Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"As others here have pointed out, it isn’t at all likely that Hutchinson would confuse the date of the Lord Mayor’s Show."

Come on, Ben - I´ve answered that one numerous times already. You have your conviction, I have mine, Dew had his, and that´s it: you´re the odd one out here.

"I see you’ve decided to “carve out a manuscript in which Hutchinson plays the role of a totally honest man”, but I can’t accept that you really find many of these suggestions particularly likely."

That´s just dandy by me, Ben. But I do think that since we know that the overwhelming majority of witnesses are honest people, we owe it to both the statistical science and ourselves to try and work from that perspective. And I´ll be damned if I can understand if it is the part about a groom looking for job with horses or the bit with Hutchinson perhaps not staying at the Victoria home the night after the Astrakhan man sighting that you find utterly and totally impossible. I can see nothing in my suggestion but a totally trivial behaviour. And of course, I am not saying that this must have happened - I am merely pointing to the very obvious possibility that Abberline was correct in his assessment of Hutchinson.

"Why is this preferable to the simple premise that he lied and slipped up in that lie?"
For two reasons:
1. I think that if the police had caught him lying, he would have been very seriously grilled, and that he would have become a suspect that they would not let go off easily. But what we see is an "Oh, ****, it was wrong after all"-affair, ending in him being sent home with no reprimands, no further grilling and a complete uninterest.
2. Dew was sure that he was one day off. That is lead heavy, Ben.

"Too much is being made of Hutchinson’s apparent failure to mentioned Lewis."

On the contrary - far too little has it been realized over the years that it tallies perfectly with Dew´s suggestion.

"Firstly, and most crucially, it is possible that Hutchinson did mention Lewis but the reference was omitted from the body of the statement because is did not pertain directly to the manhunt..."

I could have swallowed that, Ben, had it not been for the paper article where he states that he saw only the lodger and the policeman. What possible reason could he have had to shut up about Lewis at that stage?

"Either that or Hutchinson deliberately avoided any reference to Lewis out of concern that it would appear glaringly obvious that it was her evidence that prompted him to come forward."

No, no, no, no! Please, Ben! Why would it NOT be glaringly obvious that he had taken on that role in ANY CASE? What possible harm could it do to mention that a woman had entered the court? The only impact it could have to leave that bit out, would be that the police would start suspecting that he may not have been there at the time he claimed after all. And lo and behold, this may be exactly what happened, according to Dew.
At the end of the day, Abberline had Lewis saying that she went into Miller´s court at 2.30. After that, he had Hutchinson stating that he watched that very court carefully at the exact same time. Now, what are the chances that Abberline would have omitted to ask the very crucial question that this coincidence called for? None, that´s what I say, so I strongly reccomend that your flair for this suggestion is given some very serious afterthought. Really, Ben, what are the chances that Abberline did not take the obvious opportunity to check if Hutchinson was the real deal? How much of a total amateur would the good inspector have been?

A very happy and prosperous New Year to you too, Ben!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"A sharp north-east wind according to the Echo, Fish, which would have "helped steer the drops" (if there were any) directly onto anyone standing in the doorway of Britannia. Either we accept that the couple standing outside the pub were being pelted by wind and rain when there was ample opportunity to procure shelter elsewhere, or we accept that it wasn't raining at 2:30am when the sighting occured."

I could do a "Garry Wroe here", and state that we do not know that the wind was sharp and north-easterly at the exact moment, could we?
But I will instead say that your suggestion is a reasonable one, increasing the possibility that you are right - but unfortunately not putting it beyond doubt.

"Edit: Hold everything! Look what I've just found from the Daily Telegraph, 13th November:

"I met the same man with a woman in Commercial-street, near Mr. Ringer's public-house (the Britannia). He had no overcoat on".

Ayup! "No overcoat" on this allegedly rain-deluged night?"

