Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

Gosh, people are still up for this Dorset Street red hanky-panky business, aren’t they? Extraordinary.

“A good thing, then, that she did NOT shout, but just spoke in a raised voice.”

A “loud” voice, Fisherman, according to the press versions of Hutchinson’s account. Interestingly, this “loud voice” observation did not appear in his original police statement, which suggests very strongly that he added this “loudness” to make his account seem less implausible. Clearly it didn’t work, and his statement was still discredited.

“He knew that a normal conversation is held at about 60 dB”

No, this is very outlandish, Fisherman. All Hutchinson needed to realise was that normal conversation would not have travelled from the entrance to Miller’s Court to the corner of Dorset Street. I’m suggesting he lied about it in a transparent effort to incorporate Lawende’s evidence into his account, that he forgot to consider the sound-related and geography-related shortcomings associated with the lie, and that he accordingly added variants when speaking to the press, “tidying up” his earlier claims, in effect.

“Then you did it wrong. Or perhaps the ones you spoke to were just lousy listeners.”

No, you did it wrong. Or perhaps the ones you spoke to were "just lousy listeners".

“The MOST credible solution, though, would be that Hutchinson mixed up the days, he DID see Astrakhan man but on the 8:th”

No, probably not, Fisherman. Dew’s unpopular theories have been known about for decades by serious researchers. They’ve simply been rejected by them, that’s all, and the image of Hutchinson as a honesty mistaken befuddler of times a dates is a classic example of this. The theory has been around since 1938, and nobody has considered reviving it until a few weeks ago when Dew's memoirs were brought up by me on the message board – I wonder why? What amazes me is your suggestion that the only people who have argued against the decades-long rejected muddled-date theory are “Hutchinsonians”. I’m sure that’ll be news to Richard Nunweek who correctly discerned that such an idea was “clutching at straws”.

I really would caution against telling Ruby that the Astrakhan man was “sought after for quite some time after Hutchinson´s appearance”. This is not the case at all, as I’ve demonstrated on a great many threads, and will tirelessly do so again. There is absolutely no evidence that the police were still interested in Hutchinson’s suspect after the account had been discredited. Whatever the number of men brought in for questioning who happened to own Astrakhan coats, it is quite clear that their attire had absolutely nothing to do with the police interest attaching to them. Generally, these men were reported by members of the public who would not have been au fait with Hutchinson’s discrediting, or by similarly ill-informed journalists. It certainly doesn’t show that “men in Astrakhan overcoats were walking the East End streets back then”

Best regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben
Packer clearly was interrogated several times to get to the bottom of his story and his wife was an alibi. Violenia was also closely questioned after they sussed he had been lying – didn’t I say that before. I thought I had, and I can’t be bothered to check now.

The ‘raised eyebrow’ at the unemployed remark, which I then explained in greater detail (at least I think I did I can’t be bothered to check) was a reference to the common police practice of the day, namely being to establish that someone had a steady job and then crossing them off the suspect list.

This is fairly well attested to. Hutchinson didn’t come into that category, when he may have become a suspect, as he didn’t have a steady job. I don’t think, at least I have seen no suggestion as such, that the ‘raised eyebrow’ worked the other way, and automatically crossed people off the witness list, which is why Abberline may have believed him initially – as a witness. Do you follow?

According to Hutchinson he had a friend of some sort at the Victoria Home who he spoke to on the Sunday. He seems to have been a regular there. It is a fair inference that he would have been known. And was not your solitary dosser. People did know each other in those big institutions as I have pointed out. I would suggest that all the regulars would have been well enough known.

Maybe a police enquiry would have revealed nothing. I am merely pointing out the likelihood that they would have made enquiries.

The only plausible reason why they wouldn’t have made enquiries would be, I think, if it became obvious somehow that he was a day out in his reckoning and maybe told them that he realised he had made an error over the days. Or maybe Lewis didn’t identify him. There are many possibilities.

I didn’t suggest that Hutchinson coming forward quickly made him the subject of checking, still less of an ‘indefatigable’ quality. That is another example of your over exaggeration technique.

I would suggest his witness statement would have been cross referenced with other statements to see if it added up. Lewis may have been introduced. When he was dismissed, whenever that was, unless there were other reasons not to (see above) I would suggest they probably would have given him the once over (as previously described). These are in my opinion reasonable suppositions.

