Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

Don´t add things, Ruby. People who pee don´t go for a noisy walk at the same time.

They have to walk to where they're going to pee !

people had noisy OR silent boots, an we don´t know what would have applied here,

Not even the Police had silent boots ! Boots generally had nails in the soles, and were very noisy at the time.

but we must of course make sure to ask that fictive mate of the loiterer what he had on

This is Lechemere's 'fictive mate' (and there were probably four) -so be careful what you say !

Plus, of course, people who wish to pee can do so without having a conversation at the same time.

I was thinking from a girl's perspective.

And Lechmere spoke of an alleyway off Dorset Street.

And this would be which particular alley right next to Crossinghams ?

No. Coughing and snoring does not necessarily reach over the 30-45 dB that would have been shut out by walls and windows."

Except when it's in tandem.

Oh, he would have slept in it. But not necessarily all night. He could have awakened and gone out for a breather. (Much) stranger things have happened. So no once more.

So -is this a possibility for the Ripper ? Or is there a prison guard at the Victoria ?

And, doing the MATH, we notice that you have added ONE (1) person to the earlier perspective, and that is a person who was suggested as a fictive reason for the loiterer being there. It is not a verified and recorded person, Ruby - you may have noticed that? And Lechmere suggested other reasons, not adding anybody, for the loiterers presence, did he not? Once again: no.[/QUOTE

I'm sorry ? Who is the 'fictive person' ? I don't think that either Hutchinson/lurker is...so you must mean Lechmere's 'imaginary friend' ?
I shall have to agree with you.

[Rubyretro]

"It is a shame that you obviously don't know that body language can be stronger than words."

If I say "I´m waiting for someone to come out" it will take me two seconds and leave nobody in doubt as to what I mean. If you can top that with body language, I´m impressed. So much for strong body language.

I'm sure that I don't need to teach you anything, Fish, but if a woman said to you " I'm very attracted to you..", but she never touched you, or looked at you directly in the face, or became a bit shy or flustered, or listened to you intently,or made any kind gestures for you..what would you think ?

If she said " I'm not attracted to you at all.." but did all of the above things..

Would you go with the words or the body language ?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“There is very good reason to speculate that the men were not one and the same.”

No there isn’t. There are only very tenuous and unconvincing reasons for resisting the obvious – that George Hutchinson and the man in the wideawake were one and the same. What’s this “not any more” business, anyway? What big exciting "change" do you think has occurred? You’ve reminded us all about Dew’s baseless speculations that have been around for decades and which few people have taken seriously for good reason. Thanks for that, but don’t expect that reminder to bring about any lasting change in mainstream thinking on the subject, because it’s not going to happen.

“But how would that add up to waiting for somebody to come out?”

I've told you. It's obvious. You just have to use your imagination. I’ve seen people in my lifetime that gave the distinct impression of waiting for someone to emerge from a particular location, and they conveyed that impression very easily with their body language. Clearly the combined imagination of every jury member and every police official who interviewed her was happy to embrace her impression as accurate. There were no exclamations of “Really? This makes no sense! How could you tell?!” and I don’t find that very surprising.

“We don´t . We know that Lewis THOUGHT he looked up the court, and that has a lot going for it - but not all, I´m afraid.”

I’ve addressed this already. She didn’t merely “think” the man was looking up the court. She said so explicitly: “the man standing in the street was looking up the court”. Once we remind ourselves of just how narrow Dorset Street was, we might understand how difficult it would have been for Sarah Lewis to have been mistaken as to the focus of the man’s attention. Again, her impression of the loiterer’s behaviour coincided precisely with Hutchinson’s later account of his own behaviour at that location and that time. It is ridiculous to suggest that when Lewis only "thought" that the man she saw loitering opposite the court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly’s murder was watching or “waiting for someone to come out” Hutchinson actually was. This is the “random coincidence” explanation, and is totally ludicrous.

