Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[The Grave Maurice]

Quite right. Sally should be admonished as well. She distracted me with her Romford statement.

[Ben]

No worries, GM, I think Lech has entrenched himself in battle mode for the time being.

Lechmere, Fetchbeer!

Hi Fisherman,

Glad to see I’m presenting something new, and thus meeting your criteria for continued discourse with you.

“It rained heavily in Dorset Street at 3 AM and Regents Park still stayed completely dry, remember?”

Yes, but that doesn’t mean that it rained continuously in the Dorset Street vicinity all through the night. As Lechmere pointed out, “Going back to metric, 7.1 mm in 8 hours is less than 1mm an hour which the Met Office classifies as ‘slight”. So we simply can’t argue the existence of heavy rainfall in Brixton, and unabated non-stop rainfall would be yet another step too far. There is simply no good reason to posit the existence of 14 or 20 millimetres of rain in Dorset Street. We simply lack the information, which is why I’d caution so strongly against declaring it ”probable” that it was raining in Dorset Street at 2.00am. Possible, certainly, but we can’t stretch things any further than that. Most of your recent post appears to acknowledge this.

“The one thing that made a difference for the general picture - but not necessarily for the specific picture of Dorset Street at 2 AM - is that we now know that the rain was not an affair of showers. It was instead a general rainfall, and the rain came down for longer periods of time”

Yes, but he also spoke of “outbreaks” of rain, and that it was “patchy” in nature. In other words, whatever was meant by “general rain”, it clearly did not refer to unrelenting continuous rainfall of the type that would necessarily have encompassed the 2.00am time frame. I’m not suggesting that it would be “illogical” to argue the presence of rain between 1.00am and 3.00am, but I do urge caution against declaring it probable that it did. Bear in mind, again, that I have no dog in that particular fight. The presence of rain at that time would only increase the likelihood, to my mind, that Hutchinson fabricated his movements on the night in question, and neglected to take full account of the weather conditions when putting together that lie, rather like George Brereton forgot to factor in his distance from the sinking Titanic when he later claimed to have seen the captain get knocked over by a wave on the bridge of the vessel.

“I say he was there on the dry Thursday morning - we at least KNOW that Dorset Street WAS dry that morning! -and you say that he lied and forgot about or looked away from the necessity to get the lies correct. Would that be a fair summary?”

Yes, absolutely.

“Fair enough, Ben. In the end we may BOTH be proven wrong. But the chief reason for your ruling is primarily your take on the chances of Hutchinson mixing up the days being very small due to the Lord Mayors show and the trek to and from Romford, right?”

Oh, no. These are key factors, certainly, but I base my “ruling” primarily on the striking similarities between Hutchinson’s accounts of his behaviour and movements that night and Lewis’ description of her loitering man. Given the similarity, I’m of the opinion that the identification of Hutchinson with the man in the wideawake is practically inescapable, short of amazing and implausible coincidence. Let’s not keep bringing up the “Hutchinson didn’t mention Lewis” issue as though it lends weight to him not being there. I don’t want to copy and paste my counter-objection to this a third time.

I also base this ruling on that fact that the reasons you’ve introduced for inferring a “confused date” on Hutchinson’s part can be more simply and more plausibly attributed to fabrication, in my view. For example, and as you’ve already noted, whereas you think the weather conditions point towards a confused memory of the date on the grounds that his account is not consistent with heavy rain, I simply smell bull$hit and use this and the preferred explanation for this perceived inconsistency.

“when it comes to actual reasons for ruling my suggestion out, there is really not very much factual stuff speaking against it, is there?”

No more than there is “factual stuff” that would argue against my proposal than this particular unknown local man, who introduced himself to the police as George Hutchinson, may have had some involvement in the murders.

“And it may well have been that he sought her out to ask for a place to sleep that night.”

