Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"The fascination with Hutchinson is that however you turn them, all the pieces never quite fit! "

The last time I checked, they did, Sally ....!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

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

No argument from me, Fisherman - we cannot conclude, you are right - at least not definitively. As you must realise, however, therein lies the rub. Hutchinson's actions are sufficiently enigmatic - perhaps not to you, admittedly, since you consider that you have a solution - to enable more than one theory to be given in explanation. The idea that he was manipulative enough to do as I infer in my post to Lechmere is just one amongst many.

Best regards, Fish

Sally

[Fisherman]

Sally:

" Hutchinson's actions are sufficiently enigmatic ... to enable more than one theory to be given in explanation."

I think that we all love enigmas and riddles, Sally. That would to a large extent explain why there are Ripperologists about. But the danger of being very fond of riddles is sometimes that your preference for them will make you see them even in surroundings where they are not necessarily about. And so, I no longer think that Hutchinson´s actions are enigmatic at all. I used to do so (very much so, in fact!), but today I would say that there is a trivial explanation to all of it.
But you know that by now!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

I quite agree that rules are there to be broken, and I was savvy enough to know that the Good Michael was using humour to make a good point!

However, I repeat, if Hutchinson did in fact have money to bribe he would have had enough for a bed in a cheaper doss house which allowed late night entrance, as most did as a matter of course. The evidence is that doss house managers were quite strict in insisting on payment at least and didn’t go as far as saying: “Ok I’ll turn a blind eye, you can kip here for free” (see Chapman, Eddowes and Nichols).

So if he went in late he would have been registered or at least remembered if the police came knocking the morning after a murder.

If Hutchinson ‘blagged’ his way in to the Victoria Home late without a special pass (eg if he had already paid the weekly rate or if he paid on the door) then it would surely be a little memorable. So when the police came round after the Eddowes and Kelly murders any late comers such as he would be brought to their attention. Surely?

He could have stayed out and slept rough. However if he was a regular at Victoria Home (is there any evidence he was?) then if he went missing, his regular bed neighbours (if that is the correct expression) would have cottoned on that every time there was a murder, ‘blimey, good old Hutch weren’t there’!

I don’t incidentally presume to know what Hutchinson did, where he stayed, how frequently he stayed there and so on. He was probably like many young men who were sometimes out of work. However for a whole host of reasons (most of which I have mentioned) I think he is totally implausible as the culprit.

Sally - I doubt if the sixpence remark had any connection to the price of a cabin. That is 2 ˝p in new money by the way. Don’t you remember that old jingle ‘use your old coppers in six penny lots’?
(Clue, this has nothing to do with the police, nor the price of a cabin in the Victoria Home).

[harry]

Hutchinson's description of 'Resident' does,I feel,lend weight to a person who was more than a night at a time dosser.
His coming forward seems to indicate that the police had not by the Monday evening,extended their enquiries to the Victoria home,or if they had,Hutchinson had been excluded.If the latter,he might have expected a record of those missed would be made for a follow up,another reason to come forward and appear a willing witness,and in no way does it show honesty or blamelessness.Rather a desperation in knowing that further delay would cast doubt on any tale he told.

[Sally]

Sally - I doubt if the sixpence remark had any connection to the price of a cabin. That is 2 ˝p in new money by the way. Don’t you remember that old jingle ‘use your old coppers in six penny lots’

Er.. no, Lechmere, sorry. A bit before my time, as I said. Sounds great

Harry makes a good point - indications are that the police had been round to the Victoria Home by the Monday evening, otherwise they would have known that Hutchinson was not there on the preceding Thursday. There are some variables: perhaps the police had been, and were not so thorough as you suppose; or perhaps the Victoria Home did not keep records as scrupulously as you suppose.

The Victoria Home was comparatively well regarded -it is quite possible that it was not top of the list for the police, who had far less salubrious houses to inspect. As you know, registered lodging houses were under the jurisdiction of the police (until 1894) so they would have been familiar with all of them.

Incidentally, I wouldn't read too much into the report in the Telegraph. I am not suggesting that the VH was not amongst the better of the registered lodging houses, but its glowing description in the Telegraph is as much a literary device (remember those?) as anything - designed to demonstrate how bad some of the others were.

