Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
What a difference a day makes...sounds like a title for a song..also apt for a signature tune for your good self.
'The sun and the showers.... and whats the next line? something to do with rain.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

I hold surprisingly few “convictions”, Hunter, beyond the recognition that Hutchinson’s decision to approach the police coincided with the termination of the inquest at which Sarah Lewis had referred to a man loitering outside the entrance to the court. The only inference that I consider difficult to escape without crying “coincidence” is that Hutchinson realised he’d been seen and came forward to vindicate his presence there.

Of course it’s possible that he did all this and wasn’t guilty of murdering anyone, but the recognition of the above at least ensures that you’re unlikely to do better in terms of named suspects, at least in terms of those who meet the “unknown local male” criteria.

Without wishing to get embroiled into another debate over the particulars of the Astrakhan description, I consider myself on firm territory to observe that much of what he alleged to have observed and memorized borders on the impossible, and as far as former policeman’s views are concerned, it’s worth noting Bob Hinton’s observation in his book, “From Hell”:

“I have spoken to many serving and ex-police officers, and without exception they all dismiss Hutchinson’s description as pure fantasy”.

I’d hazard a confident guess that the realization that Hutchinson probably fabricated the key aspects of his account has gone hand in hand with the decreasing popularity of the “celebrity” or higher class-type suspect, with whom unsuccessful comparisons with the Astrakhan man have been drawn. The subsequent interest attaching to Hutchinson both as a liar and even as a possible ripper candidate is, to my mind, indicative or a more criminological approach to the subject. The Astrakhan man is essentially a paint-by-numbers amalgamation of all the suspicious and sinister press depictions of the ripper’s appearance, and common sense should prevail when considering the possibility that the real killer waltzed into the district attired in that fashion, and bedecked with items that were guaranteed to attract attention from the least desirable sources.

I’ll admit to being very astonished at how the conclusion that Hutchinson lied can be resisted so staunchly.

I really wouldn’t read too much into subsequent references to suspects wearing “Astrakhan”. There’s no evidence that the police were remotely interested in the suspects for that reason. Instead, it appears that these Astrakhan types were brought to the attention of the police by members of the public who had read the Hutchinson account in the papers and then became spooked when someone fitting that description had smiled at them weirdly, or something silly, as was the case with Douglas Cow. Of course, these ordinary citizens were not to know that the account had already been discarded.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Starter for 10..

Here's a question. Amongst so many people volunteering statements as to sightings of 'suspicious men' between the 9th and the 13th November; what was it about Hutchinson and his account that stood out, exactly?

What led the police to total belief in him - however that was quickly demolished? Any thoughts?

[Lechmere]

Sally seems to have killed this thread, but she has provided a good opportunity for a round up...

I think the police initially accepted Hutchinson’s story as it chimed with their preconceived notions of what happened, the likely culprit and seemed to fit in with Lewis's statement to some extent.

Hutchinson was probably a voluble and convincing type.

Then I suspect that the police checked his story and parts didn't add up - e.g. at the Victoria Home, or maybe he over reached himself with more and more detailed and fantastic elaborations. In some way his story must have completely fallen apart.

Maybe he was a day out. I have no trouble accepting that possibility (one small reason being I don’t believe he would have taken any notice of the Lord Mayor’s Show), even though I don't think there was enough rain that night to float a, err, fish. I don’t think the rain was that heavy – the Met Office definitions kill that one off stone dead.

Dew became a senior and successful policeman. His opinions must carry weight. Just because someone gets some details wrong doesn’t invalidate all their testimony. Just as Toppy being used to support a flimsy theory doesn’t invalidate everything about Toppy’s possible identification with the Mary Kelly Hutchinson.

Maybe he was there-abouts but added much to the tale. Maybe deliberately, maybe he was an unintentional romancer. Maybe desperation to be part of a big deal got the better of him and he incorporated a whole series of events from different days together.

I think it quite likely he was paid to tramp the streets looking for his ‘suspect’. As I have said the exact amount probably inflated in the telling.

