Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

I really think that Billiter Street, Fenchurch Street and Leadenhall Street would be considered “close” to Whitechapel in anyone’s book, Lechmere. Eastcheap is actually further away from Commercial Street than these three.

Geographical considerations aside, though, I’m reminded by Garry of a far more crucial point that ought really to settle the issue. The Lord Mayor’s Show was indeed regarded as a holiday, and no member of the working class poor of the East End was even remotely likely to have misremembered the date of such an occasion. This totally eclipses the issue of whether or not the average Eastender would have been interested in the visual spectacle of the parade.

This from the Daily Telegraph, 15th November 1888:

“Thus the Lord Mayor Elect joins the cry against gratuitous circuses. He has no desire for elephants...(snip)...or even the bewilderingly fascinating "Fourth Dimension of Space," symbolised, perched aloft on a movable temple, and drawn through London, to the innocent delight and possibly instruction of young and old, who come out to make a happy half-holiday in the contemplation of a Lord Mayor in all his glory.”

The New York Herald, 11th November 1888:

“The second, that of Emma Smith, was on Eastern Monday night, that of Martha Turner was on August 7, Bank Holiday night, and this last was on Lord Mayor's Day, city holiday.”

The New York Sun, 25th November 1888:

“For what is called his ninth crime, and what was undoubtedly his fifth one, Jack the Ripper waited until Lord Mayor's Day, an ancient holiday in London.”

Doubtless there were those who went to work anyway, but the very knowledge that the event was considered a holiday by many or most ought to have jogged the memory of anyone engaging in any memorable activity of their own on the same day. You’ll find no argument from me that Hutchinson was likely to have been “hurrying back to see the Lord Mayor’s Parade and therefore he must have been sure of his date” but this shouldn’t encourage anyone to throw in their lot with those who would argue “date-confusion” in Hutchinson’s case, the problems with which extend far beyond the question of the Lord Mayors’ Show’s significance.

Best regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

I don't have a particular opinion on Hutchinson's overall reliability, but I doubt the Lord Mayor’s Show had any significance for someone like that. Mary Kelly yes, though clearly.

I would tend to be sceptical of almost all the post-Nichols witness statements as I think people generally got caught up in the hysteria and embellished in their own minds things they thought they saw and almost certainly conflated events in an over anxious need to provide information that could be of help, mixed with the desire to be the one to give a vital clue. This happens in witness statements of the most banal events.

Besides the Telegraph’s reference to a half holiday (surely this relates to schools) are there any domestic newspapers or reports that say it was a public holiday?

I wasn’t sure where Billiter Street was – yes fairly close to Whitechapel as are the ends of Leadenhall Street and Fenchurch Street, but not particularly near to the Dorset Street part of Commercial Street. I fail to see how these temporary road closures would have affected Hutchinson. The parade moves from east to west and then back to the Guildhall. I would say that then as now the main crowds would be from the Bank interchange (by the Royal Exchange) down Cheapside to St Paul’s and then up Fleet Street. I would suggest the area to the east of the Royal Exchange would have been cleared for traffic quite soon after the parade had past.

[harry]

Forget the weather.Hutchinson's lapse of memory,if one accepts it happened,occured the Monday evening at a police station.That is where he must have become confused,(of course one can place it earlier,Sunday or Saturday for example which would make it even more remarkable),but for what reason should the confusion occur.He must first have spoken to someone in authority,who because of the importance of the information,would ,before alerting Aberline,make sure about which day and night,the witness was talking.Standard police procedure even in those days.Then on being convinced Hutchinson's testimony did involve the day and night of 8/9,Aberline was sent for,and this experienced officer,from reports still in existense,also became convinced the day and night of 8/9 was the period under discussion.Hard to toss that aside.
But no,we are asked to accept the ideas of Walter Dew,a detective constable,who is not known to have any contact with Hutchinso,but years later was to theorise that Hutchinson got his days wrong.
Well tomorrow will be the third day after new years day.Hope no posters got confuse between new years eve and new years day,and got up for work today,a public holiday.That would be confusion.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"A north-eastern wind would have affected, inescapably and irrefutably, the western side of Commercial Street. Anyone huddled against a wall on the eastern side of the street might well have avoided it, but unfortunately, there was no wall on the eastern side opposite the Britannia. There were only railings, behind which were the grounds of Christ Church, Spitalfields, otherwise known as Itchy Park. Anywhere else that met the “standing in Commerical Street” criteria that was sheltered was simply NOT near the Britannia."

