Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

“Given the rules by which the Victoria Home were governed, I would make the assumption that only a small number were absent at night.”

It wouldn’t have been a case of just one lodger in 500 being noted as “absent at night", Lechmere, but rather many lodgers coming and going at all hours of the night based on their habits and work routines. Try to think of it as continual process as opposed to the inapplicably reductive “day versus night” distinction. These late-nighters would still have made use of their lodging houses for the purposes of sleep, as Cross and Paul did, but at different hours from those fellow lodgers who worked at “healthier” and less nocturnal hours. For the poor carmen, work often commenced at 1.00am or 2.00am.

“Providing an excuse that meant a suspect was alone, is not an alibi. The police may not be able to refute such a claim, but it would not clear him. He would remain in the frame.”

I’m very glad to see you’ve grasped this, as I had my doubts when we first discussed this. You’ve recognised the most salient observation that “walking about all night” was not an alibi, but rather a means of disposing of the issue of an alibi by claiming to have been engaged in an activity that could neither be verified nor contradicted. You’re right, it would not have cleared him, and the fact that Hutchinson resorted to an alibi-less activity for the time of the murder (perhaps the only one available) despite his earlier proximity to the crime scene ought really to be considered a point in favour of his potential culpability. You’re right; it wouldn’t “clear him” in the event that he was considered a suspect. Unfortunately, we have no evidence that he was considered a suspect.

“As you know Ben that is impossible as nearly all the evidence was destroyed.”

Not the “lost report” syndrome, Lechmere, this is precisely what we want to avoid: arriving at conclusions based on what he want to have been contained in some conveniently lost to history “report”. This takes us straight back into “must have” and “fill-in-the-blank” territory where we conjure up and posit the existence of imaginary hoped-for reports that almost certainly never existed. The absence of any indication that Hutchinson was suspected should be considered more than reasonable evidence that he wasn’t. It certainly isn’t common sense to conclude that they “must have” done. The reverse is much more closer to common sense – a nascent police force was very unlikely to conclude that Jack the Ripper would waltz into a police station pretending to be a witness.

“And Ben the reason why I think the case against Hutchinson would have been considered then is because, err let me see why I might think it? Ah yes, I remember, because as you well know the press suggested it at the time!”

Until one journalist suggested it, in one Washington newspaper that clearly nobody here knew about until I drew people’s attention to it in my article.

“(Packer) did not place himself in the crime scene.“

He placed himself near the crime scene, just as Hutchinson and Violena did. I keep mentioning both of them to hammer home the obvious reality that both men had set or continued a certain precedent when it came to lying witnesses. They were not considered suspects – ever, apparently – but simply bogus witnesses who fabricated their account for reasons that had nothing to do with their involvement in the murders. It’s not that they were dismissed as suspects - they were simply never considered as such. Once Hutchinson was adjudged to have been another false witness, it is easy to see how tempting it would have been for the police to have added Hutchinson to the same category to which Packer, Violenia and others have already been consigned. You keep reminding me that both men were grilled. Yes. I know they were, but not as suspects.

“It follows that if the police continued to look at a person and subsequently rejected them, then they must have found something out that promoted them to reject that person, in the place of the inconveniently missing alibi. That is a very simple and obvious progression of logic”

It is for people who were considered suspects in the murders, but nor for people who almost certainly weren’t, such as Packer, Violenia and Hutchinson, who were only considered false witnesses of the type that snare up many a police investigation.

“This implies that it is likely that the police were satisfied that Hutchinson was not involved.”

But they could not have “satisfied” themselves of any such thing for the simple reason that the 1888 police did not have the “checking” facilities that could have enabled them to come to any hard and fast conclusion with regard to his guilt or innocence, and that’s only if we assume they ever suspected him, which they almost certainly didn’t. This had nothing to do with incompetence or superficiality of investigative techniques of the police at the time, but everything to do with the era in which they lived, the absence of CCTV, and the myriad other factors that would have seriously limited the 1888 police’s ability to convert mere suspicion into concrete proof. Even modern and sophisticated police forces have this problem, as witness the Green River Task Force in the early 1980s. They felt they had their man, but were unable to convert mere suspicions into proof of guilt or innocence. This is why this statement:

“Given that the police would almost certainly have checked him out, I find it unlikely that Hutchinson was the culprit”

Is very difficult to justify. If they couldn’t produce the goods on a suspect they had in 1982, what miracles of “checkability” are you expecting with Hutchinson in 1888?

