Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Lechmere]

Rubyrertro – I am glad you picked up on the special pass.
Maybe you missed this bit though from ‘In Whitechapel’:
"Here also (unlike ordinary lodging-houses) registers are kept. Every man’s name and occupation is entered in the books, and these records against the names are filled up and make brief histories"
You seem interested in this rule mentioned in ‘Later Leaves’:
“Lodgers who are fortunate enough to possess extra clothing or other personal effects, can leave them in charge of the deputy, who will give a receipt for the same.”
I don’t think a sensible Ripper would leave his bloody clothes, fine knives and possible body part trophies with the deputy.

Yes Fisherman – the theory that Hutchinson got disgruntled and believed the police were covering up for some posh bloke does tie in with the day out theory.

I don’t think Hutchinson being a sad peeping tom or stalker is very romantic at all. A bit seedy in my opinion. But hey! We can each have our own view of romance can’t we! After all it's Valentine's Day.

[Ben]

A quick observation regarding Toppy that ought to be reiterated before I remind the Toppy-endorsers once again that there are plenty of other threads dedicated that particular subject and that derailing the thread in that direction will only distract from Dew’s fascinating 1930 theory.

Several respected ripper authors were well aware of Reginald Hutchinson’s claims in the early 1990s and probably earlier, but decided not to include him them in any of their published works on the subject, not because they all threw the baby out with the bathwater because they recognised, almost certainly correctly, that it was the proverbial bathwater. Only one author arguing for a branch of the royal conspiracy theory eventually took it up.

It simply isn’t plausible to accept that Toppy delivered a mildly embellished version of events to his son. There’s the simple act of pulling the wool over someone’s eyes, and there’s flat-out lying to one’s own son to retain some semblance of credibility. Remember what Toppy was alleged to have told Reginald, that the ripper murders were “more to do with the Royal family than ordinary people”. Not just someone of a higher social class than himself, but the royal family. What a wonderfully convenient coincidence for Fairclough and Gorman Sickert this must have been, when both of them were essentially attempting to implicate royalty, famous aristocrats and politicians. And who did Toppy suspect of being the killer? "Someone like Lord Randolph Churchill", who he believed "lived in the neighbourhood", naturally!

Toppy and Reg are inextricably linked to the worst era for celebrity suspect theorizing, and it is only very recently that we have seen a very misguided attempt by a few posters hostile to the Hutch-dunnit theory to revive Reginald’s claims with a rather forlorn “Maybe there is something to this after all?” protest. This is optimistic to say the least. Fairclough’s “Ripper and the Royals” including the Reginald interview, has been rejected for a good many years for equally good reason; Toppy and Reg almost certainly had nothing to do with the real witness from 1888.

The specific arguments for which can be found elsewhere.

(That bold italicised “elsewhere” was, of course, a hint.)

“I work from the presumption that Hutchinson was a day off. But as can be seen from Dew´s comments, Hutch himself obviously did not concur with the police on the matter.”

But Fisherman, if the police had concluded that Hutchinson was certainly a “day out”, as per your recent suggestion, it wouldn’t make a scrap of difference if Hutchinson thought differently. His objection to such an idea would only carry weight if the police had only suspected a “wrong day” explanation.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

"Here also (unlike ordinary lodging-houses) registers are kept. Every man’s name and occupation is entered in the books, and these records against the names are filled up and make brief histories"

This referred to the registration process that new lodgers undertook. It certainly wasn't the procedure for every one of the 450 lodgers whenever they entered or exited the building!

“Lodgers who are fortunate enough to possess extra clothing or other personal effects, can leave them in charge of the deputy, who will give a receipt for the same."

Yes, and the fact that they could doesn't mean that all of them did.

the theory that Hutchinson got disgruntled and believed the police were covering up for some posh bloke does tie in with the day out theory

I seriously struggle to see how, Lechmere, but to each their own.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"However, the amount of “noise” that would undoubtedly have been generated from a combination of sources, including the buildings themselves that lodged thousands in crowded conditions, would have been sufficient, in my opinion, to prevent a conversation from being heard 30 metres away. "

If you wish to think so, you are welcome. But it is not the way one goes about things like these. When there is a scientifically fixed basis (that of a distance of 30 meters and a possible dB scale of, roughly, inbetween 40-80 dB, allowing for anything from a low key conversation to a very loud voice, something that covers both the police report and the newspaper article criteria), that fixed basis is what one must work from. After that, it can certainly be added that there MAY have been other sources of sound about, and that these sources - if they were there - MAY have created a level of disturbances that made it impossible for the conversation to be made out. That is the only way to go about things.

