Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[harry]

I do not think we can compare the case of Hanratty and Hutchinson.One was a suspect(Hanratty)the other a person who came forward voluntarilly as a witness.More of a comparrison would be Donald Hume.He puts himself at the murder scene of Stanley Setty,but claimed another person there did the killing.He was not believed.
An item I would like to clarify.In post 801,Fisherman claims I entered a distance of 30yards,a figure that agreed with something he had stated.My post of 784 clearly shows I entered a distance of 30 feet,which does not agree with his findings.

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -

just a few quick points:

On Toppy -I was once a pro-Toppyite myself, but this basically boiled down to 'Why would Reg have lied ?'. Alas, Richard gave me the answer himself -
Fairclough promised Reg a share of the profits of his book, and Fairclough was in the position to have researchers into the 'Ripper' murders. Sadly, Fairclough made a mistake in using an error repeated in a newspaper, namely
that Hutchinson was paid a ridiculous sum for helping the Police (an urban myth no doubt -and one also linked to Mathew Packer).

So far, Richard has not traced a radio programme which he says pre-dates
'The Ripper and the Royals', and even Reg's family say that they don't remember him doing anything so extraordinary (for an everyday plumber), as
being interviewed on the radio.

On Kennedy- If you google the name Nathan Shine, you will find a story from
his descendants recounting Shine's witnessing Stide being attacked just before her murder. This story is almost a carbon copy of the witness statement of Israel Schwartz -even down to Shine being Jewish. It is proof that people did take witness statements at the time, and simply take them over.

It is possible that Toppy did this.

On Military Bearing : Given the physical work that Hutchinson did, and the fact that he didn't have the wherewithall to over eat, I take 'stout' to mean compact and muscular. I would imagine that the slim elegant types in the army were Officers rather. It might refer to Hutch standing straight and being rather dapper (he might have been an ex-army man, or it might have been from riding horses, and having a certain way of sitting).

It is interesting that at the period, soldiers had a bad reputation, and were banned from certain establishments as they had a reputation for getting drunk and fighting -so having the 'look of a military man' is not neccessarily a compliment.

On Mrs Lewis's reaction to the Lurker outside Miller's Court (because the area outside the Court and Crossinghams is the same area)-

No, I don't think that she would stare at the man...but I do think that she would try to see what he was doing i.e. whether he looked as if he had the attitude of a 'mugger' or had a legitimate reason to be there. I think that she would pick up with hyper-aware senses the fact that he was looking up the court as if waiting for someone.

On comings and goings at the Victoria Home -if Hutch sometimes worked as a nightwatchman, and sometimes worked away from the area, then it would not be strange at all for him to be absent on irregular nights.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro.
I must make this clear.
while it is proberable that Fairclough promised a cash reward if the book went well, it in no way discredits Reg Hutchinson, he relayed to the author exactly what he relayed on air in the 1970s, which does pre-date any liason.
Except on air Reg[ or someone using his words] makes it clear that his father Topping, never said where the 'money' came from, except he was paid a hundred shillings.
You have my word of honour that this broadcast took place, and if anyone on Casebook takes on the quest to find this elusive programme via the Radio times copies, rear pages left hand side, between 1972-4, I am confident it will be found, I undertook the task a couple of years ago with two members of my family at Brighton university in a two hour slot, it was mid summer, extremely hot, and it was not until we returned home frustrated, that my memory connected to the rear pages, not the front as we searched.
Must also clear up .
Reg was a costermonger , not a plumber, his father was, and as for members of his family not being aware that he gave a taped interview some 36 years ago, is hardly conclusive that he didnt,
Nobody amongst the land of Ripperology apparently heard it...except me , which only goes to show that I have been around this subject longer then many members of Casebook have been alive.
I appreciate that this post is not on thread, however it has reared its head again recently.
So hopefully it now is clear that Reg Hutchinson did not invent his account for the Ripper and the Royals, he merely suggested that if his father described the Astracan man looking like what he related in his police statement, then he would have relayed it accurately.
As for the Wheeling article.
Regardless of its reputation as a gossip sheet, it is a rare publication. that only came to Ripperology in recent years, and certainly Reg would not have used it as a guide in the 1970s, which is when the payment was first mentioned.
As a matter of fact, Reg knew nothing about the subject , apart from the name , and even borrowed a book from a younger relative, he simply knew his father gave the police a statement, and his name being Hutchinsons, implies that Topping was that witness.
So the invitation is out there, rear pages , left hand side of the relevant copies of the Radio times, will give you a mention of the man that saw 'Jack the Ripper', and we all know who that was ...at least I do.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"In post 801,Fisherman claims I entered a distance of 30yards,a figure that agreed with something he had stated.My post of 784 clearly shows I entered a distance of 30 feet,which does not agree with his findings."

