Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

QUOTE]And you just spotted that.[/QUOTE

I've only just got my microscope out..

[The Good Michael]

QUOTE]

I've only just got my microscope out..

I want to ask you where you keep it, but I'm afraid of the answer. Let it be a mystery.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Seriously, why do witnesses of a crime wait to come forward? There is no simple answer. The simplest answer can never be: Because they were afraid they were spotted and don't want to be accused of murder.

The simplest answer is: because of many reasons, some of which are, not wanting to get involved; not really caring; distrust of authorities (especially young, inner city men); being busy with work; procrastination (all you authors out there know what I'm talking about); needing some kind of impetus, i.e., advice from family and friends, or a plea by newspapers and officials.

I don't want to list anymore, but reasons are legion.

I witnessed a car accident the other day, but other cars were stopped around the two damaged cars and it was -28 degrees with 20kmh winds, and I figured they didn't need me. Had someone said to me a couple of days later, "hey. They're still sorting out liability. You might want to go in and give your story." I'd probably have done it. As it was, it was sorted out and I couldn't be arsed to make a statement if no one was begging me. Call me uncivil.

Mike

[Sally]

Mike, you're right - there are many reasons, in general and you list some of them.

Its the particular circumstances of this crime and this witness that make it questionable.

This was a crime considered at the time to be by the Ripper - as it still is generally considered now. This was not ordinary, this was extraordinary. It was also the first killing by the Ripper since September. So Hutchinson thought wht - 'can't be arsed, think I'll leave it for a few days'?

This was a witness who claimed to have known the victim well enough to have given her money - for the last three years; and who according to himself must have been the last person to see her alive (excluding those who claimed to have seen her the following day and were dismissed at the time; and of course the murderer). Same thing - Hutchinson thought 'Ah, so my friend Mary has been brutally slain by the Ripper - and heck - I was the last one to see her alive. Maybe I should tell someone? Nah. Can't be arsed. Think I'll leave it for a few days'.

See, that's what makes it questionable. It's the specifics of the thing.

If you accept that the whole story was hokum - or some of it at the very least, it makes more sense.

[The Good Michael]

So Hutchinson thought wht - 'can't be arsed, think I'll leave it for a few days'?
.

No. I couldn't be arsed. I'd guess that Hutchinson hoped it would be sorted out at the inquest or something, and then decided or had impetus from others to come forward. For what reason, I don't know, but I wouldn't put it past a clever lodger at the Vic Home suggesting to Hutch that they could make some money of this and because Hutch was unknown to the police and had military bearing, he'd be the best candidate to go forward. I also seriously doubt that Hutch was a good friend. I think this was just a way to strengthen his story. The idea of giving her money sounds like a client/hooker relationship anyway, not a friendship.

Whatever the reasons Hutchinson made his appearance, his being Jack the Ripper, and especially since we (who are not blind) know that he became a plumber and a family man, is a great leap from being a witness who may have been wrong, may have had the wrong day, may have concocted everything for money (poor lad didn't even have a bed), or may have seen what he saw and added a bit to the story. Much like a Fisherman and his catch (no relation to OUR Fisherman).


Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

Mine: “It was my understanding, Ben, that you and me were not supposed to comment on how the other party took care of his posting.”

Yours: "And it was my understanding, Fisherman, that we were also discouraged from sarcastic ridiculing of other peoples’ published articles, but that doesn’t appear to have stopped you from observing the following:

"Yes, but why let sense get in the way of the Hutchinson-the-liar-and-possible killer saga, Lechmere?"

Then your understanding is wrong, Ben. What has been said has touched only upon the internal posting between you and me. My answer to Lechmere therefore does not belong to that category of posts, and not to this discussion. The fact that you still comment on the lenght of my posts and reprimand me for not being humble enough in your eyes, DOES belong to the category however. My suggestion is that you henceforth refrain from it.

"It is improbable in the extreme that he confined himself to one spot on one side of the street for the duration of that 45-minute vigil."

No.