It is startlingly obvious that something about the loiterer’s behaviour conveyed the impression that he was preoccupied with the court. He clearly looked as though he was watching or waiting for someone, and there are clear and easy ways to communicate this interest with your body language.

“After that, thi8s clarification changes nothing: the only thing that would have seemed odd to the police would be if he was there and did NOT register and mention Lewis.”

It would only seem “odd to the police” if they had Lewis’ evidence in front of them at the time of the Hutchinson interview for instant cross-referencing with his emerging claims. The likelihood, of course, is that this never happened. If you have evidence to the contrary, that would be another matter, but your continued assertions that the police “would have” spotted this and “must have” taken X or Y action are completely without value in the absence of any supporting evidence. As much as we would like to believe in an infallible police force who dotted every “i” and crossed every “t” (unlike Lambeth George!), the reality is often very different, and high profile investigations in particular are often vulnerable to oversights, and seemingly minor details not receiving sufficient attention. As some of us have pointed out on a number of occasions, policing in general was in its relative infancy in 1888 – all the more reason to dismiss any confident assertion to the effect that Abberline would not have missed certain details.

There is evidence that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis, and there is evidence that he didn’t mention Lewis in his police statement. I am simply relaying the evidence and rejecting the silly “coincidence” proposals. That doesn’t amount to me getting “tangled” at all. Clearly he neglected to mention her either deliberately or by accident, and I think the former considerably more likely for the reasons I’ve mentioned before, and might have to mention again. (We’ll see who’s up for more repetition wars first). There is always the slim possibility that he did mention a woman heading into the court, but it didn’t feature in the main body of text that made up the statement.

“I sometimes stress things when doing this, and there is no rudeness involved”

Well it comes across as rude, so try to find different ways of “stressing” things in future, please.

“Of course, every case is specific, but if you are correct, one would expect to see something remotely alike in at least some other case. One doesn´t though”

I’m afraid it’s very obvious that you’re in no position to assert whether “one does” or “one doesn’t”, not that it makes a scrap of difference to the actual evidence in this case.

“Okay, then, let´s hear the evidence that tells us that Hutch was not regarded as an honset man after he was dropped!”

The Echo is very revealing in this regard, and the Star is particularly revealing in that regard. We’ve had this argument before, and if you bring it up again here, I’ll simply copy and paste my previous response(s). Let’s hope that won’t be necessary. I’m not optimistic.

“Plus you may need to realize that this whole discussion took it´s start when YPU lectured ME about my SECOND language.”

I didn’t lecture you. I just thought you Swedes studied maths over there, but if you want to do “math” instead, you’ll get no further complaints about it from me.

"It only follows that we have something looking like being close to absolute certainty that the information telling us that the connection was made has gone lost."

Oh, here we go.

The "lost report" syndrome strikes again.

"Yes, Ben, I have no evidence that this report ever existed, but trust me it did once upon a time, and trust me, it would have said exactly what I'm claiming it said!"

Condoning such a suggestion would amount to even more idiocy.

If you accuse me of "idiocy" again, I shall report you to the authorities, Fisherman! Is that what you want? Is it? Really? Eh?

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Frau Retro
Fisherman seems to have beaten me to it on most points, but I will add for good measure:

I haven’t said that the streets were deserted at night or noiseless. I have said they were considerably less well populated and considerably quieter than at daytime. I take it you are with Mr Ben in denying this?
This does rather illustrate the ludicrous direction the argument goes here sometimes.
Also my hypothetical loiterer wasn’t staying at the Victoria Home so he wouldn’t need a night pass – he was staying at Crossinghams!
Anyway several people from lodging houses were dobbed in to the police after the Kelly murder. I wouldn’t be surprised of their erstwhile friends did the dobbing. The police will have ‘checked them out’ but as they were innocent they will have ‘assed their tests’ and they walked free. Just as the Crossingham man would have done if his mates had dobbed him in.
Here’s a thought, one of them might have really been the villain. Most culprits tend to have been involved in the case at some point you know. Maybe the cunning devil falsely convinced the police as to their innocence. Worthy of some research I a sure.

