Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

Although I should have thought that the witness who saw Hutchinson would have recognised him as someone who was around the area a good deal and named him

.(That has puzzled me a little.)

Maybe Hutchinson thought exactly the same thing as you !

[curious4]

curious4:

"No, sorry, don´t agree."

Bugger!

"As far as I can see Hutchinson met Mary on the 9th (2 a.m.)."

Please note that Walter Dew disagreed very much with this - and he worked the case!

"Also any normal person would think "If only I had had the money to give Mary, she would still be alive, if I hadn´t gone to Romford/gone down the Romford (pub) I would have had some money left", so remembering exactly what and when."

That presupposes that he was sure which day he went to Romford, right? He lived a vagabonding life in all probability, Curious, and lost sleep on one night, we know that much. I see no reason why he could not have muddled the days and events. But I have said this a thousand times already! Some agree, some don´t. That´s life.

"As far as the pub theory he would have said "down the Romford" so I disagree with this theory."

...and since he said to the papers that he had been in Romford, Exeter, it is a wise move.

By the way, why does everyone assume he walked there and back? Had he walked it wouldn´t have cost him anything, so he probably took some kind of public transport."

That´s because he said so: He returned to London "having walked all the way" was what he stated. Maybe he hiked on the way down, we don´t know. But he was seemingly not a man of any more extensive means, so walking may have been priority one when he visited other places.

"Palme was shot on the 28th"

So he was - my bad! And I am a Swede who have read tons of material on that case. STILL I muddled the dates ...

The best,
Fisherman

Now, now Fisherman,

Language! (lol) Yes but... Public transport down, walked back. I STILL don´t see why he would have spent all his money there. Possibly hoped to find work?

Sorry, Romford is in Essex - would have taken a lot longer to walk from Exeter!

He was seen waiting around by another witness. Although I should have thought that the witness who saw Hutchinson would have recognised him as someone who was around the area a good deal and named him.(That has puzzled me a little.)

Best wishes,
C4

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fish,

Geez, Jane, it is all-important that you get this distinction correct. However did you get it wrong in the first place?

My apologies Fisherman. He didn't lose a day - He just woke up on Sunday morning, thought Saturday was Friday, thought Friday was Thursday and thought Thursday was Wednesday. It could happen to anyone.


Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Rubyretro]

I haven’t said that the streets were deserted at night or noiseless. I have said they were considerably less well populated and considerably quieter than at daytime. I take it you are with Mr Ben in denying this?

I don't think anyone has denied that there weren't less people around ?

In the general run of things, I think that there were the homeless (walking about all night), the poorest prostitutes, the people coming and going from work, the people leaving clubs, the Policemen, and there were still a fair amount of people on the streets.

I think that there were probably far fewer on the night of Mary Kelly's murder, because of the rain.

We know that Lewis could make good descriptions of people – like that man she met on Bethnal Green Road, but she failed with wide-awake man. Now you say she saw him and he was ‘a way off’. But it was a narrow road

.

She spoke to the Bethnal Green Man, and had a direct contact with him
close up -not so the 'lurker'.

[The Good Michael]

Despite the words against the off day, it still must be accepted as a reasonable possibility regardless if one disagrees with weather and sound discussions.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Hi All,

I've been with this debate from the beginning, and it's certainly been interesting, if a little gruelling at times. I think I've had enough opportunity to see the arguments from both sides and can give a fair opinion on what I've gained from it personally. I have no intention of getting involved in this debate, I've got more sense. You lot can fight it out amongst youselves. Lol.

I have to say, that nothing posted has changed the opinion I already had on the matter, although I've picked up a few snippets on the way, which were quite enlightening, so it's been time well spent.

I would like to make it clear that I have no axe to grind about Hutchinson - I actually don't care if he was the Ripper or Mary's fairy godmother - I don't have the slightest interest in the suspects, only the victims. So this is a totally unbiased opinion.

I've always been taught that to be a good researcher you need to first look at the primary sources and take more notice of them than of secondary and more dubious sources. You just use the secondary sources to confirm primary source material or to use in a discussion as conjecture or speculation. If it conflicts with primary source material, then the primary source material takes precedence, unless there is very good reason to think that the primary source material is in error. That just seems like plain old common sense to me.

Hutchinson's statement to the police makes it clear that he was standing outside Mary's on November the 9th, not the 8th. I don't care if he was standing at the entrance to the court the whole time, over by Crossingham's or doing a soft shoe shuffle between the two - the official report is that he was there on the 9th. Subsequent newspaper reports state the same. Therefore the weight of evidence is overwhelming that Hutchinson was standing outside on the 9th and not the 8th. I've not seen any evidence on this thread to prove that it was the 8th and not the 9th; no official document, no newspaper report, nothing that proves he wasn't there on the night he said he was. Present me with irrefutable evidence that it couldn't possibly have been the 9th, or definitely was there on the 8th and I'll revise my opinion.

