Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[The Good Michael]

That is how one must go about things, Ruby. Not backwards.

Actually, how suspectology works is that one must choose someone they think did it and create facts around him. If a person is found guilty without concern for real evidence, it should be easy to create evidence in order to prove his guilt. This has been done with Maybrick, Topping, Eddy, Gull, and many others. I'm not sure Karen Trenouth did it this way, but she had her own methods.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

Has anyone tried to contact Fairclough yet ?

Apparently he is alive and living in Surrey, and working on a new book, so a letter through his publisher should do it.

[Rubyretro]

QUOTE]The bottom line here, Ruby, is that monitoring an archway into a court at 2.30 in the night is a lot more strange! But you have made your mind up that this is okay - since it "confirms" Hutchinson. Backwards, backwards[/QUOTE]

No Fisherman, I have made up my mind that was what the man was doing, because that is what the witness, Mrs Lewis, said he was doing.

I would also find it an extremely odd thing for a man to be monitering the entrance to the Court at 2.30am. However, in the light of the fact that a woman was murdered in her room shortly afterwards, in that same Court, his behaviour becomes rather more explicable.

[Ben]

'Maths' is actually unpopular among many British educators these days, but old habits die hard, and they seem to be stuck with it.

“Maths” is not “unpopular among many British educators these days”. I can’t think of anything more ridiculous: Oh, please free us from the constraints of that extra pesky “S”! I don’t think so. “Maths” is used in every school in the country. Nobody has ever had a problem with it, and to be honest, nobody really gives it much thought. We’ve always used the abbreviation “maths”, we’ve always been happy with “maths”, so “maths” it will continue to be around here.

Meanwhile, back on topic.

Hi Fisherman,

“I am a lot more surprised to see your complete faith in Fairclough´s total honesty, I must say! He would never, NEVER tamper with a quotation, sort of?”

I never accused Fairclough of dishonesty. Gullible, prone to sensationalist explanations, and clearly incautious with his interviewing techniques perhaps, but I would never accuse him of outright falsification of sources. The same cannot be said of the fuel behind that particular royal conspiracy bonfire that was Joseph Gorman Sickert, but he was not the author and would not have been responsible for the Toppy-related content in the appendices of the book. When it emerged that Sickert had invented many of the claims behind the theory, Fairclough effectively disowned the book, if I understand correctly, at which point everything associated it should have been consigned to ripperological oblivion.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

There is “emphatically” no evidence that Abberline ever connected Hutchinson with the wideawake man, but there are compelling reasons for concluding that he didn’t. It is however, astonishingly obvious that Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson were one and the same. Here again is the crucial evidence for this non-coincidence:

Lewis:

“He was not tall - but stout - had on a black wideawake hat…the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out”

Hutchinson:

“I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out, they did not so I went away.”

Hutchinson claimed to have been standing in that vicinity from approximately 2:15am to 3.00am, and Lewis saw her man standing in the same vicinity at 2:30am.

It is very obvious that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis.

No “preconceptions” are required to observe and acknowledge such a glaringly obvious evidential correlation.

The wideawake man was observed to have been “waiting for someone to come out” which is precisely the reason Hutchinson later gave for his continued surveillance of the entrance to Miller’s Court. If you examine the two quotes above, you can see how identical the wording is. Those of you with a determination to argue unconvincingly that the coincidence is only a minor one will try to get round this near-identical wording by suggesting that Lewis formed a mistaken impression of her loiterer’s motivation for monitoring the court entrance, but in so arguing, you’re cornering yourselves into yet another striking coincidence; that when Lewis only thought she detected of her loiterer that he was “waiting for someone to come out” of Miller’s Court, someone actually was there for that very reason; that Lewis’ impression just accidentally coincided with Hutchinson’s professed reason for loitering there.

This is, of course, complete nonsense, and a rather futile resistance to the obvious: that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis.

Clearly, there must have been some aspect of the loiterer’s behaviour that conveyed the impression that he was interested in the court entrance. It doesn’t take too great a stretch of the imagination to fathom that there are clear and easy ways for someone standing outside Crossinghams to communicate “watching or waiting for someone” with his body language, just as there are very easy ways of communicating a lack of interest in the court. Lewis just happened to register the former with regard to the wideawake man, which ties in perfectly with Hutchinson's account of his reason for standing there.

It is very clear from Dew’s speculations that he thought both Maxwell and Hutchinson were confused as to time and date. He never gave any indication that either of them had been confused as to identity. I think it likely that Maxwell may have confused the identity rather than the date, chiefly because I continue to struggle with “date-confusion” as a plausible explanation for the testimony of errant witnesses.

