Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"However, while Fisherman is inclined to attribute this anomaly to some vast, inexplicable confusion as to the entire day of the encounter, I see it as merely another example of Hutchinson failing to take into account certain practical considerations when putting together a fabrication."

Do you think that Abberline asked him about the weather at a later stage than the police report? If so, what do you think he answered?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"It would depend on how unusual or mundane the two events were - seeing a Rolls or eating a fish dinner."

Exactly. Which is why I say that a meeting between a punter and a prostitute is a very casual thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I have no reason to suspect that any witness was quizzed in detail over the weather, for the obvious reason that no detective was likely to consider it necessary to determine whether or not a witness had confused an entire day. However, if Hutchinson was quizzed, he would probably have confirmed the presence of rain.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I have no reason to suspect that any witness was quizzed in detail over the weather, for the obvious reason that no detective was likely to consider it necessary to determine whether or not a witness had confused an entire day."

My bet, Ben, is that any detective or policeman who finds out that a police witness has described a murder night in meteorological terms that are incompatible with the truth - as Hutchinson did - will VERY soon realize that a dire need has arisen to discuss exactly the question of a confused date. It would not be the first time in history such a thing occurred either. On the contrary, it is a very common thing.

"However, if Hutchinson was quizzed, he would probably have confirmed the presence of rain."

Well, if he was there, he would have, and if he was not, he would not have. If he did confirm the rain, the reasonable outcome would be that the hunt for Astrakhan man would still be on, and Abberline would stand by his belief that Hutchinson had spoken the truth. It is not until he confirms the suspicion that he was wrong on the dates that the scenario is played out that we have on record today.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben, again:

"It has been argued for many years that Maxwell may have confused the date, but nobody has ever gone so far as to suggest that the police had procured proof to that effect. With Hutchinson, the goalposts change; it is no longer a case of the police merely suspecting a date mix up, but of suddenly acquiring a magic wand and determining for certain that this is what happened."

There are situations in which no proof can be aquired, Ben. I think that the obvious thing to believe here is that the police did everything they could to disprove Maxwell, but were unable to find that proof.

In Hutchinsons case, no "magic wand" was needed. All it took was the simple question: "Tell me, mr Hutchinson, the night you saw Kelly with the man in the wealthy attire - what was the weather like?" And when George Hutchinson told the police that it was perfectly dry, they would have secured, wait for it ... water-tight (!) proof that they could drop him.

Different persons, different circumstances, different approaches - and different results! If Maxwell gave the correct surrounding circumstances, then she would be much tougher to prove wrong.

the best,
Fisherman

[Garza]

Exactly. Which is why I say that a meeting between a punter and a prostitute is a very casual thing.

The best,
Fisherman

Except though it wasn't a casual thing from what Hutchinson told us.

He seemed to be suspicious enough to wait for them under a light outside the Queen's Head, stoop down to see the man's face, then proceed to follow them and wait for them for an hour outside Kelly's place.

Hardly a casual reaction to a very casual thing.

I don't really have any strong Hutchinson views, just saying

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

My bet, Ben, is that any detective or policeman who finds out that a police witness has described a murder night in meteorological terms that are incompatible with the truth - as Hutchinson did - will VERY soon realize that a dire need has arisen to discuss exactly the question of a confused date.

Or, far more likely, that detective or policmean will "VERY soon realize" that the account is made of wholecloth, which neatly accounts for for the reduced importance attached to his account a day later, and the "discrediting" that occured a couple of days after that, in the wake of Hutchinson's contradictory and embellished press disclosures.

"If he did confirm the rain, the reasonable outcome would be that the hunt for Astrakhan man would still be on, and Abberline would stand by his belief that Hutchinson had spoken the truth."

Not if they decided to ditch him for other reasons that had nothing whatsoever to do with "date confusion" and everything to do with the steadily emerging picture that Hutchinson had probably lied in his account. In that case, the Astrakhan hunt would still be aborted.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

And when George Hutchinson told the police that it was perfectly dry, they would have secured, wait for it ... water-tight (!) proof that they could drop him

Well, it's up to you if you want to conclude that such a hypothetical scenario constitues "proof", Fisherman. Certainly, if Hutchinson really did kill Kelly and knew that by giving an incorrect weather report, he'd be declared "proven innocent" of the ripper crimes, I'm sure he'd have jumped at the chance!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Garza!

At the very least the man´s attire would be something out of the ordinary, yes. And Hutchinson did pay much attention to him, obviously. But that does not put the sighting on par with a murder!

