Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" don't think that you know entirely, yourself."

That would depend. If you speak of the case and the solution to it, you are correct. If you speak of what I think myself, you are wrong. And seriously, your questions give away that you have perhaps not fully understood what I am saying, tedious though it may sound. Repetitions, repetitions ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

You should try politics ! (hopefully NOT)

[

QUOTE]"-what was Hutch waiting FOR ?"

Astrakhan man to leave.[/QUOTE]

And what did he hope to do then -irrespective of the day ?

I am saying, tedious though it may sound. Repetitions, repetitions

...
Effectively, following all the slippery tricks and turns, and then trying to combat the windyness, does challange my brain sometimes.. I own up !!

[Fisherman]

This, Ruby, may come as a huge surprise to you, since I have not told it to you for more than a full day. Therefore you may have forgotten it. But I am of the meaning that Hutchinson may have harboured a hope to sleep in Kellyīs room, or perhaps only come out of the cold and have a cup of tea and warm himself before returning to the streets.

...and thatīs that for now! I will be doing other things the next few hours than answering your questions. But donīt let that dismay you - you can in all probability find answers to your questions in this very thread if you go looking for them!

the best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;165199]This, Ruby, may come as a huge surprise to you, since I have not told it to you for more than a full day. Therefore you may [QUOTE]have forgotten it. But to sleep in Kellyīs room, or perhaps only come out of the cold and and warm himself before returning to the streets.
...

and thatīs that for now! I will be doing other things the next few hours than answering your questions

.

I also have some ever more pressing work to do..

So we shall leave it with your last answer, for the time being :

I am of the meaning that Hutchinson may have harboured a hope(to) have a cup of tea

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro – do you mind if I enter your challenging quiz?
(I am afraid I am one of those wishy-washy types who often says ‘maybe’ or ‘possibly’ or ‘probably’ but I will do my best.

Which of these statements do you not agree with ?

-Hutchinson was aged 22
Very probably

-Hutchinson was innocent
Almost certainly

-Hutchinson had had a good look at A Man, and A man had seen Hutchinson
Possibly (on balance I think he drastically over exaggerated this encounter)

-A man was ruthless and armed with a knife
Very unlikely

-Hutchinson was standing alone outside the Court
Probably at some point on one of those two days

-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.
Several questions here. Let me dissect them.
I think he did live there for a period
The Victoria Home endeavoured to exclude bad characters , which does mean that they only allowed respectable characters to lodge there (I have a horrible feeling that Ben’s over exaggeration technique is proving to be contagious)
The Victoria Home had a stricter policy on late night entry than nearly all other lodging houses and tried to ‘morally uplift’ its inmates. To some this might make it ‘superior’. To others this might make it inferior.

-the streets were totally silent and no one was out or awake
A street, being inanimate, tends to be silent at all times.
I presume this really refers to whether people were out and about on the streets at night.
Clearly some people were out. Jack the Ripper and his victims, coppers on the beat, late night drunks on the way home, that sort of things. Later in the morning you would get people on their way to work for early shifts.
The streets were fairly empty and fairly quiet. Clearly it depends which street you are talking about. Some would be very quiet and very empty.

-the only person that had seen A Man, and stood between him and possible arrest was Hutchinson.
I don’t think A-man did it, I don’t particularly think Hutchinson saw A-man as described, he may have seen someone similar and that may have been the day before anyway.

While I’m here, you say...
“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.”
Actually we don’t know how long Abberline accepted his story. I would guess Abberline would have been rather more familiar with Dorset Street than you or I. Or anyone else who has ever posted on this or any other forum. Ever.

Mr Wroe – the fact that London says his lodging house was near Middlesex Street counts very much against the Victoria Home in my opinion, as it was bang on the major thorough fare – Commercial Street.
I remember now reading that the Rotheschild’s pictures were tenements rather than a lodging house. I would presume that when he got back home he had loads of pictures and couldn’t remember where every one was exactly taken.
As for interior shots which he may have taken but not included in his book for the first editions... possible, but fairly unlikely I think.
Also if he went back after his stay to take the photos, then there is nothing to say he revisited the same places. He may well have gone to a tamer location to take the photos (e.g. such as the Victoria Home).

[Ben]

And along comes Letchmere’s attempt to make good his promise to “dismantle” my post.

How poignant.

