Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[curious4]

Curious4:

"I think it very unlikely that Hutchinson got the day wrong. When something earth-shattering happens people tend to remember what they did around that time more clearly,
as in "What were you doing when JFK was assassinated?" or in Sweden "When Olof Palme was shot" or "When the Estonia sank".

Please keep in mind that Hutchs meeting with Kelly was - if I am correct - on Thursday morning, and not on the day she died. People who remember what they did when Palme was shot, remember that they were in a restaurant, that they were playing cards, that they were singing karaoke when the news reached them. But if you had asked them three days after on what day they did not have their morning paper delivered, they may well have missed the answer. Unless you sugges that they would go "Letīs see, Palme was shot on the 26:th, that means that I got the paper on the day before, and the day before that - aha - it must have been the 23:d!

THIS is what you are looking at - not Hutchīs ability to say exactly what he did as the news of the murder reached him. A major event does not clear peoples skulls and make them immune against muddling dates. If so, the investigators of murders would not tell us that muddled dates is one of the more common mistakes made by witnesses, would they?


The best,
Fisherman

Hello Fisherman,

No, sorry, donīt agree. As far as I can see Hutchinson met Mary on the 9th (2 a.m.). Also any normal person would think "If only I had had the money to give Mary, she would still be alive, if I hadnīt gone to Romford/gone down the Romford (pub) I would have had some money left", so remembering exactly what and when. As far as the pub theory he would have said "down the Romford" so I disagree with this theory.

By the way, why does everyone assume he walked there and back? Had he walked it wouldnīt have cost him anything, so he probably took some kind of public transport.

Sincerely yours,
C4

P.S. Palme was shot on the 28th

[Fisherman]

curious4:

"No, sorry, donīt agree."

Bugger!

"As far as I can see Hutchinson met Mary on the 9th (2 a.m.)."

Please note that Walter Dew disagreed very much with this - and he worked the case!

"Also any normal person would think "If only I had had the money to give Mary, she would still be alive, if I hadnīt gone to Romford/gone down the Romford (pub) I would have had some money left", so remembering exactly what and when."

That presupposes that he was sure which day he went to Romford, right? He lived a vagabonding life in all probability, Curious, and lost sleep on one night, we know that much. I see no reason why he could not have muddled the days and events. But I have said this a thousand times already! Some agree, some donīt. Thatīs life.

"As far as the pub theory he would have said "down the Romford" so I disagree with this theory."

...and since he said to the papers that he had been in Romford, Exeter, it is a wise move.

By the way, why does everyone assume he walked there and back? Had he walked it wouldnīt have cost him anything, so he probably took some kind of public transport."

Thatīs because he said so: He returned to London "having walked all the way" was what he stated. Maybe he hiked on the way down, we donīt know. But he was seemingly not a man of any more extensive means, so walking may have been priority one when he visited other places.

"Palme was shot on the 28th"

So he was - my bad! And I am a Swede who have read tons of material on that case. STILL I muddled the dates ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

If Hutchinson meant the Romford Arms pub then public house would havbe been included in the statement, as it is with the Queens Head public house.

It isn't, ergo it was Romford.

Monty

[The Good Michael]

So he was - my bad! And I am a Swede who have read tons of material on that case. STILL I muddled the dates ...

Had you shot Palme, you wouldn't have messed up the dates. Much like had Hutchinson killed Kelly he wouldn't have mistaken the days. Since Toppy didn't, dates are fair game.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

In fact, I can only see you and Ruby stating that body language would easily produce a certainty on Lewisībehalf 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.

Apologies to Ben for answering a question which is his professional domain !

I saw my name, and it was the proverbial 'red rag'..

Let's see..the clue would be in the 'was looking..' a continual movement (as opposed to 'he looked') up the Court, as if 'watchingfor someone'...

