Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Lechmere]

Yes Miss Retro, I accept that serial killers often change their MO – I think the Pinchin Street Torso was down to the Ripper, as well as Tabram and McKenzie. In can see step changes as well.
But for Hutchinson to be the killer of Kelly there are a whole variety of one off changes.
For example why was he lingering outside to supposedly be seen by Lewis. Was that before or after the deed? If before he must have known of Kelly somehow to know a potential target was in a particular room.

I don’t buy into him knowing all or any of them. I think they were all random. It would have been almost impossible to select specific, known targets.
Given the time scale – how could he have killed Stride and then stalked and killed Eddowes?
Doesn’t make sense (unless you want to drop Stride from the list).

If Hutchinson was dependent on someone coming back from the inquest to the Victoria Home in order for him to hear the news, then I think the timeframe is out. The person at the inquest would have had to walk back from Shoreditch Town Hall to the Victoria Home, find Hutchinson and tell him about Lewis’s testimony. Remember this was one of the least commented on testimonies – one of the boring parts of the day’s events. Then Hutchinson must have concocted his story, left the Victoria Home and gone up Commercial Street to the police station and given his interview. I don’t think there is time in the evening for this to happen.
I think Mr Ben realises this, which is why he insists that Hutchinson was part of the crowd outside Shoreditch Town Hall.

I believe Phil Carter suggests 4 killers, not 4 serial killers.
I would have Coles as a one off (probably Sadler) and Emma Smith as an unrelated gang attack. I am unsure what to make of the non-Pinchin Street torsos. They are outside the area and I don’t think they have any bearing on the Ripper case.

The police could make fairly decent checks if they wanted to. Not perfect by any means.

I have seen nothing that counts Toppy out, although I wouldn’t pretend to be an expert.
Humour me – what was the thing that made you sure Toppy wasn’t Hutch?

[Ben]

“However I also would guess that earning a few bob from the police would have gone down well with him instead of having to do real work.”

I’m sure it would have done if it really happened. Unfortunately, there is no evidence from any reputable source that it did, at least certainly not to the tune of five times his normal non-existent salary, as intimated in one particularly dubious gossip column. There’s a “few bob” (which one might accept even in the total absence of supporting evidence) and there’s implausible silly sums. Regrettably, it is the latter that will forever be associated with Toppy and that very bad branch of the royal conspiracy theory; one that involves Hutchinson being paid hush money to conceal his description of Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper when seen in Kelly’s company.

It isn’t criminal psychology that tells us that culprits often feature in investigations. It is merely a blindingly obvious outcome.”

So why, when I’ve already informed you on several occasions that criminological experts have surmised that the killer probably came into contact with the police at some stage and in some capacity, do you insist that Hutchinson (who fits this image really rather well) makes for an unlikely suspect when compared to other individuals who were never known to the police at all? This is the exact opposite of what the experts on the subject have said, and yet you insist that your alternative explanation must be the correct one.

“There is changing his MO in so many different ways just for the Kelly case - stalking, attacking a known victim, inserting himself in the case.”

Oh, for feck’s sake, no, Lechmere. Expressions like “MO” have a habit of being drastically misinterpreted in the wrong hands, and here is a case in point. You’ve already acknowledged that the killer “changed his MO” when embarking on an indoor murder, and if we’re prepared to make allowances for change when it came to the type of venue targeted by the killer, it is only fair and logical to make similar allowances for the type of pre-crime approach he adopted. We already have a suspect in the loitering man, whatever his identity, and a modern police force considering the crime in isolation would certainly consider Lewis’ evidence an indication that some sort of pre-crime surveillance, or “stalking” may well have occurred.

If you think any of these constitute “drastic” MO changes, then I think you’d do very well to read up a little more on other serial cases, and discover how yourself how susceptible the vast majority of serial killers are to “changes” that are far more significant than the one’s you’re suggesting with regard to Hutchinson and Kelly. If you look at killers such as Ted Bundy, you’ll observe that he altered his approach to suit different circumstances. When out and about, he adopted a false guise to inveigle them into this company, but then it came to the indoor Tallahassee murders, he simply broke into the girls' rooms after monitoring the building from a vantage point, just as Robert Napper and Dannis Rader did.