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Hutchinson was not there on the preceding Thursday"

Wednesday, Sally, Wednesday! But I agree with Harry that the police did not gain knowledge about Hutchinson´s comings and goings at the Home until - at the earliest - late in the evening of the 12:th.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Actually although we know the police checked the lodging houses and although we know the Victoria Home was stricter than virtually all others (not just from the Telegraph's purple prose) and we know Hutchinson used to frequent the Victoria Home, that is pretty much all we know. What the police asked, when they asked it and what days Hutchinson was there between the Wednesday night and Monday is up on the air I think.

[Sally]

although we know the Victoria Home was stricter than virtually all others

No we don't. That is demonstrably incorrect Lechmere. Sorry.

[Lechmere]

OK I'll be more precise. We know that some reports characterised the Victoria Home as being stricter in it's rules than virtually any other lodging house, and we know that it's rules were indeed stricter than most other lodging houses, although we do not know for sure that they were enforced.
Is that satisfactory?

[Fisherman]

Hi Sally, Lechmere!

Montagu Stephen Williams described the Victoria Home in his “Later leaves” from 1891. In it, he had nothing good to say about the standards and clientele of the ordinary East End lodging-house, but he added that there was "one or two exceptions" to the rule. And the Victoria Home was one of those exceptions. He stated that he believed that the Victoria Home would be free from men of bad character, since the place would be too clean to suit them, and he added that it was even insisted upon that the lodgers kept their underclothing clean!
So there is more to lean against than the Daily Telegraph when we assess the Victoria Home. It seems to have been something quite out of the ordinary as lodging-houses go, and with strict rules to accompany it.

It would appear that Lechmeres suggestion of a boarding house stricter than virtually all others has a thing or two going for it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

...and before anybody asks, here´s a text on who Williams was. You may note that he commented on the Ripper case, as it were.


Montagu Stephen Williams (1835-1892), barrister, magistrate and author.
Williams was born at his uncle's house at Freshford in Somerset. His grandfather had been a barrister on the western circuit, and his father a barrister on the Oxford circuit. He was educated at Eton but failed to win a scholarship at Cambridge, briefly attending Ipswich grammar school instead. He served in the Crimean War, but when his regiment, the 41st Foot, was posted ordered to the West Indies, he resigned. For a time he tried to make a career on the stage, and it was during this period that he married Louisa Mary Keeley in 1858, daughter of the celebrated actor Robert Keeley.
It was partly on his wife's advice, partly on that of Montagu Chambers QC, his godfather, that he entered the Middle Temple in June 1859. He was called to the bar on 30 April 1862, and joined the Old Bailey sessions and the home circuit. He took naturally to criminal work and swiftly gained a large practice, especially as a defender of prisoners (indeed it was said that he defended more criminals than any other counsel). For fifteen years he was engaged in most of the sensational criminal cases in London. In 1884 he developed a throat disorder, which in 1886 required an operation on the larynx. Its success was complete, although his voice was almost destroyed and he retired shortly afterwards. He was then appointed a metropolitan stipendiary magistrate in December 1886, and sat successively at Greenwich, Wandsworth, and Worship Street. He was made a queen's counsel in 1888. He was active in charity, and was apparently known among the poor as 'the poor man's magistrate'.
Montagu Williams was the author, among other works, of Round London (1890) and Down East and Up West (1894), both of which described the condition of the metropolitan poor. He had earlier published Leaves from a Life (1891), and a sequel Later Leaves (also 1891) in which he enigmatically mentioned a visitor who had once shared with him "an undoubted clue to the mystery", the mystery being the Jack the Ripper case. We now know that Williams's informant was one Edward Larkins, a clerk, who believed Antoni Pricha to have been the killer.
Montagu Williams died on 23 December 1892 and was buried in Brompton cemetery.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Yes indeed, I have used quotations from that very book by the good Mr Williams.

[The Good Michael]

But what do we know about the Victoria Home in 1888 and before? It's possible that rules became reinforced and added to as a result of problems connecting lodgers at the Home to nefarious activities revolving around Dorset Street. Just a thought.

Mike

[Fisherman]

It´s a good thing we´ve got you, Mike! You were never gonna let it slip, were you? And you may be on to something - what happened in ´88 would have been enough for a good many lodger to crap his pants. That may have been what lay behind the rule about the underwear.

Thanks for drawing our attention to this!

The best,
Fisherman