Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Sally]

But what do we know about the Victoria Home in 1888 and before? It's possible that rules became reinforced and added to as a result of problems connecting lodgers at the Home to nefarious activities revolving around Dorset Street. Just a thought.

Mike

Hi Mike

This is a good thought - and to an extent I agree. It is quite possible that the rules were tightened up after 1888. In fact I don't think there's any question that the known association of the victims - and quite possibly the murderer - with common lodging houses was noted as part of the long standing social evil that common lodging houses were considered to be - by those fortunate enough to be above having to use them, that is.

However, the rules stated in the Victoria Home in 1888 were not new, and not unprecedented. The Victoria Home was not 'special' or a lone, shining example of new moral enlightenment. It would be a mistake to believe so. Other establishments with similar rules and provisions had been in business 40 years before; and many of the rules by which the Victoria Home purported to abide were in fact requirements to which all lodging houses were in theory expected to abide.

I do think establishments such as the Victoria Home were important in paving the way for later, better establishments. If I have time later, I'll post some examples.

Best regards

Sally

[Sally]

The Lord Mayor's Show

I received this reply from the Guildhall Library yesterday:

In reply to your recent email, I have had a brief look through some of our printed, secondary material on the Lord Mayor’s Show but have found nothing to indicate that Lord Mayor’s Day was ever an official public holiday.

Best Regards

Sally

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"It is quite possible that the rules were tightened up after 1888."

In all fairness, it is also quite possible that Montagu Williams picture of the Victoria Home portrayed the time BEFORE 1888, given that his book of reminiscences came out only three years after the killings, in 1891, the year before the author died. And what Williams says in his book very much paints the Victoria Home out as a very "special and lone shining example of new moral enlightenment". If there were only one or two exceptions to the rule of badly kept lodginghouses with low-life customers, and if, as Williams firmly states, the Victoria home was that exception (or one of the two), then I fail to see why we should NOT regard it as rather a singular boardinghouse in them parts. But I will be quite happy to take part of any contradictory reports and finds you can post!

Just saw your reply from the Guildhall. Thanks for posting it. Can I ask whether the emphasis on "official" was the writers or yours? At any rate, there is no denying that the Lord Mayor´s Show would have been a big thing back then, but I am very much less certain of how much attention Hutchinson would have awarded it. And to me, the bottom line is that the Astrakhan man sighting was not made in connection with the parade. It was distanced from it in time, and once that applies, there is always the risk that the distance in question becomes hard to define some time afterwards. Once again thanks, though, for the information about the status of the parade!

The best,
Fisherman

[D'Onston]

Some Studies of Sequenial Memory and it's Recall

Hey All, The following may be a good place to start for those who have the aptitude (or have contact with those with the aptitude) to fully understand the research I now reference. Good Luck

Concrete image and verbal memory codes


Allan Paivioa and Kal Csapo

Middlexex Coll., U. Western Ontario, London, Canada

Available online 5 June 2007.

Hypothesized (1) that concrete (visual) imagery functions primarily as a parallel processing system, whereas the verbal symbolic system is specialized for sequential processing; and (2) that performance in nonsequential memory tasks would accordingly vary directly with the availability of both memory codes, but the verbal code alone would be crucial in sequential memory. Ss were undergraduates. The availability of imagery was manipulated by the use of abstract words, concrete words, and easily labeled pictures as stimuli. The availability of the verbal code, in the case of pictures, was varied by presenting the stimuli at rates presumably above and below implicit labeling threshold. Immediate memory span and serial learning constituted the sequential tasks; free recall and recognition memory, the nonsequential tasks. Consistent with predictions (1) memory for pictures was significantly inferior to words only in the sequential memory tasks, and then only at the fast rate; (2) both pictures and concrete words exceeded the abstract words in serial learning at the slow rate; and (3) pictures were significantly superior to abstract words at the slow rate in both nonsequential tasks, with concrete words intermediate in each case. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
February 2005, Vol. 17, No. 2, Pages 294-307
Posted Online March 13, 2006.
(doi:10.1162/0898929053124875)
© 2005 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Sequential Memory: A Putative Neural and Synaptic Dynamical Mechanism

Gustavo Deco

ICREA and Universitat Pompeu Fabra
Edmund T. Rolls

University of Oxford
PDF (569.166 KB) | PDF Plus (581.962 KB)

