Vetting Hutchinson

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I’m glad you agree that Hutchinson was Lewis’ wideawake man, but don’t even countenance the idea of bringing up that Daily News ghastliness again.

You quote the Daily Telegraph as follows:

"The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink. There was nobody in the court."

And then you say:

Where this other man and woman were is not explained.

Yes, it is.

It is "explained" perfectly.

It is extremely obvious where the couple “were” from that extract. The loitering, wideawake-wearing man was standing in Dorset Street, and the couple were “further on” from where that man was standing. I realise that the geography of the 1888 east end is not your strongest suit, but try to envisage Lewis’s vantage point; if she entered Dorset Street from Commercial Street (at its eastern extremity) it facilitated a view down its western length. It would mean Miller’s Court was in front, and to the right of her, with Wideawake to the left, and the couple “further on” from both of them, east of the Miller’s Court entrance and presumably destined for one of the unisex lodging houses of ill repute for which that street was notorious.

The man and woman in question clearly just “passed along” Dorset Street, and did not at any stage enter the court itself, otherwise they would have been of tremendous interest to the police, which they clearly weren’t. There is no discrepancy whatsoever between the Daily Telegraph and what you describe as the “court” version.

The only source for the assertion that the couple entered the court itself was the Daily News, in contrast to all other press sources and Lewis’s statement itself, and yet you champion it as the only reliable source and wonder why nobody who has analysed the material in any detail agrees with you. Your inferential leaps are woefully illogical too. No sane and functioning human being makes the observation that there was “nobody in court” when a couple had just entered it. They just don’t. If we assume Lewis to have been both sane and functioning, it follows that when she stated that there was “nobody in the court”, she meant that nobody had just walked into it seconds previously. She also mentioned nothing about any noise emanating from Kelly's room, which, if we accept discredited Hutchinson at his discredited word, would be extraordinary given his claim that a “loud-voiced” Kelly and chatty companion had just entered it.

Had there been the remotest suggestion that the female half of the “passing along” couple was Kelly (and aside from your eccentric suggestion, there blissfully hasn’t been), she would have been called to view the remains at the mortuary with a view to providing a link with the “in drink” woman, even if it was based on clothing alone, as Lawende’s had been before her.

I think it’s guess-again time, incidentally, if you think Kelly was the only woman in the district capable of being drunk and not wearing a hat. But wait, what’s this:

“- That the woman was the worse for drink - as stated by Hutchinson.”

As stated by…? Hutchinson?

Let’s just see:

“Kelly did not seem to be to be drunk” – says Hutchinson. Oops. If you are "the worse" for drink, you are certainly drunk. Think about it.

Just stick with the basics in future. You can still demonstrate very successfully to JohnG that the wideawake man was Hutchinson simply by referencing the indisputable “coincidence” between a man seen loitering opposite the court at 2:30am, “waiting for some to come out”, and a man who later claimed he was loitering opposite the court at 2:30am waiting for someone to come out. That’s all that’s required – no silliness involving the Daily definitely-wrong News need enter into the equation.

You obviously support the contention that wideawake man and Hutchinson were one and same (which is to your credit), whereas my secret best friend Fisherman utterly rejects your suggestion that the Daily News backs up Hutchinson’s claim to have seen a couple enter the court (which is to his credit).

So, between you too delightful chaps, you might just have it covered.

I suppose I'd better see what I can dredge up from the archives if you're doing "date confusion" all over again.

[Fisherman]

Hi.
You make a very strong case Fisherman.., you always do,but surely its just a question of subtraction for Hutchinson?
He gave his statement on the Monday evening, so that day would have been fresh in his mind.
He recalled going to Petticoat lane market on the Sunday, and he would have recalled he could not have seen Kelly that morning in the early hours, because she was dead, what about the early hours of Saturday morning.,,,same again she was dead..
So now we have the early hours of Friday morning?..as she was not reported dead before 1045 am..yes a possibility,it could not have been the Thursday morning,. otherwise, she would have been still alive that day , and he would not have had thought it important to say he saw her twenty four hours previous, with a man...
I struggle to accept, that he was that absent mindless, especially as he would have been positive in his own mind, before he even entered the police station , to give his statement on the Monday evening..
Regards Richard.

Well, Richard, we have had an example in this debate where a murder case witness was asked by the police: Did you accompany the girl this morning?", and managed to answer "Yes" although he had done so the morning before!

So strange as it may sound, there need not even be two days involved before people start to muddle things.

In Hutchinson´s case, things drift away a number of days and nights that could well have floated together for him since he did not treat the days as days and the nights as nights, apparently. When you live this kind of life, the borderlines are very easily dissolved. And that is not me saying that, it is memory researchers and psychologists.

[Batman]

Cox no comparison to Hutchinson...

We can't even begin to compare Hutchinson to Cox.

