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

[DVV]

Hi Jen

sorry for the French post.... but rest assured you did not miss much !

Amitiés
David

[FrankO]

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).

Hi Ben!

Small comment: even if he wasn't there for any dodgy or nefarious reason, he still had good reason not to mention Lewis for the reason you give. Even an innocent man had reason to fear becoming a suspect for being there at that time, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

All the best,
Frank

[babybird67]

Hi Jen

sorry for the French post.... but rest assured you did not miss much !

Amitiés
David

H David..no problem...

love Jen xx

[DVV]

Even an innocent man had reason to fear becoming a suspect for being there at that time, looking up the court as if waiting for someone to come out.

Frank

Certainly, Frank....and moreso when the so-called innocent chooses to help the police after the closure of the inquest.

Amitiés
david

[babybird67]

can someone with a copy of Dew

post up the errors in it if possible (and if it won't take too long lol....not sure how many errors there are, but remember someone mentioning it was riddled with errors in which case it may be a long job)

thanks

Jen x

[Fisherman]

You have your own copy. It´s on http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/rps.walterdew.html
and you can easily establish yourself the exact amount of errors. Then you can post them too, and we shall see!

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

thanks Fish

I will have a look...meanwhile if anybody has already read it and has a list of the errors, please feel free to list before I finish reading!

[Jane Coram]

Well, as it's a fair amount to go through, perhaps we can just put them up as we find them and others can just scan the posts to see if their's is up there and if it isn't, then shove it up.

I think it probably is a good idea to put them up here so that we can go through the evidence as if it was a court case,

Perry Mason won't know what's hit him. (Not Perry Mason here on the boards Lol, I mean the one on telly!!!! )

I've got one for the next post to start us off.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I would just like to say before the first one goes up, this isn't a witch hunt against poor old Dew. He was writing 50 years later and it's hardly surprising that he misremembered a few things. He did remember a lot quite accurately. Unfortunately he did make some prize bloopers as well. Here is one.

We had scarcely recovered our breath after the horror of Hanbury Street, when the Ripper came once more from his hiding place to eclipse in cunning, speed and silence all his previous crimes.

Three days only had elapsed since the death of Annie Chapman - the date was 30th September, 1888 - when the whole country was horrified beyond measure by the news that not only one ghastly crime had been discovered, but two.

This is obviously just a memory burp, but it's a fairly major one. I don't feel quite so bad about putting my front door keys in the freezer now.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

Last one from me for now. I've found a lot more, but I'm sure others have got some as well, so I won't put them up for a bit.

This one is an intriguing one. I've been trying to find a source for Dew's story, but haven't found one as yet. I'll keep looking. Anyway, it's not accurate -whatever.

Also living in the buildings was a woman named Reeves. She had gone to bed early, but she could not sleep. She was filled with a strange foreboding. Two or three times she awakened her husband and communicated her fears to him. He merely laughed, turned over, and went to sleep again.

But the premonition of tragedy was so strong in Mrs. Reeves' mind that shortly before five o'clock she awakened her husband once more. Her distress was now such that her husband, solely with the idea of pacifying her, decided to investigate.

He was still sceptical as he went down the stairs, but when he reached the first-floor landing he saw something, now fully revealed by the bright morning light, which drove the smile of incredulity from his face and sent him hurrying for a policeman. P.C. Barrett was the officer he found.

Of course, Reeves was on his way to work (or to find work) at the docks when he went down the stairs at 4.45am. Every single report I've seen states that categorically, it was nothing to do with his wife's premonitions.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

[DVV]

Hi Jane

don't know either where this comes from.... Mrs Hewitt ?

Amitiés
David

[Jane Coram]

Hi DVV,

I wondered if he might have got confused with the many fights and incidents that took place that night as reported by the Reeves, which is apparently why they didn't get any sleep and got it muddled up somehow.

I've not found any report at all of Mrs Reeves getting the spooks, but she certainly got the hump with all the racket people were making around the area!

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[dixon9]

good thread

i believe Sarah Lewis did see Hutchinson on that morning,which makes me a believer that Hutchinson got the right day.

Dixon9
still learning

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

I'm just waiting for my poached eggs to do, so I thought I'd post this up from Dew. Sorry it's a long one, but it's quite fascinating. Hope you find it as interesting as I did! It seems from this that Dew believed Packer's story in its entirety, even though he doesn't seem think the man that bought the grapes was Jack the Ripper. This, of course is in complete contrast to the official police position concerning Packer's statement. Swanson's official report states:

Packer who is an elderly man, has unfortunately made different statements so that apart from the fact of the hour at which he saw the woman (and she was seen afterwards by the P.C. & Scwartz as stated) any statement he made would be rendered almost valueless as evidence.

