Innocent, By George!

[Ben]

Ah Mr Ben - if someone stayed six nights - paying each night, one at a time, how would the deputy keep track that he was eligible for a free night?

I don't think they would, Lech.

It makes obvious sense for a lodger to purchase a weekly pass if he intended to sleep there every night of the week. If a lodger chose instead to purchase a ticket per night, he would not have been entitled to a "free night" because there was no viable means of keeping track of such things.

As for the operating "system" at the Victoria Home, it is doubtful in the extreme that much of it was enforced in practice. Besides Jack London's evidence, it's essential to remember that the building was shaded dark blue to indicate "chronic want", one shade off the very worst. This would hardly have been the case if the deputies were all squeaky clean and by the book.

[DVV]

Although it was a well-known one, Lechmere. Moore tells us that it was uneasy to get informations from the lodging houses - including, I think, the VH.

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

Thanks for that. So, what I have stated seems a good possibility, that A-Man was not just an invention and that others had similar stories to Toppy. Of course this does not exhonerate Toppy from the suggestion that he saw them go in and waited until they finished their business. It does suggest that much of his story was valid. Yet, it is automatically, because of fear of it upsetting a paltry theory, dismissed as ludicrous. That's why I don't care about that side. They are gone. They can no longer rationalize on this topic.

Cheers,
Mike

[Ben]

This refers to Hutchinson’s statement – but I also like the last bit that I highlighted – several persons? Missing evidence perchance?

No, not missing evidence, but rather bogus information that was filtered out prior to the inquest. There is obviously no possibility that an unknown resident of Miller's Court saw Kelly "out of her house and in Dorset Street" between 2.00am and 3.00am who didn't appear at the inquest. Lots of nonsensical "witness" statements appeared prior to the inquest which were blissfully dismissed before they could have any permanent derailing effect on the investigation.

Let's have a look at the bits Lechmere left out from that Morning Advertiser article:

It is now conclusively proved that Mary Jane Kelly, having spent the latter part of Friday evening in the "Ringers," otherwise the "Britannia" public-house, at the corner of Dorset-street...

Really, Morning Advertiser?

In consequence of the recent crimes his suspicions were aroused by the man's appearance

Hutchinson's statement said the opposite.

Also check this out – I reproduce the first bit as it shows the police were arresting people based on Hutchinson’s evidence on 13th November

No, it doesn't.

They were arrested for acting suspiciously, accosting women, and trying to inveigle them into some side streets. There is no evidence that the police were interested in the suspects because of their physical appearance. I don't remember ever suggesting, however, that Hutchinson's statement had been fully discredited by the 13th November.

[DVV]

OMG, you're really gone, Mike.

Just show us a serious suspect that looks like A-Man.

By your logic, the Ripper must have carried a gladstone bag, for you could find plenty in the press.

[Lechmere]

If Mike has 'gone' then Abberline must be a total idiot mustn't he, as Hutchinson had him fooled for a while at least.

Mr Ben
I don't know what the bits I didn't quote - for reasons of space - are supposed to prove. 'Nothing' is the word that springs to mind.
Also read this again
were alleged to bear some resemblance to the recently published descriptions of the man last seen in the company of the deceased woman
Nothing specific about physical appearance - but they were arrested because they matched Hutchinson's description in some way - or are you disputing this.
I didn't say you did say Hutchinson was discredited immediately after he gave the statemnet to Abberline - I can't be bothered to check who suggested it - I am sure it was more than one person though. Guilty conscience?

[Ben]

Fascinating quote from Moore, David.

Many thanks for sharing it with us.

It rather confirms my suspicions as to the nature of doss houses.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

David,

You are doing what THEY do. You take something and make a retarded statement that has nothing to do with what I've said, They do it to Lechmere. They do it to Fisherman, and now you are doing it. Where did I ever say Toppy's man looked exactly like the A-Man description? Answer: I've never said that. Put your blinkers back on, but it will be difficult to pull your head out of your a$$ without causing damage.

Mike

[DVV]

If Mike has 'gone'

Of course he has.

He has gone to Kazakhstan, having already too many brothers-in-law in Korea.

[DVV]

David,

You are doing what THEY do. You take something and make a retarded statement that has nothing to do with what I've said, They do it to Lechmere. They do it to Fisherman, and now you are doing it. Where did I ever say Toppy's man looked exactly like the A-Man description? Answer: I've never said that. Put your blinkers back on, but it will be difficult to pull your head out of your a$$ without causing damage.

Mike

Don't resort to insults with me, Mike.
You just look an infuriated fool.

edit : the simple truth is that since that old thread about Toppy you try by every mean to attack what you call the "pro-Hutch", and your thread "Who did Sarah see" is a perfect example of this. But it doesn't give more reality to the A-Man. Clearly.

[The Good Michael]

That was advice. You should see my insults.

Mike

[Ben]

I don't know what the bits I didn't quote - for reasons of space are supposed to prove - 'nothing' is the word that springs to mind.

They don't "prove" anything, Lechmere, but they demonstrate rather well that some of the bold claims advanced in the Morning Advertiser were rather a long way off reality.

"Nothing specific about physical appearance - but they were arrested because they matched Hutchinson's description in some way - or are you disputing this"

Yes, I am disputing this.

They were not arrested because "they matched Hutchinson's description in some way", but because they were considered to have acted suspiciously and attempted to persuade women into side alleys. There isn't even any evidence that the alleged resemblance was a police-endorsed observation.

[DVV]

That was advice. You should see my insults.

Mike

Am I supposed to be impressed ?
You should know me a little better, dear.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
This is all the St. James Gazette told us about the arrest of the two men:
The two men taken into custody at Leman street police station were alleged to bear some resemblance to the recently published descriptions of the man last seen in the company of the deceased woman Kelly. They were able, however, to give satisfactory accounts of themselves; and after these had been verified by the police, the men were set at liberty.

I would be obliged if you could explain how you came to the following conclusion based on the above report.
They were not arrested because "they matched Hutchinson's description in some way", but because they were considered to have acted suspiciously and attempted to persuade women into side alleys. There isn't even any evidence that the alleged resemblance was a police-endorsed observation.

If I may be so bold, I think you are confounding these two men arrested and taken to Leman Street with a single man who was taken to Commercial Street.
Or do we need to argue this until the cows come home as well?

[Fleetwood Mac]

I go for Hutchinson being innocent:

a) It's assumed by those who believe he was involved that he put himself there because he'd been seen. Not logical in my eyes. The argument goes that he read the papers and he was in there, so had no option but to go to the police. Except, he wasn't in there, a man with dark trousers etc who could have been any one of half of London was in the papers: there was no need for any killer to go to the police based on that description, there simply wasn't enough to implicate anyone. Weigh this up in the mind of the man watching the court in the event he was the killer: "right, I want to keep my head down, prison ain't for me, but they have a description of a man with dark trousers and a wideawake, do I go forward and tell them it was me, or do I keep quiet knowing there is a 0.1% chance they'll be able to link this to me?"

b) Which leaves 3 options: fantasist, trying to make a few quid, or really was there but wasn't the killer? I'll go with momeny being a decent enough motivation when times are hard.