Tweet
(Dear All, I hope I'll be forgiven the length, but after all, I haven't been posting anything here in a while)
In his thought-provoking article ‘The Silence of Violence: A Witness to the Martha Tabram Murder Exposed’ [1], written for the Journal of the Whitechapel Society and re-posted on casebook.org, author Tom Wescott makes a case for Francis Hewitt, the superintendent of George Yard Buildings at the time of the Tabram murder, and his wife possibly having heard the murder, and having subsequently maintained to have heard nothing in order to avoid being branded as cowards and possible consequences for Mr. Hewitt’s position.
I must begin by stating that my aim is not to disprove him. His arguments are, mostly, sound enough, and indeed I can very much read the behaviour of the Hewitts the same way he does. Hence my arguments are not so much meant as outright disagreement, but to give alternative interpretation a say, which may serve to allow the possibility of the Hewitts having been sincere. In a sense I’ll act as the Hewitt’s attorney pro defunctis.
To quickly sum up: the door to the living quarters of the Hewitts was 12 feet away from the spot on which Martha Tabram was murdered. The Hewitts stated that they had heard ‘no voices nor sounds of struggle.’
Mr. Wescott quotes The Echo reporting that -
‘the police authorities regard as little short of marvellous the fact that no dweller in this model block heard any disturbance.’ [2]
- and suggests that one might conclude that the police may have viewed Mr. Hewitt’s claim as suspicious and hard to believe. He notes that the two of them had not been called as witnesses at the subsequent inquest, possibly as a result of being deemed unreliable witnesses.
He sees revealing contradictions in statements made by the couple, first in the one made by Mrs. Hewitt’s to The Echo:
‘Mrs. Hewitt remarked that early in the evening she had heard a single cry of 'Murder!' It echoed through the building, but did not emanate from there. 'But,' explained Mr. Hewitt and Mrs. Hewitt in a breath, 'the district round here is rather rough, and cries of 'Murder!' are of frequent, if not nightly, occurrence in the district.’[3]
Second in Mr. Hewitt’s to The Morning Advertiser:
‘It is my belief that the poor creature crept up the staircase, that she was accompanied by a man, that a quarrel took place, and that he then stabbed her.’[4]
My first point may be a little thin, because it lacks, I admit openly, information on my behalf, and might be regarded as a question rather.
Mr. Wescott writes, ‘By his own measurements, the room occupied by Mr. Hewitt and his wife rested exactly 12 feet from the spot where Tabram was murdered’, the information being taken from the same Echo-article Mrs. Hewitt’s words were quoted in.
I have conducted a cursory search for information regarding the interior architecture of George Yard Buildings and found nothing, so my question to the readers would be whether any such information exists and where it could be obtained. The wording in the sentence above is ‘the room’. Without the information about the lodgings of the Hewitts I don’t know whether they indeed consisted of only one room that was, as Mr. Wescott put it, only separated from the landing by a door. I don’t know whether there wasn’t perhaps another room in between, perhaps a kitchen.
But whether there was or not, I’d like to share an anecdote about sleep.
Many years ago, a summer morning in the heart of Prague, I’d ended a memorable night outdoors on Staroměstské náměstí, the Old Town Square, on the steps of the Jan Hus monument. Without wanting I’d fallen asleep for a short while. I woke up to the sound of a big band right next to me – ending a song. I clearly recall the player with the big cymbals being closest to me, literally only a few feet away.
Admittedly I had a little bit of drink the previous night. If I’m perfectly honest, it was a little bit more. Still. A big band. Ending a song. With the cymbals right next to me. I remember seeing some amusement in the player’s eyes.
People can sleep through quite some noise. In fact, it is actually often harder to wake someone from, say, a deep sleep phase than one would imagine.
At least for me it is therefore not at all impossible that the Hewitts, of which at least Mr. Hewitt had an occupation, might indeed not have woken at these early morning hours, during which we might allow them the benefit of the doubt as to whether they had been asleep.
Which brings us to the noise made in the course of the murder.
Without wanting to expand this reply to my own hypothesis about what had occurred on this landing, there’s is good cause to decide for the wound to the heart as having been delivered first. To my mind this has very much to do with the reason why the murderer carried 2 blades in the first place – but this deserves it’s own essay.
