Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

“I have pointed out what may be regarded as the ‘stripped down’ unornamented facts in the Toppy account. Namely that this person who just happened to be called George Hutchinson claimed in later life that he knew a victim and was involved in the investigation for which he received some money.”

This is not a fact though, is it, Lechmere?

Reg merely claimed that his father knew one of the victims and was interviewed by the police, and provided no evidence for that claim. Reg's interview appeared in a royal conspiracy book that was later discredited by its own author. So if you really want to access the “unornamented facts” relating to Toppy, I’m afraid you’ll have to do a bit more “stripping down” than that.

If Hutchinson was the murderer and operated from the Victoria Home, he would not have drawn attention to himself, not remotely. If lodgers paid in advance for a daily or weekly pass, all they had to do was flash their generic metal cheque at the doorman and gain access to the dormitories and cubicles on the upper floors. All would have happened in relative darkness, as Garry has pointed out. This would have happened throughout the day and night as the Victoria Home catered for 500 lodgers with varying work patterns. His occupation at the time of the murders would not have affected his eligibility for a pass in the slightest. He would not have been required to explain why he was purchasing a ticket in advance rather than “on the door” as Jack London had done, nor would he have been quizzed about his employment history when he purchased one. In fact, it’s unlikely in the extreme that any lodger in pursuit of a pass would even specify when he was coming home. These passes were most emphatically not job-specific.

Prostitution, then as now, is illegal, and you ought to bear this in mind when you suggest that 1.00am-4.00am were the “quiet hours for prostitutes”. This is obviously nonsense. If the prostitutes were aware of the consequences of being caught on the streets, it stands to reason that they’d be more active when there were considerably fewer people up and about, although the streets would not have been “pretty deserted” as per your description. This was still the crowded East End of Victorian London after all. The chances of the killer not being seen in that environment are really very slim for this reason. It would be surprising in the extreme if, for example, the man Lawende described was anyone other than the ripper.

Hutchinson’s claim to have “walked about all night” because the Victoria Home was closed is frankly at odds with his earlier claim to have had no money. If he had no money, the closure or otherwise of the home is irrelevant, and he should have said that he walked about all night because he had no money to get in anywhere. Even if the Victoria Home did not close its doors to non-pass-holders at 12:30am or 1.00am, he still couldn’t gain entry with no money or pass. If he had paid for a weekly ticket, he would certainly have been permitted entry to the home, as it constituted proof or purchase and would thus have been considered a pass, even a "special" one.

“Why couldn’t Toppy have switched professions and become a plumber?”

Please visit the appropriate thread, entitled “Topping Hutchinson: looking at his son’s account”. I know you’ve been there already, and this is where that Islington reference may be found, which you brought up a few hundred posts ago. Very briefly, apprenticeships generally ended, not commenced, when the apprentice was in his early 20s, and they lasted considerably longer than a mere two years (we know he was a plumber living in the West End in 1891). In addition, it must be considered very unlikely that the young Toppy would have spurned the opportunity to follow his father directly into the trade and get ahead of his peers. It simply doesn’t bear scrutiny that a labouring former groom in 1888 could upgrade to a fully-fledged plumber by 1891. But as I said, this was all discussed on the other thread.

I would suggest that there is no clear knowledge of which Flemming identified in official records corresponds with the one mentioned by Barnett.

Yes, there is - the mason's plasterer and son of Richard and Henrietta Fleming is almost certainly the mason's plaster Joseph Fleming mentioned by Barnett, and he is almost certainly the Joe referred to by Julia Venturney.

"Hutchinson as culprit involves large scale 'filling in the blanks'."

No, it doesn't. It involves the consideration of a very reasonable and realistic opportunity. Do try to cultivate your own terminology. "Fill-in-the-blanks" is the expression I've applied to your reasoning in the past, and with considerably greater justification.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Why couldn’t Toppy have switched professions and become a plumber? He switched from being a groom to a labourer. I’ve done quite a few totally different jobs. Young fellows often do.

No time to answer all this now Milord,

I know this argument well ! I have argued it myself enough times for the pro-Toppyites. Believe me, it is impossible to find any convincing scenarios, given the facts which we know about the two men (I hope that Garry wroe will explain to you what becoming a plumber would entail).