I’m afraid you have the same decidedly optimistic notions about the investigative “checking” powers of the contemporary police that you have regarding the Victoria Home entry rules. According to you, both could be converted into tidily efficient and accurate barometers for determining the suspect-status of anyone who came under investigative scrutiny, and I’m afraid you’re a long way off reality and your coveted “common sense” in both cases.

Best regards,
Ben (on his 4000th post)

[Ben]

Lechmere - you are making out that Hutch and all those other men lodging at the Victoria would be sitting indoors every night, and that Hutch would only be out on the nights of the murders thus drawing attention to himself. However he worked regularly at different jobs with different hours.

Thank you, Ruby!

Precisely what I've been getting at.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

“However he worked regularly at different jobs with different hours.”
Rubyretro - we know he said he was a groom and currently a labourer – when he found work. We don’t know anything about his hours.

Given the rules by which the Victoria Home were governed, I would make the assumption that only a small number were absent at night. They after all paid for their beds. I don’t think many would pay and not sleep there.

Given your theory, which l know was just an illustrative example, he could just as easily have stayed at a different lodging house much closer by.
Carts incidentally would have generally gone at walking pace so he would have been rested but not really quicker by hitching a lift.
The fact is the police did check alibis. The scenario you give does not provide an alibi. Being alone walking around Dorset Street or elsewhere, does not provide an alibi. Providing an excuse that meant a suspect was alone, is not an alibi. The police may not be able to refute such a claim, but it would not clear him. He would remain in the frame.

“we need compelling evidence that Hutchinson was ever investigated as a “suspect””
As you know Ben that is impossible as nearly all the evidence was destroyed. All we can use is common sense. So I don’t accept for one second your assertion.

And Ben the reason why I think the case against Hutchinson would have been considered then is because, err let me see why I might think it? Ah yes, I remember, because as you well know the press suggested it at the time!

You have this over reliance on Packer. He lived near the crime scene. He placed himself with his wife, in his house/shop not the crime scene. He also placed the victim in his shop. He did not place himself in the crime scene. That is quite different. I don’t know why you keep mentioning Packer. There is no similarity to Hutchinson. Yet Packer was given a severe grilling.
As for Violenia, the point of interest is that his grilling isn’t recorded in any extant police records. This should serve to remind you that we have hardly any left to rely on. Which is why we have to employ common sense. Violenia was clearly grilled.

I think you have totally failed to understand the meaning of the word alibi. An alibi exonerates someone. If someone has an alibi, then the police stop looking as the person cannot be involved. If the person doesn’t have an alibi, then the police are likely to continue to look at the person. It is not ‘convenient’ to not have an alibi. Anyone can claim to be alone when they actually committed a crime.

It follows that if the police continued to look at a person and subsequently rejected them, then they must have found something out that promoted them to reject that person, in the place of the inconveniently missing alibi.
That is a very simple and obvious progression of logic.
As I said, using the absence of ‘evidence’ from the very thin amount of material which has survived is a poor way to make a case against a culprit.
We know how the police behaved towards other witnesses and suspects. We can extrapolate from that very comfortably.

Sutcliffe was never interviewed as a suspect. He was a lead – that is quite different.

To repeat
Hutchinson put himself at the crime scene at the time of the crime. He was subsequently dismissed.
There are several problematic aspects to his story that are likely to have raised eyebrows. I think it is virtually inconceivable that the police would have let him go once they decided his testimony was not reliable, without first satisfying themselves that he was not involved.
This does not mean that he had to have become a formal suspect.
This implies that it is likely that the police were satisfied that Hutchinson was not involved. We can speculate how they may have come to this conclusion, but I believe it is an almost certain that this is the case.
Building a case against Hutchinson that denies this is in my opinion slightly ridiculous and lacking in credibility. You can go on and on about there being no absolute proof in the remaining records that he was checked out but common sense and the way the police treated other people involved in the case tell a different story.