Well, I’m filled with sympathy, Lechmere, but I’m afraid I continue to gaze on in utter bewilderment at the picture of the Victorian East End that you seem to created for yourself; a cross between an Oliver Twist musical sequence where everyone was everyone else’s friendly acquaintance, and a police state where everyone's slightest movements were documented and scrutinized. It’s a novel idea, but about as far away from reality as can be envisaged. Certainly, I have yet to hear anyone depict the Victorian East End as you have done.

You repeat the obvious fallacy that “nearly everyone worked in day time”. This is a fantasy derived from an unsuccessful crusade to exonerate Hutchinson. The nocturnal occupations I listed barely scratched the surface, and to list them all would be entirely supererogatory for the purpose of demolishing the clearly nonsensical suggestion that men and women active in the small hours were the conspicuous “exception”. Not in this district it wasn’t, as nearly everyone appreciates. It is certainly no coincidence that whenever there was a ripper-attributed murder, there was always someone legitimately “awake” a stone’s throw away, whether they were off-duty soldiers, policeman, night watchmen, pub-goers, social club members, prostitutes (not just “a few desperate prostitutes” as per your ludicrous suggestion), or people returning from of heading to work, such as car-men who often went out as early as 1.00am.

Why do you think lodging houses such as the Victoria Home kept doormen on duty during the small hours? Because it was clearly the case – and I can’t believed I’m still arguing the shockingly obvious on this – that lodgers were in the habit of coming and going at all hours of the night for various reasons, most notably their differing work schedules. If they were the conspicuous exception, it would have been a catastrophic waste of time and resources to hire doormen for the "off-peak" periods.

This was a crowded corner of an ill-reputed district, and the Victoria Home was shaded dark blue to indicate the very poor and “chronic want”, just one off the very worst category. Would this have been the case if the mass scrutinizing and meticulous policing of people with nocturnal habits had been enforced with indefatigable rigour, as per your implausible and strictly-not-to-be-taken-seriously suggestion? Of course it doesn’t, and Booth’s reference to “chronic want” also makes a mockery of your attempt to ridicule my characterization of the Victoria Home was the type of place where the struggle for daily survival was paramount, and where a nosey-neighbour approach to one lodger in 500 from several weeks ago was unlikely to have been prevalent.

“Hutchinson was supposedly either a groom or a labourer. Was there much call for a night groom or a night labourer?”

It’s difficult to say with the remotest degree of certainty, but it’s entirely irrelevant because Hutchinson would not have been required to state his reason for getting in late. All he needed to do was purchase a ticket in advance - which we know took the form of a generic metal cheque - and flash it at the doorman when he retuned in the small hours. No personal details would have been recorded, since this only occurred with lodgers new to the establishment. It’s not a case of the Victoria Home “catering” for night-workers specifically. They wouldn’t have made those silly distinctions at any point. They would have catered for anyone who was not a “known bad character”, and who had the funds to pay for a daily or weekly pass, which was basically the same as a bed ticket, as I’m prepared to reiterate for another 100 pages of posts if necessary. Providing they passed the initial entry “vetting” process, it is very unlikely that any questions would have been asked thereafter. If Hutchinson “joined the number” of those seeking night work, it is unlikely that anyone would have noticed. He was one lodger in 500.

Nobody was required to give a reason for requiring a weekly pass.

It would simply have been a case of “weekly pass please”. “Sold”. Job done. None of this silly Fort Knox approach to security that you keep getting muddled about.

“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.”

No, Lechmere. It implies that he didn’t have a weekly ticket that was the same thing as a special pass, and that he no money to pay for any of the lesser lodging houses either, and both factors combine to make the alleged Romford trek very bizarre and illogical indeed; heading all that way in the certainty that he would find no lodgings at the end of his journey at 2.00am. Misjudging a cut-off point by one and a half hours doesn’t seem very plausible to me. You’re still getting carried away with the word “special” for some unfathomable reason, so it’s well worth pointing out that this big and exciting adjective does not appear in the Daily Telegraph’s description of the Victoria Home rules.

“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 I am certain it would be hardly any”

You’re awfully certain of a lot of things that you shouldn’t be, but here is a particularly distressing example. Common sense clearly informs us that if the number of entrants around that time was so low, they may as well have closed its doors to everyone during that time-frame, rather than employing a lodging house deputy for the remainder of the night. Lodgers would have been coming and going at all hours of the day and night for various reasons, and it would have been nigh on impossible to keep scrutinising the movements of one of many lodgers who did this on the murder nights. Perfect safety in numbers. End of.

