Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Hunter]

.
... Abberline had almost certainly come up from Leman Street police station when he caught wind of Hutchinson’s account, and was thus unlikely to have been in any strong position, at the time of the initial interview, to cross-reference his emerging claims with those of previous witnesses...

Abberline was at the inquest and would have been fully aware of the testimony given by each witness. If he did, indeed, overlook the timing of Mrs. Lewis' sighting with the statement of George Hutchinson, then he was an idiot. He did not take Hutchinson's written statement literally, but chose to 'interrogate' him further on his claims. Any policeman will tell you that this is done to shore up testimony and cover any inconsistancies that are apparent.

[Ben]

There is no evidence that the Hutchinson-wideawake connection was noted until at least 100 years after the murders took place, Hunter. It follows, therefore, that Abberline cannot have been particularly "idiotic" if he never established the connection. As Philip Sugden observed, the Kelly murder abounded in potentially suspicious characters seen out and about by the various eyewitnesses, and when it came to Sarah Lewis' account, the more immediately "suspicious" character was the man who accosted her and a companion on the Bethnal Green Road, and who might have been the same man seen talking to a woman at the corner of Ringers' on the the night of Kelly's murder. It is easy to see how the wideawake man might have been eclipsed as an investigative priority as a consequence.

Even more significantly, not even the press noticed the correlation.

Welcome back, Lechmere. I'll address your points later.

Sorry to see I've lost the "Mr".

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

"The implication is unambiguous."

I thought so too, Garry. But I was wrong. Look at it again, please:

"‘I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.’ "

One may think, as I used to, that Dew points away from the person error and instead opts for the time error in both cases. But …

With the best will in the world, Fish, I find it impossible to accept that Dew was suggesting anything other than Maxwell and Hutchinson had erred in context of the date or timing of their respective sightings. In order to better explain my position, I’ll present the relevant passage with the addition of just one word:-

I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but rather as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.

Although far from perfect, this minor rewording better conveys what was to my mind Dew’s intended meaning. If I’m correct, his objective was to establish an association between the temporal fallibility of witnesses and what he considered to have been the honest but mistaken claims of Maxwell and Hutchinson. But, quite frankly, I’m at a loss to understand how the passage in question could be construed in any other way.

"With Hutchinson, however, no such inference could be made. His alleged 2:00am sighting of Kelly was certainly not incompatible with the medical evidence, and couldn’t, therefore, have been called into question on the basis of date-confusion."

Of course it could! He saw Kelly alive, not dead, and Kelly WAS alive on the 8:th, the 7:th, the 6:th ... Of course he could have muddled the dates!

Only if you insist on taking Dew’s words out of context, Fish. For an explanation, please see above.

"Since one or the other condition must have been untrue, Dew concluded that Hutchinson must have been mistaken with regard to his timings and revised his ‘theory’ accordingly."

If we are speaking of a muddling up of the dates - yes. If we are speaking of merely a muddling up of three hours - emphatically no. I outlined a numner of problems in that respect in my former post to you - the pubs were still open at the time you are suggesting that Dew believed Hutch saw Kelly, the streets would still have been full with pubcrawlers, vendors, merrymakers ...

Yes, Fish, and I responded to your objections with the advice that we adhere strictly to those elements covered by Dew. Since this remains my position I’ll move on.

Plus I noted that you were very pessimistic about me having a case from the outset …

Not pessimistic, Fish, merely unconvinced by what you consider to be the substantiation of your ‘wrong night’ hypothesis.

… and yet here we are, closing in on 1500 posts on the subject, ans nobody has put forward a scintilla of evidence that goes to disprove me.

Oh, they have, Fish, but you simply refuse to recognize it as such. And as for the notion that the number of posts this thread has generated represents validation for your argument, Christianity has been a hot topic of debate for two millennia but most sensible, rational individuals baulk at the idea of virgin births, spontaneous global flooding, eight hundred year lifespans and loquacious serpents.

You’re a trier, I’ll give you that much.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben – can you run this past me again...
The most suspicious person that Lewis mentioned in her testimony was a man she saw on Bethnal Green Road on the Wednesday before, and not the man she saw opposite the murder scene on the Friday morning roughly when the murder took place?

