Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

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

He’s wrong. He wasn’t intimately involved in the investigation on a senior level. He was offering personal speculation several decades after the event, confirming at least that the police had never procured proof with regard to the Hutchinson affair. His book is littered with mistakes, as you reminded me when I first presented you his opinions on Hutchinson, and he offers other personal speculation that is at odds with the preponderance with the views of the senior police officials at the time of the murders.

That would be my explanation.

Many of us have been aware of Dew’s memoirs and that Hutchinson excerpt for several years, and yet you’re the very first to claim, very controversially, that “the best bet is that he is right”. Incidentally, the more you try to press the view that he had “access to vital information”, the more you underscore the obvious likelihood that the police were only in position to speculate with regard to Hutchinson, in the absence of proof.

By the way, I’m not personally a fan of the debating strategy you’re currently engaging in, just for the record. What you’re doing is providing two suggested explanations, describing the first one in very succinct terms in order to make it look the simplest and therefore the “best”, while describing the second one in with unnecessary verbosity and facetiousness in order to make it look worse. Don’t do it any more, please. It looks like special pleading, which in turn suggests that you’re really not that confident about your conclusions.

Hutchinson didn’t mention Lewis because he didn’t want to make it look too obvious that it was her evidence that prompted him to contact the police. That is my view on that subject.

“It was a rainy, stormy night by the looks of things, but none of thisis depicted in the street scene Hutchinson paints.”

Nor is it depicted in the scene "painted" by Sarah Lewis, who described a man in no overcoat standing in an exposed location with a woman, and yet for some unfathomable reason, you think no overcoat is perfectly compatible with stormy, windy weather but an unbuttoned overcoat cannot be. Your reasoning here is baffling in the extreme. And on the subject of the Britannia couple (about whom you previously wanted to stop talking, but are now reviving anyway), here’s an interesting excerpt from Lewis’ account from the inquest papers:

"On our running away we did not look after the man - On the friday morning about half past two when I was coming to Miller's Court I met the same man with a female - in Commercial Street near Mr Ringer's Public House - near the market - he had then no overcoat..”

Near the market.

There we are – this sheds interesting new light on the location of the couple. On Commercial Street, near the Britannia, near the market, which was further UP Commercial Street on the Eastern side. In other words, they were definitely opposite Itchy Park and thus definitely exposed to any wind and rain swept from the east. Please reassure me that you’re not still trying to place them near the Queen’s Head near Fashion Street.

“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”

This is very misleading, and really rather annoying. You know full well that I accept neither of those explanations, just as you know full well that a rejection of the “wrong-night” hypothesis is not remotely the same thing as accusing the meteorologists of getting anything wrong. Garry has tried to explain in patient detail why the meteorological information argues very heavily against your assertion that it rained “incessantly” on the night in question. Steve Jebsen assures us that this was not the case: “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”.

This information is perfectly compatible with Lewis’ evidence for the 2:30am period that involved a man in no overcoat (never mind an unbuttoned one!) standing in an exposed location near the market on Commercial Street. If you take the trouble to contact the experts, at least try to accept the information they are providing, otherwise it looks like you were only hoping to extract a desired response from them that was, in the event, unforthcoming. And I'm sure this is not the case.

You can't just demand that people either accept your view or an outlandish alternative that nobody ever suggested.

“Your version, Ben, is to some extent ingenious. It is definitely entertaining. It is very enterprising. But simple, it is NOT.”

My “version” is that Hutchinson lied, was believed by the police to have lied, and was accordingly discredited. Simples (meerkat squeak).

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!".

It makes no difference how “simple” something is if it’s so obviously wring, and I certainly don’t respond to Dew’s evidence with “Aha, so that was wat (sic) happened” for the same reason that almost every other researcher with access to Dew’s memoirs hasn’t reacted to his suggestion in that manner: because it is very likely to be wrong. If you think that “all that has ben (sic) thrown at me is the suggestion that it may not have rained”, you clearly haven't been paying attention to the various other reasons for rejecting your proposal. I suspect you know full well that the significance of the date for other reasons (Romford, Lord Mayors Show), the strong coincidence between Lewis’s loiterer and Hutchinson, and the commonsense premise that he simply lied have featured just as prominently.

There’s really nothing strange about my suggestion with regard to John Balioll. I simply observed that you’re less likely to misremember a date that has already passed (when you actually have something to remember) than one that hasn’t yet happened (where you’re not in a position to “remember” anything about its events).

“Hutchinson stated that he believed that the man lived in the area. Why would he do that?”

My personal guess is that this was another attempt by Hutchinson to reinforce the man’s “Jewishness”, hence his “placing” him in Petticoat Lane, a well-known Jewish hotspot. But thanks for highlighting another aspect of Hutchinson’s account that ought really to be considered suspicious. Just what led to his “belief” that the Astrakhan man lived in the area if it was based on two sightings only? Or if he was in possession of additional evidence that Astrakhan lived locally, why was this not provided?

You then ruin your own sensible observation by simply deciding, with no evidence, that Hutchinson must have seen him on a “number of occasions” wearing the very same accessories, despite his earlier claim that the novelty of the man’s appearance was what prompted his 45-minute vigil outside Miller’s Court. This is another attempt to back up what Hutchinson says with what Hutchinson says.

“Or are you saying that he may have hoped/thought that Lewis would simply be reluctant to testify?”

Yes, which isn’t remotely unusual.

