Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Hi Tecs! The things the human mind will drive us to ...!

"But we do have Sarah Lewis's effective corroboration of Hutch's story. She said she saw a man standing exactly where Hutch said that he was."

Sarah Lewis does not corroborate Hutchinson´s story. It is Hutchinson that SEEMINGLY corroborates her. Thus she could never have claimed to have seen a man standing "exactly where Hutch said he was". She knew not of Hutchinson as she testified. Though I understand what you mean, of course!

But have you spent any real effort trying to establish just how "exactly" the loiterers stance copied Hutchinson´s? Or are you just, at face value, accepting that this was what happened? If so, where do you place the two? Sheltering in Crossingham´s doorway, perhaps?

Let´s return to Dorset street in the company of Lewis and Hutchinson, and see what they offer. We begin with Lewis, as per the inquest:

"When I went into the court, opposite the lodging-house I saw a man with a wideawake."

A-ha! The loiterer was standing on the northern side of the street, opposite the lodging house, and not at it´s door! Interesting!

But wait! The Times has it:

"Sarah Lewis, a laundress, of 24, Great Pearl-street, Spitalfields, said she went to the house of Mrs. Keyler, in Miller's-court, on Friday morning about 2:30, and saw a man standing at the lodging-house door by himself."

But ... I thought he was standing at the other side...?

Come on now, let´s try the Morning Advertisers take on the inquest:

"In Dorset-street I saw a man with a wideawake on stopping on the opposite side of the pavement. The man was alone, and was not talking to anyone. He was tall and "a stout looking man." He had dark clothes on. A young man went along with a young woman. The man, I noticed, was looking up the court, as though he was waiting for someone."

On stopping on the opposite side of the pavement, she says. Does that mean that she came from the south and saw him on the northern side...? Beats me!

Never mind; there is always Hutchinson to help out! Here´s his police report:

"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her. She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss. She said she had lost her handkercheif he then pulled his handkercheif a red one out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away."

I stood there for about three quarters of an hour, he says. But where? At the corner of the court? Or at the court? Or in it? I can´t make heads or tails of it! And he certainly does not say that he was at the door of Crossingham´s, does he?

Let´s move on to the Daily News of the 14:th, then, and see if it helps:

"I followed them across and stood at the corner of Dorset street. They stood at the corner of Miller's court for about three minutes. Kelly spoke to the man in a loud voice, saying, "I have lost my handkerchief." He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour to see if they came down again, but they did not, and so I went away."

Sod it! Same thing! "I went to look up the court", he says. But where did he stand? He does not even specify the side of the street, does he?

The Evening News, then?

""He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but I could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour, to see if they came down again, but they did not, so I went away."

Well, whaddoyouknow...? It seems that old George never came up with an estimation of where he was at.

After this, Tecs, can you still say that Sarah Lewis saw her loiterer at the exact same spot that Hutchinson positioned him at...? I can´t.

"Did the papers use the word discredited?"

The Star did. And they said that it was Hutchinsosns STORY that had suffered that fate - they did NOT say that Hutchinson himself had been discredited. Interesting difference, wouldn´t you say?

"Hutchinson was given two detectives to walk the streets with, an obvious sign that they were taking him very seriously indeed"

That was on the evening of the Monday, the day BEFORE the papers started to leak the news that his story was no longer believed in extenso. Abberline believed Hutch from the outside, remember? But that was to change soon enough! And, like I have said before, even if Hutch was a day off, the Astrakhan man would still have been of great interest to the police, having seen Kelly on Thursday morning!

The best, Tecs!
Fisherman

[Observer]

You beat me to it Fisherman, Hutchinson corroborates Lewis. Furthermore it's quite possible that Hutchinson was aware of Lewis's testimony prior to his appearance at Commercial Street Police Station, and chanced his arm at fooling the police into thinking that he was the early morning lurker. Was his breaking down, and admitting as much, the real reason why the police seem to have dropped him from their inquiry?

Observer

[Ben]

Fish,

You really are going in for some marathon blitzkrieg-like posts of late! Richard is quite right, there is really no need for the sheer length that goes into some of these threads. I’m often just as guilty, but that’s only because I find it difficult to escape the impression that I’m being challenged to a stamina war, where some people are of the clear mindset that sheer verbosity and “wear ‘em out” tactics win the race.

No, I don’t think “general rain” means unrelenting rain, because this would be at odds with Mr. Jebson’s impression of the rainfall as occurring in “outbreaks” and being “patchy” in nature.

“Therefore, it would be completely foolish to write off the POSSIBILITY that 2 AM portrayed a scene of relentless raining”

I didn’t write off the “possibility”. It may well have rained at that time, but it should not be considered a “probability” because the evidence doesn’t allow for such a determination. Based on the evidence of Sarah Lewis and the location of her couple in what was clearly an exposed location in no overcoat, my guess is that that it wasn’t raining at that time. But let’s agree to disagree or else go round and round in very long circles. Again.

“whereas we know that the night before it was totally different fitting the street scene Hutchinson depicted much better”

But once again, I put this down to Hutchinson neglecting to factor in the bad general weather conditions for the 9th. This weather incompatibility is just one more reason among many to conclude that he fabricated his account. A paint-by-numbers distillation of the “sinister” press depictions of the ripper’s appearance waltzing into the heart of the murder district with his ostentatious fineries on proud unbuttoned display is implausible enough, doubly so when we’re expected to believe that he both noticed and memorized all that he alleged despite only garnering a fleeting glance in relative darkness. Chuck in rain at the time of the alleged sighting, and the whole thing just takes on another implausible dimension, to the extent that the “lying” conclusion is practically inescapable. Which is why it’s considerably more popular than the “different day” hypothesis, which was only revived a few weeks ago.

