Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

How did ripperology make any progress whatsoever until the arrival of Swedish experts?

It beats the hell out of me.

I thought the World Association of Document Examiners (WADE) provided the answers until the Swedish Handwriting Investigation Team came along, and now we’re being treated to the wisdom and insight of Architecture, Rain & Sound Examiners of Sweden.

And both reputable organizations happen to share an office building in Helsingborg.

Joking, Fisherman!!

Don't panic. I don’t mean it. I really am only joking, and not out to cause offense. A bit of levity is so important in these threads, which can otherwise become unduly intense and stroppy.

The serious stuff: I’m afraid you’ve slightly misunderstood the nature of people’s objections to Hutchinson’s claims with regard to distance. Nobody has suggested that the couple would have been completely inaudible from that distance. Only that Hutchinson was unlikely to have discerned actual words, especially in bad weather conditions, and especially with other background noises. The crowded East End Street was very unlikely to have been silent. So I’m afraid you’ve contacted the expert in question on the basis of a misunderstanding as to exactly which aspect of Hutchinson’s claims was being challenged.

The “loud voice” was added later by Hutchinson in his press accounts, and should be treated as highly suspect along with the other press embellishments.

“And NOW I am prepared to leave it”

I’ll hold you to that!

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

That is further conformation that Hutch was telling the truth

This is a somewhat vacuous observation, if you don't mind my saying so, Richard.

According to this logic, people only lie about things that are physically impossible, which is nonsense. If I said to you that I went to the dentist yesterday, I would be lying, because I didn't. That doesn't mean it would have been impossible for me to do so, or even that the claim is an outlandish one. The trouble with this "confirmation" is that it was unnecessary because it was not in contradiction to any of my observations with regard to distances and sounds, as I expound above.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Well, I would have been prepared to leave it if my post had been accepted. Surprisingly, it was not ...

"The serious stuff: I’m afraid you’ve slightly misunderstood the nature of people’s objections to Hutchinson’s claims with regard to distance."

Not at all.

"Nobody has suggested that the couple would have been completely inaudible from that distance. Only that Hutchinson was unlikely to have discerned actual words"

..and that´s why it is good to have an accoustic expert telling us that it would have been quite possible to make out the conversation from 32 meters away. And yes, people HAVE stated that conversation cannot be made out from 30 meters away. You are one of them, and you were wrong. You tested it, remember?

"especially in bad weather conditions"

But it was NOT bad weather conditions on the night I place Hutchinson there, remember"

"and especially with other background noises. The crowded East End Street was very unlikely to have been silent."

on the contrary - it was unlikely to be crowded. Show me the records you have on the crowds, and I will listen.

"So I’m afraid you’ve contacted the expert in question on the basis of a misunderstanding as to exactly which aspect of Hutchinson’s claims was being challenged."

No.

"The “loud voice” was added later by Hutchinson in his press accounts, and should be treated as highly suspect along with the other press embellishments."

Oh yes, Ben. The whole man should be regardeds as very, very suspicious! I have a good nose for such things. When people act suspicious, I notice it directly. It´s kind of like a radar.

People´s conversation in a normal voice can be heard and made out from 32 meters away. We do not know the conditions of the morning Hutch was in Dorset Street; we do not even no WHICH morning it was. There was a margin in the material the accoustic expert supplied. He used 32 and not 30 meters, and since a normal whisper of 30 dB can be heard and made out, it stands to reason that a dB value of inbetween 45 and 48 dB is more than enough to provide hearing and making out of conversation. Therefore we now know that Hutchinson could well have made out the words he said he had made out. Remeber that Kelly spoke in a loud voice when Hutch made out the words - at that stage, she would not have used a mere 60 dB.

It´s soo easy - once you put your mind to it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I'm not disputing the existence of men in Astrakhan coats, Fish."

You just did, it would seem. But never mind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Well, I was never optimistic…

“And NOW I am prepared to leave it”

Then:

“Well, I would have been prepared to leave it if my post had been accepted.”

They don’t quite amount to the same thing, do they, Fisherman?

Who didn’t “accept” your post, incidentally? I thought I just told that it was never my contention that conversation would have been completely inaudible, so what’s not to “accept” about anything this gentleman said? Obviously his area of expertise is acoustics, and not articulation, and as such, any wisdom he attempts to impart in the latter category is not to be taken seriously. If you study a table of sound levels, you’ll notice that 40 decibels is considered equivalent to an average sound sample in a quiet library.

