Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

“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.”

“Patchy” to me means piddling down hither and thither at irregular intervals, but I can accept that there are other acceptable interpretations. I would, however, draw the line at the idea that patchy means isolated pockets of unrelenting rainfall hitting a particular district while it’s next-door “neighbour” remains relatively dry and unscathed. Lechmere has already pointed out that 7.1 millimetres is considered “light” or “slight” (I cannot, off hand, remember which) so it is clear that Brixton did not suffer the unabated downpour that you seem to be envisaging.

“And Dorset Street was one of the places where it rained”

Yes, but there’s no evidence that it was rain of the non-stopping variety. You argue that it would be unusual for there to have been rain at 1.00am and 3.00am but not in between, but this is precisely the nature of outbreaks of patchy rain of the variety mentioned by Steve Jebson. It’s the nature of clouds moving across the sky – one rain cloud piddles its load, then moves off to piddle somewhere else, and then another rain cloud may arrive soon or not so soon afterwards. The fact that there were contemporary reports of it raining at 1.00am and 3.00am is a strong indication that it wasn’t raining continuously between these hours, or else that too would surely have been mentioned.

Mr. Jebson’s information confirms my suspicion of the rain arriving in outbreaks and being patchy in nature, and I cannot agree therefore that it lends weight to the suggestion that it was probably raining at 2.00am. It’s a possibility, but no more than that, in my opinion, and I still maintain that Lewis’ description of the couple (and the man’s relative state of undress) points to a drier interval at that time. Again, “general rain” doesn’t mean relentless rain that never stopped. A brief final note regarding the couple: given the direction of the rain, and the fact that they were described by Lewis as having stood in Commercial Street, near the Britannia, near the market would suggest very strongly that were not in a sheltered location.

“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.”

Which accurately sums up my feelings on your theory. I rule it out more or less totally.

“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.”

I just don’t.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

“I know you interpret that rule differently. My interpretation pretty much exonerates him though.”

I think that’s very unfortunate, though, since the Victoria Home guidelines are fairly black and white, and scarcely allow for any “interpretation”. It surely stands to reason that if you’ve already purchased a metal bed ticket that proves pre-payment, there’s no point whatsoever in having an additional pass.

“The Met Office definition of ‘patchy’ explicitly did not imply that it rained in one location in patches - i.e. intermittent showers”

You don’t need to “second guess” anyone or anything. If rain is described as “outbreaks” and “patchy”, there seems to be very little room for interpreting this an unabated non-stop rain pelting down on a localised pocket of the East End, leaving other areas completely unscathed. You’d need some eccentrically obstinate and unyielding clouds for such a feat. This is only being brought up because it is expected to bolster the conclusion that Hutchinson was referring to a “dry night”, whereas all a truly continuous rainfall would do for that suggestion is increase the likelihood that he lied in his account, and forgot to factor in the weather conditions.

“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.

And I’d respectfully submit that misjudging a journey by an hour and a half just isn’t likely, especially if he knew he had no money, and knew that he’d be homeless if he didn’t make the cut-off point. If he was anxious to get back to his home turf, he would have made doubly sure that he at least had a “turf” to return to, rather than venturing back in the small hours in the certainty that his lodgings were inaccessible, and when he didn’t have any “night” left anyway. Or even more likely, if he was in Romford, he could have got back earlier. Then he claimed on the one hand to Kelly that he had no money, and on the other that he couldn’t get in because his lodgings had closed. What happened to the “No money” excuse for failing to secure lodgings? So yes, there is everything “strange about Hutchinson’s behaviour”, and I won’t be the first or the last person to come to that conclusion.

“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?”

What has statistics to do with anything?

Look at the specific circumstances; there WAS a murder in Dorset Street early that morning, and there WAS a man seen monitoring the entrance to the court in which the victim lived an hour or so before she was murdered. There’s clearly a strong argument for inferring the possible involvement of this loitering individual whether he was Hutchinson or Prince Albert Victor. I’ve only argued that this man was Hutchinson because his own account of his activities meshed up so closely with the key particulars recorded by Lewis of her loitering man, and because Hutchinson only came forward after the termination of the inquest, when Lewis’ evidence was effectively released.