We know that Lewis could make good descriptions of people – like that man she met on Bethnal Green Road, but she failed with wide-awake man. Now you say she saw him and he was ‘a way off’. But it was a narrow road. It couldn’t have been far away. We had a great big discussion about how wide Dorset Street was (well some did, I didn’t join in that one)

Also there are accounts of people having silent boots or shoes.

Mr Ben – there is no evidence that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis. There is a possibility. It is a fact that he didn’t mention her in his statement. His statement is evidence.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

Glad to see we’re in agreement over the maths issue!

How I wish I could say the same about the Victoria Home. Here it seems we’re still having problems.

“The point of contention is that very few inmates at the Victoria Home would have had special passes to grant them access between 12.30-1.00 am and the normal opening hours.”

I disagree very strongly. The Victoria Home catered for as many as 500 lodgers, and most of the time, it would have been full of lodgers all coming and going at various hours of the night, either for work or for other reasons that they would not have been required to cite to any doorman or deputy.

“Very few will have paid for their beds and not bothered to go back there to sleep.”

I realise that, but there would have been a large number of lodgers who paid there and then, and a large number of lodgers who paid in advance, rather like purchasing a theatre or cinema ticket.

“If Jack the Ripper (whether that person was Hutchinson or not) lived at the Victoria Home the combination of the rules and the social nature of such establishments for long term inmates, would probably have made his absence or late entry noticeable.”

Who would have done this “noticing”? Other lodgers from his part of the building waiting up for him in darkness, despite the fact that he could have used a private cubicle for a couple of extra pence? No, that doesn’t work. What about one of the doorman? Was a doorman in a position to remember in mid-November whether or not one lodger in 500 flashed his generic metal cheque and entered the building way back in late September? Clearly not. So his late entry wouldn’t have been remotely “noticeable”.

“Also it is abundantly clear that the police took extra notice of lodging houses inmates.”

No more notice than any other type of resident, and probably less in the wake of Dr. Bond’s “profile” of the killer.

The “pros” associated with the suggestion that the Victoria Home made for a likely ripper’s lair vastly outweigh the cons, with Edmund Reid incognito suggesting that it may have housed the real killer.

“I would argue that it is very weak putting any emphasis on Lewis’s suggestion that the wide-awake man (of non-military bearing) was there purposefully staring down Miller’s Court”

Oh, for eff’s sake, Lechmere.

I’m not “putting” any emphasis on anything. I’m simply relaying the evidence in its untarnished, unfilddled-with form, and in Lewis’ case it read:

“the man standing in the street was looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out”

And now here’s Hutchinson’s version of events:

“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.”

Same time.

Same date.

Same location.

Precisely the same behaviour.

“evidential correlation is meagre” my rosy red behind, Lechmere.

It is for the tiresome naysayers to fiddle with Lewis’ evidence if they’re hell-bent on it and deny her an ability to discern what she claimed to have discerned and could easily have discerned. Otherwise, the logical deduction, short of sickeningly outlandish “coincidence, is that Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis. Doing a Fetchbeer and "not setting much store" in inconvenient evidence such as Lewis' won't lessen the coincidence factor, nor will the preposterous "Hey I know, maybe it was someone taking a breath of fresh-air who just happened to look like he was engaging in identical behaviour to Hutchinson for a brief moment in time?" These are immature and gauche attempts at evading the obvious.

The conclusion that Abberline did not make the connection is simply the evidence, and not an accusation of “idiocy”. If people have problems with this, reflect that back in 1888, not all sources were so instantly retrievable on a computer screen at a click of a button, nor was a century’s worth of knowledge of serial killers.

“The sensible conclusion is that there is a piece of missing evidence that ‘unconnected’ them. One of those convenient missing documents.”

Oh, but of course, the “lost document” that must have existed once upon a time and must have said exactly what you wanted it to say. Damn those nasty Nazis for bombing that particular filing cabinet, eh?

