Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

But these things take time to gather and assess. Buying a picture in hours touches on gullibility, and gullible was something the police would not have been.

"
I don't think the Police were gullible -I think that they had no experience of this type of killer (I should think few policemen today have ever come up against this type of killer)

Favourite Polce suspects mentioned later displayed mental illness, committed suicide, had already murdered, or were 'foreigners' and that reflects
Police thinking. Hutch did not fit into this 'box'( but he does fit what we now know of serial killers).

I think it is a huge eyeopener to watch TV interviews with Joran Van Der Sloot on Youtube -this is what the Police were up against with no benefit of modern case histories and forensics.

Yes, but that was not what I was commenting on. I commented on a situation where the police believed themselves to have good reaon to think he was a liar and that he had been in Marys room minutes or the odd hour before her death.

Why would they think that he'd been in her room ? -he never said so.

[QUOTE]"and not if they thought that he was there for a much shorter time than 3/4 of an hour.."

Why would they think that? Fisherman[/QUOTE

No idea that they did..I'm just suggesting that they thought that he WAS there,
lying -or partially lying- about A Man (embroidering to make himself more interesting), but a harmless person just the same...

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I mean't rather that they would be capable of making the same leap"

That´s more of a possibility.

"Not if they believed him, had those character references and supposed alibis for the other murders."

But these things take time to gather and assess. Buying a picture in hours touches on gullibility, and gullible was something the police would not have been.

"Not if they thought it truthful that he only stood outside the court -as confirmed by Mrs Lewis -and they found no bloody clothing or incriminating evidence."

Yes, but that was not what I was commenting on. I commented on a situation where the police believed themselves to have good reaon to think he was a liar and that he had been in Marys room minutes or the odd hour before her death.

"and not if they thought that he was there for a much shorter time than 3/4 of an hour.."

Why would they think that? And if they did, why would they let him slip away with a lie? Me no buy, Ruby.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;164674]Ruby:

"Maybe the Police did reconsider Hutch's story for a brief moment ? "

Not because of any discussion on behalf of the papers, I think

. "
I agree. I mean't rather that they would be capable of making the same leap
-they didn't, because unlike that American paper, they had the man in front of them who they didn't connect with a 'serial killer'.

"They would have the image of the carnage in Mary's room in mind, and no experience of a similar crime, and would think that the man who did that would show signs of being mentally unstable or cold and vicious."

Not at all. Abberline and a good deal of his colleagues would have seen a fair share of vicious killers, showing no remorse or being charitable or keeping a cool head. They would know full well that such things are quite common. You are romanticizing here, and that will not do.

Murders happen -Abberline would have met murderers before. Serial killers are very rare though, and butchery like that of MJK rarer still. I would guess that Abberline had more experience of 'crimes of passion', theft and fights.

"Even if they linked him to the 'loiterer', if they thought that he couldn't possibly be the killer, then they could simply think that he had embroidered the whole A-man story, but had followed a prostitute home (not a crime in itself), and so accorded his statement 'reduced importance'

No. NO, no, no! If they knew they had a liar (or partial liar) on their hands, and if they suspected or knew that he had gone on to visit Kelly at around 2.15-2.30, they would not accord him "reduced importance". They wold have grilled him so hard the people in Banbury could sense the smell. Get real!

Not if they believed him, had those character references and supposed alibis for the other murders. Not if they thought it truthful that he only stood outside the court -as confirmed by Mrs Lewis -and they found no bloody clothing or incriminating evidence. not if they thought that Mary was already dead when Hutch stood outside, and not if they thought that he was there for a much shorter time than 3/4 of an hour..

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Maybe the Police did reconsider Hutch's story for a brief moment ? "

Not because of any discussion on behalf of the papers, I think. The time margin is not there. The Echo was very early in pointing a finger about the testimony. Just like Lechmere says, the ink on Abberlines assertion that he believed in Hutchinson would hardly have had the time to dry at that stage. So whatever the reason for the suspicion was, it was something that arrived very early on. There was not the time for Abberline to decide on Hutch being honest, reading the VERY lofty suspicions in the Echo (nothing at all that specifies anything, as you know), ask the journalist/s behind it, give it some more thought, and then come to the conclusion that Hutch was to be dismissed. We are speaking of hours here, Ruby!

