Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"When you and your son did this experiment, what did you actually say? Was it a pre-arranged sentence(s)? Did you speak the lines alleged to have been spoken by Mary Kelly? That would seem most appropriate, wouldn't it?"

Actually, no - Kelly spoke in English, and thw two of us that made the test are both Swedes, so I opted for Swedish random sentences. The first one was "Blackie är en svart häst", which translates to "Blackie is a black horse". The second one was "Min bil är en Ferrari". That translates into "My car is a Ferrari" (I wish it was ...!). The third one was "Det regnar inte idag", meaning "It does not rain today". Sentence one was heard but not made out from 50 meters, and spoken in normal conversation tone. Sentence two was heard and made out from 50 meters, and spoken in a louder voice, but not very loud. Sentence three was heard and made out from 30 meters, spoken in a normal conversation voice.

Make of that what you want, Sally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Ben:

"Nope, not in a 500 strong, filthy doss house full in the real Victorian East End of 1888. It was a case of knuckling down, going about one’s daily toil, and simply getting on with one’s meagre existence that consisted chiefly of looking out for number one, rather than scrutinizing the behaviour of others in nanny-state fashion and listening to Artful Dodger types who were nothing like Hutchinson."

But they DID all rise to jointly sing "Rule Britannia" in Crossinghams at 2 am every morning, right?

The best,
Fisherman

Worth re-quoting this witness account from a Dorset Street lodging house

So far as this let-alone spirit carried that, I believe, a woman might be kicked to death without anyone interfering."

Hoare slept in a room on the ground floor and confirmed the regularity with which violent incidents occurred: "Two or three times I was awoke by appalling shrieks of murder, and many times by fights in the next kitchen. One night I had only just gone to sleep when I was awoke by loud yells of "Help! Help!" followed by a shriek and a heavy fall."

I don't know about the Artful Dodger and Rule Britannia, but in the Victoria they were evidently kicking up a racket with Kum-bay-ya.

[Sally]

Fisherman

Before I go out this morning, I just wanted to ask you -

When you and your son did this experiment, what did you actually say? Was it a pre-arranged sentence(s)? Did you speak the lines alleged to have been spoken by Mary Kelly? That would seem most appropriate, wouldn't it?

Just curious.

Thanks Fish

[Rubyretro]

"Now as to believing friday was thursday, what did happen to Hutch 0n Friday.If there was a substitution of days,ie,Thursday becoming Friday,what did Friday become?"

I think that Harry's question is excellent. Answer it again.

In your logic, Friday would become Saturday and ...hang on..wasn't Hutch rather suprised to find that the Petticoat Lane market was held on the wrong day ? that should surely have put a flea in his ear ?

Was he not capable of counting backwards up to three ?

(you'd better get your story straight, because Lechmere won't know what to think anymore and end up letting your side down..)

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Fisherman,
In your last post to me you write 'We established'.I did no such thing.You read the posts."

We DID establish it, Harry - me and my son. We carefully measured 30 meters and 50 meters, respectively. We started out at 50, and from that distance, normal conversation could be heard, but not made out. With a raised voice, it could be both heard and made out. After that, I moved to the 30 meter line, and we established that normal conversation travelled that far in a discernable manner with some ease.

"Now as to believing friday was thursday, what did happen to Hutch 0n Friday.If there was a substitution of days,ie,Thursday becoming Friday,what did Friday become?"

I have answered that one before, Harry. With your reasoning, people would never mix up days. But they do, donīt they? Itīs not as if something neccessarily disappears, it is instead a question of believing that something that happpenen on day X instead had happened on day Y.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman,
In your last post to me you write 'We established'.I did no such thing.You read the posts.
Now as to believing friday was thursday,what did happen to Hutch 0n Friday.If there was a substitution of days,ie,Thursday becoming Friday,what did Friday become?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If Toppy really felt suspicions along these lines, why did he not relay them to his son? "

Maybe because it would rob him of the possibility to tell his son - and everybody else - that he had truly seen the Ripper. Rambling on about how he had been wrong on the dates and been there the day before does not make for a very entertaining story, but to be the dad who had seen the Ripper ...!

Thatīs only if you truly WANT a viable explanation. If not, just disregard my post and carry on.

