Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I think on the whole you are adopting a measured, sensible approach here."

Thanks for that!

"I personally am unsure as to whether a single night of missed sleep would be sufficient in general."

Me too - much more needs to be found out. But it seemingly would not have enhanced Hutchinson´s ability to keep track of the days.

"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."

Take a look at post 440, by Harry. He found a website where this very service is documented!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Hi Fisherman

Take a look at post 440, by Harry. He found a website where this very service is documented!

Yes, I saw that, and thought I'd read that somewhere before - Later Leaves, 1891, according to the Wiki article on the Victoria Home.

Here is the service you refer to:

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

Fair enough. I would have thought there was a proviso here that the lodgers actually had to be lodging there to do that though. I don't take it to mean that lodgers could leave their posessions there for an indefinite length of time. Hutchinson, by his account, had gone down to Romford on the Thursday (Wednesday if you are correct, it makes no difference to this point) and came back the same day without the money to stay at the Victoria Home, and again according to his testimony, could not gain entry. This means that he did not have a ticket, and had not, therefore, arranged to stay there that night - since another rule of the Victoria Home was:

No person will be admitted after one o'clock a.m. without a special pass

(my emphasis)

If he had arranged to stay there that night he would have had a ticket and he would have gained entry to the Victoria Home, money or no. Since Hutchinson had not arranged to stay there that night, why would he - even if he could (doubtful) have left his posessions there?

If, as he said, he returned to the Victoria Home when it opened, I think he must have acquired some money between his early hours loiter and the Victoria Home opening its doors. Perhaps he slept the day. It would have been preferable to sleeping on a park bench somewhere; something many were forced to do.

Speaking of the Victoria Home, it's interesting that a press report in the Telegraph extolling the virtues of the Victoria Home was published on 22nd September that year, only weeks before Kelly was murdered a stone's throw away. Anyone else find that interesting?

Best Regards

Sally

[harry]

Perhaps Hutchinson,being a resident,paid on a weekly basis,usually a week in advance,with the week starting on a Monday.If a long time resident,I doubt him being refused entry for being late just one night,especially if he could justify a trip to Romford.Rules there might have been,but the Victoria home was far from being a prison,and some leniency could be expected.I doubt he was tired on the Monday evening when he made his statement. If anything,I would be of opinion that to impress Aberline he would have had to be quite sharp and clear in his manner and appearance.Not a state to forget anything,certainly not a whole day's activity no matter the activity being only a couple of days previous.

[Lechmere]

Yes he could have paid for a weekly berth in advance - but as he got back after 1am and didn't have a 'special pass' couldn't get in until the morning. Maybe he stayed too long in Romford. He must have set off from Romford at about 9.30pm. Maybe he went boozing and 'did' all his money as it would have got dark at about 6.30pm at a guess. This would apply if he was a day early.
I am gratified that Sally at least understands that the Victoria Home rules prevented entry after 1 am unless the lodger has a special pass - not a normal bed ticket, a special pass. They deliberately tried to exclude drinkers and night prowlers and wanted sober quiet working people. That is why they did have strict rules, and the evidence from contemporary reports suggests they were enforced... If you want to make Hutchinson your culprit these pesky rules have to be wished away.

[Lechmere]

This is where the Victoria Home used to be. It is near Middlesex Street.

[Lechmere]

I was looking for something else and came across this reference (Eddowes inquest) to registrations kept at lodging houses. This relates to Cooney’s Lodging House. Wilkinson was the manager. Crawford was the City of London Police solicitor. They kept daily registers but clearly did under so strict a regime as the Victoria Home.

Frederick William Wilkinson, who had been to Flower and Dean-street to fetch the lodging-house book, was called.
Mr. Crawford - Can you tell me by that book if Kelly slept at the lodging-house on Saturday night? - Yes. He occupied No. 52 bed on Friday and Saturday nights.
Now can you tell me if anyone came in between one and two o'clock on Sunday morning? - My book does not show the time.
Can you tell me whether there any strangers in the house that night? - Yes, there were six men. But I cannot say whether they entered the lodging-house between one and two o'clock that morning.
Do you remember any stranger going out shortly after midnight? - I cannot say. We are so busy just about that time.

[The Good Michael]

Doorman: Sorry. You know the rules. No entry after 1 am without a special pass.

Hutchinson Here's a shilling.

Doorman: That's your special pass. Go on in Hutch... oh and get rid of that knife. This is a hostel, not an abbatoir

[Hunter]

Just to add to Lechmere's example of Cooney's. The police made lodging houses a priority after the Chapman murder. These were some of the first places they went to during an investigation because - unlike private residences - they had unlimited access to such establishments under law. They were questioning the lodgers at Cooney's an hour and a half after Eddowes was killed .

[Lechmere]

"Here's a shilling."
A shilling? That's 12d. The price of 3 nights for a single bed at an average doss house. If he had any money the price of a bribe would get him a bed elsewhere. But any late night entry would attract attention once the murder became known and would likley be reported or uncovered by a subsequent police search of the lodging houses.
Whoever did it probably slept rough or had their own place.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I would have thought there was a proviso here that the lodgers actually had to be lodging there to do that though. I don't take it to mean that lodgers could leave their posessions there for an indefinite length of time."

