Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[harry]

Fisherman,
Who called you a liar?I said Falsehoods,quoting from the official statement Hutchinson gave.You should read his statement and compare it to the paper,and then decide who was there to observe and report.The distance of fifty yards is from personel judgement having visited the site,plus using the various maps that have been published.And do not warn me to be wise,i'll make that judgement myself.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Who called you a liar?"

That would be you, Harry. More or less, at least. This is what you wrote:

"There is no mention in Hutchinson's statement of Kelly speaking in a loud voice,none at all,and the distance from the court to the intersection with Commercial street is 50+yards.Those are not interpretations,they are facts.Stop trying to bolster your arguements with falsehoods.It will not work."

I can only suppose that you mean that I either lie or use false measurements to bolster my claim that the distance from the archway leading up to Millerīs Court and the corner of Commercial and Dorset Street was around some 28-36 meters.

Now, whatever map I have looked at has given the same result: my estimation is completely correct. In spite of this, you have written that I bolster my claim with falsehoods. You have also claimed that the distance in fact is 50 yards +. It is not.

You state that your own personal judgement lies behind your assessment, but since that same judgement caused you to say that I bolster my claims with falsehoods, I do not give much for it as it stands.
The more interesting thing is that you also claim that the various maps that have been published also tell us that the distance was 50 yards plus! That is demonstrably wrong. I have posted three different examples telling us that around 28-35 meters was the true distance, and since you have made a claim that this is false, I must now urge you to produce whatever evidence you have that your suggestion is correct.

I have no problems with hard debates. I can stand my ground in such things, as can my theory. I distinctly dislike slander, though - especially when it cannot be in any way proven. I also happen to loathe the direction this thread sometimes take, where unsubstantiated accusations relating to posters instead of to the issue itself are allowed to take up important place.

If the distance we are debating, Harry, was 50 yards plus, then you must produce the evidence to show it, or admit that this is wrong. "Those are not interpretations, they are facts" you write, and facts can only rest on unchallengable evidence. I have produced evidence to disprove your claim, and it is therefore your turn now.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

First and foremost, people who say that they do something "all night" do not speak of an hourīs occupation ...!

The best,
Fisherman

Well Exactly, Fisherman. Exactly. So why exactly was it that Hutchinson chose to walk about all night when he could have gained access to the lodging house kitchen by 4am? If, of course, he was telling the truth, that is.

This has all been very entertaining, it really has. Maybe you can keep it going for a few more pages.

[Sally]

Sally I have closely read the three contemporary pieces on the Victoria Home which I am sure you saw that I posted on the ‘Victoria Working Men's Home, Commercial St East’ thread

You posted on the VH thread? I hadn't noticed. Well done. Although I think most people who wanted to read them could have done so elsewhere on the boards. Still, a useful exercise, no doubt.

(as an lodging house specialist I am sure you were already very familiar with them). In these texts I can only see unambiguous confirmation of my interpretation of how the Victoria Home operated.

I haven't claimed to be a 'lodging house expert' Lechmere, although I'm flattered that you think so. I simply know more about it than you appear to - I'm not sure that's a particularly high benchmark.

But never mind, I know that for Hutchinson to be the killer this absolutely must be denied.

If by this you are implying that I have a 'Hutch as Killer' bias then I suggest you desist. I object to it. I have nowhere stated as much, and I will not be tarred with a brush of your choosing. I am happy to state that I think he lied. There may be many reasons for that, however - some of them quite mundane.

I accept your logic that the kitchens probably opened at 4.00 am

Well done. Leaving a time gap of an hour between Hutchinson's leaving Dorset Street and the Victoria Home kitchen opening for the early morning trade.

but not that this in any way implies that Hutchinson could therefore gain entry at that time (without the elusive ‘special pass’)

That's a weak argument, Lechmere. What evidence there is suggests that regulars could sit in the kitchen even if they hadn't paid for a bed. There is no reason to suppose that Hutchinson couldn't have gained entry that early if he'd wanted to - I don't see why he'd have needed a special pass for that.