“It is also weak to always rely on the 'it has always been thought that such and such is so, therefore it must be', or the similar 'I was discussing this in 2006, therefore I must be right' line.”

Not nearly as weak as “Here I come to save the day, and alter previously-held conceptions forever!”

“Keep consistent Mr Ben, you don’t think there were any guidelines, do you?”

I do. I simply disregard your confused misinterpretation of them

“It looks like various witnesses were confused about when they saw Kelly given the variety of statements about when and where she was seen.”

No.

It doesn’t look like that at all. More likely, they confused the person or lied about it, and false witnesses weren’t exactly a rare phenomenon throughout the ripper investigation.

“They don’t usually hang around because they are about to murder someone – although very rarely this does happen.”

Who cares about “usually”? On this occasion, somebody really was murdered very shortly after this man was seen “hanging around” near the crime scene.

“However I don’t think the non private washing facilities at the Victoria Home nor the prospect of giving up any incriminating items of property to the deputy’s care would have been beneficial to a killer.”

Washing what?

The “blood-spattering” that reliable medical opinion informs us wouldn’t have been present?

And what is this “property” argument all about that I keep seeing crop up? Obviously if he was the killer, he wouldn’t have given up any “incriminating items of property to the deputy’s care”.

“The most suspicious person that Lewis mentioned in her testimony was a man she saw on Bethnal Green Road on the Wednesday before, and not the man she saw opposite the murder scene on the Friday morning roughly when the murder took place?”

Absolutely, because according to Sarah Lewis’ inquest testimony, the man who accosted her and a companion on the previous Wednesday was the same man observed outside Ringers’ a stone’s throw away from the crime scene on the night of Kelly’s murder. If true, this man would obviously have been the investigative priority with his demonstrated interest in accosting women, black bag and all.

Garry is clearly correct with regard to Walter Dew’s speculations. Dew had nailed his colours to the Blotchy-as-killer mast, and accordingly deduced that Hutchinson must have been wrong as to time, rather than being an implausible 24 hours out. Why else would Dew have specified "time and date"?

Mr Ben – there is no evidence that Hutchinson was the man seen by Lewis.

Yes, there is. Very compelling evidence.

[Hatchett]

Hello Fish,

The issue that the Police lost interest in Hutchinson does not come from any extent Police source. Even the much quoted Inspector Dew doesnt mention it. It comes from the Press.

There could be a number of explanations why the Press reported this. One could be that no information was forthcoming from the Police about Hutchinson. It could be that the Police followed their investigations and they came to a full stop. It could be that the Police feared that certain papers were starting to suspect Hutchinson of being the killer and wanted to avoid another situation like the one which had occurred with Pizer.

What ever the reason, I would suggest, that suspicions that Hutchinson had got the wrong night is most unlikely. That would have been something that Abberline would have been very careful about when he interviewed Hutchinson.

If there had been any suspicions at all that Hutchinson had muddled the date then they would have been raised at the time and the Police would not have not lost interest in Hutchinson, they would not have had any interest in him to start with.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
The only new point worth responding to relates to the washing – Frau Retro was saying that the Hutchinson Ripper could have used the washing facilities at the Victoria Home to clean himself or his clothes up. I was merely stating that as these facilities would not have been private, the facility would not have been useful to a knife murderer. I am sure you will disagree.
Frau Retro also said that the fact that the Victoria Home rules (you know, the same ones that mention those bloody special passes) mention that inmates could leave possessions in the keeping of the deputy was of some significance – I took this to imply that the Hutchinson Ripper could perhaps leave a body part trophy, a sharp knife, some rings or something else incriminating in the safe keeping of the deputy.

One other minor point – I find it strange that you say (with typical civility):

“Oh, for eff’s sake, Lechmere.
I’m not “putting” any emphasis on anything.”

And then quote passages with certain sections emphasised in bold. Hmmmm.