If we make the suggestion that there MUST have been - at all times - ambient noiselevels large enough to nullify the viability of the suggestion ofan overheard and made out conversation, we are skating away on the surface of the ocean, since there is no ice at all about. Such a suggestion may or may not be correct, and therefore, by reasoning, it may or may not be correct the other way around too: meaning that a suggestion that is was very quiet in Dorset Street cannot be refuted either. We know full well that other nighttime streets of the East end were characterized by no discernable noise levels at all, according to witnesses in place in these streets.
The verdict thus can only be one: Hutchinsom may well have been able to overhear and make out the conversation.
If you should fail to recognize this, I stand by my demand that you find yourself substantiation for what is at this stage nothing but guesswork on your behalf. There will be scientific material describing how much sound travels though different kinds of materials, and such material should enable you to see if you have a useful argument or not, when it comes to that particular technical angle of the issue. After that, you still need to beable to prove that in a dosshouse like Crossinghams, a certain percentage of the dossers would havebeen not only awake, but also creating noise every night at 2.15. This I challenge very much - I am of the meaining that there is every chance that Crossinghams may have been a house full of sleeping lodgers at that stage.

"Absolutely! This is precisely what I sought to demonstrate last night with my Villiers Street example. "

Yes, Ben - but the exemples I posted were speaking of low levels of sound, not of low levels of people. My clarifying post to Sally puts that beyond doubt.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"The ball is firmly in your court to explain your brand new 'theory'."

That´s correct - and wrong. The ball IS in my court, yes. But no, I have no new theory. The part I am hinting at is something that goes admirably along with the old one.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Yes Fisherman – the theory that Hutchinson got disgruntled and believed the police were covering up for some posh bloke does tie in with the day out theory."

Well, what do you know? Ruby thought that it was laughable.

I hope you are right. And normally you are.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Ben,
I will repeat for you again that I haven’t said it was ‘odd’ to go to work at night, I said it was not common place – nearly everyone worked in daytime.
Who worked at night? We have:
Nightwatchmen (obviously!)
Policemen on the beat
A few desperate prostitutes
Some slaughtermen (eg Winthrop Street)
And no doubt some others. Not exactly the massed legions of the damned is it?

When would these people have gone to work? I would suggest between 7pm and 10 pm.
When would they get back from work? I would suggest around 6am or 7am.
I would suggest that few night workers lived in lodging houses as they turfed people out of the beds in the morning.
Maybe some lodging houses had areas set aside for nightworkers – I haven’t seen reference to this though.
I believe I have read somewhere that inmates were supposed to vacate lodging houses completely between 10 am and 5 pm – or some such time. I might be wrong and I wouldn’t know where to start digging back to quickly find this reference now.

Anyway the point is that nightworkers were coming and going at hours that would not have required a special pass. Would they?

Hutchinson was supposedly either a groom or a labourer. Was there much call for a night groom or a night labourer? Clearly Hutchinson would not have been a regular nightworker. Would he?
He could have occasionally had casual night work for all we know. That is as good as you can argue.
So if the Victoria Home catered for genuine nightworkers, when Hutchinson joined their number it would have been out of the ordinary. Wouldn’t it?

I am sure a few people worked intermediate hours and had good reason to get in late – after 1 am. If this was not the case then they wouldn’t have had special passes at the Victoria Home. Not many would be issued as most night workers would work all night as I have spelt out. Hutchinson as a groom or labourer again would not normally be in that category. Apart from exceptionally perhaps.

Some people will have left early for work – maybe 4 am – that sort of time. Dockers, market porters, some carmen. But they were leaving, not entering. It is easier to get out of those places than to get back in. Without a special pass.

Hutchinson said he couldn’t get in as he was too late. How many other lodging houses did this rule apply to apart from the Victoria Home? He didn’t say he couldn’t get in as he had no money. This implies he had pre bought a weekly ticket but hadn’t thought to get a special pass as he was later back from Romford than he anticipated. It tallies with the rules as spelt out in ‘Later Leaves’ and ‘In Whitechapel’.

