Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Fisherman – you are being unreasonable. Out of the 1,200 geezers down Dorset Street the chances are that several would have left their windows open and had Abba's Greatest Hits blasting out from their sound systems."

Not a chance, Lechmere. Abba were Swedes, you see, and true Brits regard everything Swedes do and say as somewhat ridiculous. My hunch is that they were playing "Rule Britannia" instead. And Abba never recorded that one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"He didn't require an 'alibi'. Nobody was accusing him of anything at the time."

Of course they were not, Sally. But what happened when they found out that he was not giving them correct information? What then? If they had him down as the loiterer (and they may well have at a stage), they would have been left with a potentially lying man ten yards away from Kellys bed at a probable hour of the attack and with a professed interest in her.
Are you of the meaning that this would not change things? The same lighthearted attitude would still apply?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...and thanks, Raoul´s Obsession, for your useful information!Could you offer your wiew on the amin issue here? Do you think it is impossible/possible/probable that normal conversation in Dorset Street could havebeen made out by Hutchinson, standing 30 meters away? Do you think that a raised voice on behalf of Kelly would have been impossible/possible/probable to travel that distance in a fashion that meant that Hutchinson could make out what was said?

My own take on it is that the reason he could not make out the conversation on the whole would have been that the couple probably spoke in a low key, and that would make 30 meters too much of a distance for complete audibility in the sense that the words could be made out. The fact that he DID pick up on the words about the hanky, would have been due to Kelly speaking in a loud voice, just like Hutchinson said she did as he spoke to the papers.

To me, this makes very much sense. It also makes me think that it represents a good indicator that Hutchinson may well have spoken the thruth of it all, since he actually comes up with a very viable picture of what could be heard in a street like Dorset Street from 30 meters away. He does not say that he could hear it all, which would have been funny, and he does not say that he could not hear a sound, which would ALSO have been funny. He instead nails a version that tallies quite well with the accoustics of a reasonably quiet, corridor-like street at nighttime.

Any comments, ideas..?

The best,
Fisherman

[Raoul's Obsession]

haha, I knew you would ask me for my opinion. There was a reason I didn't supply it in the first place. I'm happy providing comment on things I know but I try to keep my mouth shut on things that are out of my area. Psycholinguists will tell you what people are likely to do in a given situation (speech wise) but acousticians will tell you what sound will do.

Okay, I will volunteer my thoughts.
If the suspect spoke reasonably softly (and I think this is likely given the time, place and intent) and there was some low ambient noise (general street noise from commercial street, residents or wind for instance) then I would say it is very unlikely but possible that Hutch could hear it at that distance.

Given a normal voice (for a daytime chat with a friend 56db) and the above prevailing conditions I would say its possible for sure, maybe even likely. I think this argument really hinges on the prevailing conditions but certainly it wouldn't be too hard to test. But let me say once more, that isn't my area. I would say that your theory sounds plausible because one of them has a lot more reason to be quiet than the other, especially given the presence of hutch.

As far as the issue of alibi goes, I think that Hutch's statement about walking around all night sounds might dodgy by modern standards. However, I imagine there were hundreds if not thousands of people in his position on any given night back then. In the absence of a place to sleep due to lack of funds, walking around is a way to stay warm (especially in November). It's also just about the only thing you can do with yourself at that time - it's not like he could be playing playstation or reading casebook. I suspect it looked more credible back then than it does 100 years later.

Raoul

[Fisherman]

Raoul:

"I'm happy providing comment on things I know but I try to keep my mouth shut on things that are out of my area."

Very wise, Raoul! Of course, one CAN put things like these to the test, which I did. That, in combination with Erling Nilssons information clinches it for me. If there was much disturbances about,it is another story, but as long as we know not of such things, I have no doubts.

"If the suspect spoke reasonably softly (and I think this is likely given the time, place and intent) and there was some low ambient noise (general street noise from commercial street, residents or wind for instance) then I would say it is very unlikely but possible that Hutch could hear it at that distance."

Yep. My take too.

"Given a normal voice (for a daytime chat with a friend 56db) and the above prevailing conditions I would say its possible for sure, maybe even likely."

Okay! Can I just ask if you mean "hear" or "hear and make out" in these cases?

"As far as the issue of alibi goes, I think that Hutch's statement about walking around all night sounds might dodgy by modern standards. However, I imagine there were hundreds if not thousands of people in his position on any given night back then. In the absence of a place to sleep due to lack of funds, walking around is a way to stay warm (especially in November). It's also just about the only thing you can do with yourself at that time - it's not like he could be playing playstation or reading casebook. I suspect it looked more credible back then than it does 100 years later."