Then you introduce some fresh nonsense about Hutchinson being a “gregarious” type, a baseless assumption not admitted by any compelling evidence that you then use to portray him as the life and soul of the Victoria Home whose behaviour and movements couldn’t possibly have escaped attention. This is ludicrous. Hutchinson’s coming forward says nothing about how much of a social animal he was. If, as seems likely, he was only spurred into account on account of the revelations of Sarah Lewis, it would mean that he came forward reluctantly. Same with the press – he may have reluctantly spoken to them to tidy up potentially grey areas in his police statement. Jack London says that some of the young men were “chatty” when he went to the Victoria Home, (which it clearly was, as others better informed than you have pointed out) and according to you this means that Hutchinson must have been equally “chatty” and therefore can’t have been a killer!

“Hutchinson says he spoke to a resident on the Monday. He says he spoke to Kelly and had been in her company.”

He only said these things. No evidence that either statement was true, and such, I really would caution against using Hutchinson’s claims to support Hutchinson’s claims! You’re conjuring up the existence of friends and peers for whom no evidence exists, and than using this invented evidence to depict Hutchinson as gregarious and chatty. You should stop it, really.

“They would have cleared them by using the methods then at their disposal.”

Methods that were invariably limited to personal assumption only, and rarely the acquisition of proof that such and such a suspect was definitely not involved. Unfortunately for you, you have yet to overcome the obstacle of no evidence existing anywhere to suggest that Hutchinson was ever suspected of being a killer. I’m not the first to make the rational and fair demand that if you make a claim, you provide the evidence. With respect, it really is piss or get off the pot time when it comes to the “Hutchinson was suspected” question.

This is your first task, and you’ve consistently failed to get round it, relying instead on “must haves”. If Hutchinson was ever suspected – in this no-evidence scenario – the end result was clearly unfulfilled suspicion rather than the ludicrous “exoneration” theory. It doesn’t follow that he would have remained a prime suspect if he was ever suspected, because the police clearly exhibited a preference for foreigners, butchers, doctors, and those with mental problems. Local gentiles with no history of madness/violence and no medical skills would probably not have been suspected for long, if ever, because they clearly didn't fit the type of suspects the police were clearly interested in.

Again, are you seriously suggesting that of all the suspects who came under police scrutiny during the course of the investigation, Macnaghten, Druitt and Ostrog were the only ones who weren’t completely exonerated by the police? This is impossible nonsense, Lechmere, and really rather patience-testing, if I’m honest. Just consider the sheer number of suspects who warranted investigation, and then consider what we know about serial killers today. There is every chance that the real killer came under police scrutiny at some point during the course of the investigation, and that he slipped the radar. Criminal psychologists are very often telling us how frequently this sort of thing occurs, and in 1888, there was a far greater chance of this happening. Yes, the Macnaghten three might well be considered “poor”, but only by today’s standards. It was clearly a different matter to their police adherents in 1888. What we might consider of incriminating value today would probably not have reflected 1888 sentiments very closely.

Hutchinson’s coming forward as a witness voluntarily almost certainly ensured that when his account came to be dismissed, he was considered to have been another publicity seeker only, and the question of his guilt was never considered.

Better luck "dismantling" next time.

[Sally]

Right, so Hutchinson used to be a groom. Not much mileage in checking up on that really - past and gone.

Now he's a 'general labourer'. Right. That generic favourite second only to the ubiquitous 'hawker' amongst the floating population of the local doss houses.

Hutchinson wouldn't have stood out from the crowd at all. In the Victoria Home, he would have been just like anyone else - anonymous.

Nobody would have remembered him. If he didn't stay at the Victoria Home every night, nobody would have noticed. Nobody would have cared.

He wasn't suspected of being a murderer. Of wasting police time? Probably. Of being on the make? Possibly. It doesn't take a genius to draw the conclusion that a semi-itinerant out of work alleged general labourer might have tried it on in the hope of some material gain.

He was one of 54 other men who also came forward with 'information'. What did they all come forward for? The usual motives, of course - for a thrill, for the hope (however misguided) of money, or even for a bet.

