Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Sally]

Sally, I look forward to reading your take on this Hutchinson Utoppya. I think I’m going to need something a little stronger than tea here!

Between you and me, Ben, I ditched the tea some time ago...

[Ben]

Some additional observations:

The idea that Hutchinson’s sole purpose in visiting the Victoria Home was to retrieve some belongings is not to be considered plausible.

It would mean he walked all the way back from Romford in the certainty that he had no money or pass to doss down for the remainder of the night in the Whitechapel/Spitalfields district, thence to “walk about all night” purely in anticipation of retrieving some personal items from the Victoria Home (belongings that he bizarrely neglected to bring with him on his mammoth Romford jaunt), and then what? Straight out again to do yet more walking, this time to get him to some far-flung location where he managed to avoid any reference to the recent murder? When was he supposed to have slept?

Then there’s the suggestion that the Hutchinson-as-ripper theory is too “Hollywood”. Anything less Hollywood than a local non-descript who lied to the police being the culprit is difficult to envisage, and when we consider Hollywood’s actual treatment of the killer’s identity, we’re left with the Royal Conspiracy and the Queen’s physician Sir William Withy Gull, and you can’t get more antithetical to Hutchinson than that.

Finally, here’s Jack London’s experience of a lodging house - probably the Victoria Home - as related in People of the Abyss:

“The little private doss-houses, as a rule, are unmitigated horrors. I have slept in them, and I know; but let me pass them by and confine myself to the bigger and better ones. Not far from Middlesex Street, Whitechapel, I entered such a house, a place inhabited almost entirely by working-men. The entrance was by way of a flight of steps descending from the sidewalk to what was properly the cellar of the building. Here were two large and gloomily lighted rooms, in which men cooked and ate. I had intended to do some cooking myself, but the smell of the place stole away my appetite, or, rather, wrested it from me; so I contented myself with watching other men cook and eat…

From the kitchen came the sounds of more genial life, and I ventured in to the range where the men were cooking. But the smell I had noticed on entering was stronger here, and a rising nausea drove me into the street for fresh air.

On my return I paid fivepence for a `cabin,' took my receipt for the same in the form of a huge brass check, and went upstairs…

...at ten o'clock the lights were put out, and nothing remained but bed. This was gained by descending again to the cellar, by surrendering the brass check to a burly doorkeeper, and by climbing a long flight of stairs into the upper regions.”

Interestingly, London appears not have been “vetted” or registered in accordance with the guidelines referred to in the Sunday Magazine. It also confirms my observation concerning the nature of the tickets, passes, chits etc - that they were both metallic and generic!

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Addendum to the above, it's only fair to point out that another contender for London's lodgings is the Middlesex Street Shelter, described by H. Rider Haggard as a Salvation Army-run lodging house. It was apparently very similar to the Victoria Home in all other respects, and could accommodate a similar number of lodgers.

The obvious objection, of course, is that London described the establishment as being situated "not far" from Middlesex Street, as opposed to actually on it.

[Sally]

lechmere..

Lechmere

Thank you for your response. What a lovely story! Now that I have had enough time to drink tea, I have written my own and posted it under 'Creative Writing and Expression'. I hope to see you over there.

Best wishes

Sally.

P.S. - Since we are now alarmingly off-topic, Lechmere, I suggest we all go back to pondering the mysteries of Hutchinson's date-confusion. Unless you think the thread is now truly dead?

[Fisherman]

Since, Ben, you bring up a point we have not discussed before, I will respond:

"The idea that Hutchinson’s sole purpose in visiting the Victoria Home was to retrieve some belongings is not to be considered plausible."

We cannot judge the plausibility of it as such, Ben. It can be argued that he would have needed to sleep, yes. But why would we deduct that he could not possibly sleep anywhere else than in the Victoria home? If he was offered a job for example, then he may also have been offered a place to sleep to go with it. And if that place was free of charge, my bet is on him taking up on the offer. Every night he spent in the Victoria Home cost him money, right? So I would say that any offer to save that money would present us with anything but an implausible suggestion.

It really is a strange thing to say that anything but him checking into the Victoria Home for the following night is "not to be considered plausible". How on earth could we possibly know that? Is it a case of "he must have because he must have"?

Besides, come to think of it - if he did not have any money (and he did say that he had not), with what would he pay his stay? Maybe he simply was obliged to try and raise money first, and in doing so, he may have found himself some other place to bunk.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I'm pleased to see that you're speaking to me again.

