Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"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 ?"

Letīs get it VERY straight, Ruby! I have never stated that there was proof for Hutchinson being out on the dates. I HAVE argued, however, that I think that this is the best solution to the Hutchinson enigma, an I will continue doing so until anything surfaces that changes that view.

I would very much appreciate if you refrain from misrepresenting me in this fashion fortwith. It is not a very nice thing to do.

"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."

Are you? Why not instead realize that Abberline had no problems accepting the man. That, surely, must be the bottom line here. Abberline had walked the streets we are talking about for years, and knew exactly what people he could expect to meet on them. Hutchinson, by his iwn admission, had ALSO walked the same street for years, and was ALSO very aware what kind of people there were about. If the latter was lying, he could quite easily have formed a charter that looked just as Jewish as astrakhan man, but with no items of value flashed. And if your reasoning has anything to it, he would be more or less forced to do so if he wanted to be believed.
Still he did not! He described astrakhan man as a man of reasonable wealth, and nobody had any problems at all with that by the looks of things.

If Hutchinsonīs testimony had been left unchallenged, you can be certain that tips would have flowed in from the public, trying to identify the man. As it stands, there was never any need for such tips - Hutchīs story was discredited early on. It still applies, though, that the story reached the papers and was distributed for a stretch of days. During them days, I think it is probable in the extreme that people contacted the papers and the police to tell them that they had an identity to offer for the man.

"did he only put it on when walking with his coat open"

How do I know? But I DO know that open coats and stormy, rainy nights are not very comparable!

" 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 ?"

Sorry, but this is just tosh. And itīs not even good tosh ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I would very much appreciate if you refrain from misrepresenting me in this fashion fortwith. It is not a very nice thing to do.

"

Did you or did you not say that a mix up of days was only Dew's opinion, with no proof.;and you now think that Hutch had no such doubts as to which day he was talking about in his statement ?

[Fisherman]

You just find a post - any post - where I say that it is a proven fact that Hutchinson was a day off, and weīll take it from there.

If you cannot find such a post, I suggest you think twice before you misrepresent me again and say that I have changed my mind.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

" 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 ?"

Sorry, but this is just tosh. And itīs not even good tosh ...

Which of these statements do you not agree with ?
-Hutchinson was aged 22
-Hutchinson was innocent
-Hutchinson had had a good look at A Man, and A man had seen Hutchinson
-A man was ruthless and armed with a knife
-Hutchinson was standing alone outside the Court
-Hutchinson lodged at the Victoria Home and only thoroughly checked out and respectable men were allowed to lodge there, and it was a vastly superior place to any other lodging house.

here are a few more :
-the streets were totally silent and no one was out or awake
-the only person that had seen A Man, and stood between him and possible arrest was Hutchinson.

show me which you think are 'Tosh'..

[Fisherman]

The tosh, as such, came about when you combined the elements the way you did, turning astrakhan man into the Ripper. THAT I do NOT agree with. To my mind, it is tosh.

Anybody can combine rational elements into tosh, Ruby. If you doubt it, just look at post 1274.

We may also need to incorporate Graham Chapmanīs most famous line here, before this particular debate goes any further

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Why not instead realize that Abberline had no problems accepting the man. That, surely, must be the bottom line here

.

Abberline accepted Hutch's story for a day or so (when influenced by the personality of the man sitting before him). with a little more time to reflect, he quickly changed his mind.

I doubt that he was in the habit of strolling down Dorset street at night -even his bobbies wouldn't do that. This may be one other reason that he initially believed the story -he hadn't yet been appraised of the reality of the place at that hour.

Hutchinson, by his iwn admission, had ALSO walked the same street for years

If you think that he was Toppy, then this is clearly untrue. Toppy lived in Norwood, Surrey (?)

, and was ALSO very aware what kind of people there were about. If the latter was lying, he could quite easily have formed a charter that looked just as Jewish as astrakhan man, but with no items of value flashed. And if your reasoning has anything to it, he would be more or less forced to do so if he wanted to be believed.

If the people on the street/Press were talking about 'an ostentatious toff' 'a surgeon/doctor' a jew -Hutch gave a popular ignorant stereotype and a 'hate figure' for poor East End workers. It is like a scurrilous newspaper cartoon.

Still he did not! He described astrakhan man as a man of reasonable wealth, and nobody had any problems at all with that by the looks of things.

