Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

“it cannot be described as near the Britannia...?”

Absolutely not, and it would crazy for anyone describe it as such. The area between the southern edge of Itchy Park and Fashion Street encompassed the Queen’s Head. As far as I’m aware, it was just one terrace as it is today. Anyone standing on the eastern pavement on Commercial Street between these two locations was indisputably “near the Queen’s Head”, not the Britannia. There would have to be something disastrously wrong with Sarah Lewis if she passed the Britannia herself, noticed a sheltering couple further down the round on the opposite side, obviously and conspicuously nearer another pub, and still describes them as being “near the Britannia”.

There’s really no dishonour in saying “point taken” occasionally.

“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 - it´s a good thing we found this doorway!".”

Continued…

“Yes, pity this doorway faces east in the direction of all this terrible wind and rain. I’m soaked”.

“You’re soaked? Look at me! I’m the total numpty who forgot to wear an overcoat!”

Or, this conversation never took place because there was no need for shelter or an overcoat at that time because it was raining, a scenario that seems very plausible indeed given the lack of sheltering options (from an easterly wind and rain) anywhere on Commercial Street that could reasonably be described as near the Britannia. The couple were clearly already there when Lewis arrived and showed no sign of parting company or moving off, unlike the other couple she described in Dorset Street who “passed along”.

But you’re right. This is getting silly, so I’m quite prepared to embrace your suggestion to “leave it” after this. Unless etc.

“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.”

Yes, they would have been standing about in an exposed location, just as the Britannia couple were doing on what was ascertained for certain to have been the 9th November, although that said, I don’t believe Hutchinson saw Kelly standing with anyone outside the court at the time he alleged. I think he lied about it.

“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?”

It’s not a question of physical distance in isolation from any other considerations. It’s a question of the logicality of describing a location as “near the Britannia”, when it was so screamingly obviously nearer the Queen’s Head, another pub located a few feet away. The possibilities are indeed endless, but unfortunately, these endless possibilities seem to include deeply unlikely suggestions of the order you’re suggesting with regard to the location of the couple. The probabilities, on the other hand, are really quite limited

“Would you for a second, Ben, argue that this points to anything but Hutch speaking about a dry night?”

Yes, Fish.

I would. I would argue that it points to Hutchinson lying out “walking about all night”. Even if it could be proved beyond any semblance of doubt that it was piddling down relentlessly all night, non-stop, the simplest explanation for what you take to by a non-compatibility between Hutchinson’s account and the weather conditions is that Hutchinson lied and forgot to factor in the practical consideration that was the weather when putting together that lie.

You argue that “people who have been soaked walking from Romford do not spend the remainder of such nights walking the streets endlessly”, but people who walk from Romford in the small hours of the morning without getting soaked are also very unlikely to spend the remainder of the night “walking the street endlessly”. All you’re doing here is providing more compelling ammunition for those who would argue that Hutchinson did not tell the truth because his account didn’t add up.

There’s no evidence that he told the police that he walked about all night – only the press.

I really couldn’t be more astonished that you’d consider an unbuttoned overcoat to be “an illogical choice” when you don’t seem to have any problem with the report of a man wearing NO overcoat at 2:30am on what was definitely the 9th November. At least try to engage with the inconsistency here.

“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...?”

I have. I’ve observed that it seems implausible because it’s Billy Bull$hit. It doesn’t add up because he probably lied about it, and was consequently discredited. Nothing could be less complicated. I’m in bewildered astonishment that anyone could spot this implausibility, and still exhibit a preference for date-confusion over fabrication. You can be my guest if you really harbour any serious doubts that "lying witnesses are more common than the ones who mix up dates". I cannot extort common sense out of anyone who fiercely resists the obvious for what strikes me as no good reason at all - with respect.

Hi Varqm,

How did you measure this?

With common sense and the bleedin' obvious, one would dearly hope.

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

This is somewhat off-track from the central premise of the thread, but I explained my reasoning in this regard here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=156904&postcount=191

Probably best to address any response you might have there, rather than here.

All the best,
Ben

[Varqm]

Sorry Fish I have to reply . Promise this is my last post on this.

