Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"The fact that Dew was a detective(constable)would in no way ensure he was privy to every facet of the investigation."

That is correct. Only Swanson would have had all the pieces lined up, I think. And of course, different ranks would have been differently well-informed. But I see no reason at all to withhold the underlying reason behind the discrediting of a witness. Instead, if this was not passed on down the ranks, they would all keep looking for the wrong suspect.

2Dew,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."

Medical opinion...? We do not need any medical opinion to tell us that people do mix up dates. We all know that this happens!

"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."

But I am not saying that he lost one single item that he had recorded, Harry! It would not have been the case of a loss of memory, but instead a mixing up of the memories he had! If you backtrack in your own mind, you may readily be able to say what you did yesterday, perhaps. But the longer you backtrack, you will have difficulties trying to get the days in th correct order. The day you left you car at the garage, was that before or after the day you met Mrs Higgins? And the barbecue, was that inbetween or after?
No need for any medical assessment, thus.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

My comments weren’t intended to be remotely threatening, Fish. I was under the impression that I was agreeing with your suggestion to avoid going round in circles. All I meant is that we’re all too familiar by now with the inevitable outcome if we decided to keep "going round in circles". The full paragraph read:

“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!”

I was merely emphasising why I feel your suggestion was a sensible one.

“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.”

Indeed, and I hope it hasn’t gone completely unnoticed that my own response to your article echoed very similar sentiments to Garry’s.

All I would note in your response to Sally is that your first paragraph makes perfect sense, and I agree; Hutchinson probably did convey a favourable impression and responded well to questioning. But as far as Lewis’ evidence is concerned, the parsimonious conclusion in my view is that it was never compared to Hutchinson’s statement to the extent that the putative Wideawake-Hutchinson was either confirmed or denied. But that’s another done-to-deather.

Suffice to say, I stand by each of those statements of mine that you’ve quoted.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Suffice to say, I stand by each of those statements of mine that you’ve quoted."

Which is why I will refrain from exchanging with you until further notice.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Sally – I didn’t address you as I was replying to Ben who had mentioned you.

Furthermore, although many contributors regularly address their remarks to one previous poster, to my mind this seems to exclude other readers a bit. That is just my take on it. I don’t think it’s a big deal.

I don’t know where you got the impression that I think the Lord Mayor’s show was insignificant, or that my sole source of information is Google (see below). You seem to be basing this on me not sharing your opinion on the significance that it may have had for someone like Hutchinson, which is the only thing that I have discussed with respect to the Lord Mayor’s Show. I have no doubt that for many people it was significant. Mary Kelly for example.

You seem to see Hutchinson (forgive me if I am doing you an injustice) as a literate, newspaper reading, well-informed man of the world.

I see him as down on his luck, doss house dwelling, poor, ill-educated, itinerant and ill-informed.

You said you are not sure what I was getting at when I said that doss house dwellers were less likely to read papers than ‘the settled working class’... Poor doss house dwellers tended to be the more illiterate element in the population. They tended to have less money to spend on newspapers. They tended to have less time to read them as their main priority was the get money for food and lodging. Obviously the reason the Victoria Home had a reading room was to try and elevate this class of person. The public libraries movement of a few years later was a conscious effort to address this problem. Is that enough? (By the way this was in response to your point that newspapers covered the Lord Mayor’s Show, and that therefore it would have raised Hutchinson’s awareness).

My personal slant on the likely importance that the Lord Mayor’s Show would have for Hutchinson isn’t an entrenched and vital component upon which my views on Hutchinson hang or fall. I raised the matter purely as some people were taking it as axiomatic that because the Lord Mayor’s Show was on the 9th, Hutchinson must have had that date fixed in his mind. I am merely putting forward the possibility that the Lord Mayor’s Show could have had no bearing on this for Hutchinson.

What am I basing this on? Besides research, as I mentioned, I worked for the City Corporation for many years right next to where the parade passed, and I am interested in and like ceremonial events. During that period I also lived in the East End, close to the Tower Hamlets Mission that hosted the meat tea in 1888. Yet the Lord Mayor’s Show nearly always passed me by. I am also very familiar with modern day versions of Hutchinson (my version of Hutchinson – see above for details) and this gives me an insight into what they would and what they wouldn’t be interested in.