Also...
I think seven people testified at the inquest concerning Kelly’s and other people’s movements on the night or morning in question around the murder scene. Of those only Cox, Maxwell and Lewis gave evidence that they were walking around Miller’s Court and saw Kelly or saw other people around the area.
Lewis was the only one who placed herself there roughly at the estimated time of death.
Hutchinson was for a short period the star witness and placed himself there at the same time.
But Abberline didn’t cross reference the two statements and neither did any other policeman involved in the case? It was left to Ripperologists 100 years later to suss out the connection?
Right!

I will endeavour not to neglect the Mr again.

Sally – you haven’t missed anything. These posts I can do on the fly but the plumbing topic – and the related issue of how likely it would be for someone of Toppy’s likely background to move about as he is proposed to have done, are slightly intricate subjects that has been strongly debated before, so I’m not going to do a rushed reply.

[Lechmere]

Oh well, I will restate the Dew textual argument...

Here is Dew’s references to Maxwell and Hutchinson in context. I have cut some bits out that I hope are not material to the discussion as to whether he meant mistaken as to the person or day or time for Maxwell and Hutchinson.

The new evidence was supplied by another woman, named Mrs. Caroline Maxwell...
She claimed to know Marie Kelly well, and to have seen her alive only two hours before her body was discovered.
Imagine the sensation this story caused. If true it put an entirely new complexion upon the whole case.
If Mrs. Maxwell had been a sensation-seeker-one of those women who live for the limelight-it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent.
She stated that at eight o'clock on the Friday morning she was going into Mr. McCarthy's chandler's shop, when she saw Marie standing in the passage leading to the court. The girl looked ill, and Mrs. Maxwell went over to her and asked if anything was the matter...
Mrs. Maxwell repeated this evidence at the inquest, and told her story with conviction...
The informant this time was a young man named George Hutchison, who declared that he had seen Kelly at 2 a.m. in Dorset Street...
A few minutes later he saw her again. This time she was in the company of a man, and the two were walking in the direction of Miller's Court....
But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.
Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.
And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view.

I would draw attention to the fact that Dew says Maxwell ‘claimed to know’ Kelly – that implies doubt.
There is no such doubt when he discusses Hutchinson.
Why does Dew raise the spectre of people being mistaken as to person if he truly believed that both Hutchinson and Maxwell were only confused as to date and time? There are other things someone could be mistaken about. Why does he confine himself to person and date/time?
I suggest it is because he thinks that Maxwell cannot have seen Kelly at 8am due to the medical opinion. She is 'a sane and sensible woman' so she must have seen someone. That Dew believed the someone must have been someone else is the logical inference.

This is backed up by the construction of this passage:
“But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.”

Please permit me to add one word which makes it clearer:

"But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were respectively wrong."

Or

"But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person (A), but as to date and time (B). And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell (A) and George Hutchison (B) were wrong."

I would suggest that it is common for people to write like this and as they know what they meant, neglect to spell it out as clearly as one might wish.
I think it is fairly certain however that Dew meant that Maxwell was mistaken as to a person and Hutchinson was mistaken as to date and time.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"were they right ? We cannot judge because we don't know the reasons that Hutchinson was dropped."

That is correct. But I think that if my suggestion of muddling days is correct, then we know that Lewis´absense in Hutch´s testimony, for example, was VERY telling. And the weather factor would have been revealing too. But on the whole, you are correct - we cannot be sure.

"It is pure conjecture that Toppy even said what Reg quoted him as saying, let alone whether he was lying or not. For the time being, it remains conjecture that even Reg said what he was quoted as saying."

That is a little harsh - but certainly great care must be taken. What I like about it is that it fits with my suggestion. I would have been less at ease otherwise.

"It would follow that the majority of women..."

It would arguably follow, yes. But it ALSO applies that there is no way of knowing whether Lewis ascribed to that majority. Feel free to guess - but keep in mind that you are guessing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Lechmere

Yeah. Not sure it's necessary for you to 'restate the Dew Argument'. You made your opinion quite clear already. And other posters - gosh! - can read, and can make their own minds up.

Which in fact they have. Not everybody agrees with your interpretation, Letch. Live with it.