But it’s clear from his account (which you trust, considering him to be a date-confusing honest witness) that it was Kelly who sought him out, and not the other way round. It is incredibly unlikely that Hutchinson would go to such extremes of discomfort, energy expenditure and sleep deprivation only to chance the possibility that a hypothetical no-evidence acquaintance was in a position to put him up for what little remained of the night.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Fetch beer? Where from? The Romford Brewery? And walk back? Late at night? In light persistent drizzle? By which time the Victoria Home will be shut as its past closing time and I haven’t got a special pass even though I paid for a weekly ticket? And then I’ll have to kip under a convenient archway? And then be too tired to watch the Lord Mayor's Show?
OK, I’ll set off now.

[Ben]

Too late. I've had to get my own.

But glad to have spared you a pointless, sleepless, epic footslog of Hutchinsonian proportions!

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

The highest recorded rainfall in the south east on 9th was in Southampton – what was it 12.5mm? This was actually over 24 hours but let’s be generous and say it all fell in the magic first eight hours of the 9th. That is defined as moderate rain. I think it is unrealistic to present a case based on heavier rainfall than that."

Hi Lechmere!

If the rainmeasuring stations were always positioned in the places that got the most rain, then yes - if we can guarantee THAT, then it is "unrealistic" to say that heavier rain could have fallen elsewhere.
Some years ago, here in Sweden, at a place called Löddeköpinge, where there is a large supermarket, extreme and extremely local rain put a large parking space under water. It turned it into a lake, actually, with the water rising to a level of many decimetres of rain, rising over the tresholds of the cars and pouring into them. There was a bitter fight afterwards between insurance companies and carowners.
Now, in Löddeköpinge there is no rain measuring station, so it was never recorded exactly how much rain fell. But it WAS recorded that the nearby villages of Kävlinge, Furulund and Bjärred got only a few millimeters of light rain.
If I had then said that the rain that fell over Kävlinge, Furulund and Bjärred proved that no case could be made that it rained more than slightly any place else nearby on that day, then that statement would make me look quite asinine. That is why I say - and no matter how much you point to statistics I will keep saying so - that the numbers we have to go on may or may not be useful when it comes to telling us how much it rained in Dorset Street.
I will also once again add that I am NOT saying that it MUST or WOULD have rained more there than anywhere else - that is not what I am after. I am after a recognition of the fact that we cannot possibly establish the correct amount of rainfall by looking at what happened in for example Brixton or Regents park - where the amounts varied totally! As you will have noticed, your own assertion that the rain in Dorset Street would only have been a drizzle is effectively countered by our knowledge that it rained hard at 3 AM!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’d caution so strongly against declaring it ”probable” that it was raining in Dorset Street at 2.00am. Possible, certainly, but we can’t stretch things any further than that. Most of your recent post appears to acknowledge this."

You noticed - good! I still say that general rain as opposed to showers made it MORE probable than under shower circumstances - but that does of course not in any way equate any certainty that it actually DID rain at 2 AM.

"Yes, but he also spoke of “outbreaks” of rain, and that it was “patchy” in nature. In other words, whatever was meant by “general rain”, it clearly did not refer to unrelenting continuous rainfall of the type that would necessarily have encompassed the 2.00am time frame."

I think that "general rain" and rain falling over "long periods of time" as Jebson described it, may well have tallied with an "unrelenting continuous rainfall" between 1 Am and 3 Am. I see nothing that would rule it out.
On the other hand, I see nothing that proves that such a rainfall was about. And the rainamounts measured on different places throughout the southeast of the country do not point to a picture of continuous hard rainfall over London for hours on end - on the contrary. But as I have written to Lechmere, and as I have said before, rain is a tricky business to measure from estimations, and we do know that it rained hard at 3 AM. Therefore, it would be completely foolish to write off the POSSIBILITY that 2 AM portrayed a scene of relentless raining. Equally, it would be daft to rule out that the same stroke of the clock would have passed in dry conditions.
We will not get an inch further with this, Iīm afraid. Either it rained at 2, or it did not. At any rate, we know that it would have been very windy, and Cox tells us ti was a cold night, cold enough to drive her home to try and warm her hands. It was, by all accounts, anything but a comfortable November night, whereas we know that the night before it was totally different fitting the street scene Hutchinson depicted much better, just as it fit in with his walking the streets all night.