“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?”

Yes, once it had been established that Lewis had come forward, and had mentioned the loitering man in her testimony. Obviously, it would have been hopelessly imprudent to make it look glaringly obvious that the purpose of his visit to the police station was to “clear his name”, and this would account for his failure to mention Lewis. It was crucial to convey the impression that he came forward willingly of his own volition, and not because his hand was forced.

“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”

Dropped from the investigation? That’s a bit extreme, isn’t it? I would like to think that Abberline had a bit more imagination than that. It isn’t remotely likely that at the time of the Hutchinson interview, Abberline had memorized every single piece of eyewitness with which to cross reference instantly with Hutchinson’s claims. That’s unrealistic. The likelihood is that Lewis’ evidence was not in his mind at the time of the interview.

Best regards,
Ben

[harry]

In answer to an earlier post by Fisherman

Walter Dew was commenting many,many years after the event.He was a detective constable,who is not shown to have had any important part in the Ripper investigation.Aberline interviewed Hutchinson and reported on that interview the same evening.
We do not know Hutchinson's habits and cannot say what he would or would not do,but he states himself what he did that Friday morning,and rain or not,it includes walking and waiting,and he was believed.It has not been shown that Hutchinson was or had been suffering from any memory disorder.
If anyone wants to believe otherwise,be free to do so,but it would help if that belief was accompanied by more than mere speculation.If Hutchinson didn't go to Romford on the Thursday,and return to Whitecapel in the early hours of the Friday morning,what did he do during that period,and what state of mental belief was it that caused confusion.To say it just happened,is a nonsensical answer.
There is a reason to everything,to say there isn't means ignorance of the answer.What is the answer in this case.W hy should Hutchinson get confused?

[Ben]

My thoughts exactly, Harry.

Hi Lechmere,

I recall the Islington case. The witness in question was detained at considerable length by the police and was paid a guinea per week for her efforts, which is a very far cry from the five guineas or 100 shillings up front that was alleged by dubious sources in Hutchinson’s case. The witness in the Islington case had stopped working as a consequence of her assisting the police, and the payment would therefore have taken the form of a reimbursement rather than a pay-off.

It isn’t outlandish to accept that something similar may have taken place in Hutchinson’s case, but neither the Ripper and the Royals conspiracy theory nor the American gossip column lend weight to this suggestion. Both were almost certainly dreamt up, and not influenced by any actual evidence of any reimbursement.

“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 in all overwhelming probability, the article was written by someone who didn’t know anything about police attitudes, and was merely embellishing an original account by a real policeman, which mentioned nothing about detaining any suspect with long tapering fingers and eyes like glow-worms, let alone the prevalent of policeman towards suspicious individuals on the streets.

Hi Mike,

The concept does show that many people require monetary impetus before coming forward.

But no decent policeman, or any rational human being, is going to pay a witness just because they came 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.

Honest witnesses or false ones? If you mean the latter, surely they amount to the same thing? A witness who provides false information is, of necessity, "throwing the police off the track".

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

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

Okay, noted; thanks for that. Of course, we are still informed by the Echo that heavy rain fell during the night, meaning that it would not have come down continuously throughout the eight hours. And as the meteorological services speak of showers, the reasonabe conclusion would - I think - be that there were heavy showers of rain. But we do not know when the showers fell, or how many they were. They could have been very intense at 2 o clock - and they could have been non-existant at that stage. And, once again, that is why I keep saying that the only exact indicator we have of anything at all weatherwise, is that we KNOW that it was raining hard at 3 AM, just as we KNOW that this was the exact time at which Hutchinson claimed to have set out walking the streets of London. That is the only exactly pinpointed stage at which we can tell exactly what one of the participants of the Astrakhan man game did, and at which we can also tell exactly what the rain was like - and that information spells disaster for George´s story.

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

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."

John Douglas also stated in his book 'The Cases That Haunt Us' that he didn't believe this killer would place himself in the investigation or even communicate with the police.

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

That's true, but Douglas' statement was based on his classification of the ripper as a "disorganised" offender, a view he arrived at in part because of the excess in mutilations and the fact that the victims were found on the streets. The latter he attributed to a chaotic blitz approach, not necessarily taking into account the evidence of Lawende et al (which indicated that the victims were inveigled under the guise of a client first) or the likelihood that the victims were killed on the streets through lack of other options rather than personal preference.

It was also written before notable offenders were captured who combined an organized approach with extremes of mutilation and cannibalism, such as Andrei Chikatilo.

The serial offenders who have inserted themselves into their investigations have tended to come from the "organized" end of the spectrum, and it was thought that an insane Polish Jew of the David Cohen variety would not do this.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben (on Dew):

"He’s wrong"

But that, Ben, is not the simplest explanation, is it? It is far more simple to expect that a policeman who has worked on a case, and who provides information about that case in a manner that speaks of certainty on his behalf, is right.
And we WERE going to opt for the simple explanation, were we not?

" you’re the very first to claim, very controversially, that “the best bet is that he is right”."

This is something any illusionist would be proud of, Ben. Researchers, though, would be very opposed to it. There is nothing at all "controversial" in claiming that policemen who have worked on a case are in a better position to comment on it in a correct manner than amateur researchers are 123 years down the line. Unless you can show any evidence at all to disprove Dew, the only thing to do is to go by his wiew. When and if you actually CAN disprove him, the tables will turn, but I fail to see that you are anywhere even near that stage.
Of course, that hinges to some extent on how we define "near", but let´s not go there too often ...

