Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"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. "

How many times must I ... Wait a minute... This makes sense! Ah - itīs YOU, Lechmere. That explains things!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal:

"you need to quit when you are ahead"

Thanks for the advice, Abby, but Iīll take my chances.

Did you hear that, Ben? Iīm ahead!

The best,
Fisherman

My Mistake-Perhaps a better phrase i should have used was cut your losses!

[Sally]

Right..

So first off we have Lechmere's argument that the sense of community in the Home for Boy Scouts was such that the friendly neighbourhood lodgers would have noticed straightaway if Hutchinson had been absent for the odd night or two, being as how they were normally all tucked up with their cocoa by 10pm.

And now we have Lechmere's argument that the sense of community in the Victoria Home, now presumably missing its Boy Scout population, was such that only 4 people would have known Hutchinson.

U-Turn, or what?

You know, I think this thread has finally become so ridiculous that I can't be arsed any more. Yes, I actually do think so.

Carry on.

[Abby Normal]

Hey Fish
I will make a deal with you. I will concede that in all likelyhood Hutch was not MK's killer (nor JtR) if you concede in all likelyhood that Hutch was lying about A-man.

I asked you earlier why you thought Hutch was waiting for 45 minutes outside mary's place and i thought your rsponse made sense and I pretty much agree with it. He was looking for a place to crash. But I think he later he tried to cash in on his unsuccesful vigil by inventing Aman for the police.

But there is no way physically possible, even if he had photographic memory, to have even seen, let alone recollect, all that he described A-man.

Deal?

[Lechmere]

Please don't let me get the blame for your departure Sally...

What I said was in no way contradictory. Ben's over-exaggeration technique is all that suggests that I said Hutchinson was in a Home for Boy Scouts and that he knew all 500 inmates.
I merely suggested that he will have been known by some people in there and that these relatively few people could quite possibly have noticed if he was absent only on murder nights.
And I have stated that the Victoria Home was set up by some pious do-gooders with the intention of morally uplifting their charges. I have not passed comment on whether or not they were successful in this quest.

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"My Mistake-Perhaps a better phrase i should have used was cut your losses!"

Blame it on Freud, Abby!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere-
I was very interested in your statement '

After all there seem to be a factual basis for most biblical stories'

That is a very sweeping statement, and your 'most' should really read 'some'.
Do I detect that you are a religious man yourself ? -hence your belief that one of the reasons that the Victoria Home would make a bad base for the Ripper, is that they sung hymns together, and no doubt read the Bible, in that annexe?

Do you think that reading the Bible and singing hymns would exclude someone
from being the Ripper ? -please answer this.

Since we know absolutely nothing about Hutchinson, he could quite easily have suffered from 'Religious Mania', which would neatly explain why he wanted to kill prostitutes (who tempted him into sinning), hated Jews (they killed Christ !) and got A+ on his report for Abberline.

This is NOT what I believe -but tell me why it couldn't be true?

I am glad you now aknowledge that not everyone would have been 'morally
uplifted' at the Home -because whether Hutch was really lurking outside a
prostitute's room or merely lying to the law for monetary gain, he would appear to be one of those failures.

Like Sally, I am suprised that you now have Hutch down as a bit of a Johnny-No-Mates, with 496 men out of 500 ignoring him !

Why do you still persist in thinking that Hutch would only ever go out on nights that the murders were committed, when all the other Ned Flanders
were safely tucked up in bed ?

If he only 'stayed out' three times(I'm not counting Annie, in the morning), he could hardly have got the nights mixed up ! This would be such a rare occurrence...

I'd like to ask you another question...would you ever suspect one of YOUR
friends of being the Ripper ? I mean would it cross your mind, even fleetingly,
that someone you thought you knew, and liked, could be capable of the butchery inflicted on these prostitutes ?

[Fisherman]

Abby:

"I will make a deal with you. I will concede that in all likelyhood Hutch was not MK's killer (nor JtR) if you concede in all likelyhood that Hutch was lying about A-man."

That deal is off, Iīm afraid, unless you are willing to lower the price. I have before stated that we may perhaps not need to accept that Hutch made is first observation of the smaller details on the morning of the 8:th. He said that he believed the man lived in the vicinity, and such a guess would not have come about as the result of Hutch thinking that astrakhan mans appearance gave it away, would it? No, it is much more reasonable to suggest that he had seen the man BEFORE in these surroundings. And if so, he could have seen the pin, the seal stone and such before. And then, as he saw the man on that night, he may just have noticed vaguely that he had the finery on him - but since he KNEW from before what they looked like in detail, he had no problems describing it to the police.
That is one solution.
The next solution is that he may have elaborated on things he really did not see, for some reason. Maybe he wanted to impress the police with a very exact description.
The third solution is my favourite: There was time and light enough!
I have sometimes travelled to Copenhagen, sixty kilometres from where I live. There is a museum street, with gas lights. They donīt emitt anything like todayīs lamps, but they do brighten up the life for a Hutch-believer like me. I can see a lot by them. But of course, there are ambient lightsources about that were not there 188, so it does not prove something.
However, I am much in favour of what Stewart Evans writes in one of his books. He speaks of how people diss Hutch, since they mean that he could not have made out shape and colour of the hanky astrakhan man produced, not in that almighty darkness! Evans wisely points to Duke Street, where Lawende says he saw a man with a reddish neckerchief, and asks the question whether Lawende lied about this too. Keep in mind, that Duke street was comparatively badly lit, whereas Dorset Street was the opposite; with all the boarding house gas lamps it was a relatively well lit East end street.

