Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;164994]Ruby:

Rabid dogs? Is that what it is called when one sticks with the evidence?

"
Ben repeatedly sticks to the line 'Hutchinson was never a suspect, and therefore was not checked out as one'. YOU[ take the tack that the Police "would have checked him out" (purely hypothetical/) and go off on themes "Hutchinson got the day wrong", "Hutchinson just wanted to sleep on his good friend's floor' and " Hutchinson didn't come forward at the inquest because he hadn't heard of the murder" -none of those things are either facts, nor remotely probable. You trap yourself into having to invent them in order to bolster your spurious theories.

Bens arguments poses a threat to anybody who needs to get an unbiased picture of George Hutchinson, Ruby. So do yours. And if pointing that out makes me a rabid dog, then WOOOF!

So [B]YOU[ are not biased, Fish ??? Pull the other one. You have a strong bias against Hutchinson as the murderer ; that is why you turn up on Hutch threads arguing against him. You are afraid that Ben's explanations are too convincing (otherwise these 'people' that you profess to be putting right, would form their own opinions). I repeat that you are so biased yourself that you need to resort to the above silly scenarios and abandon common sense.

/B

]"I'm equally amazed that people have such faith in the 1888 Police abilities to check anyone out in an conclusive way : these are the very same police that didn't catch the Ripper !!"

This is the bottom line, despite your previous reply.

[

QUOTE]

"I don't like to argue for the 'could Hutch really have heard Mary speak or not'
debate, since I really don't believe that A Man even existed, so these arguements seem so futile."

Thatīs a fine way to go about it: work from the presumption that you have the facts, and nullify other suggestions

In this particular case, if A Man didn't exist, then all discussion on a fictitious conversation and it's noise levels is worth zero.

"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.""

Two things, Ruby:

1. How much of that sound would travel through the windows and walls into the street?

Lot's if it was happening up and down the street in houses with no insulation/double glazing etc.

2. Were the incidents so frequent that they amount to an unceasing, even level of disturbances or noises, travelling through the walls into the street? Or does the informants claim to have gone to sleep inbetween them tell a completely different story

?

We are talking about different incidents in all different buildings, up and down the street all night.

"Added to the noise from the lodging houses, might be babies and small children crying and domestic arguements, from the private rooms."

Yes! And people dropping kettles on tile floors, dogs barking, people cursing other people who had bit their ears, mad ex-clergymen preaching in highstrung voices and infants sucking away loudly at their motherīs nipples. Letīs not forget that!

Let's not !

And then, when we have realized all of these opportunities, letīs return to the real world, and just accept that in spite of all the POTENTIAL sources of sounds, we STILL do not know if one, two or any of them was in play at the time we are interested in.

nor if all of them were in play , all the time.

Therefore, it is a waste of time.

Hoorah ! True !

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Blimey ! I went out to dinner last night and woke up this morning to find
lots of shouty posts and Fish and Letch apparently trying to maul Ben like a pair of rabid dogs..."

Rabid dogs? Is that what it is called when one sticks with the evidence?

"Ben certainly seems to pose a threat to you with his meticulous sticking to the simple facts of the case,"

Bens arguments poses a threat to anybody who needs to get an unbiased picture of George Hutchinson, Ruby. So do yours. And if pointing that out makes me a rabid dog, then WOOOF!

"I'm equally amazed that people have such faith in the 1888 Police abilities to check anyone out in an conclusive way : these are the very same police that didn't catch the Ripper !!"

So, by analogy, the policemen involved in the Black Dahlia case, the Zodiac case, The Kingsbury Run case and the Lizzie Borden case did not check things out either. If we do not catch the guy, we have not checked things out, sort of.

And YOU are amazed, Ruby ...?

"How can anyone seriously deny it ?"

Since when are we dealing with serious argumentation, Ruby? Since it was found out that the lodgers of Dorset Street were up and about, turning the street into a hullaballoo at 2.15?

"I don't like to argue for the 'could Hutch really have heard Mary speak or not'
debate, since I really don't believe that A Man even existed, so these arguements seem so futile."

Thatīs a fine way to go about it: work from the presumption that you have the facts, and nullify other suggestions.

"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.""

Two things, Ruby:
1. How much of that sound would travel through the windows and walls into the street?
2. Were the incidents so frequent that they amount to an unceasing, even level of disturbances or noises, travelling through the walls into the street? Or does the informants claim to have gone to sleep inbetween them tell a completely different story?

"Added to the noise from the lodging houses, might be babies and small children crying and domestic arguements, from the private rooms."

Yes! And people dropping kettles on tile floors, dogs barking, people cursing other people who had bit their ears, mad ex-clergymen preaching in highstrung voices and infants sucking away loudly at their motherīs nipples. Letīs not forget that!
And then, when we have realized all of these opportunities, letīs return to the real world, and just accept that in spite of all the POTENTIAL sources of sounds, we STILL do not know if one, two or any of them was in play at the time we are interested in. But we DO know that - as quoted in my last post - that the murder site streets were reported as being very quiet on the nights the murders occurred. So no matter how enterprising we may be in trying to bring new sound sources on stage, we still have another picture witnessed about and we will never be able to prove that a single one of them were at hand in the time we investigate. Therefore, it is a waste of time.

"It is even clear that, on a normal night, there would have been knots of men standing around talking, and people dossing on the pavement, after the pubs turned out at 1am."

Aha - so now we have dossers sleeping on the pavement of Dorset Street? Snoring away loudly, I take it? And we have "knots of men" standing around talking outside the pubs after closing time? But where were they when the witnesses and policemen tied to the cases were in place at the murder sites? Why do they say that there was not a sound, if the pavements were lined with chatting men? Are they lying?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Blimey ! I went out to dinner last night and woke up this morning to find
lots of shouty posts and Fish and Letch apparently trying to maul Ben like a pair of rabid dogs...with Mike adding a few yaps for good measure..
Ben certainly seems to pose a threat to you with his meticulous sticking to the simple facts of the case, as opposed to the 'the Police would have/
off record' approach.