[Jane Coram]

Hi All,

I've been with this debate from the beginning, and it's certainly been interesting, if a little gruelling at times. I think I've had enough opportunity to see the arguments from both sides and can give a fair opinion on what I've gained from it personally. I have no intention of getting involved in this debate, I've got more sense. You lot can fight it out amongst youselves. Lol.

I have to say, that nothing posted has changed the opinion I already had on the matter, although I've picked up a few snippets on the way, which were quite enlightening, so it's been time well spent.

I would like to make it clear that I have no axe to grind about Hutchinson - I actually don't care if he was the Ripper or Mary's fairy godmother - I don't have the slightest interest in the suspects, only the victims. So this is a totally unbiased opinion.

I've always been taught that to be a good researcher you need to first look at the primary sources and take more notice of them than of secondary and more dubious sources. You just use the secondary sources to confirm primary source material or to use in a discussion as conjecture or speculation. If it conflicts with primary source material, then the primary source material takes precedence, unless there is very good reason to think that the primary source material is in error. That just seems like plain old common sense to me.

Hutchinson's statement to the police makes it clear that he was standing outside Mary's on November the 9th, not the 8th. I don't care if he was standing at the entrance to the court the whole time, over by Crossingham's or doing a soft shoe shuffle between the two - the official report is that he was there on the 9th. Subsequent newspaper reports state the same. Therefore the weight of evidence is overwhelming that Hutchinson was standing outside on the 9th and not the 8th. I've not seen any evidence on this thread to prove that it was the 8th and not the 9th; no official document, no newspaper report, nothing that proves he wasn't there on the night he said he was. Present me with irrefutable evidence that it couldn't possibly have been the 9th, or definitely was there on the 8th and I'll revise my opinion.

The question of the weather hasn't proved anything, although it was an interesting idea and made a good article. It's been shown that there were dry spells on the night of the 9th as well as the 8th. Incidentally Fish, I did enjoy your article very much, even though I didn't agree with your conclusions.

Just using good old common sense, people might forget whole days if they are trying to remember something that happened years ago, but to do it after just a couple of days, just strikes me as nonsensical - sorry. The day in question was just too exceptional for someone to completely wipe it from his mind and we still have to account for that missing day.

Okay, common sense isn't evidence, but to claim that Hutchinson lost an entire day, you need proof that was the case, solid proof, if you want to present that in opposition to the official statement. Otherwise his statement to the police still takes precedence. Hutchinson might have done this and might have done that - he might have been kicked in the head by a mule and got amnesia, but I need to see a Whitechapel infirmary admission record to that effect if I am going to believe he lost an entire day from his memory.

Not only that, but are we really to believe that Hutchinson could remember every single thing about Astrakhan man, right down to his horse shoe tie pin, but can't even remember what day it is? That really is stretching things beyond the limit of anyone's credulity in my opinion.

And onto dear old Wally.

I first read Walter Dew's memoirs about 40 years ago, and even then realised that it left a lot to be desired. Great bloke, enjoyable read, but when I'm told that Liz Stride and Kate Eddowes were killed just a few days after Annie Chapman, I started to get a bit worried. I did once count how many inaccuracies there were in the book - and it ran into dozens. So Dew's book was put into the 'interesting, but not to be trusted' pile. His suggestion that Hutch got the date or time wrong was just conjecture. It still doesn't take precedence over the official police reports. It was just his opinion, delivered many years after the event.

