Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi Fleetwood!

As I have stated before, you cannot be asked to come up with a positive identification on just about any grounds, and we do not know what quality the Petticoat Lane sighting was off. If, however, Hutchinson was really sure about his man, then the wording "I fancied I saw him ..." speaks to me about a poor quality sighting.

Moreover, if the police really had succeeded to take Hutchison´s story apart - why is it that he figures in Dew´s book fifty years later, in a description that tells us that the only explanation to things is that Hutchinson got the dates wrong? If the police was of the meaning that he was just a timewaster, why is he not just dropped by Dew as one such? Why was he not so totally written off that he could join Violenia and Packer in not being mentioned at all?
What Dew tells us is that the Hutchinson riddle seemingly was never cracked in a manner that satisfied all parts - the police would have had him down as being wrong on the dates, but the fact that Dew presses the point that it MUST BE so, instead of plainly telling us that it WAS so, clearly tells us that no agreement on it could be reached - and I find it quite reasonable to deduct that the failing part was Hutchinson himself.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman....

I've an open mind with regard to Hutchinson....the one thing I would pretty much not entertain is that he was JTR (based on known evidence)....I wouldn't discount at all that he had the right night and saw exactly what he said he saw. I certainly wouldn't discount that he didn't know anything about the Kelly event until a couple of days later......there's plenty of stuff I don't find out about that is common knowledge in other circles...even in this day of easy access to information....I mean I don't watch the television every day and miss certain conversations......all he had to do was not read the newspaper for a couple of days and not be in the vicinity of a conversation that presumably took all of 2 minutes to say: "another murder....terrible ain't it" (I'd imagine there was only so much to be said before changing the conversation).....and people don't walk up to people in the street and start discussing a murder....there's just been a murder here and I've discussed it with my family but no one has mentioned it in the pubs I've been in in the last few days...blokes in the pub tend to sit round and talk about football...women....have a laugh about anything....and certainly not talk about murder.

In terms of the sighting issue.....just an option really.....

For what it's worth...I would remember the one night I didn't have any sleep.....for example.....I lost my keys about 2 year back and ended up having to sleep outside.....even 2 years ago I know that that day was a Saturday night because I'd been invited to the races at Liverpool that day and was supposed to be meeting a mate on the way back from the same races...so due to my lifestyle it must have been a Saturday...plus....all the hotels were booked by Scandanavians and Dutch because Man Utd were playing the day after...so again it must have been a weekend night.....and my keys turned out to be at my girlfriends who brought them over at midday the following day and that day must have been a Sunday. So if Hutchinson is anything like me then he'd nail that day no problem....and if you believe his account of Astrakhan Man then he certainly appears to have a memory in good working order.

[harry]

For Hutchinson to have been one day out in his recollective memory,and it is a whole day that has to be taken into consideration,and he misremembers the 8/9 as the 7/8,he must have completely lost recollection of what happened on the 8/9,the day he speaks of in his statement.Put simply,if I beieve in three days time,the events of today actually occured yesterday,I must suffer a memory loss of today.How to explain that.A medical assessment migh suggest I suffered amnesia for 24 hours.Is that what happened.A complete blackout?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
So Hutch got the wrong day, or person?
Maxwell got the wrong day , or person?
What other witnesses in the entire case have the wrong time and place?
We [ including myself] are guilty of huge speculation, sometimes completly dismissing recorded evidence. just because our 21st century minds find it hard to adapt.
Initially, I would assume both Hutchinson, and the police, would have been confident that the alleged sighting took place
a] the date and time in question.
b] that person being the deseased.
Because that would have been paramount in any investigation pending.
But according to Fisherman Hutchinson was one day out... sorry fish, You were not present at that interview, and to suggest that scenerio is pure speculation of the highest grade.
Regards Richard.

[Tecs]

Hi,
So Hutch got the wrong day, or person?
Maxwell got the wrong day , or person?
What other witnesses in the entire case have the wrong time and place?
We [ including myself] are guilty of huge speculation, sometimes completly dismissing recorded evidence. just because our 21st century minds find it hard to adapt.
Initially, I would assume both Hutchinson, and the police, would have been confident that the alleged sighting took place
a] the date and time in question.
b] that person being the deseased.
Because that would have been paramount in any investigation pending.
But according to Fisherman Hutchinson was one day out... sorry fish, You were not present at that interview, and to suggest that scenerio is pure speculation of the highest grade.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard.

Absolutely.

As I put in a previous post, it's just not acceptable for people to say that these people were wrong about the date they mention because it's too difficult for us to accept an alternative.

It is possibly disingenuous and even, apologies for the pejorative description, lazy to write witnesses off because their evidence presents us with difficulties.