I doubt very much that Hutchinson noticed that a witness account had described a potential suspect, pretended that he was the individual described but claimed also to have been just a witness himself. Certainly, I’ve never encountered any comparable example of such behaviour in other criminal investigations.
Ben

Hmm. The most important thing is/was what was happening in the east end during the Whitechapel murders. Subsequent criminal investigations has little bearing.
There was hysteria, many people come forward and proclaim themselves the murderer and witnesses appeared of one sort or another who were lying. There was no law against lying witnesses and they cannot be charged with anything.
This is common sense.

[Ben]

Why are you apologising to Fish for replying to a post I made on another thread?

Subsequent criminal investigation has little bearing

No, I'd have to disagree. If we're not prepared to research and learn from other "criminal investigations", any speculation we engage in with regard to the Whitechapel investigation amounts to little more than creative writing.

many people come forward and proclaim themselves the murderer and witnesses appeared of one sort or another who were lying. There was no law against lying witnesses and they cannot be charged with anything

I agree entirely with this, but it really wasn't what I was getting at in that extract you've just quoted.

[Lechmere]

There are obviously a lot of maybe’s and personal opinions here and how much weight each person puts on different things – such as the likelihood of someone getting muddled up over what they did on a specific day, the impact of the Lord Mayor’s Show, whether someone would walk around in the rain, how observant someone can be and so on.

Incidentally it seems Fisherman was raised in hurricane alley. We don’t really have winds like that in our tranquil isle.

On George Hutchinson – we know for sure that he have a detailed witness statement to the police, after the inquest. We know that they had him walk the streets looking for the person he claims to have seen. We know they then dismissed him.

We know that someone whose father was called George Hutchinson claimed his father assisted the police in the Ripper case and was paid for his trouble (I introduce this at my peril).

We know a contemporary American newspaper claimed a witness was paid to search the streets looking for the culprit, but that he was a fraud.

We know that the police did pay witnesses for this sort of thing (someone – sorry I forget who – found a report stating exactly this).

We know the police were desperate for a breakthrough after the Mary Jane Kelly murder.

All that together makes it very reasonable to accept that Hutchinson was paid by the police and was dismissed as they no longer took him seriously.

The whole missing day thing is really just an explanation for this dismissal.

The Lewis corroboration may be coincidental and fortuitous to Hutchinson if he totally made up his story, or only parts of Hutchinson’s story may be true (he may have been there but mixed up events from different days). There is also the problem of establishing how Hutchinson knew Lewis had potentially fingered him.

What is clear is that Hutchinson came to the attention of the police and was dismissed. While I think the police blundered on many occasions during the whole Ripper investigation, they would have had basic deduction and investigative skills, and once someone was in their vision I doubt they would have dismissed them so totally and so quickly after first sucking up all they had to say, unless they were pretty sure of their ground. It would surely have occurred to them that if he was talking nonsense about his role then it may be to cover up murderous actions.

Hence it is a little academic whether he was a day out or not. He isn’t a credible witness or a credible suspect.

Ben’s case is that Hutchinson lied to protect himself, rather than lying because he was after money or was simply mistaken. But then Ben says Hutchinson would remember and repeat his self preservation lies better than if they were different varieties of distortions. I am not sure this follows at all. How does this tally with Mrs Maxwell who repeatedly stuck to the same story, which most presume was a distortion of some sort? Often people come to a remembered version of events that they repeat as gospel, as their version, which is at odds with reality.

[harry]

Fisherman,
In answer to your question of post 328,the collective term given to cases involing memory problems you suggest,is,"An alternate state of conciousness".I had already posted this,so it seems you are not reading my posts thoroughly.I once suffered from this condition,and over months of consultations,tests,and corrective surgery,I became well aquainted with the term.Source problems can be Neurological or physical in origin and no two seem to be the same.Sufferers tend to become aware a problem exists,and except in cases of total amnesia,are aware of time and activity.
If, as you suggest,Hutchinson entered that police station on the monday evening,subjected himself to what Aberline describes as an interogation,and that he(Hutchinson)or Aberline did not become aware he was mixed up in the days,I would be amazed.
The weather has nothing to do with it.Hutchinson was not on the streets of Whitechapel that night by choice,as has been pointed out,but through a string of circumstances.
The one choice he did take though,by his own admission,was to stand outside Crossingham's.

[Ben]

“All that together makes it very reasonable to accept that Hutchinson was paid by the police and was dismissed as they no longer took him seriously.”