Once again, Hutchinson’s failure to mention Lewis was probably a deliberate attempt to delay or prevent the revelation that it was her evidence that prompted him to come forward and attempt to legitimise his presence near a crime scene, and “walking around all night” is an implausible claim whatever the weather. The fact that he claimed to have done so in miserable weather conditions on top of that almighty hoof from Romford merely increases that sense of implausibility and lends considerable weight to the premise that he lied about it. This is far less complicated and infinitely more common than “date confusion” if you ask me.

I think Garry makes considerable sense in his analysis of Dew’s writings, and it now seems reasonable to me that according to Dew, Hutchinson was confused as to time, rather than being a full 24 hours out, which is far less plausible. Dew wrote his memoirs 50 years after Hutchinson gave his statement, and it is very unlikely that he would have remembered the key particulars of Hutchinson’s account, especially not the embellishments and additions that crept into press versions of his evidence.

The detail concerning his alleged registering of the time according to the St Mary’s clock did not appear in his police statement, but only some of the newspapers. Not even the Times recorded that particular detail. It is true that most press versions offer the detail that the Christ Church clock struck three when he left the vicinity, but again, there is nothing stated about this in Hutchinson’s police statement. To assert that Dew must have observed and remembered these press-recorded clock episodes is therefore optimistic in the extreme. It is even less likely that Dew was ever familiar with the Victoria Home entry guidelines, let alone 50 years after the murders. Given the extent of Dew’s muddled confusion revealed elsewhere in his memoirs, it is even less likely that he committed details such as these to his memory.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ruby, on my suggestions for an occupation for Lewis´ loiterer:

"I would find it a very strange thing to do."

The bottom line here, Ruby, is that monitoring an archway into a court at 2.30 in the night is a lot more strange! But you have made your mind up that this is okay - since it "confirms" Hutchinson. Backwards, backwards ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Let us look at your various scenarios Fisherman :

A man stands outside a lodginghouse oppoite the opening into a court where prostitution thrives in an East end street at 2.30 on a rainy and windy night in November 1888. Let´s say that this is what we know, and nothing else.

I would find it a very strange thing to do.
At that hour, and in that weather, he would have a slim chance that a prostitute that enjoyed the luxury of being able to shelter of her own room,
would come out to walk the streets.
He might save himself a very long, boring and uncomfortable wait, by either
going directly up the court to her room and knocking on her door or calling out.
Alternatively he might go to somewhere like St Botolph's church and find a very poor and desperate streetwalker.
Or he might go to a lodging house kitchen and proposition a poor woman directly.

Next up: He has just left the lodginghouse and waits for the rain to taper off.

To go where exactly ? Since everywhere is shut.

Next bid: He is waiting for someone.

Apparently someone in the Court ! We can surmise this is the case as this was the direction in which he was watching.

QUOTE] Next: He needed a breath of fresh air.

Well unless all that 'background noise' was the result of a wild party in Crossinghams, it is unlikely, given the weather and the hour, that he would go out to stand in the rain.

Next: He was passing down the street, and found shelter from the rain in the doorway.

Not bad. still Mrs Lewis said that he looking down the Court as if waiting for someone.

You see, I can carry on for quite some time before I reach to the suggestion that he was standing there in order to be able to observe the opening into the court

,

I could carry on for quite sometime before I found a PLAUSIBLE reason to
think that he was doing anything other than observing the entrance to the Court -and not for any logical reason.

[Fisherman]

May I just add, Ruby, that you are once again doing things backwards here. You try to establish that since the loiterer must have been Hutchinson and since Hutchinson monitored the court, then by reasoning, so must the loiterer have done too.

Now, try and turn things around and look at it in a manner with no preconceptions. A man stands outside a lodginghouse oppoite the opening into a court where prostitution thrives in an East end street at 2.30 on a rainy and windy night in November 1888. Let´s say that this is what we know, and nothing else.

Why would he be standing there? Which explanations would be the best ones?

That is how one must go about things, Ruby. Not backwards. And in this case, I would say that the prostitution factor is an interesting one. My first guess would be that he may be possible to couple to that. Next up: He has just left the lodginghouse and waits for the rain to taper off. Next bid: He is waiting for someone. Next: He needed a breath of fresh air. Next: He was passing down the street, and found shelter from the rain in the doorway.

You see, I can carry on for quite some time before I reach to the suggestion that he was standing there in order to be able to observe the opening into the court, so that he could keep track of a couple in the court, should they excite it.