How would Hutchinson have been different in the eyes of the police? He wouldn't. Contrary suggestions are unrealistic.

[Fisherman]

Ben (in his post to Lechmere):

"You repeat the obvious fallacy that “nearly everyone worked in day time”. This is a fantasy derived from an unsuccessful crusade to exonerate Hutchinson. The nocturnal occupations I listed barely scratched the surface, and to list them all would be entirely supererogatory for the purpose of demolishing the clearly nonsensical suggestion that men and women active in the small hours were the conspicuous “exception”.

One thing that is interesting here is what Fiona Rule writes in her book about Dorset Street (Iīm sure youīve read it?):

"A feature of the Spitalfields landlords was the additional services they provided for their tenants. Both the McCarthy and the Smith families ran general shops close to their lodging houses that sold all manner of essentials, from soap to string, at highly inflated prices. These shops operated long hours and were in many ways the forerunners of todayīs corner shops. They were generally open every day (except Sundays) and many only closed for a couple of hours (at around 2am) before opening again to catch the market porters on their way to work."
And this is exactly what Lechmere has been trying to tell you: the nightshift workers - and there would not have been anywhere near as many as there were daytime workers - went to work in the late afternoon or the evening, and returned home early next morning. The early birds around were the market porters, who, just like Cross and Paul, went to job at around 3.30-4. But the hours encompassing our particular area of interest were hours when not even the greedy landlords kept their shops open since there were no customers to be had.
What a truly curioius thing to say on your behalf, Ben - that nightime workers were not the exception. Of course they were. Nine people out of ten would have been daytime workers, and the ones left over would reasonably not have gone to work or returned from it at 2 AM in the morning.

So in this aspect, when you say "Better luck "dismantling" next time", Lechmere really could not hope for more luck. He has already accomplished his purpose, and your failure to accept it (please not that I donīt use the word "realize") does in no way change that. Saying no is a very useless thing to do when you lack substantiation. But Iīll try and find some facts, so we can wrap it up.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“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”

Not just “may be”, Fisherman.

There almost certainly were sounds that made it impossible for conversation to be heard from 30 metres away. That’s not “skating on the surface of the ocean”, whatever that’s supposed to mean, but simply factoring in the conditions that almost certainly existed outdoors on a miserable night in the small hours of that crowded, disreputable pocket of the East End in 1888. Expert insight is all very well and can be very useful, providing it is applied correctly and in full acknowledged of the circumstances in place at the time. For accuracy of results, I have tended to use genuine evidence from the period that wasn’t discredited shortly after it first appeared, and I this respect, I consider Lawende and Levy’s evidence as quite conclusive in this regard. If they couldn’t hear conversation from ten feet away, Hutchinson almost certainly could not have heard conversation from 30 metres away.

“Quiet” was clearly used as a relative term in the sources you quoted. They certainly did not mean silent, because that would be impossible. The streets were quieter than usual at the time of the murders, obviously – Duke Street included – but they could not have been sufficiently quiet to enable the detection of actual words from such a distance away. If you consider that “skating on the ocean”, so be it, but I see little occasion to revise my stance on this.

“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.”

I have.

Genuine non-discredited witnesses, who were there at the time, knew the sound qualities of the London Streets better than we ever could, and who couldn’t hear conversation from ten feet away. This easily trumps the observations of a well-intention studier of acoustics in modern Sweden who neither knew, nor was sufficiently informed about, the reality that were other competing sounds on the streets of the East End. Obviously, I don’t need to provide a “rival” modern expert of my own, since this one doesn’t disagree with me – there was just no factoring in of the conditions that needed to be incorporated into the “experiment”.

I really shouldn’t need to explain how implausible it is that Crossingham’s was “full of sleeping lodgers” around 2:15, but if you study the Chapman inquest, you should be able to form a slightly more informed picture of just who was up and about at these hours.

But then you decided to talk Toppy, which rather disappoints me because it suggests you missed this post:

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.

The specific arguments for which can be found elsewhere.

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

Of course, I don’t mind derailing the thread in a Toppy direction. We can even do signatures again if you want. I was only trying to retain some semblance of on-topicness, which I thought you might have appreciated given that it’s your topic. I’ll address your specific Toppyisms when I get back, along with your response to my post to Lechmere. I do wish you’d just stick to a particular tangent, and not interfere with the discussions I was having with others. Just take a breather once in a while. It really won’t hurt.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Not just “may be”, Fisherman."