It is very unlikely that Hutchinson was paid by the police, Lechmere. If it became public knowledge that you could receive appreciably more money than you'd normally get for working (i.e. a whopping pay-off as opposed to standard reimbursement), the police would have been deluged with money-seekers all churning out invented stories. It was very unlikely to have happened in 1888 for that crucial reason, and the “five times his usual salary” reported in the Wheeling Register (in an article headlined “Gossip” which made various claims about Barnett that were contradicted by virtually every other source) is certainly not worth considering. Hutchinson wasn't even earning a "usual salary". I can accept that he may have been reimbursed for possible loss of earnings, or in Hutchinson’s case, loss of work-seeking time for accompanying the police on an Astrakhan hunt round the district, but even for this we have no evidence.

It would be different if Hutchinson’s evidence delivered tangible results and progress for the investigation. The reality, however, is that it didn’t.

Relying on the “Ripper and the Royals” for a story involving a pay-off is to be cautioned against even stronger than relying on a gossip column from an American newspaper. In the former, it is inferred that Hutchinson was paid an extremely lofty sum for keeping schtum about having seen Lord Randolph Churchill, the presumed ripper, with Mary Jane Kelly. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and two fantastically dubious sources certainly don’t equate to good provenance for the payment suggestion.

“The Lewis corroboration may be coincidental and fortuitous to Hutchinson if he totally made up his story”

That would have been one heck of a fortuitous coincidence, Lechmere! Imagine, he “totally makes up” a story involving watching and waiting for someone outside the entrance to Miller’s Court at 2:30 on the morning of 9th November, only to discover later that someone else really was doing precisely that. I certainly don’t share you’re faith that they would have considered the possibility that he came forward to cover up his murderous actions once they had decided that he was lying. There’s no evidence of this thought process with respect to Emanual Violenia who claimed to have been at the crime scene, only to be dismissed as a false witness by the police. But even if they did come to suspect Hutchinson at any point, there’s a difference between suspecting someone and being able to convert those suspicions into concrete proof of guilt or innocence.

The reasons for Hutchinson’s dismissal aren’t nearly as mysterious as others often make out. By 13th November, the authorities had already come to attach a “very reduced importance” to his account. This was reported in the Echo, and the same article outlined the very problems the police were having with it. A dismissed witness certainly doesn’t equate to a dismissed suspect.

“But then Ben says Hutchinson would remember and repeat his self preservation lies better than if they were different varieties of distortions. I am not sure this follows at all”

It amounts simply to remembering what you lied about, and if there were potentially disastrous consequences for Hutchinson if he didn’t remember, he would have been acutely aware of the necessity for consistency. Such is the specificity of the accessorial detail described by Hutchinson that the idea that he accidentally subconsciously invented them becomes distinctly implausible. Either somebody really saw white buttons over button boots, a horseshoe tie pin, Astrakhan trimmings and a linen collar, or he lied about it, and given the plentiful and compelling indications that the Astrakhan man description was an amalgamation of some of the more sinister and inaccurate press reports regarding the killer’s appearance, I’d say the latter option is the most persuasive. As for Maxwell, her only distortion, in my view, was to confuse the identity of the woman she took to be Mary Kelly.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Varqm:

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

We have no way of knowing what man Lewis saw. At any rate, she does not corroborate a man standing there for 45 minutes. She may well have seen her man only for a few seconds, and he was standing opposite a court where prostitution flourished. It could have been a potential client, and nothing else..

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

It has monumental bearing just the same - for he was either concoctin a lie with the background knowledge that it rained substantially that night, or he lied without knowing and recognizing this. And it seems the latter applies, as shown bu the decision to spend all that wet and stormy night walking in the open streets. Thus I suggest that no matter if he was truthful but mistaken, or a liar, he was not there on the night in question! It of course follws that he was not Mary Kelly´s killer. That´s where the importance lies, when it comes to the weather!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here is another snippet about how much 84 millimeters of rain over a day amounts to:

26 DIE AS CATASTROPHIC RAIN HITS SINDH PROVINCE OF PAKISTAN

Mon, 2009-07-20 02:03 — admin
By Farzana Shah-Asian Tribune Correspondent in Pakistan

Karachi, 20 July, (Asiantribune.com): The unprecedented catastrophic downpour in Karachi resulted in the death of 26 people in different localities in the city.

The Sindh metropolis overnight received record lashings of heavy downpour wrecking havoc and paralyzed the life in the city.