I think the police cocked it up with him as they cocked up so much in this case, as they were desperate to succeed and were under the microscope as never before. But I don’t think they were totally inept which they would have been if Hutchinson was the culprit and they let him slip through their fingers.

Near the Britannia must be on the same side of the road as the Britannia as Commercial Street is quite wide, there are alternative landmarks on the eastern side and it was also near the market – so logically between Dorset Street and Brushfield Street. I don’t see that this has any relevance anyway.

Ben hangs his entire case on this sentence, by which I mean without this sentence he has no case. From Sarah Lewis’s inquest testimony: “He was not tall - but stout - had on a black wideawake hat - I did not notice his clothes.” From that he deduces that Hutchinson felt obliged to put himself forward... to deflect attention away from himself, as this was supposedly a description of Hutchinson prior to committing murder. In my opinion this is preposterous. Sally raised this issue to good effect in a much earlier post on a related thread. Lewis couldn’t identify him anyway and the inquest ‘description’ is very poor.

This has been a good thread (‘in my opinion’) as it has tweaked out a number of issues, but also it really just confirms that Hutchinson is a red herring, and the police sussed this out early on.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

That’s a 90-line post. Good job for remembering that the longest posts and the will to survive a relentless and prolix stamina war provide the keys to victory in any Hutchinson debate that involves me, but I’m afraid only Tolkeinian lengths will suffice these days.

“If this had been true, than Dew would reasonably have written that the police were at a loss to understand what happened.”

It wouldn’t have been necessary for Dew to write this. The obvious reality that the police were at a loss to understand what happened is evinced by the fact that he was only in a position to offer his decades-late personal speculation on the matter, as opposed to providing evidence that the contemporary police had procured proof positive on the Hutchinson issue. Of course it doesn’t reflect “the sentiments of the police at the time”, and even if it did, there’s a crucial difference between mere “sentiments” and ironclad proof.

This wasn’t the first example of Dew engaging in minority-endorsed speculation either. Despite most of the seniority of the police in 1888 supporting the hypothesis that the killer was responsible for the GSG, Dew again offered his own acutely personal opinion that it was not ripper-authored. Before anyone fancies derailing this discussion in the direction of Goulston Street, I’m not offering my own views on the subject one way of another, but merely demonstrating Dew’s propensity towards expressing personal opinion independently of his dead former bosses; opinions which contrasted markedly with that of the majority. Very tellingly, here’s what Dew said:

“And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also?”

Why on earth would he appeal to his readership for agreement like this if the police had established his view for certain?

“He was initially believed, the story was further investigated, and Boom! - he was discredited. Those are not the actions of an "uncertain" police force.”

Yes, they are.

Packer and Violenia were discredited in a very similar fashion, but not because the police had procured proof to this effect, but rather because they arrived at this opinion, more than likely on the basis that money and publicity seekers had already become a prominent feature in the investigation, and that here were two more. There is really no reason to suspect that Hutchinson was treated any differently once his account was treated as suspect.

“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.”

But why else do you think people have been debating with you on this subject if not to press the argument – as per the heading of this thread - that Hutchinson probably didn’t confuse the dates? I’m very confident that several posters here have provided extremely compelling reasons for dismissing the suggestion as extremely implausible. As Garry has pointed out, for example, the suggestion that it was raining “incessantly” can certainly be discounted, and as Lewis’ evidence demonstrates, it was probably not raining around 2:30am that night. Indeed, your meteorological contact confirms that the showers in the small hours were only of an intermittent nature.

The case for Dew being almost certainly wrong has been advanced in considerable detail already, so I’m not sure quite you’re requesting an entire encore of these already provided reasons.

“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.”

Again, nobody said anything about “impossibility” so much as vast, vast improbability. And no, it is most assuredly not “on record” that what you’re suggesting with regard to Hutchinson “happens all the time". No evidence has been provided in support of this contention, and the same is true of the suggestion that “history has recorded heaps of cases where this very thing happened”. There’s just no evidential beef behind these rather confident and casual assertions. It reminds me of one attempt by a young hopeful to entice the late and great David Carradine into an interview on the basis that he had interviewed “all the best people in Hollywood”.

