Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I am clearly not of the opinion that people never mix days up unless they are mentally ill or drunkards. Now that really is silly.
Of course you realise my opinion as to whether Hutchinson was likely to have mixed the days up on this particular occasion is entirely contextual.
My reasons for thinking so are clearly set out earlier in this thread."

... and I am just as opposed to it all even if you point to the individual as such, Sally. I wrote earlier:

"Since none of us can fully assess the mental state and abilities of George Hutchinson back in 1888, it stands to reason that you may be right - maybe he would not mix things up, given what happened. Then again, you may be wrong - maybe it would even be typical of him to do so!
Who, Sally, can tell? Not me, that´s for sure."

That still stands. There is not one of us that can assess what Hutchinson was about. Therefore, we are forced to work from a general point of wiew, and that point of wiew means that we must ask: can people mix dates up even if there was a day of some sort of significance involved in the days we are looking at?
No, they cannot not, you conclude (or, to make matters worse, at least George Hutchinson could not...?), for if there is such an important day involved, everything else will be easily sorted out by relating to the day in question.

For instance, if I ask you, or anybody else on these boards, what they did in the five days leading up to Christmas, there is no chance that they will mix the days up, since Christmas is such an important day. The same thing will apply to New Years´Eve - we will all be able to readily tell what we did on which day, and since New Years Eve is around, we will not face the hazard of mixing the dates up - something we could well have done any other week of the year ...?

This, if I read you correct, is what we have to lean against, if we want to assert that Hutchinson could never have mixed the days up. And that is also what I would very much like to see some sort of substantiation for. And why? Well, to some extent because I cannot myself tell what I did on which day leading up to Christmas. And that is VERY strange, given that Christmas is such an important day! I am perhaps mentally ill or drunk?

So no, I don´t for a second buy that the circumstances surrounding Hutchinson - or even less what we know of the man himself - allows us to conclude that Dew would have been wrong. If I see some substantiation of this suggestion, however, I will take a fresh look at things. Up til then, though, we are dealing with a non-starter here, I´m afraid.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Evidence or arguments? We have evidence that Hutchinson stayed at the Victoria Home. Although he may have lied, but that is an argument.

Well, Lechmere, Hutchinson was certainly interviewed by reporters in the Victoria Home on Tuesday, 13 November, and again the following day, so there can be no question as to Hutchinson’s association with this venue.

We have evidence that the Victoria Home kept record of who was there and restricted late night entry. Ben claims they didn’t (he may pull back from that, we will see), but if he continues with that line it is an argument (maybe he climbed out a window or didn’t stay there and the police were too ‘useless’ to check).

All lodging houses, Lechmere, were subject to legislation which required them to maintain a written record of patrons. Thus the Victoria Home was no different in this respect to Crossingham’s, the White House or any of the hundreds of lodging houses that proliferated the district during the period under scrutiny.

Your implied criticism of Ben is similarly ill-informed. The Victoria Home operated under a rule set which required patrons to pay for a bed by 1:00am. Whilst those who didn’t were removed from the premises, those who did (or purchased a weekly pass) could come and go as they pleased. This being the case, I don’t see Ben retracting his earlier statement any time soon.

So Sally there is evidence against Hutchinson being the culprit, that could be refuted by arguments.

Not on the basis of the kind of arguments you’ve been expressing, I’m afraid, Lechmere.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Sally]

Hi Fisherman

"Since none of us can fully assess the mental state and abilities of George Hutchinson back in 1888, it stands to reason that you may be right - maybe he would not mix things up, given what happened. Then again, you may be wrong - maybe it would even be typical of him to do so!
Who, Sally, can tell? Not me, that´s for sure."

I'm not suggesting otherwise, Fisherman. You are right, none of us know. That's precisely the reason for our debate, no?

That still stands. There is not one of us that can assess what Hutchinson was about. Therefore, we are forced to work from a general point of wiew, and that point of wiew means that we must ask: can people mix dates up even if there was a day of some sort of significance involved in the days we are looking at?