"By the way, I’m not personally a fan of the debating strategy you’re currently engaging in, just for the record. What you’re doing is providing two suggested explanations, describing the first one in very succinct terms in order to make it look the simplest and therefore the “best”, while describing the second one in with unnecessary verbosity and facetiousness in order to make it look worse."

Have you not noticed, Ben, that "your" explanations call for a lot more words and elaboration than mine? I have.

But since you fortuitously also write:
"My “version” is that Hutchinson lied"
...I am in the position to offer another solution that almost exactly matches yours in length and linguistic appearance:
My version is that Hutchinson told the truth.
And after that, you are free to tell which is the simpler solution. That people lie about what they have done when speaking to the police, or that they tell the truth?

"If you think that “all that has ben (sic) thrown at me is the suggestion that it may not have rained”, you clearly haven't been paying attention to the various other reasons for rejecting your proposal. I suspect you know full well that the significance of the date for other reasons (Romford, Lord Mayors Show), the strong coincidence between Lewis’s loiterer and Hutchinson, and the commonsense premise that he simply lied have featured just as prominently."

It has featured very, very much less. Read the thread! The weather and the ability to miss out on dates have covered, I´d say, 90 per cent of the discussion. Plus, of course, the Romford and Lord Mayor business belongs to no other discussion than the one of getting the day wrong or not, doesn´t it, Ben? So what you are left with here is the Lewis loiterer/Hutchinson comparison, and on that score, the fact that we do not have any mention at all on record of Lewis on Hutchinson´s behalf, but instead a very clear pointing out on his behalf that he saw two persons during his surveillance and two people ONLY, very clearly spells out to us that there is something very, very wrong here. And can we make it tally with what Dew said? Well, whaddoyouknow...? It tallies perfectly!

In all honesty, Ben, we must ask ourselves one crucial question when it comes to Dew: if George Hutchinson was judged by the 1888 police to be a timewaster, then what is he doing in Dew´s book? Why does Dew treat him like some sort of uncracked nut? Moreover, why does he not confidently state that Hutchinson MUST have been lying, although they could not prove it, that he MUST have been a timewaster? If the police were convinced that they could place George Hutchinson at Miller´s Court at 2-2.45, and if they were equally convinced that he could not possibly be telling the truth (which would flie in the face of Abberline´s assertion), then what did they have? I´ll tell you what they had: A proven liar who had been at the murder spot, with no alibi at all. That´s what they had.

That, to me, does not sound like the kind of man they would pat on the back and say "move over, lad, you are wasting our time". To me, it sounds (just like suggested in the clipping you finished off your Examiner article with) like a man who would be in deep **** and serious trouble for the lengthiest of times. But do we have any information at all pointing to such a thing? No, we do not. What we have is a dismissal that seems to have been accompanied by no hard feelings at all from the police, and after that, everything is oblivion, but for one crucial detail: Dew.
He tells us that Hutch MUST (not would, not may) have been out on the dates. And once more, we are faced with an explanation that tallies perfectly with what we know! A "thanks for trying, sir, but you must be mistaken" would suit the scenario we have perfectly.

Strange, is it not, how these particular bits and pieces all corroborate Dew´s stance? Not to speak of how compellingly simple the solution is!

"almost every other researcher with access to Dew’s memoirs hasn’t reacted to his suggestion in that manner: because it is very likely to be wrong"

The suggestion I put forward is one I have never even seen discussed before. I fail to see that scores of researchers would have pondered it and thrown it away as absolute garbage. I think that Tom Wescott´s reaction may be very telling - he asked himself why he had never seen this opening before. Apparently, he believed it to be a very useful suggestion. And you know, Ben - he would be absolutely correct about that. I am as confident as ever that this line of investigation will prove correct in the end, and I would claim (although I know that there are those who would not agree, you being one of them) that the solution that the police dismissed Hutchinson because they believed tht he was off in his timing is the one that has the most going for it. By far, actually.

"My personal guess is that this was another attempt by Hutchinson to reinforce the man’s “Jewishness”, hence his “placing” him in Petticoat Lane, a well-known Jewish hotspot."

That is an interesting proposal that I had not before pondered! Thought-provoking addition! I still think, though, that just the one confirmed observation, so to speak (in Petticoat Lane, he was not sure at all, as you will know), would not be enough to make the assumption.

"if he was in possession of additional evidence that Astrakhan lived locally, why was this not provided?"

Two things, Ben: First, Abberline and Hutchinson must have spoken of something during the interrogation. This detail may belong to that discussion. But on the whole, even if Abberline halted Hutch at the stage where he made the suggestion, if Hutchinson could not provide any name or any address or such, then his information that he did believe the man to be local would be hard to add anything to. On the whole, though, the logical thing to guess when somebody tells you that a man is local, is that you recognize him, quite simply. There were Jews living in many places in London, but there were probably not many Jews with gold chains and horseshoe pins living in the streets we research - something I think you would be first in line to agree with.

"Please reassure me that you’re not still trying to place them near the Queen’s Head near Fashion Street."