Yes, I was one of the people who observed that conversation cannot be “made out” from that distance, if "made out" refers to the discernment of actual words (which your contact does not appear to be any sort of expert in), and I stand by that observation. I have never stated that conversation would have been completely inaudible.

“But it was NOT bad weather conditions on the night I place Hutchinson there, remember”

It’s not a case of me misremembering anything, Fisherman. I’ve simply rejected the suggestion as implausible and concluded that Hutchinson was almost certainly referring to the night of Kelly’s death. The weather that night was documented as having been very poor, and included a wind that swept from the East, which would have placed Kelly and Astrakhan downwind of Hutchinson and not the other way round, ensuring that your contact’s “corridor” idea worked in reverse.

on the contrary - it was unlikely to be crowded.

You think Dorset Street was "unlikely to be crowded"? Really? Fisherman, this was documented as one of the worst streets in London. It was full of lodging houses, and lodging houses consisted of rooms full of beds, the majority of which would have been taken up. Others were sharing rooms the same size as Kelly's. Even the Wiki entry for Dorset Street observes: "It was estimated that on any one night there were no fewer than 1200 men sleeping in Dorset Street's crowded lodging houses". Boom.

"Remeber that Kelly spoke in a loud voice when Hutch made out the words"

No, this is only what Hutchinson claimed in his discredited account. Significantly, he appears not have included this "loud voice" detail when speaking to the police. It only crept into his press account(s) when he was probably tidying up the least plausible elements of his initially described version of events.

I would still encourage anyone interested in this issue to pay a visit to the sites, as it will work wonders for a more enhanced general understanding of the geography of the area and the distances in question.

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

I think that this whole debate is getting sidetracked ; lets try and see what we've established so far :

Could Hutchinson have possibly mistaken the night on which he said, in his witness statement, (the only statement which we have) , that he was standing in Dorset Street for around 3/4 of an hour, waiting in the area of Miller's Court.

answer: NO. This day corresponded to the early morning of the day of the Lord Mayor's Show, a day on which a new Ripper victim was sensationally butchered , and a day that he claimed to have walked back from Romford.

Could Hutchinson have somehow not of heard of Mary Kelly's murder immediately ?

answer: NO. There could hardly have been anybody in London who didn't hear of the murder the next day .That someone who
lodged such a very short distance away could have walked down the street without being confronted with it, is laughable.

Could the statement by Mrs Lewis, mentioning a loiterer outside Crossinghams be in anyway linked to Hutch ? (she saw only a man 'not tall but stout, in a wideawake hat).

answer :YES: it would corroborate Hutch's statement that he was outside the Court, at the same time, doing the same thing as the person seen by Mrs Lewis, and this would discount him as a timewaster. No other person accounting for Mrs Lewis's loiterer either came forward or was searched for by the Police. A contempory sketch ( which checking with other contempory sketches, would suggest was accurate), shows a man with broad cheeks and broad shoulders who could be described as stout. He is wearing a hat which Ben affirms could be described as a 'wideawake', at the time.

Was Hutch's story of a man in an astrakhan overcoat, open to reveal a gold watch and chain, and a gold watchchain probable ?
answer: NO it was very improbable. It was improbable on so many counts that I will not go over them again.

Could it be possible or even probable that a Serial Killer would volunteer to put himself in the hands of the Police
and risk being caught .?

answer : YES. we know that Serial Killers don't believe that they will be caught out, like to involve themselves in their own cases both for the thrill and to moniter Police progress, and because they are wary when someone threatens to unmask them (Mrs Lewis in this case).

Would Hutch have been able, by his lodgings and with his lifestyle, to have been the Ripper ?

answer: YES. Not only is it possible but highly probable that the Ripper lived in the epicentre of the crimes, and had no family but kept erratic and unstable working hours. It is also highly probable that he seemd an unremarkable working class man who was a familiar face both to his victims and the people on the local streets.

There are so many details that I won't go on...

Good try Fish and Lechmere -but, NO...no amount of swedish experts can twist these facts..