... which goes to prove what I think in this comparison. A distance of 30 feet would amount to less than ten meters, and that is a distance from which I have no problems picking up what is said in normal conversation tone.

This I know since I work in a large newspaper house, with lots of people standing about talking. I simply took a walk trough the rooms and corridors here, and checked it out. Of course, an outside venue is normally not as god a place to pick up things as is an indoors one. But in this case, the place where I work is situated inbetween the railway tracks and a motorway, crowded with traffic. That means that it is at all times subjected to background noise, and I would argue that on quiet evenings, no such background noise would have been about in Dorset Street. It would instead have been something of a resonance box, situated inbetween high buildings.

Conversations I could easily make out in this house were conducted ten-twelve meters from me. Fifteen meters was not much of a problem either. Further away, the voices I was concentrating on were muddled by other voices inbetween, so I could not say from how far away conversation could be heard. But the main point in the issue at hand is that Hutchinson never said that he could make out what was said more than in one instance, and that was when Kelly spoke about the handkerchief. And as she did so, she did it in a loud voice. How loud, we cannot say. She would reasonably not have screamed, but she DID raise her voice. And Hutch has nothing to say about the rest of the conversation. After having checked today at my job, I am very much at ease with the suggestion that a raised voice could be made out from 30 meters away. I will, though, try and find empirical confirmation on the net.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fisherman,
I find it hard to hear people next to me, my wife says I have 'selective hearing', so I envy Hutchinsons ear range.
To me it is obvious that what ever his intentions were, that he must have been in earshot of kelly and A, to relay that in a statement, if it was not credible would have had Abberline and co,chucking him headfirst through the station door, for time wasting.
To be honest, we all know that Dorset street was a narrow street, and sound does seem to amplify at night, I see no reason why Hutchs ears were out of range.
As for the colour red being used in relation to the hanky, again Abberline surely would have said 'how do you know it was red'?
The answer again must have satisfied him
Er it looked like red.. or mayby in those days, ie at nightime one was good at relating colours, and nobody disputed it.
I find it intresting that many of us dispute the statements of both Hutchinson /Maxwell, on the grounds that if they were accurate, then the puzzle doesnt fit.
My suggestion is we try a course in acceptance, and take apart the puzzle of acceptance , and start again.
Infact I believe throughout the Ripper case in general, we have been walking up the wrong path, rather like Hampton court maze, the way out is there.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"...with hyper-aware senses ..."

What can I say? Iīm speechless.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"I find it hard to hear people next to me, my wife says I have 'selective hearing', so I envy Hutchinsons ear range."

My wife has that selective hearing too, Richard...! But keep in mind that Hutch mat have been a mere 22 years of age, and at that age, the senses are sharper. And even with my aged senses I have no problems at all with ten meter distances. But I will look into it closer, and try to satisfy everybody (well ...) out here!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Ruby:

"...with hyper-aware senses ..."

What can I say? Iīm speechless.

The best,
Fisherman

Fishy !! YOU "speechless" ???