Fact: We know that the police changed their minds about the validity of Hutchinson's testimony for some reason. As Hatchett said, we don't have an official reason as to why it was discredited. It could have been any reason, but it was not pursued for very long. In some newspapers the testimony was deemed as valueless. Some were far more vocal about why they thought Hutchinson was telling fibs. The Graphic of November 17th says this:

It is true that on this last occasion a man [Hutchinson] has given a very precise description of the supposed murderer. The very exactitude of his description, however, engenders a feeling of scepticism. The witness in question admits that at the time he saw him he did not suspect the person he watched of being the Whitechapel assassin; yet, at two o'clock in the morning, in badly-lighted thoroughfares, he observed more than most of us would observe in broad daylight, with ample time at our disposal. A man who in such a hasty survey notes such points as "a pair of dark 'spats,' with light buttons, over button boots," and "a red stone hanging from his watch-chain," must possess the eyes of a born detective. Granting, however, that this description is accurate, and not due to the after-effects of a lively imagination, it is evidence that the clue thus given is an important one, inasmuch as it shows that the murderer belongs to a superior class.

The fact that Huctchinson's statement to the police is significantly different to his statements to the newspapers in the following days must be taken into consideration as well.

Did Hutchinson get the day wrong? No. His official statement says it was the 9th, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it was the 9th, unless I see very solid contemporary evidence to the contrary.

Very enjoyable thread anyway, keep the pot boiling, it's good stuff.



Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

Oh by the way Ben, I thoroughly enjoyed your article as well, I didn't want you to think I enjoyed Fisherman's and not yours!

[Lechmere]

Jane
Very even handed, even down to liking both articles, and I essentially agree with this viewpoint.
I couldn't help noticing that you accept that Dew postulated that Hutchinson got the date wrong

[Jane Coram]

Hi Lechmere,

To be honest Lechmere, I'm not quite sure what he was postulating, because it's very poorly worded. I think that's one of the reasons I'm so dubious about reading anything too much into it. It's just not specific enough. I personally wouldn't want to hang too much on something that can be interpreted in more than one way. It's great for a lively discussion (and we've certainly had that), but I don't think it really affects any of the established evidence we already have. That's my take on it anyway.

I think perhaps I should have put 'Dew seems to be suggesting that Hutch might have got the time or date wrong.'

It's one of those time you wish you had a time machine!


Hugs

Janie

xxx

[Lechmere]

Yes Dew is ambiguous – I am fairly sure he meant Hutchinson was out in date and Maxwell by person, but we will never really be sure. I am fairly sure Hutchinson isn’t the culprit which is the main point of contention here.
If I had a time machine I don’t think going back to check what Dew really meant would be my priority though.

[ChainzCooper]

Just because someone gives a precise description to police doesn't neccesarily mean that they are lying. I mean just from my own experience I know this. I was in a really bad car accident a few years ago in which a guy with a suspended license ran a stop sign and we collided. It was really horrific and totaled both cars. But thankfully, I didn't get hurt at all. Right after the accident the other guy and myself both got out and I called 911 even though he didn't want me to. We both stood there for awhile before he just walked off because he didn't want to be arrested. I called the police back and told them he just left and they should get someone down here. So I waited a few more minutes before a policeman arrived. I was able to give a pretty detailed description of the guy, even down to the earrings he was wearing. Granted I didn't go to police for a few days after the wreck I talked to them minutes afterward but I cold have given them the same description days later because it stuck out so much in my mind. I mean the guy was such a prick he just caused this huge wreck and it could have killed me. Then to just walk off? Which leads me back to Hutchinson.I mean he says it right there to Abberline, things weren't adding up with why this guy was with Kelly which is why he could recall so many details. Same as with me in the accident. So ultimately I understand where hes coming from based on my own life. So I believe him
Jordan

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Thanks for that, but don’t expect that reminder to bring about any lasting change in mainstream thinking on the subject, because it’s not going to happen."

I usually wait and see, Ben. When it was first suggested that the world was round, the ones speaking for the up-til-then mainstream thinking that it was flat ALSO said something about things that were never going to happen. Maybe I shall have to settle for my view being regarded as a more viable than yours - after all, people muddling up days are a lot more common that serial killers...

But as I say, let time decide.

"I've told you. It's obvious."

Not to me, it isn´t. And it would seem others are of the same mind. In fact, I can only see you and Ruby stating that body language would easily produce a certainty on Lewis´behalf that the loiterer was waiting for somebody to come out. The rest of us, me included, who do not have these insights in carnal semaphore systems would be interested to get an exact description of this truly amazing feat.

