Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Hutchinson reported his account to the police at 6pm on Monday 12th, he informed the police that he was standing opposite the murder scene, at a possible relevant time to medical opinion.
In order to take this witness seriously, they would firstly have to eliminate him as a suspect, by checking out his lodgings, the dates he occupied them, a search of his known clothing, when satisfied they would have to be certain that the person he saw was infact the dead woman, by having to view the body[ which he did on tuesday morning], and also give a description of clothing wore by the woman he spoke to, after all his description of the man, was detailed.
The very fact that on the monday evening he went on a search with police officers, would suggest that they were happy to eliminate him from enquiries, as a suspect ,and were provisionary happy that his account was true, without even viewing the body.
The fact is we simply do not know what was said off 'record' one would presume, that more was said then appeared on paper.
Was Hutch discredited?
Has any Police officer announced that he was?
Was TOPPING a hoax?
Did he receive a police payment as rumoured?
If he did.. he have hardly have received money for being discredited.
I put it to Casebook.
That the police were satisfied with Hutchinsons account, were satisfied that he was not involved with the murder, were satisfied that he saw the dead woman in Commercial street at the said time and place , and day.
And all this was before he even viewed the body.
The weather report as shown in that 'Lord Mayors ' report I agree with, it fits in with Pickert wanting to borrow kellys shawl at 730am.
But was it pouring at 2am?
If so why was kelly walking in it?
Why was Astracan standing on the corner of a street?
Why was Hutchinson walking out in it,? no shop doorway to shelter.
Why did kelly and Astracan stand for three minutes in Dorset street, and talk, when the passage /room was close by.?
Then Hutch waits for a further forty five minutes leaning against a wall, whats a bit of rain.?
Ah but of course it was the wrong day, Mr Hutchinson you really must be careful in the future before you make a statement concerning the date, it mucks up our enquiries...
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Good morning to you too, Garry!

I will try and provide some answers to your post. I realize that you have not taken much of a liking to it for a number of reasons.

For example, you are very much annoyed that I wrote that I now know what happened in the Hutchinson case.
Of course, you conveniently leave out that I ALSO wrote that I cannot prove it, since that passage does not serve your argument.
But there you are - one should not be over-confident, and if one feels that one has reached a conclusion that satisfies oneself, there must be no stepping on other posters toes!

Well, sorry for that, Garry, but I am a journalist and not a scientist. I do not aspire to being one such either. I make do with what I can and what I have, and if that is not to everybody´s liking, then so be it.
One interesting thing in this context is of course that I earlier posted two snippets from your own book, where you - amongst other things - make an exact description of George Hutchinson´s feelings as he waited to slaughter Mary Kelly, and tell us how he hung his dampened clothes up for drying in room 13, Miller´s Court. You were even well enough informed to tell us how he shook Kelly gently to establish how deep she was sleeping.

It made for great reading - I always did like your text, Garry.

But unfortunately, it also makes for a terrible background to produce the kind of criticism you now bestow upon me, as you will readily understand. Particularly when we take into account that you cut away the all-important part where I stated that there was no proof to bolster my suggestion.

I would very much like an answer from you, Garry, telling me why you chose to do so. The line in question comes immediately after the ones you castigate, and the inference is that you deliberately withheld this all-important parameter. Please tell me why!

As for the weather, I think that Hunter´s clipping makes for useful reading. That is how that night has always been described: as a particularly nasty one, weatherwise.
That aside, I did contact the meteorological services, yes. Unfortunately, I do not have the excange on this computer - it rests on another computer, to which I have no access until tomorrow, the weather allowing. But I can easily recount the gist of what was said.
When I sent over my mail to them - in October - I did so mainly to find out about the weather on the night before the murder night, for obvious reasons. That was the crucial parameter. In my post, I wrote that as far as I knew, the murder night had been one of very bad weather, with the rain arriving after midnight, and then increasing in power over the first few hours, to finally abade into a drizzle in the morning hours, but I had no idea about the night before. Could they help me?

Yes, they could. And their answer was that they confirmed my overall picture of the night of the 8:th, and then they added that the night before had been overcast but perfectly dry.

Just like I say, I cannot give the exact wording today, but this is the general picture with which you shall have to satisfy yourself for the moment being, Garry.

I would also like to point out to you, though, that I took great care in my text to emphasize that establishing the exact outcome of a rainfall in a particular street is a very hard thing to do.
I wrote that Abberline and his men may have been forced to realize that even if the rain was hard and dense generally, Dorset Street may for some reason perhaps - unlikely as it may sound - have been the one exception to the overall meteorological rule (or something to that effect; my essay is on the same computer as is the meteorological office´s answer).