Think of ordinary human responses...someone walking down a pitch black
dodgy London street in the early hours of the morning, and seeing the shape of one other person standing in the road, would be bound to have "hyper-aware senses" because they would be assessing (even subconciously), whether the other person was a threat to them or not.

I think that this is an 'animal' response.

I think that that it would be heightened by the fact that Mrs Lewis was a woman -with an added possibility of a sexual threat, and the knowledge that physically she would have no chance of defending herself.

We might add in the factor that there had been a spate of murderous attacks against women in the immediate area, in the previous months..

I'm sure that she would have noted immediately from his body language just what the man was doing in the road, before making it clear , from her own body language, that she wasn't 'available' for any type of 'contact' but in a hurry to go somewhere else.

So...I stand by Mrs Lewis being both 'hyper-aware' of, and yet not looking at the loiterer..

[Lechmere]

Gary Wroe said...
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?

Certainly one proper statement that was kept in writing and one afterwards to Abberline while he interrogated him (you will notice I didn’t use the word ‘official’.)

Rubyretro...
I am having difficulty attaching pictures which is why I only managed the pen and ink sketch. It gave Ben an opening though...
The soldier in the pen and ink sketch isn't an officer by the way. A simple look through a selection of Victorian prints of military figures will show you that they all had a certain look to them, a certain swagger. Although my connection won't let me attach any examples, they are not difficult to find.

(Ben – I pressume you mean the drawing of Hutchinson hands on hips standing looking at Kelly and the A-man. If so Hutchinson isn’t burly and has a military bearing. He is also older than Toppy would have been. This may mean the artist hadn’t seen Hutchinson and just did a picture of some bloke with a military bearing or it may tend to disprove Toppy. I can absorb and cope with both possibilities. By the way, rather than make childish outbursts I suggest you study some photographs and drawings of late Victorian soldiers so you can understand what was regarded as a military bearing).

Rubyretro, on Shine, did you mean Kennedy’s story is like Shine’s? Or Reg’s? I can see a comparison with Reg’s. But Reg’s dad was called George Hutchinson which is a good starting point.
We don’t know how Fairclough found Reg (as far as I am aware, I may of course be wrong on that detail). The fact that Reg came forward suggests that Reg believed his dad had a Ripper connection, and as we know his dad was called George Hutchinson.
It isn’t really credible to suggest that Fairclough suggested to Reg that his dad had a Ripper connection when he had no prior knowledge of this. It is credible that Fairclough suggested the add ons but that is a different issue. That is what is known as separating the wheat from the chaff (Ben).
I don’t think there is a comparison between Kennedy and Shine as she was a contemporary witness.

Sally – I applaud you for coming up with an explanation for Hutchinson being in the Victoria Home and the culprit - ‘hidden in plane sight!’

Which brings me to back to Ben.
I know you find it hard to avoid hyperbole and have a tendency to misconstrue what other people say and then through back their re-worked arguments. You have even done it to Reg Hutchinson...
“Reginald Hutchinson’s claim that his father was paid hush money to conceal Lord Randolph Churchill’s involvement in Kelly’s death”
This isn’t actually true is it Ben?

Yes Ben, someone did kill Kelly but you have to provide a plausible story to back up a claim. Resorting to twisting stories (e.g. above) or your equally frequent: ‘I’ve been here longer than you, so there!’ line just doesn’t do your theory much service.
I could throw at you that ‘most Ripperologists, researchers and students of the subject reject Hutchinson as a culprit.’ Frequently that is the level of your argument, and is one that is in my opinion intellectually bankrupt.

Ben I have read Kennedy’s accounts. Although she wasn’t at the inquest she seems to have been questioned later by Abberline. Go figure, as our colonial friends say.

Back to the pesky witnesses outside Shoreditch Town Hall...
“the notion that Hutchinson could have been picked out in such a crowd must be dismissed as very easily refutably nonsense.”

