Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[babybird67]

and...

Fish are you suggesting also that Sarah Lewis was mistaken about the date as well? Because she saw someone hanging about that night. Whether it was Hutchinson or somebody else...she saw a man hanging about there, so the contention that Hutch couldn't have been because of the weather cannot be logical. SOMEBODY was there that night, unless you are arguing all of the witnesses all got the date wrong?

[Garry Wroe]

For the record, Fish, I harbour no ill-will towards yourself, and neither am I protective of a theory or suspect. As I have made clear in the past, I simply look to establish the truth. Thus if you or anyone else uncovers evidence that takes us closer to the truth, I will be amongst the first to offer my congratulations.

Let me also say that I have spent the last twenty-five years arguing that Astrakhan was no more than a figment of Hutchinson’s imagination. The reality, therefore, is that, if correct, your assertion of continual rainfall on the night under scrutiny serves to reinforce my argument. In other words, it is to my benefit rather than detriment.

But, as I have said, I’m in search of truth rather than vindication, and it is for this reason that I apply a rigorous standard of proof when assessing the claims of anyone – myself included. If everyone adopted this approach, the crackpot theories that have long dragged Ripper studies into the gutter would never have seen the light of day.

The fact of the matter, Fish, is that you chose to write your article. You also agreed to its publication. This was an elective process wherein, so far as I’m aware, no-one held a gun to your head. The consequence, however, is that when you place your work in the public domain, you open up your work to public scrutiny. It’s the nature of the beast, I’m afraid, and there is absolutely no justification for any author to throw a strop when members of his or her readership offer up honest criticisms, questions or requests for clarification.

You have stated on a number of occasions, Fish, that you are a journalist of considerable experience. In view of this background, the very least I would have expected of you is that, when introducing a new theory, you would have cited and clearly defined the very information that is pivotal to this new interpretation of events. As a journalist, you are perfectly aware that this is standard procedure. On the basis of your response to my previous post, however, it would seem that you are unhappy because of my refusal to take putative evidence on trust alone. Sorry, Fish, but it doesn’t work like that. Authors are not always honest, and neither are they always correct in their interpretation of source material.

I am, of course, delighted that you have agreed to post the said source material. This will at least allow me to examine the precise wording of the report and hopefully make sense of the apparent contradictions between it and the one I saw years ago which specified showers rather than continual rainfall.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[richardnunweek]

Hello all.
This is turning into a very intresting thread, infact already so,
I am somewhat pleased, that others on Casebook are in agreement that its unlikely that Hutch made a mistake about the night, as I have previously stated , that would make Mrs Lewis mistaken also, which has no credence.
The doubt with Hutchinsons statement, is the description of Astracan, and his 'fancy' appearance, which many members of Casebook cannot accept, and the word 'suspicious' comes in, which is precisely why Hutchinson followed him and Kelly, he made him suspicious.
He could only describe what he saw.
Mrs lewis [ correct me if I am wrong] described the man she saw as of ''military appearance'
One newspaper described Hutchinson as of military appearance, was that confirmation of her seeing GH, or just taking Mrs Lewis in context.
Mayby its just me[ proberly] but I have never found Hutchinsons statement hard to swallow.
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

No, Richard, it was actually a reporter who described Hutchinson as of military appearance.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[corey123]

Hello Ben,

One thing that does strike out to me is that your right, Hutchinson came after Sarah Lewis's statement, and the two are almost identical. I am not saying he was the ripper, but that he came to the police most likely after he read that in the paper, and out of a guilt of some kind. Perhaps to clear his name for some reason. Anyways, so far so good. I like it.

Fishermen,

After I read Ben's I shall read yours, which no doubt is just as good.

Thanks

[Ben]

Many thanks for that, Corey!

One thing that does strike out to me is that your right, Hutchinson came after Sarah Lewis's statement, and the two are almost identical.

Absolutely. Whether Hutchinson murdered anyone or not, the conclusion that he was motivated into coming forward by Sarah Lewis' evidence seems inescapable to me.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Ben

Whether Hutchinson murdered anyone or not, the conclusion that he was motivated into coming forward by Sarah Lewis' evidence seems inescapable to me.