Gladly! In fact, I am not the one trying to place them at all - you are. You are the one claiming that they MUST have been subjected to the elements, while I keep saying that we do not know. But we DO know that there were doorways on the western side of Commercial Street, north of the Britannia. And if the wind does not blow straight into a doorway, then there is some shelter to be had. Now, Ben, please note that I am not saying that they MUST have been in such a doorway. I am merely pointing out that not knowing a thing opens up not only negative alternatives, but positive ones too.

"You then ruin your own sensible observation by simply deciding, with no evidence, that Hutchinson must have seen him on a “number of occasions” wearing the very same accessories, despite his earlier claim that the novelty of the man’s appearance was what prompted his 45-minute vigil outside Miller’s Court."

..and you ruin your argument by stating that it was "the novelty" of the mans appearance that had Hutch baffled. It was instead the rich attire, Ben, and as such it would have been unusual. But if he HAD seen the man before, it was not necessarily any "novelty", was it? In fact, the very word novelty would seem to imply that you have some source pointing to Hutch not having seen Astrakhan fellow before. Do you, or did you just make a regrettable choice of words here?

"Obviously, it would have been hopelessly imprudent to make it look glaringly obvious that the purpose of his visit to the police station was to “clear his name”, and this would account for his failure to mention Lewis. It was crucial to convey the impression that he came forward willingly of his own volition, and not because his hand was forced."

Coorect me if I am wrong, Ben, but I fail to see how saying that a woman entered the court as he stood there would point to him having had his hand forced. If he said that he stood outside the court, the police could - if they were of that mind - say "Aha! He has read the inquest, and places himself in the loiterers role! How sinister!" And if he mentioned Lewis, the police could say "Aha! He has read the inquest, and places himself in the loiterers role! How sinister!"
The only difference involved is that if he did NOT mention Lewis, the police could say "Aha! He could not have been there, since he did not see Mrs Lewis!". That is something they could not have claimed if he DID mention her. And to be perfectly honest, I would have been a lot more impressed by a witness that got crucial details correct, than by one who missed out on such an elementary thing.
And - once more - Dew applies eminently, and makes all the sense in the world here!

"Dropped from the investigation? That’s a bit extreme, isn’t it?"

No. It is the reasonable thing to do when you establish that a witness provides faulty material by an honest mistake. But I do think that the police would still be very interested in Astrakhan man, since he would be able to help establish what Kelly did on the night BEFORE her death.

"It isn’t remotely likely that at the time of the Hutchinson interview, Abberline had memorized every single piece of eyewitness with which to cross reference instantly with Hutchinson’s claims.That’s unrealistic. The likelihood is that Lewis’ evidence was not in his mind at the time of the interview."

My own stance is that Abberline really ought to have remembered Lewis´ loiterer during the interrogation of Hutchinson - the inquest proceedings were not very extensive and few leads were presented there that had any potentially direct bearing in identifying the killer.
But I am still very much inclined to believe that Abberline - just like you believe - did NOT make use of the information provided by Lewis at the interrogation. That would have come about later, and it would be what was phrased "in the light of later investigation" by the papers.
If Abberline HAD used the information at the interrogation, Hutchinson would either 1/ have said that nobody entered the court as he stood there, and in such a case, his dismissal would have come quicker and Abberline would not have stated that he was of the meaning that Hutch was telling the truth, or 2/ Hutch would have said that a woman DID enter the court, and in such a case, what are the odds that he would have forgotten about her as he spoke to the papers? None, I would say. And the police would not have asked him not to tell the papers- it would be of no use, since the inquest was in print already, telling all and sundry about Lewis´doings!
The reasonable thing to believe is that as the word on Hutchinson was passed on to the police stations, where somebody quickly picked up on the loiterer discrepancy and/or the weather part. And that would mean game over!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:
"Walter Dew was ... a detective constable,who is not shown to have had any important part in the Ripper investigation."

He worked the case as a detective, Harry. And I fail to see why any such man would have been kept in the dark about the proceedings, since it would be detrimentary to his work.

"If anyone wants to believe otherwise,be free to do so"

Thanks. I will.

"What is the answer in this case. Why should Hutchinson get confused?"

Dear Harry! We cannot possibly crave an explanation to why Hutch got it wrong, can we? It is an impossible task to establish. Therefore, we must rely on empirical values, and they tell us that people mix up dates all the time.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

John Douglas also stated in his book 'The Cases That Haunt Us' that he didn't believe this killer would place himself in the investigation or even communicate with the police.

Yes, but it's important when choosing Hutchinson as a suspect, to only use the things Douglas said that bolster the candidate. Anything else can be easily explained away, omitted, or passed on. That's how this all works.

Mike

[Ben]

That’s only an 80-line post there, Fisherman. Not nearly long enough for a Hutchinson-Ben debate.

“But that, Ben, is not the simplest explanation, is it? It is far more simple to expect that a policeman who has worked on a case, and who provides information about that case in a manner that speaks of certainty on his behalf, is right.”

No, this doesn’t even vaguely follow, and I really think you’re getting both confused and carried away with this “simplicity” business here. Three problems with it: 1) I’m sorry but I don’t find your explanations simple at all, 2) it is very easy to make a false virtue out of “simplicity”, and 3) there’s no use something being "simple" if it’s simply wrong!

If we all adopted the approach you’re suggesting, then we’d all be endorsing the Dew explanation, drawn like moths to a light bulb by its tantalizing “simplicity”. Astonishingly, this hasn’t happened. This Dew reference has been around for many years, and yet it was not until I presented this evidence to you that anyone saw fit to endorse his suggestion as the correct one.