Given that the police would almost certainly have checked him out, I find it unlikely that Hutchinson was the culprit.
There is a possibility he fooled them, that they checked in a very superficial or incompetent way or whatever.
However the extreme likelihood that he had been checked and cleared makes Hutchinson – in my opinion – a much less likely suspect than virtually any of the 100,000 other contenders – not withstanding the fact that he was at the crime scene at the time of the murder. That factor is cancelled out by his high profile involvement in the case and his subsequent dismissal.

[Ben]

I've noticed one or two people are having problems reconciling their conviction that Hutchinson told the squeaky-clean unembellished truth with their assumption that Hutchinson was loitering outside Kelly's room because he wanted to sleep there.

Hutchinson said nothing about this in his police statement, and Abberline said nothing about this in his accompanying report. The only reason Hutchinson provided to account for his pursuit of the couple and subsequent 45-minute vigil was his alleged surprise at seeing a man so well-dressed in Kelly's company.

Hence, if people want to accept that Hutchinson wanted to gain access to Kelly's room to sleep there - after walking all the way from Romford in the small hours just in the forlorn hope that this might be available! - then they also have to accept that he lied to the police about his true reason for waiting where he did.

Of course, any explanation that relies on the existence of the Astrakhan man, who is so obviously a fictional bogeyman that incorporated as many sinister myths as possible, already suffers from serious credibility issues. Anything less subtle is difficult to envisage. The idea that someone would flash his ostentatious finery in that district and depart happy and unaccosted is also unrealistic. This was already one of the worst areas in London, and at the height of the ripper terror. He would have been attracting attention from the least desirable sources; muggers, coppers, and street patrols, whilst probably deterring his intended targets. And what are we really to make of Hutchinson's press claim that there was no light and no noise when Hutchinson waited outside? Did they go straight to sleep or what? Or had he killed her by then, despite the certain knowledge that his appearance had already been clocked by a man on the street?

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

I hope Sally won’t object to my addressing some of your points.

and the likelihood that they would have not dismissed him merely with a “thanks but no thanks, don’t call us we’ll call you.”

Nobody’s suggesting that the dismissal took this form. He was probably dismissed in the same manner as Packer and Violenia, i.e. as a publicity/money/attention seeker who they suspected of lying but could not prove it in either case, which is why neither appeared to have been prosecuted or penalized in any other fashion. Hutchinson probably received similar treatment. As Sally, Ruby and others have pointed out, we need compelling evidence that Hutchinson was ever investigated as a “suspect” in order to make than leap from discredited witness to suspect, and we certainly don’t even contemplate the double leap from discredited witness to exonerated suspect.

“If suspicions occur to you now, then it is reasonable that they would have occurred to people then. There really is nothing new in any of the rationalisations which point to Hutchinson as the culprit, that a detective in 1888 could not quote easily have thought of for himself.”

No.

This is obviously not correct.

Consider the vast difference. In 1888, policing in general was in its infancy, and they had no experience of serial killers, whereas modern investigators have had a century’s worth of experience of serial crime with which to inform their judgement. Nowadays, it is widely known that serial offenders will sometimes inject themselves into police investigations pretending to be helpful witnesses or informers, but back then, the idea would understandably never have been considered. So you’re quite wrong to claim that there is “nothing” new about “rationalisations which point to Hutchinson as the culprit”. They are based to a large extent on what is now known about serial offenders, and which wouldn’t have been known about in 1888. Would Macnaghten give any credence to his theory that the murders ended because of the offender’s suicide following the “awful glut” of his last murder if he were investigating the case today? Or would Abberline still support his idea that the killer was harvesting organs for an American doctor?

“This should tell you that walking around all night alone without an alibi would not clear him particularly when they dismissed him from the case."

But there would only arise a need to “clear” him if he had been suspected of involvement in the murders, and this clearly never happened. Just to clarify; this means not being considered as a suspect, not investigated and exonerated as one, which is nonsense.