I am amazed at how many people can claim to psychically know what Abberline would of checked out or not -considering that all we know
is that Hutchinson wasn't considered a suspect.

I'm equally amazed that people have such faith in the 1888 Police abilities to check anyone out in an conclusive way : these are the very same police that didn't catch the Ripper !!! -

-Whoever he was, given the small geographical distances and short timespan, he must have been right under their noses all the time !
Could it be that, without catching him in the act or his being denounced by
someone, they were left with very basic techniques, a lack of forensics, an inability to check....and they made some bad judgements ?

That just seems logical ! How can anyone seriously deny it ?

Would Lechmere please post all the info on the Victoria Home, to show me that it had a totally different system to all the other lodging houses? There is a fair bit of info on the net about men's lodging houses in Spitalfields/Whitechapel and they concur on every detail. The Victoria may
have been described as housing some men who had 'seen better' times, but it is still described as being in the navy blue band, and I can't find any reference to it having any system different to the others. In which case there was never any 'book of ticks', which is a figment of Lechmere's imagination, and men came and went as they pleased ; They weren't prisoners, and they didn't have to justify where they were at each moment of
the day or night. It is nigh on impossible that with weeks old hindsight, lodging house deputies would remember each and every lodger, each and every moment of the day and night.

Please let us bear in mind that JTR didn't have 'Ripper' on a label stuck to his forehead, and indeed would have actively tried to be as unsuspicious as possible -had he wanted to be caught, he would have been.

I don't like to argue for the 'could Hutch really have heard Mary speak or not'
debate, since I really don't believe that A Man even existed, so these arguements seem so futile. Still, as you are attacking Ben on 'ambient sound levels in Dorset street' this might be of interest :

It is from an article on men's lodging houses, first published in the Ripperologist, and reproduced on Casebook . The person quoted had bought a common lodging house, and the site is identified (Hoare doesn't cite it) as
Dorset Street :

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."

It is clear that there were many such places in Dorset Street, and they didn't have double glazing -I expect that some would have boken panes, or gaps between the wood and the bricks. Hutchinson was even standing in front of a lodging house !

Added to the noise from the lodging houses, might be babies and small children crying and domestic arguements, from the private rooms.

It is even clear that, on a normal night, there would have been knots of men standing around talking, and people dossing on the pavement, after the pubs turned out at 1am. I don't think that there were the night of Kelly's murder -because of the rain.

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

Wait a sec! You mean Hutchinson was Jamaican? He would have stood out like a sore thumb and would have been thoroughly checked out. Case closed. You've put this one to bed, my friend.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I think that you hve to go back to the drawing board !!"

I would have, but the place is crowded.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Well, Mike, this of course throws a whole different light on things. I only wish you had posted this earlier, because that would have saved m ...

...now, wait a sec, Mike. Youīre not pulling my leg here, are you? You ARE! Mike, you son of a...!!!

"Technically speaking, both sides are right on this aspect of the case against Reggies father."

It neednīt be reggie, Mike. Karaoke encompasses all sorts of music styles, like rock, souls, r&b ...

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Ypu may not know this, but karaoke was first used in Dorset Street in October of 1888. As you know, this is a popular (if inane) after-hours activity in many places, especially in Asia. Because it was a new fad, I'm sure the normally quiet streets were crowded with folks waiting to get their first shot at one of these singing rooms. Indeed we know that not so many years later, people queued up to see the first silent films. Fortunately for British sanity, the fad died off in 1892 and the streets became quiet again. It wasn't until Tokyo in the 1980s that such a thing was resurrected. Technically speaking, both sides are right on this aspect of the case against Reggies father.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben! Howīs the alien doing?

"This is an example of misunderstood or misappropriated terminology."

Ah - you want to discuss terminology instead (like, perhaps, "articulation"?). Okay.

Letīs put these things differently:

If he said he had not seen anybody enter the archway, in spite of watching it, the police would have good evidence telling them that he seemingly missed Lewis.

If a fellow lodger or doss house door watch swore that Hutchinson had been there on the night of Thursday, they would likewise have good evidence telling them that he seemingly was not in Dorset Street on the night.

If somebody in Romford verified all of this, they would have even more. And weighing things together, they would have had a number of sources, pointing to the exact same thing. Add to this that they may have had Hutch speaking of a DRY night and the rest of the East End speaking of a WET one, and that would have been quite enough for them to send him on his way.

After that, there is certainly your Moriarty theory, the mastermind lodger and killer scheme, lying about the essential things in a very schrewd manner, while being a terrible liar in other instances, making it completley clear that he was not honest (by, for example, saying that he walked the streets all night, while we full we know that it rained cats and dogs as he started out). In all of this, you also need to have the police deciding that "Dear God, this man says the strangest things, and his story is full of holes and un-checkables, but since we are such a technically deprived police force in our infancy, we shall have to let him go anyway".

And this you pass of as the most credible solution to the Ripper story.

"You just said a moment ago "there endeth the argument"."

Thatīs beacuse I keep forgetting the possibility that the odd daft argument may pop up. I am often mistaken in that department - daft arguments DO pop up. And one of the daftest ones so far is that "the idea of the crowded vice-ridden East End streets of 1888 being "silent" at that time is a preposterous concept".

The over the top-exaggeration thing again! The "preposterous" business again. It is not only doubtful to suggest to suggest that the East End streets were quiet in the dead of the night, it is in fact absolutely "preposterous"!

Well then! Letīs pick a few things to dispel this. Letīs go for a nighttime walk through the East end and the murder sites, accompanied by the ones who were there, and hear how THEY describe the sound levels!