"1) they would be influenced by the personality of the man that they interviewed"

They would.

"They would have the image of the carnage in Mary's room in mind, and no experience of a similar crime, and would think that the man who did that would show signs of being mentally unstable or cold and vicious."

Not at all. Abberline and a good deal of his colleagues would have seen a fair share of vicious killers, showing no remorse or being charitable or keeping a cool head. They would know full well that such things are quite common. You are romanticizing here, and that will not do.

"They had a gut feeling that Hutch did not fit the profile of the killer they were looking for."

That they most probably had. And they most probably were right, too!

"2) They would watch his reactions when he viewed the body."

Yes, they reasonably would. And at that stage on Tuesday morning, the gentlemen on the Echo would already have been aware that something was wrong.

"3) they would have in mind the fact that he had come forward of his own volition and placed himself at the crime scene."

Of course.

"4) They would make enquiries at his lodgings as to his character."

Most probably.

"5) Since they thought that Kelly was murdered by the same person as the other 'Ripper' victims, they would ask him what he was doing at the time
that the other murders took place."

Once again, yes. They would.

"Even if they linked him to the 'loiterer', if they thought that he couldn't possibly be the killer, then they could simply think that he had embroidered the whole A-man story, but had followed a prostitute home (not a crime in itself), and so accorded his statement 'reduced importance'

No. NO, no, no! If they knew they had a liar (or partial liar) on their hands, and if they suspected or knew that he had gone on to visit Kelly at around 2.15-2.30, they would not accord him "reduced importance". They wold have grilled him so hard the people in Banbury could sense the smell. Get real!

"As for 'walking about all night', I agree that lots of people did this."

In hard rain?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Of course they were not, Sally. But what happened when they found out that he was not giving them correct information? What then? If they had him down as the loiterer (and they may well have at a stage), they would have been left with a potentially lying man ten yards away from Kellys bed at a probable hour of the attack and with a professed interest in her.
Are you of the meaning that this would not change things? The same lighthearted attitude would still apply?

OK, Fish...let's imagine that this scenario is exactly what happened. We know
that a section of the Press were suspicious of Hutch (not just one paper, which I quoted earlier, but at least another which doubted the veracity of his detailed description). Maybe the Police did reconsider Hutch's story for a brief moment ?

So what would be their attitude then ?

I think that 1) they would be influenced by the personality of the man that they interviewed. They would have the image of the carnage in Mary's room in mind, and no experience of a similar crime, and would think that the man who did that would show signs of being mentally unstable or cold and vicious.
They had a gut feeling that Hutch did not fit the profile of the killer they were looking for.

2) They would watch his reactions when he viewed the body.

3) they would have in mind the fact that he had come forward of his own volition and placed himself at the crime scene.

4) They would make enquiries at his lodgings as to his character.

5) Since they thought that Kelly was murdered by the same person as the other 'Ripper' victims, they would ask him what he was doing at the time
that the other murders took place.

For the last, I have already shown Lechmere the impossibility of the Police to
find out what Hutch was doing each and every minute of the day and night, and the murderer surely took some pains to cover his tracks. I think it very plausable that he would 'check out'.

Even if they linked him to the 'loiterer', if they thought that he couldn't possibly be the killer, then they could simply think that he had embroidered the whole A-man story, but had followed a prostitute home (not a crime in itself), and so accorded his statement 'reduced importance'...before it just faded out when there were no more Ripper-like murders.

As for 'walking about all night', I agree that lots of people did this. Still, Hutch could have elaborated by saying exactly
which places he had walked about in -which could have been timed and maybe corroborated. It is written nowhere that he did this.

[Fisherman]

CD:

"Over 1,100 posts and you guys are still at this. I think it might be time to invoke the dead horse rule. Just saying."

You know what, C.D? That is mostly accoustics discussion on a fringe detail of it all. Just wait til the REAL issue is debated!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Raoul:

"I'm happy providing comment on things I know but I try to keep my mouth shut on things that are out of my area."

Very wise, Raoul! Of course, one CAN put things like these to the test, which I did. That, in combination with Erling Nilssons information clinches it for me. If there was much disturbances about,it is another story, but as long as we know not of such things, I have no doubts.

"If the suspect spoke reasonably softly (and I think this is likely given the time, place and intent) and there was some low ambient noise (general street noise from commercial street, residents or wind for instance) then I would say it is very unlikely but possible that Hutch could hear it at that distance."

