Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Why not just throw all witness testimony out completely and rewrite history altogether? "

It´s already been done by others. That´s why.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

There is no evidence that any connection was ever made between Hutchinson and the wideawake man mentioned by Lewis. Had the connection been made, it is inconceivable that the press would not have latched onto it, especially given their demonstrated willingness to pass their own commentary on eyewitness evidence. It is extremely likely that the other man mentioned in Lewis’ testimony very quickly became the focus of her account, and thus a suspicious person of interest. The wideawake man was consequently overlooked in terms of potential significance, apparently.

“You mean like arse-numbingly, blindingly, commonsensically obvious?”

Yes.

“Have you not used up your quota of that word yet? Obvious?”

No.

“And what, Ben, if Dew was correct? What is "obvious" then?”

That Dew was not correct, obviously.

“Yes, but that, Ben, is the wording and not necessarily the actions.”

No, I’m afraid you’re missing the point again, and talking yourself into yet another so-called "coincidence". Your very implausible contention is that Lewis only thought she detected that her loiterer was watching or waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder, and then astonishingly, Hutchinson came forward as soon as Lewis’ inquest evidence was released and claimed that he was watching and waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder. In other words, Lewis’ “mistaken” (according to you) impression of the behaviour of a man standing outside the court an hour and a bit before Kelly’s murder just happened to accidentally coincide with the self-confessed behaviour of a real person who claimed to have been standing outside the court an hour and a bit before Kelly’s murder. The identical wording merely offers additional reinforcement, if it was really needed, that Hutchinson and Lewis’ wideawake man were probably one and the same, as acknowledged for decades.

“Even if we accept that Lewis had the key to that question we cannot answer - how does one portray waiting for a couple?”

I didn’t specify “couple”, and nor did Lewis. She thought that the man in the wideawake gave the impression of waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court – an impression he could easily have communicated through his body language, as anyone with any semblance of imagination will readily appreciate. But do we have any evidence of anyone else “waiting for someone to come out” of Miller’s Court at the time and location that Lewis reported of her loitering man?

Why yes!

Look at this from 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.”

I do love a good non-coincidence.

“Which policeman would yell "Murderer!" when someone stated something that was incredibly - wait for it... - OBVIOUS!”

Because, very obviously, it would prompt the police to reconsider Hutchinson’s motivation for coming forward. If he had taken the prudent and foresighted decision to avoid mentioning Lewis altogether, there was the obvious possibility that the police would never put two and two together with regard to Lewis’ evidence (as imparted at the inquest) and Hutchinson coming forward as soon as it terminated. If, on the other hand, he had drawn specific attention to it, there was a much greater risk of this connection being realised, and in such a scenario, the police were in a much stronger position to infer that Hutchinson only came forward because he had to (out of purely self-legitimizing motives) and not because he wanted to.

As it transpired, Hutchinson didn't mention it - almost certainly deliberately - and the connection did not appear to have been registered,

Honestly, I’ve told you time and time again that my position on this issue was that Hutchinson deliberately avoided mentioning Sarah Lewis for the purposes of self-preservation, and every time I do so you find some silly excuse for dredging up the “Hutchinson didn’t mention Lewis” issue as though it had never been addressed. We can go around and around in circles for as long as you like, and I can guarantee you that by the end of it, I will still be asserting what I have already asserted, which is that Hutchinson probably deliberately avoided any mention of Lewis. I’m sorry if this deprives you of some perceived linchpin in your “different day” silliness, but if you’re after that cherished “last word” on the issue, I’m afraid it isn’t going to happen. Not on my watch. So my suggestion would be to avoid the inflammatory and insulting mocking of my thoughts on the issue if you expect your “challenges” to be taken seriously.

“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?”

It is unlikely in the extreme that Hutchinson was considered “honest” in the long run, and yes, it is well documented that false witness have turned out to be serial killers.

“If you need sense, then read my answer to Garry.”

No, the sense was already there in Garry’s posts.

Your “answer to Garry” made no sense at all as far as I’m concerned.

“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”

I have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about here, Fisherman.

I can sense a general theme of attempted sarcasm, but that’s about it.

What the hell’s a “snough”, anyway?

And we’re still sticking with “maths” over here, by the way.

[babybird67]

Babybird:

"Why not just throw all witness testimony out completely and rewrite history altogether? "

It´s already been done by others. That´s why.

