Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Ben]

Well my curiosity is truly piqued now - you'll have to PM it!

In the meantime, before I get bollocked (ha!) for disrupting the thread, back to Hutchinson who probably didn't see or hear any red handkerchief-donating gold-chain wearing surly Jewish types consorting with Kelly on the night of her murder.

[Garry Wroe]

Just for clarity, the picture posted is of Rothschild Buildings (Thrawl Street), built c.1886/7. They were not like the Victoria Homes in that they weren't hostels, but rented flats, predominantly occupied by working class families.

Many thanks, John. Somewhare deep in my rapidly declining brain did lurk the suspicion that the featured building was more Octavia Hill than Victoria Home. Still, now that you're here, I wonder if I might impose further. It has been speculated on this thread that the Victoria Home #2 was sited on what is today's Booth House. My understanding, however, is that it was next door at 177 Whitechapel Road. What are your thoughts on this? And have Whitechapel Road's house numbers changed over the last century or so? More importantly, do you know of any photograph featuring the Whitechapel Road Victoria Home?

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Sally]

Victoria Home, Whitechapel Road

Hi Garry

The second Victoria Home was at 177 Whitechapel Road, yes. It was run by the Salvation Army by 1927 - probably sooner, and is clearly referred to as the Victoria Home in the 1911 census.

Best regards

Sally

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro...
If Hutchinson was a regular in the Victoria Home the probability is he would be known. Those places are and were not anonymous. There would be a good chance that other inmates would notice if he wasn’ t there. By no means a certainty but a good chance.
Of course he could have been a charming and plausible liar and talked his way out of situations.
The Victoria Home did not allow people to come and go at all hours at will – as shown by the rules and also shown by Hutchinson saying his normal place was closed (most lodging houses never closed).

One of the first things the police wanted to know was where the person worked, as that meant the person could be checked out. If Hutchinson was in temporary work or often out of work, that would raise police eyebrows. That was one of the prejudices the police had at the time. It is noted again and again. The police could easily have checked with any previous employers – stables or whatever. Maybe such checks would turn nothing up but they did used to check.
We know they turned witnesses out of bed. It happened to Robert Paul who was much less likely to attract attention as a possible culprit than Hutchinson.
Given that Hutchinson put himself at the crime scene at the time of murder, if the police thought he was lying then it is extremely unlikely they would have sent him on his way without first satisfying themselves that he was in the clear.

Ben – a-ha – got you!
“You have authors, for example, who are quite happy to conclude that the ripper was a black magician who plotted the location of the murders to form a special symbol, but who dismiss Hutchinson’s claims as outlandish.”
The very fact that a discredited source states that Hutchinson could not hear, means that Hutchinson could hear. It is now undeniable. Proof positive of ever there was that Hutchinson could hear ever word, even when whispered. I insist that no more bunkum is spoken on this matter. This matter has been raked over at least five years hence, or was it ten? and so I say again, no more!

Booth House occupies a long frontage on Whitechapel Road. I believe the first non Booth House building heading east is an old building. From memory I think it is was some sort of educational establishment. It may be 189 Whitechapel Road which was occupied by the Academy Drama School until it became insolvent in 2007.
If there were any old ‘actooors’ around they may be able to confirm. Or deny.

The Salvation Army took over the Whitechapel Road Victoria Home in 1919.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"However, the Police were no longer looking for the fictitious 'person' as witnessed by Hutchinson."

There is no evidence at all anywhere, in police reports or in memoirs or papers, telling us that Astrakhan man was ever looked upon as fictitious, I“m afraid. My guess is that he was looked upon as very real - but not 5there on the night. Hunter“s expolits, by the way, resulted in him being able to tell us not only that the man was sought after for quite some time after Hutchinson“s appearance, but also that men in Astrakhan oercoats actually were brought in to be questioned. I don“t remember the details, but that was the gist of it. If nothing else, it shows us that men in Astrakhan overcoats were walking the East End streets back then!

"That it is almost impossible that Hutch could have been mistaken as to the day, has been ably shown on this thread."

No, no, no. It has been said by the Hutchinsonians, Ruby. And that is something totally different from it having been in any way substantiated. In fact, substantiation is exactly what is lacking in this issue; just as it is cheerfully guessed that Hutchinson would not have been able to hear the conversation of the couple with no substantiation at all, the exact same thing goes for the "able" material used to try and refute the wrong day premise. "Munväder" is the Swedish term for it; "mouthweather", that is.

"I'm genuinly suprised that you, as a journalist, can't seem to empathise.
"

So, Ruby, you would prefer journalists not to keep a cool head at all times, and instead let affection get the better of them? That is not how I learnt the trade.

"You're wrong !"

Nope. I“m not.

"We can't bring our families into the Thread when it suits us.;and then get hot and bothered when it doesn't suit us.."

On the contrary - we can. But if everybody has the decency not to make any wise cracks about it, we don“t have to. That, however, does not apply here, does it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -I have to be quick as I have my Family to see to !

