Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[harry]

On the question of whether Hutchinson got the day/night wrong,I have yet to hear a plasible reason of WHY he should have done so.If it's a cause of memory plays false tricks,then maybe it was Lewis who got it wrong,or Cox seeing Blotchy on another night.Then we have Maxwell and Prater.Each gave their evidence on the Monday.

[lynn cates]

t'other

Hello Debs. Then the Evans/Flem(m)ing chap is still on the list?

Cheers.
LC

[sleekviper]

Plumber in 1891? Well that was the year that Thomas Crapper patented the valve toilet, the basic flushing model of today. Talk about steady work, it would have been a gold mine of steady work if he made the move.

[Debra A]

Hi Lynn,
Although I think Bob found a legitimate alternative candidate, I don't think Joseph Flem(m)ing had the alibi of being in the Bethnal Green workhouse in 88 at the time of the murders like Chris says at the beginning of the link I posted. I think this was Bob's man, who I don't think was MJK's Flem(m)ing...if that makes sense?

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

Hello Ben.

"the mason's plasterer and son of Richard and Henrietta Fleming is almost certainly the mason's plaster Joseph Fleming mentioned by Barnett"

Just for clarity's sake, I wonder if you are familiar with Bob Hinton's alternative identification of Flem(m)ing? I believe he rejects the offspring of Richard and Henrietta and plumps instead for a son of George and Sarah.

Cheers.
LC

There were definitely two Joseph Flem(m)ings about of the same age and both with connections to Bethnal Green. One of them is Bob's man.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=11601&highlight=flemming

[Lechmere]

Well, Mr Ben:
I am certain you are wrong over the mean of late night entry to the Victoria Home;
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);
I am certain that you are wrong to characterise the streets as still crowded between 1 am and 4 am.

I will readily concede that we only have Reg’s word for those core facts. I was being gallant and am reluctant to accuse Reg of being an outright liar of the worst order, which I guess is how you view him. The only caste iron facts are that his father was called George Hutchinson, 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. I would then distill Reg’s ‘claims’ associated with his father to establish his core ‘claims’.

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. They are not in accord with your version of the Victoria Home’s rules.

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. Do you suppose the census enumerator asked to see his certificates? Is everyone who works as a lumber now fully qualified? Of course not!
How do we know that he didn’t learn in his teens, fall out with his dad, moved to the East End, did some itinerant work, trying to be independent, failed and picked it up again later. There are so many potential options, that make ruling out the possibility on the grounds you mention far from sound.
As I said and as you actually demonstrated, the whole Flemming business is ‘filling-in-the-blanks’ (what a wonderful all-purpose expression).
.
Princess? We will have to wait and see

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Well Fisherman thinks that he stayed out on at least the night of Kelly's murder."

Do I? Really? Or have I said that I think he was there on the night BEFORE Kely´s murder?

Which was it, Ruby? Give it some hard and long afterthought, please!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"Although no broadcast has yet been found, I must make it clear that the Radio broadcast which I heard in the early-mid 1970s made mention of a man of 'higher up the ladder', which allegedly came from the lips of the witnesses son"

Radio programme or no radio programme, Richard, that is EXACTLY how I perceive what Hutch reckoned astrakhan man was about. No royalty, no Churchill - just a man of enough importance to have himself discarded.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It was all “relayed by Reg”, Fisherman. But in this case, he claimed to be quoting his father directly, as can be seen in the sentences wrapped in quotation marks below in the relevant extract from The Ripper and the Royals:

Whenever the subject of Jack the Ripper came up, as it often did in the East End in the twenties and thirties, because many people who were there when it happened were still alive, he used to say: "It was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people." And when asked who he thought it was he always said: "It was some one like Lord Randolph Churchill".

It is quite true that Reg offered some rather fanciful speculations of his own, but here he was putting words in his father’s mouth."

Right, Ben. Let´s see what we´ve got! To begin from the end, just like you say, this is Reg putting word´s in his father´s mouth. Which is what I said from the outset. This is what REG says that Toppy told him, filtered through Faircloughs authorship. So whatever we are dealing with, we need to be very wary.
It must also be pointed out that you - and next to everybody else - would seem to be of the meaning that Fairclough seemingly had a decided interest to try and lean things in the direction of a royal connection.
Those who say so - and I am among them - would make a very counterproductive argument if they claim that Reg`s wording would never have been tainted by Faircloughs interests, as you may understand.
And, in the end and at any rate, we STILL don´t have any safe pointing out of either the royal family OR Churchill, even if we make he call that the phrasings in Faircloughs book must be true. "It was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people" means that the affair was something that led the thoughts more to the royals than to ordinary people, just like "It was some one like Lord Randolph Churchill" means that the thoughts in this instance were led more to someone LIKE Churchill than to ordinary people.
And please appreciate that Reg was speaking of a father who had been dead for many a decade!

"You asked me where all the criminals were that I mentioned as having frequented Dorset Street to give it its bad reputation, and I alluded to the presence of Jack the Ripper."

Absolutely, Ben. So you did! But please remember WHY you did it - to bolster that the street was too noisy to allow for Hutch to make out what the couple said. And really, pointing out that Jack MAY have been there inbetween 2.15 and 3 AM (although Hutch did not mention him), is not exactly the same as proving your point on the noise ...!
But never mind - you will never be able to prove that one anyway, will you?

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

which

Hello Ben.

"the mason's plasterer and son of Richard and Henrietta Fleming is almost certainly the mason's plaster Joseph Fleming mentioned by Barnett"

Just for clarity's sake, I wonder if you are familiar with Bob Hinton's alternative identification of Flem(m)ing? I believe he rejects the offspring of Richard and Henrietta and plumps instead for a son of George and Sarah.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

I'm holding out for 'Princess Ruby' !

[Ben]

Why thanks, Mrs. Ruby!

I reckon he's seeking revenge for "Fetchbeer".

[Rubyretro]

Beautifully put, Mrs Ben !

[Ben]

“How is it even remotely possible to build a case against Hutchinson without being privy to any information regarding his background, including employment history, criminal activity, census information, et.al?”

Don’t tell me you’re another one who gets this the wrong way round, Mike.

Fitting up any old known ruffian with history of violence and an obvious external menace isn’t a particularly laudable investigative strategy because all too often, the real offender turns out to be someone who is altogether more adept at blending into society and adopting an outwardly “normal” persona, and yet unlike the known dodgy geezers, these superficial “average Joe” types often end up giving the game away with a piece of direct evidence linking them to the crime. Investigative priority must therefore be focussed upon those with a physical connection to the crime or crime scene, and it is from these investigations that a history of violence, psychopathology or whatever may then be discovered, or not. Not much use expecting the grisly past of the killer to turn up on a plate. All we can say is that Hutchinson is an individual whose behaviour would warrant close investigation if not outright suspicion by a modern police force, but unfortunately, the police in 1888 were unlikely to have been in a position to convert those suspicions into a tangible result with regard to guilt or otherwise of the crimes.

“In fact, anyone who argues against them is the real fool”

Ah, but we both know that isn’t going to deter them, Mike!