Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

I have sometimes travelled to Copenhagen, sixty kilometres from where I live. There is a museum street, with gas lights.

I have a great idea Fish ! Why don't you use that street to conduct a 'scientific' experiment ?

If you were to wear false eyelashes, black in your eyebrows and stick on a false moustache, you would only need your wife's fur coat, and some drawings of the jewellery pinned on, to recreate A-Man !

Your son could then take us a little film on his mobile, of you under the gas lamp, which you could post here, and which would be very helpful..

Infact, if he then stood at the right distance, he could film you murmering
"Come along my Dear ! You will be comfortable" to passers by..thus killing
two experiments with the same stone...

(don't forget to glower for the camera !)

[Rubyretro]

PS Lechmere -this is your question to Sally :

t isn’t really for this thread - but what is your definition of stalk? That he followed them for a bit before approaching them on the night in question or that he had been following them for weeks.
How would he have stalked Eddowes in either case?
She had been away for some time, and until just before her death she and he were accounted for.
She must have been the one he didn’t stalk.

This was my answer to you earlier :

Where do you get this idea from that Jack 'stalked' anyone (with the exception of Mary) ?
These women actively went out to find men and try and lead them to quiet dark places.
I expect that Jack was simply the first 'client' that Kate met, stranger or not.
If she did recognise him, and knew that he was interested in prostitutes, she might have given him a wave and
run across the road to meet him !

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"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.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I will make a deal with you. I will concede that in all likelyhood Hutch was not MK's killer (nor JtR) if you concede in all likelyhood that Hutch was lying about A-man."

That deal is off, I´m afraid, unless you are willing to lower the price. I have before stated that we may perhaps not need to accept that Hutch made is first observation of the smaller details on the morning of the 8:th. He said that he believed the man lived in the vicinity, and such a guess would not have come about as the result of Hutch thinking that astrakhan mans appearance gave it away, would it? No, it is much more reasonable to suggest that he had seen the man BEFORE in these surroundings. And if so, he could have seen the pin, the seal stone and such before. And then, as he saw the man on that night, he may just have noticed vaguely that he had the finery on him - but since he KNEW from before what they looked like in detail, he had no problems describing it to the police.
That is one solution.
The next solution is that he may have elaborated on things he really did not see, for some reason. Maybe he wanted to impress the police with a very exact description.
The third solution is my favourite: There was time and light enough!
I have sometimes travelled to Copenhagen, sixty kilometres from where I live. There is a museum street, with gas lights. They don´t emitt anything like today´s lamps, but they do brighten up the life for a Hutch-believer like me. I can see a lot by them. But of course, there are ambient lightsources about that were not there 188, so it does not prove something.
However, I am much in favour of what Stewart Evans writes in one of his books. He speaks of how people diss Hutch, since they mean that he could not have made out shape and colour of the hanky astrakhan man produced, not in that almighty darkness! Evans wisely points to Duke Street, where Lawende says he saw a man with a reddish neckerchief, and asks the question whether Lawende lied about this too. Keep in mind, that Duke street was comparatively badly lit, whereas Dorset Street was the opposite; with all the boarding house gas lamps it was a relatively well lit East end street.

Maybe, Abby, things are not as strange as we sometimes make them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere-
I was very interested in your statement '

After all there seem to be a factual basis for most biblical stories'

That is a very sweeping statement, and your 'most' should really read 'some'.
Do I detect that you are a religious man yourself ? -hence your belief that one of the reasons that the Victoria Home would make a bad base for the Ripper, is that they sung hymns together, and no doubt read the Bible, in that annexe?

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

Since we know absolutely nothing about Hutchinson, he could quite easily have suffered from 'Religious Mania', which would neatly explain why he wanted to kill prostitutes (who tempted him into sinning), hated Jews (they killed Christ !) and got A+ on his report for Abberline.

This is NOT what I believe -but tell me why it couldn't be true?

I am glad you now aknowledge that not everyone would have been 'morally
uplifted' at the Home -because whether Hutch was really lurking outside a
prostitute's room or merely lying to the law for monetary gain, he would appear to be one of those failures.

Like Sally, I am suprised that you now have Hutch down as a bit of a Johnny-No-Mates, with 496 men out of 500 ignoring him !

Why do you still persist in thinking that Hutch would only ever go out on nights that the murders were committed, when all the other Ned Flanders
were safely tucked up in bed ?

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...

I'd like to ask you another question...would you ever suspect one of YOUR
friends of being the Ripper ? I mean would it cross your mind, even fleetingly,
that someone you thought you knew, and liked, could be capable of the butchery inflicted on these prostitutes ?

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"My Mistake-Perhaps a better phrase i should have used was cut your losses!"

Blame it on Freud, Abby!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Please don't let me get the blame for your departure Sally...

What I said was in no way contradictory. Ben's over-exaggeration technique is all that suggests that I said Hutchinson was in a Home for Boy Scouts and that he knew all 500 inmates.
I merely suggested that he will have been known by some people in there and that these relatively few people could quite possibly have noticed if he was absent only on murder nights.
And I have stated that the Victoria Home was set up by some pious do-gooders with the intention of morally uplifting their charges. I have not passed comment on whether or not they were successful in this quest.

[Abby Normal]

Hey Fish
I will make a deal with you. I will concede that in all likelyhood Hutch was not MK's killer (nor JtR) if you concede in all likelyhood that Hutch was lying about A-man.

