Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"If you think that Hutch is Toppy but may still have been the Ripper, the thought that he couldn't have done better than Annie Chapman is mad !"

How about if Hutch was Toppy but NOT the Ripper? Is there in such a case a tiny, remote possibility that he actually did stay at the Victoria Home in 1888, instead of enjoyng the rich takings of a plumber? No? One HAS heard of such a thing as a fall-out between father and son. And the signatures DO tally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

ps Lechmere ( because I feel quite heated about this)

There are bits I've read on these lodging houses attesting to the rank smell, caused by these men who've sweated all day and never changed their clothes
nor washed.

Men who wanted to lodge in the Victoria were forced to submit to some patronising churchy do-gooders as well..

I just can't combine this image with the man who picked up the actress of a Music Hall, and married her..the son of a plumber, who must surely have had washing facilities at home, and have been used to people being clean !

If you think that Hutch is Toppy but may still have been the Ripper, the thought that he couldn't have done better than Annie Chapman is mad !

[harry]

Letchmere,
Most gave statements just after the finding of the body.Your words.Where is that recorded.Cox,Lewis,Maxwell gave evidence at the inquest on the Monday following Kelly's death.Admitted,they might have contacted police or been contacted before,but Hutchinson also claims to have contacted police before the monday.
As to Hutchinson's state of empoyment,I do not ever remember remarking on it.What's it got to do with him(Hutchinson)standing outside Millers court in the early hours of the mornin?

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -
Although there are many parts of this Ripper story which I think are 'fun' to debate -because we can't know the truth, and it's down to the individual to
argue the best 'scenario' with the most conviction (which is not to say that we debaters aren't convinced of our point of view)...

..still, there are some things which are just undeniable..

Try and put yourself, in your imagination, in the shoes, of a 'casual labourer' living in a Victorian lodging house.
That means leaving the place about 4am in the morning, going to a place where you THINK there maybe work (along with many, many, others) and fighting for sometimes only few hours work, for a tiny sum. There are no unemployment 'benefits' and if you don't work, then you may not eat nor sleep, let alone have money for amusements to relieve the eternal drudgery. This is your day -and it reduces you almost an animal state..foraging for food and a 'safe' place to sleep in relative comfort. Your sexual or emotional needs are just not catered for -you simply can't afford a family, or a home to call your own; only the occasional unappetizing prostitute. Most of the men that you lodge with have become neutered, with atrophied brains (the only thing in order to survive is to adapt to your circumstances and accept them), and their highlight is to afford a few beers or a smoke.

Don't fancy it ?

Well, why an earth would Toppy want to live it, as he simply didn't need to ??

He was only aged 22 at the time that we are speaking of, and he came from a relatively good home (Father in trade, could afford to stay in school, and could afford to follow an expensive apprenticeship). He lived in a family house, in what was only just changing from a leafy suburb. He also had the sort of personality which gave him the drive to become self employed and 'rarely if ever out of work'.

Quite apart from Ben's concrete facts about the plumbing trade, which suffice on their own, if Toppy DID know plumbing
he could surely find plenty of better paid jobs as a plumber (there was a great deal of building work going on in this period,
let alone ongoing repairs). Given that his level of education was probably higher than the desperate masses looking for work in London, he could have probably found work as a clerk or something. I cannot see how he would sink to the plight of casual labourer/common lodging house inmate.

'Groom' is a real job description (and one that Toppy would hardly give as his occupation, if he was a plumber). A groom
would typically start work when Toppy was still in school. I do not believe that there were plenty of groom's jobs going in London -hence Hutchinson was obliged to turn to casual labouring and living in a lodging house just to keep body and soul together.

Unlike Ben, I think that Toppy probably did have links to the East End, and he probably did do other jobs -but I cannot see that the lives of these two men have anything in common ( what's more, despite a fairly common first and surname, the witness does not use W or W. T. or Topping in his signature). Despite the fact that I enjoy making up believable little scenarios, I found it totally impossible to invent a plausible scenario showing that the two men might be the same.

I asked myself the question as to whether I just wanted to win my argument and 'force' Toppy into the Hutch role, or whether
I wanted to face up to it and admit that it is virtually impossible that they could be one and the same. I decided that it is of no personal importance to my life one way or the other -so I faced up ! You might want to ask yourself the same question..

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The fact remains that Reg attributed those statements regarding Churchill and the royals directly to his father."

No troubles there - of course he did.

"Either Toppy really said these things or he didn’t."

Same answer, but in this case we must realize that the EXACT wording Toppy used is not possible to establish. He could have said it had more to do with the royals than with ordinary people, he could have said it was more credible to be the royals than ordinary people, he could have said it would have been the royals since what happened did not happen to ordinary people - or any other of thousands of things that went along the same approximate lines.

