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

[Archaic]

Wandering Posts...

Wow, it's really weird how my previous post keeps wandering around...now it's #134!

The post with my questions should of course have preceded Fisherman's answers in Post #125.

It's a bit like Alice In Wonderland, answers are given before the questions are even asked!

Fisherman, thank you very much for responding to my questions, I appreciate it.

Now I am curious to know how rainfall was measured in 1888! In addition to nearby town & city weather reports, I can get pinpoint neighborhood weather reports on my computer or cell-phone from local weather buffs who record everything, but I have no idea how rainfall was measured and documented in the late 19th C.

Does anyone else know?

Thanks and best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

Questions re: Rainfall Statistics & Terminology

Hi Fisherman.

I was looking at your rainfall statistics, and I'm a little confused. There's a huge range, from zero to about 1/2 inch, but the 1/2 inch of rain fell in Oxford- which I believe is about 60 miles from London. Doesn't that make it much too far away to be pertinent to the rainfall in Dorset Street at a particular time of the night?

Also, you used the phrase "Rainfall totals for the 24 hours ending at 0900 GMT on the 9th were:"- so does that mean that all of the rain statistics you provided pertained to a similar time period; i.e. 9 AM on Nov. 8th to 9 AM on Nov. 9th?

Or did some statistics accord with the actual calendar day in question? In other words, from Midnight, the beginning of the calendar day Nov. 9th, to 11:59:59 PM. the end of calendar day Nov. 9th?

Did whomever provided the rainfall statistics for truly send human beings out to measure them at a precise time every single day in every single location? If so, considering that the measurements would all have been done "by hand" in 1888, 9AM daily makes a lot more sense than 12 AM Midnight.

I think it matters quite a lot if we are discussing the weather for particular days, but those "days" don't all begin at exactly the same time- at 12:00 AM Midnight. Is it possible that some measurements were recorded at 12 AM and others were recorded a full 9 hours later, at 9 AM??

(I hope those questions make sense, I'm very tired. )

Can you also please explain the meaning of the phrase "general rain"? It sounds rather imprecise; is it a meteorological term? We don't use that phrase in America so I wasn't sure.

Here in Seattle our weathermen give a standard weather prediction which consists of every possible combination of the phrases "rain tomorrow", "rain at times tomorrow" and "showers tomorrow", but as far as anybody can tell they have no exact meanings and are all used interchangeably, depending upon which channel you're listening to or watching... we figure the forecasters are just trying to not be so boring.

Thanks for your help...

Best regards,
Archaic

[babybird67]

I've just noticed Fish is away for a few days. I think it would only be fair to him to delay contacting Mr Jebson for clarification until he comes back, as he may wish to do that himself, it being his contact.

I will therefore hold off contacting Mr Jebson until Fish returns. I do think it important the contact is made to clarify the apparent contradictions in the report though...this is very confusing and we need to fully understand the evidence as much as possible to make an informed decision.

Jen x

[babybird67]

Right, here is what I've gathered from your posts, please throw something at me if I'm wrong!

Hi Babybird:

You point out that the report states that the rain over London was not blanket rain. Different areas of London experienced different rainfall over the two days.

Brixton experienced no rain on the 8th and 7.1mm on the 9th, whereas Regent's Park experienced 5.1mm on the 8th and none on the 9th.

Neither of these on their own prove that it was raining in Dorset Street or the surrounding area on the 8th/9th of November.

Wiki gives the hourly figures for each type of rainfall, but even I can see that it's saying that 'Moderate Rain' is between 2.5mm and 7.6mm per hour so 7.1mm in a whole night really is not 'Heavy Rain' by any stretch of the imagination.

If it had been incessant rain, then the rainfall figures would obviously be much higher, unless the raindrops were tiny, in which case it couldn't be classed as 'Heavy rain.'

I must say I had no idea what 'general rain' was as it sounded rather vague and non descriptive. I'll read the other posts before commenting on that.

You point out that there is a specific reference there to the weather overnight in London.

The overnight period in London (8th - 9th) was overcast and gloomy with outbreaks of rain.

Obviously outbreaks are sudden outbreaks of rain and couldn't be incessant rain.

This contradicts the last sentence about it being 'general' rain.

You conclude that outbreaks of rain are, in fact, showers and not continuous rain.

Have I got that right?

