Casebook Examiner Number 5

[The Good Michael]

What Fisherman should be commended for is bringing something new into the equation that stands easily as a refutation of the Hutchinson-as-ripper argument. He did it in a reasonable and not overly long-winded fashion, meaning that the simplest answers, once again, carry a lot of weight. He didn't go off in all different directions (a difficult thing for crazy Swedes), and by staying on the specific point about making a mistake, gave his argument power.

Hats off to both gentlemen on their writings. Well done.

Now, I have to read Tom's article.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Garry!

Returning, once again, to your post, where you write:

"Since the night of 8/9 November was punctuated by heavy showers rather than continual rainfall, I fail to understand the underlying logic of Fisherman's 'wrong night' argument."

...I would like to present these two quotes:

"With his plan falling into place, Hutchinson was confronted by another problem. Although assailed by an insistent urge to kill Kelly there and then, he remained conscious of the fact that Maria Harvey had recently taken to sleeping in the room. Fearful of disturbance by an unwelcome visitor, he had little option but to bide his time. And since he could not risk Kelly waking unexpectedly and being alarmed by his presence, he took the precaution of shaking her to ensure that she was soundly asleep. When she registered no response, he was free to remove some of his rain-sodden clothing and place it on the hearth to dry."

So, a rain-sodden Hutchinson needed a place to dry his clothes on the night in question, it would seem.

Next up, this one:

"Mary Ann Cox was nothing if not determined on the night of 8/9 November, for, having returned home at one o’clock, she again took to the streets once the shower that had sent her scurrying for shelter had abated. Another much heavier cloudburst finally convinced her that tonight her beat would prove both uncomfortable and unremunerative, so shortly after 3:00am she turned into Miller’s Court and trudged the last few weary steps to the bottom left-hand property in which she roomed."

It would seem that this night, perhaps particularly the hours inbetween one o´clock and three o´clock, was a really nasty one, weatherwise. The kind of night, in fact, that sent people running for shelter from the rain.

You know the source, Garry, so I do not need to point it out to you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"He didn't go off in all different directions (a difficult thing for crazy Swedes)"

I have only two things to say about this, Mike. Firstly, Swedes are very good when it comes to doing two things simultaneously, and secondly ... eeeh, secondly ... hmmm, let´see ....

Oh, sod it!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

As far as I am informed,Cox only mentioned that it was raining heavy at one particular time that night.No one gives evidence what it was like from 2am untill 3am and onwards.
As far as getting the day wrong,one might,if they were telling the truth,be fully aware of the day they performed a marathon distance walk,be it as much as a week afterwards.Such things stick in the mind and are easily recounted. Even more so if they wanted the story to tally with some other major event.
I do not think that Hutchinson acted on a whim and entered that police station simply because he was passing.Seems to me more like he went there with a prepared statement,and if we talk about what Aberline might have questioned him about,I would conjecture that it would have been about being sure of that particular day and night.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"As far as I am informed,Cox only mentioned that it was raining heavy at one particular time that night.No one gives evidence what it was like from 2am untill 3am and onwards."

The meteorologist that answered my questions stated that it rained pretty much throughout the night, Harry. It may have varied in strength, of course, but no matter how we look at things, we know that it was raining heavily at three o´clock, and at that stage, according to his own testimony, George Hutchinson celebrated this whim of the weather by walking about in the open streets. It would have looked more or less like Gene Kelly´s street dancing scene in "Singing in the rain", I imagine.

In my article, I write that it may have proven tricky to establish the exact amount of rain that fell over Dorset Street at the exact time that The Astrakhan man play was on, and that is why it is all-important to realize that no matter what, we KNOW that George Hutchinsons acted very irrationally after he left Dorset Street, opting for trying to catching pneumonia and bronchitis at the same time. If, on the other hand, we make the assumption that he was speaking of the night of the 7:th, well then the same accomodating meteorologist asserted me that it was a totally dry, but overcast night. And since it was November, it was cold.
Now, ask yourself, Harry, if you know that you have nowhere to sleep, and that you need to pass a few hours in cold but dry conditions, what do you do? Do you sit down in a doorway, and let the chill gnaw away at your bones? Or do you take to the streets, briskly walking, in order to circulate your blood and get some warmth? Which of the two nights would YOU have chosen to use for walking the streets, and on which night would you have opted for sheltering in as dry a place as possible?

I think that question answers itself.

"if we talk about what Aberline might have questioned him about,I would conjecture that it would have been about being sure of that particular day and night."

