Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

First of all -Happy New Year everyone !

I've only just had time to look in on this thread (and no time to look at any other -YET).

What if Hutch didn't really KNOW what the weather was like on the night of Mary's murder, since he had spent most of the rainiest part in her room, by a roaring, crackling fire, with a coat over the window ?

Let's imagine that he hd spent an earlier part of the same evening in a warm pub, and the moment that he ventured out to 'loiter', was when the rain had
petered out (logical, surely).

I think that in a 'creative' spurt on another thread, I wrote a scenario where Hutch DIDN'T sleep at the Victoria Home (I had him sleeping in Itchy Park, talking to no one, and heading AWAY from Whitechapel) ; it was impossible for me to write, given that Hutch lived in a crowded city and MJK's murder was a (the ?) main news story, that he remained unaware of the murder.
The fact that it did coincide with the Lord Mayor's Show, would appear to
'fix' the date for anyone -let alone a personal friend of the victim.

[Ben]

“The Britannia stood on the corner of Dorset Street and Commercial Street, Ben. Right opposite that corner, more or less, there were buildings between Fashion Street and the Christ Church grounds.”

I can assure you this isn’t the case, Fish. Right opposite Britannia’s location are the exposed grounds of Christ Church, Spitalfields that wouldn’t have afforded any protection from any wind or rain. If you go diagonally across the road from the Britannia in a somewhat southerly direction, you end up near the buildings next to Fashion Street, but this location cannot reasonably be described as “near the Britannia” for the obvious reason that you’d be much nearer to, and on the same side as the road as, the Queen’s Head on the corner of Fashion Street – the one where Hutchinson claimed to have stood outside in order to monitor the Astrakhan man.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&expIds=17259,23756,24283,24878,27400&xhr=t&q=whites+row&cp=10&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl

Thank you for providing this latest information from Mr. Jebson, who seems to confirm what most of us already understood to be the case; that rain “affected” the area "between midnight and 0800 GMT on the 9th". We don’t know what form this took, but the combined evidence from the witnesses would tend to suggest that this arrived in the form of heavy showers at intervals as opposed to continuous rainfall. Of some interest, perhaps, is the revelation that the wind was anticipated to come from the south-east whereas the Echo reported afterwards that it came from the north-east. Either way, it still wouldn’t have helped that couple standing in an irrefutably exposed location.

“Not an unbuttoned night, thus. Not a night for leisurely conversations outside the archway leading into Millerīs Court”

Nor was it a night for conversations on Commercial Street near the Britannia wearing no overcoat, and yet according to Sarah Lewis, someone was doing precisely that.

Sally’s point regarding the Victoria Home and the overwhelming likelihood that he would have picked up on the gossip there should not be ignored either. The chances of him returning from Romford and then wandering about all night, just to pop in and out of the home in order to head miles out of the district immediately afterwards and before the discovery of the body, is just not remotely credible.

“If it came from the southeast, the buildings between Fashion Street and Itchy Park would have made for good shelter close to the Britannia.”

But that’s not near the Britannia, Fisherman! If you’re standing between Fashion Street and the edge of Itchy Park, you are near the Queen’s Head – another pub that stood a few feet away. Please consider this before you speak of “points scored for the Home Team”. If the couple described by Lewis were standing in that location, it would be utterly unthinkable to describe it as “near the Britannia” when there was a pub practically next door. Clearly, therefore, the couple were standing somewhere else; somewhere that really was near the Britannia and on Commercial Street, and if there was any wind or rain swept from the north-east or south-east (it really doesn’t matter) they would have been pelted by it. Bottom line, we can’t use Astrakhan’s movements or the presence of Kelly and Astrakhan outside the court to argue that Hutchinson’s account speaks for a dry night, because we can say exactly the same for Lewis’ account, and we know it was a wet night in her case.

Hi Lechmere,

“I fail to see how these temporary road closures would have affected Hutchinson.”

I don’t think they would have been, at least not in a physical sense, and I agree that he was unlikely to have had any personal interest in the pageantry attached to the parade. It seems very unlikely, however, that he could have avoided the widespread public attention it received by those who considered it a holiday. And when this is combined by two other easily memorable events that coincided on the same day – the murder of Hutchinson’s alleged three-year acquaintance and his 10-13 mile return journey from Romford, the idea that he misremembered such a significant date is next to impossible, to my mind.