Finally, I ALSO wrote that even if we were to deal with a situation where Dorset Street presented a completely dry and comfortable stage to play out the Hutchinson saga, it STILL applies that George Hutchinson gave away the fact that the night was a dry one as he told the press that he spent the remainder of the night walking the streets. THAT would have been the clincher for Abberline, if he had ever had any doubts on it all.

These parts and thoughts were also in my text, Garry. I put them there in order not to have to deal with the exact sort of post that you have now confronted me with, leaving any reference to the parts and thoughts in question out.

It is not the best and fairest way of going about things, if you ask me.

But then again, you don´t, do you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Where is there evidence of a man standing outside Crossingham's any time between 2am and 3am on the morning of the 8th,your revised time,or of Kelly spending the early morning hours of the 8th in the company of a man she met on Commercial street."

You got me there, Harry. Since the surveillance cameras had run low on batteries on that particular morning, I cannot prove it.

But I came pretty close,didn´t I?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"In order to take this witness seriously, they would firstly have to eliminate him as a suspect, by checking out his lodgings, the dates he occupied them..."

Yes, Richard. And already on the day after, the Echo reported that the police had started to suspect that things were not what they ought to have been. We are dealing with a short span of time!

"The very fact that on the monday evening he went on a search with police officers, would suggest that they were happy to eliminate him from enquiries, as a suspect ,and were provisionary happy that his account was true, without even viewing the body."

That it would, Richard.

"Did he receive a police payment as rumoured?
If he did.. he have hardly have received money for being discredited."

We do not have the payment confirmed - but I see no reason to accept that there was that time gap, that you yourself speak of, when Hutchinson was still believed, that could have seen him receiving money for helping out.

"But was it pouring at 2am?
If so why was kelly walking in it?
Why was Astracan standing on the corner of a street?
Why was Hutchinson walking out in it,? no shop doorway to shelter.
Why did kelly and Astracan stand for three minutes in Dorset street, and talk, when the passage /room was close by.?
Then Hutch waits for a further forty five minutes leaning against a wall, whats a bit of rain.?"

Incredible, is it not? And to top things off, he used the reamining hours of the night, among them the passage at 3:00 when we KNOW that it was raining hard, to merrily walk the streets.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fisherman,
Because many on Casebook, find it hard to accept witnesses at their word, we will always get scenerios invented, in an effort to make sense.
Hutchinson has always been a target for this.
His description of the man with Kelly,
His detail, his memory of words spoken, the 'red hankerchief'
The very fact that Hutchinson by his own admission was standing in the same spot , as Mrs Lewis observed, and her visit to the court was on the morning of the 9th, would suggest no error was made.
Its really that simple..
But how could he possible state a red Hankerchief?
Did the police find a hanky in kellys room, which confirmed Hutchies account ,and the colour was just recorded on the statement.
Did Hutch originally just say , 'he gave her his hankerchief'?
Before any investigation could take place, the police would have to be confident that
a] There were not dealing with a time waster.
b] That the person helping them in their enquiries, had the right woman, and the right day.
c] That he was not the actual killer.
Hutchinson must have convinced the police, for reasons not known to us, that he was the genuine article, something initially convinced Abberline.
How about this scenerio./
Information quickly came to light, to suspect another individual, making it then unlikely that Astracan was the killer, therefore Hutchinsons statement was then of non importance.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi Richard!

"Because many on Casebook, find it hard to accept witnesses at their word, we will always get scenerios invented, in an effort to make sense."

My starting point when assessing witness testimony is aways that the witness is an honest one, getting things right.
Empirically we know that this is the best way to go about things. Equally empirically, though, we ALSO know that many a witness gets things wrong, and not all witnesses are honest.

Therefore we must be as thorough as possible when assessing witness testimony. And Hutchinsons testimony very clearly fits eminently with a dry night, whereas it does fit very poorly with a rainy night. And that is not a scenario I invented, it lies withing the testimony itself!

"Before any investigation could take place, the police would have to be confident that
a] There were not dealing with a time waster.
b] That the person helping them in their enquiries, had the right woman, and the right day.
c] That he was not the actual killer."

In a perfect world, these parametres can all be established, and in that same perfect world, the police always remember to ask all the relevant questions and are able to see all discrepancies involved. Then again, once more empirical insights tell us that it is not always possible to confirma all the bits and pieces and sometimes the police overlook a relevant issue.

So when you write:
"Hutchinson must have convinced the police, for reasons not known to us, that he was the genuine article, something initially convinced Abberline."

