Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

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.

Please see paragraph #2 of post #27, Fisherman. Still think your missing the irony.

Why would it prove anything of the sort?

And it was some others who thought it a viable suggestion, not “many”.

“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.”

The indications might tell you that, but they most assuredly tell me that Hutchinson slipped up when fabricating a series of events, and that it’s slip-ups like these then ensure that liars are exposed at all. It tells me that he forgot to factor in the weather when giving a false account.

“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.”

No, I meant precisely what I said. The police, then and now, are far more commonly confronted with liars and fabricators than they are with honest witnesses whose “sequential memory” is so astonishingly and implausibly bad that they get it wrong by 24 hours.

“You see, Ben, you are now working from the premise that all Hutchinson said that was timerelated was true.”

Yep, that’s me all round. A zealous defender that Hutchinson reported the exact truth! Seriously though, the point was that he was quite specific about the order in which particular (alleged!) events took place, noting the time etc, and that he related this on more than one occasion. I don’t consider this very compatible with bad sequential memory.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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

Quite a few, Ben. And it would seem they do not all belong to my "chums" - I just read that Tom Wescott thought that my essay would have put me in the contention for the Jeremy Beadle award if it was published in Ripperologist, and among all the things you can call Wescott, a chum of mine would not end up at the top of that list. Which is why I appreciate his praise very, very much, and which is why I find that he is somebody who very apparently puts a clear judgemant before any animosity our exchanges may have caused before.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

..and by now I think, Ben, that you are once again going round in circles, and I fail to see that any further exchange between us would serve the discussion, at least not for the moment being. If you don´t mind my saying so, some of your arguments point to a degree of desperation on your behalf, which is why I suggest that you give it a rest and think things over much more deeply than you have done so far. After that, I will happily try and answer whatever objections you may have to my essay. Myself, I´m off to bake gingerbread. Jingle bells, jingle bells ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Garza]

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

First off I forgot to say how much I thoroughly enjoyed your article. Very rare to get a worthwhole fresh argument in the JtR case, so congrats!!

If Mary Jane Kelly associated with this type of attire often then it would be normal I suppose. But why look intently? Maybe he was trying to look out for a friend due to the Ripper Killings and I guess Hutchinson had alot of time that night to make sure MJK was ok. And if you have the London meterological services on your side, who have all the data - and data is very rare to come by in JTR.

I personally always thought that any policeman worth his salt would have checked out Hutchinson as a suspect especially after admitting waiting outside for an hour, very weird way to deflect suspicion imo if he did murder MJK.

Meh, I find the whole Hutchinson is JTR theory as lazy reasoning to be honest:- Hutchinson lied, he was outside MJK's court, ergo he was the killer.

[Ben]

Alright then, Fisherman. Yes, I'm happy to call it a day again. I must just be me "going round in circles", and you just happen to be joining me on them. I have no fatal objections if you really think that some of my arguments indicate "desperation", if it really is desperate to argue that Hutchinson probably didn't confuse the date of the encounter. In the meantime, I'll just smile thinly as I contemplate your advice to "think things over much more deeply". Obviously, anyone who doesn't share your conclusions is just not thinking deeply enough, dammit. Think deep, think really deep, and you can only end up with a date-confusing Hutchinson who didn't hear of Kelly's death until Sunday 11th November in Petticoat Lane.

Hi Garza,

Maybe he was trying to look out for a friend due to the Ripper Killings and I guess Hutchinson had alot of time that night to make sure MJK was ok.

Didn't do the most terrific of jobs if that were truly the case, though, did he? In this case, "looking out for a friend" consisted of waiting on the opposite side of the road from Miller's Court with no view into Kelly's room, rendering himself utterly useless in the event that the Astrakhan guest turned out to be the ripper, and attacked Kelly.

Hutchinson may well have been checked out as a suspect - we don't know, but if they did, they were very unlikely ever to have found themselves in a position to confirm or deny those suspicions. If and when you decide to conduct a bit more research on other serial cases, you may find the proposal that Hutchinson was the murderer and came forward to deflect suspicion considerably less "weird". I discussed a number of cases in my article in which serial killers have approached the police under the guise of a witness, and if you do get a chance to read my work, I hope you'll at least appreciate that there's a bit more to the "Hutchinson is JTR theory" than "Hutchinson lied, he was outside MJK's court, ergo he was the killer" and that the accusation of "lazy reasoning" is somewhat misplaced.

[corey123]

Hello All,

I have yet to read Ben's or Fishermens articles, but I plan to, as I have a keen interest in the Kelly murder and in Hutchinsons statement.

[Ben]

I'd very much appreciate your thoughts, Corey, and I look forward to having a proper read of your article, and Tom's for that matter!

All the best,
Ben

[corey123]

Hello Ben,

I plan to read it either tonite after work, or tomorrow, then I will post fully on it. As I happen to believe Hutchinsons statement is actually the most important in the series, if valid. Also, when I first started researching ripperology, I obtained the police statement(well a facsimile of it) and that is facinating as well.

Will post soon.