I had to give up the argument -it really was banging a square peg into a blatently round hole.

[Lechmere]

Mrs Retro, thank you for my elevation.
There are of course lies and lies. Over –embellishing is technically lying but on the basis of fact.
It is one thing to accuse someone of over-embellishing. This is a very human trait to make one’s role in something more significant and important for example, or to make a story more entertaining in the re-telling. Alternatively other facts acquired over time can cloud ones memory.

Saying all lies are lies and therefore anything that anyone says who has ever lied cannot be believed is rather like saying crime is crime and if you steal a packet of Polo Mints it is morally the same as murdering a complete stranger in cold blood with a sharp knife.

I have pointed out what may be regarded as the ‘stripped down’ unornamented facts in the Toppy account. Namely that this person who just happened to be called George Hutchinson claimed in later life that he knew a victim and was involved in the investigation for which he received some money.

I have always said that if an inmate at the Victoria Home had a special pass then they would be able to access the building during the curfew hours. I suspect they wouldn’t be allowed to go in, come out, go in and come out again, as if there was a revolving door.

My guess is that sometimes the Ripper will not have found a prostitute at a suitably quiet place or that he had been seen to clearly nearby and so would not have gone through with it. I am far from convinced that there were any authentic sightings of Jack the Ripper.

I would also suggest that the hours between 1 am and 4 am – when the attacks tended to take place – were the quiet hours for prostitutes.
It was after chucking out time for the pubs and before most workers needed to be in work for the morning and before the time when night workers would be on their way home.
Contrary to Mr Ben’s arguments, the streets were pretty deserted during those hours and customers would have been scarce. Obvioulsy some prostitutes were on the streets then – usually it would seem the more desperate ones. Please note that I have not said the streets were absolutely deserted. The number of people about would however be very much diminished compared to at any other time of the day.

A groom in London would not very likely have to sit with a mare that was in-foal. The working horses in London would not be breeders! Hutchinson could have been a groom for a big brewery dray for all you know. He may have been in service, but not lived in-house. The possibilities are endless. We have no idea why he did labouring instead.
It isn’t very profitable to speculate, beyond making the obvious assumption that he will not have needed a special pass to gain entry to the Victoria Home in the small hours as a consequence of being a groom or a labourer.
Going to work early in the morning as a dock labourer would not require a special pass. He would be exiting early, not entering early.

I suspect that Fisherman thinks that Hutchinson aid he stayed out on the night of Kelly’s murder because this is what Hutchinson said he did. He said he had to because the usual place he stayed was closed. This fits the Victoria Home rules incidentally. It doesn’t fit the rules of any other lodging house that I am aware of.
Hutchinson did not say that he stayed out as he had no money as he had spent it all going to Romford. As I have pointed out before, this implies that he had already paid for a weekly ticket at the Victoria Home but had neglected to get a special pass as he got back from Romford an hour later than he anticipated. They are innumerable reasons why he could have got back later than he had anticipated.

Please note that I did not say that Hutchinson would never stay out late ever or at all. I have no idea whether he did or not. I have said that if he did it when the murders took place then he would have drawn attention to himself in the Victoria Home. If he was innocent this wouldn’t have been a problem.

Why couldn’t Toppy have switched professions and become a plumber? He switched from being a groom to a labourer. I’ve done quite a few totally different jobs. Young fellows often do. The attempts at identifying Flemming are complicated by what seem to be job changes.

[Rubyretro]

I found this on Amazon:

About the Author
Melvyn Fairclough is currently working on a novel based on a fin-de-sičcle photograph of a Lancashire brass band. He lives in Surrey.

[Rubyretro]

Lord Lechmere,
Thankyou for your answer.

I have repeatedly said that Hutchinson probably over-embellished his story (i.e. lied) and then if he was Toppy he was economical with the truth and also romanced his story up (i.e. lied) to his son Reg.
Reg then seems to have embellished his story.