I asked you earlier why you thought Hutch was waiting for 45 minutes outside mary's place and i thought your rsponse made sense and I pretty much agree with it. He was looking for a place to crash. But I think he later he tried to cash in on his unsuccesful vigil by inventing Aman for the police.

But there is no way physically possible, even if he had photographic memory, to have even seen, let alone recollect, all that he described A-man.

Deal?

[Sally]

Right..

So first off we have Lechmere's argument that the sense of community in the Home for Boy Scouts was such that the friendly neighbourhood lodgers would have noticed straightaway if Hutchinson had been absent for the odd night or two, being as how they were normally all tucked up with their cocoa by 10pm.

And now we have Lechmere's argument that the sense of community in the Victoria Home, now presumably missing its Boy Scout population, was such that only 4 people would have known Hutchinson.

U-Turn, or what?

You know, I think this thread has finally become so ridiculous that I can't be arsed any more. Yes, I actually do think so.

Carry on.

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:

"you need to quit when you are ahead"

Thanks for the advice, Abby, but I´ll take my chances.

Did you hear that, Ben? I´m ahead!

The best,
Fisherman

My Mistake-Perhaps a better phrase i should have used was cut your losses!

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"We have Reg, at a time when Royal Ripper theories were all the vogue, remembering what his aged father had told him over forty years before, when reminiscing about events that had occurred fifty years before that.

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

How many times must I ... Wait a minute... This makes sense! Ah - it´s YOU, Lechmere. That explains things!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"you need to quit when you are ahead"

Thanks for the advice, Abby, but I´ll take my chances.

Did you hear that, Ben? I´m ahead!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I know you do, Fisherman, and I am still very surprised at your reasoning."

Just give it some time, and I´m sure you´ll get there in the end.

"Why would Hutchinson’s testimony be brought “down” if it was his information that led to the identification of the real killer, in your strictly hypothetical scenario?"

How says the identification led to the killer??? What´s this, Ben?

"I’m afraid you’re quite mistaken in your suggestion that Toppy had merely used the royal family as a example of someone high up. The language is quite unambiguous on this point: “It was more to do with the royal family than ordinary people”. "

Hoho! Here we go! Well, Bwen, did you notice that this was something that was relayed by REG? That was how REG worded it - a man thta had come to the conclusion that it MUST have been Churchill his father spoke of. Please realize that this "exact wording" is how REG had come to remember what he had been told many, many years before. Be for real.Please?

"We just have to face the fact that Toppy’s alleged claims, via Reg, are utterly at odds with the key particulars of Hutchinson’s original statement and suspect description."

We?

"You’re borrowing from some of the worst tenets of the royal conspiracy theory"

Not truthful, but if it gives you a kick, be my guest. Just remember that you are wrong and that I have asked you not to pass of things I have never said or done as truth.

"As for Sue Iremonger, there can be no reasonable doubt..."

As for Sue Iremonger, there MUST be reasonable doubt.

"Hutchinson’s statement was discredited, Fisherman. I don’t regard anything he says as “powerful evidence” of anything, and nor should anyone else."

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

"Why do you think we’re having this discussion?"

Because you are obviously wrong, and I´m trying to help out.

"As for the apparent absence of any “semi-criminals” about at the time, how about – y’know – Jack the Ripper committing the most bloodthirsty of al his atrocities in a court off that street on that night?"

He was there between 2.15 and 3? And Hutch did not see him either? Oh boy! How much noise did he make, by the way? And why do you use him to exemplify semi-criminals? Surely he was criminal, all of him?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"Which is all the more reason, Fish, to conclude that Hutchinson and Toppy were two different men. But this should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense given Hutchinson’s stated belief that Astrakhan lived locally."

Well, Garry, I´ve told Ben, and it would seem the time has come to tell you: Commo sense it not very common. If you take the time to read my posts, you may be forced to realize that I don´t think that astrakhan man WAS of royal descent. Nor do I thing that Hutchinson must have thought so - only that the man was important enough to get his testimony dumped.
Plus, Garry, you may need to realize that there is a time span involved here. Even if Hutch WAS originally of the sentment that astrakhan man may have been local, he may have changed his mind after having brooded on his own dismissal. Along the lines "Aha, that man may not have been the local I believed after all, since he had the power to have me dismissed."
Remember that he did not state for certain that the man was local, only that he thought that may have been the case.

Common sense, was it...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

On Toppy and the Royals
We have Reg, at a time when Royal Ripper theories were all the vogue, remembering what his aged father had told him over forty years before, when reminiscing about events that had occurred fifty years before that.

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.
I only use that as an example Ben, before your over-exaggeration technique swings into action and you say that I am comparing Toppy to an Old Testament prophet.

Ben – 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.

Sally – I would presume that Hutchinson would have been on friendly terms with some of the inmates at the Victoria Home – not all of them. As Mr Ben Says there were up to 500 people there. Say he had four friends. That makes a 1 in 125 chance that he was friends with any named person.

Anyway who says Flemming was staying at the Victoria Home same time as Hutchinson?
The last I heard Flemming had probably been located as living at the Bethnal Green Workhouse a couple of miles away through this period. He was at the Victoria Home in November 1889, and there is a possibility that he had been in the Whitechapel area for the fourteen months before that. But I don’t know of any evidence at all that he was at the Victoria Home in November 1888. I may have missed it somewhere and stand to be corrected.

It isn’t really for this thread - but what is your definition of stalk? That he followed them for a bit before approaching them on the night in question or that he had been following them for weeks.
How would he have stalked Eddowes in either case?
She had been away for some time, and until just before her death she and he were accounted for.
She must have been the one he didn’t stalk.