Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

Don´t you think it is strange that something that a gal like you, with no experience at all of witness confrontaions, 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.

Well, I don't think that the Police looked for Mr Astrakhan Man for more than a day or two. I'm sure that, had Abberline and his collegues/superiors continued to believe in the existance of mr Astrakhan Man then he would have continued to be the prime suspect.

That is fact.

That Hutchinson could have got the day wrong, and Mr Astrakhan have existed but on another night, is only wild speculation on your part, and the implausability of it has been amply exposed on this thread.

As to why Abberline would have INITIALLY have believed that Hutchinson was
a bona fide witness was brought home beautifully by Ben in the opening of his article in the examiner : Abberline had been in the that room at Miller's Court with the body 'in situ'.

Try and use all your creative imagination to see and smell what that must have felt like ! Imagine the thoughts going through Abberline's mind as to what sort of man could have perpetrated that level of mutilation upon another person -and cold bloodily upon a defenceless young girl, at that.

Imagine a 'normal', charming, articulate Hutch sitting in front of Abberline, and him trying to equate that person with what he had seen in Miller's Court. What's more Hutch was a witness who had placed himself in the hands of the Police by his own volition.

Serial Killers aside -when I talk to people who have no knowledge about the former, they always say " the killer would have been driven 'mad' by that act", or he would have committed suicide. I think that it likely that Abberline felt that. Yet we know by studying other serial killers that it's just not true. I read the interview with the former Camp Commandant at Auschwitz
(who arguably did worst things on a far bigger scale) and it is self-preservation and self-justification all the way !

As to my own experience : here's a story that happened to me over this Christmas period...

At the beginning of December a 66 year old woman, with a stable and unremarkable private life, was found murdered about 10.30am on a Sunday morning, on a path leading from a busy-ish carpark to a quiet residential road on the outskirts of Avignon. She had had her face smashed in, with terrific force, against a stone placed by the council across the path.
She also had had a screwdriver rammed through her lower jaw. She had been dragged behind a hut housing electricity
cables to one side. She hadn't been sexually touched and she had about £50 in her pocket. Despite loads of blood over the stone, the first people to pass the scene hadn't investigated further.

Who do you think the Police looked for first ? An inmate from the local Mental Hospital, out on leave ! Well, it wasn't him !

After trawling through their records of DNA and fingerprints (corresponding to DNA samples on the body and fingerprints
on the skrewdriver) they arrested a man who, until a few months ago, was a close neighbour of mine.

There is no way that I would ever think of that man as a murderer -I knew him as a devoted father, who intervened in a horrified way when another neighbour became violent with his girlfriend, and who offered to carry my heavy shopping bags when I struggled out of my car with them. He wasn't 'a friend', but I would happily have given him a character reference.

According to the papers, he had a record (had done prison) for being a 'flasher' and sexually agressing women in the past.
His flat, car, etc were registered under other people's names, and he had obviously gone out with the screwdriver in his pocket for no explicable reason.

He continues (as far as I know) to totally and vehmently deny any involvement in the crime...yet both the DNA, allied to the fingerprints, concert to prove that it was him.

I imagine that, had Abberline interviewed him , -and investigated in our road about him- then there is no way that Sébastien
Malinge would be under lock and key today. If Sébastien hadn't been arrested, maybe the thrill would have made him do it again.

I only want to tell this story, Fish, because it shows what Abberline was up against: you can't tell if anyone is murderous,
crafty, violent, planning things, by interviewing them once or twice, nor by seeing them going about their daily lives, nor by questioning neighbours.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" I don't think that the Police looked for Mr Astrakhan Man for more than a day or two. I'm sure that, had Abberline and his collegues/superiors continued to believe in the existance of mr Astrakhan Man then he would have continued to be the prime suspect."

On the contrary, Ruby. Hunter has earlier provided evidence telling us that Astrakhan man was searched for over a longer time. My contention is that he was found interesting, although the police knew that he was not connected to the murder night. He was still, though, one of Kellys last clients.

