Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

Very many lonely men will have stood outside Crossinghams over the years; thousands of them, I would think. To rule out that one such man - not Hutchinson - could have stood there for a minute or two at around 2.30 on the morning of the 9:th is nonsensical. I think you will admit this.

I'm curious...what do you think that this man was waiting FOR at 2.30am on a rainy November night ?
Enjoying the view ? Basking in the feel of the cold droplets dripping down his neck ? Talking to himself ?

And after that, what do we have? A perceived gaze towards the other side of the street, thatīs all. A very good case can be made for Lewis not taking too good a look at her man

-

I agree that it is perfectly understandable that Mrs Lewis would not look at 'the lurker' when she drew level with him but want to get past as quickly as possible......but I'm pretty certain that seeing him from a distance she would watch him most particularly to see if he posed a threat to her or not.

She was quite clear as to what he was doing -the very same thing that Hutch claimed to be doing, and at the same time.

[Rubyretro]

I don't think the washing facilities were very private - so a blood splattered Hutchinson would be a bit of a give away I suspect.

Whoever the Ripper was he was obviously not 'blood spattered' enough for it to be easily spotted at a glance.....he would not have been able to leave a
murder site and fade back into the street scene otherwise.

I'm sure that the washing facilities weren't private -one more reason why I can't imagine Toppy living in such a place from choice.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I'm curious...what do you think that this man was waiting FOR at 2.30am on a rainy November night ?
Enjoying the view ? Basking in the feel of the cold droplets dripping down his neck ? Talking to himself ?"

Perhaps. Or maybe he had come from inside Crossinghamīs and stood and waited for the rain to subside. Maybe he was a punter. Maybe he was waiting for somebody. It does not necessarily have to be the more ridiculous suggestions that are true.

"She was quite clear as to what he was doing"

Oh no - she was quite clear as to what she THOUGHT he was doing. Thatīs not the same.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

May I just add, Ruby, that you are once again doing things backwards here. You try to establish that since the loiterer must have been Hutchinson and since Hutchinson monitored the court, then by reasoning, so must the loiterer have done too.

Now, try and turn things around and look at it in a manner with no preconceptions. A man stands outside a lodginghouse oppoite the opening into a court where prostitution thrives in an East end street at 2.30 on a rainy and windy night in November 1888. Letīs say that this is what we know, and nothing else.

Why would he be standing there? Which explanations would be the best ones?

That is how one must go about things, Ruby. Not backwards. And in this case, I would say that the prostitution factor is an interesting one. My first guess would be that he may be possible to couple to that. Next up: He has just left the lodginghouse and waits for the rain to taper off. Next bid: He is waiting for someone. Next: He needed a breath of fresh air. Next: He was passing down the street, and found shelter from the rain in the doorway.

You see, I can carry on for quite some time before I reach to the suggestion that he was standing there in order to be able to observe the opening into the court, so that he could keep track of a couple in the court, should they excite it.

But you opt for not looking at all the possibilities. Worse, you try to ridicule the ones who take this trouble. To you, it is a certain thing that the man in question was monitoring the entrance - not because this is the more ordinary thing to do, but because you want it to tally with Hutchinsonīs story! You take his testimony and use it to colour the loiterers role. It is not a very good way to go about it, since it leaves you unprepared for any other scenario than the one you have invested in. Sure enough, it keeps you happy since you get the correlation - but what use is that, if you are wrong?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Let us look at your various scenarios Fisherman :

A man stands outside a lodginghouse oppoite the opening into a court where prostitution thrives in an East end street at 2.30 on a rainy and windy night in November 1888. Letīs say that this is what we know, and nothing else.

I would find it a very strange thing to do.
At that hour, and in that weather, he would have a slim chance that a prostitute that enjoyed the luxury of being able to shelter of her own room,
would come out to walk the streets.
He might save himself a very long, boring and uncomfortable wait, by either
going directly up the court to her room and knocking on her door or calling out.
Alternatively he might go to somewhere like St Botolph's church and find a very poor and desperate streetwalker.
Or he might go to a lodging house kitchen and proposition a poor woman directly.

Next up: He has just left the lodginghouse and waits for the rain to taper off.

To go where exactly ? Since everywhere is shut.

Next bid: He is waiting for someone.

Apparently someone in the Court ! We can surmise this is the case as this was the direction in which he was watching.

QUOTE] Next: He needed a breath of fresh air.

Well unless all that 'background noise' was the result of a wild party in Crossinghams, it is unlikely, given the weather and the hour, that he would go out to stand in the rain.

Next: He was passing down the street, and found shelter from the rain in the doorway.

Not bad. still Mrs Lewis said that he looking down the Court as if waiting for someone.