“I´m afraid the only thing you can do is to try and find counterarguments, and what you have presented so far”

I have, but all you do is repeat the original argument as though it had never been addressed, and this is what I find tiresome. I believe he deliberately withheld the detail of having seen Sarah Lewis in order to prevent it appearing obvious that it was her evidence that spurred him into action, and as we’ve also discussed ad nauseam, if this was his intention he appears to have succeeded, since there is no evidence that the Lewis-Hutchinson connection was ever made. His failure to mention her effectively ensured that scant attention was paid to Lewis loiterer, and that investigative interest was focussed in another direction.

As for your other “counter” to my alternative suggestion that Hutchinson may well have mentioned Lewis without it appearing in print, I’ll reiterate what I’ve said before, hopefully for the last time. It is not unreasonable to surmise that Hutchinson was quizzed by both police and press as to whether or not he had seen other suspicious men in the district. In reply, Hutchinson would have replied something to the effect that the only other men he had seen were not suspicious, hence the lodger and the policeman receiving a mention, but not female Sarah Lewis.

But then you decide to argue with me once again over something that we had previously agreed to disagree with me about, and that is the Lewis-Hutchinson connection, and whether or not the two were ever connected. This is extremely bothersome to me, since it was you who kept urging to call it quits on that topic and resign ourselves to our differing opinions. But if we’re off again, I’ll repeat my previous contention that the connection between Lewis’s wideawake man and George Hutchinson was not made, and that the loiterer appears to have been bypassed in terms of significance in favour of other suspects. The few indications we have would suggest that wideawake’s identity was not an investigative priority, and that he was eclipsed in terms of potential “dodginess” by the likes of the Bethal/Britannia man, Blotchy and later Astrakhan.

This solution tallies the most with the extant evidence and the all-too-human propensity to overlook important details, especially when deluged with “leads” that need pursuing. It would mean that Hutchinson was erroneously dismissed as a publicity-seeker because such people were – and still are – frequently the bane of any high profile police investigation, and it was simply easier to consign him to that category. A recognition that the Lewis and Hutchinson accounts tallied in that key particular would have given them reason to reassess that view, and what few indicators exist would suggest that this connection was never made, even by the discerning folk at the Evening Star, who believed that Hutchinson himself ought to be considered a suspect on account of his implausible statement.

Tellingly, even they failed to arrive at that “Eureka” moment as far as Lewis’ evidence was concerned.

As I’ve also observed, it is very unlikely that Abberline was in a position, at the time of the Hutchinson interview, to recall to memory every detail from every witness account in readiness for instant cross-referencing with Hutchinson’s claims. There is no evidence that this connection was ever publicly acknowledged until perhaps 100 years after the event, so to assume that Abberline “must have” known and “must have” asked about Lewis is both naïve and unsupported by any evidence.

“The fact that she spoke first does not necessarily rule out the suggestion that he was in Dorset Street looking for friends who lived in places that may have presented potential possibilities of bedding down, does it?"

No, it doesn’t, but it seems bafflingly pointless to trudge all that way in the small hours with no money just to chance the possibility that someone would be able to put him up for the remainder of the night. Why, if he was the honest witness you want him to have been, did he not provide this reason in his interview rather than claiming to have walked about all night in anticipation of gaining entry to a lodging house he couldn’t even pay for?

“Making it into town at ten or so AM would not be a very good idea if finding a job was his intention - many of the jobs, for example at the docks, were distributed in the early morning hours.”

Nor would exhausting yourself by walking about for the entirely of the night. This behaviour is not remotely consistent with a desire to seek work early the next morning.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

As for how “exact” Hutchinson’s location can be pinpointed, any two individuals standing outside the entrance to or opposite the court in a position that enabled both of them to peer into the Miller’s Court entrance would have been standing very close to each other indeed. Anyone who doesn’t understand this, has never visited the current location, and wants to claim that Hutchinson and the loiterer must have been different people standing in different locations on different days need to reflect on the negligible width of the road.

Rather than focussing on press accounts, why not go straight to the police interview with Lewis. I don’t have it to hand, but I feel certain she specified that the man was near the lodging house. Hutchinson was rather more vague about his location, but is was clearly somewhere that afforded him the opportunity to peer down the court in anticipation of Kelly and Astrakhan coming out. Given that he waited there for an alleged time of 45 minutes, it is reasonable to conclude that he leant against a wall for at least some of that time, especially if he’d hoofed it all the way from Romford.

What should clinch the identification is not the location (although this too is crucial) but rather the strikingly similar accounts of their behaviour; both looking up the court, apparently watching and waiting for someone to come out.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

“Lets go by the 'form book' only one man [sorry Ben] has ever presented himself as that witness ie, Topping, that identification was freely released by his son Reg,many years ago via two channels, radio/book. To call either father, or son, a liar, we need more then just suspicion.”

But this isn’t the way it works. If a claim is made to the effect that a particular individual was the real George Hutchinson, it is incumbent upon those claimants to back it up with evidence, rather than embracing your approach of “This is the one, and it’s up to everyone else to prove it wrong”.

“One aspect of Toppings account was a payment which he received, conformation which has been discovered via a American newspaper not long ago.”

No, Richard!

Still no.

That American newspaper is nonsense, and it doesn’t corroborate any “payment” that appeared in connection with a theory that touted Lord Randolph Churchill as the ripper. Two crap sources cannot be considered mutually supportive of the payment issue.

You’re appealing to faith rather than to reason when you extend pleas like this one:

“We have a statement , we have been given a name for that witness Topping, so why cant we just 'ok' it”

You’re encouraging people to take this purely at face value, and adopt an entirely uncritical approach. That approach is not for me, which is why, after analyzing the available evidence, I cannot “just ok it”, just as I cannot “ok” the existence of the transparently fictional Astrakhan man.

“Are we seriously suggesting that any man of any intelligence, would present himself to the police, , admitting he was at the murder scene, and had spoke to the victim, and whats more had stayed at that position for 45 minutes, and whats more had no alibi for the rest of the night, unless he was a genuine , honest witness?”