“but if so, the evidence was still there to make him conclude that it had happened anyway.”

Woah! And this “evidence” comes from where? Dew didn’t provide a scrap of evidence to support his “different day” hypothesis; only personal decades-late speculation of the type that you were previously encouraging me not to listen to.

“Aha. So outside a place where paid-for sex was to be had, men will normally not gather in the night?”

Exactly, they wouldn’t. Because “opposite the court” is an illogical place for prospective clients to wait when there was an ideally situated sheltered passageway a few feet away. It's not just the coincidence of time and location that lends weight to the Hutchinson = wideawake inference. It's the fact that the same activity was reported in both cases - that of watching or waiting for someone. The latter more than clinches it for me.

“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.”

But this deduction appears not to have been made either by the police or the press, as it might well have been had Hutchinson referred to the passing of Lewis specifically. If his failure to mention her ensured that no Lewis-Hutchinson connection of any description was made, as appears to have been the case, that’s a bit of a result for Hutchinson if he really did have some involvement in the murder(s).

“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?”

Correct. And there’s that F-word used in the wrong context yet again! If something is “seemingly”, it cannot be a “fact”! The premise that Dew was “totally wrong” in his Hutch-related speculative musings has not been challenged for many decades, and I don’t see that changing any times soon. That doesn’t mean you’re not welcome to adopt a staunch position to the contrary, however.

“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.”

Not necessarily. But it does sound like “exactly the thing” that a then junior police official writing decades after the events would do; compiling his vague memories, making all sorts of glaring errors and embellishments when so doing, and almost certainly not being privy to the knowledge shared by his police superiors. In such a case, lumping two hazily recollected but unlikely witnesses into the same category seems a likely manoeuvre for someone in Dew’s position. But all you need to do is read his thought patterns on the subject – he argues that it was probable that Hutchinson mistook the date purely because Maxwell did!

“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!”

Whereas I suppose they would have ignored altogether any revelation that it had been roven beyond doubt that temporary star witness George Hutchinson had gone and fannyed up the dates, and that it was no longer necessary to search for Astrakhan-esque villains after all? Just think of it! Or, we can embrace reality for a moment and accept that if – a HUGE if – the police ever suspected Hutchinson, the press obviously need not have known about it.

“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.”

Yes, and I hope you’ll appreciate that I intend no malice when I say that you really ought to avoid making claims like that in any future article you may choose to write. It just doesn’t read well at all.

“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 parameters”

I’ll believe you if you say so, Fish. It’s just a bit interesting, though, that you jumped on the Dew-was-right bandwagon so soon after I made reference to his Hutchinson-related musings on a recent Hutchinson thread.

“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 ...?)”

But if he couldn’t remember where he had last seen the Astrakhan man – in this highly speculative never-before-suggested scenario that we’re entertaining here briefly – how could he have determined that he “lived in the area”. It’s not as though an acute memory of the man’s fiddly accessories is compatible with a failure to remember the location of the sighting. Or are “sequential” and “detail” memory both different from “location” memory?

“Yet, it was perfectly plausible in the eyes of Abberline. True, even”

Until it was discredited very shortly afterwards, of course, at which point the logical explanation is that the description and everything that went with it were not quite so plausible. Bear in mind also that Abberline found it “plausible” that Klosowski the ripper collected prostitute innards after being given a commission by an American doctor.

“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 ...?”

Probably because you’re falling into the trap again of using Hutchinson’s claims to bolster Hutchinson’s claims – something I’ve cautioned against on more than one occasion. I’d avoid this, personally, and suggest that more attention should be paid to the fact that this “Petticoat Lane” claim appears only in press versions of his account, with no reference to it at all in his police statement.

“And he would have been dumber than a ton of bricks if he did not substantiate the claim by mentioning Lewis.”

