Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

I mean't, obviously, that the stout LOITERER might have had 'military bearing' -an understandable lapsus..

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

With respect, that sketch tells us nothing about Hutchinson’s likely appearance. I could be wrong, but I get the distinct impression that the bellboy-lookalike image was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and not to be confused with a responsible reporter’s genuine impression of what a man with a “military appearance” might look like. Again, we have a sketch of Hutchinson that clearly depicts him as both “not tall” and stout and also features him wearing a “wideawake”. I know there’s another one of Hutchinson with his hands on his hips, but this is clearly the less accurate of the two, since it also features other people staring out of windows and what looks like a small child smearing chocolate all over her face. So I’ll go with the other one. I can’t off-hand recall the original source (I’ll check), but it has been reproduced in Garry Wroe’s “Person or Persons Unknown” and Stewart Evans’ “Letters from Hell”.

And yes, this sketch also depicts Hutchinson as having been older than Toppy would have been.

“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.”

There’s no evidence that Reg “came forward” as opposed to being contacted by researchers looking for people with the surname Hutchinson and living in roughly the right area in the early 1990s. It is of course, possible that Reginald simply lied, as opposed to actually believing that his father was involved in the investigation in any capacity.

“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.”

Let’s go verbatim then:

“Until you told me that about Abberline's diaries and that he named Churchill, I thought my father was merely saying that in his opinion the murderer was someone high up, like Churchill. Now I can see that he knew all along that the man he saw actually was Churchill, but he didn't want to come straight out with it.”

- Reginald Hutchinson (from “The Ripper and the Royals” by Melvyn Fairclough)

But this really isn’t a Toppy thread, so…

“I could throw at you that ‘most Ripperologists, researchers and students of the subject reject Hutchinson as a culprit.’

Which means very little, because everyone who has ever advanced JTR identity theory will find himself in the minority of opinion. I’ve only made references to having been a member here longer than you because you seem to go in for a lot of rather generalized naysaying of the type that I’ve encountered and fended off for a number of years. But I do seem to hypnotize people into “battle mode” which is why we’re nearly at 8000 posts in the Hutchinson forum.

“Although she wasn’t at the inquest she seems to have been questioned later by Abberline.”

No. She was questioned before the inquest, not afterwards.

“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”

Could have done – it’s a possibility, but not a probable outcome by any means, and therefore a risk worth taking. The extent of the “crowding” reported at the scene suggests very strongly that anyone individual could easily be obscured within.

“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?”

Not Abberline, no, but it is only reasonable to surmise that he was whisked off for a preliminary interview by police officers lower down the hierarchical chain than Abberline, for whom they waited to come up from Leman Street. As such, I very much stand by my contention that there would not have been any “hanging around” the police station, and being there entailed considerably less risk that being exposed on the witness stand.

“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."

No, I’m sorry, this doesn’t follow at all, and it sounds like you’ve constructed your own rather arbitrary risk-barometer here. Clearly he didn’t have to kill anyone, and equally clearly, he didn’t have to continue to kill Annie Chapman even after registering the presence of another human being on the other side of a wooden fence, but he did it anyway. He persevered in spite of the risks, because even because of them. If murdering in close proximity to witnesses was an “occupational hazard” then so was the possibility of being identified by them. He simply took risks to avoid them. As such, the claim that he was capable of murdering a victim with a witness over the adjoining but would be deterred by the “risk-factor” associated with approaching the police under a false guise is simply illogical, to my mind, especially when we have knowledge of offenders doing precisely that (and who had demonstrated arguably less capacity for risk when committing their murders).

“I would maintain that this story would have been checked (or at the very least Hutchinson would have presumed it would have been checked).”

No, this is where too many people get unstuck. The police would have sought to check as far as they were able, but it’s futile to argue that the majority of Hutchinson’s claims could be checked because it’s just nonsense. You would need CCTV to get anywhere close to “checking” whether the majority of Hutchinson’s claims were true or false. The police in 1888 were seriously limited in terms of what they could realistically expect to “check”.

“Why do you keep going on about limited transport options?”

Because research has told us – or should have told us – that offenders with limited transport options appear to have been more restrictive in their criminal range, and that they were not generally in the habit of moving away when the going appeared to be getting off. As such, I disagree very strongly when you claim “it is more likely that he would move than make a statement to supposedly exonerate himself”. Not a lot to back this one up, I’m afraid.

