Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Garry!

Thanks for the snippet on the Victoria Home! Quite interesting! Was it printed in 1889?
It is fascinating how the characters in it are described as men with a former greatness - it says nothing about vagabonds, half-criminals and such but only speaks of lawyers, officers, clergymen ... Not exactly grooms and such.

One would like to know when the home lost it´s status as a charitable institution? Was that before it became a lodging house on the whole? Do you know? The article as such is of course not in accordance with the other material we have on the home, which paints it out in a much brighter light, which is intriguing. Did it have a good rumour that followed it in spite of a deterioration? Was Harris not correct? The article raises questions.
The fact that the home was situated in a place that would have made it a very reasonable starting point for the Ripper´s escapades is unquestionable. This has never been challenged from a geographical point of wiew, I think.

Thanks also for posting the picture of Hutchinson. Ben erroneously referred to it as a photo earlier, and stated that it seems to show that Hutchinson could not have been the 22 year old Toppy. But i´ll be damned if I can make out any age from that crude sketch. The clothing of the man does not look like clothing a 22 year old man would wear today - but in 1888, any jobless and pennyless man who could lay is hands on an overcoat and a bowler would gladly do so, I suspect. Reasonably, many people also walked in clothing that had been handed down to them from earlier generations. So fashionwise, we cannot establish the age of that man. And physically? No way - it is a crude sketch, the eyes are shadowed, and all we can make out is that he had a nose, a moustache, a right ear and a mouth. That is not useful to establish any age. Judging from the drawing, I would say that he was probably somewhere between 16 and 50.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Fisherman,

Your family have both my admiration and my sympathy for their involvement in your many ripper-related experiments and reconstructions!

Best regards,
Ben"

I will try to engage a neighbour or a friend the next time, Ben. That way, you will not have to engage yourself so deeply in the destiny of my family, but can instead perhaps centre on the issue itself. It would be better.

The best,
Fisherman

[martin wilson]

harry
Thank you for your gracious reply.
I just want to post something on acoustics,they can be very strange.
Where I live there is a family 3 doors down, from upstairs it sounds like they are speaking very loudly,from downstairs you cannot hear them, and when you pass their house in the street it is clear that they are just speaking normally.
All the best.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"You began by estimating the distance to be 35-36 metres,you have now got it down to 30."

28-30, to be exact. The first measure I made, i made from Ben´s post of Colin´s sketches. In it, the archway was not drawn in it´s full lenght - the part nearest the street was lacking. Therefore it gave another result. I am now, however, content that the distance was 28-30 meters. And it would seem that Ben supports this. 50 meters plus, though, is a figure I have only seen from your hands.

"Why should Kelly have raised her voice to say she had lost her handkerchief."

What an odd question! How do I know? How do we know that she said anything to the man but this? We do not have the conversation on record, do we? And people sometimes DO raise their voices, for whatever reason.

You tell me to argue rationally. How much more rational can you be, than to accept the evidence material at hand? And it tells us emphatically that Kelly DID speak in a loud voice as she spoke of the handkerchief. And I for one would think it much more irrational to look away from the evidence. That would be foolish indeed.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Prostitute: Hey dearie, if you have a shilling, you can have some of this.

Client: Wow! May I say I like your stoutness?

Prostitute: After that crack, it'll cost you two.



Man: How did you become so stout?

Man2: I am on a strict health regimen.

Man: It must include a slab of bacon every day.

Man2: Quite.


Case rested


Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Just as an aside, a particularly astute commentator recently raised a rather crucial observation that I have completely overlooked. I may well be enlightened to the contrary by some eager beaver, but it seems very likely to me, despite what Hutchinsion claimed in his subsequently discredited account, that Dorset Street must have been patrolled at some point during those 45 minutes by one or more policemen. If Hutchinson and/or the loiterer were installed opposite the court with an apparent fixation with it, it would only have been natural for a policeman to investigate this and inquire as to the loiterer's reasons for being there.
Hence, if the loiterer had any nefarious reasons for his loitering, it is only logical to infer that his movements in Dorset Street would have been dictated to some extent by the movements of the bobbies on beat. In other words, ducking into passageways and doorways to avoid attracting their attention."

