For me only 2 suspects stand out...

[Ben]

That wasn't what you said, though, Jon.

You said that Hutchinson only moved into the Victoria Home on 12th, but according to what evidence I'd be fascinated to know. The reality, however, is that if Hutchinson was living somewhere other than the Victoria Home at the time of his alleged sighting, it would irrefutably have been recorded in the statement. The fact that this establishment was the only one mentioned tells us that it was the only one he lodged at over the relevant period.

Moreover, contrary to your above statement, the Victoria Home was only open during the night for residents who had pre-purchased a daily or weekly pass, otherwise the cut-off point was 1.00am.

[Wickerman]

That wasn't what you said, though, Jon.

You said that Hutchinson only moved into the Victoria Home on 12th,

Actually:
"But he wasn't living at the Victoria Home, not until the 12th."
Due to the fact we can only place him at that location on that date.
Was he resident there on the 11th, 10th, 9th? - who knows?, we don't.
Its speculation to place him there before the 12th.

The reality, however, is that if Hutchinson was living somewhere other than the Victoria Home at the time of his alleged sighting, it would irrefutably have been recorded in the statement.

Not even that, the witness provides his/her present address to the court, assuming that is what you are using as your guide.

While being interviewed at the Victoria Home on the 13th he did not say "this place was closed", he said "my usual place was closed".
From that we can quite reasonably infer "my usual place", was not "this place", as "this place" was the Victoria Home, where he was being interviewed.
Good enough.

Moreover, contrary to your above statement, the Victoria Home was only open during the night for residents who had pre-purchased a daily or weekly pass, otherwise the cut-off point was 1.00am.

Right, so overnight entry was by pass, there was someone at the door checking those who came in, so it wasn't closed.

[Ben]

Due to the fact we can only place him at that location on that date.
Was he resident there on the 11th, 10th, 9th? - who knows?, we don't.
Its speculation to place him there before the 12th.

No, it isn't.

It's a fact, as can be gleaned from the fact that no other lodging house was alluded to in the statement over the relevant period. At the very least, there is absolutely no disputing that the place where he "usually" slept, which he claimed was closed on the morning of the 9th, referred to the Victoria Home.

Not even that, the witness provides his/her present address to the court, assuming that is what you are using as your guide.

Yes, but if that present address referred to a different place of residence to the one the witness stayed at, or planned to stay at, on the night of the alleged "sighting", it was incumbent on the police to extract that piece of information, especially in this particular case, where it was directly relevant to the reported sequence of events.

While being interviewed at the Victoria Home on the 13th he did not say "this place was closed", he said "my usual place was closed".

You've advanced this argument before and I responded in detail; why bring it up again as though it was never addressed? There is absolutely no evidence that he was "interviewed at the Victoria Home". For all you know, it could have occurred at the Princess Alice pub across the road, in which case "the place where I usually sleep" makes perfect sense.

Right, so overnight entry was by pass, so it wasn't closed.

But if Hutchinson was not in possession of a pass, or at least claimed not to be, then the home would most certainly have been closed to him.

Regards,
Ben

[c.d.]

Thanks cd. I do Beleive that is the first time you have agreed with anything I have said.

Go skins!

Hello Abby,

Yes, you and I agreeing is not quite up there with unicorn sightings but it is rare. It's only when I agree with Michael Richards that I look around to see if Rod Serling is standing behind me and the Twilight Zone theme song is playing.

And although I live in Washington, D.C. I am a Steelers fan having grown up in Pittsburgh. The Steelers won last night in a game for the ages.

c.d.

[Wickerman]

No, it isn't.

It's a fact, as can be gleaned from the fact that no other lodging house was alluded to in the statement over the relevant period.

The 'fact' that no other address was mentioned does not constitute a 'fact' that he lived at the Vic., two separate issues. As he was not asked to provide the address that was closed, he had no cause to mention it.

At the very least, there is absolutely no disputing that the place where he "usually" slept, which he claimed was closed on the morning of the 9th, referred to the Victoria Home.

Absolutely it is disputed, we only need a reasonable grasp of English to see the disparity in that statement. It is pure speculation to interpret "my usual place" as meaning "this place" where I am now.

Yes, but if that present address referred to a different place of residence to the one the witness stayed at, or planned to stay at, on the night of the alleged "sighting", it was incumbent on the police to extract that piece of information, especially in this particular case, where it was directly relevant to the reported sequence of events.

It isn't incumbent on the police to enter that address into the witness statement, not unless it had a significant bearing on his testimony.
For example, if it had been open, the police would be able to interview the lodging-house keeper, or doorman, to verify the time Hutchinson said he came home. As it was closed, this was not possible, so was not a critical detail.