I would appear engrossed at first, maybe shift position a few times to try and get a different or better angle..look away when I heard (Mrs Lewis's) footsteps, but not resist a few (but tellingly just too many !) glances
back at the Court. As Mrs Lewis drew closer, I might even turn my back to try and give the impression that I wasn't watching the Court -but I'd
turn back again, too quickly, when I saw her back disappearing down the passage..

If I were Mrs Lewis, I'd sneak a look over my shoulder when I had to walk down that narrow passage with the man behind me -Id really want to make sure that he wasn't going to jump on me from behind.

When Mrs Lewis looked back, she'd see that I was in the same attitude
as when she'd first noticed me, and she'd think (with relief !) 'Hurrah ! He's not going to attack me ! He's only waiting for someone from the Court !'.

It is true that someone so drunk that they were in another world , or
someone mentally impaired might not be able to pick up on this body language
-but I think that Mrs Lewis would have almost animal instincts of self preservation and, given the context, would have heightened awareness of
the 'lurker's' unconcious signals.

By the way -I think that it would be easy to read whether, when you said
'what a bright fellow' you were talking about Ben, or Lechmere standing just behind him..you'd unconciously lean and act with your body, maybe subtly gesture without realising, as if you were bending around Ben and looking at the person behind him. Unless the person that you were talking to had dulled senses or you were naturally very inexpressive, he would see the direction of your eyes and body, and read your meaning in a second without even knowing why..

[Abby Normal]

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!

Hi Jane
Good post-very reasonable and well put. Also, I had never seen that article before so thanks for posting.

[The Good Michael]

Despite the words against the off day, it still must be accepted as a reasonable possibility regardless if one disagrees with weather and sound discussions.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

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?

I don't think anyone has denied that there weren't less people around ?

In the general run of things, I think that there were the homeless (walking about all night), the poorest prostitutes, the people coming and going from work, the people leaving clubs, the Policemen, and there were still a fair amount of people on the streets.

I think that there were probably far fewer on the night of Mary Kelly's murder, because of the rain.

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

.

She spoke to the Bethnal Green Man, and had a direct contact with him
close up -not so the 'lurker'.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fish,

Geez, Jane, it is all-important that you get this distinction correct. However did you get it wrong in the first place?

My apologies Fisherman. He didn't lose a day - He just woke up on Sunday morning, thought Saturday was Friday, thought Friday was Thursday and thought Thursday was Wednesday. It could happen to anyone.


Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[curious4]

curious4:

"No, sorry, donīt agree."

Bugger!

"As far as I can see Hutchinson met Mary on the 9th (2 a.m.)."

Please note that Walter Dew disagreed very much with this - and he worked the case!

"Also any normal person would think "If only I had had the money to give Mary, she would still be alive, if I hadnīt gone to Romford/gone down the Romford (pub) I would have had some money left", so remembering exactly what and when."

That presupposes that he was sure which day he went to Romford, right? He lived a vagabonding life in all probability, Curious, and lost sleep on one night, we know that much. I see no reason why he could not have muddled the days and events. But I have said this a thousand times already! Some agree, some donīt. Thatīs life.

"As far as the pub theory he would have said "down the Romford" so I disagree with this theory."

...and since he said to the papers that he had been in Romford, Exeter, it is a wise move.

By the way, why does everyone assume he walked there and back? Had he walked it wouldnīt have cost him anything, so he probably took some kind of public transport."

Thatīs because he said so: He returned to London "having walked all the way" was what he stated. Maybe he hiked on the way down, we donīt know. But he was seemingly not a man of any more extensive means, so walking may have been priority one when he visited other places.

"Palme was shot on the 28th"

So he was - my bad! And I am a Swede who have read tons of material on that case. STILL I muddled the dates ...

The best,
Fisherman

Now, now Fisherman,

Language! (lol) Yes but... Public transport down, walked back. I STILL donīt see why he would have spent all his money there. Possibly hoped to find work?

Sorry, Romford is in Essex - would have taken a lot longer to walk from Exeter!

He was seen waiting around by another witness. Although I should have thought that the witness who saw Hutchinson would have recognised him as someone who was around the area a good deal and named him.(That has puzzled me a little.)

