Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Sally]

Lechmere - I'm not actually sure the VH was operating as a lodging house up to that point - it isn't included on a comprehensive list from 1927 that I have. I don't know what happened to it - I think perhaps the only way to find out when it ceased business would be to go through the lodging house lists at the LMA - the jobs yours if you have the time!

But yes, I'm sure a trawl through the papers would be worth the time.

[Lechmere]

I only said WWII as I know it was bombed then, and that seemed a suitable cut off point!

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"none of those things are either facts, nor remotely probable."

Why not? Your argumentation is around, improbable though it may seem.

"You have a strong bias against Hutchinson as the murderer"

I am pretty certain that he was not the killer, but instead a totally innocent man; George William Topping Hutchinson to be more exact. But that is not a bias, dearest Ruby - that is a very well underbuilt stance, signed, in fact, by none other than Topping himself.

"...that is why you turn up on Hutch threads arguing against him. You are afraid that Ben's explanations are too convincing "

So far, any such fear has been put to shame, Ruby. I am equally confident that this will hold true in the future too.
The reason I "turned up" on this thread is that I actually wrote the article that is the ground for it. It would look odd if I was not there to defend my theory, donīt you think?
As an aside, I may inform you that Ben and I have had disagreements about lots of things, not only Hutchinson.

"In this particular case, if A Man didn't exist, then all discussion on a fictitious conversation and it's noise levels is worth zero."

Correct; bravo! And if he DID exist, then ...? Yes ...?

"Lot's if it was happening up and down the street in houses with no insulation/double glazing etc."

No, no, no...! Donīt do it that way - do it the scientific way! Get hold of an accoustics expert and measure the noise! As it stands, you donīt know if we speak of 2 or 20 dB, do you? And guessing wonīt do!

Of course, if you should take the trouble to do it right, it still stands that you are going to find it difficult in the extreme to prove that the noise you adequately measure was about between, say, 2.14 and 2.18 AM on the morning that Hutch was there. For what happens if your rowdy band of lodgers were silent in them minutes, Ruby?

"We are talking about different incidents in all different buildings, up and down the street all night."

Not in the slightest, Ruby! YOU are the one that talks about such a thing. I donīt believe it for a minute, and I have all the quotations adhering to the murder nights and sites to bolster it.
What do YOU have, Ruby, but a bleeding heart and a burning wish that your suggestion was true? What, exactly?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"Explain to me why the issue of noise has the same people who were mindless in the Leander threads attacking you?"

Oh, come, Mike ...!

"as much as I'm not a cut and run kind of guy, I ask you both (and others) to leave them their only real reason to live; Hutch's guilt. Give it to them and then go smugly away, realizing that you have not only helped the needy, but are right in your beliefs. We all win."

You are a kind soul, Mike. Me and Lechmere, we are rabid dogs - or so we are told.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Fisherman - I admire your patience in locating those sound level quotations!"

Thanks a bunch, Lechmere! Let me just say, from one rabid dog to another, that I am a great fan of your calm and systematic fashion of dealing with this issue myself!

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

I posted up all the contemporary sources on the Victoria Home on the relevant thread a few weeks ago.

With respect, Lechmere, no you didn't. You posted several easily available sources such as those carried by Casebook. Believe it or not, some of us have spent years searching through a variety of newspaper archives which provide a great deal more information than the snippets available here on site. Hence your assertion that you 'posted up all the contemporary sources on the Victoria Home' is as fanciful as it is misjudged.

Ben likes to think Jack London gave an acciunt of it about 14 years later. It is very doubtful that he did, but it is one of Ben's facts. Say no more.

Although I've never seen the version of People of the Abyss that contained Jack London's original photographs, I'm given to believe that these plates included the now well known internal and external images of the Victoria Home. If so, it may be stated with virtual certainty that the Victoria Home was indeed the lodging house described by London. If you know any different, however, I stand to be corrected.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

“Ben! Howīs the alien doing?”

He’s currently tucked up in bed with Toppy in silent, silent Dorset Street, Fisherman.

Thanks for asking.

