Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Sally]

Hi Hatchett.

It is an interesting theory. But a point against it as far as I can see is that if he had been a member of a Vigilance Committee then surelly he would have told the police at his interview

Yes, that seems reasonable.

and it would have been put in his statement.

I don't know about that. Why?

Also, you would have thought that he would have mentioned that to the press. Another edge to his publicity

.

Not sure about that, either. He might have done - equally, perhaps he preferred to keep that part of his life private. Not much point in being an undercover sort if everyone knows who you are, is there? The paper mentioned by Phil in his post does have a bit of a cloak and dagger approach, I think - which is perhaps the style of the journalist and no more - or perhaps not.

Also you would have thought that Abberline would have been interested in that.

How do we know he wasn't?

Dont want to put a damper on things, but just alternative thinking.

Always interesting. I'm not entirely convinced Hutchinson was part of a vigilance committee, but I think the idea deserves proper consideration, which I will try to give.

Regards

Sally

[Hatchett]

Hello Baby Bird

I agree with what you are saying. You could have added that the day was more memorable because it was the day of a very notorious and brutal murder. It is quite conceivable that the whole of the East End would have remembered what they were doing on that day. Much the same as everyone used to say that they could remember what they were doing on the day that President Kennedy was assassinated.

This would have been doubly memorable for Hutchinson because, if he is to be believed, he had known the victim personally for three years.
Ben’s theory is plausible. It is well thought out, and explained. Although it is not a theory that I personally hold, it does rely on facts that are known at the present.

So it is an interesting view.

Best wishes to all for the New Year.
Hatchett.

[Hatchett]

Hello Sally,

I was replying to the idea that Hutchinson was part of a Vigilance group.

If he was an "undercover sort" I find it doubtful that he would give an interview to the press. Certainly, if he was a an "uncover sort" employed by the police force he would not have been allowed to.

Anything he said at his interview would have had to have been included in his statement. If it is not there it is reasonable to assume that he did not say it.

There is a note from Abberline concerning his views on Hutchinson's honesty. Nowhere in that does he mention that he was a meber of a Vigilance group or an uncover agent.

Best wishes.
Hatchett.

[Hatchett]

Hi Sally,

Just one other point. If Hutchinson's motive for giving his story to the press was either money or fame, then it would be reasonable to assume that anything that could either have been added to his story or to his pedigree Hutchinson would have grabbed at. Being a member of a Vigilance committee I believe woud have been one of those things.

Best wishes.

Hatchett.

[The Good Michael]

If Hutchinson's motive for giving his story to the press was either money or fame, then it would be reasonable to assume that anything that could either have been added to his story or to his pedigree Hutchinson would have grabbed at. Being a member of a Vigilance committee I believe woud have been one of those things.

A young man like Hutchinson, down on his luck, not yet a plumber, and with no easy means of money in sight, would have wanted the quick buck. He would have wanted easy money that required no long-term commitment. His story apparently provided him with that easy money and a few days later, he's forgotten, exactly what a young man of the streets would have wanted. Vigilance committees wouldn't even have been a concept for such as he.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Thanks for the kind compliments on the article, Jen and Hatchett. Much appreciated!

It was suggested by Garry Wroe in his book that Hutchinson may have attended the odd Vigilance Committee meeting, and I consider it a reasonable possibility myself. Less convincing, however, is the more recent suggestion that he may have been in cahoots with the police in the capacity of a plain clothes detective. Abberline's report on the Hutchinson issue was intended as an internal police document only, to be read by his superiors. He would not, therefore, have withheld the detail that Hutchinson was one of theirs, if indeed he was.

A young man like Hutchinson, down on his luck, not yet a plumber

Not ever a plumber, Mike, and it's not "apparent" that he received any money.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

With respect, Ben, I suggested that the killer might have attended Vigilance Committee meetings.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Garry. Based on what Ben wrote in his essay and what you yourself just said, you two really should come over to the Le Grand side. It just makes more sense.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ben]

I've just had another look, and you're quite right, Garry. Apologies for that.