All Dew’s statements provide is further reinforcement that the police were left to speculate with regard to Hutchinson in the absence of proof.

“Unless you can show any evidence at all to disprove Dew, the only thing to do is to go by his wiew.”

Please reflect on how outlandish this piece of advice is, and why you’re in the conspicuous minority when you’re endorsing it. I haven’t any evidence to disprove Abberline’s suggestion that the ripper was Severin Klosowski who went on an organ-harvesting spree for an American doctor, by I’m certainly not about to “go by his view”, and in this case we’re talking about one of the most senior police officials “on the ground” during the Whitechapel investigation.

“That people lie about what they have done when speaking to the police, or that they tell the truth?”

…but confuse a day that they were vastly unlikely to have confused. Don’t forget to add that bit. I’’ll stick with Hutchinson lied.

“The weather and the ability to miss out on dates have covered, I´d say, 90 per cent of the discussion. Plus, of course, the Romford and Lord Mayor business belongs to no other discussion than the one of getting the day wrong or not, doesn´t it, Ben?”

Of course, but it doesn’t really concern the weather, and whatever comprised 90% of the present discussion, I’d say each of the objections raised carry equal validity. For reasons that have been repeated ad nauseam (and may have to be repeated again, it depends. We’ll see) the similarity between Hutchinson’s report of his location and behaviour at that time and those observed of Lewis’ loiterer are far too striking to be dismissed as coincidence. It doesn’t matter how often you refer to Hutchinson’s non-mention of Lewis, I’ll just keep repeating my suggestion that Hutchinson deliberately avoided any mention of Lewis to delay or prevent it being realised by the police that it was her evidence that compelled him to come forward.

“if George Hutchinson was judged by the 1888 police to be a timewaster, then what is he doing in Dew´s book?”

I think a hazy recollection of details provides the obvious solution here. Most likely, Dew remembered that Hutchinson was discredited at the time of the investigation but either forgot the reason for this discrediting, or simply wasn’t informed in any detail by his bosses on account of his then junior status. He treats him like an uncracked nut because that was almost certainly what Hutchinson was. Whatever the police came to believe about Hutchinson, the likelihood is that they were never in a position to shore up those beliefs with proof. Dew’s statements merely provide additional conformation of this. As for why he decided on date confusion as a preferred personal explanation, he clearly remembered Caroline Maxwell and her possible date confusion, and simply lumped Hutchinson into the same category.

“If the police were convinced that they could place George Hutchinson at Miller´s Court at 2-2.45, and if they were equally convinced that he could not possibly be telling the truth (which would flie in the face of Abberline´s assertion), then what did they have?”

You know my thoughts on this. I don’t think the police were ever convinced that they could place Hutchinson at Miller’s Court. I’ve suggested that they dismissed him as a liar who wasn’t there because the precedent of publicity-seekers had become well established, and the conclusion that Hutchinson was yet another publicity-seeker had safety in numbers.

On the other hand, it cannot be ruled out that the police did come to the realisation that he WAS at Miller’s Court and lied about his reasons for being there. In that case, yes, he would have been suspected, and yes, he would have been investigated. But that doesn’t mean that any putative investigation should have delivered the goods either way. It doesn’t make much sense, incidentally, for you to highlight the lack of paperwork to the effect that Hutchinson was investigated as a suspect, when there’s an equal absence of any missive from Abberline saying; “Yep, it’s official, folks. The silly sausage confused the dates!”

“Strange, is it not, how these particular bits and pieces all corroborate Dew´s stance?”

I don’t think they do, not even remotely, and it doesn’t read very well for you to keep insisting that your version of events “tallies” all the time. You’ve written the article, and its conclusions are for others to judge.

“I think that Tom Wescott´s reaction may be very telling - he asked himself why he had never seen this opening before. Apparently, he believed it to be a very useful suggestion.”

Tom also conceded that fabrication was a more likely explanation. You’ve presented something new, or at least new to people unfamiliar with Dew, and hats off to you for that. I can’t quite escape the conclusion that the idea for your article came about after I casually inserted a reference to Dew’s memoirs into a recent Hutchinson thread, and that after initially poo-pooing it and cautioning me not to listen to Dew, you did a U-turn and thought “Well, hang on a minute”, but this isn’t meant in criticism. I couldn’t be more astonished by your claim that this theory you’ve formulated a few weeks ago will one day “prove” correct, but to each his own.

“Two things, Ben: First, Abberline and Hutchinson must have spoken of something during the interrogation.”

But if Hutchinson had told Abberline that he had seen the Astrakhan man on a sufficient number of other occasions to ascertain that he probably lived in the area, it would be ludicrous of Abberline to have withheld it from the body of the statement, as it was information that could determine the most suitable places for further scrutiny. My very strong suspicion, of course, is that Hutchinson never even mentioned this subsequent Petticoat Lane encounter, and that the police came to doubt Hutchinson because of the divergent claims he made to the press.

“There were Jews living in many places in London, but there were probably not many Jews with gold chains and horseshoe pins living in the streets we research - something I think you would be first in line to agree with.”

Exactly, which is why Hutchinson’s claim is so implausible.

Back to the Britannia couple, a doorway on the western side of Commercial Street opposite some exposed burial grounds would not have offered protection from rain and wind swept from the east, particularly not if it was the strong gale you seem to be envisaging. The exception would be if they were down an alleyway, but then they wouldn’t be standing in Commercial Street.