The question of the weather hasn't proved anything, although it was an interesting idea and made a good article. It's been shown that there were dry spells on the night of the 9th as well as the 8th. Incidentally Fish, I did enjoy your article very much, even though I didn't agree with your conclusions.

Just using good old common sense, people might forget whole days if they are trying to remember something that happened years ago, but to do it after just a couple of days, just strikes me as nonsensical - sorry. The day in question was just too exceptional for someone to completely wipe it from his mind and we still have to account for that missing day.

Okay, common sense isn't evidence, but to claim that Hutchinson lost an entire day, you need proof that was the case, solid proof, if you want to present that in opposition to the official statement. Otherwise his statement to the police still takes precedence. Hutchinson might have done this and might have done that - he might have been kicked in the head by a mule and got amnesia, but I need to see a Whitechapel infirmary admission record to that effect if I am going to believe he lost an entire day from his memory.

Not only that, but are we really to believe that Hutchinson could remember every single thing about Astrakhan man, right down to his horse shoe tie pin, but can't even remember what day it is? That really is stretching things beyond the limit of anyone's credulity in my opinion.

And onto dear old Wally.

I first read Walter Dew's memoirs about 40 years ago, and even then realised that it left a lot to be desired. Great bloke, enjoyable read, but when I'm told that Liz Stride and Kate Eddowes were killed just a few days after Annie Chapman, I started to get a bit worried. I did once count how many inaccuracies there were in the book - and it ran into dozens. So Dew's book was put into the 'interesting, but not to be trusted' pile. His suggestion that Hutch got the date or time wrong was just conjecture. It still doesn't take precedence over the official police reports. It was just his opinion, delivered many years after the event.

Fact: We know that the police changed their minds about the validity of Hutchinson's testimony for some reason. As Hatchett said, we don't have an official reason as to why it was discredited. It could have been any reason, but it was not pursued for very long. In some newspapers the testimony was deemed as valueless. Some were far more vocal about why they thought Hutchinson was telling fibs. The Graphic of November 17th says this:

It is true that on this last occasion a man [Hutchinson] has given a very precise description of the supposed murderer. The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as "a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots," and "a red stone hanging from his watch-chain," must possess the eyes of a born detective. Granting, however, that this description is accurate, and not due to the after-effects of a lively imagination, it is evidence that the clue thus given is an important one, inasmuch as it shows that the murderer belongs to a superior class.

The fact that Huctchinson's statement to the police is significantly different to his statements to the newspapers in the following days must be taken into consideration as well.

Did Hutchinson get the day wrong? No. His official statement says it was the 9th, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it was the 9th, unless I see very solid contemporary evidence to the contrary.

Very enjoyable thread anyway, keep the pot boiling, it's good stuff.



Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

Oh by the way Ben, I thoroughly enjoyed your article as well, I didn't want you to think I enjoyed Fisherman's and not yours!

Hi Jane
Good post-very reasonable and well put. Also, I had never seen that article before so thanks for posting.

[Rubyretro]

In fact, I can only see you and Ruby stating that body language would easily produce a certainty on Lewis´behalf that the loiterer was waiting for somebody to come out. The rest of us, me included, who do not have these insights in carnal semaphore systems would be interested to get an exact description of this truly amazing feat.

Apologies to Ben for answering a question which is his professional domain !

I saw my name, and it was the proverbial 'red rag'..

Let's see..the clue would be in the 'was looking..' a continual movement (as opposed to 'he looked') up the Court, as if 'watchingfor someone'...

I would appear engrossed at first, maybe shift position a few times to try and get a different or better angle..look away when I heard (Mrs Lewis's) footsteps, but not resist a few (but tellingly just too many !) glances
back at the Court. As Mrs Lewis drew closer, I might even turn my back to try and give the impression that I wasn't watching the Court -but I'd
turn back again, too quickly, when I saw her back disappearing down the passage..

If I were Mrs Lewis, I'd sneak a look over my shoulder when I had to walk down that narrow passage with the man behind me -Id really want to make sure that he wasn't going to jump on me from behind.

When Mrs Lewis looked back, she'd see that I was in the same attitude
as when she'd first noticed me, and she'd think (with relief !) 'Hurrah ! He's not going to attack me ! He's only waiting for someone from the Court !'.

