Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

Very good points there, Sally.

And my grateful thanks to Garry, first for steering the thread back on track, but more crucially for identifying the most chief militating factor against the wrong-night hypothesis.

Hi Lechmere,

Do you have any evidence that the police investigating the Whitechapel murders were in the habit on paying witnesses just for announcing themselves as such, in spite of the fact that their content was for the most part impossible to verify? I would be astonished if this turned out to be the case. Hutchinson would have been obliged to accompany the police round the district if it was requested of him, or else they were in a position to accuse him, with considerable justification, of wasting police time. The account you’re referring to which involved a policeman stopping a man emerging from an alley appeared in an article written several years after the murders and posthumously attributed to Sgt. Stephen White. It is almost certainly fictional.

“but again that provides a trigger for him as a fraudulent witness on the make just as much (more as it is a more commonplace act) as a serial killer inserting himself in the investigation.”

I’d argue the reverse. Serial killers inserting themselves into investigations is a phenomenon that at least has some historical precedent, whereas I’ve yet to find a single example of someone falsely assuming the identity of someone seen by a witness, whilst still claiming to be a witness themselves.

He probably did notice Sarah Lewis, but may well have reasoned at the time that she was unlikely to have referred to the loiterer specifically or even provide any evidence at all. Besides, if Hutchinson was responsible for the murder, we have no idea how mentally or emotionally “committed” he would have been to the task ahead at the time of the sighting. I contend that he only came forward in response to this particular sighting because it was the first one since the newly adopted policy of suppressing witness descriptions; a ploy introduced at the Eddowes inquest. If Lawende’s description did not reflect its full extent, the same could well be true of Lewis’, for all Hutchinson knew. The Lawende sighting took place in the City, further away, and Lawende himself lived in relatively far-flung Dalston, unlike Lewis, whose sighting was made a few hundred yards away from the Victoria Home.

My suspicion, however, is that a sense of bravado and the opportunity to keep appraised of police progress played just as much of a role as Lewis did.

We don’t know whether or not the ripper claimed any more victims after Kelly, but we know that serial killers are capable of stopping without any major exerting influence. Having said that, experts well-versed in criminology, such as John Douglas, have claimed that: “Generally, crimes such as these cease because the perpetrator has come close to being identified, has been interviewed by the police, or has been arrested for some other offense."

“but this is just adding another suspect who hasn’t got much going for him.”

I strongly disagree, and it’s not a case of “adding” him as a suspect either. More books have been written naming Hutchinson as the most likely candidate than any other suspect, and that was true even before I became interested in the subject.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I may be missing something here, but surely there's a substantial difference between 84 millimetres of rain and the 7.1 millimetres reported by Steve Jebsen?"

Ypou are missing nothing. I was. I was looking for 0.84 inches of rain, not millimeters, and got lost very badly...

Sorry about that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

" I would argue that it points to Hutchinson lying out “walking about all night”. Even if it could be proved beyond any semblance of doubt that it was piddling down relentlessly all night, non-stop, the simplest explanation for what you take to by a non-compatibility between Hutchinson’s account and the weather conditions is that Hutchinson lied and forgot to factor in the practical consideration that was the weather when putting together that lie. "

Here goes:

Walter Dew tells us that Hutchinson was a day off. Explanation?

1/ Dew worked the case and had access to vital information, therefore the best bet is that he is right.
2/ Dew dreamt it all up, and had no clue about what had happened in spite of his profession, involvement and contacts. And if Hutch had been considered to be a timewaster, the police made sure that Dew was never told.

Take your pick - which is the simpler explanation?

Hutchinson never saw Sarah Lewis, in spite of the fact that she walked straight by him and into the court he was watching. Explanation?

