Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"As I’ve already made clear, I don’t dispute Nilsson’s information" ... "What I have trouble with is your apparent failure to acquaint him properly with the fact that there were conditions Dorset Street at the time that would certainly have had an affect on Hutchinson's ability to hear conversation from 32 metres away"

Then, Ben, it stands to reason that you MUST name the sources lying behind the ambient sound levels that you claim would make it impossible to make the words out. You also need to prove that these sounds MUST have been at work during the fleeting seconds in which Kelly asked for the handkerchief. It must reasonably be sounds that would have been there every second of the way, throughout the night, with no pause inbetween them. They must conclusively cover "our" period. The odd scream (of which none are on record) won´t do it. The possibly passing Diemschutzical horsecart won´t do either.

Do that, Ben, and prove that the sounds were high enough decibelwise to take away every chance of Hutchinson to make out the words about the hanky. When you have done that, but not before - you have reached the goal of having proved that Hutchinson could NOT have made out the words.

I suggest that since you are a total novice in this disciplin, you employ the help of experts, who can correctly assess the sound levels of different phenomenons around at that time. You also need historians who know what possible sources of sounds at 2.15 there were. Try Fiona Rule, she is not Swedish and knows her stuff.

I am at a total loss as to how you are going to prove that lodgers were disturbing the silence that night, just as I can´t grasp how you are going to establish that the wind actually produced the exact level (or more) of sound you need to keep refuting things, but I´m sure you will think of something.

If you should fail in this, please accept that WHAT WE HAVE, as evaluated by the expert you just professed belief in, tells us that the conversation could EASILY be made out.

In fact, in the future, when I take the trouble to secure the help of an expert, I am going to lay it on you to do the exact same before you try to refute ANYTHING. It goes without saying that Erling Nilssons view is the one we must rely on until we can present evidence to diminish it´s value or refute it on the whole. Until you make that effort, I will regard your efforts in the field of accoustics and audibility as worth extremely little from a professional view, just as I readily admit that my insights in the same field amount to much, much less than those of Nilsson.
It´s common decency to accept the words of experts, at least until we can find OTHER expert´s that overthrow them, so let´s try and live by that!

As for Levy, I can come up with millions of examples of people who have failed to hear things. But that has nothing at all to do with this. Not a scrap, not a iota. For what we are trying to establish here is not whether Hutch actually heard the couple or not. That is something we will NEVER be able to prove. What we are searching for is instead an answer to the question "COULD he have heard them?" And that question is answered by Erling Nilsson: Yes he could EASILY have made out what was said.
It is not a question of me not caring about ambient noise. It is a question of pointing out that we do not KNOW whethere there was much or any such noise, and exactly because of this, we are obliged to realize that yes, Hutchinson COULD have made it out, just like he said.

Examples of people not hearing things are useless in this context. Levy does emphatically NOT belong to the discussion, unless you are suggesting that you have just proved that people cannot hear conversation from ten feet away.
Tell me, Ben: Do you think that you have proven this? Why else bring Levy up? What does he prove, other than the only known fact: that he claimed not to have heard. IS it not true, Ben, that the press and probably even the police were of the meaning that Levy knew more than he would speak of? What happens if you bring THAT "ambient sound" into the equation"? And first and foremost: WHY did you leave this information out in the first place?

The examples we need to understand about things like these, are the ones where it is shown that sound can travel very far and be picked up. I just returned from watching a riding lesson. In the roofed paddock, there were two groups riding, one with eight riders in half the paddock, and one with five in the other half. As I came into the paddock, I stood about sixtyfive meters from the riding instructor at the far end. I had no problems whatsoever to hear what she said. She spoke in a loud voice, but did not shout. Between me and her, there were thirteen galloping horses and another instructor, speaking to the group closest to me. On the seats lining the paddock, there were people chatting and drinking coffee.
Of course, the riders were sometimes a full 30 meters away from their instructor, at times with their backs to her, and on galloping horses. They all heard what she said and obeyed her instructions.

I don´t know how much sound there was in Dorset Street. But I am having some difficulty accepting that it would amount to more than what thirteen galloping horses and a chatting audience of some thirty people bring about. And still, I could make out every syllable, every word that instructor said.

True, it was inside a large riding paddock. But Dorset Street was a sort of corridor, and that means that it will keep the sound inside it and bounce it against the walls. It is a good setting for picking up and making out sounds. If you disagree, I care very little, since Erling Nilsson tells me that this is so. If you get an expert of your own on the stage, I will listen very carefully, and pay heed to what is said.

The best,
Fisherman

[c.d.]