I think I may take care of the enlightenment in this case, Ben. Your suggestion sounded reasonable enough for a split second. But that was before I gave it some afterthought.

- First point: We know that dorset Street had a vicious rumour, and it was said that no lone PC entered it. So maybe there is reason to believe that the police simply avoided the street. If so, we should not expect any bobby patrolling it at all on the night.

- Hutchinson says a PC passed up on Commercial Street, but he says noting about any PC making the rounds on Dorset Street.
Now, why would he not mention such a thing? Think of it: it could definitely and finally have clinched his story. Abberline would only need to consult the lists of patrolling policemen, and after that he could have had Hutchinson´s presence confirmed. Why would Hutch let go of that sort of opportunity?

- Turn the perspective around: If Hutchinson did NOT mention any PC patrolling the street, Abberline would surely check the list of patrolling PC:s anyway - if he had a man in place between 2 AM and 2.45, he would have wanted to know what that man saw in Dorset Street. And if a PC had actually told Hutchinson to circulate, he would reasonably not have forgotten about it. But no such confirmation seems to be at hand.

- Penultimate point: If we take a look at the street itself, where do we have the best opposrtunities to "duck into passageways" and disappear? At Crossinghams or at the archway leading up to the court? We know that Lewis spotted her loiterer in spite of the fact that he apparently stood more or less leaning up the door of the lodging house by appearances. I think we must work from the stance that a patrolling PC would have been no less observant. Therefore, if Hutch HAD nefarious reasons for being in the street, the reasnable place tp post himself would have been right at the archway leading up to the court. If he did, he could slip into the court and stay hidden from anybody passing outside it.

- Final point: Dew was of the meaning that Hutch had mistaken the day. And indeed, Hutchinson was dropped by the police, by the looks of things. That tallies awfully well with a PC, when asked by Abberline, stating that he saw nobody at all outside the lodging house OR the court when he made his rounds - if, indeed, any such round WAS made in the first place.

That´s what I think. Does that make me an eager beaver?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

First of all thanks so much to Garry for posting the contempory sketch of Hutchinson. Yes that was the sketch that I had in mind. When we compare sketches that were made from life, with the actual people involved in the case ( when photographs exist), we can see that they were really rather accurate.

We can see from the sketch that Hutchinson could indeed be described as stout (look at his face ! and shoulders !). He doesn't look aged 22, nor does he correspond to the only photo of Toppy that we have (although Toppy is old in the photos, people can't change their skeletons and natural build ; Toppy looked a more finer and delicate build altogether).

The description of the Victoria Home in 1889 was fascinating ! I note that in the description the word 'officers' was used, which implies ex-army. I don't mean to suggest that Hutch would have been an officer, but had he been a groom in the army, then that would have been a cut above the ordinary foot soldier.

Of course the Victoria Home was the epicentre of the killings, and of course the victims drank (and solicited between the exteriors) of the local pubs. I am interested to see that the Landlord of the pub on the corner of Hanbury Street was also the Landlord of a pub in Berner Street, and Hutch had reportedely been employed 'humping barrels in a pub' -a nebulous link with Berner Street ?.

Lechmere:

Where had he been as a groom

He was a witness, remember, not a suspect, and although witnesses are checked out today as possible suspects, due to more experience on the part of the Police as to the behaviour of serial killers, a positive appraisal by Abberline might have been enough to exclude him being thouroughly investigated at the time.If he had been in the army -serving the Queen- as a groom, that might be enough.

. Why did he need a knife? An extra sharp one?