But you opt for not looking at all the possibilities. Worse, you try to ridicule the ones who take this trouble. To you, it is a certain thing that the man in question was monitoring the entrance - not because this is the more ordinary thing to do, but because you want it to tally with Hutchinson´s story! You take his testimony and use it to colour the loiterers role. It is not a very good way to go about it, since it leaves you unprepared for any other scenario than the one you have invested in. Sure enough, it keeps you happy since you get the correlation - but what use is that, if you are wrong?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I'm curious...what do you think that this man was waiting FOR at 2.30am on a rainy November night ?
Enjoying the view ? Basking in the feel of the cold droplets dripping down his neck ? Talking to himself ?"

Perhaps. Or maybe he had come from inside Crossingham´s and stood and waited for the rain to subside. Maybe he was a punter. Maybe he was waiting for somebody. It does not necessarily have to be the more ridiculous suggestions that are true.

"She was quite clear as to what he was doing"

Oh no - she was quite clear as to what she THOUGHT he was doing. That´s not the same.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I don't think the washing facilities were very private - so a blood splattered Hutchinson would be a bit of a give away I suspect.

Whoever the Ripper was he was obviously not 'blood spattered' enough for it to be easily spotted at a glance.....he would not have been able to leave a
murder site and fade back into the street scene otherwise.

I'm sure that the washing facilities weren't private -one more reason why I can't imagine Toppy living in such a place from choice.

[Rubyretro]

Very many lonely men will have stood outside Crossinghams over the years; thousands of them, I would think. To rule out that one such man - not Hutchinson - could have stood there for a minute or two at around 2.30 on the morning of the 9:th is nonsensical. I think you will admit this.

I'm curious...what do you think that this man was waiting FOR at 2.30am on a rainy November night ?
Enjoying the view ? Basking in the feel of the cold droplets dripping down his neck ? Talking to himself ?

And after that, what do we have? A perceived gaze towards the other side of the street, that´s all. A very good case can be made for Lewis not taking too good a look at her man

-

I agree that it is perfectly understandable that Mrs Lewis would not look at 'the lurker' when she drew level with him but want to get past as quickly as possible......but I'm pretty certain that seeing him from a distance she would watch him most particularly to see if he posed a threat to her or not.

She was quite clear as to what he was doing -the very same thing that Hutch claimed to be doing, and at the same time.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"In English, the noun mathematics takes singular verb forms. It is often shortened to maths or, in English-speaking North America, math.

I only commented on this in an earlier post because I was surprised to hear a Swede using the Americanized version."

Then you are not aware that Swedes are allowed to use American English as well as British English. In our school books, it says that color is as fine as colour.
Apparently I was right. And you. In a sense.

"the author’s "agenda" didn’t enter into the equation when it came to quotes directly attributed to Toppy by Reg, and I’m surprised to see you keep missing this distinction."

I am a lot more surprised to see your complete faith in Fairclough´s total honesty, I must say! He would never, NEVER tamper with a quotation, sort of?

"In all seriousness, though, it might be an idea if those sorts of accusations were kept to a minimum."

If we can arrive at a stance where it is not suggested, for example, that researchers in an effort to get people off their backs resort to outright lying, it would help immensely. I have said myself, and will stand by it, that I would much prefer a sane discussion to slights directed at various posters. It had me called sanctimonious (and yes, I have done my share of scorning at times), but that does not bother me a bit - I am of the same meaning anyway.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

" if, as Lechmere has argued, Fish, Hutchinson had no prior knowledge of the Sarah Lewis revelations, this is overwhelmingly the most logical and common sense conclusion."

It is a conclusion that most people - and that emphatically includes Abberline, since he would have seen the possible connection - would be prepared to draw. But there is little sense in not acknowledging that the similarities involved do not necessarily amount to very much! Very many lonely men will have stood outside Crossinghams over the years; thousands of them, I would think. To rule out that one such man - not Hutchinson - could have stood there for a minute or two at around 2.30 on the morning of the 9:th is nonsensical. I think you will admit this. And after that, what do we have? A perceived gaze towards the other side of the street, that´s all. A very good case can be made for Lewis not taking too good a look at her man - if she HAD, then why would she not be able to describe one single feature about him at the police interview? What if she simply saw him standing outside Crossingham´s, and when she turned into the archway, she had a nasty feeling that she could feel his gaze tickling in her back? She was a lone woman in the dead of night, and may have felt uneasy about the man´s presence - after all, it was a time when a seemingly mad killer stalked women. Maybe that was all there was to it.