Best regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

I totally agree that the Victoria Home rules are in black and white and clear in what they mean.
I also think Hutchinson knew what they meant and agreed with my interpretation, which is why he knew he couldn’t get in as he was too late even though he had (probably) paid for a week in advance. As he had no money he couldn’t pay to get in one of the less strict open-all-hours lodging houses.

None of us know what Hutchinson was doing in Romford and why he left late. It might have been unavoidable, or as I said we have no way of knowing whether he misjudged it.
Here’s a little idea – maybe he was trying to chat a girl up, hoping to go back to her place, only to get turned down. Then he had to walk dejectedly home. I have heard this happen to other people! In Romford as well! The possibilities are almost endless, but it is a bit fruitless speculating.

As to the rain, the Met Office report suggests that where it rained it was continuous light drizzle. Enough I think to be uncomfortable if you were out in it continuously, but not too bad for a few minutes. That also explains various people’s behaviour on the night.

Hutchinson’s turf isn’t the Victoria Home as such but the surrounding area - his ‘manor’, his ‘hood’ as I believe some people say in the post decimalisation era.

I can accept that Hutchinson could very likely be the person Lewis saw. I find it exceptionally unlikely that he could have heard her testimony and that this was what prompted him to report as a witness within minutes of the closure of the Inquest, for reasons I have expressed in a previous post. Nor that had he done it he would have reported to the police and that they would have let him slip by, nor that he would have changed his MO in so many particulars... but those are matters that you have differing ideas about and are I guess not really pertinent to this thread and I don’t want to be accused of being rude to poor old Fisherman again!

[Ben]

“I also think Hutchinson knew what they meant and agreed with my interpretation, which is why he knew he couldn’t get in as he was too late even though he had (probably) paid for a week in advance.”

And I say this “interpretation” is a rather bizarre and very difficult to justify one, not admitted by the evidence, which stated that lodgers could gain entry if they were in possession of a daily or weekly pass, and these took the form of metal bed tickets which were handed over to the doorman for resale to other lodgers. If Hutchinson had paid for a weekly pass, he could get in after 1.00am. That’s what the guidelines say – quite literally.

“Here’s a little idea – maybe he was trying to chat a girl up, hoping to go back to her place, only to get turned down. Then he had to walk dejectedly home.”

But he didn’t “have” to do anything such thing. A rejection by a girl (in this fill-in-the-blank scenario) in Romford certainly did not necessitate a trip all the way from Romford in bad weather conditions when he had no lodgings at the other end and pretty much no night left for sleeping anyway. It was obviously better to doss down in Romford where it was cheaper.

“As to the rain, the Met Office report suggests that where it rained it was continuous light drizzle. Enough I think to be uncomfortable if you were out in it continuously, but not too bad for a few minutes.”

It’s a possibility, but not particularly helpful to Fisherman’s theory that the weather conditions at 2.00am indicate a dry night. Clearly, if we embrace that possibility, we can apply the same logic to Kelly and Astrakhan – that being exposed was “not too bad for a few minutes”. Personally, however, I see no evidence for non-stop continual rain of any description.

I still don’t buy the home “turf” suggestion in Hutchinson’s case. No pass and no money for any lodgings totally enervated the possibility of securing a bed in a lodging house, so the fact that it was the area he was accustomed to living would have made no difference in his case.

“I find it exceptionally unlikely that he could have heard her testimony and that this was what prompted him to report as a witness within minutes of the closure of the Inquest”

And I find it exceptionally unlikely that he didn’t.

There were plenty of channels that made it possible for him to have heard of Lewis’ evidence, and the sheer absurdity of the premise that it was just pure coincidence that lead to his coming forward as soon as the inquest closed, ought really to dispense with the idea that he didn’t hear of it. The police may or may not have let him slip by. If they did, it wouldn’t be the first time in a high profile serial investigation, and if they didn’t, they were unlikely to have converted any suspicions into proof. He wouldn’t have changed his MO in so many particulars, although we know that other serial killers have made far more drastic alterations.

“I guess not really pertinent to this thread and I don’t want to be accused of being rude to poor old Fisherman again!”

Okay, back on topic!

Unless?

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I would, however, draw the line at the idea that patchy means isolated pockets of unrelenting rainfall hitting a particular district while it’s next-door “neighbour” remains relatively dry and unscathed"

Don´t, Ben - that may well happen. It rained heavily in Dorset Street at 3 AM and Regents Park still stayed completely dry, remember? We must always keep in mind that rain can be very varying in it´s nature.