I just don't get why some people just have to be right about things which cannot be definitively proven. There are times when this thread just looks like one big pi**ing contest. Actually, which thread is this? There seem to be so many and they're all the same!

I can't wait for the plumbing news, by the way. If your'e as well informed about that as you are about other things, it should be great!

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You asked me what I thought was "obvious""

No. I asked you "what if Dew was correct?"

"“Utterly” unproven, but also “utterly” likely given Hutchinson’s claim that he also watched and waited for someone to emerge from Miller’s Court at the same time and same location as the wideawake loiterer observed by Lewis. Hence, we can be almost certain that her impression was correct."

Not any more, we can´t. There is very good reason to speculate that the men were not one and the same. We can be slightly amazed by the coincidence, that´s all. It is not earthshattering in any manner.

"Peering intently into the court, craning the heck in that direction. Many different ways really. "

But how would that add up to waiting for somebody to come out? People who see something that interests them do the exact same thing. And how did Lewis establish from her apparently very casual look at the man that he was looking up the archway? It was slightly more than a metr in width, I think. How do we know that he did not look to the right of it - to McCarthys shop? Answer: We don´t . We know that Lewis THOUGHT he looked up the court, and that has a lot going for it - but not all, I´m afraid. Likewise, how do we know that he was not looking out into the street to assess whether it was too rainy for him to leave his stance or not. The focus of the eye is not something that is expressed in numbers on your forehead. There is doubt, Ben, and there must be; very reasonable doubt.

" If he “said that he saw a woman entering the archway”, he might have been fearful – with considerable justification – that the police would put two and two together and register a link between the release of Sarah Lewis’ inquest information regarding the wideawake man and Hutchinson’s decision to come forward just a short time thereafter. Why don’t you wait for the clarification you seek next time before condemning me as “silly”?"

No need to this time, Ben. First and foremost, I am not saying that you are silly - I think you are an often bright, knowledgeable Ripperologist harbouring a silly VIEW.
After that, thi8s clarification changes nothing: the only thing that would have seemed odd to the police would be if he was there and did NOT register and mention Lewis. That would seem like a very conscious ommittment of important evidence, and the police would have become extremely curious about it. He would have awoken the exact sentiments that you calim he wanted to avoid by doing so. Saying that he SAW her would merely have the police saying "yep, that´s correct - she was there, and that means this guy is correct". Why would they say "Hold on - how did he know that?" since it was bleeding obvious that his knowledge came from being there.
I find it extremely hard to see how you have managed to get yourself tangled up in this issue the way you have. It is beyond comprehension, Ben. It is a twisted logic that is curious. The police may of course have been wary of the possibility that this new star witness was not truthful - that he was simply aware that Kelly had been killed (as was most of the East End), and had decided to try and make a buck from it. Therefore, every little bit that tied in with what they knew would of course not have served as factors that made them suspicious, but instead as corroboration of his truthfulness.

"I’ve asked you politely on a number of occasions not to “echo” like that when you ask me questions."

I do it the way I choose to. I sometimes stress things when doing this, and there is no rudeness involved. You shall have to take my word for that.

"There is no evidence that any connection was ever made between Hutchinson and the wideawake man mentioned by Lewis."

My answer to that is all over the boards, Ben.

"This is preposterous expectation, and strictly not to be taken remotely seriously."

It is meant very seriously and should be taken as such. Of course, every case is specific, but if you are correct, one would expect to see something remotely alike in at least some other case. One doesn´t though.

"In any case, we don’t need examples in this case because the extent evidence tells its own story"

You may be amazed to hear that this is not agreed, and that is exacly why examples would be very enlightening and useful.

"No, I meant according to sources worth taking seriously, not Dew, who you cautioned me back in October of last year not to listen to."

Okay, then, let´s hear the evidence that tells us that Hutch was not regarded as an honset man after he was dropped!

"Excellent, so the whole “lecturing me about my own language” thing didn’t pan out very successfully, did it?"