Regards,

[Tecs]

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

Hi Tom, apologies for the delay in reply but I've been enjoying an extended Christmas and birthday break.

To answer the above, am I a newbie? As you can see from my date of joining, to the casebook site, yes, to the case no.

Regarding the rest, I wouldn't call engaging in a debate/discussion as a "mistake" and I make no assumptions as to what those of you who have been on the boards for longer than I have have discussed or not. I was responding to questions, general and direct, from Richard and Lynn who appeared to be interested in discussing the issue.

Regarding Kelly, I agree it is most likely that the body was hers, but to say that the theory that it wasn't her "has no substance" is, in my very humble opinion, a step too far. You may say that it is unlikely, but Maxwell and others do present a very real difficulty. We cannot square the medical opinion with Maxwell's, one of them is wrong. It is too easy to say that the educated doctors must be right and Maxwell must be wrong. She was adament she had spoken to Kelly and we have no right at this very late stage to dismiss her out of hand. As I put on a previous post, it is inconceivable that she got the date wrong for several reasons, not least the Lord Mayor's show, which I addressed siting Maxwell's potential social calendar in a previous post.

Have a very Happy New Year everybody,

Regards,

[lynn cates]

the thighs have it

Hello Tecs. First, permit me to observe you have a lovely tag line. Sir Issac Newton, if I recall properly?

Next, it is quite correct NOT to dismiss evidence merely because it presents a difficulty. Of course, if it happens to entail P and not P, the situation may be different.

Here's an old argument, but clever notwithstanding.

"MJ was NOT killed at Miller's court; rather, it was a young male. The thigh and groin area were mutilated to conceal the fact. Further, the mammary appendages were removed and disfigured with a view to the same."

Not that I subscribe to this view, but it is fun to ponder over. Also, it would explain the late sightings.

Any thoughts?

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Fleetwood:

"I've an open mind with regard to Hutchinson...."

Congratulations, Fleetwood. That is a wise choice.

"...if Hutchinson is anything like me then he'd nail that day no problem....and if you believe his account of Astrakhan Man then he certainly appears to have a memory in good working order."

...and there´s the snag, is it not - we do not know whether Hutchinson was anything like us. Nor do we know if a night on the streets was a singular experience to him, or if it was an ordinary thing. But if he left Romford too late to have a chance to gain entry at his lodgings, and if, to top that off, he had no doss money anyway, then it stands to reason that he was a man quite used to a night or two without a bed. All I am saying is that when you live a life where you cannot sort things into equally long pipes with no bends in them, it may be easier to loose track of the days. But of course, we do not know whether this applied for George either! We must, just like you reccomend, keep an open mind.

Finally - I´ve said it before and I will say it again - his memory for detail represents anoth function altogether than his sequential memory. And - once again - senile people make for a very good example of this, since they often believe they are living not today but fifty years ago. They loose track of time totally - but they may well remember exactly how a room looked all them fifty years ago. So Hutchinsons ability to take in Astrakhan man´s clothing does not in any way implicate a strong memory for sequential timelining.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"For Hutchinson to have been one day out in his recollective memory,and it is a whole day that has to be taken into consideration,and he misremembers the 8/9 as the 7/8,he must have completely lost recollection of what happened on the 8/9,the day he speaks of in his statement.Put simply,if I beieve in three days time,the events of today actually occured yesterday,I must suffer a memory loss of today.How to explain that.A medical assessment migh suggest I suffered amnesia for 24 hours.Is that what happened.A complete blackout?"

Wow, Harry - that´s dramatic! Maybe he was operated on by some surgeon who obliterated that day?

Or, then again, maybe most of us have mistaken a day some time or another? That, at least, is my contention. If you want to believe that what has happened millons of times to millions of people could only point to total amnesia and medical failure when/if it happened to George Hutchinson, well then we shall find our separate wiews very hard to reconciliate; yours, mine and Dews. Fine by me, though!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"according to Fisherman Hutchinson was one day out... sorry fish, You were not present at that interview, and to suggest that scenerio is pure speculation of the highest grade."

Right, Richard; here are the three main trails leading down the Hutchinson footpath:
1. He was honest, said what he saw and was correct on the dates (Hutchus Richardensis).
2. He was a liar who tried to cover his behind after having killed Kelly (Hutchus Benensis).
3. He was honest enough, but mistaken on the day (Hutchus Piscarensis).

To begin with, Richard, it should be understood that ALL of these scenarios are unproven ones, and thus they are ALL "pure speculation of the highest grade".

To move on, you are correct: I was not there during the interwiew, but neither were you or any other Casebooker. Then again, Walter Dew was working the case, and he - not me, at least not from the outset - is the one that suggests that Hutchinson was off in his timing. In fact, he not only suggests it, he actually claims that it is the only possible explanation. And we all know where he got his information and experience from, do we not?