You’re quite right to bring up the possibility of confabulation amongst some of the witnesses, but as I outline in my recent Casebook Examiner article, this almost certainly did not apply in Hutchinson’s case. Far from having “anxious need to provide information that could be of help”, Hutchinson delayed coming forward for three crucial days. My own take on the matter, again as I expound in my article, is that Hutchinson would probably have avoided making any contact with the police altogether were not for his being spotted by Sarah Lewis in Dorset Street.

Best regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Fisherman has fallen into the same trap which he accuses others (e.g. Hutchinson being made to hurry back from Romford to see the Lord Mayor’s Show).

The Met Office say there were showers between midnight and 8 am on the 9th and this produced around 0.28 inches of rain. They also say that in South East England the wind was blowing from the south east to the north west and was strong to gale force.

I would suggest that this meant there were occasional showers (no evidence for ‘heavy’ showers) and strong winds in London. The gale force winds would be coastal and yes a built up area would further reduce the force. I can’t see how the wind would blow an unbuttoned Astrakhan coat off someone’s shoulders! It clearly wasn’t a pleasant night and Hutchinson must have been soaked walking back from Romford (if he did it that night), but it is over egging it saying it was dreadful.

Back to the Lord Mayor’s Show – again no evidence that it was any sort of public holiday. That is being inserted into the contemporary domestic reports – apart from American newspapers that in my opinion are using the term loosely and colloquially, and apart from the term ‘half-holiday’ which I suggests relates to school children.

Incidentally during the Jacobite scares, most of London’s population lived immediately in or around the City and the Lord mayor’s Parade partly went down the Thames. In those days Whitechapel was a semi rural suburb. By 1888 London had expanded drastically and local government reorganisations had clearly taken the East End slums out of the City’s responsibility even if alms were thrown in that direction as a gesture (the meat lunch). In other words the character of the Lord Mayor’s Show would have altered more between the mid 18th century and 1888 compared to between 1888 and say 1980.

The beneficiaries of that lunch would almost certainly have been members of Charrington’s usual congregation at the Tower Hamlets Mission (pics below) – which was located a couple of hundred yards up Mile End Road, on the left from Cambridge (Heath) Road (i.e. a few hundred yards west of the Charrington family brewery). In other words a rough and ready working man such as Hutchinson would have been oblivious to it happening.

Many Londoners did not see the Lord Mayor’s Show as something to celebrate as is shown by the riots in 1886.

Contemporary newspapers waxing lyrical about the murder being discovered while the Lord Mayor was riding in his sparkling coach are literary devices to engage the reader. It tells us nothing about what someone like Hutchinson would have thought of the Lord Mayor’s Show. I rather doubt the inmates of establishments such as the Victoria Home would have wasted their money on newspapers.

I have no doubt that Hutchinson would have been aware of the Lord Mayor’s Show but I strongly suspect it wasn’t a big deal to someone like him and very much doubt it would have served any real role in fixing dates in his mind.

I have to agree that ‘near the Britannia’ must have meant on the Britannia (western) side of the road as there were other pubs and landmarks on the other (eastern) side that it would have been more logical to be described as being ‘near’.

The most likely explanation is that Hutchinson gave an over elaborate story, glady took money to act as a roving informant from a police force that was desperate to be pro-active. Then the police realised they had been taken for a ride, so got rid of him but didn’t want to admit that they thought he was a fraud. He may or may not have got his days mixed up, may have heard the inquest report or other rumours and put himself there as the ‘watcher’. Or maybe he was the ‘watcher’. If he was genuine the three days delay makes confabulation more likely.

I would tend towards Hutchinson deliberately conning money out of the police and when they realised this they got rid of him but didn’t want to admit it as it would make them look more stupid.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

I agree entirely with your observations concerning the weather.

