Favoured Suspects

[curious4]

Very unlikely, C4.

I can't imagine the police would have spent money and resources trying to confirm one minor aspect of his story. Let's assume they sent the following telegram:

"Send officer Joe Bloggs & Sons High St Romford STOP check if Geo Hutchinson sought work there Thurs 8th inst STOP"

Lets further assume they miraculously received confirmation from Romford in time for Abberline to write his report on Hutchinson. What exactly would this achieved in terms of verifying his actual story, which centred around events not in Romford but in Spitalfields in the early morning of the 9th? Absolutely nothing.

If "casual work was available at the markets" from 4.00am onwards, it would tend to make a nonsense of his decision to visit Romford (where there were also markets) at all, let alone return from it in the small hours. He told the press that he "walked about all night" after abandoning his Dorset Street vigil; he didn't say anything about looking for work at the markets.

But you're right, it's getting rather Hutch-heavy over here, so I agree it's probably best to draw a veil over this topic for now.

All the best,
Ben

Telegrams at the time were freely used for speedy communication. As emails are used today. Perhaps if you knew a little more about the period you are writing about, you would be a a little less arrogant.

C4

[Rosella]

They were indeed. I've read a couple of diaries of the period where they were used to confirm directions for a tea party that day and that person's attendance at it, quite unimportant in comparison to investigating murder.

[curious4]

Cheers Rosella!

I have spent the last forty odd years immersing myself in the period between roughly 1850 and 1950 reading books, diaries and letters in four languages from the point of view of what and how people thought and acted at the time. "The past is another country".

C4

[GUT]

And mail delivery was wonderful.

[Ben]

Telegrams at the time were freely used for speedy communication. As emails are used today.

Actually - and if you'll forgive my "arrogance" in pointing this out - morse code wasn't "free" at all; it was very expensive. The 1888 police used ABC telegraphy, but it was much more time-consuming and quite unlike sending an email.

[curious4]

I apologise, didn't realise English was your second language. I said "freely", which doesn't mean free but widely used.

C4

[Ben]

I apologise, didn't realise English was your second language. I said "freely", which doesn't mean free but widely used.

No, it doesn't.

It means without being controlled or limited, and one very good example of a limitation is having to pay high prices for each letter.

Anyway, meanwhile back on topic...

[curious4]

The cost of a telegram in 1880 was a shilling for the first twenty words. One shilling in today's money would be worth about £5 or around 7 dollars. I don't think cost was a big issue when looking for Jack, but as GUT reminded me the postal service was amazing - I believe there were up to six deliveries per day.

C4

[Bridewell]

Hi C4,

Well no, not really.

Being surprised at seeing a well-dressed man in Kelly's company was not a particularly "valid reason" for loitering outside Miller's Court for 45 minutes "to see if they came out"; in fact, it's not a "reason" at all.

No, but an intention to mug said punter on his way out would be a valid reason, albeit not a lawful one. It would also explain both his detailed observation of the man's attire and its (valuable) accoutrements as well as his reluctance/tardiness in coming forward.

The 'local unknown' is my preferred suspect; probably one who trained as a butcher but was no longer working as one and thus slipped through the net when enquiries were made at butchers' premises. Someone of a similar background to Joseph William Haines (one of the Buckle Street butchers on the 1881 census).

[curious4]

Hello Bridewell

Yes, you could be right, but wasn't the Victoria home a more respectable lodging house with strict rules and at least an effort to keep out "undesirables", that is known criminals? Always thought of Hutch as fairly respectable.

Best regards
C4

[robhouse]

Just a quick note. It seems much more likely that the suspect watched by DC Cox was Kozminski, than Levy for example.

Rob House

[Ben]

"I don't think cost was a big issue when looking for Jack"

Granted, but confirming whether or not Hutchinson was in Romford on Thursday 7th wouldn't have taken the hunt for Jack any step closer; nor would it have confirmed any aspect of the events he alleged to have witnessed.

"No, but an intention to mug said punter on his way out would be a valid reason, albeit not a lawful one. It would also explain both his detailed observation of the man's attire and its (valuable) accoutrements as well as his reluctance/tardiness in coming forward."

But it wouldn't explain his superman ability - given the amount of time and light available - to see the accoutrements that he was supposed to have then committed to memory, or the implausibility of a man venturing into that district so accoutred at that time, or the abandonment by the police of the Astrakhan suspect.

All the best,
Ben

[Bridewell]

But it wouldn't explain his superman ability - given the amount of time and light available - to see the accoutrements that he was supposed to have then committed to memory, or the implausibility of a man venturing into that district so accoutred at that time, or the abandonment by the police of the Astrakhan suspect.

All the best,
Ben

It could be argued that, as Abberline was "of (the) opinion his story is true", no superman ability was needed and that a man of such appearance in the area was not that unusual.

Abberline knew the area, and the lighting conditions there in the LVP. We don't; we can only surmise. He may or may not have changed his mind later, but his documented remarks make it clear that, even if he did, there was nothing in Hutchinson's account to cause any immediate incredulity.

[Bridewell]

Always thought of Hutch as fairly respectable.

Best regards
C4

Hi Curious,

He may have been respectable. He may also have invented Astrakhan, but the assumption (by some) that he did so just because he goes into a lot of detail worries me. It suggests that, had he given a more vague description, his account would be more easily accepted. His account should be treated with some caution - but not, in my view, completely discounted.

[curious4]

Hello Bridewell

Well, I can only plead the hairdresser who gave a perfect description of the Swedish Foreign minister's killer but was not believed because it was too detailed. Such witnesses do exist, but whether Hutch was one is hard to prove or disprove.

Best regards
C4