Yes. Please read my article for examples of individuals who have behaved in a very similar fashion, often to conceal or deflect suspicion away from their involvement in the crime.

Hi Observer,

Furthermore it's quite possible that Hutchinson was aware of Lewis's testimony prior to his appearance at Commercial Street Police Station, and chanced his arm at fooling the police into thinking that he was the early morning lurker.

It’s possible, although 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. In contrast, there have been cases in which the offenders have recognised themselves in witness accounts, and who subsequently came forward with false excuses for their presence there. I’d also find it peculiar – in the above scenario - that he didn’t provide himself with an alibi for his true whereabouts around the accepted time frame for the murder (3:45-4.00ish) if his intention was to “chance his arm”

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
We will always be opposites when it comes to discussions on Hutchinson, and I will say now, thats it only that radio programme that has me convinced in Topping being the witness.
The fact is when I read Faircloughs book , and Regs comments, I already knew the story, unlike every other member of Casebook, therefore I was not eyeing it with suspicion, or holding the view that it was conjured up to help book sales.
That is why I am so stauch in my belief.
The payment.
When that article came to Casebooks attention, I received several private mails, suggesting that it strengthened my conviction about a payment, even a thread appeared on Forums, which had Sam, and Mr Poster agreeing that it enhanced my opinion.
Topping as the witness?
Why not, has the handwriting comparisons been forgotten?
As for Hutchinson coming foreward.
I agree several people have tried to mingle into investigations, but in this case I would say a definite No.
Sorry if this is related to this thread, simply my opinion that he was a honest witness, and saw kelly in the early hours of the 9th.
As for Astracan ..he killed nobody , was gone before morning.the difference between him and George was... he was not keen in coming foreward
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Richard is quite right, there is really no need for the sheer length that goes into some of these threads. I’m often just as guilty, but that’s only because I find it difficult to escape the impression that I’m being challenged to a stamina war, where some people are of the clear mindset that sheer verbosity and “wear ‘em out” tactics win the race."

I am not the one who usually asserts my opponent that he will never be able to compete with my stamina, Ben. And I am really not interested in ping-ponging the same old stuff over and over again. Enough said - we were to keep it short! (I will fail to do so, but I´ve got good reasons).

"I don’t think “general rain” means unrelenting rain"

It certainly may not have meant so in this case, admittedly - but there is really nothing to say that "unrelenting rain" could not be sorted in under the heading "general rain".

"I didn’t write off the “possibility”. It may well have rained at that time, but it should not be considered a “probability” because the evidence doesn’t allow for such a determination."

Agreed. Once again! The increasing probability I speak of is only in relation to the cnditions that prevail during a rain that only produces showers - which was the picture we had up til Jebson came across. Compared to THAT, a general rainfall increases the chances that it rained over Dorset Street. But on the whole, when we know only that it rained sometimes at some places and other times at others, never at some places and perhaps unceasingly at others, then you are quite correct: We cannot estimate the probability that it rained at a certain time and place.

My wording: "“whereas we know that the night before it was totally different fitting the street scene Hutchinson depicted much better”

Your wording: "But once again, I put this down to Hutchinson neglecting to factor in the bad general weather conditions for the 9th. This weather incompatibility is just one more reason among many to conclude that he fabricated his account."

Of course, as such, the better weather on the evening and night of the 7:th could not be put down to any clumsyness on Hutchinsons behalf in trying to deceive the police. The weather that night was what it was - and it fits the bill of a mistaken day. That is what I am saying. I fully recognize that whatever Hutchinson says that seems to be wrong can either be accepted as an indicator that he WAS wrong, or that he was lying. He spoke of a casual exchange in the hard, chilly wind and perhaps rain inbetween Kelly and Astrakhan man, and that seems wrong - or a lie. He tells us that he walked the streets endlessly, starting out in a hard rain, and that seems wrong too - or a lie. He said to the Daily News that the only people he saw as he waited for 45 minutes outside the court were a policeman and a lodger, and that seems VERY strange - or a lie. That is how a suggestion of lying works - no matter how strange something seems, it can always be explained by the suggestion that a lie has been presented. Hutchinson could have said anything that seemingly flew in the face of what we actually knew, and there would always be the potential explanation that he simply lied.

For those of us - like me - who sees it all as a mistaken day, it is very different. All the evidence must be in agreement with this suggestion: If he had been there on the night he said he was there, he would have mentioned Lewis - luckily he did not, so my suggestion survives that one. If the day before had not been one of dry weather, the point that he speaks of a strange behaviour on behalf of Kelly, Astrakhan man and - not least - himself, would have been useless. Luckily, the day before WAS a dry day, so I survive that one too! If there had been any evidence or hint in the newspapers that Hutchinson was believed to be a sinister guy, then my suggestion would have been weakened. Luckily, there is not such a thing anywhere. If there had been a policeman, active at the time, stating that Hutchinson was a timewaster or a liar, then that would take much away from my proposition - luckily, the only police about was of the meaning that Hutchinson actually was off on the dates. If we had had reports in the contemporary papers saying that a dismayed police corps had thrown Hutchinson on the door, it would have tallied bery badly with my suggestion. Luckily, what we have seems to point to the police simply letting him go with no hard feelings at all.
Looking at all these parameters, Ben, they need to fit the bill or I´m done for. So far, I have been a very lucky guy. Now, I am in no way envious of your stance since I believe it to be wrong - but I CAN be envious of the sheer simplicity with which you can manouvre your ship. Every time we find an inconstistency relating to Hutchinsons testimony and newspaper interwiew statements, all you have to say is: Well, it of course seems wrong, but he probably lied.

I am not saying that this is wrong - I cannot do so. The possibility remains that he WAS a liar, although I see very little that points to it – if anything. But I do think that relating the evidence at hand to a "locked" scenario such as mine calls for a little more. And I also think that when we see such a thing, it should make us stop and think really, really hard.

