Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

D´Onston:

"I'm not sure how relevant my story may be to the discussion"

It is of course very much relevant, D´Onston. And I think it would be a good thing for you to hear that from me before others will step in and tell you that you cannot compare this to Hutchinson´s experiences, since everything was so very different back then and since your example would be a freakish exception to the rule.
When they do - and they will! - just keep in mind that your first impression was a very correct one - your example very much goes to show that these things DO happen. Actually, I think that it would be fair to say that most of us have had expereinces like yours, where we could not believe our ears when somebody had managed to miss out on something we thought everybody must have heard.

Thanks for the contribution, D´Onston - much appreciated!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

others will step in and tell you that you cannot compare this to Hutchinson´s experiences, since everything was so very different back then and since your example would be a freakish exception to the rule.

Fish,

Absolutely untrue. Only the deluded and the agenda-challenged would do such a thing. The rest of us have our dung together.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Scchhhh! That, Mike, was meant to be a secret inbetween us!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

In fairness there is a slight possibility that Dew meant that Hutchinson was mistaken as to person.
But to take Sally’s interpretation we have to accept that Dew was clumsy in his sentence construction and sloppily imprecise in setting out his case. Or if it is preferred he was deliberately keeping his options open by being a bit vague.
However, as Dew was a senior policeman used to making statement’s I don’t think this is the likely explanation. I think that Dew explicitly meant that Maxwell was mistaken in her identification of Kelly (hence the timings were irrelevant) while Hutchinson was ‘out in days’ to use Fisherman’s expression.
Maxwell’s evidence makes it unlikely that she was ‘out in days’ and she was an immediate witness.
Hutchinson made his statement at least 84 hours after the events he was supposedly reporting on. If Fisherman is correct it was 108 hours.

The D’Onston contribution I think lends more weight to the likelihood that Hutchinson didn’t pay attention to the Lord Mayor’s Show than to the murder.
This is because labouring geezer types in the East End would I am sure, have regarded the Lord Mayor’s Show as a girly thing. An event for kids and bored chamber maids.
However labouring geezer types in the East End also made up the ranks of the Whitechapel Vigilance Committee, and showed great interest in the murders. It was an excuse to swagger about with a big stick (if unemployed).

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"to take Sally’s interpretation we have to accept that Dew was clumsy in his sentence construction and sloppily imprecise in setting out his case."

... and we would still be left without any implication that Dew meant that Hutchinson was ruled out on basis of the medical evidence. Dew never says a word that even remotely reminds us of this.

"I think that Dew explicitly meant that Maxwell was mistaken in her identification of Kelly (hence the timings were irrelevant) ... Maxwell’s evidence makes it unlikely that she was ‘out in days’ and she was an immediate witness."

I disagree, I´m afraid. Dew would have meant that BOTH Maxwell and Hutchinson were out on the days. Have another look, Lechmere:

"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."

This paragraph stands on it´s own. Why would Dew say that the couple were wrong, unless it was on the dates and times? Why lump them together if their respective causes of error were differing?
He makes no hint at all at Maxwell erring as to person. He actually even says that witnesses who are wrong are not necessarily so AS TO PERSON, but instead TO DATE AND TIME!
Now, you and me know that a good case can be made for Maxwell erring on persons - but Dew was obviously of another opinion. This becomes quite clear when Dew, in the next paragraph, tells us that: "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."

The only thing that enters the picture here is the mistiming - Kelly could not have been alive at the stage Maxwell claimed, and so she would have been wrong on the dates. That is Dew´s opinion.
If he had gone on to even breathe about the possibility of Maxwell mistaking somebody else for Kelly, then yes. But he does not do anything of the sort. The only source of mistake he tells us of is the time, and he clearly has both Maxwell and Hutchinson down for the same type of error, as per the first paragraph. Which is why he lumps them together. And that semantic grip would be a complete disaster if you needed to speak of two DIFFERENT reasons for getting things wrong.