You've advanced this argument before and I responded in detail; why bring it up again as though it was never addressed? There is absolutely no evidence that he was "interviewed at the Victoria Home".

Thankyou for that attempted deflection.
So now lets address the fact that Hutchinson, in that same press interview also said, " I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police-station,.."

The interview was on the 13th, so yesterday was the 12th, and yet on the 12th you agree yourself that he was resident at the Victoria Home.
So on the 12th, at the Victoria Home, he told another lodger who suggested he go to the police, which he did, and gave the Victoria Home as his address.

So the press interview was conducted "here" at the Victoria Home on the 13th.
Care to try another deflection?

But if Hutchinson was not in possession of a pass, or at least claimed not to be, then the home would most certainly have been closed to him.

An argument consisting of assumptions, on top of assumptions.
A closed establishment is closed to everyone, if he was turned away, it was still open.

[Ben]

The 'fact' that no other address was mentioned does not constitute a 'fact' that he lived at the Vic., two separate issues.

In this case it most certainly does, unless you're prepared to accept that the police were so breathtakingly incompetent that they failed to ask about it, despite it playing an important role in his alleged version of events.

Absolutely it is disputed, we only need a reasonable grasp of English to see the disparity in that statement.

No offense, but I'm afraid I don't include your objections as valid grounds for dispute. There is no "disparity in that statement" at all, and you'll notice that it is - as per usual - only you who has ever insisted that the press interview must have taken place inside the Victoria Home. If it occurred at a neutral location, such as a nearby pub, it would make perfect sense for Hutchinson to describe the Victoria Home as the place where he "usually" slept.

It is pure speculation to interpret "my usual place" as meaning "this place" where I am now.

Yes, but as I'm sure you have figured out by now, that is not remotely what I have "speculated". Not that you've done a very good job of explaining why they cannot have referred to the same location. You speak of a "reasonable grasp" of English, and yet you seem to ignore the likelihood that Hutchinson himself had a rather poor one. Analysing Hutchinson’s precise phraseology is a fruitless exercise considering that he had little formal education. He may not have been arsed to say “the place where I usually sleep; that is to say here, sir, in order that we might satisfactorily clarify matters”, and the Central News interviewer evidently understood this, otherwise he’d have asked Hutchinson about this “other” place where he slept (or was he another incompetent half-wit?).

It isn't incumbent on the police to enter that address into the witness statement, not unless it had a significant bearing on his testimony.

Either you believe the wacky, wacky stuff you're posting - or rather repeating, needlessly - or you've successfully alighted upon the best way to annoy me. One of the two. Not a "significant bearing" on his testimony? How about the whole reason for him being on the dark and dangerous streets, as opposed to tucked up in bed, in the first place? All other witnesses of note had their addresses recorded for the night on which their sightings occurred, i.e. on the murder nights, and it is quite ludicrous to expect Hutchinson to have been any different.

For example, if it had been open, the police would be able to interview the lodging-house keeper, or doorman, to verify the time Hutchinson said he came home. As it was closed, this was not possible, so was not a critical detail.

Wrong again. There would have been a night deputy stationed at the door to inspect tickets, making it more than possible to "verify the time Hutchinson said he came home", not that he appears to have specified when he returned from his alleged "all night" perambulations.

So on the 12th, at the Victoria Home, he told another lodger who suggested he go to the police

Why do you assume that the conversation between the two lodgers must have occurred at the Victoria Home? Where's the evidence for that? Why couldn't he have spoken to a fellow Victoria Home lodger at the pub? You irritatingly mischaracterize as a "deflection" on my part that which, in reality, is just a weird, rigid interpretation on yours.

A closed establishment is closed to everyone, if he was turned away, it was still open.

I suspect you're simply feigning obtuseness here. It was completely irrelevant if the home was open to other people; it was closed to him, and that was the only pertinent detail. To describe the home as "closed" was therefore irrefutably correct as far as his situation was concerned.

By the way, you clearly misunderstood our arrangement. My promise not to embroil myself in any further Hutchinson debates that might occur between you and other people was dependent on you desisting from the annoying repetition of previously challenged dogma. In light of your failure to honour that, I'm afraid I will hereafter be "jumping in with both feet" whenever I find occasion to disagree with your Hutchinson-related observations, regardless of to whom they are directed. I guess that'll mean lots and lots of lovely Hutchinson debates for us this year.

[Fisherman]

...you'll notice that it is - as per usual - only you who has ever insisted that the press interview must have taken place inside the Victoria Home.