The Britannia stood on the corner of Dorset Street and Commercial Street, Ben. Right opposite that corner, more or less, there were buildings between Fashion Street and the Christ Church grounds. The open grounds at the church commenced opposite the corner mentioned and travelled northwards, whereas the buildings leading up to Fashion Street covered the southwards stretch. The link http://www.casebook.org/official_doc...p/images/7.gif
shows this effectively. And I certainly think that standing opposite the Britannia would qualify for the verdict "near the Britannia"!

"Even if she didn’t have a “good look”, that needn’t be due to the weather but rather her failure to pay much attention to him."

Could be, yes - but rain certainly would be a limiting factor for visibility. That still stands.

"I’d also like to introduce you to Larkins Porter."

Sounds terrific. I prefer my beer dark!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

" think people generally got caught up in the hysteria and embellished in their own minds things they thought they saw and almost certainly conflated events in an over anxious need to provide information that could be of help, mixed with the desire to be the one to give a vital clue. This happens in witness statements of the most banal events."

That is a very good point. I have before pressed the possibility that Hutchinson may have subconsciously WANTED the Astrakhan sighting to be on the correct day. Just like you say, it is a common thing that people want to help and sometimes attach too much value to the information they have to offer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Forget the weather."

Not a chance, Harry! It is an important factor. Which is why I asked Steve Jebson at the Meteorological office to provide all he possibly could about the thing, and here is what he came up with:

"Dear Christer,

Many thanks for getting back to me.

I've checked our daily weather reports for the 9th November 1888 and across the London area there were showers during the early hours. It is impossible to say exactly when these occurred but the forecast issued by the Meteorological Office on the 8th was for much of southeast England to have south-easterly strong to gale force winds, a good deal of cloud and showers at times. As a result, any showers across the London area would have moved in a southeast to north-westerly direction across the capital.

As for the 8th itself, low pressure was situated to the southwest of the British Isles and high pressure across Scandinavia. Around this area of low pressure there were bands of cloud and outbreaks of rain. Across London, the morning of the 8th was generally dry although overcast. It remained overcast during the afternoon and into the evening but remained essentially dry. It wasn't until after midnight that showers or intermittent outbreaks of rain moved across the capital. On the whole it remained overcast throughout the period.

The total amount of rain measured in London during the 24-hour period to 0800 GMT on the 9th November was 0.28 inches (7.1 mm) and as the 8th was mainly dry, most of this rain must have fallen between midnight and 0800 GMT on the 9th.

Sorry I cannot pin down exactly when the rain fell on London during the early hours of the 9th, but I hope the above summary will be of some assistance.

Regards

Steve Jebson ACLIP Library Information Officer"

That, I think, is all we can get for now. It tells us that 7.1 millimeters of rain fell that night, but it ALSO tells us that a wind reaching gale force was expected!
So, showers of heavy rain would have fallen, and it would have been accompanied by winds that threatened to tear the Astrakhan coat of Kelly´s companion.
Not an unbuttoned night, thus. Not a night for leisurely conversations outside the archway leading into Miller´s Court. A dreadful night, weatherwise, no matter whether it rained or not at the exact moment Hutch saw Astrakhan man. And most decidedly NOT a useful occasion for walking the streets "all night"! Apparently, Astrakhan man did not only face the risk of having his gentlemanly offered hanky soaked - it could have been torn from his hand by the wind too ...

George Hutchinson´s description of the night he saw Astrakahan man depicts another scene altogether than this. He was either lying or mistaken. And in that choice, Dew´s statement that he could not have been correct on the day carries massive weight.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Sally]

The Lord Mayor's Show

I am of the opinion that the Lord Mayor's Show was a day of local celebration; and as such, would have gone un-noticed by very few people. Infants and Lunatics, perhaps? As far as we know, Hutchinson was neither.

If, by some slender chance, he had somehow managed to miss the fact the the 9th November was the traditional date for the Lord Mayor's Show... and, Oh Yes, also the date on which in that year, his friend of 3 years, Mary Kelly, had been murdered most foully - why then, he had the papers of the following day to jog his memory:

While London was decking itself in flags and garlands of flowers, and preparing for a day of festivity, in which thousands of the poor were charitably invited to join, almost in the midst of the preparation a deed was being done of which one can think only with shuddering horror.

