Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[babybird67]

Incidentally, Ben wrote an essay in the same issue. He too wrote on Huchinson. He actually stated that there was a good chance that old George was a serial killer. I find that actually amounts to nothing but conjecture. But I don´t see you yelling your head off in that direction?

So once again, what´s the itch, Babybird?

The best,
Fisherman

Title of this thread, Fisherman, is DID HUTCHINSON GET THE NIGHT WRONG. This thread was set up to discuss your article which contends that he did. I am sorry you are finding my questions to you searching and uncomfortable...if you wish to discuss Ben's essay you can always set up a thread to do so. This thread isn't it.

[Ben]

Some excellent points raised here, Jen.

I too considered it very strange at the time that the meteorological evidence was omitted from the article, although it should be clear by now that there was never any suggestion that the rain was continuous over the night of 8th/9th and never abated, and I’m grateful to Garry for drawing our attention to this. Certainly, Steve Jebson never conveyed the impression that the night was entirely devoid of any “dryness”.

Even if it truly was a case of non-stop relentless rain, the most logical explanation by far for the incongruities in terms of weather is that he lied about it, and forgot to factor in certain practical considerations such as the weather. How else is anyone supposed to expose or even infer a lie if not for the existence of oddities such as this? But despite the obvious reality that “continual” rain supports the contention that Hutchinson lied far better than it supports the “mistaken by 24 hours” theory, we must heed Garry’s advice and seek the truth rather than vindication of previous suspicions. As such, it is only responsible to point out that we have no evidence whatsoever that the rain never stopped.

I’ve noticed that Fisherman considers it odd that Hutchinson never referred to Lewis, but we don't know that he didn't mention her. He might well have done, with Abberline et al deciding that it wasn't relevant or noteworthy enough to include in the report. On the other hand, if Lewis' wideawake sighting provided the incentive for Hutchinson to come forward and "explain" his presence at a crime scene, it might not have been a wise move to mention her specifically, since doing so would only make it more obvious that he came forward as a direct result of her evidence.

He subsequently related to the press that he had seen other men in the area, but then men were germane to the inquiry as possible suspects, whereas Lewis would not have been.

I’m also troubled by his misappropriation of worlds like “adamantly” and “emphatically”. He tells us that Walter Dew was “adamant” when he “stated” that Hutchinson “must have” mixed up the dates, when in reality, Dew merely suggested that this could have been the case, and nothing in his observations indicate that he was “adamant” about anything. A few posts later, Dew suddenly becomes “definite” about it! Lest any confusion linger on this issue, Dew was not remotely "definite". He was making his own speculative suggestion decades after the murders, clearly demonstrating that no certainty had ever been expressed by the contemporary police over the issue.

Fisherman also tells us that Hutchinson “emphatically tells us” he was not sheltering from the rain that night. Where did this come from? Where did Hutchinson say anything akin to “I was most assuredly NOT sheltering from the rain, dammit!”? If he’s referring to the alleged “walking about all night”, yes, that seems an odd thing to do in bad weather after having walked 13 miles already, but then it’s an odd thing to do in dry weather too, so the most likely explanation is that he lied about it. To eschew this in favour of a “different day” hypothesis is just avoiding the obvious, and the argument that a lie is so bad it must be true remains an absurd argument.

I think people have a right to be sceptical of anyone who resorts to misplaced or exaggerated terminology in an effort to bolster their argument, and I notice I’m not the first to find those “I know”s problematic. If you’ve already acknowledged that you can’t prove your theory, why then claim that you “know” it to be true?

It has also been claimed that Hutchinson would have been “reprimanded” if the police thought he was lying, but what about other probable liars such as Packer and Violenia? Were they ever reprimanded? No, we have no evidence of this at all, so why change the goalposts for Hutchinson? This is then followed by a claim that “we know” (yep, we’re on the “knows” again!) that the police failed to disclose the reason for Hutchinson’s discrediting to the press, whereas in fact, the Echo reported some of the very reasons that prompted the authorities to attach a “very reduced importance” to his account.

