Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Yes, but why would he walk back at all?"

Well, Sally, we just donīt know, do we? But I see nothing very strange about it to be perfectly honest. Maybe what he did in Romford was something he was not able to finish before it was too late to be able to reach the Victoria home in time, and maybe he did not have the money to bed down in Romford. In such a case, he may have opted to do the walk at night since he had freinds in London that, with any luck, would still be up and about late at night, providing him with a fair chance of a place to sleep. I donīt know exactly why he did it the way he did it, but I DO know that it need not have meant anything strange at all.

" Whatever he was up to, he was up to something, not nothing."

I donīt share that sentiment, simple as that. But I have no problems realizing that people will reason the way you do.

There is nothing strange about that either.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"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."

Before you reach the conclusion that I have now made my mind up that Flowery Dean must have been where he went, I would like to point out to you that my stance is - and remains - that I am fine with ANY address that may have provided a situation in which he may not have heard the specifics about the killing until late. I could have said Heneage Street, I could have said Henley-on-Thames, I could have said that he may have found shelter with a doctor friend in Harley Street. I am not after any specific address, Ben, I am after the principle that just as there would have been innumerable places on earth where the news of the Kelly murder was spread in detail, there would equally have been innumerable places on the very same earth where it was not. And since I was certain that any suggestion in London Town would have you asserting me that the people there would have known all the relevant details of the Millers Court murder, and that there would have been no chance that Hutchinson did not hear about it if he was there, I simply said that I could not care less if he was in Flower or Dean Street or any place else, AS LONG AS THE SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES ALLOWED FOR HIM NOT FINDING OUT ABOUT KELLY. If the circumstances were such that he DID hear about it but for some reason could not act upon it (and no, I will not exemplify), that would add up to the same.
The bottom line is that if Hutchinson did what he could to help the police - and I like to think that he did - then it would have been strange if he knew about Kelly on Friday noon and did not act upon it. The fact is that he DID act on Sunday (if he did talk to that PC) or at the very least on Monday.
Now, if we allow ourselves the audacity to believe that George Hutchinson was not a foaming-at-the-mouth killer, but instead an ordinary citizen who wanted to help in the chase for the Ripper, then the reasonable thing for such a citizen to do, would be to offer his help at the first possible occasion. And if Hutchinson was guided by such a stance, then it would be reasonable to suggest that he did not know about things (at least not in sufficient detail) until Sunday, when he contacted the PC. And if this was so, then he would have been unaware of the details up til that stage, and he would have been so for a reason. He could have stayed somewhere where it was not known or spoken about. He could have been taken ill, and thus have been isolated from the news. He could have been accidentally locked up, he could have gone intermittently deaf, he could have won a two-day cruise to the Bahamas or he could have stayed with a religious sect in Flower and Dean Street, where it was ruled that God demanded that the members spent their days with cotton plugged in their ears. I could not care less WHAT it was that happened, but IF he was a stand-up citizen it would seem that something DID.
I hope I have made myself very, very clear.

"And I disagree for the reasons I mentioned – chiefly that it was infinitely preferable to seek indoor shelter and respite from the elements"

Fine. By all means. As long as you remember that George Hutchinson DID state that he walked the streets "all night", and as long as you realize that people who are cold often do something about that by some sort of physical exercise, you are entitled to believe that George Hutchinson proved himself a liar for telling the police that this was his solution to being locked out of the Victoria Home for the night. You are even entitled to believe, as you write, that your suggestion is "infinitely" much better.

"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"

I see no reason to tell my contact about the loiterer and the possibly connection with Hutchinson. It has nothing to do with the propensity to mix the days up, does it?

"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."

Then again, we can learn from the papers that this very spot had been occupied by three men earlier that evening (if I remember correctly), choosing it to stand about and talk around midnight. Letīs not forget that it was a lodging-house entrance too, and not only a good spot for observing the court and the sex-sellers living there.

Outside my house, the road at which I live turns ninety degrees and is slightly broadened at the turn. At that spot, people very often stop when they walk by, to have a chat or so. My neighbour, who has only lived here for a year or so, has observed this too, and it had him slightly uneased. He was afraid that it was potential burglars, scouting around for loot, but I told him that it was not so. Itīs just a place where people stand around, under a street lamp. And it is not the same people all the time; one night there may be a whole gang of youths, the next it can be a single guy, and next time over, perhaps a couple.