"You’re accepting the snippet from the article that you think supports your contention whilst discarding the inconvenient bit about waiting “about the place” as opposed to being confined to one spot, which is what you need to be true in order to dislocate Hutchinson from the wideawake man. "

Not at all. "About the place" is not synonymous with "I went to Crossinghams", I´m afraid. It may just as well have meant about the opening of the archway. And I´m afraid that the Guardian stands out from the other papers, since it is THE ONLY paper that timelines when he went into the court in any way. So I don´t have to cherrypick anyting at all - there are no alternatives presented in any other paper as far as I can find.

"They’re both implausible, because they both consist of confining yourself eccentrically to a very specific location rather than moving about like normal people."

I can assure you, Ben, that "normal people" do not earn that label because they are impossible to keep on one side of the street.

"your simply saying as much doesn’t make it so"

Absolutely not! That´s why I use Dew´s assertion, the weather bit, the missing Mrs Lewis, the missing couple, the fact that Kelly could be heard by Hutch, the dismissal of his testimony, the wording in the Echo and the Star, the very strange promenade in the pouring rain at 2.30 etcetera. It would have been ridiculous of me not to have a very useful background to lean against when I say that the suggestion is a very plausible one, and up til now not disproven in any way or fashion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One remarkable thing that keeps popping up here is the suggestion that it would be laughably improbable that somebody in Hutchinson´s situation and experiencing a week like the one around the murder, with the Romford treek and the Lordmayor´s show, would mix up the days.

This is thrown forward with utter confidence and nill substantiation. Why? As must be very obvious, there are posters around, me included, that see nothing controversial at all in the suggestion. How is it then, one must ask, that people look so totally different on this? What lies behind this near-complete certainty on behalf of the posters who says it could never be? What empirical research, what groundbreaking research, which useful comparisons? For confidence like this surely must be very well built under?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“What has been said has touched only upon the internal posting between you and me. My answer to Lechmere therefore does not belong to that category of posts, and not to this discussion.”

But Fisherman, according to this logic, it is perfectly acceptable for me to say to another poster, “I really hate silly Fisherman” purely on the grounds that I was directing my post to someone other than yourself? Obviously I don’t subscribe to this view, and I have no intention of insulting you or saying anything insulting about you, but my example surely illustrates the problem with penalizing only those who disparage others directly whilst giving a clean bill of health to those who make disparaging comments about other people.

“Not at all. "About the place" is not synonymous with "I went to Crossinghams", I´m afraid. It may just as well have meant about the opening of the archway.”

Very unlikely, in my opinion. If someone confined their movements to a single location outside the Miller’s Court archway, they were most assuredly not waiting “about the place”, but staying in one acutely specific spot, and the problem with this is that it amounts to unusual behaviour, since most people who wait in an area for as long as 45 minutes tend to move about a bit more. The problem with the Manchester Guardian is that unlike other press accounts of Hutchinson's testimony, it doesn't quote him directly.

It is very unlikely, in my opinion, that Hutchinson should have confused so significant a date: one which combined his Romford trek, Kelly’s murder and the Lord Mayor’s Show. I think it’s just common sense that Hutchinson would not have misremembered so significant a date, but anyyone is free to disagree. One thing I would caution against, though, is mentioning other people who seemingly don’t have a problem with this as though they lend weight to your theory. While I have no doubt that you have honest motivations, it’s quite apparent that there are others who will latch on to ANYTHING providing it avoid at all costs any consideration that Hutchinson could have lied or killed anyone. I feel this ought to be borne in mind when considering those who have professed allegiance to the “There’s no problem with Hutchinson confusing the day” scenario.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“I'd guess that Hutchinson hoped it would be sorted out at the inquest or something, and then decided or had impetus from others to come forward.”

And that “impetus” just happened to kick in just after the inquest terminated, Mike?

Just after the opportunity to be quizzed on oath, and in public, had passed him by?

The crucial point is that however innocent Hutchinson might have been, it is most assuredly NOT a “great leap” to conclude that a person who was seen loitering outside a crime scene, and who lied about his reasons for being there, might be a very good suspect for the murder. Hutchinson is simply by far the best known candidate for this individual, ensuring at the very least that he piddles over all the other touted “suspects”, most of whom can’t even be placed in London, let alone outside a crime scene at a time critical to a ripper-attributed murder.