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.

c.d.

[babybird67]

thing is...

if he was a time waster, why such an elaborate description? Why so much detail when it would have been much easier for him to recall saying he saw someone in the bland clothing that other witnesses had described?

So many things dont make sense to me about Hutch.

[Ben]

"I'm beginning to wonder if Hutch didnt see the inquest as the perfect opportunity to cement such an alibi"

Indeed, Jen. It has always struck me that if Hutchinson was responsible for the Kelly murder, his subsequent claim to have "walked about all night" offered the perfect means of disposing of the issue of an alibi for the time of the murder, which was probably between 3:30am and 4.00am.

Thanks for that extract, Lechmere.

Obviously there would have been suspicion attached to anyone caught or suspected of accosting women, whatever their background or ethnicity.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

hi lechmere

the thing is, Hutch had the perfect alibi didn't he. He was outside Miller's Court, as verified by the other witness, so if he was outside, he couldn't have been inside murdering Mary.

I'm beginning to wonder if Hutch didnt see the inquest as the perfect opportunity to cement such an alibi, and that's why he didnt mention seeing the person who describes him as being there in his wideawake hat. It was superfluous for him to do so. The Police would have made that connection for him.

[Lechmere]

An example of a randomly selected press report detailing arrests:
St. James Gazette 14 November 1888
“At an early hour this morning a Press Association reporter was informed that between midnight and four o'clock three arrests were made in the eastern district in connection with the murders. About one o'clock some young men had their suspicions aroused by the peculiar behaviour of a man in the vicinity of the Spitalfields Flower Market. He accosted two women, and, after conversing with them for a considerable time, tried to persuade them to accompany him into one of the small streets adjoining the market. Theses thoroughfares are in general gloomy and badly lighted, and, the women being suspicious, refused to go with the man. He was followed for some distance by the watchers, and ultimately handed over to a policeman, who took him to Commercial street police station. Here he refused to give an account of himself, on the ground that he did not wish his parents to be alarmed by police inquiries regarding him. Questioned as to his whereabouts on Thursday night and Friday morning last, the man gave various explanations, and contradicted himself so frequently that it was considered advisable to detain him until his identity and antecedents were thoroughly investigated. The two men taken into custody at Leman street police station were alleged to bear some resemblance to the recently published descriptions of the man last seen in the company of the deceased woman Kelly. They were able, however, to give satisfactory accounts of themselves; and after these had been verified by the police, the men were set at liberty.”

[Rubyretro]

Fish -here is another danger of the scientific approach :

(copied from another thread...and to the author : I love you dearly, and this is not mean't as any piss-take)

How big was the bit of apron found in Goulston Street ?
" I do not believe we have exact numbers. We can do some elemental math however. The human body can be divided into 8 equal segments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_proportions

Catherine was 60 inches tall which means each unit 7.5 inches long. Therefore nipples to mid thigh is 4 x 7.5 or 30 inches in length. She is not described as malformed so her width would be something on the order of 18 inches. Half of which is 9 inches by whatever length you choose"

Obviously without all the relevant details such as type of apron, whether the apron came from a obese person originally and was wrapped around twice
etc, we cannot know the size of the apron piece using science.

So it is for sound levels.

[Ben]

“Yes Ben, I agreed that Packer wouldn’t have been suspected. It looks like Violenia was though.”

Hi Lechmere,

There is absolutely no evidence that Violeina was ever considered a possible suspect for the murders. In that respect he received near identical treatment to Packer, and was dismissed as a discredited attention-seeking witness. Two more to add to the ever growing list. As was the case with Hutchinson, Violenia came forward of his own volition, and the police were understandably ill-equipped in those days to entertain for one moment the possibility of the real killer approaching the police under a false guise.

“The possibility certainly occurred to various journalists.”

It only occurred to one journalist in Washington as far as we’re aware, and nobody arguing with me here would have been any the wiser about it had I not mentioned it in my article and on these monster Hutchinson threads.

No evidence that the possibility ever occurred to any policeman, although I can’t rule it out completely.

“While this seems so from press reports and the memoirs and reminiscences of senior officers, the coppers on the ground were as often to pick up local gentiles.”

Yes, but only those who exuded an obvious external menace such as Squibby, or those reported to have been violent towards women, or who had confessed to being Jack the Ripper. The inconspicuous seemingly non-violent but ever-helpful nondescript local Joe tended not feature too prominently on the contemporary list of viable suspect types. The police might eventually have considered his witness statement to be “suspicious” but only inasmuch as it was false, and not to the extent that he was considered a suspect.