A key issue in the neurophysiology of cognition is the problem of sequential learning. Sequential learning refers to the ability to encode and represent the temporal order of discrete elements occurring in a sequence. We show that the short-term memory for a sequence of items can be implemented in an autoassociation neural network. Each item is one of the attractor states of the network. The autoassociation network is implemented at the level of integrate-and-fire neurons so that the contributions of different biophysical mechanisms to sequence learning can be investigated. It is shown that if it is a property of the synapses or neurons that support each attractor state that they adapt, then everytime the network is made quiescent (e.g., by inhibition), then the attractor state that emerges next is the next item in the sequence. We show with numerical simulations implementations of the mechanisms using (1) a sodium inactivation-based spike-frequency-adaptation mechanism, (2) a Ca2+-activated K+ current, and (3) short-term synaptic depression, with sequences of up to three items. The network does not need repeated training on a particular sequence and will repeat the items in the order that they were last presented. The time between the items in a sequence is not fixed, allowing the items to be read out as required over a period of up to many seconds. The network thus uses adaptation rather than associative synaptic modification to recall the order of the items in a recently presented sequence.





An Alignment-based Account of Serial Recall
Simon Dennis (Simon.Dennis@colorado.edu)
Institute of Cognitive Science, University of Colorado
Boulder, Co 80301 USA

"The Serial Position Curve
In creating an SP account of any given phenomena we must
first determine what previous experience is likely to be
driving performance. In the serial recall task, it is
presumably our experience with lists such as phone
numbers, shopping lists etc that provide the traces upon
which the control of the task depends. Suppose for instance
that the sequential memory system contains the following
traces:
1. C1 study the following list , bread milk shampoo fruit
meat toothpaste .
2. C2 study the following list , Bill Mary Peter Harry Sue
Bert .
3. C3 study the following list , oak gum willow birch pine
aspen .
4. C1 recall the items bread milk shampoo fruit meat
toothpaste .
5. C2 recall the items Bill Mary Peter Harry Sue Bert .
6. C3 recall the items oak gum willow birch pine aspen .
7. C4 study the following list , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 .
C1-C4 represent context markers designed to isolate the list
that must be recalled. As the current context is always used
as a retrieval cue, traces from the corresponding study list
are more available at recall (i.e. are more likely to be
retrieved) than other traces.
Each of the traces is either an instance of studying a list or
recalling a list. For the purposes of the example, quite
stylized instructions have been used (i.e. “study the
following list” or “recall the items”). It is assumed that a
much broader set of possible utterances would be available
and that the lexical system would allow the model to
identify alternative ways of invoking the same process.
Note that there is no recall instance in the C4 context. This
is the list that the model will be required to recall and so we
probe the model with the following string “C4 recall the
items # # # # # # # .” The items in the list have been labelled
1 through 7. Note, however, that this labelling is purely to
facilitate interpretation of the results. The model only has
access to the traces listed above and therefore has no
background knowledge that would allow it to identify the
numerical ordering of these labels.
Figure 2 shows the working memory representation
following relational retrieval in the serial recall task and
Figure 3 shows the probability of retrieval (i.e. the
substitution probability of the correct item) as a function of
serial position following relational retrieval."




Sleep Enforces the Temporal Order in Memory

Temporal sequence represents the main principle underlying episodic memory. The storage of temporal sequence information is thought to involve hippocampus-dependent memory systems, preserving temporal structure possibly via chaining of sequence elements in heteroassociative networks. Converging evidence indicates that sleep enhances the consolidation of recently acquired representations in the hippocampus-dependent declarative memory system. Yet, it is unknown if this consolidation process comprises strengthening of the temporal sequence structure of the representation as well, or is restricted to sequence elements independent of their temporal order. To address this issue we tested the influence of sleep on the strength of forward and backward associations in word-triplets.

Subjects learned a list of 32 triplets of unrelated words, presented successively (A-B-C) in the center of a screen, and either slept normally or stayed awake in the subsequent night. After two days, retrieval was assessed for the triplets sequentially either in a forward direction (cueing with A and B and asking for B and C, respectively) or in a backward direction (cueing with C and B and asking for B and A, respectively). Memory was better for forward than backward associations (p<0.01). Sleep did not affect backward associations, but enhanced forward associations, specifically for the first (AB) transitions (p<0.01), which were generally more difficult to retrieve than the second transitions.

