Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

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

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Not just “may be”, Fisherman."

Yes. Emphatically just "may be".

And even if we would allow for such a strange assertion as "There almost certainly were sounds that made it impossible for conversation to be heard from 30 metres away.", we would STILL only have "almost certainly". And when we are not certain, we offer the benefit of a doubt.
Of course, in this case I think it is the other way around - I would offer YOU the benefit of a doubt; there MAY have been too much noise around - but it is not likely.

"That’s not “skating on the surface of the ocean”, whatever that’s supposed to mean, but simply factoring in the conditions that almost certainly existed..."

It is not "factoring in" anything, Ben. To "factor in" something, you have to know the nature of that thing. You donīt. So what we are left with is you guessing away. AND itīs "almost certainly" again, is it not? Meaning ...? Thatīs it - meaning that your argument is useless in the end.

"“Quiet” was clearly used as a relative term in the sources you quoted."

And "not a sound was heard" is relative in what way? I find your argument relatively amusing. And relatively bad. On second thought, make that very bad.

"Genuine non-discredited witnesses, who were there at the time, knew the sound qualities of the London Streets better than we ever could, and who couldn’t hear conversation from ten feet away. This easily trumps the observations of a well-intention studier of acoustics in modern Sweden who neither knew, nor was sufficiently informed about, the reality that were other competing sounds on the streets of the East End."

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.
Go find out how much sound a wall soaks up, Ben. I have. Go learn about windows, and their permeability of sound. I did. Read about what a curtain does to sound. I did.
You see, I do all these things since I take this seriously. People who simply guess away and cry out loud in disappointment when they are not believed do not.

"I really shouldn’t need to explain how implausible it is that Crossingham’s was “full of sleeping lodgers” around 2:15"

You really couldnīt. For you donīt know. But you can always guess!

"Of course, I don’t mind derailing the thread in a Toppy direction. We can even do signatures again if you want."

There is no need to.

"I do wish you’d just stick to a particular tangent, and not interfere with the discussions I was having with others. Just take a breather once in a while. It really won’t hurt."

Oh-oh, Ben - thatīs forbidden territory for you. You donīt get to comment on my nationality, my family, my frequency of posting or any such thing. You get to discuss the particulars of the case, nothing else. It may be disappointing, but such is life.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“After that, it can certainly be added that there MAY have been other sources of sound about, and that these sources - if they were there - MAY have created a level of disturbances that made it impossible for the conversation to be made out”

Not just “may be”, Fisherman.

There almost certainly were sounds that made it impossible for conversation to be heard from 30 metres away. That’s not “skating on the surface of the ocean”, whatever that’s supposed to mean, but simply factoring in the conditions that almost certainly existed outdoors on a miserable night in the small hours of that crowded, disreputable pocket of the East End in 1888. Expert insight is all very well and can be very useful, providing it is applied correctly and in full acknowledged of the circumstances in place at the time. For accuracy of results, I have tended to use genuine evidence from the period that wasn’t discredited shortly after it first appeared, and I this respect, I consider Lawende and Levy’s evidence as quite conclusive in this regard. If they couldn’t hear conversation from ten feet away, Hutchinson almost certainly could not have heard conversation from 30 metres away.

“Quiet” was clearly used as a relative term in the sources you quoted. They certainly did not mean silent, because that would be impossible. The streets were quieter than usual at the time of the murders, obviously – Duke Street included – but they could not have been sufficiently quiet to enable the detection of actual words from such a distance away. If you consider that “skating on the ocean”, so be it, but I see little occasion to revise my stance on this.

“If you should fail to recognize this, I stand by my demand that you find yourself substantiation for what is at this stage nothing but guesswork on your behalf.”

I have.