The interesting thing to keep in mind here, as far as I´m concerned, is that since there was a hard rain falling at 3 AM o the morning of the 9:th, the exact point of time in which Hutchinson set out to walk the streets, I think it sounds like a very strange thing to do. The obvious choice would have been to go to ground, waiting for the rain to seize, and THEN perhaps start walking to keep the chill from your bones.

My belief, as you will appreciate, is that Hutchinson was a day off (as suggested by Walter Dew). Not only does that explain why he never saw Lewis, it also explains why he did that seemingly irrational walk; for on the morning of the 8:th, it was overcast but completely dry. Now, THAT is when you walk the streets to keep the November chill out! THAT turns a very irrational thing into a very rational one in my eyes!

Thanks for your input - I think the combination of psycholinguistics and accoustics makes for a useful vantage point in this errand, so I much appreciate your posts.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

CD:

"Over 1,100 posts and you guys are still at this. I think it might be time to invoke the dead horse rule. Just saying."

You know what, C.D? That is mostly accoustics discussion on a fringe detail of it all. Just wait til the REAL issue is debated!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Of course they were not, Sally. But what happened when they found out that he was not giving them correct information? What then? If they had him down as the loiterer (and they may well have at a stage), they would have been left with a potentially lying man ten yards away from Kellys bed at a probable hour of the attack and with a professed interest in her.
Are you of the meaning that this would not change things? The same lighthearted attitude would still apply?

OK, Fish...let's imagine that this scenario is exactly what happened. We know
that a section of the Press were suspicious of Hutch (not just one paper, which I quoted earlier, but at least another which doubted the veracity of his detailed description). Maybe the Police did reconsider Hutch's story for a brief moment ?

So what would be their attitude then ?

I think that 1) they would be influenced by the personality of the man that they interviewed. They would have the image of the carnage in Mary's room in mind, and no experience of a similar crime, and would think that the man who did that would show signs of being mentally unstable or cold and vicious.
They had a gut feeling that Hutch did not fit the profile of the killer they were looking for.

2) They would watch his reactions when he viewed the body.

3) they would have in mind the fact that he had come forward of his own volition and placed himself at the crime scene.

4) They would make enquiries at his lodgings as to his character.

5) Since they thought that Kelly was murdered by the same person as the other 'Ripper' victims, they would ask him what he was doing at the time
that the other murders took place.

For the last, I have already shown Lechmere the impossibility of the Police to
find out what Hutch was doing each and every minute of the day and night, and the murderer surely took some pains to cover his tracks. I think it very plausable that he would 'check out'.

Even if they linked him to the 'loiterer', if they thought that he couldn't possibly be the killer, then they could simply think that he had embroidered the whole A-man story, but had followed a prostitute home (not a crime in itself), and so accorded his statement 'reduced importance'...before it just faded out when there were no more Ripper-like murders.

As for 'walking about all night', I agree that lots of people did this. Still, Hutch could have elaborated by saying exactly
which places he had walked about in -which could have been timed and maybe corroborated. It is written nowhere that he did this.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Maybe the Police did reconsider Hutch's story for a brief moment ? "

Not because of any discussion on behalf of the papers, I think. The time margin is not there. The Echo was very early in pointing a finger about the testimony. Just like Lechmere says, the ink on Abberlines assertion that he believed in Hutchinson would hardly have had the time to dry at that stage. So whatever the reason for the suspicion was, it was something that arrived very early on. There was not the time for Abberline to decide on Hutch being honest, reading the VERY lofty suspicions in the Echo (nothing at all that specifies anything, as you know), ask the journalist/s behind it, give it some more thought, and then come to the conclusion that Hutch was to be dismissed. We are speaking of hours here, Ruby!

"1) they would be influenced by the personality of the man that they interviewed"

They would.

"They would have the image of the carnage in Mary's room in mind, and no experience of a similar crime, and would think that the man who did that would show signs of being mentally unstable or cold and vicious."

Not at all. Abberline and a good deal of his colleagues would have seen a fair share of vicious killers, showing no remorse or being charitable or keeping a cool head. They would know full well that such things are quite common. You are romanticizing here, and that will not do.

"They had a gut feeling that Hutch did not fit the profile of the killer they were looking for."

That they most probably had. And they most probably were right, too!

"2) They would watch his reactions when he viewed the body."

Yes, they reasonably would. And at that stage on Tuesday morning, the gentlemen on the Echo would already have been aware that something was wrong.