The Daily News,10th November 1888

At 10 o'clock this morning, just as the Lord Mayor was climbing into his golden carriage, three horrified policemen who had first looked in through Mary Jane's window and then drakn big glasses of brandy to steady themselves, were breaking in her door with a pick axe. The Whitechapel murderer has done his work with more thoroughness than ever before. The miserable woman's body was literally scattered all over her room. Almost every conceivable mutilation had been practiced on the body

Evening Star, 10th November 1888

The coincidence of the two events was not missed. If the Lord Mayor's Show had not been a grand occasion (and holiday in this case) there would have been no coincidence to remark upon, would there?

Hutchinson may of course have read the papers himself - but in any case, there must have been barely one person in London not talking about what had happened to Mary Kelly - on the Lord Mayor's Day. Does anybody really imagine that Hutchinson, lodged in a common lodging house such as the Victoria Home, would not have - at least - heard the gossip?

More to follow.

[Sally]

Murder? Lord Mayor's Show?

The coincidence between the murder of Mary Kelly and the Lord Mayor's Show was noted by the press the following day. This coincidence was perceived as a positive connection by some papers:

The murderer chose his time well. There is a theory - not an impossible one - that he is one of those diseased creatures who, drunk with an insane love of notoriety, are determined to be the sensation of the hour. So he decided to get up a counter-demonstration to the LORD MAYOR'S Show. If that was his intention he succeeded beyond all expectation. He got his sensation. While the well-stuffed calves of the City footmen were being paraded for the laughter of London, his victim was lying cold in a foul, dimly-lighted court in Whitechapel. Whitechapel is once more to the fore - a grim spectre at our shows and banquets

The Star, 10th November 1888

And my favourite....

The murderer evidently had method in his madness - assuming that his acts are the outcome of an insane inspiration - he chose for his latest exploit a date and occasion when the vigilance of the police and the watchfulness of the public, possibly both somewhat allayed during his interval of inactivity, would be distracted to other things. It is on record that a Jacobite rising in London was planned for Lord Mayor's Day, "Either about noon, when all would be by the riverside, or at night, when all would be drunk;" and the murderer of MARY KELLY no doubt perceived his opportunity in the circumstances of the civic pageant

The Morning Advertiser, 10th November 1888

I love The Morning Advertiser!

I think the above should suffice to demonstrate that:

a) The Lord Mayor's Show was nothing less than a big event. Whilst it may be a bit of a watered -down novelty affair today, I think its important to remember that we live in a society in which we have i) weekends off ii) 8 statutory Bank Holidays iii) at least 4 weeks off to take as personal holiday. Our working lives ain't so bad. In 1888 the Lord Mayor's Day was a rare public holiday - and as such, a big occasion, not just another spectacle.

b) The murder of Mary Kelly on the Lord Mayor's Day was considered significant.

So much for conflating the events.

Personally, I'm with the Star (sorry, Morning Advertiser...)

[harry]

Fisherman,
You misunderstand.It was on the Monday Hutchinson gave his story.That was the day his memory would have been at fault,.Rain on Friday would not have affected his recollection on Monday(There is no talk of any on Monday).Sunday,if we are to believe Hutchinson,the sighting of what he believed to be Kelly,s companion of Friday,seems to indicate a recall of something that had happened just two day's previous.I would not argue with that.So I ask you again,what happened to cause the loss of memory on Monday?

[Sally]

In addition, The Times of 7th November 1888 noted that:

"The Lord Mayor Elect and Mr. A. J. Newton, Sheriff of London and Middlesex, have provided a treat for 2,000 destitute people at the East-end of London on Lord Mayor's Day."

This from the Daily Telegraph (10th November):

LORD MAYOR'S DAY AT THE EAST-END. - Last night some 3,000 of the poorest inhabitants of Whitechapel were, through the generosity of the Lord Mayor (Mr. Alderman Whitehead) and several influential residents at the East-end, invited to the Great Assembly Hall, Mile-end-road, where they were liberally regaled with a meat tea, and where a miscellaneous entertainment had been provided for them. The Lord Mayor sent £100 towards defraying the cost, while Mr. Sheriff Newton contributed £50

(my emphasis)

[jason_c]

"That, I think, is all we can get for now. It tells us that 7.1 millimeters of rain fell that night, but it ALSO tells us that a wind reaching gale force was expected!
So, showers of heavy rain would have fallen, and it would have been accompanied by winds that threatened to tear the Astrakhan coat of Kelly´s companion.
Not an unbuttoned night, thus. Not a night for leisurely conversations outside the archway leading into Miller´s Court. A dreadful night, weatherwise, no matter whether it rained or not at the exact moment Hutch saw Astrakhan man. And most decidedly NOT a useful occasion for walking the streets "all night"! Apparently, Astrakhan man did not only face the risk of having his gentlemanly offered hanky soaked - it could have been torn

from his hand by the wind too ..."