You see, I can carry on for quite some time before I reach to the suggestion that he was standing there in order to be able to observe the opening into the court

,

I could carry on for quite sometime before I found a PLAUSIBLE reason to
think that he was doing anything other than observing the entrance to the Court -and not for any logical reason.

[Fisherman]

Ruby, on my suggestions for an occupation for Lewisī loiterer:

"I would find it a very strange thing to do."

The bottom line here, Ruby, is that monitoring an archway into a court at 2.30 in the night is a lot more strange! But you have made your mind up that this is okay - since it "confirms" Hutchinson. Backwards, backwards ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

There is “emphatically” no evidence that Abberline ever connected Hutchinson with the wideawake man, but there are compelling reasons for concluding that he didn’t. It is however, astonishingly obvious that Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson were one and the same. Here again is the crucial evidence for this non-coincidence:

Lewis:

“He was not tall - but stout - had on a black wideawake hat…the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out”

Hutchinson:

“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.”

Hutchinson claimed to have been standing in that vicinity from approximately 2:15am to 3.00am, and Lewis saw her man standing in the same vicinity at 2:30am.

It is very obvious that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis.

No “preconceptions” are required to observe and acknowledge such a glaringly obvious evidential correlation.

The wideawake man was observed to have been “waiting for someone to come out” which is precisely the reason Hutchinson later gave for his continued surveillance of the entrance to Miller’s Court. If you examine the two quotes above, you can see how identical the wording is. Those of you with a determination to argue unconvincingly that the coincidence is only a minor one will try to get round this near-identical wording by suggesting that Lewis formed a mistaken impression of her loiterer’s motivation for monitoring the court entrance, but in so arguing, you’re cornering yourselves into yet another striking coincidence; that when Lewis only thought she detected of her loiterer that he was “waiting for someone to come out” of Miller’s Court, someone actually was there for that very reason; that Lewis’ impression just accidentally coincided with Hutchinson’s professed reason for loitering there.

This is, of course, complete nonsense, and a rather futile resistance to the obvious: that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis.

Clearly, there must have been some aspect of the loiterer’s behaviour that conveyed the impression that he was interested in the court entrance. It doesn’t take too great a stretch of the imagination to fathom that there are clear and easy ways for someone standing outside Crossinghams to communicate “watching or waiting for someone” with his body language, just as there are very easy ways of communicating a lack of interest in the court. Lewis just happened to register the former with regard to the wideawake man, which ties in perfectly with Hutchinson's account of his reason for standing there.

It is very clear from Dew’s speculations that he thought both Maxwell and Hutchinson were confused as to time and date. He never gave any indication that either of them had been confused as to identity. I think it likely that Maxwell may have confused the identity rather than the date, chiefly because I continue to struggle with “date-confusion” as a plausible explanation for the testimony of errant witnesses.

Once again, Hutchinson’s failure to mention Lewis was probably a deliberate attempt to delay or prevent the revelation that it was her evidence that prompted him to come forward and attempt to legitimise his presence near a crime scene, and “walking around all night” is an implausible claim whatever the weather. The fact that he claimed to have done so in miserable weather conditions on top of that almighty hoof from Romford merely increases that sense of implausibility and lends considerable weight to the premise that he lied about it. This is far less complicated and infinitely more common than “date confusion” if you ask me.

I think Garry makes considerable sense in his analysis of Dew’s writings, and it now seems reasonable to me that according to Dew, Hutchinson was confused as to time, rather than being a full 24 hours out, which is far less plausible. Dew wrote his memoirs 50 years after Hutchinson gave his statement, and it is very unlikely that he would have remembered the key particulars of Hutchinson’s account, especially not the embellishments and additions that crept into press versions of his evidence.

The detail concerning his alleged registering of the time according to the St Mary’s clock did not appear in his police statement, but only some of the newspapers. Not even the Times recorded that particular detail. It is true that most press versions offer the detail that the Christ Church clock struck three when he left the vicinity, but again, there is nothing stated about this in Hutchinson’s police statement. To assert that Dew must have observed and remembered these press-recorded clock episodes is therefore optimistic in the extreme. It is even less likely that Dew was ever familiar with the Victoria Home entry guidelines, let alone 50 years after the murders. Given the extent of Dew’s muddled confusion revealed elsewhere in his memoirs, it is even less likely that he committed details such as these to his memory.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

'Maths' is actually unpopular among many British educators these days, but old habits die hard, and they seem to be stuck with it.

“Maths” is not “unpopular among many British educators these days”. I can’t think of anything more ridiculous: Oh, please free us from the constraints of that extra pesky “S”! I don’t think so. “Maths” is used in every school in the country. Nobody has ever had a problem with it, and to be honest, nobody really gives it much thought. We’ve always used the abbreviation “maths”, we’ve always been happy with “maths”, so “maths” it will continue to be around here.