But since we’re bringing it up again (and I really wish people wouldn’t), no, I don’t think for a moment that Hutchinson was Toppy, or that the real George Hutchinson had anything remotely to do with the plumbing trade.

All the best,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Babybird, when you said “I think believing anything Hutch says after his comic suspect of Asrakhan is taken into account is mad” you are essentially saying that Abberline was mad.

Ben says Dew may have confused the reporting of Kelly’s death with another case where a young man reported something. Yes I can see that as a possibility, which is why I proposed it as a possibility in an earlier post.
But I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest Dew was deliberately lying in his book, which Ben offers as an alternative.
However I didn’t mention the matter of Dew saying Hutchinson was young as if it was absolute proof of anything. I actually raised it in passing, rather obviously as a minor joke and it got much more of a reaction than I would have supposed. Nevertheless it is just another little bit of contributory evidence that suggests Hutchinson may have been Toppy.

Ben’s discounting of Toppy neatly illustrates his debating style which is to totally write off the entire content of any source which may be tainted (with the exception of Hutchinson’s evidence).
However virtually all Ripper evidence is tainted or in some way questionable.
Just because Dew may have got Bowyer mixed up with a lad in another case, just because the American newspaper may have often been wrong, just because Topping was used in a foolish theory, does not invalidate everything about each of those sources.
If you use the same logic you would not accept a single word of Hutchinson’s testimony. But you do accept certain parts don’t you?

If you have three independent sources, none of which are impeccable, backing each other up, then it is reasonable to assume that there might be something in it worthy of consideration.
Ben I know you will not accept this. But I am equally sure that anyone, even people who have never embroiled themselves in Hutchinson debates, people who have no intention of ever having the temerity to step onto this hallowed turf, this specialist area that some it seems believe should only be reserved for old timers, I am sure that none of these people would agree with your reasoning.
It isn’t a matter of Hutchinsonian detail. It is a matter of logic and standard argument progression.

These are facts. There was a man called Reg Hutchinson, whose father was called George Hutchinson and George was (from memory) 22 at the time of Kelly’s death. George told his son that he had something to do with the Ripper murders and was a witness of some sort.
OK, maybe Reg was lying and his dad George didn’t tell him anything of the sort, but that seems unlikely.
Reg’s story, with additions, is used to back up a half-baked theory. That does not invalidate the basic details of Reg’s story. That should not need spelling out again and again and again.

I have no particular interest in researching the life and times of a discarded Ripper witness. There is more than enough already at hand to discount Hutchinson as a credible suspect.

Ben made an interesting observation that those who think Hutchinson was not the culprit have been suggesting possibilities to explain his behaviour. Rather in the manner of how most Ripper suspects are generated.
Why might this be so? With Hutchinson it is because hardly anything is known about him. More than most we are left with possibilities and trying to come to a conclusion of what is most likely. As the case for Hutchinson being the culprit is thread bare and based on hyping up what is and what isn’t possible and by ignoring inconvenient evidence such as the Victoria Home rules, then the only way to argue against a phantom culprit is by proposing more likely, and common place counter possibilities.
Remember being a serial killer is very rare. A common place explanation is much more likely to be true than a murderous one, even with a body lying in Miller’s Court.

Ben – here’s an alternative view point on Kennedy. She was telling the truth.

As for your discourse about witnesses from previous murders turning up at the Kelly inquest to see how the case was progressing... well I guess they might. I somehow get the feeling though that you are thinking up more and more tenuous explanations.
But we both know, you as a veteran, me as a newcomer, that the inquest was conducted in a small room in Shoreditch Town Hall. These witnesses, if they turned up, would be in the same crowd, pressing against the railings, craning to hear the words of Lewis.
Crikey.
Hutchinson had a close call.
It’s lucky none of those darned interfering pesky old witnesses who were keeping themselves appraised of the investigation spotted him.

Oh but you say...
“If Hutchinson had any involvement in the crimes, it would have been foolish to “expose” himself in public before he had got his story in.”
Yes very foolish to have exposed himself in such an unnecessarily rash manner. (Yes similar to hanging around the police station waiting to be seen).
All he need do was wait for the detailed press reports, seen if he was mentioned and if so, then handed himself in.
But if had done that you wouldn’t have a theory.