I will make a commonplace assumption to go along with this:

One may be aware of a big event, but if it holds no interest for one, it isn’t going to be something that fixes times and days in one’s mind.

I also objected to people carelessly saying the Lord Mayor’s Show was a public holiday. You (Sally) have been one of these. You (or anyone else for that matter) may prove me wrong on this. But I doubt it. It may have been in times past when London was the City – the equivalent of a Unitary Authority. By 1888 it was a sprawling Metropolis with many different authorities governing the different parts. (When I say ‘objected’, it doesn’t imply that I was frothing at the mouth with indignation. It did jump out at me as a leap - if a jump can turn into a leap. A probably inaccurate assumption that I thought should be challenged.

On rioting isn’t celebrating...

I had said: “Many Londoners did not see the Lord Mayor’s Show as something to celebrate as is shown by the riots in 1886.”

Sally replied: “Au Contraire, Lechmere. The whole point about a riot is that it makes a public statement. What better time to riot than on a public holiday (Oops, I forgot – it wasn’t a holiday as far as you’re concerned…sorry!). Rioting on a public holiday… sorry, occasion – creates publicity, Lechmere. That’s the point, see. It has very little to do with whether ‘Many Londoners’ saw the Lord Mayor’s Show as something to celebrate. Most people, I think you’ll find, do celebrate a holiday.”

I’ve already covered the holiday bit, but my point was that the radicalised sections of the London working class did not baulk at ‘ruining the day’ for the giddy Lord Mayor’s Show celebrants. As an example I had in mind the bad publicity the Tube Workers get when they hold regular and disruptive 24 hour strikes. Strikes that are seen to disrupt normal activity and impinge upon people’s quiet enjoyment of their lives are seen to be bad tactically from the Union’s point of view. Similarly, I would suggest, workers indulging in premeditated rioting that disrupted a day held to be of the importance you place on it amongst the populace at large, I suggest would be counter-productive for the cause the workers espoused. Unless the rioters felt that it wouldn’t have had that effect. They may have misjudged. If so it was a misjudgement based on, I would suggest, their indifference to the event. They would have been aware of the event (hence their riot coincided with it) but indifferent to it and indifferent to spoiling other people’s fun. As Hutchinson, in my opinion, was of that class (although we have no idea whether he shared the political views of the rioters) and of that type, he is also in my opinion likely to have been indifferent to the Lord Mayor’s Show.

My comments about the riots that accompanied the 1886 Lord Mayor’s Show were a short hand way of saying the above.

To confirm, my remark about you killing the thread was a joke, and the fact that I responded to your ‘round up’ question should have made that clear. I took it as an invitation to round up, as it seemed to me to be directing us off topic – not that I object to that.

If every time anyone posts something they have to couch it in terms so as not to potentially upset people, when no upset was meant, as I have endeavoured to do here, then each post becomes twice as long as necessary, and relevant points become buried. The same can be said if over detailed explanations and justifications are required for what I would say are commonplace remarks.

A couple of points to Harry (even though he addressed his query to Fisherman):
• Dew was in 1888 a humble and young DC but he became an eminent policeman – he caught Dr Crippen after all. It is very reasonable to assume he subsequently spoke candidly with other policemen who were in 1888 more senior and privy to details of the case than he was at the time.
• Mixing times, date and days up does not imply a medical condition. Everyone does it (OK in case a pedant picks me up on that probably not everyone, many people do it). I don’t think Fisherman has said that Hutchinson had a ‘missing day’ or temporary and selective amnesia that just wiped out the events of 9th November.

I will make one last observation here – hopefully. The Hutchinson debate throws into relief the weight that should be placed on press reports. In a many instances we have to rely on press reports in the Ripper case as there are so few official documents left.
There were big differences between Hutchinson’s statements to the police and what was reported in the press. Stewart P. Evans’s dissertation ‘Suspect and Witness - The Police Viewpoint’ makes the sensible point that this could be caused by press sensationalising Hutchinson’s media interviews just as much as it could be due to Hutchinson making extra stuff up.
By the same token the press spoke about heavy showers. The Met Office recorded 7.1 mm between midnight and 8 am which is classified as slight. Unless it all fell in one hour – in which case it would be classified as heavy. But there would be no rain left for the other seven hours. So who should we prefer, the Met Office with its carefully collected facts and figures, or a press report?
I will tie this back to the Lord Mayor’s Show. I would not put reliance on press reports to indicate what Hutchinson, and specifically Hutchinson, thought of the Lord Mayor’s Show.