Suffice to say for now, if we allow us to consider the wound to the heart as having been the first, the struggle would have been considerably shorter than in the alternative version of this wound having been the final one. If we also give some attention to the possibility that Martha and her murderer did not arrive together, of the perpetrator finding her asleep, but also if not (which is to my mind more plausible), then we’ve arrived at the possibility of a minimum of noise.
A few observations in regards to Mrs. Hewitt’s statement to The Echo, which clearly had been the result of an interview of the two of them together. It must be noted that the excerpt is written in form of a dialogue-including narrative, we’re reading the words of the reporter recounting a conversation, not purely a word-for-word recording of Mrs. Hewitt’s words.
It is quite feasible that the Echo’s author shared Mr. Wescott’s disbelief about the Hewitt’s apparent healthy sleep.
‘ “But,' explained Mr. Hewitt and Mrs. Hewitt in a breath, “the district round here is rather rough, and cries of 'Murder!' are of frequent, if not nightly, occurrence in the district.” ‘
Keep in mind, it’s the Echo’s author speaking here, and the wording ‘explained Mr. Hewitt and Mrs. Hewitt in a breath’ might have expressed this suspicion more intentionally rather than inadvertently. We don’t know in what manner the Hewitts really made this remark.
In fact, they would have had no cause for being nervous in the context of the whole statement, because much more relevant is Mrs Hewitt remarking ‘that early in the evening she had heard a single cry of “Murder!” ‘.
‘Early in the evening’ is still a substantial number of hours before the murder occurred. It’s a time in which I have no trouble imagining the couple still awake, as opposed to probably asleep at the time of the murder. ‘Early in the evening’ does therefore not connect with the murder at all. It also can sufficiently explain how they could hear the cry from the streets, as they'd been awake, but nothing during the early morning hours, when they'd been probably asleep.
If I’d be asked to speculate why Mrs. Hewitt made this remark at all, I could imagine – and this is really wild speculation - that, aside from the nudging on behalf of an eager reporter, she might at that point have been ill- or not informed about the actual time of the murder; we can’t know about how well-informed she had been, even with the interview having been conducted a week later.
The remark itself, finally, rings a foreshadowing bell, reminding us of the two independent witnesses later, who stated that they had heard a similar cry of ‘Murder!’ at a time that was much more approximate to the possible hour in which Mary Kelly was murdered than Mrs. Hewitt’s early evening was to the time of Tabram’s death.
The option that the Hewitts did hear the murder touches on a problem that’ll probably never leave us: the witness to a crime who decides to keep her/himself out, and by the decision of staying inactive commits an action that is of influence on the run of events just as much as physically defending the victim would be.
It may very well be the case that the police felt the same at the time, and it may very well be that they met the Hewitt’s statement with disbelief. My own disbelief here concerns the Hewitts not being called as witness to the inquest as a direct result of the police’s suspicion of the couple not telling the truth.
It is hard to believe that with the Hewitts stating that they’d heard nothing they would have been considered as witnesses for the inquest at all, because essentially they would have had nothing to say. They wouldn’t have been witnesses, no matter what anyone believed. It would have been the shortest testimony possible, and it would have still cost time and money.
Finally Mr. Hewitt’s words to The Morning Advertiser, his ‘theory’.
I agree, this can very much read like a memory.
But for our consideration:
if you ask people surrounding an incident, a crime, a murder, if you ask bystanders and neighbours for their input, more people than not will offer their personal opinion, often without prompting, and regardless of whether they have in fact any true knowledge, the more so when asked, as it could have been the case with the respective reporter with The Morning Adviser, ‘so what do you think happened?’
Mr. Hewitt’s stated opinion of what had occurred, perhaps in form of a reply to such a question, is actually fairly consistent with what I’d expect to hear from many people at the time. The alternative of a murderer having committed his act without any form of acquaintance with the victim, e.g. that between a woman soliciting and her john, is a deal more unsettling. A death as a result of a disagreement was, as far as we can tell, more common, and it would thus have been a variation coming to the mind easier.
We must also keep in mind that we had a man talking to the press, his voice about to be heard by the public. Which can, and often does, serve as a further incitement for presenting A Theory.
As I said, none of any of what I’ve written above is to mean that Tom Wescott is wrong. I can still follow his interpretation as well as I can follow these alternatives. My objections are basically what I would be saying if the Hewitts would be in court, with me as their lawyer.
The prosecutor may have the stand.
References:
[1] http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...-violence.html
[2] The Echo, August 13th, 1888, as per Wescott
[3] ibid.