“I agree there is a circumstantial case (but not very compelling)”

Well, about as compelling as you’re ever likely to get for a named suspect – if he really can be considered “named”.

You say there is a contradiction between these two premises:

“Hutchinson stopping because he was nearly caught.
Hutchinson stopping after he inserted himself deliberately in the investigation.”

I really can’t see the contradiction.

If Hutchinson was the killer and came forward it was partly because he felt there was no viable alternative. If Lewis identified him subsequently, he would have been dragged in as a suspect before he had presented himself first as a cooperative witness. Yes, there was the potentially favourable by-product of familiarizing himself with the latest police progress and getting one over on his pursuers etc, but it was essentially a less than favourable situation. He might not have appreciated at the time that his prolonged exposure to the police in the wake of his statement would have heralded a long pause or complete cessation from any further murderous activity.

The revelation that Lewis had seen him would probably have slowed down any consideration of ripping activity in the immediate future even before he decided to come forward.

So in answer to your question:

“Did he insert himself for kicks or did he get unwillingly roped into the investigation?”

I’d say it was a mixture of both. Yes, he would have been spooked into coming forward by Lewis’ evidence (and serial killers have been spooked into coming forward under false pretenses for similar reasons), but he would also have recognised the favourable opportunities that coming forward would have afforded him.

“Both could be telling the truth but if Hutchinson was then Cox’s blotchy man wasn’t the culprit.”

But clearly this is not the explanation that the authorities later came to favour, as we learn from the Star’s 15th November observation that:

“As we have already said, the only piece of information of any value which has yet transpired is the description given by the widow Cox of a man - short, stout, with a blotchy face and a carroty moustache - who at midnight on Thursday went with the murdered woman into her room.”

This was after they referred to the discrediting of both Packer and Hutchinson.

This supports the earlier observations made in the Echo that a “very reduced importance” had been attached to Hutchinson’s account by “the authorities”, not just one policeman.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Fish -I would be the last person to ignore science and not consider the opinion of 'experts', but 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

(moral: don't just go for a second opinion when dealing with the above but
several opinions !)

[Rubyretro]

[

In my opinion Kelly was not the last victim, so I don’t think he stopped either. But there is an inherent contradiction between these two possibilities:
• Hutchinson stopping because he was nearly caught.
• Hutchinson stopping after he inserted himself deliberately in the investigation.
Did he insert himself for kicks or did he get unwillingly roped into the investigation? Clearly he could have avoided being roped in by keeping his head down or moving to another nearby area via that trusty medium, shank’s pony. That is why when we had this discussion before, Ben you argued that he inserted himself.
If he inserted himself that almost certainly wouldn’t frighten him into quitting as it would have inflated his ego – he had fooled the coppers! That is how it works.

I don't think that Hutchinson inserting himself into the case, and getting a bit too carried away with the flattery of the Press attention before realising that he couldn't just anonymously carry out another murder so easily, is an impossible contradiction.

Otherwise I only said 'stopped' because the C5 murders finish with Kelly -I'm by no means certain that the Ripper stopped there.

[Lechmere]

Yes Ben, I agreed that Packer wouldn’t have been suspected. It looks like Violenia was though.
There were good reasons why Packer wouldn’t have been suspected (i.e. his shop was there and he was with his wife). These corroborative details are missing for Hutchinson which is precisely why it is likely that the possibility of his involvement in the crime would have flickered across the mind of the dullest detective. The possibility certainly occurred to various journalists.

You repeat the line that the police focussed on “foreigners, madmen, butchers and doctors, but rarely local gentile types”.
While this seems so from press reports and the memoirs and reminiscences of senior officers, the coppers on the ground were as often to pick up local gentiles. As I have previously related, take a look at a random press report in the aftermath of Kelly’s murder and you will see account after account of local gentile types being taken in from lodging houses on the slightest grounds (they acted ‘suspiciously’ etc). I would add ‘lodging house dweller’ to your list as the police had an obsession that the culprit probably lived in a lodging house. We also have the example Inspector Neil (under another guise) saying the culprit may have lived in the Victoria Home! I would take this as another reason why the police would have taken a long hard look at Mr Hutchinson!

“there is only a compelling circumstantial case for one of them having lied about his reasons for loitering fixatedly outside a murder scene shortly before that murder’s commission. That puts him in a much "firmer" position as a possible culprit”

I agree there is a circumstantial case (but not very compelling). That is precisely why it is unlikely the police will have dismissed him with a hearty ‘cheerio’.