People can mix days up Fisherman, and I have already said as much. I wouldn't argue the reverse, since it is plainly ridiculous.

No, they cannot not, you conclude (or, to make matters worse, at least George Hutchinson could not...?), for if there is such an important day involved, everything else will be easily sorted out by relating to the day in question.

With respect, Fisherman, I do not conclude that people cannot mix days up, or even that Hutchinson could not have mixed the days up. I think, having considered the available evidence and arguments, that is is unlikely in this instance. Unlikely. Not impossible.

For instance, if I ask you, or anybody else on these boards, what they did in the five days leading up to Christmas, there is no chance that they will mix the days up, since Christmas is such an important day. The same thing will apply to New Years´Eve - we will all be able to readily tell what we did on which day, and since New Years Eve is around, we will not face the hazard of mixing the dates up - something we could well have done any other week of the year ...?

This, if I read you correct, is what we have to lean against, if we want to assert that Hutchinson could never have mixed the days up. And that is also what I would very much like to see some sort of substantiation for. And why? Well, to some extent because I cannot myself tell what I did on which day leading up to Christmas. And that is VERY strange, given that Christmas is such an important day! I am perhaps mentally ill or drunk?

Fisherman, I have no idea whether you are either of the above, and would certainly never presume to have an opinion about such things.

So no, I don´t for a second buy that the circumstances surrounding Hutchinson - or even less what we know of the man himself - allows us to conclude that Dew would have been wrong. If I see some substantiation of this suggestion, however, I will take a fresh look at things. Up til then, though, we are dealing with a non-starter here, I´m afraid.

I'm afraid I can't see any 'non-starters' here Fisherman. Your view that Hutchinson somehow mislaid an entire day is somewhat at odds with his remarkably good memory of the night in question. I see nothing to indicate that his memory was defective.

Best wishes

Sally

[babybird67]

i am waiting to see...

when this branch of remarkable research is going to filter down to the rest of the witnesses in the Ripper crimes...

How do we know Lawende didn't have a defective memory? Schwartz? Mrs Cox? Etc etc. This such an asinine method of arguing...

because we know human beings can mix up the dates, we must conclude Hutchinson did because nobody would have been abroad in that weather (even though history suggests many other witnesses were out and about that very night, and the meterological report confirms what has been known for many years about the weather conditions that night)...

so why doesn't this line of...i was going to say this line of 'reasoning' but it is laughable to refer to is as anything resembling reason...extend to all the other witnesses, in which case we might as well just disregard all witness testimony completely...and where does that leave us?

Strange, strange line of research...complete and utter guess work and speculation. I feel like I've fallen down a rabbit hole!

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"With respect, Fisherman, I do not conclude that people cannot mix days up, or even that Hutchinson could not have mixed the days up. I think, having considered the available evidence and arguments, that is is unlikely in this instance. Unlikely. Not impossible."

That, though, does not really tally at all well with your former assertion that anybody who mixed days up in a situation like the one Hutchinson was in, would be either mentally ill or drunken. Of course, I much prefer this later version, so I am in now way arguing that you should stick with the former.

As for the likelihood that such a thing would come about, the same applies as I wrote before: there are experts and institutions working and researching this very field, and that should enable you to confirm your mistake, should you want to. One of the most famous memory researchers of the 20:th century, David Ingvar, worked with the University of Lund, Sweden, and his legacy could perhaps prove useful to us in this context. If you have no wish to investigate these things any further yourself, I will try and get hold of somebody working in this field, and we shall get a little closer to understanding the underlying mechanisms and geting informed about just how odd or normal it would be to mix days up in contexts like the given one.