Yes. Emphatically just "may be".

And even if we would allow for such a strange assertion as "There almost certainly were sounds that made it impossible for conversation to be heard from 30 metres away.", we would STILL only have "almost certainly". And when we are not certain, we offer the benefit of a doubt.
Of course, in this case I think it is the other way around - I would offer YOU the benefit of a doubt; there MAY have been too much noise around - but it is not likely.

"That’s not “skating on the surface of the ocean”, whatever that’s supposed to mean, but simply factoring in the conditions that almost certainly existed..."

It is not "factoring in" anything, Ben. To "factor in" something, you have to know the nature of that thing. You donīt. So what we are left with is you guessing away. AND itīs "almost certainly" again, is it not? Meaning ...? Thatīs it - meaning that your argument is useless in the end.

"“Quiet” was clearly used as a relative term in the sources you quoted."

And "not a sound was heard" is relative in what way? I find your argument relatively amusing. And relatively bad. On second thought, make that very bad.

"Genuine non-discredited witnesses, who were there at the time, knew the sound qualities of the London Streets better than we ever could, and who couldn’t hear conversation from ten feet away. This easily trumps the observations of a well-intention studier of acoustics in modern Sweden who neither knew, nor was sufficiently informed about, the reality that were other competing sounds on the streets of the East End."

Thatīs even MORE amusing! Was it the same street? No? Then I suggest that you should not use the argument at all, since there would have been "relatively" other circumstances around in Dorset Street.
Go find out how much sound a wall soaks up, Ben. I have. Go learn about windows, and their permeability of sound. I did. Read about what a curtain does to sound. I did.
You see, I do all these things since I take this seriously. People who simply guess away and cry out loud in disappointment when they are not believed do not.

"I really shouldn’t need to explain how implausible it is that Crossingham’s was “full of sleeping lodgers” around 2:15"

You really couldnīt. For you donīt know. But you can always guess!

"Of course, I don’t mind derailing the thread in a Toppy direction. We can even do signatures again if you want."

There is no need to.

"I do wish you’d just stick to a particular tangent, and not interfere with the discussions I was having with others. Just take a breather once in a while. It really won’t hurt."

Oh-oh, Ben - thatīs forbidden territory for you. You donīt get to comment on my nationality, my family, my frequency of posting or any such thing. You get to discuss the particulars of the case, nothing else. It may be disappointing, but such is life.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"How would Hutchinson have been different in the eyes of the police?"

He would be different since he placed himself the fewest of yards away from the murder site at the actual time of the murder, more or less. Thatīs why you know his name and his story, detail by detail, whereas the other 54 are grey eminences to you. My guess is that you have never once tried to find out their names, and my suggestion is that this is because you make the same call the police did back then - that Hutchinson was very, very different from the rest.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"How would Hutchinson have been different in the eyes of the police?"

He would be different since he placed himself the fewest of yards away from the murder site at the actual time of the murder, more or less. Thatīs why you know his name and his story, detail by detail, whereas the other 54 are grey eminences to you. My guess is that you have never once tried to find out their names, and my suggestion is that this is because you make the same call the police did back then - that Hutchinson was very, very different from the rest.

The best,
Fisherman

Well Fish, you're quite right, I haven't ever tried to find out their names, no. Maybe - probably - that would be impossible now.

But your contention that I think Hutchinson was 'very very different' to the other 53? Not sure about that. I don't know how different we would think he was if some of those other witness statements (or in some cases 'witness' statements) had survived. I know his name and his story because his statement to the police has survived by chance; and because he bragged to the press;and because he has been picked out relative obscurity by modern authors as a potential suspect.

I wonder if it all elevates him above his place, sometimes. Yes, he was different at the time - because the police really thought, to begin with, that his account could lead them at last to the Ripper. He was special, briefly. Then he wasn't. Then he was just another discarded witness. The task of the police was to catch the killer; not worry about leads that went nowhere. You can see that he was forgotten quickly. Poor old Dew didn't even remember his name properly.

It is we, today, who focus so intently on Hutchinson. As evidenced by this inordinately long thread.

And now, I think I'll leave you to it. The new Examiner has reached my mailbox - time for something new.

