Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
What it all boils down to us threefold.
Hutchinson was telling the truth, including monetary gain.
Hutchinson was either a time waster, or an enterprising young man, that not only exploited his account in 1888, but also the remainder of his life.
Hutchinson was a cold blooded killer, that entwined himself into the investigation at the time , as part of a sordid game.
The most obvious is the former, that he told the truth, which included police funds.
And who was George Hutchinson.?
GWTh,.... and who can disprove ? we have.
The Claim by his 'proven son'
The [ elusive broadcast]
The Ripper and the Royals.
The knowledge, from senior members of the Hutchinson family that Topping claimed this.
Come on guys, what else do we want.
As for the wrong day... clutching at straws, and as for edible sound, ...ditto, there can be no doubt that Abberline excepted, the distance of earshot was plausible, and also initially that the witness was genuine.
JTR was unstable, to say the least, Hutchinson was certainly not, i am not saying that Hutchinsons account fell to the wayside as proven incorrect, just that other unknown clues presented themselves, via witnesses, which led the police to pursue other avenues.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

I think the other Victoria Home was here:
The Victoria Home No 2
Temperance Home for Working Men
177 Whitechapel Road E

I think it was taken over by the Salvation Army in 1919. I think it is where Booth House is now - 153-175 Whitechapel Road, London E1 1DN.

This is from a Salvation Army Guide:

The site of Victoria Home originally belonged to the Victoria Wine Company. At a later date, alterations were made to the premises and the building was used as an orphanage.
The Salvation Army took over the site on 24th February 1919 and opened as a Working Men’s Hostel. This was one of many food and shelter depots being opened around London and the UK. Victoria Home housed 310 men in dormitories, 20 men to a room. The communal facilities (rooms) were located down in the basement.
One of The Salvation Army publications “The Deliverer” in 1922, reported that the Working Men’s Hostel (complex) in Whitechapel, accommodated 540 men. This included 128 private cubicles.

Incidentally I don’t think anyone has suggested that the other Victoria Home was reserved for rich people or that the facilities were ‘posh’. I haven't seen anyone make suggestions like that, so 'disproving' them is a little futile. I think it is clear from the three main contemporary sources that the people who ran it tried to provide a no frills environment where poor people could find some peace and stability to reclaim their lives, and get back on an even keel. It is explicitly stated that this wasn’t everyone’s cup of tea, as the rules were much stricter than other places. But clearly some people preferred it as it provided a more stable environment in which to live – compared to other doss houses around there at that time. All things are relative.

[Sally]

Victoria Home, Whitechapel Road.

Yes, Lechmere, you are correct, 177 Whitechapel Road was the Salvation Army lodging house, and probably the second Victoria Home. It had a licence for 551 men by 1927.

I still think you're glorifying the Commercial Street Victoria Home, I'm afraid.

[Lechmere]

It's not me that's gloryfying the place, blame Mrs Charles Garnett, Montagu Williams, 'A Practical Philanthropist', 'An Inquirer', and the feature writer of the Daily Telegraph.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

You could be right, Ben, although I have to confess that my knowledge regarding those officers involved in the Ripper investigation isn’t all it could be. Hence any assessment on my part would be pure speculation.

Thanks for the snippet on the Victoria Home! Quite interesting! Was it printed in 1889?

It was, Fish. Here’s a link to the relevant post:-

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=5281

I’d recommend that you download the PDF in its entirety. As I said earlier, it makes for an enthralling read.

It is fascinating how the characters in it are described as men with a former greatness - it says nothing about vagabonds, half-criminals and such but only speaks of lawyers, officers, clergymen ... Not exactly grooms and such.

True, Fish. But that, I tend to think, was more a reflection on the Victorian fascination with ‘fallen gentleman’ than a true representation of the Victoria Home’s majority clientele. Many years ago I had a copy of the 1891 census returns pertaining to the Victoria Home which revealed that most patrons were very Hutchinsonesque in their backgrounds and social status.

One would like to know when the home lost it´s status as a charitable institution? Was that before it became a lodging house on the whole?

I’m uncertain, Fish. Trusting to memory, I recall that the purchase of the first warehouse (39 Commercial Street) was a kind of social experiment intended to eradicate some of the more ‘ungodly’ activities associated with low lodging house life – hence the emphasis on rules, regulation, religion and the exclusion of women. The exercise proved so successful that an adjacent warehouse (41 Commercial Street) was purchased, thus doubling the Victoria Home’s sleeping capacity and making it one of the largest lodging houses in the whole of London. Later, the model was copied on Whitechapel Road and a second Victoria Home opened next door to today’s Salvation Army hostel. There was also a ‘Home for Working Men’ in Thrawl Street (below, far left) which may have been inspired by the Victoria Homes, but wasn’t, as far as I’m aware, part of the enterprise.

The article as such is of course not in accordance with the other material we have on the home, which paints it out in a much brighter light, which is intriguing. Did it have a good rumour that followed it in spite of a deterioration? Was Harris not correct? The article raises questions.