Your unwaving belief in the 1888 Policeforce is laudable ! -this would be the same Police force that DIDN'T catch the Ripper, right ?

If Hutchinson was a regular in the Victoria Home the probability is he would be known. Those places are and were not anonymous. There would be a good chance that other inmates would notice if he wasn’ t there. By no means a certainty but a good chance.

Certainly he'd be known ! They probably gave him a good character reference !

The Victoria Home did not allow people to come and go at all hours at will

–

Incidently Letchmere -apart from Mary Kelly, how long do you think the other murders took to commit ?

I don't think it was a prison! He was "allowed" to take casual work with irregular hours and work out of town !

One of the first things the police wanted to know was where the person worked, as that meant the person could be checked out. If Hutchinson was in temporary work or often out of work, that would raise police eyebrows.

well apparently it didn't "raise eyebrows" since he was cited in the papers as being unemployed.

.

The police could easily have checked with any previous employers

–

How ? How many ex-employers ? The one's that Hutch told them of ?

put himself at the crime scene at the time of murder, if the police thought he was lying then it is extremely unlikely they would have sent him on his way without first satisfying themselves that he was in the clear.

And what if they thought that he was in the clear , then ?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"From my experience, the extent of belief invested in Hutchinson’s claims – particularly those related to sounds, sightings and distances – is proportional to the knowledge those believers have of the geography of the area. Those who endorse Hutchinson’s account as fine and dandy with respect to the distances involved are rarely very knowledgeable about such matters, from my experience, and they have rarely, if ever, visited the locations themselves."

Then you should be thrilled to have an exception to the rule, Ben.

"Harry raised a crucial point concerning Kelly’s raised voice, and how odd and eccentric it would be for her to shout in order to be heard by the Astrakhan man standing next to her."

A good thing, then, that she did NOT shout, but just spoke in a raised voice. Maybe, Ben, she had popped over to Crossingham“s, since that is what people generally do? From there, she may have felt a need to raise her voice somewhat.
It is strange , but from my experience I find that people who mistake a raised voice for a shout, generally do not have any more useful insights into accoustics and such.

"After giving his police statement, Hutchinson probably realised that in the absence of a "loud voice" from Kelly, he couldn’t have heard conversation travelling from the Miller’s Court entrance to the corner of Dorset Street, and so he made alterations accordingly when subsequently speaking to the press."

Aha: He knew that a normal conversation is held at about 60 dB, and he accordingly measured the distance and came up with the insight that it would be possible to hear a raised voice clearly, but perhaps not a normal conversation.
You know, Ben, to me this sounds very incredible. Then again, as it can perhaps be suggested that the couple spoke in a slightly LOWER voice than ordinary, due to a want for privacy and perhaps wanting to let people sleep, who knows: Maybe he simply heard that they were speaking, but could not make out any more than the loud part. It would tally eminently with the distance, and what“s more: that may just be a very feasible explanation to what happened. You see, maybe he was not a wizard on comparisons inbetween voice levels and distances. Maybe he just said what he heard. And THEN he killed Kelly! No, wait a sec ...

"Yes, I do have a problem with your "reconstruction", but if I were to outline the nature of these problems, I would be concerned that you will find yet another excuse to contact the administrators."

No serious criticism could bring that around, Ben. Read into that what you wish. What I read into it is a complete lack of any such criticism. Which is understandable.

"I did. They couldn't."

Then you did it wrong. Or perhaps the ones you spoke to were just lousy listeners.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"This matter has been raked over at least five years hence, or was it ten? and so I say again, no more!"

I am nourishing a hope that I will disappoint you on this point in the near future, Lechmere...

the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike:

"It's quite possible even that Hutch pointed out the guy, the police checked him out and he was okay, and then they would have had no need of Hutch anymore."

That can of course not be ruled out. But IF this was done, and IF it was established that Hutchinson had seen Astrakhan man on the morning of the 9:th, then why would Dew tell us that Hutch would have been mistaken as to the day? And why would the papers say that the story was discredited?

Next up: Astrakhan man may have been real, but was there on the morning of the 8:th, Hutchinson DID identify him, and was then let go. That too may have happened, and to me it is more credible. But once more - if it was all cleared up, then why would Dew insist? And why did the papers not say what happened, instead of writing in a more sinister and less informing manner?

The MOST credible solution, though, would be that Hutchinson mixed up the days, he DID see Astrakhan man but on the 8:th, the man was sought after very intensely in the beginning, but when it was found out why Hutchinson never saw Lewis, the search became a second option priority. Et voilį; Lewis explained, Dew explained, the papers explained ... you name it. When things tally like this, we arenot dealing with coincidences, Mike. Not to my mind, we“re not.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Monty:

"Jesus, talk about roundabouts...we were discussing this nigh on 10 years ago..."

Okay, Monty. And let me guess what you came up with! Or did you agree...? (just joking)

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Hutchinson never saw Lewis, the search became a second option priority. Et voilį; Lewis explained

????

So WHO did Mrs Lewis see ? Why weren't the Police looking for this prime witness/suspect ? why didn't he come forward ?