Our data demonstrate that consolidation during sleep strengthens the original temporal sequence structure in memory, presumably as a result of a replay of new representations during sleep in forward direction. Our finding suggests that the temporally directed replay of memory during sleep, apart from strengthening those traces, could be the key mechanism that explains how temporal order is integrated and maintained in the trace of an episodic memory.
Spyridon Drosopoulos, Eike Windau, Ullrich Wagner, Jan Born*

Department of Neuroendocrinology, University of Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
Abstract Top
Background

Temporal sequence represents the main principle underlying episodic memory. The storage of temporal sequence information is thought to involve hippocampus-dependent memory systems, preserving temporal structure possibly via chaining of sequence elements in heteroassociative networks. Converging evidence indicates that sleep enhances the consolidation of recently acquired representations in the hippocampus-dependent declarative memory system. Yet, it is unknown if this consolidation process comprises strengthening of the temporal sequence structure of the representation as well, or is restricted to sequence elements independent of their temporal order. To address this issue we tested the influence of sleep on the strength of forward and backward associations in word-triplets.
Methodology/Principal Findings

Subjects learned a list of 32 triplets of unrelated words, presented successively (A-B-C) in the center of a screen, and either slept normally or stayed awake in the subsequent night. After two days, retrieval was assessed for the triplets sequentially either in a forward direction (cueing with A and B and asking for B and C, respectively) or in a backward direction (cueing with C and B and asking for B and A, respectively). Memory was better for forward than backward associations (p<0.01). Sleep did not affect backward associations, but enhanced forward associations, specifically for the first (AB) transitions (p<0.01), which were generally more difficult to retrieve than the second transitions.
Conclusions/Significance

Our data demonstrate that consolidation during sleep strengthens the original temporal sequence structure in memory, presumably as a result of a replay of new representations during sleep in forward direction. Our finding suggests that the temporally directed replay of memory during sleep, apart from strengthening those traces, could be the key mechanism that explains how temporal order is integrated and maintained in the trace of an episodic memory.

Best Wishes, Mike (and yes, we need to find experts to understand and interpret for us the full implications of the articles referenced above. Fisherman, do you have the contacts?)

[Sally]

Sally:

"It is quite possible that the rules were tightened up after 1888."

In all fairness, it is also quite possible that Montagu Williams picture of the Victoria Home portrayed the time BEFORE 1888, given that his book of reminiscences came out only three years after the killings, in 1891, the year before the author died. And what Williams says in his book very much paints the Victoria Home out as a very "special and lone shining example of new moral enlightenment". If there were only one or two exceptions to the rule of badly kept lodginghouses with low-life customers, and if, as Williams firmly states, the Victoria home was that exception (or one of the two), then I fail to see why we should NOT regard it as rather a singular boardinghouse in them parts. But I will be quite happy to take part of any contradictory reports and finds you can post!

Just saw your reply from the Guildhall. Thanks for posting it. Can I ask whether the emphasis on "official" was the writers or yours? At any rate, there is no denying that the Lord Mayor´s Show would have been a big thing back then, but I am very much less certain of how much attention Hutchinson would have awarded it. And to me, the bottom line is that the Astrakhan man sighting was not made in connection with the parade. It was distanced from it in time, and once that applies, there is always the risk that the distance in question becomes hard to define some time afterwards. Once again thanks, though, for the information about the status of the parade!

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman

As to the ubiquitous CLH - I'm not suggesting the VH wasn't one of the better examples, clearly it was. However, firstly it was not alone, and secondly, it wasn't that great. It was just better than most of the others.

As I said, I'll post some information later, if I have time - if not, it can wait. As a point of interest, the VH appears to have been out of business by 1927, at least in terms of it being a registered lodging house. I don't know what happened to it, I will try to discover, when time allows. Apparently, it did not survive, whilst many 'lesser' lodging houses did - the notorious Crossinghams, The White House, for example. Read into that what you will.

As to the reply from the Guildhall Library; the emphasis is theirs. Were it mine I would say as much. The archivist there had some suggestions as to how I could take the matter further, should I wish to - and I may do this sometime. But I have to say it is not top of my priority list at the moment. interesting as it is.

Best wishes.

Sally

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Sally!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

D´Onston asks:

"Fisherman, do you have the contacts?"