Several low-lying areas of the city submerged due to accumulated rainwater.

Scores of residential areas including Bath Island, Defence, Jahangir Road and many other low-lying areas were flooded.

KPT and Liaquatabad underpasses were also flooded. Several busy roads of the city including Chundrigar Road, M.A. Jinnah Road and Aiwan-e-Saddar stand still flooded with water, where parked vehicles are seen floating.
(....)
The showers continued intermittently throughout the day on Sunday with some parts getting up to 84 millimeters of rain. "

I for one am getting more and more certain that my description of the night as one of terrible weather holds very much true!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I may be missing something here, but surely there's a substantial difference between 84 millimetres of rain and the 7.1 millimetres reported by Steve Jebsen?

It's not just the coincidence of time and location that lends weight to the Hutchinson = wideawake inference. It's the fact that the same activity was reported in both cases - that of watching or waiting for someone. The latter more than clinches it for me.

Cheers.
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben’s case is that Hutchinson lied to cover his tracks as he was the culprit. I have seen Ben suggest that Hutchinson is the culprit for the other killings. I accept that once you find the culprit for one you are likely to find it for all. I would suggest that to have any credibility in presenting a suspect one should demonstrate that it was possible for that person to carry out all the attacks.

This hypothesis is based on the fact that unprovoked vicious knife attacks on female drunken prostitute strangers are actually very rare. In the Whitechapel area they were extremely rare. The chances of two or more culprits operating in the same area are infinitesimal.

The difference is that Hutchinson claims to have known Mary Kelly (i.e. she wasn’t a stranger). But if we take away Hutchinson’s own testimony there is absolutely nothing to link him to the crime or to Mary Kelly (i.e. she could have been a stranger). The only thing that you have to condemn him is his testimony. Nothing else is known about him if he is not Toppy. Nothing to connect him to anything (which actually allows endless speculation!) If for example he was worried that Lewis might ID him, he could have upped sticks and moved to an anonymous doss house in Lambeth, or Mile End or Poplar or anywhere out of her reach, but not that far away. There was a need for grooms (or plumbers) all over London. That would have been more sensible than coming up with a totally fake story. Also he could have been denounced as fraud in claiming to be a friend when he wasn’t.

The more one thinks about it the more unlikely it becomes that he had access to Lewis’s testimony, particularly in any detail, before he made his statement. So if Hutchinson made the whole thing up how did this come about? If he did get wind of what she said then it equally adds credence to him being a fraudulent witness.

Hutchinson’s strange testimony can be explained in many ways – confusion of dates, eagerness to be part of a big event, perhaps he saw something but adding a whole mishmash of other things to it, or wanting to defraud the police of money. If he made those statements to cover up his murderous tracks, besides the obvious retort that in doing so he actually exposed himself, what other evidence is there against him for the Mary Kelly murder or any of the other murders?

On Hutchinson getting a pay-off... it is partly reliant on his possible son’s testimony which was used by ‘Ripper and the Royals’. This doesn’t invalidate everything his possible son said. My personal view is that the Mary Kelly Hutchinson probably was Toppy, but his son will hardly have known his father (as he was quite old by the time he was born, and he died a long time before) and so repeated a romanticised version of his life. A recollection that he was paid something is consistent with what we know of the Mary Kelly Hutchinson, as we know he was taken on by the police. It is unlikely he did this for nothing. The fact he was currently out of work is irrelevant to him being paid. The police did not pay informers proportionately based on their wages. Hutchinson’s lack of work actually gave him more incentive to gild the lily at the very least.

We know for a fact that the police paid people to do that sort of thing. Obviously the police wouldn’t let it be known to all and sundry because they would be inundated with fake witnesses. However as we know the police did pay casual informers to help them by travelling around districts looking for suspects they had seen, it is not credible in the Ripper case, when they were under massive media pressure to leave no stone unturned, that they would not have done likewise. The American newspaper is just an extra bit of minor corroboration.

Whether Hutchinson was Toppy or not and whether he got the days mixed up is not that relevant. Although these details make interesting conundrums. His testimony was discounted by the police. There is no reason why it should be taken more seriously now. Relying only on his testimony to make him the culprit and inferring all sorts of motives to him coming forward at this distance when you have absolutely nothing else to put against him, makes Hutchinson a very implausible suspect.