Ben – I just read your latest piece, so that wasn’t my last observation!
Most of your counter points I have already dealt with. For example I agree that Hutchinson would not have been paid 100 shillings. I made it clear what I thought about the Toppy money issue. It was probably a distant romanticised version of the truth – that is what happens with oral traditions. Others are not logical arguments – i.e. you postulate that if I say the police cocked things up, it must mean that I should also think they were completely useless. Doesn’t follow at all does it?
Neither does it follow that if Dew made errors, everything he said should be discounted even if it is not contradicted by any other sources.
I will raise an additional difficulty for your case with reference to Stewart P. Evans’s dissertation. He has this to say about Hutchinson as the Ripper being spotted by Lewis: “The fact that he was standing in the open outside a common lodging house for so long militates against the proposal that he was the killer. If he was the murderer it was a decidedly risky, if not stupid, thing to do.”
Ben, if these propositions are put to you as an explanation for someone’s behaviour, which is the most outlandish:
1. He got muddled up and confused the days
2. He got various days and events mixed up in his own mind
3. He lied to get notoriety
4. He lied or elaborated to get paid a minor amount of money as a witness
5. He genuinely did and saw what he said
6. He is a homicidal maniac

[Ben]

Sorry you fee that way, Fisherman.

I hope you've at least accepted by "non-threatening" explanation for my earlier comments.

[Ben]

There seems to be some confusion here about the nature of the Victoria Home. It wasn’t a Mecca for illiterate vagrant-types, as some people have been assuming. This was a Peabody establishment where residents new to the home were vetted to assess their good character before being permitted entry. Its occupants included clerks as well a butchers and casual labourers, and the presence of a reading room with free newspapers was far more of an acknowledgement of the varying literacy levels of the VH residents than it was a grand scheme to educate the Great Unlettered.

I agree entirely with Sally’s view that the Lord Mayor’s Show was likely to have fixed the date for Hutchinson, even if he wasn’t hugely interested in it himself, especially if it coincided with other memorable events that occurred on the same day; specifically the murder of a three-year acquaintance, and an on-foot all-nighter all the way back from Romford. Take each in isolation and the date-mixing hypothesis is still implausible, in my opinion. Combine them and it’s implausibility x 3. Modern experience of modern Lord Mayor’s Shows are of highly questionable relevance in determining whether or not Hutchinson knew the date of – rather than cared about – the Lord Mayor’s Show in 1888.

Again, I’ve always expressed my gratitude to Fisherman for stimulating an interesting new discussion on the subject of Hutchinson, but as far as I’m concerned, it isn’t too difficult to understand why Dew’s suggestion has never been publicly endorsed as the correct one over the decades since his memoirs were first published. It’s intrinsic value, however, lies in its confirmation – if confirmation is really needed – that whatever the police might have thought about Hutchinson, they were never in a position to prove anything. Why else would Dew express opinion only, and appeal to his readership for agreement with his theory that Hutchinson must have done a Maxwell and confused the day?

“I made it clear what I thought about the Toppy money issue. It was probably a distant romanticised version of the truth”

Probably not, in my opinion, Lechmere.

It was probably a romanticised version of a lie, especially in light of what I consider to be very strong indications that Toppy was not the Kelly witness. This is a different topic altogether, though.

“Others are not logical arguments – i.e. you postulate that if I say the police cocked things up, it must mean that I should also think they were completely useless. Doesn’t follow at all does it?”

“Useless” was your choice of word, not mine. You stated that it would have taken a useless policeman or police force to have unwittingly let the culprit slip through their fingers, a claim that remains heavily at odds with the fact that this happens quite often in serial killer investigations, and it rarely reflects on the usefulness of the police in those cases.