To me too. There you go, colours nailed to the mast - not that they're very significant colours on this occasion

I continue to question his motivation, all the same. Fear just doesn't cut it for me, I'm afraid.

I haven't read your article yet - I will, no doubt.

Regards

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally,
The only motivation that I could think of , was if it was he,.. that accompanied Mary to her room that night, it was he who offered her his red hanky, it was he that Left the room at 615 to return back to his lodgings, and it was he that left his red hanky in her room ... oh a problem, being that when he left she was very much alive and sleeping.
So one Astracan was invented.
I should add that I dont believe that occcured , but it might explain the paranoid GH, especially if he believed he had been seen, mayby waiting for Mary to get rid of the drunken Blotchy, and he no longer had his hanky, mayby he panicked .
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Secondly, if the argument then goes on to posit that because there was rain it would have meant Hutchinson could not have been out on that night, because nobody would have been out on a night like that"

But the argument does not posit any such thing, Babybird. I don´t think that anybody would argue that nobody goes out when it is raining.
What one can argue, though, is exactly what I did argue in my essay - that those who DO venture out or are cuaght out in rain, generally do not act as if it was still dry. Meaning that they do not stand about leaning on lampposts. Meaning that they do not stop for a chat out in the rain a mere five metres away from their dry and relatively warm and comfy rooms. Meaning that they do not walk the streets in pouring rain. And meaning that they do not walk about in unbuttoned clothing.
THAT is my argument, Babybird, and if you read my essay you will realize this.

"If Hutch's account was true, that he had nowhere to stay, what was his alternative to braving the weather conditions anyway?"

His alternative to "braving the weather" would reasonably be to shelter from the rain, Babybird. That is what people do when they cannot go inside.

"Isn't it just as likely when he adopted his vigil outside the court it was dry, and he decided to move on when a shower came down, to look for slightly better shelter?"

No, it is not, the main reason being that he very clearly stated that he instead walked the streets all night. THAT is what he said he did, and that tallies very, very well with what you do on dry nights, and terribly badly with what you do on cold, windy, rainy nights.

Thus your suggestion of him sheltering totally contradicts what he himself said that he did. We both agree, I think, that to shelter would be the one reasonable thing to do when it rains hard - but it seems we disagree on how to interpret the wording "I walked the streets all night".

"the night itself was not one of continual rain as far as i can make out...but one of heavy showers punctuated by dry spells"

And you "make that out from....?" Myself, I contacted the Met Office in Devon, and this is the conversation we had:

"Hello!

I am a Swedish journalist researching the Jack the Ripper killings back in 1888, and I have a couple of questions regarding the weather back then.

On the night leading up to the 9:th of November 1888, it was, as far as I know, raining heavily over Londons East end. The rain started around one o´clock in the morning, and then it rained through the night.

Is this something you can confirm?

Furthermore, can you tell me whether it rained or not over the East end on the night before? And if so, during what hours.

I am not sure I am approaching the correct instance with my queries, so please forgive me if I´m not.

Regards,

Christer Holmgren
Helsingborg
Sweden

Dear Christer,
*
Many thanks for your request for information about the weather conditions, particularly rainfall, during the evening of the 8th November 1888 and overnight and also for the previous evening.
*
The weather on the evening of the 7th November 1888 in London was overcast but*dry. This trend continued overnight and into the morning of the 8th. The 8th itself started cloudy and dry and this general trend continued for much of the day. However, 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.
*
I hope this information*will be of assistance.
*
Regards
*
Steve
*
Steve Jebson ACLIP** Library Information Officer
Met Office** FitzRoy Road** Exeter** Devon** EX1 3PB** United Kingdom"

That was the answer I was given - that I was quite right in my assessment of the weather for the overnight period between the 8:th and the 9:th. And, as you will note, that assessment was worded "On the night leading up to the 9:th of November 1888, it was, as far as I know, raining heavily over Londons East end. The rain started around one o´clock in the morning, and then it rained through the night."

Please keep in mind that this was something I have not heard questioned before - the night of the 8:th has always been described as a particularly nasty one, weatherwise, with not only heavy rain, but also a cold, unpleasant wind. What I chiefly wanted to know, was what the weather was like on the day before the murder night, since that was something I had never heard about. The murder night weather was something I simply had confirmed.