Yep. My take too.

"Given a normal voice (for a daytime chat with a friend 56db) and the above prevailing conditions I would say its possible for sure, maybe even likely."

Okay! Can I just ask if you mean "hear" or "hear and make out" in these cases?

"As far as the issue of alibi goes, I think that Hutch's statement about walking around all night sounds might dodgy by modern standards. However, I imagine there were hundreds if not thousands of people in his position on any given night back then. In the absence of a place to sleep due to lack of funds, walking around is a way to stay warm (especially in November). It's also just about the only thing you can do with yourself at that time - it's not like he could be playing playstation or reading casebook. I suspect it looked more credible back then than it does 100 years later."

The interesting thing to keep in mind here, as far as I´m concerned, is that since there was a hard rain falling at 3 AM o the morning of the 9:th, the exact point of time in which Hutchinson set out to walk the streets, I think it sounds like a very strange thing to do. The obvious choice would have been to go to ground, waiting for the rain to seize, and THEN perhaps start walking to keep the chill from your bones.

My belief, as you will appreciate, is that Hutchinson was a day off (as suggested by Walter Dew). Not only does that explain why he never saw Lewis, it also explains why he did that seemingly irrational walk; for on the morning of the 8:th, it was overcast but completely dry. Now, THAT is when you walk the streets to keep the November chill out! THAT turns a very irrational thing into a very rational one in my eyes!

Thanks for your input - I think the combination of psycholinguistics and accoustics makes for a useful vantage point in this errand, so I much appreciate your posts.

The best,
Fisherman

[Raoul's Obsession]

haha, I knew you would ask me for my opinion. There was a reason I didn't supply it in the first place. I'm happy providing comment on things I know but I try to keep my mouth shut on things that are out of my area. Psycholinguists will tell you what people are likely to do in a given situation (speech wise) but acousticians will tell you what sound will do.

Okay, I will volunteer my thoughts.
If the suspect spoke reasonably softly (and I think this is likely given the time, place and intent) and there was some low ambient noise (general street noise from commercial street, residents or wind for instance) then I would say it is very unlikely but possible that Hutch could hear it at that distance.

Given a normal voice (for a daytime chat with a friend 56db) and the above prevailing conditions I would say its possible for sure, maybe even likely. I think this argument really hinges on the prevailing conditions but certainly it wouldn't be too hard to test. But let me say once more, that isn't my area. I would say that your theory sounds plausible because one of them has a lot more reason to be quiet than the other, especially given the presence of hutch.

As far as the issue of alibi goes, I think that Hutch's statement about walking around all night sounds might dodgy by modern standards. However, I imagine there were hundreds if not thousands of people in his position on any given night back then. In the absence of a place to sleep due to lack of funds, walking around is a way to stay warm (especially in November). It's also just about the only thing you can do with yourself at that time - it's not like he could be playing playstation or reading casebook. I suspect it looked more credible back then than it does 100 years later.

Raoul

[Fisherman]

...and thanks, Raoul´s Obsession, for your useful information!Could you offer your wiew on the amin issue here? Do you think it is impossible/possible/probable that normal conversation in Dorset Street could havebeen made out by Hutchinson, standing 30 meters away? Do you think that a raised voice on behalf of Kelly would have been impossible/possible/probable to travel that distance in a fashion that meant that Hutchinson could make out what was said?

My own take on it is that the reason he could not make out the conversation on the whole would have been that the couple probably spoke in a low key, and that would make 30 meters too much of a distance for complete audibility in the sense that the words could be made out. The fact that he DID pick up on the words about the hanky, would have been due to Kelly speaking in a loud voice, just like Hutchinson said she did as he spoke to the papers.

To me, this makes very much sense. It also makes me think that it represents a good indicator that Hutchinson may well have spoken the thruth of it all, since he actually comes up with a very viable picture of what could be heard in a street like Dorset Street from 30 meters away. He does not say that he could hear it all, which would have been funny, and he does not say that he could not hear a sound, which would ALSO have been funny. He instead nails a version that tallies quite well with the accoustics of a reasonably quiet, corridor-like street at nighttime.

Any comments, ideas..?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"He didn't require an 'alibi'. Nobody was accusing him of anything at the time."