The best,
Fisherman

Not by sensible meticulous researchers it hasn't. Thank God.

[Rubyretro]

I have just been reading back some of this thread and some things seem very clear to me :

Mrs Lewis was nervous when she saw a lone man loitering near entrance to
the Court -there being a killer on the loose and she being a lone woman in the street. From afar, she watched him carefully to see that he didn't resemble the perceived descriptions of the murderer circulating on the streets, and that he didn't look like a mugger hiding and ready to jump out at her. She saw very well that he was watching and waiting for someone to come out of the Court. she didn't want to give up and go home in the rain,
so she decided to take the risk and pass him, but as she drew near she lowered her eyes, avoided him, and hurried past as quickly as possible, therefore not getting a good look closer up.

There was no logical reason why a man would be standing outside Crossinghams monitering the Court at that hour, and in that weather. However, in the light of Mary Kelly's death the reasons for his actions became glaringly obvious -he evidently was linked to the murder.

It makes no difference whether the Police made this link (I think that they would have, Ben and Garry don't), because the only important thing is that Hutch assumed that they would.

It makes no difference whether he heard about Mrs Lewis's testimony on the grapevine at his lodgings, or by standing outside the Town Hall -in either case he made it his business to find out how much the Police knew, and he realised that he had been seen.

He realised that the description of the Ripper would change from Jewish/villainous/rich doctor/butcher (which was thepopular idea circulating in his local pubs) to something much more like himself. He had no idea how much Mrs Lewis had seen of him, what the Police were holding back, and it is even possible that he had been seen by someone else who never came forward (his lodgings were so close by that he must have been a local face).

All he knew is that if the Police moved heaven and earth to find 'the loiterer' , and if they managed to connect this man with himself and he had not come forward, he could think of no logical innocent story to cover himself : it was too obvious that the loiterer was connected to the murder. Being a control-freak, he was being driven crazy by 'not knowing' how the case would progress.

He therefore thought that the 'safest' course of action was to volunteer himself to the Police as a witness (and thus take back control). In that way he could admit to having something to do with the murder, but in an innocent way, and direct the enquiry back to the Rich Jew stereotype.

He tried to be a bit crafty in not mentioning Mrs Lewis, as he did not want the Police to think that his coming forward was anything other than spontaneously helpful. The Police evidently did not look for the 'lurker' -they already had him to hand.

The thing about this theory, Fish, is that it just simply drops into place with no effort at all -unlike trying to find totally unbelievable reasons why Hutch wouldn't have heard of Kelly's murder, mixed up the nights, how A Man could have existed,how Toppy could have been Hutch..all those totally tenuous arguments of yours which demand huge flights of fancy,
cod-science, and bending over backwards to try and force your point.

Still, thanks to both you and Lechmere for showing me a couple of things :

I think that Mary became a victim that night BECAUSE it was raining, and there were a lot less streetwalkers about, and very many less people outside in Dorset street -which allowed the Ripper to moniter the Court and sneak in unseen.
Besides which he wanted to get out of the rain like everyone else.

And thanks to Lechmere, I now see that not only was the Victoria Home the perfect place geographically, but it had the perfect cover for washing oneself and one's clothes frequently without drawing attention to oneself, plus a place to keepthings locked away. (it's religious aspect might possibly have something to do with giving the killer some 'self justification' for killing prostitutes and hating Jews -just a thought ).

[Fisherman]

But this is conjecture, Ruby!

"Mrs Lewis was nervous"
"From afar, she watched him carefully"
"to see that he didn't resemble the perceived descriptions of the murderer circulating on the streets"
"She saw very well that he was watching and waiting for someone to come out of the Court."
"she didn't want to give up and go home in the rain,
so she decided to take the risk and pass him, but as she drew near she lowered her eyes, avoided him, and hurried past as quickly as possible, therefore not getting a good look closer up."
"He realised that the description of the Ripper would change from Jewish/villainous/rich doctor/butcher (which was thepopular idea circulating in his local pubs) to something much more like himself."
"He had no idea how much Mrs Lewis had seen of him"
"Being a control-freak, he was being driven crazy by 'not knowing' how the case would progress."
"He therefore thought that the 'safest' course of action was to volunteer himself to the Police as a witness"
"He tried to be a bit crafty in not mentioning Mrs Lewis"

This is all conjecture. It is totally unsubstantiated by the sources.