"Anyone attepting to incorporate all elements from both press and police statements is onto a very losing wicket for very obvious reasons."

If they are contradictory, yes. But they are not in this case. The volume is left out in the police report.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Nope, not in a 500 strong, filthy doss house full in the real Victorian East End of 1888. It was a case of knuckling down, going about one’s daily toil, and simply getting on with one’s meagre existence that consisted chiefly of looking out for number one, rather than scrutinizing the behaviour of others in nanny-state fashion and listening to Artful Dodger types who were nothing like Hutchinson."

But they DID all rise to jointly sing "Rule Britannia" in Crossinghams at 2 am every morning, right?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"So, in your new scenario that you decided upon yesterday, Toppy was indignant about being accused of muddling up the dates (which the police obviously would not have accused him of directly even they did suspect muddled days, which they almost certainly didn’t), so he assumed that the police were covering up the killer’s true identity, but completely neglected to tell his son Reg about the police’s ripper-defending, toff-harbouring ways. "

See, this is what Lechmere does not like with you - you conjure up stories on other posters behalf, and pass them of as genuine. I have not elaborated on this point, so please donīt do it for me. It will not have the quality it should have.

"You’ve picked a Hutchinson identity theory that involves hush money from the police to cover up Lord Randolph Churchill being the ripper; a theory that has “more to do with the royal family than other people”. "

And YOU DID IT AGAIN! I have done no such thing. Please do not misrepresent me! And please respect that I do no such thing to you, so it would amount to common decency if you refrain from it too. The only thing I see here is a genuinely malicious wish to connect me with Fairclough, and you really shoud not lower yourself to such things.
I have said that the reason for Hutchinsons pointing out of astrakhan man as somebody high up in society may (and equally may not!) be connected to a belief on his behalf that his testimony was dumped because the police had decided to protect astrakhan man. It is a suggestion that tallies extremely well with my theory of a mistaken day, as Lechmere immediately recognized - but that you sorely missed. Now, try and keep track of the elements here, Ben: I am NOT saying that astrakhan man was Churchill, I am not saying that the police had him down as a pillar of society - I AM saying that Hutchinson may mistakenly have believed that he was a man whose importance trumped his own testimony and had it - in Toppys eyes - unjustly dismissed.
Does that make me a Fairclough fan? No, it does not. And now that you see this, you may need to either apologize and change tactics, or, if you find that too hard, at least do the latter!

"I’m not sure if Gareth would particularly appreciate you dragging him into the discussion"

Aha. So Iīm not supposed to point to well-reputed Ripperologistsīviews to make my points. Are there any others that you feel I should not "drag into" the discussion? Evans? Skinner? Fido? Or can I do so whenever I feel like it, since the views of these people are more often than not very well informed views. Just asking.
If you really think that I am soiling Gareth by referring to his work, then maybe you should ask him yourself what he feels about your views and mine on this case?

"According to you, Hutchinson “reasoned” that the powerful and influential Mr. Astrakhan must have manipulated or bribed the police into accepting or declaring falsely that he had confused the date.
Is this really your stance?"

My stance is that this MAY have been how Hutchinson saw it. And that would neatly fit in with what we have - Dew telling us he missed out on the days, and implicating that he never admitted to this himself.

"Really? So, in this instance, despite the overwhelming likelihood that there were competing sounds in Dorset Street in the small hours that would have prevented 30-metre discernment of words in conversation, we must “offer the benefit of a doubt” purely because we can’t be certain?"

Yes, exactly. Thatīs how it works. If there is a chance that the street was silent enough at the time we are speaking of, the inescapable conclusion is that there is also a chance that Hutch heard and made out the conversation. So thank you very much for finally admitting this.
After that, it should be added that your guesswork that the street was a very loud affair at 2-3am in the morning borders on the VERY ridiculous. But that is another matter altogether.

"Please don’t ever attempt irony in my presence again, Fisherman."

That is my choice, Ben, and not yours. You may have noticed that Lechmere also has applied some irony and sarcasm. Normally, such things come about when the quality of your opponents arguments do not reach a level that puts it beyond such an approach.

"What is the counter-argument in this case, anyway?"

