Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Tom Wescott:

"Since Hutch claims he knew Kelly, I'd say that unless he was batting for the other team, it's safe to say there was an attraction."

I have a lot of very good (and good looking) female friends whom I´ve known for a good deal of years, without ever having done so on a basis of attraction, Tom. And - before you suggest it - no, I don`t bat for the other team (I have been attracted to a number of women too over the years). All in all, I would say that your suggestion, although it certainly is a very good one that has a lot going for it, does not reach all the way to a safe bet.

Excuse my prying, but have you always been attracted to all your female friends? (Why do I sense that I already know the answer to that one ...?) Or are YOU batting for ... no, let´s not go there!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Ben – a couple more observations as we are moving into fresh territory!

There is one small piece of evidence that the police may have suspected Hutchinson, in that Abberline described his interview with Hutchinson as an interrogation.

Ben you must have read this report concerning the Victoria Home from ‘The Sunday Magazine’ in 1889: “Registers are kept of lodgers. Every man's name and occupation is entered in the books and these records against the names are filled up and make brief histories. Lodgers who use the house regularly for 6 nights are taken in free on the seventh.”
They did keep registers – however implausible it may seem!
Also the Victoria Home was a poor base for a nocturnal beast. Look at these rules, which are slightly at odds with each other:
“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.”
And
“No person will be admitted after one o’clock am without a special pass.”
Hutchinson’s movements could have been checked easily with a high degree of accuracy.

If Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper and not just the murderer of Kelly, then is there any evidence that his modus operandi was to ‘stake out’ his victim’s lodgings? The evidence points at him picking up his victims in the street and being guided by them to a location of the victim’s choice, supposedly for sex. The culprit would assume the location would be discrete enough for murder on the basis that it would be discrete enough for sex. Even if this modus operandi is disputed, even a brief stake out is a massive departure. Jack the Ripper did not operate in a manner similar to Bundy and co. so it is fruitless using them as examples.
That is exactly why I am arguing the reverse. He may have been spotted with other victims (then again he may not, we don’t actually know if he was at all), but if you have to acquire a victim in order to murder them, there will be a chance of being spotted in their company. It is quite another thing to lurk around potential victims residences. Lurking and surveillance may have been important features for other serial killers. There is no other evidence that this was the case with Jack the Ripper.
I do not dispute for a second (as illustrated by the Sutcliffe example) police forces come into contact with serial killers and let them slip through the net. There are other examples as you say where may have excellent suspects that they cannot get enough proof to proceed in a trial. But Ben, you must be able to see the difference between cases such as these and that of Hutchinson, where I repeat:
“a police force that had a witness come forward late in the day with a detailed testimony that put him adjacent to the crime scene, and then went on accompanied trawls through the neighbourhood, only to be dismissed soon afterwards, to turn out to be the culprit, would be useless.”
You have provided no example anywhere near that where a culprit inserts himself that deeply and escapes even suspicion.

If Hutchinson killed Kelly as he had an unrequited crush on her, does that counts him out for the other killings? Pretty much I’d say it does. But then most people who have an unrequited crush do not kill the object of their desires. In fact hardly any do. It seems Kelly was ‘fancied’ by a few people around her neighbourhood anyway, so one more wouldn’t be that out of the ordinary!

[Garry Wroe]

Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Lechmere]

Sally, let me take you step by step through Mary Kelly’s believed movements from 1884 to 1888.
1884 May Kelly moves to London – is a prostitute in the West End, with a brief interlude of a few weeks in France.
Then she ended up in the Ratcliffe district, and at some point with someone called Morganstone in Stepney. Also before 1886 Kelly lived in Breezer’s Hill which is just off the Highway.
From about 1886 to April 1887 Kelly was with Joe Fleming in Bethnal Green.
From April 1887 until her death Mary Kelly was mostly with Joe Barnett at various addresses around Spitalfields, culminating obviously with Miller’s Court.