The above by the way is the sensible avenue for Hutchinson to follow, had he been the Ripper. That or run away. All your offerings are cul-de-sacs.

Ben I fully understand your convoluted sighting and description argument – as you accepted before when I spelt it out very very very clearly to you.

On the military bearing discussion I will just ask if you ever seen any late Victorian military prints. I’ll attach one below. That is what Victorian people took as a military bearing. Ram rod straight, not stout. No, not stout. Never stout.
Find me a picture of an archetypal stout Victorian soldier.
I guess Lewis could have got mixed up. Maybe she thought the word stout in fact meant ram rod straight. Who knows?

As Rubyretro accurately portrayed, Lewis will hardly have given the person outside Crossingham’s that much scrutiny to accurately tell that they were really staring down Miller’s Court. It could have been Hutchinson, then again it may not.
As you of course know already, there were 114 boarders in Crossingham’s alone. As you know Dorset Street was one of the most densely populated streets in London. That is why it is very possibly a coincidence. I would not be so bold as to rule it out.

I have just taken time out to appraise myself of the risks the Ripper took.
Wait a minute, a bit longer.
Yes, done it now.
I have found that he never went to a police station to unnecessarily admit to being right outside the door of his latest victim.
That is a ridiculous risk to take.
A potentially life ending one.

Yes Ben I do know that sometimes criminals insert themselves in the investigation into their crime. We know it because they nearly always get caught as a result. But it is quite rare. A more commonplace reaction is to leg it. That is what I said if you take the time to read what I said.

You claim it would be difficult to ‘up sticks’. I was not suggesting he went to New York. Lambeth would do it. Ben are you going to tell me that it was difficult to up sticks and move to Lambeth. Or Southwark or Holborn or Clerkenwell etc etc etc. I eagerly await your response.

Ben I’m sure the prospect of telling fibs under oath would have really troubled Hutchinson had he been the culprit.
As you say one of his fellow inmates supposedly advised him to give evidence. But I guess according to you this was another fib. Would that be another fib that the police were too dense to double check? He really left a trail of verifiable fibs behind him didn’t he when he presented himself at the police station.
Now that is one risk taker. You’ve got to take your hat off to the bloke.

We know from very many contemporary references that the police did check the lodging houses regularly at the time of the murders and that the deputies were being particularly watchful. In any case the police had a statutory role in checking them.

Ben, although you are a bit of a Hutchinson buff, I presume you may be familiar with Frederick Wilkinson, the deputy of Cooney’s Lodging House and the evidence he gave at the Eddowes inquest? I may have mentioned it before.
He had a register but he didn’t keep daily names in it and he offered an explanation why. He was specifically asked by a juror if he took names. To me that implies that some lodging houses took names otherwise it was a stupid question.
Of course as you know Cooney’s was not nearly as strict or well run as the Victoria Home. Nor as large – it took upwards of 100 inmates. Not a small number though.
Nevertheless Wilkinson knew who had been in and out. The deputies were watchful you see. Particularly watchful during this period. That is why lodging houses would not have been an ideal base for any hypothetical ripper. Not one who remained at large anyway.

We have seen that some lodging houses must have taken names on a daily basis. As far as the Victoria Home is concerned we are fortunate indeed that we have an original source document to shed some light on this, called ‘In Whitechapel’. In case you missed the relevant section Ben, here it is again:
“Here also (unlike ordinary lodging-houses) registers are kept. Every man’s name and occupation is entered in the books, and these records against the names are filled up and make brief histories.”

This tells me that the Victoria Home did keep a daily account of who was there. Not every time someone entered and exited the building, as clearly someone might just ‘pop out’. But the evidence clearly points to them keeping a record of who spent the night there. ‘Unlike ordinary lodging houses’ - such as Cooney’s.
Against this your regular construction of straw men just demonstrates the fragility of your argument:
“Do you honestly think that "brief histories" were made of every one of those 450 lodgers whenever they entered or exited the building?”
Did I say that? No they would make up the brief history when the inmate first stays there, and fill it up each time they stay. I have spelt that out to you before.