And this is where we ask ourselves exactly why Lewis took care to point this out. It could be that she recognized the difference from her former observation of the man, when he was wearing an overcoat - but it could of course also be that she was expressing her consternation about it - it was a night when most men would have used their overcoats, by the looks of things, and therefore, Lewis may have taken care to point this out.

We shall never know.

What we do know, is that the night was an unpleasant one, a clear-cut example of an overcoat night, if you like. It DID rain that night, a sharp wind was blowing and the morning arrived with a drizzling damp and an unpleasant chill. Maybe it did not rain as Lewis saw the loiterer. Maybe it did. At any rate, it is the bad weather on the whole, combined with Dew, with the disappearance of Lewis, with Kelly´s sudden sobering up and with the undramatic discrediting of Hutchinsons story, followed by his dismissal that ground my wiew. And it provides us with the best fit so far, at least in my wiew.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"Happy new year all."

...and to you, Richard!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

On the man Lewis saw with a woman, it says in the Daily News:

"On Friday morning as I was going to Miller's-court, about half-past two, I saw him again with a female in Commercial-street. He had not his long overcoat on then, but he was carrying the bag. He was standing talking to the female."

In other sources it is said that the couple were "near" the Britannia.

Taken together, this clearly points to the couple being somewhere in the street, engaged in conversation. So we can discard, apparently, the possibility that they were sheltering at the pub - they were near it, but not really at it.

What we do not know, however, is the circumstances surrounding the pair. We cannot establish how long they were talking, and we cannot establish if they had arrived to the point together or just ran into each other and exchanged a few words in the rain, in the drizzle - or in the dry conditions. And we cannot establish where the point in question was!

There is nothing hindering a suggestion that the couple was sheltering somewhere close to the pub. And they could have been at either side of the street if this was the case, of course. We only know that they were close to the pub, but just how close, well, who could say...?

But I think we CAN establish that they were at least not in the doorway of the Britannia!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“I have mine, Dew had his, and that´s it: you´re the odd one out here.”

I’m really not sure what you mean by this, Fish. I'm not the “odd one out” at all. When it comes to holding the conviction that Hutchinson did not confuse the date of the Lord Mayor’s Show, I’m clearly in the majority of opinion.

“But I do think that since we know that the overwhelming majority of witnesses are honest people, we owe it to both the statistical science and ourselves to try and work from that perspective”

Yes, but if we’re adhering to “statistical science” then I’d prefer to work from the perspective that I’ve already outlined; than lying witnesses are far more common than witnesses who confuse the day of an otherwise memorable encounter, especially when other memorable date-establishing things happened on the same day.

“I think that if the police had caught him lying, he would have been very seriously grilled, and that he would have become a suspect that they would not let go off easily.”

It’s not unreasonable as assumptions go, but unfortunately, it doesn’t sit well with the actual evidence of the police’s treatment of false witnesses who claimed to have been near a crime scene. Emanuel Violenia met both criteria in the minds of the police, but there is no evidence to suggest he ever became a suspect. I don’t think Dew’s opinion is “lead heavy” at all. Indeed, it's anything but according to you when I first introduced you to his thoughts on Hutchinson. Its heaviness resides, if anywhere, in its confirmation that the police never obtained proof of anything with regard to Hutchinson, leaving them with opinions only. It Dew had stated that the police were able to establish Hutchinson’s date confusion beyond doubt, that would be lead heavy.

“No, no, no, no! Please, Ben! Why would it NOT be glaringly obvious that he had taken on that role in ANY CASE? What possible harm could it d to mention that a woman had entered the court?”

What’s with the “no no no’s”. Fish. My point was a perfectly straightforward one; that Hutchinson deliberately omitted any reference to Sarah Lewis in order to delay or prevent the revelation that he had come forward only after learning of her evidence. As it turned out, it was not “glaringly obvious that he had taken on that role”, at least not to the police. We’ve argued about this extensively already, and I see no reason for going there again. You should be quite familiar by now with my view that in all likelihood, the Lewis-Hutchinson-Wideawake connection was never registered. But I’d hate to have to copy and paste, so suffice it to say I’m still very much of that opinion.

