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

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fiisherman,

Nice to see here. I'm looking forward to seeing all your evidence in one place without lots of long posts in between. I think a lot of evidence got lost in the middle somewhere of the debate. For instance, I can't remember exactly what the weather report said, and it would be nice to see it here, so that people could refresh their memories.

Sorry I've just seen Frank's post and don't want to step into the middle of the discussion, so will leave my reply about The Daily News report until Frank has made his points.



Regards,

Janie

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Actually having read Frank's post again, I think I can post on it, because it won't affect what Frank's said.

The point here is that the Daily News report states that Hutchinson said that it was 'Thursday last.' It ties in entirely with his statement to the police and the other news reports. There is nothing to suggest that it was a bogus report, or that Hutchinson didn't say it.

If we don't want to accept that report at face value, then evidence needs to be produced to show that when he stated it was 'Thursday last', he was mistaken or the newspaper was in error in some way. It's not sufficient to say that Hutchinson could have been mistaken, because there is nothing in that statement to suggest he was unsure of his facts and nothing to suggest that it was bogus.

Regards

Janie

[Archaic]

Hi everyone.

Jen and Janie, I think it's a great idea to provide a thread for relevant information about Hutchinson without long personal commentary.

My brain kind of imploded when the thread "Did Hutch Get the Night Wrong?" passed the 500-post mark.

Thanks, everyone, for providing news reports and testimony; it's much less daunting.

Best regards,
Archaic

[DVV]

I've voted no.
Once.
Twice.
Thrice.

[Archaic]

Bonjour David! Ça va?

Umm, I'm not sure I can say this in French, but I'll try.

David, il est illégal de stuffez le box du ballots!

Bon.

I said it louder and in color to help you understand.

Au revoir,
Archaic

[sleekviper]

I am undecided, have not made a choice either way since I have not ventured deep into the area. It is possible that someone can mistake a day, it happens. Marc Green, P.H.D in psychology states, "Memory is a reconstruction, not a record. As noted, memory traces are, at best, highly impoverished versions of the original percept. The eyewitness will often have insufficient information in the memory itself, so the reconstruction must invoke pieces of information from other sources. There are two main sources of additional information: 1) pre-existing schemas and 2) other memories."
Sir Frederick Bartlett,(1886-1969), head of psychology at Cambridge University has stated in his 1932 book "Remembering"
"Remembering is not a completely independent function, entirely distinct from perceiving, imaging, or even from constructive thinking, but it has intimate relations with them all…One’s memory of an event reflects a blend of information contained in specific traces encoded at the time it occurred, plus inferences based on knowledge, expectations, beliefs, and attitudes derived from other sources."
So if Hutch had made it clear in his mind, which he no doubt had, that this man that he saw with Kelly was intent on doing wrong, news of her murder could have placed a memory of the night that he saw them, as the night before she was killed. It would be true to him, so his statement would read exactly as if it did occur in that order. I do not know if this is what happened to him, but it is possible.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Sleekviper,

Thanks for that, there's some very interesting information there, but it's going to take a little while to digest it! I think I can see what it's saying (and what you're saying). I thought that someone would be able to put something up about the vagaries of memory!

Those excerpts seem to suggest (and I hope I've got it right) that the memory fills in some bits of information from outside sources, if it can't quite fit the pieces together. That does make a lot of sense.

In relation to Hutchinson I can see the logic, and it seems to tie in with some parts of the evidence and not others. So hopefully it will get some interesting comments and thoughts.

I'll leave this post here as I don't want to mix personal opinion in with evidence, but thanks for posting that up.

Kind regards,

Janie

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi again,

Just carrying on from Sleek's excerpts:-

Looking at the report in the Daily News 14th November, where we have an expanded account, (stated to be from Hutchinson himself) about the events, Hutchinson says that he spoke to a policeman about it on Sunday morning.

I told one policeman on Sunday morning what I had seen, but did not go to the police station.

If we put this in context. In the police statement and the reports in the Daily News, Hutchinson states that he walked all the way from Romford on the Thursday and arrives back too late to get into his lodging house. Almost immediately after his arrival back, he witnesses Mary with the suspect (early hours of Friday morning) then walks about for the rest of Friday night. He says that he went to his lodging house as soon as it opened. It would mean that there would have been just the rest of Friday and Saturday to account for before he spoke to the policeman on Sunday morning.

People can decide for themselves whether or not they think it's reasonable that someone would mistake the day under those circumstances, but that Sunday conversation with the policeman, does minimize the time between witnessing the event and realising that he ought to report the event considerably. If it had only occured to him on Monday that something untoward was going on, then that extra day would have made quite a big difference to the plausibility of his mistaking the day. If it was late Saturday night or early Sunday morning, it's a very different situation.


Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[Fisherman]

Jane Coram:

"If we don't want to accept that report at face value, then evidence needs to be produced to show that when he stated it was 'Thursday last', he was mistaken or the newspaper was in error in some way. It's not sufficient to say that Hutchinson could have been mistaken, because there is nothing in that statement to suggest he was unsure of his facts and nothing to suggest that it was bogus."

That is not how I look upon it at all, Jane. My take on things is that the fact that he said it was "Thursday last" and the fact that the police report has him in place on Friday morning, is in no way equal to this being true. If George Hutchinson was of the mistaken meaning that he was there on Friday morning, he would have said so to the police, and that is what would have gone into the report. And if he said he was there on Friday morning, then that was because he BELIEVED he was. And if he believed he was there on Friday morning, then, by reasoning, he would remember that he was there on the morning after the night when he walked home from Romford. Ergo, he must have been of the meaning that he was in Romford on the Thursday.

But we cannot look upon things as any established facts either way. It is what it is: George Hutchinson the witness´conception of when he saw Kelly. And conceptions are not always correct. And indeed, the police soon enough picked up on this, and Hutchinson was subsequently dropped.
You say that there is nothing pointing to any uncertainty on his behalf when it comes to the date issue in the evidence. That is true. Apparently this certainty of his remained throughout, for Dew - who also had Hutchinson down as a witness with the best of intentions, but still wrong - worded himself in a manner that tells us that although he himself felt sure that Hutchinson WAS wrong on the dates, no universal acceptance of this had been gained back in 1888. And I think the more reasonable conclusion to draw from that, is that Hutchinson disagreed. He apparently stayed with his conviction that he HAD been there on Friday morning. So the certainty on his behalf that was there from the outset, certainly seems to have prevailed throughout.
But when you say that there is nothing to suggest that it was bogus, I strongly disagree. Not only is there the very strange assertion that he walked the streets all night, coupled with our knowledge that it rained hard as he set out to do so, but there is also the total absense of Sarah Lewis in Hutchinsons testimony. And that very clearly points away from him having been there on Friday morning, for if he WAS, and if he spent his time there carefully monitoring the entrance to Miller´s Court, then there is no way that he could have missed her. And still we know that he DID, because he clearly tells us in his interview with the Daily News of the 14:th that the only persons he saw during his vigil were a returning lodger who went into a doss house and a PC that passed Dorset Street.

On your assumption that the schedule would have been too tight for a muddling of the days, I just can´t agree. Well, I DO of course agree that the shorter the span is, the less likely a muddling will be as a general rule, but in this case I think the space is there. I he walked from Romford on Wednesday, and saw Kelly on Thursday morning, we have a stretch to Sunday morning of three full days, and that certainly would be sufficient. If we add to this his vagabonding lifestyle, perhaps keeping it difficult to keep track of the days, and at least one night´s sleep deprivation, then we get a picture that lends itself eminently to a muddling of the days and events. And let´s not forget that Dew, held very high in regard as a detective and policeman and very much involved in the Ripper investigation, had no problems with this. In fact, he had no other explanation to offer.

You asked about the weather report that spoke of continuous rain, Jane. Here it is, signed Steve Jebson:

"I've received from our Archive the daily rainfall values for Brixton and Regents Park in London for the 8th and 9th November 1888. Both values are for the period 0900 GMT to 0900 GMT and made on the morning of the observation.

The observing site used in the Daily Weather Report for November 1888 in London was Brixton, in the London borough of Lambeth.

Brixton rainfall amount:
8th November 1888: 0.0 inches (0.0 mm)
9th November 1888: 0.28 inches (7.1 mm)

Regent's Park rainfall amount:
8th November 1888: 0.2 inches (5.1 mm)
9th November 1888: 0.0 inches (0.0 mm)

Looking at the Beaufort letters for both the 8th and 9th for London (Brixton), the 8th had overcast skies and no rain during the morning and then continuing dry but overcast through the afternoon and into the evening. Rain fell at Oxford during the evening of the 8th. The overnight period in London (8th into the 9th) was overcast and rather gloomy with outbreaks of rain. Rain was also reported overnight at Oxford. Hurst Castle, near Southampton, had rain overnight with overcast skies. Cambridge had no rain overnight but overcast skies and Dungeness (Kent) also had no rain overnight but cloudy skies. At 0800 GMT on the 9th in London it was raining and overcast. It was also raining at Oxford at 0800 GMT on the 9th.

The general summary for 0800 GMT on the 9th November was for overcast skies across much of England, Ireland and France with rain in many places.

Rainfall totals for the 24 hours ending at 0900 GMT on the 9th were:

Oxford: 0.29 inches (7.4 mm)
Hurst Castle: 0.49 inches (12.5 mm)
Dungeness: 0.02 inches (0.5 mm)
Cambridge: 0.00 inches (0.0 mm)

Please note that the rain that fell across southeast England was general rain, not showers.

I think that's about all I came get from the observations that we hold. I hope this is of help.