[4] Morning Advertiser, August 8th, 1888, as per Wescott
In his thought-provoking article ‘The Silence of Violence: A Witness to the Martha Tabram Murder Exposed’ [1], written for the Journal of the Whitechapel Society and re-posted on casebook.org, author Tom Wescott makes a case for Francis Hewitt, the superintendent of George Yard Buildings at the time of the Tabram murder, and his wife possibly having heard the murder, and having subsequently maintained to have heard nothing in order to avoid being branded as cowards and possible consequences for Mr. Hewitt’s position.
I must begin by stating that my aim is not to disprove him. His arguments are, mostly, sound enough, and indeed I can very much read the behaviour of the Hewitts the same way he does. Hence my arguments are not so much meant as outright disagreement, but to give alternative interpretation a say, which may serve to allow the possibility of the Hewitts having been sincere. In a sense I’ll act as the Hewitt’s attorney pro defunctis.
To quickly sum up: the door to the living quarters of the Hewitts was 12 feet away from the spot on which Martha Tabram was murdered. The Hewitts stated that they had heard ‘no voices nor sounds of struggle.’
Mr. Wescott quotes The Echo reporting that -
‘the police authorities regard as little short of marvellous the fact that no dweller in this model block heard any disturbance.’ [2]
- and suggests that one might conclude that the police may have viewed Mr. Hewitt’s claim as suspicious and hard to believe. He notes that the two of them had not been called as witnesses at the subsequent inquest, possibly as a result of being deemed unreliable witnesses.
He sees revealing contradictions in statements made by the couple, first in the one made by Mrs. Hewitt’s to The Echo:
‘Mrs. Hewitt remarked that early in the evening she had heard a single cry of 'Murder!' It echoed through the building, but did not emanate from there. 'But,' explained Mr. Hewitt and Mrs. Hewitt in a breath, 'the district round here is rather rough, and cries of 'Murder!' are of frequent, if not nightly, occurrence in the district.’[3]
Second in Mr. Hewitt’s to The Morning Advertiser:
‘It is my belief that the poor creature crept up the staircase, that she was accompanied by a man, that a quarrel took place, and that he then stabbed her.’[4]
My first point may be a little thin, because it lacks, I admit openly, information on my behalf, and might be regarded as a question rather.
Mr. Wescott writes, ‘By his own measurements, the room occupied by Mr. Hewitt and his wife rested exactly 12 feet from the spot where Tabram was murdered’, the information being taken from the same Echo-article Mrs. Hewitt’s words were quoted in.
I have conducted a cursory search for information regarding the interior architecture of George Yard Buildings and found nothing, so my question to the readers would be whether any such information exists and where it could be obtained. The wording in the sentence above is ‘the room’. Without the information about the lodgings of the Hewitts I don’t know whether they indeed consisted of only one room that was, as Mr. Wescott put it, only separated from the landing by a door. I don’t know whether there wasn’t perhaps another room in between, perhaps a kitchen.
But whether there was or not, I’d like to share an anecdote about sleep.
Many years ago, a summer morning in the heart of Prague, I’d ended a memorable night outdoors on Staroměstské náměstí, the Old Town Square, on the steps of the Jan Hus monument. Without wanting I’d fallen asleep for a short while. I woke up to the sound of a big band right next to me – ending a song. I clearly recall the player with the big cymbals being closest to me, literally only a few feet away.
Admittedly I had a little bit of drink the previous night. If I’m perfectly honest, it was a little bit more. Still. A big band. Ending a song. With the cymbals right next to me. I remember seeing some amusement in the player’s eyes.
People can sleep through quite some noise. In fact, it is actually often harder to wake someone from, say, a deep sleep phase than one would imagine.
At least for me it is therefore not at all impossible that the Hewitts, of which at least Mr. Hewitt had an occupation, might indeed not have woken at these early morning hours, during which we might allow them the benefit of the doubt as to whether they had been asleep.
Which brings us to the noise made in the course of the murder.
Without wanting to expand this reply to my own hypothesis about what had occurred on this landing, there’s is good cause to decide for the wound to the heart as having been delivered first. To my mind this has very much to do with the reason why the murderer carried 2 blades in the first place – but this deserves it’s own essay.
Suffice to say for now, if we allow us to consider the wound to the heart as having been the first, the struggle would have been considerably shorter than in the alternative version of this wound having been the final one. If we also give some attention to the possibility that Martha and her murderer did not arrive together, of the perpetrator finding her asleep, but also if not (which is to my mind more plausible), then we’ve arrived at the possibility of a minimum of noise.