All hilarities aside, though, I’m afraid you’ve once again drastically misinterpreted my position on the sound issue, and used that misinterpretation in another attempt to perpetuate the “all sources and experts disagree with Ben” fallacy. Unfortunately for your keyword site-searches, you’ve only wasted your own time, since you’re using these contemporary sources as some mythical form of “contradiction” of a position I never once argued. I have never suggested or even heard it suggested that Dorset Street and all other murder sites were anything other than “quiet” at the times of the various eyewitness sightings. I simply stated the obvious – that it could not have been sufficiently “quiet” to enable someone to overhear conversation from 30 metres away in a busy and crowded part of London, especially in bleak weather conditions that included a strong wind.

You’re brought up Mitre Square again and the fact that the resident policeman and George Morris claimed not to have heard anything, and yet we know that despite their failure to hear anything, there clearly were sounds of some description, unless you think the entire process of inveigling, murdering and mutilating Catherine Eddowes happened in silence. Similarly, in spite of the undoubted quietness of Mitre Square and the surrounding area at the time of the Eddowes murder, neither Levy nor Lawende could even “hear” a man and a woman conversing less than ten feet away. These are witnesses who appeared at the inquest and were demonstrably taken seriously by the police. Indeed, Lawende continued to be used for identification purposes several years after the murders. He wasn’t discredited shortly after he made a three-day late post-inquest statement as Hutchinson did, who claimed to have heard conversation from 30 metres away.

I go with Lawende and Levy, for astoundingly obvious reasons, and it doesn’t take a deductive genius to figure out why they could not hear the couple; because despite the relative quietness of the streets at that particular time, it was still outdoors in a busy part of London, not a silent fjord in Nowheresville, Norway. You accuse me of “over the top exaggeration” for no reason, but it was you who started the ball rolling with your declaration that Dorset Street was both “empty” and “silent”. I merely used appropriately robust terminology in drawing attention to how obviously wrong this is.

It is essential to bear in mind also that “quiet”, unlike “silent”, can be a relative term, and was clearly used as such by most of those sources you quoted. There is no doubt that under ordinary day-time circumstances, Dorset Street is anything but quiet. Obviously it is considerably more so at 2:15 in the morning, a reality that undoubtedly influenced the killer’s decision to strike when he did. I have recently returned from London where I traversed the length of Villiers Street (look it up). It struck me that the street was unusually quiet on account of the fact that it was 11:30am on a Sunday night, and the practically adjacent Charing Cross station was closed. It was “unusually quiet”, and yet the despite this, the chances of me discerning even the vaguest snippets of conversations from people chatting several feet away was effectively zero, despite the fact that I could detect that they were at least conversing.

You would do well to bear these things in mind before decrying the arguments of others as "daft" (after previously avowing to end the argument) or repeating that rather tedious nonsense about me drawing the “short straw” in terms of sources. The sources very obviously support my position in every particular, and when it comes to having my cake and eating it, I’m afraid the cake is beginning to taste rather good.

On the subject of the “sources”, is there any good reason why you’re quoting from the opinions of other Casebook posters and calling them “sources”? In which case, can I quote myself and call that a “source”?

“If he said he had not seen anybody enter the archway, in spite of watching it, the police would have good evidence telling them that he seemingly missed Lewis.”

Or, vastly more probable, the police never cross referenced Hutchinson’s account with that of Sarah Lewis, or if they did, they at least considered it evidence that he simply didn’t mention her, not that he “missed” her. Certainly, this is nothing that comes even vaguely close to an “alibi”.

“If a fellow lodger or doss house door watch swore that Hutchinson had been there on the night of Thursday, they would likewise have good evidence telling them that he seemingly was not in Dorset Street on the night.”

But in such a scenario, Dew would clearly have stated in his memoirs (on which you are currently relying to bolster your theories) that it had been fully established that Hutchinson was mistaken as to date, rather than expressing personal opinion only and appealing to his readership to accept his speculations on the matter. The same objection applies to other fill-in-the-blanks, such as a mythical Romford alibi. Please don’t refer to my theories as “Moriarty”. It’s very irritating, and it’s clear you’ve only borrowed the expression from another poster’s crass condemnations.

