Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"To be fair Fisherman, I don't think 'a common Eastender' (or even George Hutchinson) could not have been a day off. I wouldn't say it's impossible, because quite clearly, that is incorrect."

It is! Which is why I thought that "I don't think Hutchinson mistook the day - people just don't..." was a VERY strange thing to claim, as you did in your last post.

"I don't consider it likely, however, for reasons already stated."

You don´t have to state any reasons for that - it is and remains more unlikely that people get the dates wrong, than it is that they get them right. But that still does not mean that it is in any way uncommon that these things happen. And that is all we can possibly say in this matter, regardless of how much importance Hutchinson lent to the Lord Mayor´s parade; it could have happened, the possibility is there. And when we couple that fact with the fact that Dew claimed exactly this, we get a reinforced argument. And when we add the fact that he did not mention a woman who would have walked right through his field of vision, as one of only three people about during them 45 crucial minutes, we get even more corroboration. The bits and pieces fit, quite simply. Whatever objections we are left with are half lame suggestions like "maybe it did not rain", "I don´t think he would forget that, would he?" and such things. There is nothing to effectively point away from the suggestion, at least not the way I see it.

"I think you deserve credit for coming up with a new way of looking at Hutchinson's account, Fisherman, which I have already said on more than one occasion. I have to disagree, however."

Goes to show that others look at it differently - but that is fine by me.

A Happy New Year to you too, Sally!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

This snippet deserves to be added to the ongoing discussion about people´s propensity to mistake days. It is from the Honolulu Advertiser, and quotes a deputy prosecutor, speaking about a case with a young boy, Peter Boy Kema, that had gone missing.

"Any time people make contradictory statements I think it hurts credibility," said Mike Kagami, the deputy prosecutor assigned to the Peter Boy case. "It is one thing people look at when they are deciding whether people are telling the truth. Is the story consistent?"
But people mix up dates all the time without intending to mislead, said Kagami, who did not want to discuss the case in specific details."
(Honolulu Advertiser, June 27, 2005)

Interesting, is it not? People often read dishonesty into things, when in fact the ones who they accuse of this are simply persons who have simply mixed up dates. Reminds us of something, does it not?
It happens "all the time", and with no intention to mislead, according to a man who, by his profession, would be a very good judge of the phenomenon.

Food for thought!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“the suggestion that the hour between 2 and 3 may ALSO have been cold, damp, rainy and windy is a most reasonable one. Given the overall conditions, it is in with an edge, whichever way we look upon things.”

It’s a possibility, Fish, but whatever the “overall conditions” may have been, the logical inference from Lewis’ evidence is that is was probably not raining at around 2:30am that morning, and this really isn’t a “half lame” suggestion.

“He had already shown a propensity to get dates wrong, so there would be no strange thing about him getting it wrong afterwards.”

But the distinction I highlighted was a crucial one. You’re obviously more likely to confuse a day that hasn’t yet happened than you are a day that has already passed and already lodged in your memory. In the former case, you’ve nothing to remember about the events of the date in question for the simple reason that it hasn’t happened yet. That’s worlds away from confusing a date where something significant had already happened to you – a date that was also significant in other respects (in this case a Lord Mayor’s show). Nothing lame about this reality either.

“There is nothing to effectively point away from the suggestion, at least not the way I see it.”

But as you’re no doubt aware by now, several others are of the opinion that quite a significant amount “points away” from your suggestion, and don’t remotely share your conclusion that “the bits and pieces fit, quite simply”. It’s often tempting to make a false virtue out of perceived “simplicity”, and some of the cornerstones of your wrong date hypothesis are not remotely “simple” in my view.

The article from the Peter Boy case is very interesting, but it ought first to be pointed out that the witnesses responsible for the allegedly inconsistent evidence were children. Moreover, the case had not been solved to the best of my knowledge, which means that for all we know, the reason for these inconsistencies could be a very sinister one. There’s no more evidence of “honest date confusion” here than there is in Hutchinson’s case. Kegami was simply doing a Walter Dew and speculating in the absence of proof. Besides, nobody has argued that date confusion in general is anything particularly outlandish; only that the case-specifics with Hutchinson make it extremely unlikely that he was one such date-confuser.

Best regards,
Ben

[Hunter]

...the logical inference from Lewis’ evidence is that is was probably not raining at around 2:30am that morning, and this really isn’t a “half lame” suggestion.