Not that the streets were completely silent. But that they weere indeed very, very quiet at night at many an occasion. That is why you use phrasings like "there was not a sound". Even when people say this, there ARE sounds about - if nothing else, you can hear the blood flowing through your own inner ear. But to expand this into a belief that there would be loud soundlevels on the street at every given moment, more or less, that nullified the chance of making out conversation from 30 meters away is totally unviable. Since other streets in the same East End were witnessed about as being silent enough to warrant the description "not a sound was heard", it stands to reason that Dorset street too could have matched that description on any given night.

"unless you’re seriously suggesting that Dorset Street, with its reputation for its “vicious and semi-criminal" element, its prostitutes, pubs, and jam-packed grotty lodging houses, was quieter than Duke Street."

Reputations are soundless, Ben. Vicious and semicriminal elements do not gain that label because they stand around in the street at 2 m hollering at the tops of their voices. Prostitution is not about sound volume, it is about paid-for-sex. The pubs were closed at the time we are looking at. And the "jam-packed grotty lodginghouses" were in all probability jam-packed with sleeping guests at that hour. That would at least have been the intention of the lodgers as they payed their entrance fee. None of them would have been too interested in partying the night away, so thatīs a non-starter too.
And even if the all stayed up and talked the night away (God knows itīs hard to refrain from irony right now, but Iīll try ....!), they did so behind brick walls. And brick walls with just the one brick depth in them take away around 45 dB immediately. If the walls are two stone deep, add another 5 dB that takes itīs leave. And what little sound may find itīs way through will be reshaped - the lower tones will be the ones that manage to go through. Thatīs why when you hear loud music from inside a car, it seems to be all bass tones.

But you will have it that the lodgers got up at 2 AM and started yelling at each other, perhaps? If so, the sound of a whisper may have gone through the walls, or something like that. And mainly the low tones. Slightly more would have passed the windows. But this is all if the room was empty. If there were soft objects in it, like bedlinen, drapes, carpets and such, then these things would have soaked up some of the sound.

And speaking of sound, your view of a noisy and loud street is simply not a very sound one, I fear.

"If you seriously think that the only "early birds" were the market porters, you are simply in error."

And you did it AGAIN! You once more decide for me what I think or not. Why do you do this? Canīt you allow me to make ny own points, without having them tampered with by you?What I SAID was that the shops catered for people at hours when they were around in reasonable numbers, and consequentially, the shops were closed at the hours around 2 am.
Donīt tell me what I think, Ben. I do that better myself.

"All I’m seeing is two blokes egging each other on and congratulating other for imaginary, non-existent accomplishments."

Then you should see the THIRD bloke!

"you would do well to recall that you have argued in a past issue of Ripperologist Magazine that the Victoria Home made for a viable ripper’s lair. Remember?"

Yes, I remember. And if you are saying that I am no longer of that view, you are once AGAIN doing my thinking for me. And that wonīt do. I am still of the meaning that this may hold true - the Victoria Home was situated right in the middle of things, and makes for a very useful bid as the Rippers quarters. I fail to see that I have stated something else, but maybe you can enlighten me?"

"You spent many long posts urging me to reconsider my view that Joseph Fleming made for a reasonable suspect before doing an abrupt U-turn and naming him as the likely ripper after all, and resident at the Victoria Home."

And what did I write in the beginning of that article? Exactly, I wrote that I had up til that time not been very keen on Fleming, but that I had reconsidered. And reconsidering, Ben, is something I thouroughly, thoroughly reccommend whenever you feel that you may have hung on for dear life to a theory that has nothing much to it - and especially if new thinking and evidence comes to light that point very much away from that theory. When that happens, it may be incredibly wise to reconsider things.

"you must be able to spot the subtext in this post."

Ever heard of irony, Ben?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

No, Sally almost certainly has not "gone completely".

I'm afraid this is another symptom of the classic keyboard warrior - rejoicing in the erroneous assumption that a perceived "opponent" has capitulated, leaving the keyboard warrior to make highly questionably claims unchallenged. Not a particularly sustainable strategy round these parts, Lechers, I can only advise you.

I’m rather confused by your observations regarding the suggested contacting of previous employers and what you expect this would achieved with regard to determining the guilt or innocence of a particular suspect. Let’s say the police did contact Hutchinson’s previous employers (there’s no evidence that they did, and they almost certainly didn’t, but let’s have fun and “assume). What exonerating result are you hoping for here? Let’s say his previous employers recalled that he was indeed a hard-working groom and labourer – what are you hoping for here in terms of suspect investigation, let alone suspect exoneration? What would a chat with previous employers have achieved?