Too much - far too much - has been made of Lewis loiterer. It could have been a man who stuck his nose out to leave the lodging house late at night for some reason, closed the door behind him and realized that it rained. Thus he stopped for a minute, peering out into the wet night, before he worked up the will to set out into it. It could have been a man that just walked by and sheltered in the doorway as a shower fell. Just how strange and damning would that be?
The most important thing to keep in mind when discussing Lewisīman, is that George Hutchison told the press very clearly that he saw two persons - and two persons ONLY - as he stood in wait outside the court. And neither of them was Sarah Lewis. Now couple that with the fact that his story was not believed by the police, and what do you get? Then couple THAT with Walter Dewīs assertion that George Hutchinson was a day off in his estimation, and things will get really interesting. If you are disinclined to believe in coincidences, Ben, then this really ought to get you going! Why is it that these three parametres fit like a glove?

Coincidence?

I think not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"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."

If I may, Sally, I would direct you to my answer to Ben. That pretty much covers the issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Sally:

"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."

If I may, Sally, I would direct you to my answer to Ben. That pretty much covers the issue.

The best,
Fisherman

Sorry Fisherman, I don't think it does, really. It suits your view of Hutchinson as innocent witness to suggest that he didn't hear about the murder until the Sunday (say) but it's unrealistic if he was in Whitechapel, or even London. Lodged in a common lodging house in London - which as everybody knew then and knows now, were inextricably tied up with the murders; and were utterly overrun with people - it is higly implausbile that Hutchinson would not have known about the murders. It's no use you saying 'read what I said to Ben', Fish - read what I said would be my response.

In what way would a man, literate, consorting with prositutes, and living regularly in a common lodging house a stone's throw away from the murder site of Kelly not know what had happened? I don't think so.

Let alone the fact that by his own testimony he knew Kelly and had known her for the last three years.

I actually think you can find some support for your argument, Fisherman - other than the weather - but this isn't it in my view.

[Ben]

I actually think you can find some support for your argument, Fisherman - other than the weather - but this isn't it in my view.

I would echo that sensible advice, Sally.

I just feel the different-day premise needs to be streamlined rather than weighed-down with more ornamentation in order for its potential to be realised.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"Sorry Fisherman, I don't think it does, really."

I didnīt say that either, Sally. Nor am I saying that I am correct. But I AM saying that if he was a stand-up citizen, then there is good reason to believe that he had not hurd of Kellys demise until late in the process. It is only if we allow for this (or some sort of hinderance that made him unable to go to the police earlier) that we may piece together the picture of a totally honest man, with an intent to help.
We do not know if he WAS such man, but the fact that we CAN put together a background that tallies with the suggestion is of very great interest.

"... it's unrealistic if he was in Whitechapel, or even London."

If we take away all other possible influences (like. for example, an illness that took him off the streets), then the closer to the murder site he stayed, the larger the chance that he heard of it would be. I have no issues with that - why would I? It is common sense. But it is also common sense to realize that when we DO NOT KNOW where a person has been, we cannot estimate IN ANY WAY to what extent he has been exposed to mosquitos, Assam tea, mongolian yaks - or the news of a murder.
Why is this so hard to understand? I do not know where he was. You do not know where he was. Ben does not know where he was. Therefore, we cannot make any call at all based on any evidence at all whether he was exposed to the news or not. We cannot surmise that he would have been. We cannot surmise that he would not. It is all written in the stars, and nothing either of us can use to substantiate either wiew. We can point to possibilities, but never to certainties, or even near certainties, or even reasonable certainties. To me, that is effectively end of story. If you wish to make the call that we may be certain to some - any - extent, then that is a train I will not travel on. It would be presumtious.

"Lodged in a common lodging house in London - which as everybody knew then and knows now, were inextricably tied up with the murders"

BUT-WE-DO-NOT-KNOW-THAT-HE-WAS-"LODGED-IN-A-COMMON-LODGING-HOUSE-IN-LONDON"!!! How often do I have to repeat this? I KNOW that staying in a lodging house in London would have provided him with the news with almost 100 per cent of likelihood! I have never and will never argue anything else. But a girl like you, Sally, who proudly speak of the value of having evidence, should not resort to antics like these - when we do not know, we do not know. Letīs accept that and work with what weīve got and the opportunities offered by it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman,

“that I am fine with ANY address that may have provided a situation in which he may not have heard the specifics about the killing until late.”