As Robert Paul approached Cross in Buckīs Row, Cross could hear his footsteps from "40 yards away". Was Paul a tap dancer, perhaps? And in Buckīs Row, there were slaughterhouses at work, I believe. One would have thought that the almighty noise coming from them would have drowned the footfalls...? Or was Buckīs Row a quiet street at night? Is that even possible?

Maybe the horse-knackers themselves would know? Letīs ask them:

“Two other men, James Mumford and Charles Britten, had been working in the slaughterhouse. He (witness) and Britten left the slaughterhouse for one hour between midnight and one o'clock in the morning, but not afterwards till they went to see the body. The distance from Winthrop-street to Buck's-row was not great.
The Coroner: Is your work noisy?
Witness: No, sir, very quiet.
The Coroner: Was it quiet on Friday morning, say after two o'clock?
Witness: Yes, sir, quite quiet.”

Oh – QUITE quiet! Not slightly noisy, and certainly not bustling! The horse-knacker even tell us that they had the gates to their premises wide open towards the streets, so they wouldhave heard any noise. But “quite quiet” was how they described the night. And still, this is one of your “crowded vice-ridden East End streets of 1888”. Strange, is it not?
And what about Harriet Lilley? Mrs Harriet Lilley of Bucks Row had a restless night`s sleep and reported hearing at around 03.30 the sounds of a moan and gasps, followed by whispers.
Wow! She heard WHISPERS through her open window? In that bustling, crimeridden, noisy night-time East End Street?

Thereīs also Mrs Colwell, of whom the Evening News write on the 1 of September:

“According to her statement she was awakened early in the morning by her children, who said some one was trying to get into the house. She listened, and heard a woman screaming "Murder! Police!" five or six times. The voice faded away, as though the woman was going in the direction of Buck's-row, and all was quiet”

All was quiet? How SUSPICIOUS!

Walter Purkiss, living at Essex Wharf:
“Did you or your wife hear any sound during the night? -- Witness: No, not a sound; it was unusually quiet.”

But how could that BE? An East End street, and there was NOT A SOUND??

Edward Muleham:

“Edward Muleham, night watchman at the Whitechapel District Board of Works, said -- On the night of the murder I was in Winthorpe-street during the whole of the night. I did not leave till about five minutes to six in the morning.
 The Coroner. -- Was there any man running away?
 No, sir. It is very quiet after eleven o'clock, and I should have noticed anyone running away.

WHAT? “VERY QUIET” after ELEVEN OīCLOCK?? A liar, that Muleham!
Then again, another report says:
“Witness, however, did not hear any noise that night. The streets were very quiet.”
…so he was at least a steadfast liar.

Scott Hannaford describes three of the murder sites thus:
“Nichols; Bucks Row; a poorly lit quiet street with few pedestrians
Chapman; Hanbury Street; a quiet dark backyard
Kelly; Millers Court; a single room in a quiet court off Dorset St.
How did he get so mislead? Why does he not know, like you do, that the nights in the East End were loud affairs?

Sam Flynn, sorely missed, gives HIS picture of Dorset Street:
“It was by all accounts a quiet night - perhaps because of the rain, perhaps for other reasons. I mean, let's face it, Dorset Street and its environs didn't have much going for it after the pubs shut.”
Obviously, he was not aware of the nightly dosserīs parade that had the neighbourhood swinging big time at 2.15.

The East London Observer writes, on the 14 of September:
“ īMurderī has been cried through quiet streets at nightfall every night this week by hoarse-voiced news-vendors”
“Quiet Streets”? In the East End? AND ALREADY AT NIGHTFALL?? But that would have been much earlier than 2.15 AM? What happened? Did the lodgers go to sleep for a few hours, and then arise at 2 AM, ready to raise hell?

Natalie Severn writes about Mitre Square: “I think it needs to be remembered that in an otherwise quiet square,a fairly loud ripping sound would accompany such a "tear"-whereas a "cut" with a knife would have made a little less sound!”

An “otherwise quiet” square, that is how she describes Mitre Square. And indeed, lots and lots of people write about this East end Square as a quiet place. What was it Morris said? “ Before being called by Constable Watkins, had you heard any noise in the square? – No”.
And why was this? Because it was very, very silent in Mitre Square. What would there be to disturb the silence? What ambient sounds could there possibly be? None, thatīs what.

The New York World describes the Mitre Square murder like this:
“The policeman could have heard a woman's shriek from one end of his beat to the other, but he did not hear one that night. Not a sound disturbed the ear of the watchman in the warehouse. Just inside the railing, not twenty feet from the dead body, an ex policeman lived with his family, and the windows of their bedrooms faced the square. No cry for help disturbed their slumbers.”

Quite. Silent. Not a sound.

How about Castle Alley then? “Police-constable Joseph Allen, 423 H, deposed, - Last night I was in Castle-alley. It was then 20 minutes past 12 when I passed through… Everything was very quiet at the time.”

Bernerīs Street? “Another member of the club, a Russian named Joseph Lave, feeling oppressed by the smoke in the large room, went down into the court about 20 minutes before the body was discovered, and walked about in the open air for about five minutes or more. He strolled into the street, which was very quiet at the time”

Or do we prefer Mrs Mortimer: “A woman who lives two doors from the club has made an important statement. It appears that shortly before a quarter to one o'clock she heard the measured, heavy tramp of a policeman passing the house on his beat. Immediately afterwards she went to the street-door, with the intention of shooting the bolts, though she remained standing there ten minutes before she did so. During the ten minutes she saw no one enter or leave the neighbouring yard … The quiet and deserted character of the street appears even to have struck her at the time”.