Finally, think about the sentence: "And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also?" Now, WHY would Mrs Maxwell erring ON PERSON in any way prove that Hutchinson could have erred ON TIME? The two phenomenons are not related. Any mistake on persons Maxwell could have made would in no way point to a smaller or larger possibility that Hutchinson would err on the days! But if Dew had the couple down for the SAME mistake, then the sentence makes sense: If the trustworthy Mrs Maxwell could err on the dates, then why could not George Hutchinson the labourer do so too? If she could do it - why not he?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

We are straying into a slightly irrelevant argument but, as I pointed out to Sally, I think if this sentence is deconstructed:

“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.”

it implies that Dew tied the person to Maxwell and the date and time to Hutchinson.
Otherwise why did he even mention ‘person’. He would have said

“I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.”

The other passages do not necessarily imply that Maxwell was confused as to date and time. Dew says Maxwell couldn’t have seen Kelly at that time due to the medical evidence. To me that implies he thought that Maxwell saw someone else who she mistook for Kelly.

Dew ‘lumped them together’ because they were both witnesses who were wrong (but in his opinion with the best intentions) due to errors in their testimony.
Unless he threw it in as a general observation, why did he mention ‘mistaken as to person’? He could have added ‘mistaken as the place’ as well!

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I think if this sentence is deconstructed:

“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.”

it implies that Dew tied the person to Maxwell and the date and time to Hutchinson."

I think not. It was never argued that Hutchinson mistook a person. The only person he could have mistaken would have been Kelly, and Abberline would have made sure that Hutchinson substantiated his claim to have known Kelly for three years.

Therefore, I would argue that Maxwell was the person that brought about Dew´s need to tell us that when mistakes are made, they are not necessarily made because people mistake persons.

The suggestion that Caroline Maxwell could have been mistaken as to person would have been an obvious call to make. She claimed she saw Kelly at eight in the morning of the Friday, and coroner, police and medicos were all agreed that she could not possibly have done so. Therefore, if she DID see a woman on that time and day - and there was evidence pointing to her doing so - a fair bet would be that she simply mistook the woman in question for Kelly.

Dew, however, does obviously not think that this was necessarily what happened. Therefore, we need to look at the quote you use again, and read it differently:

"“I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions (Maxwell), are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person (meaning that yes, Maxwell erred, but it was not a person she would have mistaken), but as to date and time (THAT was how she failed). And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.”

And that, Lechmere, is why he spoke of "person" - since the suggestion was there that Maxwell had made such a mistake, and he wanted to refute that; Maxwells error was not necessarily one of a mistaken person. Dew thought differently of the matter.

For me, the sentence ""And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also?" holds much of the key. When we say "If she could do that, then why could not he?", we generally speak of the same thing. It makes much more sense that way. It´s the choice between:

"If she could get the days wrong, I see no reason to believe that Hutchinson could not"

and

"If she could mistake a person for another, I see no reason to believe that Hutchinson could not mix up the dates".

A rather weird comparison and logic gone, the way I see it! "If she can drive that car, I fail to see why he could not climb that mountain", sort of.

Not that it is the main question here, just like you say, but I I really think this is the more logical solution to the "if-she-could-do-it-then-so-could-he issue!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

A more accurate comparison than your mountain one would be:
He thought it was a lemon but she thought it was a lime...
I would submit.

The ‘if-she-could-do-it-then-so-could-he’ issue is resolved by them both being wrong, even if they were wrong for different reasons.

If Dew did think Maxwell was out by a day, to me that undermines him as a credible witness for thinking Hutchinson was out by a day also – as her testimony, was quite time specific.
But as I said, if Dew thought they were both confused over dates and times, then I doubt he would have raised the false prospect of ‘person’.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The fact is Dew was not interpreting, anything different then us today,he was confused, as the facts didnt make sense, according that is... to medical opinion of the time.
Simply if Kelly died as the doctors assumed,, in the hours of darkness 1-4am, then simply Maxwell was wrong, and being aware that nothing came of, Astracan, and that witness being quickly dismissed, asumed that if Hutchinson was honest, he apparently was wrong on the date, so that appeared in his book, as an explanation.
But does that lay rest the matter?,
Of course not.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

The fact is Dew was not interpreting, anything different then us today,he was confused, as the facts didnt make sense, according that is... to medical opinion of the time.

You are correct, Richard. The suggestion that Dew thought, or implied that Hutchinson was 'out by a day' is not substantiated by what he actually wrote. Far too much weight is being placed here upon Dew's en passant reference to Maxwell and Hutchinson.