And, as I keep stating, the whole question is very much dependant on the quality of Hutchinson´s sequential memory. People who have a very bad sequential memory may witness a murder on Tuesday and still be unable to pin it in time if asked about it on Wednesday. Or two hours later, for that matter. It´s why I exemplify with senile people, where the sequential memory often takes it´s leave long before the detail memory does. And inbetween time memory masters and senile people, all levels of sequential memories are represented.

Finally, I think we must realize that if you find out about a killing and realize that you have seen the killed person some days before, then maybe your memory is somewhat more likely than usual to play a trick on you and connect the two things. But that is just a suggestion.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Or, far more likely, that detective or policmean will "VERY soon realize" that the account is made of wholecloth"

But that would be suggesting that the police would prefer to work from a premise of dishonesty on behalf of voluntary witnesses, instead of looking for an explanation that meant that they were honest but mistaken. I think it would boil down to a question of statistics in such a case, and I do believe that honest people are far more common than masquerading serial killers, Ben. Therefore I would say that things are the other way around totally, and frankly, I find your suggestion a strange one.

Moreover, when it emerged that the day before offered a very reasonable explanation for a mistake on Hutchinsons behalf, I fail to see that they would entertain any suspicions. Finally, they would have asked him, and when he said "dry", the would have said thank you very much, Sir, you´ve been most helpful - and sent him on his way. Which, incidentally, seems to be what they did.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If Hutchinson really did kill Kelly and knew that by giving an incorrect weather wrong, he'd be declared "proven innocent" of the ripper crimes, I'm sure he'd have jumped at the chance!"

Are you, Ben? Don´t you realize that if he did, then he would have dispelled what he came to the police station for in the first place, according to you - to establish that he was the loiterer outside the court. And that would leave him open to the identification by Lewis that he feared so much, once again according to you, would it not?
Pondering that, why would he go to the police in the first place?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

But that would be suggesting that the police would prefer to work from a premise of dishonesty on behalf of voluntary witnesses

It's not a question of preference, Fisherman, but one of what the indications point to. I really don't know what you mean when you speak of "statistics", but I'd wager a hefty bet that lying witnesses are infinitely more common than honest witnesses who misremember an event by a full 24 hours. The fact that you consider the latter a "very reasonable explanation" doesn't mean that the contemporary police considered it so, especially when they were far more familiar with liars and publicity-seekers.

I still don't think you're quite processing the irony of your own suggestion that a claim by Hutchinson that the weather was dry was tantamount to total exoneration of any involvement in the ripper crimes. If he was the killer, then by following your logic, all he had to do was a give a false weather report, and he would have been ajudged both innocent and truthful.

On the subject of detail versus sequential memory, I think it's being somewhat overlooked that Hutchinson was just as meticulous as to the sequence of alleged events as he was when it came to clothing and accessory detail, so I'm afraid it still beggars belief that he could not got it so sequentially wrong when communicating to the police.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"it's up to you if you want to conclude that such a hypothetical scenario constitues "proof", Fisherman. "

If Hutchinson told the police that a night they knew was rainy, was instead dry, then that would prove that he was not relating to the murder night. That is what I am saying. I cannot prove it as such - which I state in my essay - but I can easily see that this is a very, very viable suggestion. By the looks of things, many another poster are of the same opinion.

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It's not a question of preference, Fisherman, but one of what the indications point to. "

It always is, Ben. And the indications at hand tell us that Hutchinson was there on a dry night, plus we know that the night BEFORE was that sort of night. By reasoning, therefore, the indications are that he mixed up the dates. Abberline´s assertion that Hutchinson was truthful tells us that he saw nothing sinister at all in Hutchinson´s description of Astrakhan man.

"I'd wager a hefty bet that lying witnesses are infinitely more common than honest witnesses who misremember an event by a full 24 hours"

That is another way of saying that the vast majority of people who have mistaken a day for another when asked by the police are liars. You should try to disagree with yourself on that one, Ben, before you get too bogged down in that swamp.

"On the subject of detail versus sequential memory, I think it's being somewhat overlooked that Hutchinson was just as meticulous as to the sequence of alleged events as he was when it came to clothing and accessory detail, so I'm afraid it still beggars belief that he could not got it so sequentially wrong when communicating to the police."

Was he? And how do you suppose to prove that? You see, Ben, you are now working from the premise that all Hutchinson said that was timerelated was true. But we cannot possibly know that. He may have gotten any sequence wrong, without us being able to identify it.
What you are saying now is that he did not make one single other timerelated mistake - but how are you going to bolster that...?

the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

but I can easily see that this is a very, very viable suggestion. By the looks of things, many another poster are of the same opinion.

Some posters are of the same opinion, Fish, not "many".