It can be argued that he would have needed to sleep, yes. But why would we deduct that he could not possibly sleep anywhere else than in the Victoria home? If he was offered a job for example, then he may also have been offered a place to sleep to go with it.

But where, Fish, and when?

Somewhere far away from Spitalfields after walking all the way there, on top of walking all the way back from Romford, and then walking about all night? If this is what you're suggesting, then I most assuredly can "judge the plausibility" of such a suggestion; slim to non-existent, in my view. Even if we accept that he found himself a free bed somewhere (which is one of those fill-in-the-blanks for which we've no evidence), it beggars belief that he didn't go directly there from Romford, rather than engaging in pointless and utterly exhausting marathon treks all the way to Spitalfields, then round and round the district, then back out of the area again, all night, relentlessly walking.

Besides, come to think of it - if he did not have any money (and he did say that he had not), with what would he pay his stay?

Exactly. The whole thing's absurd. I reckon he lied about it.

How could he have raised the sort of money in the small hours of the morning that would have secured him a bed that night?

Best regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Ben - are you certain Jack London didn't describe his lodgings as being near the Britannia?
I was looking forward to picking you up on your identification of his lodgings with the Victoria Home, where apparently few people cooked their own food, and it would surely not be described as near Middlesex Street, if London was searching for a suitable way of locating it.
More on the special pass which you feel would allow Hutchinson to come and go in the small wee hours from the Victoria Home later...

[Ben]

I was looking forward to picking you up on your identification of his lodgings with the Victoria Home, where apparently few people cooked their own food, and it would surely not be described as near Middlesex Street

The location of the Victoria Home, on the south-western corner of Wentworth and Commercial Street, most assuredly meets the "not far from Middlesex Street" criterion, Lechmere, so I really wouldn't advise wasting any time "picking me up" on that one.

More on the special pass which you feel would allow Hutchinson to come and go in the small wee hours from the Victoria Home

Can't wait, but not on this thread, please!

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But where, Fish, and when?"

That´s the whole point, Ben - we cannot tell. And when we cannot tell, we cannot state that it is not to be considered plausible. Certainly, there are multiple opportunities open to us!
He could have found himself a job, he could have been offered to stay with a friend (just as he may have been looking to do in Kelly´s company on the night before) or he could have decided to sleep rough somewhere on account of his lack of money - or anything else. And just as he may have returned to the Victoria Home at opening hours to pick up some belongings of his, he may also have done so in order to warm up, before going out on the streets in search of a way to make money.
Reasonably, of course, he would perhaps have preferred to sleep - but was he really in a position that allowed him to sleep away a whole day of opportunities? And skipping a night´s sleep is not really that big an issue when you are young. I know I did at times, albeit for other reasons than the one Hutchinson may have had.

At any rate, I totally fail to see why it would be in any way implausible that something like this happened. The same rules would have applied to Hutchinson as to anybody else. I would even say that, given his lack of money, I would think it much more implausible to imagine him bedding down for the day!

I think - and I have stated so before - that the criticism that has surfaced on the topic of Hutchinson missing out by one day, centres very much around the "Maybe it did not rain"-issue, as well as the "He would never have mixed the days up"-suggestion. And to go with these items, what has been served is a whole lot of "vastly, vastly incredibles" and "common sense and bleeding obvious" assertions. Lechmere made the remark that raising one´s voice does not better an argument, and I agree very much. I think that it will take a lot more, which is why I suggested to Sally that she bolstered her assumptions with something tangible.
I would not mind you doing the same thing, Ben. Your own convictions do not make up any more than a wiew, and it would be very useful if you bolstered that wiew with empirical research, statistics, something - anything!

And please try and take in BOTH sides, Ben. For example, you now write:
"Even if we accept that he found himself a free bed somewhere (which is one of those fill-in-the-blanks for which we've no evidence)", implicating that my reasoning has no evidence to go with it, whereas yours has. But where is the evidence that he DID stay at the Victoria Home on the night after the Astrakhan meeting? Is it not true that this is something that i totally lacking too? The whole day is a blank, Ben! Let´s both accept that.

"How could he have raised the sort of money in the small hours of the morning that would have secured him a bed that night?"

Working. Craving back money he had lent. Gambling. Lending.

You see, Ben, once we really make an effort to see the whole picture, opportunities emerge that open up the picture. And it´s a good thing I take care of that part, since I fail to see you doing it for me! And as long as you do not call totally plausible things totally implausible, I am quite happy to discuss with you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“He could have found himself a job, he could have been offered to stay with a friend (just as he may have been looking to do in Kelly´s company on the night before)”

But when are you envisaging this happening?

