Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

I’m afraid you’re just repeating yourself, Jon.

If Hutchinson had stayed at any other lodging house when speaking to the press, we’d have heard about it. The fact that we only hear about the Victoria Home is a testament either to a) the breathtaking incompetence of police and press in failing to obtain and record critical detail, or b) the fact that Hutchinson only stayed at the Victoria Home between the 9th and the 12th. Analysing Hutchinson’s precisely phraseology is a fruitless exercise considering the likelihood that he had little formal education. He may not have been arsed to say “the place where I usually sleep; that is to say here, sir, in order to satisfactorily clarify matters”, and The Central News interviewer evidently understood this, otherwise he’d have asked Hutchinson about this “other” place where he slept.

To highlight Hutchinson’s non-clarification of the fact that the “place where he usually slept” was the Victoria Home makes about as much sense as highlighting his incorrect use of “stern” in place of the proper adverb “sternly”.

“I walked about all night, as Crossingham's, the place where I usually sleep, was closed.”

It wouldn’t have been, actually.

Again, it was only the Victoria Home that operated a no-entry policy to anyone not in possession of pre-purchased daily or weekly bed ticket; as such, it doesn’t make a mountain of sense to claim that “my” theory relies on his intended 9th November lodgings being the Victoria Home. Anywhere else, and there would be even stronger objections to your theory that Hutchinson lied to Kelly about having no money, and was then compelled to "walk about all night" (or crash in a stairwell) because the lodging houses were “closed” – all of them?

No, there is no conceivable circumstance under which a man with money to pay for his doss was not able to find some. Regardless of the identity of the lodging house where he “usually” slept, there was nothing to prevent him from securing a doss at a place where he “unusually” slept.

The location of the interview was obviously the Victoria Home, as was the place where Hutchinson “usually” slept. Picking apart Hutchinson’s precise, semi-educated terminology in an effort to refute this will not avail. If people now want to claim that Hutchinson was a “vagrant” who went from place to place within a tiny area crammed with lodging houses (why?), then they’re flying in the fact of what he actually said, which was that he “usually” slept at the same place. If you accept his word, you need to accept him at his word.

You’ll note that other doss house dwellers associated with the case generally stuck to one place, rather than going “eeny meeny miny mo” and choosing a different one each night – that wouldn’t be “vagrancy”, but simply odd, irrational behaviour. If Hutchinson was an itinerant lodger, he might well have slept in different lodging houses, depending on his location and work-related movements; but we “know” he wasn’t, or else he would not have walked 13 miles back from Romford in the ridiculous hours when he could have dossed down in Romford, like a true “itinerant”. Moving from place to place did not mean randomly picking different shyte holes within the same tiny district every night. It meant sleeping where you found work, or found occasion to travel, but it seems Hutchinson was not such a person, or else he’d have dossed in Romford.

It is far from credible that any lodger who had sampled the better facilities at the Victoria Home should have “preferred” one of the many inferior establishments that littered the district.

“Attempting to suggest a compassionate view from Abberline is one thing, but that is quite different to what a dosser would expect, knowing so many have suffered the same fate.”

He didn't "attempt" to suggest it; he succeeded in suggesting it - and it was more realistic than "compassionate". You’ve provided no evidence of “so many” people suffering the same fate. There was not the remotest possibility of Abberline prosecuting Hutchinson for “vagrancy” had he admitted to it, and there is no possibility of Hutchinson expecting that outcome either. That’s how absurd it is. As if Abberline was likely to say, “What?! Sleeping rough?! How very dare you! Bollocks to your potentially critical eyewitness evidence. I don’t want to hear another word. Let’s ignore all that and focus on how naughty YOU’VE been.”

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Incidentally, the kind of vagrant life implied here, living in various places, never being certain where you are going to spend the next night, jumping from one job to another, moving all over, never getting a fixed place in time or space to hold on to ...

...is something that lends itself eminently to a scenario where the person enduring these circumstances will loose track of time and days.

"When did I sleep there? Was it on the night leading up to that job? Or no, was that the day before? But didn´t I do that job on Tuesday? Or was it on Wednesday? Heavens, it´s all a muddle!!"

Just saying!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

First off we have the reference to the lodger who told him to go to the police:

" I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday,.."

And you say "here" is obviously the Victoria Home.
Fine, it's not an absolute certainty, but as he gave that address to police only the day before then it is reasonable to conclude this. No contest there.