Whoops, we’ve been through this an obscene amount of times, so that’s going to have to be a copy and paste, I’m afraid!

In all likelihood, 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. This is an amazingly uncomplicated premise, and according to your latest assertion, nothing could have worked out better for Hutchinson if he resorted to this tactic himself because – again, according to you – all he needed to do was assert that no woman passed at 2:30am in order to be dismissed for eternity as an honestly confused but totally innocent witness.

“But yes, if he did not acknowledge Lewis, the suspicion would immediately be there that he was out of date.”

Really? You really think this would be their immediate suspicion? You really think that a failure to mention Lewis would conduce the knee-jerk ejaculation that he was not perhaps off by a few minutes or hours, or that he hadn’t noticed or mentioned her, but rather that he must have confused the entire date? Let’s not demoralise me here, Fisherman. There’s no way that a failure on Hutchinson’s part to mention Lewis would result in an immediate dismissal from Abberline on the grounds that he confused the date.

“the Echo knew that the police believed they had good reasons to believe they were on the wrong track.”

The Echo stated that the authorities had attached a “very reduced importance” to Hutchinson’s account, something you simply don’t state if it has already been established that Hutchinson couldn’t possibly be correct on account of his date confusion, because then it would be a case of “the authorities have established” that the witness Hutchinson was wrong. By the way, what’s the sense in “blushing” at a compliment you’ve paid yourself?!

“They would have checked the Romford journey”

Without that checking necessarily producing any results that would confirm of deny it. Yes.

“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.”

But there’s no evidence that Hutchinson’s story was ever compared with Lewis’ evidence, unless you have any proof to the contrary? If not, it really no use asserting without evidence that X or Y must have happened.

But yes we are moving in circles here, and I really think we should stop, after this post. If you respond in detail to this, I’ll just post at length again, and then we really will be going round in circles. Best if you nipped it in the bud. I very much look forward to your plan to introduce new material!

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

It’s really rather rude of you, if you don’t mind my saying so, to castigate Sally first for failing to make any “good points” (which you still responded to at length), and then for supposedly “killing” a thread that evinces no sign of dying out just yet (and simply won’t if I have anything to do with it!). If you personally feel the thread has died and are finishing off with a “round-up”, you’re welcome to seek pastures anew.

“Dew became a senior and successful policeman. His opinions must carry weight.”

But as Fisherman wisely pointed out to me a few weeks ago, Dew’s account is littered with errors, and his memoirs are treated with considerable scepticism by most researchers. I’m really glad to have introduced Dew’s memoirs to so many people who, to my eternal surprise, were oblivious to its Hutchinson content, but no, it would be rather reckless to endorse his conclusions on the grounds that his “opinions must carry weight”. Must they? Then why has nobody publicly endorsed this particular opinion in all the decades since they were written until I brought the subject up a few weeks ago?

And does it then follow that his various other claims – adjudged outlandish and probably wrong by the rank-and-file – must also carry weight?

I think you’re missing the point regarding Toppy. I’m not saying that Toppy’s association with the Ripper and the Royals invalidates any possibility that he was the witness, but rather than the most dubious and outlandish claims from that flawed work should not be used to used in support of Toppy’s Hutchinson candidacy.

“Maybe desperation to be part of a big deal got the better of him and he incorporated a whole series of events from different days together.”

Or maybe – just maybe – he didn’t, and let’s face it, a three-day delay in coming forward and only making himself known after the inquest had terminated should not ever be considered compatible with a “desperation” to be a part of the investigation.

“I think the police cocked it up with him as they cocked up so much in this case”

I doubt you’ll find that a particularly popular or well-supported suggestion.

“Ben hangs his entire case on this sentence, by which I mean without this sentence he has no case.”

I would be hugely appreciative if you didn’t completely misrepresent the particulars of my “case” and then use that misinterpretation to dismiss my suggestion as “preposterous”. From what I’ve managed, or rather struggled, to decipher from your accusation is that you’ve confused a “sighting” with a “description”. They are not the same thing, as I’ve sought to explain on a number of occasions. A witness might have acquired a good sighting of a suspect to the extent that they are able to recognise that suspect again, without necessarily being able to describe them very well.