There are questions to be asked and empirical research to take part of. Let´s tend to it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"because we know human beings can mix up the dates, we must conclude Hutchinson did"

Time to climb up from your rabbit hole, Babybird. I am suggesting that we may need to accept that Hutchinson got the day wrong because:

1. Walter Dew asserts us that this must have been the case.
2. Hutchinson claimed that the only people he saw during his vigil were a lodger and a PC, and thus NOT Lewis - who we know would have walked right by him.
3. Kelly was badly drunk at midnight, and quite possibly heading for worse, given the beer Blotchy supplied - but only perhaps spreeish two hours later.
4. The weather conditions would reasonably not have lead to the type of behaviour we have on record - least of all any walking the streets all night on behalf of Hutchinson.
5. Hutchinson was apparently believed by Abberline, and let go without any reprimand when his story proved useless. He seemingly never turned into a suspect, in spite of his allegedly being on the spot on the murder night, with no story to convincingly explain why. That tallies with getting the day wrong - useless honesty is not appreciated, nor beaten down on.

I completely fail to see any implications like these behind Lawendes story, making him in any way comparable to Hutchinson in this respect. To top things off, he was in the company of two other men, and the time span involved does not even resemble the one we are dealing with. If you think that is asinine reasoning, it only reflects on yourself.

There really ought to be some sort of quality behind a post, Babybird. I fail to see it in this instance. What it instead looks very much like is something Tom Wescott has already hinted at. I am sure I do not need to spell it out to you any further.

Unless you have something valuable to contribute to the discussion instead of what came out of the rabbit hole this time over, I shall refrain from wasting an more time commenting on it. Considering the gap between a useful post and what you just delivered, I cannot see any change in that respect arriving soon.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"With respect, Fisherman, I do not conclude that people cannot mix days up, or even that Hutchinson could not have mixed the days up. I think, having considered the available evidence and arguments, that is is unlikely in this instance. Unlikely. Not impossible."

That, though, does not really tally at all well with your former assertion that anybody who mixed days up in a situation like the one Hutchinson was in, would be either mentally ill or drunken. Of course, I much prefer this later version, so I am in now way arguing that you should stick with the former.

As for the likelihood that such a thing would come about, the same applies as I wrote before: there are experts and institutions working and researching this very field, and that should enable you to confirm your mistake, should you want to. One of the most famous memory researchers of the 20:th century, David Ingvar, worked with the University of Lund, Sweden, and his legacy could perhaps prove useful to us in this context. If you have no wish to investigate these things any further yourself, I will try and get hold of somebody working in this field, and we shall get a little closer to understanding the underlying mechanisms and geting informed about just how odd or normal it would be to mix days up in contexts like the given one.

There are questions to be asked and empirical research to take part of. Let´s tend to it.

The best,
Fisherman

Splendid, Fisherman. You do that. I look forward to hearing an expert pronounce on a matter of common sense. Watch this space, eh?

Best wishes

Sally.

[babybird67]

here we go again...

Babybird:

"because we know human beings can mix up the dates, we must conclude Hutchinson did"

Time to climb up from your rabbit hole, Babybird. I am suggesting that we may need to accept that Hutchinson got the day wrong because:

1. Walter Dew asserts us that this must have been the case.

As has been remarked a million times, Dew was not immune from making mistakes. He had no evidence (would you like a link to a dictionary to look up the definition of that word? you seem to have trouble understanding what it means) for his suggestion that Hutchinson mixed up the dates and you have just taken his suggestion that there was a mix up in the dates and reiterated it. Not quality research in my view, old chap.

2. Hutchinson claimed that the only people he saw during his vigil were a lodger and a PC, and thus NOT Lewis - who we know would have walked right by him.

And? This could equally be evidence that his memory of people was hazy couldn't it rather than his memory of dates was hazy? After all, we all know he had a wavy hazy memory, don't we...apart from when describing pantomime villains.

3. Kelly was badly drunk at midnight, and quite possibly heading for worse, given the beer Blotchy supplied - but only perhaps spreeish two hours later.

How is this evidence that Hutchinson mixed up the dates?