The Coles murder, as spoken about by PC Elliott: “Police-constable Elliott deposed that he was on duty in plain clothes on the night in question in Royal Mint-street. Shortly after 2 o'clock he heard a whistle blown, and on going to Swallow-gardens saw a constable with his lamp turned on the body of a woman. Had a cry for help been raised he must have heard it, but everything was very quiet till he heard a whistle.

Once again, “everything was very quiet”. Odd, is it not?

What are you sentiments reading things like these, Ben?
Why is it that the written material is always so very much against your view, when you know how screamingly obvious it is that you are right, and how preposterously catastrophical your opponents arguments are?
Why are you always handed the short end of the straw by the sources? Why could not Hutch have SAID that he stood outside Crossinghamīs instead of claiming that he went to the court? Why is fate so hard on you?
Why do all of these witnesses speak of the nighttime East End streets as very or even quite quiet streets, when you know full well that they were nothing of the sort? Why will not Lady Luck take some sort of pity on your arguments at any time?

It is not fair, is it?

Iīll give you a tip: Take Walter Purkiss, and point out that he said that the night of Nichollīs demise was "unusually" quiet. Then expand that into useful evidence that the streets were usually anything but quiet! Ingenious, is it not? After that, we may look away from all of the OTHER sources and witnesses.

Or not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“So yes, I repeat, some people did work nights but not nearly as many as those who worked days.”

But the number of people who did work nights would have been sufficiently large as to nullify any realistic possibility of any one of them being conspicuous enough in their activity to warrant investigative attention from a nosey fellow lodger or some implausibly punctilious lodging house deputy. The reality is that lodgers would have been coming and going at all hours of the day and night, and the Victoria Home had 500 beds available. What bad luck this reality is for your crusade to prove that everyone must have been paying particular attention to Hutchinson as he went about his daily or nightly business.

“Err in buildings yes. They are called nightwatchmen, for a reason. They are not found on the streets in other words. Without exception none heard a thing, most likely as they were snoozing.”

It doesn’t make a scrap of difference, Lechmere. They were still active in the small hours of the night, and probably not “snoozing”. Please acquaint yourself with the evidence of George Morris, Patrick Mulshaw, James Blenkeinsop and other night watchmen who almost certainly weren’t “snoozing” at the time. They would certainly have left some form of lodgings to get to their night watchmen duties, and the same is true of all the other men in occupations that called for nocturnal hours. I’m glad you’ve mentioned pub-leavers and revellers – add them to the great many people who had legitimate reason to be up and about, inside and outside in the small hours of the morning, and you might end up re-thinking your entrenched position that late-nighters must have been scrutinized by others, and must have had their whereabouts and alibis checked, and all that silliness. Nobody on their way to work would have attracted unwarranted attention, and the same may be said of revellers, pub throw-outs and prostitute seekers. They simply had safety in numbers, giving the overcrowding of the district that you consistently fail to take on board.

“You keep repeating this six weeks phrase. I will clarify. I am suggesting that if Hutchinson is never around the night when something horrific like a savage murder had taken place, then before 9th November, I think there would be a good chance that someone would have twigged.”

And I say, no, this is ridiculous and unimaginative. Nobody would have “twigged” that Hutchinson was absent on a night of a particular murder, chiefly because they were more concerned with everyday survival and disinclined to play private detective. Please just think about it. Hutchinson only came forward on the 12th November. What right-minded lodger would think to himself: “wait a minute, was Hutchinson in bed asleep on the 31st August? Wait! Let me consult my meticulously recorded notes for that particular evening”. It’s just ludicrous. How would any other lodger know anyway? For all these other lodgers knew, Hutchinson could have been asleep in one of the other dormitories or private cubicles at the time. Certainly, no doorman or deputy would be able to recall in November whether one lodger in 500 was present on one particular night in September.

Remember that Inspector Edmund Reid almost certainly considered the Victoria Home a viable bolt-hole for the ripper, and he would hardly have made such a claim if the meticulous note-taking of both lodgers and deputies rendered this unlikely.

“Particularly in a big lodging house that restricted late night entry and kept its registers filled up regularly with the inmates details”

They clearly didn’t do any such thing in the Victoria Home, Lechmere, as I’ve told you time and time again. Names and histories were only taken of lodgers new to the building, although this procedure was clearly not enforced when Jack London went there.

“What you really need is for Hutchinson to be an itinerant lodging house inmate. One night here, one night there. A will o’ the wisp. Then it would indeed be easier for his movements to be unaccountable on those murder nights.”

But he could have done this with absolute ease in the Victoria Home, where his movements would irrefutably, emphatically, indisputably have been “unaccountable on those murder nights”.

“It would mean that the police would have to have had some other ‘thing’ with which to clear him”

Or, vastly more plausible:

They didn’t clear him at all because they never considered him a suspect.

Even if he were so considered, he still wouldn’t have been "cleared" in all overwhelming probability.

If you want to advance the claim that he was suspected, then you have to provide evidence in that regard, rather than using baseless assumptions to support other baseless assumptions. He clearly never provided a genuine alibi. If that were the case, all Dew had to say was that it had been established that Hutchinson was elsewhere at the time, rather than asking his readership to accept his controversial, seldom-taken-seriously suggestion that Hutchinson was so muddled as to confuse an entire day, the silly sausage.

“If one doesn’t have an alibi, it is difficult (unless one has corrupt friends) to manufacture an alibi. Hutchinson really had no option did he?”

Really? You’re saying that Hutchinson had no option but to remain perpetually on the move for the remainder of the night, having already walked all the way from Romford in the certainty that the home would be closed to him by the time he arrived and that he had no pass for entry there or anywhere else? Even a claim to have slept in a stairwell or doorway was susceptible to contradiction from residents and frequenters of that doorway or stairwell. “Walking about all night” was thus one of the few realistic options available to Hutchinson if he was responsible for the murder, if not the only one.