There’s just been too much insistence on Fisherman’s part that his theory “tallies”, that everything “fits”, that nobody has offered a reasonable challenge to his argument, and that the only posters to have disagreed with his conclusions must be supporters of Hutchinson-as-ripper. It amounts to protesting just a bit too much, in my opinion, and is not necessarily the language preferred by those who really consider themselves on steady ground. Since it was those pesky old Hutchinsonians who introduced him to some of his key source material, I don’t think he ought to be too disparaging about us!

“Incidentally, Ben wrote an essay in the same issue. He too wrote on Huchinson. He actually stated that there was a good chance that old George was a serial killer. I find that actually amounts to nothing but conjecture. But I don´t see you yelling your head off in that direction?”

Oh, cheers for that, Fish. “Leave me alone and pick on Ben instead”.

Best regards,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Romford, rain, etc.

I'm not willing to discount Fish's theory too easily. After all, it appears Abberline caught Packer in his lie based on the rain and certainly he corrected him as to the time of the event (the correction is noted in the police report). In the case of Hutchinson, he associated the event with his trip to Romford. Surely this trip would have been investigated? Is it more likely that he would have made such a trip on a dry day or a wet day?

On the other hand, there's still the suspicious description of Astrakhan Man to attend with. If Hutch was merely mistaken about the day, then he was telling the truth and his extremely detailed description of AM was legit. Is this what Fisherman is attesting? Because if the event itself was a lie, then obviously no mistake was made, although it is possible that Hutch's lie was found out partly due to his not noting that it was raining at the time.

It's very possible that other newspaper reports the day after mentioned the rain at various times - reports that have nothing to do with the murder, but could help us pinpoint the rainfall.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Sally]

Rain

Honestly?

I don't think the weather is the issue, personally. Whether it rained, say, 30% of the time on the night of the 8th/morning of the 9th; 50% of the time or 100% of the time; it isn't the problem. How much and often it rained is now beyond recovery anyway, except in broad and general terms.

My understanding of what Fisherman was suggesting was that Hutchinson's account of his movements that night were better suited to a dry night - and with this I actually agree.

I doubt the explanation he puts forward for it, however, as I have already stated. I just don't find it plausible that a man in Hutchinson's self-alleged position would mistake the day.

I think Fisherman has hghlighted a fatal flaw in Hutchinson's story - and I'm afraid I must conclude that story it was - whatever his motivations may have been.

[c.d.]

I have to admit that I have a problem with all these Hutchinson threads. They all seem to be based on an if A then B argument. But the focus always seems to be on the if A premise, attempt to show that Hutchinson was lying or in the alternative attempt to put his veracity in question. But even if we are able to do so, it is the then B part where the argument falls apart. There are simply to many options for then B namely:

1. Hutchinson killed Mary.

2. Hutchinson simply wanted to be involved in a high profile murder.

3. Hutchinson was mentally unbalanced.

4. Hutchinson simply wanted to see if he could collect a reward.

5. Hutchinson was simply trying to cover his behind because he was there that night but was not Mary's killer.

I am sure that there are other options as well. The point is that no matter how strong of an argument you make for the if A part of the premise, it doesn't lead you to an inescapable then B conclusion. I think that this gets overlooked sometimes in the desire to prove if A.

c.d.

[caz]

A good, balanced post there, Tom.

I have yet to open my latest Examiner, but I would like to ask babybird about the following:

If only Hutch had mentioned loitering, maybe you could argue that wouldn't be feasible. But Lewis saw someone loitering for an extended period of time.

Where does Lewis say how long she spent watching Hutch - sorry, getting carried away there - watching the man who appeared to be watching the court?

It seems to have morphed into fact that she provided some sort of confirmation for Hutch's 45 minutes spent waiting in vain in the rain (or the dry) for another man to exit the murder room. Yet her testimony came first and Hutch the liar is meant to have learned about it and added to it, without mentioning her, which brings its own problems if true.

If we imagine for one second that he killed Kelly after waiting for nearly an hour outside in the elements, it would be pretty hard for him to have forgotten if it had been pelting down during his patient vigil. Okay if it was dry at that time and he didn't think to mention it in his statement.