I agree completely, Harry. He simply MUST have asked "and you are certain of the day?", and he must have received a "yes" on that question on behalf of Hutchinson. But that matters not if Hutchinsons perception of things was off, and the evidence he gave about opting for a late night swim in the London streets instead of going to ground, sheltering from the rain, points out very cleary that he was. Moreover, we have Walter Dew telling us that he - a detective very much involved in the case - is of the exact opinion that Hutchinson DID err as to the dates. There can be no other explanation than Hutch being wrong, he states.
What Abberline SHOULD have done, would have been to ask Hutchinson about the weather, quite simply. And once the statement hit the police stations, it obviously did not take long before somebody said "Hello, what´s this? It was raining cats and dogs that night, and nobody would have walked around unbuttoned!"
After that, Hutchinson would have been hauled in, and the question would have been put to him what weather it was on the night he saw Kelly. And the second he said that it was a dry night, it was Goodbye George. And small wonder that Abberline´s missing out on the weather issue at the first interwiew never hit the papers!

It all tallies, Harry.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Tom's article was very interesting and well-written. Barlas-as-suspect is new to me. The name was familiar, but Tom's research has given Barlas some life.

Criticism: I would have liked the article to have been solely about Barlas. The Sickert information gave us nothing new, though I understand the inclusion to flesh out the article and to keep it on its track regarding the group of dandies.

So, not really a criticism, just a case of druthers.

Good work Tom. I learned something.

Mike

[Fi Saint]

Tom:

That would be Maria Zambaco, I mis-spelled at 3am.

Fi

[Garry Wroe]

With reference to the passages of my book quoted in post 122, Fish, the emphasis is on sporadic rather than continuous rainfall. And if Hutchinson did indeed walk from Romford to the East End under such weather conditions, his clothing would most certainly have been 'rain-sodden' on arrival.

Again, the evidence is indictive of a showery night as opposed to one of continual rainfall. But I'll get back to you on that one once I've had the time to read your article properly. For the time being, however, congratulations on at least opening up another Hutchinson-related topic of discussion.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hutchinson’s claim to have walked back from Romford in the small hours of the morning, despite the certain closure of his lodgings and his professed inability to pay for ANY lodgings upon his return, is already very implausible. The miserable weather conditions only add a new dimension of implausibility. He simply failed to think through the implications of the Romford fib.

The same applies to the description of the man’s clothing and accessories, and its barely possible level of observation and memorization. I agree, it isn’t likely that a real person would be quite so unbuttoned in the cold and rain, but then if Hutchinson wished to depict a wealthy and conspicuous outsider, the “unbuttoning” was necessary to expose those items that indicate wealth and ostentation. Again, it would simply mean that he didn’t think through certain aspects of his invention, hence the oddities. Although, to my mind, it would take a man with a bizarrely protruding chest to expose the undergarments and items allegedly observed by Hutchinson.

Hi Fisherman,

I’m still confused over the time and date you’re suggesting for the sighting. You’ve corrected the error in your article where you specified the 6th as the likely date, but you now suggest it occurred on the 7th, which would still make him out by two days. Do you mean the morning of the 8th?

I enjoyed your article, and I’m particularly surprised at the speed with which you arrived at your conclusions. You didn’t appear to have been aware that Dew even mentioned Hutchinson until I posted about it here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=149106&postcount=166

And here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=150478&highlight=walter#post150478

Your response, at that time, was:

“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 ...”

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

Your change of heart regarding Dew must have been swift indeed!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Hutchinson’s claim to have walked back from Romford in the small hours of the morning, despite the certain closure of his lodgings and his professed inability to pay for ANY lodgings upon his return, is already very implausible. The miserable weather conditions only add a new dimension of implausibility. He simply failed to think through the implications of the Romford fib."

Or, Ben, the trek from Romford was undertaken in quite DRY conditions, detracting the new dimension of implausibility that you find hard to swallow.

"The same applies to the description of the man’s clothing and accessories, and its barely possible level of observation and memorization."

And under what conditions would it be more plausible to take things in - a dry night or a rainy one?

"I agree, it isn’t likely that a real person would be quite so unbuttoned in the cold and rain, but then if Hutchinson wished to depict a wealthy and conspicuous outsider, the “unbuttoning” was necessary to expose those items that indicate wealth and ostentation."

But if Hutchinson wanted to impress Abberline AND be trustworthy with regards to the rain, he could just as easily have settled for a large diamond ring or something else that did not call for an unbuttoned coat! Clearly, if he WAS in Dorset Street that night, he would have been aware of the miserable conditions, and he would have adjusted his testimony to fit in. Then again if he was NOT in Dorset Street that night, but the night BEFORE, then everything suddenly dovetails - the unbuttoned coat, the casual discussion OUTSIDE the court, the leaning on lampposts and so on, PLUS Dew´s statement, PLUS the careful observation of the man, PLUS the cruising the streets afterwards. Once we place Hutch on the rainy street of the morning of the 9:th, everything suddenly becomes very illogical.

"You’ve corrected the error in your article where you specified the 6th as the likely date, but you now suggest it occurred on the 7th, which would still make him out by two days. Do you mean the morning of the 8th?"

The trek from Romford and the morning in Dorset Street would have happened on the 7:th and 8:th of November, which is why I referred to the night as such as the night of the 7:th.

"Your change of heart regarding Dew must have been swift indeed!"