Hi Tom,

Come to think if it, I know of no evidence that Hutchinson or Le Grand were ever seen together. Time to scrutinise the latter's handwriting!

All the best,
Ben

[Tom_Wescott]

Come to think if it, I know of no evidence that Hutchinson or Le Grand were ever seen together. Time to scrutinise the latter's handwriting!

This is quite true, but that's not what I meant. I meant dump Hutch all together and back a real suspect! LOL. The idea that Hutch worked for Le Grand is enticing and highly feasible since Le Grand hired men like him, but it's backed by absolutely zero evidence.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[The Good Michael]

If Tumblety were more like Le Grand, he'd be a viable suspect. When I look at Le Grand, as Tom presents him, I think I see what Tumblety supporters see in Tumbelty. What does that mean? Maybe Tom is onto something...just maybe.

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Garry. Based on what Ben wrote in his essay and what you yourself just said, you two really should come over to the Le Grand side. It just makes more sense.

I’m strictly neutral, Tom. Thanks for the offer though.

I've just had another look, and you're quite right, Garry. Apologies for that.

No problem, Ben.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

Well, I´m back from Berlin - which I did not see much of on account of all the snow covering it - and I find the discussion is still going on here.
I´ve tried to catch up as best as I could, but I may well have missed the odd point or two, so please feel free to point it out if that is the case.

I will start off by quoting Sally:

" ... if Hutchinson was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so to speak, then why did the police perform such a spectacular U-turn in a matter of a day? They appear to have gone from having total faith in his story to having absolutely none."

Have another read of my article Sally, and you will see exactly how that came about...!

For clarity´s sake, I would like to once more point out that I am not opposed to Hutchinson having been in the game for money, but if that was, he clearly made a huge mistake by placing his scenario on dry streets. That is why I prefer to believe that he really was honest - but honestly mistaken.

Much has been said about the chance that he really did mistake the day. Some will have it that you cannot mistake days when important events occur, and examplify by mentioning Lord Mayor´s Day.
First, it ought to be mentioned that we cannot tell what interest Hutchinson himself awarded that occasion - maybe he could not care less. After that, I think that there are a few more things that need mentioning.

To begin with: Hutchinson lost out on a night´s sleep. That may well be important. If he, so to speak, counted the nights backways, remembering where he had spent them, it means that if he did not count that particular night in, then that would have set him back one day, counting things together. Food for thought, perhaps.

To move on, much is said about the Romford journey. Among other things, it is suggested that if he went there for working purposes, he would have worked among people who could have confirmed his whereabouts.

But is that really so? Did Hutchinson work among people? Not necessarily, no. He gave his occupation as a groom. That means he worked among horses, not men.
And that, conveniently, should provide us with a healthy afterthought when it comes to the question about what Hutchinson knew about Kelly´s death, and when he found out about it.
Somebody - I think, once again, that it was Sally - wrote that he must have had money since he went to the Victoria Home after his wet/dry night on the town. And yes, he states that he waited until the place where he lived opened. But where does it say that he payed for the following night?
He was a man pressed for money, by the looks of things, and he was a groom. That would mean that the labour he offered on the open market was first and foremost that of tending to horses.

Could that have been what he did in the days of which we have no record of his whereabouts? Could he, for example, have been payed to look after some horses in the owners absense? And could that in it´s turn have resulted in him missing out on the news of Kelly´s death? It´s just a suggestion, of course, but it is very convenient that his line of work meant that he was normally associating with creatures that did not take any interest in the Ripper at all!