"Oh, no. These are key factors, certainly, but I base my “ruling” primarily on the striking similarities between Hutchinson’s accounts of his behaviour and movements that night and Lewis’ description of her loitering man."

Well, I know that. What I was after was not what you consider as pro Hutch-the-killer, but instead what you think is obviously against Hutch-the-mistaken-witness.

"Let’s not keep bringing up the “Hutchinson didn’t mention Lewis” issue as though it lends weight to him not being there."

Yes, letīs. Because it lends tremendeous weight to it, Ben. Weight enough, I would submit, to write him off on behalf of the police if he faultered in that department, at least after checking other parameters like for instance the weather and the ledgers of the Victoria Home.
I really fail to see why I should NOT use the perhaps strongest argument that goes to bolster my suggestion. I am not saying that you should refrain from mentioning the possibility that he could have been the killer, or else I will just copy and paste my arguments against that, am I? Iīm afraid the only thing you can do is to try and find counterarguments, and what you have presented so far - and correct me if I am wrong - are the suggestions that he either omitted to mention Lewis not to hint to the police why he had come forward, or that he DID mention Lewis, but it never ended up in the protocols. And I have countered both suggestions, the former by saying that if he lied, then the second he put himself in the role of the loiterer he also gave away that he could have picked up on the loiterers role from the inquest, and the latter by pointing out that it would be very strange to my eyes if he did tell the police that he saw a lodger, a policeman and a woman that entered the court as he stood there, whereas he told the Daily News that he saw a lodger and a policeman AND NOBODY ELSE. Such a thing would call for a good explanation as to why he either forgot Lewis or chose to omitt her when talking to the press. It makes no sense whatsoever.
About the suggestion that he would have wanted to not give away his knowing about Lewis, why would the police have said: "Aha! He says he saw the woman and that HE was the loiterer - thatīs fishy!" but not "Aha! He has picked up on the Lewis womanīs testimony about the loiterer, and now he says thet HE wsa that man". It makes no sense to me either, especialy not if we make the assumption that Abberline used his knowledge about people witnessed about as having been in Dorset Street at the vital time. And if we take a look at the inquest and put our minds to it, we will see that these people amount to four:
Sarah Lewis.
The loiterer.
The man Lewis saw near the Britannia.
A woman in company of the man at the Britannia.
After that, George Hutchinson added two further people - one policeman and one lodger.
That is all. There were no others around at 2 Am to 3 Am, as far as these sources can tell us.

At this stage we must ask ourselves: Did Abberline take an interest in what people were around at the vital time? I think that this is not a question that we need to ask ourselves. It answers itself - yes, that was the perhaps most vital element of his investigation.
Next question: Given the amount of people witnessed about, would Abberline have stood a fair chance to notice that Sarah Lewis and George Hutchinson BOTH said that there was a man standing in the doorway opposite the court, seemingly looking into it? This too answers itself - it would have been odd in the extreme and incredibly lousy police work if he did not. There is every chance that Abberline had a sketch of Dorset Street on his office wall, with the people marked on it!

This is where I fail to see your theory working, Ben. It comes to a halt here. Abberline must have known and he must have asked about Lewis. And if the answer was anything like the one Hutchinson gave the Daily News, then that would have Dew saying, fifty years dow the line, that he knew that people with the best of interntions sometimes got things wrong, not necessarily as to persons (for Abberline believed that Hutchinson DID see Kelly and Astrakhan man), but as to time (for Abberline realized that Hutchinson did NOT see Lewis).