Lewis would probably have not been out that night if she hadn't quarreled with her husband and sought shelter with her friend in Miller's Court. She hardly slept after arriving there; indicating that she was upset or, at least, had some things on her mind. It could very well have been raining when she made her trek because her situation may have warranted the venture, despite the weather.

There, likewise, could have been a multitude of reasons why the individual that she couldn't innitially describe was standing across from the court as well. I doubt she loitered to find out being preoccupied with her own situation.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"whatever the “overall conditions” may have been, the logical inference from Lewis’ evidence is that is was probably not raining at around 2:30am that morning, and this really isn’t a “half lame” suggestion."

Well, Ben, it´s just another case of agreeing to disagree then; I see nothing at all pointing away from a rainfall in Lewis´description of the street scene, I think that it makes eminent sense to suggest that the low quality look she got off the loiterer was due to bad weather, and I think that there is no way we can look away from the distinct possibility that there was shelter to be had "near the Britannia". That´s not to say that I would not like to take the tour guided by you at some stage - I readily accept that offer, and I may be coming to London next November (an appropriate choice of month, wouldn´t you say?) accompanied by my youngest son. Although I have already done the tour myself, that was before I wrote my essay, and it would be great fun to do it again!

I think that Hunter makes a very good point about Lewis too, by the way!

"You’re obviously more likely to confuse a day that hasn’t yet happened than you are a day that has already passed and already lodged in your memory."

That may sound convincing, using your perspective. But change it around: days that have passed are "spent days", something you do not need to concern yourself with any more. They are dead material in some sense. Days ahead, though, involve planning and anticipations (like, for example, becoming the king of Scotland...) - that you can let go afterwards (like poor Balliol).
Looking upon it that way, it´s a whole different story.

"several others are of the opinion that quite a significant amount “points away” from your suggestion, and don’t remotely share your conclusion that “the bits and pieces fit, quite simply”.

But that, Ben, mainly concerns the 1/ rain (of which we cannot be certain, but there is a very definite possibility that it DID rain. It at least did start to rain after midnight, and it rained hard at three. In the morning, a drizzle remained. The suggestion that it rained between 2 and 3 is therefore a quite compelling one, no matter how we look upon things, and 2/the propensity to mix up days. And, according to the prosecutor I quoted, it happens "all the time". That quote did not relate to the specific case, but instead to things general, as you will appreciate; he took great care to point out that he did NOT comment on the ongoing case as such. So it IS a common thing - very common, by the looks of things. And - once more - we have no idea what went on inside Hutchinson´s head, and what interest he took in the parade. Moreover, the sighting of Astrakhan man did NOT happen during that parade. The sighting was an isolated sequence of events, and as such not directly coupled to the parade. Hutch would have been aware of that parade, but he may well have misplaced it in his timeline. Dew, for one, was convinced that he did. Once again, it would not be an uncommon thing.

But there is more digging to be done, and more evidence to be collected! I feel very much convinced that this is the right track, and I am certain that once work is done along these lines, things will turn up to reinforce the theory. Let´s put our respective noses to the ground, Ben, and we shall see! It´s always a good thing not to loose track of any possibilities!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

It could very well have been raining when she made her trek because her situation may have warranted the venture, despite the weather.

It's a possibility, Hunter, although her account of the couple standing in an exposed location on Commercial Street near the Britannia - with the man not even wearing an overcoat - would indicate an absence of rain at that particular juncture.

could have been a multitude of reasons why the individual that she couldn't innitially describe was standing across from the court as well.

True, but it's noteworthy at the very least that her actual impression of the loiterer's behaviour - seemingly watching and waiting for someone - just happened to coincide perfectly with Hutchinson's professed reason for monitoring the entrance to Miller's Court at the same time and the same location where Lewis observed her loiterer.

Hi Fish,

Yes, I think that agreeing to disagree moment is upon us once again.

I don’t think that rain played any role in Lewis’ failure to garner a better description of the loitering man. “I cannot describe his clothes” may be taken quite literally in this case. It was, I suspect, not so much a case of being unable to notice the clothes, but rather one in which the garments in question were probably generic, dark, and non-descript. I certainly maintain that there was nowhere to procure shelter from any rain swept from the northeast for anyone “standing” in Commercial Street near the Britannia, and I’d be happy to demonstrate as much using pictorial evidence and our November tour.

I’m not saying that it didn’t rain at all between 2 and 3. We simply have no date, but it seems very likely to me that continual unabated rain did not affect the area over that time frame.

“They are dead material in some sense. Days ahead, though, involve planning and anticipations (like, for example, becoming the king of Scotland...)”