"That is fact."

Yes. But the underlying structure of the police´s understanding is not.

"That Hutchinson could have got the day wrong, and Mr Astrakhan have existed but on another night, is only wild speculation on your part"

On the contrary again, Ruby - it is information given by Dew. And I cannot possibly allow a clique of Hutchinsonians to dictate what is "wild speculation", can I? Goodness me!

"Try and use all your creative imagination to see and smell what that must have felt like !"

Not very likely, no. I use my imagination elsewhere and put it to better use. To suggest that Abberlines faith in Hutch was due to him being upset over Kelly´s fate is all very touching - but as arguments go, it touches instead on the ridiculous.

"I only want to tell this story, Fish, because it shows what Abberline was up against"

I´m afraid not - it shows what you IMAGINE he was up against. My belief is that he was up against a nice, honest man. A future plumber, as it were.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I can agree entirely with Garry Wroe’s sentiments here...

“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.”

Unfortunately in this thread the impression that the Victoria Home was some sort of semi paradise is only put forward as an ironic (at best) or dishonest (at worst) counter argument to the proposition that it was better than most at the time.
The form of debate, where gross exaggeration of the opponent’s position is employed, in preference to reasoned discussion or interpretation of contemporary accounts, causes confusion all round. Where there is light, it brings darkness.

Oh, as for big institutions not know who the regular inmates are, take a look at Catherine Eddowes. She was an irregular at various workhouses, but was also very well known. There is plenty of similar evidence around. I guess in those days, with no TV, computer games, or sports entertainment, people used to take notice more of their fellow humans and talked to each other.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"The form of debate, where gross exaggeration of the opponent’s position is employed, in preference to reasoned discussion or interpretation of contemporary accounts, causes confusion all round. Where there is light, it brings darkness."

Wise words indeed, Lechmere!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

A future plumber, as it were.

Fish,

That's BS. Except for identical signatures and the only possible match of Hutchinsons... and Reginald's statement, we only have NEARLY irrefutable evidence that Toppy and Hutch are the same man. That isn't the same as being 100% sure. You should take it back.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

On the contrary, Ruby. Hunter has earlier provided evidence telling us that Astrakhan man was searched for over a longer time.

Since the fabrication of A Man was based on prevailing prejudices -then that model didn't disappear overnight granted. However, the Police were no longer
looking for the fictitious 'person' as witnessed by Hutchinson.

"That Hutchinson could have got the day wrong, and Mr Astrakhan have existed but on another night, is only wild speculation on your part"

On the contrary again, Ruby - it is information given by Dew

.

It is speculation based on another bit of speculation by Dew. That it is almost impossible that Hutch could have been mistaken as to the day, has been ably shown on this thread.

Not very likely, no. I use my imagination elsewhere and put it to better use.

forget faffing about on pleasant swedish mountain roads and get back to basics...
centre your thoughts on a tiny slum room in grim Dorset Street in the East End of London in 1888, with blood and carnage all beginning to smell from rotting meat because of the roaring fire...no cctv, DNA or fingerprints to help you, then try and see what Abberline was up against !
I'm genuinly suprised that you, as a journalist, can't seem to empathise.

"I only want to tell this story, Fish, because it shows what Abberline was up against"

I´m afraid not - it shows what you IMAGINE he was up against

.

You're wrong ! It illustrates quite concretely what Abberline had to deal with. It should also illustrate to Lechmere what Police investigations into Hutch at the Victoria Home might throw up; If Hutch came and went at irregular hours due to his job, was popular and helpful with all around him, and willfully covered up his past (I'll bet that there were signs there) -then without our modern scientific methods to trap him, the Police would have had little hope of catching him out.

[Rubyretro]

ps Fish -I entirely respect your wish not to involve your son in these discussions.