We have a description of Cox, illustrations, a very good idea of what this witness looked like, well corroborated...

And nothing with regards to Hutchinson...

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

I’m glad you agree that Hutchinson was Lewis’ wideawake man, but don’t even countenance the idea of bringing up that Daily News ghastliness again.

Hi Ben.
I prefer to deal with primary sources. What you push as opinion rarely has any evidential support.
Lets just stick with the observations of those at the time.

The loitering, wideawake-wearing man was standing in Dorset Street, and the couple were “further on” from where that man was standing.

"Further on" ahead of Lewis, on her side of the street. Further on in front of Lewis.
There is no indication whatsoever that Lewis is talking about another couple way down Dorset St. to the west of Millers Court. You choose to salvage your theory by inventing another couple, where the woman was also "the worse for drink", and also with "no hat".

I know you are desperate to play down the significance, but you said yourself, Hutchinson saw nobody else that night. He only saw one policeman, one lodger, and one couple - Astrachan & Kelly. No mention of a second couple.

The only source for the assertion that the couple entered the court itself was the Daily News, in contrast to all other press sources and Lewis’s statement itself, and yet you champion it as the only reliable source and wonder why nobody who has analysed the material in any detail agrees with you.

Analyzed?
Nobody has analyzed it because nobody noticed it.
What analysis is to be done? It's a press report by a reporter who was at the Inquest. I am the only one who has thought to collate the various press reports, the end result is over on JTRForums.
Analysis....don't make me laugh.

Your inferential leaps are woefully illogical too. No sane and functioning human being makes the observation that there was “nobody in court” when a couple had just entered it. They just don’t.

What on earth are you talking about?
It is a perfectly natural reply to a question by the Coroner, "was there anybody in the Court?"

Sarah Lewis had no cause to suddenly inject, "there was nobody in the court", if your couple was way off down Dorset St. There is absolutely no connection between the two.

Think about it....
- "Further on there was a man and a woman"
- "There was nobody in the court"
- "I dozed in a chair at Mrs Keyler's"

Three unconnected replies, to three different questions.
Witnesses do not speak until they are spoken to. They do not run off at the mouth with a continuous narrative, they stand silent, and provide specific answers to specific questions.

The Coroner had no cause to ask if there was anybody in the Court if "your" couple was way off down Dorset St.
It is precisely because Lewis had said that this couple walked up the passage that will prompt the Coroner to ask if she saw this couple when she (Lewis) got to the Court.

Had there been the remotest suggestion that the female half of the “passing along” couple was Kelly (and aside from your eccentric suggestion, there blissfully hasn’t been), she would have been called to view the remains at the mortuary with a view to providing a link with the “in drink” woman, even if it was based on clothing alone, as Lawende’s had been before her.

Lawende was not asked to view the body.
So that blows your theory out of the water.
Lewis only saw this couple from behind, and in the dark, so naturally she was not asked to identify the woman, she never described her clothing either.

Let’s just see:

“Kelly did not seem to be to be drunk” but was a little spreeish.– says Hutchinson. Oops. If you are "the worse" for drink, you are certainly drunk. Think about it.

I thought it best to make your quote more HONEST, by including the rest of what Hutchinson said, in red.
(But according to Garry, it might look "blue" in poor light)

A woman's concept (Cox) of being the worse for drink is not the same as a man's (Hutchinson).
A person who looks only "spree'ish" to a man, may be described as "the worse for drink", by a woman.

Go ahead then, just try quantify what "the worse for drink means" - make it precise now, none of this hairy-fairy, maybe-this, or maybe-that.
I want an Oxford dictionary version, as dictionary-diving seems to be a favorite pastime or yours.

[harry]

Fisherman,
I thought the previous was going to be your last post to me.So be it.
Latest example from you,is a man being shut away in a cave.
Well Hutchinson was not shut away anywhere.He was free to come and go and mix,in a society that was extremely vocal and well informed of what had happened and when.He would not have had to rely on memory alone,and as Richard points out,if he was doubtfull or mixed up about about a detail,such as the date,he had numerous sources to put him right.Exactly as I have if I wish to remember the start of our exchanges.Thats all I need to say in reply to your last post to me.
Now heres a tip.Consult a Neurologist,not a Phycologist,if you wish to understand Dews remarks.

[Fisherman]

harry: Fisherman,
I thought the previous was going to be your last post to me.So be it.

It WAS going to be the last post to you. Then I noticed that you seemingly did not know the difference between sequential and detail memory, and that difference is all-important to the understanding of how somebody with an excellent memory for details can still be out on the days. The two are not in any way interconnected.
But do not despair, Harry - Now that I have explained this, you ARE reading my last post to you on this errand, at least for this time.

Latest example from you,is a man being shut away in a cave.