Of course they were not, Sally. But what happened when they found out that he was not giving them correct information? What then? If they had him down as the loiterer (and they may well have at a stage), they would have been left with a potentially lying man ten yards away from Kellys bed at a probable hour of the attack and with a professed interest in her.
Are you of the meaning that this would not change things? The same lighthearted attitude would still apply?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Fisherman – you are being unreasonable. Out of the 1,200 geezers down Dorset Street the chances are that several would have left their windows open and had Abba's Greatest Hits blasting out from their sound systems."

Not a chance, Lechmere. Abba were Swedes, you see, and true Brits regard everything Swedes do and say as somewhat ridiculous. My hunch is that they were playing "Rule Britannia" instead. And Abba never recorded that one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

I don’t think waking about all night would do instead of an albi. I think even Inspector Clouseau would raise an eyebrow at that one.

Lechmere - yes, but Hutchinson wasn't arrested, was he? He was never considered suspicious by the baying mob. He came forward of his own accord as a witness. He volunteered his information. He didn't require an 'alibi'. Nobody was accusing him of anything at the time. And actually, apart from some hints (a few heavy ones) from the press that he was a waste of time, nobody did accuse him of anything worse at the time.

As to walking about all night - what sort of alibi could he be expected to produce if that was the case? Presumably he did return to the Victoria Home when it opened (whatever time that was) as this is a concrete statement which could, and probably would have been verified by the police.

Fisherman – you are being unreasonable. Out of the 1,200 geezers down Dorset Street the chances are that several would have left their windows open and had Abba's Greatest Hits blasting out from their sound systems

Abba? Whatever next?

[Raoul's Obsession]

god knows why I'm wading into this but, it's been a quiet day and I can't resist.

Being in the research field of psycholinguistics and hence I do a lot of recording of speech, I require a reasonable amount of knowledge of acoustics. From my research on conversation (2 speaker dyads, sitting 1.5 meters away from each other in a quiet but not acoustically attenuated room, hooked up to headmounted uni-directional microphones ) I get an average amplitude across 8 minutes of dialogue for 23 pairs of speakers of 56.5dB. I think this is a reasonable estimate of the amplitude of normal conversation when speaking to someone standing next to you (hutch to MJK). However, what one has to consider is that speakers adjust the level of their speech according to both the level of their partner's speech (speech covergence) as well as the level of ambient noise (this is known as the Lombard reflex). Basically, if you are standing on a quiet street at night you will speak quite softly, but in a busy cafe you will speak much louder. Furthermore, while the average is 56, they vary anywhere from 40 to 71 based in part on personality factors as well. What I'm getting at, is that we have no way of knowing within even a reasonable tolerance what the amplitude of Hutch's speech was. As for the previous mentions of 50 db being like a quiet house. I would say it's more like a quiet house containing a family of 10 where each person is engaged in an activity that makes a bit of noise. Background noise of the quiet room in my study is about 22db and that really is quiet.

[Lechmere]

Babybird – don’t you think that if things don’t add for you about Hutchinson, then maybe that might have been the case for the police also?
Look at the last passage from the St James Gazette quoted above – two random men were taken in for questioning, just because they looked like a description of someone.

I think it is a real stretch to think that Hutchinson would think:
“thank gawd that woman saw me here in this old wide-awake hat – yippee this is a perfect opportunity to put me outside the crime scene, rather than in it. But I’ll rely on her to mention the fact she saw me, rather than offer the info that I saw her. That’ll confuse ‘em”

Ben – I don’t think waking about all night would do instead of an albi. I think even Inspector Clouseau would raise an eyebrow at that one.

Fisherman – you are being unreasonable. Out of the 1,200 geezers down Dorset Street the chances are that several would have left their windows open and had Abba's Greatest Hits blasting out from their sound systems.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I would also take expert opinion with a pinch of salt..
that is because I have had dealings with doctors, lawyers, architects, historians, local politicians (I'm thinking of personal anecdotes off the top of my head, which I'm not going to recount here..), who have explained to me
certain 'facts' expounded by books and papers supporting their theories..but have simply been contradicted by different experts, also showing me support for their theories"

Accoustics, history and politics are not very much alike. Find me the contradicting expert in this case, and I will listen. It will be interesting to see if somebody refutes Nilssons experiments and sound charters...

The best,
Fisherman