“I have no doubt that Hutchinson would have been aware of the Lord Mayor’s Show but I strongly suspect it wasn’t a big deal to someone like him”

I agree entirely, but being aware of it would probably have extended to knowing the date, given the interest attached to it. Even if he was hazy as to the date before it occurred, the subsequent realisation that his activities that night coincided with both the murder and the show was likely to have “fixed” it for him, in my view. Nobody living at the Victoria Home needed to buy a newspaper, incidentally – they were provided free of charge in the common room.

As for Hutchinson himself, I think your suggestion that the police “got rid of him but didn’t want to admit that they thought he was a fraud” has merit, and is very compatible with the Echo and Star’s revelations of the 13th and 15th respectively. That said; there’s no evidence that the police ever gave Hutchinson any money for his contributions as a purported witness, and since Lewis’ evidence would tend to bolster the case for at least his presence there, it is doubtful that he was purely a money/publicity-seeker.

I think if Hutchinson was accidentally embellishing, or "confabulating", we wouldn't expect the acutely specific myriad of accessorial and clothing detail that he spewed out with near exactitude when subsequently communicating with the press. I find that too indicative of meticulous preparation for the confabulation explanation to be applicable here.

In addition, Hutchinson appears not to have demonstrated the type of uncertainty characteristic of someone who had garnered only vague details but was simply filling in the blanks. In that case, we'd expect different blank-fillers on each re-telling. White buttons over button boots, dark eyelashes and horseshoe tie-pins are acutely specific, and almost certainly not a by-product of uncertainty or addle-mindedness due to an anxious desire to assist the police.

The type of over-furnishing we see in Hutchinson's statement, coupled with the fact that he only admitted to hovering near the scene of a crime after it became known that somebody really was seen near the scene of the crime (and at the same time) has more hallmarks of self-preservation that it does casual embellishment and publicity-seeking.

But this takes us off-topic somewhat! Apologies, and back to the question of “date-confusion”.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If you go diagonally across the road from the Britannia in a somewhat southerly direction, you end up near the buildings next to Fashion Street, but this location cannot reasonably be described as “near the Britannia” for the obvious reason that you’d be much nearer to, and on the same side as the road as, the Queen’s Head on the corner of Fashion Street – the one where Hutchinson claimed to have stood outside in order to monitor the Astrakhan man."

Sigh! it cannot be described as near the Britannia...? Measure it, Ben. We are not speaking of many yards. And if Lewis turned the street at the Britannia, and registered the man and the woman opposite it as she did so, I think describing it them as being near the Britannia would be a very feasible thing to do. And what about the map I linked too - was it not correct? Were there not buildings inbetween Fashion Street and Itchy park? But letīs leave it, shall we - it is getting silly.

"Thank you for providing this latest information from Mr. Jebson, who seems to confirm what most of us already understood to be the case; that rain “affected” the area "between midnight and 0800 GMT on the 9th". We don’t know what form this took, but the combined evidence from the witnesses would tend to suggest that this arrived in the form of heavy showers at intervals as opposed to continuous rainfall."

I think that none of us "understood" anything up til now, since we had not sufficient information. As it stands, yes, heavy showers of rain seems to have been the best picture of it. Whether it rained slightly inbetween or was dry - we do not know. Whether it rained as Lewis went down Dorset Street - we do not know. The same possibilities that I have pointed to are as open as they have been the last 123 years.

"Nor was it a night for conversations on Commercial Street near the Britannia wearing no overcoat, and yet according to Sarah Lewis, someone was doing precisely that."

There are a number of differences here, Ben. To begin with, we do not know where Lewis couple stood, and they may well have been sheltered. To carry on, we do not know for how long they spoke. It could have been ten seconds, involving just a "Good Lord, what a rain!" and a "Heavens, yes - itīs a good thing we found this doorway!". There is nothing at all to point away from such a suggestion.
But when it comes to Astrakhan man and Kelly, we know that they were standing about for around three full minutes. We know, from sketches for example, that the building they stood outside did not offer any shelter at all from the elements - no protruding roof or such. And we know that the conversation did not evolve around the hideous weather - instead it was a leisurely conversation involving the handing over of a handkerchief - in a cold gale force wind, quite possibly accompanied by rain. Five yards away from Kellyīs room, they persevered in the cold and the gale, the manīs coat unbuttoned...?