"A specific implication that the murders involved the royal family was what Toppy provided"

Therefore no - the only thing we can be sure of (even if we are rigid enough to only accept the exact wording Reg used) is that it had MORE to do with the royals than with ordinary people. And an exoneration because of personal importance has more to do with the royals than with ordinary people, since such things do not happen at all to ordinary people. I realize that you want to nail things in a manner that makes Hutchinson look like an idiot and that ensures that we regard astrakhan man as nothing but a mythical figure, but the truth of the matter is that the material urges us to be much more broadminded than so.

"What, are we still on noises and decibels and distances?

Not anymore, no, since Lechmere has provided a very useful contribution on the subject. It went along the "screamingly obvious" line, but it seem that it was not YOUR screamingly obvious line, but instead the, well, screamingly obvious line.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

They were clearly particularly desperate

[Ben]

It isn't very likely he was in the Victoria Home all that time.

Why not?

It is the only place we have on record for him during his stay in Whitechapel. The null hypothesis is that he was there for the duration.

Fleming was probably living in the Victoria Home in late 1888.

This is the only reasonable stance to adopt on the basis of the evidence.

The Nichols-Chapman experience is that of desperate prostitutes

As opposed to non-desperate, willing courtesans?

Come on....

Almost all prostitutes were "desperate", and Nichols and Chapman were certainly no exceptions.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
Flemming was in the Victoria Home in November 1889 and said he had been in Whitechapel for the 14 month prior to that.
It isn't very likely he was in the Victoria Home all that time.
In any case, I believe I am right in saying that in order to qualify for relief a potential patient had to show that they had been in the district for a certain period. Accordingly the fact that he said he attested that he had been in Whitechapel for 14 months may not be entirely true.

The sources did not tell me anything of the sort Mr Ben. I will explain annon.

The Nichols-Chapman experience is that of desperate prostitutes - who spent hours looking for a customer.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

The point about Chapman and Nichols was that they were unlikely to have been exceptions. They earned their money, they spent it all on drink, and were thus compelled to go out in search of customers in the small hours in order to secure lodgings for the night. Quite a common occurrence for a person in that type of predicament in that sort of environment, I would suspect.

“I think it is very doubtful he knew Flemming and very doubtful that Flemming was in the Victoria Home at the time.”

No, you have no reason whatsoever to doubt that Fleming was in the Victoria Home at the time of the murders. He was documented in the infirmary records as having been resident in Whitechapel since late 1888 and his residence is listed as the Victoria Home.

“My knowledge of the general social and economic conditions in Britain in the 19th century, the degree of regulation and mobility of labour informed me that changing trades and locations would be a small matter.”

Well sorry, but the actual sources should have informed you otherwise. And similarly:

“The known and conjectural Toppy movements and connections, and a perusal of the various records relating to plumming trade confirmed my expectations.”

Whereas they should have had the opposite effect.

Meanwhile, back on topic...

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
You seem to have missed the point about Nichols. She told Emily Holland that she had earned and spent her doss money three times over in the pub. Therefore she earned her money in the earlier part of the evening, in the hours which would have been a prostitute’s prime earning time.
In the small hours of the morning, when pickings were meagre, she took an hour to find a customer and he killed her.
That makes my point well enough. But just in case what about Annie Chapman?
She left Crossingham’s at 1.35 am saying but she couldn’t find a customer for several hours and again the one she did find killed her.

It was suggested that Flemming was living in the Victoria Home at the time of Kelly’s death and therefore Hutchinson would probably have known him and so know Kelly, or alternatively he will have heard the details of Lewis’s testimony via Flemming.
I think it is very doubtful he knew Flemming and very doubtful that Flemming was in the Victoria Home at the time.

My knowledge of the general social and economic conditions in Britain in the 19th century, the degree of regulation and mobility of labour informed me that changing trades and locations would be a small matter.
The known and conjectural Toppy movements and connections, and a perusal of the various records relating to plumming trade confirmed my expectations.

[Ben]

“I am certain you are wrong about the best time in the day for a prostitute to earn a good living in the East End of 1888 (Polly Nichols had her did money three times over early in the evening yet took an hour to find the Ripper almost certainly her last client)”

Exactly, Lechmere, and you can’t seriously be suggesting that Polly Nichols was somehow unique in this regard? I suspect it was a frequent phenomenon; the prostitute headed out, procured a client, earned her money, drank it away, and headed out in search of a client again. Then the pattern was repeated. As such, I don’t think I’m remotely off in my estimation as to “the best time in the day for a prostitute to earn a good living in the East End of 1888”.