“But if he HAD seen the man before, it was not necessarily any "novelty", was it?”

Exactly, and if it wasn’t a novelty, there was absolutely no need to harbour such a fascination with him; certainly not one that extended to following him all the way from Thrawl Street, thence to sustain a 45-minute vigil outside Miller’s Court to see if he came out. Of course, there was never any suggestion that Hutchinson had seen the man before, which is why I’m baffled by this:

“In fact, the very word novelty would seem to imply that you have some source pointing to Hutch not having seen Astrakhan fellow before.”

This is the overwhelmingly logical inference, yes, and yet you’re now expecting me to provide my evidence for Hutchinson NOT having seen him before. This just isn’t the way it works. If you have any evidence that Hutchinson had seen the man prior to the 9th November – not just backing up Hutchinson’s claims with Hutchinson’s claims – then it’s incumbent upon you to provide it.

“Coorect me if I am wrong, Ben, but I fail to see how saying that a woman entered the court as he stood there would point to him having had his hand forced”

It would certainly have increased the chances of him being identified with the Lewis loiterer, and if he paid specific attention to this passing female (of no relevance whatsoever to the apprehension of a male serial killer), the risk of it being observed with suspicion that it was her evidence that forced him into action would have increased.

“The only difference involved is that if he did NOT mention Lewis, the police could say "Aha! He could not have been there, since he did not see Mrs Lewis!".”

Which, ironically, would have worked out pretty wonderfully for Hutchinson if he really did have some involvement in Kelly’s death, at least according to you. By your logic, all he had to do was omit any reference to Lewis, and he would have been dropped immediately, considered a time-waster and by extension innocent of the Kelly murder and the Whitechapel murders. If only Hutchinson knew if was that easy!

The likelihood, however, was that Abberline’s mind was not full to the brim of inquest evidence in readiness to provide an instant cross-reference with any future witness. Significantly, not one single press article made any reference to Lewis’ evidence in connection with Hutchinson, indicating that even the journalists responsible for recording the inquest evidence were not cross-referencing Hutchinson’s claims with Lewis’ evidence. The fact that we make a big deal of Lewis’ loiterer today doesn’t mean that he was an investigative priority at the time of the murders – not when their were more immediately “suspicious” characters to contend with in the form of Bethnal Green man, Blotchy, and subsequently Astrakhan. The inescapable conclusion is that the potential significance of the loitering man was overlooked.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

"Yes, but it's important when choosing Hutchinson as a suspect, to only use the things Douglas said that bolster the candidate."

No. Douglas' remarks on the likely reasons for the cessation of the murders were based on established data, whereas he was simply imparting his (admittedly well-informed) opinion that the killer was a disorganised offender similar to David Cohen.

Unlucky.

[Hunter]

In all fairness I wasn't very impressed with many of Douglas' assumtions about the JTR case. There's just not enough information at this late stage to draw any conclusions beyond what regular common sense would dictate... which is also the reason why I find all suspect theories... suspect as well.

However, this is the classic whodunit and speculation about who the 'fiend' was is a natural thing. My problem with it is when it goes beyond speculation and enters the realm of conviction based on conjecture that then dispels any other equal speculation that is not conducive as mere conjecture itself.

The fact is there is insufficient evidence either way as far as George Hutchinson is concerned. It is a dead end. To state that is is common sense to believe that the man was even lying at all goes against the fact that two former policemen, Stewart Evans and Donald Rumbelow believed that Hutchinson could have been truthful and they were both experienced policemen. They could be wrong... maybe... but there are more than a half dozen hypothetical situations in regards to Hutchinson and what the police thought... any one is just as valid as the other, including the possibility that Hutchinson wasn't so readily dismissed due to the description of men hauled in during the weeks that followed. In fact, those are facts and are on record. Despite what the initial reason for suspecting these individuals were, that the word 'astrakhan' is mentioned at all in regards to these individuals is significant.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If we all adopted the approach you’re suggesting, then we’d all be endorsing the Dew explanation, drawn like moths to a light bulb by its tantalizing “simplicity”.

Absolutely. And a wise thing that would be.

"Astonishingly, this hasn’t happened."

That´s not astonishing, Ben - not at all.

"This Dew reference has been around for many years, and yet it was not until I presented this evidence to you that anyone saw fit to endorse his suggestion as the correct one."

I keep forgetting your supreme role in this drama, Ben! My own understanding is that I wrote my article myself, and the last person in the world I would expect any pointing in a non-Hutch direction from, would be you.

"All Dew’s statements provide is further reinforcement that the police were left to speculate with regard to Hutchinson in the absence of proof."

Eh, no, Ben. If this had been true, than Dew would reasonably have written that the police were at a loss to understand what happened. Instead he says that there can be no question about Hutch missing out on the dates. If this reflects the sentiments of the police at the time - and you would be amazed to see how often policemens´elaborations on their work reflect this very thing! - then the clear indication is that the police had satisfied themselves that Hutchinson would have mistaken the dates, whereas Hutch himself did not readily swallow that pill. There is no inference that the police were uncertain in Dew´s text, just as there is no such thing about anywhere. He was initially believed, the story was further investigated, and Boom! - he was discredited. Those are not the actions of an "uncertain" police force.

"Please reflect on how outlandish this piece of advice is, and why you’re in the conspicuous minority when you’re endorsing it."

