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

[Jane Coram]

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"

[Natalie Severn]

Hi Jane,
I tend to agree with you that Dew,while an interesting source,can not be relied upon to any great extent ,although I don"t think he made many more mistakes than say Anderson ,Smith and Macnaghten.The latter wrote their memoirs in 1910 / 1913 ,twenty years after the ripper"s reign of terror and none of them appear to have worried too much like Dew, about the precise nature of wounds,exact dates,names, weather etc.It really becomes a sort of jigsaw puzzle fitting together the bits that match up with doctors reports etc
Anyway, Dew was by no means alone in his errors, as I am sure you will agree.
I would also like to comment on what you say about Emma Smith.Records of what she said were available from the hospital and it seems she lied about her marital status and what she did for a living.It is therefore possible she also lied about who had attacked her, since she was not very forthcoming at all at the hospital and no policeman apparently heard her or saw her or saw or heard any gang at the time she said they attacked her so were unable to corroborate any part of her statement in the hours between 1am and 4.am ,on the day of the attack. Nor could they corroborate what she said about it taking her three hours to crawl to her digs in George Street.[She alleged the attack took place some three hundred yards from her lodgings and I know poor Emma was mortally wounded at the time but there were several policemen on their beats in those streets she referred to so its very strange nobody ever saw her].Also she and her two women helpers never stopped to tell a policeman about the attack on their way to the hospital a little later-again unusual because there were policemen about.
Sorry to digress here Jane,but its a curious case and one I would love to get more information on, and the idea of this gang attack is simply not corroborated as I understand.
Best,
Norma

[Jane Coram]

Hi Nats, lovely to see you here!

Please don't worry about chipping in with the points about Emma. I think it's a fascinating case as well, and incredibly sad, when you consider what was said about her background. All of the points you make are very good ones. I've not checked the Emma Smith threads recently - maybe it's worth either reviving one, or starting another one up? I have always found her story heart-breaking and would love to try and understand it better.

You're absolutely spot on about the memoirs and recollections of most, if not all, of the officials in the case; they all have their fair shares of errors or opinions which don't really agree with other sources. When we consider Dew was writing so long after the events, it would be amazing if he did get everything spot on. You're right as well about it being a jigsaw - comparing sources, fitting the pieces together and getting the pieces to fit - it's when they don't the problems start. Lol. I suppose it would be a very boring forum if there were no discrepancies to discuss!

Thanks for taking the time to post. I think I might nip over to the Emma Smith threads and have a read through.

All my love

Janie

xxxx

[Jane Coram]

BTW, I love your signature. If that's true, then I'll be Queen by next month.

Janie

[Natalie Severn]

Thankyou Jane, lovely to see you too! and yes we must take another look at Emma"s thread.According to Dew she was rather genteel in her speech and there was something rather ladylike about her-something like that-- and she seemed as though she had known better times.
I quite like Dew actually---he reminds us that the victims, despite living below the poverty line and living a hand to mouth existence,often retained self respect and pride.He spoke of Mary Kelly very sympathetically too, saying he often saw her with two other young women in the High Street, that she was an attractive girl who was always neat and tidy and wore a spotlessly clean white apron.
Best,
Norma
xx

[Natalie Severn]

My signature Janie? Yes---wouldn"t it be wonderful!

[The Grave Maurice]

I thought it was the meek who will inherit the earth...because they won't have the nerve to refuse it.

[Natalie Severn]

Perhaps I have been inspired by recent world events GM ----I think it was Michael Caine who said it was the poor----adding that the only bit of earth his mum ever inherited was the six feet she was buried under!

[Fisherman]

Jane Coram:

"I think it's quite clear that no matter how many errors I find to post from Dew's memoirs you are not going to accept them, so posting more is simply a waste of time."

That´s an odd way of putting it. It sounds like "although I have proven that these are errors, you still say they are not", and that sort of paints me out like the biased guy here. But looking closely at for example the argument about Dew saying that the wounds on Nicholls and Chapman were the exact same, it only is a good argument until we see that Dew actually did display that he had knowledge that they were not any duplicates as such, but instead twin deeds in a more general respect.
Why would I not point that out, Jane? Don´t you think it´s a fair counterargument?

The same goes for the Reeves affair - if you can prove that Dew did get his knowledge about the premonition thing from reading the Echo, then I will immediately say that we here have a flaw that points to a very dubious way on Dew´s behalf of telling the story. But as far as I can see, such a thing would be very tough to certify. And what are the pointers to it being true? If they are there, I would not like to be left in the dark, Jane.