“The more significant point is that if he reported himself as being out of work, then it is likely their suspicion radar would have twitched.”

No.

Abberline accepted that Hutchinson was out of work AND endorsed his account as true BEFORE any background checking could realistically have occurred. It is abundantly clear, therefore, that Abberline saw nothing suspicious about his alleged temporary unemployment on the evening of the 12th November, very shortly after the initial statement was taken. As such, I really have to wonder what I’m supposed to “know” about that “badly damages” my case. A contact with previous employers? A total, uncritical acceptance of Hutchinson’s professed unemployment? Where’s this “damage” that I'm supposedly aware of but keeping schtum about?

You say that simple checks could have been conducted.

Yes, they could, but they weren’t of a type that could lead to the acquisition of proof of guilt or innocence.

There is no evidence that Hutchinson was “checked” as a suspect, only as a witness, and like Packer and Violenia before him he appears not have passed this test, but here is no evidence that any of these three made the conversion from discredited witness to possible suspect in the minds of the contemporary police.

“You have no way of knowing this. Even very poor people with chronic want developed friendships. They were poor but they were happy and made their own fun.”

Altogether now:

“Nobody tries to be Lah-dee-dah and uppity, there’s a cup of tea…etc”…

Nope, not in a 500 strong, filthy doss house full in the real Victorian East End of 1888. It was a case of knuckling down, going about one’s daily toil, and simply getting on with one’s meagre existence that consisted chiefly of looking out for number one, rather than scrutinizing the behaviour of others in nanny-state fashion and listening to Artful Dodger types who were nothing like Hutchinson.

”One other thing – the door keeper would probably snooze very close to the door and just let in those who had special passes.”

Don’t think so, Lechmere. The numbers of lodgers coming and going at all hours of the night would have been too great to facilitate any snoozing on the part of the doorman, if it was even feasible to do so, which I highly doubt.

Question: Who would think when reading this passage (from the Telegraph) that the ticket referred to is also the pass. Answer: Someone who wants to believe Hutchinson dunnit. “Tickets for beds are issued from five p.m. until 12.30 midnight, and after that hour if a man wants to get in he must have a pass.”

Try to think about it logically, Lechmere, and you might end up reasoning otherwise. If a lodger bought a bed ticket, as Jack London did at the Victoria Home, what on earth was the point of procuring yet another pass? The ticket already constituted proof of prior purchase, who why an entirely superfluous additional pass? Why an additional proof or prior purchase?

Of course I’ve arrived late at places and been forced to make alternative plans, but I’ve never walked well in excess of ten miles in the small hours, in miserable weather conditions, with no money to pay for alternative lodgings if I miss my usual haunt by a disastrous one and a half hours. You did not, incidentally, give me evidence that Hutchinson was “not a shy and retiring type” in general, but rather bolstered my suspicion that he could become communicative when he felt the need arose. That doesn’t make him a gregarious man about town under normal circumstances.

“Finally (some hope) I would indeed suggest that the relatively few suspects named more or less at the time (not just those named in the Macnaghten memoranda) by reputable police sources were pretty much all the remaining non-cleared suspects.”

And I would indeed suggest that this is complete fantasy, and not in accordance with what we should have learned from experience of other serial crimes. If Sutcliffe hadn’t been captured as a result of fortuitous happenstance, there is every chance that he would have remained on the very long “suspect” list, probably very near the bottom that consisted of individuals who hadn’t been “cleared”.

Sutcliffe is also a prime example of the phenomenon I discussed earlier – someone who had received scant investigative attention on account of the weight accorded to other potentially misleading evidence. In this respect, we might consider the John Humble tape a parallel to Dr. Phillips’ evidence implicating someone with medical knowledge. A misplaced faith invested in the killer having a Geordie accent can have just as much of a derailing effect on an investigation as a misplaced faith on medical evidence that was probably wrong.

I have merely stated (I will not repeat it again) that the police had certain checks that they would have carried out and if you passed those checks you would be exonerated (perhaps falsely).

