Metropolitan policeman wearing plain clothes
b) a police informant
c) a vigilance member
d) a private detective

Hi Phil.

You have an intriguing set of possibilities here, in my view. For what it's worth, I think if Hutchinson had been a or b we would need to explain why his activities were ever made public in the first place. And if a or b, why would Hutchinson have spoken to the press on the 13th?

I can see it as more plausible if he was c or d, although if d, what was he doing on Dorset Street? Would him being d imply that somebody had paid him to be there? If so, who?

Most likely perhaps is if he was c, a vigilance member. This is an interesting possibility which I would like to think about further.

Thank you, Phil, for putting forward your ideas, most intriguing.

Regards

Sally

jason_c
12-29-2010, 11:22 AM
Hi Phil.

You have an intriguing set of possibilities here, in my view. For what it's worth, I think if Hutchinson had been a or b we would need to explain why his activities were ever made public in the first place. And if a or b, why would Hutchinson have spoken to the press on the 13th?

I can see it as more plausible if he was c or d, although if d, what was he doing on Dorset Street? Would him being d imply that somebody had paid him to be there? If so, who?

Most likely perhaps is if he was c, a vigilance member. This is an interesting possibility which I would like to think about further.

Thank you, Phil, for putting forward your ideas, most intriguing.

Regards

Sally

Some interesting suggestions Phil. Your idea that he may have been a member of a vigilance group jumped out at me.

Even if he wasnt a member, we are told the area was teeming with such individuals. Is it then surprising that Hutch briefly became a private sleuth(after witnessing a suspicious occurence) for half an hour during a period when 100's of such characters watching the area.

Hatchett
12-29-2010, 12:05 PM
Hello Sally and Jason C.

It is an interesting theory. But a point against it as far as I can see is that if he had been a member of a Vigilance Committee then surelly he would have told the police at his interview and it would have been put in his statement. Also, you would have thought that he would have mentioned that to the press. Another edge to his publicity.

Also you would have thought that Abberline would have been interested in that.

Dont want to put a damper on things, but just alternative thinking.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

babybird67
12-29-2010, 12:35 PM
Hi Babybird,
I think your signature quote is most profound.

"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."

Happy New Years everybody... and don't drink moonshine unless you know where it came from.

absolutely Hunter....but forgiveness doesn't mean rolling over and letting them abuse you and fling unchallenged and offensive sexist comments at you. Of course I forgive Tom his ignorance. It's not his fault he was dragged up without being taught the common courtesies of social intercourse with women is it?

Happy new year to you too.

Hatchett
12-29-2010, 12:44 PM
Bravo Baby Bird!

Have a Great New Year.

x

babybird67
12-29-2010, 12:58 PM
that Hutch got the day wrong. Too many different and unusual things happened on that day for him to mistake it...the trek back from Romford, the fact that it was the Lord Mayor's Day, the unsual sighting and following of the unusual suspect etc. It is crazy to suggest he could have been mistaken, especially if you are basing that on a misinterpretation, wilful or otherwise, of a weather report.

Everybody knows the night was one of showers and dry spells. That has been known for a long time. Therefore nothing has changed. There's no new information to hang a new theory on. That doesn't prevent anyone from suggesting new theories, however it does not mean those new theories have to be lauded as if they are as worthy as other theories which have evidence behind them to back them up.

I cannot see one single piece of evidence which suggests Hutch was mistaken in the day, nor that anyone believed that Hutch was mistaken about the day at the time he gave his statement. That a retired officer writing his recollections of events long past might suggest it as one possible reason for the anomalies in the statement is not evidence that this was true; it is just as likely that Hutch was lying about aspects of his statement, but that he was at Miller's Court on that night.

I find Ben's argument positing Hutch as potential killer, with the excellent examples of the modern phenomenon of such killers inserting themselves into the investigations, a very credible counter theory. And one given with no liberties taken with primary sources either! Well done Ben.

babybird67
12-29-2010, 12:59 PM
Bravo Baby Bird!

Have a Great New Year.

x


and to you Hatchett!

Sally
12-29-2010, 01:21 PM
Hi Hatchett.

It is an interesting theory. But a point against it as far as I can see is that if he had been a member of a Vigilance Committee then surelly he would have told the police at his interview

Yes, that seems reasonable.

and it would have been put in his statement.

I don't know about that. Why?

Also, you would have thought that he would have mentioned that to the press. Another edge to his publicity.

