Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Tecs:

"I think that Dew was simply saying that if one was wrong about their evidence in whatever way, so could another be."

That was a very wide definition, Tecs! You mean that what Dew did NOT say, but WANTED to say was "well, if Lewis was wrong in one way or another, as to time or person, then I don´t see why Hutchinson could not have been so too". Is that it?

Lets have another look at Dew´s statement:

"I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong."

Now, if your guess is correct, why did he not write:

"I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, sometimes to person and sometimes to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in these cases than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong."

or, eminently simple:

"I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken. And I can see no other explanation in these cases than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong."

Why would he add two suggestions of possible sources of mistakes - and put an emphasis on the latter - if there was no need to do so?

As you may have noticed, in the second and third version I also changed "this case" for "these cases" - if Dew was not of the meaning that they were both cases of mistaken dates, it would be strange to speak of them as a joint case.

When we put our minds to it, Tecs, we can always come up with alternative interpretations of texts. Sometimes we must learn to live with many possible interpretations. But I think what Walter Dew does tell us is that when persons miss out, one should not necessarily make the assumption that they miss out on persons (something that was suggested as per Maxwell). Instead, time is often the detail they err on. And he can see no other explanation in the (joint) case of Maxweell and Hutchinson, than that they both erred in that particular respect.

As for the rest you are saying, I could have said it myself:

"...I have never been happy with the ease at which people casually say that witnesses must be wrong out of hand, often just because their evidence doesn't fit our cosy little theories."
"Abberline ... did interview the local scallywags of the East End every day for well over a decade. If he says Hutch is kosher, that's good enough for me."

That is sound reasoning to my ears. And I think it militates much against Hutchinson having succeeded to fool Abberline.

And still, Hutchinson was dismissed! He was truthful, he was honest - and he was dismissed. That tells us that if we are both on the money when it comes to Abberline´s assessment of Hutchinson, then Hutchinson must have been mistaken, but HONESTLY mistaken! Which is why, for example, he did not recollect that Lewis had passed him by at a distance of the fewest of yards as he monitored the court. In his Daily News interwiew of the 14:th, he very clearly states that he saw only two persons as he stood outside the court, and Lewis was NOT one of them.

Would a man watching the entrance to a court with great energy and focus actually miss that somebody enters that court?
No, he would not.
Would he tell the police that he had seen Lewis, but firmly state to the newspapers that he had only seen two other persons, out of whom noone entered the court?
No, he would not.
Not, that is, if he had seen Lewis and if he was an honest, upright witness.

And that leads us straight back to Dew, in a slightly slimmed form: "I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken ... as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that ... George Hutchison were wrong."

It´s the combination of the parameters involved that does the trick, Tecs!

Finally, I would like to ask you about your passage: "These people may not have been as sophisticated as we are today, but they were practical, sensible people and we have no right at this distance to casually dismiss them as fools who get simple things wrong so often."
Does that in any way refer to the suggestion that Hutchinson could have been mistaken on the dates? Because I really do not think that such a mistake would point him out as a fool - such things are not related to intelligence, but instead to the sequential memory playing a prank on you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Overengineering

I agree Sally,

Fascinating though the minute analysis of Dew's book is (genuinely no sarcasm intended), I think that we have now turned the magnification on the microscope so high that we can't anymore see what we are looking at.

I think that Dew was simply saying that if one was wrong about their evidence in whatever way, so could another be.

regards,

Tecs, I agree entirely, it is simple. Dew was relying on what he considered to be the evidence, and took Kelly's time of death from that. For this reason, neither Maxwell nor Hutchinson could have been correct because their testimony was, as far as he was concerned, at odds with the evidence. His reference to both witnesses is passing. That's it, that's all there is, and any attempts to read anything further into what Dew said in this instance are futile.

You are right, eventually we end up in a position where we can't see the wood for the trees.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
What it all boils down to, is kellys actually T.O.D, if the medical opinion was correct, then Hutchinsons 'Astracan man' would be very much a suspect, however if the T.O.D was incorrect, then that suspect would be not so to the fore.
Its a question of doctors v Maxwell.
Maxwell stated under oath, that she saw Mjk twice on the morning of the 9th, and on one of those occasions spoke to her, that being the case she was the last person known, to have seen Mary alive.
We do not know what the police privately believed, it was initially rumoured at the time that it was a daylight murder, and an act of jealously, indicating a beau of the victim being responsible.
My question therefore.
Did the police believe, that if Astracan did exist, he was unlikely to have killed her,because she was seen some 6 hours later, and that being the reason why Hutchinsons account was thought fruitless?.
I would love to know who McCarthys suspect was, that according to Fiona has been known throughout the generations, one wonders if has connection with the jealously motive?.
That could be intresting, listing Barnett, Fleming, Hutchinson, Morganstone?, the elusive Lawrence, mayby one of these was the jealous kind?
So we are left with the word 'unreliable'
Which victorian T.O.D was, so why so adamant that the doctors were right, and witnesses wrong?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"That's it, that's all there is, and any attempts to read anything further into what Dew said in this instance are futile."