If you mean the night of the 9th November, again, it would beg the question - why walk 13 miles in the small hours to a district you have no intention of sleeping in? It would mean he endured all that walking to get to the district, all that walking around the district, then all that walking away from the district, for the sole purpose of retrieving some belongings which he inexplicably neglected to take with him on his journey to Romford. This would have taken its utterly exhausting toll, physically, emotionally, and mentally, and is a physiological improbability to say the very least.

The more you raise the issue that Hutchinson was in need of money, the less likely is seems that he would endure such extremes of discomfort, hours of unnecessary sleep deprivation, and total expenditure of energy that would otherwise have been used for whatever work he might have found. On the contrary, it is likely that Hutchinson was more attuned than many to the necessity for energy preservation. He wouldn’t have needed to “sleep away a whole day” if he didn’t make the baffling pointless mission to retrieve belongings in the first place.

I use such expressions as “totally implausible” as an appeal to reason, and not because I wish to exclude possibilities or demonstrate that I have the loudest voice. I’ve said before that I cannot extort belief out of people, just I cannot provide “empirical research” to prove the implausibility of implausible suggestions. If you wish to continue regarding the above as a viable suggestion, be my guest. I strongly disagree, and continue to consider it “totally implausible”. I’m sorry if this means that you will not, hereafter, be "happy to discuss" it with me, but I’m not going to lie to you.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

That is a long post to cover what asks for a short answer, Ben. I´ll try again:

If we cannot tell where George Hutchinson was on the day and evening after he had spotted Astrakhan man - and we emphatically cannot do that! - then how can it be in any way implausible that he was not at the Victoria home? How does that work?

You are perfectly welcome to suggest that the Victoria Home would be a plausible address for him to be at during that time, but frankly, I am a lot more interested in having it explained to me how that in it´s turn makes other suggestions "totally implausible".

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I didn’t say it was “implausible that he was not at the Victoria Home”, Fish. I said it only becomes implausible if we accept that he did all those hours of walking from Romford and round the district only to pop straight in and out of the Victoria Home. If he wasn’t in Romford and didn’t “walk about all night”, it’s far easier to accept that he may not have been there during the day.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I didn’t say it was “implausible that he was not at the Victoria Home”, Fish. I said it only becomes implausible if we accept that he did all those hours of walking from Romford and round the district only to pop straight in and out of the Victoria Home. If he wasn’t in Romford and didn’t “walk about all night”, it’s far easier to accept that he may not have been there during the day."

I know full well what you said, Ben. It is easy to backtrack and quote it:

"The idea that Hutchinson’s sole purpose in visiting the Victoria Home was to retrieve some belongings is not to be considered plausible."

and

"it would beg the question - why walk 13 miles in the small hours to a district you have no intention of sleeping in? It would mean he endured all that walking to get to the district, all that walking around the district, then all that walking away from the district, for the sole purpose of retrieving some belongings which he inexplicably neglected to take with him on his journey to Romford."

and

"If you wish to continue regarding the above as a viable suggestion, be my guest. I strongly disagree, and continue to consider it “totally implausible”."

and, finally

"I use such expressions as “totally implausible” as an appeal to reason, and not because I wish to exclude possibilities".

Delving into all of this, I identify a number of very strange statements.To begin with, and as I have said before, since we have no idea what ruled Hutchinsons agenda on the day after the Astrakhan sighting, we are not at liberty to state that it is totally implausible that Hutchinson only returned to the Victoria home to retrieve belongngs of his. Why on earth would it not be? It all hinges on what he set out to do that day - and, once again, we do not know what that was. Thus we certainly cannot take the liberty to rule out anything - least of all a suggestion that he employed a service we know was to be had at the Victoria Home.
If you wish, you may argue that you do not think it very plausible - but to categorically rule it out does not function! And a categorical ruling out is what you suggest, is it not? "Totally implausible" amounts to that. Totality amounts to a hundred per cent, as you surely must appreciate! How you can even come up with such a suggestion is quite beyond me.
Use strong wordings if yo wish, Ben, by all means - but the second you close the possibility that your opponents wiew may have something going for it, you also dilute the power of your own argument. Everybody KNOWS that George Hutchinson MAY have stopped by to pick up belongings of his at the Victoria Home. There is nothing at all that could possibly allow us to categorically deny it; nothing! And there is every reason to believe that he was not in a position to sleep the day away, when there would be opportunities to make money if he kept awake. That makes your assertion very wobbly!