By the way – did nightwatchmen snooze? According to the A-Z, Mulshaw was probably snoozing.

There were drinkers and revellers on the evening of the double event as it was a Saturday night/ Sunday morning. It was also relatively early – around chucking out time. Not remarkable.
Also not at all relevant to Hutchinson potentially drawing attention to himself by being out after 1 am without a special pass – or even with a special pass.
‘Cos they were ‘special’.

The factor we have to focus in on is how many people would have entered the Victoria Home after the 12.30 am or 1 am curfew and whenever they opened the doors up (not just for people to leave for work early) – I would suggest around 7 am.
I am certain it would be hardly any. No safety in numbers at all.

That is why it would have been noticeable. There would have been paltry number of late entrants.
Hutchinson seems to have been the gregarious type. Read Jack London’s account from not-the-Victoria Home. The younger folk were all very chatty. Hutchinson says he spoke to a resident on the Monday. He says he spoke to Kelly and had been in her company. He was very chatty to the press.
Sounds like the type of guy who would be missed to me if he just stopped out. Particularly when a headline event occurs.
His peers would not have to remember it weeks later. They would have realised it very soon after – had he been missing on those occasions.

Is this part of my:
“crusade to prove that everyone must have been paying particular attention to Hutchinson as he went about his daily or nightly business.”

No. I just grant normal people common powers of observation. This is your over-exaggeration technique again. I don’t say they paid him particular attention – I say his behaviour had he been the culprit would have attracted attention – probably.

“his movements would irrefutably, emphatically, indisputably have been “unaccountable on those murder nights””
You seem very sure Ben – is this another ‘fact’? Residents at lodging houses were quite frequently handed in to the police as false culprits. Not everyone was so busy merely surviving. Their only thought being how they could find a scrap of bread to live. That wasn’t how it was. What a vision you have of that period!

Sometimes you seem to accept that the police would have checked him, sometimes you don’t.
You seem to be hung up on one strange point.
You keep saying in effect that if the police had poor means of checking, due to limited technological developments and so forth, then they couldn’t eliminate suspects.
This is clearly utter nonsense. They would have cleared them by using the methods then at their disposal.
It might be that they would mistakenly clear someone. They might mistakenly clear someone that a later technological advance would condemn. But they would not know that.
If they had a nagging doubt about someone but couldn’t prove it (perhaps because they lacked a technological advance), then I would suggest they would not just dismiss them. They may not be able to arrest and charge the person, but that person would remain a prime suspect. Such as Ostrog, Kosminski or Druitt.

I mentioned these three suspects before and they clearly were not exonerated at the time even if one has been completely exonerated since. They were suspected but for whatever reason at the time no information could be gained to clear them or to pin the murder on any of them. This makes your following sentence is nonsensical:
“You’re seriously suggesting that an 1888 police force need only have checked anyone out who they suspected in order to determine whether or not they were guilty?”

Err no – I was saying that the police then (as now actually) made assumptions about people they questioned. Such as (in 1888) if they were in regular work and had a regular abode, then they tended to take what that person said at face value and move on.
That Ben is the ‘barometer for assessing the guilt or innocence for any suspect who came under the conjectural radar’.
You clearly missed that even though it is your phrase.
The ‘what do you do for a living and where do you live’ questions/checks/tests were the most basic ones the police asked in 1888. Verifiable answers tended to result in the police dropping all interest in the person.
Or a verifiable alibi.

Hutchinson lacked all three.
He resided in a lodging house (the police were suspicious of lodging house residents).
He didn’t have regular work at the time.
He only had your exotic Moriartyesque alibi-disposal.
He placed himself at the crime scene at the time of the crime.

With all this you think the police wouldn’t have looked long and hard at him after dismissing him for whatever reason. Unless that reason was enough for them not to look long and hard at him. But you don’t accept those reasons. You just think the police dismissed him as they were a bunch of goofs

If not Macnaughton, Abberline or someone else would likely have thought he was the culprit, unless there was good reason for his dismissal. Unless they were all goofs. That tells me none of them actually thought he was the culprit as Hutchinson passed their scrutiny. With flying colours.
And yes I think all other suspects must have passed their primitive and perhaps even mistaken tests. Otherwise they would be listed. I am sure of that.
They didn’t have many decent suspects.
The Macnaughten three are very poor suspects in my opinion.
The police had a dearth of decent suspects. They did not have the luxury of tossing good suspects to one side.
I have explained to you repeatedly that one of their class of suspect that was under scrutiny at the Kelly stage was ‘lodging house dweller’. Hutchinson ticked that box didn’t he?
It is inconceivable that the
Police did not investigate him.