I have seen much bias during the Hutchinson discussions. One of the things I try to take on board as a result of that is that people always run the risk of choosing a line of thought and forgetting about other possibilities. And I belong to the category "people" myself, which means I run that risk too. That is why I very much dislike when somebody says "it´s no use telling you about this, since yoou fail to realize it anyway". I prefer to have it reiterated to me, along with the points that may get the message across and show me that I may have missed some avenue of thought. So please - in these cases, if I am missing something, tell me what that something is.

"You've obviously made up your mind on Dew's reliability and that's fine."

No. The only way in which I have made my mind up is to accept that Dew got some things wrong, whereas he got most things right. I think we all would agree on that. After that, I would like to see just what he got wrong, in order to try and find out how and why he failed. If it is just a forgotten date - small thing. If he DID pass off strange stories about premonitions that he had read about in the papers as the truth with no confirmation of his own - then that would be rather a damning thing.

One thing you may want to avoid, Jane, if I may be so bold, is to make YOUR mind up about how receptive/biased I am in too rash a manner! For it would amount to the exact same mistake you are suspecting I may have made.

"Most serious researchers accept that Dew's memoirs are riddled with errors and not reliable enough to use as the sole source to build a theory on."

I still wait to see just how "riddled" with mistakes his text is. It would be a mistake to accept such a thing without looking into it first. And if you are speaking specfically about my theory, it is not built solely on Dew in any fashion. The only thing I use from his book is the assertion that Hutchinson was out on the days in his own (and perhaps the police´s) judgement.
All the rest, the weather, Lewis´absense, the roles of the involved people, the reactions of the press and police, are things that come from other sources, some of which I have dug up myself. So in that respect, I think I am on very dry ground. I hope you agree.

Your quote:

"Despite some inaccuracies, the memoirs give a convincing first-hand account of police work on the ground. The frequent errors in the third of the book devoted to the Ripper case are of the kind one would expect from an honest man reminiscing without recourse to documents. He mis-spells a great many names. He makes several mistakes over Elizabeth Stride's murder. He wrongly believed that Robert Paul never came forward to corroborate Charle's Cross's evidence. He believed that Emma Smith and Martha Tabram were Ripper victims. In common with other policemen, he dismissed the 'Dear Boss' letter as a hoax; he also believed that Goulston Street graffito was not the Ripper's work. He believed the man seen by Matthew Packer was Elizabeth Stride's murderer."

... tells us about a "convincing first-hand account of the police work on the ground". That is another way - in my mind - of saying "invaluable material". It is stated that there are frequent errors, but that these errors are of "the kind one would expect from an honest man reminiscing without recourse to documents." Neither this is in any way something that urges us not to rely in Dew.
After that, a smallish number of errors are listed, out of which, interestingly, about half of them are things that we cannot possibly KNOW if they WERE errors: The pointing out of Smith and Tabram as Ripper victims, the judging that the GSG was not written by the Ripper and Matthew Packers man being the killer.
Most of the posters out here believe, according to a poll that Tabram WAS killed by the Ripper. Many of us, perhaps the most, would be of the same meaning about the GSG as Dew. And none of us can dismiss that Packer DID see Stride and a man, who of course MAY have been the Ripper - although 99 per cent of us believe the whole Packer package was tosh.

There are flaws in the Dew text that are not mentioned here, like the sudden rejuvenation of Bowyer. That too ought to be mentioned. But this quotation of yours is one that actually - and I think deservedly - recognizes great values and virtues on behalf of Dew!

"For an investigating officer so involved in the case, he seems unaware of a lot of evidence in the case, either that or his memory was just playing tricks on him."

He does not have all the cards in hand fifty years after the deeds, no. Nor have I ever said so. And I think it would be superhuman if he did, to tell the truth. But if we start counting from the other end for a change, we find that he got most things - perhaps 95 per cent of it or even more - completely correct! And that counts very much in my book.

I am currently reading Fiona Rules book on Dorset Street. In it, I have found some flaws. Amongst other things, she has Eddowes doing the fire enginge impersonation in Aldgate that most of us know was the invention of an enterprising author. She also, if I understand correctly, has Annie Chapman staying in Miller´s court at a stage in her life...?! I may be wrong, but this is something that I have never heard suggested before.

And still, her book is praised as a very good history over Dorset Street! In fact, nobody who wants to express a view about Dorset Street´s historical role can do so with any authority without having read that book. It´s been called a masterpiece, a gem, and a revelation, a microcosmosical picture of an East end street that is invaluable.
And it is everything of this too! Somehow, the flaws in it do not seem to affect Fiona Rule´s credibility. Her book is THE source book on Dorset Street.