Well, you shouldn’t be fine with it, and the fact that you are does nothing to enhance the credibility of your different-day hypothesis. Even if he ventured miles out of London, it is not plausible that he managed to find a mysterious location where he didn’t learn of the murder until he found himself on Petticoat Lane on the Sunday after the murder. Even the Manchester newspapers had got wind of the murder and reported on the subject in time for the morning of the 10th, and it wasn't just rumours of another ‘orrible murder either, it referred specifically to Mary Jane Kelly of Dorset Street, Spitalfields. Using Flower & Dean Street as an example of a location you’d be “fine” with Hutchinson having gone to and not heard about the murders until Sunday was particularly unfortunate. Such a street did not allow for specific circumstances that could have prevented him from hearing about Kelly, not realistically.

The trouble here is that you’re using one outside possibility to support another, and suggesting that both combine to lend weight to the mixed-date theory, but it’s clear that they only detract from it. For example, you envisage Hutchinson not having heard of the murders until Petticoat Lane on Sunday, and when it is pointed out that he couldn’t have left the Victoria Home in the morning without hearing the gossip in the immediate streets upon emerging, you try to get round it by suggesting that he had already walked away from the district before the discovery of the body, with all the implausibilities that this premise entails.

“The bottom line is that if Hutchinson did what he could to help the police - and I like to think that he did - then it would have been strange if he knew about Kelly on Friday noon and did not act upon it.”

And:

“Now, if..Hutchinson was…an ordinary citizen who wanted to help in the chase for the Ripper, then the reasonable thing for such a citizen to do, would be to offer his help at the first possible occasion. And if Hutchinson was guided by such a stance, then it would be reasonable to suggest that he did not know about things (at least not in sufficient detail) until Sunday, when he contacted the PC.”

But here we get to the heart of my problem with your current reasoning.

You’ve already decided that Hutchinson was an ordinary citizen who wanted to help the police, and now you’re coming up with unlikely suggestions in order to fuel that pre-decision, and it just isn’t working. Because you’ve already decided that Hutchinson was an ordinary helpful citizen who wanted to “offer his help at the first possible occasion”, your efforts become dedicated towards explaining away the compelling extant evidence that Hutchinson did not come forward at the earliest opportunity, hence all these rather fanciful ideas about going all the way to pick up belongings and heading straight out again, or not having heard of the murder until the Sunday. These are fill-in-the-blanks designed to explain away Hutchinson’s late appearance whilst still casting him in the mould of the honest eager-beaver citizen.

It highlights the pitfalls of working backwards with the evidence. You’ve already decided on your destination, but failed to consider the impossibly rocky path required to get you there, hence:

“He could have been taken ill, and thus have been isolated from the news. He could have been accidentally locked up, he could have gone intermittently deaf, he could have won a two-day cruise to the Bahamas or he could have stayed with a religious sect in Flower and Dean Street”

See what I mean? I don’t envy that path, because that (the above) is what is inevitably resorted to once we’ve decided on the type of pre-decided conclusion that you’ve admitted to having. Any explanation that is based on the PC encounter being true is also on unenviably shaky territory. The chances of a real PC failing to alert his superiors to an account of Hutchinson’s potential magnitude are not worth considering, especially if he knew full well that he could be traced and booted off the force for such baffling and alarming negligence.

“As long as you remember that George Hutchinson DID state that he walked the streets "all night",..”

On top of all that walking all the way from Romford in the small hours? My deduction from the evidence: this claim is not at all plausible, so maybe he lied about it for some reason?

“Too much - far too much - has been made of Lewis loiterer. It could have been a man who stuck his nose out to leave the lodging house late at night for some reason, closed the door behind him and realized that it rained.”