[harry]

Fisherman,
You ask me to do something that you are not doing yourself.You say you have seen maps with the distances recorded.(distances of what? besides metres)You do not show those maps.I do not know what measurements you use.You have not said.I did not call you a liar.I said you were using falsehoods.That is true.The Paper you cited published the falsehoods,you used them.The falsehoods of course being that Hutchinson stood on the corner of Dorset Street,and observed Kelly and companion at Millers court,and that Kelly spoke in a loud voice.I did not say you were lying about the distance,I disagreed on that score,and still do.So you suppose wrong on that particular item.It was not included as a falsehood.There is no slander,by me of you,and you well know it.It is those kind of remarks that sets a bad tone,why use them if you loathe the direction it takes.
You are screaming that you are an injured party.Well too bad,but you'll recover when you realise the injury was self inflicted.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"You ask me to do something that you are not doing yourself.You say you have seen maps with the distances recorded.(distances of what? besides metres)You do not show those maps.I do not know what measurements you use.You have not said."

Oh yes, I have. I have told you very clearly that I used - among others - the 1894 Ordinance Map of Whitechapel Division to establish the distance. I have provided links to that map, and others. And it will not matter what map I use, that will not change things - the distance was around 30 meters, and NOT 50 yards plus.

I have also said that I have used the length of the archway to establish the distance to the corner. The archway was 20 feet long. I could just as well have used the overall length of the street, around 400 feet, or the size of Christ Church. Whatever you compare with, that you have the established size of, the outcome will be one and the same: around 30 meters was the length of the distance.

You have yourself stated that in order for Hutchinson to be able to hear what the couple said, the distance would need to be no more than about 30 yards, and there you are - that is the exact distance we have, more or less.

Now I demand to see the maps/s you are referring to in order to speak of me bolstering my claims with falsehoods. After we are done with this exchange, it should be very obvious who it is that claim false things.

"I said you were using falsehoods.That is true.The Paper you cited published the falsehoods,you used them.The falsehoods of course being that Hutchinson stood on the corner of Dorset Street,and observed Kelly and companion at Millers court,and that Kelly spoke in a loud voice."

This is totally ludicrous, Harry. Why on earth would we surmise that these things are false? Because you think that it is so? Then you had better prove it! How do you KNOW that Kelly did not speak in a loud voice? How do you KNOW that Hutchinson did not stand at the corner, WHEN HE SAYS HE DID? What is there to disprove this? You cannot possibly be allowed to assert that you KNOW that this did not happen, substantiating it with nothing at all but a mistaken assessment of the distance from the archway to the corner of Dorset and Commercial.

"I did not say you were lying about the distance,I disagreed on that score,and still do."

Well, Iīm sorry, but you cannot disagree with established facts, Harry. You produce that map or you simply admit that you were totally wrong.

"There is no slander,by me of you,and you well know it"

On the contrary - saying that somebody bolsters their teories and suggestions with falsehoods IS slander, if you cannot prove it. And that proof must be produced on this very thread, Harry. I do not want to engage the administrators of the boards to decide for you what is slander and what is not. Nor will I do so if you retract your statement that I bolster my work with falshehoods. It is entirely in your own hands, Harry.

"You are screaming that you are an injured party."

I can take a lot, believe me. I am in no way "injured". But fairness and truth have received a kick in their behinds, and THAT I dislike.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Well Exactly, Fisherman. Exactly. So why exactly was it that Hutchinson chose to walk about all night when he could have gained access to the lodging house kitchen by 4am?"

I can think of at least a couple of explanations:

1. He was not aware of the possibility
2. The possibility was not there
3. Perhaps people with no money were not let into the kitchen

You, on the other hand, seem to come up with the same answer here as you always do: He MUST have been lying about it. Of course, if this kitchen DID open at 4 AM, and if it was something he would have known quite well, and if people with no money were let in - then he would reasonably not tell the papers, the police or anybody who would listen that he started his nightly walk at 3 AM, and ended it at 4, when the kitchen opened. Oh no, he simply HAD to opt for the very conspicious scenario (well ...) of having walked the streets all night instead.
Clever liar, that man.

"Maybe you can keep it going for a few more pages."

Not on fuel like this, I canīt.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

You, on the other hand, seem to come up with the same answer here as you always do: He MUST have been lying about it. Of course, if this kitchen DID open at 4 AM, and if it was something he would have known quite well, and if people with no money were let in - then he would reasonably not tell the papers, the police or anybody who would listen that he started his nightly walk at 3 AM, and ended it at 4, when the kitchen opened. Oh no, he simply HAD to opt for the very conspicious scenario (well ...) of having walked the streets all night instead.
Clever liar, that man.

"
Fisherman -to me the explanation is simple :

If Hutch had said that he went to the kitchen at 4am, then there would have been other men in the kitchen at that time to witness that he didn't.

