Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Again making excuses... of course, it is not 100 percent certain, that Hutch told his fellow lodger actually whilst in the home on the sunday, he could have met him on the street, or a local watering hole, any time leading up to his 'courageous ' visit. on the monday evening.
I will say it again , who was Hutchinson, who are we discussing?
An unknown... or Topping?
Rather like Joseph Barnett, how many times as he been figured, but have we ever identified him?
Lets put a name to the face of this elusive character ie Hutchinson, then.... accuse him of fowl play , which what these threads seem to suggest.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Okay then, here´s the first part of the news I want to present on this thread. I have now received further help from Steve Jebson at the Met Office, regarding the rain issue. I wrote him and asked if he could provide me with a number of different rain measuring stations, in order to establish whether there were large fluctuations inbetween them as regards the rainfall on ”our” night. The answer has arrived in two separate posts. This is what the first one said:

”Dear Christer,

I've received from our Archive the daily rainfall values for Brixton and Regents Park in London for the 8th and 9th November 1888. Both values are for the period 0900 GMT to 0900 GMT and made on the morning of the observation.

The observing site used in the Daily Weather Report for November 1888 in London was Brixton, in the London borough of Lambeth.

Brixton rainfall amount:
8th November 1888: 0.0 inches (0.0 mm)
9th November 1888: 0.28 inches (7.1 mm)

Regent's Park rainfall amount:
8th November 1888: 0.2 inches (5.1 mm)
9th November 1888: 0.0 inches (0.0 mm)

Looking at the Beaufort letters for both the 8th and 9th for London (Brixton), the 8th had overcast skies and no rain during the morning and then continuing dry but overcast through the afternoon and into the evening. Rain fell at Oxford during the evening of the 8th. The overnight period in London (8th into the 9th) was overcast and rather gloomy with outbreaks of rain. Rain was also reported overnight at Oxford. Hurst Castle, near Southampton, had rain overnight with overcast skies. Cambridge had no rain overnight but overcast skies and Dungeness (Kent) also had no rain overnight but cloudy skies. At 0800 GMT on the 9th in London it was raining and overcast. It was also raining at Oxford at 0800 GMT on the 9th.

The general summary for 0800 GMT on the 9th November was for overcast skies across much of England, Ireland and France with rain in many places.

Rainfall totals for the 24 hours ending at 0900 GMT on the 9th were:

Oxford: 0.29 inches (7.4 mm)
Hurst Castle: 0.49 inches (12.5 mm)
Dungeness: 0.02 inches (0.5 mm)
Cambridge: 0.00 inches (0.0 mm)

Please note that the rain that fell across southeast England was general rain, not showers.

I think that's about all I came get from the observations that we hold. I hope this is of help.

Kind regards

Steve Jebson”

Points of interest:
Just like I suggested may have been the case, the rain was not distributed evenly over the southeast of Britain on that morning. We can see that some places got no rain at all, whereas others got up to 12,5 millimeters. We may for instance notice that as Brixton received 7,1 millimeters, Regent´s Park reportedly got nothing at all.
In conclusion, this would mean that it is not possible to tell exactly how much rain fell over Dorset Street in the early hours of that morning. We do, of course, know that the area in question DID receive rain since we have it on record that it began raining somewhere in the first hour after midnight, and we also have it on record that it rained "hard" at 3 AM.

The next interesting thing is that Steve Jebson writes:
”Please note that the rain that fell across southeast England was general rain, not showers.”

This had me wondering – in his former post, from December 23 last year, Steve Jebson had written:
”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 is impossible to say exactly when these occurred but the 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. As a result, any showers across the London area would have moved in a southeast to north-westerly direction across the capital.”

Now, though, he wrote that the rain had been general and NOT in showers. I checked back to get an explanation to the discrepancy, and received this answer:

”Many thanks for getting back to me.

The initial rainfall that I sent last year was based on data that we held here in the Library and was taken from the Daily Weather Reports that we hold for 1888. These reports stated that there were showers or outbreaks of rain across southeast England and that 7.1 mm of rain fell in London during the 24-hours ending at 0900 GMT on the 9th November. However, I looked at the Beaufort Letters for the 8th/9th period in London and it wasn't that clear whether the rain fell as showers or longer periods of rain. However, last week when I got the original returns from our Archive, it turned out that, yes there were showers about during the early hours of the 9th, but in London the rain fell not as showers but as longer periods of rain.