4. The weather conditions would reasonably not have lead to the type of behaviour we have on record - least of all any walking the streets all night on behalf of Hutchinson.

Or people loitering around waiting for other people? Oh wait a minute, another witness saw someone doing exactly that in precisely those weather conditions. Perhaps though she was also recollectively-challenged. After all, Hutch must have been because the weather was bad that night. Must apply to everyone who thinks they must have been out that night mustn't it. I'm sure the streets were really deserted and nobody saw anything at all. Oooo kalaideoscope eyes.

5. Hutchinson was apparently believed by Abberline, and let go without any reprimand when his story proved useless. He seemingly never turned into a suspect, in spite of his allegedly being on the spot on the murder night, with no story to convincingly explain why. That tallies with getting the day wrong - useless honesty is not appreciated, nor beaten down on.

Again, not necessarily. It tallies only with Hutch's story being discredited in a way in which we have no EVIDENCE to establish. They could have believed Hutch to be a liar, but had no evidence to prove it. You see Fish, the standards of evidence in legal terms are thankfully a lot greater than the standards of evidence in getting conjecture about things published.

None of the elements of your theory have any evidence to back them up. We do not know, nor can ever know, what Hutchinson's memory was like. We therefore cannot know whether the inconsistencies in his relation of what he says he saw are attributable to memory loss (incredibly unlikely considering the varied unusual things that happened to him on that particular day) or lies.

There really ought to be some sort of quality behind a post, Babybird. I fail to see it in this instance. What it instead looks very much like is something Tom Wescott has already hinted at. I am sure I do not need to spell it out to you any further.

No you don't Fish and if you think i give two hoots about whether you or Mr Westcott think there is any 'quality' behind my postings you have very much mistaken me for someone who gives a damn! I am more concerned about 'quality' and HONESTY in published research, and for someone to write an article claiming that primary sources state something which turns out to be false for me is a mark of a great lack of quality, not only intellectual but moral quality. If you think insults and belittling is going to make me go away, you are sadly mistaken. I don't need your permission or approval to have or express my opinion, nor do i need any ass licking from you or Mr Westcott to validate that.

Unless you have something valuable to contribute to the discussion instead of what came out of the rabbit hole this time over, I shall refrain from wasting an more time commenting on it. Considering the gap between a useful post and what you just delivered, I cannot see any change in that respect arriving soon.

Bless! You've said that before honey, try to stick to your guns if you really think my points aren't worth addressing. It makes you look like you don't have the backbone to defend yourself or to stick to something you yourself have said you will do.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"here we go again..."

Absolutely not.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I look forward to hearing an expert pronounce on a matter of common sense."

Common sense, as you will appreciate, Sally, is anything but common.

"Watch this space, eh?"

Absolutely.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Mr Wroe
For some strange reason you post up several responses to things I have stated, which purport to be contradicting me when in fact you are concurring with what I have said. I find this odd.
Ben had said that no records were kept once lodgers were accepted. You have agreed with me that records were kept and you have provided extra reasons for this.
Given that the Victoria Home kept good records, do you think the police might have checked Hutchinson’s credentials?
Do you accept that more scrupulous records must have been kept for casuals to establish who had stayed there for six days in order to qualify for their free day?
Mr Wroe, do you agree that lodgers at the Victoria Home had to be in by 1 am (or 12.30 depending on the account) unless they had a special pass?
You confidently stated:
“The Victoria Home operated under a rule set which required patrons to pay for a bed by 1:00am. Whilst those who didn’t were removed from the premises, those who did (or purchased a weekly pass) could come and go as they pleased.”
So you think residents at the Victoria Home could come and go at all hours as they pleased? Is this why you think I haven’t put forward a good argument that Hutchinson couldn’t be the Ripper, and presumably is this why you think I am ill informed.