Genuine non-discredited witnesses, who were there at the time, knew the sound qualities of the London Streets better than we ever could, and who couldn’t hear conversation from ten feet away. This easily trumps the observations of a well-intention studier of acoustics in modern Sweden who neither knew, nor was sufficiently informed about, the reality that were other competing sounds on the streets of the East End. Obviously, I don’t need to provide a “rival” modern expert of my own, since this one doesn’t disagree with me – there was just no factoring in of the conditions that needed to be incorporated into the “experiment”.

I really shouldn’t need to explain how implausible it is that Crossingham’s was “full of sleeping lodgers” around 2:15, but if you study the Chapman inquest, you should be able to form a slightly more informed picture of just who was up and about at these hours.

But then you decided to talk Toppy, which rather disappoints me because it suggests you missed this post:

A quick observation regarding Toppy that ought to be reiterated before I remind the Toppy-endorsers once again that there are plenty of other threads dedicated that particular subject and that derailing the thread in that direction will only distract from Dew’s fascinating 1930 theory.

The specific arguments for which can be found elsewhere.

(That bold italicised “elsewhere” was, of course, a hint.)

Of course, I don’t mind derailing the thread in a Toppy direction. We can even do signatures again if you want. I was only trying to retain some semblance of on-topicness, which I thought you might have appreciated given that it’s your topic. I’ll address your specific Toppyisms when I get back, along with your response to my post to Lechmere. I do wish you’d just stick to a particular tangent, and not interfere with the discussions I was having with others. Just take a breather once in a while. It really won’t hurt.

[Fisherman]

Ben (in his post to Lechmere):

"You repeat the obvious fallacy that “nearly everyone worked in day time”. This is a fantasy derived from an unsuccessful crusade to exonerate Hutchinson. The nocturnal occupations I listed barely scratched the surface, and to list them all would be entirely supererogatory for the purpose of demolishing the clearly nonsensical suggestion that men and women active in the small hours were the conspicuous “exception”.

One thing that is interesting here is what Fiona Rule writes in her book about Dorset Street (Iīm sure youīve read it?):

"A feature of the Spitalfields landlords was the additional services they provided for their tenants. Both the McCarthy and the Smith families ran general shops close to their lodging houses that sold all manner of essentials, from soap to string, at highly inflated prices. These shops operated long hours and were in many ways the forerunners of todayīs corner shops. They were generally open every day (except Sundays) and many only closed for a couple of hours (at around 2am) before opening again to catch the market porters on their way to work."
And this is exactly what Lechmere has been trying to tell you: the nightshift workers - and there would not have been anywhere near as many as there were daytime workers - went to work in the late afternoon or the evening, and returned home early next morning. The early birds around were the market porters, who, just like Cross and Paul, went to job at around 3.30-4. But the hours encompassing our particular area of interest were hours when not even the greedy landlords kept their shops open since there were no customers to be had.
What a truly curioius thing to say on your behalf, Ben - that nightime workers were not the exception. Of course they were. Nine people out of ten would have been daytime workers, and the ones left over would reasonably not have gone to work or returned from it at 2 AM in the morning.

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, and your failure to accept it (please not that I donīt use the word "realize") does in no way change that. Saying no is a very useless thing to do when you lack substantiation. But Iīll try and find some facts, so we can wrap it up.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Right, so Hutchinson used to be a groom. Not much mileage in checking up on that really - past and gone.

Now he's a 'general labourer'. Right. That generic favourite second only to the ubiquitous 'hawker' amongst the floating population of the local doss houses.

Hutchinson wouldn't have stood out from the crowd at all. In the Victoria Home, he would have been just like anyone else - anonymous.

Nobody would have remembered him. If he didn't stay at the Victoria Home every night, nobody would have noticed. Nobody would have cared.

He wasn't suspected of being a murderer. Of wasting police time? Probably. Of being on the make? Possibly. 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.

He was one of 54 other men who also came forward with 'information'. What did they all come forward for? The usual motives, of course - for a thrill, for the hope (however misguided) of money, or even for a bet.