Good. Well if this is all you're suggesting, you can stop trying to depict Hutchinson as a poor suspect, surely? You've already acknowledged that various factors pertaining to Hutchinson render him a legitimately suspicious individual. Just leave it at that, and accept that a modern police force might have found themselves in a better position to have both grounds for suspicion against Hutchinson, and the means to make a better job to progress with those suspicions.

"Ben, you seem to have thoroughly missed the point about how and why a possible Toppy Hutchinson's rejection by the police and his sighting of the A-man could have contributed towards a later feeling by a possible Toppy Hutchinson that the police were protecting a toff of some variety."

Toppy again?

Okay, just quickly. The point was not "missed". It was just rejected as fanciful. If Toppy really felt suspicions along these lines, why did he not relay them to his son? Why only drop cloak and dagger insinutations that the East End murders concerned the Royal family? Unless, of course, Toppy never said any of this, and Reg was merely helping along a bad theory about a ripper investigation which didn't involve his father at any stage. In which case, it all makes sense.

It is also clear that the handwriting issue is far from proven in the manner you suggest. Which means there is no wrap.

I meant a "wrap" in terms of derailing the thread in the direction of Toppy and his signatures, as there are other threads - even longer than this one! - for that.

"You have no idea how loudly the people in Duke Street were talking (or whispering)."

It doesn't make a difference. The distance in the Duke Street example was ten feet, as opposed to 30 metres. You only get a "loud voice" from Kelly if you accept the press versions. Unfortuntately, this would mean you would also have to accept the various other press embellishments and contradictions in addition to the contents of his police statement, in order to retain at least some pretense at consistency. I wish you particularly good luck in accepting the Astrakhan man's complexion as both pale AND dark, with his slight AND heavy moustache. Anyone attepting to incorporate all elements from both press and police statements is onto a very losing wicket for very obvious reasons.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben, you seem to have thoroughly missed the point about how and why a possible Toppy Hutchinson's rejection by the police and his sighting of the A-man could have contributed towards a later feeling by a possible Toppy Hutchinson that the police were protecting a toff of some variety.

It is also clear that the handwriting issue is far from proven in the manner you suggest. Which means there is no wrap.

I am fairly open minded about Toppy, but I quite see why you must not be.

On the sound issue - I will just say that comparing the conversation in Duke Street with the one in Dorset Street is somewhat risible. You have no idea how loudly the people in Duke Street were talking (or whispering). We have some evidence for Dorset Street as Hutchinson at least stated that it was said in a loud voice. Of course you can say he was lying if you want.

[Ben]

Right, well first I'll address the enthralling Toppy stuff.

“I find it very credible, given my elaborations on a possible suspicion of a cover-up on behalf of Hutch.”

So, in your new scenario that you decided upon yesterday, Toppy was indignant about being accused of muddling up the dates (which the police obviously would not have accused him of directly even they did suspect muddled days, which they almost certainly didn’t), so he assumed that the police were covering up the killer’s true identity, but completely neglected to tell his son Reg about the police’s ripper-defending, toff-harbouring ways. Now Fisherman, please be serious for one moment. This is nonsense.

Try and divorce all of your ripper-related theorizing from the Ripper and the Royals. I know it’s difficult. You have an unenviable task. You’ve picked a Hutchinson identity theory that involves hush money from the police to cover up Lord Randolph Churchill being the ripper; a theory that has “more to do with the royal family than other people”. However hard you struggle to find a glimmer of truth midst the deluge of nonsense, Toppy and Reg will forever be associated with the most risible or royal ripper theories. Your latest ill-starred attempt to reconcile the two has its obvious problems, chief amongst which being: Why didn’t Toppy’s alleged belief in the police’s skulduggery feature in Reginald’s account?

I’m not sure if Gareth would particularly appreciate you dragging him into the discussion, but he and I were regular participants in these Hutchinson debates well before you decided to join them, and I can assure you that he had expressed sympathy for the Toppy = Hutch hypothesis well in advance of any signatures coming to the fore. I don’t think he ever stated that the signatures “proved emphatically that Toppy was Hutchinson”, and if that’s your current position, I’m thoroughly embarrassed for you, since it is well know and well documented that the most professional examination of the signatures to have been conducted thus far was to the effect that Toppy probably wasn’t the real Hutchinson.