If we accept the above, then it makes the next reference rather strange.
Within the same paragraph, just a few lines down he offers:

"I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

If the place where he usually sleeps is the Victoria Home, and this interview is being conducted at the Victoria Home, then we should expect him to say, "this place was closed", or, "here, was closed".
In other words, "I walked about all night because this place was closed".

That´s just brilliant, Jon. It goes a long way to show how in-depth analysis of the material will always be able to yield more and better knowledge.

Just like you say, if the interview was conducted at the Victoria Home, there can be no doubt that the place where Hutchinson usually slept was NOT the Victoria home.

If we want to reason that the Victoria Home was his regular place, then this interview apparently took place in another dosshouse. Which it may have, of course.

For a second, I entertained the idea that the police had secured him in a lodging where they had 24 hour access to him, but that does not pan out - if the interview was made on the 13:th and published on the 14:th, then he would have spoken to that other lodger on the 12:th. And in that case, we would have a lodger in an accomodation provided to Hutchinson by the police, advicing him to go to the police ...

Badham describes Hutchinson as being of the Victoria Home, Commercial Street. Up til now, it has always been regarded as the "official" address for where Hutchinson lived. Could it be that he lived a rather vagrant life, and that he did not have a regular address? Could he have stayed in many establishments, favouring a doss house that was NOT the Victoria Home, whereas he DID stay in the Victoria Home on the nights of the 11:th-12:th and the 12:th-13:th?

In such a case, if Badham asked him "What is your address?", he could have gotten the answer "In many places". Then he would have asked about Hutchinson´s present address, and been informed that he stayed at the Victoria Home at that stage. And that intermittently made him George Hutchinson of the Victoria Home.

That would also have been the lead the Daily News reporter followed, sniffing him out. Following the lead "the place where I usually stay" would not be fruitful.

This effectively clears Badham and the police of any incompetence (as was suggested), since the man was not homeless, and Badham just placed him where he currently lived.

And if this all was the case, then the interview WAS performed in the Victoria Home, but the place where Hutchinson normally stayed was somewhere else.

That´s a sterling job, Jon. Very well spotted!

This will take some digesting ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Wickerman]

What "Whitechapel reality" I am contesting?

It is a reality that the Victoria Home had somewhat tighter entry guidelines that the vast majority of Whitechapel doss houses,

You have not established he even stayed at the V.H. before the 12th.

He was simply clarifying that "here" was the place he "usually" slept; otherwise, the name of the other place would certainly have been provided,

Like the "public house" you mean?

It seems we have two references to private establishments, where neither were named by the Central News.

...and yet we see no other lodging house than the Victoria Home mentioned in either the police statement (with accompanying Abberline report) or the press interview. Either both parties were incompetent or there was no other lodging house involved.

What your theory requires is:

"I walked about all night, as this place, where I usually sleep, was closed." Or,

"I walked about all night, as here, where I usually sleep was closed."

You have neither.
Which complicates your assumption.


So, it is quite apparent that "...the place where I usually sleep", was elsewhere.

Example:
I walked about all night, as Crossingham's, the place where I usually sleep, was closed.

Insert a name (any name), and the meaning is clear, and the context is correct.

There is certainly no need to look for excuses for the change in context from "here" where he mentions the lodger:

" I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday,.." to where he mentions his previous domicile...

"I walked about all night, (insert name) the place where I usually sleep, was closed."

The name of the pub is missing (removed?), and also the name of his "usual place" is missing (removed?), which has led to your confusion.

Occams Razor is telling you Hutchinson was not a resident of the V.H. on the night of the 8/9th Nov.

[Wickerman]

Attempting to suggest a compassionate view from Abberline is one thing, but that is quite different to what a dosser would expect, knowing so many have suffered the same fate.

Hutchinson is in no position to gamble.

[Garry Wroe]

Garry’s observation was that if Hutchinson was offering something of such significance to the inquiry, the police were guaranteed to gloss over some piddly transgression such as sleeping in a doorway, and Hutchinson would have known this. Hence, if Hutchinson really did doss in a stairway or doorway, he would have related as much.

Precisely, Ben.

[Ben]

My experience Ben, is that you have little knowledge of the realities of Whitechapel.

What "Whitechapel reality" I am contesting?