This wind wouldnt have been nearly as bad in the built up narrow streets of Whitechapel.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I am of the opinion that the Lord Mayor's Show was a day of local celebration; and as such, would have gone un-noticed by very few people. Infants and Lunatics, perhaps? As far as we know, Hutchinson was neither."

Totally and utterly agreed, Sally. Thing is, though, that the Astrakhan man sighting was not one of the performing acts linked to the show. It was an isolated sequence, and I don´t think that the show would necessarily have given any support to establish when it happened. A number of days passed before we can be certain that Hutch realized that the sighting could have been crucial, and at that stage, he needed to backtrack to get things right. That is when things often go wrong.

At any rate, you and me could go on forever saying "could!" "would not!" "could!" "would not", and it will not get us an inch further.

"Does anybody really imagine that Hutchinson, lodged in a common lodging house such as the Victoria Home, would not have - at least - heard the gossip?"


...and you place him there with absolute certainty ... how? Myself, I cannot tell where he spent the nights of the 9:th and the 10:th. I am as aware as you are that he said he lived there, but I am just as aware that he was a man looking for the odd job, and a man prepared to spend a night or two on the streets.

We cannot, ought not, should not claim that we know that he was there on them nights, just as we cannot, ought not, should not claim that he must have read the papers or was in a position to find out exactly what had happened in Dorset Street. It is impossible to assess any degrees of certainty or uncertainty in these matters.

And, at the end of the day, none of these articles shook Dew in his conviction that Hutchinson must have mixed up the dates.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"You misunderstand.It was on the Monday Hutchinson gave his story.That was the day his memory would have been at fault"

We cannot possibly tell at what stage he lost track of the days, Harry. Certainly, it was something that was displayed on the Monday, but my guess is that he decided that he had seen the probable killer already on Sunday. That was when he spoke to a PC about it, and he must have been off at that stage too.

"I ask you again,what happened to cause the loss of memory (on Monday)?

He never lost his memory as such, Harry - he lost track of the days. He misremembered. And that would probably have some fancy medical term to go with it, but I for one cannot supply it. But I CAN supply, once again, the certainty that heaps of people mix up dates.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jason C:

"This wind wouldnt have been nearly as bad in the built up narrow streets of Whitechapel."

This is interesting! We have, on the one hand, Ben trying to press the point that the wind would have had free access to the scene in Commercial Street, due to the open area at Itchy Park. If we listen to him, that wind would have swept in and pressed the rain (if there was one) onto any people trying to shelter from it.

And now, Jason, you instead claim that the narrow streets would have effectively killed the wind off, or something like that.

Let´s take another look at things! The wind was blowing from the northeast as the sun rose, according to the Echo. But the meteorologists tell us that the wind came from the southeast from the outset, blowing at gale force or at the least very strongly.
If it came from the southeast, the buildings between Fashion Street and Itchy Park would have made for good shelter close to the Britannia. I think that is a point scored for the home team. After that, we must realize that a stroll up Dorset Street, would have been a stroll that exposed you very much to the gale force winds, since it runs in a marked east-west direction. And the wind, mind you, varied over a spectre from south-east to north-east, plus it would have been able to roam free over Itchy Park before rushing in over Dorset Street. And that is where we meet our couple, having a relaxed three-minute conversation outside the archway, handing over handkerchiefs and all. And all the while, a roaring, gale-force wind is blowing, and the rain is quite possibly pouring down over them.

I should not think so.

And after having witnessed the spectacle, George Hutchinson takes to the streets, leisurely walking the night away ... in gale force winds and a cold, hard rain? Does anybody believe in that? Does it sound trtustworthy? Or does it sound like something that helped the police to make their minds up that Hutchinson spoke of another night - like, for example the dry night of the 7:th, BEFORE the storm and the rain...?

In general your suggestion about narrow streets and wind would be a very sensible one - but it is one that reasonably does not apply in this particular case, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[jason_c]

Its simple common sense. Wind on Dartmoor is greater than it is in a built up area. Chances are the high buildings and narrow streets protected East End citizens from much of the wind that night.