Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Now, what was it that Dew said about Hutchison?"

He said that he was there, and that he therefore would know a thing or two about it, Sally. And then he said that Hutchinson was out on the days. What he did not comment on, though, was what Hutchinson thought about Lord Mayor´s Day, and what interest he afforded it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Sally, Dew was a policeman based in a Division adjacent to the City. Members of the Metropolitan Police would have been busy on Lord Mayor’s Show with extra duties, even members of the CID.
Dew’s perspective vis-a-vis the Lord Mayor’s Show will not have been the same as that of a groom-cum-labourer (possibly soon to be plumber). The impact the Lord Mayor’s Show had on Dew does not do much to inform us of the impact it had on Hutchinson.

I think Dew’s testimony that Hutchinson may have got the day wrong does lend a lot of weight to Fisherman’s theory.
I will add here that because Dew may have made errors in his book, it does not invalidate everything he has to say. It is ridiculous, in my opinion, to rule that everything said in the book pertaining to the Ripper case in invalid. In the same way proponents of Hutchinson as the culprit pick and chose which bits of Hutchinson’s testimony they wish to believe. It is possible that every word of his statement was a lie, but unlikely. To demonstrate that he lied about some things (e.g. the likely lie that he knew Kelley for three years) does not invalidate everything else he said. He could have embellished parts for example, for his own reasons, which I won’t speculate on here.

Of the passages that you quote.
Yes I agree that the Lord Mayor’s Show was the biggest annual event in the City, and with Trooping the Colour the biggest annual event in London. And I agree that a lot of people attended, as they do now in fact. And when the Show sweeps through the streets of the City in 1888, or 2010 the crowds cheer and get all excited.
This sentence is what is known as hyperbole. It is a literary devise:
“News of this fresh Ripper visitation came to the crowds cheering the Lord Mayor's Show. The cheers died in their throats; the smiles left their faces”
When you read Henry Mayhew and Jack London you will notice that they employ similar devises to excite sympathy for their cause with their readers. Their writing, as interesting as it is, can be placed in the polemic school. I would not put Dew in the same category but no one sells his memoirs with dry and dusty phrases! Hence:
“Thousands forgot the Lord Mayor's Show and flocked with morbid curiosity to Dorset Street”.
Forgot? Surely not. That can’t be right. Who would do such a thing?

I can’t wait to find out the results of your research into the Lord Mayor’s Show as a public holiday. Do keep us up to date.

In the meantime, in case it was a genuine question, here are some tanners – oldest 1950.
The new 2p is for scale.
Beneath the 2p are various thrupenny bits – oldest 1933 (two of them together might do). No rhyming slang jokes.

[Sally]

He said that he was there, and that he therefore would know a thing or two about it, Sally. And then he said that Hutchinson was out on the days. What he did not comment on, though, was what Hutchinson thought about Lord Mayor´s Day, and what interest he afforded it.

Well, no, Fisherman, not exactly. Dew did not in fact say that Hutchinson 'was out on the days', as you emphatically state. What he actually said was:

I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong

'I Caught Crippen' Chapter VIII

If you read it, it is perfectly clear from the context in which those words are written that Dew held this opinion because of the medical evidence; and that because of that medical evidence, he thought that Cox's man, Blotchy, must have been the last person to have seen her alive. That was why he thought Hutchinson and Maxwell were wrong - because their sightings did not agree with the medical evidence, to which he gave greater weight in terms of factual evidence.

Nothing to do with being 'out on the days' as you put it.

[Sally]

Lechmere...

Thank you Lechmere! Finally my dream of seeing a real sixpence is realised!

Seriously, I knew you would adopt the 'literary device' approach - of course. However, whilst we certainly cannot know that George Hutchinson cared desperately about the Lord Mayor's Show (although....) we can say quite confidently that a great many people did, and that the poor of Whitechapel were amongst them. Statistically, there is no reason for Hutchinson to have been different, and it is a perfectly reasonable suggestion that it was significant for him also.

The bottom line here is that there were too many significant events on that day for Hutchinson to have mistaken it for another. In theory, he could have mistaken the day he went to Romford; he could - stretching it a bit, but seeing as it's you- have mistaken the day he last saw his friend alive. However, the Lord Mayor's Show is not moveable - it was on the 9th November. The fact that it coincided with both the above, and that everybody else knew that it coincided with the death of Kelly, if not with Hutchinson's trip to Romford, cannot be swept aside.