Kind regards

Steve Jebson"

...and there you are: "general rain, not showers". I have said before, and I don´t mind repeating it, that rain is a very illusive factor to work with - when it rains over one street, an adjacent one can be dry. The borderline always has to go somewhere. Likewise, it may rain hard on a very limited area and very light on another one, very close by. So in the end, whatever we may have from the meteorologists, the one really good factor at hand is our knowledge that it rained hard in Dorset Street at 3 AM, and that this is the exact moment at which George Hutchinson opted for starting to walk the streets all night. And no matter how long I discuss this matter, it still stands that this would have been a very strange thing to do in the morning of the 9:th - but not at all on the morning of the 8:th, when it was perfectly dry.

The best,
Fisherman

[sleekviper]

Hi Jane! Thanks, it is a pretty good bet that something is going to happen this year to explain how this can work. A mother, while getting ready for work, is going to tell her husband, also getting ready for work, "Don't forget dear, today is Tuesday, you need to drop Johnny off at daycare.", he will respond, "Yes dear, I know, but thanks for reminding." He will take his child, strap the child in the car seat, and drive straight to work, leaving the child in the car all day. Some people are plain idiots without a doubt, but some have had memories out of order, and paid dearly for it. I can not wrap my mind around how it happens, but it does.

[Fisherman]

Sleekviper:

"it is a pretty good bet that something is going to happen this year to explain how this can work. A mother, while getting ready for work, is going to tell her husband, also getting ready for work, "Don't forget dear, today is Tuesday, you need to drop Johnny off at daycare.", he will respond, "Yes dear, I know, but thanks for reminding." He will take his child, strap the child in the car seat, and drive straight to work, leaving the child in the car all day."

Hi Sleekviper!

There is actually a well-known story about the Swedish tennis oracle, crime fiction author and former chief editor of Laholmsposten, a small Swedish newspaper, Björn Hellberg. His task one morning was to walk the dog before taking his kid to daycare. When he arrived at the daycare center, he hurriedly jumped out of the car, went to the back seat door and stared through the window, before swearing, getting back into the driver´s seat and taking off. In the back seat of his car was - the dog ...!

Not that it says much about muddling days, but it´s a story that´s as hilarious as it is true!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fisherman,

I'm sorry to be a bit of a misery here, and I do apologise, but we are in danger of having another 'Did Hutchinson get the day wrong thread.' Could we stick to the evidence rather than personal opinion? The object of this thread was just to make a brief introduction to the piece of evidence you were submitting, produce the evidence and let people make up their minds about it. Thanks for putting the weather report up, but it's in danger of getting lost in amongst the posts again if we start getting marathon posts here with personal opinion.

I'm afraid that I couldn't actually make sense of your point about the statement to the police and the newspaper report not tallying. It's best to put it on a separate post so that it doesn't get lost.

Regards

Janie

[Fisherman]

Jane:

" Could we stick to the evidence rather than personal opinion?"

Of course we could stick to the evidence. I t says the morning of the 9:th. Are you proposing that it therefore must have been the morning of the 9:th?

"I'm afraid that I couldn't actually make sense of your point about the statement to the police and the newspaper report not tallying."

Just elaborate and tell me what it is you cannot make sense of, and I will try do do it for you!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fisherman,

Having re-read your post, I can see what you're saying. It just took me a few reads to get the full picture. That's fine. No problems.

I'm going to stick to my own suggestion of posting only to evidence, and just qualify it when absolutely necessary to make it clear why I've posted it, otherwise I'd be the world's biggest hypocrite.

I will have to refer to your post about George being mistaken here and there otherwise it won't make any sense at all. (It might not anyway, but I live in hope.)

Here goes. It might take me a little while to look up the sources, please bear with me. I don't want to stop other people posting, so I'll sneak in when there's a gap.

Regards

Janie

[Fisherman]

Jane:
"Having re-read your post, I can see what you're saying. It just took me a few reads to get the full picture. That's fine. No problems."

I thought as much, Jane - good!

"I'm going to stick to my own suggestion of posting only to evidence, and just qualify it when absolutely necessary to make it clear why I've posted it, otherwise I'd be the world's biggest hypocrite."

"Posting only to evidence"? Exactly what does that mean? That if the evidence is not at hand to clinch a very useful suggestion, it should be regarded as worthless? In a case like this, what does Lewis absense in Hutchinsons testimony mean? To me it means that the evidence tells us that he did not see her, and the only reasonable conclusion I can draw from that is that he was not there on the morning of the 9:th. I know full well that a number of more or less colourful explanations have been thrown forward as possible explanations to this absense, but none of them are in any manner evidence supported.
Where does that take us?
It takes us to a deadlock, sort of, since the written evidence tells us that Hutchinson was there on the morning of the 9:th, whereas the fact that he never mentioned Lewis is evidence that tells us that he was not.

How do we judge things like these? And who gets to judge?

I look forward to what you are going to present, Jane. It should be interesting.

The best,
Fisherman