I have to say I'm impressed that this thread has run from the last issue to this one! Clearly, Fisherman, your theory has been contentious enough to keep us all interested for the last couple of months!

[Fisherman]

... and there is more to come in the future, I think...!

Goodnight, Sally.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Sally (just in case you haven't gone completely)
“Right, so Hutchinson used to be a groom. Not much mileage in checking up on that really - past and gone.”
The police could have checked is previous employer couldn’t they? To see if he was a reliable sort. That is the type of information they wanted to hear to dismiss someone. Maybe not brilliant information, but that is how they worked then.
They could also have checked who he had ‘laboured’ for.
The more significant point is that if he reported himself as being out of work, then it is likely their suspicion radar would have twitched. The police were prejudiced against the unemployed.
I have no proof of this beyond what is known of police prejudices in 1888 and how they behaved with other suspects. I would suggest that denying this (as Ben does for example) is unrealistic and symptomatic of someone who knows that this badly damages his case.
Incidentally I am well aware that the police may have checked with ‘Person A’s’ previous employer and gained a glowing report. For ‘Person A’ to have been dismissed and then subsequently for ‘Person A’ to turn out to be the culprit. I have consistently allowed for this possibility every time I have addressed this issue. I merely state - again – that the police had certain simple checks that they made. They had certain prejudices for guilt or innocence (one of which was against unemployed doss house dwellers). I would suggest that Hutchinson passed these tests (even falsely passed them) even thought he was in one class that the police were prejudiced against.

“Hutchinson wouldn't have stood out from the crowd at all. In the Victoria Home, he would have been just like anyone else - anonymous.”
In large measure yes, unless he kept irregular hours only on the nights people were murdered. Then he may well have been noticed. Any theory that involves Hutchinson as the culprit should sensibly take account of this distinct possibility.

“Nobody would have remembered him. If he didn't stay at the Victoria Home every night, nobody would have noticed. Nobody would have cared.”
You have no way of knowing this. Even very poor people with chronic want developed friendships. They were poor but they were happy and made their own fun.
I would not suggest people ‘cared’ – I am suggesting it is likely some people may have noticed.
There has been some nonsense spoken about the anonymity of these places. Catherine Eddowes was very chatty and friendly with the staff at the workhouse for example.

“It doesn't take a genius to draw the conclusion that a semi-itinerant out of work alleged general labourer might have tried it on in the hope of some material gain.”
My general conclusion would be that Hutchinson did indeed present himself to get a pay off.

“He was one of 54 other men who also came forward with 'information'...
“How would Hutchinson have been different in the eyes of the police? He wouldn't. Contrary suggestions are unrealistic.”
Ah – this is where I think you are wrong. He placed himself at the scene of the crime at the time it was committed. He was late coming forward. He didn’t have an alibi (instead he opted for the moriartyesque alibi-disposal). He lived in a lodging house. These are all things that would have made him suspicious to any average copper in 1888.
He is one of a handful of witnesses to be mentioned by name by a policeman at a later date (Dew).
He is one of a tiny number of witnesses known to have been taken very seriously at least for a period by Abberline.
His status as a witness was magnified by the media way beyond nearly all other witnesses during the entire case.
That is why he would probably been viewed differently by the police. That is why I believe it is fair to assume that the police will have checked him out (unless they felt they had a good reason not to check him out).

I have answered some of Ben’s points already. Nearly all of Ben’s other ‘points’ have been covered before so I will not go back over them again. You seem to have utterly missed my point about night workers not being able to sleep at a lodging house under normal circumstances.

Just out of interest – what were your late night off-duty soldiers doing? Could they have been late night revellers? This actually illustrates that your answer did not answer anything really.

One other thing – the door keeper would probably snooze very close to the door and just let in those who had special passes. That’s not too difficult to suss out is it?

Question: Who would think when reading this passage (from the Telegraph) that the ticket referred to is also the pass?
Answer: Someone who wants to believe Hutchinson dunnit.
“Tickets for beds are issued from five p.m. until 12.30 midnight, and after that hour if a man wants to get in he must have a pass.”

I am sure you are a very punctilious fellow Ben, have never been late anywhere and accordingly can’t fathom that Hutchinson may have turned up an hour late to get into his pre-paid abode. Let me assure you though, for mere mortals this sort of thing happens from time to time.