"3) they would have in mind the fact that he had come forward of his own volition and placed himself at the crime scene."

Of course.

"4) They would make enquiries at his lodgings as to his character."

Most probably.

"5) Since they thought that Kelly was murdered by the same person as the other 'Ripper' victims, they would ask him what he was doing at the time
that the other murders took place."

Once again, yes. They would.

"Even if they linked him to the 'loiterer', if they thought that he couldn't possibly be the killer, then they could simply think that he had embroidered the whole A-man story, but had followed a prostitute home (not a crime in itself), and so accorded his statement 'reduced importance'

No. NO, no, no! If they knew they had a liar (or partial liar) on their hands, and if they suspected or knew that he had gone on to visit Kelly at around 2.15-2.30, they would not accord him "reduced importance". They wold have grilled him so hard the people in Banbury could sense the smell. Get real!

"As for 'walking about all night', I agree that lots of people did this."

In hard rain?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;164674]Ruby:

"Maybe the Police did reconsider Hutch's story for a brief moment ? "

Not because of any discussion on behalf of the papers, I think

. "
I agree. I mean't rather that they would be capable of making the same leap
-they didn't, because unlike that American paper, they had the man in front of them who they didn't connect with a 'serial killer'.

"They would have the image of the carnage in Mary's room in mind, and no experience of a similar crime, and would think that the man who did that would show signs of being mentally unstable or cold and vicious."

Not at all. Abberline and a good deal of his colleagues would have seen a fair share of vicious killers, showing no remorse or being charitable or keeping a cool head. They would know full well that such things are quite common. You are romanticizing here, and that will not do.

Murders happen -Abberline would have met murderers before. Serial killers are very rare though, and butchery like that of MJK rarer still. I would guess that Abberline had more experience of 'crimes of passion', theft and fights.

"Even if they linked him to the 'loiterer', if they thought that he couldn't possibly be the killer, then they could simply think that he had embroidered the whole A-man story, but had followed a prostitute home (not a crime in itself), and so accorded his statement 'reduced importance'

No. NO, no, no! If they knew they had a liar (or partial liar) on their hands, and if they suspected or knew that he had gone on to visit Kelly at around 2.15-2.30, they would not accord him "reduced importance". They wold have grilled him so hard the people in Banbury could sense the smell. Get real!

Not if they believed him, had those character references and supposed alibis for the other murders. Not if they thought it truthful that he only stood outside the court -as confirmed by Mrs Lewis -and they found no bloody clothing or incriminating evidence. not if they thought that Mary was already dead when Hutch stood outside, and not if they thought that he was there for a much shorter time than 3/4 of an hour..

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I mean't rather that they would be capable of making the same leap"

That´s more of a possibility.

"Not if they believed him, had those character references and supposed alibis for the other murders."

But these things take time to gather and assess. Buying a picture in hours touches on gullibility, and gullible was something the police would not have been.

"Not if they thought it truthful that he only stood outside the court -as confirmed by Mrs Lewis -and they found no bloody clothing or incriminating evidence."

Yes, but that was not what I was commenting on. I commented on a situation where the police believed themselves to have good reaon to think he was a liar and that he had been in Marys room minutes or the odd hour before her death.

"and not if they thought that he was there for a much shorter time than 3/4 of an hour.."

Why would they think that? And if they did, why would they let him slip away with a lie? Me no buy, Ruby.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

But these things take time to gather and assess. Buying a picture in hours touches on gullibility, and gullible was something the police would not have been.

"
I don't think the Police were gullible -I think that they had no experience of this type of killer (I should think few policemen today have ever come up against this type of killer)

Favourite Polce suspects mentioned later displayed mental illness, committed suicide, had already murdered, or were 'foreigners' and that reflects
Police thinking. Hutch did not fit into this 'box'( but he does fit what we now know of serial killers).

I think it is a huge eyeopener to watch TV interviews with Joran Van Der Sloot on Youtube -this is what the Police were up against with no benefit of modern case histories and forensics.

Yes, but that was not what I was commenting on. I commented on a situation where the police believed themselves to have good reaon to think he was a liar and that he had been in Marys room minutes or the odd hour before her death.

Why would they think that he'd been in her room ? -he never said so.

[QUOTE]"and not if they thought that he was there for a much shorter time than 3/4 of an hour.."

Why would they think that? Fisherman[/QUOTE

No idea that they did..I'm just suggesting that they thought that he WAS there,
lying -or partially lying- about A Man (embroidering to make himself more interesting), but a harmless person just the same...