You may need to read my answer once more, Ben. Plus you may need to realize that this whole discussion took it´s start when YPU lectured ME about my SECOND language. If you want to, I can put things in very clear Swedish instead...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"There is no evidence that the Hutchinson-wideawake connection was noted until at least 100 years after the murders took place, Hunter. It follows, therefore, that Abberline cannot have been particularly "idiotic" if he never established the connection."

No, Ben, it does not. It only follows that we have something looking like being close to absolute certainty that the information telling us that the connection was made has gone lost.
What it absolutely NOT tells us is that the loss of such informations goes to prove that a policeman who (together with the rest of the police corps and the collected press) misses a very obvious pice of information in a high profile murder case was not an idiot for doing so. Condoning such a suggestion would amount to even more idiocy.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"With the best will in the world, Fish, I find it impossible to accept that Dew was suggesting anything other than Maxwell and Hutchinson had erred in context of the date or timing of their respective sightings. In order to better explain my position, I’ll present the relevant passage with the addition of just one word:-
I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but rather as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.
Although far from perfect, this minor rewording better conveys what was to my mind Dew’s intended meaning. "

Actually, Garry, adding "rather" does not clinch things either! I appreciate that you apply "the best will in the world", but I must once again say that I applied the same originally, and with the exact same result. Look upon it like the kind of drawing that conceals TWO motives in one: like the one, for example, where the motive can be seen as a vase OR as two profiles of people. I believe you have seen it? Once you see the second motive, you wonder why you did not do so before.
What had me fooled here from the outset is the very clear fact that Dew speaks about time factors when he dismissed Maxwell. She could not have seen Kelly at the time she claims. Time, time, time - that is ALL that enters the skull, and that´s where it goes wrong. The time factor WAS crucial, but only to prove that she could not have seen KELLY at the time she claimed. THAT is all Dew says. Once more, and this time I fill in the missing words with capital letters. Dew discusses Hutch, after having discussed Maxwell, and rounding off the Hutch discussion, he writes:

"But I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions LIKE MR HUTCHINSON HAD, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person AS WAS THE CASE WITH MRS MAXWELL, but INSTEAD as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were BOTH wrong BUT IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning, MEANING THAT MRS MAXWELL COULD NOT HAVE SEEN HER AT THAT TIME. SHE MUST THEREFORE, SINCE SHE SEEMS TO BE CORRECT ON THE DATES, HAVE SEEN ANOTHER WOMAN AND MISIDENTIFIED HER AS KELLY.

And if Mrs. Maxwell, A RELIABLE AND HONEST WITNESS, was mistaken AS TO PERSON, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also, BUT ON DATE? This, without reflecting in any way on either witness, is my considered view."

This is how I read it nowadays. I trust you will see the relevance sooner or later - it was later in my case!

"Oh, they have, Fish, but you simply refuse to recognize it as such."

What I wrote, Garry, was that nothing has surfaced to DISPROVE me. Not to question, but to disprove. Surely you can agree with that?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Not everybody agrees with your interpretation, Letch. Live with it."

Everyboy does not agree. That´s correct!

"I just don't get why some people just have to be right about things which cannot be definitively proven."

In this case, it CAN be proven that the linguistic structure Lechmere suggests is functioning. It cannot be proven, as it stands, that this wording is the one that is closest to the truth, but it nevertheless is a perfectly functional phrase. That cannot be objected against (rationally).

The best,
Fisherman

[Hatchett]

Hi Everyone,

The objections to Hutchinson getting the date wrong always, to my mind, comes back to the same point. Why or earth should he have got the date wrong. It was not that long in the past, the date was the eve or early morning of the Lord Mayor's show, it was the night/early morning of the murder of a friend of his, there had been an inquest earlier that was well reported, the murder itself was part of a notorious series of murders, this one being the most savage and barbaric, and well recorded both by the press and word of mouth. It was also the night he had walked back all the way from Romford and had no where to sleep.

There is every reason why he should definately have been well able to pin point that night.

Also Abberline as a senior and well experianced Police officer would have been well aware when he interviewed Hutchinson that a mistake on the night in question in Hutchinson's memory would have been a vital point to clear up.

We know that Abberline came away from the interview believing the Hutchinson was telling the truth and was a substantial witness. This would not have been the case if Abberline had any doubt as to Hutchinson mixing up the night.