Yours truly,

Corey

[The Good Michael]

Corey,

Some advice for if I had to do it all over again: I wouldn't have read any suspect books until I'd read everything else. Suspect books are inherently one-sided. They can't help being that way. It's the nature of the beast. Read newspaper clippings on Kelly, look at Toppy's signatures without input of "experts" as you can eyeball them just fine, and compare them to at least one of the signatures on the police statement. Also, find out about any and all George Hutchinsons who are recorded to have lived in the East End in 1881 and 1891. Look at their signatures as well. Read Hutchinson's statement. Do all these things and then come to a reasonable conclusion about him. I'm sure you will. If after all that work you want to read dissertations which are similar to suspect books in one-sidedness, so so. But do what they don't do: Look for holes in logic in their theories.

Good luck,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Hutchinson lied, he was outside MJK's court, ergo he was the killer.

Then it's taken backwards to: He must have done the others too because it does look like an escalation.

It borders on implausible. Whereas Kazakhstan borders on Uzebkistan.

Mike

[Ben]

Woah, just leave it for now, Mike!

Corey has demonstrated more than enough independent thought and discernment to draw his own conclusions, and I'm sure he does not require any external prompting from anyone. I really wouldn't advise people not to listen to experts, though!

[Garry Wroe]

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.]

No-one could accuse him of understatement, to be sure.

He knows something else too. Hutchinson did not encounter Kelly and Astrakhan on the night of the murder. He couldn’t have done, for the events he claims to have observed must have occurred under dry conditions. According to Fisherman, however, the night under scrutiny was continually wet.

Again and again reference is made to the ‘hard, dense November rain’ that was ‘incessantly pouring down’. The claim is even made that ‘it was raining cats and dogs as [Sarah] Lewis hurried through Dorset Street.’

And so it goes.

What should be abundantly obvious is that the continuously wet night scenario is pivotal to Fisherman’s new interpretation of events. Extraordinarily, however, despite repeated readings of his article, I could find no reference to this source of new information. Had Fisherman contacted the meteorological office? If so, why had he neglected to state as much? And why, as a seasoned journalist, had he failed to present the said information in the main body of text?

This mystery was partially resolved when I searched the relevant Casebook threads. The following is post number 116 from the Examiner Number 5 thread:-

Garry Wroe:

"Since the night of 8/9 November was punctuated by heavy showers rather than continual rainfall, I fail to understand the underlying logic of Fisherman's 'wrong night' argument."

It lies, to some extent, in the fact that Hutchinson chose to walk the streets through the night in spite of the conditions, Garry. That, if nothing else, points to a very irrational behaviour. Plus, of course, when I contacted the meteorological services in London, they stated that it rained throughout the night, more or less. Of course, it could have been a case of less dense rain, varying with heavy showers (few rains are very constant throughout), but no matter what, walking the streets would have been a very strange thing to do. And, in accordance with that, it would be a strange suggestion even if Hutchinson was telling porkies, since he would have been on safer ground if he claimed that he spent the night sheltering in a doorway on some street he could not name more exactly.

The best,
Fisherman

Evidently, then, Fisherman did contact the meteorological office, which informed him that ‘it rained throughout the night, more or less.’

Hang on a minute. More or less? And what’s this about ‘it could have been a case of less dense rain, varying with heavy showers’?

Oddly enough, I don’t seem to recall any such equivocation in the Examiner article. To repeat an earlier paragraph, ‘Again and again reference is made to the ‘hard, dense November rain’ that was ‘incessantly pouring down’. The claim is even made that ‘it was raining cats and dogs as [Sarah] Lewis hurried through Dorset Street.’’

Given my clear recollection of a weather report stating that the night of the Miller’s Court murder was punctuated by heavy showers (as opposed to continual rainfall), I would suggest that it would benefit all interested parties if Fish would consent to publish in full any information he has received from the meteorological office. Meantime, I’ll do some digging of my own.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[corey123]

Hello Mike,

I appriciate the advice. I will take extra care when coming to conclusions on this one. However, I plan to stay neutral, only to discuss the "facts: of this conundrum, if there are any.

Ben, Fishermen, et al,

I plan to read both articles, then, as Mike suggested, look over the basics of the Hutchinson case. The most I have breached upon thsi case is what I have skimmed on the boards, and in books, plus the police statement. So, I know only the common knowledge of Hutchinson. The most I have ever really theorized on his occasion is that perhaps Toppy and Hutch are the same? I have Hutchinsons signiture, but I have yet to see Toppy, I think. If I have, I don't recall. I should be ready to post tomorrow.

Have a good evening everyone.

[harry]

Fisherman,
You are a poster that has been around for quite a while,and correct me if I am wrong,a person who has steadfastly maintained that any claim should have a basis in factual evidence.Where is there evidence of a man standing outside Crossingham's any time between 2am and 3am on the morning of the 8th,your revised time,or of Kelly spending the early morning hours of the 8th in the company of a man she met on Commercial street.
Your whole arguement is based on it could have happened,(this memory lapse),it was possible,but you produce no witnesses or shred of evidence that it did.Whereas there is at least one witness,who can place a person,claimed byHutchinson to have been him,outside Crossingham's in the early hours of the 9th.
Myself,I would be happy to have had Hutchinson there on both nights,for even if he was one night out in the telling,what is to say it was not him on the 9th also,a stalker who had been deprived of an opportunity the previous occasion,and had come again to try his luck.
You see,we can all conjure up fanciful solutions.

[Hunter]

Here is a clip from the Echo November 9, 1888 in reference to the weather and the Lord Mayor's Show.