But the importance and magnitude of the impending date matters little if it hasn’t actually happened yet – it would mean the date-confusing individual had simply muddled a number, such as the 23rd with the 24th. Once the date and its significant events have occurred, you’re armed with a reason to remember your actual involvement in that date’s events, the number of days that have elapsed since, and whatever else of significance happened concurrently on that memorable day.

I’m not pooh-poohing date-confusion as a reality (although it doesn’t happen with anywhere near the same regularity as lying!), but what emerges from a study of Hutchinson’s key particulars is that he was very unlikely to have confused the dates himself. Unfortunately for the Peter Boy comparison in particular, the preponderance of evidence would suggest very strongly that guilty knowledge, rather than date-confusion, lay behind the “inconsistencies” in the eyewitness evidence of the victim’s siblings, and that a history of domestic abuse within the family told its own sorry tale there.

I agree with Sally in that Hutchinson’s personal interest in the parade is irrelevant. It was nigh on impossible to escape the widespread public attention it received, doubly so when we consider that this oft-talked-about event happened so soon after his memorable all-nighter in Romford and Spitalfields.

“Let´s put our respective noses to the ground, Ben, and we shall see! It´s always a good thing not to loose track of any possibilities!”

Absolutely, Fish. Here’s to a productive year of fruitful discoveries ahead!

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
The very fact that Hutchinson [claimed to have] walked back from Romford on the eve of the Lord Mayors show, may be the very reason for his trek, he wanted to be on the scene.
If that was the case , then he would hardly have confused days.
As for the weather... the very fact is if Hutch was not mistaken , then it simply was not pouring between 2am-3am, on the 9th, Mjk, and Astracan would hardly be delivering small talk to each other on Dorset street, in the rain, when a passage opposite, and indeed a room were just yards away, neither would stalker Hutch be standing outside the lodging house, when the passage would be the obvious place of shelter.
Question .
Where was Hutchinsons whereabouts on the 9th?
Not grooming Horses fish...please.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

The very fact that Hutchinson [claimed to have] walked back from Romford on the eve of the Lord Mayors show, may be the very reason for his trek, he wanted to be on the scene.

I think you hit the nail on the head there Richard, personally. I wouldn't rule out the attractions of such an important social event at all.

Regards.

[Lechmere]

On the subject of the Lord Mayor’s Parade, I haven’t researched what is was like in the 1880s, but I can safely say that in the last quarter of the 20th and first part of the 21st centuries London did not come to a standstill because of it. It is an event, and reasonable crowds turn up to watch, but it isn’t that big a deal.
I doubt it would have had much impact around Commercial Street in the 1880s, although I presume some tarted up wagons from Spitalfields Market may have participated.
I used to work for the City Corporation and ‘in all my years’ never bothered to go and watch, and I like pageantry. It barely registered even though roads around where I used to work were cordoned off and daises were constructed at various vantage points over the few days before. But that is in the very centre of the City, nowhere near Commercial Street.
Having said that I went to see the evening fireworks a couple of times – set off from barges moored in the middle of the Thames. But that was more due to it being close to Guy Fawkes Night and I had a young son to take to see them
In summary I wouldn’t put much emphasis on trying to claim that Hutchinson would have remembered the date because it was the day of the Lord Mayor’s Parade.

[Fisherman]

Ben (to Hunter):

"...her account of the couple standing in an exposed location on Commercial Street near the Britannia"

Whoa there, Ben; NOBODY said ANYTHING about any "exposed location". Well, you did, of course, but not Lewis...! Let´s be fair here, and ackowledge that neither you nor me are at liberty to assess what Lewis meant with "near the Britannia". And there were lots of doorways about, and the odd archway too!

" It was, I suspect, not so much a case of being unable to notice the clothes, but rather one in which the garments in question were probably generic, dark, and non-descript."

Ben, she gave no description at all to the police. That, I suggest, would equal not having had any good look at the man.

"I’m not saying that it didn’t rain at all between 2 and 3."

Why would you? How could you? Wise call!

"But the importance and magnitude of the impending date matters little if it hasn’t actually happened yet – it would mean the date-confusing individual had simply muddled a number, such as the 23rd with the 24th."

In a sense, yes. And if Hutchinson got the day wrong, it would mean that he had muddled the 7:th with the 8:th. So?

"I’m not pooh-poohing date-confusion as a reality (although it doesn’t happen with anywhere near the same regularity as lying!)"

I am beginning to take an active interest in the underlying statistics you are referring to here, Ben...?