1. They were there on different nights, and Lewis thus never passed Hutchinson. That, incidentally, tallies with Dew´s picture.
2. Hutchinson DID see Lewis, but decided that he did not wan´t to look cocky. Therefore he omitted mentioning her to the police. Or, alternatively, he DID mention her to the police, but the report went missing. He then somehow managed to forget all about her as was interwiewed by a newspaper. He did, however, manage to remember that he had seen a lodger and a PC, and he stated clearly that they were the only people he saw on the night.

Once again, make your choice - which is the simpler alternative?

It was a rainy, stormy night by the looks of things, but none of thisis depicted in the street scene Hutchinson paints. Instead we are told of unbuttoned coats, Lengthy leisurely conversations out in the open street and of Hutchinson himself going for an all night tour of the East end streets, in spite of the hideous weather. Explanation?

1/ He got the nights wrong, and was in Dorset Street on the morning of the 8:th, not the 9:th. On that night and morning, it was overcast but perfectly dry. This, incidentally, tallies with what Dew tells us.
2/ The meteorologists are the ones who got things wrong. It probably did not rain much at all, at the very least not at 2 o clock, and the wind was only a powerless gust, effectively quenched by the narrow streets. Anybody would unbutton his coat on such a night (it would not have been cold either), or stay five metres from the comfort of a private room in order to small-talk a little. And Hutchinson would not have minded the walk on the streets, because ...eehhh, because ... ehrm, since he... ahh ...WELL, HE JUST WOULDN´T. Or he may have been lying his teeth out, forgetting totally about the weather conditions as he fabled away.

The simple choice here would be...?

Your version, Ben, is to some extent ingenious. It is definitely entertaining. It is very enterprising. But simple, it is NOT. It can never be simple to choose to look away from the only wiew offered by a policeman who actually worked the case, for example. The much, much simpler thing to do is to say "aha - so that was wat happened!". After that, you check to see if it possible to reconcile the information with the known facts. I did just that, and found out that itholds up eminently. So far, all that has ben thrown at me is the suggestion that it may not have rained - and we KNOW that it did at 3 AM when Hutch claimed to take his stroll on the streets, plus the very strange suggestion that although Scottish kings in spe may confuse their crowning days, George Hutchinson could never have suffered the same faith. That particular argument is a complete non-starter.

On the reoccuring topic of what can be called being "near to the Britannia", you write: "It’s not a question of physical distance in isolation from any other considerations."

Okay. Would that mean that a groom could never have been described as being near the altar at his wedding - since he was even nearer to his bride? Sarah Lewis, Ben, turned the street outside the Britannia. Somewhere at that stage, she saw the couple. If that made her say that she had seen them "near the Britannia", then I find such a thing nothing but perfectly reasonable. But that is not the bottom line here. The botom line is that I am not willing to state exactly what Lewis would have thought "near" meant. I am likewise totally unwilling to let you decide it for me. The couple could have been ANYWHERE that LEWIS thought was near the Britannia, and guess what - that does not allow for us to be dead certain of anything.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"If, as you suggest,Hutchinson entered that police station on the monday evening,subjected himself to what Aberline describes as an interogation,and that he(Hutchinson)or Aberline did not become aware he was mixed up in the days,I would be amazed."

Dew was clearly not, though. And I put a lot of faith in him for obvious reasons.

"The weather has nothing to do with it."

Be for real, Harry. Please? No matter what "string of circumstances" brought him to Dorset Street, it was his very own choice to walk the streets in miserable weather conditions, starting out with a heavy rainfall as he set out. That, Harry, has everything to do with it - because it effectively shows that he was either a complete idiot, an ungifted liar - or mistaken on the days.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Either somebody really saw white buttons over button boots, a horseshoe tie pin, Astrakhan trimmings and a linen collar, or he lied about it, and given the plentiful and compelling indications that the Astrakhan man description was an amalgamation of some of the more sinister and inaccurate press reports regarding the killer’s appearance, I’d say the latter option is the most persuasive."

One small point, Ben. Hutchinson stated that he believed that the man lived in the area.

Why would he do that?