Hugs

Janie

xxx

HI Janie,

excellent summary yes. The most confusing thing is the contradiction within the report itself...in one place stating their were outbreaks, which suggests there were long periods without rain which were punctuated by sudden showers, and this idea of 'general rain' (specifically said to be not showers) at the end. Both these statements cannot be accurate.

I think it's an idea of one of us contacts Mr Jebson to get clarification. Were there showers or continual/general rain? I have a feeling the amounts of rain quoted support the 'outbreaks' hypothesis, but I think until this is checked, it is going to be difficult to get to grips with the weather reports.

I am happy to do this, or if you wish to Janie...?

I agree with Janie. Can we have those voting 'yes' in the poll perhaps posting up the aspects of the evidence they find convincing? If they wish to remain anonymous, they can always pm either of us and we can keep their identity secret and just post their contributions up for everyone to share?

hugs Janie and to all who want them

Jen xxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fisherman,

Hope the time out is for something nice!

I see that Archaics post turned up again finally. I was beginning to think I was seeing things. But it's still after this post that I'm typing to you!!!!!

I won't post any more until you join the thread again anyway.

Kind regards

Janie

[Jane Coram]

Hi Mike,

I do wish some of them would post up and comment so that we could see why they think that it's a good argument! The idea of this thread is so that people can decide which way to vote in the poll by looking at the evidence for both sides. Please, will some of those who think that it is a good argument post up some of the reasons they are persuaded by Fisherman's article? I know it's a secret poll, but all the same!

Archaics post has disappeared again!!!! Uh????

Hugs (no germs, I promise )

Janie

xxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi Ruby,

I'm not ignoring you, it's just that your post didn't have lots of rainfall figures in it I didn't really understand! Lol. I'll include your posts in my comments on the evidence, which I promise I will keep very brief!

Much love

Janie

xxxx

Hi Archaic,

Am I going crackers or was Fisherman able to answer your post before it went up! I thought I was seeing things! Watch out, there's a psychic Fisherman about! Lol. I'm glad I'm not the only one confused by the rainfall statistics!

I can see you're another gal that's confused by the term 'general rain'. Maybe we need to clarify what that term actually means, as we can't make a totally informed assessment of the rainfall, without actually knowing the meaning of the term.

Hugs,

Janie

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

Right, here is what I've gathered from your posts, please throw something at me if I'm wrong!

Hi Babybird:

You point out that the report states that the rain over London was not blanket rain. Different areas of London experienced different rainfall over the two days.

Brixton experienced no rain on the 8th and 7.1mm on the 9th, whereas Regent's Park experienced 5.1mm on the 8th and none on the 9th.

Neither of these on their own prove that it was raining in Dorset Street or the surrounding area on the 8th/9th of November.

Wiki gives the hourly figures for each type of rainfall, but even I can see that it's saying that 'Moderate Rain' is between 2.5mm and 7.6mm per hour so 7.1mm in a whole night really is not 'Heavy Rain' by any stretch of the imagination.

If it had been incessant rain, then the rainfall figures would obviously be much higher, unless the raindrops were tiny, in which case it couldn't be classed as 'Heavy rain.'

I must say I had no idea what 'general rain' was as it sounded rather vague and non descriptive. I'll read the other posts before commenting on that.

You point out that there is a specific reference there to the weather overnight in London.

The overnight period in London (8th - 9th) was overcast and gloomy with outbreaks of rain.

Obviously outbreaks are sudden outbreaks of rain and couldn't be incessant rain.

This contradicts the last sentence about it being 'general' rain.

You conclude that outbreaks of rain are, in fact, showers and not continuous rain.

Have I got that right?

Hugs

Janie

xxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I've read through the posts and on the weather, and just want to make sure that I've got what everyone is saying, because it is a very complicated topic.

There are actually three different weather reports that Fisherman posted as he received them. Full marks to him for going to so much trouble and getting them. Obviously we need to look at all three to get the correct picture.

If I just pull out the points that I've gathered from them from each post, could you all tell me if I've got what you're saying or got it all arse upwards? Then I'll post up points that I've picked up from it.

I'll put it on a separate post for clarity.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[The Good Michael]

More than a third think it's possible or it's a good idea by Fisherman. That is a high percentage of people that have admitted his argument is valid. That is far above the validity of most suspects. Congrats Fish!

Mike

[Fisherman]

Archaic:

"There's a huge range, from zero to about 1/2 inch, but the 1/2 inch of rain fell in Oxford- which I believe is about 60 miles from London. Doesn't that make it much too far away to be pertinent to the rainfall in Dorset Street at a particular time of the night?"