I think that the issue is merely one of interpretation, Fish. Undoubtedly, the Victoria Home was superior in character to many of the hell holes that passed for affordable accommodation in the East End and beyond, but there has been a tendency, I believe, to confuse ‘better’ with ‘good’. Based upon all of the accounts I have read over the years, the Victoria Home was a truly appalling establishment when evaluated by today’s standards. It was simply less appalling than an overwhelming majority of its contemporary lodging houses. But if you are looking to elicit further information on the Victoria Homes, I would suggest that you contact the archivists at the Tower Hamlets’ Local History Library, Bancroft Road, whose patience, helpfulness and knowledge of such matters is second to none.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"that, I tend to think, was more a reflection on the Victorian fascination with ‘fallen gentleman’ than a true representation of the Victoria Home’s majority clientele. Many years ago I had a copy of the 1891 census returns pertaining to the Victoria Home which revealed that most patrons were very Hutchinsonesque in their backgrounds and social status. "

Aha. Maybe we are looking at a mixture of the "Victorianism" you hint at and a more "Hutchinsonesque" (that was eloquent!) clientele? It would perhaps stand to reason that the run-down lawyer and the luckless vicar would choose the Victoria Home over Crossingham´s. It would sound like logic to my ears. A pity, though, if Harris´picture was not a true one, since it gave the place a lovely Dickensian air!

"I think that the issue is merely one of interpretation, Fish."

Interpretation? How much more catastrophic can it get, Garry? When the camps on this thread are left to interpret, nothing good ever comes from it. In my interpretation "to the court" means that the best bet is that Hutchinson went to the entrance of the court. In Bens interpretation, if you went to stand outside Crossinghams, you had also gone to the court. The other side of the street is just as much court as the court side of it.
Leave things to interpretation here, and we will end up with a hellhole of a lodginghouse, crammed with potential - and very real - killers and criminals of all sorts, and a palace of a charitable institution, with reformed sinners, retired clergymen and benevolent but strict guardians of moral set to watch over them.

Thanks for the information, though - much appreciated!

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Fisherman.
It is not an odd question to ask why Kelly raised her voice.She was standing with her companion,at a distance in which a whisper would have been heard.And yes ,before you state the obvious in that we do not know what that distance was,Hutchinson has them standing together at the court entrance.So an estimation of a couple of feet of separation between them,would ,I feel,be correct.I have never given an estimation of 50 metres to the corner of Dorset Street.I gave my estimation in yards.Why do you not read posts correctly?Your first estimation of 35/36 metres equates to near 38/40 yards.It is no surprise that you now want it to be much nearer,and Kelly's voice to be raised.I would too,if I was argueing that Hutchinson went no further than the corner,before Kelly and companion entered the court passage.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"It is not an odd question to ask why Kelly raised her voice."

The odd thing, Harry, is to suggest that it would be in any way "irrational" to work from the supposition that she did so. It is very clearly stated that this was the case. After that, we may reflect on why Kelly raised her voice. We may, if we wish, regard Hutchinsons claim that she did as an absolute clincher that he must have been the killer. I do not interfere with that in any way, should you choose that path. But I do interfere very much with any stance that tells me that I am irrational when I use the evidence!

"I have never given an estimation of 50 metres to the corner of Dorset Street.I gave my estimation in yards.Why do you not read posts correctly?"

I am a Swede, Harry. I am familiar with meters and not with yards. But I am also familar with the net, and a yard converter tells me that 50 yards is 45,72 meters. And 50 yards plus, as you put it, is more. And 45,72 meters makes for a faulty 50 per cent addition to the REAL distance.

"Your first estimation of 35/36 metres equates to near 38/40 yards."

I have told you that this estimation was wrong. I have also told you WHY it was wrong - it was due to the fact that the archway was not drawn in it´s full length on Colin´s sketch. After that, I have consulted other maps, and they are quite unanimous - the distance from the corner of Dorset Street and Commercial Street was around 28-30 meters. If you want that in yards, it would be 30,6 to 32,8 yards.

"It is no surprise that you now want it to be much nearer,and Kelly's voice to be raised."

That argument is pure stupefaction. The distance WAS 28-30 meters in 1888, and it is evident from all the maps we can find. To suggest that it was 50 yards plus (or 45,72 meters plus) is, and there is only one way to put it appropriately: wrong! It will not matter at all what I "want", will it? That won´t move the corner or the court a millimeter - how could it? See some sense, get a measuring stick and get busy, Harry. THEN tell me what the distance was!
To say that I "want" Kellys voice to have been raised is equally foolish. We have it on record that Hutchinson SAID that she did so, and after that, what you feel would have been better or more appropriate or logical or whatever, does not count for anything but pure disappointment on your behalf. And that, if anything, should tell us very much who it is that "wants" the facts to be the other way around, just as your estimation of the distance from the court to the corner tells the exact same story.