In my opinion Kelly was not the last victim, so I don’t think he stopped either. But there is an inherent contradiction between these two possibilities:
• Hutchinson stopping because he was nearly caught.
• Hutchinson stopping after he inserted himself deliberately in the investigation.
Did he insert himself for kicks or did he get unwillingly roped into the investigation? Clearly he could have avoided being roped in by keeping his head down or moving to another nearby area via that trusty medium, shank’s pony. That is why when we had this discussion before, Ben you argued that he inserted himself.
If he inserted himself that almost certainly wouldn’t frighten him into quitting as it would have inflated his ego – he had fooled the coppers! That is how it works.

On Sally’s point on the contradiction between Hutchinson and Cox - it is easily explained by time – about 2 1/2 hours difference and appearances. Both could be telling the truth but if Hutchinson was then Cox’s blotchy man wasn’t the culprit.
The Echo article appeared on 13th – the day after Hutchinson appeared in the evening following the inquest. It must have been written very soon after his appearance. Indeed the ink can barely have dried on Abberline’s glowing report on Hutchinson.
And remember there are press reports from as late as 17th November which spoke of Hutchinson’s as a reliable witness.
The Echo story doesn’t seem to tally as the day the report appeared Hutchinson went to see the corpse and also went out with a policeman again searching for the A-man.
Maybe one policeman (who perhaps favoured the Cox story) didn’t believe Hutchinson from the outset and briefed against him.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I’m afraid it is grossly misleading to claim that I ever challenged the expert’s opinion or set myself up as a “substitute” expert. As I’ve already made clear, I don’t dispute Nilsson’s information any more than I dispute the sound charts that inform us that 40 decibels was equal to a quiet library. What I have trouble with is your apparent failure to acquaint him properly with the fact that there were conditions Dorset Street at the time that would certainly have had an affect on Hutchinson's ability to hear conversation from 32 metres away, as the sources I provided clearly attest to. It is impossible to hear conversation from that distance at the location today precisely because of background noise, even very late at night. This noise would not have been as great in 1888, for obvious reasons, it would still have been an obstacle to the discernment of actual words.

This is best illustrated by the evidence of Joseph Levy, who despite having observed Eddowes and her neckerchief man from about ten feet away, stated at the inquest that he “did not hear a word that he uttered to the woman.”

Not didn’t just not “listen”. He didn’t hear.

It is not remotely the case that Ben says X, while Expert says Y.

The reason I didn’t contact my own “experts” was because they either clearly weren’t needed, or because I was already aware of a perfectly good expert opinion with which I was already more than satisfied. In any case, since the majority of your experts were not in any particular disagreement with what I was arguing, I saw no need to introduce a “rival” expert of my own. But I’d rather not dredge up these past “battles”, if you don’t mind. That’s just a thread derailment waiting to happen.

I’d also caution very strongly against the fallacy that the more emails we send to “experts” and the more reconstructions we carry out, the greater chance we have of winning arguments or shoring up our theories. It is difficult to trump Paul Feldman, for example, in terms of experts recruited and contacts made, but hardly anyone endorses his particular theory these days.

If you’re going to contact experts, you have to give an accurate background history of what it is you’re attempting to ascertain, and if you neglect to mention background noises, a strong wind and possibly rain that were clearly present at the time, for example, you’re just inviting inapplicable responses which are then susceptible to legitimate challenges from others. This is not remotely the same as the expert being "wrong".

I make light hearted-references to “stamina wars” chiefly to mitigate the heatedness and intensity of the exchange, but I will also make them on occasions when I sense that people are using “wear ‘em out” tactics and verbosity to exhaust their perceived opponents into a state of unwillingness to participate any longer, and I just like to remind those people that such a debating strategy in unlikely to succeed against me. I’m not saying this is necessarily applicable in your case, but it’s worth mentioning in case you misinterpreted my reference to “stamina”.

Hi Sally,

You’re quite right. The height of the buildings would have increased the “wind tunnel effect”. The wind would have created “turbulence” around any listener’s ears and would have affected hearing ability.

Good point about Hutchinson versus Cox!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"The height of the buildings in Dorset Street (some appear to be 4 storeys) would have increased the 'wind tunnel' effect. If the wind was blowing in the right direction(s) it would have been very windy in street. That would have affected sound in the street."

It would also have created a far better possibility to hear, Sally. Take away the houses, and the sound has nowhere to bounce. The corridor effect is powerful.
Of course, the more facades there were, the more material for the wind to create distubing sounds against - that also stands. But the thing that MAINLY causes sounds is when objects are moved by the wind; rustling leaves, flapping tarpaulins, sand being moved over a beach and such. And facades do not move! So they would not create much of a disturbance as the wind passed them.