The Police very quickly 'had a problem' with that -it was an image born on the streets, and took longer to disappear from the streets. It fitted very well with social problems in Whitechapel at the time (blame all our problems on the rich and blame them on immigration. A 'rich foreigner'' was the perfect scapegoat).

Besides which -people preferred a romantic flashy bogey-man image of the killer to the mundane
but more probable 'ordinary one-of-us', which serial killers generally are. Hence the 'toff in a top
hat Ripper' perdures today.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Abberline accepted Hutch's story for a day or so (when influenced by the personality of the man sitting before him). with a little more time to reflect, he quickly changed his mind."

Ah, but thatīs YOUR interpretation, Ruby. YOU (and some other posters) try to establish that Abberline changed his mind since he suddenly realized that he had been gullible with Hutch.
To me, that sound like a very bad proposal. If Abberline did decide that Hutch was truthful, the much, much BETTER suggestion is that as long as nothing was changed, he would REMAIN of the meaning that this held true. It is alway - ALWAYS - better to accept that when people say yes, they MEAN yes, than to do it the other way around - that always ends up beside a white rabbit with a verst and a watch, and in an awful hurry. If EXTERNAL elements were added, though, like a failure to check out with the Victoria Home or with Lewis, THEN Abberline may have realized that Hutch was wrong - but not for YOUR chosen reason.

"I doubt that he was in the habit of strolling down Dorset street at night -even his bobbies wouldn't do that. This may be one other reason that he initially believed the story -he hadn't yet been appraised of the reality of the place at that hour."

Dear me - the arguments that surface out here ...! Abberline was as streetwise as any copper would get, Ruby. He was the one who was relied upon when it came to the issue of interpreting "Lipski", remember, and guess why? Correct - because he was as streetwise as they come. Moreover, it was his JOB to keep track of these things. And, finally, you are not suggesting that men in astrakhan coats only emerged in Dorset Street, are you?

"If you think that he was Toppy, then this is clearly untrue. Toppy lived in Norwood, Surrey (?)"

Just when you think you have reached rock bottom! And he was emphatically there on the 8:th of November 1888...? Please, Ruby. This is getting embarrasing.

"Hutch gave a popular ignorant stereotype and a 'hate figure' for poor East End workers"

But the "poor East end workers" were not the ones he needed to impress, Ruby - that role was afforded to Abberline and the police. And THEY would know whether "stereotypes" walked the streets or not at times. If they emphatically never did, then that would have sunk Hutch like a ton of lead. And STILL he offered this description. Ponder that, Ruby.

"The Police very quickly 'had a problem' with that"

See point one in this post, Ruby. It speaks of a poster (you) that resorts to preconceived notions.

"it was an image born on the streets"

Most probably not. It would have been an image CHOSEN - not born - on the streets to represent the rich toff Jew if you are correct. People DID walk the streets looking exactly like that, Ruby. Read up on Millen, for example: "dressed dark clothes, dark over coat with astrakhan collar and cuffs- hard felt hat.Wears sword pin -and re insignia-has Irish harp and shamrock on locket and watch chain........." Rings a bell, does it not?

"people preferred a romantic flashy bogey-man image of the killer to the mundane"

Maybe so. But the police would have been slightly more aware of things, Iīm afraid. And once again, they were the guys Hutchinson not only dealt with, but also impressed.

But these are all old arguments, chewed and spit out hundreds of times on the boards! You need to find something new and compelling, Ruby - and thatīs not easy to come by if you need to have Hutchinson in the killerīs role.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry 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 never made any such imputation, Lechmere. I merely stated my certainty that you hadn’t ‘posted up all the contemporary sources on the Victoria Home on the relevant thread a few weeks ago.’ (My emphasis.)

People of the Abyss is downloadable here from a 1907 edition (which is a reprint of a October 1903 edition) … Or in a less olde worlde format here …

Thanks, but I was already aware of both sources. I do have a paper copy of the book – though, as I stated in an earlier post, I’ve never seen the original.

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.

Although they appear to have been known colloquially as the Homes for Working Men, these were the Rothschild Buildings, Thrawl Street.

Facing page 245 is one captioned ‘One of the Monster Doss Houses’. Again I am fairly certain that isn’t the Victoria Home.

Correct. This was a Rowton building named Tower House.

On page 246 is one captioned ‘Working men’s homes, for men only’. This is the Victoria Home.