...you are spot on, Richard. But the fact that Abberline was satisfied does unfortunately not equal any certainty that all the right questions had been posed. For if they HAD, then George Hutchinson would never have been dropped the next day, would he? If Abberline had been infallable, such a thing would not have come about.
But id did, Richard! It did.

"How about this scenerio./
Information quickly came to light, to suspect another individual, making it then unlikely that Astracan was the killer, therefore Hutchinsons statement was then of non importance."

Until we have any confirmation at all of such a newcomer on the stage, I cannot believe in him. It would have left rings on the water! And it certainly would NOT mean that Hutchinson deserved to be "discredited", would it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"You see,we can all conjure up fanciful solutions."

Perhaps so, Harry. But can you make it tally with what Walter Dew tells us must have been the case; that Hutchinson mixed the dates up? You see, whatever "fanciful solutions" we cook up, should preferably meet all the parametres involved, and this is where I think my suggestion applies very well. It corroborates Dew´s claim, it presents us with a solution to why Hutchinson was discredited but apparently not reprimanded, it tallies with the meteorological facts involved, it fits the dates of the Echo and the Star respectively, it uses only first hand source material as provided by the police report signed by Hutchinson himself to establish the main theory and it offers an explanation to why the ground for discrediting Hutchinson remained hidden to us.
Actually, since all these bits and pieces are tied together, I am at a complete loss to see what´s so "fanciful" about it. Perhaps you would care to enlighten me on that score?

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
I guess what it all boils down to is opinion.
The bad weather issue , has always been there, but both of us have often wandered about in the rain , have we not?
I am not disputing the weather forecast for that area , on the 8th /9th Nov, all I am suggesting is that does not necessarily mean that at 2am on the 9th it was raining hard, if it was,... why would Mary venture out, and why what a man dressed in Astracan finery, have his overcoat unbottoned.? mayby to attract the female walking towards him, the influential look. who knows, it might have been buttoned up to that point?
I would like to know where our George was heading to, once he realized he could not gain admisssion to his lodgings. he seemed to be heading for somwhere when he encountered kelly.?
I am not disputing the rainy night , neither the possibility of rain at 2am, alithough I would question perhaps the strength of the rain at that relevant period.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi again,
Hutchinson and Maxwell. have both throughout the history of the case been labled as mistaken, either on identity, or date, by officers such as Dew, and by nearly all of Casebook.
Maxwell was not mistaken on date, her movements on that morning were verified, and she did not claim to have just seen Kelly , but spoken to her, which suggests only two things,
Mjk was not the victim...unlikely
Mjk was killed around 9am... possible[ but thats another thread]
As for our George..
If a unknown ie Hutchinson identity ? then a time waster perhaps, a liar perhaps, mistaken perhaps, but if Topping a man that DID exist, a person that was honest and reliable[ sons reference] a man of detail, that recalled many times in later life, that he gave the police a statement as he 'knew one of the women', even received a payment of one hundred shillings for his efforts[ which was backed up by the wheeling report].
He never stated that he had made a mistake, he never mentioned that he was discredited, why not?
Because he made no mistake, and was not discredited, even if the press made that comment.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"I guess what it all boils down to is opinion."

Actually, no. It all boils down to using source material to establish a very credible explanation to George Hutchinson´s discrediting. It tallies with the only suggestion we have from a police officer involved in the case, Walter Dew. It answers to the reality of the meteorological assessment. That is not opinion.

"The bad weather issue , has always been there, but both of us have often wandered about in the rain , have we not?"

I have never spent a night walking on the streets in pouring rain, no. Nor have I stood about leaning on lampposts during such circumstances. I just don´t, and I don´t think that many people do. Generally, on nights like the one we are speaking about here, we do the best we can to avoid getting wet, and that would have applied even more so back in 1888, I suspect, since the means of warming up afterwards would not have been at hand the way it is today, and since back then it was agreed upon by all and sundry, doctor´s included, that we could catch dangerous diseases by getting soaked.
Otherwise, yes I have been out in the rain at occasion. Which is why I avoid it if I can.
And remember that it was not just raining - it was cold and very windy too, as witnessed by Hunters clipping, an endlessly miserable night, that is.

"I am not disputing the weather forecast for that area , on the 8th /9th Nov, all I am suggesting is that does not necessarily mean that at 2am on the 9th it was raining hard, if it was,... why would Mary venture out, and why what a man dressed in Astracan finery, have his overcoat unbottoned.?"