I would say that trying to find support for your suggestion that Dew ruled Hutchinson out because his evidence was at a medical disagreement with Cox sighting of Blotchy will prove very hard, Sally! And as for myself, I read nothing into what Dew said but his own wording:

"I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong."

Of course, Sally, he emphasized that erring on persons was not what we are looking at "in this case", but instead erring as to days and time. So in a sense, you are right - "it is simple". But not in the way you would have preferred!

But do keep up the good work, Sally - I´m sure that you will sooner or later arrive at the conclusion that Dew never could have meant George Hutchinson, as he actually explicitly tells us that the only people who often are mistaken are "people with the best of intentions". Now, why have we not spotted this useful detail before? Cause we all know that Hutchinson was no such person, don´t we? It´s really that simple. That´s ALL there is to it.

At the end of the day, Walter Dew would have wanted to convey ONE stance and one stance only. He would not have meant that Maxwell erred on persons and Hutchinson on Dates and that both erred on dates and that Maxwell and Hutchinson may both have erred on dates and that they would have erred on something that may perhaps have been both - or either. Walter Dew chose his wording to tell his readers that he had reached a stance where he believed that there were probable explanations to the questions raised by Caroline Maxwells and George Hutchinsons testimonies. And he chose to point out that we may need to look away from the fact that witnesses may err on persons, and instead realize that date- and timerelated errors was what was at play here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"What it all boils down to, is kellys actually T.O.D, if the medical opinion was correct, then Hutchinsons 'Astracan man' would be very much a suspect"

Given that he had actually seen his man on the right night, yes. And that is why I say that the medical evidence would not be what Dew used to rule out Hutchinsons testimony.

If, on the other hand, Hutchinson was WRONG on the dates ...

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Dew,an ex policeman,might have added,and with good cause,that persons also sometimes lie.Now as much as experience shows memory can sometimes be at fault,e xperience has taught me also that memory can be quite reliable.There is nothing Dew or anyone says that indicate Hutchinson's memory on the 12 November 1888 was unreliable.He is not remembering events in isolation,but as a series,each event following another,and just as I am able to recall the events of this past Sunday now three days gone,I can accept Hutchinson could,three days after,without being confused,remember the the events of 8/9 November 1888.Especially as the focal point was the horrific murder of Mary Kelly,a stated aquaintance,and the loss of a night's sleep.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"There is nothing Dew or anyone says that indicate Hutchinson's memory on the 12 November 1888 was unreliable."

But for his suggestion that Hutchinson would have gotten the days wrong, that is, Harry.

"Especially as the focal point was the horrific murder of Mary Kelly,a stated aquaintance,and the loss of a night's sleep."

Without commenting on the former parameter, I will say that sleep deprivation is something that lies behind many a mistaken day, Harry. We can understand as much by studying what is written on the subject. Therefore, that particular detail would not go to improve Hutchinson´s sequential memory. On the contrary, it would go to break it down.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

No.

Nowhere does Dew state that Hutchinson was out by a day.

[Fisherman]

You are correct, Sally. He worded it differently. Mind you, he does not say that Maxwell was regarded as a person of good intentions either. Nor does he tell us that Maxwell and Hutchinson would have erred as to date or person, he only says that he thinks they must have been wrong. He could have meant that they were both mad, and unable to tell the truth.

There are a lot of things that Dew does not tell us, when you put your mind to it.

As for myself, I am quite fine with my own stance. The suggestion that Dew was of the meaning that George Hutchinson erred on the days is one that is perfectly legitimate to support, and I for one think that it is by far the best interpretation of his text. If others are of another meaning, it means very little to me as long as they do not accuse me of misleading. After that, anybody is free to think that what Dew wrote was a paraphrase over ancient Egyptic poems from an early pharaonic dynasti, should they choose to.