Best wishes,
C4

[Rubyretro]

Although I should have thought that the witness who saw Hutchinson would have recognised him as someone who was around the area a good deal and named him

.(That has puzzled me a little.)

Maybe Hutchinson thought exactly the same thing as you !

[Lechmere]

A number of posters have suggested that it is implausible that Toppy moved to the East End in the late 1880s.

This is pretty much what we know of his and his close families movements:

George Hutchinson (Toppy’s father) was born in Chelmsford, Essex in 1827
He married Jane Topping (who was from Cambridge) in 1858 in St Leonard’s Church Shoreditch.
In the 1861 census the George and Jane were living in Hornchurch in Essex (near Romford).
Toppy’s sister Emily was born in Hornchurch n 1861
Toppy was born in 1st October 1866, in Norwood, which is near Croydon in what was then Surrey (but now is in South London).
In 1871 the family was living in Lambeth (which also formed part of Surrey then).
We know that his mother died in 1880 in Eltham, Kent (near Lewisham in what was Kent, but is now is in South London)
The family was living in Eltham in 1881. Toppy was aged about 15.
Emily married James Knott in 1886 and moved to Lee (also near Lewisham).
In the early part of 1888 Toppy’s father George remarried Emma Blackall who was twenty years his junior.
In the 1891 census, Emily and James Knott and George and Emma were all living in Lee.
Toppy however was living at Warren Street, just off Tottenham Court Road in the West End.
George died in 1895 in Lee.
In 1895 Toppy married Florence Jervis in Mile End, who as eight years his junior and was from Poplar.
In 1911 Toppy was living with Florence and their six children at 14 Tuscan Street, Bethnal Green.
Emily had moved to Basildon in Essex.
Toppy’s son Reg was born in Bethnal Green in 1916.
Emily died in Hadleigh, Essex 1932.
Toppy died in 1938 in Hornchurch (when Reg was 22).

It will be noted that the family moved about quite a lot. From outer Essex, to Surrey, to Kent, often in the suburbs of London and back to Essex, with Toppy ending up in the East End.
Toppy’s parents married in Shoreditch parish church. Interestingly enough this is about one minute’s walk from Shoreditch Town Hall which is where Mary Kelly’s inquest took place.

We know that Toppy for some reason moved away from the bosom of his family to Warren Street by 1891. Warren Street is indeterminately marked on Booth’s poverty map. It is a mistake to think that a West End address equalled posh. One minutes walk away across Euston Road were some dire areas of the lowest ranking. This district, around Drummond Street, is still very poor. There were pockets of squalor all over the West End.

We know that vast numbers of people from all over England (including the outer London suburbs) moved to central London for work or to strike out to establish a life for themselves. The East End was a magnet for such people. Motivations varied as much as the individuals concerned.
Why would Toppy have moved? We have no idea but we know he did. We know his father re-married a much younger woman in 1888, and presumably had been seeing her for a while before that. This provides a plausible explanation, but it could be entirely unconnected with this.

How unlikely is it that Toppy moved to the East End before moving to Warren Street? While we have no proof that he did, I would suggest that there is nothing at all to discount the possibility. We know his parents got married in the East End – maybe a ten minutes stroll from the Victoria Home.

Is it unlikely that a young man might strike out away from home, try and make an independent go of it, struggle to find his way and end up in a poor sort of hostel before returning to his roots after this less than sanguine lesson in life?

We do not know that this happened, all we know is that he moved away to Warren Street. However there is nothing implausible about Toppy moving to the East End before moving to Warren Street. He certainly must have developed East End connections at some time as he married a girl there a few years later and settled down in the East End.

Hutchinson made a statement that he knew Kelly for three years. That would be from 1885. It is conceivable that Toppy could have moved to the East End in 1885, but I think unlikely. I also find it unlikely that Hutchinson did know Kelly for that length of time, irrespective of whether or not Toppy is the man. This is because Kelly moved around a awful lot from one side of the East End to the other. I think Hutchinson, whether he was Toppy or not, told a lot of porkies.