"that’s not near the Britannia, Fisherman! If you’re standing between Fashion Street and the edge of Itchy Park, you are near the Queen’s Head – another pub that stood a few feet away."

Once again, how many yards away from the Britannia are you, standing at the northern end of the buildings between Fashion Street and Itchy park? And it is just a suggestion that they could have been standing there. Perhaps they were standing on the same sida as the Britannia, in a doorway that offered some protection. Perhaps they had met out in the street, just as Lewis passed. The possibilities are endless, Ben. But that does not change the overall conditions of the night - gale force wind, cold and damp and heavy rain in reoccuring showers at the very least.

"Bottom line, we can’t use Astrakhan’s movements or the presence of Kelly and Astrakhan outside the court to argue that Hutchinson’s account speaks for a dry night..."

Not with any absolute certainty in this particular instance, no. Which is why we must look at the rest of his testimony. And that tells us that as the rain was pouring down hard and a gale force wind blew from the southeast, Hutchinson decided that the best thing to do under such circumstances was to hit the streets and walk them "all night".
Would you for a second, Ben, argue that this points to anything but Hutch speaking about a dry night? How reasonable is it to do what he claimed to have done? Wait, let me answer it for you: It is completely and utterly unreasonable, and nobody of a sane mind would have made that choice.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

"I have spent all my money going down to Romford."

To me this quote should put the nail in the coffin for the possibility of George Hutchinson confusing the dates.

This is a direct quote from the mouth of George Hutchinson in his police statement as to what he said to Mary Kelly the morning of her murder. It ties together a continual chain of events from his trip down to Romford, his stay in Romford, a return from Romford, and a meeting with his friend mary Kelly in the early morning. Later he acknowledges after he met Mary Kelly he walked about the rest of the night. This is a continual memory that carries through a whole series of events from daytime to evening, through the night and early morning to dawn-spanning 2 days (dates-Thursday November 8th to Friday November 9th). 2 days later he claims to have possibly seen the "suspect" again on Sunday November 11th. 3 days later on Monday Novemebr 12th he makes this statement to the police.

He specifically says the date in that statement "About 2 am 9th .....I saw the murdered woman Kelly."
According to the article/author he heard of her death on Sunday the 11th, just two days after the murder.
The meeting with kelly was bookended by a long walk back from Romford and and walking around all night-two memorable personal events.
The daytime after his meeting with kelly was puntuated with the Lord mayers show.
He makes his statement just 3 days after the event.
He probably would have made darn sure he had his dates correct, working backwards in his mind the days/dates, before he went to the police on something this important. With the short amount of time between the events, hearing of her death and his police statement I find it almost impossible he got the dates wrong.

Also, just as important, George Hutchinson's statements to the police do not neccessarily describe a dry night. They describe events that make no mention of the weather conditions at all-wet or dry.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Fisherman has fallen into the same trap which he accuses others"

I have? I never even noticed that a trap had been set...?

"no evidence for ‘heavy’ showers"

Well, the Echo did write that "heavy rain had fallen during the night". And when Cox arrived home at three o clock, it was "raining hard". Will that do?

"It clearly wasn’t a pleasant night and Hutchinson must have been soaked walking back from Romford (if he did it that night), but it is over egging it saying it was dreadful."

Rainy, cold, stormy nights ARE dreadful nights to my mind, Lechmere. And people who have been soaked walking from Romford do not spend the remainder of such nights walking the streets endlessly.
On the other hand, if he came back the night BEFORE, he would have made a wise choice for a walking night, he would be dry, and he would have the choice of trying to sleep rough in the cold November temperatures, or walk the streets to keep warm. I think he made a wise choice in this instance too.

"The gale force winds would be coastal"

"Much of southeast Britain" was what the report said. If it had only affected the coast, the report should have said gale force winds along the coast, I think.

"a built up area would further reduce the force."

When I was ten, I was swept away from a bus station by a storm that hit my native town. I tried to hold on to the bus stop signpost, but did not have the strength. The street I was in was surrounded by big buildings (four storeys high), but the wind was blowing along the street, and not hindered by the buildings. If I had had your comforting words to lean against on that day, Iīm sure it would not have hurt as much as it did when my mother washed my ravaged knees and hands afterwards. Yes, any form of construction or even a forest may slow down the wind force - but if it blows along the street you stand in, you end up in a wind tunnel, more or less.