Unfortunately, in 1888 the synoptic charts which show the general pressure patterns did not include weather fronts as these were not identified until after the First World War. I can only go by what is written in the summary text of the summaries, which specified showers, or by the Beaufort Letters for each station.

Therefore, I can confirm that the rain that fell on London during the early hours of the 9th November 1888 was general rain, not showers. The rain was patchy in nature with some places getting more whilst others had very little.

It is impossible, therefore, given the rainfall distribution to say for definite that rain fell in the east end of London during this time. However, looking at the information available, I would say that there was a significant possibility that it did.

I hope this information clarifies the weather pattern across London during the morning of the 9th November.

Regards

Steve Jebson”

And so the suggestion of the rain arriving in the shape of showers only is suddenly dissolved! The rain that fell over London fell as general rain. And it matters not that Steve Jebson cannot say, due to the patchy nature of the rain, whether it fell over the East End or not (although he says that he thinks that there is a significant possibility that it did). For we of course know full well that it started to rain in Dorset Street somewhere during the first hour after midnight, just as we know that it rained hard at 3 AM.

Concluding all of this, I will say that there must always remain some doubt about whether it rained or not in Dorset Street around 2 AM, at least until further information may potentially be gathered from papers and such. But the information given by Steve Jebson puts it beyond doubt that the much better guess is that it DID rain over Dorset Street at the time we are interested in.

We know that it started to rain in the first hour of the day.

We know that it rained hard at 3 AM.

And we now know that the rain did not fall in showers over London, but instead as a general rain during the early hours.

The reasonable conclusion can therefore, I would humbly submit, only be that it in all probability rained over Dorset Street as George Hutchinson observed Astrakhan man at 2 AM.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Hi !

I haven't replied to this thead in ages because I've been frantically busy over the Christmas period -but I'm now ready for a holiday !

I'm coming to England for a week, and hope to visit Whitechapel (for the first time ) next Saturday (22nd).

I am looking forward to a drink in the 10 Bells -so if anyone (Ben ? Sally? ??)
was around, then I'd love to meet them (I'd love to meet you Fish, but I know that you're a long way away).

If anyone is interested -PM me.....

[Ben]

Thank you Fish, and thank you Steve!

The obvious central bullet points to take away from the latter's message are, of course, as follows:

"The overnight period in London (8th into the 9th) was overcast and rather gloomy with outbreaks of rain"

"I can confirm that the rain that fell on London during the early hours of the 9th November 1888 was general rain, not showers. The rain was patchy in nature with some places getting more whilst others had very little."

Just in case anyone is tempted to conclude that "general rain" meant non-stop continual unabated rainfall, it is clear that this was not the impression conveyed by Mr. Jebson's findings.

I would humbly submit, only be that it in all probability rained over Dorset Street as George Hutchinson observed Astrakhan man at 2 AM

Equally humbly, Fisherman, I would submit that the evidence you've just provided doesn't lend weight to any such "probability". What I instead picked up from Mr. Jebson's interesting findings is that the rain was "patchy" in nature, and since we have evidence that it rained at 3.00am a reasonable inference would be that it was that part of Tower Hamlet's turn for a "patch" of rain at that hour, that it had moved across from some other patch that had been piddled on around the 2.00am time period, at which point the northern commercial area was dry, or dryer at least.

The evidence of Lewis' couple seen standing in commercial street near the market with the man wearing no overcoat would suggest that there was no rain or any significance at 2.00am, in my opinion.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

I'd be delighted to meet for a drink, Ruby.

I'd also be happy to take you on Hutchinson's Trail of Terror - errrm! - I mean my own little ripper tour of the district.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would say that nobody that takes part in this thread would disagree that it proberly was a damp night, we have the weather reports avaliable, also a couple of clues in the weather in that area from possibly Mary Kelly, and Catherine Pickert.
If both Prater, and Cox were being honest, then we have the distinct possibility that Kelly at some point between 9pm-11pm, returned home to her room to change , for at 1145pm when seen with Blotchy, she was wearing a red knitted crossover around her shoulders, and no bonnet, which may indicate she did not want to spoil her jacket and bonnet that Prater saw her wearing at 9am, after all did she not say she wanted to go to the Lord mayors show the following day.
We know of course Pickert knocked on the door of room 13 shortly before 8am, on the 9th to borrow her shawl[ red knitted crossover?] so it was apparently useful in damp weather
Note also Maxwell mentioned kelly was wearing a shawl, of the same colour, at 815/845 am ?
Did it rain heavily at 2am . very unlikely simply because it does not figure in Hutchinsons statement, not only was it not mentioned , but the actions of Astracan and kelly, and Hutchinson would suggest not.
The most likely is,it was a damp night , drizzle, but not as cold as suggested.
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Ruby

Hi Ruby

I've PM'd you.