But the flaws in Dew´s book has people demanding that it should not be used as any major source at all. Somehow, these particular flaws seem to contaminate the rest of the text too.

In one book, the flaws are overlooked as understandable and uncontroversial. In another, they are carriers of a plague of ignorance.

Don´t you think that is a very strange thing? I know I do.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

What evidence?None to suggest Dew or the weather offers evidence that Hutchinson got the day wrong.All Dew does is offer a suggestion,which if correct,in his opinion might account for a wrong day supposition.Dew does not say,"Yes, that is what I believe happened".His statement has simply been twisted to appear positive.
So I vote no,he didn't get the day wrong.

[Fisherman]

Just so no poster ascribes to the misconception that Walter Dew only threw forward his words on Hutchinson mistaking the day as a suggestion without really believing that this was what would have happened, we may look at what Dew actually added in this context: "I can see no other explanation in this case".
It would be sad if the whole truth about the matter was not taken in by all. It would be even worse if some poster got it into his or her head to misrepresent Dew´s words for some reason.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

The whole relevant part, once again:

"I know from my experience that many people, with the best of intentions, are often mistaken, not necessarily as to a person, but as to date and time. And I can see no other explanation in this case than that Mrs. Maxwell and George Hutchison were wrong.

Indeed, if the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.

And if Mrs. Maxwell was mistaken, is it not probable that George Hutchison erred also?"

So it was probable and it was the only explanation Dew could see. And the day that adds up to no stance on Dew´s behalf, is the day when the Hutchinsonians will come across as a receptive, listening score of people, totally open to a change of their mindset.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Coram]

Hi Fisherman,

I see we're back to the long posts again. You must get through an awful lot of keyboards!

Can I just point out that it's not just my opinion that Dew is an unreliable source to use without other evidence to back it up. Most serious researchers consider Dew's work to be riddled with errors. Here are some quotes from here on the forum expressing concern about Dew's reliability. I've removed the addressees names from the post for obvious reasons.

"I think we need to take two things into consideration here, -------- To begin with, we both know that Walter Dews book came out when he was 75 years old. In it, he turns Thomas Bowyer into a young fellow, he has Diemschitz entering the club crying: "The Ripper! The Ripper!", etcetera.
I think you will agree with me that if we are to sharpen the pictuce of what happened back in 1888, Walter Dew is not neccessarily the best tool for going about it ...

Moreover, back in 1888, Dew was still a bit of a freshman. He was 25 years old, and not in a commanding position. Therefore, we cannot conclude to which extent he knew about the discussions carried on at a higher level. That is to say that even if there was a discussion going on about whether Hutchinson was Lewis´loiterer or not (and frankly, it would be odd in the extreme if there was not), then that discussion need not have been one that Dew actively took part in. . .

. . . And, of course, if we choose to believe overall in what old Walter said in his book - which is riddled with mistakes.

And another post:

Nobody would have been more delighted than me if we could always work from the assumption that the witness statements involved in the Ripper case were all correct. But we know for sure that Dew WAS mistaken in a number of instances. When it comes to Thomas Bowyer, we know that he was a pensionist with a history of having served with the army in India. He was allegedly born in Surrey around 1825. That makes him around 63 at the time.

We have a contemporary, detailed drawing of him, showing that he looked anything but a young man.

But this is how Dew recalls him:

"I was chatting with Inspector Beck, who was in charge of the station, when a young fellow, his eyes bulging out of his head, came panting into the police station...The youth led us a few yards down Dorset Street from Commercial Street, until we came to a court..."

I think your approach to witness testimony - to believe it until proven wrong - is normally a very wise one, ------- just as I think that too many theorists have chosen a diametrically opposing approach in many an issue. But when we have ample evidence to disprove the testimony given, then we must accept this. It is not to say that any 75-year old man is a bad witness - it is only to point out that we know for a fact that the 75-year old Walter Dew got a number of things terribly wrong.

I'm sure you've already recognised who wrote those words by now - you should do, they're yours Fisherman, as posted on the Van der Hutchinson thread in October last year.

Quote:

The Jane Coram I came to respect and admire would certainly have agreed with me!"

The problem is Fisherman, which of the two diametrically opposed views on Dew's reliability am I to agree with?

Regards

Janie

[Jane Coram]

Hi again Fisherman,

I'm looking foward to discussing the weather reports. They deserve a good airing. Of course there were three different reports, and they need to be compared with one another and discrepancies accounted for, such as the use of the term 'showers' in one and 'general rain' in another. I'll get back to the thread as soon as I can, but I have a bit of work to do today and tomorrow and I don't want to rush studying them, but go through them carefully.