But if Lewis had stated it was pouring at the time, for example, while Hutch said dry - or nothing at all; or if Lewis had said dry, while Hutch said "cats and dogs for the whole miserable 45 minutes, how could I forget?" (or any of a hundred other reasons why their accounts may not have tallied, including the possibility that Hutch bore no physical resemblance to Lewis's man), that might well have made any reasonably alert cop want to know what the weather had really been doing and to investigate any obvious discrepancy in their star witness's account. After all, it was Hutch's man they were so intent on finding again. If they had Lewis's man, in the form of Hutch, they were either never aware of it, or her account of this man watching the court at that late hour made no impact whatsoever.

There must be some explanation, weather it involves the whether, or weather it doesn't.

And that was a horrible spell of 'whether'.

Incidentally, I do wonder why the police didn't cover any embarrassment over Hutch by making a simple announcement that he had got his dates wrong, if that had been the case.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Caz and Tom,

Back to back voices of reason. Who'da thunk it?

Seriously. Tom's post is very thoughtful and of course Caz brings up many questions, not the least of which is how the police could have been so utterly, unquestionably stupid and lax on such a high-profile case as to not connect Lewis' testimony and Hutch's. The obvious answer is that they did connect them, but found there was no connection. It really can't have been any other way.

Sorry to take your words and warp them, Caz. It won't happen again... until next time

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Tom,

“it is possible that Hutch's lie was found out partly due to his not noting that it was raining at the time.”

Yes, this is the far stronger argument as far as Hutchinson and the weather are concerned. The Echo reported on the 13th that the authorities had already attached a “very reduced importance” to his account for reasons that had nothing to do with any indication that he had confused the date of the alleged encounter. Indeed, these reasons were far more concerned with his failure to alert the police earlier or present himself at the inquest where he could have been quizzed under oath etc. If Hutchinson had been removed conclusively from the equation because he’d confused the date, his potential “importance” would have been nullified altogether as opposed to being merely "reduced" in terms of importance.

The Star ran an article on the 15th November that reported that Hutchinson’s account was “now discredited”, and its headline was something like “Worthless stories lead police astray”. Packer’s tall tale appeared in the same article – the implication being that both accounts were being lumped into the same category.

Hi Caz,

Lewis’ evidence only establishes the presence of the loitering man for as long as she was able to observe him. It doesn’t permit us to conclude that he was there for a long as Hutchinson claimed to have been. If Hutchinson was the loiterer, I agree that, “it would be pretty hard for him to have forgotten if it had been pelting down during his patient vigil” but that doesn’t mean that anything significant needs to be read into his failure to mention the weather conditions at all. The accounts “tally” already far too well for any suggestion that they were different people to be seriously considered, in my view, but that isn’t to negate the possibility that (for example) two physically dissimilar individuals just happened to have engaged in the same activity at the same location, and with the same apparent fixation with Miller’s Court.

“Caz brings up many questions, not the least of which is how the police could have been so utterly, unquestionably stupid and lax on such a high-profile case as to not connect Lewis' testimony and Hutch's.”

But once you actually research some of these “high profile cases”, Mike, you’ll find that seemingly trivial details and connections have been overlooked, and it’s rarely, if ever, due to any excess of stupidity on the part of the police. The two-fold assumption that the police must have connected them, and must have then found a way to rule out the possibility of them referring to the same person is just filling in blanks with “Must haves” for which we have no evidence, and are to be strictly avoided - on pain of being growled at by aggressive Hutch-hassling me - for that reason.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

First of all, Fish, many thanks for posting the details of your communications with the Meteorological Office. And most illuminating they are too. But before proceeding further, please allow me to encapsulate your position as I understand it.

Essentially, you maintain that, on the night of Kelly’s murder, it began raining heavily at midnight and that the rain continued unabated throughout the night. Indeed, at several points during the course of your essay you describe this precipitation as ‘hard, dense November rain’. In another passage you assert that it was ‘raining cats and dogs’ as Sarah Lewis walked along Dorset Street.

The source of this belief, as you have now made clear, lay in information conveyed by the Meteorological Office which stated that ‘your were quite right in your assessment of the weather for the overnight period of the 8th into the 9th in that rain did indeed affect the London area soon after midnight.’