A few observations in regards to Mrs. Hewitt’s statement to The Echo, which clearly had been the result of an interview of the two of them together. It must be noted that the excerpt is written in form of a dialogue-including narrative, we’re reading the words of the reporter recounting a conversation, not purely a word-for-word recording of Mrs. Hewitt’s words.
It is quite feasible that the Echo’s author shared Mr. Wescott’s disbelief about the Hewitt’s apparent healthy sleep.
‘ “But,' explained Mr. Hewitt and Mrs. Hewitt in a breath, “the district round here is rather rough, and cries of 'Murder!' are of frequent, if not nightly, occurrence in the district.” ‘
Keep in mind, it’s the Echo’s author speaking here, and the wording ‘explained Mr. Hewitt and Mrs. Hewitt in a breath’ might have expressed this suspicion more intentionally rather than inadvertently. We don’t know in what manner the Hewitts really made this remark.
In fact, they would have had no cause for being nervous in the context of the whole statement, because much more relevant is Mrs Hewitt remarking ‘that early in the evening she had heard a single cry of “Murder!” ‘.
‘Early in the evening’ is still a substantial number of hours before the murder occurred. It’s a time in which I have no trouble imagining the couple still awake, as opposed to probably asleep at the time of the murder. ‘Early in the evening’ does therefore not connect with the murder at all. It also can sufficiently explain how they could hear the cry from the streets, as they'd been awake, but nothing during the early morning hours, when they'd been probably asleep.
If I’d be asked to speculate why Mrs. Hewitt made this remark at all, I could imagine – and this is really wild speculation - that, aside from the nudging on behalf of an eager reporter, she might at that point have been ill- or not informed about the actual time of the murder; we can’t know about how well-informed she had been, even with the interview having been conducted a week later.
The remark itself, finally, rings a foreshadowing bell, reminding us of the two independent witnesses later, who stated that they had heard a similar cry of ‘Murder!’ at a time that was much more approximate to the possible hour in which Mary Kelly was murdered than Mrs. Hewitt’s early evening was to the time of Tabram’s death.
The option that the Hewitts did hear the murder touches on a problem that’ll probably never leave us: the witness to a crime who decides to keep her/himself out, and by the decision of staying inactive commits an action that is of influence on the run of events just as much as physically defending the victim would be.
It may very well be the case that the police felt the same at the time, and it may very well be that they met the Hewitt’s statement with disbelief. My own disbelief here concerns the Hewitts not being called as witness to the inquest as a direct result of the police’s suspicion of the couple not telling the truth.
It is hard to believe that with the Hewitts stating that they’d heard nothing they would have been considered as witnesses for the inquest at all, because essentially they would have had nothing to say. They wouldn’t have been witnesses, no matter what anyone believed. It would have been the shortest testimony possible, and it would have still cost time and money.
Finally Mr. Hewitt’s words to The Morning Advertiser, his ‘theory’.
I agree, this can very much read like a memory.
But for our consideration:
if you ask people surrounding an incident, a crime, a murder, if you ask bystanders and neighbours for their input, more people than not will offer their personal opinion, often without prompting, and regardless of whether they have in fact any true knowledge, the more so when asked, as it could have been the case with the respective reporter with The Morning Adviser, ‘so what do you think happened?’
Mr. Hewitt’s stated opinion of what had occurred, perhaps in form of a reply to such a question, is actually fairly consistent with what I’d expect to hear from many people at the time. The alternative of a murderer having committed his act without any form of acquaintance with the victim, e.g. that between a woman soliciting and her john, is a deal more unsettling. A death as a result of a disagreement was, as far as we can tell, more common, and it would thus have been a variation coming to the mind easier.
We must also keep in mind that we had a man talking to the press, his voice about to be heard by the public. Which can, and often does, serve as a further incitement for presenting A Theory.
As I said, none of any of what I’ve written above is to mean that Tom Wescott is wrong. I can still follow his interpretation as well as I can follow these alternatives. My objections are basically what I would be saying if the Hewitts would be in court, with me as their lawyer.
The prosecutor may have the stand.
References:
[1] http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...-violence.html
[2] The Echo, August 13th, 1888, as per Wescott
[3] ibid.
[4] Morning Advertiser, August 8th, 1888, as per Wescott
Comment