Anyway, Dew, it turns out, did not actually say Hutchinson got the days wrong.

[Lechmere]

I don't think 'we' can say that the 'poor of Whitechapel', as an entity, cared desperately for the Lord Mayor's Show. The ones who got a meat tea at the Tower Hamlets Mission may have been pleased. Often the 'poor of Whitechapel' went to these missions, took as much scoff as they could cram into their gobs and then left giving the pious minister an adieu of expletives.
I doubt Kelly was his friend by the way. This was betrayed by his ‘three year’ remark. He probably at best knew who she was by sight.

If we examine this sentence:
“I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.”

What does it mean? The likely meaning is:
“I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a (a) person, but as to (b) date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that (a) Mrs. Maxwell and (b) George Hutchison were wrong.”

If we deconstruct the passage we find that Dew is almost certainly saying:
Mrs Maxwell was mistaken as to person (she didn’t see Kelly she saw someone else)
George Hutchinson was mistaken as to date and/or time (his evidence pertained to a different day or to a different time on the same day).

Do you agree with me on this Sally?

[Sally]

If we examine this sentence:

Er, is this going to be a lecture? I haven't brought my notebook. Hang on..

“I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.”

Yes, that seems right.

What does it mean?

I have a feeling you're going to tell me..

The likely meaning is:

Thought so.

“I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a (a) person, but as to (b) date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that (a) Mrs. Maxwell and (b) George Hutchison were wrong.”

Ok - and?

If we deconstruct the passage we find that Dew is almost certainly saying:
Mrs Maxwell was mistaken as to person (she didn’t see Kelly she saw someone else)
George Hutchinson was mistaken as to date and/or time (his evidence pertained to a different day or to a different time on the same day).

Hmm. Well...

Do you agree with me on this Sally?

Yes! And No. I do agree that Dew thinks both Maxwell and Hutchinson were mistaken. It is clear from the context of his observation that the reason he thinks so is because of the medical evidence. His explanation for the error - as to person/time is absent, and is not implied by his words.

Dew is reaching a conclusion about Hutchinson and Maxwell because he favours the medical evidence. Since neither witness testimony can agree with what he believes is correct in terms of the medical evidence, he must conclude that both Maxwell and Hutchinson were wrong. The reason is not explicitly stated - I don't think he thought it through to that extent.

[Lechmere]

If Dew had inserted the word 'respectively' then there would be no question of course, but where would be the fun in that! Although I think reading the two sentences in the context of the Maxwell's and Hutchinson's evidence, I think it is explicit that Dew thought Hutchinson had got his dates mixed up. I think that is the natural and logical interpretation.
Not that I particularly agree and Dew is not exactly being dogmatic about it either.

[Tecs]

And when people suggest this they are overlooking one massive point. This wasn't any ordinary day, it was the day of the lord mayor's parade, one of the very few public holidays that they had. Maxwell's social diary was probably:-

Boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/Neighbour murdered and Lord Mayor's parade/Boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/boring routine/ etc

Still think she got the date wrong!


Dear all,

I posted the above several days ago in response to whether Maxwell may have got the day wrong. (I've deleted a lot of the text but left the relevant bit)

Reading some recent posts, it's interesting to consider that it could equally apply to Hutchinson.

Regards,

[Tecs]

Going back to a previous point about fellow lodgers or lodging house staff noticing that Hutchinson was absent on the night of Kelly's murder, is it not possible that that is why he came forward after a few days? ie, he is blissfully unaware of anything out of the ordinary having happened (maybe after spending the previous night walking the streets he spent all day sleeping?) then discovers that Police have been making enquiries. A fellow lodger may have told him that they had questioned him as to whether he'd seen anything unusual, anybody missing on the night etc? (this does roughly tie in with what Hutchinson did tell the Police) He then realises that he has no alibi, knew the victim and was possibly seen near the murder scene. If the denizens of the Victoria Home then start telling the Police that "Hutchinson has a regular bed, but he wasn't here on the night in question...."

What would an innocent man do? I humbly suggest he would immediately get down to the station to get his side of events in quick! He may also embellish some details in order to "big up" his story. He wouldn't be the first person to "protest too much" in order to drive home his side of the story.

Maybe the trip to Romford didn't happen, maybe he made that bit up to explain why he was absent from the VH. If the truth was simply just that he got drunk, fell asleep and then woke up after the cut off time, he may have felt that that was a bit weak. So, the trip to Romford comes in. "Yes, I do have a regular bed but I'd been in Romford all day and had to trek back. By the time I'd got back it was too late."