“If John Pizer had not bumped into a policeman on Holloway Road and engaged in conversation regarding the distant flames at Shadwell, do you think he would have been released so quickly?”

No, but then Pizer was considered to have been “Leather Apron”, the sinister Jewish abuser of women, and we know he was investigated as a suspect. Hutchinson meets none of these criteria.

“Unless, as I have said, it was because they dismissed Hutchinson for reasons that also cleared him they would have wanted to know more.”

Possibly, but again, not as a suspect.

Violenia and Packer were also dismissed as false witnesses for reasons that had nothing to do with either of them being suspected and then exonerated of murdering anyone, and the same may be said of Hutchinson.

I think you missed the point about Hutchinson’s “alibi”, which was that “walking about all night” was impossible either to verify or contradict, which means that despite his earlier proximity to the scene of the crime before it occurred, he conveniently had no alibi for when it occurred, in all probability. Given the absence of any possibility to verify “walking about all night”, you can’t use this as ammunition for the clearly erroneous two-fold assumption that Hutchinson “must have” been investigated as a suspect and “must have” been dismissed as one accordingly. That’s one zero-evidence piece of speculation being used to support another one.

“if Hutchinson was out every night there was a murder I am certain people would recollect.”

Please not this again, Lechmere.

This was the Victoria Home, which catered for 450 lodgers coming and going at all hours of the night for work and for other purposes, who spent most of their time away from the building hard at work, and only returning to crash for the night. This wasn’t a huge social network where everyone monitored everyone else and took meticulous notes of where other lodgers were on a particular night six weeks previously. Not only were the men disinclined to do any such thing, being understandably content to take care of their own struggle to eek out a reasonable existence, they simply couldn’t. Anonymous dormitory sounds much more like it, where people didn’t take mental notes of where the lodger 13 beds to the left happened to be on a particular night two months ago. It’s beyond ridiculous. Nobody would have remembered if Hutchinson was absent from his lodgings on every night of the murder – utterly impossible.

“Any reasonable conclusion is that this strongly diminishes his chances of being the culprit.”

What does, Lechmere?

The fact that he came forward as a witness?

No, that one doesn’t work because we know that other serial killers have come forward as witness.

The lack of evidence suggesting he ever became a suspect?

That is only evidence that he was never considered a suspect, not that he was dismissed as one.

You mentioned Peter Sutcliffe who was interviewed many times by the police as a suspect, and was still “dismissed”, whereas we only have evidence for Hutchinson being interviewed ONCE, as a witness.

So I’m at a loss as to understand what you think “diminishes his chances of being the culprit”.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Interesting stuff, Raoul, and agreed wholeheartedly

Good to have someone else on board with some experience in the acoustics field.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“Then, Ben, it stands to reason that you MUST name the sources lying behind the ambient sound levels that you claim would make it impossible to make the words out.”

I just have, Fisherman.

I’ve outlined them already in very extensive detail. Overwhelming commonsense informs us that there would have been background noise from the crowded dwellings on the streets and that the inclement weather would have affected Hutchinson’s ability to hear conversation. So obvious and inescapable is this reality that I am no more required to prove their existence than I am required to prove that there isn’t an alien from outer space hiding somewhere in my house. It’s just ridiculous to even contemplate arguing otherwise. I’m not talking about the odd shout punctuating the silence, but rather a continuous murmur - with every background noise mixing together, not least from the thousands of lodgers in the buildings, many of whom were up and about in the small hours for both honest and dodgy reasons.

My goal, incidentally, is not to “prove” that Hutchinson couldn’t hear the conversation, only that he probably couldn’t.

“I suggest that since you are a total novice in this disciplin (sic)”

Bit like you, then, really.

All that needs to be taken on board here is that there was no “silence” that night, and could not possibly have been. The very idea of those particular streets being “silent” at 2:15 is risible in the extreme. The expectation, therefore, that I should somehow “prove” that anything disturbed the silence is ludicrously unrealistic. I don’t know where you got the idea from that the wind must have been at an “exact level” to have an affect on Hutchinson’s ability to hear outdoor conversation 30 metres away, but there only needed to have been some wind in order to have such an affect. Obviously, the stronger the wind, the more preventative affect it will have on hearing, and thanks to your lovely research, we know that strong winds did affect the area on the 9th November.