I don´t know how much more emphatic I can be about this then I already have, Richard: They-would-not!! That, as you surely must understand, is the whole, sole and only point I am making. Of course, if somebody felt very hard pressed, they could take to the streets in a hard rain, but they would make damn sure that they were buttoned up first, for example.

Dear, good Richard, I am actually presenting a scenario in which Hutchinson was completely honest, just like you have always claimed he was - but a scenario in which he was honestly mistaken! It is still there today, in writing, in the police report. It very clearly presents a picture of a dry night, with people standing about chatting in the open street, leaning on lampposts, unbuttoning their coats. It was not raining that night! The NEXT night, though, it was miserably cold, there was a hostile wind blowing and it rained heavily over the East End. And that night is NOT the night Hutchinson describes. So he got it wrong, so the police found out, so they corroborated the suspicions and so George´s story was "discredited" and he was sent on his way. And fifty years after that, Walter Dew writes that the only explanation to George Hutchinson´s scenario was that he was wrong on the dates. There can be no other explanation, he tells us.

Although it will have me castigated by a poster or two, I will easily say that this means that we have the solution to the Hutchinson enigma. It tallies all the way, piece by piece.

The best, Richard!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"he made no mistake, and was not discredited, even if the press made that comment."

Why, then, was not the Astrakhan man followed up upon? If there was an interest in him, it would have been VERY scant - but of course, since he spent the night before the murder with Kelly, he would have carried some interest, admittedly.
Why was it said that nobody ever got a good look at the Ripper?
Why was not Hutchinson mentioned by any of the officers in charge, save Dew, he corroborates Hutchinson´s being discredited, more or less?
Why did the papers write that he had been dropped, if this was not the case?

More importantly, why would we accept that Hutchinson was relied upon throughout, when all the evidence we have points us in the exact opposite direction?

"Maxwell was not mistaken on date, her movements on that morning were verified, and she did not claim to have just seen Kelly , but spoken to her, which suggests only two things,
Mjk was not the victim...unlikely
Mjk was killed around 9am... possible[ but thats another thread]"

What happened to possibility number three: That Maxwell DID speak to a woman who she mistakenly believed was Mary Kelly?

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

am i missing something?

Apologies to both Ben and Fish as i don't have access to their articles so i am responding to what i have read on the boards.

The argument as far as i can see is that Hutchinson must have got the date wrong because nobody would have been out on a night like it was on the 8th, considering the weather conditions?

I'm sorry but I can't see the logic of this in several respects.

Firstly, as has been pointed out, the night itself was not one of continual rain as far as i can make out...but one of heavy showers punctuated by dry spells. The fact that there was rain has always been acknowledged, as you point out yourself Fish, even by Garry Wroe...nobody before assumed the night was dry, it seems to be common knowledge that it had rained that night. So this sudden revelation that there was rain on the night seems a little strange to me. This isn't new knowledge.

Secondly, if the argument then goes on to posit that because there was rain it would have meant Hutchinson could not have been out on that night, because nobody would have been out on a night like that, and must have been mistaken as to the date, what about all the other people who were definitely out and walking the streets that night? Are we now suggesting Mary herself couldn't have been out walking the streets looking for punters? Are we suggesting punters wouldn't have been out there looking for prostitutes? The logical conclusion to this argument would be the whole date of the murder must be wrong, since nobody would have been out walking the streets and Mary herself couldn't have picked anyone up, let alone Astrakhan man, because nobody would be out in such bad weather would they? What about Mary's neighbours who were going out walking the streets? My understanding was they were going out when the weather was better, and coming back inside when it got too wet. The sighting of Mary and Blotchy doesn't seem to have occurred in rain as they seem to have come casually back carrying beer and meandering into her room...not scurrying in out of the rain.

If Hutch's account was true, that he had nowhere to stay, what was his alternative to braving the weather conditions anyway? Isn't it just as likely when he adopted his vigil outside the court it was dry, and he decided to move on when a shower came down, to look for slightly better shelter?

I don't know if i am missing something because i havent read the articles, and I apologise if I seem somewhat thick, but this seems to be an illogical twist on information which isn't particularly new...can someone tell me if i am missing something?

[Hatchett]

I have read this thread with interest.

But I have to make a few observations.

Firstly, is it likely that both Hutchinson and Maxwell made a mistake on the days? Why would they? The day was not a normal day. It was a memorable one because it was the day of the Lord Mayor’s parade. Couple that up with Hutchinson’s trek to and from Romford and there is a double reason why for Hutchinson it would be memorable. In view of that I would say that it is highly unlikely that he made a mistake.