Again, correct. And somewhere on the internet is a site dedicated to Jack London which not only carries this photograph but another taken in the dining area. As I previously mentioned, I was unsure as to whether this latter plate was featured in the original People of the Abyss or was simply a leftover that formed part of the author’s collection. Either way, it has been positively identified as an internal shot of the Victoria Home and ascribed to Jack London.

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.

Well, he would certainly have attracted a good deal of unwanted attention had he hauled a camera into the Victoria Home whilst staying there under the guise of a down and out lodger, so my guess is that the photographs were taken at a point when his researches had been completed.

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.

I would disagree on both counts. London’s descriptions dovetail perfectly with our present state of knowledge regarding the Victoria Home, the only discrepancy being his contention that the establishment was mostly occupied by men. Naturally, the inference here is that a small number of women were in residence, a consideration that would appear to be at odds with the Victoria Home’s male only bed letting policy. However, the 1891 census returns reveal that a number of women did live on the premises. Whereas some were the family members of male staff who ‘lived in’, others were domestics and suchlike.

As for the notion that ‘Jack London stayed at the one on page 244 – near Middlesex Street’, this establishment (the Rothschild Buildings) was a tenement property and thus could not have been the lodging house detailed by London. Accordingly, I can only conclude that a combination of London’s description of the property and the photographic evidence is sufficient to make a compelling case for the building being the Victoria Home.

Unless, of course, you have evidence to the contrary.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Rubyretro]

you combined the elements the way you did, turning astrakhan man into the Ripper. THAT I do NOT agree with. To my mind, it is tosh.

Alright everyone ! -please note this in your little books -Fish does NOT think that A Man was the Ripper.

On the other hand, he thinks that Hutch is Toppy and was telling the truth.

Hutch says that he followed A Man and Mary back to the room and he stood like a sentinel over the place -during which time no one left the room -and he
himself left about 3.

Oops -he made a trip up the Court before leaving, and the room was silent;
I think that it was silent and dark when Mrs Lewis left also.

The Police surgeon thought that Mary died shortly after 3, and there was a cry of 'murder! 4 ish. To be fair , we can say 3.30 average time.

Assuming Fish, that you don't think Hutch is lying and you don't think that A Man is the murderer, and you don't think that Hutch was uncertain as to the
day...well what could possibly have happened between 3 and 3.30 am ?

I mean it IS possible that Mary arose, chucked out A Man and went solliciting , but as the streets were totally deserted, and it was now pouring with rain, and she was drunk...why would she do that ? Who would she meet ?

Oh, I know ! She may have met Hutch !! -he was just 'walking around' with nowhere to go, the only person in these 'quiet' streets...and don't tell me ! he had a crush on her..

Seriously -well who DO you think killed Mary Kelly ?

[Sally]

Widermuths Lodging House

Perhaps this one? Wentworth Street, mixed sex lodgers, predominately men, 800 beds (900 by 1901). Opened in 1893.

I'd personally like London's lodging house to be the Victoria Home, but think any other alternatives must be assessed before we come to a firm conclusion.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Assuming Fish, that you don't think Hutch is lying and you don't think that A Man is the murderer, and you don't think that Hutch was uncertain as to the
day..."

No. Letīs not assume that as if it was true. Letīs assume that Hutch DID mistake the day. I think you have made the terrible mistake to regard Hutchinson being convinced that he had the day right as being proof that this was really so. You need to consider the fact that people who mistake days, will unvariably BELIEVE that they are right about what they are wrong about, until otherwise proven.
And - if you once again read up on what I have said - I think that this is a very good explanation to what happened; Hutch THOUGHT he was in Dorset Street on Friday, whereas he REALLY was there on Thursday. The police soon enough found out that he was realistically out on the dates, since he had not seen Lewis (What? a woman entering the court? Oh no - and I was there, so I would know), since he spoke of a dry night (What? It RAINED when I left the court? Oh no - it was rather a nice night, but cold) and perhaps even since the ledgers of the Victoria Home gainsaid him (What? They have me down at the Victoria Home on Thursday night? Oh no, that was on WEDNESDAY).
And so, in spite of the police having what they believed to be good evidence that Hutchinson was wrong, he remained steadfast in his belief that he was not, and instead opted for the police ruling his testimony out since it pointed to astrakhan man being a suspicious fellow. He arrives at the conclusion that since he "knew" that he was right, the police would have dumped him in order to save the bacon off astrakhan manīs behind.
And exactly who may get such a treatment from the police and why? Of course - somebody who ranked very high in society. Somebody on whose behalf threads had been pulled by extremely important hands. That, I suggest, may well lie behind Hutchinsons belief that astrakhan man was high-ranking in society.