“As for your other “counter” to my alternative suggestion that Hutchinson may well have mentioned Lewis without it appearing in print, I’ll reiterate what I’ve said before, hopefully for the last time. It is not unreasonable to surmise that Hutchinson was quizzed by both police and press as to whether or not he had seen other suspicious men in the district. In reply, Hutchinson would have replied something to the effect that the only other men he had seen were not suspicious, hence the lodger and the policeman receiving a mention, but not female Sarah Lewis.”

But that is not something that we may deduce from the paper report, is it? It says:

“One policeman went by the Commercial street end of Dorset street while I was standing there, but not one came down Dorset street. I saw one man go into a lodging house in Dorset street, but no one else.”

Not “I saw no other man”, but instead “I saw …no one else”. From that, we cannot conclude that he would have been asked about men only. It is a peripherous possibility, lacking any support in the wording he chose.

“then you decide to argue with me once again over something that we had previously agreed to disagree with me about, and that is the Lewis-Hutchinson connection”

I think we both would like not to endlessly reiterate our arguments, Ben. I would much prefer if we managed to refrain from it in the future too. But different matters will be necessary to discuss again when the context changes. And Lewis, mark my words, will be very much discussed on this thread! Her role is of the utmost importance (more on that to come!). If you really feel that you do not WANT to discuss her, then refrain from it. If you can offer no more than a copy and paste-job, then so be it. But she will not go away, I´m afraid.

“The few indications we have would suggest that wideawake’s identity was not an investigative priority”

That would be very wrong, Ben. He may not have been the TOP priority, but a priority he would have been. The description of him was of course far too vague to make it useful to set out in search of him, but he would have been very much on Abberline´s mind. He was one of four people spoken about as being in Dorset Street at the vital time at the inquest, and he was the ONLY one of these that evinced what could be interpreted as a keen interest in the spot where Kelly lived. To believe that this would have gone unnoticed is not a reasonable suggestion, just as it is not viable to assume that the man was “no investigative priority”. What would that say about the police, Ben!? Dear me!

“Hutchinson was erroneously dismissed as a publicity-seeker because such people were – and still are – frequently the bane of any high profile police investigation, and it was simply easier to consign him to that category.”

But whichever way you turn here you run into trouble with the evidence and sources, Ben – IF he was dismissed as a publicity seeker, why was not Dew told? What use would it be to keep such a thing from the investigating detectives? Why leave Dew in the dark, left to make a decision of his own as to whether he should go on hunting for Astrakhan man or not? And why did he, fifty years on, say that Hutchinson had “erred” – been mistaken? That does not tally with a dismissed publicity seeker.

“A recognition that the Lewis and Hutchinson accounts tallied in that key particular would have given them reason to reassess that view, and what few indicators exist would suggest that this connection was never made”

Dew, Ben. Again. His suggestion very much points to the connection having been made. If they had Hutch down as mistaken on the days, then Lewis would have been one of the deciding factors, as effectively proven by the Daily News.

“As I’ve also observed, it is very unlikely that Abberline was in a position, at the time of the Hutchinson interview, to recall to memory every detail from every witness account in readiness for instant cross-referencing with Hutchinson’s claims.”

Yep. And that is why he did not make it at the original interwiew. But as it passed through the filter of dozens of policemen intimately aquainted with the details, it would get noticed. As I said, Abberline probably had a map of the Dorset Street area where he could pin the different individuals. And that would have been something that would have been so much the more important if he had lots of people to look at. The inquest, though, hints at four (4), and Hutchinson added two (2)…

“There is no evidence that this connection was ever publicly acknowledged until perhaps 100 years after the event, so to assume that Abberline “must have” known and “must have” asked about Lewis is both naïve and unsupported by any evidence.”

My own stance, Ben, is that it is a lot more naïve to believe that the police do not crosscheck the information they have. They do.

“No, it doesn’t, but it seems bafflingly pointless to trudge all that way in the small hours with no money just to chance the possibility that someone would be able to put him up for the remainder of the night.”

The alternative to a chance here, Ben, may have been no chance in Romford.

“Nor would exhausting yourself by walking about for the entirely of the night. This behaviour is not remotely consistent with a desire to seek work early the next morning.”

The problem being that being poor and out of work in 1888 is not remotely consistent with a wish to choose a lodging house bed over of a days work. Especially not if you cannot pay for the bed anyhow.

“As for how “exact” Hutchinson’s location can be pinpointed, any two individuals standing outside the entrance to or opposite the court in a position that enabled both of them to peer into the Miller’s Court entrance would have been standing very close to each other indeed.”

No. They would in fact have had all the street inbetween them. Here´s the thing, Ben: If Lewis´ loiterer stood at the door of Crossingham´s – and I think he did – then I would say that Hutchinson stood on the northern side of the street!
This is what Hutch says (police report):
“They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour”

He does NOT say that he went to the lodging house to watch the court from there – he says that he went to the Court!

Daily News: “He pulled a red handkerchief out of his pocket, and gave it to Kelly, and they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour…”

He went “to look up the court”. That is easier done standing directly at the passage opening.

Evening News: “they both went up the court together. I went to look up the court to see if I could see them, but I could not. I stood there for three quarters of an hour”

Same thing!

Can we find anything that tells us more? Yes indeed, we can. It´s the Daily News again, and it is about the stage when Hutchinson left Dorset Street. How does he word it? “When I left the doorway at the lodging house”? No. “When I left Dorset Street”? No, sir! Instead he says “When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three o'clock.”

And THAT was where he was standing during his vigil! Sarah Lewis´ loiterer, though, was standing at the door of Crossingham´s lodging house!! So, the man Lewis saw would have been standing at the opposite side of the street where Hutchinson claimed HE was.

Sarah Lewis´loiterer and George Hutchinson were not the same man.