“I will raise an additional difficulty for your case with reference to Stewart P. Evans’s dissertation. He has this to say about Hutchinson as the Ripper being spotted by Lewis: “The fact that he was standing in the open outside a common lodging house for so long militates against the proposal that he was the killer. If he was the murderer it was a decidedly risky, if not stupid, thing to do.”

I’m sure I’ve had this conversation with Stewart himself a few years ago. It is beyond me how it can be claimed that standing alone an hour or so before the commission of the crime can be classed as too “risky”, when there are strong indications that the killer was seen in the company of one of his other victims ten minutes before the discovery of her body!

“Ben, if these propositions are put to you as an explanation for someone’s behaviour, which is the most outlandish:
1. He got muddled up and confused the days
2. He got various days and events mixed up in his own mind
3. He lied to get notoriety
4. He lied or elaborated to get paid a minor amount of money as a witness
5. He genuinely did and saw what he said
6. He is a homicidal maniac”

Why are we caring about “someone’s” behaviour? We’re not talking about a generic “someone”, we’re talking about Hutchinson, and if you were to substitute “someone’s behaviour” with “Hutchinson’s behaviour”, I would say that #2 is perhaps the most outlandish, although I’m not a fan of #1 or #5 either.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben – I haven’t seen anyone suggest the Victoria Home was ‘a Mecca for illiterate vagrant-types’.

Also can you see that there is a big difference between being spotted momentarily with a victim just before committing the act, and being spotted hanging around for a lengthy period of time outside a victims house.
The first is an ‘occupational hazard’, the second something that is inexplicable. Unless he wanted to murder Mary Kelley specifically as he was acting under the orders of Sir William Gull... or something equally ‘likely’.

You will have noticed also that I put forward a variety of reasons as to why I think it is unlikely the Lord Mayor’s Show had an impact on Hutchinson’s mind – not just modern experience.

I think that a police force that had a witness come forward late in the day with a detailed testimony that put him adjacent to the crime scene, and then went on accompanied trawls through the neighbourhood, only to be dismissed soon afterwards, to turn out to be the culprit, would be useless.
I did not say that “police force to have unwittingly let the culprit slip through their fingers” (e.g. similar to Sutcliffe) would be useless. Although clearly the Yorkshire police in the Sutcliffe case did make a lot of **** ups.

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

There seems to be some confusion here about the nature of the Victoria Home. It wasn’t a Mecca for illiterate vagrant-types, as some people have been assuming. This was a Peabody establishment where residents new to the home were vetted to assess their good character before being permitted entry. Its occupants included clerks as well a butchers and casual labourers, and the presence of a reading room with free newspapers was far more of an acknowledgement of the varying literacy levels of the VH residents than it was a grand scheme to educate the Great Unlettered.

I believe the proprietors were two ex-Met detectives. It was not, as you point out, your run of the mill doss house.

YMMV, but to me it indicates that the police may have been able to get a good picture of Hutch's comings and goings on the nights of the other C5 murders, as well as get a read on his general character and demeanor.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Just confirms what i have been saying for donks.
The Victoria home was well vetted, it kept records of inmates, and their professions, our friend GH, would have had his comings and goings verified, which may have resulted in a mistake on his part on the day, which may have been why he took a backseat quickly.
So fair play fish, for at least putting us on that avenue albeit via the rainfall.
even though i am a Topping supporter, it could well be he made a honest mistake, and admitted it, but even so he may have helped searched for the mysterious Astracan , so that they could eliminate him from their enquiries, and was paid a small sum , which may have been grossly enlarged in tales throughout the years.
What am i saying?
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Victoria Home

So, the VH kept records of residents comings and goings. Ok, but what would that have demonstrated regarding Hutchinson, exactly? If he was a man who liked to stay in at night and play cards, say, any check of his movements could have confirmed that he was safely tucked up in the VH on the nights of the other murders.

Mind you, if he preferred a night in the pub, or even a regular day trip to Romford, a check of his movements could have confirmed his absence from the VH on those nights. People went out. Absence from the VH on the murder nights, if Hutchinson was absent, was probably something he shared with many fellow lodgers. I don't think it would have gone a long way towards either putting him in the frame or exonerating him, personally.