I admittedly tend towards a more mundane motive at distance (i.e. money) - but with a range of evidence:
Hutchinson was skint
The police did offer witnesses money
He did act as a roving witness/informer
There is the American newspaper story
There is his possible son’s testimony
He was dismissed by the police as being of no use
That adds up to something in my opinion.

NB – I think inches and millimetres were getting conflated.

[Ben]

But if we take away Hutchinson’s own testimony there is absolutely nothing to link him to the crime or to Mary Kelly (i.e. she could have been a stranger).

She could have been a stranger to him, yes, but that certainly doesn’t permit the inference that there is “absolutely nothing to link him to the crime”. There’s nothing of a direct nature to link him to the actual murder, no, but at the very least we have the incredible similarity between the Lewis and Hutchinson accounts, indicating at the very least that the latter was where he says he was on the night of the murder, i.e. monitoring the entrance to the court in which Mary Kelly was shortly thereafter killed, and we have the fact that the account imparted very shortly after Lewis’ account became public knowledge. That’s already considerably better than the vast majority of suspects, most of whom cannot be linked to any crime scene or any victim in any capacity.

Unless we’re prepared to accept random coincidence in both cases, which is obviously very implausible, we’re left with the more likely scenario that Hutchinson realised he’d been seen by Sarah Lewis who provided her evidence at the inquest, and came forward with an account that attempted to legitimize his presence and behaviour there. In other words, a credible case can at least be advanced that he behaved in a calculating and suspicious manner in relation to one of the ripper-attributed crimes, and while it must naturally be acknowledged that people can appear suspicious and calculating and still end up not being the murderer, it does mean the suggestion should not and cannot be dismissed as “implausible”.

In addition, unless we’re prepared to accept that it really was just random coincidence that Hutchinson came forward very soon after Lewis’ account became public knowledge (despite there being ample opportunity to come forward at any between learning of the murder and the inquest and any time afterwards), he clearly must have learned of Lewis’ evidence through some channel. He wouldn’t have needed to absorb Lewis’ testimony in any great “detail”. It could have resulted from word of mouth – the type that allowed details of Leather Apron and John Pizer to spread like wildfire. In addition, there were reportedly crowds in Shoreditch that threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s office, and it could simply have been a case of somebody noting that Sarah Lewis was one of the witnesses about to give evidence. But the sheer implausibility of the “random coincidence” explanation should be sufficient to nullify the suggestion that he did not learn of her evidence before he contacted the police.

“Nothing to connect him to anything (which actually allows endless speculation!) If for example he was worried that Lewis might ID him, he could have upped sticks and moved to an anonymous doss house in Lambeth, or Mile End or Poplar or anywhere out of her reach, but not that far away.”

Ah, but research a few other serial cases, and you’ll discover that many offenders chose to approach the police under the guise of a witness or informer when they had the opportunity to move elsewhere and lay low for a while, so Hutchinson’s failure to do the latter is most emphatically and irrefutably not an indication that he could not have been responsible for the murders. It really is of no significance what we consider to be less than “sensible” when historical precedent clearly paints a different picture. The fact that he "exposed" himself is not, and should not be considered, an “obvious retort" to the suggestion that he may have been responsible for the murders since there’s no evidence that he was “exposed” as a contemporary suspect.

“I would suggest that to have any credibility in presenting a suspect one should demonstrate that it was possible for that person to carry out all the attacks.”

Well, by this logic, nobody has ever presented a suspect with any “credibility”. As far as anyone is aware, there is no evidence of any impediment to Hutchinson being in a position to commit the other murders attributed to the ripper, and the same can be said of a great many men advanced of suspects, most of whom lived considerably further away from the heart of the murder district than Hutchinson did. Do you know of any suspects of whom it can be said that is it proven that nothing could have prevented them from committing all the murders? I don't.

“A recollection that he was paid something is consistent with what we know of the Mary Kelly Hutchinson”

No, it isn’t.

There’s no evidence that the real Hutchinson was paid a penny. If, after coming forward, Hutchinson was requested to accompany the police round the district, he could hardly have refused, or else he would have been accused of obstructing police work, and for damnably good reason. Again, the idea that the police paid people lump sums just for coming forward as witnesses is just absurd. If that policy did the rounds, it would be tantamount to the best encouragement in the world for liars and money-seekers to approach the police all in search of a pretty penny, and they would all be secure in the knowledge that they would never be obliged to shore up their false claims with tangible results. It would have been naïve in the extreme of them to adopt this unlikely policy and then simply trust their informers not to blab to anyone about their payment.