It is a reality that the Victoria Home had somewhat tighter entry guidelines that the vast majority of Whitechapel doss houses, and it is a reality that other doss houses in the area would have been open in the small hours to anyone willing to pay. The only argument that goes completely against reality is the one you've advanced; that Hutchinson was in possession of money, lied about it to Kelly, inexplicably didn't doss down in Romford, and inexplicably couldn't find any lodgings in the east end.

If the place where he usually sleeps is the Victoria Home, and this interview is being conducted at the Victoria Home, then we should expect him to say, "this place was closed", or, "here, was closed".

No.

He was simply clarifying that "here" was the place he "usually" slept; otherwise, the name of the other place would certainly have been provided, and yet we see no other lodging house than the Victoria Home mentioned in either the police statement (with accompanying Abberline report) or the press interview. Either both parties were incompetent or there was no other lodging house involved.

Regards,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson’s “usually” slept at the Victoria Home, and that’s where he slept – or claimed to have slept – on the morning of the 9th. If you want to suggest otherwise, good luck trying to defend Hutchinson’s claim that his lodgings were “closed”, because unless Hutchinson stayed at the Victoria Home (as everyone but you accepts), the reality is that no other doss house in the area would have been.

My experience Ben, is that you have little knowledge of the realities of Whitechapel.

Ok, so you think this business about the Victoria Home is cut and dried.

There are three comments within Hutchinson's press story that have some bearing on the matter. One is ambiguous, it can be applied to either argument. Ambiguity is never a deciding factor, so I leave that aside for now.
I'll just deal with the remaining two.

First off we have the reference to the lodger who told him to go to the police:

" I told one of the lodgers here about it yesterday,.."

And you say "here" is obviously the Victoria Home.
Fine, it's not an absolute certainty, but as he gave that address to police only the day before then it is reasonable to conclude this. No contest there.

If we accept the above, then it makes the next reference rather strange.
Within the same paragraph, just a few lines down he offers:

"I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

If the place where he usually sleeps is the Victoria Home, and this interview is being conducted at the Victoria Home, then we should expect him to say, "this place was closed", or, "here, was closed".
In other words, "I walked about all night because this place was closed".

In saying "the place where I usually sleep" he is definitely not identifying "where I usually sleep" with "here".
"Here", is where he spoke with the lodger, "here" is now his new place.

He is suggesting "where I usually sleep" (or slept, until the night of Nov. 8/9), was another location away from the Victoria Home.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

That is not what you say when she has no idea which pub you are heading for.

My point was that Hutchinson had any number of reasons for referring to the Queen's Head as "the publichouse" despite knowing its actual name. It might, for instance, have been his preferred "local".

All those 'other indications' are just as ambiguous, when tested, they all end up the same, no indication he was lying.

No, I disagree.

It is only when you really "test" them that the likelihood of him lying becomes most apparent. As I've already explained, I find it difficult to envisage a scenario in which a truthful, locally familiar Hutchinson manages to make such an error, unless he slipped up in a prepared story based on fictional events.

Hi Snapper,

If Hutchinson is lying then why?

Very probably because he discovered he'd been spotted by Sarah Lewis loitering on Dorset Street, and fearing the possibility of being recognised again and asked to explain his behaviour and presence there, injected himself into the investigation under the pretense of being a helpful witness; even providing a bogus description of a sinister-looking man to ensure that suspicion is deflected away from himself. If he was innocent of any wrongdoing, one could observe that he had nothing to fear from being dragged in as a suspect, but if he was responsible for the murder - and was, by extension, the ripper - he may been wary of the possibility of other witnesses being reintroduced to look him over and thus establish incriminating connections with earlier murders.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Hutchinson didn't mention the pub name to the press for the obvious reason that it was fairly normal not to do so. .....
(as in, "see you later, babe, I'm off down the pub"),

Yes Ben, that is when Babe knows which pub is your local.
That is not what you say when she has no idea which pub you are heading for.

He probably used the same expression when speaking to the police, at least initially, but was specifically requested to provide the name by the statement-taking officer. Hutchinson gave the name of the wrong pub in response to this, but then later corrected himself.

You are only repeating what I already offered as a scenario.

Does this mean he was definitely lying?

No.

Correct.

Is it consistent with other indications that he probably lied?

Yes.

All those 'other indications' are just as ambiguous, when tested, they all end up the same, no indication he was lying.
You are choosing the interpretation that suits you. The fact each situation has a variety of solutions is being ignored.

None, of those 'other indications' can be said to have been a lie.