I gave you quite a bit of evidence that showed that Hutchinson was not a shy and retiring type who didn’t talk to anyone else and would therefore have remained anonymous. You can of course just say he was lying.
You cannot claim there is no contrary evidence however.
Well you can and you do, but that is your method.
However I don’t recall that I “portray him as the life and soul of the Victoria Home”.
This is one of your other methods – the over exaggeration technique with which we have become so familiar.
“You should stop it, really.”

Finally (some hope) I would indeed suggest that the relatively few suspects named more or less at the time (not just those named in the Macnaghten memoranda) by reputable police sources were pretty much all the remaining non-cleared suspects. Some have subsequently been cleared of course.
I only gave the Macnaghten ones as examples of these, as should have been obvious.
Obvious because I mentioned them in this manner...
“The police had nothing on Druitt, Ostrog, Kosminski or any of the other ‘official’ police suspects.”

So what can I make of it when you say...
“are you seriously suggesting that of all the suspects who came under police scrutiny during the course of the investigation, Macnaghten, Druitt and Ostrog were the only ones who weren’t completely exonerated by the police?”
Clearly I did not say that.
Is this your over exaggeration technique in action again? Or is it that you pay no attention to the various arguments raised against your pet suspect and instead conjure up your own debate.
I am not entirely sure which of these two options is the more likely. I am sure however that if you didn’t engage in these tactics your posts would be very short indeed.

Incidentally you keep saying Macnaghten instead of Kosminski.

You seem to have hopelessly missed the point (but I have very great reserves of patience so I will assist you) when you say:
“There is every chance that the real killer came under police scrutiny at some point during the course of the investigation, and that he slipped the radar. Criminal psychologists are very often telling us how frequently this sort of thing occurs, and in 1888, there was a far greater chance of this happening. Yes, the Macnaghten three might well be considered “poor”, but only by today’s standards. It was clearly a different matter to their police adherents in 1888. What we might consider of incriminating value today would probably not have reflected 1888 sentiments very closely.”
I have been at great pains to explain exactly this to you. Maybe it has seeped into your subconscious.
You don’t actually need to be a criminal psychologist to know this.
I have repeatedly spelt out to you that being exonerated by the checks of1888 would not mean that the person exonerated had not in fact done the crime. I have merely stated (I will not repeat it again) that the police had certain checks that they would have carried out and if you passed those checks you would be exonerated (perhaps falsely). If you failed to pass the tests you would not be exonerated. If you were not exonerated they would not have just shrugged their shoulders and waved you bye-bye.

The evidence suggests that the police were baffled as to who Jack the Ripper might be. If they had a long list of non-exonerated suspects this would not have been the case.
Oh I just know that you will dispute this. Be my guest and shout at the wind.

[Ben]

Right, well first I'll address the enthralling Toppy stuff.

“I find it very credible, given my elaborations on a possible suspicion of a cover-up on behalf of Hutch.”

So, in your new scenario that you decided upon yesterday, Toppy was indignant about being accused of muddling up the dates (which the police obviously would not have accused him of directly even they did suspect muddled days, which they almost certainly didn’t), so he assumed that the police were covering up the killer’s true identity, but completely neglected to tell his son Reg about the police’s ripper-defending, toff-harbouring ways. Now Fisherman, please be serious for one moment. This is nonsense.

Try and divorce all of your ripper-related theorizing from the Ripper and the Royals. I know it’s difficult. You have an unenviable task. You’ve picked a Hutchinson identity theory that involves hush money from the police to cover up Lord Randolph Churchill being the ripper; a theory that has “more to do with the royal family than other people”. However hard you struggle to find a glimmer of truth midst the deluge of nonsense, Toppy and Reg will forever be associated with the most risible or royal ripper theories. Your latest ill-starred attempt to reconcile the two has its obvious problems, chief amongst which being: Why didn’t Toppy’s alleged belief in the police’s skulduggery feature in Reginald’s account?

I’m not sure if Gareth would particularly appreciate you dragging him into the discussion, but he and I were regular participants in these Hutchinson debates well before you decided to join them, and I can assure you that he had expressed sympathy for the Toppy = Hutch hypothesis well in advance of any signatures coming to the fore. I don’t think he ever stated that the signatures “proved emphatically that Toppy was Hutchinson”, and if that’s your current position, I’m thoroughly embarrassed for you, since it is well know and well documented that the most professional examination of the signatures to have been conducted thus far was to the effect that Toppy probably wasn’t the real Hutchinson.