As for your preposterous explanation of the tickets and pass. Ben if one ticket served for both purposes why is it that both contemporary sources spell it out that they are two separate items.

They said:
“Tickets for beds are issued from five p.m. until 12.30 midnight, and after that hour if a man wants to get in he must have a pass”
Why didn’t they say:
“Tickets for beds are issued from five p.m. until 12.30 midnight, and after that hour if a man wants to get in he can just walk straight in with the ticket he already has”.

When the rule stated:
“No person will be admitted after one o'clock a.m. without a special pass.”
Why didn’t it just say
“No person will be admitted after one o'clock a.m. without their normal ticket.”

Do you want me to tell you why they didn’t say it? Because it wasn’t the case.

Ben - please accept my honest apologies for making further observations. I hope it is allowed. Here is a ‘military bearing’ pic.

[Garry Wroe]

By the way Ben I didn’t say that you had claimed Hutchinson was at the police station the day before the inquest. I said he was there after the Inquest – for quite a while – he made two statements.

Two statements? I'm intrigued, Lechmere. As far as I'm aware, Hutchinson made only one official police statement. Perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me by providing details of the second?

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Lechmere]

I will agree with you this much Ben.
Hutchinson is a better culprit than many of the implausible variety you identify. He was possibly near the crime scene roughly when one of the murders took place.
But then so was Tom Bowyer. So was Robert Mann. I could go on.
However we don’t know that he lied about being there.
We don’t for sure know that it was Hutchinson who was seen by Lewis.
That is the problem with this sort of discussion. Suppositions are given as facts.

[Ben]

What it is about the people who keep making swan-songs announcing their intention to have nothing more do with a certain thread that keeps them coming back to the very same thread for another dose of cyber-ping-pong in a seemingly desperate battle to have the last word – something they will never achieve?

“But I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest Dew was deliberately lying in his book, which Ben offers as an alternative.”

…And which others have suggested as a viable explanation for Dew’s errant assessment of Bowyer’s age for – gosh! – really rather a long time now. It has been suggested that Dew may have fabricated aspects of his account in an effort to enhance his involvement in the ripper investigation. This is commonly a held perception of Dew’s memoirs, and in offering my suggestion that it may be true in certain key particulars, I’m advancing nothing that would be considered remotely controversial to seasoned commentators on the subject. In stark contrast, the Toppy-related claims have been considered to be bogus ever since they appeared in the Ripper and the Royals, with numerous authors and researchers refusing to touch the Toppy/Reg claims with a barge pole. Even Paul Feldman was keen to avoid Reginald Hutchinson’s and his Toppy-related claims, despite their obvious potential advantages to the Maybrick theory.

Reginald was around when numerous other researchers and authors were active, and everyone knew where to find him. They just chose not to bother because they considered it a false lead. They didn’t go “Duh, Boss! I know this all sounds like bullocks, but maybe – just maybe – there’s a lovely element of truth ‘midst the rubbish"” and that wasn’t because they were irresponsible researchers, but because they used their not inconsiderable powers of discernment to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The Ripper and the Royals, The Wheeling Register and Dew’s memoirs are all recognised as highly dubious sources that have either been partially or entirely discredited, and yet despite this, you’re suggesting that all three combine to somehow create good provenance for Toppy being the “George Hutchinson” of Kelly notoriety. This is obviously nonsense, and yet amazingly, you claim that nobody will agree with me in recognising it as such; that they will instead choose to believe that cherry-picking select pieces of fringe-lunacy from discredited sources and them combining them to create good provenance is a better bet. You claim that any ripper source will be “tainted or in some way questionable”, but that’s no excuse for picking the most tainted, most questionable, and most ridiculed sources imaginable. There are so many other valuable and better-respected contemporary sources we could use. Why settle for the dregs just to support a highly contentious identity theory?

But even more importantly, these laughable sources do not support each other. Reginald Hutchinson’s claim that his father was paid hush money to conceal Lord Randolph Churchill’s involvement in Kelly’s death lends no support whatsoever to a demonstrably false claim made in an American newspaper “gossip” column that some clever individual was paid “five times his usual salary” (which is to be considered ludicrous, for startlingly obvious reasons) for accompanying the police round the district in search of a suspect he “invented”. Neither of these lend any weight whatsoever to foggy Dew’s claim that Hutchinson was a “young man”. He said the same thing about 60+ year old Thomas Bowyer. Go figure, as those across the pond would say.