[Sam Flynn]

If Hutchinson is lying then why?

Why did Matthew Packer lie? Why did any number of locals approach the press, if not the police, with bullshit claims? Why did so many locals (apparently) latch onto someone else's Ripper story, only to pass it off as their own?

[Ben]

Perhaps "walking about all night" was a euphemism for visiting a brathel?

No, that's known as "walking it off all night", Gareth.

[Ben]

Hutchinson didn't mention the pub name to the press for the obvious reason that it was fairly normal not to do so. That doesn't mean that most people don't know the names of their nearest pubs; it simply means that they'd prefer to call them "the pub" (as in, "see you later, babe, I'm off down the pub"), or in Victorian-speak, the "puclichouse". He probably used the same expression when speaking to the police, at least initially, but was specifically requested to provide the name by the statement-taking officer. Hutchinson gave the name of the wrong pub in response to this, but then later corrected himself.

Does this mean he was definitely lying?

No.

Is it consistent with other indications that he probably lied?

Yes.

[Ben]

My observations have on occasion been regarded as a 'first', so this is only to be expected.

When discussing other case-related issues, I’m sure you’re positively on fire when reeling off wonderfully astute, brand new, never-before-conceived ideas. Any aspect of the case that doesn’t relate to Hutchinson, doesn't relate to eyewitness evidence as a general theme, and studiously avoids the Kelly murder investigation is healthy for you, I think. When you’re avoiding those areas like the very plague, in fact, that’s when you really come into your own and start firing off all sorts of original, quality material. Sadly, however, you’ve made it your business to stick rigidly to Hutchinson and Kelly threads, which obviously aren’t your strong suit, and owing to this rigidity and misguided determination to fight fights with Hutchinson people all the time, your “brand new ideas” have been largely disastrous. We’ve had Isaacstrakhan, the Bond business, the revival of Daily News’s errant report, and now the suggestion that Hutchinson slept somewhere other than the Victoria Home on the murder night, and you’ve attracted no adherents. Guess why?

Druitt threads and GSG-related issues – now they’re another matter, and I just know you’re the man to sort that whole crazy mess right out. This is where I suggest you might be able to really kick butt, but you just don’t want to.

“The fact no-one has thought to establish this fundamental requirement is an indication of the lack of thoroughness displayed by those who readily adopt such theories”

Are you seriously suggesting that the only people who accept that Hutchinson’s 9th November lodgings were at the Victoria Home have been those who believe he was the ripper? You’re definitely wrong, if so. Probably best not to piddle off your potential mates by accusing them of a “lack of thoroughness”, Jon. You need to create a united front against me, remember, and this accusation will have the opposite effect.

“So now the objection is raised, officially, so deal with it”

“Officially”…?

Jon said it, so it’s official! (Apparently)

I have “dealt with it”, thank you. Hutchinson’s “usually” slept at the Victoria Home, and that’s where he slept – or claimed to have slept – on the morning of the 9th. If you want to suggest otherwise, good luck trying to defend Hutchinson’s claim that his lodgings were “closed”, because unless Hutchinson stayed at the Victoria Home (as everyone but you accepts), the reality is that no other doss house in the area would have been.

“Who said 'grotty'?, more assumptions?”

Ooops, you got me.

Yes, I thought I’d go berserk and make “assumptions” about the nature of doss houses in one of the worst and most dangerous areas in London. When I said “grotty”, I was of course forgetting about the palatial retreats on Dorset Street, with four-poster beds and Jacuzzis permeated with Essence of Orchid.

“You might want to read his post again ("nothing to fear with regard to vagrancy proceedings”

Or – perhaps more pressingly – YOU might want to.

Garry’s observation was that if Hutchinson was offering something of such significance to the inquiry, the police were guaranteed to gloss over some piddly transgression such as sleeping in a doorway, and Hutchinson would have known this. Hence, if Hutchinson really did doss in a stairway or doorway, he would have related as much.

[Wickerman]

Exactly, "why?".
And if he is lying, how come he didn't name the pub to the press, he just said "public house"?
It is quite reasonable to ask then, as he told the press "public house", did he also say that to Badham? A policeman would want something more identifiable, a name, and Badham would ask him to think. So now Hutchinson is required to guess.
Is that where he got it wrong?
These pubs are only a block apart, the Ten Bells was north of Spitalfields Church, the Queens Head is south of the Church.

Hutchinson has been accused of a lot of things, all on guesswork.