As long as we have a wording that allows very much for the interpretation that Dew believed that Hutchinson was one day off, and as long as the surrounding evidence supports this very clearly, like for example the detail of the unnoticed Lewis and the weather observations - further strengthened by Steve Jebsons latest finding that the rain over London was a general rain that fell in long periods of time - the lost day theory remains a very useful theory. In light of that, semantic acrobatics remain of small interest to me.

The (nowadays reduced) suggestion that it may not have rained in Dorset Street at 2 AM (and we KNOW that it rained hard at 3 AM, which still did not put off Hutchinsons desire to get himself soaked during an all-night walk), the totally unsubstantiated suggestion that people will always remember in correct order what happens in weeks with Lord Mayors days in them and the discovery that one can play with words is, so far, the counterchallenge against the theory I have put on print.

I´ve seen worse, I must say.

The best, Sally!
Fisherman

[Ben]

“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.”

Well, this doesn’t make a colossal amount of sense, if I’m honest, Lechmere. The rain was reported to have arrived in “outbreaks” and was “patchy” in nature. Unless you think that clouds don’t move, but merely hover over specific areas, the obvious conclusion is that after the rain hit one patch, it would move off and hit another. You’re slightly spoiling your earlier good points about the nature of the weather on account of the fact that you’ve now “taken sides”.

“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?”

That’s exactly what it is. It would mean he misjudged his journey by an hour and a half, and walked all the way in the certainty that he couldn’t pay for any other lodgers, and didn’t have a pass for the place where he “usually” slept. I don’t know quite what you mean by “contemplating” shelter under the Miller’s Court. Surely it was obvious what needed to be done – pop self under arch. Does that imply that Sarah Lewis clocked him in “mid-contemplation?

“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.”

No. This is incorrect. If Hutchinson had paid in advance for a week’s lodgings, he would have been issued with a weekly pass – a metal bed ticket described as a “special pass” in an article intending to extol the virtues of that lodging houses – and he could then have gained entry to the home at any hour of the night after “closing” time at 1.00am.

“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.”

Not if it meant walking 14 miles in the small hours of a miserable November morning in the certainty that his usual lodgings was not available to him as he had no pass for entry there, and no money to pay for a bed anywhere else. As I’ve mentioned before, his alleged reasons for failing to secure lodgings was not consistent. Initially it was because he had no money, and later it was because the place where he usually slept had closed. But what relevance did the closure of the home have to a man with no money? This leads me to the conclusion that he did have money, in spite of his claim to Kelly (which, to be fair, doesn't qualify as a lie to the police!).

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Tecs,

“ie, he is blissfully unaware of anything out of the ordinary having happened (maybe after spending the previous night walking the streets he spent all day sleeping?)”

But he would have been walking the streets on Friday morning. At some point he would have woken up in the Victoria Home, and it is inconceivable that he did not hear the gossip in the nearby streets and in the building itself at some point relatively early on Friday. There’s the rest of that day, the whole of Saturday and the early part of Sunday in which to hear that the “police had been making inquiries”, and it is impossible to accept that he only got wind of it after a lodger told him about in on Sunday. This is why D’Onston’s example, while interesting, does not compare. If the congresswoman had been shot in the nearby vicinity, i.e. a few hundred yards away, I doubt the news would have been overlooked.

The fact that he came forward so soon after the termination of the inquest suggests that he timed it deliberately that way, most probably after discovering that Sarah Lewis had seen him at the crime scene. He could have done this in an attempt to “underline his innocence”, but just as likely, he could have done it in an attempt to conceal his guilt as other serial killers-cum-false witnesses have done on occasions.

"Abberline sat down and looked Hutchinson in the eye. He was a hugely experienced detective who must have interviewed hundreds of people over the years and I'm quite prepared to go with his recommendation that Hutchinson was telling the truth."

But Hutchinson was subsequently discredited, which would indicate that Abberline and the police as a collective found occasion to revise that stance, as reflected in the Echo's report of the 13th which observed that the authorities had attached a "very reduced importance" to Hutchinson's account. A study of the reasoning behind this reduced importance reveals that it had nothing to do with Hutchinson being "honestly mistaken", or that he confused dates, or anything of that nature. This finds additional support in Abberline's later Pall Mall Gazette interview which touches upon the witnesses, and the absence of any reference to Hutchinson's account is conspicuous.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Would a man watching the entrance to a court with great energy and focus actually miss that somebody enters that court?
No, he would not.
Would he tell the police that he had seen Lewis, but firmly state to the newspapers that he had only seen two other persons, out of whom noone entered the court?
No, he would not.