[Tecs]

You are correct, Richard. The suggestion that Dew thought, or implied that Hutchinson was 'out by a day' is not substantiated by what he actually wrote. Far too much weight is being placed here upon Dew's en passant reference to Maxwell and Hutchinson.

I agree Sally,

Fascinating though the minute analysis of Dew's book is (genuinely no sarcasm intended), I think that we have now turned the magnification on the microscope so high that we can't anymore see what we are looking at.

I think that Dew was simply saying that if one was wrong about their evidence in whatever way, so could another be.

regards,

[Tecs]

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.

Hi Lechmere,

I'm not sure if my post was misleading but what is your actual view of Hutchinson? My own is that I would, on the whole, take him at face value. Not because I believe everything I read or see and take the accepted viewpoint without question. But simply that I think that sometimes we make the situation more complicated than it is by overanalysing every spit and cough of the case.

eg.

"Mr Smith said that it was approx 11.30 pm when he walked past the pub, but we know from records that he was dismissed from his job 23 years previously for being late once, so he is obviously an unreliable witness and probably got the day wrong, or if he was there got the time wrong. And as he spelt the name of the pub, "the red lion" (SIC) without capital letters, can we really believe a word that he says?etc etc."

Sometimes the truth can be simple and straightforward. Abberline sat down and looked Hutchinson in the eye. He was a hugely experienced detective who must have interviewed hundreds of people over the years and I'm quite prepared to go with his recommendation that Hutchinson was telling the truth.

As I've said previously, I have never been happy with the ease at which people casually say that witnesses must be wrong out of hand, often just because their evidence doesn't fit our cosy little theories. These people may not have been as sophisticated as we are today, but they were practical, sensible people and we have no right at this distance to casually dismiss them as fools who get simple things wrong so often.

And finally, to return to Abberline, no he never used a police radio, ran a PNC check, took fingerprints, requested a DNA profile or used a computer model to crack a case. But he did interview the local scallywags of the East End every day for well over a decade. If he says Hutch is kosher, that's good enough for me.

Regards,

[Lechmere]

Yes you are quite right, we can drastically over analyse.
Another problem is that supposition gets stuck onto the few facts and can become accepted as unanswerable fact as well, and then used to bolster a theory.
Or one bit of semi-related information might be recorded so retrievable, and this then used to bolster a tenuous case, based around the questionable interpretation of one of the few real facts.

My view of Hutchinson is that he was an unreliable witness. He obviously seemed plausible to start with but then the police had reason to dismiss him. I don’t know why. We will never know why unless some police record reappears. I find it very implausible that he had anything to do with any of the murders.
There are a couple of things which I disbelieve in his testimony – such as that he knew Kelly for three years. This is because we have other testimony that she regularly moved around quite a wide area of the East End up until about a year before. In those days the area she moved around in was populated by about half a million people.

It is likely that some of his testimony wasn’t true otherwise the police wouldn’t have seemingly dismissed him. But then there are I think two press reports that say he was dismissed but there are other reports after these two that make no mention of this (e.g. East London Advertiser 17th November).
That could provoke a long but unprofitable discussion – which press report to believe?

The two instances that I listed and you quoted where just for illustrative purposes to show that any number of plausible explanations can be given for Hutchinson’s behaviour – all of which are more likely than that he was the Ripper.

[harry]

Dew was writing many years after events,but expexts to be believed as to his presence at Millers Court,while at the same time,doubts Hutchinson, who explained his(Hutchinson) presence a mere three days after the event.The event of course being Kelly's death.A disparity that needs to be explained.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"If Dew did think Maxwell was out by a day, to me that undermines him as a credible witness for thinking Hutchinson was out by a day also – as her testimony, was quite time specific.
But as I said, if Dew thought they were both confused over dates and times, then I doubt he would have raised the false prospect of ‘person’."

I see your point, Lechmere. But to me, it does not matter if - as you say - somebodys credibility is undermined, as long as I believe that I have the correct interpretation of something.

I fully realize that your take on the events cannot be ruled out, but I think that if Dew did mean that Maxwell was wrong on persons and Hutchinson on dates, then he could simply have said so straight out. It would have been very simple to do so: "Just as Maxwell could err on persons, Hutchinson could have erred on dates".

But never mind - there will always be disagrements.

The best,
Fisherman