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Favourite Polce suspects mentioned later displayed mental illness, committed suicide, had already murdered, or were 'foreigners' and that reflects
Police thinking."

As do all the lodgers that were questioned.

"I think it is a huge eyeopener to watch TV interviews with Joran Van Der Sloot on Youtube -this is what the Police were up against with no benefit of modern case histories and forensics."

Ruby, Jack was nothing new in the sense that people had killed before, eviscareted before, done mad things before. And some of these people would have been perfectly nice people on the surface; the Peter Kürten type, if you are aquainted with him. Jack was an unusual killer then, and he would have been an unusual killer now. One difference is that today, we make tv-shows and horror films about these guys, and portray them down to the slicing of meat from their victims. Before our time, though, such things were hushed by the media to a large extent, no pictures were about, no internet fed us the details. But the police had seen it all, more or less. I once again urge you not to "romanticize" Jack´s deeds, and not to infantilize the police.

"Why would they think that he'd been in her room ? -he never said so."

That passage owes to your post, worded: "... then they could simply think that he had embroidered the whole A-man story, but had followed a prostitute home".

"I'm just suggesting that they thought that he WAS there,
lying -or partially lying- about A Man (embroidering to make himself more interesting), but a harmless person just the same..."

I see no reason at all to believe that he must have been lying, Ruby. And the police apparently did not do so either, at least not from the outset. Abberline bought it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Sally
I have gone through the process by which it is likely the police will have checked something out about Hutchinson, and the likelihood that they would have not dismissed him merely with a “thanks but no thanks, don’t call us we’ll call you.”
He does not have to have been suspect no 1 for them to have made various checks. The nature of checks is that if bona fides are not established for the subject, then more checks are made. This is not rocket science and even though the police force was not well established, it is a really basic point to make. The matter would tend not to be just dropped.

The fact is we have limited extant documentation relating to the investigation. Clearly nearly all has been lost, destroyed or stolen. This means that sensible deductions have to be made on what the police are likely to have done – based on:
• extrapolating from the official information we do have;
• the unreliable press reports and;
• common sense and knowledge of police procedures (even though they will drastically have advanced and become more sophisticated).

If suspicions occur to you now, then it is reasonable that they would have occurred to people then. There really is nothing new in any of the rationalisations which point to Hutchinson as the culprit, that a detective in 1888 could not quote easily have thought of for himself.
Such as the inconspicuous local man - well Hutchinson did not make himself inconspicuous did he?

This should tell you that walking around all night alone without an alibi would not clear him particularly when they dismissed him from the case.
If John Pizer had not bumped into a policeman on Holloway Road and engaged in conversation regarding the distant flames at Shadwell, do you think he would have been released so quickly?
If he had just walked around without seeing anyone he would have been in trouble.

Unless, as I have said, it was because they dismissed Hutchinson for reasons that also cleared him they would have wanted to know more. As I have said they may have dismissed him as it was established that he wasn’t there on that night as he was a day out, or any of a number of other reasons. In the absence of this it is fair to assume that the police would naturally have looked at him. Clearly if they did look at him, he passed the checks. I believe there is nothing in the official record about Violenia at all and he was checked (at least press reports say he was). The absence of records should not be used as an excuse for ignoring common sense.

Fisherman – I thought I’d throw the Abba record into the mix so you would be able to comprehend my point and I am under the impression that I have seen Ben suggest that all evidence relating to sound levels must have a Swedish provenance. Also I am afraid Abba are the only Swedish popular music ensemble I know about (take note Sally).

On the level at which Kelly pitched her voice...
I can quiet imagine a drunken screech. I can imagine her voice rising one minute and falling the next. One moment load and brash, then quiet and confiding.

If you have ever stayed in a town centre hotel you can hear drunken ’chucking out time’ conversations from some distance away, particularly if you are trying to get to sleep.
Also dare I suggest, some of our readers may have been out on a night excursion and been in the company of such a lady (not necessarily an ‘unfortunate’ as such I hasten to add) who had over indulged, and so be able to picture the possible scene with distressing clarity. Such things are... timeless.

Rubyretro – if Hutchinson was out every night there was a murder I am certain people would recollect. There has been a lot of talk here about how Hutchinson must have known the 9th was the 9th as Kelly was murdered and it was the Lord Mayor’s Show etc.
If he was never around when an horrific Whitechapel murder took place, I am certain a few people in the Victoria Home would recollect and start to think suspicious thoughts. The idea the Victoria Home was some anonymous dormitory is not the case. Just because it was large? It would have been like a self contained village – with communal recreation room sand communal eating areas. He seems to have been a regular there. People were more social then. One minute you want him to be a gregarious charmer, next a recluse who knows no one. A recluse would actually also have attracted attention – so you can’t win either way.
For casuals it would have been anonymous. But then he would have been asked where else he had stayed and so forth. The more he would have been unable to provide clear and easily verifiable answers the more they would have dug. My guess is that his background was easily checked, easily verified and he passed the checks. Such as who he was, were he lived, where he had worked.