It is anything but outlandish, Ben. It is far more outlandish to, out of the blue, state categorically that Dew was wrong. And that did not take any evidence at all for you to achieve!
In this case, I am not asking for absolute proof or listed evidence. I only want a plausible explanation to why Dew MUST have been wrong. It cannot lie in the weather, since it may well have been raining hard at 2 AM, just as it did by 3 AM. It cannot lie in any impossibility that Hutchinson did get the dates wrong, since we have on record that this happens all the time, and since history has recorded heaps of cases where this very thing happened. Therefore, I would very much like to know why Dew must have been wrong, and why his suggestion must have been just a private reflection, instead of a mirroring of what went down as he worked the case as a detective. And if you are experiencing major trouble to come up with anything at all along these lines, I fully understand - I have had the exact same experience.

"…but confuse a day that they were vastly unlikely to have confused. Don’t forget to add that bit. I’’ll stick with Hutchinson lied."

The "vastly unlikely" bit is your assessment, Ben. It very much differs from my and Dew´s take on it, I suspect. Well, to be honest, Dew MAY have thought it vastly unlikely too (who am I to decide for him?) - but if so, the evidence was still there to make him conclude that it had happened anyway.

"the similarity between Hutchinson’s report of his location and behaviour at that time and those observed of Lewis’ loiterer are far too striking to be dismissed as coincidence."

Aha. So outside a place where paid-for sex was to be had, men will normally not gather in the night? There is no more coincidence than that, Ben.

"It doesn’t matter how often you refer to Hutchinson’s non-mention of Lewis, I’ll just keep repeating my suggestion that Hutchinson deliberately avoided any mention of Lewis to delay or prevent it being realised by the police that it was her evidence that compelled him to come forward."

It is a strange debating technique, but not exactly new to me. The real problem is that it works from faulty premises, since already mentioning that he stood at the boarding house and watched the court at the time in question would effectively give the exact same thing away - that he had gotten wind of the inquest, and took advantage of Lewis´testimony to place himself in the loiterer´s role. So you just refute away - the power of an argument lies within itself, and not in how many times we repeat it, oblivious of the need to see the true qualities involved.

"I think a hazy recollection of details provides the obvious solution here."

I think that "hazy recollections" normally result in a suggestion of "he possibly was wrong on the dates" and not in "there can be no other explanation". When we say something like this, we do so because we can bolster it.
But I guess no matter how many times I tell you that the very fact that Dew´s suggestion seemingly tallies with what happened, from the weather down to Lewis´sudden disappearance, you will instead prefer to go with your belief that Dew was totally wrong and Hutchinson a liar - correct?

"He treats him like an uncracked nut"

Of course, when you are certain that somebody is wrong on the dates, they are no uncracked nuts at all - they are cracked. The one thing that seemingly did NOT crack, was Hutchinsons own belief that he was right on the dates. But to Dew, there was nothing left to solve, obviously.

"As for why he decided on date confusion as a preferred personal explanation, he clearly remembered Caroline Maxwell and her possible date confusion, and simply lumped Hutchinson into the same category."

A very, very good suggestion, Ben. That sounds like exactly the thing an ex-detective would do - he probably worked from the same point of wiew throughout his whole career, lumping people together for no other reason than his own comfort. One day on the job, he booked all criminals for pick-pocketing, and the other, they were all rapists, from the drooling idiot with his fly open, down to the fat lady with a crowbar in her hand.
That is by far the best suggestion I have heard about why Dew opted for Hutchinson being out of date - for no other reason than a wish to lump him together with Maxwell.

Tell me that I did not read that, Ben? Please?

"It doesn’t make much sense, incidentally, for you to highlight the lack of paperwork to the effect that Hutchinson was investigated as a suspect, when there’s an equal absence of any missive from Abberline saying; “Yep, it’s official, folks. The silly sausage confused the dates!”

Different stories, Ben - in the first case, if Hutchinson WAS a suspect at a stage, the papers would have taken a major interest in that. Just think of it! It would have been a sensational story, unheard of before: a fiendish serial killer who daringly approaches the police, only to be found out and turned into a suspect! Such a thing would give the press a field day, and I fail to see that the police would have silenced it down.

Contrary to this, having missed out on something very elementary (like for instance the weather) on behalf of Abberline, nailing his colours to the mast (I am of the opinion his story is true!) would have put the police in a very embarrasing situation. They would NOT have run to the press with that titbit themselves, and the press would have no way to find out what had happened if the police chose to tell them nothing in order to save themselves from a serious outbreak or ridiculing. Thereefore, the two do not compare in the first place!

"it doesn’t read very well for you to keep insisting that your version of events “tallies” all the time. You’ve written the article, and its conclusions are for others to judge."

Absolutely! But I do not think it is much of a secret that I think I am right, since I actually wrote "I know now what happened" in the article. That sort of gives it away. After that, yes, others may choose what to make of it.

"I can’t quite escape the conclusion that the idea for your article came about after I casually inserted a reference to Dew’s memoirs into a recent Hutchinson thread"

I´ll help you, then. Your post had nothing to do with the article. I had read Dew before (more than once), but had not seen the potential barrel of powder in combining it with the other parametres, and the same would apply to many of us out here by the looks of things.