[Lechmere]

Sally – I have no way of knowing why Hutchinson may have lied about various things. If we take the unrequited crush motive, he may have pretended he knew her for 3 years to make it seem to the police that he was an important person in her life, when in fact he was absolutely nothing to her. I don’t think it makes for a romantic story. It casts Hutchinson in the role of a rather sad and pathetic individual. I could put together a story that incorporates virtually everything that is known or possibly is known about him (with some extra stuff to fill in some gaps). I am not going to double check everything so please allow me small errors that can easily be amended. First get yourself a cup of tea...

Hutchinson lived in the Victoria Home for several years while working casually as a groom. In mid 1887 he noticed Mary Kelly in the neighbourhood. She stood out as she regularly paraded about the place, making the most of her good looks. Hutchinson was shy and never approached her. He was also a few years younger and very inexperienced in such things. He had never even had a girlfriend. Mary Kelly never so much as noticed him and she always seemed to be with other men.

Besides his work as a groom, Hutchinson mixed with criminal elements that frequented local pubs and sometimes acted as a low level informer to the police. Sometimes he took advantage of his knowledge of police practices to pick pockets when there was no work as a groom.

On 7th November he wandered around Spitalfields and saw Mary Kelly a few times and followed her a bit. He even peered through her window hoping to get an eyeful. He walked right passed her and was sure she had looked at him. He was going to offer her some money so she wouldn’t have to go with these men, but he had little enough for his on lodgings.

On 8th November Hutchinson went to Romford and back. It was a rainy, windy and cold night and he went straight to bed, tired and hungry.

Next morning he got up early. He was skint and needed his next nights doss money. He knew the Lord Mayor’s Show was on (I hope that makes you happy Sally) so by 10 am he had made his way down to Cheapside where crowds of middle class and lower middle class school children had gathered as they were on a half holiday. There were also adults with fat pockets. Hutchinson moved into the crowd and riffled a few pockets. Each time he made a successful dip, he went back to St Lawrence Jewry on Gresham Street and hid his cash under a pew. Soon he got too cocky. Someone felt his hand in their pocket, they cried out and Hutchinson was grabbed by a City Policeman and taken to Wood Street nick. Luckily he had no money on him and claimed it was a mistake. They did not believed him. They kept him there alone in his cell until Sunday afternoon. Eventually they had to let him go, even though they were sure of his guilt as many people in his vicinity had reported that they had been robbed.

Hutchinson emerged from Wood Street somewhat disorientated and not even sure what day of the week it was. But soon learnt what had befallen Mary Kelly. He staggered down to Commercial Street Police Station. On the way he bumped into an acquaintance who had heard what had transpired at the inquest and gave him a garbled account.

Hutchinson went into the police station and gave a convoluted story, combining the vents of 7th 8th and 9th November, together with some items his experience as a low level snout had told him would attract the police’s attention (e.g. the Jewish angle and the idea he had seen the person who he said was with Kelly before).

He was promised a few shillings for his trouble, if he accompanied the police on the beat looking for the Jewish man he said was with her, and also if he would identify the body as he pretended he was a good long standing friend of hers. He desperately needed money as he hadn’t been able to get work and as he dared not go back to the church just yet to get his stash.

However he felt very ill after having to see the body and his story unravelled as the police checked with his lodgings at the Victoria Home and his movements did not tally with his statement. Furthermore he sold his story to the press and couldn’t help over elaborating and making his story hold up even less.

Soon he was dismissed by the police as they realised his tale didn’t add up, but they didn’t want to admit they had been duped. Still he had a few extra shillings. But he felt ashamed and the memory of seeing Kelly’s body would not go away.

Hutchinson vowed to change his ways. He trained as a plumber to get regular work. He settled down. Many years later he gave a different version of his brief moment in the limelight. He didn’t admit to being a petty thief, a low level snitch or a minor league stalker. As his memory faded, he romanced up his tale and bigged up his own role to the young son he had late in life. By the end he believed his alternative version of events, and the truth had been lost to history.

Until now of course.