I´m working on it, but have as yet not received an answer from the institution I have contacted. Eventually I will get an answer, though, even if it should take some time. It will to some extent hinge on myself too, since I do not have all that much time to spare at the moment.

Thanks for the material you posted. If nothing else, it shows that sequential memory is a very different bird from the imagery part.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

The significance of the Victoria Home rules are that Hutchinson said he couldn't get into his lodging house as it was late (that agrees with the rules) and he had to pick up some of his things he had left there (agrees with the rules).
It was stricter and no cheaper than nearly all its very many competitors. In my opinion that makes it an implausible lodging house of choice for a night stalking serial killer.
It was deliberatley set up to be strict from the day it opened.
(Lord Mayor's Show detail duly noted).

[Fisherman]

Lechmeree:

"... that makes it an implausible lodging house of choice for a night stalking serial killer."

That is a fair point, Lechmere, even though I think that as we do not have all the particulars on record, we cannot be too confident about it.

What I would very much like to know, however, is whether there are any points of comparison to present - serial criminals who have lived under similar circumstances while perpetrating their crimes. Boarding-house killers, as it were.
Nothing pops up in my head on this one, at least not initially. Perhaps somebody else can enlighten us?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

You’ve just gone and done exactly what you accused me of doing a few days ago; writing long posts to short points!

“we are not at liberty to state that it is totally implausible that Hutchinson only returned to the Victoria home to retrieve belongngs of his.”

I am most assuredly “at liberty” to state this, and I’m in bewildered astonishment that anyone can consider it remotely plausible that Hutchinson walked all the way back from Romford and then walked round the district “all night” for the sole purpose of retrieving some belongings in order to walk miles out of the district immediately afterwards. The extremes of sheer energy expenditure and unnecessary sleep deprivation being suggested here are simply gargantuan. I don’t share your faith that it hinges “on what he set out to do that day”. Given the extent of what you’re suggesting he endured in terms of walking all night and well into the following day, it can’t have been anything too taxing.

If he knew he was not in a financial position to “sleep the day away”, it is even less likely that he would have exhausted himself to such a bafflingly ludicrous and unnecessary extent.

“If you wish, you may argue that you do not think it very plausible - but to categorically rule it out does not function! And a categorical ruling out is what you suggest, is it not? "Totally implausible" amounts to that.”

No, that doesn’t follow, and certainly wasn’t what I sought to convey. I never dismissed the suggestion as impossible, just very, very implausible.

“One example would be that you earlier on this thread wrote "Of course it doesn´t reflect the sentiments of the police at the time", in regard to Dew´s statement that Hutchinson did get the wrong day.”

All right, Fish, I’ll give you this one. Substitute what I said with: “There is no evidence that Dew’s speculations reflected the sentiments of the police at the time, and it my opinion, they almost certainly didn’t”. But whether they did or not, the far more crucial observation to my mind is that the police had only personal suspicions to go on, not proof. Dew’s observations only serve to underscore this, which is why I brought them up in the first place.

But I’m afraid I’m still sticking to “vastly improbable” with regard to the belongings-retrieval suggestion, and this is the problem I have with the wrong-day hypothesis. In my opinion, there are too many of these “outside possibilities” being used to bolster that ultimate conclusion, but they’re just not helping it.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

I don’t know if you’re just pretending to misunderstand the nature of “special passes”, but there is most emphatically nothing in the Victoria Home guidelines that remotely militates against Hutchinson being the culprit. These passes were simply metallic tickets, entirely non-specific to any one individual, that could be purchased by lodgers on either a daily or weekly basis and then returned to the doormen for re-sale to other lodgers. This ensured minimised wastage of the type one would expect much of if each of these passes was personalised. Cooney’s was a smaller establishment that made record keeping considerably more viable. As Jack London’s experiences from one of the larger lodging houses should have informed us, his name was not taken upon entry, and his “pass” consisted of a brass cheque.

It isn’t likely that he misjudged the journey from Romford by an hour and a half. No evidence that the Victoria Home turned away anyone with funds or a pass for a bed purely on the assumption that they were “night prowlers”, and no evidence that Hutchinson was drunk that night either. So I’m still at a loss as to why you’re arguing that any of the Victoria Home rules are “pesky” for those who see merit in the suggestion that he may have been responsible for the murders.

The larger numbers at the Victoria Home and the often transient nature of its lodgers ensured that close acquaintances between doormen and residents were less likely to develop there than at the smaller doss houses.