But that’s a wrap folks on Toppy, unless you want to derail this thread away from your theory?

This same real Hutchinson, incidentally, showed no indication of suspecting that the man he claimed to have seen was a “pillar of society”, or else he would hardly stated his belief that the suspect “lived in the neighbourhood”.

“My hunch is that the police BELIEVED thay had enough to rule Hutch out”

This is an improvement on what you were asserting previously, I’ll grant you that.

You had previously suggested that Hutchinson’s depiction of what you imagine to be a “dry night” "proved" he wasn’t there!

“And if astrakhan man had the power to sway the police into doing this, he would reasonably be a very important man - thatīs how I think Hutch reasoned.”

Let’s just get this straight.

According to you, Hutchinson “reasoned” that the powerful and influential Mr. Astrakhan must have manipulated or bribed the police into accepting or declaring falsely that he had confused the date.

Is this really your stance?

Gosh, I hope not.

But back to the repetitive debate about distances and noises:

“And when we are not certain, we offer the benefit of a doubt.”

Really? So, in this instance, despite the overwhelming likelihood that there were competing sounds in Dorset Street in the small hours that would have prevented 30-metre discernment of words in conversation, we must “offer the benefit of a doubt” purely because we can’t be certain? So the “benefit of the doubt” would consist of what, then? An assumption that the streets were absolutely silent at the time? No can do, I’m afraid, because we have two genuine witnesses that couldn’t hear conversation from ten feet away.

“And "not a sound was heard" is relative in what way? I find your argument relatively amusing.”

Please don’t ever attempt irony in my presence again, Fisherman. What is the counter-argument in this case, anyway? That the streets of London’s East End were completely “silent”? Utterly impossible.

“Thatīs even MORE amusing! Was it the same street? No? Then I suggest that you should not use the argument at all, since there would have been "relatively" other circumstances around in Dorset Street.”

Yes, there would have been – more noise, unless you’re seriously suggesting that Dorset Street, with its reputation for its “vicious and semi-criminal" element, its prostitutes, pubs, and jam-packed grotty lodging houses, was quieter than Duke Street.

“The early birds around were the market porters, who, just like Cross and Paul, went to job at around 3.30-4”

Oh, boy.

Tell, ‘im someone, please!

If you seriously think that the only "early birds" were the market porters, you are simply in error. There were plenty of other occupations that called for earlier starts, just as there would have been more occupations that finished and commenced at other unhealthy hours of the night and morning. If you think that both Cross and Paul were “market porters”, I’m afraid you are sorely mistaken. Fiona Rule was simply observing, perfectly correctly, that shops reopened for the market porters become they all tended to emerge on duty together when the markets themselves opened. Try not to keep missing the obvious point, which was that however large the difference in numbers was between “daytime” and “nighttime” workers was – to borrow from that reductive and simplistic distinction – the later group would still have been sufficiently large to render deeply unlikely the possibility of any one of them being homed in on, checked out and magically exonerated.

The notion is beyond preposterous.

“So in this aspect, when you say "Better luck "dismantling" next time", Lechmere really could not hope for more luck. He has already accomplished his purpose”

Fisherman, please don’t feel saddened if I don’t take any of this triumphalist rhetoric at all seriously. All I’m seeing is two blokes egging each other on and congratulating other for imaginary, non-existent accomplishments. Lechmere’s ill-fated motivation behind arguing with me is to demonstrate that the Victoria Home made for an unsuitable ripper’s lair. But before you leap to pat the patently undeserving on the back, you would do well to recall that you have argued in a past issue of Ripperologist Magazine that the Victoria Home made for a viable ripper’s lair. Remember? You spent many long posts urging me to reconsider my view that Joseph Fleming made for a reasonable suspect before doing an abrupt U-turn and naming him as the likely ripper after all, and resident at the Victoria Home.

You really ought to keep track of what people are arguing or else risk shooting yourself in the foot.

“You donīt get to comment on…my frequency of posting or any such thing.”

No, but Mike does, and he advised you as follows:

“And so, 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.”

I hope you reject his advice, personally, as I know full well that you will anyway, but you must be able to spot the subtext in this post.