Best regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben, you yourself said this topic is going round in circles. But I won’t respond further... after this...

I wasn’t intending being rude to Sally in saying the thread had been killed. After her post, no one else posted on this popular thread for quite a while. It could just as easily be taken as a compliment that she had left no more to be said. Perhaps I should have used a smiley face, but I don’t like them.

As I am sure you know, my ‘failing to make any good points’ remark, was actually referring to you saying she had made good points. Me then responding to her, in my opinion, ‘not good points’ is what people do on forums and it is what you have been doing at length with Fisherman’s points which you often clearly do not think are good. Although there comes a point when no new information comes out of it and the argument goes round and round. I am seeking to learn more by seeing propositions put to a vigorous test, mostly by other people, but sometimes maybe by me. Being the last man standing in an internet forum thread is nothing the crow about, and in my opinion hardly something worthwhile aiming for.

On Drew, I agreed that he made mistakes. Are you saying that everything he said was wrong then? Did any other policeman involved in the case give an 'after the event' summary of Hutchinson that contradicts Drew? Do you have any independent evidence that specifically implies that Drew’s evaluation of Hutchinson was faulty? (Incidentally I congratulate you for introducing Drew’s memoirs to a wider audience).

On Toppy you have completely missed my point. My only point about him has been that someone, whose father was definitely called George Hutchinson, claims this father was involved in the Ripper investigation and was paid some money by the police in connection with it. No more, no less. I don’t regard this as an outlandish claim. I doubt many people would.

I gave lots of 'maybes' to explain Hutchinson’s behaviour as there are many possibilities that fall short of the 'outlandish claim' that he was a homicidal maniac who deliberately inserted himself into the police investigation. As for the ‘maybe he was desperate for attention’, that desperation could have built over the weekend and came to the surface after the bru-ha-ha of the inquest. Desperation takes many forms...

I am sure many people would agree that the police cocked up many aspects of the Ripper case. No doubt others would not agree. Is that supposed to bother me? Or should we only stick to popular notions? Should we have a poll before discussing anything and then only discuss things in a positive manner in conformity with the findings of the poll? Your case is based on the police letting the culprit literally slip through their fingers. I don’t claim they would be that useless.

I haven’t confused a sighting with a description. Forgive me if I am wrong but I asked and you did confirm it earlier in this thread. Your case is based on Hutchinson hearing about Lewis’s testimony in the inquest, which placed him at the entrance of Miller’s Court, and this prompted him to insert himself in the case to throw the police off his scent, by him introducing an alternative culprit. In case Lewis recognised him.

Have I misinterpreted your case? I am sorry if have but I do not think so.

I noticed a post by the aforementioned Sally in which she pointed out that the ‘identification’ by Lewis of the supposed Hutchinson was weak. Sally may have been relying more on Lewis’s statement to the police which I presume would not have been common knowledge unless Lewis blabbed to all and sundry, in which Lewis said she wouldn’t be able to describe the man.

Ah but against that your Hutchinson would think: “Strewth, she may not be able to describe me, but bloody hell what if she can recognise me. That Lewis woman may be better with her mincers than she is in the field of verbal dexterity. I know I’ll pop along to see the rozzers and give a statement, to get meself off the ‘ook.”

Given that Lewis’s only inquest statement relating to a possible Hutchinson was: “He was not tall - but stout - had on a black wideawake hat - I did not notice his clothes.” I don’t think I have misinterpreted your case. Your case flows entirely from that statement. If that statement is taken out of the official record, there would be no case against Hutchinson.

[Sally]

Lechmere

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.