Best regards

Sally

[Lechmere]

The heaviest rainfall given is 12.5 mm for a 24 hour period (9 am on the 8th to 9 am on the 9th) in Southampton.
The nearest to the East End is Regent’s Park which recorded no rain. The next nearest is Brixton which recorded 7.1mm for the same period.
If we allow all the rain to fall between midnight and 8 am, then 12.5 mm in 8 hours is classified by the Met Office as moderate. 7.1 mm is defined as slight. Heavy would require at least 32 mm for that period.

We know that the rain did not fall as showers but was general rain. This is particularly the case in London as is illustrated by these two passages:

“there were showers about during the early hours of the 9th, but in London the rain fell not as showers but as longer periods of rain.”
“ the rain that fell on London during the early hours of the 9th November 1888 was general rain, not showers. The rain was patchy in nature with some places getting more whilst others had very little.”

It is clear that the word patchy refers to the rain falling at different rates in different districts. In other words the rain did not fall in a uniform manner in all areas. Some areas seem to have had no rain (e.g. Regent’s Park), others a slight amount (e.g. Brixton).

However whatever rain fell did not fall as showers. It was not intermittent. This suggests a constant drizzle of a light or slightly heavier nature. Where rain fell it was uninterrupted rain.
From this I would conclude that if you were to walk between Romford and Spitalfields on the night of 8th-9th November 1888 it is likely that you would not be under constant rain as you would walk through some dry districts, some with very slight rain, some with slight rain and some with moderate rain. That is because it was patchy.

We know it rained in the Spitalfields area so if Hutchinson was walking around in the early hours of 9th this would imply that it was raining constantly, but fairly lightly.

It would seem that there would be the possibility of rain on the Romford to Spitalfields route on the evening of 7th and 8th. The report says it rained over that period in Regent’s Park and Oxford but not in Brixton.

I would suggest that the Met Office data should be preferred to and is more reliable than press reports. On that basis I would discount the possibility of heavy rain.

If Hutchinson mistimed his walk back and was too late to gain entry into his lodgings, he may well have wandered off to find a shelter (a doorway or dry landing). While doing this maybe he saw Kelly or maybe he didn’t see her but was contemplating taking shelter under the arch of Miller’s Court. Not exactly implausible is it?
Then if he was a regular inmate and had paid for his lodgings for a week in advance he could have gained access the next morning and stayed there the next few nights, even if he had at that time run out of money.
If he was indeed staying at the Victoria Home this makes sense as he wouldn’t have been able to get in to that particular lodging house after 1 am without a special pass and if he mistimed his return (which we all do from time to time) then he wouldn’t have previously obtained one of those special passes.

Oh, I know some people think these special passes don’t exist, but I prefer to take cognisance from contemporary documents that spell these things out in simple and unambiguous language.

As for why he didn’t stay the night in Romford - well he says he didn’t have any money. Even if he did, if his normal residence was in the Victoria Home (or anywhere in Spitalfields for that matter) and even if he knew he would be too late back to gain entry, he would be able to pay for a bed in one of the ‘open all hours’ lodging houses in Spitalfields.
In any case, wanting to get back to his ‘own manor’ is an entirely human response. If he wanted to find work on Friday (or Thursday) morning then it is natural that he would want to be back in his own patch first thing.
Getting back to his own area is natural and normal behaviour, whether he had money in his pocket or not. The only likely reason he would have stayed in Romford would be if he had the prospect of work in Romford next day, so that he would have to repeat the journey back. This seems unlikely to me.

[Sally]

Lechmere..

Hello Lechmere! I've missed you!

Hutchinson knew which day it was, you know. He wasn't dim. He seems, on the contrary, to have had an almost preternatural memory, wouldn't you say?