"if Hutchinson had told Abberline that he had seen the Astrakhan man on a sufficient number of other occasions to ascertain that he probably lived in the area, it would be ludicrous of Abberline to have withheld it from the body of the statement, as it was information that could determine the most suitable places for further scrutiny."

Not a bad point. But if the former sightings - if they were indeed there, and there is good reason to think so - were either placed in differeing areas altogether, or, even worse, recorded in places Hutchinson could not remember (I know I have seen that man before somewhere around here, but where was it ...?), there would have been nothing much to inform about.
Anyways, much, much more information would have been useful to gain from the report, and much, much more information was gathered at the interrogation. Some of it would have been crucial, and still it did not make it´s way into the report.

"Exactly, which is why Hutchinson’s claim is so implausible."

Yet, it was perfectly plausible in the eyes of Abberline. True, even. Astrakhan man would have been a rare flower in Dorset Street, but not at all totally implausible, as shown by Abberline.

"Back to the Britannia couple..."

I think not. I´ve had my say.

"there was never any suggestion that Hutchinson had seen the man before"

Of course not. The fact that he placed him in the neighbourhood does in no way point in this direction! Oh, no! That only points to YOUR version that Hutch tried to nail the Jews for the killings, and in no way at all to MY suggestion that people who say that they believe that somebody lives in a specific area do so because they have seen them in that area. What tosh - how COULD I suggest that ...?

"It would certainly have increased the chances of him being identified with the Lewis loiterer, and if he paid specific attention to this passing female (of no relevance whatsoever to the apprehension of a male serial killer), the risk of it being observed with suspicion that it was her evidence that forced him into action would have increased."

No, it would not. He had already given away what EXACT part from the inquest he was using. No other deduction could be made, if the police were looking to nail him for injecting himself into the investigation on false premises (which they were not, but just for the sake of showing how it works...), than that he had picked that exact part to use as his ticket. And he would have been dumber than a ton of bricks if he did not substantiate the claim by mentioning Lewis. It would have been the clincher, and if the police swallowed the surveillance part, they would want to have the Lewis passing by part to go along with it.
Instead, it was what gave him a one way ticket from the police station. And if he STILL claimed that he HAD been there on the night, then Dew would probably have written in his memoirs that no other verdict could be passed than that of a mistaken day.
Which was exactly what he did, come to think of it.

"By your logic, all he had to do was omit any reference to Lewis, and he would have been dropped immediately, considered a time-waster and by extension innocent of the Kelly murder and the Whitechapel murders. If only Hutchinson knew if was that easy!"

The police would have been thorough, I think. But yes, if he did not acknowledge Lewis, the suspicion would immediately be there that he was out of date. After that, things like a weather check, a check with the Romford people he may have met, and a check at the Victoria home may all have helped to clinch things. Please keep in mind that he went to the police on the 12:th, and already on the 13:th, the Echo knew that the police believed they had good reasons to believe they were on the wrong track. Once again, the timing and the details fall into place (according to me, that is, he blushingly hastened to add).

"The likelihood, however, was that Abberline’s mind was not full to the brim of inquest evidence in readiness to provide an instant cross-reference with any future witness."

Admittedly a good suggestion!

"Significantly, not one single press article made any reference to Lewis’ evidence in connection with Hutchinson, indicating that even the journalists responsible for recording the inquest evidence were not cross-referencing Hutchinson’s claims with Lewis’ evidence."

It was probably a policeman and not a journalist that cracked the case, Ben. And after that, the press were fed the information that Hutch was ascertained history - so what use would they have to dig any further into what lay behind it all? They would have asked, of course - but for reasons given above, they would have been deprived of an answer.

"The fact that we make a big deal of Lewis’ loiterer today doesn’t mean that he was an investigative priority at the time of the murders – not when their were more immediately “suspicious” characters to contend with in the form of Bethnal Green man, Blotchy, and subsequently Astrakhan."

That makes up four contenders. And when Hutchinson went to the police, they were only three.
My suggestion is that, since they were convinced from the outset that Hutch´s story could be of paramount interest to them, the police would have done everything they could to check out if it held water. They would have taken each and every bit of his testimony that could possibly be checked, and then they would have started doing so. They would have checked the Romford journey, they would have asked at the Victoria home, they would have spoken to as many people as possible who resided in the crucial streets, including for example McCarty, whose shop had still been open at the hour before the Astrakhan sighting. They would have cross-referenced the few things that were said at the inquest too, with Hutch´s story. And it would very soon have become obvious to them that they had an useful tool with which to establish whether he had truly been there or not: Lewis. If they had not found that out by themselves, then the press could have played a role, since the obviously impossible story of his sightngs on the night was in print. But the quick succesion of what went down clearly implicates that this never happened.

But don´t you think that we are moving in circles now, Ben? Maybe we should make an effort to come up with new material instead? I have a plan to do so, but it will have to wait some days. But after that, I hope to be able to supply a little more that could be useful.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"Despite what the initial reason for suspecting these individuals were, that the word 'astrakhan' is mentioned at all in regards to these individuals is significant."

My own guess here, Hunter, would be that the police wanted to secure the man for questioning him about the night of the 8:th - even if they had reached the conclusion that Hutchinson was out of date, that would not mean that Astrakhan man would be of no interest to them. They clearly tried as best as they could to form a timeline leading up to the murder, and the night of the 8:th would have played an important role in that context.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Good heavens, I seem to be one day off again - the night of the 7:th is of course the one I´m after here ...!

The best,
Fisherman