Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I can demonstrate how the Victoria Home differed, and did not differ from other lodging houses. I am confident that I have enough evidence. However, since this requires posting of dense, albeit interesting material; I still feel that this thread is not the place for it."

If you have that information, then I would very much like for you to open up a thread and post it. It would be very valuable to all of us, and if - as you say - you have the evidence that proves that your take on things is correct, I see no reason NOT to post it. Don´t be too surprised if somebody challenges that opinion, though ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Fisherman:

Ok, I'll have think about the best way to do it. Not today though - we all have other demands on our time, sadly! But soon.

I am always happy for others to challenge my opinion, Fisherman - that's how it works. There's no room for ego in research. I wasn't really talking about starting a thread for my opinions though, I was talking about empirical evidence, hard facts, statistics, that sort of thing - which I hope will put the standards at the Victoria Home in context - and thus into perspective.

It all helps to add to the picture, which is what we all want, surely?

Best regards

Sally

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"I wasn't really talking about starting a thread for my opinions though, I was talking about empirical evidence, hard facts, statistics, that sort of thing - which I hope will put the standards at the Victoria Home in context - and thus into perspective."

Nobody would be happier than me if we could go beyond opinion and reach hard facts, Sally. Let´s see!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"There's no room for ego in research".

You´d be amazed to learn, then, that there are a good deal of threads out here that seem to speak of a radically different approach, and that actually make a mockery of research as well as researchers. But let´s not go there ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"There's no room for ego in research".

You´d be amazed to learn, then, that there are a good deal of threads out here that seem to speak of a radically different approach, and that actually make a mockery of research as well as researchers. But let´s not go there ...

The best,
Fisherman

Well, perhaps. I think all discussion can bear fruit, personally. The road towards understanding, in any research, is going to be paved with conflict - that's in the nature of things, I think. The whole point in advancing a theory, is in order for that theory to be tested and examined - as you must know, since this is a thread to discuss your theory!

Anyway, lunchbreak over....

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"The whole point in advancing a theory, is in order for that theory to be tested and examined "

In a fair and constructive manner, yes - then things are working the way they are supposed to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

“Can we please refrain from all these efforts aimed at closing doors that MUST be left open?”

I cannot and have not “closed the door” on really implausible suggestions to the extent that they can be declared impossible, but I can caution very strongly against warping these “outside possibilities” into your preferred version of events, which is what has been happening quite a lot in your case recently.

“And if he spent very little effort on his way down, he may have taken the return trip quite easily”

It was still 14 miles in the small hours of the morning, which you then suggest was followed by more walking about for the remainder of the “night”, followed by even more walking out of London to get to some weird location where he didn’t hear anything about the murders. Now I’m not closing any doors with certainty, but I reject this explanation as very implausible. The trouble with using very implausible suggestions to bolster the different-day hypothesis is that it only makes the lying explanation appear simpler, more palatable, and just more likely.

I referred to the weather conditions as “irrelevant” only insofar as they don’t make much of a difference to the suggestion that Hutchinson went all that way and endured all that walking just to retrieve some belongings and head straight out again. It’s still deeply unlikely, even if we were talking about balmy summer nights as opposed to the November cold in 1888.

“But what were the options, if the weather was too cold to keep still?”

How about not walking fourteen miles in the small hours to a place you had no intention of sleeping in? This would tend to leap out as the most sensible “option”. Then again, an indoor stairwell of the type where Martha Tabram was found would at least provide some respite from the elements.

“If, as you say, you did go through this material, and decided that there was nothing at all to it, and that Dew´s suggestion was ridiculous from the outset - why is it that other posters thought that it all fit together suddenly when THEY heard the suggestion?”

Because anything will do as long as it avoids at all costs any consideration that Hutchinson could have been responsible for the murders, and any alternative explanation whatever its worth can be used as fortification for those battle lines drawn against the common enemy (listen to Imperial Death March here). Just kidding. Well, come to think of it..! Seriously, though, I was a bit surprised that so few people appeared to be familiar with Dew’s thoughts regarding Hutchinson, although it’s clear that the people who were familiar with it (over the decades since his memoirs were first published) did not see fit to revive it as the most likely explanation. This isn’t to say they considered it “ridiculous”, just as I don’t. If I’m not the best choice to answer this question, why ask me?