[harry]

George Hutchinson describes himself as a 'Resident' of the Victoria Home.Althouh the word itself is open to interpretation,I suggest in his case it meant more than a casual day to day occupant.More likely he rented a 'Cabin',a one bed compartment,at three shillings per week.A pass could be obtained for late entry after 12.30am,so presumably someone was on duty to allow in those with passes.It does not state as such,but perhaps a permanent pass was accorded those with residency,a common arrangement in latter years in such establishments,and perhaps the offer of a coin or two might might suffice in a case where a pass could not be produced.

[Sally]

Lechmere

I think you're on the wrong thread here, Lechmere - there's a special forum especially for creative writing and expression. In fact, it's called 'Creative Writing and Expression'.

But if you insist.. sigh. I shall respond in time. First I need another cup of tea.

Adios - for now.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

The use of the word “interrogate” does not imply suspicion of the part of the police. Some years ago, Sam Flynn entered the phrases “interrogate the witness” and “interview the witness” into Google, and the number of resultant hits were very similar indeed. If I recall correctly, he then did the same thing using "suspect". Abberline probably used “interrogate” to convey to his superiors an impression of thoroughness.

There still seems to be some enormous confusion over the issue of the Victoria Home. Of course I’m familiar with the Sunday Magazine article and its reference to registers of lodgers, and this is precisely what I alluded to earlier. New lodgers were vetted for goodness of “character” and only had their names registered when they entered the establishment for the first time. Once this procedure had been carried out, regular lodgers could come and go as they please provided they had they money to pay for a bed (by 12:30 or 1.00am), or a daily/weekly ticket secured in advance. Regular lodgers would NOT have had their names written down whenever they entered or exited the building.

On the subject of these “special passes”, again there seems to be this vast, inexplicable confusion as to their nature, These were simply tickets, almost certainly made of wood or metal, that had either “daily pass” or “weekly pass” (or something to this effect) written on them. They could be purchased in advanced by lodgers and returned to the doorman upon arrival, in readiness to be re-sold to another lodger. They would not have had the name “George Hutchinson” or that or any other lodger written on them, for the same reason that nightclub bouncers don’t issue personalized hand-stamps for anyone wishing to enter and re-enter the building after a quite smoke or breath of fresh air.

Hence, your claim that:

“Hutchinson’s movements could have been checked easily with a high degree of accuracy”

…is very obviously and irrefutably wrong.

“Even if this modus operandi is disputed, even a brief stake out is a massive departure. Jack the Ripper did not operate in a manner similar to Bundy and co. so it is fruitless using them as examples.”

Different crime locations call for different pre-crime approaches, as research into other serial killers (again) should have taught us by now. If we’re prepared to accept that the ripper was capable of outdoor as well as indoor offences, it is only fair and reasonable to make the same allowances for possible change with regard to his pre-crime approach.

Take Ted Bundy, for example. He was formerly in the habit of approaching his victims under a false guise, just as Jack the Ripper had done with his earlier victims. When it came to the Tallahassee murders, however, he monitored his indoor crime scene from a discreet vantage point and before attacking his victims as they slept. If Bundy was capable of moving from outdoors inwards, and from changing from his pre-crime strategy from phoney inveigling to “intruding” on premises he had kept under surveillance, it is only reasonable to make the same allowances for alteration on the ripper’s part.

Robert Napper is another example. In Rachel Nickel’s case the attack was a surprise one perpetrated outdoors, and in Samantha Bissett’s it involved pre-crime stalking and peeping Tommery outside the victim’s home.

The very evidence of an individual observed standing outside what would later become a crime scene an hour or so thereafter, apparently “watching and waiting” for someone, may be considered an indication in favour of the suggestion that the killer may have used “Lurking and surveillance” at the Kelly murder at least, and would certainly be considered so to a modern investigative force with more experience of serial killers than their 1888 counterparts. It would be recklessly irresponsible even for the contemporary police force to have dismissed the possibility of surveillance in Kelly’s case purely on the assumption that a similar thing had nit happened at earlier murders (which it so obviously could have).