“So when the police came round after the Eddowes and Kelly murders any late comers such as he would be brought to their attention. Surely?”

No.

Because if Hutchinson had anything to do with the Eddowes murder, he would probably have entered the Victoria Home with a pass, just as many other men would have been doing, and who also would not have had their names registered every time.

The significance of the Victoria Home rules are that Hutchinson said he couldn't get into his lodging house as it was late (that agrees with the rules) and he had to pick up some of his things he had left there (agrees with the rules).

Really?

Where did Hutchinson say he had to pick up some of the things he had left there?

The more crucial observation is that Hutchinson gave contradictory accounts of the reasons behind his failure to secure lodgings. Initially, it was because he had no money, and then later it was because the place where he "usually" slept had closed. But what's the relevance of the closure of a home that he doesn't have money or a pass to get into anyway? As for the observation about serial killers occupying lodging houses, bear in mind the nature of the district and the era in which the crimes were perpetrated. For many single men in the area, if not most, there was simply no other option than shared accomodation of some description. The proliferation of such establishments was far greater back then, as was the necessity of the working class poor to seek them out.

“However if he was a regular at Victoria Home (is there any evidence he was?) then if he went missing, his regular bed neighbours (if that is the correct expression) would have cottoned on that every time there was a murder, ‘blimey, good old Hutch weren’t there’!”

Who are these “regular bed neighbours”? The Victoria Home could accommodate approximately 500 lodgers on a given night – what gives you the idea that he had the same bed neighbours each night? Moreover, where’s the evidence that he integrated himself socially with other lodgers to the extent that he became “good old Hutch”? I’m sorry, but far from providing convincing reasons for dismissing the possibility of Hutchinson’s culpability as “totally implausible”, all you’re doing is increasing its immunity to sensible criticism.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

en:

"You’ve just gone and done exactly what you accused me of doing a few days ago; writing long posts to short points!"

What should we do about it, Ben? Backtrack and find out who NORMALLY accuses the other part of long posts ...?

Or perhaps quit quibbling about it on the whole and let your fellow poster go about his business in the way he prefers to?

Just let me know your wiews, and we´ll work something out!

"I am most assuredly “at liberty” to state this"

Of course you are. It is still wrong, though.

"I’m in bewildered astonishment "

Whew! So you are not just a little confused about the suggestion that a lodger who stays at a lodging-house that offers the service to keep things for their guests, actually may make use of that service; you are in fact totally flabbergasted by it? Interesting.

"The extremes of sheer energy expenditure and unnecessary sleep deprivation being suggested here are simply gargantuan."

Me oh my! "Extremes of sheer energy expenditure"? A trek to Romford and back, over a day?
"Gargantuan...?" What, then, should we say about people climbing the Himalayas, now that we have already spent our " gargantuan extremes of sheer energy expenditure"? What is left?

The man walked back from Romford. I think that we are a little bit uncertain about whether he also walked in the other direction first time over. We know not at what pace he walked, and if he made pauses along the way, perhaps had a bite to eat. But it will perhaps amount to gargantuan sheer extremes of energy expenditure just the same?

And what about that "unneccessary sleep expenditure"? Why was it unneccessary? And how do we know it? Moreover, why did he walk the streets with no sleep at all, if he had been subjected to the gargantuan task of spending all his energy reserves by walking home from Romford? Would it not have been wiser to bed down in a doorway and have a nap and a rest? Or could it be that there was still, incredibly, some small power reserve left in him?

Perhaps, Ben, you are somewhat overestimating the effort involved in walking a fair stretch of road, for whatever reason. Many people have done so, and survived it. And I bet a number of them have picked up belongings of theirs along the way.

"I don’t share your faith that it hinges “on what he set out to do that day”."

Wait a second - so whether he did pick up belongings of his would not be dependent of what plans he had for the day? How does that work?

"Given the extent of what you’re suggesting he endured in terms of walking all night and well into the following day, it can’t have been anything too taxing."

Even if it was not, we are still left with innumerable possibilities, Ben, from visiting an aquaintance to tending horses. And I know that I have danced, drunk and partied through the night when I was young, leaving sleep behind, only to lift and pack several, several tons of meat the following day. I would of course have preferred to sleep instead, but it was my job at the time. And Hutchinson would have been much harder pressed than I was, given the circumstances.
No, Ben, there is nothing out of the ordinary with my suggestion. Nothing at all. Thousands of people do things like this every day.