I think we will be seeing more of the useful Mrs Lewis in days to come ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Enough said - we were to keep it short! (I will fail to do so, but I´ve got good reasons”

No, you haven’t.

You’ve no reason to post at such unnecessary and ponderous length. You’re the journalist. Be direct. Be succinct. If you’re not interested in “ping-ponging the same old stuff over and over again” then for crying out loud, don’t make it your mission to do precisely that when you’ve already swan-songed at me twice and told me you’re not speaking to me anymore. I only make light-hearted reference to outdoing people in the “stamina” stakes when I sense I’m up against people who think pedantic, bumptious prolixity win arguments, and you were doing so well recently at avoiding that. And that’s why I respond at even greater length, to highlight the futility of using bulldozer posting tactics as a successful debating strategy.

“It certainly may not have meant so in this case, admittedly - but there is really nothing to say that "unrelenting rain" could not be sorted in under the heading "general rain".

Except Jebson’s account of the rain as having been “patchy” and occurring in “outbreaks”. This militates against “unrelenting rain” in Dorset Street, in my opinion, although I would be hesitant to rule this out completely.

“That is how a suggestion of lying works - no matter how strange something seems, it can always be explained by the suggestion that a lie”

But in Hutchinson’s case, there are so other many other indications that he lied that the issue of the weather becomes a secondary consideration. If the weather did not mesh up with his already implausible claims, this incompatibility is simply another indication that he lied. Even in warm, balmy conditions, we still have the his “delay” in coming forward that only came to the end once the inquest had finished and the opportunity to be quizzed under oath in front of other witnesses had passed. We still have his nigh on impossible recollection of the pantomime bogeyman suspect. We still have the implausible account of his journey home from Romford in the small hours with no money to pay for a bed upon his return. Already we have excellent reasons to consider his account a fabrication, and if we super-add mismatching weather to this list of reasons, it makes little difference to the bigger picture.

“If he had been there on the night he said he was there, he would have mentioned Lewis”

That’s only according to you.

And I’m compelled reject you as the final arbiter for determining such matters, especially when you state as fact things you’re in no position to prove, or even opine convincingly upon.

If he was there on the night in question, and had occasion to conceal his true reasons for being there, there are strong and compelling reasons for him to have deliberately avoided any mention of Lewis. So no, “unluckily” I don’t think your suggestion “survives that one”.

“If there had been a policeman, active at the time, stating that Hutchinson was a timewaster or a liar, then that would take much away from my proposition - luckily, the only police about was of the meaning that Hutchinson actually was off on the dates.”

Unfortunately, the conclusion that the police dismissed him as a liar or attention-seeker is an obvious one to deduce from contemporary press accounts that declared his account “discredited”, and observed that a “reduced importance” had been attached to Hutchinson’s account. This discredited reference appeared under the heading “Worthless stories lead police astray” and featured Matthew Packer in the same article. It shouldn’t take a deductive genius to figure out just what the Star was attempting to convey in that article, and it wasn’t “Poor addle-minded date-confusing honest citizen unwittingly bollockses everything up”.

What do you mean, incidentally when you say things like the police let him go with “no hard feelings”. Is there any evidence whatsoever for the “feelings” that existed between Hutchinson and the police when they parted company? We have no evidence that Packer or Violenia were penalised for their almost certainly false witness accounts, so let us please avoid changing the goalposts for Hutchinson, as this will rile.

“Looking at all these parameters, Ben, they need to fit the bill or I´m done for. So far, I have been a very lucky guy.”

What a bizarre thing to say – how could Hutchinson’s alleged date muddling possibly benefit you personally in the luck stakes? It’s all very well to keep asserting that nothing argues against your suggestion, and to keep harbouring these delusions of immunity to criticism, but you’re only making this determination on the basis of having dismissed or ignored the indications against it, as argued by others. The near certainty that Hutchinson and Lewis’s loitering man were one and the same and the sheer absurdity of the premise that he’d confused a date where three major events (Romford trip, death of three year acquaintance, and Lord Mayors Show) are among the very strong indications that he did not confuse the date.

“I am not saying that this is wrong - I cannot do so. The possibility remains that he WAS a liar, although I see very little that points to it – if anything.”

Well, be my guest if you’re hell-bent on thinking so, but the description of the Astrakhan man and Hutchinson’s astonishing detail recollection with regard to his clothing and accessories alone make reasonable, discerning people think twice about giving him a clean bill of honest-to-goodness health.

“Not “I saw no other man”, but instead “I saw …no one else”. From that, we cannot conclude that he would have been asked about men only.”

I can and I do, since it’s such a reasonable conclusion. He could easily have been asked the question; did you see any other men in the area? And Hutchinson could easily have listed the men he had seen and then added “no-one else”, secure on the knowledge that the question pertained to men only. As it happens, I believe Hutchinson deliberately withheld any mention of Lewis.

“I think we both would like not to endlessly reiterate our arguments, Ben. I would much prefer if we managed to refrain from it in the future too.”

Well stop it then. You’ve informed me twice in this thread that you weren’t willing to speak to me on the grounds of repetitive debate, but then you clutch at any excuse available for churning out the very material you were so anxious to avoid repeating again. It’s very irritating, and I’m afraid you have a long history of it. Of course I don’t want Sarah Lewis to “go away”. I’ve probably discussed her more than anyone else currently participating on the message boards, and I’d venture a guess that my recognition of her role of being of the “utmost importance” pre-dated yours. I do a “copy and paste” job when you repeat an argument I’ve already dealt with.

“That would be very wrong, Ben. He may not have been the TOP priority, but a priority he would have been. The description of him was of course far too vague to make it useful to set out in search of him, but he would have been very much on Abberline´s mind.”

Says who?

You?

Where’s the evidence for your assertion?