"it’s clear from his account (which you trust, considering him to be a date-confusing honest witness) that it was Kelly who sought him out, and not the other way round."

The fact that she spoke first does not necessarily rule out the suggestion that he was in Dorset Street looking for friends who lived in places that may have presented potential possibilities of bedding down, does it? He may well have known more people in that area than Kelly, whereas I think it a lot less credible that he could have hoped for the same back in Romford. Surely this makes for a useful potential explanation to his decision to do the trek, as does my suggestion that he would perhaps want to be in place early to enhance the opportunities of securing a job for the day! Making it into town at ten or so AM would not be a very good idea if finding a job was his intention - many of the jobs, for example at the docks, were distributed in the early morning hours. You will know this.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Why such a long thread?, its really self explanatory.
Hutchinson for reasons known to himself[ and proberly Abberline] went to Romford on the 8th, spent all of his money[ at least thats what he told Kelly] and returned to Whitechapel via a fourteen mile trek, arriving back at 2am the 9th.
He most likely came back intending to work in some capacity..who knows?
The rest of his story is told to the police to the best of his recollections,and we have no concrete evidence to disbelieve him, apart from two newsapaper accounts, which are not conclusive.
He assisted the police , but no Astracan was found.
He was proberly one of many people who helped the police in various ways during that period , and after, but poor George Hutchinson had now been labled as a very sinister character, and in my opinion unfairly.
All this discussion on the weather also will never be conclusive, we all know it was a damp night, Im sure George himself would have agreed with that, just because he said he walked about all night , it does not mean continuely, there were covered passages/alleyways etc for shelter if needed.
We have a statement , we have been given a name for that witness Topping, so why cant we just 'ok' it, what we should be asking is 'Did Astracan kill Mary Kelly'?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"Why such a long thread?, its really self explanatory."

I agree! And others will too, I believe. The one small problem I can identify here is that we will choose different self explanatory solutions. And THAT is why the thread is growing.
The good thing about it is that we have now added an explanation that was not there before, and that has a lot going for it. And that explanation tells us that Hutchinson went to Romford, not on the 8:th but on the 7:th!

The best, Richard!
Fisherman

[harry]

Quite a deal may have been said by Hutchinson and the police on that monday evening and not found its way into reports.The weather and Sarah Lewis were not central to what Hutchinson was reporting,and their inclusion in the reports would have added no weight to the all important subject matter of Kelly meeting a person in Commercial Street and taking him to her room,and the sergeant who took Hutchinson's statement would have been well aware of that.
Of course both Lewis and the weather may have been discussed,and deemed of little value as evidence,hence their non inclussion.It was known that Lewis had reported a man outside Crossinghams,and Hutchinson was now admitting to being that man,so Lewis's evidence proved nothing especially since she stated she could not identify who that man was.
As to the weather,well I have never known of any witness statement that has been successfully challenged on account of it might have been raining at the time,and certainly Aberline seemed not to put any value on the elements in accepting Hutchinson's truthfullness.So the non inclussion of Lewis and the weather does not surprise me,both seem irreverent.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"The weather and Sarah Lewis were not central to what Hutchinson was reporting..."

Which was why it was missed from the outset. But as soon as it was pointed out, it would have escalated into an extremely central position, methinks! Most policework is based on checking and crosschecking, so it would have been nothing but a question of time if you ask me.

"...their inclusion in the reports would have added no weight to the all important subject matter of Kelly meeting a person in Commercial Street and taking him to her room,and the sergeant who took Hutchinson's statement would have been well aware of that."