Have you ever been in a crowd? Have you ever been outside Shoreditch Town Hall? If a witness who had seen him at a previous crime scene was there, then it is obvious they could have spotted him. Your “easily refutably nonsense” line illustrates a refusal to concede even the most obvious possibilities.

Ben, I know you haven’t said Hutchinson was hanging around the police station. I know that you actually denied he was hanging around the police station. That is why I was re-asserting that he did in fact hang around the police station. Do you think that the moment he presented himself there that he was whisked off to be interviewed and then immediately taken to be interrogated by Abberline? There would have been quite a bit of hanging about in between.

I put forward the risk associated with hanging around the police station (on the next day also) as you claimed he wouldn’t have put himself at risk by appearing as a witness at the inquest. I am sorry if I failed to make that clear? It was also my intention to suggest that appearing in the crowd put him at risk. I don’t think I put any words in your mouth at all.

On risk taking – I am sure I have said this before. When people commit crimes, they invariably take risks. Jack the Ripper clearly took risks. It goes with the territory (I believe I said it was an occupational hazard). So far as the Chapman killing goes he had probably committed himself to it before Cadosch appeared. In any case it is one thing to take risks in the carrying out the crime, which is the primary purpose of the criminal. It is quite another to take extra risks.
Ben raised the issue that Hutchinson wouldn’t have taken the risk of appearing at the inquest in case he was spotted (although Ben also repeatedly stated that swearing on oath was another factor for some reason). I rejoined that if he wouldn’t take that risk, then why did he take the risks of mingling in the crowd or ‘hanging around’ the police station.

Also I mentioned risk in the context of providing the police with a story that could have been checked in many of its details. I would maintain that this story would have been checked (or at the very least Hutchinson would have presumed it would have been checked). If found to be false in many if these details, witness Hutchinson would have become suspect Hutchinson. I am sure he would have considered this, where he the culprit, unless he was a real risk taker.

I quite accept that some murderers insert themselves in the investigation. I did not say that it was ridiculous to assert that. My use of the word ‘ridiculous’ was in a different context. I have never said otherwise. However, that isn’t what this aspect of the discussion was about. It was you who raised the issue of Hutchinson not wanting to put himself at risk.

Ben you said this...
“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.”

Now Ben I did not say that at all. This is another example of you putting up a straw man. I said it is more likely that he would move than make a statement to supposedly exonerate himself. That is quite different than what you asserted. Where did I suggest he could have moved to? Lambeth etc. Was moving there difficult? Why do you keep going on about limited transport options? He had the perfect transport option. His legs.

Ben on lodging house deputies being watchful, we have the example from Cooney’s I gave you. He clearly was watchful. I have provided you previously with an example of a suspect being dragged out of a lodging house in I think Holborn, and if you read through press reports around the time of the Kelly murder there are several similar reports from around the overall vicinity that show that quite a few people were dragged out on the slightest suspicion. A hysterical mood was prevailing.

Jack London did not stay at the Victoria Home. The ticketing arrangement at his lodging house tells us little about the arrangements at the Victoria Home, particularly when we have clear and ample evidence from the Victoria Home itself.
But no matter – here you go again, making me say things that almost the exact opposite from what I did say:
“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.”

Why would you make such a statement that when I specifically said I did not think that? That is very odd behaviour on your part. This Ben, is what I said:
“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...
“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.”

You do have this tendency to twist things around Ben. Here we go again...

“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?”

Shall I explain the situation Ben? The pass for entry was ONLY if the inmate wanted to get in after the curfew. It was a rule peculiar to the Victoria Home (and possibly some other strict lodging houses). I know you have tremendous difficulty picking up on this very simple point. The ‘point’ Ben is that the pass was not proof of purchase of a bed ticket. That indeed would be ‘pointless’. The ‘point’ is that it was a pass to allow people who had already purchased their bed ticket to have late entry. They discouraged late entry as they did not want drunks coming in at all hours. Do you get it now?