[Lechmere]

We know that Toppy’s father George was listed as a plumber throughout his life apart from in the 1841 census when he is listed as being a labourer – but he would have only been 14 years old.
Toppy was listed as a plumber in the 1891 census (when he was living in Warren Street).
Hutchinson in 1888 said he had been a groom but was currently a labourer, not in regular employment.
Can this be reconciled?

How did you become a plumber?

There were essentially three methods.
1) Via an apprenticeship which could last seven years
2) Just by taking up the trade and calling yourself a plumber and bodging your way through it (or perhaps doing a decent job if taught by someone else who was experienced)
3) By doing a lesser qualification than a full blown apprenticeship, probably after a period of ‘on the job training’.

What evidence is there?

A report in the Times of 30th November 1886 said that the apprenticeship system had been in decline and the trade was dominated by totally untrained bodgers. That accounts for the first two categories I listed above.

The Chairman said it was satisfactory to find that the plumbers and the public were virtually of one mind as to the urgent need for some check to the present evils associated with what was called "scamped" plumbing; and the Company was supported on one side by plumbers of all grades and located in almost all parts of the kingdom; while, on the other side, it was upheld by public sanitary authorities, the medical profession, the architects, and others concerned in maintaining public health and comfort.
The summarized results of the investigations of the Company might be said to establish chiefly these things:-
1. That the trade already contained a large number, and was subject to a continual influx, of unqualified men;
2. That the deterioration of the trade was due in part to the falling off of the apprenticeship system, and in part to competition [between] builders obscuring the real lines of distinction between the crafts and allowing labourers rather than plumbers to carry out plumbers' work;
3. That the execution of defective and dishonest plumbers' work was rendered easy by the laxity or entire absence of official supervision and control.

Victorian Britain was a largely unregulated laissez faire society. The ‘self trained man’ was eulogised. It was through the ‘self-trained man’ that Britain’s pioneering advances in engineering had come about. This was in marked contrast to the situation in for example Germany, where there was much more emphasis on regulation and academic qualification, which (as a side issue) is one reason why eventually Britain fell behind. The important point to remember is that Britain was not fanatical about regulations and enforcing paperwork.
This was also at a time when there was intense mobility of labour. People were flooding in to London which expanded at a rate of knots. Houses were being thrown up all over. There was also an increased awareness about the need for sanitation. After the Great Stink of 1858 emphasis was placed on the need for the proper treatment of sewage and drains. This increased the demand for plumbers.
Why did the apprentice system break down at this period? Because of the mobility of labour (people were less likely to sit in one area learning for seven years) and because the demand for plumbers greatly outstripped the outmoded form of training which reduced the supply of trained plumbers. Competition from untrained plumbers will have been a major disincentive to train seven years as an apprentice, given the harsh conditions under which an apprenticeships were conducted.
Once the population movements stabilised, apprenticeships will have naturally gained a new relevance.

The Times report of 1886 said that the Worshipful Company of Plumbers wished to encourage regulation of the trade. They wished to encourage the public sector in particular only to employ registered plumbers. There was nothing compulsory about the regulations they proposed. In order to become registered the plumber concerned had to show the examining committee that he had the necessary experience or would have to be tested.
This is in effect the third category which I outlined above and is a long way short of a requirement to serve a seven year apprenticeship.

“The registration was conducted by special committee [and] plumbers who could satisfy the registering committee of sufficient practical experience in the trade were registered at once. Those who could not were required to undergo an examination. He felt he might promise that the Company would continue to do its part, but the movement must have the extended support of the sanitary authorities, architects and the public at large to render it really successful...”

A Times report of 11th August 1887 illustrated that somewhat predictably, the scheme for registration was not progressing very well.