"The thing about this theory, Fish, is that it just simply drops into place with no effort at all -unlike trying to find totally unbelievable reasons why Hutch wouldn't have heard of Kelly's murder, mixed up the nights, how A Man could have existed,how Toppy could have been Hutch.."

Apparently, it was not "totally unbelievable" to Dew, Ruby. Nor did it come across like that to Abberline. So please tell me in which way your conjecture should be preferred to their conceptions?

"I think that Mary became a victim that night BECAUSE it was raining, and there were a lot less streetwalkers about, and very many less people outside in Dorset street -which allowed the Ripper to moniter the Court and sneak in unseen."

NOW you are going about things in a much better way - you don´t pass it off as truth but as a suggestion, and it is a very good suggestion too - yes, the bad weather will probably have helped the Ripper to stay undetected to a large extent. Though we must keep in mind that he was not opposed to working the streets in much better conditions too, butchering his victims out in the open. Therefore, I do not think that the suggestion that the Ripper may have chosen the rainy night to stay undetected is as good as the suggestion that this became the actual outcome anyway. So almost "Way to go!" on that one, Ruby!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Not by sensible meticulous researchers it hasn't."

Of course not!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

My question: "what, Ben, if Dew was correct? What is "obvious" then?”

Your answer:

"That Dew was not correct, obviously."

Aha. So if Dew WAS correct, it becomes obvious that he was not correct? Could you elaborate?

"Your very implausible contention is that Lewis only thought she detected that her loiterer was watching or waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court "

Well, I in fact regard it PROVEN that she thought so. That´s why she said it at the inquest. I regard it utterly unproven that this was what the loiterer did. So should you. For it IS unproven. It is a suggestion on Lewis´behalf that may have been right and that may have been wrong, and nothing else. Would you not agree?

"an impression he could easily have communicated through his body language, as anyone with any semblance of imagination will readily appreciate"

Let´s assume that I don´t manage that imagination, Ben, and that you do. Please explain to me what one does to convey the impression that one is waiting for someone to exit an archway!

"it would prompt the police to reconsider Hutchinson’s motivation for coming forward."

Eh...? If he said that he saw a woman entering the archway, the police would immediately start looking upon him as somebody who had overheard the inquest...?
Once again: Silly.

"If he had taken the prudent and foresighted decision to avoid mentioning Lewis altogether, there was the obvious possibility that the police would never put two and two together"

Do you actually suggest that they would never have seen the correspondance in time here? That they would not have used Lewis testimony for confirmation of Hutch´s ditto? Do you? And do you think that Hutch would have banked on the police NOT being able to spot the exact same information that he comfortably picked up on? Really?

"If, on the other hand, he had drawn specific attention to it, there was a much greater risk of this connection being realised, and in such a scenario, the police were in a much stronger position to infer that Hutchinson only came forward because he had to (out of purely self-legitimizing motives) and not because he wanted to."

Holy cow! No! The police would have been wary of ANYBODY who came forward to help them, not least if there was the possibility of money involved (and potentially there was, as shown by the treatment Lawende got). Any information received by an informant after that, corresponding with the known evidence, would not have the police suspicious - it would have them believing in the informant. Spelling it out:
Hutch saw Lewis - reassurance.
Hutch did NOT see Lewis - suspicion.

It is all very, very simple and does not require any farfetched speculation about how the murderous Hutch pondered which details he should mention and which he should ommitt.

"every time I do so you find some silly excuse for dredging up the “Hutchinson didn’t mention Lewis” issue as though it had never been addressed"

As though it had never been rationally settled, you mean.

"So my suggestion would be to avoid the inflammatory and insulting mocking of my thoughts on the issue if you expect your “challenges” to be taken seriously."

I am awarding your suggestion here the exact status it deserves to my mind, Ben. And I am supplying the reasons why. In this case too, it applies that I would very much like to see any parallel case where A/ a killer approaching the police purposefully omitted to mention knowledge of evidence that could tie him to the case since he thought it would make it too obvious to the police why he came forward, or B/ a police force expressed any convincement that an informant was using information that he had picked up that tallied with the case, instead of just observing that this information seemingly corroborated the claim that the informant was truthful. Of course, the police may sometimes be wary of information that a witness MAY have gotten in his hands otherwise than through a personal participation in the crime looked into, but as long as they have no means to prove or reason to believe that this was so, they will reasonably see the information as useful corroboration.