"Clearly the combined imagination of every jury member and every police official who interviewed her was happy to embrace her impression as accurate."

Then maybe they had the same magic gift that I have been deprived of. So please tell me how it is done!

"I’ve addressed this already."

You just failed to explain it, that´s why I ask again.

"She didn’t merely “think” the man was looking up the court. She said so explicitly: “the man standing in the street was looking up the court”. "!

...which only means "I THINK the man looked up the court, since that was the impression I got". If I point in your direction, Ben, and say "what a bright fellow", people may get the impression that I am talking about you, whereas I instead may be pointing to Lechmere standing behind you. Until things like these are CONFIRMED, they are only impressions - that may prove wrong. Ergo it is not proven that the loiterer looked up the court; the only thing proven is that Lewis SAID that she was of this meaning.

"It is startlingly obvious that something about the loiterer’s behaviour conveyed the impression that he was preoccupied with the court."

It is quite obvious that Lewis believed - true or not - that he took a look up the court. That does not amount to any almighty "preoccupation". I think you may be trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

"It would only seem “odd to the police” if they had Lewis’ evidence in front of them at the time of the Hutchinson interview for instant cross-referencing with his emerging claims."

No. It would seem odd to them if they had Lewis testimony in front of them OR IN THE BACKS OF THEIR HEADS. And Hunter nailed it - they would be idiots if it was not there sooner or later. All of them, the whole bunch.

"your continued assertions that the police “would have” spotted this and “must have” taken X or Y action are completely without value in the absence of any supporting evidence."

Police procedure puts it beyond doubt that we do not need that evidence to know that we will with 99,999 per cent probability be correct when we draw this conclusion. After that, you can cling to the nonexisting evidence as much as you please, for no rational person will buy it.

"The conclusion that Abberline did not make the connection is simply the evidence, and not an accusation of “idiocy”. "

On the contrary. It involves idiocy on his behalf - and the rest of the police, press and public - if it was not there.

"Well it comes across as rude, so try to find different ways of “stressing” things in future, please."

I´m afraid I won´t. You must take comfort in my assertion that it is not rudely meant. I just like to take care of my own language, and I merrily leave you to yours, mind you. I only remark about it when I think it takes the shape of overexaggerations and such, relating to the evidence and case details.

"I’m afraid it’s very obvious that you’re in no position to assert whether “one does” or “one doesn’t”, not that it makes a scrap of difference to the actual evidence in this case."

You may have misunderstood me. What I am saying is that when we can find no parallels in history to a suggested behaviour in a criminal case, that should urge us to ponder the very apparent possibility that the suggestion is wrong from the outset.

"The Echo is very revealing in this regard, and the Star is particularly revealing in that regard."

Agreed. But they seemingly "reveal" different things to us.

"I didn’t lecture you. I just thought you Swedes studied maths over there, but if you want to do “math” instead, you’ll get no further complaints about it from me."

Good. Thanks!

"The "lost report" syndrome strikes again.

"Yes, Ben, I have no evidence that this report ever existed, but trust me it did once upon a time, and trust me, it would have said exactly what I'm claiming it said!""

No. But it MAY have.I try to avoid saying things like "it´s not going to happen", for reasons outlined above.

"If you accuse me of "idiocy" again, I shall report you to the authorities, Fisherman! Is that what you want?"

Why would you report me for a judgement passed on a suggestion? What we are supposed to avoid is judging the quality of each other personally. What we are allowed to do is to judge the quality of each others posts. This is what I do, and this is what Hunter did. We apparently both think that a failure to see the link between Hutchinson and Lewis would amount to idiocy.
As for you, I only just posted my view that you are a bright enough Ripperologist, and I don´t call people both bright AND idiotic. It does not add up. Plus I think we would BOTH like to continue posting here, just as we would BOTH much prefer to have the quality of or suggestions judged by other posters. That is how one gets an idea about the value of one´s work as seen through other people´s eyes.
Would you not agree?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hatchett:

"The issue that the Police lost interest in Hutchinson does not come from any extent Police source. Even the much quoted Inspector Dew doesnt mention it. It comes from the Press."