It is true that someone so drunk that they were in another world , or
someone mentally impaired might not be able to pick up on this body language
-but I think that Mrs Lewis would have almost animal instincts of self preservation and, given the context, would have heightened awareness of
the 'lurker's' unconcious signals.

By the way -I think that it would be easy to read whether, when you said
'what a bright fellow' you were talking about Ben, or Lechmere standing just behind him..you'd unconciously lean and act with your body, maybe subtly gesture without realising, as if you were bending around Ben and looking at the person behind him. Unless the person that you were talking to had dulled senses or you were naturally very inexpressive, he would see the direction of your eyes and body, and read your meaning in a second without even knowing why..

[The Good Michael]

So he was - my bad! And I am a Swede who have read tons of material on that case. STILL I muddled the dates ...

Had you shot Palme, you wouldn't have messed up the dates. Much like had Hutchinson killed Kelly he wouldn't have mistaken the days. Since Toppy didn't, dates are fair game.

Mike

[Monty]

If Hutchinson meant the Romford Arms pub then public house would havbe been included in the statement, as it is with the Queens Head public house.

It isn't, ergo it was Romford.

Monty

[Fisherman]

curious4:

"No, sorry, don´t agree."

Bugger!

"As far as I can see Hutchinson met Mary on the 9th (2 a.m.)."

Please note that Walter Dew disagreed very much with this - and he worked the case!

"Also any normal person would think "If only I had had the money to give Mary, she would still be alive, if I hadn´t gone to Romford/gone down the Romford (pub) I would have had some money left", so remembering exactly what and when."

That presupposes that he was sure which day he went to Romford, right? He lived a vagabonding life in all probability, Curious, and lost sleep on one night, we know that much. I see no reason why he could not have muddled the days and events. But I have said this a thousand times already! Some agree, some don´t. That´s life.

"As far as the pub theory he would have said "down the Romford" so I disagree with this theory."

...and since he said to the papers that he had been in Romford, Exeter, it is a wise move.

By the way, why does everyone assume he walked there and back? Had he walked it wouldn´t have cost him anything, so he probably took some kind of public transport."

That´s because he said so: He returned to London "having walked all the way" was what he stated. Maybe he hiked on the way down, we don´t know. But he was seemingly not a man of any more extensive means, so walking may have been priority one when he visited other places.

"Palme was shot on the 28th"

So he was - my bad! And I am a Swede who have read tons of material on that case. STILL I muddled the dates ...

The best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

Curious4:

"I think it very unlikely that Hutchinson got the day wrong. When something earth-shattering happens people tend to remember what they did around that time more clearly,
as in "What were you doing when JFK was assassinated?" or in Sweden "When Olof Palme was shot" or "When the Estonia sank".

Please keep in mind that Hutchs meeting with Kelly was - if I am correct - on Thursday morning, and not on the day she died. People who remember what they did when Palme was shot, remember that they were in a restaurant, that they were playing cards, that they were singing karaoke when the news reached them. But if you had asked them three days after on what day they did not have their morning paper delivered, they may well have missed the answer. Unless you sugges that they would go "Let´s see, Palme was shot on the 26:th, that means that I got the paper on the day before, and the day before that - aha - it must have been the 23:d!

THIS is what you are looking at - not Hutch´s ability to say exactly what he did as the news of the murder reached him. A major event does not clear peoples skulls and make them immune against muddling dates. If so, the investigators of murders would not tell us that muddled dates is one of the more common mistakes made by witnesses, would they?


The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fisherman,

No, sorry, don´t agree. As far as I can see Hutchinson met Mary on the 9th (2 a.m.). Also any normal person would think "If only I had had the money to give Mary, she would still be alive, if I hadn´t gone to Romford/gone down the Romford (pub) I would have had some money left", so remembering exactly what and when. As far as the pub theory he would have said "down the Romford" so I disagree with this theory.

By the way, why does everyone assume he walked there and back? Had he walked it wouldn´t have cost him anything, so he probably took some kind of public transport.

Sincerely yours,
C4

P.S. Palme was shot on the 28th

[Fisherman]

Jane!

Good to see you out here! Not as good, though, to hear what you are saying this time over, so I will make my point clear. You have, at least in part, misunderstood my argument.

"Hutchinson's statement to the police makes it clear that he was standing outside Mary's on November the 9th, not the 8th."

Actually no. It makes it clear that he said that he was there on the 9:th, but nothing more. A parallel could be Packers statement to the police - he said a lot of things that ended up on the paper of a police report too, but does that make it true? And what about Lewis? She said to the police that she saw a man that was looking up the court as if in wait for somebody. But if we are to follow the logic that what´s in the police report = true, we end up with turning possibilities into certainties. And why would we?