But that’s a wrap folks on Toppy, unless you want to derail this thread away from your theory?

This same real Hutchinson, incidentally, showed no indication of suspecting that the man he claimed to have seen was a “pillar of society”, or else he would hardly stated his belief that the suspect “lived in the neighbourhood”.

“My hunch is that the police BELIEVED thay had enough to rule Hutch out”

This is an improvement on what you were asserting previously, I’ll grant you that.

You had previously suggested that Hutchinson’s depiction of what you imagine to be a “dry night” "proved" he wasn’t there!

“And if astrakhan man had the power to sway the police into doing this, he would reasonably be a very important man - thatīs how I think Hutch reasoned.”

Let’s just get this straight.

According to you, Hutchinson “reasoned” that the powerful and influential Mr. Astrakhan must have manipulated or bribed the police into accepting or declaring falsely that he had confused the date.

Is this really your stance?

Gosh, I hope not.

But back to the repetitive debate about distances and noises:

“And when we are not certain, we offer the benefit of a doubt.”

Really? So, in this instance, despite the overwhelming likelihood that there were competing sounds in Dorset Street in the small hours that would have prevented 30-metre discernment of words in conversation, we must “offer the benefit of a doubt” purely because we can’t be certain? So the “benefit of the doubt” would consist of what, then? An assumption that the streets were absolutely silent at the time? No can do, I’m afraid, because we have two genuine witnesses that couldn’t hear conversation from ten feet away.

“And "not a sound was heard" is relative in what way? I find your argument relatively amusing.”

Please don’t ever attempt irony in my presence again, Fisherman. What is the counter-argument in this case, anyway? That the streets of London’s East End were completely “silent”? Utterly impossible.

“Thatīs even MORE amusing! Was it the same street? No? Then I suggest that you should not use the argument at all, since there would have been "relatively" other circumstances around in Dorset Street.”

Yes, there would have been – more noise, unless you’re seriously suggesting that Dorset Street, with its reputation for its “vicious and semi-criminal" element, its prostitutes, pubs, and jam-packed grotty lodging houses, was quieter than Duke Street.

“The early birds around were the market porters, who, just like Cross and Paul, went to job at around 3.30-4”

Oh, boy.

Tell, ‘im someone, please!

If you seriously think that the only "early birds" were the market porters, you are simply in error. There were plenty of other occupations that called for earlier starts, just as there would have been more occupations that finished and commenced at other unhealthy hours of the night and morning. If you think that both Cross and Paul were “market porters”, I’m afraid you are sorely mistaken. Fiona Rule was simply observing, perfectly correctly, that shops reopened for the market porters become they all tended to emerge on duty together when the markets themselves opened. Try not to keep missing the obvious point, which was that however large the difference in numbers was between “daytime” and “nighttime” workers was – to borrow from that reductive and simplistic distinction – the later group would still have been sufficiently large to render deeply unlikely the possibility of any one of them being homed in on, checked out and magically exonerated.

The notion is beyond preposterous.

“So in this aspect, when you say "Better luck "dismantling" next time", Lechmere really could not hope for more luck. He has already accomplished his purpose”

Fisherman, please don’t feel saddened if I don’t take any of this triumphalist rhetoric at all seriously. All I’m seeing is two blokes egging each other on and congratulating other for imaginary, non-existent accomplishments. Lechmere’s ill-fated motivation behind arguing with me is to demonstrate that the Victoria Home made for an unsuitable ripper’s lair. But before you leap to pat the patently undeserving on the back, you would do well to recall that you have argued in a past issue of Ripperologist Magazine that the Victoria Home made for a viable ripper’s lair. Remember? You spent many long posts urging me to reconsider my view that Joseph Fleming made for a reasonable suspect before doing an abrupt U-turn and naming him as the likely ripper after all, and resident at the Victoria Home.

You really ought to keep track of what people are arguing or else risk shooting yourself in the foot.

“You donīt get to comment on…my frequency of posting or any such thing.”

No, but Mike does, and he advised you as follows:

“And so, as much as I'm not a cut and run kind of guy, I ask you both (and others) to leave them their only real reason to live; Hutch's guilt.”