“They did indeed have as you describe in a neat phrase a barometer for assessing the guilt or innocence for any suspect who came under the conjectural radar. That is a good description as to how they operated. Well done!”

But this is sheer lunacy talking here, Letchmere.

You’re seriously suggesting that an 1888 police force need only have checked anyone out who they suspected in order to determine whether or not they were guilty? So in other words, it’s an alien concept to you that an individual may be suspected without either being exonerated or confirmed as the culprit? As I said, sheer lunacy, and utterly contradicted by both modern investigations (who continue to have trouble converting mere suspicions into proof on a regular basis) and, frankly, common sense.

“If they were a witness who placed themselves at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed then I would suggest they would become a suspect if their status as a witness was rejected.”

You can suggest and pronounce weightily on matters you clearly don’t understand for eternity, as far as I’m concerned. It’s still completely baseless, and you still have no evidence that the police ever considered Hutchinson a suspect, and it’s still unlikely, given their inexperience with serial killers, that the 1888 police ever made the connection between a superficially cooperative witness and a potential suspect. More likely, Hutchinson was dismissed as a publicity seeker like Packer and Violenia. Even if they did suspect him, they were incredibly unlikely to have made any progress with those suspicions. This is obvious, since modern investigators consistently encounter this problem, even with CCTV and more sophisticated policing techniques.

“If there was some loose end about Hutchinson I am sure he would be on that list.”

This is embarrassing and gauche nonsense.

Let’s just have a little recap of your thought process that culminates, amazingly, in Hutchinson being “exonerated” by some miracle: Hutchinson must have been suspected (still no evidence), and he must have been cleared as a consequence (still no evidence), because otherwise he would have appeared in the Macnaghten Memoranda!! Do you have any idea how many other individuals would have come under suspicion during the course of the investigation by the time Macnaghten penned his memo, and who still would not have been cleared? Are you seriously suggesting that Druitt, Kosminski and Macnaghten were the only potential suspects out of hundreds who hadn’t been exonerated? You seriously think that every other potential suspect had passed your made-up “test”? I've already explained to you that the contemporary police clearly exhibited a preference at that stage for those with obvious indications of insanity or violence, and as far as they were concerned, the Macnaghten three met these criteria whereas Hutchinson did not.

“They almost certainly didn’t get to the stage of suspecting Hutchinson to the degree that they would have put him under surveillance – because he was cleared before it got to that stage”

Hilarious!

Now go to bed, Lechmere. It's getting late.

[Lechmere]

Ben, I have come to the conclusion that you don’t actually read what I say.
That can be the only explanation for you typing this out:
“I can’t believe you actually confirmed your black and white impression of everyone going to bed at night and only working in the day.”
When I had said...
“As you adopt absolutist positions and clearly assume I do also, I will emphasise that this does not mean that absolutely everyone was asleep at night. Clearly not. Some people did work at night, then just as now.”
I know you always try and reduce arguments to monotone shades. As I have stated before they usually are shades of grey. So yes, I repeat, some people did work nights but not nearly as many as those who worked days.
Reading what I actually said would have saved you any distressing exasperation.

“It is deplorably erroneous nonsense to argue that anyone who kept later hours would have been immediately conspicuous to everyone else, and that all these late-nighters were magically investigated and “alibied-out” accordingly.”
Yes, I agree with most of that – but you seem to be arguing with an imaginary adversary. I haven’t seen anyone suggest these things.

“The streets weren’t "empty", as you’ll discover if you actually study the eyewitness accounts from the murders themselves. Whenever a murder was committed, there was always without exception someone active and awake a stone’s throw away.”
Err in buildings yes. They are called nightwatchmen, for a reason. They are not found on the streets in other words. Without exception none heard a thing, most likely as they were snoozing.
How many people were identified in and around Dorset Street by the various witnesses? A handful in a very populous area and they seem to be late to bed revellers mostly - not people about to go to work.
Berner Street was reasonably busy as it was earlier and near chucking out time for the pub and club – not full of people going to work.
Mitre Square was quiet. No one on their way to work – just three people on their way home after a late night out.
Chapman was found as dawn broke – and people were naturally getting ready for work or on their way to work.
Please don’t suggest Cross and Paul? Cross said he hadn’t seen a sole from when he left home till he found Nichols body. That’s it Ben.
Come on Ben, where were all these people on their way to work on the streets in the dead of night?

“remember who was inside the building on a night that had passed six weeks previously”
You keep repeating this six weeks phrase. I will clarify. I am suggesting that if Hutchinson is never around the night when something horrific like a savage murder had taken place, then before 9th November, I think there would be a good chance that someone would have twigged.
You have to remember that along with mad Jewish butcher-surgeons, lodging house dwellers were high on the police’s potential suspect list . The police regularly used to approach the deputies for any info on irregular comings and goings. There was a heightened sense of awareness and everyone and his aunt were on the lookout for a potential culprit.
Any habitué of a particular lodging house who stayed out on murder nights would have almost certainly attracted attention. I know that you cannot accept this, although it is somewhat obvious. Even in a big lodging house. Particularly in a big lodging house that restricted late night entry and kept its registers filled up regularly with the inmates details.

What you really need is for Hutchinson to be an itinerant lodging house inmate. One night here, one night there. A will o’ the wisp. Then it would indeed be easier for his movements to be unaccountable on those murder nights. Unfortunately it seems he was partial to the Victoria Home. Blast it. But he could have been lying!

