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

[Fisherman]

I forgot to add the last bit from the Echo. That has some bearing on the issue about whether the premonitions Mrs Reeves had, had any influence on John Saunders Reeves going down the stairs as a result of them:

""But that night" (Mrs. Reeves added) was a dreadful one. My husband thought of what I told him when he left for work - that I knew something was going to happen - for when he discovered the dead body he was afraid to come and tell me, for fear I should go into a fit. We weren't awoke by screams, but there was a something we could not understand, that seemed to tell us that trouble was at hand. That dreadful murder has disturbed us all here, and it will be some time before we quiet down and forget last Bank Holiday night."

It would seem that the ghosts that had haunted Louisa Reeves´ that night, folowed her husband down the stairs, towards the landing where Tabram was lying. And, more importantly, it would seem that Walter Dew was pretty much correct in what he said in his book on this.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Congrats Fish !

I remember now it had been discussed...
A good point for Dew.

Amitiés
David

[Fisherman]

David:

"I remember now it had been discussed..."

So it had. And you were one of the partys discussing it roughly a year ago, actually. You even posted an excerpt from the same source I am quoting. So it would seem that Dew managed to remember for fifty long years something that slipped your mind in just the one year. (couldn´t resist that one, David. In all honesty, I had dizzy recollections of it too, but went looking anyway. Good on me!)

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David:
So it would seem that Dew managed to remember for fifty long years something that slipped your mind in just the one year. (couldn´t resist that one, David.
Fisherman

Time to write my memoirs !

Bestest !

[Fisherman]

David:

"Time to write my memoirs !"

Don´t, David - nobody will praise you. They will all just go looking for errors in your book ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fish,

Thanks for finding a source for that Fish. Obviously there is a private joke between you and David on the subject, (I'd love to know what that was all about ) I didn't follow that particular thread when it was around. Apocryphal stories are sometimes fun, but that's probably why I didn't follow the thread. I'm one of the old fart brigade that tends to stick to serious stuff! Really glad you knew where it was though, because it's a great example how true history gets mangled up with apocryphal stories, so thanks for pointing it out.

This really demonstrates why Dew can't be used as anything more than a bit of background colour to the case. Dew was taking a somewhat dubious press report, mixing it with the truth and getting it all arse upwards. Mr Reeves did not go down to investigate because his wife had been having the jitters, he went down because he was on his way to work and just happened to chance upon her. Although she claims after the event that she had the spooks, she did not tell her husband to go and find out what was causing it. Dew picked up on a press report, which has no firm basis in fact and stated it was fact. Not good.

Regards Janie

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi all,

I'm just waiting for someone to turn up and I can't get on with any work until they've buggered off, so here are some more.

I think it might be a good idea to put the official report or piece of evidence that shows the excerpt from Dew to be dubious, for those that might be new to the case. I suddenly thought that newcomers might feel a bit excluded from the discussion otherwise. I'll keep it very brief.

Here is part of Dew's recounting of the finding of Polly's body.

No doubt Fisherman, you'll find a newspaper report that says the same thing.

To set the scene and keep the excerpt short. Cross has just found Polly's body. . .

A curious thing then happened. The carman had gone but a short distance when he saw another man on the opposite side of the street whose behaviour was certainly suspicious. The other man seemed to seek to avoid the carman, who went over to him, and said:

"Come and look here. Here's a woman been knocked about."

Together the two men went to the gateway where the poor woman was lying. The newcomer felt her heart. His verdict was not reassuring.

"I think she's breathing," he told his companion, "but it's very little if she is."

The couple parted, ________ promising, as he walked away, to call a policeman.

All this was afterwards told in evidence by the carman. It never had the corroboration of the other man. The police made repeated appeals for him to come forward, but he never did so.

Why did he remain silent? Was it guilty knowledge that caused him to ignore the appeals of the police?

Now I'm not sure where Robert Paul was when all this was going on, but this is a bewildering recounting of the finding of Polly's body in anyone's books. It's not for me to second guess what Dew is actually reporting here, but suffice it to say, that it bears no resemblance to the official report of Robert Paul's involvement in the episode, if that is who he was talking about. There may well be reports of someone else being at the scene that ran off, but whatever way we look at it, this is a very misleading report of the finding of Polly's body. If I'd read no other books on the topic and was using this source solely for an account of the discovery, I daren't think what impression I'd come away with!