So when it comes to information deriving from the policemen involved in the case, we have only two voices to go by: Abberlines and Dews. Abberline states that Hutchinson was honest and Dew states that he was mistaken on the day. Now, try tpo reconciliate that with the three trails mentioned above and see which one comes out on top.

After that, try and fit the trails together with what we have: A total disregard of Hutchinson´s testimony in the differing books and papers relating to the police officers working the case, Dew being the one exception. A clear dismissal of the same testimony in not one, but two newspapers. The deduction that the police did not lend any weight to Hutchinson after the 14:th is inescapable, meaning that trail 1 seems to be the worst one, whereas trail 2 comes away slightly better - but with the obvious flaw that Hutchinson was seemingly dropped totally by the police, who surely would have had good reason to suspect him of foul play if they knew he had been lying. It is said that he could have been looked into afterwards, to no avail - but we have no such thing on record. It is suggested that he could have mentioned Lewis to the police - but the only thing we know is that if he did, he inexplicably forgot all about it when he spoke to the papers. And once again - no record exists.

Trail 3, though, overcomes these difficulties easily, and comes away unscathed. The testimony was discredited on behalf of Hutchinson getting the days mixed up, he is dropped but not reprimanded or suspected, and Dew tells us that yes, this is exactly what happened.

So absolutely, Richard, just like your own scenario, mine is nothing but a suggestion - but a suggestion that effortlessly stands on it´s legs long after the collected knowledge about Hutchinson´s destiny, combined with Dew´s assertion, has sent your own scenario to the canvas after some serious reeling.
My scenario holds up, Richard, and that is what matters in the end. When it does, anybody can throw **** upon it as much as they like and call it "pure speculation of the highest grade" as many times as they feel like. But when we are left with speculation only, we should try and fit that speculation in with the known facts as best as we can.

The best, Richard! And a prosperous New Year!

Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

Hi,

But according to Fisherman Hutchinson was one day out... sorry fish, You were not present at that interview, and to suggest that scenerio is pure speculation of the highest grade.

Regards Richard.

I don't agree with that Richard. I think we can be confident that some witnesses were straight up....others were mistaken....and others were out-and-out liars. Just by virtue of the nature of any group of people.

It's down to personal perspective in terms of whom you go with as being more reliable. I personally would cling to anyone corroborated e.g. Mortimer although I wouldn't rule out her being mistaken with some of the details....I mean 20 minutes at the door....or 10 minutes at the door....sometimes time seems to drag...sometimes it seems to fly by.

But that's just my personal perspective......the way I think is that it's easy to be led astray by ideas and how we think the world is (as opposed to reality)...human beings have an extraordinary capacity for being taken in by illusion.....so I will always look for something concrete as a decent starting point.

It's not speculation of the highest grade....well not particularly anymore speculative than anyone else.

I mean...for you to believe MJK was killed in the morning then you've quite clearly discounted a few witness statements.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Fleetwood:

...and there´s the snag, is it not - we do not know whether Hutchinson was anything like us.

Yes. In a verbose manner.....that's exactly what I was saying....there's no common sense....only decisions based on individual perspective. I was suggesting that Hutchinson might not necessarily follow your trail of thought with regard to these things......and based on the above ....it seems we agree.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fisherman,
As I mentioned, identification of the day/ deseased. would be paramount in the forthcoming investigation , having received Hutchinsons statement.
Records would have kept at the Victoria home [which incidently was vetted by the police ] and it would have been a simply task to check on the nights/days that GH was signed in.
For instance Hutchinson said he returned to his lodgings when it opened friday morning, that admission could have been verified could it not?
We know that he viewed the body[apparently] on the tuesday morning, but we have no report of clarification.
It is almost certain that he saw Mary Kelly, a person of her statue, and appearence, entering the court, especially as he reported knowing her well.
So that is my stance on the identification , both day/victim.
Hutchinson is a rare witness, simply because out of all the pawns in the case, he has been identified , by a living relative.. ie the late Reg Hutchinson.
George William Topping Hutchinson, was named as the witness in question
The only person to be identified by name [ including a late photograph].
You see when I read Faircloughs book, and Regs account, I was not having knowledge of it for the first time, it was a carbon copy of that radio broadcast nearly two decades earlier.
It was not invented for the book, it was reflecting on Regs Fathers admissions, which as stated many times on Casebook mentioned a payment paid to one Topping Hutchinson... a payment not mentioned in any newspaer in the UK.
i am refering to the the Wheeling Article [ as you know] which mentions that a sum of five weeks wages was paid to some devious fellow[ words to that effect]
That sum would be approx one hundred shillings, which is precisely what I heard on Radio, and read in 'The Ripper and the Royals'.
I put it to Casebook, that it would have been extremely unlikely that GWTH, or Reg , could have found out that information, and furthermore in the case of Topping remembed it from 1888 , not only its content, but also the whole of Hutchinsons account to recall in later life.
Only the real deal..would have known that.
If one talks about speculation of the highest grade, then surely to suggest that Regs father, aware that he had the same surname , and christian name as a witness in the Ripper case, decided to take over that identity for the rest of his natual life, not only to recall his story to anybody down the local , but to members of his family also.
That would be a non starter in my view.
So that is my case for identifying GH.
A man that had a eye for detail,a good memory, not the type to lose a day in his life.
Sorry long post.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fleetwood,
We must not get too of thread, however three witnesses allegedly saw Mjk in the daylight, and there is a explanation for the cry 'Oh Murder'. look at Praters inquest statement.
But again ..Speculation.
Dont get me wrong, Fish makes a good case on paper, its just the length of time that does it for me 24 Hours?
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Hi Fisherman - at least you read my posts! How was Berlin - apart from snowy?