Of course Packer was not called to the Inquest.

Hugs

Janie

xxxx

Dew:

The Berners Street murder yielded a clue which, for a time, raised the hopes of us all. Our inquiries brought to light the important fact that a few minutes-or at any rate a very short time before her death Elizabeth Stride, or "Long Liz", as she was known to her intimates, had actually been seen in the company of a man.

This evidence was supplied by a man who kept a small fruit shop in Berners Street. His story was that in the early hours of that Sunday morning he had sold the couple some grapes.

The real value of the fruit vendor's information lay in the fact that he swore he had seen the woman's companion before and would recognize him if he saw him again.

Unfortunately his story was backed by a description of the man which could only be described as vague. It might have applied equally to thousands of men.

Then came dramatic corroboration of his story. In the little Berners Street court, quite close to the spot where the body was found, detectives searching every inch of the ground came upon a number of grape skins and stones.

The obvious deduction was that these were the remains of the grapes which Long Liz's " companion had bought at the fruit shop, and that she had probably been eating them right up to the moment of her death.

The only alternative - which hardly seemed feasible - was that at that time of the night - or early morning - Mrs. Stride had got rid of one man and sought the companionship of another.

And now comes what to every police officer engaged on the case was the most maddening incident of the whole Ripper mystery.

A few days after the murder the shopkeeper actually saw the man to whom he had sold the grapes pass his shop.

He knew that this man was suspected of being Jack the Ripper.

Tragedy of tragedies, he let the opportunity of catching him slip by. He made no attempt to follow the suspect. He did not even have the presence of mind to dash with the information to the nearest constable. There he stood in his shop, while the mystery man boarded a tramcar and disappeared.

There was another man in the shop. To him he mentioned his suspicions when it was too late.

The shopkeeper said afterwards that he was afraid to leave his shop.

The moment the shopman's story reached the ears of the police, scores of officers were immediately put on the new scent. It was too late. Jack the Ripper, if indeed it was he, had once more vanished into thin air.

But was he Jack the Ripper? This is a question none can now answer. One can, however, ask how it came about that a man, who had shown himself to be a master of cunning, should have fallen into the elementary error of risking recognition by passing so soon again along that street and exposing himself to the view of a man whom he must have known linked him with one of his crimes.

It might also be asked why, on that occasion, the Ripper should have departed so far from custom as to purchase fruit for one of his intended victims?

[Fisherman]

Jane Coram:

"I've not found any report at all of Mrs Reeves getting the spooks, but she certainly got the hump with all the racket people were making around the area!"

Hi Jane! Well, then you may have missed out on the Echo of the 17:th of August. In it, it says:

"A statement was made this afternoon by Louisa Reeves, the wife of the dock labourer, who first discovered the body when leaving for her day's work shortly before five o'clock in the morning. Mrs. Reeves explains that the screams of "Murder!" she heard early in the night must have proceeded form George-street, and could not possibly have been heard by her if they had proceeded from the dying woman. Strange to say, Mr. and Mrs. Reeves woke up several times under an apprehension that something was about to happen. Not a scream was heard by them when thus aroused from their slumber, for Mr. Reeves went to his door and listened. "I could not say why," remarked Mrs. Reeves to-day; but I knew something would happen out of the ordinary, for me and my old man were never so much disturbed before, though we almost nightly hear cries of 'Murder!' and 'Police!' We pay no attention to them whatever."

Now, this is something we must be very careful with. If we pick things from Dew´s book that we cannot remember having heard of, it does not necessarily go to show that he was wrong. In this case, the mistake can be repaired, but in other cases, we may perhaps not do so. There is also the distinct possibility that things Dew says were not in the papers, but came from his everyday work - he would have communicated with his fellow policemen, and things that did not go into the papers may have been circulated inbetween policemen and detectives. The fact that we cannot find corroboration does not necessarily mean that such a corroboration was never there. In this case, Dew seems not to be the one who is to fault - instead, I´m afraid, the fault would seem to be yours, Jane.

Also, when Dew´s view on Packer is presented here, it should be added that no certainty has ever been reached in a number of things related to Matthew Packer and his testimony. Therefore, what we have is Dew´s view and nothing else. It tells us how Dew looked upon things, and much as he may have been wrong, he does not misrepresent what he actually thought. Therefore such materal should not be listed as a fault on his behalf, should it?
It´s actually much like his view of a muddled up day on Hutchinson´s behalf. Some of us dislike that view and think it is wrong, but that should not award it any place in a compilation of errors, should it? He thought so, he had his reasons, and it should go down not as an error but as a view.

The best,
Fisherman