To your credit, you again contacted the Meteorological Office subsequent to publication in an attempt to elicit further information. In response, it was stated that ‘the records we have from 1888 are not sufficiently detailed to answer your question fully, because observations were not usually taken during the night.’ On the basis of this response, you observed, ‘It tells us precious little, I’m afraid.’

Oh no, Fish. On the contrary. It tells us a great deal.

The key phrase here is: ‘observations were not usually taken during the night.’ This being the case, the Meteorological Office could not possibly have confirmed ‘your assessment’ of a midnight deluge which continued throughout the night as defined in your first e-mail to them. And neither were they in a position to differentiate between a night of continual rain and one punctuated by a series of heavy showers. In other words, the certainty expressed within your article regarding the prevailing weather conditions is sorely misplaced. In the absence of any supporting evidence, moreover, your theory of the ‘wrong night’ is quite simply unsustainable.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[harry]

Fisherman,
In reply to your post 74.The weather patterns where I live are in no way entirely different from England,and having lived in both countries a considerable number of years,I am in a good position to compare.
Dew was a detective constable during the Ripper murders,with a year's experience in that position,and except for a claim,not substanciated,of being one of the first officers at Millers Court,nothing much is known of his activities during the Ripper investigations..A further claim of his that the open eyes of Kelly were photographed,is nowhere confirmed.
Dew however had a good reason for an opinion of faulty memory on the part of Hutchinson.Dew's stated suspect,the midnight companion of Kelly,loses credibility if Hutchinson can place an entirely different person in her room at 2.30am.So I think your reliance on Dew as a backing for your supposition of a day's loss of memory on the part of Hutchinson,is decidedly shaky.
As for the rain,well it has also been stated that it rained heavily on the evening of Stride and Eddowe's deaths.Proves nothing really,except that perhaps the Ripper was quite at home on such nights,and that the populance in general still defied the elements.
As for Hutchinson's trip to Romford,there is no suggestion that it rained during all that day,but again,there is no evidence that Hutchinson did really go to Romford.

[The Good Michael]

As for Hutchinson's trip to Romford,there is no suggestion that it rained during all that day,but again,there is no evidence that Hutchinson did really go to Romford.

The evidence is explicit in its absence. There is no possibility that the police didn't check Toppy's story out. None. Could he have lied? yes if he had co-conspirators.

Mike

[caz]

Hi Caz,

Lewis’ evidence only establishes the presence of the loitering man for as long as she was able to observe him. It doesn’t permit us to conclude that he was there for a long as Hutchinson claimed to have been.

Absolutely, Ben. That was exactly my point to babybird, who got the impression from somewhere that Lewis had seen her lurker lurking for some considerable time, when it may have been for 45 seconds or less. We don't know that Hutch was even there to be seen by Lewis as she passed that way, and we only have his word for a 45 minute vigil.

The accounts “tally” already far too well for any suggestion that they were different people to be seriously considered, in my view, but that isn’t to negate the possibility that (for example) two physically dissimilar individuals just happened to have engaged in the same activity at the same location, and with the same apparent fixation with Miller’s Court.

Well you see, Ben, the two accounts only tally 'far too well' to feature different individuals if you make a bunch of assumptions. If Hutch was lying, based on his knowledge of the earlier account (what an assumption to make - lol), he could have lied about a) being there at all, or b) what time he got there and what time he left, or c) what he did while there, or d) why he was watching the court, or e) fill in the blank, and the truth need not have tallied remotely with what and who Lewis saw. In addition, if Lewis had secretly told the cops that her lurker had a huge strawberry birthmark on his face and a distinct limp, and Hutch turned up without either - or vice versa - well, you get the picture.

I wonder if you are missing a crucial point about Hutch's account, once a reduced importance was attached to it. Forget for a moment whether a Lewis connection was never made for whatever reason, made and taken into account, or quickly broken due to something obvious (now lost to us) that didn't tally. Think about it. If the police no longer believe that Mr A was in the murder room when Hutch claimed to leave the court, around 3am, this witness's entire reason for being anywhere near the crime scene (which wasn't great to start with) goes up in smoke. If they still believe he was there, they have to be brain dead not to ascertain what the hell his business was there, if he hadn't followed Kelly and her latest squeeze back to the court, and he wasn't there waiting out of sheer curiosity for him to leave the building.