By saying that he 'walked around all night' -to unspecified places at unspecified timings -he made it impossible to be contradicted.

As I think that he was butchering Mary Kelly at 4am -out of the rain-
he was obliged to opt for a scenario which took him away from the Victoria Home, where he was known.

I would also like to know whether you have visited the murder sites yourself ?
I have just made two trips to Whitechapel/Spitalfields,and it was a totally different and illuminating experience rather than looking at maps..(for one thing, I would now be inclined to include Tabram as 'Jack's').

I think it is ridiculous that Hutchinson could have heard Mary's words or seen the colour of a hankerchief. It becomes obvious that Mrs Lewis could only make out a dark figure of a man
standing in the street -whom, as a vulnerable woman, she wouldn't want to linger and stare at, but be at pains to ignore and hurry past..whilst he would have got a glimpse of her scurrying into the passage.

[Lechmere]

Sally has introduced her kitchen theory whereby an inmate in a lodging house, even though they have no doss money, can gain access at 4 am so they can sit around what would be, finances permitting, their usual abode in the warm.

We know that Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman were turned out in the early hours. How likely is it that they would have been let back in at 4 am? Very unlikely to a point of disappearing over the horizon, but then I clearly know very little about these mysterious lodging houses.

At the time of Chapman’s murder she could have been sitting in Crossingham’s kitchen watching the dockers and porters scoff their brekkers, rather than be still walking the streets. That makes her a bit foolish.

What I am certain of is that Hutchinson, even if he had a metal weekly bed ticket, couldn’t have been sitting in the Victoria Home canteen as he clearly didn’t have a special late night pass and they would not have let him in without one (OK unless his mate was on the door and turned a blind eye). It would have defeated the object of the special late night passes that they most certainly issued, if they let inmates come back and sit in the kitchen while the dockers and porters had their scran.

I don’t know when they would have let people back in but 4 am is not credible. By any normal interpretation 4 am is still the night. Particularly in November.
If it was so easy to get in at that hour the police would have known it and pulled Hutchinson up on it straight away.

The kitchen theory doesn’t work on any level.
I know that there were rules that inmates had to vacate between 10 am and 4 pm or something similar but I haven't got time to check. I also believe these rules weren't realy enforced.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"to me the explanation is simple"

To me too, Ruby!

"If Hutch had said that he went to the kitchen at 4am, then there would have been other men in the kitchen at that time to witness that he didn't."

Uhum. And if he said that he stood outside the court at 2.30, but did not see Lewis, then ...?

"I would also like to know whether you have visited the murder sites yourself ?"

Yes. Numerous times, the last one being in November last, and the first one many years back, in the company of Martin Fido. Him and me have a mutual friend, and that resulted in a very nice evening at the Ten Bells, followed by a thoroughly interesting walk through the East end. I can assure you that the recent rumour about my shortcomings in understanding what these sites are like is totally unsubstantiated.

Of course, neither you nor me have been at the true murder site of Kellyīs, since it was demolished in the 1920:s. And today it is very hard to make comparisons. Architecture, surroundings, soundlevels - it all differs from back then.

"I have just made two trips to Whitechapel/Spitalfields,and it was a totally different and illuminating experience rather than looking at maps..(for one thing, I would now be inclined to include Tabram as 'Jack's')."

On basis of walking the area only? Why? Proximity does not produce killers, Ruby - something that is shown by the Stride case, if I am correct.

"I think it is ridiculous that Hutchinson could have heard Mary's words or seen the colour of a hankerchief."

I donīt. Dorset Street was narrow and lined by relatively high buildings. Therefore the resonance in the street would be reasonably good. And we know that Hutchinson said that he saw only two persons there that night, meaning that it was, by and large, also an empty street. When we see the surroundings today, we have all sorts of background noices from cars and such, but that was not there in -88. If Kelly spoke, then she may have been the only one making a sound. And if she spoke in a loud voice, the sound would travel far. In that context, a mere 30 metres is very little.
One thing that should be weighed in here, is that if it rained and if a gale force wind blew, then that would take much away from the possibilities of hearing what was said. But - of course - if it was a dry, silent night, like the night BEFORE the murder, then the picture changes drastically! And once again, this tallies with the suggestion of mixed up days on Hutchīs behalf. Amazing, is it not?
Oh, and the hanky - Hutch could have spotted that one as he stooped down and took a look at the man earlier. He was quite close at that stage, and the manīs overcoat was unbuttoned - in spite of the chill, the hard winds and the wet weather - believe it or not!