“Maria Hartwig is a top authority on those matters over here.”

Oh, good.

Because Ripperology really was a barren, unenlightened desert until the introduction of Swedish experts.

“I would like you to have your say before I speak to the expert I have contacted. Would you like me to go about things in a certain way when speaking to him?”

Yes, please. Ensure that you keep it as general as possible, in order to generate interesting feedback of a general nature on the subject of memory loss and the propensity of people to lie. Don’t overburden him with historical detail or assume ripper-related knowledge on his part. He’s not an expert in history or the Whitechapel murders, and will not necessarily be au fait with the significance of the Lord Mayor’s Show, for example, or the distance between Romford and Spitalfields etc. It would be preferable, therefore, if you avoided making things too Hutch-specific.

Just to clarify, the expert you intend to contact is somebody different from Maria Hartwig, whose “line of work is finding out the mechanisms behind lying witnesses”?

I’d appreciate it if you didn’t use your reply to Sally’s suggestion to keep the thread on topic as an opportunity to vent your “annoyance” with me. I have never stated it as “established fact” that Hutchinson came forward as soon as he learned that he had been seen by Sarah Lewis. I merely regard this as the more probable explanation, based as it is on the rejection of random coincidence as an acceptable alternative.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sally]

How about not walking fourteen miles in the small hours to a place you had no intention of sleeping in? This would tend to leap out as the most sensible “option”. Then again, an indoor stairwell of the type where Martha Tabram was found would at least provide some respite from the elements.

Yes, how about that? I really don't know, unless there was a really pressing need for him to return to Whitechapel; why Hutchinson chose to walk back through the night in cold, wet weather? He could have stayed where he was, if he was indeed in Romford. There were plenty of lodging houses there, which would have been cheaper than was generally the case in London. Like the King's Arms in the Market Place - and there were several others. The King's Arms:

The Romford "house of call" most frequented by the class of whom I treat, is the King's Arms (a public-house.) There is a back-kitchen for the use of travellers, who pay something extra if they choose to resort, and are decent enough to be admitted, into the tap-room…In this house they make up forty beds; some of them with curtains

Mayhew again, Vol.1.

On the other hand, if he truly had no money at all, shelter in Romford would have been easy enough to find. It makes no sense. The premise that he didn't know how long it was going to take is untenable, really (I can hear the voices of dissent already).

I'm quite reasonable, I'm willing to consider all possibilities - but this just doesn't make sense. Something is wrong with this picture, it really is.

[Fisherman]

Ben:
"I cannot and have not “closed the door” on really implausible suggestions to the extent that they can be declared impossible, but I can caution very strongly against warping these “outside possibilities” into your preferred version of events, which is what has been happening quite a lot in your case recently."

As you may appreciate, Ben, what you and I consider outside possibilities will be different things altogether. And as you may equally appreciate, I make my own choices of what version of events I prefer. The same goes for you, I should imagine!

"It was still 14 miles in the small hours of the morning"

It was. And that is not such a big deal, really. At least it need not be so.

"...which you then suggest was followed by more walking about for the remainder of the “night”

That is not my suggestion, Ben - it is Hutchinsons own assertion. And we do not know how leisurely or strenuous it was.

" ...followed by even more walking out of London to get to some weird location where he didn’t hear anything about the murders."

Possibly. Not necessarily, though. If he walked to Flower and Dean Street and crashed there for the next two, three nights without hearing of the murder, then I´m fine with that too. Of course, the longer the distance, the larger the chance of not finding out, but I have no preferred venue to offer!

"How about not walking fourteen miles in the small hours to a place you had no intention of sleeping in? "

That´s not a bad idea. But what I referred to was only the nightly walk on the East End streets; if he was cold, then that may have been unavoidable, more or less.