Because the man´s apparition tallied well with the vicinity? Think we can forget about that one.

Because he thought he saw him at Petticoat Lane too? Better suggestion - but not good enough. For it should be added that Hutchinson said that he was not sure that it was Astrakhan man he saw. That means that we only know of ONE positive placing of the man in the area, made by Hutchinson.

And what can this tell us, quite possibly? Of course - that he had seen the man before, perhaps even numerous times, and every time in that area. THEN it would make sense to believe that he lived there!

And, of course, if he had seen the man on a number of occasions, he may have noticed many of the items the man displayed, such as the red seal stone, the horseshoe pin, the footwear etcetera. And that may have meant that he did not as such take in all of it on the morning of the 8:th - he simply may have RECOGNIZED it, noted that it was all there as usual, so to speak.

And let´s not forget that the morning of the 8:th was a very good night, dry and fine, to make his observation of the man in the unbuttoned Astrakhan coat.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

He probably did notice Sarah Lewis, but may well have reasoned at the time that she was unlikely to have referred to the loiterer specifically or even provide any evidence at all. Besides, if Hutchinson was responsible for the murder, we have no idea how mentally or emotionally “committed” he would have been to the task ahead at the time of the sighting. I contend that he only came forward in response to this particular sighting because it was the first one since the newly adopted policy of suppressing witness descriptions; a ploy introduced at the Eddowes inquest. If Lawende’s description did not reflect its full extent, the same could well be true of Lewis’, for all Hutchinson knew. The Lawende sighting took place in the City, further away, and Lawende himself lived in relatively far-flung Dalston, unlike Lewis, whose sighting was made a few hundred yards away from the Victoria Home.

If Hutchinson did notice Sarah Lewis, and reasoned as you suggest, then he was apparently right to do so, wasn't he - since she could not identify him. This to me suggests that Lewis may not have known Hutchinson, in spite of his living close by. I don't agree with you about Hutchinson's motives for coming forward, however - but you knew that, I expect!

I find that he fits rather well into the 'attention seeker' mould (whether one extends that into serious suspect territory or not). I rather wonder if he came forward when he did, not because he was afraid Lewis would identify him; but because he would then be the sole object of attention - .
rather than one witness amongst many.

He didn't wait very long until the inquest had ended to come forward, after all - it almost appears (to me at any rate) as though he was waiting for it to end.

Just a thought.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"So why are we still debating the issue?"

You are probably right, Garry - this discussion will reasonably die down in the next few minutes. Nobody seems to take heed of it anymore.

I notice that you still talk about the weather, the only thing you have managed to come up with so far, throughout numerous posts of yours. The rest of us out here seem to have accepted that it may well have rained hard and blown a strong wind over London, and the more observant of us already KNOW that Hutchinson spoke of a ludicrous watery promenade at any rate.

But, like I said, you would probably be right in your assessment of the survival capacity of my argument. Bugger!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"He probably did notice Sarah Lewis, but may well have reasoned at the time that she was unlikely to have referred to the loiterer specifically or even provide any evidence at all."

and...

"I contend that he only came forward in response to this particular sighting because it was the first one since the newly adopted policy of suppressing witness descriptions".

You are going to have to help me along here, Ben, for I am having some trouble following you.
If, to begin with, he "may well have reasoned at the time that she was unlikely to have referred to the loiterer specifically or even provide any evidence at all" - why would he make such a guess in the first place? He would know - at least if he was the murderer - that Sarah Lewis had passed right by him, and obviously had taken some sort of look at him, so there could be no doubt that she would potentiall make a very useful witness. Or are you saying that he may have hoped/thought that Lewis would simply be reluctant to testify?

After that, if he was banking on this, the obvious question would be: why go to the police at all?