Maybe, Abby, things are not as strange as we sometimes make them.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Do you think that reading the Bible and singing hymns would exclude someone
from being the Ripper ? -please answer this."

Edit that away while there is time, Ruby - it is not a very good question.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

PS Lechmere -this is your question to Sally :

t 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.

This was my answer to you earlier :

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, stranger or not.
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 !

[Rubyretro]

I have sometimes travelled to Copenhagen, sixty kilometres from where I live. There is a museum street, with gas lights.

I have a great idea Fish ! Why don't you use that street to conduct a 'scientific' experiment ?

If you were to wear false eyelashes, black in your eyebrows and stick on a false moustache, you would only need your wife's fur coat, and some drawings of the jewellery pinned on, to recreate A-Man !

Your son could then take us a little film on his mobile, of you under the gas lamp, which you could post here, and which would be very helpful..

Infact, if he then stood at the right distance, he could film you murmering
"Come along my Dear ! You will be comfortable" to passers by..thus killing
two experiments with the same stone...

(don't forget to glower for the camera !)

[Fisherman]

I donīt need a false moustache, Ruby. Come to think of it, there are lots of things I donīt need.

Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

"Do you think that reading the Bible and singing hymns would exclude someone
from being the Ripper ? -please answer this."

Edit that away while there is time, Ruby - it is not a very good question

I'm genuinely curious.

It might be a politically incorrect question in one respect, or an inconvenient one, but it might also explain why MR Lechmere is so opposed to the idea that the Ripper coud have lived in the Victoria Home.

It might, indirectly, have a bearing on why he has difficulty with the concepts that Hutch, Toppy or Reg might simply have lied through their teeth; Why the victims might have unknowingly colluded with their killer
(as opposed to being stalked) and why Fish's idea that Mary was 'a Tart with a Heart' (ready to offer her sympathy and a 'cup of tea' to a poor young man)
is a preferable idea to her being cut up by someone who lodged at the Victoria.

[The Good Michael]

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.

Lechmere,

I have to disagree with this analogy just because most things in the Old Testament were taken from other, earlier myths, and any biblical archaeology done today is based upon the notion that the Bible is true so whatever is found in an area must be connected to the Bible because 'the Bible tells us so'. Still, about retelling a tale after so many years: I agree. My brothers and I still argue over culpability with regards to wrongdoings when we were mischievious sprats. Often our versions are far apart. Mine are correct, mind you.

Mike

[Ben]

“This almost guarantees that the story will be garbled. It does not imply that the whole thing is rubbish from beginning to end.”

As a general rule you would be correct, Lechmere. The major stumbling block as far as Toppy is concerned, however, is the absence of any compelling reason to consider his (or Reg’s) claims to be anything other than “rubbish from beginning to end”, a phrase that can be applied with brutal accuracy to The Ripper and the Royals. Abberline diaries, anyone? Or will you argue that there might in a nugget of truth in these too?

“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.”

The only thing that may be described as “drastically wrong” is your reading ability. I never suggested that either Toppy or the real Hutchinson made a “a definite call as to the identity of the man.”. I’m highlighting the difference between the two. The real “witness” painted a picture of an ostentatiously dressed man of Jewish appearance who lived in the district, whereas Hutchinson spoke of “someone like Lord Randolph Churchill” and that the murders were “more to do with the royal family than ordinary people”. The attempts to reconcile the two and still up with a "wrong day", have not been very successful, in my opinion.

You suggest that Hutchinson might have had four friends at the Victoria Home. No evidence for this, of course, and no reason to think he had, but let’s just assume it to be true for a moment. What would these friends have been doing when the ripper was active? Deliberately remaining awake in the dormitories or cubicles of the Victoria Home in anticipation of Hutchinson’s arrival?

As for Joseph Fleming, he was documented as having been living in Whitechapel since late 1888 and his residence was given as the Victoria Home. He most assuredly was not staying at the Bethnal Green Workhouse. This was another Joseph Flemming who was formerly employed as a boot-maker or “finisher” and whose parents were George and Sarah. Kelly’s Fleming was a plasterer who went under the alias “James Evans" and whose parents were Richard and Henrietta. Most of this comes courtesy of the great research of Chris Scott, Debra Arif and others, and can be discussed on the relevant threads. Also check out Fisherman’s article regarding Fleming the ripper who lived at the Victoria Home.