Poll: does the evidence support the contention that Hutchinson mistook the day

[babybird67]

thanks Ben

for bringing the thread back on track.

Although banter etc is fine, can I just remind people that we really wanted this thread to concern itself with the evidence regarding Hutchinson's statement and the surrounding facts. Some general comment is fine, but I don't want the thread swamped with other things...the main Hutch thread is for that.

Nice to see you back David too. But one more thing...as an ignorant non-French speaker, could we confine the French to a word or two.When i see entire posts in French that I cannot read I kind of feel a little excluded! Plus Im too nosey not to want to know what they say!

Thanks guys.

Benz

I agree, the evidence of Lewis and Hutchinson's statements do corroborate eachother to a remarkable degree. That alone for me is a significant factor in demonstrating Hutchinson got the date correct. Thanks for posting.

Jen xx

[DVV]

Hi Ben,

I plump for the latter too, mate.
End of the wrong day hypothesis, imo.

Bestest

[Ben]

David!

Great to see you back here.

Pursuant to Jen's sensible wish to reserve this thread primarily for sources and only minimal personal commentary, I thought this might be the most suitable location for what I regard the most crucial piece of evidence against the "wrong day" hypothesis, which is the striking similarity between Lewis' and Hutchinson's accounts:

Sarah Lewis had noticed a man standing opposite the court at 2:30am on 9th November:

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

And now here’s Hutchinson’s account of his reason for standing opposite the court at 2:30am on 9th November:

“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.”

Clearly, Lewis had seen Hutchinson that night.

And there is no possibility that she confused the date.

It follows therefore that Hutchinson either forgot to mention the arrival of Sarah Lewis (if he was an honest witness who was there for good and wholesome reasons), or deliberately avoided mentioning her (if he was there for dodgy or nefarious reasons, and didn't want to make it appear obvious that he only came forward after realizing that a genuine witness had seen him near the crime scene at a time critical to the murder).

I plump for the latter.

All the best,
Ben

[Sister Hyde]

Well, a damn good reason, according to the post-mortem.

Yes a damn good reason indeed. But what reason for the other victims?

[DVV]

he could have had a reason to go nuts on kelly and they knew eachother

Well, a damn good reason, according to the post-mortem.

[Sister Hyde]

Heu........................what ??? why ???!!
Didn't know Hutch had an alibi for the other murders !

Bestest

I never said he had an alibi for the other murders. what i say is, he could have had a reason to go nuts on kelly and they knew eachother, but why on the others?

[DVV]

My post 50 was so sexy, I know my dear !

[Fisherman]

Let´s save some space, David ...!

The best,
Fisherman

PS. This was posted in response to your post 50. Then some other posts sneaked in inbetween. DS.

[DVV]

I'm not convinced that Hutch was the ripper anyway, it works for Kelly, but could it really work for the others? and in the ripper case, it's very unlikely that one commits only one of the murders

Heu........................what ??? why ???!!
Didn't know Hutch had an alibi for the other murders !

Bestest

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fisherman,

Thanks for the reply, just what the doctor ordered.

I will wait a bit to give others time to post before putting any more up. Someone might like to come back on the kind of errors that Dew made in his book, amongst other things. As that is very pertinent.

Hopefully I can address all the other points you've brought up when we get to them.

Regards

Janie

[DVV]

Maybe so, Fish. What I'm supposed to have missed, though, may well be hyper-criticism imo.

All the best

[Fisherman]

David:

"True. Dew and the police did not suspect Hutch, hence the far-fetched and late suggestion of him having mistaken the day."

I did not have to go far to fetch it. I went to Dew, who worked the case. And you may have missed out on one or two other implications, David. But they´re all in this very thread.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sister Hyde]

His son ?
Reg ?
Errrr......I don't feel like going there again......

ahahah no need. I have been through the threads about him too.i have to admit that i haven't focused so much on Hutchinson, I'm not convinced that Hutch was the ripper anyway, it works for Kelly, but could it really work for the others? and in the ripper case, it's very unlikely that one commits only one of the murders

[DVV]

If he had lied - or if the police had had suspicions that this was the case - I fail to see why Dew would treat Hutchinson as a very honest witness of the best intentions in his memoirs. Fisherman

Hi Fish,

True. Dew and the police did not suspect Hutch, hence the far-fetched and late suggestion of him having mistaken the day.