"This isn't said to antagonise - just that it should be factored in to any attempts at calculating how far sound would have travelled."

It should. Of course. But how much was it?

"Do we know, or can we find out, the prevailing wind direction on the night of the 9th? Just a thought."

...AND the 8:th, if you please! That was when Hutch was there, methinks!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

You were right! You have more stamina than I! My own interest lies not in repeating arguments in absurdum, but instead in producing correct information and, when it is called for, aquire corroboration from experts in different fields. This is how I do things. It has resulted in a number of posts on my behalf where I have presented facts and empirical research provided by handwriting experts, meteorologists, linguistic experts, accoustics experts ...
Throughout this work of mine, you have never once employed ANY expert of your own. You simply claim that you use "common knowledge" and that you point to the "bloody obvious". For example, before I spoke to Erling Nilsson, it was very obvious that the sound of a conversation could not travel 30 meters.
You somehow seem to think, Ben, that you can challenge the experts in their own fields of expertise and come out on top. I sincerely wish my own confidence never takes on this shape.

The latest deplorable example of this is of course your decision that conversation could not be made out from a distance of 30 meters. Erling Nilsson, who has spent many, many years working in the field of accoustics, formerly at university level and now at a company in the accoustics line of business, says:

"... at a distance of 32 meters the sound level of the conversation is around 45 dB, which is fully audible. What is said in a conversation at that distance kan easily be made out. As a comparison, it can be added that a whisper lies at around 30 dB."

Anybody more than me that thinks this is totally decisive?

But Ben says no. Expert Ben knows better. Expert Ben REFUTES and asserts that he will KEEP REFUTING for as long as it takes. He has STAMINA, mind you!

I made a test in my home street under bad accoustic conditions, with just a few houses lining the street and reflecting the sounds, and a noisy wind going through the treetops. In them conditions, I found - by putting it to the test - that normal conversation could be made out from 30 meters, and that loud conversation could be made out from 50 meters.

Ben´s response was that he refuted it - and that he wished not to say why, since he feared I would report him to the administrators of the boards if he gave his true reason. To me, that is just a very unsubtle way of saying that he accused me of providing false material or straight out lying.

Therefore, I contacted Erling Nilsson. He corroborated my test, and confirmed that the kind of conversation we are speaking of could EASILY be made out from 30 meters.
But Ben of course refutes this too. And adds that his stamina will win the battle. That is understandable - the facts involved will not battle on his side.

Human blood is red. Anybody who has bled will know this. Any expert on the subject will confirm it. But of course, if somebody chooses to say that human blood is green, nothing much can be done about it. The one who does so will be deplorably ignorant and completely wrong, but it is everybody´s right to be deplorably ignorant and completely wrong. It is also everybody´s right not to realize that experts know things better than the average (and below-average) layman; if we wish to uphold such a misconception, we are free to do so! I we feel a need, for some reason, to refute what expert´s say, in spite of existing tests proving that they are correct and in spite of all empirical research confirming this, it is our privilege to go ahead and tell the world that we know better OURSELVES, and that we will keep claiming this for as long as it takes.
That is how stamina works - we refuse to let ourselves be worn out. If we, for example, claim that human blood is green, all we have to do to win the stamina battle, is to never give in and keep claiming that green is the true colour of human blood. And if we get the last word in, we win the stamina battle. Hooray!

Personally, I prefer to win the factual and intellectual battles, the battles of having procured corroborating evidence from the expertise and the battles of being first to realize when it´s time to call it a day.

Screw the stamina battles, I say.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Brief Observations

A couple of observations:-

The height of the buildings in Dorset Street (some appear to be 4 storeys) would have increased the 'wind tunnel' effect. If the wind was blowing in the right direction(s) it would have been very windy in street. That would have affected sound in the street.

This isn't said to antagonise - just that it should be factored in to any attempts at calculating how far sound would have travelled. Do we know, or can we find out, the prevailing wind direction on the night of the 9th? Just a thought.

Secondly, as to Hutchinson's 'discrediting'. The article in the Echo of the 13th November hints very strongly that Hutchinson is an unreliable witness - its opening line being:

The police are embarrassed with two definite descriptions of the man suspected of the murder

In other words, both of them couldn't be correct - one of them didn't fit - and the article makes it quite clear whose version it considers should be believed - Cox, not Hutchinson. This press article suggests to me, at least, that Hutchinson was already viewed in some quarters as yet another time waster - one of over 50 who had come forward since Kelly's death. Its a simple explanation. There's no suggestion that Hutchinson was considered suspicious beyond that.