These sources, which all but the ill-informed take seriously, most assuredly do not “back each other up” in contrast to Lechmere’s strange claim.

“As the case for Hutchinson being the culprit is thread bare and based on hyping up what is and what isn’t possible and by ignoring inconvenient evidence such as the Victoria Home rules”

Oh, shush.

You know full well that I haven’t ignored the “Victoria Home rules”. I have been discussing them in great depth well in advance of your pronouncing overconfidently on the subject - well in advance of your joining the forums, in fact. There is absolutely nothing in these rules that could be considered, even remotely, to mitigate against the possibility of Hutchinson people the culprit, so your characterization of these rules as “inconvenient evidence” is very gauche and very immature. And where are you actually going with your declaration that:

“Remember being a serial killer is very rare. A common place explanation is much more likely to be true than a murderous one, even with a body lying in Miller’s Court”?

Somebody murdered Mary Kelly, remember? And it certainly wasn’t a “phantom”. It would be advisable to heed this common sense reality and consider that the most likely murder suspects are those who can be placed at the crime scene near to the time of the murder. Only in Hutchinson’s case can a realistic argument be advanced in this regard.

“Ben – here’s an alternative view point on Kennedy. She was telling the truth”

I bet you wouldn’t come to the same conclusion if you actually examined her evidence, noted the amazing similarity with Lewis, and observed that despite being interviewed initially by the police, she wasn’t called to the inquest.

“As for your discourse about witnesses from previous murders turning up at the Kelly inquest to see how the case was progressing... well I guess they might. I somehow get the feeling though that you are thinking up more and more tenuous explanations.”

Yeah, didn’t think you were actually equipped for tackling the subject matter, so it doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that you should resort to casual, unthinking, disparaging remarks about my explanations.

“It’s lucky none of those darned interfering pesky old witnesses who were keeping themselves appraised of the investigation spotted him.”

Well here you’re either being obtuse or antagonistic – one or the other. It was observed that the crowds threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s office, which ought to provide a reasonably accurate picture of the extent of that crowd. Clearly, the notion that Hutchinson could have been picked out in such a crowd must be dismissed as very easily refutably nonsense.

“Yes very foolish to have exposed himself in such an unnecessarily rash manner. (Yes similar to hanging around the police station waiting to be seen)”

Will you please stop putting these imbecilic assertions in my mouth? I’ve asked you before to stop doing this, and I can only assume you have some silly belittling motive in continuing. I have never, ever, suggested that Hutchinson was ever “hanging around the police station”. I have suggested why he would not have come forward a day after the inquest, and that was because it allowed further time to elapse in which to be investigated and interrogated before he had got his story in first under the guise of a cooperative witness. I care little for your tiresome and baseless ex cathedra pronouncement as to what would have been a “sensible avenue” for Hutchinson had he been the ripper. As so many of your posts make abundantly clear, you are hindered by a lack of knowledge when it comes to serial crime and its perpetrators. As such, your “sensible avenues” amount to little more than creative writing, and are therefore difficult to take seriously.

“On the military bearing discussion I will just ask if you ever seen any late Victorian military prints. I’ll attach one below. That is what Victorian people took as a military bearing. Ram rod straight, not stout. No, not stout. Never stout”

This is truly dire and embarrassing nonsense.

Almost all Victorian sketches depicting a physique not intended as negative commentary featured slender “models”, and what have you come up with in your crusade to depict the real Hutchinson as tall and thin? Ah yes, a sketch of a Simon Cowell-trousered bell-hop lookalike with impossibly thin legs and oddly positioned arms, wearing a silly hat and staring into the face of a badly-sketched boss-eyed bird of some description. Well, my congrats, Lechmere for finding a true Hutch-a-like. Meanwhile on our planet, I would direct anyone whose agenda isn’t tiresome, repetitive, easily smackable gainsaying to look at the contemporary sketch of Hutchinson. He is no way depicted as tall and thin, but instead agrees in every particular with Lewis’ description.