Not at all, Ben. I still say the book is riddled with errors. The fact that he has Bowyer down as a youth has not changed because I wrote my piece, has it? And there is more. But that does not change the fact that he got a good deal more right than wrong - and that he was a detective that worked the Ripper case. As such, his word id lead-heavy, and there is every chance that his stance on the Hutchinson matter was coloured by his police colleagues wiew at the time.
Nice try, though!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“Or, Ben, the trek from Romford was undertaken in quite DRY conditions, detracting the new dimension of implausibility that you find hard to swallow.”

…But still leaving us with the existing problems associated with the Romford scenario, as well as the other objections to the “different day” hypothesis, chief amongst which is the suggestion that the striking similarity between the Hutchinson and Lewis accounts was pure coincidence.

”And under what conditions would it be more plausible to take things in - a dry night or a rainy one?”

A dry one, but the sheer extent of fiddly accessorial detail (which is then memorized and regurgitated to police and press) in the case of Hutchinson’s description would be implausible even on the driest of days in broad daylight.

“Clearly, if he WAS in Dorset Street that night, he would have been aware of the miserable conditions, and he would have adjusted his testimony to fit in.”

No, that doesn’t follow at all, and I’m afraid this is yet another example of the Maybrickian logic that I frequently implore people not to adopt. It most emphatically does not stand to reason that unless Hutchinson told the perfect lie, he didn’t lie at all. The longer the fabrication, the greater the chances of the fabricator slipping up somewhere, and it seems likely to me that in Hutchinson’s determination to paint a particular type of bogus villain in the minds of the police, he failed to take into account certain practical considerations, such as the sheer implausibility of walking for miles and unbuttoning your coat in poor weather conditions.

“Once we place Hutch on the rainy street of the morning of the 9:th, everything suddenly becomes very illogical.”

But Lewis’ account effectively does place Hutchinson there, and yes, his attempt to explain why he was there WAS very illogical.

“As such, his word id lead-heavy, and there is every chance that his stance on the Hutchinson matter was coloured by his police colleagues wiew at the time. Nice try, though!”

I’m not sure what I’m supposed to have “tried”. I was only pointing out the haste with which you arrived at your Dew-related conclusions. It was only when I mentioned Dew’s reference to Hutchinson on a very recent thread that you became interested in that angle, and significantly, when I first referred to his suggestion that Hutchinson confused the day, you pooh-poohed it and cautioned me at length not to invest Dew’s comments with any significance. Clearly, you’ve changed your mind, but I don’t say this in criticism. I was merely commenting on the extent to which message board debates can very quickly lead to hard and fast conclusions being adopted.

Best regards,
Ben

[robhouse]

Just read Fisherman's article. The explanation seems plausible to me... it all seems to make sense. I think it must remain impossible to be 100% sure on something like this, but it is at the very least a possible explanation of why Hutchinson was dropped. Good job.
RH

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
We are surely attempting to create a scenerio, which is extremely unlikely.
Does not common sense prevail, when it is inconceivable that Abberline would have been taken in by Hutch.
What clothes was she wearing?
err.. I dont recall.
Was it raining hard?
err..I dont remember.
Are you sure it was friday morning this all happened.?
err.. I think so.
That will do for me Mr Hutchinson, just see the sergeant at the desk , he will enlist a couple of officers to go walkies with you.. 'Oh by the way would you be so kind to view the body at the mortuary in the morning just to make sure'.
sure think Governor.
This was 1888 guys, my granny was nine years old, life was not as we know it, but relatively normal, hardly prehistoric, and the police were not that stupid, even if detection methods were not available.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Rob House:

"Just read Fisherman's article. The explanation seems plausible to me... it all seems to make sense."

Thanks, Rob - much, much appreciated!

The best,
Fisherman

[Hunter]

Congratulations Corey, on a fine article. As you know, I'm not much on profiling, but you stated you case quite well... Truth be known, anytime someone elaborates on a suspect they are profiling to some degree.

Hutchinson...

The whole case around the Kelly murder is so full of holes and inconsistancies that almost anything could be possible. Sara Lewis didn't even mention Wideawake Man in her deposition to the police and Mrs. Prater ( if the prefix fits a woman who had been abandoned by her husband for five years) states that she spoke to McCarthy on the night of the murder in her written statement but denies it at the inquest. Since Maxwell gave her deposition on the day of the murder I doubt that she got the days mixed up but was more likely mistaken about whom she had seen and embellished the rest to add color to her story... Naw, witnesses never do that, do they?

And the Star, who started the Leather Apron scare, had Pipeman chasing Schwartz with a knife, put words in Bagster Phillips' mouth about the Mylett case and almost got Dr. Brownfield fired in the same case for claiming an interview with him that Brownfield denied; got the inside scoop on Hutchinson. They were such favorites of the police, you know.

Nevertheless, both articles were a good read given the fact that when it comes to Hutchinson, it is all supposition.