Moreover: If Hutchinson´s testimony had gotten the killer caught, I would perhaps be less inclined to complaint about your stance. But it did not, did it? No, instead it was apparently disbelieved by both the press and the police. Which is an almighty reason to conclude that the police had found the testimony and the reality incomparable in some regard. So no - the fact that Hutch said the 9:th and was believed from the outset does not in any way prove that he was correct on the dates.

"The question of the weather hasn't proved anything, although it was an interesting idea and made a good article. It's been shown that there were dry spells on the night of the 9th as well as the 8th."

I would not say that this has been shown, Jane. Instead, the meteorological office stated that the rain was of a more continuous nature. But let´s not delve too deep into that. The only thing I urge people to see is that it would seem that Hutchinson claimed to have started his all-night tour walking the streets in hard rain, which seems an odd thing to do.

"to claim that Hutchinson lost an entire day, you need proof that was the case"

What a lucky thing then, that I have not proposed this!
I am beginning to wonder if it is my language that lets me down here. I don´t for a moment think that he "lost a day", Jane. What I propose is that he failed to nail the astrakhan man meeting to the right day!! He muddled up things, quite simply. But as such, he did not necessarily loose anything at all - he just ascribed things to the wrong dates, the way you do when you muddle things up!
Geez, Jane, it is all-important that you get this distinction correct. However did you get it wrong in the first place?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"The issue that the Police lost interest in Hutchinson does not come from any extent Police source. Even the much quoted Inspector Dew doesnt mention it. It comes from the Press."

Correct. Which is why it is useful to know that Hutchinson seemed to generate no interest at all afterwards. That is, sort of, the confirmation of the press reports that we have. I have made the suggestion that the police would have been none too proud of themselves for not realizin at an earlier stage that Hutch was out on the dates. I think this lies behind the lack of any confirmation, official or unofficial of it all.

"What ever the reason, I would suggest, that suspicions that Hutchinson had got the wrong night is most unlikely. That would have been something that Abberline would have been very careful about when he interviewed Hutchinson."

I and Lechmere just got ridiculed for saying that there must have been more material at hand during the time this all happened. I could have done the same to you, but I won´t. I will say that Abberline must have tried to confirm that Hutch was right on the days, but this is sometimes not an easy task. But it would seem that he may have found out as soon as the same evening as Hutch gave his testimony.
It is not as if Abberline seemingly failed in this regard. He would have asked things, and then he would double-check and double-checking may take the odd hour or two. And lo and behold, what happens afterwards: the papers tell us that doubt must be cast upon it all.

"If there had been any suspicions at all that Hutchinson had muddled the date then they would have been raised at the time and the Police would not have not lost interest in Hutchinson, they would not have had any interest in him to start with."

That is a very valid conclusion. But it works from the presumption that things were found out the instant Hutchinson set foot in Commercial Street police station. And we know that this was not the case, don´t we, Hatchett? Of course - Abberline believed him! He said so very clearly!
Then, as things were double-checked, whoops - that was that. And THEN Hutch was dropped.
It sort of confirms the very useful assumption that we only drop people after we have found out that they are wrong and not before.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Thanks for that, but don’t expect that reminder to bring about any lasting change in mainstream thinking on the subject, because it’s not going to happen."

I usually wait and see, Ben. When it was first suggested that the world was round, the ones speaking for the up-til-then mainstream thinking that it was flat ALSO said something about things that were never going to happen. Maybe I shall have to settle for my view being regarded as a more viable than yours - after all, people muddling up days are a lot more common that serial killers...

But as I say, let time decide.

"I've told you. It's obvious."

Not to me, it isn´t. And it would seem others are of the same mind. In fact, I can only see you and Ruby stating that body language would easily produce a certainty on Lewis´behalf that the loiterer was waiting for somebody to come out. The rest of us, me included, who do not have these insights in carnal semaphore systems would be interested to get an exact description of this truly amazing feat.

"Clearly the combined imagination of every jury member and every police official who interviewed her was happy to embrace her impression as accurate."

Then maybe they had the same magic gift that I have been deprived of. So please tell me how it is done!

"I’ve addressed this already."

You just failed to explain it, that´s why I ask again.

"She didn’t merely “think” the man was looking up the court. She said so explicitly: “the man standing in the street was looking up the court”. "!