Against this we have Hutchinson’s contention that he had known her since 1885. I would argue that this is extremely unlikely given Kelly’s movements. He would have to have been her shadow. Possible I suppose but extremely unlikely. I hope you follow this now and no longer think I meant ‘know’ in the biblical sense. I don’t think Hutchinson ‘knew’ her at all. Apart from possibly as a distant object of his desire.

Sally you say “I have yet to see an argument that explains to me why he couldn't have done it”. That is very weak. You could pick virtually any random name out of the 1889 census and say the same. I think the fact that he claims to have lived at the Victoria Home which had strict attendance registers and restricted entry after 12.30 or 1 am tends to count Hutchinson out, without going any further.

I don’t think he ‘did it’ as he had a crush. That would mean the Kelly murder was unrelated to the others which I don’t accept for many reasons which I won’t list here. I think he may have had a crush on her though.
I think it is possible that when he was taken to see her body and he cracked up and that is why he was dismissed from the police case. His lies to include himself in her life (after her death) fell apart. I think his statements fit that pattern.
Obviously it would be ridiculous to state with any certainty that this is the case as we just don’t know. I could say that I have yet to see an argument that explains why this couldn’t be the case! But I wouldn’t use an argument like that.

By the way when I said ‘I think this is a new angle’ I was obviously referring to Kelly’s movements and how it didn’t fit in with Hutchinson’s claim to have known her for three years. Not the tired old crush argument. I raised Kelly’s movement’s as a possible support for the 'Hutchinson tired old crush argument'.
I haven’t seen the discrepancy between Hutchinson’s claim to have known her for three years set against Kelly’s apparently frequent address changes mentioned before. But I may be wrong which is why I said ‘I think this is a new angle’, rather than ‘Listen up I have spotted something than none of you dummies has ever noticed’.
I hope this clear the matter up to your satisfaction.

PS – I think it is quite possible Hutchinson got his days mixed up. We will never know but it is a plausible theory.

[harry]

Quite unexpectedly while seeking information on another matter,I was directed to a website that had information on the Victoria Home,and also a photo of the building.The website is:

http://sites.google.com/site/ffrenchfamily/ffrench-s-in-jamaica

An excellent piece of research.

[harry]

Should read:

http://sites.google.com/site/ffrenchfamily/ffrench-s-in-jamaica

Harry.

[mariab]

The crush thing is too Hollywood.

Sometimes life imitates Hollywood. I've definitely been there.
I think it's pretty obvious that Hutch might have had a crush for Mary Kelly, it's pretty transparent in the direct fashion she (allegedly?) so casually asked him for money the minute she saw him on the street. And, Fisherman, I'd wager you're a bit more sophisticated than Victorian Whitechapelites, so you can't compare. (But maybe Tom isn't? Just kidding.)
Many apologies for budging in before yet having managed to read Ben's and Fish's articles, which I'll most definitely do, but not before the end of the month. (As I'm currently very busy with an application and a long French article of my own, which includes tons of research and results. Plus I'm catching up on Rip back issues currently.) Hope to be able to take part in the discussion in a more informed capacity in a few weeks.

[Sally]

Sally, let me take you step by step through Mary Kelly’s believed movements from 1884 to 1888.

Lechmere, could you be any more patronising? Seriously.

1884 May Kelly moves to London – is a prostitute in the West End, with a brief interlude of a few weeks in France.
Then she ended up in the Ratcliffe district, and at some point with someone called Morganstone in Stepney. Also before 1886 Kelly lived in Breezer’s Hill which is just off the Highway.
From about 1886 to April 1887 Kelly was with Joe Fleming in Bethnal Green.
From April 1887 until her death Mary Kelly was mostly with Joe Barnett at various addresses around Spitalfields, culminating obviously with Miller’s Court.

Hang on, just making a cup of tea...

