Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro – I haven’t seen the nightwatchman reference – where is it?

Even without CCTV there were plenty of checks they could have made on Hutchinson. Where had he been as a groom. Why did he need a knife? An extra sharp one?
Alias’s were mainly employed by the underworld, prostitutes, criminals - not grooms and labourers.
If none of this checked out then I suggest the police would have taken a keen interest in him.

The other suspects that were picked up were usually released pretty quickly. Clearly because their tales did check out (although with the example of Peter Sutcliffe we can’t say than one of these may have been the culprit). The police clearly did have means to check.
Incidentally, I don’t think Sutcliffe can be used as an example of how Hutchinson could have got away with it!

Sally – are we talking about drink or personages?

I just noticed that the top soldier picture is of Canadians, but there are lots of similar pictures of British soldiers of a similar build.
The point about military appearance is that whatever the reality was, and some would in fact be scruffy herberts, the term would have meant something that was instantly understood. The description ‘not tall but stout’ would not be applied to someone of stereotypical military appearance.

If you said someone has an art deco look your mind’s eye would conjure up a certain image. It wouldn’t be of a ‘not tall but stout’ woman. This has nothing to do with reality. There may have been plenty of women who dressed in that style in who were ‘not tall but stout’. It has to do with sterotypes.

Having said that, I have an original idea. Perhaps she was useless at describing how people looked, but would be very good at picking someone out in person...

[Hatchett]

Are you sure that this is really the end of the list? Doesnt sound very humble to me, or indeed very well thought out. But still. If someone has such ego that they want to educate who they believe are beyond education and then stoop to insults, I dont suppose you can expect very rational thought processes.

Best wishes.

[Fisherman]

Okay, I forgot to make the sound check earlier today, so I just did it now instead. The conditions were not very much like Dorset Street; I live in a street that has villas on the one side and a tree-lined valley on the other, so the sound will "escape" more here than it did in Dorset Street. Also, there was a wind blowing in the trees, adding a distinct background sound.
Result: I began with my 16-year old son standing 50 meters away on the street. I then said a simple sentence in a normal speaking voice, and he could hear that I was speaking, but he could not make out the words. I then raised my voice a little - not by very much - and then he was perfectly able to hear what I said. Then I moved to a position 30 meters from my son and spoke a new sentence in a normal speaking voice, and he could make it out with no problems.

All very unscientific in a fashion, of course - but since we have no means to reproduce the exact setting and sound level in Dorset Street, and as we likewise do not know in how loud voices the couple there spoke, we will never be able to make an experiment that accounts for all things anyway. I think we may make the educated guess that Dorset Street, with its sound-reflecting facades must have made a better (much better in my wiew) setting to hear sound over distance in at any rate, so on that score I think it will be hard to say that I provided better audibility than the original setting.

To me, this is very telling, and I don´t lend much credence to any suggestion that what Kelly said about the handkerchief could not have reached Hutchinson´s ears. It could - with good margin. I would even go as far as to say that I am of the meaning that if Hutchinson did not make out the rest, it would have owed to either the couple speaking in low voices, except when Kelly spoke of the handkerchief - which would of course have been quite natural - or because of a lack of concentration on Hutchinson´s behalf.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Please, someone deliver me from this. Satan? Fisherman? Proto? Bueller?"

I have some minor objections to your choice of company for me here, Mike ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally – are we talking about drink or personages?

What?

Were we talking about anything? I thought you were talking about how the police would have checked out all the micro-details of Hutch's life just on the offchance that he was up to no good - including where he worked as a groom. Why? He wasn't under suspicion, was he? (As far as we know). He was putting himself forward as a witness. He lived at the Victoria Home! Nope, no suspicion there.

But if only they had. As it is, we have so far failed to identify any such Hutch who worked as a groom. Maybe he never existed. Guess we'll never know...

Now, back to the stout. Ah, but which sort??

[Sally]

Fisherman.

What do you think your experiment demonstrates exactly? You don't seriously think it demonstrates that Hutchinson heard Kelly and Astrakhan - do you?

Your experiment demonstrates that you could hear your son in your street. That's pretty much it.

Perhaps you do know this, since you at least acknowledge that we can never know how loudly Kelly and Astrakhan might have spoken. In which case (and since you cannot accurately judge the variables - you're guessing) what's the point?

It isn't remotely scientific and supports no contention of audibility at all in my view.

I think it would be much better if you could reproduce the exact conditions of Dorset Street; demonstrate scientifically exactly how much background noise there was; exactly where Hutchinson was standing; precisely how loudly Kelly and Astrakhan were speaking; and how well Hutchinson could hear with an absolute degree of certainty.