Not nearly enough has been made of Lewis’ loiterer. The aspect of Lewis’ account that negates any serious consideration that the similarity was mere coincidence was the fact that her recollection that the man was seemingly “watching and waiting for someone” or “waiting for someone to come out” is so strikingly similar to Hutchinson own professed reason for waiting there – also to see if Kelly and/or Astrakhan came out. It would still stretch coincidence to breaking point if we accept that when date-muddling Hutchinson only thought they were watching and waiting for someone to emerge from Miller’s Court at 2:30am on the 9th, someone really was there, and was taken to be waiting there for precisely that reason.

Clearly, the man in question was not interested in the lodging house, but ostensibly transfixed with the entrance to the court on the opposite side of the road.

Then of course we have the other non-coincidence of Hutchinson’s decision to come forward coinciding with the termination of the inquest, at which Lewis’ account had just been released.

“The most important thing to keep in mind when discussing Lewisīman, is that George Hutchison told the press very clearly that he saw two persons - and two persons ONLY - as he stood in wait outside the court. And neither of them was Sarah Lewis.”

Whoops, I’ve addressed this before, so I’ll just dig up my response from the archives. Here we go: Too much is being made of Hutchinson’s apparent failure to mentioned Lewis. Firstly, and most crucially, it is possible that Hutchinson did mention Lewis but the reference was omitted from the body of the statement because is did not pertain directly to the manhunt – “man” being the operative word here. Either that or Hutchinson deliberately avoided any reference to Lewis out of concern that it would appear glaringly obvious that it was her evidence that prompted him to come forward. Of the two explanations, I prefer the latter.

I’d better remember its location just in case people want to raise this particular objection again.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben!

Can I direct you to my answer to Sally?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"You’ve already decided that Hutchinson was an ordinary citizen who wanted to help the police"

No. YOU have decided FOR ME that I have already decided that. As for myself - if I am allowed for a split second to have my OWN say - I think it is a good suggestion, yes. But that does not amount to any decision that it must have been so! I have not let go of the possibility that he lied, for example. It is still a viable suggestion, though not as viable as the one that he did not, at least not to my mind.
How ībout you, Ben - have you decided that he was the killer, or do you just think it a good suggestion (which it is no longer)? And would you like me to state that you have claimed that he was the killer and that you are of the meaning that he was, and that you have totally locked yourself to this scenario? I donīt hear you suggesting anything else, so perhaps you would be fine with that.

Or not?

Pray tell me! Should I make the calls for you, or do you prefer to make them yourself? If the latter applies, then learn something from it, for heavens sake!

After this, you have nothing new to offer in your post. It is the same old merry-go-round with the same false melody accompanying it. Therefore, I will once again say that we have reached the end of the road until somebody supplies new material. And I will do so shortly, hopefully.
After that, we can discuss THAT material and perhaps get somewhere. As for now, I am fed up with being accused of holding convictions that I do not hold, with being pointed out as having claimed things I have only hinted at as outside possibilitites and with chewing the same tasteless gum over and over again.

If something NEW surfaces, I will merrily discuss it with you. But until that happens, no. We are wasting valuable posting space at the moment, and I have got better things to do.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

BUT-WE-DO-NOT-KNOW-THAT-HE-WAS-"LODGED-IN-A-COMMON-LODGING-HOUSE-IN-LONDON"!!! How often do I have to repeat this? I KNOW that staying in a lodging house in London would have provided him with the news with almost 100 per cent of likelihood! I have never and will never argue anything else. But a girl like you, Sally, who proudly speak of the value of having evidence, should not resort to antics like these - when we do not know, we do not know. Letīs accept that and work with what weīve got and the opportunities offered by it.

Technically, Fisherman, yes - you are correct, we don't know for certain that Hutchinson was lodged in a common lodging house on Saturday 10th November.

According to his own testimony, he was at the Victoria Home on Friday 9th November, and Sunday 11th November. It is quite reasonable to suggest that he was also there on the Saturday in between.

You see, I don't go in for wild speculation, Fisherman, I'm afraid I'm not that kind of girl

[Ben]

“No. YOU have decided FOR ME that I have already decided that. As for myself - if I am allowed for a split second to have my OWN say - I think it is a good suggestion, yes.”

I’m not having a go at you, Fish, and I apologise if I’ve misread you, but if you look at those two excerpts from your previous post that I quoted, you might see how I could have arrived at this conclusion. Whatever you meant to convey, they certainly read as though you’d made pre-determinations as to Hutchinson’s character and motivation, and then used only those explanations that you consider compatible with that pre-determination. Best instead to start with a clean preconception-less state and address the reasonable explanations for his delay in coming forward, then make inferences as to character and motivations.