Are you saying that he saw Lewis, hoped/believed she would play no further important role, then pondered the Eddowes case and came up with the potential possibility to "clear his name" anyway? On second thoughts, so to speak? And, if so, why leave her out when speaking to the police in that case, if he had a change of heart? If he had mentioned that a woman had gone into the court, it must have impressed the police, whereas any leaving out of that crucial factor MUST have given rise to a good many questions, the main one being why he did not see Lewis, stepping on his toes, but managed to observe the much more distant lodger and the PC, none of whom were in the line of his focus fire.

From my vantage point, Ben, I can only see two answers to the question Abberline must have put to Hutchinson (incidentally, this post will be sort of an answer to Harry too, since he pushes the point that Abberline would have asked all the relevant questions when interwiewing Hutchinson); the question whether he saw anybody entering the court or not as he stood there.
Either he said "No" (and I feel fully convinced that he did, since that is the one answer that corroborates and reinforces Dew´s assertions), and then he would be dropped from the investigation - or he said "Yes", and for some reason the police withheld that information (from Dew, at the very least), and furthermore asked Hutchinson not to mention her to the press or anybody else.
I know a poster or two who would love to sink their teeth into such a rich peace of meat - but I am not one of them. I consider that possibility to be A/ in total contradiction with Dew´s claims, and B/ not very likely.

But first and foremost, I would like a clarification of the first issue raised in this post, since I suspect I may be misunderstanding you or missing out on the full message!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I don’t think Sally made any good points (even though her overall assessment of Hutchinson probably isn’t far off mine)...

Clearly they are my opinions as I use expressions such as ‘I would suggest’. I wasn’t forcing or expecting everyone to necessarily bow down to my opinions any more than anyone else would.

When I said Hutchinson was being made to hurry back from Romford for the Lord Mayor’s Show, I was commenting on assumptions other people had made - I wasn’t making that assumption myself.
I raised the issue of how much the Lord Mayor’s Show may have meant to Hutchinson as a lot of people were making it a major factor in fixing the date of his supposed sighting of Kelly in his own mind. I don’t know whether he got all excited about it. Maybe he did. I suspect someone like him probably didn’t, that’s all I have said on the matter.

On the topic of the weather, I was merely making the point that the Met Office said there was a certain amount of rain in London (which Fisherman has been endeavouring to put into context) and described it as showers. The Met Office did not say heavy showers. Newspapers may have done but we were discussing the evidence as supplied by the Met Office. The Met Office also says there was strong to gale force wind in the south east. I made the reasonable suggestion that the stronger gale force winds were more likely to be in the coastal areas. London usually has more sheltered and less dramatic weather than the coastal areas. I don’t think I am being too controversial in suggesting this.
I don’t think the Met Office report can be taken as proof that there were gale force winds in London on the morning of 9th November 1888. I don’t think that is an unreasonable interpretation of the Met Office Report.

One newspaper (the Telegraph?) referred to a half-holiday. The only time I have ever heard the expression is with respect to schools, particularly in Victorian Boys Own type stories. I have seen no evidence that the day of the Lord Mayor’s Show was any sort of official public holiday. That is the only point I have made.
The Lord Mayor’s parade used to go down the river and was described as more like a circus and a bit of a free for all. In 1888 in changed to the format that is currently being followed (apart from it is now on I think the second Saturday in November rather than strictly on 9th November and the parade no longer pays a special visit to the Mayor –elect’s ward). This isn’t pure speculation.
By 1888 fledgling local governmental structures were in place around the non-City suburbs that were not there in the mid 18th century. There is little to dispute here surely?

As for who was invited to the meat tea... in my experience usually church groups invite their own ‘in crowd’ to these events. Maybe bolstered by Workhouse inmates (can I use the term inmate in this context)? That is a reasonable assumption in my opinion. In any event the Tower Hamlets Mission is quite a trek from Commercial Street. My point being in all this is that the meat tea would not have had much resonance with Hutchinson ‘in my opinion’.