No, Harry, my latest example is not a man shut in a cave. I know quite well that Hutchinson was not shut in a cave. I wrote about the caveman to show you how we will inevitably loose track of the days in such a situation. Then I wrote that this is because days and nights float together for the caveman, and I said that to some extent, Hutchinson was a victim for this exact thing - not being in a cave, but having your days and nights mixed up
I am quite sure that you are well suited and able to see the difference.

He would not have had to rely on memory alone,and as Richard points out,if he was doubtfull or mixed up about about a detail,such as the date,he had numerous sources to put him right. Exactly as I have if I wish to remember the start of our exchanges.

So you at least admit that checking with "sources" would be necessary for you to establish when our exchange started? Good, that´s progress.
Now all I wan´t you to do is to ponder WHY we check with sources. Actually, we do so because we are not sure.

But do we check when we DO feel sure? No, Harry, we do not. If we feel totally certain that something happened three days ago, we do not check any sources to establish if it was instead four day ago. Why would we, if we feel certain about it?
Hasn´t it dawned on you that this is how the mind works, Harry?

The exact same thing can happen to the detail memory. There are endless examples of how witnesses have sworn to things that are later proven wrong. For example, when the police speak to, say, ten witnesses after a bank robbery, they may easily find themselves with some witnesses saying that the killer wore green trousers, whereas others say that he wore black or blue trousers. And interestingly, they will all often say that they are certain!

The memory will play tricks on us, if you like, in this way. It is very common.
Now, if we accept that the robber wore green trousers, do you think that those who are faultily convinced that they were blue or black will begin to question themselves? No.

When the police say "are you certain that they were blue?", do you think that will go "Actually, they were probably green"? No.

It´s the exact same thing with timings. We sometimes get it wrong but we are certain that we have it right. Take the boy we discussed earlier, who said he had accompanied the missing girl to school on the same morning the police spoke to him. He actually thought that he had done so. The police will have asked him "are you certain?", and he will have said yes. The faulty information was given - with no sinister intentions - and accepted. If the boy had been tested with a lie detector, he would have cleared it.

This tears to shreds any suggestion that Hutchinson could not have had the days wrong. It demolishes any such argument, I´m afraid, so I have done what I can to put things straight in this department.

I have no illusions whatsoever that you will accept that this is so. You will in all probability claim that there is no chance that Hutchinson was out on the dates. And you will be woefully wrong. Again.

Statistically, you will be correct - we should not expect him as such to miss out on the dates. But individually, we must accept that it could have happened.

Factually, we must also accept that the given evidence is more in line with a mistaken date than it is with a correct identification of the dates. There can be no denying that.

The one and only detail that speaks for Hutchinson having been in place is Lewis´ statement. But it goes without saying that Hutchinson was not the only man in London. There are thousands and thousands of men who may have been the loiterer. Claiming that the loiterer must have been Hutchinson is extremely circular - it was him because it must have been, sort of.
The whole matter here is that I am arguing that he had the nights wrong, and if he did, it must NOT have been him at all!

Against Hutchinson having been in place stands his failure to mention Lewis. He also fails to mention the couple Lewis said passed along the street. Instead he claims to have seen only a lodger and a PC in the distance, and he stresses that there was nobody else. Apparently, he did not see the people he should have seen. He says there wrere two people, and misses out on three others, one of whom walked right into the court that the loiterer supposedly monitored!

Against him having been in place, there is also the fact that he said that he spent the whole night walking the streets after having left Dorset Street. And nobody would do that on a miserably cold, rainy and windy night as the murder night, whereas the night before was nice and dry.

Against him having been in place is also Dew´s memoirs, where he clearly points to how he thinks that Hutchinson was out on the dates.

And there you are, Harry. Anybody is welcome to argue that they think Hutchinson was the loiterer, in spite of it´s being at loggerheads with the larger part of the evidence. But arguing that Hutchinson could not have been mistaken on the dates is a lost cause.

And now I´m gone.

[Sally]

Go ahead then, just try quantify what "the worse for drink means" - make it precise now, none of this hairy-fairy, maybe-this, or maybe-that.

It's Airy-Fairy, Jon [highlighted in red, just for you]


Hairy-Fairy conjures up all the wrong images...