Charles Cross & Robert Paul's testimony at the inquest of Polly Nichols can be found here.

http://www.casebook.org/official_documents/inquests/inquest_nichols.html

Hugs

Janie

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Just a correction on the post before last. I didn't get a chance to edit it. I should, of course, not have said that Mrs Reeves didn't tell her husband to go down and investigate to see why she was feeling so spooked. Old as I am, I wasn't actually in the bedroom at the time. I should have said, 'there is no supporting evidence that Mrs Reeves told her husband to go down and investigate, other than the press report.' The official story is that he was on his way to work.

Bestest

Janie

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

They still haven't arrived so you might as well have another one.
I bet you're all so excited you can hardly contain yourselves. Lol.

On the topic of the murder of Annie Chapman:

The woman was lying to the left of the door and close to the fence. Her injuries, although these men didn't know it, were exact duplicates of those which had been suffered by Mary Nicholls. The head had been almost severed from the body and, for some mysterious reason, was being kept in position by a tightly tied, coloured handkerchief.


Well, to be fair to Dew, the second half about the head looking as if it was being held on by the handkerchief is understandable, because it might well have appeared that way to observers, so I've only left that on with a proviso, but not saying it was an error.

Fact is though, and it's a biggy, The mutilations on Polly were nothing at all like those on Annie. To begin with there is no evidence that any organs were removed from Polly. With the best will in the world, no-one could say that Annie's injuries were an exact duplicate of Polly's.

xxxxx

[babybird67]

well done Jane

some excellent examples and points there. I'm learning so much! Chiefly learning that Dew, bless him, wasn't particularly reliable when it comes to establishing facts in the Ripper case.

What gave me a little giggle was the opening sentence of the piece...

In writing of the ''Jack the Ripper crimes'', it must be remembered that they took place fifty years ago, and it may be that small errors as to dates and days may have crept in.

Does anyone else find this hugely ironic given the present debate?

[Ben]

I think Dew was out by a decade, Beebs.

I don't think it was raining on the 9th November 1898.



Good stuff, Janie!

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Coram]

I've got more, but my visitor has just arrived, I'll put them up after if no-one gets there first. I must say I'm enjoying reading through Dew again, despite the problems, there is some great stuff in there.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Jane Coram]

Hi All,

Thinking about, I'm not sure we need to put any more examples from Dew up. I think the ones that have gone up already make an adequate case. I do have quite a few more, but it might just be an unnecessary exercise, taking us too far away from the main debate. Maybe a good time to widen it out to some of the other evidence?

What does everyone think?

Love to all

Janie

xxxxx

[babybird67]

hi Janie

some fab examples from Dew thanks.

Maybe you're right. You've kindly given enough examples for us to assess the accuracy of Dew's book. Indeed, in the opening sentence Dew himself warns his readership about the length of time that has passed since the events he is remembering and warns about possible errors.

Maybe we should move onto the weather? Has anybody put anything up yet?

I've taken this from the main Hutch getting the night wrong thread. Credit to Fish for originally posting it.

Dear Christer,
*
Many thanks for your request for information about the weather conditions, particularly rainfall, during the evening of the 8th November 1888 and overnight and also for the previous evening.
*
The weather on the evening of the 7th November 1888 in London was overcast but*dry. This trend continued overnight and into the morning of the 8th. The 8th itself started cloudy and dry and this general trend continued for much of the day. However, your were quite right in your assessment of the weather for the overnight period*of the 8th into the 9th in that,*rain, did indeed affect the London area soon after midnight.*
I hope this information*will be of assistance.
*
Regards
*
Steve
*
Steve Jebson ACLIP** Library Information Officer
Met Office** FitzRoy Road** Exeter** Devon** EX1 3PB** United Kingdom"

My emphases.

I have marked out the salient part for me. The information given there is vague in several respects. "Affected" just means it rained at some point. It doesn't mean continual. "London area" is equally vague. London is too large an area to derive from that remark that it was raining in the East End at any particular time.

Therefore this information does not establish to my satisfaction anyway that the weather prevented Hutchinson from engaging in the behaviour he states he was engaging in that night.

Open to others to post weather reports from the papers?

Jen x

[Fleetwood Mac]

There is no evidence. Only variations in terms of the meaning of the stated weather conditions. One world, many interpretations - nothing new in that regard.

The most intriguing thing about Hutchinson's statement, well at least for me, is that some people think he was lying and placed himself there because of Sarah Lewis's statement and the chance to make a few quid; others claim he was lying due to him being JTR and went to the police because he had been spotted by Sarah Lewis.

Yet he doesn't mention a woman (Lewis) in his statement across the way at half 2. That's interesting.