"Oh, good. Because Ripperology really was a barren, unenlightened desert until the introduction of Swedish experts."

Much as I dislike your efforts to poke fun at Swedish researchers, you actually DID ask. And you DID get a name - and a good one at that.

"Yes, please. Ensure that you keep it as general as possible, in order to generate interesting feedback of a general nature on the subject of memory loss and the propensity of people to lie. Don’t overburden him with historical detail or assume ripper-related knowledge on his part. He’s not an expert in history or the Whitechapel murders, and will not necessarily be au fait with the significance of the Lord Mayor’s Show, for example, or the distance between Romford and Spitalfields etc. It would be preferable, therefore, if you avoided making things too Hutch-specific."

We MUST be Hutch-specific, Ben - how else would we get Hutch-specific answers? But there is a useful way to tend to both things - first, I get the general picture. THEN I ask the Hutch-specific questions. That´s how we´ll do it, and that should keep us both happy. The propensity of people to lie is something that this researcher has not done any work on. It is not his field at all, so I fail to see what he could offer here. I can ask, of course, but that is not our main question, is it? That would be to find out how plausible it is to get the days wrong in contexts with "important" days involved.

"Just to clarify, the expert you intend to contact is somebody different from Maria Hartwig, whose “line of work is finding out the mechanisms behind lying witnesses”?"

Why would it not be? I have already told you that my contact specializes in memory research. He has done a lot of work in the exact field we are talking about here, as I understand it. Maria Hartwig concerns herself with totally different matters. I was under the impression that this would have been obvious?

"I have never stated it as “established fact” that Hutchinson came forward as soon as he learned that he had been seen by Sarah Lewis."

The subject we are discussing is slightly different - we are discussing whether Hutchinson must have come forward only as a result of having gotten wind of the inquest. And you worded things differently, yes: “the sheer implausibility of the “random coincidence” explanation should be sufficient to nullify the suggestion that he did not learn of her evidence before he contacted the police.” And that means that any other interpretation of Lewis man and Hutchinson than the one that they were one and the same would be so implausible that it called for a nullification. Semantics, semantics …
I tell you, Ben, the place they were standing were outside a lodging house, situated immediately across a court where sex was sold. That spot would have had different men standing there very, very often! Lewis´ man would not have been the only man that stood on that spot on the night she saw her loiterer, if you ask me. It would be a spot where men often stood around, in all probability.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"why Hutchinson chose to walk back through the night in cold, wet weather? ... this just doesn't make sense. Something is wrong with this picture, it really is."

Perhaps so, Sally. One of the things that may be very wrong here is your belief that it was a wet night. It may well have been a dry one, mind you.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"why Hutchinson chose to walk back through the night in cold, wet weather? ... this just doesn't make sense. Something is wrong with this picture, it really is."

Perhaps so, Sally. One of the things that may be very wrong here is your belief that it was a wet night. It may well have been a dry one, mind you.

The best,
Fisherman

Yes, but why would he walk back at all? It was cold, it may have been wet, it was dark, it was halfway through the night when he set off. Of course, he may have stopped, but since he said he hadn't had a drink all day, it wasn't in a pub, was it?

He could have stayed in Romford. If he truly had no money at all, then finding shelter in Romford and going back next morning would surely have been preferable to walking back to arrive at 2am the next morning, with no money, and the knowledge that his 'usual place' was barred to him?

This strikes me as extreme behaviour - I can't see the logic in it as an easily explicable set of actions. It doesn't add up.

Probably that's the trouble for me with accepting Hutchinson as a wholly innocent, regular guy - there really is just too much special pleading; too many excuses for him. Whatever he was up to, he was up to something, not nothing.

Even if all he ever did was make up a c@ck and bull story which he told to the police.

[Ben]

Agreed, Sally, and I’m fascinated by the information that there were cheaper lodgings to be found in Romford.

Hi Fish,

“If he walked to Flower and Dean Street and crashed there for the next two, three nights without hearing of the murder, then I´m fine with that too.”