Well, he may have thought so, since the connotations were not immediately realized. But anybody will have to admit that witnesses that forget to mention details that they reasonably must have picked up on, are witnesses that will be doubted, especially so if they cannot produce the correct answer to a very simple question put to them by a police inspector. And we have eminent evidence telling us that Hutchinson would have come up emptyhanded when asked the question about Lewis. The Daily News shows this very clearly. A policeman and a lodger, and that, Hutchinson firmly stated, was the only persons who were there during his vigil.
Likewise, IF it rained, and if it was picked up on that Hutchinson described a scene that is much more likely to have been a dry one, then that could have the exact same effect. And letīs not forget that Sarah Lewis could provide the police with the actual rain status at around 2.30. After that, all Abberline had to do would have been to ask.
"And what about the weather on the evening, Mr Hutchinson?"
"What do you mean?"
"Well, what was it like weatherwise?"
"Oh, it was a fair enough evening. Cold, but calm and dry".

If this conversation came about, it would have had the same effect on Hutchinsons reliability as a witness as would a denial of Lewisī appearance.
In the first case, we do not know if it rained, and thus that particular grip may - or may not - have been unapplicable.
But in the latter case, we actually DO know that George Hutchinson told the Daily News that noone was about in the street, but for that lodger and that policeman. So we have a useful clue as to what his answer would be if asked THAT particular question. And frankly, I fail to see how Abberline could have missed such a simple opportunity to doublecheck Hutchinson. Others will disagree, though.
What do you think yourself - was Abberline never aware that the loiterer fit Hutchinsons role like a glove? Did not one of the investigating policemen see the obvious coupling? Not even, for example, the one who had taken down Lewisī statement?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

If it had rained heavily and had Hutchinson been confused about the date, then when Abberline interrogated him on Monday evening the discrepancy would have come to light. As you say Abberline would not (I agree) have missed such an opportunity to double check. The double checks he would have surely done also rule Hutchinson out as a culprit though.

On the rain levels - I take your point about localised flash floods, but they are freekish affairs.
My issue is that we have rainfall levels from various stations - slightly far apart in those days, but nevertheless this is the only evidence we have besides those descriptions also held by the Met Office. I don't think you can build a convincing case for heavy rain in the absense of evidence that there was (apart from a bit of chatter that tends to be even less trustworthy), when the evidence and data we do have, even though it is imprecise, points in another direction.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Lets go by the 'form book' only one man [sorry Ben] has ever presented himself as that witness ie, Topping, that identification was freely released by his son Reg,many years ago via two channels, radio/book.
To call either father, or son, a liar, we need more then just suspicion.
One aspect of Toppings account was a payment which he received, conformation which has been discovered via a American newspaper not long ago.
Are we seriously suggesting that any man of any intelligence, would present himself to the police, , admitting he was at the murder scene, and had spoke to the victim, and whats more had stayed at that position for 45 minutes, and whats more had no alibi for the rest of the night, unless he was a genuine , honest witness?
As for a mistaken night, that is clutching at straws Fish..
How about Mrs long in Hanbury street...wrong night
Cadouche same scenerio., not to mention Richardson.
Packer also sold grapes the previous night.
As for the couple in church passage, the previous night..of course it was.
I could go on and on, but I do not wish to come across as sarcastic,
The scenerio of the correct night , and a honest witness I prefer, so once again the question is 'Was Astracan JTR?, or someone else .
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I take your point about localised flash floods, but they are freekish affairs."

In a sense, yes. They are not all that unusual, though, at least not nowadays. At any rate, Lechmere, nobody said that we needed a "flash flood" to turn Dorset Street into a street under a substantial rainfall between 1 Am and 3 AM! And we KNOW that it was exactly that at 3!

"As you say Abberline would not (I agree) have missed such an opportunity to double check."

Exactly. Once the implications were obvious, it would have been done.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"As for a mistaken night, that is clutching at straws Fish..
How about Mrs long in Hanbury street...wrong night
Cadouche same scenerio., not to mention Richardson.
Packer also sold grapes the previous night.
As for the couple in church passage, the previous night..of course it was."