THE CITY & GUILDS OF LONDON INSTITUTE
The system of practical examinations, which is necessarily of the greatest importance in testing the skill of handicraftsmen, appears from this year's report to have been further extended by the Council of the institute. Practical examinations are now held in weaving and pattern-designing, carpentry and joinery, metal-plate work, printing, plumbers' work, and mine surveying. The results of the examinations in plumbers' work seem to have been far from satisfactory, and fully justify the action of the Plumbers' Company in requiring all competent plumbers, as certified by the examination, to be registered, so as to enable the public to distinguish between efficient and inefficient craftsmen.

The City and Guilds test it must be emphasised is not the end result of an apprenticeship. Please also note that although the Worshipful Company of Plumbers may have wanted to encourage registration, they had absolutely no means by which to enforce it. Building contractors, then as now, will take on the cheapest workforce possible.

The Times then reported on 2nd December 1887 that the old apprentice system had died out and was replaced by these tests which were held in central London.

up to the present the Company had been able to grant certificates to 1,185 efficient craftsmen. Many of these had come a very long distance at considerable personal expense to pass the examination...
...The system of apprenticeship, by which the city companies formerly worked, had died out, and had come to a natural end. It was now being gradually replaced by a system of technical education.

There was still clearly a problem with unlicenced jobbing plumbers as The Duke of Westminster (one of London’s biggest property owners) insisted that only plumbers certified by the Worshipful Company would be employed on his estates. This is from a letter to the Times dated 4th March 1889.

...the Duke of Westminster, feeling the very great importance, from a sanitary point of view, of good plumbers' work in houses, and appreciating the exertions of the Plumbers' Company in that direction, had decided that none but certificated plumbers were to be employed in new buildings on his estate. You will be interested to know that every building contract on this estate provides as follows:-- 'No plumber is to be employed upon the works unless he has the certificate of his efficiency from the Worshipful Company of Plumbers'.

It will be seen from this that there would have been no requirement whatsoever for Toppy to have served a seven year apprenticeship in order to describe himself as a plumber in 1891. The regulations inspired by the Worshipful Company of Plumbers will have encouraged greater registration and better standards but it is naive to think that it will have resulted in the elimination of untrained bodgers, still less good but uncertified plumbers.

Toppy will have been in an ideal position to obtain on the job training at his father’s side and so pass the Worshipful Company of Plumbers test.
If he did indeed move to the East End and find work as a groom and a labourer, he may well have worked as a plumber with his father in his earlier years.
It seems that Toppy’s grandfather was also a plumber, hand he presumably trained his son (Toppy’s father).
We know that Reg (Toppy’s son) also worked with his father for a while before becoming a costermonger.
Without his father’s patronage, as a young man, if Toppy did move to the East End he probably would have found it difficult to continue as a plumber. He may have not wanted to as an act of rebelliousness. That is an easy explanation as to why he may have tried his hand as a groom or a labourer.
It is quite within the realms of possibility that after the events of 1888 Toppy would have gone back to work with his father for a couple of years and then passed the examination and become a certified plumber for the rest of his life.

In short there is absolutely nothing within the nature of the plumbing trade to disqualify Toppy from being the George Hutchinson of 1888.
This obviously does not constitute any sort of proof that Toppy was Kelly’s Hutchinson. However some commentators have mistakenly believed that to be a plumber in 1891 Toppy must have served a seven year apprenticeship (which would tend to discount the possibility that he could have been the Kelly Hutchinson) which is clearly very far from being the case.

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -I will let Garry answer your long post on plumbing.

I have always thought that Toppy could have been in the East End in 1888
but if he had been the witness, none of this would explain why he didn't work as a plumber but instead was reduced to fighting for casual labouring jobs next to illiterate immigrants, and living in a common lodging house.

Nor why he would describe himself as a groom, which is a real job description,
and not a plumber.

If he turned up 3 years later as a plumber, but he was infact labouring and living away from home in 1888, then he wouldn't be 'just picking up' plumbing from his father in between times.

[Lechmere]

Frau Retro, I gave possible and unremarkable explanations for all those points