[richardnunweek]

Hi
Lets assume Hutchinson was telling the truth about his sighting, which included the right date, and the mans appearence was detailed correctly.
Does anyone believe that he was dressed for a bloodbath?
I have always believed he was dressed that way en-route to the Lord mayors show, and mayby the chance meeting of him, and kelly, was not a coincidence.
Another scenerio.
Mary kelly was allegedly anxious to go the parade, so is it not possible that he aranged for kelly to meet him at 2am in commercial street, suggesting that he was a tad concerned about venturing into Dorset street alone, especially at night.
In other words Mary Kelly had found herself a man , who invited her to acompany him to the show, informing her that they would make a early start, so could he stay in her room from 2am onwards, but escort him into Dorset street, meeeting him at a pre-arranged location at 2am.
I just find it strange that kelly happened to be walking towards the man when encountering Hutchinson, and the rather quick pick up, which included laughter, and the apparently amourous atmosphere, his hand placed across her shoulder, and the kiss in Dorset street could indicate a past encounter.
But to my horror , I am depicting a story of cunning deceit, and Hutchinsons man being a cold blooded killer, a man who actually played mind games with poor Mary, giving her over a hour of life , after they entered the room, before his willpower gave out.
Either that or Astracan was a harmless man who had promised to escort Mary to the Lord Mayors show, but after she had screamed out 'oh Murder' around 4am, he quickly made himself off, mayby believing he may be set upon.
That is what I am going to call my ' nervous Astracan man'.
If the latter is the case, then we have the morning sightings to debate.
Fascinating subject we have.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No, you did it wrong. Or perhaps the ones you spoke to were "just lousy listeners".

Not at all, Ben. I have been in contact with the sound expert Per Hedfors who has written a thesis, "Site Soundscapes: Landscape Architecture in the Light of Sound". You can order it and learn a lot from the address http://www.adlibris.com/se/product.aspx?isbn=3639094131

Hedfors told me that he worked not so very much with city architecture and sound, but instead landscapes and sound. But his spontanous guess was that I was correct. He added that since I probably needed more than a spontaneous guess, I should contact Erling Nilsson at Ecophone, a former associate of Lund University. And so I did. I did not ask about how far a loud voice would travel, for the simple reason that we have no idea just HOW loud that voice was. But we DO know that normal conversation lies in the range of 60-65 dB.
I described the street as a narrow one, 6-7 meters in width, some 120 meters long and lined with 3 and 4 storey buildings.

This is the answer I received:

"Intressant frågeställning. Jag menar att samtalet kunde höras. Gatan med hus på bägge sidor kommer ungefär att fungera som en korridor. I en sådan korridor avtar ljudet med cirka 3 dB per avståndfördubbling. Om vi antar att samtalsnivån på 1 meters avstånd är 60 dB så kommer ljudnivån på olika avstånd från paret att bli enligt följande:

Avstånd, m 1m 2m 4m 8m 16m 32m
Ljudnivå, dB 60, 57, 54, 51, 48, 45

Dvs. på 30 meters avstånd är ljudnivån av samtalet ca 45 dB, vilket är fullt hörbart. Det som sägs i ett samtal på det avståndet kan lätt uppfattas. Som jämförelse kan sägas att en viskning ligger på cirka 30 dB.

Best Regards/Med vänlig hälsning
___________________________
Erling Nilsson
Acoustics Specialist
Market Department, Technical Team

Ecophon"

And here is the translation:

"Interesting question. I am of the meaning that this conversation could be heard. The street with house on both sides will work more or less like a corridor. In such a corridor the sound will decrease by around 3 dB at each doubling of the distance. If we suppose that the volume of the conversation at a distance of 1 meter is 60 dB, the soundlevel at different distances from the couple will be as follows:

Distance in meters 1m 2m 4m 8m 16m 32m
The soundlevel, dB 60, 57, 54, 51, 48, 45

In other words, at a distance of 32 meters the sound level of the conversation is around 45 dB, which is fully audible. What is said in a conversation at that distance kan easily be made out. As a comparison, it can be added that a whisper lies at around 30 dB."