Against this we have Hutchinson’s contention that he had known her since 1885. I would argue that this is extremely unlikely given Kelly’s movements. He would have to have been her shadow. Possible I suppose but extremely unlikely. I hope you follow this now and no longer think I meant ‘know’ in the biblical sense. I don’t think Hutchinson ‘knew’ her at all. Apart from possibly as a distant object of his desire.

That's better! Now, where were we? Hutchinson knowing Kelly, and not in the biblical sense, right? I think it was probably possible for a man to know a woman in the LVP without living with her, Lechmere. Hypothetically, the purpoted relationship between Hutchinson and Kelly may have been entirely platonic. Given Kelly's known prostitution, maybe he was an occasional client. I personally don't think he had known her for 3 years, I think he pinched that from Flemming - but that's another story. I don't think he couldn't have known her for 3 years for the reasons suggested by you. I think that's silly.

Sally you say “I have yet to see an argument that explains to me why he couldn't have done it”. That is very weak. You could pick virtually any random name out of the 1889 census and say the same. I think the fact that he claims to have lived at the Victoria Home which had strict attendance registers and restricted entry after 12.30 or 1 am tends to count Hutchinson out, without going any further.

Oh, Lechmere, please, don't be ridiculous. You couldn't pick any name out of the 1889 Census, because the Census was in 1881. There is no evidence that Hutchinson did not 'do it' Lechmere. There are some arguments, which have some merit, to suggest he did not. On the other hand, Ben puts forward a good case, in my view. I haven't made my mind up yet.

I don’t think he ‘did it’ as he had a crush. That would mean the Kelly murder was unrelated to the others which I don’t accept for many reasons which I won’t list here. I think he may have had a crush on her though.
I think it is possible that when he was taken to see her body and he cracked up and that is why he was dismissed from the police case. His lies to include himself in her life (after her death) fell apart. I think his statements fit that pattern.

Your view of Hutchinson is certainly interesting, Lechmere, I'll give you that. You appear to view him as some sort of down-and-out victim of love - a walking tragedy, perhaps. Whatever else he may have been, I can honestly say I've never cast him in this mould.

Obviously it would be ridiculous to state with any certainty that this is the case as we just don’t know. I could say that I have yet to see an argument that explains why this couldn’t be the case! But I wouldn’t use an argument like that.

Good for you, Lechmere.

By the way when I said ‘I think this is a new angle’ I was obviously referring to Kelly’s movements and how it didn’t fit in with Hutchinson’s claim to have known her for three years. Not the tired old crush argument. I raised Kelly’s movement’s as a possible support for the 'Hutchinson tired old crush argument'.

Oh, Now I understand!

I haven’t seen the discrepancy between Hutchinson’s claim to have known her for three years set against Kelly’s apparently frequent address changes mentioned before. But I may be wrong which is why I said ‘I think this is a new angle’, rather than ‘Listen up I have spotted something than none of you dummies has ever noticed’.

No, I haven't either...

I hope this clear the matter up to your satisfaction.

I have to say, not really, Lechmere.

PS – I think it is quite possible Hutchinson got his dates mixed up. We will never know but it is a plausible theory

P.S. Unless Hutchinson was a) mentally ill b) an habitual drunk, I think it unlikely that he mistook the day. For reasons repeated ad nauseum.

Best.

Sally.

[Sally]

Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

I doubt it, Garry.

[Fisherman]

Hi Harry!

That is a nice website, with good information. On detail that I like about it, is that it points out that:

"5) 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"

This means that Hutchinson may have returned to the Victoria Home in the morning after his nightly promenade, not to check in, but to pick up belongings of his. It is in line with the suggestion that he may have spent his time after that point somewhere else than in those lodgings.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Unless Hutchinson was a) mentally ill b) an habitual drunk, I think it unlikely that he mistook the day."

Well ,there we are then: people who mix up days, and who have experienced something important within the period this happens, are etiher mentally ill or habitual drunks.

Did I not just read you pointing out an argument of Lechmere´s as silly, Sally (whoa - THAT had a ring to it...!)?