"It is unlikely in the extreme that Hutchinson was considered “honest” in the long run"

How about fifty years? Dew would not reflect on either witness, and he clearly spoke of people with the best of intentions as a useful comparison.

"What the hell’s a “snough”, anyway?"

It´s what we Swedes call snus - tobacco that is stuffed under the upper lip (so no use speaking of stiff upper lips in comparison to us!), or, sometimes when we wish not to hear things, in the ears.

"And we’re still sticking with “maths” over here, by the way."

Yes, Ben, I´ve done the math, so I know that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

But this is conjecture, Ruby!

There is a fair amount of conjecture in all discussion of the Ripper case, and
especially when elucidating a theory. It depends on whether the conjecture is supported by what we know of the facts, as to whether it is a reasonable argument :

"Mrs Lewis was nervous"

Mrs Lewis was a woman alone in the pitch black streets at 2am, and there was a killer at large. she had already had a frightening experience in the streets on the Wednesday night, it is reasonable to conclude that she would have been 'nervous'.

"From afar, she watched him carefully"

The proof that she did is that she was able to describe his body language as watching or looking for somebody to come from the Court.

"to see that he didn't resemble the perceived descriptions of the murderer circulating on the streets"

She described the man that she saw on Wednesday thus :

[Coroner] Have you seen any suspicious persons in the district ? - On Wednesday night I was going along the Bethnal-green-road( ) a gentleman passed us. He followed us and spoke to us, and wanted us to follow him into an entry. He had a shiny leather bag with him.
[Coroner] Was he a tall man ? - He was short, pale-faced, with a black moustache

It is clear that she saw the murderer as having a black shiny bag and a black moustache. It is reasonable to conclude that she would check that the 'loiterer' was not holding such a bag, and did not look like the same man that she had been frightened by on Wednesday.

"She saw very well that he was watching and waiting for someone to come out of the Court."

she was prepared to swear to it at the inquest

"she didn't want to give up and go home in the rain,

Very reasonable conjecture ; she did not change her mind and go home.

so she decided to take the risk and pass him, but as she drew near she lowered her eyes, avoided him, and hurried past as quickly as possible, therefore not getting a good look closer up."

she was not able to describe the man close up, and it is reasonable to conclude that she did not hang about looking at him directly, close up.

"He realised that the description of the Ripper would change from Jewish/villainous/rich doctor/butcher (which was thepopular idea circulating in his local pubs) to something much more like himself."

This is the general idea of the Ripper circulating amongst the populace. If Hutch were the Ripper, it is reasonable to conclude that this description
arranged him well.
"

He had no idea how much Mrs Lewis had seen of him"

The loiterer could not possibly be sure how much Mrs Lewis had seen of him.

"Being a control-freak, he was being driven crazy by 'not knowing' how the case would progress."

Murderers are the ultimate 'control-freaks', they take control over whether some other human being should live or die. Serial killers are all control-freaks
whatever else they may or may not have in common.

"He therefore thought that the 'safest' course of action was to volunteer himself to the Police as a witness"

This is conjecture !

"He tried to be a bit crafty in not mentioning Mrs Lewis"

He did not mention Mrs Lewis, and if she saw him then he saw her.

Apparently, it was not "totally unbelievable" to Dew, Ruby. Nor did it come across like that to Abberline. So please tell me in which way your conjecture should be preferred to their conceptions?

I am touched by your faith in the Police : Abberline will go down in history as the man who didn'tcatch the Ripper, and didn't catch the murderers
listed by Phil Carter, either. Most of this is no doubt not his fault -but it is also reasonable to conclude that he made some 'wrong calls' as well !

"I think that Mary became a victim that night BECAUSE it was raining, and there were a lot less streetwalkers about, and very many less people outside in Dorset street -which allowed the Ripper to moniter the Court and sneak in unseen."

NOW you are going about things in a much better way - you don´t pass it off as truth but as a suggestion, and it is a very good suggestion too - yes, the bad weather will probably have helped the Ripper to stay undetected to a large extent. Though we must keep in mind that he was not opposed to working the streets in much better conditions too, butchering his victims out in the open. Therefore, I do not think that the suggestion that the Ripper may have chosen the rainy night to stay undetected is as good as the suggestion that this became the actual outcome anyway. So almost "Way to go!" on that one, Ruby!