Oh - the phrase 'filled up' tells us that the Victoria Home did keep up to date records, no matter how much you huff and puff.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It simply isn’t plausible to accept that Toppy delivered a mildly embellished version of events to his son."

It is anything but implausible, Ben. I find it very credible, given my elaborations on a possible suspicion of a cover-up on behalf of Hutch. Surely you can see that such a thing fits perfectly with MY theory, though it does not suit your thoughts?

"it is only very recently that we have seen a very misguided attempt by a few posters hostile to the Hutch-dunnit theory to revive Reginald’s claims with a rather forlorn “Maybe there is something to this after all?” protest."

I think we need to realize that among these few "misguided" posters you find a man like Gareth Williams. And I think he would be about the last person to be "misguided" about anything Ripperological.
Now, it carries relevance that Gareth was NOT any believer in Toppy at all from the outset. He was of the meaning that Faircloughs book was tosh. But that all changed when he saw the signatures, did it not? He took the same stance that I did - that they proved emphatically that Toppy was Hutchinson. After that, he said that Fairclough should always be treated with caution - but that we may need to realize that there may have been something to Reg´s pointing out of his father as the witness.
My own stance is that this all makes good sense - Gareth always does - and that a suggestion of a mistaken day adds very much to it´s credibility, since we may have an explanation to Hutchinson´s belief that astrakhan man was a pillar of society, somebody that the police would not touch - and, he may have reasoned, consequently they had chosen to dump him.

All theoretical, yes - but a theoretical reasoning that binds it together. Of course, you will disagree, but whenever you do so without a rational reason, I pay no heed to it. If there IS a rational reason to disagree, I will listen, of course!

"But Fisherman, if the police had concluded that Hutchinson was certainly a “day out”, as per your recent suggestion, it wouldn’t make a scrap of difference if Hutchinson thought differently. His objection to such an idea would only carry weight if the police had only suspected a “wrong day” explanation."

My hunch is that the police BELIEVED thay had enough to rule Hutch out, but that he rejected the proposal. Such a thing may well have led to a bitter belief that he had been unfairly dumped to save astrakhan man from any embarrasment. And if astrakhan man had the power to sway the police into doing this, he would reasonably be a very important man - that´s how I think Hutch reasoned.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Why so much reliance on experts to detail what noise would be heard over a given distance.One only has to meaasure 30 metres.It is a simple test and doesn't require more than three or four persons to participate.What is thirty metres.For the sports minded,about one and a half length of a cricket pitch.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
I am in absolute agreement with you about Toppys attitude, and his regret that so little was achieved dispite his efforts.
If only that broadcast could be avaliable...
It did mention the 'up the social ladder' which appeared in Faircloughs book at least 18 years later, it did mention a payment, which appeared in Faircloughs book 18 years later, it did mention a character reference, which appeared in the book 18 years later, it also mentioned that the father of the man being interviewed, never mentioned where the payment came from 'He wouldnt say', which left fuel to speculate the 'Hush Money' theory.
I am fully aware that in the 1970s , Steven Knights publication, along with Barlow and Watts, led us to the path of Royal involvement, and someone like Reg Hutchinsons account would be very topic.
But the fact still remains a man by the name of George Hutchinson, gave a statement freely to the police , giving a description of a welld dressed man, which through the eyes of a young man, would depict someone of the social class, someone distinquished..may even resembled Lord Randolph.
It is also possible that young Hutchinson dug up the 'Hot potatoe', and was very quickly dismissed from the investigation, with 'Many thanks for your time, and efforts, heres a 'Fiver'.
Food for thought guys..
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Why so much reliance on experts to detail what noise would be heard over a given distance.One only has to meaasure 30 metres.It is a simple test and doesn't require more than three or four persons to participate."

Two persons will do the trick, Harry. Ans as you may recall, that is exactly what I did from the outset. We established that normal conversation could be made out from 30 meters away in a windy, treelined street with a few villas in it; menaing that we worked with considerably worse accoustic conditions than the ones offered by Dorset Street. We also established that a raised voice allowed for making out what was said from a full 50 meters.