Not seriously, though? You’re not seriously “fine” with the suggestion that Hutchinson could have stayed at Flower and Dean Street between the commission of the murder and Sunday 11th November without hearing of the murder, are you? Impossible. I close the door permanently to that suggestion with a thunderous slam.

“if he was cold, then that may have been unavoidable, more or less”

And I disagree for the reasons I mentioned – chiefly that it was infinitely preferable to seek indoor shelter and respite from the elements, even if it was less than ideal.

“We MUST be Hutch-specific, Ben - how else would we get Hutch-specific answers?”

We can’t. We can only form a general impression on the basis of the suggestions offered, and not expect “answers” of the order that would lead to hard and fast conclusions. I submit that it would be incautious to expect your contact to gauge the importance of events he may know nothing about. Moreover, any opinion he offers is unlikely to alter what I consider to be the most damning argument against the confused day hypothesis – that Lewis’ loiterer and Hutchinson are so very likely to have been the same person. Speaking of which, I’ve already addressed the issue that clients were likely to have stationed themselves, with any regularity, in the spot mentioned by Lewis:

“Opposite the court” was an illogical place for prospective clients to wait when there was an ideally situated sheltered passageway a few feet away. It's not just the coincidence of time and location that lends weight to the Hutchinson = wideawake inference. It's the fact that the same activity was reported in both cases - that of watching or waiting for someone.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Not seriously, though? You’re not seriously “fine” with the suggestion that Hutchinson could have stayed at Flower and Dean Street between the commission of the murder and Sunday 11th November without hearing of the murder, are you? Impossible. I close the door permanently to that suggestion with a thunderous slam.

I have to agree with Ben here. There is no way that Hutchinson could have stayed in the Whitechapel rookeries at all during that period and not heard about the murder. I use caution with the term 'impossible' but this is pretty close. Certainly not Flower and Dean Street.

I think it was Rubyretro who wrote a hypothetical account of Hutchinson's actions subsequent to the murder - I think she demonstrated quite well how difficult it would have been for him (or the majority of people) not to have heard about the murder. Hutchinson lived locally, by his own account he consorted with prostitutes, he was a literate man - there is no real reason to suppose that he didn't know what had happened.

[Sally]

Flower and Dean Street

By way of illustration -

the census of 1881 lists no fewer than twenty common lodging houses on Flower and Dean Street. This gave a total of nearly 1000 residents of lodging houses alone - No.5 was also part of a property in Brick Lane that was home to 222 individuals

Jack the Ripper Wiki - Flower & Dean Street

For interest, No. 5 Flower and Dean Street was part of 19-19/2 Brick Lane - later known as Smith's Lodgings.

The overcrowding in Flower and Dean Street is quite plain - undeniable in fact. Statistics demonstrate in fact that this situation only grew worse over the next 2 decades. The picture was similar throughout the East End - Whitechapel was notorious for its lodging houses and continued to operate more, and worse lodging houses than could be found in any other area of London well into the 20th Century.

As already noted, this would be better on its own thread perhaps - however, in the context of this discussion - if Hutchinson had stayed in Flower and Dean Street, or anywhere in Whitechapel, he would have been very hard pressed indeed not to have known about the murder. Unless we're suggesting that nobody spoke in these lodging houses? Actually I think the Victoria Home did rule silence in the bedrooms - ah well, that accounts for it then!

I too am slamming the door on that possibility.

[Sally]

Another thing...

“Opposite the court” was an illogical place for prospective clients to wait when there was an ideally situated sheltered passageway a few feet away. It's not just the coincidence of time and location that lends weight to the Hutchinson = wideawake inference. It's the fact that the same activity was reported in both cases - that of watching or waiting for someone.

I agree. Also, if we're talking about waiting for Kelly here, do we actually know how long she had been engaged in prostitution? (in recent weeks/months I mean). She had been separated from Barnett for about a week - and according to him, she didn't engage in prostitution whilst with him. A week is pretty fast to acquire a regular queue of punters, I would have thought, even for a young woman of Kelly's reputed charms.