You obviously haven't done the physical jobs that I have in France ! You would know that ropes/string are used to bind crates together in warehouses, gates to keep animals in, hay bales, sacks etc. and one doesn't wander around wittering 'I can't undo that knot ! Has anyone got a knife ?' -I have pointed out before that a groom would have a knife to get stones out of hooves, trim the hooves, or cut free an animal that was entangled. People would carry knives to cut meat, and eat "on the hoof". Bob Hinton even gave a very interesting theory in his book about ex soldiers bringing back the tops of zulu spears (for example)as souvenirs and adapting them to use. Why would anyone use a blunt knife -of course it would be sharp !
Of course a jobbing labourer would have a sharp knife !!

Alias’s were mainly employed by the underworld, prostitutes, criminals - not grooms and labourers.
If none of this checked out then I suggest the police would have taken a keen interest in him.

Well, when I thought of searching for Hutch in the army, the first problem that I realised when doing some preliminary research on 'how to go about it', was that it was accepted, and common to use, an alias when enlisting (like the Foreign Legion !).

Google 'Military Records' and this comes up ":Aliases – men appear under the names they enlisted under and were known to the army"
Yes, it was THAT common.

Plasterer Joseph Fleming and market porter Joe Barnett both appear to have also used aliases, and there is no suggestion that they were criminals.
Yes, they moved in the same circles as prostitutes and lived in the lower echelons of Whitechapel society -and so did Hutch.

[Fisherman]

My phrase:

"How do we know that she said anything to the man but this? "

Because it is stated in the police report, of course. Forgot about that. But in the end, she may have raised her voice on that part too - we just don´t know.

The best
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

My phrase:

"How do we know that she said anything to the man but this? "

Because it is stated in the police report, of course. Forgot about that. But in the end, she may have raised her voice on that part too - we just don´t know.

The best
Fisherman

This banging on about a 'detail' Fish -I think that Hutch WAS waiting about near the area of the court at about that time -because I think that it was corroborated by Mrs Lewis.

So he knew the regular timings of the Policeman's beat and took pains to avoid him by walking round the block ?

I don't think that it is remotely probable that he saw anyone like A Man -so whether he could of hypothetically heard him or not, is only a measure of
how accurate his 'lie' might be.

Since you go into personal stories -then here is one from me :

I went to a 'Posh' (Livery) lunch, in 'the City', with my sister, when last in London (a week or so ago).

We went down to Durward Street, at night, still dressed for the 'Lunch'.

Whitechapel Highstreet had a mixture of people from all walks of life, and it is obvious that the Spitalfields end was terribly trendy and no doubt terribly expensive !

That was not the case as soon as we crossed the railway bridge behind
Whitechapel overland station , at night: the first people that we crossed were a teenage gang, and we immediately attracted their attention.

The back streets leading back to the Princess Alice were full of people, from which we certainly stood out like 'sore thumbs', and they turned round to clock us..We didn't feel at ease.

This is in 2011, in fashionable Whitechapel/Spitalfields/Brick Lane.

I don't dispute for a moment Dave's social map of Whitechapel in the 1880s : I DO dispute that a rich looking person would ever have ventured into the back slum streets (Dorset Street being one) , in the early hours of the morning, and knowing that he was being followed :
It is preposterous that a man in that coat, flapping his jewellery, wouldn't be
noticed by everyone that he passed (at best) or mugged(worse).

Have you read about all the circumstances regarding the attack on Thomas Sadler (Fances Cole murder) ?

If I thought that the A Man story was 'mad' before visiting the area -I think that it's doubly 'mad' today.

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"It should be noted that this was a sketch made during the very week that Hutchinson made his police statement. The other drawing, the one to which Lechmere has made reference, was, so far as I'm aware, produced something like a decade later and is thus utterly worthless if one is looking for an accurate depiction of Hutchinson."

It of course should also be noted that we do not in any way know that the man (?) who drew this picture even saw Hutchinson, as I understand it. Not that it matters much, since the sketch in itself tells us very little about what the man looked like in the first place. But nevertheless, it should perhaps be pointed out.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

yeah, yeah, yeah Fish -that looks just like the type of generic sketch that one would invent !