Of course he could have bluffed his way thorough and still been the culprit. But he wasn’t a Peter Sutcliffe who was one of tens of thousands asked routine questions. Hutchinson briefly put himself right at the heart of the case and emerged without a shred of contemporary suspicion (save a couple of sceptical press reports). Any reasonable conclusion is that this strongly diminishes his chances of being the culprit.

“Even if they linked him to the 'loiterer', if they thought that he couldn't possibly be the killer, then they could simply think that he had embroidered the whole A-man story, but had followed a prostitute home (not a crime in itself), and so accorded his statement 'reduced importance'...before it just faded out when there were no more Ripper-like murders.”

But Rubyretro, it isn’t credible to have the police think he was a liar, who placed himself at the crime scene, and was also placed there by someone else, to have followed the victim around, just to fade away uninvestigated. You have just described the weakness of the Hutchinson case.
Also it didn’t fade out for several years. There were more murders that at the time, were chalked up to Jack the Ripper.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Fisherman – I thought I’d throw the Abba record into the mix so you would be able to comprehend my point..."

Thanks, Lechmere. And I can assure you it served it´s purpose!

"I am afraid Abba are the only Swedish popular music ensemble I know about "

Amazing, Lechmere!
Roxette?
The Ark?
Cardigans?
No?
Bugger ...

"If you have ever stayed in a town centre hotel..."

I have!

"... you can hear drunken ’chucking out time’ conversations from some distance away, particularly if you are trying to get to sleep."

I have!

"Also dare I suggest, some of our readers may have been out on a night excursion and been in the company of such a lady (not necessarily an ‘unfortunate’ as such I hasten to add) who had over indulged, and so be able to picture the possible scene with distressing clarity. Such things are... timeless."

They are!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

"

Favourite Polce suspects mentioned later displayed mental illness, committed suicide, had already murdered, or were 'foreigners' and that reflects
Police thinking."

As do all the lodgers that were questioned

.

But what would the police have been looking for amongst the lodgers ?

I would imagine someone that the people working in the place found 'suspicious'
-a loner, some one talking strangely about the murders, weird packages,
someone mentally unbalanced, blood stains etc.

A clue as to what they were looking for can be found in the Police appeals
looking for the murderer of Johanna Yeates in England -I can't remember
all the details now, but one thing was "someone seeking to justify her killing".
Without a woman telephoning the Police, CCTV cameras, and forensics -the man arrested (who had been questioned as a witness and released) would never have been suspected. The first man to have been arrested was considered to fit the 'oddball'/loner mould by the Press and public 'a sort of modern A Man).

Ruby, Jack was nothing new in the sense that people had killed before, eviscareted before, done mad things before. And some of these people would have been perfectly nice people on the surface; the Peter Kürten type, if you are aquainted with him. Jack was an unusual killer then, and he would have been an unusual killer now. One difference is that today, we make tv-shows and horror films about these guys, and portray them down to the slicing of meat from their victims. Before our time, though, such things were hushed by the media to a large extent, no pictures were about, no internet fed us the details. But the police had seen it all, more or less. I once again urge you not to "romanticize" Jack´s deeds, and not to infantilize the police.

I will continue to say that it's very , very rare, and Abberline and his collegues
would not personally have had experience of this type of killer -I doubt that Abberline had 'seen it all before'. A measure of the rarity of the Ripper killings is the fascination that the case still holds for us today. That's not 'romanticizing' that's just a fact. Lots of those 'tv shows and horror shows' are infact inspired by the Ripper killings

"

Why would they think that he'd been in her room ? -he never said so."

That passage owes to your post, worded: "... then they could simply think that he had embroidered the whole A-man story, but had followed a prostitute home".

I'm sorry : I never mean't to suggest that he could have been thought to have been in her room. I mean't that he was a single man with no outlet for his sexuality other than prostitutes, and she was a prostitute -his interest in her is not suspicious in itself.

I see no reason at all to believe that he must have been lying, Ruby. And the police apparently did not do so either, at least not from the outset. Abberline bought it.

Yes. I have explained why the Police at the time might not have thought that he was lying. I have also explained loads of times why I think he was.