Unlucky.

“Lewis will hardly have given the person outside Crossingham’s that much scrutiny to accurately tell that they were really staring down Miller’s Court.”

But what are the chances of her personal impression of her man accidentally coinciding with that of a real person who claimed to be there at the same location on the same date, even down to watching and waiting for someone to come out of Miller’s Court? Astronomically slim, as I’m prepared to reiterate until the last of the naysayers have succumbed to mortality. Forget Crosssingham’s lodging house too. There is absolutely no evidence that the loitering man observed by Lewis was remotely interested in the lodging house directly behind him. No, he was too busy staring “up the court”, just as Hutchinson claimed he was at the same time and the same location.

“I have found that he never went to a police station to unnecessarily admit to being right outside the door of his latest victim.”

I’m dreadfully sorry, my infinitive-splitting friend, but the act of committing a murder against a fence, on the other side of which was a potential witness soars above the act of coming forward as a false witness in terms of “risk”. So I would strongly suggest you conduct a bit more research on the risks the ripper was proven to have taken before you take annoyingly adversarial stances in message board discussions.

Similarly, if you think there’s anything “ridiculous” in coming forward pretending to be a witness, then you’re simply clueless on a subject you purport an interest in. If you actually listened to what I said in my earlier post, you’ll notice that I pointed out that the authorities in America have laid traps, on occasions, in anticipation of the offender injecting himself into the investigation as a false witness, with successful results. Would they have done this if this sort of behaviour was considered rare? If you had studied my list of examples of serial killers who have come forward under false guises, you’d be better equipped to engage me in this topic, but you haven’t, so you’re not.

Your assertion that a serial offender who gets spooked for any reason will immediately “up sticks” is based on yet another crass misunderstanding of documented serial killer behaviour, especially those with limited transport options. In any case, many serial killers have demonstrated a propensity to remain involved in the ongoing murder investigation in some capacity.

“As you say one of his fellow inmates supposedly advised him to give evidence. But I guess according to you this was another fib.”

No, not necessarily. Hutchinson could easily have waited until the termination of the inquest and then approached a fellow lodger with his claim. This fellow lodger could easily have done the logical and obvious thing and advised Hutchinson to go to the police, and this could easily have been verified by the police. Unfortunately, none of this increases the likelihood of Hutchinson’s claims being true. But then you follow this observation with more confused nonsense about it being too “risky” an action for someone likely the ripper to have taken, despite the ripper’s demonstrated capacity for risk.

“We know from very many contemporary references that the police did check the lodging houses regularly at the time of the murders and that the deputies were being particularly watchful.”

Nope, nothing about the deputies being watchful, at least not to the extent that they vetted ever single lodger who exited and entered the lodging house at a time when hundreds of men would have been doing the same thing. It was only observed that the police investigated the lodging houses – along with everywhere else within the search area – after the murder, at which time where would almost certainly have been no trace of the murderer’s activities.

“I presume you may be familiar with Frederick Wilkinson”

Cooney’s was a smaller establishment that made record keeping considerably more viable. As Jack London’s experiences from one of the larger lodging houses should have informed us, his name was not taken upon entry, and his “pass” consisted of a brass cheque. The Victoria Home catered for over four times as many lodgers as Cooney’s could occupy at any given time, which meant record keeping in the former establishment was nigh on impossible, and could only be confined to registering new lodgers in accordance with the vetting process outlined in other sources. This most emphatically does not mean that names and histories were taken of each lodger whenever they entered and exited the Victoria Home, which they would have done throughout the night. It is eccentric nonsense to claim otherwise.

You’ve decided, to my eternal disbelief, that despite the comings and goings of men throughout the night at the Victoria Home, the doorman was somehow in a position to write up a history of each lodger whenever they entered of exited the building. Sorry, but you’ve drastically misinterpreted the Victoria Home guidelines for reasons that are frankly difficult to have any sympathy with. You’ve simply confused the guidelines for introduction to the Victoria Home for the first time with the guidelines for normal entry to the building for already-registered lodgers.