And again:

Too much is being made of Hutchinson’s apparent failure to mentioned Lewis. Firstly, and most crucially, it is possible that Hutchinson did mention Lewis but the reference was omitted from the body of the statement because is did not pertain directly to the manhunt – “man” being the operative word here. Either that or Hutchinson deliberately avoided any reference to Lewis out of concern that it would appear glaringly obvious that it was her evidence that prompted him to come forward. Of the two explanations, I prefer the latter.

Any excuse.

The (nowadays reduced) suggestion that it may not have rained in Dorset Street at 2 AM

It probably didn't rain at 2.00am, on the basis of Lewis' evidence. That suggestion has never been "reduced".

which still did not put off Hutchinsons desire to get himself soaked during an all-night walk

Unless he lied about it, which as far as I'm concerned, remains the safest explanation for what you consider to an incompatibility between the weather and Hutchinson's claims.

Dew was relying on what he considered to be the evidence, and took Kelly's time of death from that. For this reason, neither Maxwell nor Hutchinson could have been correct because their testimony was, as far as he was concerned, at odds with the evidence.

Bingo, Sally.

And you're quite right to point out that Dew never said Hutchinson was out by a date. Only that he might have been "wrong" and that he "erred".

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

‘Kinell, Fisherman!

I thought you decided not to talk to me anymore?

If the rain was described as being patchy and occurring in outbreaks, of course we can’t declare it as probable that it rained at a specific time when you want there to have been rain – 2.00am. Lewis’ evidence of an overcoatless man standing in an exposed location coupled with her failure to mention any bad weather renders it more than likely that it wasn’t raining at that particular time – a determination that is perfectly compatible with the description of the rain as patchy and occurring in outbreaks.

“Absolutely! We KNOW for sure that this couple was standing somewhere they could not shelter from the rain!”

Yes, and this is based on her description of the couple as standing in Commercial Street and the fact that the wind was described as having blown from the east. But we’ve been over this already, and you already gave me a bollocking for offering nothing new.

“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”

Could have done, but then I’d be lying to everyone, myself included, since that doesn’t remotely reflect my feelings on the subject. You might have hoped for that response, but I respectfully submit that it would have been a naïve hope. And when have you ever made the sort of concessions that you are demanding of me? I’ve never heard you say, “I must admit that Ben’s suggestion is strengthened”.

What’s most interesting about the current disagreement is that the presence of relentless rain is actually useful to the suggestion that Hutchinson told a lie that wasn’t compatible with the weather that night.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I thought you decided not to talk to me anymore?"

That only stands when you are over and over again reiterating the same old arguments. This time over, we were speaking of a new addition - that of the rain being of a general nature. As you may recall, I stated that when news arrived, I would be happy to discuss the news as such.

"If the rain was described as being patchy and occurring in outbreaks, of course we can’t declare it as probable that it rained at a specific time when you want there to have been rain – 2.00am."

Patchy can mean a lot of things, Ben. And I do not think that we can take it for granted that the patches were all alike and evenly distributed. Take, for instnace, the reports about Regent´s Park. It lies, more or less, in a northwesternly direction of Brixton. We know that Brixton received 7,1 millimeters of rain, we know that the clouds travelled in a northwesternly direction, and what happens? Regents Park gets no rain at all. Not a drop of it.
Dorset Street, however, was rained upon at about 1 AM in the morning. Then it was rained upon at 3 AM - hard this time. And in the first morning light, there was a drizzle falling over Dorset Street.
That makes three points of time that were recorded when we know it rained over Dorset Street. The suggestion that the clouds that distributed that rain did NOT proceed in a wholly northwesterny direction becoms a very compelling one. Perhaps the clouds travelled in a more west-north-westernly direction. That could explain the strange drought in Regent´s Park, a few miles away.

At any rate, what we can clearly see is that there is no general pattern here. Just like Steve Jebson said, in some places it would have rained more and in other less. And Dorset Street was one of the places where it rained.

Now, my suggestion is that the data we have points to a good possibility that it DID rain over Dorset Street at 2 AM; we know that the patches of rain that did never touch upon Regent´s Park, in fact did so in Dorset Street at 1, 3 and 8 AM - AT THE VERY LEAST!
We know that it started to rain after midnight, some say at 1 AM.
We know that the rain was hard at 3 AM.
We know that Jebson said that the rain fell in longer periods of time.