All you're doing is bombarding me with yet more “would haves” and “must haves” and providing eff-all to back them up. It is clear from what little evidence we have that the investigative priority was placed on other individuals observed near the crime scene; specifically the blotchy-faced man and later Astrakhan. Even the press, who had shown a tendency to make a ghoul out of every suspect sighted by a witness, made no reference to the wideawake man apart from when recounting Lewis’ evidence. In Lewis’ case in particular, it is evident that the man who had accosted her in the Bethnal Green road eclipsed the loiterer in terms of “suspicion”-value. I never said that he passed unnoticed, but rather that he may have been bypassed in terms of significance, which is a relatively common feature in high profile investigations.

“But whichever way you turn here you run into trouble with the evidence and sources, Ben – IF he was dismissed as a publicity seeker, why was not Dew told? What use would it be to keep such a thing from the investigating detectives?”

He wasn’t told, most probably, on account of his relatively junior position at the time of the murders. He may well have been told that the Astrakhan man was no longer being sought as a suspect, and may even have been informed that Hutchinson was ditched, but not why he was ditched. This is the obvious conclusion to draw from the nature of Dew’s personal speculation. He never claimed that his views reflected those of his superiors, and even more crucially, it is clear that whatever thoughts may have existed with regard to Hutchinson, they didn’t actually know the truth.

“If they had Hutch down as mistaken on the days, then Lewis would have been one of the deciding factors, as effectively proven by the Daily News.”

Woah there big felluh. What does the Daily News “prove” about Lewis?

“As I said, Abberline probably had a map of the Dorset Street area where he could pin the different individuals.”

Will you please stop with your “probably”s and your “must haves”. You have no evidence for Abberline sticking the 1888 equivalent of coloured drawing pins into a map for a quick n easy honesty-assessment barometer for would-be witnesses. No connection appears to have been made between Hutchinson and wideawake, not even by the press, who demonstrated their eagerness for drawing their own witness-related connections.

“The problem being that being poor and out of work in 1888 is not remotely consistent with a wish to choose a lodging house bed over of a days work. Especially not if you cannot pay for the bed anyhow.”

But “being poor and out of work” is even less consistent with an all-night footslog to somewhere he couldn’t even sleep, followed by hours more unnecessary walking, enforced energy-sapping and sleep deprivation – the type that would seriously hamper his ability to seek and embark upon labouring work the next day.

“They would in fact have had all the street inbetween them.”

What do you mean “all the street”? What dizzy width has someone led you to believe lay between the north and south sides of Dorset Street? Putting Hutchinson on the northern end and keeping him rooted to that spot is simply a zero-evidence fill-in-the-blank. Hutchinson said he went to “look up the court”, and by some epic streak of non-coincidence, Lewis sees someone “looking up the court” at the same time and the same location on what was very obviously the same night. Even the terminology is identical. Gosh, I wonder if they were the same person? Never have I seen such a patience-testingly aggressive resistance to such an inescapable conclusion.

“Instead he says “When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three o'clock.”

Yes, but do you remember why?

No.

I’ll remind you. Hutchinson’s last act before allegedly departing the area was to enter the court itself and wait outside Kelly’s room. After detecting no noise and no light, he returned though the interconnecting passage, and that is why he left the corner of Miller’s Court at 3.00am – because he had just emerged from within. Tellingly, this detail of entering the court only surfaced in press versions of his account, and since it didn’t appear in the police statement, this is clearly something else he “remembered” later, along with red-stone watch seals and untraceable negligent coppers and other goodies.

“Sarah Lewis´loiterer and George Hutchinson were not the same man.”

Yes, he was.

Lewis’ loiterer and George Hutchinson were one and the same. Multiplied by infinity, and reiterated many more times that you can ever say that they weren’t. Boom!

Just borrowing from your penchant for making controversial unpopular statements and dressing them up as fact, Don’t do it again, please. It antagonises, and isn’t a good journalistic trait - not where I come from anyway.

“the Astrakhan man would still have been of great interest to the police, having seen Kelly on Thursday morning!”

But we know Astrakhan did not remain of great interest to the police, which is another very good point that you’ve just raised against your muddled-date idea. If they thought Hutchinson was honest about Astrakhan but confounded Friday with Thursday, they would still be in pursuit of Astrakhan. But they weren’t, so they didn’t.

“I think we will be seeing more of the useful Mrs Lewis in days to come ...”

Okay, but remember, succinct, direct, punchy. Make an extra effort to make sure that your central points aren't obscured 'neath the rubble, and use explanation marks sparingly.

I’ll just do a quick line count to make doubly sure that my post is longer than yours, and then I can sleep at night. Phew, it is. I demand a 100-liner from you bright and early tomorrow, Fisherman. You know the rules.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

When that article came to Casebooks attention, I received several private mails, suggesting that it strengthened my conviction about a payment, even a thread appeared on Forums, which had Sam, and Mr Poster agreeing that it enhanced my opinion.

But they're wrong, because it doesn't, Richard. A claim in a gossip column that we already know got things disastrously wrong being used to support a claim about a hush money to conceal knowledge of Lord Randolph Churchill being seen with Kelly on the night of her death - no. Just no. They don't support anything, let alone each other.

"Topping as the witness? Why not, has the handwriting comparisons been forgotten?"

No, document examiner Sue Iremonger's presentation to the WADE conference stating that Toppy was probably not the witness has not been forgotten at all. But I really think we should keep this Toppy stuff on its appropriate thread.

I agree several people have tried to mingle into investigations, but in this case I would say a definite No.

That's not really an argument against it - just saying "no" - but you're welcome to your opinion, of course.

Best wishes,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Good morning all,
Sarah Lewis claims that she saw a man opposite the court, stout, and wearing a wide awake hat, this was stated at the inquest.
A few hours later Hutchinson presents himself , and places himself in the approx position at the time .
Question. Was Hutch stout, and did he have a wideawake hat which he wore that evening/morning?
Question. Did he see a woman enter the court whilst waiting?
If the answer to both of those is NO, then I would suggest that the police would very quickly have reached a conclusion that this witness may have been mistaken on the day.
They would have had a contact address for Mrs Lewis also, and could have arranged a identification.
I would suggest that as Hutchinson went on walkabouts on the tuesday[ correct me if i am wrong] evening arriving back at his lodgings at 3am[ after 1am] that the police were satisfied that he was the man Mrs Lewis saw , making the date the morning of the 9th.
Regards Richard.