"I mean it IS possible that Mary arose, chucked out A Man and went solliciting , but as the streets were totally deserted, and it was now pouring with rain"

Please take pity on me, Ruby, and ACCEPT that I have astrakhan man in place on the morning of the 8:th, when it was NOT raining, and when Mary Kelly had still a full day to go before she krept into her room in a drunken state, accompanied by Blotchy. Donīt wear me out by over and over again suggesting things that you full well know does not tally with my beliefs.

"Oh, I know ! She may have met Hutch !! -he was just 'walking around' with nowhere to go, the only person in these 'quiet' streets...and don't tell me ! he had a crush on her.."

Thatīs not my suggestion, as you may have noticed. They were aquainted, end of story as far as Iīm concerned. A crush may or may not have been there, but the aquaintance would have been something the police checked up on.

"Seriously -well who DO you think killed Mary Kelly ?"

The Ripper. Not all are of THAT meaning, as you will know. But I think he did it. And if you ask me who the Ripper was, I would say that there is good reason to believe that he was a man who was aquainted with Mary Kelly - but NOT George William Topping Hutchinson.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Could be, Sally, though I know next to nothing about this particular property. Yet I think it a little more than coincidental that London's book contains a photograph of the Victoria Home in the very passage in which he details his experiences in the innominate 'poor man's hotel'.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Rubyretro]

[

Ah, but thatīs YOUR interpretation, Ruby. YOU (and some other posters) try to establish that Abberline changed his mind since he suddenly realized that he had been gullible with Hutch.

We can't possibly know WHY he changed his mind -however he did. Therefore the story of 'innocent truth speaking Toppy' is severely compromised.
I don't know how you can have it every which way : either our choirboy, Toppy, was an innocent truth teller; the Police were able to check every story out, and living in the Victoria Home made story telling impossible -or else those assertions aren't true.

"

I doubt that he was in the habit of strolling down Dorset street at night -

I stand by that.

Abberline was as streetwise as any copper would get, Ruby.

aawgh.. You fancy Johnny Depp, too !

because he was as streetwise as they come.

Oh, go on, admit it !

Seriously..he was a superior officer,and had probably not walked down Dorset Street in a long while.

This is getting embarrasing.

I think it is -for you.

"Hutch gave a popular ignorant stereotype and a 'hate figure' for poor East End workers"

But the "poor East end workers" were not the ones he needed to impress, Ruby - that role was afforded to Abberline and the police. And THEY would know whether "stereotypes" walked the streets or not at times. If they emphatically never did, then that would have sunk Hutch like a ton of lead. And STILL he offered this description. Ponder that, Ruby.

I'm pondering it. I think that the Police distanced themselves from Hutch pretty damn quick -although the stereotype lingered on with the populace.

"it was an image born on the streets"
"people preferred a romantic flashy bogey-man image of the killer to the mundane"

But these are all old arguments, chewed and spit out hundreds of times on the boards! You need to find something new and compelling, Ruby - and thatīs not easy to come by if you need to have Hutchinson in the killerīs role.

never mind what has gone before- you wise old bird you- try answering directly some straight questions..

-who was the killer if it wasn't either A Man or Hutch ?
-what was Hutch waiting FOR ?
-why didn't A Man try and stab Hutch ?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][

Donīt wear me out by over and over again suggesting things that you full well know does not tally with my beliefs.[/QUOTE

I admit that you are seriously confusing me as to what your beliefs are (they"re rather amorphous). I don't think that you know entirely, yourself.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"We can't possibly know WHY he changed his mind -however he did."

No, but we can look at the statistics adhering to policemen changing their mind overnight and coming to believe that they had been gullible ...

"You fancy Johnny Depp, too !"

No - that was a disgrace of a movie. Eddowes stood watching as her kidney was unpacked!

"never mind what has gone before"'

I think we owe it to the generous administrators of the boards as well as to our fellow posters not to clog the threads with endless repetitions of old stuff. I mind.

"try answering directly some straight questions.."

Iīm at your disposal, Ruby!

"-who was the killer if it wasn't either A Man or Hutch ?"

Reasonably someone who was there on the night Kelly was killed. None of the above were.

"-what was Hutch waiting FOR ?"

Astrakhan man to leave.

"-why didn't A Man try and stab Hutch ?

Normally, punters do not take a stab at people in the street just for jolly. I expect this was much the same.

The best,
Fisherman