I think that a very reasonable suggestion would be that the people who commonly lodged at the home were also well known to the staff. And if this was the case, I see very little problem in accepting that the very same staff may have said "Oh, awright, Georgie boy, we´ll keep that one for you, mate!", even if the services were as resticted as you propose they may have been. And we don´t know that, to begin with. Who knows, maybe they would not even throw him out for asking to warm himself for half an hour or so? People are sometimes accomodating, actually!

If you find this suggestion unplausible for any reason, the I must refrain to such things like Stride cunningly leaving her piece of verlvet cloth with a fellow lodger for safe keeping. That, at least, would be an outside possibility, would it not?

Excuse me for asking, Sally - and I am not at all opposed to realizing that there would have been rules at the Victoria Home - but is this really such a controversial suggestion...? Have you never stayed at a hotel where you were supposed to leave at midday, only to find out that the staff was quite happy to let you leave your things there for the odd hour or two, waiting for the airport transfer? I know I have done so dozens of times.And I have never been turned down when asking for this service.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Rules there might have been,but the Victoria home was far from being a prison,and some leniency could be expected."

Thanks a bunch for that one, Harry - that is exactly what I would have expected too. In fact, I think such an attitude would be very helpful to secure future clients as well.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Shillings

Lechmere, I think the quip about the shilling was a joke, you know? I don't think anyone seriously thinks Hutchinson offered a bribe - do you??

But yes, you are quite right, the 'average' price for a 'bed' was 4d. And yes, 3 x 4 does indeed equal 12, which as any fool knows, used to count as a shilling. A bit before my time - but perhaps you remember them? I can find no fault with your numerical skills, to be fair.

A cabin in the VH was no less than a sixpence however - by astonishing coincidence the very sum that Hutchinson said he told Kelly he didn't have! Demonstrating, therefore, that he did not have the price of his bed, and so could not return there, and was so quite justified in being out in Dorset Street at that time in the morning; whilst indicating quite clearly at the same time that he could generally afford such luxury and was therefore a good, upright member of the working class, quite rightly staying at the marvellous Victoria Home!

Your turn.

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"A shilling? That's 12d. The price of 3 nights for a single bed at an average doss house. If he had any money the price of a bribe would get him a bed elsewhere."

Indeed, Lechmere - but I do not think that was the point Mike was making here. My hunch is that he would be pointing to the underlying danger in blindly accepting that rules always applied, and I think that is a very fair point.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"I would have thought there was a proviso here that the lodgers actually had to be lodging there to do that though. I don't take it to mean that lodgers could leave their posessions there for an indefinite length of time."

I think that a very reasonable suggestion would be that the people who commonly lodged at the home were also well known to the staff. And if this was the case, I see very little problem in accepting that the very same staff may have said "Oh, awright, Georgie boy, we´ll keep that one for you, mate!", even if the services were as resticted as you propose they may have been. And we don´t know that, to begin with. Who knows, maybe they would not even throw him out for asking to warm himself for half an hour or so? People are sometimes accomodating, actually!

If you find this suggestion unplausible for any reason, the I must refrain to such things like Stride cunningly leaving her piece of verlvet cloth with a fellow lodger for safe keeping. That, at least, would be an outside possibility, would it not?

Excuse me for asking, Sally - and I am not at all opposed to realizing that there would have been rules at the Victoria Home - but is this really such a controversial suggestion...? Have you never stayed at a hotel where you were supposed to leave at midday, only to find out that the staff was quite happy to let you leave your things there for the odd hour or two, waiting for the airport transfer? I know I have done so dozens of times.And I have never been turned down when asking for this service.

The best,
Fisherman

Fair enough Fisherman, I have revised my view on that particular point since yesterday as it happens. However, I still wonder why, as Hutchinson was a regular at the VH, he could not have entered the premises - at least the kitchen? Regular lodgers were a prize to be kept because they represented regular money and a known quantity. The fascination with Hutchinson is that however you turn them, all the pieces never quite fit!

Best wishes

Sally.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Your turn."

No. MY turn!

The inference of what you are saying, Sally, would be that Huchinson´s claim that he was out of money when meeting Kelly was false, since he could afford to stay at the Victoria Home. And much as that has a thing or two going for it, it also applies that people who have payed the rent are sometimes broke. They can be intermittently broke, cashing in on something along the way that allows them to stay on, something that may have applied to Hutchinson, and they can be broke for good, meaning that they are about to be turned out for good - which of course Hutchinson may also have been. Apart from that, there are outside possibilities like an understanding landlord (like, for example, McCarthy). And - what do I know - maybe Hutch had been in the position to pay for a more extended stay than a week as he checked in.
The same thing applies here as in the rest of the Hutchinson riddle - when we do not know (where he was, what he did, etc), we cannot conclude.

The best,
Fisherman