I'd be impressed by that.

[Ben]

“Ben in the excerpt you present he has clearly moulded his opinions after being told what to think, as an old man, by Fairclough.”

Not just told what to think, Lechmere, but also told about source material he was clearly unaware of beforehand. Reg could easily have remained neural on the subject, but he chose instead to hop straight on the royal conspiracy bandwagon. Reginald was the source for the implausible “100 shillings” payment, remember, not Melvyn Fairclough.

“if someone uses an expression similar to ‘military bearing’ then it would be with reference to the archetypal image of a soldier that was then in common currency”

Yes, but too bad for your argument that this “archetypal image” was most assuredly not confined to tall, thin people. As my example perfectly demonstrated, a military appearance can easily mean thick-set, strong and sturdy, as we discover when we pop ourselves over to the Free Dictionary available on-line: “strong of body; hearty; sturdy: stout seamen”. Obviously a military man would reasonably be considered sturdy and strong of body.

Your dislike of stout (the alcoholic beverage) does nothing to enhance my optimistic prediction that we will one day become the bestest of best pals and drinking buddies, Fechbeer. Next you’ll tell me you don’t like porter either. I dunno...

“If Hutchinson was the Ripper would you not agree that it would be unlikely that he would sit to have his portrait sketched?”

Yes, of course, but then it isn’t remotely likely that police sketches took the form of a proper sit-down job. They were far more likely to have been based on a general impression of clothing and appearance. This general impression just happened to consist of a short and rather thickset stature, a moustache and a wideawake hat, which not so coincidentally matches up rather well with Lewis’ impression of her loitering man.

“With reference to the picture of Hutchinson with his hands on hips looking at Kelly and Mr A, I can’t see a child with chocolate on his face”

Oh, but she's so difficult to miss, Letch – immediately to the left of the woman supposed to be Mary Kelly. Behind her is a Peter Ustinov lookalike standing smoking in a doorway with another man, and in the adjoining building is what appears to be a butchers shop with the bald moustachioed butcher looking fixatedly on. Behind the man supposed to be Hutchinson is another couple engaging in conversation. Who are these people? It’s a somewhat comedic spectacle but very obviously at odds with reality. The point being that this was clearly the less reliable (by far) of the two Hutchinson sketches.

“Ben, do you think Abberline thought Kennedy was the same person as Lewis?”

It’s a possibility, but on balance I consider it more likely that he recognised that she was one of the women mentioned by a news reporter who tried to parrot off Sarah Lewis’ account as her own experience.

“There were numerous avenues for the police to check on Hutchinson if they wanted to. Why was he in Romford? His comings and goings at the Victoria Home. Whether Lewis or anyone else recognised him. His whereabouts when the other crimes were committed.”

No, no.

Vast confusion again, I’m afraid.

If Hutchinson wanted to lie about being in Romford, he could have done so easily. All it would have taken was a false claim to have been in pursuit of work, but found all doors closed, or perhaps a claim to have been visiting family only to find nobody home. This could not be verified, nor could it be contradicted. The comings and goings at the Victoria Home? Not in a million years. 450 men used these lodgings nightly, and yet you expect a doorman to have remembered what one of these lodgers was doing on a particular night several weeks previously, despite the various comings and goings of hundreds of lodgers on an average night? His whereabouts for other crimes can similarly be dispensed with. If Hutchinson was the killer, all he had to say was that he was asleep in his lodgings at the time of the previous murders and be completely secure in the knowledge that nobody was in a position to contradict him, even if that claim was false.

“The Victoria Home was on Commercial Street. After Whitechapel High Street that is easily the next biggest and most important road in the neighbourhood. So it is unlikely anyone would describe the Victoria Home as being near Middlesex Street.”

It’s not the description I would choose, but then we have no idea where London had come from earlier. If he had come from the direction of Middesex Street, then it wouldn’t be remotely unusual to describe the Victoria Home as “not far” from it. But that isn’t the important point. The important point is that there were simply no other establishments that fit the bill, and the Victoria Home meshed up with London’s description so incredibly well. It was a larger lodging house catering for males only with a kitchen below street level, and it was not far from Middlesex Street. I can’t think of anywhere else that matches the criteria. If Victoria Home was the establishment in question – and it is more than safe to assume it was – then it becomes clear that despite what the various articles said, the Victoria Home’s entry policies were more relaxed than they made out.

Again with this trend of me introducing people to extracts from well known sources which they then draw decidedly dodgy conclusions from.