“As for your preposterous explanation of the tickets and pass. Ben if one ticket served for both purposes why is it that both contemporary sources spell it out that they are two separate items.”

They didn’t, as far as I’m concerned. I can’t think of anything more arse-numbingly ridiculous than purchasing a ticket for a bed – which constituted proof of purchase, and which absolutely entitled them to the bed they had paid for – only to be compelled to procure another pass for entry. What could be more pointless? What is the point of buying a bed ticket if, according to your disastrous logic, it was utterly worthless as a proof of purchase?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"according to this logic, it is perfectly acceptable for me to say to another poster, “I really hate silly Fisherman” purely on the grounds that I was directing my post to someone other than yourself?"

According to my logic, Ben, we discuss the issues connected to the case and NOTHING ELSE. According to my logic, making remarks about how long posts somebody writes does not belong to this field. Making remarks about the nationality of other posters does not belong there either. Telling other posters that they are not humble enough is something else that has got nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. Questioning their capability in the profession they have chosen is not something that belongs to the discussion either. All such things and things like them should be left out of the discussion.

To call a point made in the discussion centering around the issue of the thread is totally fine, no matter if that point is a harsh one. As long as you jump a view and not the one who holds the view, we shall all be fine. And what I did in my post to Lechmere was to command him on the very sensible comparison he made, and at the same thing let the other poster involved know that I was of the meaning that the point she had made was not a very useful one. I did it with a touch of irony, yes - but since there had been buckets full of the same stuff from the poster in question earlier, well ....

Now I hope I have made myself clear and that we are done with this particular, not very nice business, and can move on to the TRUE reason for our posting here.

"Very unlikely, in my opinion. If someone confined their movements to a single location outside the Miller’s Court archway, they were most assuredly not waiting “about the place”, but staying in one acutely specific spot"

This is just such an argument that lends itself very well to a verdict of "ludicrous", Ben. Example:

- I stood outside the archway for 45 minutes.
- No..!?
- I did, I´m telling you. I took up my vigil there at 2.15, and then I stood about the place for a full three quarters of an hour.
- At that archway?
- Yup, at that archway.

Once again, arguing that Hutch MAY have crossed the street is viable, but not in total corroboration with Hutch telling us that he went to the Court and stood "there" for 45 minutes. Arguing that he MUST have crossed the street is simply presenting an argument that is completely senseless. Arguing that he, if he crossed that street, MUST have stood at the door of Crossinghams is even worse.

"It is very unlikely, in my opinion, that Hutchinson should have confused so significant a date"

I know that. But I also think that your opinion amounts to exactly as little as my opinion does, and that opinion tells me that it is the other way around. So opinions will get us nowhere.

"While I have no doubt that you have honest motivations, it’s quite apparent that there are others who will latch on to ANYTHING providing it avoid at all costs any consideration that Hutchinson could have lied or killed anyone."

I do not agree. I see nobody around that is dead set on such a thing. I think that my theory is a totally uncontroversial one as regards the elements involved in it (a man with a vagabonding lifestyle, deprived of sleep on at least one night, looses track of the days, and provides the police with a story that seemingly does not tally with the other witnesses stories). From my point of view, the only ones who seem very annoyed with this are the ones arguing that Hutchinson lied and perhaps even killed. It is in that camp considerations are hrown overboard, the way I see things.

But that is nothing new. And I would much prefer to see something new instead of some sort of meta-discussion.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Victoria Home

The Victoria Home took those initial 'histories' so that they could exempt 'known bad characters'.

In other words, if they recognised a person, either by name or in person as being a criminal, or known trouble maker, they didn't have to let him in.

It is clear that they wanted to provide a more moral environment for their lodgers than could be found in some of the neighbouring establishments.

However, what should be plain is that this vetting process only had any effect in discouraging criminals if those criminals were known in the first place. An unknown criminal or 'notorious character' would have gained entry without a problem.

The other thing of course is that the police were less likely to visit the Victoria Home as often as some of the other establishments because of its better standards.

So, if there was a serial killer living there, or even staying there on occasion - he probably stood less chance of discovery there than, say, at Crossinghams, or many similar establishments.

The best hiding places are often in plain view.