Once again, I am not entering this debate on a permanent basis - but I feel it is pertinent that I point out that I actually very much agreed with Jon when he initially brought up this subject. I too say that the interview was conducted at the Victoria Home, and I agree that this means that the V H was NOT Hutchinsons usual haunt. This is on record; if you search the old threads, you will find it.

As such, I actually think that many others may agree with this too - but they are presumably and understandably reluctant to enter the debate for other reasons. I hope you don´t find it too frustrating that I am joining that silent brigade as of now - and if you do, I trust you are able to get over it.

Now I´ll leave you two gentlemen to it!

[Wickerman]

Surprise to see you Christer, hope you are well - yes sometimes Ben needs a reminder from the silent majority.

No offense, but I'm afraid I don't include your objections as valid grounds for dispute. There is no "disparity in that statement" at all, and you'll notice that it is - as per usual - only you who has ever insisted that the press interview must have taken place inside the Victoria Home.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel (no offense Christer), perhaps these quotes will jog your memory:

The first person to assert to me that Hutch was interviewed at the Vic. was one of your confederates,...but here is another quote to a different poster:

"Hutchinson was certainly interviewed at the Victoria Home on Tuesday, 13 November (the day after his police interrogation)"

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=112186&postcount=30

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.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=160523&postcount=452

And, just take a wild guess who offered the next gem:

"Hutchinson told the press – and only the press - that he spoke to a fellow lodger about it on Monday, who “advised him to go the police station”, which he did JUST after the inquest, “coincidentally” enough.
“I told one of the lodgers here about it on Monday”
“Here” referred to the Victoria Home, where all his “fellow lodgers” would have been male...."

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=294618&postcount=1271

Take a look in the mirror.

All other witnesses of note had their addresses recorded for the night on which their sightings occurred, i.e. on the murder nights,

Show me.
I'd be interested to know which witnesses changed their address between the day of a murder, and the day they gave a statement to police.
I trust you can come up with something.

Wrong again. There would have been a night deputy stationed at the door to inspect tickets,...

You're not making sense, when a lodging-house is closed, there is no-one on the door.

Why do you assume that the conversation between the two lodgers must have occurred at the Victoria Home? Where's the evidence for that?

The argument has long been a staple for you and your confederates, examples of which you have already read. You can always detract and admit that as a group you must have been mistaken, that's only part of the learning curve.

Why do you assume that the conversation between the two lodgers must have occurred at the Victoria Home?

That's for you to decide, why don't you chew it over with your buddies and come up with an argument you can all agree on.

I suspect you're simply feigning obtuseness here. It was completely irrelevant if the home was open to other people; it was closed to him, and that was the only pertinent detail. To describe the home as "closed" was therefore irrefutably correct as far as his situation was concerned.

It is irrefutably beyond dispute that if his lodging-house had been open, but restricted, Hutchinson would have made that clear, "I had to walk around all night because I could not gain entrance".
Simple.
(borrowing a preferred phrase of your's )

By the way, you clearly misunderstood our arrangement. My promise not to embroil myself in any further Hutchinson debates that might occur between you and other people was dependent on you desisting from the annoying repetition of previously challenged dogma.

Where do you see that arrangement?

I believe, what I wrote was:
"If you recall, this brief exchange came about because you injected yourself into a debate between myself and Abby, only for you to now complain and call it quits.

So do I take it that this means you are going to refrain from jumping in with both feet on future exchanges not directly involving you?
I don't mind your company, not at all, but don't fain to complain when it was you who invited yourself."

Where does anyone mention, "repetition of previously challenged dogma"?

I guess that'll mean lots and lots of lovely Hutchinson debates for us this year.

I wouldn't have it any other way.... just don't complain when it all starts going down hill for you.

[harry]

I do not post often either.Not now,since becoming convinced there is no better suspect than Hutchinson.
Now as Hutchinson must have left from some building that Thursday morning,(unless he was sleeping rough)it seems reasonable that on return,he would go back there,The Victoria home that is,where he states to the police he was resident.
Resident,as I understand it,means on a permanent or semi permanent basis.Naturally it would also mean his usual place of residence.So when alluding to his usual place of residence,He means the Victoria Home.
Seems simple enough,as Ben indicates.

[Ben]

Sensible points as always, Harry, and it's great to see you back here.

Hope all's well in Aus.

[Ben]

“Surprise to see you Christer, hope you are well - yes sometimes Ben needs a reminder from the silent majority.”