Since none of us can fully assess the mental state and abilities of George Hutchinson back in 1888, it stands to reason that you may be right - maybe he would not mix things up, given what happened. Then again, you may be wrong - maybe it would even be typical of him to do so!
Who, Sally, can tell? Not me, that´s for sure.

That is the individual context, Sally. After that, we must pay heed to the general one, and that tells us that people have mixed days up millions and millions of times, for millions of reasons and under millions of different circumstances. We may even statistically conclude that, given the sheer numbers, part of them will have been intoxicated or mentally weak. Others will have been professors, medieval archers, limbo-dancing Haitians and Ripperologists. It is a common, common thing, and I see nothing controversial in suggesting that it happens to all of us at one time or another.

We all know by now that you are of the meaning that Hutchinson would not have missed out on the days. I suggest that if you are to follow this line, in spite of the shared knowledge that people DO mix days up, then please supply us with a little something that is not just your conviction. There must be heaps of literature and experts out there that could comment on the special exception to the rule of people mixing days up that you suggest, and quite frankly, until I see or hear wiews on this, safely anchored in knowledge and/or research, I would say that your suggestion is a complete non-starter. I´m sorry, but that is the only way I can see this.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Sally – please accept my apologies for typing 1889 instead of 1891 – it was late.

On issues relating to this case (maybe in respect of all things in life) some people make absolute judgements and statements based on small amounts of evidence, others see things in shades of grey, full of maybes, possiblies, probably nots and so on.

So based on what I can see, read, experience or observe...

I think the Lord Mayor’s Show probably didn’t have much impact on Hutchinson’s mind and it wouldn’t have assisted much in fixing any dates in his mind. Fully paid up members of the Lord Mayor’s Show Historical Appreciation Society will not agree with me on this.

I think it is highly unlikely that the Lord Mayor’s Show was the occasion of a public holiday and intervened when I saw that being touted around. I may of course be proved wrong. But I prefer it if ‘facts’ are supported by evidence, rather than propositions becoming facts as they are repeated frequently and vociferously.

I think people do commonly mix dates and days up without being mentally ill or drunk, so there is a reasonable chance Hutchinson did, given he was dismissed by the police and Dew said so. I sometimes mix dates up (eg 1889 for 1891)... maybe that proves your point?

While it wasn’t a very pleasant night, it probably wasn’t a storm. Unless Fisherman comes up with new data from the Met Office (which I doubt) I think that probably the rain fell in intermittent showers. It was windy, overcast and cold.

I think one explanation for Hutchinson’s behaviour is that he had a crush on Kelly. I don’t particularly favour it over other explanations (apart from him being the culprit). For example, the weather wasn’t very nice we know that. But maybe once he saw her, it was as if it was a warm summer’s evening and the wind, rain and cold were as nothing. He saw starlight and moonbeams. Maybe he heard music and wanted to dance. Ditto for the Astrakhan man. Maybe not. Who knows?

I think here is a good chance that the Kelly Hutchinson was Toppy. It is the only credible identification of him and there are aspects that corroborate it in my view (e.g. I think he may well have been paid a few shillings by the police) However it is easier to construct Hutchinson as the culprit from someone who is totally unknown, who has lied about everything and is totally untraceable in the records, then and now (e.g. the Victoria Home records then).

Evidence or arguments? We have evidence that Hutchinson stayed at the Victoria Home. Although he may have lied, but that is an argument. We have evidence that the Victoria Home kept record of who was there and restricted late night entry. Ben claims they didn’t (he may pull back from that, we will see), but if he continues with that line it is an argument (maybe he climbed out a window or didn’t stay there and the police were too ‘useless’ to check). So Sally there is evidence against Hutchinson being the culprit, that could be refuted by arguments.

As I have stated here before in answer to Ben there are many banal possibilities that can explain Hutchinson’s statement. Publicity seeker, mix up, whatever. I am ambivalent as to the explanation. However there is so much against him being the culprit that I would strongly argue against that.