...which only means "I THINK the man looked up the court, since that was the impression I got". If I point in your direction, Ben, and say "what a bright fellow", people may get the impression that I am talking about you, whereas I instead may be pointing to Lechmere standing behind you. Until things like these are CONFIRMED, they are only impressions - that may prove wrong. Ergo it is not proven that the loiterer looked up the court; the only thing proven is that Lewis SAID that she was of this meaning.

"It is startlingly obvious that something about the loiterer’s behaviour conveyed the impression that he was preoccupied with the court."

It is quite obvious that Lewis believed - true or not - that he took a look up the court. That does not amount to any almighty "preoccupation". I think you may be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

"It would only seem “odd to the police” if they had Lewis’ evidence in front of them at the time of the Hutchinson interview for instant cross-referencing with his emerging claims."

No. It would seem odd to them if they had Lewis testimony in front of them OR IN THE BACKS OF THEIR HEADS. And Hunter nailed it - they would be idiots if it was not there sooner or later. All of them, the whole bunch.

"your continued assertions that the police “would have” spotted this and “must have” taken X or Y action are completely without value in the absence of any supporting evidence."

Police procedure puts it beyond doubt that we do not need that evidence to know that we will with 99,999 per cent probability be correct when we draw this conclusion. After that, you can cling to the nonexisting evidence as much as you please, for no rational person will buy it.

"The conclusion that Abberline did not make the connection is simply the evidence, and not an accusation of “idiocy”. "

On the contrary. It involves idiocy on his behalf - and the rest of the police, press and public - if it was not there.

"Well it comes across as rude, so try to find different ways of “stressing” things in future, please."

I´m afraid I won´t. You must take comfort in my assertion that it is not rudely meant. I just like to take care of my own language, and I merrily leave you to yours, mind you. I only remark about it when I think it takes the shape of overexaggerations and such, relating to the evidence and case details.

"I’m afraid it’s very obvious that you’re in no position to assert whether “one does” or “one doesn’t”, not that it makes a scrap of difference to the actual evidence in this case."

You may have misunderstood me. What I am saying is that when we can find no parallels in history to a suggested behaviour in a criminal case, that should urge us to ponder the very apparent possibility that the suggestion is wrong from the outset.

"The Echo is very revealing in this regard, and the Star is particularly revealing in that regard."

Agreed. But they seemingly "reveal" different things to us.

"I didn’t lecture you. I just thought you Swedes studied maths over there, but if you want to do “math” instead, you’ll get no further complaints about it from me."

Good. Thanks!

"The "lost report" syndrome strikes again.

"Yes, Ben, I have no evidence that this report ever existed, but trust me it did once upon a time, and trust me, it would have said exactly what I'm claiming it said!""

No. But it MAY have.I try to avoid saying things like "it´s not going to happen", for reasons outlined above.

"If you accuse me of "idiocy" again, I shall report you to the authorities, Fisherman! Is that what you want?"

Why would you report me for a judgement passed on a suggestion? What we are supposed to avoid is judging the quality of each other personally. What we are allowed to do is to judge the quality of each others posts. This is what I do, and this is what Hunter did. We apparently both think that a failure to see the link between Hutchinson and Lewis would amount to idiocy.
As for you, I only just posted my view that you are a bright enough Ripperologist, and I don´t call people both bright AND idiotic. It does not add up. Plus I think we would BOTH like to continue posting here, just as we would BOTH much prefer to have the quality of or suggestions judged by other posters. That is how one gets an idea about the value of one´s work as seen through other people´s eyes.
Would you not agree?

The best,
Fisherman

[ChainzCooper]

Just because someone gives a precise description to police doesn't neccesarily mean that they are lying. I mean just from my own experience I know this. I was in a really bad car accident a few years ago in which a guy with a suspended license ran a stop sign and we collided. It was really horrific and totaled both cars. But thankfully, I didn't get hurt at all. Right after the accident the other guy and myself both got out and I called 911 even though he didn't want me to. We both stood there for awhile before he just walked off because he didn't want to be arrested. I called the police back and told them he just left and they should get someone down here. So I waited a few more minutes before a policeman arrived. I was able to give a pretty detailed description of the guy, even down to the earrings he was wearing. Granted I didn't go to police for a few days after the wreck I talked to them minutes afterward but I cold have given them the same description days later because it stuck out so much in my mind. I mean the guy was such a prick he just caused this huge wreck and it could have killed me. Then to just walk off? Which leads me back to Hutchinson.I mean he says it right there to Abberline, things weren't adding up with why this guy was with Kelly which is why he could recall so many details. Same as with me in the accident. So ultimately I understand where hes coming from based on my own life. So I believe him
Jordan