How would Hutchinson have been different in the eyes of the police? He wouldn't. Contrary suggestions are unrealistic.

[Ben]

And along comes Letchmere’s attempt to make good his promise to “dismantle” my post.

How poignant.

Well, I’m filled with sympathy, Lechmere, but I’m afraid I continue to gaze on in utter bewilderment at the picture of the Victorian East End that you seem to created for yourself; a cross between an Oliver Twist musical sequence where everyone was everyone else’s friendly acquaintance, and a police state where everyone's slightest movements were documented and scrutinized. It’s a novel idea, but about as far away from reality as can be envisaged. Certainly, I have yet to hear anyone depict the Victorian East End as you have done.

You repeat the obvious fallacy that “nearly everyone worked in day time”. This is a fantasy derived from an unsuccessful crusade to exonerate Hutchinson. The nocturnal occupations I listed barely scratched the surface, and to list them all would be entirely supererogatory for the purpose of demolishing the clearly nonsensical suggestion that men and women active in the small hours were the conspicuous “exception”. Not in this district it wasn’t, as nearly everyone appreciates. It is certainly no coincidence that whenever there was a ripper-attributed murder, there was always someone legitimately “awake” a stone’s throw away, whether they were off-duty soldiers, policeman, night watchmen, pub-goers, social club members, prostitutes (not just “a few desperate prostitutes” as per your ludicrous suggestion), or people returning from of heading to work, such as car-men who often went out as early as 1.00am.

Why do you think lodging houses such as the Victoria Home kept doormen on duty during the small hours? Because it was clearly the case – and I can’t believed I’m still arguing the shockingly obvious on this – that lodgers were in the habit of coming and going at all hours of the night for various reasons, most notably their differing work schedules. If they were the conspicuous exception, it would have been a catastrophic waste of time and resources to hire doormen for the "off-peak" periods.

This was a crowded corner of an ill-reputed district, and the Victoria Home was shaded dark blue to indicate the very poor and “chronic want”, just one off the very worst category. Would this have been the case if the mass scrutinizing and meticulous policing of people with nocturnal habits had been enforced with indefatigable rigour, as per your implausible and strictly-not-to-be-taken-seriously suggestion? Of course it doesn’t, and Booth’s reference to “chronic want” also makes a mockery of your attempt to ridicule my characterization of the Victoria Home was the type of place where the struggle for daily survival was paramount, and where a nosey-neighbour approach to one lodger in 500 from several weeks ago was unlikely to have been prevalent.

“Hutchinson was supposedly either a groom or a labourer. Was there much call for a night groom or a night labourer?”

It’s difficult to say with the remotest degree of certainty, but it’s entirely irrelevant because Hutchinson would not have been required to state his reason for getting in late. All he needed to do was purchase a ticket in advance - which we know took the form of a generic metal cheque - and flash it at the doorman when he retuned in the small hours. No personal details would have been recorded, since this only occurred with lodgers new to the establishment. It’s not a case of the Victoria Home “catering” for night-workers specifically. They wouldn’t have made those silly distinctions at any point. They would have catered for anyone who was not a “known bad character”, and who had the funds to pay for a daily or weekly pass, which was basically the same as a bed ticket, as I’m prepared to reiterate for another 100 pages of posts if necessary. Providing they passed the initial entry “vetting” process, it is very unlikely that any questions would have been asked thereafter. If Hutchinson “joined the number” of those seeking night work, it is unlikely that anyone would have noticed. He was one lodger in 500.

Nobody was required to give a reason for requiring a weekly pass.

It would simply have been a case of “weekly pass please”. “Sold”. Job done. None of this silly Fort Knox approach to security that you keep getting muddled about.

“He didn’t say he couldn’t get in as he had no money. This implies he had pre bought a weekly ticket but hadn’t thought to get a special pass as he was later back from Romford than he anticipated.”