Rioting isn’t celebrating. Making a public statement isn’t celebrating. Many people don’t celebrate holidays - they sleep in. It wasn’t a holiday anyway. Unless of course you have unearthed something to prove it was a holiday, in which case I will gladly retract. Quote possibly the 1886 rioters were seeking to maximise publicity. In which case they clearly didn’t regard the Lord Mayor’s Show as a sacrosanct day of celebration for all Londoners and they clearly weren’t worried about messing up that special day for others. That is the only point I was making. Sorry if that was not clear.

The newspaper reports that I was referring to contrasted the gilded splendour of the Lord Mayor’s coach with the death scene at Miller’s Court – a literary devise to engage their readership. Those passages do not provide any proof that the Lord Mayor’s Show had any meaning to Hutchinson which is the only point I was making about it. Again I am sorry if this was not clear.

Yes I shouldn’t have used the term inmate for someone staying at the Victoria Home but reading the rules, perhaps it was more apt than lodger. I was unaware that the Victoria Home provided newspapers until this was pointed out by Ben. I very much doubt that very poor people wasted money buying newspapers. I think this is an easy assumption to make. Hutchinson claims to have been penniless.
I certainly wasn’t making any suggestion that he was illiterate or too stupid to want to read a newspaper. I don’t know where you got that from. Although ‘in my opinion’, for a whole variety of reasons, not just financial, residents (I almost said inmates again) of lodging houses or other doss houses, are less likely to have read newspapers than for example the settled working class.
Of course Hutchinson may not have been penniless and may not have stayed at the Victoria Home, if everything he said was a pack of lies. He may have said he stayed at the Victoria Home to provide himself with a worthy, sober sounding background. I ‘personally’ would be ready to accept most of his background story as true. In which case he would have had access to papers at the Victoria Home. I have no idea whether he read them.

I hope I have couched this sufficiently to show that these are mostly just my opinons.

[Lechmere]

No Ben, I don’t have any evidence that the police paid witnesses during the Whitechapel murders specifically. But we do have a contemporary report of the police in I think Islington paying an out of work woman to roam around looking for a suspect (I am going from memory). This implies very strongly that it was a common practice which would also be employed in the Ripper investigation. I would not put absolute reliance on Hutchinson’s possible son nor the American newspaper for the amount paid. Those fiddly details are always likely to be exaggerated in the telling, but in my opinion the fact that there is this element of corroboration does lent extra weight to the likelihood of it being true.

Obviously the police wouldn’t pay any witness who just announced themselves. I haven’t made that claim. But it is also clear that for a while they thought Hutchinson was a major witness. That was the police’s judgement of his testimony. Initially anyway.

The significance of the Sgt White (thanks for reminding me of his name) story isn’t whether it is true or not, it is that it illustrates an attitude towards policing. “I was strongly moved to find some pretext for detaining him; but the more I thought it over, the more was I forced to the conclusion that it was not in keeping with British police methods that I should do so...” and more in the same vein. That’s why they couldn’t have obliged Hutchinson to go anywhere with them and why they paid people to do it.

I have noticed another thing – Hutchinson’s claim that the Astrakhan man may have lived in the area. That could be seen as an invite to be taken on as a roving witness (paid).

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

You are correct that policemen paying witnesses is a widespread practice in both America and the UK. It's easy to find dozens of informant payoffs with a google search. Was it widespread in the LVP? Well, the practice started somewhere and it isn't something that a police department is particularly proud of. The concept does show that many people require monetary impetus before coming forward. Of course it is quite a bit more likely that witnesses come forward for some sort of quick buck than because they want to throw the police off the track. Yet, some people can't grasp this. Perhaps their reality is different from real reality?

Mike

[Abby Normal]

No Ben, I don’t have any evidence that the police paid witnesses during the Whitechapel murders specifically. But we do have a contemporary report of the police in I think Islington paying an out of work woman to roam around looking for a suspect (I am going from memory). This implies very strongly that it was a common practice which would also be employed in the Ripper investigation. I would not put absolute reliance on Hutchinson’s possible son nor the American newspaper for the amount paid. Those fiddly details are always likely to be exaggerated in the telling, but in my opinion the fact that there is this element of corroboration does lent extra weight to the likelihood of it being true.