On your ‘alibi-disposal’
“astonishingly, you seem to think that this constituted a bad move on Hutchinson’s part.”
Actually Ben, yet again you have made an error. I made no such claim. What I said was, the lack of an alibi was not going to get him off. Either you have an alibi or you don’t. If he had an alibi it would get him off straight away. If he didn’t have an alibi, which he didn’t then his lack of an alibi, or his ‘alibi-disposal’ would not get him off. It would mean that the police would have to have had some other ‘thing’ with which to clear him.
He may actually have had an alibi. He may have been in the Victoria Home all night on Thursday/Friday morning if Fisherman is correct and he was a day out.
I don’t think it is very groundbreaking I am afraid to say that as he was on his own he didn’t have an alibi and his excuse that he was walking around all night disposed of the need for an alibi, which necessitated your new term ‘alibi-disposal’.
If one doesn’t have an alibi, it is difficult (unless one has corrupt friends) to manufacture an alibi.
Hutchinson really had no option did he? That is irrespective of whether he was guilty or innocent.
In summary, I would mark it down as being neither a good or a bad move. It was just how it was. He had no option.

“the shockingly baseless assumption that the police had some easy barometer for assessing the guilt or innocence for any suspect who came under the conjectural radar”
Ben – please read the numerous reports on how the police approached and dealt with people. They did indeed have as you describe in a neat phrase a barometer for assessing the guilt or innocence for any suspect who came under the conjectural radar. That is a good description as to how they operated. Well done!

However I get the impression you are again labouring under a very heavy misapprehension here. I will re-phrase things to help you
The police, at any given date in history, will investigate people who come into their view. For the sake of convenience these people could be called ‘suspects’. They could be witnesses or leads or any one of numerous terms. That is not important.
When I say investigate I mean they will ‘check’ them out they will ‘test’ them in some way. Don’t get too hung up over the word ‘test’. I do not mean an IQ test or a GCSE. Don’t get too hung up overt the word ‘check’ either. I do not mean like in a medical examination.
Now we have clarified this let me continue.

The police will investigate a suspect by checking details and testing their story. They will use whichever methods are deemed to be suitable for these tasks at that point in history. If a witness passes their test or check they will be believed. If they are a suspect they will be released and no longer a suspect. If they fail those tests they will be rejected (if a witness) or become a greater suspect (if a suspect).
If they were a witness who placed themselves at the crime scene at the time the crime was committed then I would suggest they would become a suspect if their status as a witness was rejected. Unless there was good reason for this to be otherwise.
The police had nothing on Druitt, Ostrog, Kosminski or any of the other ‘official’ police suspects. That did not stop the police from regarding them as suspects. They are recorded as such. There were details about these suspects that meant that the police at the time did not clear them, for whatever reason.
If there was some loose end about Hutchinson I am sure he would be on that list.

Let me state again. If the police were not satisfied with someone’s story they would not have just shelved the matter. You seem to suddenly grasp this...

“they would probably have kept anyone they did suspect under discreet surveillance, and they would probably have done this with Hutchinson if they ever suspected him, which they probably didn’t.”
Yes Ben I can agree with that. They almost certainly didn’t get to the stage of suspecting Hutchinson to the degree that they would have put him under surveillance – because he was cleared before it got to that stage.

[Ben]

“Ben! You do make me chuckle.”

You make me chuckle too, Fetchbeer!

But not when you’re being slightly obstinate and unimaginative in your misunderstanding of the working habits of East Enders at that time. That’s when the chuckling stops, and the exasperated posts kick in. I can’t believe you actually confirmed your black and white impression of everyone going to bed at night and only working in the day. This is still absolute nonsense. It is thoroughly well-documented that many residents in the district kept irregular working hours, and that lodgers were coming and going at all hours of the night from their various occupations which started and finshied at varying hours of the day and night – policeman, mortuary attendants, night watchmen, carmen, lodging house deputies, prostitutes, prostitute-seekers, pissheads, serial killers, the lot. They were not any particular “exception” at all – this was the busy ill-reputed, most decidedly dodgy area of Tower Hamlets. It is deplorably erroneous nonsense to argue that anyone who kept later hours would have been immediately conspicuous to everyone else, and that all these late-nighters were magically investigated and “alibied-out” accordingly.

The streets weren’t "empty", as you’ll discover if you actually study the eyewitness accounts from the murders themselves. Whenever a murder was committed, there was always without exception someone active and awake a stone’s throw away.

“I have no doubt the residents of the Victoria Home were poor. Dark blue meant – very poor casual work, chronic want. It did not mean – mind own business and don’t speak to anyone.”

Nor did it mean everyone chum in and get to know each other, make meticulous notes of who was regular or not so regular, remember who was inside the building on a night that had passed six weeks previously, and provide convenient alibis for each other if ever the need arose. My “extras from Oliver Twist” was merely an effort to highlight the futility in depicting the social conditions at the Victoria Home the way that you are, especially when it’s being used as fuel for the ultimate unsuccessful goal as depicting Hutchinson as a bad suspect.

“You are a first in criminology Ben, that’s for sure. Who needs to bother with an alibi, when you can just have an ‘alibi-disposal’ instead?”

Oh, you’re still not grasping this?

Okay, I’ll try again:

If Hutchinson was killing Kelly between 3:30 and 4.00am that night, he wouldn’t have had an alibi.

With me so far?

Right. If Hutchinson then needed to account for his whereabouts and activities for that time frame, it would have been extremely advantageous for him to pick a false explanation that didn’t render him vulnerable to contradiction. That is where I contend “walking about all night” came in, because it was the only conceivable activity that could be neither verified nor contradicted. And yet, astonishingly, you seem to think that this constituted a bad move on Hutchinson’s part.

“I would suggest that any police force at any given time uses the means at its disposal to check people to the extent of their, then, abilities.”

But these “means at (their) disposal” would not have been remotely sufficient to rule Hutchinson out as a suspect, if indeed they ever suspected him, and the indications are that they didn’t. Of course it’s worth mentioning future advances in police investigative techniques. It is your ignorant and ill-informed contention that Hutchinson “must have” been suspected of being Jack the Ripper (no evidence), “must have” passed the test (no evidence) and "must have" been exonerated (no evidence). You have nothing to back any of these up other than on the shockingly baseless assumption that the police had some easy barometer for assessing the guilt or innocence for any suspect who came under the conjectural radar. My point in introducing more modern cases is to demonstrate that even today, people are suspected without the authorities having the means to convert mere suspicions into proof of guilt or innocence. If they can’t shore up mere suspicions today, what silly miracles are you irrationally expecting of the police in 1888?