“The obvious inference is that special passes were issued if inmates gave a good reason that they needed one such as work.”

Oh, a good reason? Such as “I, George Hutchinson, the non-ripping 22-year-old plumbing-aspirant hereby promise that I will only get back late because of my work patterns, and that I will not get too pissed when I’ve finished”. Great, and if everyone tried this on? Surely you can understand why I find your misinterpretation of these basic guidelines – which you adhere to rather staunchly and borderline-aggressively despite assuring everyone earlier that you would leave the subject alone – rather frustrating? The vetting process was designed to assess new lodgers for goodness of character and thus suitability for the Victoria Home. If the authorities then dished out "special" passes only for those who they liked and trusted and not for those who they expected to get drunk later, what was the point of the preliminary vetting process for new lodgers that we have documented?

Whatever its supporters attempted to advertise, this was still a crowded East End lodging house in a bad area of town, Lechmere, but the way you go on, one could be forgiven for thinking it was the Michaelmas term soiree for the first year students at Eton, with the headmaster on door duty.

“Ureka - not stout”

Who’s not stout?

The people in your paintings and photographs – well done.

Do they detract in the slightest from the obvious reality that one can be stout AND have a military appearance?

Of course not.

So what’s with the “Ureka”?

[Ben]

Just as an aside, a particularly astute commentator recently raised a rather crucial observation that I have completely overlooked. I may well be enlightened to the contrary by some eager beaver, but it seems very likely to me, despite what Hutchinsion claimed in his subsequently discredited account, that Dorset Street must have been patrolled at some point during those 45 minutes by one or more policemen. If Hutchinson and/or the loiterer were installed opposite the court with an apparent fixation with it, it would only have been natural for a policeman to investigate this and inquire as to the loiterer's reasons for being there.

Hence, if the loiterer had any nefarious reasons for his loitering, it is only logical to infer that his movements in Dorset Street would have been dictated to some extent by the movements of the bobbies on beat. In other words, ducking into passageways and doorways to avoid attracting their attention.

Just a thought.

Fisherman,

Your family have both my admiration and my sympathy for their involvement in your many ripper-related experiments and reconstructions!

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Here's part of a post submitted recently by TradeName on the 'A Crime Scene Tour with "Inspector Harris" in 1889' thread:-



So much for the notion that residing in the Victoria Home would be sufficient to eliminate Hutchinson from the list of potential Ripper suspects.

Next, the illustration of Hutchinson to which Ben has alluded:-



It should be noted that this was a sketch made during the very week that Hutchinson made his police statement. The other drawing, the one to which Lechmere has made reference, was, so far as I'm aware, produced something like a decade later and is thus utterly worthless if one is looking for an accurate depiction of Hutchinson.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

I'm fascinated by that account from Inspector Harris, Garry. This is entirely new to me.

Thanks also for providing a copy of that Hutchinson sketch for ease of reference.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

It was new to me too, Ben. TradeName is to be congratulated on what to my way of thinking is an intriguing find. If only all new posters could follow his lead ...

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Absolutely, Garry.

What I find interesting is that "Harris" was a acknowledged pseudonym for a real detective active at the time of the murders, and I'm rather persuaded by TradeNames's suggestion that Edmund Reid is the most likely candidate.

Here’s Edmund Reid:

Here are the only known facts. The whole of the murders were done after the public-houses were closed; the victims were all of the same class, the lowest of the low, and living within a quarter of a mile of each other; all were murdered within half a mile area; all were killed in the same manner. That is all we know for certain. "My opinion is that the perpetrator of the crimes was a man who was in the habit of using a certain public-house, and of remaining there until closing time. Leaving with the rest of the customers, with what soldiers call 'a touch of delirium triangle,' he would leave with one of the women.

And here’s “Inspector Harris”:

Every murder has been committed just after the public houses close. Now, I believe that he gets to drinking in the public houses and the fury comes upon him while he’s in liquor.

Best wishes,
Ben

[harry]

Fisherman,
You began by estimating the distance to be 35-36 metres,you have now got it down to 30.To be fair,I have used 35 metres ,your original estimation,during my later tests,which have been conducted outside,using different people,in normal conversation,in different situations.Why should Kelly have raised her voice to say she had lost her handkerchief.She was standing directly next to her companion,a whisper would have sufficed.It is not the impossibility of her being able to do so(speak loudly,and quite loud it would have had to have been ),it is the sheer implausibility of her needing to,as has been pointed out by others.You speak of using rational arguement.Why not try it.