It's got bags of personality and movement, and looks nothing like any of the
other sketches of any other person..

From the other sketches made which can be compared to photographs, we know that these drawings were very accurate !

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"yeah, yeah, yeah Fish -that looks just like the type of generic sketch that one would invent !
It's got bags of personality and movement, and looks nothing like any of the
other sketches of any other person..
From the other sketches made which can be compared to photographs, we know that these drawings were very accurate!"

Aha! So from this we can actually KNOW that it was not only drawn by an artist that had access to Hutchinson in real life, but it was also a very precise depiction of him!

Or is it the other way around: that you THINK that it was a real life drawing of Hutch, you THINK that it has "bags of personality and movement", you THINK that it is completely unique and looks like no other drawing of any other person and you THINK that it must be a very accurate drawing of George Hutchinson?

If so, I can assure you that I do a lot of thinking too. Some of it revolves around the quality of the posts on this thread. But I will say no more.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Pc L 63

Ben:

"Just as an aside, a particularly astute commentator recently raised a rather crucial observation that I have completely overlooked. I may well be enlightened to the contrary by some eager beaver, but it seems very likely to me, despite what Hutchinsion claimed in his subsequently discredited account, that Dorset Street must have been patrolled at some point during those 45 minutes by one or more policemen. If Hutchinson and/or the loiterer were installed opposite the court with an apparent fixation with it, it would only have been natural for a policeman to investigate this and inquire as to the loiterer's reasons for being there.
Hence, if the loiterer had any nefarious reasons for his loitering, it is only logical to infer that his movements in Dorset Street would have been dictated to some extent by the movements of the bobbies on beat. In other words, ducking into passageways and doorways to avoid attracting their attention."

I think I may take care of the enlightenment in this case, Ben. Your suggestion sounded reasonable enough for a split second. But that was before I gave it some afterthought.

- First point: We know that dorset Street had a vicious rumour, and it was said that no lone PC entered it. So maybe there is reason to believe that the police simply avoided the street. If so, we should not expect any bobby patrolling it at all on the night.

- Hutchinson says a PC passed up on Commercial Street, but he says noting about any PC making the rounds on Dorset Street.
Now, why would he not mention such a thing? Think of it: it could definitely and finally have clinched his story. Abberline would only need to consult the lists of patrolling policemen, and after that he could have had Hutchinson´s presence confirmed. Why would Hutch let go of that sort of opportunity?

- Turn the perspective around: If Hutchinson did NOT mention any PC patrolling the street, Abberline would surely check the list of patrolling PC:s anyway - if he had a man in place between 2 AM and 2.45, he would have wanted to know what that man saw in Dorset Street. And if a PC had actually told Hutchinson to circulate, he would reasonably not have forgotten about it. But no such confirmation seems to be at hand.

- Penultimate point: If we take a look at the street itself, where do we have the best opposrtunities to "duck into passageways" and disappear? At Crossinghams or at the archway leading up to the court? We know that Lewis spotted her loiterer in spite of the fact that he apparently stood more or less leaning up the door of the lodging house by appearances. I think we must work from the stance that a patrolling PC would have been no less observant. Therefore, if Hutch HAD nefarious reasons for being in the street, the reasnable place tp post himself would have been right at the archway leading up to the court. If he did, he could slip into the court and stay hidden from anybody passing outside it.

- Final point: Dew was of the meaning that Hutch had mistaken the day. And indeed, Hutchinson was dropped by the police, by the looks of things. That tallies awfully well with a PC, when asked by Abberline, stating that he saw nobody at all outside the lodging house OR the court when he made his rounds - if, indeed, any such round WAS made in the first place.

That´s what I think. Does that make me an eager beaver?