“If you should fail in this, please accept that WHAT WE HAVE, as evaluated by the expert you just professed belief in, tells us that the conversation could EASILY be made out.”

Which all becomes irrelevant once we factor in the circumstances involved which would almost certainly have prevented individual words being “made out” from that distance.

“In fact, in the future, when I take the trouble to secure the help of an expert, I am going to lay it on you to do the exact same before you try to refute ANYTHING.”

I’m not doing anything at your behest, Fisherman, irrespective of how much you try to “lay it on” me. You can keep contacting as many experts as you like. If I have a problem with the nature of the correspondence, or if I suspect that you neglected to mention certain components that would have been in place at the time, and which would inevitably affect the results, I will certainly point this out. If we then go round and round in repetitive circles after that, so be it. As it stands, I have no reason to produce a “rival” expert, since I am by no means challenging or attempting to “overthrow” Nilsson’s views. I am challenging the accuracy of the feedback based on the prior assumption that the overhearing occurred in otherwise “silent” conditions, which is very obviously nonsense.

The Joseph Hyam Levy example is absolutely crucial.

Here was a witness who was not discredited, but who couldn’t hear a conversation from ten feet away in an arguably quieter part of town than northern Commercial Street. This is what happens when genuine witnesses find themselves in situations that expose them to a couple conversing from a distance away, and for that reason, Levy most assuredly belongs in this discussion, which is why I’m determined to keep him here for as long as people insist on doing the rounds with me on this – for the next 2000 pages, in other words. Of course I’m not saying it “proves” anything, but it does demonstrate very strong that Hutchinson was even less likely to hear conversation from a considerable longer distance than the width of Duke Street.

It wasn’t as if Levy wasn’t paying particular attention to the couple – we know it was him who drew the attention of his companions to them, and yet he did not HEAR any of their conversation, which is clearly not the same as not “listening”.

“IS it not true, Ben, that the press and probably even the police were of the meaning that Levy knew more than he would speak of? What happens if you bring THAT "ambient sound" into the equation"?”

No, there’s no evidence that the police thought Levy was deliberately withholding information. Neither Lawende nor Harris heard any conversation either – were they deliberately withholding information to? No. These witnesses was clearly considered honest and non-discredited by the police, which is more than can be said for Hutchinson.

“It is a question of pointing out that we do not KNOW whethere there was much or any such noise”

Yes, we do.

If there was no noise at all, then the whole of that district would have been silent at 2:15, which is so ludicrous a concept that it doesn’t merit considering, and yet rather worryingly, this Nilssen feedback was clearly based on the assumption that the conditions were more or less silent, which is wrong.

“If you get an expert of your own on the stage, I will listen very carefully, and pay heed to what is said.”

But you "listen very carefully" and respond at length to whatever I say, anyway, with or without an expert, so I can't say I feel all that deprived of interest and attention.

Best regards,
Ben

[Raoul's Obsession]

I'd also just add this bit of information which I take it many are already familiar with from a post a long while back.

"The London forecast for the night of the 8th-9th November was:
East or South East winds, blowing with force. Temperature low expected to fall fast overnight with cold rain or sleet.

On the night between the hours of two and four a.m. the temperature actually fell as low as 32F, and there was a steady downpour of heavy rain in the early morning which did not clear until about 10 o’clock, leaving the streets ‘extremely dirty’ for the Lord Mayor’s Day procession which eventually..."

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.

Raoul

[Raoul's Obsession]

Raoul,
Not to put you on the spot,but given the circumstances that existed,the very close proximity of the couple,and putting yourself in exactly the same position,how loud would you speak,and how far would the sound of your voice carry to be heard clearly.
I am not of scientific training.I do not understand the scientific explanations.I have simply tested with normal people standing at a distance of 30 metres(though I estimate the distance in Dorset street to be much more),Had them speak in a voice loud enough to be heard by a person standing with them,and listened from a measured distance of 30 metres.At no time could I hear the words they were speaking.I am willing to repeat the test with anyone who cares to come to my residence,

Hi Harry, I'm very torn on this issue. Honestly, I find it very difficult to answer because there are so many factors that could influence it, and so to be truthful, I just don't know.