"Lechmere has already pointed out that 7.1 millimetres is considered “light” or “slight” (I cannot, off hand, remember which) so it is clear that Brixton did not suffer the unabated downpour that you seem to be envisaging."

To be fair, Ben, I am not envisaging anything at all at Brixton. It is Dorset Street I am interested in.
Anything under 2,5 millimeters per hour would be light rainfall, as I understand it. Anything over 7,5 millimetres per hour would be a heavy rainfall. That means, if we relate back to Brixton, that they may have had an approximate hour of heavyish rain, or three or more hours of light rain. Unfortunately, that does not tell us what they had in Dorset Street.
The distance from Brixton to Dorset Street would, I think, be kind of roughly comparable to the distance between Regents Park and Dorset Street. And since we know that this distance meant a difference of 7,1 millimeters of rain in 8 hours, we may of course have had the same sort of difference inbetween Brixton and Dorset Street, but the other way around. If so, we are looking at more than 14 millimeters.
But we may also be looking at 3 millimeters, 5 millimeters, 9,8 millimeters or a cracking 20 millimeters. We can only get a very general picture from the weather reports. I have said that before and I say it again. Different areas got different amounts of rain. And it does not follow that an area that lay adjacent to an area that got no rain, must also have had little or no rain. The pattern may be a very irregular one - or a very consistent one. At the end of the day, all the inquiries I have made at the Met Office will not allow us to come up with any exacter measuring than the one we had from the outset: It rained at 1 AM, it rained hard at 3 AM and it drizzled at about 8 AM. Inbetween ANYTHING may have happened: it could have been dry and it could have been wet - or very wet. The bottom line is that we do not know.
The one thing that made a difference for the general picture - but not necessarily for the specific picture of Dorset Street at 2 AM - is that we now know that the rain was not an affair of showers. It was instead a general rainfall, and the rain came down for longer periods of time. After that, there is very little useful data to be extracted from Steve Jebson as regards the rain.

"You argue that it would be unusual for there to have been rain at 1.00am and 3.00am but not in between"

No, I do not. For it would not be in any way unusual! The only thing I argue is that if you have a rainfall that starts at 1 AM and is heavy at 3 AM, there is nothing illogical in the suggestion that the rain fell at an increasing pace in the two hours inbetween these points. I would also say that if my life hung on it and I had to make a guess about what the probable development would be inbetween a starting rain at 1 AM and a hard rain at 3 AM, I would put my money on a steadily increasing rain. But I would admittedly be very much aware that I could loose that bet. Fair enough?

"Mr. Jebson’s information confirms my suspicion of the rain arriving in outbreaks and being patchy in nature, and I cannot agree therefore that it lends weight to the suggestion that it was probably raining at 2.00am."

What I am chiefly saying, Ben, is that Jebsons report makes it more likely that it rained at 2 AM than it was when we thought that we were talking of showers only. In that respect, I would say that it stands to reason to believe that a general rainfall over long periods of time are likely to produce longer periods of time when the ground is struck by rain than what is the case with showers only. I hope this makes sense to you, Ben!

"It’s a possibility, but no more than that, in my opinion"

And that goes for me too! And since rain is such an inconsistent affair, I think neither of us may even tell if it´s a small or big possibility. And that is why I from the outset said in my article that even if it DID rain cats and dogs in the rest of London, Dorset Street MAY have been the one exception to the meteorological rule! There was always that chance, at least as long as we can find no material to substantiate things with in either direction. But - and this is an all-important but - we do have, by sheer luck, a perfect timing telling us that it rained hard at 3 AM, and that at that exact same time, as witnessed about by Hutchinson, he set out to walk the streets "all night". And THAT is where my emphasis lies - this is a completely irrational behaviour, and it would seem that neither of us buys it for a minute - albeit we provide totally different explanations for it. I say he was there on the dry Thursday morning - we at least KNOW that Dorset Street WAS dry that morning! -and you say that he lied and forgot about or looked away from the necessity to get the lies correct. Would that be a fair summary?

"Which accurately sums up my feelings on your theory. I rule it out more or less totally."