Did Abberline perhaps use a bit of Victorian discretion and leave out the part where Hutch finally admitted being there because he did have some money on him and was hoping to spend it on Kelly when the last man (possibly Blotchy) had left? Did they soon twig that he probably never saw who was in that room, but used his considerable imagination to conjure up his own idea of what the brute must have looked like?

This would still have its problems, as it would make Hutch a proven liar and therefore someone essential to investigate further, because he could so easily have been the last man to enter that room, for all they knew when he first came forward with his tall story.

And there's the rub, because we will never know if that's all they ever knew. For all we know, they were quickly able to eliminate him from any involvement.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"In the absence of any supporting evidence, moreover, your theory of the ‘wrong night’ is quite simply unsustainable."

I have very little time to spare these days, and so I will choose carefully what to respond to. Hopefully, in ten day´s time or so, after having visited Berlin, I shall be able to give a more full response to the questions raised.

First of all, Garry, I will once more ask you for your answer to the question I keep putting to you. You know well which one it is.

After that, I will go on to say that the above is generally almost correct, but specifically wrong. Of course, in the absense of any supporting evidence, a theory is unprovable. It is certainly not unsustainable as long as it cannot be DISPROVEN either. Have a look at you serial killer Hutchinson, Garry. Just how much supporting evidence can you come up with in his case? meaning that the theory is ... unsustainable?

Having settled THAT matter, I would like to - once again - point out that the night we are discussing was a night of heavy rain, as testified by the Echo. It was a night when much rain fell over the East end, it was a night when the rain started to fall after midnight, it was a night when it rained hard at 3 AM. It is everything but untenable to suggest that it could have rained substantially at 2 AM too. Meaning that if the weather had been the only evidence at hand, it would still be anything but unsustainable to suggest that it could have rained at the crucial hour.

Next: In my essay, I VERY CLEARLY state that as uncertainty must attach to whether it really DID rain at these crucial hours, the most important factor is Hutchinson´s walking the streets "all night", as he stated. For we - once again - know full well that it rained heavily one quarter of an hour after he left Dorset Street.

Being aware,as we are, that the Echo states that heavy rain fell on the night, ending with a drizzle in the morning hours, I think that rain is the much better guess for a 2 o clock scenario than no rain - but I do not have to guess at all when it comes to 3 AM, for we KNOW that Hutchinson claimed to have acted irrationally at that stage by walking the streets.

And it is not as if my scenario builds on the weather only! I would say that Hutchinson´s failure to see Lewis is very good evidence to one thing and one thing only - that she was not there on the night. I would say that Kelly´s sudden sobering up indicates the same thing. I would say that Dew´s assertion is lead heavy. The treatment in the papers speak a language that tallies totally with a mistaken day too; the story itself was discarded, but we know of no reprimands directed towards Hutchinson.

So I think you had better think twice, Garry, before you speak of unsustainable theories. If you think three times, you may also be able to send Hutch the eviscerator on his way. And if you manage four moments of afterthought, then please answer my question about how you quote - and why.

Oh, and since you are or have been in the possesion of a metorological report on events that were not recorded by the metorologists, it would be very interesting if you would ponder sharing it with us. It certainly belongs to the assessment of the weather.

The very best, Garry!
Fisherman
leaving other posters to wait - sorry about that, but that´s my schedule ...

[Garry Wroe]

Now, can I please once again ask you why you chose to leave out a number of crucial elements when you cited and castigated me in your former post. Firstly, I would like to know why you did not cite me as saying that I had no proof, since that passage is totally crucial to add to the part you DID cut out and post.

This, Fish, is the passage to which you refer:-

Having at last found the time to read Fisherman’s Examiner article, I have to confess to being somewhat troubled. The problem for me is that Fish is unequivocal in his assertion that Hutchinson has been ‘exonerated’ courtesy of a simple factor that has eluded everyone else. Indeed, the whole piece is littered with similarly confident declarations, as witness, ‘I know what made the police send George Hutchinson home. I know why he was not reprimanded, fined or jailed for wasting the police’s time. I know what the man in the wideawake hat was doing, taking a look up Miller’s court at 2.30 in the night. I know why George Hutchinson gave such a detailed description of his man, whereas Sarah Lewis saw nothing, or close to nothing, of hers. Finally, I know what the investigation mentioned in the Echo on the 13th was aiming to find; I know why Hutchinson’s story was not totally discredited at that stage, but only very much in doubt, and I know what it was that clinched things the following day.’ [My emphasis.]