"Dew assumed Hutchinson to have been an honest witness"

Apparently, yes. And so did Abberline. And without wishing to sound naïve, that tells us something.

"He leaves no room for doubting his belief that Carrie Maxwell was mistaken over the date, as witness, ‘[i]f the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.’"

That´s how I read it before too, Garry. But the implication that she must have been wrong on the dates is actually NOT there. Lechmere is correct on that score. What Dew is saying here is simply that Kelly could not have been alive at eight. From that, however, it does not follow that Maxwell therefore must have been wrong on the day - she could just as easily have been wrong on person! Try and read it that way, and you will see that it works! Maxwell said she saw Kelly at eight - Kelly must have been dead at eight - therefore Maxwell must have been mistaken about seeing Kelly at that hour - BUT SHE MAY HAVE SEEN SOMEBODY ELSE THAT SHE MISTOOK FOR KELLY!

See what I mean? And that may be why Dew stated that eminent people like Maxwell may be mistaken, NOT NECESSARILY AS TO PERSON (like Maxwell was) BUT SOMETIMES AS TO TIME (like Hutchinson).

I had major problems scaling that wall, but once I saw the relevance in Lechmere´s view, it was easy. Now, there is no way to tell for certain if Dew meant that Maxwell was wrong on person OR on date, but my hunch is that she mistook persons. I think that is what Dew tries to tell us (he could have been clearer, mind you!)

"if the medicos were unable to specify a precise time of death, there was no possibility that Hutchinson’s alleged 2:00am encounter with Kelly was discounted on the basis of the available forensic evidence. No possibility whatsoever. Accordingly, we are left with but one alternative – Dew believed Hutchinson to have been mistaken over the timing of the Kelly encounter, not the date."

Not agreed, I´m afraid! The failure to mention Lewis speaks a very clear language here, as does the walking the streets all night in spite of the hard rain. And other things too may and would have been dug up that made the police realize that Hutch was off on the days. Just like you say, the time he was there would not have discounted his evidence as such in relation to the time of death -but other things would have taken care of that, I believe.

"The evidence has been there all along: ‘Was the man in the billycock hat Jack the Ripper? In spite of contradictory evidence which came to light later, and in spite of a departure from his method of swift and sudden attack, I think he was, always providing Mary Cox was correct in what she said.’

So there it is. Dew believed Blotchy to have been Kelly’s killer."

Yes, it is perfectly clear that he did. And?

"And since Kelly and Blotchy entered Kelly’s room shortly before midnight, Hutchinson could not have seen Kelly touting for business two hours later."

Correct, Garry. Spot on - he definitely could not. It is a very good point.

"In other words, Dew believed that Hutchinson’s Kelly encounter occurred significantly earlier than midnight."

No, no, no - Dew KNEW, just like we do, that Hutch had passed the clock he mentioned as it marked the two o clock time. Dew knew, just like we do, that if Hutch had been there before midnight, he would have been able to bed down at the Victoria Home. And Dew clearly told us that he had no wish to reflect on either witness, not Maxwell and not Hutchinson. Just like you say, "Dew assumed Hutchinson to have been an honest witness", and an honest witness would not lie about the times, would he?
So what are you suggesting? That he heard the clock strike eleven, but mistook it for two? The pubs would have been open at that time, Garry. The whole of Whitechapel would still have been bustling. He would not have mistaken that for the dead of night, would he? No, he would have followed what was seemingly his original plan and gone to his lodgings, would he not?

Dew´s belief, Garry, was thus not that Hutch was a few hours off. He was there on Thursday, not Friday - THAT´S what Dew banked on!

"So it turns out that you were right all along, Fish. According to Dew’s version of events, Hutchinson didn’t meet Kelly in the early hours of 9 November, he met her late on the eighth."

Garry, you are so close now, so don´t stop going! Although I am immensely grateful for your words, I have actually never suggested that Hutch was there late on the 8:th, for that would make no sense. I have said that he would have been there on the morning of the 8:th, listening to the clock striking two, taking in the deserted Whitechapel streets, realizing that he had missed cerfew on the Victoria Home. George Hutchinson was dropped because the police subsequently realized this, and once we accept this, all the bits and pieces fall in place.


The best, Garry!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

So I checked on Google, and found 566 000 hits for "do the maths" and 2 880 000 for "do the math".

Of course 'do the math' is the preferred construction as 'math' is a logical abbreviation for mathematics. 'Maths' is actually unpopular among many British educators these days, but old habits die hard, and they seem to be stuck with it.

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

No intellectual gymnastics required, Ben. The issue is beyond dispute. Or so you'd think ...