Finally, let us once again avoid the fallacy that the more outlandish the lie, the greater chance it has of being true.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Thank you, Ruby, for your kind words.

I too have only just returned from a pleasant day away from the message board to find a whole load of new posts with “Ben” peppered all over them in a negative or disparaging context. I’d like to say I’m surprised, but I’m afraid this sort of thing tends to be par for the course around these particular threads.

Let it be said by no one that I want for attention!

Mike knows this all too well, which his why he has encouraged his allies to abort their attempts to keep battling away. Yes, he’s resorted to yet more insults ("ignoramuses" etc) and offensive accusations, but at least he knows that the longer those pesky "Hutchinsonians" are given an audience and lots of lovely attention, the greater the chance of oh-so-dangerous misconceptions occurring, such as the one about Hutchinson becoming “such a popular suspect”.

Fortunate it is for us, then, that neither Fisherman nor Lechmere have the remotest intention of taking his advice, and that they will instead continue to respond at length, and continue to use such negative or sarcastic adjectives as “stupid”, “daft” and “Moriarty” when discussing me and my views on this subject. So it’s business as usual, more of Hutchinson dominating message board debates, and thus a "purpose to live" after all. Hooray!

Back on topic, I would suggest ignoring Fisherman's:

"No, no, no...! Donīt do it that way - do it the scientific way! Get hold of an accoustics expert and measure the noise! As it stands, you donīt know if we speak of 2 or 20 dB, do you? And guessing wonīt do!"

Instead, keep doing precisely what you've done already, to your eternal credit, and take the commonsense approach with regard to the likely extent of background noise that existed late at night on the East End Streets in 1888.

Hi Lechmere,

“Ben - I will dismantle your lats post soon enough”

Uh-oh. Fasten those seat belts, boys and girls, and prepare for the bumpy ride that will constitute Lechmere's “dismantling” of my last post.

I’m sure you’ll dazzle me, as usual.

In the meantime, you’re still confused about lodging houses, as others have pointed out, and my point about night watchmen was that they were active in the small hours of the morning. It was simply an observation to highlight the obvious shortcomings of your unimaginative, black-and-white “day for work, night for sleeping” claim.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Mr Wroe
I didn’t claim to have discovered the texts I put on the Victoria Home thread. I merely put them, together in one place as they were scattered and not easy to refer to.
I have no doubt there are other sources. I haven’t seen any myself. If you have some that relate to the period concerned then I am sure a lot of people would be interested to read them.

People of the Abyss is downloadable here from a 1907 edition (which is a reprint of a October 1903 edition):

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc2.ark:/13960/t2j67924k

Or in a less olde worlde format here:

http://london.sonoma.edu/Writings/PeopleOfTheAbyss/chapter20.html

I think both have the original photos.
On the olde worlde version...
On page 244 is one captioned ‘The working-men’s homes, near Middlesex Street’. I have seen it categorically stated that this is not the Victoria Home.
Facing page 245 is one captioned ‘One of the Monster Doss Houses’. Again I am fairly certain that isn’t the Victoria Home.
On page 246 is one captioned ‘Working men’s homes, for men only’. This is the Victoria Home.
(On the modern version the same photos are in Chapter 20)

There is no interior picture. I have seen a kitchen picture with people eating at tables. I have seen this attributed to the Victoria Home but it doesn’t seem to be from People of the Abyss – at least not the early editions.
Jack London took I believe about two thirds of the photos in People of the Abyss himself. Would he have taken his camera into the doss house? He puts great emphasis about not being able to have any possessions in such establishments.
I would suggest from his description, that Jack London stayed at the one on page 244 – near Middlesex Street. The interior description doesn’t seem to match the Victoria Home either although things could well have changed in the 14 years between 1888 and 1902.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I have never suggested or even heard it suggested that Dorset Street and all other murder sites were anything other than “quiet” at the times of the various eyewitness sightings. I simply stated the obvious – that it could not have been sufficiently “quiet” to enable someone to overhear conversation from 30 metres away in a busy and crowded part of London, especially in bleak weather conditions that included a strong wind."