"It becomes obvious that Mrs Lewis could only make out a dark figure of a man standing in the street"

Does it? Dorset Street was a relatively well lit street, Ruby. And there was a large signpost gas lamp directly outside Crossinghams, I believe. You can see how they looked in the picture Sally published earlier on the thread. Therefore the man may well have been reasonably visible.

"whom, as a vulnerable woman, she wouldn't want to linger and stare at, but be at pains to ignore and hurry past"

This is easier to buy. You may be right here - and if it rained and a relentless cold, gale force wind was blowing, then she would have been so much the more anxious to get into the Keylerīs home as quick as possible, I think. Meaning that she would perhaps not get much of a look at the man, just like you say. But ALSO meaning that her suggestion that he may have looked up the court as if waiting for somebody may have been grounded on very, very little too.

"...whilst he would have got a glimpse of her scurrying into the passage"

If the man that stood outside Crossinghams was really monitoring the court with some vigour, then he could reasonably not have missed her totally. Therefore, Huchinsons failure to mention her when he spoke of the persons he had seen in the street points straight AWAY from him being the loiterer. Plus, as you will know, if we may rely on what Hutchinson said himself, we should not look for him on the southern pavement, but instead on the northern ditto.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"We know that Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman were turned out in the early hours. How likely is it that they would have been let back in at 4 am? Very unlikely to a point of disappearing over the horizon, but then I clearly know very little about these mysterious lodging houses.
At the time of Chapman’s murder she could have been sitting in Crossingham’s kitchen watching the dockers and porters scoff their brekkers, rather than be still walking the streets. That makes her a bit foolish."

Yes, but why let sense get in the way of the Hutchinson-the-liar-and-possible killer saga, Lechmere?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

"
Fisherman -to me the explanation is simple :

If Hutch had said that he went to the kitchen at 4am, then there would have been other men in the kitchen at that time to witness that he didn't.

By saying that he 'walked around all night' -to unspecified places at unspecified timings -he made it impossible to be contradicted.

As I think that he was butchering Mary Kelly at 4am -out of the rain-
he was obliged to opt for a scenario which took him away from the Victoria Home, where he was known.

I would also like to know whether you have visited the murder sites yourself ?
I have just made two trips to Whitechapel/Spitalfields,and it was a totally different and illuminating experience rather than looking at maps..(for one thing, I would now be inclined to include Tabram as 'Jack's').

I think it is ridiculous that Hutchinson could have heard Mary's words or seen the colour of a hankerchief. It becomes obvious that Mrs Lewis could only make out a dark figure of a man
standing in the street -whom, as a vulnerable woman, she wouldn't want to linger and stare at, but be at pains to ignore and hurry past..whilst he would have got a glimpse of her scurrying into the passage.

Excellent points Ruby. I too have visited the sites, on more than one occasion, and it becomes painfully apparent that Hutchinson could not have witnessed what he said he did - at least not as he portrayed it. He could neither have heard, nor seen what he said he had.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I too have visited the sites, on more than one occasion, and it becomes painfully apparent that Hutchinson could not have witnessed what he said he did - at least not as he portrayed it. He could neither have heard, nor seen what he said he had."

There is nothing in the sites as such that could have prevented Hutchinson from seeing or hearing what he saw he saw and heard. To state anything else is simply untrue. Under calm circumstances, people can hear conversations takin place thirty yards away. And remember that Hutch could only make out the part where Kelly spoke with a loud voice. And of course, what you have before you, you can also see.

You are really at a total loss here, Sally - or can you explain WHY Hutch could not have heard and seen what he said he did, because of things you have understood during your visits to the sites? It should make for interesting reading!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Well, Fish, you know, I could. But then all I'd be doing is encouraging this nonsense to continue.

So, I know - I'll go off and do something which will actually be useful in terms of this ongoing debate - and you can carry on insisting that you know the answers.

Hutchinson got the night wrong. Yeah, ok Fish. Time will tell, eh?

Carry on.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"you know, I could"

Mmm. Sure you could.

"But then..."

Amazing! Just as I thought youīd provide us with a true eye-opener! Nah, just joking, Sally - I really donīt think you have anything to offer at all in that context.

I will carry on insisting that I have a useful theory that so far has stood up to all the tests presented. That is not the same as having all the answers. The difference is a subtle one, so it may perhaps be lost on some posters. But as long as I recognize it myself, I wonīt bother too much.

The best, Sally. Enjoy your absense.
Fisherman