The best,
Fisherman

Fish,

This may be of some slight interest.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=4099

Monty

[Lechmere]

That is an interesting piece on the Victoria Home that Gary Wroe posted up. It contradicts the three other reports in as much as it says it was no longer run by a charitable institution. But it doesn’t touch on the curfew system.
It is also interesting as it indicates that the police did indeed take an interest in the building. If a discredited witness lived there it would imply to me that they would endeavour to check him out (e.g. what are the names of your relatives in Romford, which firms did you apply for a job with etc or whatever excuse he came out with).

Charles Dickens Junior wrote a glowing report on London’s Common Lodging Houses. Jack London and Henry Mayhew wrote from the opposite perspective, portraying them at their worst. Then we have ‘In Whitechapel’, ‘Later Leaves’ and the Telegraph painting the Victoria Home as a rare and uplifting example to the rest. Then we have Inspector ‘Harris’, from a police, anti-criminal perspective saying the Victoria Home is a likely base for the Ripper.
The point being that an author can make use of similar pieces of evidence and come up with widely differing answers, based on what they are trying to get across.
Of course we see that in this discussion.


The picture of Hutchinson is interesting also, but it is a bit nondescript. I would say you couldn’t judge age or stoutness from it. The hat doesn’t look like a wide-awake to me either – more of a bowler.

I had read the Harris piece before but forgot it. I had also seen the picture before but forgot it was Hutchinson. I will try to lodge them in my memory now, so it is good they have been re-posted.

Fisherman got in first with the obvious point about Abberline being able to check out whether a beat copper saw Hutchinson in Dorset Street – if beat coppers went down Dorset Street. There were many, many aspects of Hutchinson’s story that could have been checked out, if they believed he had lied. Even if they don’t think he lied it would be remarkable for them not to check him in any way.

Good Michael...

Man: How did you become so stout?
Man2: I am on a strict health regimen.

For one terrible moment I thought that last sentence was
‘I am in a strict regiment’.

Rubyrertro – ‘groom’ wasn’t a rank in the army. Cavalrymen would groom their own horses and one or more might be detailed to groom an officer’s horse. But that wasn’t a privilege.
The point about Hutchinson being a witness is that when he was no longer regarded as a witness, which clearly did happen, questions would surely be raised about his story. The argument is that it would be unlikely the police would just dismiss him when he said he was at the scene of crime or there abouts. That does not imply that the police dismissed him with bad feelings as was implied before and which I put up counter arguments to. He could have been, but there is no reason to believe he was.

Ben – Eureka (spelt wrongly) was because I was having great difficulty loading the soldier images for some reason. The stereotype non-stout Victorian archetypes of soldiers.

I if am able to avoid straying over the border into the tipping a pint of Guinness over someone’s head type of aggression, the blindingly obvious way a special late night break the curfew pass might be issued is:
“Hello Mr Deputy I will be back late tonight as I will not be back from work until 2.30”.
“Really Mr Hutchinson? Why is that, have you found a job?”
(Note: I think they would have known the regulars by name – they do in those big institutions now so I reckon they did then).
“I’ve got a job labouring in Romford and I’ve got to walk back afterwards. I was hoping to get a job as a night watchman but nothing ever came of it.”
(Note: he clearly forgot to tell them this on the night in question)
“Fine – here’s your pass. I’ll make a note in the book that you will be in at 2.30”.
(Note: if Hutchinson was pulling the wool over their eyes and really he was going out binge drinking, and he turned up pissed at 2.30, then he would be in danger of being thrown out for good.)

It’s probably similar to when boys at school are given permission to leave the grounds on some supposed errand, to go to ‘town’, but come back smelling of cigarette smoke, and get six of the best in the dorm.

Ben, that example might make it clearer to you.
Just in case you are concerned I was joking about the Guinness.

[Lechmere]

The little picture of the beat copper may be the one Hutchinson said he saw on Commercial Street. Also of interest is that the issue of the IPN was dated 24th November and I believe I am right in saying that Hutchinson was still treated as a credible witness in that issue.
Which goes to show that the stories discrediting him on I think 13th - 15th November were not necessarily a true reflection of how he was regared.