I hope you reject his advice, personally, as I know full well that you will anyway, but you must be able to spot the subtext in this post.

[Lechmere]

Sally (just in case you haven't gone completely)
“Right, so Hutchinson used to be a groom. Not much mileage in checking up on that really - past and gone.”
The police could have checked is previous employer couldn’t they? To see if he was a reliable sort. That is the type of information they wanted to hear to dismiss someone. Maybe not brilliant information, but that is how they worked then.
They could also have checked who he had ‘laboured’ for.
The more significant point is that if he reported himself as being out of work, then it is likely their suspicion radar would have twitched. The police were prejudiced against the unemployed.
I have no proof of this beyond what is known of police prejudices in 1888 and how they behaved with other suspects. I would suggest that denying this (as Ben does for example) is unrealistic and symptomatic of someone who knows that this badly damages his case.
Incidentally I am well aware that the police may have checked with ‘Person A’s’ previous employer and gained a glowing report. For ‘Person A’ to have been dismissed and then subsequently for ‘Person A’ to turn out to be the culprit. I have consistently allowed for this possibility every time I have addressed this issue. I merely state - again – that the police had certain simple checks that they made. They had certain prejudices for guilt or innocence (one of which was against unemployed doss house dwellers). I would suggest that Hutchinson passed these tests (even falsely passed them) even thought he was in one class that the police were prejudiced against.

“Hutchinson wouldn't have stood out from the crowd at all. In the Victoria Home, he would have been just like anyone else - anonymous.”
In large measure yes, unless he kept irregular hours only on the nights people were murdered. Then he may well have been noticed. Any theory that involves Hutchinson as the culprit should sensibly take account of this distinct possibility.

“Nobody would have remembered him. If he didn't stay at the Victoria Home every night, nobody would have noticed. Nobody would have cared.”
You have no way of knowing this. Even very poor people with chronic want developed friendships. They were poor but they were happy and made their own fun.
I would not suggest people ‘cared’ – I am suggesting it is likely some people may have noticed.
There has been some nonsense spoken about the anonymity of these places. Catherine Eddowes was very chatty and friendly with the staff at the workhouse for example.

“It doesn't take a genius to draw the conclusion that a semi-itinerant out of work alleged general labourer might have tried it on in the hope of some material gain.”
My general conclusion would be that Hutchinson did indeed present himself to get a pay off.

“He was one of 54 other men who also came forward with 'information'...
“How would Hutchinson have been different in the eyes of the police? He wouldn't. Contrary suggestions are unrealistic.”
Ah – this is where I think you are wrong. He placed himself at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. He was late coming forward. He didn’t have an alibi (instead he opted for the moriartyesque alibi-disposal). He lived in a lodging house. These are all things that would have made him suspicious to any average copper in 1888.
He is one of a handful of witnesses to be mentioned by name by a policeman at a later date (Dew).
He is one of a tiny number of witnesses known to have been taken very seriously at least for a period by Abberline.
His status as a witness was magnified by the media way beyond nearly all other witnesses during the entire case.
That is why he would probably been viewed differently by the police. That is why I believe it is fair to assume that the police will have checked him out (unless they felt they had a good reason not to check him out).

I have answered some of Ben’s points already. Nearly all of Ben’s other ‘points’ have been covered before so I will not go back over them again. You seem to have utterly missed my point about night workers not being able to sleep at a lodging house under normal circumstances.

Just out of interest – what were your late night off-duty soldiers doing? Could they have been late night revellers? This actually illustrates that your answer did not answer anything really.

One other thing – the door keeper would probably snooze very close to the door and just let in those who had special passes. That’s not too difficult to suss out is it?

Question: Who would think when reading this passage (from the Telegraph) that the ticket referred to is also the pass?
Answer: Someone who wants to believe Hutchinson dunnit.
“Tickets for beds are issued from five p.m. until 12.30 midnight, and after that hour if a man wants to get in he must have a pass.”

I am sure you are a very punctilious fellow Ben, have never been late anywhere and accordingly can’t fathom that Hutchinson may have turned up an hour late to get into his pre-paid abode. Let me assure you though, for mere mortals this sort of thing happens from time to time.