I have, as you may have noticed, put it all to the test, and I found that normal conversation could comfortably be made out from a distance of 30 meters (NOT yards), just as a raised voice could be made out from 50 meters (no, it´s not yards now either). And that test was made in much worse accoustic surroundings than the ones Dorset Street offered. So I don´t "have to" move the corner any nearer the court, Harry - your erroneous estimation (if you still want to stand by an obvioulsy faulty suggestion it is your choice) would not have hindered Hutch in hearing a raised voice and making out the words, not even from 50 yards away.
I am at the moment busy contacting a researcher who has written his thesis on the combination of sound and architecture, both landscape and urban. I hoe to receive an answer from him shortly. After that, I am conviced that we need not worry about the argument of Hutchinson not beaing able to hear what was said from his stance on that corner. Up til that time, I will not engage in any further discussion with you until you do a thorough check on the distance we speak of and read the evidence.

The best,
Fisherman

[John Bennett]

There was also a ‘Home for Working Men’ in Thrawl Street (below, far left) which may have been inspired by the Victoria Homes, but wasn’t, as far as I’m aware, part of the enterprise.]

Just for clarity, the picture posted is of Rothschild Buildings (Thrawl Street), built c.1886/7. They were not like the Victoria Homes in that they weren't hostels, but rented flats, predominantly occupied by working class families.

[Rubyretro]

Fish -Once more this is bogging ourselves down in futile arguements since a)
the lodgers at the Victoria Home can't ALL of been ex-lawyers and ex-clergymen, nor all thieves and murderers.

we get the picture that it was slightly better than other lodging houses in the area, and as such attracted some lodgers who had 'seen better times'.

b) how do we know that Hutch hadn't seen slightly 'better times' ?
He has never been traced conclusively !

That 'military appearance' suggests neat and tidy (it would be arguable that the Ripper showed some 'neat and tidy' traits too, by the way..) in his person.

Hutch MAY have been an ex-army man, or he may have worked on a stud farm as a groom (a skilled job -Essex had the largest number of studs in the country, whether exporting to the continent for armies, or breeding racehorses). Of course, he may only have looked after the horses in a coaching inn...who knows ?

At any rate, nothing is incompatible with the Ripper lodging at the Victoria Home , to the contrary: it is the epicentre of the killings, it placed on the corner of the road with a string of pubs where the victims all drank/solicited outside, it allows for a load of men coming and going in casual jobs with irregular hours, it has kichens where bits of liver etc would have been produced from pockets and cooked in a communal kitchen, it has men doing jobs where it would be normal to carry your own sharp knife, it has men who would be no stranger to pawn shops (I'm thinking of how to get rid of clothing) in the normal run of things...what did Sally say about 'hiding in plain sight' again..?

[Rubyretro]

-I am totally bored with this mind-numbing discussion on the sound levels
in Dorset Street -I'll play the Devil's Advocate and say that if Mary was dead pissed, then she could have screeched drunkenly her reply,and she was a bonny booming irishwoman...OK ? So let your poor child go back to his computer games, Fish.

Only, Hutch evidently lied about the existance of Astrakhan man in the first place..so all this discussion is only about how accurate his lies were anyway.

Since he possibly never spoke to Mary that night, and didn't know how drunk she was or not ('skittish' was hedging his bets), he didn't precise the fact..

[The Good Michael]

Toys in the attic


Mike

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Toys in the attic

We've noticed you have, Mike -stop boasting about it

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Once more this is bogging ourselves down in futile arguements"

Futile? How is it futile to find out about things and try and get a general picture? Of course, it will not tell us everything, but enhanced and enlarged knowledge has never hurt.

"how do we know that Hutch hadn't seen slightly 'better times' ?
He has never been traced conclusively !"

I think he has.

"That 'military appearance' suggests neat and tidy"

And to try and establish that is not "futile"?

"nothing is incompatible with the Ripper lodging at the Victoria Home"

If you need an argument over that, you should look elsewhere. The only time I have speculated over the Victoria Home, I did so in an article where i proposed Joseph Fleming as a good bid for the Ripper´s role. And he of course did stay at that very home.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I am totally bored with this mind-numbing discussion on the sound levels
in Dorset Street -I'll play the Devil's Advocate and say that if Mary was dead pissed, then she could have screeched drunkenly her reply,and she was a bonny booming irishwoman...OK ? So let your poor child go back to his computer games, Fish."

My child is not a poor child, Ruby. He is a clever, athletic, resourceful mountain of a boy, and he is quite happy to help me if I ask him, just like I am happy to help him. But since you apparently did not pick up on my post to Ben, I will politely ask you too to refrain from commenting on my family any further. It is none of your business, and I would like you to respect that.

"Hutch evidently lied about the existance of Astrakhan man in the first place"

Don´t you think it is strange that something that a gal like you, with no experience at all of witness confrontations, interrogations and such (correct me if I´m wrong), easily manage to expose this lie, whereas Frederick Abberline was at a total loss in the same issue?

I think it is very, very strange.

The best,
Fisherman