Not sure about that, either. He might have done - equally, perhaps he preferred to keep that part of his life private. Not much point in being an undercover sort if everyone knows who you are, is there? The paper mentioned by Phil in his post does have a bit of a cloak and dagger approach, I think - which is perhaps the style of the journalist and no more - or perhaps not.

Also you would have thought that Abberline would have been interested in that.

How do we know he wasn't?

Dont want to put a damper on things, but just alternative thinking.

Always interesting. I'm not entirely convinced Hutchinson was part of a vigilance committee, but I think the idea deserves proper consideration, which I will try to give.

Regards

Sally

Hatchett
12-29-2010, 01:31 PM
Hello Baby Bird

I agree with what you are saying. You could have added that the day was more memorable because it was the day of a very notorious and brutal murder. It is quite conceivable that the whole of the East End would have remembered what they were doing on that day. Much the same as everyone used to say that they could remember what they were doing on the day that President Kennedy was assassinated.

This would have been doubly memorable for Hutchinson because, if he is to be believed, he had known the victim personally for three years.
Ben’s theory is plausible. It is well thought out, and explained. Although it is not a theory that I personally hold, it does rely on facts that are known at the present.

So it is an interesting view.

Best wishes to all for the New Year.
Hatchett.

Hatchett
12-29-2010, 01:36 PM
Hello Sally,

I was replying to the idea that Hutchinson was part of a Vigilance group.

If he was an "undercover sort" I find it doubtful that he would give an interview to the press. Certainly, if he was a an "uncover sort" employed by the police force he would not have been allowed to.

Anything he said at his interview would have had to have been included in his statement. If it is not there it is reasonable to assume that he did not say it.

There is a note from Abberline concerning his views on Hutchinson's honesty. Nowhere in that does he mention that he was a meber of a Vigilance group or an uncover agent.

Best wishes.
Hatchett.

Hatchett
12-29-2010, 02:30 PM
Hi Sally,

Just one other point. If Hutchinson's motive for giving his story to the press was either money or fame, then it would be reasonable to assume that anything that could either have been added to his story or to his pedigree Hutchinson would have grabbed at. Being a member of a Vigilance committee I believe woud have been one of those things.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

The Good Michael
12-29-2010, 02:53 PM
If Hutchinson's motive for giving his story to the press was either money or fame, then it would be reasonable to assume that anything that could either have been added to his story or to his pedigree Hutchinson would have grabbed at. Being a member of a Vigilance committee I believe woud have been one of those things.



A young man like Hutchinson, down on his luck, not yet a plumber, and with no easy means of money in sight, would have wanted the quick buck. He would have wanted easy money that required no long-term commitment. His story apparently provided him with that easy money and a few days later, he's forgotten, exactly what a young man of the streets would have wanted. Vigilance committees wouldn't even have been a concept for such as he.

Cheers,

Mike

Ben
12-29-2010, 03:15 PM
Thanks for the kind compliments on the article, Jen and Hatchett. Much appreciated!

It was suggested by Garry Wroe in his book that Hutchinson may have attended the odd Vigilance Committee meeting, and I consider it a reasonable possibility myself. Less convincing, however, is the more recent suggestion that he may have been in cahoots with the police in the capacity of a plain clothes detective. Abberline's report on the Hutchinson issue was intended as an internal police document only, to be read by his superiors. He would not, therefore, have withheld the detail that Hutchinson was one of theirs, if indeed he was.

A young man like Hutchinson, down on his luck, not yet a plumber

Not ever a plumber, Mike, and it's not "apparent" that he received any money.

All the best,
Ben

Garry Wroe
12-29-2010, 03:33 PM
With respect, Ben, I suggested that the killer might have attended Vigilance Committee meetings.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Tom_Wescott
12-29-2010, 05:41 PM
Hi Garry. Based on what Ben wrote in his essay and what you yourself just said, you two really should come over to the Le Grand side. It just makes more sense. :)

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

Ben
12-29-2010, 06:48 PM
I've just had another look, and you're quite right, Garry. Apologies for that.

Hi Tom,

Come to think if it, I know of no evidence that Hutchinson or Le Grand were ever seen together. Time to scrutinise the latter's handwriting! ;)

All the best,
Ben

Tom_Wescott
12-29-2010, 07:58 PM
Come to think if it, I know of no evidence that Hutchinson or Le Grand were ever seen together. Time to scrutinise the latter's handwriting!

This is quite true, but that's not what I meant. I meant dump Hutch all together and back a real suspect! LOL. The idea that Hutch worked for Le Grand is enticing and highly feasible since Le Grand hired men like him, but it's backed by absolutely zero evidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott