Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Hunter]

I've seen plenty of intoxicated prople shout when they didn't need to.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Hunter,
My wife not ten minutes ago,mentioned there was no need to 'shout', guess there is some truth in that reflection...
Richard.

[Lechmere]

The difference between Hutchinson and many of the other witnesses from a police perespective is that he put himself at the crime scene at the time of the crime.
How many other discredited witnesses did this? Not Packer, not Violenia and they were both extensively checked out.
How many witnesses were placed right at the crime scene and didn’t have a good reason to be there? Cadoche, Davis, Cross, Paul, Schwartz and Lawende weren’t discredited.
How many witnesses got a glowing report from Abbeline?
How many witnesses were remembered by name by Dew.
Howe many witnesses statements were picked up with such initial enthusiasm by the press?

These factors taken together make Hutchinson an out of the ordinary Ripper witness. That is why when he was dismissed, unless the police had good reason why they shouldn’t look further, they probably did take a closer look.
We can speculate until the cows come home as to why he was dismissed and what questions he may have been asked. All I would contend is that it is fairly self evident that the above scenario is the most likely course of events.
You make like to think that even if he was the culprit then he could have bluffed his way through it.

The point I was making about the police attitude towards the unemployed was as follows:
• If he said he had a job then that would give them confidence in him and allow them to check him out easily. That was one reason why they were soft on the employed and hard on the unemployed.
• If he said he was unemployed then they would have wanted previous employers’ details and they would have put him under closer scrutiny – probably. That was how they operated.
I have no knowledge as to which of these two options he would have told them.
Please note – at no time did I say that the police would have been suspicious of him just because he was unemployed. What I said was they would have looked more closely at him.
Incidentally if the police had no reason to suspect him at the time, precisely what new information about this man has materialised since then that makes him seem more guilty to any one today?
All you have is stuff about serial killers inserting themselves in crimes and often being nobodies. Leave the insertion to one side – the police were lifting ‘nobody’ suspects left right and centre throughout the investigation.

Good Michael - I keep telling myself not to bother!

[Jane Coram]

If I ever have an argument with my husband (a rarity), he always says:

"Don't shout at me."

I reply calmly,

"I'm not shouting . . ."

"No," he says, "But you would be if you raised your voice."

You can't argue with logic like that.

I am enjoying the discussion very much by the way; I'm just wondering if Casebook's server can take the strain or is going to crash any minute from the size of this thread.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[harry]

Nice one Jane.Perhaps we shall at some time get around to someone suggesting it was Kelly's husband whom she met in Commercial Street and who had mistakenly been reported as having been killed in a mine accident.Still that would be an improvement on Hutchinson forgetting the days.

Fisherman,
If you read properly,it's not a case of me ignoring what the paper said,it's a case of comparing the paper report with Hutchinson's signed statement.The paper has him stopping at the corner untill Kelly and companion entered the court,His signed statement has him following them into Dorset Street,and watching from a position in the street.Nothing in either to say he first went into the street,then went back to watch from the corner.
I'll stick with my assessment of 50 yards,untill I find,or you show,an official street map with the yardage printed,but I have conceded I will use your stated measurement of 35/36 metres.
Surprising to note you now prefer newspaper reports over officially taken statements.There was a time when you seemed to prefer it the other way round.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Nobody said he 'could not' have mixed up the days."

But how can you say something like that? Please read what this quote says:

"Could Hutchinson have possibly mistaken the night on which he said, in his witness statement, (the only statement which we have) , that he was standing in Dorset Street for around 3/4 of an hour, waiting in the area of Miller's Court.
answer: NO."

Now what does that post say, if not that he COULD NOT have mistaken the day...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -

I doubt any murder took more than ten minutes (apart from Kelly) but it is someone irrelevant.

It is totally relevant to your assertion that Hutchinson 'would have been missed and drawn attention to himself at the Victoria Home'.

If he didn’t have a special pass he would have to be on by 1.00 am (maybe12.30 am). That means maybe he could have killed Stride and got home before the doors slammed shut.
Otherwise he would have to have asked for a special pass (and drawn attention to himself) or stopped out (and drawn attention to himself as his record wouldn’t have been filled up, with a tick or whatever against his name)

Where do you have the information that the Victoria kept a ledger with ticks against the lodger's names ?
No matter -here is one scenario (purely invented and only designed to prove
that even WITH ticks against the lodger's names, Hutch could easily have done it):
Let us imagine that Hutch knows the Landlord of the pub on the corner of Hanbury Street -indeed he is sometimes paid cash in hand to lug up beer barrels and throw out the last customers, on a casual irregular basis.

On the day of the double event this Landlord offers him work that night, and, knowing that he will finish work after the last customers have left the pub, Hutch applies for a night pass to the Victoria. Heck, let's imagine that he worked nearly all that week (replacing someone off to visit their family) and had a weekly pass enabling him to come in late.

I doubt that the Victoria questioned each and every job their lodger's had -but let us imagine that Hutch volunteers the information that he is working for Landlord X that week -nothing unusual in it.

Let us imagine that during the evening in question the Landlord sends Hutch down to his other pub in Berner Street, where he is a familiar and trusted face, and Hutch meets Liz Stride and notes that she is solliciting in Dutfield's Yard. Well, he knows Liz, since she often sollicits from pub to pub at his locals -it is easy for him to say a few words to her like '' meet you after the pub closes , love". No 'prowling' needed ! What's more he knows Dutfield's Yard because the back of the pub gives onto the Yard, and he is familiar with the place after dark and the amount of traffic there. Even if he is spotted in the street, it won't matter, because he has a reason to be there.

So he kills Liz -but is interrupted by Diemschitz and decides to look for another victim to mutilate, leaving the area by the backstreets (so as to lessen the chances of meeting someone that he knows on Commercial Road) and heads for St Botolphs -no need for 'prowling' there !

It takes him about 15 minutes and he's 'lucky' enough to meet Eddowes
immediately.
The deal is done, and 15 minutes later Eddowes is dead...he was in such a hurry though that he made more of a mess than usual and has to take a bit of apron to clean up on.
He takes the quickest and most direct route home to the Victoria, passing only to throw the cloth into a dark doorway where he hopes that it won't be discovered before morning. Since he knows very well that there were Jewish club meetings next to Dutfield's Yard and he had also seen Jews near Mitre Square coming from a club, and he knows the building on Goulston Street is mainly inhabited by Jews -so he chooses THAT doorway, rather than another.

Hutch gets in to the Victoria with his pass, and it is only an hour later -let's say 45 minutes (it would have taken him time to walk back from Hanbury).
Well, he has often hung about talking after work -or enjoying a last pint after closing time, there is nothing unusual about this time lapse..

Now let's say that after Kelly's murder and Hutchinson coming forward as a witness, the Police DO check out his whereabouts on the night of these murders. I will go completely in your sense, Lechmere, and imagine that Hutch IS known at the Victoria and there is a book with 'ticks' (very unlikely).

So where was Hutch on the night of the Double Event ? -he was working
for the pub on the corner of Hanbury and came in at the same sort of times every night.

The Police interview the Landlord of the pub on the corner of Hanbury :
"Yes. I know Hutchinson -he's an excellent worker -great bloke- no problem there. yes, he did work for me when X was off on leave. Yes, he gets off at X time but often stays with us for a drink after.."

Let me play Devil's Advocate and imagine that the Landlord DID remember that Hutch had gone down to Berner Street on the night..but being totally sure that Hutch is perfectly innocent and it is a mere coincidence, decides not to complicate the man's life by telling the Police that.

That is a totally imagined scenario (but so much more believable than Fish's),
and I could write you loads of different one's to show that Hutch could have done the murders and nothing unusual ever to have been shown in any putative 'records' at his lodgings. Not that I think that there were any anyway..

On a night when he found a victim, I would presume he would have to prowl around a bit first. It would not realistically be a case of pop out from the Victoria Home, find someone, kill them, nip back all done and dusted within half an hour.
That would draw attention to him if nothing else did.

He would not have to 'prowl'. These women were 'prowling' if anything, looking for clients. The murderer most probably used the local pubs (situated nearly opposite the Victoria), and the women walked from pub to pub looking for likely men. Hutch was probably a face that they knew.

.

However I would suggest that if the police could not establish any bona fides for him then that would increase their suspicion and follow him etc. He would probably have turned into a major suspect.

But what happens if he didn't want to get caught, covered his tracks well, and behaved impeccably when not murdering during brief 10 minute lapses ?
He might even have kept a bible next to his bed, and read it every night for all you know !!

I would presume that they would have done some sort of check to satisfy themselves there was nothing dodgy about him. I don’t think it is credible to suggest otherwise.

I'm only suggesting that they could only check what he wanted them to.
Why should his behaviour have been 'dodgy' ? I shouldn't think that he would have come forward to Police if he thought that they would uncover anything dodgy about him.

So if he had masturbated after performing a caesarian on a horse, been involved in a massacre of villagers (and got off on it) whilst a soldier in the colonies, flashed women or chopped up the odd cat -how do you think that the police would know about things like that ? Those sort of things would not even be reported !

find it utterly amazing that according to the Hutchinsonites the police had no means to check anIyone out for anything. Truly remarkable.

Complete Tosh -no one hes suggested that the Police couldn't check 'anyone for anything'. We suggest both that he was a witness and not a suspect, and Police ressources were limited in 1888.

I was listening to an old pod cast last night and someone made the valid point that many people wanted to avoid being called as a witness at inquests and so forth as it meant losing a day’s pay (and getting meagre expenses in return). If you want a reason why Hutchinson appeared at the police station after the inquest you need look no further.

More Tosh, since Hutchinson was described by both Police and press as being 'unemployed' -how could he lose a day's pay ?

I like this bit Ben: “Lewis’ loiterer, who was clearly bypassed in terms of significance.”
Apart from by the crowds outside Shoredicth Town Hall. They sure whispered it abroad. And also apart from Rubyretro who thinks the connection was made and is vitally important.

Is this a clumsy attempt to 'divide and rule' ? Good (but clumsy) try, Lechmere* :

I agree totally with Ben that Mr Lewis's loiterer and Hutch both being in the same place, at the same time, and doing the same thing, is too great to be coincidence. I also agree that the fact that Hutch waited to come forward until Mrs Lewis had given evidence, and that is significant. I also agree that the broad cheeks and wide shoulders in the sketch of Hutch, correspond to the description of the 'loiterer'. These are the important bits !

Whether or not we agree on every detail doesn't change the main thrust of the argument at all : it only goes to prove that I have my own opinions and don't just agree with Ben.

Ben, yes I do avoid must have’s. Did you like Rubyretros’ ‘facts’?

* ditto

Rubyretro... one trait of serial killers is that they have many different traits and it is simplistic to generalise.

[/QUOTE]

Yet there are 'profiles' by the FBI which detail some traits which Serial Killers
have in common:
Thinking that they are 'too clever' for the Police to catch them, and liking to
involve themselves/keep appraised of their own cases are two of them..

[Fisherman]

Hunter:

"I've seen plenty of intoxicated prople shout when they didn't need to."

I´ve heard many a poster shout since they thought it would somehow better their arguments.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"If you read properly ..."

Oh, but I do, Harry!

"... it's not a case of me ignoring what the paper said,it's a case of comparing the paper report with Hutchinson's signed statement.The paper has him stopping at the corner untill Kelly and companion entered the court,His signed statement has him following them into Dorset Street,and watching from a position in the street.Nothing in either to say he first went into the street,then went back to watch from the corner."

There is only a discrepancy here if you choose to read it in, I´m afraid. Hutchinson quite clearly followed the couple in BOTH versions. In the police report it says:

"They both went into Dorset Street I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes."

Now, it says nothing at all about where his following the couple put him geographically, does it? Nor is it stated that Hutch followed them without stopping. From the beginning, both the couple and Hutchinson was in Commercial Street, at the end, both the couple and Hutchinson were in Dorset Street. And why was Hutch thee? Exactly, Harry - because he had followed the couple into the street. And if you follow that couple over Commercial Street, then watch them move westwards into and along Dorset Street, then stop for a while at the corner of Dorste Street and Commercial as the couple comes to a halt outside the court, and then proceed further into Dorset Street as they disappear into the archway of the court, well, then you do something that tallies with BOTH the report and the newspaper articles.

"I'll stick with my assessment of 50 yards,untill I find,or you show,an official street map with the yardage printed,but I have conceded I will use your stated measurement of 35/36 metres.
Surprising to note you now prefer newspaper reports over officially taken statements.There was a time when you seemed to prefer it the other way round."

Don´t use the 35 meter assessment, Harry. I have told you over and over again that it was faulty. 28-30 meters is the correct figure, and since 30 meters is a nice, round figure, I suggest we work from that (there, Harry - I did NOT suggest 28 meters, believe it or not!)

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby (but it could have been a number of posters):

"Hutchinson was described by both Police and press as being 'unemployed' -how could he lose a day's pay ?"

This pops up time and again. Hutchinson did not have a steady job at the time, apparently. But that does not mean that he would not work! He would in all probability have taken what was offered, and so he would work as often as he could. Thus, every day when he was deprived of the possibility to find himself a job, he potentially stood to loose a days wages.

How hard can it be?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

He must have worked quite regularly in fact - even if not a steady job - to be able to live at the Victoria Home. I suppose he did whatever was going at the time.

A lot of people seem to have scratched a living in pretty much the same way.

[The Good Michael]

This pops up time and again. Hutchinson did not have a steady job at the time, apparently. But that does not mean that he would not work!

Indeed. People with plumbing skills learned from their father tend to be handy with other things. He may even have done some work for the Victorian Home.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

[=

The Good Michael;164044]Indeed. People with plumbing skills learned from their father tend to be handy with other things. He may even have done some work for the Victorian Home.

How right you are Mike !
I couldn't agree more!

So difficult to imagine that such a person would ever be unemployed, or in need of doing such lowly and unskilled badly paid jobs as Hutchinson.

Why not find regular work as a plumber ?

Why not tell the Police that you are an unemployed plumber, if you were between jobs ?

[Rubyretro]

He must have worked quite regularly in fact - even if not a steady job - to be able to live at the Victoria Home. I suppose he did whatever was going at the time.

A lot of people seem to have scratched a living in pretty much the same way.

Well, obviously you are right, Sally..

Still apparently Hutch had no work when he said that he was looking for work in Romford.

Nor did he have work when he spoke to the Police and then the Press.

He DID apparently find some money in the days inbetween the murder and coming forward (since he was in the Victoria Home), so I'm suprised that he didn't apparently insist on this reason for him not coming forward to Police earlier

...it would have been logical to state this believable reason for his absence at the inquest -yet he gives rather the reason that another lodger at the home had encouraged him to come forward.

We know that Mary Kelly had had (a? some ?) clients the night of her death, and no money was found in her room, and that infers that the Ripper took it.

Hutchinson may have pawned some clothes (I think that the Ripper could easily have disposed of clothing in this way ).

He may of been lying about having spent all his money going down to Romford.

At any rate, I think that he found some money pretty quickly to pay for his bed after the Kelly murder, and that need not be by working...

[Lechmere]

"Still apparently Hutch had no work when he said that he was looking for work in Romford."
No we don't
We also have an account of the Victoria Home keeping their register books filled up...
In your scenario, the 'pub landlord' covers up for Hutchinson for him to get away with it. Not a good storyline.