But these things are all easily accessible on this very thread!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"I am in absolute agreement with you about Toppys attitude, and his regret that so little was achieved dispite his efforts."

Thanks for that, Richard. Of course, we need not presume that he spoke of an overall disappointment as regards his dealings with the police, but a tantalizing possibility is there that this was so.

"the fact still remains a man by the name of George Hutchinson, gave a statement freely to the police , giving a description of a welld dressed man, which through the eyes of a young man, would depict someone of the social class, someone distinquished..may even resembled Lord Randolph."

When it comes to that resemblance, I would say that it was not there. Churchill was a much taller man than astrakhan man, plus he looked nothing at all like a jew. He had light blue eyes, for example, and not brown ones like astrakhan. Therefore I tend to belive that the only true resemblance there was, was one of social status, as anticipated by Hutchinson.

"It is also possible that young Hutchinson dug up the 'Hot potatoe', and was very quickly dismissed from the investigation, with 'Many thanks for your time, and efforts, heres a 'Fiver'."

Intriguing suggestion, of course. But to my mind, astrakhan man was not any pillar of society, but instead a reasonably well-off man of foreign (perhaps Jewish) extraction, who met Kelly in Commercial Street on the morning of the 8:th. I think the police quickly found this out (perhaps using Hutchinsons description of the weather, perhaps using Lewis evidence, the ledgers at the Victoria Home, some contact in Romford ...you name it!), and subsequently informed Hutchinson that his services were of no further use to them since they emanated from the wrong day. And I think that Hutchinson himself disagreed with that. I believe that he remained steadfast throughout that he HAD been there on Friday. At any rate, Dew´s story points to a disagreement on the score, since he does not say that it was ascertained that Hutch WAs a day off - only that he believes that this must have been the case. And when we say that something MUST have been the case, we normally do so because we are convinced by the evidence, but not fully able to prove it.

Anyhow, what I see here is a police force that decided that Hutch was off on the days, and a disagreeing Hutchinson, who, as a result of this disagreement, came to believe that the TRUE reason for his dismissal was astrakhan mans position in society, whereas he would have believed that the police speaking of a mistaken day was nothing but a smokescreen. Arguably, such a thing would have caused bitterness on his behalf!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

.

At any rate, Dew´s story points to a disagreement on the score, since he does not say that it was ascertained that Hutch WAs a day off - only that he believes that this must have been the case. And when we say that something MUST have been the case, we normally do so because we are convinced by the evidence, but not fully able to prove it.

Let's get this straight, Fish...

You are now backtracking on your article that Hutch must have been a day off due to the weather ?

You are now agreeing with the people that have always argued that it was only Dew's opinion with no proof ?

[Rubyretro]

I am looking forward to you explaining why a man that wears a distinctive
combination of flashy jewellery, and lives in the area, was not immediately
identified by the description when it was largely publicised.

Or did he only put it on when walking with his coat open (just to make sure it was seen by a young man obviously following him), into a street where muggings were so frequent that 12 were witnessed over a random 4 hour watch from a lodging house window ? A road even the Police wouldn't walk down at that hour.

Oh, Yes. And then he went on to commit a vicious murder knowing that there was only a 22 year old innocent boy standing alone outside- who had had a good look at him -and he was ruthless armed with a sharp knife, and 'the boy' was looking like a respectable inmate of that Home for Boy Scouts -the Victoria ?

[Rubyretro]

I am looking forward to you explaining why a man that wears a distinctive
combination of flashy jewellery, and lives in the area, was not immediately
identified by the description when it was largely publicised.

Or did he only put it on when walking with his coat open (just to make sure it was seen by a young man obviously following him), into a street where muggings were so frequent that 12 were witnessed over a random 4 hour watch from a lodging house window ? A road even the Police wouldn't walk down at that hour.

Oh, Yes. And then he went on to commit a vicious murder knowing that there was only a 22 year old innocent boy standing alone outside- who had had a good look at him -and he was ruthless armed with a sharp knife, and 'the boy' was looking like a respectable inmate of that Home for Boy Scouts -the Victoria ?

Please write your proposed scenario, Fish !
As the road was so silent, why didn't the Ripper top Toppy ??