[Fisherman]

Ruby_

"So WHO did Mrs Lewis see ?"

Someone else, of course.

"Why weren't the Police looking for this prime witness/suspect ?"

They weren“t?

"why didn't he come forward ?"

Options:
Because he did not want to get involved
Because he had been visiting a prostitute and was none too proud of it - and nor would his wife be
Because he was the killer - but not Hutchinson
Because he never found out that he was searched for
Because he emigrated to Mongolia
Because he was run over by a horsedrawn carriage
Because he was a burglar, and was none too interested in chatting with Abberline
Because ...

No, I“m too tired to write more right now. Is it enough for you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro
My only point – that some were disputing I believe, is that given his credibility as a witness was somehow brought into question, it is likely the police would have checked Hutchinson out at the Victoria Home and would probably have made some effort to check his recent movements and to trace his family background and his previous employers. The fact that he was unemployed would have given them more cause to check whatever they could, not less as they were prejudiced against the unemployed. Clearly he could have lied and led them up the garden path, if he was the culprit. Whatever, he clearly managed to satisfy them.

In my opinion the police were fairly useless throughout this investigation – but not totally useless. I had a discussion with Ben about this distinction on this thread some posts back.

When dealing with bureaucracies, if you are an unknown, a faceless nothing, then they don’t open a file on you. You can get away with... lots.
If you are a goody-goody and make yourself known, then you can’t get away with much.
For example if you get a parking ticket and just ignore it. After a while they give up. Particularly if your car is an old banger that you have to scrap soon after. Or so I’m told.
The same thing happened with the old Community Charge/Poll Tax. The people who didn’t pay and entered into no correspondence tended to have their debt written off. The busy bodies who made a song and dance about it were taken to court. As a file was opened on them.
Same with a TV licence.

Hutchinson saw to it that a file was opened on him. He made himself known. Now I know a minority of serial killers and murderers do this, and usually end up getting caught. All I am saying is that he would have been under scrutiny and it is unlikely the police will just have dismissed him without a thought once they decided he was no longer a credible witness. Even the fairy useless Ripper investigating team would not have done that – I don’t think.

On the issue of why didn’t the police try and track down Lewis’s loiterer if it wasn’t Hutchinson. There are loads of unidentified witnesses in the many statements that are still extant. How many more witness statements were there? Conservatively hundreds. How many loose ends did they have to deal with? Too many to cope with. (That isn’t to say they wouldn’t have had time to check out Hutchinson – as they had a file opened on him, a witness file, but still a file).

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Garry

The second Victoria Home was at 177 Whitechapel Road, yes. It was run by the Salvation Army by 1927 - probably sooner, and is clearly referred to as the Victoria Home in the 1911 census.

I thought as much, Sally.

Many thanks.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

“If Hutchinson was a regular in the Victoria Home the probability is he would be known”

By who, Lechmere?

The Victoria Home catered for 450 men nightly, most of whom were decidedly transient in their sleeping arrangements. What are the realistic chances of any one particular lodger becoming well known, especially if that one particular lodger happened to be a solitary dosser who kept himself to himself? Effectively zero, obviously.

“The Victoria Home did not allow people to come and go at all hours at will”

They clearly did if the lodgers in question were in possession of a daily or weekly pass, which took the form of generic metal “cheques”.

Once again – and many, many more times if necessary – it most emphatically does not follow that a witness believed to have been lying was automatically considered a suspect. It didn’t happen with Matthew Packer and it didn’t happen with Emmanuel Violenia, despite the fact that both of them claimed to have been at or near a crime scene relevant to the time of a murder. These men were simply dismissed as lying witnesses, and in all overwhelming likelihood, their possible culpability in the murders was never considered. Policing in general was in its infancy in 1888, and it is very unlikely that the authorities considered for one moment that the real killer would waltz into a police station requesting an audience with the police. I really have no idea what you mean about Hutchinson’s being out of work raising police eyebrows. Whatever it was that led to Hutchinson’s discrediting, we know that Abberline was perfectly happy to accept that Hutchinson was without regular employment without raising an eyebrow.

“Ben – a-ha – got you!”

You’re a funny bloke, Fetchbeer, I’ll grant you that.

What’s slightly frustrating is that Sally and Rubyretro have already disabused you of this rather eccentric idea that Hutchinson’s coming forward ensured that he quickly became the subject of intense scrutiny and indefatigable “checking”. Let’s assume you’re right. You’re almost certainly not, but let’s just assume for a moment. You say that the police must have checked the Victoria Home – yes, he had slept there and it was the place he usually slept at - what conclusion would the police then have arrived at? Then family background and previous employers would have been investigated, again according to you. Again, very implausible, but let’s at least entertain it as a hypothesis. What are you suggesting the police would have concluded from this? That reputable past employers (let’s say) and a normal working-class family background (let’s say) exonerates him from the possibility of involvement in the murders?

The idea that making yourself known as a witness in 1888 meant that the police would then “open a file on you” is really rather silly and baseless.