“I don’t believe it is at all likely that he would have heard about Lewis’s testimony so quickly”

You’ve repeated this far too many times, and I’ve never stopped rejecting it as very obviously wrong. As soon as Lewis imparted her evidence, it was effectively public knowledge, and it is unlikely in the extreme that Hutchinson’s act of coming forward so soon after the emergence of Lewis evidence amounted to pure random coincidence. Clearly, he must have discovered Lewis’ evidence via some channel, and despite the erroneous impression you’ve tried to convey to Ruby, there was more than sufficient time for word of the inquest (including Lewis’ evidence) to travel to Hutchinson, who lived right in the heart of the murder district, well in advance of 6.00pm that evening.

“I believe (as often said) that the police would have given him a thorough check over to satisfy themselves that he was innocent.”

So you’ve said an awful lot of times. Please don’t keep repeating previous objections as though they have never been challenged. I know people tend to do that a lot round here, but there’s really no need to join the club. No, once again – and many more times, if necessary – there is no evidence that Hutchinson was ever suspected, and even in the unlikely event that he was, the “checking” powers of the 1888 police were far too limited to enable any sort of justifiable “satisfaction” that he was innocent.

“I believe living in the Victoria Home, of all lodging houses, would make it difficult for him. The lack of privacy at a lodging house makes it unlikely to me that the culprit lived in one anyway.”

There wouldn’t have been a lack of privacy. The Victoria Home offered the facility of private cubicles as a shield from prying eyes, and unless he was flashing his knife around heavily bloodstained when he walked in, the call for “privacy” would have been lessened in any case. He would have become the needle in a proverbial haystack, in such an environment, a reality that could well explain the detective’s opinion that the Victoria Home made for a viable ripper’s lair.

“I don’t buy into him knowing all or any of them. I think they were all random.”

Again, this is where a broader knowledge of serial crime might come in handy. The notion that serial killers only target strangers is one of those truisms that creep into true crime lore once in a while, but reality tends to paint a different picture. Even Gary Ridgway, who targeted prostitutes like his 1888 counterpart, was acquainted with at least one of his victims. Indeed, he injected himself into the investigation to provide information on that particular victim.

“It would have been almost impossible to select specific, known targets.”

Really?

You think it “almost impossible” that the killer could have known in advance that Kelly had a room to herself in Miller’s Court? That’s very unimaginative on your part, Lechmere. Good grief.

“I think it is likely he was Toppy”

You really shouldn’t because he probably wasn’t.

Bed time for you, I think, Lechmere.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“Thus no royals about at all, only a hunch that the man was of some or much importance”

No royals, Fish? Then why did Reginald assert that his father had once told him that the ripper murders were more to do with the royal family than ordinary people? That’s not a vague, generalized reference to men of higher social status. It’s a flat-out implication of royal involvement in the riper murders.

“Since I and a bunch of other people say that the signatures tally”

You and few of your mates saying "the signatures tally” doesn’t make the sugegstion any less controversial, since it remains at odds with the findings of the only professional examination of the signatures to have been conducted thus far. Let’s have a signatures fight, please.

“Toppy clearly never made any definite call as to the identity of the man”

Let’s hear from Toppy then:

“It was more do to with the royal family than ordinary people…”

“…someone like Lord Randolph Churchill”

This is according to Reg.

“Since we do not know in what volume Eddowes and the man spoke, we cannot draw any conclusions at all. They may of course intentionally have kept their voices "out of reach" from the clubbers.”

But the distance here was ten feet as opposed to ten metres, and in Hutchinson’s police statement, he offered no indication that Kelly’s alleged phrase “Come along me dear, you will be comfortable” was offered in anything other than a conversational tone and volume. “Quiet” is a relative term, and was clearly used as such by the sources you keyword-searched on Casebook. It still wouldn’t have been sufficiently quiet to enable the overhearing of conversation from 30 metres away in a strong wind.

“Just how many "vicious and semi-criminal elements" did Hutch mention between 2.15 and 3 AM? Huh?”

Don’t “echo” like that when you ask a question. It's rude, and there’s no need for it. Hutchinson didn’t need to mention specific “vicious semi-criminal elements” for it to be obvious that they existed. The most famously brutal murder and mutilation in London happened on that street on that night. I don’t think you can get more “vicious” and “criminal” than that!

“But you would need rather a loud affair to muddle the couples conversation, Ben.”

Nope, not at all, just a competing background murmour from a vast combination of sources. It wasn’t anything like a “loud affair” in Villiers Street on Sunday, but I still couldn’t distinguish individual words from nearby conversations.

“Come on, Ben - EVERYBODY out here knows that you are the spiritual father of ALL my thinking!”