Alright then, Richard: Find me a policeman, actively engaged in the investigations of Long, Cadosche, Packer and the couple in Church Passage that stated that he was of the opinion that they would have been mistaken on the days!
In the case of the couple in Church Passage, we have THREE witnesses corroborating each other. In Packerīs case, we have his wife corroborating his story. In Cadosches and Longīs cases, we do not have such a thing. But it should be noted that we have not a shred of evidence that speaks against them having been correct on the dates.
In Hutchinsons case, however, we HAVE the policeman that speaks of getting the days wrong, and we HAVE Hutchinsonīs failure to notice that Sarah Lewis passed right by his nose, just as we HAVE a night of nasty weather, during which old George stated that he chose to take to the streets walking all night, beginning that walk at a stage where we KNOW that it rained heavily.
It is not as if I am gripping my suggestion out of thin air, is it? Then why suggest that Long, Cadosche, Packer and the Church Passage couple offer useful comparisons? What level of discussion would that bring us to?

So really, Richard, unless we are speaking of your own ability - or unability - to come up with a fair comparison, there is nothing at all to be sarcastic about. If you need to believe that Hutchinson got it all right, then I would very much like you to provide me with a reason as to why the papers wrote that he was discredited, and likewise with an explanation to why he went deaf and blind at the moment Sarah Lewis passed him by. I would not mind to find out why the Astrakhan man trail was left to itīs destiny either!

And no, Astrakhan man was not the Ripper, by the way ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Tecs]

Richard:

"As for a mistaken night, that is clutching at straws Fish..
How about Mrs long in Hanbury street...wrong night
Cadouche same scenerio., not to mention Richardson.
Packer also sold grapes the previous night.
As for the couple in church passage, the previous night..of course it was."

Alright then, Richard: Find me a policeman, actively engaged in the investigations of Long, Cadosche, Packer and the couple in Church Passage that stated that he was of the opinion that they would have been mistaken on the days!
In the case of the couple in Church Passage, we have THREE witnesses corroborating each other. In Packerīs case, we have his wife corroborating his story. In Cadosches and Longīs cases, we do not have such a thing. But it should be noted that we have not a shred of evidence that speaks against them having been correct on the dates.
In Hutchinsons case, however, we HAVE the policeman that speaks of getting the days wrong, and we HAVE Hutchinsonīs failure to notice that Sarah Lewis passed right by his nose, just as we HAVE a night of nasty weather, during which old George stated that he chose to take to the streets walking all night, beginning that walk at a stage where we KNOW that it rained heavily.
It is not as if I am gripping my suggestion out of thin air, is it? Then why suggest that Long, Cadosche, Packer and the Church Passage couple offer useful comparisons? What level of discussion would that bring us to?

So really, Richard, unless we are speaking of your own ability - or unability - to come up with a fair comparison, there is nothing at all to be sarcastic about. If you need to believe that Hutchinson got it all right, then I would very much like you to provide me with a reason as to why the papers wrote that he was discredited, and likewise with an explanation to why he went deaf and blind at the moment Sarah Lewis passed him by. I would not mind to find out why the Astrakhan man trail was left to itīs destiny either!

And no, Astrakhan man was not the Ripper, by the way ...

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish,

But we do have Sarah Lewis's effective corroboration of Hutch's story. She said she saw a man standing exactly where Hutch said that he was. If he didn't see her, then OK, but he wouldn't be the first tired individual to doze off standing up would he? I'm not offering that as a possibility by the way before people jump on the suggestion, but only yesterday I walked past a hotel waiting area looking for a colleague and couldn't find him. I waited outside for ten minutes, then went back in whereupon he was sitting right where I walked past! He insisted he had been there for twenty minutes. But I hadn't seen him???

Did the papers use the word discredited? I thought that they just said that the Police were putting less importance on the story. Maybe this was just their interpretation of the fact that in the immediate aftermath, Hutchinson was given two detectives to walk the streets with, an obvious sign that they were taking him very seriously indeed, but then didn't follow up with it which could be interpreted as a type of "cooling off?"


Regards,