That is the answer to this problem, at least if we take the trouble to contact the expertise. And in answer to your suggestion that I would be wrong, I can only say that I knew from the outset that I would be right. A test like the one I did is perfectly simple and totally revealing, and should have been accepted as such. It is a sad thing that it was not, but at least the issue is settled by now. We do not know how loud the couple spoke and we do not know how well (or bad) Hutchinson heard. Therefore we cannot say for sure that he heard what was said on that night. But we CAN say that if his hearing was normal and if the conversation was held in a normal conversation volume, the issue is settled. And NOW I am prepared to leave it.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Good morning Fisherman,
That is further conformation that Hutch was telling the truth[ regardless of day], unless he experimented himself with a friend, rather like youself with your son, for if he was telling porkies he would have to be accurate.
I for the life of me, cant understand why we dispute his statement,regardless if it faded from importance, within days, that is not the issue.
The difference between us , is my conviction that the date was correct, and I see no reason to speculate.
We also agree about Topping, I will never waver on that.
I hope that the reply you received, will close the case about earshot, but the hankerchief colour will still continue.
You will have to track down an expert on ''victorian accuracy on colours under gaslight.''
Regards Richard.

[harry]

Well Fisherman if you do not wish to address me further,so be it.Anyway Ben has,in his posts,addressed the situation much better and more fully than myself.Sally's photo of Dorset Street in post 694 appears to support a length of over 150 yards in length.More so as not all the street is shown,so I do not need to revise my estimate,and I have yet to hear a sensible explanation of why Kelly needed to speak in other than a low voice.
What the paper reports is hearsay.Maybe Hutchinson did claim what the paper reports. It shows that he was ready to lie when the occasion arose.He either followed the couple into Dorset street or he went no further than the corner before they entered the court.One claim has to be false.

[Rubyretro]

Options:

Because he did not want to get involved
Because he had been visiting a prostitute and was none too proud of it - and nor would his wife be
Because he was the killer - but not Hutchinson
Because he never found out that he was searched for
Because he emigrated to Mongolia
Because he was run over by a horsedrawn carriage
Because he was a burglar, and was none too interested in chatting with Abberline

I think that it was extremely unlikely that these same Police, who Lechmere thinks would meticulously check out every corner of the witness
George Hutchinson's life history, would not be searching frantically for this prime suspect seen by Mrs Lewis at the murder site in the right time frame, and circulating his description to the Press (as they did with A Man)..

Of course, if they thought that they had already interviewed Mrs Lewis's man in the form of witness George Hutchinson, then that would easily explain it, wouldn't it ..

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"if you do not wish to address me further,so be it."

It is not you I do not wish to address. It is the faulty assumption that the distance we are speaking of was 50 yards plus, and it is the likewise useless assumption that we may loftily look away from the evidence in form of paper articles telling us that Kelly spoke in a loud voice. This is as wrong as it is foolish. Do the job, read the sourcs, make the maths, measure the distance from ALL the maps you can find, and you will come out an enlightened man. It is all good and well to have a feeling about a distance, but feelings do not affect reality in the slightest.
The same goes for your estimation that Dorset street was more than 150 yards long. Why estimate? The sources and the maps are there, readily at hand. The street was 133 yards, end of story.

"He either followed the couple into Dorset street or he went no further than the corner before they entered the court.One claim has to be false."

Why on earth would it be that? How about he followed the couple in Commercial Street, saw them walk into Dorset street, stopped himself at the corner, and then went into Dorsert Street as they walked down the archway? That would take care of it. It does not say that he followed the couple at a certain distance, does it? Not do we have to accept that following a couple must mean that he walked simultaneoulsy with them. If they went into Dorset Street first, and he followed after some time, he STILL followed. There is absolutely nothing in it that even remotely hints at him lying. Not a shred.
Where does all this preconceived mess come from? It is beyond belief!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

The police had a ‘file’ on Hutchinson, which is why they would have probably checked him out. I didn’t say meticulously, I offered some very basic checks that they could have made. If I can think of some basic checks then I am sure they could as well.

Remember I do not use the word ‘file’ in the literal sense.

They had no ‘file’ on the A-man. They could not open one.#

Lewis did not provide much of a description of the wide-awake man. He was not seen with Kelly anyway, unlike A-man whose description as you say was circulated at least.
Unless the police identified Hutchinson as being wide-awake man (and we have zero evidence that they did) then the police didn’t have a ‘file’ on wide-awake man either.