I didn’t say “ALL”, Fisherman.

Be fair now.

"I think he was making a sincere suggestion"

Oh! Oh-oh! Well, what can I say ...?”

Well, a good start would be: “Sorry, Mike, but I’m going to reject and ignore your advice and carry on arguing relentlessly with Ben anyway”.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"why did Reginald assert that his father had once told him that the ripper murders were more to do with the royal family than ordinary people? "

I have already stated my view on this. I think that Hutch may have come to the conclusion that astrakhan mans importance was of a magnitude that brought his own testinomy down. And when he says "it was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people", he emphasizes the magnitude of that importance. The man clearly must have been of an importance that tallied better with the one held by the royals, than the one held by the ordinary man on the street. It does not implicate the royal family as such, he just chooses them to make a useful comparison. It is an analogous way to say "he was more like a royal than like an ordinary man". But that is just "more like", it is not "he WAS a royal".
Also, I would like to once more press the point that this weighing of the man´s importance need not have very much to do with his clothing. If Hutch had not been disbelieved, we have no way of knowing if he would have awarded the man the same status! And that´s where I find my solution very compelling, since up til now, it has always been regarded as utterly ridiculaous that Hutch had somehow drawn a conclusion about a royal connection from the man´s appearance only. And why on earth would he say that a distinctly JEWISH looking man belonged to the royal family? Did he think that Britain was ruled by a Jewish family? It makes no sense.
But if he came to believe that his testimony was skipped because of this man, the he may well have decided that he the man must have had an importance that made him more like a member of the royals INFLUENCE-WISE than like himself.

Some fine distinctions here, but you need to take them on board if you want to understand my reasoning. And, of course, if you want to clear me from the suspicions you are trying to cast over my reasoning by saying that I have become an apprentice of the Ripper and the Royals theory, more or less. And to be quite honest, you need to backtrack from that one quickly, Ben.

"You and few of your mates saying "the signatures tally” doesn’t make the sugegstion any less controversial"

Well, not to you. To you it is controversial not to regard Hutch as a vicious killer, just as it is controversial to suggest that people sleep at night, and to say that daytime workers outnumber nightime workers. You even think it controversial to suggest that an East end street of 1888 could have been quiet enough to allow for hearing conversation fro 30 meters! So we cleary have different view on what is controversial and what is not. To me, it is totally uncontrioversial to say that the signatures tally perfectly. Seeing a red robin in a tree and saying: "Look, a red robin" would be just as "controversial" to me.

"it remains at odds with the findings of the only professional examination of the signatures to have been conducted thus far."

No. But it remains true that what you CALL "the only professional examination" was conducted in a manner that you are not totally aquainted with, just as it remains true that you need to opt for a view of it being almost certain that Iremonger used the correct material, instead of being absolutely certain that she did. It also applies that this epitome of proffesionalism is something that sadly was never documented. How very unprofessional! Enough said. I too would like to leave that particular subject.

"Let’s hear from Toppy then:

“It was more do to with the royal family than ordinary people…”

“…someone like Lord Randolph Churchill”

That is not any identification, Ben. It WAS royal family. It WAS Churchill - THAT is identification.

I hope I will never find someone like you on any other discussion boards. That´s an analogous sentence. Does it mean that if I do, I have found you or someone LIKE you? If somebody says that you are instead like Santa Claus, does that make you ...? Does it really make you ...? Really, really ...? Well, I guess it must - the identification IS there, according to your reasoning.

These are NOT fine distinctions, Ben. You should know.

"But the distance here was ten feet as opposed to ten metres, and in Hutchinson’s police statement, he offered no indication that Kelly’s alleged phrase “Come along me dear, you will be comfortable” was offered in anything other than a conversational tone and volume. “Quiet” is a relative term, and was clearly used as such by the sources you keyword-searched on Casebook. It still wouldn’t have been sufficiently quiet to enable the overhearing of conversation from 30 metres away in a strong wind."

Why reiterate? I´ve answered that.

"Hutchinson didn’t need to mention specific “vicious semi-criminal elements” for it to be obvious that they existed."

Yes he did. And the fact that he did NOT, but instead said that the two men he mentioned were the ONLY people he saw during his vigil is powerful evidence that not a single one of your semicriminals were about during that time, making noise. Not one of them. And don´t tell me its rude to echo anything, Ben. It´s much ruder not to accept Hutchinsons evidence. Or do you think that he was lying about it, as it is not in the police report?

"just a competing background murmour from a vast combination of sources."

...which you cannot prove was there in any fashion at all. End of THAT story.

" a good start would be: “Sorry, Mike, but I’m going to reject and ignore your advice and carry on arguing relentlessly with Ben anyway”

I don´t need to do that! Mike and I know each other well enough not to need any semaphoring.

See you ´round, Santa!
Fisherman

[Sally]

I don’t buy into him knowing all or any of them. I think they were all random. It would have been almost impossible to select specific, known targets

You think? How about the killer living at the Victoria Home alongside Joseph Fleming, Mary Kelly's on-off boyfriend and fledgling nutjob to boot?

According to you, Lechmere, the lodgers would have been on friendly terms at the Victoria Home. If the murderer of Kelly - Hutchinson or otherwise - lived at the Victoria Home, he could have heard all about her from his new best friend Fleming. He could have learned about her character, her past, the fact that she was recently on her own, even where she lived.

Not so very implausible, in fact - even if he hadn't seen Kelly in the area.

And if he did stalk Kelly, there's no guarantee that he stalked all, or any of his other victims - although I would expect him to have targetted some of them at least in this way.

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere,

But for Hutchinson to be the killer of Kelly there are a whole variety of one off changes.
For example why was he lingering outside to supposedly be seen by Lewis.

We have no way of knowing how many times he had been seen by witnesses before, if they didn't come forward.
He might have been so excited by the anticipation of at last having the time and privacy to do what he wanted to a woman's body, as well as getting indoors into a bit of comfort, that he blew caution to the wind -infact amongst those 'myths' about Serial Killers is the fact that most of them aren't trapped by Police -but by making just such a silly mistake.
A mistake that he might have realised when Lewis turned up at the inquest.

Was that before or after the deed? If before he must have known of Kelly somehow to know a potential target was in a particular room.

I have said before -it is totally unbelievable that he wouldn't have noticed the distinctive Mary solliciting on 'Mary's corner',
nor have not found himself in the same pub as her sometimes. I should think that Joe Barnett was known in the local pubs
-infact Hutch lodged in the same place as both Joe's brother and her ex-boyfriend Flemming. Given the tiny distances involved, and the number of men Mary must have slept with, it is more than likely that he would know that she was now alone, and had a private room. In fact, he even hinted that he had been a client himself (giving her money).That is not the same as being 'best friends' (as Fisherman pretends), nor knowing her for 3 years.

I don’t buy into him knowing all or anyrandom. It would have been almost impossible to select specific, known targets.

I don't think that he selected 'specific targets' outside of prostitutes -and in Mary's case, a prostitute with a private room;
Still, these particular prostitutes all lodged in the area, all liked drinking, and all would have walked from pub to pub solliciting.
We know that Hutch says he knew at least one prostitute, and there is absolutely nothing to say that he didn't know others.
Infact if he was a familiar face to the women, it would just be easier for him to give them a false sense of security before killing them.

Given the time scale – how could he have killed Stride and then stalked and killed Eddowes?

There is about a 15 minute walk between the murder sites !
Where do you get this idea from that Jack 'stalked' anyone (with the exception of Mary) ?
These women actively went out to find men and try and lead them to quiet dark places.
I expect that Jack was simply the first 'client' that Kate met.;
What's more, if she did recognise him, and knew that he was interested in prostitutes, she might have given him a wave and
run across the road to meet him !
.

I think Mr Ben realises this, which is why he insists that Hutchinson was part of the crowd outside Shoreditch Town Hall.

Mr-Ben-O -The Flowerpot-Men already answered you. Besides -Hutch could just as easily have been outside Shoreditch
Town Hall.

I believe Phil Carter suggests 4 killers, not 4 serial killers.
I would have Coles as a one off (probably Sadler) and Emma Smith as an unrelated gang attack. I am unsure what to make of the non-Pinchin Street torsos. They are outside the area and I don’t think they have any bearing on the Ripper case.

The only bearing that I mean't to suggest is that when you go on about Police abilities in contemporary murder enquiries
in the same area, the proof of the pudding demonstrates just how powerless they were. You told me a while back 'it's not as if the 1888 Police didn't catch anyone'...say no more

The police could make fairly decent checks if they wanted to. Not perfect by any means.

The Police could check very generally, and mainly information that the witness or suspect wanted to give them.

I have seen nothing that counts Toppy out, although I wouldn’t pretend to be an expert.
Humour me – what was the thing that made you sure Toppy wasn’t Hutch?

[/QUOTE]

Well first of all I have already said that both sides have experts with different views on the handwriting, so let us say that one cancels the other out, and leave it out of the equation.

On the + side for Toppy as Hutch is a very common name between them ( although Hutch the witness never said Topping or T in his sgnature), and the fact that Reg said so when contacted by a researcher writing a book. He might have said the same thing on the radio, sometime earlier, but there is so far no confirmation as yet.

On the -side is:
-Hutch gave his occupation as being a groom now working as a labourer in unstable casual jobs, and Toppy was a plumber.
Why didn't Hutch say that he was a plumber, now working as a labourer ?

Infact, 'groom' was a specialised job, and I doubt whether Hutch would have given that as his principal occupation if he
had just fed some horses once or twice ( and the police would have 'checked' ! remember ?).
A typical groom would start about aged ten mucking out the horses. the sort of places that might employ a groom would be
the Army, studs breeding horses for the army or exportation or for racing (there were vast quantities in Essex), coaching inns, or large private houses. I should think that there were many less potential employers in Whitechapel -hence Hutch having to
labour at what he could find, and sleep in a common lodging house.

Toppy, on the other hand.came from a family living in pleasant Norwood, in a house, with a father who had a trade, and we know that he stayed in school untill at least 12 (?). He followed his father into plumbing, which would mean that he undertook a long and quite costly apprenticeship.

The plumber and the groom seem quite mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, Toppy had some schooling and culture (I think that he played the violin ?), and he was obviously bright and
enterprising (he became sucessfully self employed). So if he had been looking for work on his uppers in London -why couldn't he find work as a clerk, say ? (surely more pleasant with less competition).

Lots of people tried to write themselves into the Ripper story in later years -and one who springs to mind is Nathan shine, who gave himself the role of Israel Schwartz, and who's family appear to believe him. Shine was a jew, and maybe identified
with Schwartz -as Toppy may have done with Hutch. That's IF Toppy actually told the story and it didn't originate with Fairclough.

There is a photo of Toppy as an old man -and he looks nothing like the sketch of Hutch.

We will save all the other details for a Toppy thread, Lechmere -but suffice to say that I really tried to explain away all these points, and argued for the Toppy side, but it was like swimming against the current or hammering down the puzzle.;
I had to eat humble pie and admit that they just simply weren't the same person.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"I had to eat humble pie and admit that they just simply weren't the same person."

What a pity - you could easily have saved yourself that nuisance!

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

There wouldn’t have been a lack of privacy. The Victoria Home offered the facility of private cubicles as a shield from prying eyes, and unless he was flashing his knife around heavily bloodstained when he walked in, the call for “privacy” would have been lessened in any case. He would have become the needle in a proverbial haystack, in such an environment, a reality that could well explain the detective’s opinion that the Victoria Home made for a viable ripper’s lair.

It was the journalist, Ben, rather than ‘Harris’, who considered the Victoria Home a likely bolt-hole for the killer. Further to your observations on the Victoria Home, however, it should be borne in mind that this was an establishment illuminated after nightfall by gaslight. It was noted by one contemporaneous source that virtually all of these lamps were extinguished at 10:00pm, thereby plunging the Victoria Home into almost complete darkness. Under such tenebrous conditions, a resident killer would not have required a cabin to ensure his privacy, for this was guaranteed by the environment itself.

And that´s where I find my solution very compelling, since up til now, it has always been regarded as utterly ridiculaous that Hutch had somehow drawn a conclusion about a royal connection from the man´s appearance only. And why on earth would he say that a distinctly JEWISH looking man belonged to the royal family? Did he think that Britain was ruled by a Jewish family? It makes no sense.

Which is all the more reason, Fish, to conclude that Hutchinson and Toppy were two different men. But this should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense given Hutchinson’s stated belief that Astrakhan lived locally.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

“I think that Hutch may have come to the conclusion that astrakhan mans importance was of a magnitude that brought his own testinomy down.”

I know you do, Fisherman, and I am still very surprised at your reasoning.

Why would Hutchinson’s testimony be brought “down” if it was his information that led to the identification of the real killer, in your strictly hypothetical scenario? I’m afraid you’re quite mistaken in your suggestion that Toppy had merely used the royal family as a example of someone high up. The language is quite unambiguous on this point: “It was more to do with the royal family than ordinary people”. There was obviously no need to implicate so specific a group of people if his intended meaning was only that the killer had a loftier social status. His comments weren’t specific to the killer’s identity either. Tellingly, he was reported to observe that the murders themselves had more to do with the royal family, indicating a much broader royal involvement that just one royal with a knife and an Astrakhan coat. This, of course, ties in perfectly with the generally touted theories regarding royals and rippers with all the hushed up secrets and suppressed information that the term “conspiracy” implies.

Try as you might, the impression that Reginald was merely “helping” along the latest ripper fad is very difficult to escape.

“And why on earth would he say that a distinctly JEWISH looking man belonged to the royal family? Did he think that Britain was ruled by a Jewish family? It makes no sense”

Exactly, neither Lord Randolph Churchill nor any member of the royal family was Jewish and “lived in the neighbourhood”, so it makes even less sense for Hutchinson to have stated subsequently that the murderer was someone like Churchill and had something to do with the royal family. We just have to face the fact that Toppy’s alleged claims, via Reg, are utterly at odds with the key particulars of Hutchinson’s original statement and suspect description. You’re borrowing from some of the worst tenets of the royal conspiracy theory when you argue that Hutchinson even thought the police were concealing the killer’s identity on account of his social status. There’s no evidence that any personality from the period ever thought along these lines. It originated from the 1970s. I’m not saying that you’re arguing this yourself. Of course you’re not, but the very suggestion that someone from the period ever came to such a conclusion is still very outlandish, in my opinion.

“To you it is controversial not to regard Hutch as a vicious killer”

No, I don’t think I’ve ever said or even thought this.

But I stand by my opinion that to regard Toppy as the real Hutchinson is still very controversial. As for Sue Iremonger, there can be no reasonable doubt that she compared the original signatures and outlined her findings at the World Conference of Document Examiners. She concluded that Toppy was not the witness. Now “enough said”. Now we “leave that particular subject”.

“And the fact that he did NOT, but instead said that the two men he mentioned were the ONLY people he saw during his vigil is powerful evidence that not a single one of your semicriminals were about during that time”

Hutchinson’s statement was discredited, Fisherman. I don’t regard anything he says as “powerful evidence” of anything, and nor should anyone else. Why do you think we’re having this discussion? As for the apparent absence of any “semi-criminals” about at the time, how about – y’know – Jack the Ripper committing the most bloodthirsty of al his atrocities in a court off that street on that night? Now you tell me it’s “rude” not to accept Hutchinson’s evidence. Oh, boy...

“Mike and I know each other well enough not to need any semaphoring.”

I’m sure he appreciates your rejection of his advice. I certainly do!

Hi Garry,

Many thanks indeed for that information. I had also heard that the lamps in Dorset Street started going out at around 2.00am, but I will try to dig up the relevant sources.

Best regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Ben:

"why did Reginald assert that his father had once told him that the ripper murders were more to do with the royal family than ordinary people? "

I have already stated my view on this. I think that Hutch may have come to the conclusion that astrakhan mans importance was of a magnitude that brought his own testinomy down. And when he says "it was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people", he emphasizes the magnitude of that importance. The man clearly must have been of an importance that tallied better with the one held by the royals, than the one held by the ordinary man on the street. It does not implicate the royal family as such, he just chooses them to make a useful comparison. It is an analogous way to say "he was more like a royal than like an ordinary man". But that is just "more like", it is not "he WAS a royal".
Also, I would like to once more press the point that this weighing of the man´s importance need not have very much to do with his clothing. If Hutch had not been disbelieved, we have no way of knowing if he would have awarded the man the same status! And that´s where I find my solution very compelling, since up til now, it has always been regarded as utterly ridiculaous that Hutch had somehow drawn a conclusion about a royal connection from the man´s appearance only. And why on earth would he say that a distinctly JEWISH looking man belonged to the royal family? Did he think that Britain was ruled by a Jewish family? It makes no sense.
But if he came to believe that his testimony was skipped because of this man, the he may well have decided that he the man must have had an importance that made him more like a member of the royals INFLUENCE-WISE than like himself.

Some fine distinctions here, but you need to take them on board if you want to understand my reasoning. And, of course, if you want to clear me from the suspicions you are trying to cast over my reasoning by saying that I have become an apprentice of the Ripper and the Royals theory, more or less. And to be quite honest, you need to backtrack from that one quickly, Ben.

"You and few of your mates saying "the signatures tally” doesn’t make the sugegstion any less controversial"

Well, not to you. To you it is controversial not to regard Hutch as a vicious killer, just as it is controversial to suggest that people sleep at night, and to say that daytime workers outnumber nightime workers. You even think it controversial to suggest that an East end street of 1888 could have been quiet enough to allow for hearing conversation fro 30 meters! So we cleary have different view on what is controversial and what is not. To me, it is totally uncontrioversial to say that the signatures tally perfectly. Seeing a red robin in a tree and saying: "Look, a red robin" would be just as "controversial" to me.

"it remains at odds with the findings of the only professional examination of the signatures to have been conducted thus far."

No. But it remains true that what you CALL "the only professional examination" was conducted in a manner that you are not totally aquainted with, just as it remains true that you need to opt for a view of it being almost certain that Iremonger used the correct material, instead of being absolutely certain that she did. It also applies that this epitome of proffesionalism is something that sadly was never documented. How very unprofessional! Enough said. I too would like to leave that particular subject.

"Let’s hear from Toppy then:

“It was more do to with the royal family than ordinary people…”

“…someone like Lord Randolph Churchill”

That is not any identification, Ben. It WAS royal family. It WAS Churchill - THAT is identification.

I hope I will never find someone like you on any other discussion boards. That´s an analogous sentence. Does it mean that if I do, I have found you or someone LIKE you? If somebody says that you are instead like Santa Claus, does that make you ...? Does it really make you ...? Really, really ...? Well, I guess it must - the identification IS there, according to your reasoning.

These are NOT fine distinctions, Ben. You should know.

"But the distance here was ten feet as opposed to ten metres, and in Hutchinson’s police statement, he offered no indication that Kelly’s alleged phrase “Come along me dear, you will be comfortable” was offered in anything other than a conversational tone and volume. “Quiet” is a relative term, and was clearly used as such by the sources you keyword-searched on Casebook. It still wouldn’t have been sufficiently quiet to enable the overhearing of conversation from 30 metres away in a strong wind."

Why reiterate? I´ve answered that.

"Hutchinson didn’t need to mention specific “vicious semi-criminal elements” for it to be obvious that they existed."

Yes he did. And the fact that he did NOT, but instead said that the two men he mentioned were the ONLY people he saw during his vigil is powerful evidence that not a single one of your semicriminals were about during that time, making noise. Not one of them. And don´t tell me its rude to echo anything, Ben. It´s much ruder not to accept Hutchinsons evidence. Or do you think that he was lying about it, as it is not in the police report?

"just a competing background murmour from a vast combination of sources."

...which you cannot prove was there in any fashion at all. End of THAT story.

" a good start would be: “Sorry, Mike, but I’m going to reject and ignore your advice and carry on arguing relentlessly with Ben anyway”

I don´t need to do that! Mike and I know each other well enough not to need any semaphoring.

See you ´round, Santa!
Fisherman

Hi Fish

“It was more do to with the royal family than ordinary people…”


This is not an analogy but a direct accusation.


And why on earth would he say that a distinctly JEWISH looking man belonged to the royal family? Did he think that Britain was ruled by a Jewish family? It makes no sense.

GH claimed Aman was Jewish

Reg who may or may not have been GH's son later claims it has to do with the royal family completely contradicting GHs above claim. Reg's claim bolsters the Royal conspiracy theory book.

Reg is making a statement about a potential suspect that falls in line with the prevailing thought at the time, potentially profitting from it.
Sound familiar?

Also, if I am reading you right, you are saying that Hutch held on to the idea that he had the right night even after police told him he had the wrong night and then became angry that the police were saying this not because it was true but because they were trying to shield A-man?

Hutch was still adamant he had the right night eventhough the police told him how he had the wrong night?

With all do respect, Fish, but you need to quit when you are ahead because this is really just digging a deeper hole in terms of plausability for your theory IMHO.

[Garry Wroe]

Many thanks indeed for that information. I had also heard that the lamps in Dorset Street started going out at around 2.00am, but I will try to dig up the relevant sources.

I have a feeling that you may be misremembering Elizabeth Prater's observation regarding Crossingham's lamp(s), Ben, but I could be mistaken.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Lechmere]

On Toppy and the Royals
We have Reg, at a time when Royal Ripper theories were all the vogue, remembering what his aged father had told him over forty years before, when reminiscing about events that had occurred fifty years before that.