Fair enough, Ben. In the end we may BOTH be proven wrong. But the chief reason for your ruling is primarily your take on the chances of Hutchinson mixing up the days being very small due to the Lord Mayors show and the trek to and from Romford, right? I know that you prefer your own take with Hutchinson being Fleming and the killer, but when it comes to actual reasons for ruling my suggestion out, there is really not very much factual stuff speaking against it, is there? Of course, if one of them factors is unsurmountable, that is enough, admittedly. But this has ben in no way proven. But we´ll see!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"As to the rain, the Met Office report suggests that where it rained it was continuous light drizzle."

And yet we know, Lechmere, that it rained hard at 3 AM in Dorset Street. Rain does not conform to rules! It does not fall in equal amounts over two stone slabs in the same street, and it does not fall at the same pace throughout.

"I can accept that Hutchinson could very likely be the person Lewis saw."

But what happened to Lewis, Lechmere? How on earth could he miss her? And don´t you think that this blatant miss would have the police wondering if he really was there?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But he didn’t “have” to do anything such thing. A rejection by a girl (in this fill-in-the-blank scenario) in Romford certainly did not necessitate a trip all the way from Romford in bad weather conditions when he had no lodgings at the other end and pretty much no night left for sleeping anyway. It was obviously better to doss down in Romford where it was cheaper."

But if he had no money at all, as he said to Kelly - then he could not have bedded down in Romford, could he? And then we may have to realize that he was an Eastender, obviously knowing other Eastenders like Kelly. And it may well have been that he sought her out to ask for a place to sleep that night. The same may have applied to other aquintances that he may have had there and who he could hope were still up and about at that time. I Romford, he may not have known anybody at all.
Another factor that we may have to weigh in is that he may have wanted to be in place early in London to have a chance of securing a job over the day.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Romford

How about this.

Hutchinson said he went to Romford because it was the first thing that came to mind. It was the first thing that came to mind because he was loitering outside Crossinghams and, as everybody knew, William Crossingham lived in Romford.

These are the sort of connections that make good stories. 14 miles away, how much checking would the police have done?

Prove me wrong.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"14 miles away, how much checking would the police have done?"

All they possibily could. We are not talking of shoplifting here, Sally!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I would suggest that unless there is good reason to doubt a contemporary statement then it would be wise to take it at face value.

Regarding the weather, here is the link to the Met Office site again (just so no one has to ‘Google’ it):

https://mail.google.com/mail/?hl=en&shva=1#label/jack+the+ripper/12d533f3afc6f26d

For ease of reference the key figures are:
Downpour (more than 16mm per hour)
Very heavy (8 to 16 mm per hour)
Heavy (4 to 8 mm per hour)
Moderate (2 to 4 mm per hour)
Moderate (1 to 2 mm per hour)
Slight (0.5 to 1 mm per hour)
Very slight (less than 0.5 mm per hour)
Different people may classify heavy rain differently. However, in eight hours the minimum amount of rain to fall as per the Met Office, for heavy rain is a whopping 32mm. Fisherman describes 20mm as ‘cracking’. No it isn’t, it is mid range ‘moderate’! Then again to a Bedouin that probably counts as a downpour.
The highest recorded rainfall in the south east on 9th was in Southampton – what was it 12.5mm? This was actually over 24 hours but let’s be generous and say it all fell in the magic first eight hours of the 9th. That is defined as moderate rain. I think it is unrealistic to present a case based on heavier rainfall than that.

[Observer]

How about this.

Hutchinson said he went to Romford because it was the first thing that came to mind. It was the first thing that came to mind because he was loitering outside Crossinghams and, as everybody knew, William Crossingham lived in Romford.

These are the sort of connections that make good stories. 14 miles away, how much checking would the police have done?

Prove me wrong.

Everyone knew that William Crossingham lived in Romford. Where did you get that from?

Observer

[The Grave Maurice]

Do we know that he lived in Romford? We certainly know that he came from Romford. See the A-Z, or Fiona Rule's excellent book, The Worst Street in London.

[Lechmere]

George Hutchinson didn't know Wiliam Crossingham, never met him, never heard of him, never even seen him.

Prove me wrong

[The Grave Maurice]

Prove me wrong

No, Lech, that's not the way it works. If you make what may be an unsubstantiated statement, the onus to establish its validity is on you.

[Lechmere]

Sorry - I misunderstood the rules, Sally confused me.