I know that you feel strongly about the Hutchinson case. But I think that you must agree with me that such a thing does not allow us to make categorical statements that we cannot prove. One example would be that you earlier on this thread wrote "Of course it doesn´t reflect the sentiments of the police at the time", in regard to Dew´s statement that Hutchinson did get the wrong day. That quote - among others of the same kind - was what made me drop the conversation we were having.
And why? Because that statement is another way of saying that it has been established that the police at the time was NOT of the meaning that Hutchinson had gotten the day wrong. There can be no other interpretation of it. And we both know that it has never been established what lay behind the decision of the police!

In such a situation, I do not think that we are at liberty to try and make up certainties of hunches or convictions. It is simply not fair. And I for one cannot conduct a discussion when completely legitimate suggestions of mine are being painted out as certifiedly untrue. It turns me into a liar, sort of: here I am suggesting that Hutchinson could have gone to the Victoria Home to pick up some of his belongings, and then setting out to do some job, or at least try to find such a job. But no, that MUST be misleading the posters, since you KNOW that it is totally - not slightly, not very, but totally! - implausible. Such a thing could never happen!
And when I say that Walter Dew was a policeman involved in the investigation of the Ripper murders, and as such, he would perhaps ground his assertion that Hutchinson was wrong on the days on the sentiments of the force in which he was working, a VERY reasonable suggestion to my mind, you firmly state that this COULD NOT be the case! Of course he was not, you say - but as far as I can recall, it has never been established what the police grounded their decision on. So how is it that you can mystically know that I am wrong? How?
I wish I had that gift!

I would very much prefer to work with proper descriptions of the bits and pieces we are talking about here. And I would strongly urge that the second we ponder to use expression like "vastly, vastly incredible" about the suggestion that Hutchinson could have mistaken the day, we employ the advice and knowledge of experts on the area. There is memory research to look at, and if that discipline tells us that people in Hutchinson´s situation would decidedly not get the day wrong, then Hooray! I say, for that would dispell the whole idea. And that is how it should work - but until we do have it on record, we owe it to ourselves and our fellow posters not to start cheering until we are on very, very safe ground.

Of that, I am a hundred per cent certain!

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I am at the moment trying to gain further knowledge about what mechanisms may lie behind the propensity to mix up days. I will try and contact expertise, but I have already found two things that are often coupled with the phenomenon: Depression and loss of sleep. Interestingly, these two factors are intertwined themselves; loss of sleep is often an underlying reason to why we get depressed.

As for Hutchinson, we may of course not establish that he was depressed - but then again, there is certainly nothing telling us he was NOT either. What we DO know, of course, is that a loss of sleep was very much involved in the days we are interested in - Hutchinson lost out on a whole night´s sleep after having seen Astrakhan man. I find that interesting.

On the whole, we are going to have to reckon with a good deal of things, trying to establish what the possibility was that he got the day wrong. One such thing is spelling troubles - people who have malfunctioning spelling properties normally suffer from a defect sequential memory. That is why they have problems getting the letters in sequence. And people who have trouble getting things in sequence are more likely to loose out on the day than others, apparently.

All in all, I think that much as a discussion should take it´s starting point in working from the proposition that the person we are examining - in this case George Hutchinson - worked normally in this context. But there are no given answers!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fisherman

Hi Fisherman

I think on the whole you are adopting a measured, sensible approach here. I look forward to seeing any empirical evidence that you may obtain in support of your theory that Hutchinson missed a day.

I find it quite plausible that a person suffering from lack of sleep can confuse a day - I have myself known plenty of sleep deprivation in the past, and yes, it is disorientating - sometimes extremely so. I personally am unsure as to whether a single night of missed sleep would be sufficient in general. I accept that we are dealing with the unknown of Hutchinson's specific mind and can never know for sure - either way. We have already talked about the extraordinary events that occurred on that night/day - so there's no need for me to repeat myself.

As to the Victoria Home - I'm not sure whether Hutchinson would have been able to leave any posessions there whilst he took a day trip to Romford. This was a lodging house, not a guest house or hotel. However much better the Victoria Home might have been compared to a small, unlicenced lodging house, it was still far from ideal. One thing to consider is that Hutchinson, now no longer a groom if you believe his story; worked. Certainly he did work, and regularly, because if he had not, he would not have been a regular lodger at the Victoria Home. but a rough sleeper.

Best regards

Sally