No, Lechmere. It implies that he didn’t have a weekly ticket that was the same thing as a special pass, and that he no money to pay for any of the lesser lodging houses either, and both factors combine to make the alleged Romford trek very bizarre and illogical indeed; heading all that way in the certainty that he would find no lodgings at the end of his journey at 2.00am. Misjudging a cut-off point by one and a half hours doesn’t seem very plausible to me. You’re still getting carried away with the word “special” for some unfathomable reason, so it’s well worth pointing out that this big and exciting adjective does not appear in the Daily Telegraph’s description of the Victoria Home rules.

“The factor we have to focus in on is how many people would have entered the Victoria Home after the 12.30 am or 1 am curfew I am certain it would be hardly any”

You’re awfully certain of a lot of things that you shouldn’t be, but here is a particularly distressing example. Common sense clearly informs us that if the number of entrants around that time was so low, they may as well have closed its doors to everyone during that time-frame, rather than employing a lodging house deputy for the remainder of the night. Lodgers would have been coming and going at all hours of the day and night for various reasons, and it would have been nigh on impossible to keep scrutinising the movements of one of many lodgers who did this on the murder nights. Perfect safety in numbers. End of.

Then you introduce some fresh nonsense about Hutchinson being a “gregarious” type, a baseless assumption not admitted by any compelling evidence that you then use to portray him as the life and soul of the Victoria Home whose behaviour and movements couldn’t possibly have escaped attention. This is ludicrous. Hutchinson’s coming forward says nothing about how much of a social animal he was. If, as seems likely, he was only spurred into account on account of the revelations of Sarah Lewis, it would mean that he came forward reluctantly. Same with the press – he may have reluctantly spoken to them to tidy up potentially grey areas in his police statement. Jack London says that some of the young men were “chatty” when he went to the Victoria Home, (which it clearly was, as others better informed than you have pointed out) and according to you this means that Hutchinson must have been equally “chatty” and therefore can’t have been a killer!

“Hutchinson says he spoke to a resident on the Monday. He says he spoke to Kelly and had been in her company.”

He only said these things. No evidence that either statement was true, and such, I really would caution against using Hutchinson’s claims to support Hutchinson’s claims! You’re conjuring up the existence of friends and peers for whom no evidence exists, and than using this invented evidence to depict Hutchinson as gregarious and chatty. You should stop it, really.

“They would have cleared them by using the methods then at their disposal.”

Methods that were invariably limited to personal assumption only, and rarely the acquisition of proof that such and such a suspect was definitely not involved. Unfortunately for you, you have yet to overcome the obstacle of no evidence existing anywhere to suggest that Hutchinson was ever suspected of being a killer. I’m not the first to make the rational and fair demand that if you make a claim, you provide the evidence. With respect, it really is piss or get off the pot time when it comes to the “Hutchinson was suspected” question.

This is your first task, and you’ve consistently failed to get round it, relying instead on “must haves”. If Hutchinson was ever suspected – in this no-evidence scenario – the end result was clearly unfulfilled suspicion rather than the ludicrous “exoneration” theory. It doesn’t follow that he would have remained a prime suspect if he was ever suspected, because the police clearly exhibited a preference for foreigners, butchers, doctors, and those with mental problems. Local gentiles with no history of madness/violence and no medical skills would probably not have been suspected for long, if ever, because they clearly didn't fit the type of suspects the police were clearly interested in.

Again, 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? This is impossible nonsense, Lechmere, and really rather patience-testing, if I’m honest. Just consider the sheer number of suspects who warranted investigation, and then consider what we know about serial killers today. 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.

Hutchinson’s coming forward as a witness voluntarily almost certainly ensured that when his account came to be dismissed, he was considered to have been another publicity seeker only, and the question of his guilt was never considered.

Better luck "dismantling" next time.

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro – do you mind if I enter your challenging quiz?
(I am afraid I am one of those wishy-washy types who often says ‘maybe’ or ‘possibly’ or ‘probably’ but I will do my best.