“If someone failed to pass whatever tests were then in place, then the police would not have just thought: ‘oh well our tests are primitive, we better let him go, as we can't progress our suspicions'.”

No, they would probably have kept anyone they did suspect under discreet surveillance, and they would probably have done this with Hutchinson if they ever suspected him, which they probably didn’t.

“Nor would they have thought ‘hold on, he voluntarily came to us, and therefore can’t be a suspect.”

The 1888 police had no experience of serial killers, and policing in general was in its relative infancy. It is utterly reasonable to conclude that they would never have made the connection between someone who came forward as a witness and a potential suspect.

As I said, your wriggling on this obvious point (as your night = day argument) merely demonstrates the weakness of Hutchinson as a suspect.

According to your genius logic, naturally.

[Ben]

Oh, you're back!

Great!

You just said a moment ago "there endeth the argument".

But you're actually up for slogging it out some more.

Thought so.

Onwards, then...

“I am of the meaning that they would almost certainly NOT have been about, but alas, that only goes to prove the same.”

And I am of the opinion that this is nonsense; that the idea of the crowded vice-ridden East End streets of 1888 being "silent" at that time is a preposterous concept. There would clearly have been background noise that would have interfered with conversation being detected from 30 metres away, and when coupled with the type of strong wind that we know affected the area at the time, the likelihood of it being heard is even further reduced. It doesn’t matter who was out and about on the streets (although I really wouldn’t use Hutchinson as the ultimate authority on this!), there would still have been a general background murmur from the crowded dwellings on Dorset Street and in the surrounding streets.

“Moreover, I do not agree that any strong wind was about at all on the night Hutch was REALLY there ...”

But that was 9th November, when there were strong winds. I mean, all hastily conceived pet theories aside.

“Of course you have not. The argument is not settled.”

Ah, looking for excuses for continuing an argument after you avowed to end it MUCH?

You did say very confidently that I had already “lost” the argument, Fisherman.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

And here it is, Fisherman. That last post that I promised you I'd address before you "endethed" the argument.

“and he subsequently swore that nobody had even been close to that entrance for the 45 minutes he stood there, then the police would have had proof that he was not there on the night.”

That most emphatically not “proof”, Fisherman.

That is his word against someone else’s, and thus not a situation that could ever result of the acquisition of “proof”. This is an example of misunderstood or misappropriated terminology. He could have lied about nobody having been “close to that entrance for the 45 minutes he stood there” but still have been close to the entrance that night himself. Surely everyone can see this? You’re just not processing the irony of your own attempts to exonerate Hutchinson. According to you, all Hutchinson had to do was make a false claim that he hadn’t seen anyone else, and it would prove that he was not there on the night! According to you, all Hutchinson had to do was claim falsely that the night was a dry one, and the police would consider it “proof” that he wasn’t there. Honestly, I’ve never before seen the P-word misapplied quite so hideously. Hutchinson had only to lie about these things, while still being there in reality, in order to be completely exonerated, according to you.

Hutchinson would not have been “recorded” as having slept in the Victoria Home because, as discussed ad nauseam (and on many more occasions, if necessary) the establishment did not make registers of names upon entry, but only received generic metal cheques sold in advance, and which would have entitled the lodgers to a bed for the night.

“If he had lef the Victoria Home on the morning of the Wednesday, telling one of his fellow lodgers that he was off to Romford, then that lodger would have been able to help the police secure that Hutch was wrong on the days.”

Well, no, because if Hutchinson did announce his intentions to visit lodgings, it could easily have been a lie, and certainly not an alibi. But of course, this is just a fill-in-the-blank, isn’t it? The conjuration of an imaginary non-existent hoped for alibi with not a scrap of evidence to support its existence. If we operate within the confines of the evidence, rather than relying on “must haves” and hoping for the existence of reports that got conveniently destroyed or whatever, wisdom instead lies in accepting that there’s no evidence that Hutchinson was ever suspected. It’s very clear from Dew’s evidence that whatever the police thought about Hutchinson at the time, they lacked proof either way. Their suspicions were not confirmed, whatever they might have been, which is why Dew was only in a position to offer personal speculations rather than announcing what the police had established for certain.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Can’t you condense all your “counter-arguments” to me into one post, rather than spreading them out into four? "

Sometimes I do, sometimes I donīt . Itīs not a question of what I can do or not. Itīs what I choose to do.

"No. I have mentioned some sources of noise that would almost certainly have been about, end of story."

Thatīs the same, unless you noticed: Sources that may have been about and may not have been about. I am of the meaning that they would almost certainly NOT have been about, but alas, that only goes to prove the same.

" The reality of the situation, of course, is that the acoustics expert doesn’t disagree with me at all. You simply did not acquaint him with the amazingly strong likelihood that background noises were present and would have had an effect on the results."

And this you know how? Actually, I told him that we do not know of any more obvious sources of noise, and that it was a night where - according to the testimony - not very many people seem to have been up and about in the street. So he would have reckoned with the same thing I (and the very logically reasoning Lechmere) reckon with, a reasonably quiet nightly street.
Of course, I left out the dosserīs riot going on outside Crossinghamīs just as I did not mention the Abba part. I did that on purpose.

"The idea is so ludicrous that it merits only instant dismissal by reasonably informed commentators on the subject."

Go find them, then.