But since the question has arisen about the exact amounts of rain, and the exact spot(s) it fell over, I have since sent another e-mail to the Met Office, asking them to go into as much detail as possible. When an answer arrives, I will share it immediately. Up til that time, though, it seems that the general picture is one of incessant rain and very ugly conditions.

At any rate, I wrote in my essay that Abberline may have felt uncertain to some degree about the rain; he would have had access to Lewis, who could give an exact picture of the rain at 2.30, but that would not cover for the period when Hutch made his observation of Astrakhan man. This I readily regognized, and brought up in my text! I also added, though, that even if it had not rained a drop in Dorset Street at the crucial time of the Astrakhan man observation, it STILL stands that Hutchinson gave away the fact that the night was dry by admitting to having walked the streets all night, waiting for the Victoria home to open. Nothing of this has changed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"is it likely that both Hutchinson and Maxwell made a mistake on the days?"

The question of Maxwell´s testimony should not afffect our assessment of Hutchinson´s ditto, Hatchett. The two are separate events, and must be judged according to that. It is not as if a mistake on Maxwells behald would affect Hutchinson´s inclination to get things wrong. This is exactly what I have pressed before, and a detail that has affected Ripperological deductions in a very unbecoming way.

The rest of your questions are ones that I have already addressed in earlier posts.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hello Frank!

How very good to hear from you! And how nice that you offer criticism - I much value your good judgement, as you will know!

So here goes:

"Even though I appreciate your inquiry into the weather conditions of the East End of the night of the murder and the night before, I still have to say it's quite a big step from no mention of any rain to a claim that it was not raining on the night of Hutchinson’s account, Fish."

It lies in the details. Hutchinson clearly described people going about things in a manner that speaks of a dry night. That is what we have to go on, and coupled with the rest of the bits, Dews book, for example, it makes for a compelling case. I am quite convinced myself that he was not there. I have no doubts about it.

"Elizabeth Prater didn’t mention any rain, and according to her testimony she was standing at the corner of Miller’s Court by McCarthy’s shop for about 20 minutes."

She does, although it is a little uncertain what happened since she also states that she went inside the shop. That could well have been during them 20 minutes.

"Sarah Lewis didn’t mention any rain either, and she was the one who saw a man standing opposite the entrance to the court, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out. Apparently, that man had been standing there a while already when Lewis was approaching the court."

And still it would seem that it DID rain, judging by the meteorological report I posted to Babybird.
The period in which she would have observed her loiterer would not be a very long one. Long enough, though, to establish that he seemingly was posted outside and opposite the court.

"The only one actually mentioning any rain was Mary Cox. According to most papers, if not all, she only claimed that it rained hard or heavily around one a.m. and the official inquest papers give the impression that it was raining around three a.m.. No rain is mentioned between one and three. But even though it rained when Cox returned to her room at about one a.m., she had still gone out and did so again – for 2 hours! - after warming up a bit."

That is true. But we must be aware that there are many parametres to weigh in. It may have been raining, but less heavy, during this time, of course. But it may also be a case, perhaps, of Cox simply needing to warm up during what was a very nasty night. Reasonably, she would not have gone out and stood in the middle of the pouring rain in some street, that much we should realize. But I think that a very viable scenario is one where she heads out into the night, spends some time soliciting in a place close to her lodgings where she could shelter from the rain, she returns home at one o clock to warm herself up a bit and perhaps eat a little something, then goess out again, into the wind and the rain. She manages to stay out another two hours, and then she has become chilled to the bone, and gives up for the night.

Incidentally, it was not at one o clock Cox said it was raining hard - that was at three o clock!

"I’m not castigating you here, Fish"

You don´t have to add that, Frank! I know full well that you would not.