Correct. Which is why it is useful to know that Hutchinson seemed to generate no interest at all afterwards. That is, sort of, the confirmation of the press reports that we have. I have made the suggestion that the police would have been none too proud of themselves for not realizin at an earlier stage that Hutch was out on the dates. I think this lies behind the lack of any confirmation, official or unofficial of it all.

"What ever the reason, I would suggest, that suspicions that Hutchinson had got the wrong night is most unlikely. That would have been something that Abberline would have been very careful about when he interviewed Hutchinson."

I and Lechmere just got ridiculed for saying that there must have been more material at hand during the time this all happened. I could have done the same to you, but I won´t. I will say that Abberline must have tried to confirm that Hutch was right on the days, but this is sometimes not an easy task. But it would seem that he may have found out as soon as the same evening as Hutch gave his testimony.
It is not as if Abberline seemingly failed in this regard. He would have asked things, and then he would double-check and double-checking may take the odd hour or two. And lo and behold, what happens afterwards: the papers tell us that doubt must be cast upon it all.

"If there had been any suspicions at all that Hutchinson had muddled the date then they would have been raised at the time and the Police would not have not lost interest in Hutchinson, they would not have had any interest in him to start with."

That is a very valid conclusion. But it works from the presumption that things were found out the instant Hutchinson set foot in Commercial Street police station. And we know that this was not the case, don´t we, Hatchett? Of course - Abberline believed him! He said so very clearly!
Then, as things were double-checked, whoops - that was that. And THEN Hutch was dropped.
It sort of confirms the very useful assumption that we only drop people after we have found out that they are wrong and not before.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jane!

Good to see you out here! Not as good, though, to hear what you are saying this time over, so I will make my point clear. You have, at least in part, misunderstood my argument.

"Hutchinson's statement to the police makes it clear that he was standing outside Mary's on November the 9th, not the 8th."

Actually no. It makes it clear that he said that he was there on the 9:th, but nothing more. A parallel could be Packers statement to the police - he said a lot of things that ended up on the paper of a police report too, but does that make it true? And what about Lewis? She said to the police that she saw a man that was looking up the court as if in wait for somebody. But if we are to follow the logic that what´s in the police report = true, we end up with turning possibilities into certainties. And why would we?

Moreover: If Hutchinson´s testimony had gotten the killer caught, I would perhaps be less inclined to complaint about your stance. But it did not, did it? No, instead it was apparently disbelieved by both the press and the police. Which is an almighty reason to conclude that the police had found the testimony and the reality incomparable in some regard. So no - the fact that Hutch said the 9:th and was believed from the outset does not in any way prove that he was correct on the dates.

"The question of the weather hasn't proved anything, although it was an interesting idea and made a good article. It's been shown that there were dry spells on the night of the 9th as well as the 8th."

I would not say that this has been shown, Jane. Instead, the meteorological office stated that the rain was of a more continuous nature. But let´s not delve too deep into that. The only thing I urge people to see is that it would seem that Hutchinson claimed to have started his all-night tour walking the streets in hard rain, which seems an odd thing to do.

"to claim that Hutchinson lost an entire day, you need proof that was the case"

What a lucky thing then, that I have not proposed this!
I am beginning to wonder if it is my language that lets me down here. I don´t for a moment think that he "lost a day", Jane. What I propose is that he failed to nail the astrakhan man meeting to the right day!! He muddled up things, quite simply. But as such, he did not necessarily loose anything at all - he just ascribed things to the wrong dates, the way you do when you muddle things up!
Geez, Jane, it is all-important that you get this distinction correct. However did you get it wrong in the first place?

The best,
Fisherman