I tell you what Ben. When I was a lad, I went away to a seaside resort with my chums and we stayed out rather late (at a place of late night revelry) and we couldn’t get back into our hotel/guest house as the doors were locked. Even though we had paid in advance for our bed for the night and even though we had keys for our rooms. You will be relieved to know that in the end we did actually manage to wake someone up to let us in. They told us that if we had asked before we would have been given a front door key as well. Which we did next night.
Do you know what else Ben? Late night revellers getting locked out of British seaside guest houses is a standard ‘joke’. It is a well worn (arse- numbing?) feature of British society. Welcome to the real world.

Ben – at risk of sounding childish, you accuse me of adopting an antagonistic tone. I would suggest that compared to your repeated remarks from an early stage in this discourse I have been very restrained. You also have a painful tendency to ignore what I have said and argue against things that I haven’t said.

[Rubyretro]

Richard -your 'Honour' has never been in doubt with me..

Nonetheless, you have not yet proven that the elusive radio programme existed...and if it did, that Toppy was any more than Nathan Shine or Mrs Kennedy (and doubtless, others).

The fact that Fairclough had researchers to fill in details of the case and a probable financial incentive for Reg saying what was 'suggested', makes his story dubious.

If we add in what we know of the facts of Toppy's life compared to the witness Hutchinson, it becomes unlikely in the extreme.

An unshakable faith in the abilities of Reg to be convincing isn't proof of anything.

[Ben]

Again, this issue of distance has been one of the earliest to crop up in Hutchinson discussions, but it is very unlikely that conversation could have been discerned from the corner of Dorset Street to the Miller’s Court archway, which was probably a distance of around 30 metres, and although the generalized hustle and bustle wouldn’t have been as noisy then as it is now. As Harry has already pointed out, the bit about the “loud voice” only appeared in his press accounts. We should therefore treat this with even more scepticism than his already discredited account, as it introduces the obvious possibility that Hutchinson added the "loud" part after realising the implausibility of his earlier claim.

It is only when people visit the actual scenes that this becomes most apparent. There have been authors in the past with a certain amount of hostility to the Hutchinson theory, but who have nonetheless concluded that recorded speech from that distance and in those conditions is really rather unlikely (remember that for those who consider the “different day” vastly improbable, those conditions would still have been bad, whether it was actually raining at the time or not).

The same may be said of anyone who has visited the scenes and noted the proximity between Thrawl Street and the area just south of Flower and Dean Street. Hutchinson’s claim to have detected conversation spanning that distance is immediately considered implausible by those who have accompanied me round the district. These visits are a better barometer of accuracy, I would contend, than any googling efforts.

[The Good Michael]

Fishy !! YOU "speechless" ???

Think of ordinary human responses...someone walking down a pitch black
dodgy London street in the early hours of the morning, and seeing the shape of one other person standing in the road, would be bound to have "hyper-aware senses" because they would be assessing (even subconciously), whether the other person was a threat to them or not.

I think that this is an 'animal' response.

I think that that it would be heightened by the fact that Mrs Lewis was a woman -with an added possibility of a sexual threat, and the knowledge that physically she would have no chance of defending herself.

We might add in the factor that there had been a spate of murderous attacks against women in the immediate area, in the previous months..

I'm sure that she would have noted immediately from his body language just what the man was doing in the road, before making it clear , from her own body language, that she wasn't 'available' for any type of 'contact' but in a hurry to go somewhere else.

So...I stand by Mrs Lewis being both 'hyper-aware' of, and yet not looking at the loiterer..