"I would tend towards Hutchinson deliberately conning money out of the police and when they realised this they got rid of him but didn’t want to admit it as it would make them look more stupid."

That is not a half bad suggestion. It ends up second on my list of possibilities. I do, however, have some problems with it, since if this was so, then it would be reasonable to argue that Hutchinson had gotten wind of the story Lewis told of a loiterer, and decided to use it to his pecuniar advantage.
But if this holds true, there are two major snags:
1. If he had access to the inquest proceedings, he would have had access to the reports about the rain. Then why not mention it? Why state that he walked about in the streets in a laundromat, more or less? Because he was a terrible liar who got things very wrong? Possibly, but ...
2. If he had heard about Lewisīloiterer, he would be very much aware that she could be asked to identify him. And since the description she gave was first non-existant, then vague, how would he know that she would not call him a liar?

It does not add up. Unless, of course, you argue that he WAS there and WAS Lewisīloiterer, and that he actually did make his watery promenade in the storm afterwards?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"He probably would have made darn sure he had his dates correct"

That is absolutely correct. He would have done his very best, and he would have wanted to be spot on, speaking to the police.
Moreover, so would ALL honest witnesses who seek out the police to help them in their investigations.
And still, many, many of them get it wrong, in spite of all that good will and all them efforts.

How could that be?

"George Hutchinson's statements to the police do not neccessarily describe a dry night. They describe events that make no mention of the weather conditions at all-wet or dry."

You are once again correct. We know that he told the police that he spent "all night" walking the streets, and we know that there was a storm blowing and that a hard rain was falling at the precise moment when he set out on his walking tour - but you are correct, he never did say "as it was a perfectly dry night, I walked the streets to keep warm". He could have decided to make an effort to drown himself in the rain by his own free will, and he could have opted for pneumonia instead of a sheltering passage or doorway. It is anybodyīs choice.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Lewis’ evidence would tend to bolster the case for at least his presence there"

...but Hutchinsonīs evidence would not tend to bolster the case for her presence there.
One coin - two sides.

Lewis evidence only bolsters the case for SOMEONE being there, Ben. One of the millions of men in London ...

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fisherman,
Your case is built around the weather, and you theorize that because of that, then its more then likely, that GH witnessed Kelly, and Astracan, the previous night, that standing around in open spaces by the leading players, and the general appearence of their clothing would suggest just that.
I am saying that there is a much more likely answer...
It was not raining to any effect at the relevant time, which would explain a similar scenerio, and would not involve confusion of the dates in question.
There is a hint that the weather may have turned unpleasent between 9am-midnight however, as initially according to Prater, kelly had worn her jacket and bonnet, when they met at 9am, yet at midnight, her 'sunday' best seems to have been replaced according to Cox ,a shawl would be more protection from the the cold and rain, that item being what Catherine Pickert wished to borrow at dawn on the 9th , when she knocked at room 13.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hello Richard!

It may well be that it did not rain at the crucial time. It is a distinct possibility.

I have provided all I could find out about he rain, and you can take part of it on this thread. It tells us that it started to rain after midnight, that the rain came in showers, that is was cold and that a gale force wind was blowing. To my mind, that tells me that an unbuttoned coat would be an illogical choice, no matter if it rained or not.

And at the end of the day, and as we sum things up, we cannot tell whether it rained or not at two o clock in the morning. We cannot establish what exact windforce passed over Dorset Street at that time. We cannot tell whether Astrakhan man wanted to display his gold chain, and thus chose to show it off by unbuttoning his coat in spite of the bad weather. We cannot tell whether Hutchinson did not mind to lean against the lamp post in spite of the storm. We do not know if Astrakhan man and Kelly felt a pressing urge to have some small talk outside Millerīs court in the damp weather and the storm, instead of heading for shelter.

But we DO know that George Hutchinson incredibly claimed that his solution to his lodging problems was to head out on the streets in the hard rain, the cold and the storm, walking about "all night". For some reason, nobody seems to comment on that...?
The criticism I see somehow always seems to boil down to the two arguments that it may not have rained at two o clock, something I admit, and that people never mix up days if something out of the ordinary happens in the week you need to keep track off. This I very much challenge. And so does history.