Dorset Street was not "busy" at the time we are speaking of, judging by the evidence. Itīs doss houses would have been "crowded" but the street in itself was emphatically not. I put Hutchinson in the street on the morning of the 8:th, and so much for the wind!
But all of this is not very interesting anyhow, since we are not and have never been discussing whether Hutch actually heard what he said he heard - we discuss whether he COULD have heard it. And since there is no evidence at all establishing one single scrap of sound at the crucial moment in Dorset Street, and since an accoustics expert has told us that yes, normal conversation can easily be made out from that distance (meaning that LOUD conversation can be heard and made out even better), we actually have all we need to say that Hutchinson may well have heard the exact things he said he heard.

If you dispute that without substantiation (and speculations on your behalf about different sound sources that may or may not have been at play is no such substantiation), Iīm not interested. You can have that discussion with the alien.

"let us once again avoid the fallacy that the more outlandish the lie, the greater chance it has of being true."

So Hutch wasnīt the killer after all?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Quiet?

'Quiet' is a value judgement. There is also the distinction to be made as to what people mean when they use the term. 'Quiet' may refer to a lack of sound. 'Quiet' may refer to an absence of people.

All the murder sites were relatively 'quiet' in the latter sense.We know that there weren't many people out on the streets, but that there were all the same, some people out and about. In the East End, there would always have been people out and about at all times of day and night. This was for several reasons - one being that people really did go to work at all times times of day and night - no, it wasn't really odd in any way, or more unusual, for people to be going to work in the small hours of the morning.

So the level of 'quiet' encountered by the Ripper and his victims was probably about as quiet as it got.

'Quiet' in terms of ambient noise is very difficult to measure objectively - I think there is ample evidence to endorse the view that what one considers 'quiet' depends on what one is accustomed to hearing. 'Quiet' is defined chiefly as below the noise level considered 'normal'

I'm sure there are studies about this sort of thing - I have a vague recollection concerning people living within a defined radius of the Spaghetti Junction.

But anyway - its all a bit vague and difficult to draw hard and fast lines around to be certain of anything, I think. Just my opinion.

[Rubyretro]

I'll tell you what your big problem is Fish -it is trying to force both Hutchinson and Toppy into the same puzzle.

Abby Normal put her finger on it when she asked the very pertinent question
'what exactly was Hutch waiting FOR ?' -for 3/4 of an hour !

An anti -Hutchinsonian who didn't believe in the Toppy-connection might have a very strong argument that he was waiting to mug A-Man for example :
here is another extract about that lodging house, credited to Dorset street

I asked my manager to watch on four consecutive Saturday nights, between twelve and one, from the top windows, and he reported to me that in those four hours he had seen twelve robberies committed, or an average of three for each night

Trouble is, that if you used that one, you'd have to argue that our respectable plumber from Norwood was not only dishonest, but a violent thief !

I notice that you weren't happy with Lechmere's suggestion that Hutchinson wasn't even waiting in Dorset street at all-because that would also make Toppy a liar and a fantasist, wouldn't it. Unless you admitted that Hutch and Toppy weren't the same person at all ? (despite your Swedish expert !)

So your big problem is to find an innocent reason for Hutch to be waiting for such a long time, at such an hour, outside the room of a woman later found murdered -and that is very very hard to do and be in any way convincing. The same goes for then finding an innocent reason why an innocent man would wait so long before making himself known to the Police, if he really did have such a very good description of the best suspect, a man what's more that he'd 'know anywhere' and that he thinks 'lives in the area' !

I would play the 'devil's advocate' for you, and write you a scenario (I enjoy doing that), but I just can't think of one scenario that is convincing.

It is much easier for you to fixiate on a detail like accoustics -where you really can't be proved either wrong or right, however many 'experts' you consult- because your other theories are simply so weak that they are easily demolished.