(i.e. lied)

Now we are getting somewhere, indeed !
Hutch lied, Toppy lied, and Reg lied. It all comes down to what you think they lied about. I will just remind you here that if I don't think that Hutch lied about being outside Miller's Court at the
time he said, it is at least supported by Mrs Lewis seeing a man doing the exact same thing as Hutch claimed to be doing, at the exact same time. I will also add the fact that the Ripper murders (admitting only the C5 for the moment) stopped after Hutchinson was known to the Police. I have already given you some concrete reasons as to why I don't believe in the Toppy/Hutch story.
I would be interested in knowing on what basis you cherry pick what you think was over-embellished -ie lied- about or not ?

I have no belief in the natural goodness of man.
I am not sure whether or not this will disappoint you!

I really don't care, either way; I was just curious, since one of your arguments against the Ripper living in the Victoria Home, seemed to be this 'moral superiority' thing.
I'm therefore happy that you now state

( it)

has nothing to do with any moral superiority that the inmates may have had (I suspect they didn’t). It is not that their minds were locked against murderous criminality

.

The physical doors of the building were locked preventing a hypothetical ripping inmate from getting back in – unless they had one of those special passes the contemporary records tell us about.

Right, so you now agree that a 'ripping inmate' would either not come in at all, but he could quite easily if he had a 'special pass'

If I had to create a scenario where he was the Ripper and lived at the Victoria Home I would have him go out on other nights.

Great ! So now we have a lying Hutch, with his mind not neccessarily locked against murderous criminality, who might go out on nights other than those of the murders, who would either not come in but might have a 'special pass'.

as I would presume that sometimes he wouldn’t be able to find a suitable target.

He must have been the only bloke who couldn't find a prostitute in Whitechapel !
we cannot know his reasons for only killing on the nights that he did, but I doubt that one was that he couldn't find a prostitute willing to go to a quiet place with him.

However, the only information we have to go on with respect to his employment was that he worked as a groom and as a labourer. These tend to be day jobs. I know Ben was reluctant to accept this but they are.

Ben is quite right to be 'reluctant' !
I have been very interested in the Hutch-the-groom aspect, and read around about the job
specifications of a 'Victorian groom'. Horses were very valuable, and a groom would be expected to sit up all night with a mare in foal or a sick horse. They would work with very little light, what's more;
Labourer is a very wide term, and did not mean neccessarily building work. Hutch was cited somewhere as humping barrels in a pub (which closed about 1am ?), and I would guess that he would have looked for work at the docks - about 2/3 of the
workers were casual waterside labourers, and when an important ship came in thousands of unemployed were 'standing on the stones', fighting for work. Admitting that work began at the crack of dawn, and the men were picked beforehand, at what time do you think that the men got there ? Do you think that thousands would all turn up at the same time (the early bird catches the worm etc)? My guess is that the most motivated would wait all night to be at the front of the queue..wouldn't you?

I would suggest that if he was known to have a day job, regularly getting special passes for late night entry would have attracted attention to himself

.
But if he regularly had a real reason for staying out, then getting passes would not have drawn attention to himself.

Incidentally there were hundreds of thousands of horses in London – I think I have seen an estimate that there may have been half a million or so. Grooms would have been a fairly commonplace occupation.

Of all those horses a good many would have been owned by people like Diemshitz, and looked after by himself and his family. If horses for warehouses or public transport were not being bred, but bought fully grown and then sold on for knackering, I should think that the drivers could rub them down or feed them themselves. Hutch said he was a 'Groom' -not a
Wagonnier or a Carriage Driver.
Given that Groom was likely to be a fixed post, with a regular wage, 'live in' and having a bit more consideration and less physical unpleasantness than 'Casual Labourer' -don't you think that he would have found a job as a Groom if they grew on trees ?

It should have been obvious that I picked the ‘four friends of Hutchinson’ as a random number to illustrate that it would be unlikely that even if Joe Flemming was resident at the Victoria Home at the same time as Hutchinson, that they would have known each other at all well.

True. But you must of heard about Social Networking ? -it existed before Facebook ! If someone like Barnett's brother or Flemming had some inside info on the topic of the day (Mary Kelly's killing and the inquest), then the details must have spread like a bush fire.

I think that here:
“If he only 'stayed out' three times(I'm not counting Annie, in the morning), he could hardly have got the nights mixed up ! This would be such a rare occurrence...”
you are referring to the mixing up of the days? Obviously the mixing up the days theory presupposes that Hutchinson was innocent – so he would not have stayed out on the murder nights.