Which of these statements do you not agree with ?

-Hutchinson was aged 22
Very probably

-Hutchinson was innocent
Almost certainly

-Hutchinson had had a good look at A Man, and A man had seen Hutchinson
Possibly (on balance I think he drastically over exaggerated this encounter)

-A man was ruthless and armed with a knife
Very unlikely

-Hutchinson was standing alone outside the Court
Probably at some point on one of those two days

-Hutchinson lodged at the Victoria Home and only thoroughly checked out and respectable men were allowed to lodge there, and it was a vastly superior place to any other lodging house.
Several questions here. Let me dissect them.
I think he did live there for a period
The Victoria Home endeavoured to exclude bad characters , which does mean that they only allowed respectable characters to lodge there (I have a horrible feeling that Ben’s over exaggeration technique is proving to be contagious)
The Victoria Home had a stricter policy on late night entry than nearly all other lodging houses and tried to ‘morally uplift’ its inmates. To some this might make it ‘superior’. To others this might make it inferior.

-the streets were totally silent and no one was out or awake
A street, being inanimate, tends to be silent at all times.
I presume this really refers to whether people were out and about on the streets at night.
Clearly some people were out. Jack the Ripper and his victims, coppers on the beat, late night drunks on the way home, that sort of things. Later in the morning you would get people on their way to work for early shifts.
The streets were fairly empty and fairly quiet. Clearly it depends which street you are talking about. Some would be very quiet and very empty.

-the only person that had seen A Man, and stood between him and possible arrest was Hutchinson.
I don’t think A-man did it, I don’t particularly think Hutchinson saw A-man as described, he may have seen someone similar and that may have been the day before anyway.

While I’m here, you say...
“Abberline accepted Hutch's story for a day or so (when influenced by the personality of the man sitting before him). with a little more time to reflect, he quickly changed his mind.
“I doubt that he was in the habit of strolling down Dorset street at night -even his bobbies wouldn't do that. This may be one other reason that he initially believed the story -he hadn't yet been appraised of the reality of the place at that hour.”
Actually we don’t know how long Abberline accepted his story. I would guess Abberline would have been rather more familiar with Dorset Street than you or I. Or anyone else who has ever posted on this or any other forum. Ever.

Mr Wroe – the fact that London says his lodging house was near Middlesex Street counts very much against the Victoria Home in my opinion, as it was bang on the major thorough fare – Commercial Street.
I remember now reading that the Rotheschild’s pictures were tenements rather than a lodging house. I would presume that when he got back home he had loads of pictures and couldn’t remember where every one was exactly taken.
As for interior shots which he may have taken but not included in his book for the first editions... possible, but fairly unlikely I think.
Also if he went back after his stay to take the photos, then there is nothing to say he revisited the same places. He may well have gone to a tamer location to take the photos (e.g. such as the Victoria Home).

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;165199]This, Ruby, may come as a huge surprise to you, since I have not told it to you for more than a full day. Therefore you may [QUOTE]have forgotten it. But to sleep in Kellyīs room, or perhaps only come out of the cold and and warm himself before returning to the streets.
...

and thatīs that for now! I will be doing other things the next few hours than answering your questions

.

I also have some ever more pressing work to do..

So we shall leave it with your last answer, for the time being :

I am of the meaning that Hutchinson may have harboured a hope(to) have a cup of tea

[Fisherman]

This, Ruby, may come as a huge surprise to you, since I have not told it to you for more than a full day. Therefore you may have forgotten it. But I am of the meaning that Hutchinson may have harboured a hope to sleep in Kellyīs room, or perhaps only come out of the cold and have a cup of tea and warm himself before returning to the streets.

...and thatīs that for now! I will be doing other things the next few hours than answering your questions. But donīt let that dismay you - you can in all probability find answers to your questions in this very thread if you go looking for them!

the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

You should try politics ! (hopefully NOT)

[

QUOTE]"-what was Hutch waiting FOR ?"