"I agree with this": "“I would say that if I was the suspect I would be speaking softly (people generally speak softer at night time because there is generally less environmental noise, and additionally I'm speaking to a prostitute/potential victim with another man in sight). Given that, I would say you are absolutely correct and it wouldn't have been heard.”

That we BOTH agree with. Soft spoken voices do not travel 30 meters.

"As I understand it Dorset street ran east west, so I think the strong winds would have rushed down the 'corridor' like street making it much more difficult to hear speech.”

Mmm. I agree with that too. And I realize that Raoul says "much more difficult" instead of "impossible". Moreover, I do not agree that any strong wind was about at all on the night Hutch was REALLY there ...

"I suggested that it might have been withheld from the body of an existing report because it wasn’t of any particular significance."

Of course not - totally insignificant!

" I don’t think it’s the most likely explanation, however. "

Nor do I, Ben - nor do I!

"Sorry you’re delighting to imagine that I’ve “lost” the argument when I’ve clearly done no such thing."

Of course you have not. The argument is not settled. I only point out that you have produced the worse argument by far, and that points very much to you loosing it if we ever get the answer. That is not the same as saying that you have ALREADY lost it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman,

Can’t you condense all your “counter-arguments” to me into one post, rather than spreading them out into four? It’s not necessary. This is not me having a go at your style or anything sinister. I'd just like to keep better track of your interesting points a little more easily.

“You have mentioned a few sources of noise that may or may not have been about, end of story”

No. I have mentioned some sources of noise that would almost certainly have been about, end of story.

“Until you do that, you need to realize that one accoustics expert and one psycholinguist have BOTH told you that there is very good reason to believe that the conversation could have been made out by Hutchinson.”

They didn’t “tell me” anything because their posts were not addressed to me, so kindly refrain from asserting what I have personally been “told”. The reality of the situation, of course, is that the acoustics expert doesn’t disagree with me at all. You simply did not acquaint him with the amazingly strong likelihood that background noises were present and would have had an effect on the results. The psycholinguist has very sensibly acknowledged that he is “torn” on the issue and has accordingly avoided taking “sides” or coming to any hard and fast conclusion on the subject.

“But Iīm afraid itīs main effect will be that I simply point out that you are offering guesswork and loose speculations of a seemingly very biased character”

And when you do, I’ll “simply point out” that I’m doing nothing of the sort; that the experts in question haven’t even challenged anything I’ve said; and that I’ve never pooh-poohed their expertise, only the manner in which they were contacted. So if you’re up for a repetitive “yes it is, no it isn’t” type of debate or a stamina war, I can tell you in advance that this is precisely how it will pan out. Just depends if you’re up for it. I hope you are. The fact it that no expert thus far has offered a view that is “totally contrary” to my own. It is for this reason that I don’t wheel in a “rival” expert of my own in a petty, point-scoring exercise. What’s the point? The current ones don’t disagree with anything I’ve said – they were simply fed faulty information, unintentionally I’m sure.

Nor do I need an “expert” to highlight the obvious reality that the streets of the East End in the small hours of the night were not “silent”. The idea is so ludicrous that it merits only instant dismissal by reasonably informed commentators on the subject. Of course there would have been background noise from the incredibly crowded doss houses and other buildings both on an off Commercial Street, and of course there would have been a strong wind present on the night of the 9th. Both would have had an effect on Hutchinson’s ability to discern conversation from 30 metres away, irrefutably so. Levy and Lawende couldn’t even hear conversation from a couple conversing less than ten feet away.

Hutchinson stated in his police report that Kelly had said “come along my dear, you will be comfortable”. No “loud voice” was specified. Clearly, this was very unlikely to have been discerned from 30 metres away in those conditions.

“Maybe the time has come to point out that it is completely and totally impossible to prove EITHER of these things.”

But based on the conditions that were almost certainly present on the night in question, such as a background noise from the crowded East End dwellings and the strong wind, it is not probable that Hutchinson could have heard conversation from that distance. No proof is required to recognise this obvious reality. Of course, vast improbability is a very consistent theme when it comes to Hutchinson’s discredited claims with regard to the Astrakhan man’s appearance and movements.

"Is this what you agree with, Ben”

I didn’t call him “Raould”. I called him Raoul, thank you so much.

I agree with this:

“I would say that if I was the suspect I would be speaking softly (people generally speak softer at night time because there is generally less environmental noise, and additionally I'm speaking to a prostitute/potential victim with another man in sight). Given that, I would say you are absolutely correct and it wouldn't have been heard.”

And this:

“As I understand it Dorset street ran east west, so I think the strong winds would have rushed down the 'corridor' like street making it much more difficult to hear speech.”

This is what I agreed with.

“Excuse me, but have you not expressed the view that you thought that there was a very good possibility that Hutchinson had told the police that he had seen Lewis, but, unfortunately, the report is lost to us...?”

You’re excused, but no, I never stated that there was ever a “lost” report that contained Hutchinson’s reference to Lewis. I suggested that it might have been withheld from the body of an existing report because it wasn’t of any particular significance. I don’t think it’s the most likely explanation, however. It is much more plausible that Hutchinson deliberately avoided any mention of Lewis to avoid making it appear glaringly obvious that it was her evidence that spurred him into coming forward.

“There endeth the argument.”

Oh, you’re done then?

That's a shame.

Well, it’s been a joy and blast as always, Fisherman. Sorry you’re delighting to imagine that I’ve “lost” the argument when I’ve clearly done no such thing. Of course I can’t “prove” you’re wrong, but I think it’s astoundingly obvious that you are. I’ve noticed you’ve written another couple of posts with “Ben:” at the top, so I’ll just address those and then, who knows? Maybe I’ll decide to “endeth” my part in the argument too?

“You can just ramble on about how OBVIOUS it is that I am so.”

I might just do that. We’ll see what happens.

“I wonīt come to visit anyway”

But I’ve just put the kettle on!