“I do not dispute for a second (as illustrated by the Sutcliffe example) police forces come into contact with serial killers and let them slip through the net. There are other examples as you say where may have excellent suspects that they cannot get enough proof to proceed in a trial. But Ben, you must be able to see the difference between cases such as these and that of Hutchinson”

But all you’re doing is using your own arguments to weaken your suggestion that it would have taken a “useless” police force to dismiss Hutchinson had he been guilty. We simply don’t know if Hutchinson was ever suspected at any stage; if he was, it is very unlikely that the police were able to shore up those suspicions, let alone get close to proceeding “in a trial”. In which case, they would have had no other option available to them other than to “dismiss” him in the absence of evidence.

“You have provided no example anywhere near that where a culprit inserts himself that deeply and escapes even suspicion.”

How can you possibly expect me to provide such an example if the offender “escaped suspicion” and wasn’t caught? I’m hardly likely to know about it in that case, am I? Ian Huntley is a good example of a “culprit” who came forward voluntarily as a witness, but who was not arrested on suspicion of the murders purely for doing so, and in Australia, it was not until some considerable time after “Alex Milat” provided his false witness account that the family came under suspicion for the backpacker murders.

For obvious reasons, it is impossible for me to provide any examples of serial offenders who managed to evade detection completely as a result of coming forward, but John Douglas of the FBI, whose knowledge of this behaviour resulted in one offender being flushed out when he came forward, wondered “how many times offenders have come forward who slipped through their fingers because they didn’t know what to look for”.

It seems Kelly was ‘fancied’ by a few people around her neighbourhood

Not much evidence for this, but then there’s no good reason for assuming that a possible “crush” on Kelly would rule him out for the murders. Certainly, the idea that serial offenders only kill strangers is not supported by history. I don’t know why you think that Hutchinson’s possible “breaking down” at seeing the mangled corpse of Mary Kelly would warrant his dismissal as a witness of any value.

“However it is easier to construct Hutchinson as the culprit from someone who is totally unknown, who has lied about everything and is totally untraceable in the records, then and now (e.g. the Victoria Home records then”

Nobody has ever declared him “untraceable” in the records. “Untraced” is perhaps nearer the mark. It’s no more “easy” to construct a case for his potential culpability if he were completely unidentified than it would be if he were Toppy. My reasons for rejecting the latter have absolutely nothing to do with the question of Hutchinson’s potential guilt. I won’t repeat my reasons for dismissing the controversial Toppy suggestion as very implausible, although I would once again caution against using the payment myth as an indication in favour of it. The only claims made in this regard were advanced in dubious documents to advance dubious theories, and they are not supported by any contemporary source of any value.

“Publicity seeker, mix up, whatever. I am ambivalent as to the explanation. However there is so much against him being the culprit that I would strongly argue against that.”

But with respect, your reasons for dismissing the possibility have been decidedly unconvincing. They are based on a misinterpretation of the sources, and unfamiliarity with other serial cases. This is not meant disparagingly at all, but on the other hand, this thread was constructed for the purposes of analyzing Fisherman’s proposal that Hutchinson mixed up the date, and is perhaps less than ideally suited to generalized gainsaying of my own views regarding Hutchinson’s possible involvement. The latter can be found in most threads in the Hutchinson forum.

“Hutchinson moved into the crowd and riffled a few pockets. Each time he made a successful dip, he went back to St Lawrence Jewry on Gresham Street and hid his cash under a pew. Soon he got too cocky. Someone felt his hand in their pocket, they cried out and Hutchinson was grabbed by a City Policeman and taken to Wood Street nick”

Really?

News to me!

Sally, I look forward to reading your take on this Hutchinson Utoppya. I think I’m going to need something a little stronger than tea here!

Best regards,
Ben