I think they were all a bunch of drunks and sense impaired, and no, I'm not joking.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"it is very unlikely that conversation could have been discerned from the corner of Dorset Street to the Miller’s Court archway, which was probably a distance of around 30 metres"

Yes. 30 meters. Not 50. Thatīs a good beginning, Ben. The rest is worse. In perfect conditions, the sound of a conversation can supposedly travel over water for up to 1000 meters. I fail to see why a raised voice could not have bridged a mere 30 meters, especially in calm circumstances. Strong wind, however (and with strong wind I mean winds over ten meters per second) will affect the pressure in the human ear and thus the possibility to make out sound is diminished. In conclusion, if Hutch was there on the morning of the 8:th, he would have heard things better than if he was there on the 9:th.

But it is all quite simple in the end. Go out into an empty, silent street, raise your voice and speak to somebody 30 yards away. If they can make out what you say, case closed. Iīm having a go this evening, as I pick my son up from his badminton training. The training hall is situated in a calm spot, away from the traffic, although it will not be as quiet as Dorset Street was at 2.15 AM back in 1888. Still, it will be a useful comparison. Tomorrow we will know. Empirically.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

The soldier in the pen and ink sketch isn't an officer by the way. A simple look through a selection of Victorian prints of military figures will show you that they all had a certain look to them, a certain swagger. Although my connection won't let me attach any examples, they are not difficult to find.

Common sense will tell you that soldiers were all shapes and sizes within reason, as long as they were strong and healthy. Unless you wish to argue
that they had to be midgets or runts or beanpoles, you surely must agree that Hutch could have had military bearing. Hutch was a man capable of being employed as a labourer, nightwatchman, or for humping beer barrels
in pubs -he was surely an acceptable candidate for cannon fodder.

(Ben – I pressume you mean the drawing of Hutchinson hands on hips standing looking at Kelly and the A-man.

I'm sure that Ben doesn't mean that picture -drawn after the events- but
a more contempory sketch which I hope that someone will be kind enough to Post for us.

Rubyretro, on Shine, did you mean Kennedy’s story is like Shine’s? Or Reg’s? I can see a comparison with Reg’s. But Reg’s dad was called George Hutchinson which is a good starting point.

I mean't first Kennedy -the comparison is obvious. IF Toppy had recounted his story before the appearance of Fairclough, then Toppy, too.

We don’t know how Fairclough found Reg (as far as I am aware, I may of course be wrong on that detail). The fact that Reg came forward suggests that Reg believed his dad had a Ripper connection, and as we know his dad was called George Hutchinson.

Shine had something in common with Schwartz -they were both Jews in the East end at the time -Shine clearly could identify with the witness. I think that Toppy was in the East end at the time of the murders, he shared a (common) name with the witness, and could identify with him. The comparison stops there.

It isn’t really credible to suggest that Fairclough suggested to Reg that his dad had a Ripper connection when he had no prior knowledge of this. It is credible that Fairclough suggested the add ons but that is a different issue

.

It is very credible that Fairclough tried to trace the descendants of Hutch, as we on Casebook have tried to do -since Fairclough was writing a book, it was in his interests to not come up against a brick wall.

Otherwise, one known fact about 'serial killers' is that they believe that they will never be caught as they are too clever for the Police.

You don't know, Letch, that the ones that have come forward have been caught -lots of Serial Killers have gone undetected.

It is so common that Serial Killers insert themselves into their own cases, that witnesses are nowdays automatically regarded as suspects -not the case in 1888.

[martin wilson]

I do not think we can compare the case of Hanratty and Hutchinson.One was a suspect(Hanratty)the other a person who came forward voluntarilly as a witness.More of a comparrison would be Donald Hume.He puts himself at the murder scene of Stanley Setty,but claimed another person there did the killing.He was not believed.
An item I would like to clarify.In post 801,Fisherman claims I entered a distance of 30yards,a figure that agreed with something he had stated.My post of 784 clearly shows I entered a distance of 30 feet,which does not agree with his findings.

harry
I tried to keep my post as neutral as possible,something along the lines of 'This may be of interest'.
The title of this thread is Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?
Though unintentional, my post clearly infers that Hutchinson was involved in Mary Kelly's murder in some way and then made false witness.
I apologise for this.
All the best.