“Really, Ben, what are the chances that Abberline did not take the obvious opportunity to check if Hutchinson was the real deal?”

Check out – yes.

Secure ironclad proof as a result of this checking – almost certainly not.

“It could be that she recognized the difference from her former observation of the man, when he was wearing an overcoat”

Well yes, that too, but it also means that we can’t really used the unbuttoned state of Mr. Astrakhan to conclude that Hutchinson’s description of that encounter bears the hallmarks of a “dry night”, since there was a man standing a few yards away at the same time with no overcoat at all. At least Astraponce had donned two coats.

“But I think we CAN establish that they were not in the doorway of the Britannia!”

Indeed, we can. It also establishes the presence of a man in no overcoat standing in a location that exposed him to the sharp northeastern wind described in the Echo – a man who would have been pelted by any rain blown by it. Moving nearer the pub wall on Commercial Street wouldn't afforded any protection from a northeastern wind since the pub faced that direction. The fact that he was reported as “standing talking to the female” coupled with his failure to shelter with her would strongly suggest that there wasn’t any rain at that time, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

When it comes to holding the conviction that Hutchinson did not confuse the date of the Lord Mayor’s Show, I’m clearly in the majority of opinion.

Hmm? It was the Lord Mayor's Show? We're sure about this, are we? Not just another, mundane Friday then?

No?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"lying witnesses are far more common than witnesses who confuse the day of an otherwise memorable encounter, especially when other memorable date-establishing things happened on the same day."

You would be right there, Ben! But any case is case-specific. And that goes for this one too.

"Emanuel Violenia met both criteria in the minds of the police, but there is no evidence to suggest he ever became a suspect."

While we´re discussing case-specific cases, I think Violenia offers another option as a potential killer than Hutch - you know that, Ben!

"You should be quite familiar by now with my view that in all likelihood, the Lewis-Hutchinson-Wideawake connection was never registered."

Mmmm - and you should be just as familiar with my very much opposing wiew. And any descendant of Abberline´s should be relieved that I am about. So no need to copy and paste, no.

"Check out – yes.

Secure ironclad proof as a result of this checking – almost certainly not."

If Hutchinson distinctly denied that anybody had entered the court...? Come on, Ben!

"Well yes, that too, but it also means that we can’t really used the unbuttoned state of Mr. Astrakhan to conclude that Hutchinson’s description of that encounter bears the hallmarks of a “dry night”, since there was a man standing a few yards away at the same time with no overcoat at all."

Oh-oh! You missed one little detail there, Ben; he was a few yards AND a full 24 hours away.

"It also establishes the presence of a man in no overcoat standing in a location that exposed him to the sharp northeastern wind described in the Echo – a man who would have been pelted by any rain blown by it."

Ehrm - no. We do not know which side of the street the man and the woman were on. They were in that street and near the Britannia. You can be that on two sides of the street.

"The fact that he was reported as “standing talking to the female” coupled with his failure to shelter with her would strongly suggest that there wasn’t any rain at that time, in my view."

They could have been sheltering at any place near the Britannia, on any side of the street, Ben. When you read the papers, you will see that they cannot be placed at any certain spot. And that is not just in my wiew!

The best, Ben. And goodnight for now!

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Ehrm - no. We do not know which side of the street the man and the woman were on. They were in that street and near the Britannia.

If they were described as being "near the Britannia", it very obviously follows that they were standing on or nearest the western pavement, on the same side as Dorset Street. If they were standing on the opposite side of the road, they would have been "near Itchy Park" which, incidentally, would still have exposed them to the north-easterly wind and any rain that came with it. That's still the case today. The building where the pub once stood faces directly onto the burial ground of Christ Church, Spitalfields.

Hi Richard,

Just a quick response before I urge my request for matters Toppy to be confined to their appropriate threads.

“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.”