Nonethless, it seems to me to equate to the same thing as Tony Blair wanting to show pics of Tone and Cherie and Baby Leo' or Tony and 'family' when he wanted to show us what an 'ordinary guy' he was...and then crying 'privacy for my kids !' when he didn't wish to elucide on what vaccinations the baby had had..
.
We can't bring our families into the Thread when it suits us.;and then get hot and bothered when it doesn't suit us..

None the less, l I will absolutely not mention your beep ever again..especially after what your postman told me..

(sorry -that was my joke ! I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not a Gentleman !).

[Ben]

“I am totally bored with this mind-numbing discussion on the sound levels in Dorset Street”

Me too, Ruby.

I’m amazed it keeping cropping up. Many people have very sensibly challenged Hutchinson’s claims relating to the distances involved over the years, and more often than not, these challenges have nothing whatsoever to do with promoting Hutchinson as a suspect. You have authors, for example, who are quite happy to conclude that the ripper was a black magician who plotted the location of the murders to form a special symbol, but who dismiss Hutchinson’s claims as outlandish. Contrary to what others keep insisting, it’s not just those pesky “Hutchinsonians”.

From my experience, the extent of belief invested in Hutchinson’s claims – particularly those related to sounds, sightings and distances – is proportional to the knowledge those believers have of the geography of the area. Those who endorse Hutchinson’s account as fine and dandy with respect to the distances involved are rarely very knowledgeable about such matters, from my experience, and they have rarely, if ever, visited the locations themselves.

Harry raised a crucial point concerning Kelly’s raised voice, and how odd and eccentric it would be for her to shout in order to be heard by the Astrakhan man standing next to her. Interestingly, and rather tellingly, the “loud voice” did not appear in the original police statement but only in subsequent press versions, and I suspect I know why. After giving his police statement, Hutchinson probably realised that in the absence of a "loud voice" from Kelly, he couldn’t have heard conversation travelling from the Miller’s Court entrance to the corner of Dorset Street, and so he made alterations accordingly when subsequently speaking to the press. Garry Wroe also touched upon Hutchinson’s possible recognition of problems with the police statement when he observed in his book that Hutchinson “recognized that his version of events, courtesy of its hasty conception, contained flaws in several key areas” and that he therefore “introduced a number of variants when subsequently speaking to the press.”

There is no evidence, incidentally, that the police were still interested in hunting Astrakhan-type suspects after the discrediting of Hutchinson's account.

Fisherman,

Yes, it IS perhaps the same type of hat. But only perhaps. Otherwise, there is nothing to conclude from at all. Unless we "chose" to see it, as you put it.

It's not about choosing, but rather what the sketch actually depicts, and that is a not tall but stout man wearing a hat that would be categorized as a wideawake by people from that period. It's another non-coincidence that it happens to mesh up with Lewis' description.

Yes, I do have a problem with your "reconstruction", but if I were to outline the nature of these problems, I would be concerned that you will find yet another excuse to contact the administrators.

A test cannot be much simpler than this: measure 30 and 50 meters, respectively. Stand at each end. Speak a sentence in a normal conversation voice and see if the other party can make it out.

I did. They couldn't.

All the best,
Ben

[Monty]

Jesus, talk about roundabouts...we were discussing this nigh on 10 years ago werent we Ben?

Monty

[Ben]

Absolutely, Monty!

It was and fun and productive to talk about back then.

Gone stale now though.

[Monty]

Ive grown a beard since then. Sons gone Uni. Rob Clack had hair when we first started this.

Monty

[Ben]

My testicles had barely descended when we first discussed this, Monty.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Ben;163751]My testicles had barely descended when we first discussed this, Monty.[/QUOTE
I won't make that joke !

[Ben]

Oh, go on, Ruby!

I'm intrigued now.

[Rubyretro]

I couldn't get hold of enough balls to say it Ben..

It was fairly terrible and involved Casebookers looking up to you..

I have my pseudonym's reputation to think of..

Fish's beep might even read this..