This almost guarantees that the story will be garbled. It does not imply that the whole thing is rubbish from beginning to end. After all there seem to be a factual basis for most biblical stories, that were transmitted orally for a lot longer.
I only use that as an example Ben, before your over-exaggeration technique swings into action and you say that I am comparing Toppy to an Old Testament prophet.

Ben – you then quote Fisherman as saying that Toppy didn’t make a definite call as to the identity of the man, and the n you quote Toppy not making a definite call as to the identity of the man. There is something drastically wrong with your debating style.

Sally – I would presume that Hutchinson would have been on friendly terms with some of the inmates at the Victoria Home – not all of them. As Mr Ben Says there were up to 500 people there. Say he had four friends. That makes a 1 in 125 chance that he was friends with any named person.

Anyway who says Flemming was staying at the Victoria Home same time as Hutchinson?
The last I heard Flemming had probably been located as living at the Bethnal Green Workhouse a couple of miles away through this period. He was at the Victoria Home in November 1889, and there is a possibility that he had been in the Whitechapel area for the fourteen months before that. But I don’t know of any evidence at all that he was at the Victoria Home in November 1888. I may have missed it somewhere and stand to be corrected.

It isn’t really for this thread - but what is your definition of stalk? That he followed them for a bit before approaching them on the night in question or that he had been following them for weeks.
How would he have stalked Eddowes in either case?
She had been away for some time, and until just before her death she and he were accounted for.
She must have been the one he didn’t stalk.

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"Which is all the more reason, Fish, to conclude that Hutchinson and Toppy were two different men. But this should be obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense given Hutchinson’s stated belief that Astrakhan lived locally."

Well, Garry, I´ve told Ben, and it would seem the time has come to tell you: Commo sense it not very common. If you take the time to read my posts, you may be forced to realize that I don´t think that astrakhan man WAS of royal descent. Nor do I thing that Hutchinson must have thought so - only that the man was important enough to get his testimony dumped.
Plus, Garry, you may need to realize that there is a time span involved here. Even if Hutch WAS originally of the sentment that astrakhan man may have been local, he may have changed his mind after having brooded on his own dismissal. Along the lines "Aha, that man may not have been the local I believed after all, since he had the power to have me dismissed."
Remember that he did not state for certain that the man was local, only that he thought that may have been the case.

Common sense, was it...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I know you do, Fisherman, and I am still very surprised at your reasoning."

Just give it some time, and I´m sure you´ll get there in the end.

"Why would Hutchinson’s testimony be brought “down” if it was his information that led to the identification of the real killer, in your strictly hypothetical scenario?"

How says the identification led to the killer??? What´s this, Ben?

"I’m afraid you’re quite mistaken in your suggestion that Toppy had merely used the royal family as a example of someone high up. The language is quite unambiguous on this point: “It was more to do with the royal family than ordinary people”. "

Hoho! Here we go! Well, Bwen, did you notice that this was something that was relayed by REG? That was how REG worded it - a man thta had come to the conclusion that it MUST have been Churchill his father spoke of. Please realize that this "exact wording" is how REG had come to remember what he had been told many, many years before. Be for real.Please?

"We just have to face the fact that Toppy’s alleged claims, via Reg, are utterly at odds with the key particulars of Hutchinson’s original statement and suspect description."

We?

"You’re borrowing from some of the worst tenets of the royal conspiracy theory"

Not truthful, but if it gives you a kick, be my guest. Just remember that you are wrong and that I have asked you not to pass of things I have never said or done as truth.

"As for Sue Iremonger, there can be no reasonable doubt..."

As for Sue Iremonger, there MUST be reasonable doubt.

"Hutchinson’s statement was discredited, Fisherman. I don’t regard anything he says as “powerful evidence” of anything, and nor should anyone else."

So he was not there? He can´t have been, since he was discredited?

"Why do you think we’re having this discussion?"

Because you are obviously wrong, and I´m trying to help out.

"As for the apparent absence of any “semi-criminals” about at the time, how about – y’know – Jack the Ripper committing the most bloodthirsty of al his atrocities in a court off that street on that night?"

He was there between 2.15 and 3? And Hutch did not see him either? Oh boy! How much noise did he make, by the way? And why do you use him to exemplify semi-criminals? Surely he was criminal, all of him?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Abby Normal:

"you need to quit when you are ahead"

Thanks for the advice, Abby, but I´ll take my chances.

Did you hear that, Ben? I´m ahead!

The best,
Fisherman