I believe you yourself suggested that Lewis may not have looked too closely sat the wide-awake man to be able to furnish much of a description or even pick him out.

Of course there is that old chestnut – that she could not describe him in words but could recognise him in person (which doesn’t as I have said take account of the police being able to ask a form of twenty question to get a description – was her tall or short, old or young, fat or thin, blond or ginger etc etc).

Then again as the police force was in its infancy they may not have thought of how to ask witnesses or potential suspects’ questions.

Incidentally, if the police thought Hutchinson was wide-awake man, then that confirmed his presence at the crime scene roughly at the time Kelly was murdered.

What reason do you have for Hutchinson being dismissed if it was confirmed by Lewis that he was there? I would suggest the only things that they could not have believed in his story were:

1. He was mistaken as to person and he saw someone else, not Kelly, with the A-man. But he followed her back to her room, so that doesn’t really add up. Or

2. He was mistaken as to person regarding the A-man. In other words Hutchinson made the A-man bit up. If they think he made the A-man bit up and believed he was the wide-awake man – what conclusion might someone rationally make? We know they did not draw that conclusion – i.e. that he was the culprit.

Where does that leave things?

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -you haven't answered my question as to how long you think the Ripper murders took to commit (leaving Mary Kelly aside for the moment..) ?

Clearly there was no CCTV to account for every minute of the day, if the
murders fell in a time frame of fitted between his sleeping at the Victoria Home, casual jobs with irregular hours (no national Insurance number before 1911, so untraceble except if Hutch wanted to mention them -I doubt that even he could reel off a list), and being seen in the pubs.

The Romford trip suggests that he even left town sometimes looking for work -how would anyone know at exactly what time he came back to town, or left it ?

Of course Police would have asked at the Victoria Home as to what sort of man he was...ok, suppose that he was always neat and polite and never aggressive (afterall, he lodged only with men).

He might have been a 'functioning alcoholic' (if alcohol did play a role in the murders -which is possible) and never appeared too drunk to be admitted to the Home (a men's lodging house where they would surely have many lodgers out drinking in the local pubs).

All the enquiries about Hutchinson's past were in 1888...and now look at how the Police came to arrest Sébasten Malinge (my murderous neighbour, about whom I posted earlier).

When the Police had discovered it was He the culprit -by comparing DNA samples and fingerprints which they had on record, they searched for his
address/work place to go and arrest him -and they couldn't find a trace of the man !!

This was at the end of 2011, in highly bureacratic France, with a computerised log of insurance numbers, bank accounts, driving licenses,
home owners and tennants, tax forms, identity cards etc

As it happened (according to the papers), Sébastien worked 'cash in hand' in casual jobs as a waiter, and had both his flat and car in other people's names.
(The police staked out the house where his children lived, on Christmas Day,
knowing that as a devoted father he would probably turn up with presents on that day..).

So if you can't check someone in this day and age, how could they check Hutch out so well in 1888 ? -above and beyond what he chose to tell them ?

I have no doubt that just like my neighbour he covered his tracks, and could be checked out favourably on any information that he chose to tell the Police, or people around him.

And, as Ben says, Hutch was a witness and not a suspect..

By the way -you say that most of the Serial killers that came forward to Police have been caught (well, that's because the Police had learned by experience)...but how would you know anything about the ones that WEREN'T caught ??

One trait of Serial Killers is they believe themselves so clever that they will never be caught.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I think that it was extremely unlikely that these same Police, who Lechmere thinks would meticulously check out every corner of the witness
George Hutchinson's life history, would not be searching frantically for this prime suspect seen by Mrs Lewis at the murder site in the right time frame, and circulating his description to the Press"

What description? A man who was perhaps not tall, and maybe heavyset? Please remember that Lewis had nothing at all to offer descriptionwise the first time over she spoke to the police. And to chase somebody, you need to know how they look, Ruby. But make no mistake; they were very interested in the loiterer.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“The police had a ‘file’ on Hutchinson, which is why they would have probably checked him out.”

No and no, Lechmere.

Not as a suspect.