Yes, Lechmere, and I think my point was whether Hutchinson ‘got all excited about it’ was irrelevant to this particular discussion. I have gained the impression that you consider the Lord Mayor’s Show to be rather insignificant – the sort of non-event hardly noticed by anybody much. I disagree, because I think it was a big event, and a highlight in the London calendar – of which even somebody like Hutchinson would have struggled to remain unaware. If you disagree, you might want to do more than merely Google 'Lord Mayor's Show' before you make a judgement. Hutchinson does not need to have loved the Lord Mayor’s Show – perhaps he hated it with a passion. In my view, it is not likely that he was unaware of the event as an occasion, and I think the argument for this being a memory-fixer is sound. Furthermore, if by slender chance he was isolated enough from everyday life to have somehow missed the fact that the 9th was the Lord Mayor’s Show; the press had enough to say on the matter – particularly when by random coincidence Mary Kelly, Hutchinson's friend, was murdered on the same day – to have reminded anybody. But I’ve already made all these points, I'm not sure how much clearer they can be, and now I’m bored.

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?

I think we’re at cross-purposes here, so never mind.

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.

Eh? Who said rioting was celebrating? No, Lechmere, the point is that a riot is only effective in public. I could hold a riot in my back garden if I wanted to, but who'd notice - apart from my neighbours, who might not be very pleased? This is because rioting is a public demonstration of protest. The point about rioting on a day of celebration is that it’s particularly effective. This is because the riot disrupts and destroys the celebration; and because lots and lots of members of the public – ‘many Londoners’ in this case; are there to witness the protest.

As to the Lord Mayor’s Show being a holiday – I am making enquiries and will let you know what the outcome is, either way.

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.

No, Lechmere, of course they don’t. Because ‘proof’ of this type does not exist. The various newspaper reports do highlight a) the importance of the celebration and b) the sensation caused by the murder of Kelly on that day. See above. If Hutchinson had been the slightest bit aware of his surroundings (being a local man) he could not have failed to have been aware of what had happened. That, I think, is as close as we’re going to get.

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.

You don’t say why you think so, Lechmere? I’m really not sure what you’re getting at here.

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.

Who knows? He seems to have been pretty well informed, so he had his information from somewhere. Since we know he was literate, he may well have read the newspapers.

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

Thank you for elaborating. As you can see, this thread is most certainly not dead, as Ben has also pointed out to you. I'm flattered that you think I have the power to kill it, but I'm afraid it will take more than a question from me.

Oh, and by the way, Lechmere, whether you intended to be rude about me or not, I believe it is customary to refer to a person you are addressing directly, rather than in the third person. Perhaps if you are inclined to respond to this post you might consider talking to me, and not about me? Thanks.

[harry]

Fisherman,
In reply to your post 383.The fact that Dew was a detective(constable)would in no way ensure he was privy to every facet of the investigation.His participation would be on a level with his rank,and his knowledge on a need to know basis.Certain information was common knowledge,made available to public as well as police,and Hutchinson's testimony was made public.It required no specific inside knowledge to imply a memory problem.It would require knowledge to state what the problem was.Dew,as yourself ,sidesteps the problem of what might cause such a memory mixup,and while lack of medical knowledge might be your excuse,one would expect that an author whose whole theory revolves around memory substitution,might seek medical opinion before putting forward the theory.
Yes,memory problems are common,but a loss of one whole days activity,seems to suggest much more of a problem than forgetting an item one had for dinner,(your comparison)or leaving the car keys in the car door.

[Ben]

"Dew,as yourself ,sidesteps the problem of what might cause such a memory mixup"

Exactly, Harry. All he comes up with is a suggestion that if Maxwell did it, so did Hutchinson, which isn't very persuasive.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

Thanks for those clarifications.

“Do you have any independent evidence that specifically implies that Drew’s evaluation of Hutchinson was faulty?”

Well, yes, it should be clear from the ongoing debate that there are plentiful and compelling indications that Dew’s evaluation of Hutchinson was faulty, as argued by several posters here, and they neatly account for the fact that it has not been revived and put forward as a likely explanation until a few weeks ago. Since many aspects of Dew’s account are littered with errors, it seems churlish to insist upon this unpopular and mostly disregarded claim as an instance of him being correct.