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro, as you insist...
I doubt any murder took more than ten minutes (apart from Kelly) but it is someone irrelevant.
If he didn’t have a special pass he would have to be on by 1.00 am (maybe 12.30 am). That means maybe he could have killed Stride and got home before the doors slammed shut.
Otherwise he would have to have asked for a special pass (and drawn attention to himself) or stopped out (and drawn attention to himself as his record wouldn’t have been filled up, with a tick or whatever against his name).
On a night when he found a victim, I would presume he would have to prowl around a bit first. It would not realistically be a case of pop out from the Victoria Home, find someone, kill them, nip back all done and dusted within half an hour.
That would draw attention to him if nothing else did.

All the other points you raise about how difficult it might have been to pin Hutchinson down may be true. However I would suggest that if the police could not establish any bona fides for him then that would increase their suspicion and follow him etc. He would probably have turned into a major suspect.
Anyway it seems that he didn’t undertake the transition from witness to suspect, which implies that the police didn’t consider him a suspect, because I would presume that they would have done some sort of check to satisfy themselves there was nothing dodgy about him. I don’t think it is credible to suggest otherwise.

I find it utterly amazing that according to the Hutchinsonites the police had no means to check anyone out for anything. Truly remarkable.

The checks I suggested they could have made were deliberately of a limited nature that were compatible with their abilities at the time. Yet to the Hutchinsonites they are rigorous probes into every corner of his life.

And please Ben, I went to great length to spell out that the ‘file’ is figurative not literal. He was mentioned in police documents so they did have a figurative 'file' on him. A paper trail, of which probably only a small part is extant.
That does not mean that there had to be a buff folder marked ‘Hutchinson’. Are you telling me you cannot understand this concept?

I was listening to an old pod cast last night and someone made the valid point that many people wanted to avoid being called as a witness at inquests and so forth as it meant losing a day’s pay (and getting meagre expenses in return). If you want a reason why Hutchinson appeared at the police station after the inquest you need look no further.

I like this bit Ben: “Lewis’ loiterer, who was clearly bypassed in terms of significance.”
Apart from by the crowds outside Shoredicth Town Hall. They sure whispered it abroad. And also apart from Rubyretro who thinks the connection was made and is vitally important.

And this Ben:
“We only have it on discredited Hutchinson’s authority that he spoke to a fellow lodger on the Sunday about his encounter.”
Yes but it was an easy lead for the police to potentially catch him out on wasn’t it? That is my point. These leads don’t concern you as your Hutchinson has some sort of immunity from police interest.
Incidentally, as you well know, more than most lodging houses, the Victoria had facilities to keep residents inside and entertained, and away from vile stout swilling activities.

Ben: “crowded East End Street was very unlikely to have been silent” – maybe. As I said, maybe someone else was standing outside Crossinghams for a few minutes that night and was seen by Lewis. After all the streets were crowded weren’t they? Maybe ten people where outside Crossinghams and Lewis only noticed one with her fleeting glance. But didn’t you argue against me on that point a short while ago? Or was I dreaming?

Ben, yes I do avoid must have’s. Did you like Rubyretros’ ‘facts’?

Rubyretro... one trait of serial killers is that they have many different traits and it is simplistic to generalise.

[Sally]

This day corresponded to the early morning of the day of the Lord Mayor's Show, a day on which a new Ripper victim was sensationally butchered , and a day that he claimed to have walked back from Romford

Ruby, I couldn't have put it better myself!

On a serious note, every point you make is perfectly sensible. I feel the argument, if it can any longer be called that, has gone astray somewhat. However the police were initially impressed with Hutchinson's account; what reason would they have had to have checked out all the details of his life? Over 50 people came forward with statements regarding Mary Kelly in those three days following her death - in fact almost exactly 17 people each day. All those people gave statements. How much time did the police have to conduct rigourous checks on all those people? Hardly any.

What reason did the police have to suspect Hutchinson at the time? None whatsoever. The argument is given that they would have been suspicious because Hutchinson was out of work - but Hutchinson was clearly not out of work if he was living at the Victoria Home. Whether he had a permanent job or not, he was making ends meet to an extent whereby he wasn't on the streets (generally) and was able to live in a lodging house which at the least attempted to abide by the district rules.

Hutchinson wasn't a suspect. He was a witness, a discredited one. There is really no reason to assume that he would have been under suspicion because of this - a lot of 'witnesses' were subsequently considered unreliable time wasters - one or two to dramatic effect; but generally, lost to history as named individuals.