I’m still not wrong about the Victoria Home entry guidelines, and I still never described the actual streets as “crowded” in the small hours. I said the number of people legitimately on the streets in the small hours would have been two great for anyone to home in on any particular individual to the extent of recording their movements for every murder. The ripper was clearly one such person and he was never caught.

“I was being gallant and am reluctant to accuse Reg of being an outright liar of the worst order”

This is gallantry most admirably applied since it cannot be ruled out that Toppy, rather than his son, was responsible for the fabrications.

“he was aged 22 at the time of the murders and he lived in London and his later life at least was spent in the East End.”

Yes, born in Norwood, 1881 still living with family, 1891 in the West End – no evidence of having lived in the East End until he met his East End wife in 1895.

“Hutchinson’s claim to have walked about all night as he was late (rather than because he had no money) was in exact accord with what we know were the published rules of the Victoria Home.”

No, most emphatically not. His claim is not in “exact accord” or any other type of "accord" with the published rules of the Victoria Home.

“We have no idea whether he was a fully fledged plumber in 1891, rather than someone who picked up the trade maybe by on-the job learning.”

Why didn’t you visit that thread I recommended?

All this was discussed there in extensive detail.

The restrictions and limitations governing entry into the plumbing trade had been tightened in advance of 1891 and would have been in place at that time, drastically reducing Toppy’s chances of cutting corners as a means of entry into the profession. Reginald, who you believe in your gallantry, observed that his father worked as a plumber (I believe with his father) and was “rarely, if ever, out of work”. It seems likely therefore that Toppy followed his father into the profession at the earliest opportunity. If had learned it in his teens (i.e. during an apprenticeship) that would have made him “a plumber by trade now working as a labourer”, not “a groom by trade now working as a labourer”.

“As I said and as you actually demonstrated, the whole Flemming business is ‘filling-in-the-blanks’”

No, it isn’t.

When did Fleming crop up here anyway? And Toppy for that matter?

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“This is what REG says that Toppy told him, filtered through Faircloughs authorship.”

I might accept that some aspects of the Reg interview showed signs of undue influence from Fairclough’s authorship, Fisherman. It is clear, for example, that he came to accept the “Abberline diaries” as genuine purely because Fairclough explained to him that they were. In other respects, however, it is very clear that Reg was prepared to provide a few tall tales of his own. The fact remains that Reg attributed those statements regarding Churchill and the royals directly to his father. Either Toppy really said these things or he didn’t. If he didn’t, it is clear that Reg made them up in order to attract the interest of Fairclough, in which case, it is more than reasonable to infer the same about the entire Toppy association with anything ripper-related. I’m afraid there can be no other realistic explanations for the quotes Reg attributed directly to his father.

A specific implication that the murders involved the royal family was what Toppy provided, according to Reg, and this is not something sane people do if they merely wish to convey the impression that the man observed was ostensibly of a higher social class. Regardless, it still makes a complete nonsense of the real description provided by Hutchinson of an ostentatious Jewish looking man who “lived in the neighbourhood” in which the murders were committed, i.e. nothing “like” Lord Randolph Churchill or any member of the royal family.

I’m afraid this is a simple case of throwing out the bathwater with the…well, bathwater.

“But never mind - you will never be able to prove that one anyway, will you?”

What, are we still on noises and decibels and distances?

No, I don’t think I will ever prove it, but I think good old-fashioned screamingly obvious common sense will suffice.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Eureka !

Hutch felt safe loitering in Dorset street, because while (according to reports on conditions in Dorset street) there would normally be knots of people gathered talking after the pubs closed, and homeless people sleeping along the pavement (as the Police didn't patrol there) -on the night of Kelly's
murder Dorset Street was relatively deserted, BECAUSE OF THE RAIN.

[Monty]

Ben,

Prostitution never has been illegal.

Initially the women were charged with loitering. So to combat that them perambulated up and down certain areas.

So the law was change to state that soliciting was illegal.

A small point, and doesn't alter your point at all.

Monty

[Lechmere]

Harry - but most gave statements more or less immediately after the body was found.

I'll throw this one in.
It is repeatedly stated that Hutchinson was out of work when these events unfolded. I believe this is based on Abberline's report that was sent to Scotland Yard aftre Hutchinson's interrogation.
This is how Abberline phrased it:
“Hutchinson is at present in no regular employment”
That does not mean he was unemployed. It suggests he was working casually - in other words taking a day's work here and a day's work there. Doing that is harder than having regular work. He may in fact have worked every day.
Apart from the day he went to Romford perhaps, as he claims to have no money at the end of that day and he also claims not to have been drinking.