If he had harboured any suspicions of that then obviously Hutchinson would not have been a witness at all.

If it was good enough for Abberline, who was there on the spot and conducted the interview, it should be good enough for us.

There is a danger here of creating a mystery within a mystery that is not a myster at all.

Best wishes to you all.

Hatchett.

[Rubyretro]

Herr Lechmere,

Miss Retro
“I'm curious...what do you think that this man was waiting FOR at 2.30am on a rainy November night?
“Enjoying the view ? Basking in the feel of the cold droplets dripping down his neck ? Talking to himself?”
It is fruitless speculating – people do hang around for all sorts of reasons. They don’t usually hang around because they are about to murder someone – although very rarely this does happen. Even given the fact that a murder did take place nearby, that still does not mean increase the likelihood that the lurker was the culprit by very much.

It is not fruitless speculating on this subject, as it demonstrates that there are not "all sorts of reasons" that the man would be watching the entrance to the court in the circumstances. Please enlarge on some of these "all sorts of reasons" (and make them plausible).

I am glad that you admit that "very rarely" it does happen that someone hangs about a place because they are about to commit a murder. Murder's like Kelly's are very rare. I am astonished that you think even 'given the fact that a murder did take place
nearby (not only 'nearby' Letch, in the place that the man was watching !), that still doesn't increase the likelihood that the lurker was the culprit by very much.

How much is 'very much' ? (are you going to use the same maths as when calculating the number of Hutch's 'friends' ?).

I think that you will agree that Casebook is a serious Research Site, and impartial when it comes to the info given, outside the Message Boards. This is what they have published under Kelly Murder/Witnesses/George Hutchinson :

It is highly likely that he was the man Sarah Lewis saw standing outside the lodging house opposite Miller's Court (Commercial Street Chambers, 15-20 Dorset Street) between 2.00 and 3.00am on the morning of the murder

I only wanted to suggest that IF George Hutchinson was lying to the Police about his motives for being in Dorset Street watching the Court, he could not think of any plausible innocent reasons for being there unconnected to the murder(and he appears to have been a man with no shortage of imagination).

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"The objections to Hutchinson getting the date wrong always, to my mind, comes back to the same point. Why on earth should he have got the date wrong."

Why is it that people ask for some sort of detailed reason? When you muddle up the dates yourself, Hatchett, as I take it you sometimes do - can you afterwards conclude that it was due to poor quality of your morning tea, electric distrubances in the middle layers of air in the street you live in or an excessive amount of Hungarian bats sleeping in your attick? Is it not instead so that we can never give any exact reason for the occurence of things like a muddled-up date?

In a broader perspective, there WILL be things that have an influence, like sleep deprivation (something Hutchinson DID experience in close proximity to both his sighting and his giving testimony. The only reasonable thing to see here is that people DO muddle up the days. It is in fact so common, according to an attorney I quoted months ago, that he found it relevant to say that it happens all the time.

"We know that Abberline came away from the interview believing the Hutchinson was telling the truth and was a substantial witness. This would not have been the case if Abberline had any doubt as to Hutchinson mixing up the night."

... which is why I conclude that Abberline had no such suspicions at that remove in time. But we ALSO know that Hutch was a star witness who was suddenly disbelieved, so something happened that made Abberline a lot less enhusiastic about him. This too belongs to the picture, Hatchett - very much so, in fact. Ommitt that information and you get a skewed, half-baked view.

"There is a danger here of creating a mystery within a mystery that is not a myster at all."

In a sense yes: we may free ourselves from the very mysterious and enterprising notion that Hutchinson was a serial killer, who on top of that was trying to con the police, and swop it for a quite common, everyday story of a man who muddles up the dates. From a speculative mystery to a tedious mistake, thus. Agreed!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Just a thought, Fisherman...

Dew's wording as to the theory of mixing up the times or dates, makes it clear that it is his own personal idea "I can only conclude..".

Had this been the reason that the Police threw out Hutchinson as a witness,
and Dew knew about it (as you once suggested to me), then Dew would clearly have said so.

Looked at 'the other way round', we can conclude that the theory of "'the wrong night'" had not occurred to the Police -or else Dew wouldn't have been speculating over it years later.