Hutchinsonians are in a much stronger place because they only need use the facts of the Case to support their argument, and all the bits of puzzle slip into place without having to shoehorn and hammer them down.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"'Quiet' is a value judgement."

Yes it is!

"There is also the distinction to be made as to what people mean when they use the term. 'Quiet' may refer to a lack of sound. 'Quiet' may refer to an absence of people."

Absolutely.

"All the murder sites were relatively 'quiet' in the latter sense."

Rasonably, yes. And it would seem that most were "quiet" in the first sense too. Thatīs what is inferred by wordings like "not a sound was heard" and "quite quiet" and "the voice faded away and all was quiet" and "No, not a sound; it was unusually quiet" and "“Witness, however, did not hear any noise that night. The streets were very quiet” and "Not a sound disturbed the ear of the watchman in the warehouse" and "Had a cry for help been raised he must have heard it, but everything was very quiet till he heard a whistle".
You see, Sally, being quite aware of the different meanings of the word "quiet", I took great care to pick out qoutations where we are left in no doubt that what is spoken of is the level of sound and not the amount of people. And in the end, it of course applies that when a street is very quiet as regards the amount of people, there will be little noise. Nobody describes a street where there are only two people about as "quiet" if these two people are having a ferocious row.

"'Quiet' in terms of ambient noise is very difficult to measure objectively"

Actually, it is even worse, Sally. It is impossible.

"But anyway - its all a bit vague and difficult to draw hard and fast lines around to be certain of anything, I think. Just my opinion."

Oh no - that is my opinion too. We can never establish the exact levels of ambient noise in the streets at that time. What we can do, however, is to realize that the nighttime streets of our own cities today can - in spite of this being a time with a lot more ambient noise - be very, very quiet. We have all heard the echoing footsteps of lonely people walking home through an empty street where nothing else is to be heard, have we not? And the East end streets of 1888 are witnessed about, as I have pointed out, in many cases as streets where not a sound was heard.
When we combine this with the information provided by Erling Nilsson on how far sounds travels, we still cannot make a specific call for the exact scene we are investigating, since we can never aquire the exact elements involved. But we CAN make a very certain call that applies generally, and that call says that IF we are dealing with a noiseless or quiet street, then we KNOW that normal conversation could be easily made out from 30 meters away.

I hope you can see the sense in this, Sally. Physically, there can be no disputing it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"your other theories are simply so weak that they are easily demolished"

Strange, then, donīt you think, that nobody has demolished them. It canīt be because of any lack of a wish to do so, if I am not much mistaken!

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have said many times , it all depends on the face you are putting on Hutchinson.
Is it one of a unknown, or is it Topping.?
If a unknown, then we could well be talking about a major suspect for being JTR, If Topping, I would suggest we lower our sights.
For the record I believe one of these possibilities..
Topping was our man, and he told the absolute truth, and waited as stated because of curiosity, before moving on.
Or to be in 'Hitchcock' mode.
Hutchinson reported to the police on the monday evening, with a very dangerous statement, ie, He met Mary kelly in Commercial street and told her that he had just walked back from Romford, and she offered him shelter in her room until his lodgings reopened at 6am, an offer in which he took.
He was reluctant to come foreward for obvious reasons.
He informed the police that she was alive at 6am.
So where did Astracan come into it.?
He may well have been the man Hutchinson passed standing on the corner of Thrawl street, before George encountered Mary, infact it is possible that initially the offer of a room to Hutchinson may not have happened, only after kelly had been stopped by the loitering stranger, and hastened back to Hutch, wary of his advances.
'George will you stay with me the night, that man is walking our way?
I am suggesting that the police, after some reservations accepted Hutchinsons account, and began to realise the possible significance of Maxwells sightings, however they first had to try and trace the loitering well dressed man , and eliminate him from their enquiries, thus the walkabout.
The statement was made up, for two reasons.
To prevent having to admit that GH was in room 13, for his own obvious safety, and the statement would suggest to the assassin, that the police were looking for a man that entered room 13 around 230am, which would have given a daylight killer a false sense of security.
That is fiction is its rawest, and I prefer the honest George.
Regards Richard.