"Unfortunately for the Peter Boy comparison in particular, the preponderance of evidence would suggest very strongly that guilty knowledge, rather than date-confusion, lay behind the “inconsistencies” in the eyewitness evidence of the victim’s siblings, and that a history of domestic abuse within the family told its own sorry tale there."

Perhaps so. But that had nothing to do with the GENERAL observation the prosecutor made, telling us that witnesses get the day wrong "all the time" - and that was NOT referring to the Peter Boy case, as he clearly stated.

"I agree with Sally in that Hutchinson’s personal interest in the parade is irrelevant. It was nigh on impossible to escape the widespread public attention it received"

Well, then say hello to Lechmere, who seems to be very knowledgeable about the history of the event in question, and who has intersting personal experience to offer. And I am not saying that Hutch would have missed the interest as such - but I am saying that just as you could ask yourself "was that tv show on thursday or friday?", you may just as well ask yourself "did I see Kelly on the night before the Lordmayors´show, or was it the day before that...?" Since the observation did not belong to the show itself, it would have been just another piece of the timeline puzzle, and people DO get the pieces wrong from time to time.

"Here’s to a productive year of fruitful discoveries ahead!"

I´ll drink to that! Newcastle Brown, preferably!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"The very fact that Hutchinson [claimed to have] walked back from Romford on the eve of the Lord Mayors show, may be the very reason for his trek"

...the only small snag being that Hutchinson did NOT claim to have walked back from Romford "on the eve of the Lord Mayors show", did he, Richard? What he said was:

"On Thursday last I had been to Romford, in Essex, and I returned from there about two o'clock on Friday morning, having walked all the way."

Can you see any mentioning in that passage of the show, Richard? Any at all? I can´t. What I see is Hutch mentioning "Thursday" and "Friday", and if he THOUGHT it happened on Thursday and Friday, but was mistaken by one day, then that would be the exact thing to say, would it not?

No mentioning of Lord Mayor´s day, thus, and no speaking about an eagerness to parttake in the festivities. Let´s keep things correct!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

On the subject of the Lord Mayor’s Parade, I haven’t researched what is was like in the 1880s, but I can safely say that in the last quarter of the 20th and first part of the 21st centuries London did not come to a standstill because of it. It is an event, and reasonable crowds turn up to watch, but it isn’t that big a deal.
I doubt it would have had much impact around Commercial Street in the 1880s, although I presume some tarted up wagons from Spitalfields Market may have participated.
I used to work for the City Corporation and ‘in all my years’ never bothered to go and watch, and I like pageantry. It barely registered even though roads around where I used to work were cordoned off and daises were constructed at various vantage points over the few days before. But that is in the very centre of the City, nowhere near Commercial Street.
Having said that I went to see the evening fireworks a couple of times – set off from barges moored in the middle of the Thames. But that was more due to it being close to Guy Fawkes Night and I had a young son to take to see them
In summary I wouldn’t put much emphasis on trying to claim that Hutchinson would have remembered the date because it was the day of the Lord Mayor’s Parade.

Hi Lechmere

I would entirely agree with your summation of the present day show. As to the show in the past, however - well, let's just say I think it was somewhat more of an event then than it is now. I expect to post further on the matter, although not tonight - bed time for me!

Regards

Sally

[Ben]

In summary I wouldn’t put much emphasis on trying to claim that Hutchinson would have remembered the date because it was the day of the Lord Mayor’s Parade.

To be honest, Lechmere, there are so many telling indicators against the suggestion that Hutchinson confused the date that the Lord Mayors Parade is only the tip of the iceberg in that regard. It's worth pointing out, however, that Mary Kelly herself had expressed an interest in seeing the show. In addition, The Times of 7th November 1888 noted that:

"The Lord Mayor Elect and Mr. A. J. Newton, Sheriff of London and Middlesex, have provided a treat for 2,000 destitute people at the East-end of London on Lord Mayor's Day."

It is clear, then, that the event assumed a resonance for the people of the East End. The streets cordoned off for the parade included thoroughfares very close to that part of Whitechapel and Spitalfields. That would more than constitute a "standstill" for at the very least Gresham-street west, St. Martin's-le-Grand, Cheapside, Poultry, Mansion-house-street, Cornhill, Leadenhall-street, Billiter-street, Fenchurch-street, Mincing-lane, Great Tower-street, Eastcheap, King William-street, Queen Victoria-street, Cannon-street, St. Paul's-churchyard, Ludgate-hill, Fleet-street, Victoria-embankment, Queen-street, and King-street.