The suggestion that the rain that started to fall at 1 AM and was hard at 3 AM, may actually have prevailed throughout these two hours, accelerating into harder rain as it fell, is therefore in no way a bad proposition. It simply fills in the empty space we have inbetween the two points of time with a logically formed sequence.

This is not to say that it must have been so! Just like you do, I also realize that there was every possibility that there was a break in the rain. But that possibility does not detract from the fact that a beginning rain at 1 AM and a hard rain at 3 AM logically may have harboured general, increasing rain inbetween. And that is why I say that Steve Jebsons report increases the possibilities of rain having fallen at 2 AM. Until we had that report, it was said that the rain came in showers. With such a scenario, anybody could - very successfully - have argued that it may have rained two minutes at 1 AM and two further minutes at 3 AM, and that this was followed by a one-minute drizzle in the morning.
This can no longer be regarded as a very viable suggestion. The rain over London fell in longer periods of time. It was a general rain. And there is nothing in that term that speaks against a rain between 1 AM and 3 AM.

So, not established - but a suggestion and conclusion that has a good deal going for it in my mind.

"we’ve been over this already, and you already gave me a bollocking for offering nothing new."

That, Ben, is because I would say that EVERY street in the world, no matter how the rain falls and how the winds blow, will offer better or worse opportunities for sheltering. And there is nowhere we can take this discussion from here since we do not know where the couple stood, as opposed to Kelly and Astrakhan who we KNOW were exposed to the elements for a full three minutes, five yards from Kellys room. So let´s not go there again without having something new to offer, shall we?

"I’ve never heard you say, “I must admit that Ben’s suggestion is strengthened”.

I have complimented you on good points at times, though. Of course, we have been arguing fiercely at times, and those have not been moments when either of us have been prepared to praise our opponent.
On the suggestion that Hutchinson was a liar and a killer, you are correct. I have never seen that argument strengthened. I have moved from a position where I thought it a useful - but not very credible - suggestion, to one where I rule it out more or less totally. So yes, you are right that I fail to see any strenghtening on that score.

"What’s most interesting about the current disagreement is that the presence of relentless rain is actually useful to the suggestion that Hutchinson told a lie that wasn’t compatible with the weather that night."

That is a fair (or rainy ...) point! But myself, I think the suggestion that he was a day out is a far better one, covering the details, as well as the outcome, in a much sounder manner.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Well Ben I am perfectly happy with my interpretation of the Victoria Home rules, specifically the one that prevented access after 1 am unless the inmate had a special pass, as well as a normal ticket for a bed. I know you interpret that rule differently. My interpretation pretty much exonerates him though.

I haven’t ‘taken sides’ on the rain issue. I dispute, for example, that it rained ‘heavily’ at all. I am only going on Met Office definitions on rainfall per hour, and what the Met Office told Fisherman about the night of 8th and 9th of November 1888, and to a lesser extent on 7th and 8th November. I am unsure of the cloud patterns on either of those nights (from memory it was described as overcast) but I do not feel able to second guess the Met Office on the matter. The Met Office definition of ‘patchy’ explicitly did not imply that it rained in one location in patches - i.e. intermittent showers.

As we have no idea how many times Hutchinson had walked from Romford to Spitalfields, I would suggest we don’t know whether he could have misjudged it. I am sorry to admit that I have often misjudged travel times, by trains, planes and automobiles - and by foot. Sometimes on journeys I have made several times.
In any case I pointed out that even if he knew he would be late, whether he had money or not, he may well have preferred to get back to his home turf. That is a human instinct. Particularly if he wanted to try and find work labouring near his home turf, which is where, it is fair to presume, he did most of his labouring or groom work (I wanted to avoid saying grooming). He is likely to have work contacts near where he usually lived. My presumption is that he usually lived around Commercial Street, probably usually in the Victoria Home. There is nothing odd or strange about Hutchinson’s behaviour.

Is it any more implausible that Lewis saw Hutchinson in mid contemplation of having a kip under a dry arch, or that she saw him in mid contemplation of murder. Statistically speaking, even in Dorset Street, which of these two options is more commonplace?
He may have been thinking “Hmm, will I get trodden on if I kip there?”
Or
“Hmm, this is a rough neighbourhood, will I get attacked in my sleep if I kip there?”
Or any number of things. Or he may not have been seen by Lewis. Or he may have been thinking his own private thoughts, quite unrelated to kipping anywhere, as I gave it as a random example to show that people on street corners do not always have murder on their mind.