All the best

Janie

[babybird67]

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"

Thanks for posting this important information up Janie so we can analyse it better in terms of the 'wrong night' theory Dew proposed.

We are working already from the base description given that led to Fisherman's article, the wording of which describing 'rain affected the London area after midnight.' I have already argued that this is too general. And even in this report the information is too general. We have rainfall for Brixton and Regent's Park, but neither of these prove whether it was raining in Dorset Street at any given time, or the surrounding area. So that's problematic in itself. This report states that two areas of London experienced the days of 8th/9th completely differently: on 8th November it did not rain at all in Brixton but there were 7.1 mm on the 9th. Interestingly, it was the other way round in Regent's Park; no rain recorded on the 9th, but 5.1 mm on the 8th. So we already see, trying to prove it was raining in the London area only on the 9th and not the 8th and therefore concluding that somebody could have engaged in walking around on a dry night and not a wet one is not possible...since the data shows BOTH nights experiencing some rainfall but on different nights.

Now look at the amounts. How much is 7.1 mm and 5.1 mm. Does that constitute a little, or a lot of rain in meterological terms? We always knew there were showers on 9th November around Dorset Street because some of the witnesses specifically refer to the rain and there were wet clothes drying in Kelly's room. So the issue is not whether it rained at all, but whether it was raining to such an extent that it would render Hutchinson's claim to have spent the night walking the streets implausible.

My first port of call to get some general information was wiki so i am not sure exactly how much store can be put on the figures, but I may consider consulting a proper meterologist if anyone thinks it necessary, or perhaps someone else could?

Rainfall intensity is classified according to the rate of precipitation:

Light rain — when the precipitation rate is < 2.5 millimetres (0.098 in) per hour
Moderate rain — when the precipitation rate is between 2.5 millimetres (0.098 in) - 7.6 millimetres (0.30 in) or 10 millimetres (0.39 in) per hour[91][92]
Heavy rain — when the precipitation rate is > 7.6 millimetres (0.30 in) per hour,[91] or between 10 millimetres (0.39 in) and 50 millimetres (2.0 in) per hour[92]
Violent rain — when the precipitation rate is > 50 millimetres (2.0 in) per hour[92]

So we have total rainfall for the night of 5.1 mm and 7.1 mm on either day. These measurements are given in hours. Both of our totals fit into the moderate rain section, and are totals for the WHOLE night, not just per hour. So we don't know if all that rain fell in one hour, or dribbled out of the sky so slowly that it actually took all night to reach the 5.1 and 7.1 level. Either way we are not talking about heavy or consistent rain. We are talking about a small amount of rain. This to me is very telling evidence.

I'd also like to ask what is meant by 'general rain'. This is not a specific enough term to use when discussing weather conditions. There is no such thing as 'general rain' unless perhaps he is away fighting in Afghanistan somewhere (salutes). 'General rain not showers' makes no sense when we are talking about total levels of 5.1 and 7.1 mm. I do not think it possible that there could have been rain all evening, only totalling an amount of 5.1 and 7.1 mm. According to wiki,

Raindrops have sizes ranging from 0.1 millimetres (0.0039 in) to 9 millimetres (0.35 in) mean diameter, above which they tend to break up

So lots of rain would have meant lots more mm to measure and show up on the charts, which they don't.


Also this report contradicts itself. In the beginning it reports that:

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

Later on Mr Jebson appears to make a distinction between this odd phenomenon of 'general rain' and 'showers'. Well outbreaks of rain are showers! Either there were outbreaks of rain, which frankly would make sense of a total rainfall of 5.1 mm and 7.1mm, or there was 'general rain', by which i can only assume he means more continual rain. Both cannot be accurate.

Here is a dictionary definition of 'outbreak':

Definition of OUTBREAK
1a : a sudden or violent increase in activity or currency <the outbreak of war
>
b : a sudden rise in the incidence of a disease <an outbreak of measles>

c : a sudden increase in numbers of a harmful organism and especially an insect within a particular area <an outbreak of locusts>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/outbreak

It is clear therefore that outbreaks of rain are showers, and this is stated in the report, and substantiated by the actual levels of rainwater given as measurements for both nights in both areas. What the general rain comment is all about I have no idea. Is there any way we can get back in touch with Mr Jebson to clarify exactly what 'general rain' is and why he said that at the end of the report when the body of the report seems to contradict that conclusion?

Jen x