[harry]

The reason there might appear a discrepency as to where Hutchinson was standing,is in my opinion,due to the report being written by the police sergeant.Hutchinson may have been in both places at slightly different times,and on reading and signing at the bottom of the page,thought the discrepency too minor to make an issue of.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You’ve no reason to post at such unnecessary and ponderous length."

Is there any rule saying that I cannot choose what lenght I want to use? If not, it´s discussion over, thank you very much.

" that’s why I respond at even greater length, to highlight the futility of using bulldozer posting tactics as a successful debating strategy."

Aha. It´s just that I don´t use any posting tactics as a "strategy". I don´t have to. I use arguments that are well built under.

The rain issue - no further comments.

"But in Hutchinson’s case, there are so other many other indications that he lied that the issue of the weather becomes a secondary consideration. "

No. It is the other way around to those who realize the full implications.

"That’s only according to you."

Ehrm - no. It is according to me and an undefined number of other posters.

"If he was there on the night in question, and had occasion to conceal his true reasons for being there, there are strong and compelling reasons for him to have deliberately avoided any mention of Lewis."

No. There is a very weak suggestion that he somehow would have thought it tactical to leave her out.

"It shouldn’t take a deductive genius to figure out just what the Star was attempting to convey in that article"

Agreed!

"It’s all very well to keep asserting that nothing argues against your suggestion..."

It is - since nothing really does.

"...and to keep harbouring these delusions of immunity to criticism"

Watch your tongue, my friend. There are no delusions around on my part. I am fully open to any useful criticism you may offer - but the fact of the matter is that neither you nor nobody else has offered anything at all that goes to show that I am wrong in my suggestion. You may THINK that you have, but you have not. There´s a name for it...

"He wasn’t told, most probably, on account of his relatively junior position at the time of the murders. He may well have been told that the Astrakhan man was no longer being sought as a suspect, and may even have been informed that Hutchinson was ditched, but not why he was ditched. "

Most IMprobably. If he was told that the Astrakhan man hunt was off, then the obvious thing to do would be what? Exactly - ask the question why. And what reason would the police have not to tell him? Why would they not tell everybody in the force from the outset? It seems they did not make any effort to turn it into state secrets in Violenia´s and Packer´s cases, so there is the comparison material for you. No, Ben, your suggestion is not a useful one to my eyes!

"Will you please stop with your “probably”s and your “must haves”. You have no evidence for Abberline sticking the 1888 equivalent of coloured drawing pins into a map for a quick n easy honesty-assessment barometer for would-be witnesses."

Oh, come on, Ben! There may not have been coloured drawing pins - but Abberline would have kept track of where the different people were in Dorset Street that night. It was his job.

Finally, on the placing of Hutchinson and the loiterer: It says very clearly that "“They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour”

Hutchinson went TO THE COURT! He did NOT post outside Crossinghams! He also fills in that he stood "there" for about three quarters of an hour". Where? AT THE COURT - HE SAYS SO! And yes, he also says that he went up the court at one occasion, but after that he dos not say "And then I went back through the archway, saw a woman approaching, crossed the street to Crossinghams, stood at the door there as she passed, then I went back over the street to the corner of the court, and when the cloch struck three, I left the corner of Miller´s Court".
He is quite, quite clear: He followed the couple, and says that he "went to the court" or, in the papers, that he went to look up the court to see if he could spot them! And if you want to take a look up a court, the first thing you do is not to cross the street to the other side, is it?

So let us be very, very clear here, Ben. The written evidence NEVER has him standing on the southern side of the street where Lewis´loiterer stood - instead it has him telling us that he "went to the court" (and that court he says he went to, lies on the northern side of the street!), he stood there for 45 minutes, and when he left, he left "the corner of the court"!

There is no way that you can change this, Ben. Any suggestion that he would have ping-ponged between the court and Crossinghams is efficiently gainsaid by Hutchinsons own adamant statement "I stood THERE for three quarters of an hour". ALL the information we have from police report and papers is totally onesided. He never once mentions standing on the southern side of the street, nor does he hint at having left his position, other than when he went up the court - and that certainly did NOT take him any closer Crossinghams!

This, Ben is written evidence, even in the shape of a police report. It leaves no openings for any other suggestion than that Hutchinson stood at the corner of Miller´s court for 45 minutes on the night he was there, except for a sequence where he moves into the court intermittently, taking him further away from the place where Lewis´loiterer stood.

You may suggest as much as you like to that he MAY have swopped places for a while. But i think you will find that Hutchinson himself urges you not to, since he was clear on where he stood, and why he did it: to allow him to look up the court.

Therefore, from what we have, it is quite obvious that Lewis saw a man standing outside Crossinghams, on the SOUTHERN side of Dorset Street, whereas Hutchinson tells us that he spent his time at the corner of the court, on the NORTHERN side of Dorset Street. It is all there, on paper.

The only resonable conclusion is that the two men were not one and the same. It is unescapable - although I realize that you will once again prove your agenda by not accepting the written evidence.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hary:

"The reason there might appear a discrepency as to where Hutchinson was standing,is in my opinion,due to the report being written by the police sergeant.Hutchinson may have been in both places at slightly different times,and on reading and signing at the bottom of the page,thought the discrepency too minor to make an issue of."