I will start off by quoting Sally:

" ... 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."

Have another read of my article Sally, and you will see exactly how that came about...!

And? As I have already remarked, I am disinclined to accept that Hutchinson got the night wrong for reasons which should be obvious. I think the U-turn came about for other reasons. I think a careful reading of the report in the Echo of 13th November will actually tell you what happened.

Much has been said about the chance that he really did mistake the day. Some will have it that you cannot mistake days when important events occur, and examplify by mentioning Lord Mayor´s Day.
First, it ought to be mentioned that we cannot tell what interest Hutchinson himself awarded that occasion - maybe he could not care less. After that, I think that there are a few more things that need mentioning.

Correct, Fisherman - perhaps Hutchinson could not 'care less' about the Lord Mayors Show. But to be unaware of it? I shouldn't think so. What his personal feelings about the event were is of no relevance in this instance.

Somebody - I think, once again, that it was Sally - wrote that he must have had money since he went to the Victoria Home after his wet/dry night on the town. And yes, he states that he waited until the place where he lived opened. But where does it say that he payed for the following night?
He was a man pressed for money, by the looks of things, and he was a groom. That would mean that the labour he offered on the open market was first and foremost that of tending to horses.

Huh? Do you think he stayed at the Victoria Home for free, Fisherman? What does tending horses have to do with it?

TThis makes for a simple, functioning timeline that presents Hutchinson´s story in an altogether different light than the usual one. I find it quite logical myself, and I am much intrigued by the consistency in behaviour on behalf of Hutchinson in this version. It tells the story of an unemployed man with a need to find work and money, but also with a sense of loyalty towards society. It depicts, putting things differently, a very common man, patently honest and a good, reliable citizen - which was what Abberline recognized in him.

Well, very interesting. I think your research was interesting Fisherman. I don't think Hutchinson mistook the day - people just don't, particularly not such a significant day. Sorry.

[Garry Wroe]

It’s all well and good for you to state that speculation should be based on established evidence, Fish, but your ‘wrong night’ scenario is predicated upon a set of weather conditions (heavy and sustained rain commencing at midnight) which lacks any corroboration whatever.

To cite one example of what I consider to be your flawed conclusions, it was stated in your essay that ‘it was raining cats and dogs as [Sarah] Lewis hurried through Dorset Street.’ Tellingly, we have no evidence that Sarah hurried anywhere. Yet we do have her assertion that she observed a couple standing outside the Britannia engaged in conversation. Common sense alone, I would suggest, ought to be sufficient to tell us that this couple would have headed for shelter had it been raining ‘incessantly’ at the time.

Likewise, Mary Ann Cox was desperate to earn her rent money on the night in question. We know that she was hawking her body between the hours of midnight and three o’clock, and that she returned home briefly to escape a shower and warm herself at approximately one o’clock. In other words, she spent the better part of three hours exposed to the deluge described in your article. This being the case, one would assume that, at best, she would have been cold, damp and uncomfortable. At worst, she would have been utterly rain-sodden. And yet Mary Ann Cox revealed at the Kelly inquest that she did not get undressed on returning home at three o’clock. She remained in the clothes that had been exposed to heavy and unrelenting rainfall for the previous three hours.

Frankly, Fish, this makes no logical sense whatsoever. As with the couple standing outside the Britannia, Cox’s decision to remain in her clothing is indicative not of heavy and sustained rainfall, but of a night punctuated by heavy showers. And if this was indeed the case, the central premise of the ‘wrong night’ scenario must be rejected on the basis that it remains evidentially unsupported.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.