As for Toppy, it is inadvisable, in my view, to extract only the seemingly plausible bits from the account and separate them from their dubious context, which in this case, involved a very bad and later discredited version of the royal conspiracy theory. The claim to have been paid 100 shillings up is obviously very ludicrous for the crucial reason I outlined earlier; that no rational police official would pay a “witness” so lofty a sum merely for announcing himself as such and without ever being expected to deliver tangible results.

To adopt such a policy would be tantamount to the worst advertisement possible to bogus witnesses to come forward and get paid off. The suggested reason for this pay-off in Toppy’s case – that it was essentially a bribe to keep quiet about Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper - does nothing to enhance its already very tenuous credibility.

“I gave lots of 'maybes' to explain Hutchinson’s behaviour as there are many possibilities that fall short of the 'outlandish claim' that he was a homicidal maniac who deliberately inserted himself into the police investigation.”

You really haven’t provided any good reasons for dismissing this particular claim as “outlandish” though – that’s the problem. Homicidal maniacs have deliberately inserted themselves into their own police investigations – this is very well documented, so much so that a knowledge of this behavioural trait has even been used, on occasions, to entice uncaught offenders into adopting it, thereby flushing them out. As for the suggestion that he was just “desperate for attention”, the coincidence of his coming forward as soon as the inquest terminated is more indicative of calculated ploy rather than desperation to get involved, which he could have done at any time before or any time after the inquest.

I wasn’t suggesting you withdraw or avoid discussing your contention that the police “cocked things up”. I was merely predicting that it wouldn’t enjoy mainstream support, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. What does surprise me, though, is how you can argue on the one hand that the police “cocked things up”, and on the other that they would never be so “useless” as to let the culprit “slip through their fingers”. Once again, this is where historical precedent comes in to demonstrate precisely the reverse – that in many serial cases, the police have been presented with the offender only to let him go. Peter Sutcliffe, for example, was interviewed either seven or nine times prior to his eventual identification and capture.

As for Lewis’ evidence, yes, you appear to have understood what I’m getting at; that Lewis’ potential danger resided in not what she was able to describe but in what she might have recognised subsequently. There is an obvious difference between being able to recognise someone and being able to describe them, a distinction almost certainly not lost on the real killer, whoever he was.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If you respond in detail to this, I’ll just post at length again, and then we really will be going round in circles. Best if you nipped it in the bud."

Is that some sort of a threat or something, Ben? It reflects very poorly on your debating techniques - "oppose me, and I will just post at length again!" No gentlemanly supposition that I may have something useful to post, but instead an "I´ll dare you attitude". That shames not only you but the boards on the whole.

Well, then, Ben. Well, well ...! Let us not annoy you, shall we? I will just pick out a few excerpts from your last post, and I will let them stand by themselves with no further comment.
Until I do so, I will, though, point out the fact that we are having a discussion here that, all things and all posters weighed in, very clearly points out that there are much differing wiews on the Hutchinson affair. That has been shown by, for example, Garry Wroe, who wrote: ”I do, however, agree with your view that Fisherman's article has merit. Whilst I cannot agree with his conclusions on the basis of current evidence, he has at least opened up a new and interesting area of debate - and very few succeed on that score.” Others, like Tom Wescott and Lynn Cates for example, have expressed their enthusiasm for my suggestion, meaning that we full well know that there are opposing wiews on the matter. And when that is the case, I think that we ought to go about our exchanges with some sort of respect.

That being said, here are the snippets I take an interest in in your last post. I find them most illuminating. I urge all who read them to ask themselves relevant questions like: "Is this really true?", "Has this been established?", "Is this actually "obvious"? and such.

Comment any further on it, I will refrain from, though. I will keep posting to this thread, and I will answer posts put to me personally if they have anything new to offer, just as I will tend to productive and useful criticism. There is nothing like a rational debate!

Right, here goes!