"No, that doesn’t follow, and certainly wasn’t what I sought to convey. I never dismissed the suggestion as impossible, just very, very implausible."

Gargantuan, sort of...?

"All right, Fish, I’ll give you this one."

I already had it, Ben. But thanks anyway.

"Substitute what I said with: “There is no evidence that Dew’s speculations reflected the sentiments of the police at the time, and it my opinion, they almost certainly didn’t”. "

Better! Much, much better! And a stance that allows us both to argue our cases from our different wiews. Mine, of course, is that the bits and pieces can all be fit in with Dew´s suggestion, plus it seems very reasonable to suggest that policemens wiews on matters more often than not reflect the wiews of the ... well, police.

"But whether they did or not, the far more crucial observation to my mind is that the police had only personal suspicions to go on, not proof."

A just as useful observation to make here is that there is often such a thing as a "police solution". That is what comes about when the police are satisfied that they have the correct solution, but either cannot or do not wish to go thrugh the efforts called for to prove themselves right. Now, we have no evidence at all telling us that the police had only "personal suspicions" to go on - they may well have had a lot more than that. A total mismatch, for example, between Hutchinsons story and the reality of the night, weatherwise as well as testimonywise per Lewis, for example.
None of us know, Ben, and I disagree that the observations of a man who states that he can see no other explanation than a day mistaken would in any way point to any true uncertainty, other than on behalf of Hutchinson himself.

"I’m afraid I’m still sticking to “vastly improbable”.

I´m afraid you are, Ben! And "gargantuan" and all that too, I suspect. Myself, I will be a little bit more discening and just say that I think that my suggestion is not only a viable one, but also better than other solutions, since it can accomodate all pieces involved, plus it has the support of the only police officer that had something to say about it. To me, that makes for a compelling case. Perhaps not overwhelmingly and mindbogglingly and vastly, vastly superior to any other suggestion that can be made. Just markedly better than the rest, no more than that!

"this is the problem I have with the wrong-day hypothesis. In my opinion, there are too many of these “outside possibilities” being used to bolster that ultimate conclusion, but they’re just not helping it."

Well, there is of course also the outside possibility that he was a raving maniac and a killer. But that would be out-out-outside in MY humble opinion. Which only goes to show how differently we look at things. Or choose to interpret them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I was double checking press reports relating to Hutchinson, of which more presently, when I came across this from the Daily News on 14th November 1888 (which others may have already noticed before of course). DI Reid and Magistrate Montague Williams were busy bees!

“At Worship street, George Bartlett, 38, described as a jeweller, was charged with the unlawful possession of a silver sceptre and other articles, supposed stolen. Detective Inspector Reid, H division, deposed that on the previous night in Spitalfields his attention was drawn to the prisoner, who was carrying a black shiny bag (produced.) In appearance he somewhat answered the description circulated of a man who had been seen in the neighbourhood of the recent murders. He was followed in Brick lane, stopped, and requested to give some account of himself, particularly as to what he had got in the bag. He displayed great objection to exhibit the contents, and the police found the bag secured with a padlock. The man was removed to the station in Commercial street, and there produced the key of the bag. On opening it various articles were seen, consisting of ladies' handkerchiefs, a book, a screwdriver, and the silver staff (described as a sceptre) in question, but no knives. In a back pocket of the prisoner's trousers there was also found a shell, silver mounted. The prisoner was charged with the unlawful possession, but during the day it transpired that the church of Old St. Pancras had been broken into, and the articles, with others - one stated to be a cross given by the Duke of York - carried off. On the application of the inspector the prisoner was given back into his custody to be charged at Clerkenwell with sacrilege. The magistrate (Mr. Montagu Williams, Q.C.) commended the inspector for the "intelligence and activity" he had shown in the capture.”

[Sally]

The significance of the Victoria Home rules are that Hutchinson said he couldn't get into his lodging house as it was late (that agrees with the rules)

Not exactly. And as Ben has already pointed out, I see, he also said it was because he had no money - look at that! Not even a sixpence!

and he had to pick up some of his things he had left there (agrees with the rules).

No he didn't - and no, it doesn't.

It was stricter and no cheaper than nearly all its very many competitors

.

No, wrong again.