No, Harry. Emphatically no. Let´s not introduce elements that were never there. Hutchinson said quite clearly that he spent his 45 minutes "there", that is outside the court. We may dream up that the sergeant may have skipped a bit or two of the testimony, but I´m afraid that such a thing would put the onus of proof on you, not me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"Sarah Lewis claims that she saw a man opposite the court, stout, and wearing a wide awake hat, this was stated at the inquest.
A few hours later Hutchinson presents himself , and places himself in the approx position at the time .
Question. Was Hutch stout, and did he have a wideawake hat which he wore that evening/morning?
Question. Did he see a woman enter the court whilst waiting?
If the answer to both of those is NO, then I would suggest that the police would very quickly have reached a conclusion that this witness may have been mistaken on the day."

Correct, Richard. And how long did it take? A few hours, perhaps? Hutchinson probably remained of interest as he took to the streets accompanied by the policemen (I am only saying "probably" since we do not know what would have happened if there was a suspicion before that stage. If it was ONLY a suspicion - that may be proven wrong - it would make good sense to get Hutch out on the streets anyway). Then what happened? Was he still believed when he returned from the walk? Not necessarily, no - at that stage, his stoy may already have been doubted. But doubt in itself is not enough to dismiss somebody. Even if he did say that he saw no woman, the police may have thought that he possibly may have lost his concentration for a while.
Things needed to be checked before they could draw any final conclusions. And there were a number of threads to check - Romford, the Victoria Home, the weather, the lodger Hutch said returned home in the middle of the night, etcetera. This would have taken time. The interesting thing is that we can actually see how the process took place, since we first have a remark in the Echo on the 13:th that tells us that "From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder."
There we are - the police have caught wind of the discrepancies between Hutch´s testimony and what actually went down on the morning of the 9:th. And this is in print already the day after Hutchinson went to the police, telling us that it may have been the wiew of the police as early as the day before, very few hours after his appearance. After that, there was a need to check, double-check and confirm things, and it was not until the 15:th that the Star broke the news that Hutch´s story had been discredited. And we do not know if the police put a lid on it from the outset, so this may have been something they decided on very early on too.
So, Richard, there is nothing in the timeline that speaks against the suggestion of a mistaken day. On the contrary, everything seemingly follows standard procedure: testimony - acceptance - checkout - disbelief - further checkout and confirmation - discrediting of story.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Theory

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.

I posted the above to see what the response would be, and to illustrate how theory works; since the concept of providing evidence in support of theory appears to have become somewhat lost on this thread.

Hutchinson said he went to Romford because it was the first thing that came to mind.

This is a possible conclusion based on the evidence available. It is the idea that has been put forward - the premise, if you like.

It was the first thing that came to mind because he was loitering outside Crossinghams

Hutchinson was loitering outside Crossinghams by his own admission. This is my evidence. The premise that going to Romford was the first thing that came to mind is purely speculative - but entirely possible given his current circumstances.

as everybody knew, William Crossingham lived in Romford.

Ah. Now. That is not untrue. But it is misleading. There is a crucial difference. Grave Maurice asked:

Do we know that he lived in Romford? We certainly know that he came from Romford.

Yes, we do know that Crossingham lived in Romford, although not until later on. By 1901 he was living in Romford with his second wife Margaret. In 1888 I believe he was living in Whitechapel, where his first wife Mary died the following year.

'Everybody' therefore, did not know that Crossingham lived in Romford at the time. Realistically, 'everybody' (which is a general term for 'most people' in the immediate district would probably have had an awareness of who William Crossingham was. He was a local Boss. Many people probably did know that he came from Romford. Did Hutchinson? I have no idea. But it makes a great story!

Lechmere stated in response to my 'theory' that:

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

Prove me wrong

Of course, nobody can prove Lechmere wrong here - there is no evidence at all to either corroborate his statement, or refute it. He may be right - but he has no evidence.

And as Grave Maurice points out:

If you make what may be an unsubstantiated statement, the onus to establish its validity is on you

Thanks Grave Maurice - that was exactly the reponse I was looking for.

The theory under scrutiny here is not mine - I put that forward to make a point - my actual belief is quite different - it is Fisherman's.

Fisherman contends that George Hutchinson mistook the day on which he travelled to Romford, and accordingly, on which he last saw Mary Kelly.

His initial support for this argument was that the 8th'9th November was a wet night - and since Hutchinson's description of his encounter with Kelly and Astrakhan appears to describe a dry night, it cannot have been the night of the 8th'9th. Fisherman further contends that since the night of the 7th/8th was a dry night, it must have been this night, and not the night of the 8th/9th which Hutchinson remembered.

This premise appears to be based on a certain logic, although it is clearly predicated on the assumption that Hutchinson was telling the truth to the police.

On further examination, however, it has been established that the night of the 8th/9th was not continuously wet, but instead punctuated by heavy showers. Showers constitute periodic rain, not continuous rain. It is therefore the case that there were dry periods on the night of the 8th/9th on which Hutchinson could have seen Kelly and Astrakhan - based on the assumption of his truthfulness.

The weather, therefore, cannot prove that Hutchinson was mistaken as to the night. Fisherman's premise that is does is not substantiated by the evidence. However, I do not see that the weather demonstrates that Hutchinson was untruthful, either.

The second premise put forward by Fisherman is that Hutchinson mistook the day because he forgot which day he went to Romford. For this assertion, therre appears to be no evidence at all to date. It must therefore be considered at present to be unfounded. As a personal opinion, of course, there is no problem with it - but it is not factually supported.

Fisherman's theory, which is that Hutchinson mistook the day; is not supported by the weather, and there is no evidence to suggest that his memory was at fault. It has been stated as fact by Fisherman, more than once, that Walter Dew stated in his memoirs 'I Caught Crippen' that Hutchinson 'was out by a day'.

Walter Dew did not state this, as fact. To suggest otherwise is misleading - just as my reference to Crossingham living in Romford was misleading.

Conclusively, having considered all the arguments, I do not see that our knowledge of Hutchinson has been progressed. Fisherman's 'missed day' theory makes a great story - but I think that's all it is.