All of which is moot, since we have no evidence that Hutchinson was ever suspected of murder at the time.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"The Victoria home was well vetted, it kept records of inmates, and their professions, our friend GH, would have had his comings and goings verified, which may have resulted in a mistake on his part on the day, which may have been why he took a backseat quickly.
So fair play fish, for at least putting us on that avenue albeit via the rainfall."

Thanks a lot, Richard!

"even though i am a Topping supporter, it could well be he made a honest mistake, and admitted it, but even so he may have helped searched for the mysterious Astracan , so that they could eliminate him from their enquiries, and was paid a small sum , which may have been grossly enlarged in tales throughout the years."

An honest mistake is exactly what I am reckoning with. Just like you, I honour Abberline´s assessment. But I do not think that Hutchinson accepted the proposal that he was wrong on the dates. I think he stuck with it, which was why Dew, fifty years down the line, was not in a position to say that the book had been closed on Hutchinson; only that he (and, I suggest, the rest of the Met) were satisfied that he must have been wrong on the dates. Could have been the ledger at the Victoria home, could have been information emerging from Romford, could have been his disinclination to corroborate Lewis statement of having entered the court at 2.30 - and, of course, it could also have been the weather conditions that brought about the dismissal. Or, for that matter, a combination of them. The compelling thing about the bad weather is that it has remained as a very useful pointer in this direction for 123 years.

"What am I saying?"

What you have always said, I should think - that George Hutchinson may well have been a completely honest witness.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"So, the VH kept records of residents comings and goings. Ok, but what would that have demonstrated regarding Hutchinson, exactly?"

Well, Sally, if it demonstrated that Hutchinson had slept there on for example the night of the 6:th, but NOT on the night of the 7:th, whereas he may perhaps have returned on the 8:th, then I think that it would have demonstrated quite a lot about Hutchinson and his story.

"I don't think it would have gone a long way towards either putting him in the frame or exonerating him, personally."

Im sorry, Sally, but the above scenario would have done exactly that - or at least helped along very much.

"All of which is moot, since we have no evidence that Hutchinson was ever suspected of murder at the time."

In a sense, perhaps. But that does not stop us from looking, does it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi Fisherman

Ifs and buts, I think. Fun to speculate, but unless we ever see the records of the VH, we'll never know. I think I'd prefer to stick to ideas for which there is at least some support!

Thanks for responding to my earlier question, by the way - you're the only person who did! I'll think about what you have said.

Regards.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Fun to speculate, but unless we ever see the records of the VH, we'll never know. I think I'd prefer to stick to ideas for which there is at least some support!"

And what makes you think I differ in that regard? I posted to you since you asked a question to which there was a pretty obvious answer, and that answer would be in line with the suggestion that Hutchinson was dismissed since the police were of the opinion that he was wrong on the dates. As I have shown, there is a whole chain of events that fits the suggestion, and that chain is topped of by Dew asserting us that this was exactly what happened.

Of course it amounts to speculation, since we have no absolute proof, but in Hutchinson´s case, Sally, what line of inquery would you have us follow to avoid speculation, and only use ascertained facts?

My own feeling is that there would be no discussion at all about him in such a case. And really, such a thing is not what Ripperology is about, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"Fun to speculate, but unless we ever see the records of the VH, we'll never know. I think I'd prefer to stick to ideas for which there is at least some support!"

And what makes you think I differ in that regard? I posted to you since you asked a question to which there was a pretty obvious answer, and that answer would be in line with the suggestion that Hutchinson was dismissed since the police were of the opinion that he was wrong on the dates. As I have shown, there is a whole chain of events that fits the suggestion, and that chain is topped of by Dew asserting us that this was exactly what happened.

Of course it amounts to speculation, since we have no absolute proof, but in Hutchinson´s case, Sally, what line of inquery would you have us follow to avoid speculation, and only use ascertained facts?

My own feeling is that there would be no discussion at all about him in such a case. And really, such a thing is not what Ripperology is about, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman - I think you have misconstrued my meaning. I was referring to the records of the Victoria Home, which we do not have - not to your theory. We really have no idea what they would tell us - since we don't have them. That's all.

A situation such as that is quite different from theorising based on evidence. Yes, of course there will always be a degree of speculation - but that's just it, it's a matter of degree.

If we had absolute proof, as you say, there would be no further discussion, as you in fact say.

Regards

Sally.