I think given the extremely crowded conditions with hundreds of thousands of people living in the area, given Kelly’s movements from one side of the East End to the other, it is exceptionally unlikely that Hutchinson could have known her for three years. There is a chance yes, but on the balance of probabilities it is slim. That is why I don’t think it is silly to suggest it. I would suggest that the man on the Clapham omnibus would tend to side with me on that one.

As you often mistake what I say, may I clarify that I do not think it likely that Hutchinson was the man on the Clapham omnibus.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Unless Fisherman comes up with new data from the Met Office (which I doubt)..."

I´m working on it, Lechmere!

"... I think that probably the rain fell in intermittent showers. It was windy, overcast and cold."

That would function as a sort of lower floor, yes. It may also have been raining hard and blowing at gale force at 2 AM - but this we cannot prove at the moment. Whereas we DO of course have corroboration for it raining hard at 3 am, a very crucial moment in the whole scenario, since Hutchinson alledgedly took to the streets at that very moment.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"Unless Hutchinson was a) mentally ill b) an habitual drunk, I think it unlikely that he mistook the day."

Well ,there we are then: people who mix up days, and who have experienced something important within the period this happens, are etiher mentally ill or habitual drunks.

Did I not just read you pointing out an argument of Lechmere´s as silly, Sally (whoa - THAT had a ring to it...!)?

Since none of us can fully assess the mental state and abilities of George Hutchinson back in 1888, it stands to reason that you may be right - maybe he would not mix things up, given what happened. Then again, you may be wrong - maybe it would even be typical of him to do so!
Who, Sally, can tell? Not me, that´s for sure.

That is the individual context, Sally. After that, we must pay heed to the general one, and that tells us that people have mixed days up millions and millions of times, for millions of reasons and under millions of different circumstances. We may even statistically conclude that, given the sheer numbers, part of them will have been intoxicated or mentally weak. Others will have been professors, medieval archers, limbo-dancing Haitians and Ripperologists. It is a common, common thing, and I see nothing controversial in suggesting that it happens to all of us at one time or another.

We all know by now that you are of the meaning that Hutchinson would not have missed out on the days. I suggest that if you are to follow this line, in spite of the shared knowledge that people DO mix days up, then please supply us with a little something that is not just your conviction. There must be heaps of literature and experts out there that could comment on the special exception to the rule of people mixing days up that you suggest, and quite frankly, until I see or hear wiews on this, safely anchored in knowledge and/or research, I would say that your suggestion is a complete non-starter. I´m sorry, but that is the only way I can see this.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman.

I am clearly not of the opinion that people never mix days up unless they are mentally ill or drunkards. Now that really is silly.

Of course you realise my opinion as to whether Hutchinson was likely to have mixed the days up on this particular occasion is entirely contextual.

My reasons for thinking so are clearly set out earlier in this thread.

Best wishes

Sally.

[Sally]

Hi Lechmere.

Sally – please accept my apologies for typing 1889 instead of 1891 – it was late.

No apology required Lechmere, I realised it was a typo, of course.

On issues relating to this case (maybe in respect of all things in life) some people make absolute judgements and statements based on small amounts of evidence, others see things in shades of grey, full of maybes, possiblies, probably nots and so on.

I prefer the latter - it helps to keep an open mind, I find.

So based on what I can see, read, experience or observe...

I think the Lord Mayor’s Show probably didn’t have much impact on Hutchinson’s mind and it wouldn’t have assisted much in fixing any dates in his mind. Fully paid up members of the Lord Mayor’s Show Historical Appreciation Society will not agree with me on this.

I disagree, but you know that by now, I expect, so I won't go on

I think it is highly unlikely that the Lord Mayor’s Show was the occasion of a public holiday and intervened when I saw that being touted around. I may of course be proved wrong. But I prefer it if ‘facts’ are supported by evidence, rather than propositions becoming facts as they are repeated frequently and vociferously.