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. As for a drunk prostitute, well I think others here have already pointed out that people in her state often don't modulate their voices very well with regards to their environment. Which may well be why we know what she said and very little of what he said. The other point that often gets forgotten is that all of this depends on what Hutch was doing. One hears a lot more when one is concentrating on a particular sound. Honestly though, this can never be answered well. I suggest picking an east end street that hasn't seen much change, adding the required weather conditions, standing the distance apart (at night), and doing your own tests, that's about as close as you will get to the truth. I think there is probably half a dozen other similar ripper problems/issues that could be tested.

Raoul

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" it was their own problem if they hadn't sorted out their sleeping arrangements beforehand and it wasn't my responsibility."

Perhaps so, but I am not speaking of the odd casual aquaintance who had gotten himself into trouble and arrived half drunk at your doorstep. I am speaking of a good friend who had ended up in a situation like this not by his own fault, but by bad luck, and who was perfectly sober (like Hutch). Would you turn out a friend like that too? If you knew that it would mean that he or she would have to walk the streets all night, in cold weather? Or would you take pity on him or her - but just for the night?

Don´t bother to answer, Ruby, if you don´t wish to - I think by now most people will have picked up on the point I am making. I also think that only the steadfastest of Hutchinsonians would claim that my suggestion is in any way unviable.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

By the bye, how about that question I put to you, and that you seemingly avoid: I a friend of yours had stood on your doorstep at 2.15, begging you for a place to spend the night, what would you do?

Surely you must have an idea?

We'll deal with this first..since you think that I'm trying to avoid answering it.

First of all it is clear that my circumstances are not the same as MJK's and I have a house with different rooms, a husband and teenage boys.;and people have mobile 'phones nowadays and would never just knock.]

When I was very young I shared a bedsit for a while with a gregarious friend
who did let some blokes in to crash for the night..and I remember having a row with her about it..call me mean if you like, but I remember arguing that if you let blokes crash there after they had been turned out of nightclubs at
1am, having spent the evening drinking, a) they would be back another night and b) it was asking for problems and c) I didn't want to meet them over the breakfast table and have to be polite before I'd had my morning tea. and d)
They might be people that I'd like talking to in the pub, but I didn't want to be forced into a very intimate relationship with them by sharing my bedroomand e) it was their own problem if they hadn't sorted out their sleeping arrangements beforehand and it wasn't my responsibility.

Mary would surely have had far more pretendants than me for her floor, and she was alone..so I'd say No Way !!

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"There are lots of references to Mary having friends."

A number of references, yes, but not a good deal of friends as such, I believe. Two or three fellow prostitutes and an ex-lover, something like that. What I am saying is that she may have had many friends that were not mentioned at the inquest or in the paper articles. And George Hutchinson may have been one such friend. It´s not rocket science.

"Do you mean to tell me that women don't talk about men they know amongst themselves?"

??????? Did I say that?? Imply that? Nope.

"it is inconceivable that Mary, her girlfriends and Hutch wouldn't have found themselves in the same place often, and she wouldn't have pointed him out (had he been that 'close friend')."

Hello...! Have we established that Hutch had been a resident of the Victoria home for all the time involved here? To begin with? And your village comparison is very, very questionable, I´m afraid. The street I live in is small, but I could not name a third of the people living in it, and I would not know many of them by sight, except for my closest neighbours. And in Dorset Street alone, hundreds and hundreds of people lived. Did she know all of them by sight, and party with them? Hm?

"So why in that Police statement wouldn't an innocent Hutch, just seeking a kip, have said so, knowing that this relationship could easily have been verified ?"

Ah - you missed my former post! No big deal, I´l take it again: In the police REPORT nothing is said of it. In the interrogation with Abberline, much, much more was touched upon, and if his aquiantance with Kelly - how it came about, what it amounted to, how close it was, who knew about and could confirm it - was not one such thing, then I´m the Mad Hatter. Unless, that is, you claim the role of the Queen of Hearts.