The best, my friend!
Fisherman

[harry]

"Rain did indeed affect the london area soon after midnight" That statement could easily be applied to where I am living.For the last two days rain showers have been forecast,and indeed it has rained at times,once or twice heavily,but there has been quite long dry periods in between.So relying on such a report,seems more like desperation than a genuine attempt to bolster a proposition.
As for Dew's Opinion,Garry has more than adequately answered that one.Dew,like yourself fisherman,allows for nothing in the way of evidence to back that opinion.It is simply another, could have,not was.A berline,who spoke with Hutchinson,opines of no such situation.
No need for me to comment on your other points,other posters have done that very well.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Fish are you suggesting also that Sarah Lewis was mistaken about the date as well? Because she saw someone hanging about that night. Whether it was Hutchinson or somebody else...she saw a man hanging about there, so the contention that Hutch couldn't have been because of the weather cannot be logical. SOMEBODY was there that night, unless you are arguing all of the witnesses all got the date wrong?"

I never said that Hutchinson could not have been there because it rained. Anybody could have been there IN SPITE of the rain.

What I am saying is that he was not there because his testimony points to a dry night, and the night of the 8:th was anything but that!

But since you seem to be making the same mistake as many other posters have done over the years - to conclude that Lewis´man and George Hutchinson must have been one and the same, I can only say that I am very happy that you bring this up. Here is the answer to your query, from the Daily News of November 14 1888:

"One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else."

And a very good answer it is too!

Now, it has been suggested that George Hutchinson was the killer of Mary Kelly, and I have refuted that, stating that he was not in Dorset Street on the morning of the 9:th, but the day before. The main arguments against my suggestion have been, I think, A/ that maybe it was not raining at the crucial time, and we shall see in the future what the meteorological office has to say on that. But as it stands, it would seem that they confirm my wiew of the night. The second argument B/ would be that the two sightings of men opposite Miller´s Court must refer to one and the same individual.

Take another look at the clipping above. Hutchinson gives us a picture of people he saw during his vigil. He comes up with a policeman that passed by on Commercial Street and a man who went into a lodging house. Nobody else.
Now, please remember that his focus was fixed upon the entrance of Miller´s Court. After that, also remember that Sarah Lewis walked through Dorset Street at 2.30, and, arriving at the very place Hutchinson was standing, she turned into Miller´s Court.
Apparently, she walked right by Hutchinson´s nose, and walked into the very passageway he was focusing his full attention on.

But George Hutchinson did not see her!

That is nothing short of amazing, don´t you think? Would he have forgotten about her, almost treading on his own toes, and entering the court where Mary was entertaining Astrakhan man?
I think not.
Would Hutchinson, if he was the killer, trying to establish that he trule was where he said he was at the night, have forgotten to hammer his message home and put it beyond questioning by saying that "there was this woman too, that went into the court as I stood there"?
I think not.

Does the detail that he never mentioned Lewis IN SPITE OF HIS OBVIOUS EFFORT TO NAIL ALL THE ONES HE SAW DURING HIS VIGIL, speak very clearly of him having mixed up the nights?
I would say that it does so in a very loud and clear manner.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

""Rain did indeed affect the london area soon after midnight" That statement could easily be applied to where I am living.For the last two days rain showers have been forecast,and indeed it has rained at times,once or twice heavily,but there has been quite long dry periods in between."

Yes, Harry, but it is not the weather where you live that we are talking about. It is the weather of the nasty night of the 8:th of November 1888. And like I say, the Meteorological Office has already stated that my assessment of that night was correct, but I have still sent over an e-mail to get things as exact as possible.

"Dew,like yourself fisherman,allows for nothing in the way of evidence to back that opinion."

Aha. So a detective, closely connected to the case, who adamantly states that George Hutchinson must have mixed the dates up, does not amount to evidence?
How very, very interesting! You must tell me more about that sometime!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry!

You now have the report I spoke of in the first post I wrote to Babybird. I also state in there that I have asked for more thorough information, although I find that they confirmation they gave me in the first post would be enough to settle the matter. But let´s be as thorough as we can, of course!

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.
I am thrilled to hear that you harbour no animosity against me, but I would much prefer to instead have your answer to this question. I am quite happy to be challenged about things, as you point out that one will be (and SHOULD be, if you ask me), but I really wish that quotations and such are made in a manner that encompasses the WHOLE argument. It makes for better understanding on behalf of all people involved. So if you please ...?

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 best,
Fisherman