In my opinion that makes it an implausible lodging house of choice for a night stalking serial killer.

You are of course entitled to your opinion.

It was deliberatley set up to be strict from the day it opened.

No. It was deliberately set up to provide a better standard of accommodation than its immediate competitors - have you any idea - seriously - just what those standards generally were? You have so far woefully misunderstood the common lodging house. In my opinion.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

“So you are not just a little confused about the suggestion that a lodger who stays at a lodging-house that offers the service to keep things for their guests, actually may make use of that service”

I have no problem with this at all. I have a major problem with the suggestion that he returned all the way from Romford in the small hours, then round the district all night only to “make use of that service” and not the more glaringly obvious one of a bed to sleep off the night’s excesses. What’s worse is that you then have him heading straight out again to do yet more walking, this time to some far-flung location where he mysteriously didn’t have access to news of the Kelly murder. That more than qualifies as an “extreme of sheer energy expenditure”, which makes very little sense for a penniless man for whom energy conservation ought really to have been a priority. I’m all ears if you can think of any scenario in which it would have been “necessary” for Hutchinson to do all this, and I’ll even accept fill-in-the-blanks on this occasion.

People climb the Himalayas for the purpose of pleasure, not to pick up their favourite coat!

“Moreover, why did he walk the streets with no sleep at all, if he had been subjected to the gargantuan task of spending all his energy reserves by walking home from Romford”

I know! It’s ridiculous, and makes no sense whatsoever. Of course, if he lied about it…

“Would it not have been wiser to bed down in a doorway and have a nap and a rest? Or could it be that there was still, incredibly, some small power reserve left in him?”

It would be “incredible”, you’re quite right. It just doesn’t seem remotely likely that Hutchinson would walk about the district “all night” on top of the walking he had already endured all the way back from Romford in the small hours of the morning. I’m very bemused that you should both spot these oddities and yet resist the “lying” explanation with such unreasonable and unfathomable staunchness.

“No, Ben, there is nothing out of the ordinary with my suggestion. Nothing at all. Thousands of people do things like this every day.”

It’s ludicrously out-of-the-ordinary, Fisherman, and your assertion that “thousands of people do things like” the sequence of events outlined in my first paragraph "every day" is both impossible to prove and almost certainly false. There’s just no sense in spoiling your intriguing wrong-day hypothesis with these ornamental “outside possibilities” because all they do is draw attention to compelling reasons for suspecting that Hutchinson fabricated key aspects of his account. I’m not using hyperbole and rhetoric to antagonise, but merely to caution against ruining an interesting suggestion with unsuccessful embroidery.

“plus it seems very reasonable to suggest that policemens wiews on matters more often than not reflect the wiews of the ... well, police.”

It’s not unreasonable, certainly, although in the Whitechapel murder investigation in particular, this old adage is less easily applied given the disparity of opinion amongst the senior police officials with regard to the killer’s identity. Nobody would argue, for example, that Macnaghten’s views on Druitt reflected those of the police as a whole.

“None of us know, Ben, and I disagree that the observations of a man who states that he can see no other explanation than a day mistaken would in any way point to any true uncertainty”

Dew’s comments strongly suggest that there existed “uncertainty” in the sense that no proof had been procured. It doesn’t matter how strongly Dew held fast to his opinion, it is clear that he was voicing opinion only. Were it otherwise, the salient observation would have been that, “the police came to establish that” Hutchinson confused the dates. Instead, he appeals to his readers for agreement that a date-confusing Maxwell equates to a date-confusing Hutchinson. Unfortunately for Dew, it seems that until you chimed in a few weeks ago, nobody has seen fit publicly to endorse his opinion as the correct one over the decades since his memoirs were first published. I tend to put this down to people disregarding the theory as unlikely, rather than the theory itself passing unnoticed.

“Myself, I will be a little bit more discening and just say that I think that my suggestion is not only a viable one, but also better than other solutions, since it can accomodate all pieces involved”

Well, I strongly disagree, and would note that I’m not the only one responsible for hyperbolic language. I did not, for example, claim to “know” what I cannot prove, and nor did I overconfidently state that the last jigsaw piece falls into place, or that another door closes with a satisfying slam, or whatever it was you said. And no, I never suggested Hutchinson was a “raving maniac”.

But I’m glad you’ve changed your mind about not speaking to me.

All the best,
Ben