No, if any payment occurred, it almost certainly took the form of expenses for loss of either current earnings or for work-seeking time and opportunities.

The American newspaper corroborates nothing, courtesy of its nonsensical claim that Hutchinson was paid five times his usual non-existent salary. No other newspaper made any such claim, and it’s unthinkable that one sagacious journalist from American managed to pick up on something totally and inexplicably missed by everyone else. It was headlined “gossip” and made claims about Barnett that were contradicted by all other sources. Clearly, this was not quality gossip. Similarly, the Reginald Hutchinson claim was used to endorse a Royal Conspiracy theory in a work that was more or less disowned later by its own author. In short, both are almost certainly bogus sources, and to be avoided.

“Relying only on his testimony to make him the culprit and inferring all sorts of motives to him coming forward at this distance when you have absolutely nothing else to put against him, makes Hutchinson a very implausible suspect”

Well I’m afraid you haven’t argued this remotely convincingly, electing instead to rely on bogus sources and insisting that Hutchinson was paid without any decent evidence. I’m not inferring “all sorts” of motives for him coming forward. I’ve simply outlined what we are left with after we’ve dispensed with the eccentrically bad solutions that rely on “random coincidence” as an acceptable explanation; and that is that Hutchinson probably came forward after he discovered from the inquest evidence that he’d been seen outside the crime scene by another witness.

“I admittedly tend towards a more mundane motive at distance (i.e. money) - but with a range of evidence:
Hutchinson was skint
The police did offer witnesses money
He did act as a roving witness/informer
There is the American newspaper story
There is his possible son’s testimony
He was dismissed by the police as being of no use
That adds up to something in my opinion.”

With respect, Lechmere, most of the above can’t realistically pass for “evidence” at all. We only have Hutchinson’s say-so that he was skint, there’s no evidence that the police were offering witnesses money just for announcing themselves as such, and the less said about the American newspaper and the “possible son’s testimony” the better.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Am I missing something here?

Fisherman’s article promulgated the ‘wrong night’ hypothesis based upon the contention that, on the night of Kelly’s death, it rained heavily and ‘incessantly’ from midnight onwards. When some of us countered this argument by stating that the night under scrutiny was one of heavy showers, we were flatly contradicted.

Since then Fish has managed to elicit further information from Steve Jebson which states: ‘I've checked our daily weather reports for the 9th November 1888 and across the London area there were showers during the early hours … It wasn't until after midnight that showers or intermittent outbreaks of rain moved across the capital. On the whole it remained overcast throughout the period.’ (My emphasis.)

Thanks to Fisherman’s honesty, the ‘wrong night’ hypothesis has been disconfirmed.

Oh, but wait a minute. Fisherman now contends 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.’ (My emphasis.)

Really?

According to Steve Jebson, ‘[T]he forecast issued by the Meteorological Office on the 8th was for much of southeast England to have south-easterly strong to gale force winds, a good deal of cloud and showers at times.’

The forecast.

A forecast is a prediction, not an observed event or series of events. This prediction, moreover, related to south-east England, a vast area of land of which London is but a tiny part. In other words, we have no proof of gales in London on the night under scrutiny, much less East London.

So why are we still debating the issue?

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Lechmere]

Ben... it is a fact that the police took Hutchinson on as a roving witess/informer.
The police were very conscious that they had limited rights to stop and search or even interrogate suspects (eg the Policeman who claims he saw Jack the Ripper come out of some ally and had to think of some excuse to even talk to him, then he had an effeminate voice... or the inability of the police to even speak to Isenschmid) - so they could not have forced Hutchinson to accompany them.
It is a fact that the police did pay informers for exactly the sort of service Hutchinson provided and the sum was not related to loss of pay.

I can accept your reasoning as to how Hutchinson found out about the Lewis testimony - but again that provides a trigger for him as a fraudulent witness on the make just as much (more as it is a more commonplace act) as a serial killer inserting himself in the investigation.

One thing... surely he would have noticed Lewis noticing him. If he did kill Kelly after he had noticed Lewis noticing him, then that was a bit reckless. Why did he wait until after her evidence? Why didn’t he come forward before the inquest if he was so keen to insert himself in the case?
Why didn’t he come forward when the other people had supposedly noticed him (and he will have noticed them noticing him) in the previous cases (eg Lawende)?
If he was so blasé and cocky (to the extent of inserting himself in the case and hanging out with the police) why did he stop after Kelly?