I think Hutchinson is being accorded more importance to the police than he would have had at the time once his account was discarded. I suspect the mundane truth is that they just forgot about him on the whole.

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

How do you do it? How do you continue battling these nutjobs by arming yourself with common sense? No one checked Hutchinson? They must be right. Why would police check him out? It's not like it was their job or anything.

Things that I would guarantee happened if not for the brilliance from the Hutchinson camp:

1. Hutchinson was checked out.
2. His lodgings were corroborated.
3. The Lord Mayor's holiday camp and pageantry meant nothing to the killer or anyone else except for the Lord Mayor and the people who sold rat on a stick and Mayor effigies.
4. The police thought Lewis' man may have been Hutchinson
5. Hutchinson grew up, became a plumber, had a son, and signed some documents that match his signature from the Badham papers.

Yet, none of these things can have happened because the asylum has been overrun. You and Fish battle stalwartly against the density that only Huchinsonian skulls have while I have lost the will to deal with it. No wonder Gareth laft the boards.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Hold on! Is that the taint of Crystal in the air? It just might be. Watson, my pipe.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Well, I was never optimistic…

Quote:
“And NOW I am prepared to leave it”
Then:

Quote:
“Well, I would have been prepared to leave it if my post had been accepted.”
They don’t quite amount to the same thing, do they, Fisherman?"

They amount to you once again sticking your nose in my way of posting.
Don´t.

"Obviously his area of expertise is acoustics, and not articulation, and as such, any wisdom he attempts to impart in the latter category is not to be taken seriously."

It´s the other way around - your argument is not to be taken seriously. You are not exactly a specialist in EITHER accoustics OR articulation, are you? You specialise in other things altogether, seemingly. But that does not matter, Ben, since your next argument is even worse:

"If you study a table of sound levels, you’ll notice that 40 decibels is considered equivalent to an average sound sample in a quiet library."

No. A quiet library produces no sound. If it does, it would not exactly be quiet, would it? Low key CONVERSATION, on the other hand, is recorded at 40-45 decibel. And what was it we had at 32 meters distance, if we started out with 60 dB from the beginning? Yes, exactly: 45 dB.
Low key conversation, Ben - can you hear that? I know I can. And I also know that it was the estimated level of sound a full 32 meters away from the couple.

You see, Ben, nobody who has a recorded sound level of 45 dB has to specialise in "articulation" in any way.

"Yes, I was one of the people who observed that conversation cannot be “made out” from that distance, if "made out" refers to the discernment of actual words (which your contact does not appear to be any sort of expert in), and I stand by that observation."

Yes, you were, were you not? Big mistake, it would seem.

"It’s not a case of me misremembering anything, Fisherman. I’ve simply rejected the suggestion as implausible and concluded that Hutchinson was almost certainly referring to the night of Kelly’s death. The weather that night was documented as having been very poor, and included a wind that swept from the East, which would have placed Kelly and Astrakhan downwind of Hutchinson and not the other way round, ensuring that your contact’s “corridor” idea worked in reverse."

Blowing the sound away, you mean? Doesn´t work like that, I´m afraid. Sound wawes do not drift with the wind, Ben.The wind itself may cause other noises, like rustling leaves and such. But in Dorset Street, there were no trees, only houses. If the wind exceeded ten meters per second, it would have a bearing on it all, since it would then affect the inner pressure on the ears of the people in the street, and make it harder to pick up sounds. These are all useful things I have picked up on while reading about this. There are lots and lots to catch up on, if you are truly interested, Ben!

Anyhow, if we are to learn a little bit more, a raised voice would reach up agaist around 76 dB, a very loud voice would exceed 80 and a shout closes in on 90 dB. All of these figures would take care of any rain and wind easily. Just use the formula, and you will see where we end up: at 61 dB for the raised voice and around 65 for a very loud voice! Normal conversation volume, that is. And much more than a "quiet library" at any rate.

"You think Dorset Street was "unlikely to be crowded"? Really? Fisherman, this was documented as one of the worst streets in London. It was full of lodging houses, and lodging houses consisted of rooms full of beds, the majority of which would have been taken up. Others were sharing rooms the same size as Kelly's. Even the Wiki entry for Dorset Street observes: "It was estimated that on any one night there were no fewer than 1200 men sleeping in Dorset Street's crowded lodging houses". Boom."