Maybe he invented Astrakhan man in order to underline his innocence? After all, he may have been the only person to know for sure that he (Hutchinson) was 100% innocent. In his mind, anything may have been justified in order to get the Police off his back.

Whatever the truth, the Police never arrested him, or seemingly thought of him as anything other than a witness, albeit possibly a poor one. If they decided that he was unreliable, it is telling that they didn't then make the jump to thinking that he had something sinister to hide. It seems that if anything, they just dropped him completely.

Regards,

[Tecs]

Just a quick point in response to the idea that the rules of the victoria Home were strict and rigidly adhered to. I was an exhibitor at a meeting yesterday. During the afternoon things began to die down so we made enquiries as to when we could pack up and go. We were told politely but forcefully, that we were not allowed to move anything before 5 PM. At 5 on the dot, the doors would open and we could dismantle our equipment, but NOT a moment before! Our attention was drawn to the contracts which specified clearly that because of health and safety, we could not move anything until 5 PM, end of chat.

So, say for example an incident occurred at 4:30 PM ten miles away, I am in the clear, aren't I? Absolutey cast iron, all the rules point to it, don't they? Anyone looking into it in years to come would say so.

Interesting then that I was actually on the M62 at 3:30 having decided "bugger this, I'm off!"

I know it's different to getting in to a place, and my analogy is maybe a bit off, but it shows something.....I think!

Regards,

[Lechmere]

Tecs - my view of Hutchinson is similar to yours. However to borrow your Maxwell timeline, Hutchinson’s could have been more like:

Mon - Boring labouring
Tue - Boring labouring
Wed - Went to Romford, got back late, stayed up all night saw Kelly
Thu - Boring labouring
Fri - Sleep deprivation catches up with him, falls asleep all day and missed Lord Mayor’s Show and Kelly’s murder
Sat - Boring labouring made aware of Kelly’s murder, confused over dates and thinks he saw her night she was killed
Sun - Wanders around Petticoat Lane, speaks to another inmate about what he thinks he saw
Mon - Boring labouring then goes to Commercial Street police station and makes embellished statement partly to cover up the fact that he didn’t appear earlier. By then he is also a bit confused about what he saw and when. Taken on for a few shillings with more to come.
Tue - Goes to see corpse – ugh! Then a few hours strolling around with some of the Met’s finest. Then back to the lodgings to earn a bit more selling stories to the press.
Wed - Back to the police station for more narking, but sacked as they have checked out story so back to boring labouring.

Although I favour:

Mon - Boring labouring
Tue - Boring labouring
Wed - Boring labouring
Thu - Went to Romford, got back late, stayed up all night saw Kelly
Fri - Boring labouring, took no notice of Lord Mayor’s Show not least because it wasn’t a public holiday but made aware of Kelly’s murder
Sat - Boring labouring, wonders if he should go to police with what he saw
Sun - Wanders around Petticoat Lane, speaks to another inmate about what he thinks he saw and hears that sometimes the police offer money for informants, which is a lot less hard work than boring labouring.
Mon - Boring labouring then to Commercial Street police station and makes embellished statement partly to cover up the fact that he didn’t appear earlier and partly in a bid to be taken on as a roving nark. Bingo taken on for a few shillings with more to come
Tue - Goes to see corpse – ugh! Then a few hours strolling around with some of the Met’s finest. Then back to the lodgings to earn a bit more selling stories to the press. Luvely Jubbly!
Wed - Back to the police station for more narking, but sacked as they have checked out story – back to boring labouring. Still it’s a tale to tell the nippers! With advantages.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"it is perfectly clear from the context in which those words are written that Dew held this opinion because of the medical evidence"

He absolutely did! As concerns Maxwell, that is. Which is why he states:

"Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right."

Now, Sally, take a long, hard look at this and then tell me where he adds Hutchinson to the list of people who must have been mistaken for medical reasons. Does Dew say that if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs Maxwell and George Hutchinson could not have been right?

No.

He does not.

For some peculiar reason, when he nails who is to be ruled out on basis of the medical evidence, he mentions only Maxwell.

And what do we know about Mrs Maxwell? Correct - she stated that Mary Kelly was up and about at eight o clock on Friday morning, speaking to Mrs Maxwell when she, according to the estimations of the doctors, had already been dead several hours. Such a thing does not sit well with the medical evidence, and therefore Dew was of the meaning that Maxwell should be ruled to have been out on the days.