True nearly all the other suspects have little going for them, but this is just adding another suspect who hasn’t got much going for him.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"it seems Fisherman was raised in hurricane alley. We don’t really have winds like that in our tranquil isle."

Notreally, Lechmere - I was a very thin ten year old boy, and the autumn storm that hit Malmö (my native town) back in 1967 was a formidable one. All in all, though, being situated out in the Atlantic, you have more and stroner storms than we have. Apparently, the structures you are living in seem to kill off the winds no matter where they come from. Lucky you.

"All that together makes it very reasonable to accept that Hutchinson was paid by the police and was dismissed as they no longer took him seriously.
The whole missing day thing is really just an explanation for this dismissal."

A clear possibility - but for reasons I have already stated I think it is not as ggod an explanation as the missing day scenario.

"What is clear is that Hutchinson came to the attention of the police and was dismissed."

It is very clear, yes. And Dew, involved in the investigation would have had no reason to, fifty years on, pinpoint Hutchinson as a man who got one day wrong, if the police had had him down as a timewaster back in ´88. Or did they just decide not to tell Blue Serge about it?

"once someone was in their vision I doubt they would have dismissed them so totally and so quickly after first sucking up all they had to say, unless they were pretty sure of their ground."

So do I. And Dew´s assertion that he simply must have been out of date equals being pretty sure.

"It would surely have occurred to them that if he was talking nonsense about his role then it may be to cover up murderous actions."

Agreed!

"Hence it is a little academic whether he was a day out or not. He isn’t a credible witness or a credible suspect."

He is not. But I am fascinated by the factors involved never the less.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Opinion

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).

‘Made to hurry back from Romford’? Who said anything about him being made to do any such thing? He may have chosen to do so for his own reasons – you really don’t know otherwise Lechmere – nobody does. Fact. It may be your opinion that Hutchinson had no interest in the Lord Mayor’s Show, but please – that is all it is.

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.

Ah, I see. Clearly you were there at the time, Lechmere. You may imagine that you know what the weather was like – but once more, just your opinion. You have no real idea whether there were heavy showers or not. In fact, as pointed out elsewhere, the comment in the Echo states that there were heavy showers on that night.

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.

Ah. That sorts that out then. Evidence for your suggestion please?

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.

Pure speculation. Where is your evidence for this assertion?

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.

In your opinion, Lechmere. Evidence for your assertion?

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

Au Contraire, Lechmere. The whole point about a riot is that it makes a public statement. What better time to riot than on a public holiday (Oops, I forgot – it wasn’t a holiday as far as you’re concerned…sorry!). Rioting on a public holiday… sorry, occasion – creates publicity, Lechmere. That’s the point, see. It has very little to do with whether ‘Many Londoners’ saw the Lord Mayor’s Show as something to celebrate. Most people, I think you’ll find, do celebrate a holiday.

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.

What? I find your statement to be meaningless, I’m afraid. Of course press reports are attempting to engage the reader. All prose attempts to engage the reader – what’s the point, otherwise? Are you suggesting then that the connection made by the press between Kelly’s murder and the Show was simply a literary device? Trouble with that is that if the Lord Mayor’s Show had been as insignificant to ‘Many Londoners’ as you appear to believe, nobody would have been engaged by the literary device, would they? They wouldn’t have cared. Ergo, Lechmere, the papers wouldn’t have bothered to suggest a correlation in the first place.

As to your confident assertion that the ‘inmates’ of common lodging houses wouldn’t have bought newspapers – I think I might have to object to it. What are your implying here, Lechmere, exactly? Men of Hutchinson ’s type couldn’t read? Men of Hutchinson ’s type were too stupid to understand what went on in the world? The fact that the Victoria Home bought newspapers (as pointed out by Ben) rather suggest not, wouldn’t you say? And incidentally, they weren’t ‘inmates’ – they were ‘lodgers’. Men and women paid to stay at common lodging houses, Lechmere – they weren’t incarcerated.

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.

Well then, that’s your opinion – fine. Everybody is entitled to one. I think you’ll find that yours is just one amongst many - and in no way definitive.

Regards

Sally