He didn’t need to “find out” that information. Toppy (or Reg, for that matter) only needed to come up with the idea that Hutchinson was paid for being a police informer, entirely independently of any claim made in a gossip column in an American newspaper. Since pay-off stories are commonly associated with police informers, it isn’t remotely a stretch to accept that two separate entities came up with their own bogus pay-off story and applied it to Hutchinson.

Where is this evidence, incidentally, that Toppy would have been required to learn “the whole of Hutchinsons account to recall in later life”? Let us at least stick with the facts. All Reg reported was that his father knew one of the victims and was interviewed by the police. At no point was the actual content of the statement alluded to until after Fairclough provided him with a copy of the police account, which could be construed as suspicious. And is, by me.

But let’s call a halt on Toppy for now, eh?

Have a great 2011, Rich!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If they were described as being "near the Britannia", it very obviously follows that they were standing on or nearest the western pavement, on the same side as Dorset Street."

It is strange, Ben, but what is "very obvious" to you is often nothing of the sort to me. To me, "near the Britannia" means "near the Britannia" and not "near the Britannia and on the same side of the street as the pub". Actually, when this discussion started out, it was even claimed that the couple was "outside the Britannia", something that was obviously only true in the widest of descriptions; they were outside the Houses of Parliament too.

What we can deduct from the paper reports are that the couple were near the Britannia, but not directly outside it. They could have been five, ten, twenty or thirty yards away, and they would still have been near the Britannia. The could have been on either side, and they could have been sheltering - or not.

The relevant bits and pieces are here:

“[Coroner] Have you seen him since ? - On Friday morning, about half-past two a.m., when I was going to Miller's-court, I met the same man with a woman in Commercial-street, near Mr. Ringer's public-house (the Britannia).” (Inquest files, as presented in the Daily Telegraph, Nov 13).

“On Friday morning as I was going to Miller's-court, about half-past two, I saw him again with a female in Commercial-street. He had not his long overcoat on then, but he was carrying the bag. He was standing talking to the female.” (Daily News, Nov 13).

“… on Friday morning about 2:30 she saw him again, speaking to a woman in Commercial-street, but he was dressed a little differently.” (Times, Nov 13).

“On Friday morning, about half-past two, on my way to Miller's-court, I met the same man, who was accompanied by a female. They were in Commercial-street, near the "Britannia." (Morning Advertiser, Nov 13).

From this material, I am at a total loss to be able to pinpoint exactly where the couple was, at which side of the street, and sheltering or not. It simply does not say, and I suggest that we all accept that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mixed things up in my post to Garry, when I wrote "I think that it was said that Cox returned home at 11.45 and 1 o clock to warm herself". Three o clock was what I meant, and I had better point it out before I get it done for me! At any rate, it would seem that warming her hands was what Cox claimed she was after when she came home in time to catch Kelly with Blotchy! If we have it on record that it was the rain that drove her home, I would be pleased if such information could be shared.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Hmm? It was the Lord Mayor's Show? We're sure about this, are we? Not just another, mundane Friday then?"

Balliol, Sally; Balliol! Some 700 years ago, John Balliol was one of the nine claimants to the Scottish throne, set to participate in a conference that was to decide who was the best bid. The eight other claimants arrived promptly to the conference, but not Balliol.

And why? Mmm, you have guessed, have you not? Correct - he mistook the day.

Now, anybody who claims that one cannot mistake an important day should perhaps ponder this for some time. It is not every day you are scheduled to claim the throne of a country, is it?

This is one of the reasons that I will not share in the merryment caused by the suggestion that a common Eastender could have been a day off too.

If you need more examples of people who have mistaken days in their lives, important ones as well as totally unimportant, then try to Google it. You will be surprised.

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

estudiantes

Hello Fish.

"If you need more examples of people who have mistaken days in their lives, important ones as well as totally unimportant, then try to Google it. You will be surprised."