Contrary to your assertion, the text stands precisely as it was written by you. I omitted no elements, ‘crucial’ or otherwise, and certainly made no attempt to ‘castigate’ you. Read it again and the underlying rationale should be obvious. I was merely highlighting those elements over which you expressed certainty prior to an exploration of the evidence that had led you to formulate such conclusions. As we now know, however, that evidence has proven to be anything but robust.

Perhaps, Fish, rather than getting yourself into a state of agitation over what I have written, you would do better to temper the bulldozer style of writing that has proved problematic for you again and again. Failing that, the alternative is that you bring what you consider to be the offending post(s) to the attention of the site administrators.

I would very much like to see the report from years back you are referring to,Garry, if this can be achieved. I suspect you are looking for it already? Can you remember if it was a report from after the night in question, or if it was a forecast? And do you know the source?

The report was a newspaper description of the weather conditions that prevailed on the night of Kelly’s death, Fish. I also seem to recall that the 1988 Ripper documentary fronted by Christopher Frayling featured weather reports relating to each of the so-called C5 murders. As I write, I’ve had no luck in tracing either. Hopefully, however, you or someone else will succeed where I have failed.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“Well you see, Ben, the two accounts only tally 'far too well' to feature different individuals if you make a bunch of assumptions.”

Not so much “assumptions” as the recognition of two crucial non-coincidences: first, the strong similarity between Hutchinson’s report of his own movements and the behaviour of the wideawake loitering man as observed by Sarah Lewis, and second, the fact that he approached the police very shortly after the termination of the inquest where Lewis’ evidence was made public knowledge. It can only be argued that they might not refer to the same individuals if we “assume” that these were just random coincidences. I perfectly accept the observation that Lewis’ evidence doesn’t confirm other aspects of his account, such as the reason for his presence there, but it may at least be observed that for the 2:30 period, the behaviour of Hutchinson and the wideawake man are remarkably similar.

“In addition, if Lewis had secretly told the cops that her lurker had a huge strawberry birthmark on his face and a distinct limp”

But we know that Lewis didn’t make any such disclosure, secretly or otherwise, or else it would have appeared in the police report, which Hutchinson would not have been privy to. It was Hutchinson who had justifiable reason to fear that Lewis’ vague description did not reflect its full extent.

“If the police no longer believe that Mr A was in the murder room when Hutch claimed to leave the court, around 3am, this witness's entire reason for being anywhere near the crime scene (which wasn't great to start with) goes up in smoke.”

Absolutely, but the indications are that the police came to believe - not prove! - that Hutchinson was nowhere near the crime scene when he claimed to have been; that his account suffered a “very reduced importance” and was subsequently discredited because they didn’t believe it, after which he was most likely bunged into the ever-burgeoning dustbin of false witnesses who make bogus claims about having anything to do with the crime or crime scene. Emanuel Violenia was certainly a recipient of this treatment. Despite his claim to have been near the Chapman crime scene at a time critical to the murder, he was dismissed as a liar who wasn’t there. A precedent had clearly been set by that stage, and it would understandably have been tempting for them to cast Hutchinson in a similar mould. Yes, I believe they were wrong to have done so, but that doesn’t mean that any blame or accusations of stupidity should be levelled in their direction.

As for Abberline using a bit of Victorian discretion, he may have done so as a general rule, but that would hardly have extended to “leaving out” material that was intended exclusively for his police superiors. Deliberate omissions on the part of Abberline would have made no sense at all.

As ever, though, there is always possibility that they did conclude Hutchinson was there and lied about his reasons for being there, but in that scenario, they’d have been very hard pushes to progress with those suspicions.

“There is no possibility that the police didn't check Toppy's story out. None.”

Yes there is, Mike. Yes there most certainly, indisputably is. Debate crushed for eternity there, I’m afraid.

Best regards,
Ben