Meanwhile, back on topic.

Hi Fisherman,

“I am a lot more surprised to see your complete faith in Faircloughīs total honesty, I must say! He would never, NEVER tamper with a quotation, sort of?”

I never accused Fairclough of dishonesty. Gullible, prone to sensationalist explanations, and clearly incautious with his interviewing techniques perhaps, but I would never accuse him of outright falsification of sources. The same cannot be said of the fuel behind that particular royal conspiracy bonfire that was Joseph Gorman Sickert, but he was not the author and would not have been responsible for the Toppy-related content in the appendices of the book. When it emerged that Sickert had invented many of the claims behind the theory, Fairclough effectively disowned the book, if I understand correctly, at which point everything associated it should have been consigned to ripperological oblivion.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

QUOTE]The bottom line here, Ruby, is that monitoring an archway into a court at 2.30 in the night is a lot more strange! But you have made your mind up that this is okay - since it "confirms" Hutchinson. Backwards, backwards[/QUOTE]

No Fisherman, I have made up my mind that was what the man was doing, because that is what the witness, Mrs Lewis, said he was doing.

I would also find it an extremely odd thing for a man to be monitering the entrance to the Court at 2.30am. However, in the light of the fact that a woman was murdered in her room shortly afterwards, in that same Court, his behaviour becomes rather more explicable.

[Rubyretro]

Has anyone tried to contact Fairclough yet ?

Apparently he is alive and living in Surrey, and working on a new book, so a letter through his publisher should do it.

[The Good Michael]

That is how one must go about things, Ruby. Not backwards.

Actually, how suspectology works is that one must choose someone they think did it and create facts around him. If a person is found guilty without concern for real evidence, it should be easy to create evidence in order to prove his guilt. This has been done with Maybrick, Topping, Eddy, Gull, and many others. I'm not sure Karen Trenouth did it this way, but she had her own methods.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"There is “emphatically” no evidence that Abberline ever connected Hutchinson with the wideawake man"

Correct! All there is is a very small group of inquest witnesses out of whom two (2) placed a man at the murder spot. So we can only guess whether Abberline realized, when Hutch appeared, that he placed another man at the same spot, more or less. It would have been a conclusion that involved the fewest of parameters, so to me, itīs a very easy call.
Plus, if Abberline miraculously overlooked it, there were scores of OTHER policemen who could have cleared their throats and said "Excuse me Guv, but look at this!" Rocket science? No, the polar opposite.

"but there are compelling reasons for concluding that he didn’t."

Thatīs just you, Iīm afraid, Ben. You NEED there to be "compelling reasons, but they are not there.

"It is however, astonishingly obvious that Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson were one and the same."

You mean like arse-numbingly, blindingly, commonsensically obvious? Have you not used up your quota of that word yet? Obvious? And in all the wrong places!
Believe me, Ben, the only thing that is obvious is that things that are obvious to you are no such thing to other people out here.

"It is very obvious that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis."

There we go again... And what, Ben, if Dew was correct? What is "obvious" then? Or could not Dew have been correct SINCE it is so overwhelmingly obvious that Hutch was the loiterer? Then backwards we go again!

"No “preconceptions” are required to observe and acknowledge such a glaringly obvious evidential correlation."

...and AGAIN! To see that both Lewis and Hutch alluded to a man in Dorset Street craves no preconception, Ben. That only comes to use when we start to believe that the men must have been one and the same. They must nothing of the sort.

"The wideawake man was observed to have been “waiting for someone to come out” which is precisely the reason Hutchinson later gave for his continued surveillance of the entrance to Miller’s Court. If you examine the two quotes above, you can see how identical the wording is."

Yes, but that, Ben, is the wording and not necessarily the actions. If somebody says that Usain Bolt shot away like a rocket and someone else says that your 96-year old grandfather shot away like a rocket, the two actions will - in spite of the EXACTLY IDENTICAL wordings - STILL not resemble each other very much. Get real. It helps. You cannot use a phrasing that may have pointed to one behaviour on one hand, but another one on the other hand, as if it was ironclad proof of any exact correlation. Hutchinson may have stood straight up like as soldier, not moving as he peered into the archway, and the loiterer may have rolled his body from side to side, shading his eyes with one hand. Similarly, anyone of them may have done any other thing that ALSO could be interpreted as looking up the court. You have nothing to go on here, Ben, but your own assertions. And they leak more badly than the Titanic did on her way to the bottom.

"Clearly, there must have been some aspect of the loiterer’s behaviour that conveyed the impression that he was interested in the court entrance."

Even if we accept that Lewis had the key to that question we cannot answer - how does one portray waiting for a couple? - how the hell do we know that Hutch did the same thing? At the same spot?
Answer: We donīt. And there goes all the "obviouseīs"! Whooof! Gone!