Astrakhan man to leave.[/QUOTE]

And what did he hope to do then -irrespective of the day ?

I am saying, tedious though it may sound. Repetitions, repetitions

...
Effectively, following all the slippery tricks and turns, and then trying to combat the windyness, does challange my brain sometimes.. I own up !!

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" don't think that you know entirely, yourself."

That would depend. If you speak of the case and the solution to it, you are correct. If you speak of what I think myself, you are wrong. And seriously, your questions give away that you have perhaps not fully understood what I am saying, tedious though it may sound. Repetitions, repetitions ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"We can't possibly know WHY he changed his mind -however he did."

No, but we can look at the statistics adhering to policemen changing their mind overnight and coming to believe that they had been gullible ...

"You fancy Johnny Depp, too !"

No - that was a disgrace of a movie. Eddowes stood watching as her kidney was unpacked!

"never mind what has gone before"'

I think we owe it to the generous administrators of the boards as well as to our fellow posters not to clog the threads with endless repetitions of old stuff. I mind.

"try answering directly some straight questions.."

Iīm at your disposal, Ruby!

"-who was the killer if it wasn't either A Man or Hutch ?"

Reasonably someone who was there on the night Kelly was killed. None of the above were.

"-what was Hutch waiting FOR ?"

Astrakhan man to leave.

"-why didn't A Man try and stab Hutch ?

Normally, punters do not take a stab at people in the street just for jolly. I expect this was much the same.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][

Donīt wear me out by over and over again suggesting things that you full well know does not tally with my beliefs.[/QUOTE

I admit that you are seriously confusing me as to what your beliefs are (they"re rather amorphous). I don't think that you know entirely, yourself.

[Rubyretro]

[

Ah, but thatīs YOUR interpretation, Ruby. YOU (and some other posters) try to establish that Abberline changed his mind since he suddenly realized that he had been gullible with Hutch.

We can't possibly know WHY he changed his mind -however he did. Therefore the story of 'innocent truth speaking Toppy' is severely compromised.
I don't know how you can have it every which way : either our choirboy, Toppy, was an innocent truth teller; the Police were able to check every story out, and living in the Victoria Home made story telling impossible -or else those assertions aren't true.

"

I doubt that he was in the habit of strolling down Dorset street at night -

I stand by that.

Abberline was as streetwise as any copper would get, Ruby.

aawgh.. You fancy Johnny Depp, too !

because he was as streetwise as they come.

Oh, go on, admit it !

Seriously..he was a superior officer,and had probably not walked down Dorset Street in a long while.

This is getting embarrasing.

I think it is -for you.

"Hutch gave a popular ignorant stereotype and a 'hate figure' for poor East End workers"

But the "poor East end workers" were not the ones he needed to impress, Ruby - that role was afforded to Abberline and the police. And THEY would know whether "stereotypes" walked the streets or not at times. If they emphatically never did, then that would have sunk Hutch like a ton of lead. And STILL he offered this description. Ponder that, Ruby.

I'm pondering it. I think that the Police distanced themselves from Hutch pretty damn quick -although the stereotype lingered on with the populace.

"it was an image born on the streets"
"people preferred a romantic flashy bogey-man image of the killer to the mundane"

But these are all old arguments, chewed and spit out hundreds of times on the boards! You need to find something new and compelling, Ruby - and thatīs not easy to come by if you need to have Hutchinson in the killerīs role.

never mind what has gone before- you wise old bird you- try answering directly some straight questions..

-who was the killer if it wasn't either A Man or Hutch ?
-what was Hutch waiting FOR ?
-why didn't A Man try and stab Hutch ?

[Garry Wroe]

Could be, Sally, though I know next to nothing about this particular property. Yet I think it a little more than coincidental that London's book contains a photograph of the Victoria Home in the very passage in which he details his experiences in the innominate 'poor man's hotel'.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.