Things may well have changed since then, but the indicators are strong that it was still something of a "big deal" back then.

Hi Fisherman,

“Whoa there, Ben; NOBODY said ANYTHING about any "exposed location". Well, you did, of course, but not Lewis...!”

She didn’t need to, as I’ve tried to explain in very patient detail. It simply WAS an exposed location. A north-eastern wind would have affected, inescapably and irrefutably, the western side of Commercial Street. Anyone huddled against a wall on the eastern side of the street might well have avoided it, but unfortunately, there was no wall on the eastern side opposite the Britannia. There were only railings, behind which were the grounds of Christ Church, Spitalfields, otherwise known as Itchy Park. Anywhere else that met the “standing in Commerical Street” criteria that was sheltered was simply NOT near the Britannia.

But I thought we just agreed to disagree on this issue?

“That, I suggest, would equal not having had any good look at the man.”

Either that or the clothes he was wearing were simply non-descript. Even if she didn’t have a “good look”, that needn’t be due to the weather but rather her failure to pay much attention to him.

“...telling us that witnesses get the day wrong "all the time"

He said that “people” mix up days all the time, which is something I’ve never dismissed. I’ve only argued that the circumstances in this case, and the Honolulu case, strongly militate against the wrong day hypothesis.

“And I am not saying that Hutch would have missed the interest as such - but I am saying that just as you could ask yourself "was that tv show on thursday or friday?", you may just as well ask yourself "did I see Kelly on the night before the Lordmayors´show, or was it the day before that...”

And I’m saying that if you combine the two – an interesting and memorable personal experience occurring on the same day as an interesting and memorable event for the public at large, this combination would tend drastically to reduce the changes of a date-confusion, in my considered opinion.

“I´ll drink to that! Newcastle Brown, preferably!”

That’s a goodun, Fish, although I’d also like to introduce you to Larkins Porter.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

The Lord Mayor’s Parade was not merely a day out for the unwashed masses. It was a public holiday. Most East Enders worked a six or seven day week when a working day constituted ten or more hours. A public holiday, therefore, was a cause for celebration in itself. Thus it is highly unlikely that Hutchinson or any of his fellow East Enders would have confused this day with any other during the week under scrutiny, particularly when the pandemonium that attended Kelly’s death is taken into consideration.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Lechmere]

"Gresham-street west, St. Martin's-le-Grand, Cheapside, Poultry, Mansion-house-street, Cornhill, Leadenhall-street, Billiter-street, Fenchurch-street, Mincing-lane, Great Tower-street, Eastcheap, King William-street, Queen Victoria-street, Cannon-street, St. Paul's-churchyard, Ludgate-hill, Fleet-street, Victoria-embankment, Queen-street, and King-street."
These streets are all around the Guildhall area - not near Whitechapel or Commercial Street. Scanning the names Eastcheap seems nearest and that isn't next door exactly. But surely for Hutchinson the only relevant location is the Commercial Street area, not Whitechapel in general.
Was the Lord Mayor’s Day Parade actually an official public holiday? Particularly for people outside the City boundary? I have not heard this before.
The new Lord Mayor was Sir James Whitehead, (a Liberal who favoured Irish Home Rule in case anyone wants to integrate that into the plot). He represented Cheap ward – the significance here being that the parade also used to visit the home ward of the Mayor elect (I believe this is no longer the case). Anyway Cheap ward is well away from Commercial Street and Whitechapel. Apparently Whitehead was responsible for replacing the circus-like Lord Mayor's Show with a State Procession.
I see that the 'treat' for the 2,000 poor East End folk was a: “substantial meat tea will be given them in the Tower Hamlets Mission-hall... and it will be followed by an amusing entertainment.”
I would strongly expect that rough and ready adult working people would take virtually no interest in the parade or the treat and regard it as something that only 'muppets' would be interested in.
I know the Lord Mayor's Parade is only one little bit in the puzzle but invariably the bits are magnified to make more out of them than they really deserve, due to lack of other information. Then as Fisherman pointed out it becomes too easy to add bits on such as that Hutchinson was hurrying back to see the Lord Mayor’s Parade and therefore he must have been sure of his date.
Anyway here’s a contemporary painting of the 1888 parade. The Royal Exchange is in the background with Wellington’s stirrupless statue. And a snippet from a news item from the 1886 Show which was a damp squib and ended in a mini riot at Trafalgar Square - a prelude to the 1887 riot...