Well Fisherman thinks that he stayed out on at least the night of Kelly's murder. You think that he had a day job that mean't that he didn't stay out at all. If he nearly never stayed out, it is still less likely that he would have made a mistake as to the exceptional night that he did.

If one of my friends was acting suspiciously and I lived in an area where a serial killer was operating, then I suppose I might suspect them.

Acting suspiciously ? Telling you that they were working late -or out looking for work early two or three times ? You have a strange relationship with your friends ! I have a tendancy to believe what my friends tell me..if I was mistrustful of them, I don't see how I could consider them friends.

I have already pointed out the reasons why the basics of the Toppy story as related by Reg are worthy of consideration.

They are because Reg said so...and you think that there is some 'garbled' truth in it, because some stories do sometimes
contain some garbled truth ? You have ignored my obections totally that Toppy could not have been a groom nor Hutch a plumber. Why do you think that the pro-Toppy brigade go on and on about the signatures ( on which two experts are at odds)? If you put the signatures aside for a minute, then it is impossibe for Hutch and Toppy to have been the same person

[Lechmere]

I am amazed Richard hasn't sat down in Colindale or wherever and just ploughed through all the back copies of the Radio Times by now.

Hutchinson as culprit involves large scale 'filling in the blanks'.
Of course all Ripper suspects do, but if someone is ardent in proposing a suspect they should not use that as a benchmark and should at least be honest that they are filling in the massive blanks.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

I have no doubt that you heard this broadcast. Is Fairclough still alive? I think he must have heard the broadcast too, or have known about Reg through it. Maybe he's the one to talk to.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
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, therefore was not invented by the author of the 'Ripper and the royals', solely for his publication, which was approx 18 years after my broadcast.
Although it is reasonable to suggest that Fairclough may have theorized that to Reg, as it would be apt in the plot.
I will stand resolute in my conviction that Reg gave a taped interview for a Radio broadcast ,around 1973-4, was was featured in that 40 minute programme.
Was it invented by Topping, or son for jolly?
I would suggest absolutely not,... GWTH, knew of a payment, which only the original Hutchinson would have known, or either that, had remembered that a street rumour some 40 years before had suggested that, and added that into his 'script' for a tale down the local , and to his family.
Do you believe that?
As for Reg.
A london costermonger, who apart from the name , knew absolutely nothing about the case, a younger member of the family had to lend him a book , are we suggesting that he invented the whole account without any knowledge?
Do you believe that?
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

You know, that is something that is always regurgitated erroneously, that Reg said it was Churchill. I wouldn't put it past whoever questioned Reg, to have put words into his mouth to help sell books.

Another thing: (Maybe not for this thread, but.. meh) 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? There is just one incident from which people cherrypick what they need for their theory and discard all other things as being the words of a liar, but there is no information on the man. The odd thing; the thing that I cannot come to grips with, is that the best scenario that Hutchinsonians can come up with, is barely a hunch... maybe a Hunchita, and from this Hunchita, they concoct (in their minds) a scientific approach to suspectology, daring us to refute their theory and then dismissing all things that are brought up as rubbish and nonsense. In fact, anyone who argues against them is the real fool as hunches, much like Buddhism and faeries, are a product of faith and/or delusion. A battle cannot be won against such minds. And I will state here that I firmly believe they believe what they are saying, and that makes the situation somewhat sad. I am inclined toward pity after much consideration.

Cheers,

Mike

[Lechmere]

Mrs Ruby
The biblical example was just meant to be illustrative of old stories being verbally passed down. I could have used the Illiad and I wish I had now! (please note Good Michael).

I am not personally particularly religious (not that it is very relevant) and I have not claimed that the residents of the Victoria Home were religious nor that Hutchinson must have been religious because he lived for a period in the Victoria Home.

I have said that the people who established the Victoria Home had a religious motivation. They piously hoped that their influence would rub off on the inmates. No doubt it did with some and didn’t with others. I have no idea of what the effect was on Hutchinson.