"just as there are very easy ways of communicating a lack of interest in the court."

Yeah - you turn your back on it.

"It is very clear from Dew’s speculations that he thought both Maxwell and Hutchinson were confused as to time and date."

Aha. Then read again, for it is nothing of the sort. Like I said to Garry, I was of the same misconception originally, but realized that this was not necessarily true. I lean towards Lechmereīs solution.

"Once again, Hutchinson’s failure to mention Lewis was probably a deliberate attempt to delay or prevent the revelation that it was her evidence that prompted him to come forward"

Iīm afraid you force me to once again pass a verdict of silly. This IS silly.
I have asked it before, and will ask it again, and this time I would like an answer: Which policeman would yell "Murderer!" when someone stated something that was incredibly - wait for it... - OBVIOUS! He MUST have seen her. The chances that the police knew this were one hundred per cent, unless you are going to argue that Abberline failed to see this connection too? Therefore, in what possible manner would it help him to stauntly deny having seen her? Even if he had gotten such a silly idea into his head, the police would never let him off the hook. They desperately needed confirmation of his story, and the fattest, juiciest, best bid was NOT to accept - like you - that Hutch MUST have been the loiterer, but instead to - thatīs right! - ASK him about it. The Grimm brothes would have laughed at this suggestion of yours, Ben. And that is not me being cruel, itīs me being very realistic. It borders on being polite compared to other judgments I could have passed on that suggestion. Itīs beyond desperation and does not belong in a rational conversation. You may be as displeased as you want to and "huff and puff" as Lechmere put it - but that wonīt change it in any manner.

"This is far less complicated and infinitely more common than “date confusion” if you ask me."

Aha. So, a witness that is perceived by the police as honest is infinitely more commonly a killer who holds back evidence not to be too easy to read? THAT is what you think is an infinitely more common explanation that a man who mixes the days up? Wow. I mean ... wow!

"I think Garry makes considerable sense in his analysis of Dew’s writings, and it now seems reasonable to me that according to Dew, Hutchinson was confused as to time, rather than being a full 24 hours out, which is far less plausible."

If you need sense, then read my answer to Garry. The suggestion that Hutchinson was honest, but forgot that the clock had struck eleven instead of two, and forgot that the pubs were open and the streets crowded, and forgot to go home to his open doss house is ... no, I wonīt even bother to word it.

"The detail concerning his alleged registering of the time according to the St Mary’s clock did not appear in his police statement, but only some of the newspapers. Not even the Times recorded that particular detail. It is true that most press versions offer the detail that the Christ Church clock struck three when he left the vicinity, but again, there is nothing stated about this in Hutchinson’s police statement. To assert that Dew must have observed and remembered these press-recorded clock episodes is therefore optimistic in the extreme. It is even less likely that Dew was ever familiar with the Victoria Home entry guidelines, let alone 50 years after the murders. Given the extent of Dew’s muddled confusion revealed elsewhere in his memoirs, it is even less likely that he committed details such as these to his memory."

Now I get it - you are pulling my leg! Good one, Ben! Yes, and Hutch may have gone through the streets with a paper bag on his head and his ears stuffed with snough, not noticing that the party was still on in the streets. And then he lent the bag and the snough to Dew, and noboy ever told Dew about the timelines! Hilarious! You are pulling my leg...? Yes? You seriously think that Abberline never asked about the time? He never bothered, sort of? Or Hutch said eleven to Abberline but two to the papers? Or perhaps he chose not to tell Abberline, since he did not want to be too obvious? Come on, Ben, this defies all sense and you know it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"“maths” it will continue to be around here."

Donīt be too sure, Ben. Language lives (and dies), and the US rules in many a sense. Brits use American expressions very much nowadays, at least that is my experience.

"When it emerged that Sickert had invented many of the claims behind the theory, Fairclough effectively disowned the book, if I understand correctly, at which point everything associated it should have been consigned to ripperological oblivion."

That may have been a stupid thing to do, since Reg was the real thing, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"No Fisherman, I have made up my mind that was what the man was doing, because that is what the witness, Mrs Lewis, said he was doing."

...and she would KNOW what people do when they look into a court as if waiting for someone to come out, would she not? Thereīs no way she could be mistaken on that score, especially not since she got such a long, hard look at he man and was able to describe him in detail. Holy macaroni ...

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

you know Fish...

your theory seems to be relying more and more on changing the testimony of the witnesses...changing the date of Hutchinson's, re-interpreting Mrs Lewis and suggesting you know better than she what someone she SAW was doing.

Why not just throw all witness testimony out completely and rewrite history altogether? Then all the people who enjoy fairy stories can just pull up a chair by the log fire and get comfy and enjoy their evening without any further qualms.