If we take the liberty of working from such an assumption, we can actually carve out a manuscript in which Hutchinson plays the role of a totally honest man:

-He goes down to Romford over the day, but on the 7:th, and not on the 8:th.
-He decides to walk back in the evening, since the weather is fine enough, knowing that a night on the streets will be tolerably comfortable.
-He sees Mary Kelly with Astrakhan man, and since the weather is fine enough, he does not mind to wait to see if the man comes out from the court. Since things drag on, though, he decides to drop his surveillance and warm himself up by walking the streets.
-In the morning, he returns to the Victoria Home, perhaps to pick up some belongings of his - and then leaves again. He is not a man of means, so he cannot sleep the day away. Moreover, he would not have had the money to do so even if he wanted to, by his own admission. Instead he sets out to find work, hours before Mary Kelly is found.
-He is able to find a job in his line of business. That means that he spends his time tending to horses, animals that very rarely speak of murders and such.
-Come Sunday, he is back in the East End with some money in his pockets, and decides to go to Petticoat Lane market to spend some of it. Arriving there, he thinks that he once more catches a glimpse of the Astrakhan-clad man from Dorset Street. He is not certain, though, and at any rate, he harbours no suspicions at all against the man at this stage.
-...but of course, since the murder is the talk of the town - although the discussions in the street would perhaps have cooled somewhat by now - he finds out about Mary Kelly, and he puts two and two together: I saw Kelly with that man, when was that...? Two nights before? Three? He gets things wrong when counting backwards, maybe because he had been deprived of one night´s sleep, and he decides that what he saw had taken place on the murder night.
-He finds himself a PC, and relates what he had experienced, leaving name and address and thinking that he had done his duty. After that, we do not know what happened; no document exists telling us what the PC did.
-He is now filled to the brim with his suspicions, and returns to the Victoria Home, eager to share it with his fellow lodgers. As nothing comes from his report to the police, one of these lodgers advices him to go to the police station the day after, and he follows that advice.

The rest is history. But to that history belongs Walter Dew´s assertion that there could be no other explanation to Hutchinson´s story, than that he got the dates wrong. My own guess is that two details that very much belongs to the material that convinced Dew - and, I suspect, the rest of the police force - would have been that Hutchinson denied both that it had been a rainy night (and stating that you spend all night walking the streets looks very much like such a denial) and that anybody had entered the court as he stood watching it.

This makes for a simple, functioning timeline that presents Hutchinson´s story in an altogether different light than the usual one. I find it quite logical myself, and I am much intrigued by the consistency in behaviour on behalf of Hutchinson in this version. It tells the story of an unemployed man with a need to find work and money, but also with a sense of loyalty towards society. It depicts, putting things differently, a very common man, patently honest and a good, reliable citizen - which was what Abberline recognized in him.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

If it were me Fisherman.....the night where I didn't get any sleep is one I'd remember as a stand out night and would be able to pin it accurately. But then I suppose there's no accounting for personal perspective when it comes to reason.

Perhaps the police looked at his original statement saying he'd recognise him again.....and then looked at his claim that he could have seen him again....and sensibly asked: "weren't you certain you'd recognise him again....but you're not sure if you did see him again?".....perhaps they questioned him on this and Hutchinson's story began to fall apart as he back tracked and tried to plug this gap.

[Fisherman]

Hi Fleetwood!

As I have stated before, you cannot be asked to come up with a positive identification on just about any grounds, and we do not know what quality the Petticoat Lane sighting was off. If, however, Hutchinson was really sure about his man, then the wording "I fancied I saw him ..." speaks to me about a poor quality sighting.

Moreover, if the police really had succeeded to take Hutchison´s story apart - why is it that he figures in Dew´s book fifty years later, in a description that tells us that the only explanation to things is that Hutchinson got the dates wrong? If the police was of the meaning that he was just a timewaster, why is he not just dropped by Dew as one such? Why was he not so totally written off that he could join Violenia and Packer in not being mentioned at all?
What Dew tells us is that the Hutchinson riddle seemingly was never cracked in a manner that satisfied all parts - the police would have had him down as being wrong on the dates, but the fact that Dew presses the point that it MUST BE so, instead of plainly telling us that it WAS so, clearly tells us that no agreement on it could be reached - and I find it quite reasonable to deduct that the failing part was Hutchinson himself.

The best,
Fisherman