Well, I don't know. As I have already said, I have made enquiries. We'll see. I have no problem with being wrong, if it should turn out to be the case - but I see no point in arguing over it when we can find out for certain whether the Lord Mayor's Show had public holiday status or not.

I think people do commonly mix dates and days up without being mentally ill or drunk, so there is a reasonable chance Hutchinson did, given he was dismissed by the police and Dew said so. I sometimes mix dates up (eg 1889 for 1891)... maybe that proves your point?

Yes, Yes, I know people do mix up dates. Memory isn't perfect. That isn't what I'm suggesting at all. I'm suggesting that it is unlikely that Hutchinson mistook the night (not impossible, please note) because of the extraordinary circumstances of that night. I think that is a perfectly reasonable argument.

While it wasn’t a very pleasant night, it probably wasn’t a storm. Unless Fisherman comes up with new data from the Met Office (which I doubt) I think that probably the rain fell in intermittent showers. It was windy, overcast and cold.

As far as I can determine from reading this thread, Lechmere, it was a night of heavy showers. A typical Autumn night, in fact.

I think one explanation for Hutchinson’s behaviour is that he had a crush on Kelly. I don’t particularly favour it over other explanations (apart from him being the culprit). For example, the weather wasn’t very nice we know that. But maybe once he saw her, it was as if it was a warm summer’s evening and the wind, rain and cold were as nothing. He saw starlight and moonbeams. Maybe he heard music and wanted to dance. Ditto for the Astrakhan man. Maybe not. Who knows?

How Romantic! I quite like the idea of Hutchinson as the romantic type - although, if he was enamoured of Mary Kelly, surely he would have been even less likely to mistake the night on which he last saw her, his love? What do you think?

I think here is a good chance that the Kelly Hutchinson was Toppy. It is the only credible identification of him and there are aspects that corroborate it in my view (e.g. I think he may well have been paid a few shillings by the police) However it is easier to construct Hutchinson as the culprit from someone who is totally unknown, who has lied about everything and is totally untraceable in the records, then and now (e.g. the Victoria Home records then).

I think this is a conversation for another time.

Evidence or arguments? We have evidence that Hutchinson stayed at the Victoria Home. Although he may have lied, but that is an argument. We have evidence that the Victoria Home kept record of who was there and restricted late night entry. Ben claims they didn’t (he may pull back from that, we will see), but if he continues with that line it is an argument (maybe he climbed out a window or didn’t stay there and the police were too ‘useless’ to check). So Sally there is evidence against Hutchinson being the culprit, that could be refuted by arguments.

Since your argument here concerns Ben and his views, and not me and mine, I don't have anything to add.

As I have stated here before in answer to Ben there are many banal possibilities that can explain Hutchinson’s statement. Publicity seeker, mix up, whatever. I am ambivalent as to the explanation. However there is so much against him being the culprit that I would strongly argue against that.

Um.. are you talking to me, or Ben? Maybe I should go and make another cup of tea?

Joking aside, Lechmere, yes, there are banal explanations that can explain Hutchinson's statement - I have put some of them forward myself. When I first started posting in October, I argued that Hutchinson was an innocent witness. I actually think that was a bit simplistic now. My view is fluid, not fixed in stone.

I think given the extremely crowded conditions with hundreds of thousands of people living in the area, given Kelly’s movements from one side of the East End to the other, it is exceptionally unlikely that Hutchinson could have known her for three years. There is a chance yes, but on the balance of probabilities it is slim. That is why I don’t think it is silly to suggest it. I would suggest that the man on the Clapham omnibus would tend to side with me on that one.

Ok, so do you think Hutchinson made that bit up, then?

As you often mistake what I say, may I clarify that I do not think it likely that Hutchinson was the man on the Clapham omnibus

Thank you Lechmere.

Best wishes

Sally