The best,

Not at all, I think that he would have killed out in the open that night, had the weather been fine. He changed his MO because of the rain.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"There is a fair amount of conjecture in all discussion of the Ripper case"

But fair´s fair, Ruby...!

"Mrs Lewis was a woman alone in the pitch black streets at 2am, and there was a killer at large. she had already had a frightening experience in the streets on the Wednesday night, it is reasonable to conclude that she would have been 'nervous'."

I´m afraid it is, Ruby. She MAY have been so, of course, but stretching may to would is stretching too far. Some people are often nervous, others arer not. And the mere fact that she took to the streets at that time seem to show us that she may not have been of a very nervous disposition.

"The proof that she did is that she was able to describe his body language as watching or looking for somebody to come from the Court. "

That proves neither the "afar" nor the "carefully".

"It is reasonable to conclude that she would check that the 'loiterer' was not holding such a bag, and did not look like the same man that she had been frightened by on Wednesday"

It is no such thing.

"she was prepared to swear to it at the inquest"

She swore that he SEEMED to be watching the court, "as if" in wait. That amounts to nothing. She could have sworn that he SEEMED to resemble a pink elephant - that is not the same as saying he was one.

"Very reasonable conjecture ; she did not change her mind and go home."

Looking at it that way, perhaps. But we may ALSO observe that A/ we don´t even know if it rained, and B/ whatever the weather was like, it had not stopped her from leaving home in it.

"she was not able to describe the man close up, and it is reasonable to conclude that she did not hang about looking at him directly, close up."

Perhaps, yes. What I remarked upon, though, was your wording: "so she decided to take the risk and pass him, but as she drew near she lowered her eyes, avoided him, and hurried past as quickly as possible"
...since THAT is nothing but conjecture.

"This is the general idea of the Ripper circulating amongst the populace."

...and thus it is conjecture.

"The loiterer could not possibly be sure how much Mrs Lewis had seen of him."

... but he would know if she stared intently at him for a prolonged period or just took the quick glance. That would enable him to conclude whether she could or could not describe him well.

"Murderers are the ultimate 'control-freaks', they take control over whether some other human being should live or die. Serial killers are all control-freaks whatever else they may or may not have in common."

Nope. Though I see how you reason, I think you may have forgotten about a number of killers here like, say, Ed Gein and Richard Trenton Chase.

"This is conjecture ! "

True enough.

"He did not mention Mrs Lewis"

... and that is not proof of any "crafty" decision on his behalf. To propose that is ... you know what it is, don´t you: conjecture.

"Abberline... made some 'wrong calls' as well !

Absolutely. But that was not why he was enlisted, put in charge, promoted and surrounded by a very good reputation.

"I think that he would have killed out in the open that night, had the weather been fine."

I think not - but that´s just me. I think that he set out to find any female victim the night Nicholls died, the night Chapman died and the night Eddowes died. But the night Kelly died, I think he set out to see Mary Kelly. I am not sure that the intent to kill her came about until very late in the process.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Well, given your blustering and writhing, I assume that I've got 'a hit' and shall rest my case for the time being !!!

(queue Mike with an unhelpful insult and Lechmere with an illogical assertion..?)

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"given your blustering and writhing, I assume that I've got 'a hit'"

That´s conjecture too, I´m afraid ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Ruby:

"given your blustering and writhing, I assume that I've got 'a hit'"

That´s conjecture too, I´m afraid ...

The best,
Fisherman

ah ! but a logical deduction, taking into account the evidence..

[Garry Wroe]

It was the journalist, Ben, rather than ‘Harris’, who considered the Victoria Home a likely bolt-hole for the killer.

Apologies are in order here, Ben. What I took to be closing quotation marks on my copy of the 'Harris' article turned out to be a blemish. You were absolutely correct, therefore, in asserting that it was 'Harris' who regarded the Victoria Home as the killer's likely operational base.

Doh!

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"ah ! but a logical deduction, taking into account the evidence.."

I think I have demonstrated quite clearly how much I invest in your ability to keep track of illusive things like logic and conjecture, Ruby. But still, nice try!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I think I have demonstrated quite clearly how much I invest in your ability to keep track of illusive things like logic and conjecture, Ruby. But still, nice try!

The best,

moi non plus !

ps sorry for the typo queue for cue..just spotted it !