[harry]

Martin,
I meant no disrespect,I should have worded it different.Your views are welcome,and the more you post,as I hope you will,the better you will understand the personalities of others.
Regards.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"What do you think your experiment demonstrates exactly? You don't seriously think it demonstrates that Hutchinson heard Kelly and Astrakhan - do you?
Your experiment demonstrates that you could hear your son in your street. That's pretty much it.
Perhaps you do know this, since you at least acknowledge that we can never know how loudly Kelly and Astrakhan might have spoken. In which case (and since you cannot accurately judge the variables - you're guessing) what's the point?
It isn't remotely scientific and supports no contention of audibility at all in my view. "

This was a totally expected post! And it is so, so typical for the Hutchinsonian attitude. This is what it has come to: accept NOTHING that comes from the other camp, question it in all fashions, and ridicule it if possible.

Alright, Sally, I will answer you questions and I will tell you what value can be ascribed to an experiment like this.

- What do I think my experiment shows? Answer: I dont "think" it shows something, I KNOW it proves that my son could hear me speaking in a normal conversation voice and make out the words when there was 30 meters inbetween us. I also KNOW that he could hear a slightly raised voice and make ut the words from 50 meters away. And since we do not know what the conditions were in Dorset Street, we cannot say that they would have been either better or worse, and therefore all we have to do to dispell the notion that conversation COULD NOT have been heard from 30 meters away is to conduct an experiment along the lines I used. After that, we KNOW that conversation CAN be heard from that distance, and we ALSO - as a bonus - know that a raised conversation voice can be heard from 50 meters away.
After that, we need not know anything about the specific setting of Dorset Street, unless we can prove that there were elements around that would have had a negative impact on the audibility. And we know of no such thing. Instead we have a very much better setting for an enhanced hearing than the one I used, where the sound could travel in all directions.

"You don't seriously think it demonstrates that Hutchinson heard Kelly and Astrakhan - do you?"

Nobody can prove that Hutchinson heard the couple - but anyone can prove that he MAY have done so. And WOULD have too, if the voice volume and his hearing were normal.

"Your experiment demonstrates that you could hear your son in your street. That's pretty much it."

Eh, no: it demonstrates that HE could hear ME. And that in it´s turn demonstrates that people CAN hear other people speaking in a conversation voice from 30 meters away. And THAT is the only thing we need to prove. After that, you are welcome to believe that there were earplugs connected to Hutch´s bowler or that sound only travelled in a westernly direction in 1888. It does not matter a iota. Such things are casespecific, and my experiment was general, which means that it proves that in a general sense, we can hear conversation from 30 meters away. And 50, for that matter, if the voice is raised. Any sound researcher will be able to confirm this, butof course - such a thing would be UTTERLY useless, since no sound researcher will be able to reproduce THE EXACT conditions of Dorset Street, right? And that is now what I need to prove, since the issue has magically moved from a general question to a specific one.

"It ... supports no contention of audibility at all in my view."

No? Then what in the world DOES it support if it does not support a contention of audibility during the experiment I made? Hmm, Sally?

"I think it would be much better if you could reproduce the exact conditions of Dorset Street; demonstrate scientifically exactly how much background noise there was; exactly where Hutchinson was standing; precisely how loudly Kelly and Astrakhan were speaking; and how well Hutchinson could hear with an absolute degree of certainty."

What a clever girl you are Sally! Demand that the ones who are trying to show how far conversation sound will travel also can establish Hutchinsons level of hearing! In that fashion, nobody will ever be able to prove that Hutchinson could have heard anything in Dorset Street! ******* brilliant! Then it won´t matter if all the scientists in the world agree that conversations can easily be picked up on over the distances we are dealing with, and we can look away from this ugly business!

You need to rethink this very closely, Sally. Can we or can we not establish the exact factors from back then? And is it or is it not useful to generally establish over what distances people can make out a conversation? Does the results from such work apply in a general sense in this case or does it not.

The REAL issue here, Sally, is not the one of how much Hutchinson could hear - it´s the one about YOUR hearing and listening capabilities. If you choose to put your hands over your ears and go "BLAH_BLAH_BLAH_BLAH, I DON´T WANNA HEAR THIS!", you will miss out sorely.

Normal conversation in a cold midnight street in Sweden with only a villa wall to bounce the sound against, can be made out from 30 meters away by a 16 year old boy with a slight hearing impairment on one ear. That is good enough for me, and it should be good enough for anybody who has a wish to seriously discuss the matter. Those who do not have such intentions can get lost as quickly as possible.

The best,
Fisherman