I gave you quite a bit of evidence that showed that Hutchinson was not a shy and retiring type who didn’t talk to anyone else and would therefore have remained anonymous. You can of course just say he was lying.
You cannot claim there is no contrary evidence however.
Well you can and you do, but that is your method.
However I don’t recall that I “portray him as the life and soul of the Victoria Home”.
This is one of your other methods – the over exaggeration technique with which we have become so familiar.
“You should stop it, really.”

Finally (some hope) I would indeed suggest that the relatively few suspects named more or less at the time (not just those named in the Macnaghten memoranda) by reputable police sources were pretty much all the remaining non-cleared suspects. Some have subsequently been cleared of course.
I only gave the Macnaghten ones as examples of these, as should have been obvious.
Obvious because I mentioned them in this manner...
“The police had nothing on Druitt, Ostrog, Kosminski or any of the other ‘official’ police suspects.”

So what can I make of it when you say...
“are you seriously suggesting that of all the suspects who came under police scrutiny during the course of the investigation, Macnaghten, Druitt and Ostrog were the only ones who weren’t completely exonerated by the police?”
Clearly I did not say that.
Is this your over exaggeration technique in action again? Or is it that you pay no attention to the various arguments raised against your pet suspect and instead conjure up your own debate.
I am not entirely sure which of these two options is the more likely. I am sure however that if you didn’t engage in these tactics your posts would be very short indeed.

Incidentally you keep saying Macnaghten instead of Kosminski.

You seem to have hopelessly missed the point (but I have very great reserves of patience so I will assist you) when you say:
“There is every chance that the real killer came under police scrutiny at some point during the course of the investigation, and that he slipped the radar. Criminal psychologists are very often telling us how frequently this sort of thing occurs, and in 1888, there was a far greater chance of this happening. Yes, the Macnaghten three might well be considered “poor”, but only by today’s standards. It was clearly a different matter to their police adherents in 1888. What we might consider of incriminating value today would probably not have reflected 1888 sentiments very closely.”
I have been at great pains to explain exactly this to you. Maybe it has seeped into your subconscious.
You don’t actually need to be a criminal psychologist to know this.
I have repeatedly spelt out to you that being exonerated by the checks of1888 would not mean that the person exonerated had not in fact done the crime. I have merely stated (I will not repeat it again) that the police had certain checks that they would have carried out and if you passed those checks you would be exonerated (perhaps falsely). If you failed to pass the tests you would not be exonerated. If you were not exonerated they would not have just shrugged their shoulders and waved you bye-bye.

The evidence suggests that the police were baffled as to who Jack the Ripper might be. If they had a long list of non-exonerated suspects this would not have been the case.
Oh I just know that you will dispute this. Be my guest and shout at the wind.

[Fisherman]

... and there is more to come in the future, I think...!

Goodnight, Sally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"How would Hutchinson have been different in the eyes of the police?"

He would be different since he placed himself the fewest of yards away from the murder site at the actual time of the murder, more or less. Thatīs why you know his name and his story, detail by detail, whereas the other 54 are grey eminences to you. My guess is that you have never once tried to find out their names, and my suggestion is that this is because you make the same call the police did back then - that Hutchinson was very, very different from the rest.

The best,
Fisherman

Well Fish, you're quite right, I haven't ever tried to find out their names, no. Maybe - probably - that would be impossible now.

But your contention that I think Hutchinson was 'very very different' to the other 53? Not sure about that. I don't know how different we would think he was if some of those other witness statements (or in some cases 'witness' statements) had survived. I know his name and his story because his statement to the police has survived by chance; and because he bragged to the press;and because he has been picked out relative obscurity by modern authors as a potential suspect.

I wonder if it all elevates him above his place, sometimes. Yes, he was different at the time - because the police really thought, to begin with, that his account could lead them at last to the Ripper. He was special, briefly. Then he wasn't. Then he was just another discarded witness. The task of the police was to catch the killer; not worry about leads that went nowhere. You can see that he was forgotten quickly. Poor old Dew didn't even remember his name properly.

It is we, today, who focus so intently on Hutchinson. As evidenced by this inordinately long thread.

And now, I think I'll leave you to it. The new Examiner has reached my mailbox - time for something new.

I have to say I'm impressed that this thread has run from the last issue to this one! Clearly, Fisherman, your theory has been contentious enough to keep us all interested for the last couple of months!