"most likely it wasn't true."

Change that for: "There must always remain the possibility that it was not true", and I will sign it for you. Likely, though, it was NOT.

By the bye, how about that question I put to you, and that you seemingly avoid: I a friend of yours had stood on your doorstep at 2.15, begging you for a place to spend the night, what would you do?

Surely you must have an idea?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

"it is suprising that there is no record of Barnett or other prostitutes
confirming this very close friendship."

How many friends was it spoken of, in total? Fleming, yes, but after that? Does this point to her having no further friends?

There are lots of references to Mary having friends. I've not got time to go trawling through it all now (I am actually painting the kitchen !), but off the top of my head,she was cited as parading around town with 2 or three girlfriends, having her prostitute girlfriends sleep on the floor and being friends with Julia Venturny (?).

Do you mean to tell me that women don't talk about men they know amongst themselves?

Men that would slip them a few shillings ?? (I would say that all her poor girlfriends would be dying for an introduction, and certainly remember exactly who this generous man was !!).

Ths might be a vastly overcrowded corner of a big City -but it must have been like a village nonetheless : the distances are tiny, and pubs like
the Britannia, the Ten Bells, the Queen's Head, the Princess Alice and (the Golden Horn ??) are just so close to both Miller's Court and the Victoria Home that it is inconceivable that Mary, her girlfriends and Hutch wouldn't have found themselves in the same place often, and she wouldn't have pointed him out (had he been that 'close friend').

So why in that Police statement wouldn't an innocent Hutch, just seeking a kip, have said so, knowing that this relationship could easily have been verified ?

He didn't say it ! There is surely a reason : most likely it wasn't true.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"First of all I don't think that I would ever knock on the door of a mere acquaintance and ask to sleep the night. I would be very suprised if a mere
aquaintance -especially one of the opposite sex- turned up at my house during the night."

Then again, Ruby, you and your friends are not prostitutes, vagabonds and work- and pennyless people, destined for a life much on the streets and in the gutters, are you? But even if the differences involved are humongous, the question still stands: IF a friend of yours had stood on your doorstep at 2.15, begging you for a place to spend the night, what would you do? To say it won´t happen is not very informative...

"the story of the shillings makes for a very close friendship indeed"

Undeniably so, yes - but it does not have to make for a prossie/punter story.

"it is suprising that there is no record of Barnett or other prostitutes
confirming this very close friendship."

How many friends was it spoken of, in total? Fleming, yes, but after that? Does this point to her having no further friends?

"It's also very suprising that Hutch wouldn't tell the Police that he was waiting at Miller's Court to ask Mary to sleep on her floor"

Wouldn´t tell - or did not have recorded? I am quite convinced that Abberline asked about this, and whatever Hutchinson provided, Abberline was of the meaning that it was a totally acceptable explanation.
The only thing the police report tells us, though, is that he resorted to walking the streets only after he had given up his vigil. Deductions?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

"few shillings", and a few shillings (two? three? four?) seem much to pay for sex, does it not? If it was three shillings, it would equate to 18 times the price of the classical two-penny knee-trembler!

Does it make him a punter? No. Does it make him a friend? You bet!

If you, Ruby, had a good friend knocking at your door at 2.15 one cold November night, telling you that he or she had been turned out from their home and had nowhere to sleep that night, what would you do? Would you kick that friend down the stairs, or would you take him or her in for the night?
Let´s say that you DID take that friend in - would that mean that you would take him or her in on a regular basis? Increase the household by one person, sort of?
You would not, would you?

First of all I don't think that I would ever knock on the door of a mere acquaintance and ask to sleep the night. I would be very suprised if a mere
aquaintance -especially one of the opposite sex- turned up at my house during the night.

So effectively that, and the story of the shillings makes for a very close friendship indeed.

So it is suprising that there is no record of Barnett or other prostitutes
confirming this very close friendship.

It's also very suprising that Hutch wouldn't tell the Police that he was waiting at Miller's Court to ask Mary to sleep on her floor -and have this special friendship confirmed by Mary's other friends. Why dissimule if it was all so natural and innocent ?