“Ben on lodging house deputies being watchful, we have the example from Cooney’s I gave you. He clearly was watchful."

That is because they had less than a quarter of the numbers that the Victoria Home catered for on an average night. Being “watchful” was therefore considerably more practicable in the smaller establishments than the larger ones. It is also worth bearing in mind that Wilkinson could easily have been attempting to convey a public image of thoroughness that may or may not have reflected reality. People were dragged out of lodging houses, yes, but this was generally because they drew attention themselves in terms of their appearance and/or mannerisms. If the killer was a typical local Joe without the slightest external menace, he could become the proverbial needle in a haystack, especially in the larger lodging houses.

I don’t agree with your assertion that Jack London didn’t stay in the Victoria Home. The description of it - including the fact that it was one of the larger doss houses that catered for men only, the location of the kitchen below street level, and the fact that it was near Middlesex Street – make the Victoria Home an extremely viable candidate. The only other possibility is that he was describing the Middlesex Street Shelter, although this now seems unlikely since this establishment was actually ON Middlesex Street, and Jack London was quite specific that his establishment was only “not far from” it.

“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.”

Can’t you at least try to think through the logical problems with this scenario before advancing such an obvious misinterpretation as the correct explanation? According to you, a lodger could be denied a “special pass” on the grounds that he might get too drunk later, and even worse, it must follow according to your interpretation that a lodger could turn up roaring drunk and still be permitted entry because he had purchased a special pass. This is very obviously nonsense. The “vetting” process was designed for lodgers new to the building to ascertain goodness (or otherwise) of character. This invalidated the need for the type of passes you’re envisaging because they had already been accepted. If the doorman denied a pass to a lodger purely on the expectation that he get drunk later, it would make ludicrous mockery of the practice of vetting new lodgers.

Your version of the guidelines would not have been anything like a deterrent to drunks trying to get in after curfew, because all they had to do was gain a “special pass” (as you understand it), get poo-faced and flash the pass to enable entry.

Clearly, tickets and passes were effectively the same thing – proof of purchase. There was no need to discourage drunkenness because they had already determined from the outset that this would not be tolerated.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"And yes, this photograph also depicts Hutchinson as having been older than Toppy would have been."

Photograph?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

I believe Hutchinson was said to have had a military appearance. We (I) have interpreted that to mean 'military bearing'. But it may have just been a neatly shaved face and mustache and perhaps some kind of clothing that looked like a uniform; a coat with some kind of officer's collar or something.

Lewis didn't say the man was short. She said he was not tall, and stout. Stout (we've had this argument before) means overweight, fat. President Taft was called stout and weighed well over 300 lbs. It really does indicate that Lewis saw more of a well-fed gentleman than a young, unemployed groom. Another angle is Lewis may have suggested he looked not tall, but stout as in a brave fellow, and the police and the inquest examiner took the meaning in the 'fat' way.



Mike

[Ben]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've made the necessary edit - sketch, not photograph.

“Now I hope I have made myself clear”

You have, Fisherman, but don’t make any more “ironic” statements about my published theory, please, as they equate to piss taking.

“I stood outside the archway for 45 minutes.”

Who are you quoting here? Not Hutchinson, who wasn’t anywhere near as specific as to location. If this is an example you’d made up to illustrate a point, it’s not appropriate because it doesn’t correlate with anything Hutchinson said. I think it more likely than not that Hutchinson crossed the street – either from north to south or vice-versa – because it’s simply more normal behaviour for someone waiting for a long as 45 minutes in a small area. Generally, they will move about within that small area (and he was hardly spoiled for choice) as opposed to rooting himself to a particular spot. It is more than likely, therefore, that at some stage during those 45 minutes, he found himself outside Crossingham’s. I don’t know where you for the “door” from, but as far as I can recall off-hand, Lewis never specified a door.

If we really want to encroach onto “nothing new” territory, than look no further than the done-do-death discussion of what Hutchinson could have realistically heard, noticed, memorized and – heaven forefend – lied about. It’s so 2005. Just to be brief on this, I’m not suggesting that Hutchinson could not have heard any sound whatsoever. I’m saying that it’s very unlikely that individual words should have been distinguished and red hankies spotted from that distance in those conditions (again, this is based a dismissal of your different-day hypothesis which I find implausible for other reasons discussed already).