I'll say. Or just ask my students who have a paper due! (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Next time you’re in London, I’d be delighted to take you on a mini-tour of the locality. If you’re standing on Commercial Street near the location of the Britannia, facing a northeast wind accompanied by rain, you’re going to get wet. If you stand on the western pavement of Commercial Street and face the opposite side of the road, you’re facing east-north-east, and you’re not likely to find shelter either against the walls on the western side, or across the road and adjacent to Itchy Park. We don’t need to pinpoint exactly where the couple stood, but we have two criteria to work with: near the Britannia and on standing on Commercial Street. Anywhere fitting this description would almost certainly have been exposed to a northeast wind and any accompanying rain. And yet one half of the couple was standing there coatless.

The reasonable deduction, therefore, is that no rain was affecting the area at that time.

But since you’ve already sensibly acknowledged that “maybe it did not rain as Lewis saw the loiterer”, there’s no point in my pushing the issue further. Unless? Oh no!

“The eight other claimants arrived promptly to the conference, but not Balliol. And why? Mmm, you have guessed, have you not? Correct - he mistook the day.”

But that’s confusing the date of something planned in advance, before he could possibly have remembered anything about it, which is quite different to confusing a day that had already happened. I doubt very much that Balliol would have misremembered the date of the conference after it happened.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Hi Fisherman.

Balliol, Sally; Balliol!

Balliol?

Some 700 years ago, John Balliol was one of the nine claimants to the Scottish throne, set to participate in a conference that was to decide who was the best bid. The eight other claimants arrived promptly to the conference, but not Balliol.

And why? Mmm, you have guessed, have you not? Correct - he mistook the day.

Gosh! How unfortunate for him!

Now, anybody who claims that one cannot mistake an important day should perhaps ponder this for some time. It is not every day you are scheduled to claim the throne of a country, is it?

Well, no. For most of us, in fact, never...

This is one of the reasons that I will not share in the merryment caused by the suggestion that a common Eastender could have been a day off too.

To be fair Fisherman, I don't think 'a common Eastender' (or even George Hutchinson) could not have been a day off. I wouldn't say it's impossible, because quite clearly, that is incorrect.

I don't consider it likely, however, for reasons already stated. For George Hutchinson specifically, there were three things which would have aided his memory:

(I'm assuming him to be honest, as you contend)

1. The fact that he had been to Romford the day before, and walked back from Romford that night - something he didn't do every night.

2. The fact that he had known Mary Kelly for 3 years, and well enough to give her a few shillings - a considerable sum for a common man such as himself - from time to time; that he had been one of the last people to see her, his friend, alive; and that she had subsequently been murdered and mutilated beyond recognition - just in time for....

3. The Lord Mayor's Show. What a coincidence! Yes, the Lord Mayor's Show, that highlight of the London Year, when crowds thronged the streets to watch the parade and partake in the festivities! More fun than the Bank Holiday, even!

I think you deserve credit for coming up with a new way of looking at Hutchinson's account, Fisherman, which I have already said on more than one occasion. I have to disagree, however.

Anyway, Happy New Year!

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Since you’ve already sensibly acknowledged that “maybe it did not rain as Lewis saw the loiterer”, there’s no point in my pushing the issue further. Unless? Oh no!"

That was not much of an effort, Ben, since I am sure that you will have to acknowledge that it may have rained! Inbetween us, I think that we have to admit that we do not know either way. All we know is that it was a cold, damp, rainy and windy night on the whole, and therefore the suggestion that the hour between 2 and 3 may ALSO have been cold, damp, rainy and windy is a most reasonable one. Given the overall conditions, it is in with an edge, whichever way we look upon things.

"I doubt very much that Balliol would have misremembered the date of the conference after it happened."

Why would you do that? He had already shown a propensity to get dates wrong, so there would be no strange thing about him getting it wrong afterwards. Of course, if he got it wrong BOTH ways, that would be more odd. But confusing a day after an event would be no stranger than confusing it before.

The best,
Fisherman