Ah yes, I forgot all about the “silent majority” – that magical, mystical group who all secretly agree with Jon, egging him on from the wings, but are just too afraid (?) to come out and say so. It must have been a real blow for “the silent majority” when their anticipated Hutch-saviour, Isaacstrakhan, turned out to be an impossibility.

“This is like shooting fish in a barrel”

And virtually identical to talking bollocks on a serial killer message board, apparently.

I can’t seem to do right by you these days. I am initially criticised for being inflexible over a particular issue (to the extent that my “suggestion” becomes “cast in stone”, apparently), and yet when it comes to an aspect of the case that I have found cause to reassess, that capacity for reconsideration is construed by Jon and his alleged “silent majority” as a golden opportunity for ridicule. In ordinary circumstances, of course, the expectation is that an open-minded individual will always reconsider a previously entrenched view whenever evidence to the contrary is provided. All credit to you, for instance, for finally abandoning your pitifully daft Isaacs=Astrakhan theory when final proof destroyed the idea (and after overwhelming evidence and common sense had, inexplicably, failed to do the trick beforehand).

I was once of the assumption – and it was merely an assumption, not the fact that you insist it was – that the press interview had been conducted at the Victoria Home, and yet, ironically, it was you and your wacky tale of two doss houses that prompted me to reassess. I thank you for that, and expect that thanks to be reciprocated, considering that it worked in reverse: were it not for my fierce resistance to the ludicrous Isaacstrakhan construct, you would never have been motivated into conducting the research that led, ultimately, to the demolition of that flawed theory.

I ask again: why couldn’t the conversion between Hutchinson and his “fellow” lodger have occurred in a location other than the home itself?

“I'd be interested to know which witnesses changed their address between the day of a murder, and the day they gave a statement to police.
I trust you can come up with something.”

No, Jon, I can’t, but the really funny thing is nor can you. I too would be interested to know of any evidence to suggest that a particular witness changed his or her address between the time of their alleged sighting and the submission of their evidence to the police.

“You're not making sense, when a lodging-house is closed, there is no-one on the door.”

(Sigh) Yes, there is.

Go away and read the protracted discussions on the issue, many of which can be found in the Hutchinson forum, which was positively thriving with debate long before you decided to make Hutchinsonia your obsession. A doorman was required to be in situ all through the night to inspect tickets, and any patron who had paid in advance for a daily or weekly pass would have been permitted to enter the home at any hour of the night.

“It is irrefutably beyond dispute that if his lodging-house had been open, but restricted, Hutchinson would have made that clear, "I had to walk around all night because I could not gain entrance"…”

This is utter bunkum, Jon, and I suspect you know it. If Hutchinson had no pass or bed ticket, the home was closed to him; therefore, the salient observation as far as Hutchinson’s predicament was concerned was that the home was closed. It is positively wince-inducing to see you deny – or pretend to deny – such an obvious common sense reality.

“I wouldn't have it any other way.... just don't complain when it all starts going down hill for you”

Yes, you’re scaring me out of my wits with your debating prowess here, Jon. You just need to gird your loins, persist in this fight, and who knows? I might even fold at this rate.

[MysterySinger]

Harry mentions Hutch possibly sleeping rough. There may be some indication that he was at times a vagrant* and I am genuinely interested in the arguments, for and against, as to his residence at the Victoria Home that have been aired here.

*Oct 30th 1885 in the Saint George´s Workhouse, Mint Street Register of Vagrants, 1885-1886 records George Hutchinson aged 30 as a Groom who spent the previous night "walking about". He was put to work breaking stone and upon discharge was going to Edgeware.

Now a vagrant probably wouldn't square with the gentleman of military appearance (I think is how he was described or similar) but that could have been due to clothes he happened to obtain or had been given. Doesn't prove anything, of course, but he does sound like someone who was not unused to being out all night - if indeed he is the same man.

[Ben]

Thanks for the info, MysterySinger.

Hutchinson was described in the press as being "apparently of the labouring class, but with a military appearance", which to me suggests that whatever aspect of his appearance hinted at the military did not offset all other physical indications that he was essentially a member of the working class poor.

[harry]

Thanks Ben.
Yes everything is fine here in Australia.Mind you,being as I am only a resident of this country,after reading what Wickerman and Fisherman say I'm beginning to have doubts(after 50 years) of what is my status.Is this my place of residence,is my memory playing tricks and I have got mixed up to where I have been,and when?.Knew I shouldn't have joined in,wont sleep tonight,but why worry,the missing Aberline report will set things right.
regards.

[Diddles]

Hi all,

Where can I read the Ripperology article about Hutch going Down Under?