Amitiés
David

[Fisherman]

Jane Coram:

"Forgive me for going back to basics here, but the foundation of your argument (I hope I'm correct in saying) is Walter Dew's statement in his memoirs; that the weather was grim that night, making it unlikely that Hutchinson would have walked around all night and that the absence of Mrs Lewis in Hutchinson's statement consolidates the suggestion that it was the early hours of Thursday morning and not Friday morning."

Plus Hutchinson did not mention the young couple Lewis said she saw in Dorset Street as she went to the court, plus Hutchinson says nothing about standing about on the southern side of the street (where the loiterer apparently stood), but instead that he went to the court and stod there for three quarters of an hour, plus astrakhan man was wearing his coat open in spite of the wet and windy night, plus Hutchinson stood about leaning on a lamppost in spite of the wet and windy night, plus nobody seems to have seen astrakhan man in Dorset Street on Friday morning, plus Hutchinson was adamant that he saw only two other people in Dorset Street between 2.15 AM and 3 AM, approximately.

"On the other side, we have the signed police statement saying it was the 9th, a letter from Abberline showing that he accepted Hutchinson's dating of the incident as correct, and the newspaper reports, one of which at least was a statement made by Hutchinson confirming it was Friday the 9th."

We do. There is not the slightest doubt about what day Hutchinson believed he was in Dorset Street. The doubt lies in whether that was a correct assessment. If it was not, he either was there on another day or not at all, actually leaving us with two possibilities for a muddled up day: A true one, where it did happen, and a "false" one, if you will, where he was never there, but had the police or at least Dew believing that a mistaken date was the explanation to the detail/s that had him dropped later on.

"It has already been brought out on the ‘Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?’ thread that Dew’s memoirs are riddled with errors, and were written 50 years after the event. Neither of those points can really be disputed. I could post up a page full of the errors in Dew's book, but the errors are there for everyone to see. We have to decide for ourselves how much faith we put in Dew."

Yes. And we also have to look at what KIND of errors he made. For example, the Bowyer thing is glaring, but it has been suggested that the "boy" mentioned may have been McCarthys son running ahead. But it would be useful to see the error types listed.

"It's difficult to see if Dew is suggesting that Hutchinson was mistaken about the time or the date or both. It is possible to prove which he meant.
Hutchinson, in his statement to the Daily News of 14th November, says:
"I am able to fix the time, as it was between ten and five minutes to two o'clock as I came by Whitechapel Church. When I left the corner of Miller's court the clock struck three o'clock."
That really makes it impossible for Hutchinson to have got the time wrong, so Dew must be suggesting that he might have got the date wrong."

Others will tell you that this is no evidence that holds any water. It was A/ not in the police report, and B/it points to Hutchinson having been three hours out, and not a full day. So the arguments go.
Needless to say, I concur with you - Dew meant that Hutchinson was a full day out and nothing else.

"Hutchinson doesn't say in his statement that this was a Friday, only that it was the 9th. It's reasonable to suggest that he didn't know that Friday was the 9th, because he doesn't state it there specifically. However -
In his statement to the Daily News of November 14th, Hutchinson says:-
"I went down to Shoreditch mortuary today and recognised the body as being that of the woman Kelly, whom I saw at two o'clock on Friday morning."
So it's clear that Hutchinson was in no doubt that it was Friday morning when he made those statements, if these reports are accepted at face value. You suggest that even though he put it in his statement, that he might have only thought it was the 9th when it was in fact the 8th."

This is correct. Hutchinson mentioned both Thursday and Friday in his press interviews, and going by that, he was in Dorset Street on the night of Thursday and the morning of Friday.
The problem is, when you mistake a day, you don´t tell the police "I was really there on Wednesday, but since I have muddled the days afterwards, I will say it was on Thursday instead".
No, instead you say with conviction what you BELIEVE, and if your belief is wrong, that does not change the wording in the police report. After tht, it is a question of what means Abberline et al had to expose the error, and how long it would have taken. For all we know, the suspicions of a flaw may have been there very shortly after Abberline had stated his approval.

If and when a fatal error was found out by the police, they would have reacted professionally and changed their view of the testimony. If this happened in Hutchinson´s case, and if he WAS one day off, the reaction would be that Hutchinson was dropped and awarded no further interest. If he had lied - or if the police had had suspicions that this was the case - I fail to see why Dew would treat Hutchinson as a very honest witness of the best intentions in his memoirs. Therefore, to me, the only reasonable solution is that the police dropped him, but without reprimanding him or judging him either a liar or a timewaster.

"Is that a fair summary so far?"

As far as I can see, yes - at least with my additions inserted.

The best,
Fisherman