Obviously the police wouldn’t pay any witness who just announced themselves. I haven’t made that claim. But it is also clear that for a while they thought Hutchinson was a major witness. That was the police’s judgement of his testimony. Initially anyway.

The significance of the Sgt White (thanks for reminding me of his name) story isn’t whether it is true or not, it is that it illustrates an attitude towards policing. “I was strongly moved to find some pretext for detaining him; but the more I thought it over, the more was I forced to the conclusion that it was not in keeping with British police methods that I should do so...” and more in the same vein. That’s why they couldn’t have obliged Hutchinson to go anywhere with them and why they paid people to do it.

I have noticed another thing – Hutchinson’s claim that the Astrakhan man may have lived in the area. That could be seen as an invite to be taken on as a roving witness (paid).

Hi Lechmere

I have noticed another thing – Hutchinson’s claim that the Astrakhan man may have lived in the area. That could be seen as an invite to be taken on as a roving witness (paid).

and also claiming to have seen him again in petticoat lane.

But i see these statements from GH to the police could also be trying to give more reality/believability to a made up "suspect".

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"On the topic of the weather, I was merely making the point that the Met Office said there was a certain amount of rain in London (which Fisherman has been endeavouring to put into context) and described it as showers. The Met Office did not say heavy showers. Newspapers may have done but we were discussing the evidence as supplied by the Met Office. The Met Office also says there was strong to gale force wind in the south east. I made the reasonable suggestion that the stronger gale force winds were more likely to be in the coastal areas. London usually has more sheltered and less dramatic weather than the coastal areas. I don’t think I am being too controversial in suggesting this.
I don’t think the Met Office report can be taken as proof that there were gale force winds in London on the morning of 9th November 1888. I don’t think that is an unreasonable interpretation of the Met Office Report."

It is not. You make no controverisl points as such. I would, though, argue that a lot of rain fell. I have supplies articles about places that have had the same amount of rain per hour, but over a full day, and these places have obviously been the argets of some very substantial raining! It must stand to reason that if we are only dealing with showers, they would have been heavy showers, as witnessed about by the Echo. But I really do not see it proven that it could not have rained throughout the night, even if the strength of the rain varied. But it is anybodys guess.
on the wind, yes, if a gale travels in over the coastal area and further into the land, it normally is weakened somewhat as it goes along. But that is not always true, since temperature differences and such over land may affect it all. But generally, your observation is a viable one. And a the end of the day, we cannot establish any exact behaviour of the weather, but it very much stands that much rain fell over the eight hours between midnight and eight in the morning, that it would reasonably have been a very blustery night, quite possibly reaching up against gale force in London too, and we know that it was cold.
It was a miserable night, weatherwise. Maybe less miserable than some of us surmise, and maybe more miserable than others suggest. But miserable it was.

As for the rest of your post, not directed towards me, I think you make eminent sense in a plesantly low-key manner.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Yes Hutchinson may well have been giving more believability to a made up suspect. Frankly I doubt he could have anticipated being taken on as a paid roving witness (if he was paid) - if he was paid it was likely to have been a pleasant surprise. Possibly it became an embarrassment if he deliberately invented his story rather than conflated it.

It is difficult to know whether just over a quarter of an inch of rain in eight hours is a lot. The bad floods last November produced 1.2 inches in three hours in parts of Sussex and in one location in the Lake District they had 12.38 inches in a 24 hour period (which is the UK record). 0.28 inches is probably enough to be uncomfortable.

[Lechmere]

Oh-oh – check this out:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/uk/guide/key.html#radar

Going back to metric, 7.1 mm in 8 hours is less than 1mm an hour which the Met Office classifies as ‘slight’.