Besides, it was the Lord Mayor's Show on the Friday - remember? I'd bet my last sixpence that he wouldn't have forgotten that.

But hey, here's an idea - let's ask somebody who was there, eh?

See you later...

[Sister Hyde]

I'd be delighted to meet for a drink, Ruby.

I'd also be happy to take you on Hutchinson's Trail of Terror - errrm! - I mean my own little ripper tour of the district.

All the best,
Ben

well i'm not Ruby but i'm going next summer to concoct my own ripper tour in London (probably alone but hey rather alone than in bad company), so if any tips are welcome (it's a shame i've spent sooo much time in London but never in whitechapel).

[Lechmere]

Sally, I’ve been round and about, waiting for Fisherman’s report.
On balance I don’t think Hutchinson was a day out either, but I think it is quite likely that the Lord Mayor’s Show did not loom large in his mind, and the possibility that it did not should be taken into account by those who wish to argue against Fisherman’s theory.
After all we know that it wasn’t a public holiday... don’t we?

Not only has Hutchinson a preternatural memory, he also apparently has the ears of a bat to hear the exact details of Sarah Lewis’s testimony amongst all the hullaballoo outside Shoreditch Town Hall. He also has the eyes of a hawk, nerves of steel, the insouciance of a child, the footfall of a ballerina and the hands of a barber surgeon.

As we know not whence he came, nor whither he went, I guess he also has the silence of a lamb.

Whatta man, whatta man, whatta man, whatta mighty bad man.
Oh - was that wager for 6d or 6p?

[Sally]

What would Dew Say???

Since this thread is ultimately underpinned by the view that Walter Dew thought that Hutchinson had missed a day; I wondered what this respected contemporary eyewitness had to say about the Lord Mayor’s Show? Was the Show a minor event? Did Dew even notice that Kelly was murdered on the day of the Show? Let’s see….

All quotations are from ‘I caught Crippen’ (1938) Chapter VIII

The day of her death was the Lord Mayor's Show, London's greatest pageant of the year.

(my emphasis)

London’s greatest pageant of the year. Right. So not some small, middle-class trifle then? No? Next…

When the Lord Mayor's Show swept through the streets of the City the next day, she was lying in that little back room in Miller's Court

(my emphasis)

Well. That sounds to me like the Lord Mayor’s Show was a pretty big event. A major event in the City’s calendar, in fact. What else?

News of this fresh Ripper visitation came to the crowds cheering the Lord Mayor's Show. The cheers died in their throats; the smiles left their faces

(my emphasis)

Crowds? There were crowds cheering the Lord Mayor’s Show? Who would have guessed it? Well, Dew would know. Wouldn't he?

Looks like the Ripper upstaged the Lord Mayor’s Show, doesn’t it?

I wonder what happened next...

Thousands forgot the Lord Mayor's Show and flocked with morbid curiosity to Dorset Street

(my emphasis, again...)

Thousands! Imagine that!

The significance of the fact the Kelly’s death fell on the day of the Lord Mayor’s Show was not lost on Dew, apparently, who knew perfectly well (because he was there) that it was a social highlight of the London year, if not the highlight. His account tells us that:

The Lord Mayor’s Show was a major event, anticipated by and attended by, thousands of people in London.

The murder of Kelly by the Ripper on this day was particularly memorable and shocking - it certainly helped to fix Dew’s memory of the day.

The murder of Kelly by the Ripper on this day was sufficient to cause many to abandon the spectacle of the Lord Mayor’s Show in favour of viewing the murder site.

Now, what was it that Dew said about Hutchison? Hmm....

[Sally]

Sally, I’ve been round and about, waiting for Fisherman’s report.

And I thought it was something I said...

On balance I don’t think Hutchinson was a day out either, but I think it is quite likely that the Lord Mayor’s Show did not loom large in his mind, and the possibility that it did not should be taken into account by those who wish to argue against Fisherman’s theory.

I agree, Lechmere, balance is a marvellous thing..

After all we know that it wasn’t a public holiday... don’t we?

Nah, sorry. What we know is that there are no immediately obvious printed documents that confirm that the Lord Mayor's Show was an official public holiday. But I expected that. Right now, I'm compiling statistical information for common lodging houses, chasing a marriage certificate, and looking for a man called Henry Turner. One of these days, I might get around to chasing the Lord Mayor's Show - who knows?