There is no evidence that the police ever compiled a “file” on Hutchinson in the literal sense or any other conceivable sense. All that needs to be taken on board here, as others have already pointed out, is that the police were obviously very limited in terms of their “checking” powers, and that even in the unlikely event that they ever suspected Hutchinson of involvement in the murders, they were even less likely to be in a position to convert those suspicions into confirmation of guilt or innocence.

“Unless the police identified Hutchinson as being wide-awake man (and we have zero evidence that they did) then the police didn’t have a ‘file’ on wide-awake man either.”

Yes, precisely. Agreed.

“Of course there is that old chestnut – that she could not describe him in words but could recognise him in person”

This is not an “old chestnut” but an obvious commonsense reality. A sighting is irrefutably different from a description, and it is irrefutable that a witness who described a suspect badly might well be able to recognise that suspect again. A “form of twenty question” wouldn’t have aided such a person very well. If s/he was asked about hair colour, for instance, the witness could respond with a vague generalized answer that it might have been light brown but couldn’t be sure. That respondent is still perfectly capable of recognising their suspect again.

“What reason do you have for Hutchinson being dismissed if it was confirmed by Lewis that he was there?”

Firstly, it cannot be stressed enough how very unlikely it is that such a confirmation ever occured. If they identified him as the wideawake man, but distrusted his version of events, it was inevitable that some suspicion would have been attached to him. Unfortunately, the police would have faced the problems I’ve already outlined in the first paragraph in this post. Whether or not they ever entertained any considerations that Hutchinson was “the culprit”, they could not realistically have made much progress with those suspicions.

The likelihood, of course, is that Hutchinson was never considered in the capacity of a suspect, and that he was never compared to Lewis’ loiterer, who was clearly bypassed in terms of significance.

“Packer clearly was interrogated several times to get to the bottom of his story and his wife was an alibi. Violenia was also closely questioned after they sussed he had been lying – didn’t I say that before.”

Using family members as “alibis” is hardly considered the most accurate gauge of innocence, not that I’m remotely suggesting that Packer is a good suspect. The crucial point is that however hard the police tried to “get to the bottom” of Packer’s story, it is very clear that he was not considered a suspect, and the same may be said of Emmanuel Violenia. They were both discredited witness, and not people who were investigated as suspects and then disproved as such.

“It is a fair inference that he would have been known. And was not your solitary dosser.”

No, I think it’s a much fairer inference that he was a solitary dosser there – just another face in a 450-strong crowd of men going about their daily business, and spending very little time there other than to put head to pillow at the end of a presumably very long day. It is very unlikely that many of the Victoria Home’s residents used the building for any other purpose than sleep, and as such, it lent itself very badly to good social networking. We only have it on discredited Hutchinson’s authority that he spoke to a fellow lodger on the Sunday about his encounter.

“The only plausible reason why they wouldn’t have made enquiries would be, I think, if it became obvious somehow that he was a day out in his reckoning and maybe told them that he realised he had made an error over the days.”

No, that’s not plausible at all, but you’re quite right to highlight the existence of “many possibilities”. What concerns me is when some of these possibilities mutate into “must have’s”, which is a trap that you haven’t yet fallen into, to your credit.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Whatever the number of men brought in for questioning who happened to own Astrakhan coats, it is quite clear that their attire had absolutely nothing to do with the police interest attaching to them. Generally, these men were reported by members of the public who would not have been au fait with Hutchinson’s discrediting, or by similarly ill-informed journalists. It certainly doesn’t show that “men in Astrakhan overcoats were walking the East End streets back then”

It is just a small point, of course, but I´d be interested to know why a hauled-in number of men in astrakhan coats does not show us that there were people in Astrakhan coats around. To me, it would seem perfectly logical to make the deduction that if people with astrakhan coats are brought in off the streets, this goes to show that astrakhan men walk the streets.
Maybe I have overlooked something?

Fisherman
baffled

[The Good Michael]

I guarantee that there wasn't a policeman or local that knew Astrakhan from other wool. Hutchinson didn't know either. He did know that it sounded like somthing rich people wore.

Mike

[Ben]

I'm not disputing the existence of men in Astrakhan coats, Fish. I'm just pointing out that they weren't generally taken of the streets of the East End, nor did they attract police interest just for having an Astrakhan coat.

He did know that it sounded like somthing rich people wore

Along with Jews and foreigners, Mike...