YOUR most interesting take on it is that "because of that medical evidence, he (and that would be Dew; my remark) thought that Cox's man, Blotchy, must have been the last person to have seen her alive. That was why he thought Hutchinson and Maxwell were wrong - because their sightings did not agree with the medical evidence, to which he gave greater weight in terms of factual evidence."

And where does he say that the medical evidence specifically proves that Blotchy would have been the last man Kelly saw in her life? Where does Dew come clear about that? Well, here is that passage:

"And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer."

Of course, Dew offers no wiew whatsoever about the relation between the medical evidence and Cox´s man. He simply tells us that he thinks George Hutchinson was out on the days, that he did not meet Kelly on the 9:th but instead on the 8:th, and that therefore, the last man we have on record with Kelly is Blotchy. Therefore Dew, very reasonably, argues that Blotchy is the probable killer - the last customer of a dead prostitute often is.

Muddling these things up will do the case no good, Sally, which is why I will finish off by presenting the whole passage of interest to us:

"I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.

Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.

And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view. I believe that the man of the billycock hat and beard was the last person to enter Marie Kelly's room that night and was her killer. Always assuming that Mrs. Cox ever had seen her with a man."

It can be added that much as there is a very obvious possibility that Maxwell got the person wrong and not the days, it is equally obvious that Dew was of the meaning that she had actually mistaken the day. That wiew he would have shared with the police force on the whole, and I see no reason not to believe that the same applied for his take on Hutchinson.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

No

Fisherman

Dew does not tell us that he thinks 'Hutchinson was out on the days'.

Not at all.

I think to emphatically state that he did is misleading.

Best regards

Sally

[D'Onston]

Ignorance of a Murder

Hey All, This thread, along with Fisherman's recent article, has given me much food for thought. Bravo all.

Now, I'm not sure how relevant my story may be to the discussion, but I do think it has some bearing.

On the night of the 8th of this month I was in a restaurant in Brooklyn NY which caters to blue-collar people of upper middle-class salary. I know that because I've been going there regularly for years.

That morning, at about 10:00 A.M. U.S. Congresswoman, Gabrielle Giffords, was shot through the head by a deranged, would-be assassin. The news was everywhere (and in this day and age, that really means _ubiqitous_.)

That very evening two other patrons, true, blue-collar, Brooklyn guys were discussing that nights football (American football, as in big men fall down) which was of paramount interest to them. As the conversation continued, it became apparent from the conversation that one of the men had heard _nothing_ of that morning's assassination attempt, or the killing of 6 other people during the shooting.

Unknowing guy, well just doesn't know, his friend is astonished and asks him "where the f_____ hell have you been all day? It's been all over the TV, on the radio, and everybody's been talking about it!......Jeez! You know todays scores [sports] but you never heard about the shooting?!!! Damn!!!!" Knowing guy just fills Unknowing guy in on the details at that point.

My point? Even in this day of multiple media news 24/7, and spending the day with other people, it's still possible not to have heard of the most important, shocking, and disturbing story of the day.

Can't swear the same for Hutch, way back when, but after that exchange in Tonio's restaurant in Park Slope Brooklyn, I can't completely dismiss, out of hand, the possibility of Hutch being clueless for at least some period of time after MJK's murder.

Take it for what it's worth (and with a grain of salt if you must), but I bare witness, that even today, some people can be totally clueless regarding major events of the times.

Best Wishes, Mike

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Dew does not tell us that he thinks 'Hutchinson was out on the days'.

Not at all."

With respect, Sally, what Dew definitely NOT tells us is that he ruled out Hutchinson on basis of the medical evidence. That is someting you (and as far as I know, you alone) tell us.

What he, on the other hand DOES tell us, is that "I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong".

Hutchinson was wrong, as far as Dew can see. And he couples this assertion with one thing and one thing only - the propensity of people to mix up dates and times.

So yes, Dew DOES tell us that he is of the meaning Hutchinson was out on the days. Emphatically. He even goes as far as to state that he can see no other explanation. And frankly, in light of that, I consider any suggestions to the contrary as a total waste of time. And just as frankly, I think it is a bit cheeky to suggest that I would mislead anybody by pointing this out. The ones who wish to be mislead seem to have managed to take care of that issue eminently on their own.

All the best, Sally!
Fisherman