Not only has Hutchinson a preternatural memory, he also apparently has the ears of a bat to hear the exact details of Sarah Lewis’s testimony amongst all the hullaballoo outside Shoreditch Town Hall. He also has the eyes of a hawk, nerves of steel, the insouciance of a child, the footfall of a ballerina and the hands of a barber surgeon.

Well, he was a special kind of bloke! But you knew that, right?

As we know not whence he came, nor whither he went, I guess he also has the silence of a lamb.

If he lived in the Victoria Home, I should think so. Silence was expected in the bedrooms, I believe.

Whatta man, whatta man, whatta man, whatta mighty bad man.

As some would doubtless agree.

Oh - was that wager for 6d or 6p?

A sixpence is a sixpence, Lechmere. The daily rate for Kelly's room. If you happen to have a picture of one, I'd be interested to know what they looked like?

Best regards

Sally

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The obvious central bullet points to take away from the latter's message are, of course, as follows:
"The overnight period in London (8th into the 9th) was overcast and rather gloomy with outbreaks of rain"
"I can confirm that the rain that fell on London during the early hours of the 9th November 1888 was general rain, not showers. The rain was patchy in nature with some places getting more whilst others had very little."

Whoa, Ben - I am SO surprised that you did not opt for the sentence:

"in London the rain fell not as showers but as longer periods of rain."

... but being the discerning and unbiased character that you are, you of course opted for a discerning and unbiased call!

"Just in case anyone is tempted to conclude that "general rain" meant non-stop continual unabated rainfall, it is clear that this was not the impression conveyed by Mr. Jebson's findings."

Ugh, Ben - why would anybody feel "tempted" to make a call that would be so INCREDIBLY unsubstantiated?

"I would submit that the evidence you've just provided doesn't lend weight to any such "probability". "

Of course not, Ben! Just because Jebson said that it rained more in some places and not at all in others, and that where the rain fell, it fell in longer periods, that of course does in NO WAY AT ALL lend ANY weight to the proposition that since we know that it rained after midnight in Dorset Street, and since we know that it rained hard there at 3 AM, it would have rained there inbetween too, giving credit to Mr Jebsons statement that the rain fell in longer periods where it fell. Oh no - THAT is not the implication here at all! The only SOUND implication is that thee rain must have fallen in two "patches" over Dorset Street - one at 1 Am and the other at 3 AM. Inbetween, it was utterly and completely dry!

"What I instead picked up from Mr. Jebson's interesting findings is that the rain was "patchy" in nature"

Yes, yes, Ben - the DRY patches staying over Dorset Street at 2 AM, and the wet ones over Tower Hamlet!

"The evidence of Lewis' couple seen standing in commercial street near the market with the man wearing no overcoat would suggest that there was no rain or any significance at 2.00am, in my opinion."

Absolutely! We KNOW for sure that this couple was standing somewhere they could not shelter from the rain! There was not a single place in all of the street that offered ANY shelter, as has been effectively proven by you!

Wel, Ben, so much for irony! Now over to the much, much more interesting question why you chose to go about things this way, when you could instead have said: Oh, alright, so it was not just showers falling over London that night? It was general rainfall, with the rain falling over long periods of time? Aha - in such a case I must admit that Fisherman´s suggestion that it may have been raining at 2 AM is strengthened. Not to the point of any certainty, of course, but still strengthened.

But no! No such thing would be possible for you to do, would it? Never yeld an inch, no matter what the facts are! If you have to surrender the very useful suggestion that there were just showers of rain, then try to treat the fact that it was a general rainfall with long periods of rainfall as if that does not matter at all - it´s in fact the same thing! It takes nothing away from your suggestion, nothing at all! It may even strengthen it, come to think of it!

With you, Ben, it´s always business as usual, is it not? I therefore submit that I from now on will regard George Hutchinson as Mary Kelly´s killer, the reason being that I have found out that you cannot be wrong. Strange, is it not, that I did not realize this earlier ...?

The very best, Ben. The very, very best!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"I would suggest that the Met Office data should be preferred to and is more reliable than press reports. On that basis I would discount the possibility of heavy rain."

I would do no such thing, just as I would not claim that it must have rained heavily. What the data tells us is that it rained, much in some places, little in others and not at all in yet others. As for Dorset Street, we do not know, since the information is not specific enough to tell.

The best,
Fisherman