The streets of London’s East End in 1888 would not have been “empty” let alone “silent”.

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

I echo the sentiment, Fish.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Ben]

Funny you should mention President Taft, Mike.

I've done quite a bit of research into his military aide-de-camp, Major Archibald Willingham Butt, who died in the Titanic disaster. While nobody would claim for a moment that his appearance was anything other than "military", it would be fair to say that at one stage he could be described as stout, or thick-set at the very least.

There is absolutely no mutual exclusivity between a stout-looking person and one with a military appearance.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

I believe Hutchinson was said to have had a military appearance. We (I) have interpreted that to mean 'military bearing'. But it may have just been a neatly shaved face and mustache and perhaps some kind of clothing that looked like a uniform; a coat with some kind of officer's collar or something.

Lewis didn't say the man was short. She said he was not tall, and stout. Stout (we've had this argument before) means overweight, fat. President Taft was called stout and weighed well over 300 lbs. It really does indicate that Lewis saw more of a well-fed gentleman than a young, unemployed groom. Another angle is Lewis may have suggested he looked not tall, but stout as in a brave fellow, and the police and the inquest examiner took the meaning in the 'fat' way.

Mike

Judging by contempory photos and prints, most men were clean shaven with moustaches, at the time.

I don't know much about soldiers at the time, but I repeat that I have learn't that soldiers or ex-soldiers were 'unwelcome' in many establishments of the era because of their uncouth behaviour -so alarm bells should sound when
making assumptions about what the image of 'military' appearance might conjour up to us and people in 1888.

I absolutely refute that 'stout' means fat. If you want proof, then Mary Kelly was also described as 'stout', yet if you look at pictures of what's left of her (legs and arms, contours of her face), you can see that she could not have been 'fat'.

Stout probably could be applied to people who were better nourished, bigger boned, had more muscle -not necessarily 'fat'.

[The Good Michael]

I absolutely refute that 'stout' means fat. If you want proof then Mary Kelly was also described as 'stout', yet if you look at pictures of what's left of her (legsn arms, contours of her face), you can see that she could not have been 'fat'.

Refute away and then look in your dictionary to see that it means, fat, overweight, corpulent, thick, heavy-set and having a heavy build. Fat is fat.
MJK was fat, in my opinion, but she isn't in question here.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

Refute away and then look in your dictionary to see that it means, fat, overweight, corpulent, thick, heavy-set and having a heavy build. Fat is fat.
MJK was fat, in my opinion, but she isn't in question here.

Mike

It also means, 'sturdy, strong in structure, bold, powerful, bold..'

Fat implies 'flabby' and 'stout' doesn't.

[The Good Michael]

It also means, 'sturdy, strong in structure, bold, powerful, bold..'

.

You took the least used meaning you could find. You're just not right. Argue just to argue. That's insane.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

[

You're just not right. Argue just to argue. That's insane

.

Is this seriously your reasoned reply in this debate ?

[The Good Michael]

"I didn't get a good look at the man, but he was wearing a wide-awake hat and was not tall, but he was bold... "

Nah. doesn't work for me.

I'll take bulky or large or... fat

Mike

[Rubyretro]

O.K. Mike

-do you think that when THAT sort of beer was named 'Stout', it was mean't to convey to it's drinker's 'Fat, Overweight', etc or 'Powerful, Strong etc' ?

[The Good Michael]

Stout is lower in alcohol than other beer. I think it meant bold of flavor and brave. In fact, I'm sure it did. It's about the character of the beer and not the appearance. And what does it matter. If Lewis meant the loiterer was overly large? It means nothing.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Stout is lower in alcohol than other beer. I think it meant bold of flavor and brave. In fact, I'm sure it did. It's about the character of the beer and not the appearance. And what does it matter. If Lewis meant the loiterer was overly large? It means nothing.

Mike

Only she didn't mean 'overly large', did she Mike?- otherwise she would have said so : She clearly mean't that he wasn't a skinny little undernourished man, but one who seemed 'not tall', but compact, strong, powerful, well built..