“How ībout you, Ben - have you decided that he was the killer, or do you just think it a good suggestion (which it is no longer)?”

Oh, it still is a good suggestion, whether it’s the right solution or not, but I got there by analyzing the extant evidence first. Again, I’m not insisting that you must have done otherwise, but you must understand how your comments could have conveyed this impression.

“If something NEW surfaces, I will merrily discuss it with you. But until that happens, no.”

Okay, Fish. Happy to call it quits for now, and look forward to hearing from you again when you are no longer cross with me.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sally:

"According to his own testimony, he was at the Victoria Home on Friday 9th November, and Sunday 11th November. It is quite reasonable to suggest that he was also there on the Saturday in between. "

He returned to the Victoria Home on what he surmised to be Friday morning. As you know, it can be argued that was actually Thursday morning. Furthermore, we do not know that he stopped at the home over the day and the following night; we only know that he went there as the home opened in the morning. That would mean that he may - MAY! - have slept somewhere else on Thursday, Friday and Saturday night. As for the Sunday, we know that he spoke to a fellow lodger on that day, but as you may have noticed I donīt think we even have it on record that this conversation took place at the Victoria Home (could be wrong on that score, though, since I donīt quite remember the text). Reasonably it did, but there was never anything wrong with keeping eyes and ears open.
In conclusion, Sally, there is nothing at all wrong with your suggestion that he stayed at the Victoria Home on the days and nights we do not have on record. It is a good suggestion. Had it not been for Hutchinsons late arrival at the police station, I would have said that it was easily the best one. Naturally! But it does not tally all that well with a man who tries to be a good citizen by helping the police.
So perhaps he was not that kind of a man - or perhaps he was not there.
Would you be very much surprised if I once again told you that it remains an open question?

Just like the case with Ben, it is getting slightly tiresome to repeat, over and over again, things that I would have thought went without saying. We cannot possibly ponder ruling out that Hutchinson was not aware of the Kelly killing until late in the process, as long as we have no idea whatsoever where he was at and what he was doing. There are only so many ways I can tell you this, and if you cannot accept it, well, then there is very little I can do about it. You are completely free to work from the assumption that he could NOT have been anywhere else, and that he MUST have heard about the killing on Friday, but that kind of puts an end to any fruitful discussion involving me, so I will call it quits for now. More information needs to be added to the picture, and more information WILL be added. After that, letīs give it another go. Until then, letīs give it a rest instead.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here is the snippet about the fellow lodger, from the Daily Telegraph:
"I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday, and he advised me to go to the police station, which I did last night."

To me, it sounds as if the interwiew with Hutchinson was conducted at the Victoria Home /"one of the lodgers HERE"/ (my highlighting).
What it does actually not say, though, is that he told the Victoria Home lodger his story AT the Victoria Home. It could have happened some place else, as far as I understand. Correct me if I am wrong - I am not using my native language when speaking English, and nuances may go lost to me, I suppose. But as far as I can understand, the wording used in this passage does not actually prove that Hutchinson was at the Victoria Home on Sunday, does it?

Donīt get me wrong, I am not arguing that he was NOT there - he probably was - but I think it is of vital importance that we do not lay down truths that in the end may prove faulty.

If there is any other material that tells us in a more conclusive way that the conversation between Hutchinson and his fellow lodger did take place at the Victoria Home, then please post it, so that we may rid ourselves of this particular detail!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

According to his own testimony, he was at the Victoria Home on Friday 9th November, and Sunday 11th November. It is quite reasonable to suggest that he was also there on the Saturday in between.

My thoughts exactly, Sally. This must be considered the parsimonious assumption.

If this is considered to be odds with the image of Hutchinson as an honest citizen eager to help the police at the earliest opportunity, then it is this image that needs to be discarded, rather than the very strong likelihood that Hutchinson was in London and knew about the murders between Friday and Sunday.

To me, it sounds as if the interwiew with Hutchinson was conducted at the Victoria Home /"one of the lodgers HERE"

Very interesting, Fish. I hadn't spotted this before!

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Very interesting, Fish. I hadn't spotted this before!

Really?