[harry]

Fisherman,
Well then,lets take sequential memory. What w as the sequence as described by Hutchinson.(1)Going and returning from Romford. (2)arriving in Commercial Street. (3)Being approached by Kelly. (4) Kelly meeting Astrakhan. (5)Following Kelly and Astrakhan to millers Court. (6) Standing in Dorset Street. (7)Leaving Dorset Street and walking the streets of Whitechapel. (8)returning to the Victoria Home.
Now detail memory.The time of 2AM when Kelly appears.Description of Astrakhan.Speech,what was said.Red handkerchief.Forty five minute wait.
Good enough that I know the difference.Wait on,there is something else.Retentive memory.The ability to retain and retell from memory.Strange you left that one out.Most important.
What is in dispute?That Hutchinson mistakes the sequential part as taking place on Thursday the Ninth of November 1888,when it is claimed,it occurred on the Eighth.To put it simply,a failure of memory of one whole day,just three days after the events.
The first thing one might ask,is, if it did take place on the Wednesday, what was Hutchinson actually doing on the Thursday?He had to be doing something,and unless he had complete memory failure for that day w ould he not at least remember some of it and realise there was a conflict of activities.The weather for instance was so dissimilar that that alone should have raised warning signs.Or are we to believe that Thursday was a carbon copy of the Wednesday to him,and therefor there w as no difference to mislead him.
W hat of the police.It is my experience that they take great care with witnesses.Especially in establishing dates.Supposing Hutchinson could not recall the date for instance,or the day,the fact he he could recall the sequential happenings,and that those happenings coincided with the time Kelly was killed,that is all the police needed to know.The day and date would be established,and Hutchinson could accept that.No,he didn't get the date wrong.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Lets get the facts right... the 9th of November was a Friday, the 8th was Thursday,so we are talking 2am Friday morning, or if wrong day 2am Thursday morning..his alleged trip to Romford, was on Thursday the 8th, returning to Whitechapel early hours of the Friday 9th..
Regards Richard,

[Sally]

The ‘Wrong Night’ premise is just another highly-creative, convoluted attempt to explain the inconsistencies and other problems with Hutchinson’s account in the hope of somehow ‘exonerating’ him.

The trouble is that none of these ‘explanations’ are at all plausible -they always – always – require special and unusual circumstances to work; one on top of another. In real life, things just don’t work like that – there is usually a simple explanation, the straight line of reasoning from A-B, not the curvy, wiggly, loop-the-loop and back round the houses line of reasoning that has Huthcinson forgetting a day; or Isaacs being Astrachan and then being ‘cleared’ by Abberline.

The simple, obvious answer here is that those inconsistencies and problems that ‘Honest Hutch’ advocates try so ver hard to explain are there because Hutchinson fabricated his account, in part or whole.

His over-elaborate description of Mr. Astrachan aside, there isn’t a part of his story that he couldn’t have taken from reading the papers. It’s all in there – yes, even a naughty astrakhan-coat wearing villain.

It really isn’t that difficult.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have always said, we have only had one Hutchinson named as being that witness , that is Topping..nobody else has ever produced themselves...
If he was the witness, and if that gentleman's moral values are accepted as told, it is doubtful that he was anything more then genuine..
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi,
Lets get the facts right... the 9th of November was a Friday, the 8th was Thursday,so we are talking 2am Friday morning, or if wrong day 2am Thursday morning..his alleged trip to Romford, was on Thursday the 8th, returning to Whitechapel early hours of the Friday 9th..
Regards Richard,

So Harry got the days wrong...?

Priceless.

[Wickerman]

The apparent fact that many of the details observed by Hutchinson can be found in everyday accounts in the press, actually demonstrates that his story is based on reality.
The police were certainly abreast of what was being written in the press. It is quite audacious to think that something so obvious should go unnoticed by the police.

I find it rather amusing that some claim his account is so fanciful it cannot possibly be true - yet at the same time claim his account is so 'common' that he must have made it up...

Someone needs to make up their mind...


As for 'simple' solutions. There doesn't appear to be anything simple about claiming he obviously lied, when we know...
- The police apparently believed him.
- Hutchinson was never identified as a suspect (which he would be if found to have lied).
- A portion of Lewis's testimony confirms what Hutchinson claimed.
- The press were able to determine police interest in his suspect well into the third week of November, and apparently right up until the 6th December.

None of the above help to promote this 'idea' (because that is all it is), that Hutchinson must have lied about something.

On the contrary, when we actually do look close at the "Hutch-the-liar" argument, not only do we find nothing but bold accusations, but those who are making these accusations can't even agree on what it is that he may have lied about.

A "maybe" + "maybe" + "maybe" = therefore, he is.
Is not a mathematical formula that I recognize, but it seems to be all the "Hutch-the-liar" camp have going for them.

If that, is someone's idea of 'simple' then I'll take the conventional view any day.

[John G]

I believe on balance that Hutchinson was telling the truth. And, on even more controversial note, I wouldn't completely reject Richard's argument that the suspect could have been Francis Thompson, although that would require Hutchinson's imagination filling in some of the gaps in his knowledge!

Okay, he didn't have an astrakhan coat, but he did wear an Inverness cape, which is archetypal Jack the Ripper garb!

[Wickerman]

Ah, but what appears to be "archetypal" attire, is in actuality the common form of evening wear for a respectably dressed male of the period.

What type of villain do we see in the dress of Dr. Neil Cream, or the fictional Mr. Hyde?
Nothing out of the ordinary, for the period.