"The obvious reality that the police were at a loss to understand what happened is evinced by the fact that he was only in a position to offer his decades-late personal speculation on the matter"

"Of course it doesn’t reflect “the sentiments of the police at the time”

"the suggestion that it was raining “incessantly” can certainly be discounted"

"as Lewis’ evidence demonstrates, it was probably not raining around 2:30am that night"

"The case for Dew being almost certainly wrong has been advanced in considerable detail"

"it is most assuredly not “on record” that what you’re suggesting with regard to Hutchinson “happens all the time""

"almost certainly not being privy to the knowledge shared by his police superiors"

"You really think that a failure to mention Lewis would conduce the knee-jerk ejaculation that he was not perhaps off by a few minutes or hours, or that he hadn’t noticed or mentioned her, but rather that he must have confused the entire date?"

"he argues that it was probable that Hutchinson mistook the date purely because Maxwell did!"

"Since many aspects of Dew’s account are littered with errors, it seems churlish to insist upon this UNPOPULAR (my emphasis) and mostly disregarded claim as an instance of him being correct."

...and then I will round off by the combinations of these two bits:

MY TEXT: “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?”

YOUR TEXT: "If something is “seemingly”, it cannot be a “fact”!

...adding that it can very well be a fact that a factor X can seemingly have resulted in a factor Y. Or, to put it more tempting to you, how about it is a fact to you that I am seemingly wrong...?

... this nice combination:

"If you respond in detail to this, I’ll just post at length again,"

and...

"It’s really rather rude of you"

and, finally, these two pieces of advice to my on your behalf, urging me never to be too sure of any of my assumptions and suggestions if I cannot prove them:

"There’s just no evidential beef behind these rather confident and casual assertions."

"you really ought to avoid making claims like that in any future article you may choose to write. It just doesn’t read well at all."


...and you own little gem:

"The latter more than clinches it for me."

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Here's a question. Amongst so many people volunteering statements as to sightings of 'suspicious men' between the 9th and the 13th November; what was it about Hutchinson and his account that stood out, exactly?

What led the police to total belief in him - however that was quickly demolished? Any thoughts?"

Absolutely, Sally! I think that the interrogation Abberline conducted would have established that Hutchinson really was an aquiantance of Kelly´s, to begin with. I also think that he would have come across as a very honest man. Finally, as it was said that his testimony could not be shaken in any way although he was put firly to the test, this too would have contributed. He did not get tangled up in any contradictions.

What I do not think was weighed in from the outset, was Lewis´loiterer. That would have been brought up at a later stage, after the possibility it offered to put Hutchinson to the test was realized.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I don’t think the rain was that heavy – the Met Office definitions kill that one off stone dead."

I don´t think so, Lechmere. And there are a number of reasons for this. I would, til further notice, agree that it weakens such an argument, but it must be remembered that A/ It was said in the Echo that heavy rain had fallen, and B/ just as we cannot discount that it did not rain a drop on the crucial time, we cannot either discount that there were heavy showers at that self same time. We only have one particular instance of rain on record, and that one fell at around 3 Am and was described as "hard rain". Finally, C/, what we have on record measuringwise is 7,1 millimeters of rain in "London". But it has struck me that this measuring must have taken place at some particular place, and I have no idea if that was in the West, the East, North or South. And London is a very big city! A mile or two may mean a very big difference at times. Only today, I spoke to a fishin comrade of mine, living ten miles to the North of my place. He had received half a decimetre of snow on the night. Myself, I was out shoveling away a whopping three decimetres! That is 600 per cent more than my friend got!

All in all, I think that we shall have to try and collect more information, providing us with a fuller picture. Even after that, it will be impossible to establish any exact values, but we will be on slightly firmer ground at the very least.

The best!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"What a difference a day makes...sounds like a title for a song..also apt for a signature tune for your good self."

Come to think of it, that´s a good suggestion, Richard! And a very fine song it is too, though I cannot remember the name of the gal that sang it. She did have a bit of a cat´s claw in her voice, though...!

The best,
Fisherman