Boom? BOOM? So you think that these 1200 men were all out and about in the street at 2.15? Especially since we KNOW that Hutch saw only two persons during the next 45 minutes, out of whom one was not even in Dorset Street? And we know that Lewis only mentioned one young couple in the street at 2.30, apart from her loiterer.
And out of THAT you produce a CROWDED street???
Boom? No; PFFFFFFFT ....!

"No, this is only what Hutchinson claimed in his discredited account."

It is not ONLY what he claimed. It is instead the ONLY claim he made at any stage about the sound level. It is something we must pay heed to - but it is in no way needed to show that he could hear that conversation. That he could, quite comfortably, in a low key conversation mode EVEN IF THEY NEVER WENT ABOVE NORMAL SPEAKING VOLUME!

No, Ben, the really interesting thing about Hutchinson´s claims about the sound levels of that Dorset Street conversation, is that he either was very versed in matters of accoustics, picking up on the fact that a low key conversation ( and there is good reason to belive that the conversation was in a low key, given the circumstances) could probably not be picked up from 30 meters away, whereas a raised voice could; it´s either that, or something else: His testimony may tally very well with the accoustic realities of Dorset Street, and as such, it points straight to an experience on his behalf of having stood at that corner and listened to a low key conversation, interpunctuated by the odd sentence in a raised voice. It points, in other words, to a true story on Hutchinson´s behalf.

"I would still encourage anyone interested in this issue to pay a visit to the sites, as it will work wonders for a more enhanced general understanding of the geography of the area and the distances in question."

Been there. Done that. Seen that. And you know, the place looked nothing like it used to in 1888 when I was there, and the accoustics must have changed totally since then. Not that they were any different from other accoustics in other streets.
I for one would never use todays site to try and establish anything at all about what was audible and discernable back then. Everything has changed, not least the background sounds.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Hi Fisherman,

How did ripperology make any progress whatsoever until the arrival of Swedish experts?

It beats the hell out of me.

I thought the World Association of Document Examiners (WADE) provided the answers until the Swedish Handwriting Investigation Team came along, and now we’re being treated to the wisdom and insight of Architecture, Rain & Sound Examiners of Sweden.

And both reputable organizations happen to share an office building in Helsingborg.

Joking, Fisherman!!

Don't panic. I don’t mean it. I really am only joking, and not out to cause offense. A bit of levity is so important in these threads, which can otherwise become unduly intense and stroppy.

The serious stuff: I’m afraid you’ve slightly misunderstood the nature of people’s objections to Hutchinson’s claims with regard to distance. Nobody has suggested that the couple would have been completely inaudible from that distance. Only that Hutchinson was unlikely to have discerned actual words, especially in bad weather conditions, and especially with other background noises. The crowded East End Street was very unlikely to have been silent. So I’m afraid you’ve contacted the expert in question on the basis of a misunderstanding as to exactly which aspect of Hutchinson’s claims was being challenged.

The “loud voice” was added later by Hutchinson in his press accounts, and should be treated as highly suspect along with the other press embellishments.



I’ll hold you to that!

Best regards,
Ben

Mary Kelly had to talk in a loud voice so A-man could hear her over the pouring rain. haha. ; )

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I think that this whole debate is getting sidetracked ; lets try and see what we've established so far :
Could Hutchinson have possibly mistaken the night on which he said, in his witness statement, (the only statement which we have) , that he was standing in Dorset Street for around 3/4 of an hour, waiting in the area of Miller's Court.
answer: NO."


...aaaand that´s where I stop reading THAT post. Once again, it is "ably" proven that he could not have mixed up the days. The "ably" thing lies in an assertion on behalf of you, Ben, Sally and Babybird. End of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

...aaaand that´s where I stop reading THAT post. Once again, it is "ably" proven that he could not have mixed up the days. The "ably" thing lies in an assertion on behalf of you, Ben, Sally and Babybird. End of story.

The best,
Fisherman

Ably proven by the extant evidence and what is plausible. Those listed have only directed your attention to those points Fish.

Nobody said he 'could not' have mixed up the days. Just that it is extremely improbable that he did. But you believe in Astrakhan man so there's no reasoning with you anyway.

[babybird67]

Mary Kelly had to talk in a loud voice so A-man could hear her over the pouring rain. haha. ; )

lmao...have visions of people in Whitechapel in 1888 going around shouting at eachother like deafened OAPS!!!