Even on days of heavy rain there are periods when the rain stops. Surely, we have all experienced that. That this was the case on that night appears to be borne out by the evidence of other witnesses. There were a lot of people abroad that night,one man it was reported who hung around Dorset Street and Millars court for almost an hour.
Not to mention that if it was raining that hard and that consistently there would have been no need for any street prostitute to have been out that night. Because if the rain was that bad any trade would either be indoors or making haste to get into shelter.
So the logic surely is that although the weather that night overall was bad, it did have relatively dry spells.

Any other scenario I would suggest doesn’t hold water.

Rain water especially.

Best wishes.

[Ben]

I think you've both raised some thoroughly bloody good points there, Jen and Hatchett!

To all,

Firstly, an important word in Garry’s defence, lest the accusation that he dressed up opinion as fact be falsely and unfairly sustained. Before outlining his suggested version of events, he first stated:

“Setting aside any preconceptions, therefore, let us next explore an alternative to the scenario ordinarily associated with Mary Kelly’s death.”

This is from the final chapter of his book:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/garrywroe_full.html

Clearly, therefore, he wasn’t so incautious as to insist upon this explored “alternative” as fact, and he certainly never claimed to be in a position to “know” what he couldn’t “prove”. Indeed, I hope that a critical approach is accorded to anyone who does make such a claim.

Again, it has been pointed out, very reasonably, that the reported circumstances pertaining to Hutchinson’s account are arguably at odds with the weather conditions on that day. Unfortunately, in this case, this realisation has resulted in faulty conclusions being established, which is unfortunate, since the initial observation is a reasonable one. Liars have been exposed, since the dawn of time, when oddities and contradictions in their claims or versions are noticed. Fabrication is just the simplest and least outlandish explanation for the disparity between the account and the weather. Yes, the Astrakhan description is implausibly, if not impossibly detailed for a fleeting moment in darkness and bad weather, but then it should be considered so even if we remove the bad weather from the equation.

We’re already in probable fabrication territory before we even consider the weather, and once we’ve factored it in, those suspicions are merely compounded. What Fisherman has highlighted is further evidence that Hutchinson did not report the truth. It’s just unfortunate that this inevitable conclusion was rejected in favour of a deeply problematic “different day” hypothesis.

Dew’s claim is something I drew people’s attention to a few threads ago, and I’m glad it has generated interest. The point overlooked here, however, is that Dew was offering the “different day” hypothesis as personal suggestion only. Clearly this was never something that gained widespread acceptance on the part of the senior police officials, nor was it “proven” to have been the case, or else Dew would undoubtedly observed that the police had established that Hutchinson and Maxwell confused the date, rather than offering personal decades-late speculation.

Nearer the time, we have the Echo, which was first brought to the collective attention of the Hutchinson message board participants by Garry, which also made clear that the discrediting of Hutchinson owed more to the personal doubts and suspicions that the authorities were having over his account than anything that had been established for certain (i.e. nothing).

People keep insisting “it tallies!” with regard to their own conclusions, but there is nothing in the evidence that interferes even remotely with the commonsense, uncomplicated explanation that Hutchinson lied, was suspected of lying, and was accordingly discredited.

Best wishes,
Ben

[FrankO]

It was not raining that night!

Even though I appreciate your inquiry into the weather conditions of the East End of the night of the murder and the night before, I still have to say it's quite a big step from no mention of any rain to a claim that it was not raining on the night of Hutchinson’s account, Fish.

Elizabeth Prater didn’t mention any rain, and according to her testimony she was standing at the corner of Miller’s Court by McCarthy’s shop for about 20 minutes.

Sarah Lewis didn’t mention any rain either, and she was the one who saw a man standing opposite the entrance to the court, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out. Apparently, that man had been standing there a while already when Lewis was approaching the court.

We know these 2 women weren’t mixing up two nights.

The only one actually mentioning any rain was Mary Cox. According to most papers, if not all, she only claimed that it rained hard or heavily around one a.m. and the official inquest papers give the impression that it was raining around three a.m.. No rain is mentioned between one and three. But even though it rained when Cox returned to her room at about one a.m., she had still gone out and did so again – for 2 hours! - after warming up a bit.

I’m not castigating you here, Fish, I just don’t see the solution neatly tally piece by piece with all that we know. Not mentioning any rain doesn't mean that it wasn't raining. People who had to go out, like Cox, did go out, despite the weather, and I bet she wasn't the only one. On the other hand, it may well have been dry or not have been raining much and heavily between 1.15 and 3 am, too.

All the best Fish!
Frank