Maybe it does and maybe not. My stance is that we cannot tell much about Dorset Street at all. We do know that it rained hard there at 3 AM, thatīs about it. After that, it may have resembled Flower and Dean Street, and it may have resembled Oxford. we cannot know. Rain does not fall evenly, it does not adjust to schedules and such.

"Also, you used the phrase "Rainfall totals for the 24 hours ending at 0900 GMT on the 9th were:"- so does that mean that all of the rain statistics you provided pertained to a similar time period; i.e. 9 AM on Nov. 8th to 9 AM on Nov. 9th?"

It was Steve Jebson that used that phrase. The measurements were made in 24 hour periods. But in this case, we know that it was dry up till after midnight, so the rain that fell in that 24-hour period, fell during the last 8-9 hours of the measuring period.

"Did whomever provided the rainfall statistics for truly send human beings out to measure them at a precise time every single day in every single location?"

I believe so - but I donīt have them details.

"I think it matters quite a lot if we are discussing the weather for particular days, but those "days" don't all begin at exactly the same time- at 12:00 AM Midnight. Is it possible that some measurements were recorded at 12 AM and others were recorded a full 9 hours later, at 9 AM??"

Reasonably, all measurements were made at the same time - but once again, I do not know for sure.

"Can you also please explain the meaning of the phrase "general rain"? It sounds rather imprecise; is it a meteorological term? We don't use that phrase in America so I wasn't sure."

Lucky you - at least English is your language. Swedish is mine. But my understanding is that general rain means rain that falls over longer periods of time instead of showers.

Thatīs it for now - Iīm off the boards for a couple of days!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I agree with all your comments, Jen..
To recapitulate : Hutch didn't pay attention to the weather because he wasn't walking about all night.
Dew didn't know why Hutch was dismissed as a witness (so it couldn't have been concrete and well known amongst the Police), but did notice the weather difference -so he speculated that this was the reason..

[babybird67]

good point Ruby

I don't think that Dew would be resorting to his own speculation if he had any certain knowledge as to 'why' Hutch's Statement was false ; But he did know that Hutch's Statement was false (" I can't see any other explanation..).

And shows that even after fifty years experience the Police still could not 'see' any other explanation for an inconsistency in a witness statement that might be explained by culpability. Still not enough experience with the known behaviour of serial killers. He obviously knew it was inconsistent and that had been dismissed as such, but was no wiser as to the reasoning for that.

Jen x

[babybird67]

hi Ruby

I completely agree with you regarding the relevance to the conclusion. Even if heavy/persistent rainfall could be established, all that would indicate is that Hutchinson's statement contains inaccuracies, if you are arguing he could not have/would not have spent all night walking around London. It would in no way prove he was telling the truth and therefore 'must have' mistaken the day.

It is more plausible to my mind that if it WAS raining continually that night and Hutch was unlikely to have spent the night as he claimed, he was lying, rather than mistaken. I do not buy the mistaken day theory. One, there is no evidence for it and two, it is highly unlikely anybody who knew a woman for three years, and finds out she is murdered, on the same night as he walks all the way back from Romford and the same day as the Lord Mayor's Show would possibly confuse the days after a three day period inbetween. Maybe if he was reminising fifty years later as Dew was, the memory can play tricks. Not when he made a statement so shortly afterwards. Nope. Just can't see it.

However, because this thread really is to try to examine the evidence Dew's theory is based on more minutely, it is interesting to try to establish exactly what the weather was. And from the information we have, it just seems to confirm that there were some showers that night, which has always been acknowledged due to witness statements and the state of Mary's clothes. I cannot see any evidence for heavy or continual rain no matter how hard I look.

Jen x

[Rubyretro]

Hi Jen -I don't know why it matters a toss what the rainfall was as far as Fisherman's theory goes..

I could use the same rainfall figures to support my theory.

If the rainfall figures have any significance, it's simply that they don't 'fit' with Hutch's 'Statement'. However nothing at all fits with Hutch's 'Statement'.

My conclusion is simply that Hutch lied in his 'Statement', and he forgot about the weather when fabricating his 'story' because he was undercover at the time.

I think that he was actually inside Mary's room ..

I don't think that Dew would be resorting to his own speculation if he had any certain knowledge as to 'why' Hutch's Statement was false ; But he did know that Hutch's Statement was false (" I can't see any other explanation..).