In theory there is no reason why a potential Ripper couldn’t be motivated by some sort of religious mania.
I have said several times that I suspect Hutchinson was in it for the money this rather implies that I do not see him as a goody-two-shoes religiously uplifted personage.
I have repeatedly said that Hutchinson probably over-embellished his story (i.e. lied) and then if he was Toppy he was economical with the truth and also romanced his story up (i.e. lied) to his son Reg.
Reg then seems to have embellished his story.
That is what humans do in the real world.

I have no belief in the natural goodness of man.
I am afraid I have to put your misconceptions that I am a devoutly religious person who ascribes a morally religious motivation to all of God’s creatures squarely down to the baleful influence of Ben’s over-exaggeration technique because nothing I have said could have led you to these conclusions!
I am not sure whether or not this will disappoint you!

The reason why I have repeatedly stated that I think the Victoria Home was an unsuitable base for the Ripper has nothing to do with any moral superiority that the inmates may have had (I suspect they didn’t). It is not that their minds were locked against murderous criminality. The physical doors of the building were locked preventing a hypothetical ripping inmate from getting back in – unless they had one of those special passes the contemporary records tell us about.

Why do I think Hutchinson only went out on the murder nights? If I had to create a scenario where he was the Ripper and lived at the Victoria Home I would have him go out on other nights as I would presume that sometimes he wouldn’t be able to find a suitable target.
However, the only information we have to go on with respect to his employment was that he worked as a groom and as a labourer. These tend to be day jobs. I know Ben was reluctant to accept this but they are. I would suggest that if he was known to have a day job, regularly getting special passes for late night entry would have attracted attention to himself.
Stopping out (i.e. not getting a pass) would have been dodgy as he could have easily been lifted and someone may have noticed his absence (i.e. a friend).

Incidentally there were hundreds of thousands of horses in London – I think I have seen an estimate that there may have been half a million or so. Grooms would have been a fairly commonplace occupation.

(This is for Ben as well) It should have been obvious that I picked the ‘four friends of Hutchinson’ as a random number to illustrate that it would be unlikely that even if Joe Flemming was resident at the Victoria Home at the same time as Hutchinson, that they would have known each other at all well.
This is because the odds would be against any one specific person knowing any other one specific person.
I really shouldn’t have to be explaining this.

I think that here:
“If he only 'stayed out' three times(I'm not counting Annie, in the morning), he could hardly have got the nights mixed up ! This would be such a rare occurrence...”
you are referring to the mixing up of the days? Obviously the mixing up the days theory presupposes that Hutchinson was innocent – so he would not have stayed out on the murder nights.

If one of my friends was acting suspiciously and I lived in an area where a serial killer was operating, then I suppose I might suspect them.
During the period the Yorkshire Ripper operated, many friends sneaked on their fellows all across the north. Probably too many did, which swamped the police investigation!

On the subject of Jack the Ripper staking his victims, I rather agree with your version Miss Retro. I don’t think he was a stalker. I think he found a suitable victim in a suitable location almost at random. That doesn’t preclude the possibility that he roamed around looking nor the possibility that once he found one, that he didn’t follow and watch around a bit before approaching.
Mr Ben said that there was a possibility that Hutchinson as the Ripper had stalked all the victims and not just Kelly. I find this unlikely, but it isn’t a debate for here I think.

Mr Ben – I would suggest that there is no clear knowledge of which Flemming identified in official records corresponds with the one mentioned by Barnett. Nor can we be sure that the ‘misusing Joe’ had the second name Flemming.
We certainly can’t be sure he was living in the Victoria Home in November 1888. I would suggest it is unlikely.

I have already pointed out the reasons why the basics of the Toppy story as related by Reg are worthy of consideration.

Incidentally you quoted Fisherman as saying:
“Toppy clearly never made any definite call as to the identity of the man”.To which you replied:
Let’s hear from Toppy then:
“It was more do to with the royal family than ordinary people…”
“…someone like Lord Randolph Churchill”
This is according to Reg.
Spin it whatever way you like Mr Ben – I accurately stated -“you quote Toppy not making a definite call as to the identity of the man”. There is nothing in your Reg quote which makes a definite call as to the identity of the man.

[Ben]

“did you notice that this was something that was relayed by REG?”

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.