The best,
Fisherman

[Varqm]

The type of over-furnishing we see in Hutchinson's statement, coupled with the fact that he only admitted to hovering near the scene of a crime after it became known that somebody really was seen near the scene of the crime (and at the same time) has more hallmarks of self-preservation that it does casual embellishment and publicity-seeking
Ben

How did you measure this?

[Fisherman]

Varqm:

"How did you measure this?"

Hey, get in line, buster - I have already asked him how he measured that lying witnesses are more common than the ones who mix up dates.

But yours is a very good question too, admittedly.

Ben ...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

Since it is questioned how much it rained on the night we are looking at, I think it would be a good idea to find some comparisons.

We know that 0.28 inches of rain fell in 8 hours between midninght and 8 AM. That would add up to a 24-hour equivalent of 0.84 inches. Terefore, I Googled the amounts 0.83, 0.84 and 0.85 inches of rain, and came up with these clippings. It would seem that 0.28 inches of rain in 8 hours is A LOT of rain …!

1/ “Storms dropped almost an inch of rain Thursday in Topeka and left hundreds of electricity customers in the dark.
Westar Energy spokeswoman Gina Penzig said service was restored to all customers Thursday afternoon. More than 200 customers were without power at some time during the morning.
Most of the outages were clustered in the areas of S.W. 25th and Fillmore, the city's Quinton Heights area and the 2800 block of S.E. Madison. Others were scattered throughout the city.
The severe storms stayed away from the Topeka area.
Gov. Kathleen Sebelius said 14 tornadoes were reported in a two- hour period late Wednesday in south-central Kansas --- the state's first tornadoes of the season. At least nine houses sustained damage in Harper County, she said.
A Kansas Highway Patrol helicopter was used to determine the extent of damage.
"It's very fortunate that there were no lives lost in this situation," Sebelius said.
By about 5 p.m. Thursday, Topeka's Philip Billard Municipal Airport had recorded 0.84 inches of rain since midnight.”

2/ “North Central Wisconsin. As far as records go during the month of November, things were pretty calm. We tied a record high on the 10th of May hitting 61 degrees and we set a new record for daily precipitation on the 13th with 0.84 inches of rain.”

3/ “Weekend rainstorm soaks North Kitsap; power restored in Suquamish
Dec 12 2010
NORTH KITSAP — A steady rain swelled creeks and created standing water on roadways Saturday and Sunday. Rain gave way to drizzle Sunday afternoon.
A weather station at Poulsbo's Central Market recorded 0.83 inches of rain Saturday and another 0.93 inches by 2 p.m. Sunday.
A tree fell on power lines in the Miller Bay area at about 10 a.m. Sunday morning, killing electricity to about 1,700 customers, Puget Sound Energy spokesman Roger Thompson said. Power was restored at about 1:30 p.m.
Cars were splashing through several inches of water on westbound Indianola Road Sunday morning.”

4/ Rain Slows Holiday Travelers To A Crawl
May 26, 1990|By Peter Kendall.
One of the Chicago area`s wettest Mays on record continued Friday, getting the Memorial Day weekend off to a slow and sloppy start.
The rainfall Friday made a mess of automobile traffic, delayed air travelers and may have held off the anticipated arrival of the 17-year cicada. By 11 p.m. Friday, 0.85 inches of rain had fallen at O`Hare International Airport, according to the Central Weather Service. Added to the 6.12 inches already charted this month, Friday`s rainfall pushed the May total to more than twice the normal average of 3.15 inches for the month.”

I am no expert on these matters. But there can be little doubt that the night of the 8:th of November 1888 was a VERY wet night, a night that quite possibly had the streets of London floating with rain water. At any rate, we are not speaking of a light rain with just the occasional shower.

The best,
Fisherman

[Varqm]

I maybe ruining the thread but Hutchinson only came forward after being spotted by Sarah Lewis ? How was this figured out?

Fish,

If Hutchinson was lying, clearly he was, all these weather stuff has no bearing.