So he was not there? He can´t have been, since he was discredited?

Matthew Packer was certainly “there”, so was Emanuel Violenia. It didn’t stop either of them from being discredited.

“And why do you use him to exemplify semi-criminals? Surely he was criminal, all of him?”

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. As you acknowledge, you can’t get more criminal than that. As to Hutchinson not seeing the killer, it could well depend whether or not there were any mirrors conveniently stationed on Dorset Street.

“Did you hear that, Ben? I´m ahead!”

You little point-scorer you…!

I don’t think that was quite what was meant though.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“This almost guarantees that the story will be garbled. It does not imply that the whole thing is rubbish from beginning to end.”

As a general rule you would be correct, Lechmere. The major stumbling block as far as Toppy is concerned, however, is the absence of any compelling reason to consider his (or Reg’s) claims to be anything other than “rubbish from beginning to end”, a phrase that can be applied with brutal accuracy to The Ripper and the Royals. Abberline diaries, anyone? Or will you argue that there might in a nugget of truth in these too?

“you then quote Fisherman as saying that Toppy didn’t make a definite call as to the identity of the man, and the n you quote Toppy not making a definite call as to the identity of the man. There is something drastically wrong with your debating style.”

The only thing that may be described as “drastically wrong” is your reading ability. I never suggested that either Toppy or the real Hutchinson made a “a definite call as to the identity of the man.”. I’m highlighting the difference between the two. The real “witness” painted a picture of an ostentatiously dressed man of Jewish appearance who lived in the district, whereas Hutchinson spoke of “someone like Lord Randolph Churchill” and that the murders were “more to do with the royal family than ordinary people”. The attempts to reconcile the two and still up with a "wrong day", have not been very successful, in my opinion.

You suggest that Hutchinson might have had four friends at the Victoria Home. No evidence for this, of course, and no reason to think he had, but let’s just assume it to be true for a moment. What would these friends have been doing when the ripper was active? Deliberately remaining awake in the dormitories or cubicles of the Victoria Home in anticipation of Hutchinson’s arrival?

As for Joseph Fleming, he was documented as having been living in Whitechapel since late 1888 and his residence was given as the Victoria Home. He most assuredly was not staying at the Bethnal Green Workhouse. This was another Joseph Flemming who was formerly employed as a boot-maker or “finisher” and whose parents were George and Sarah. Kelly’s Fleming was a plasterer who went under the alias “James Evans" and whose parents were Richard and Henrietta. Most of this comes courtesy of the great research of Chris Scott, Debra Arif and others, and can be discussed on the relevant threads. Also check out Fisherman’s article regarding Fleming the ripper who lived at the Victoria Home.

[The Good Michael]

This almost guarantees that the story will be garbled. It does not imply that the whole thing is rubbish from beginning to end. After all there seem to be a factual basis for most biblical stories, that were transmitted orally for a lot longer.

Lechmere,

I have to disagree with this analogy just because most things in the Old Testament were taken from other, earlier myths, and any biblical archaeology done today is based upon the notion that the Bible is true so whatever is found in an area must be connected to the Bible because 'the Bible tells us so'. Still, about retelling a tale after so many years: I agree. My brothers and I still argue over culpability with regards to wrongdoings when we were mischievious sprats. Often our versions are far apart. Mine are correct, mind you.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

"Do you think that reading the Bible and singing hymns would exclude someone
from being the Ripper ? -please answer this."

Edit that away while there is time, Ruby - it is not a very good question

I'm genuinely curious.

It might be a politically incorrect question in one respect, or an inconvenient one, but it might also explain why MR Lechmere is so opposed to the idea that the Ripper coud have lived in the Victoria Home.

It might, indirectly, have a bearing on why he has difficulty with the concepts that Hutch, Toppy or Reg might simply have lied through their teeth; Why the victims might have unknowingly colluded with their killer
(as opposed to being stalked) and why Fish's idea that Mary was 'a Tart with a Heart' (ready to offer her sympathy and a 'cup of tea' to a poor young man)
is a preferable idea to her being cut up by someone who lodged at the Victoria.

[Fisherman]

I don´t need a false moustache, Ruby. Come to think of it, there are lots of things I don´t need.

Fisherman