Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

Did you know before that Hutchinson was in all probability not a regular of the Victorian Home. Yes?

Stop the nonsense please, Fisherman.

David "jokes about this" because derision is all this ludicrous non-revelation deserves.

The fact that only one lodging house was referred to by police and press is a testament to the fact that only one lodging house was involved; the one that Hutchinson lodged at from the 9th to the 12th at least - the Victoria Home. The alternative relies on mammoth incompetence from both parties.

It seems to be a distressing feature of today's "ripperological" approach; the "Oh look what I've suddenly noticed that was there all along!" appeal. No. Everyone knows it was there all along; it's just that everyone else avoided the silly conclusion that a tiny minority of modern hobbyists jump to and then convince nobody of its brand new exiting validity.

From this day forward, there will never be an opportunity when you unchallenged can say that Hutchinson lived in the midst of the murder territory

I won't speak for David, but I absolutely dare people to challenge the factual reality that Hutchinson "lived in the murder territory", and whenever they do so on the basis of the "reasoning" offered here, I'll have the same field day all over again.

Bring it on, I say.

[Fisherman]

Bring it on, I say.

Itīs already brought on, Ben: "The place where I usually sleep", spoken about during an interview at the Victoria Home took care of that.

There is nothing to fight over, thus.

Fisherman

[Wickerman]

.... If the “place where he usually slept” and his intended lodgings that night related to a different dwelling to that recorded on the statement, it would have been an act of appalling incompetence on the part of the police not to have recorded its name.

Are you really so lost on this subject Ben?
Read the police statement again, the subject never came up. All he wrote was, "...so I went away."

..... than you have with Fetchbeer and the Dew Spew,

If it isn't too much of an effort Ben, could you try to raise the level of your discourse above that of a ten year old?

The fact that we see no mention of any other lodging house than the Victoria Home by either the police or the press....

We see no mention of the Victoria Home by the press, which is quite consistent with their omission of the name of "his usual place", along with the omission of the name of the pub.
How's that for consistency?

Hutchinson's police statement never even approached the subject of where he went, or why, after he left Dorset St.

What was preventing him from using the money that you claim he had, and gaining entry to one of the many lodging houses in the area that hadn’t closed?

Read my point again.
I claimed we do not know if he had any money.
It is futile to base a theory on that which we do not know.
He may have thought better than to give his last coin away to Mary, and just 'claim' he was penniless.

Are you seriously suggesting that a whole room to himself above a pub was an inferior option to a bed in a lodging house dormitory that slept 50 others?

No.

Two things.
First, some people prefer a room for themselves (like Kelly?), rather than be bundled into communal habitation with no real privacy.

The very fact he moved to the Victoria Home 'could' be due to his irregular employment situation, he could no longer afford such luxury.
This might explain the present tense of his comment, "where I usually sleep", as betraying his intention to get out of this Victoria Home as soon as possible, and back to his usual dwellings.
In other words he is residing at the V.H. temporarily, for whatever reason, and does not like it.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Are you really so lost on this subject Ben?
Read the police statement again, the subject never came up. All he wrote was, "...so I went away.

The police would have made absolutely sure that it did "come up", and this wouldn't have had anything to do with "checking him out" or assessing his credibility or seeing if he's secretly Jack the Ripper, or any of the other alleged rigours of "interrogation" that you previously insisted "must have" happened. They would, at the very least, have ascertained the absolute basics, such as his actual home on the night in question. It amazes me that up until recently you were absolutely insistent that Abberline crossed every t and dotted every i. Now you do a complete U-turn, and suggest the police didn't even bother to record the name of his residence on the night of the murder.

We see no mention of the Victoria Home by the press, which is quite consistent with their omission of the name of "his usual place", along with the omission of the name of the pub.

But the description of the pub's location was such that its identity could be established with certainty. There was only one pub on the corner of Fashion Street and Commercial Street, and that was the Queen's Head. If Hutchinson had mentioned a different lodging house to the one in which the interview took place, one would reasonably have expected the press to "press" him for details of its location, regardless of whether or not the name itself was provided.

Hutchinson's police statement never even approached the subject of where he went, or why, after he left Dorset St.

...from which you conclude? What? That they didn't bother to ask? A sharp contrast to your previous insistence that they "must have" checked this or that, despite the fact that we have no record of it.

He may have thought better than to give his last coin away to Mary, and just 'claim' he was penniless.

Are you now suggesting that his "last coin" was insufficient to procure doss after lying to Kelly? In which case, we're straight back to the discrepancy we discussed earlier on; if he did not have sufficient funds to secure a bed that night, the closure of the home - whatever home that may have been - is completely irrelevant.

First, some people prefer a room for themselves (like Kelly?), rather than be bundled into communal habitation with no real privacy.

And I'd prefer a yacht to a dinghy.

It's irrelevant what people "preferred".

They were forced to make do with what was available and what they could afford, and I very seriously doubt that a labouring former groom had anything close to the funds required to be a "usual" occupant of a single room above a pub. I also very seriously doubt that a lodging house frequented on occasion by clerks - as we know the Victoria Home was - should be considered a "come-down" for the likes of a groom.

If it isn't too much of an effort Ben, could you try to raise the level of your discourse above that of a ten year old?

If you would kindly remove your immature signature, which is clearly written to antagonise, then yes, and then I'll remove mine. Otherwise, no can do I'm afraid.

All the best,
Ben

[Cogidubnus]

I'm sorry but I really have been trying to follow this thread intelligently and trying to keep tabs on what's going on...but alas I've just lost the will to live...I'm sorry but you'll have to do without me from now on...something I'm sure you'll have no difficulty with....

All the best

Dave

[Sally]

They were forced to make do with what was available and what they could afford, and I very seriously doubt that a labouring former groom had anything close to the funds required to be a "usual" occupant of a single room above a pub. I also very seriously doubt that a lodging house frequented on occasion by clerks - as we know the Victoria Home was - should be considered a "come-down" for the likes of a groom.

Yes, it absolutely was. Most of the local inhabitants lived in lodging houses; occupancy of a room wouldn't have been possible without a reliable income, which thousands living in Whitechapel simply didn't have.

As for the VH, we know it was, at least at the time, one of the more respectable establishments. It was new, run by philanthropists and subject to very clear ideals concerning the living standards of the semi-itinerant working man. It was a place for better class of dosser.

Lodging houses on the whole of course had a dreadful reputation. Had Hutchinson previously been dossing at a lesser establishment, he'd have looked, well, less respectable.

I don't see where the evidence is for this alleged other place he 'usually' slept at; nor the point in arguing for it to start with.

[Wickerman]

I don't see where the evidence is for this alleged other place he 'usually' slept at; nor the point in arguing for it to start with.

As a defender of the faith, should we be surprised?

[Wickerman]

Certainly. And to the editors.

The last piece I put together of any size was too large.
I think it was Don who asked me if I would consider offering it to Ripperologist.
I told him it was 64 pages, I got the impression it was too long.

It was a compilation of the original record plus, all the principal press sources which covered the Kelly Inquest, 17 of them.
Every line, every sentence, grouped together for the student to compare the similarities and the differences.
It helps the reader to understand just what was verbatim and what was paraphrase, and just how none of the sources, not even the official one, is complete.

[Garry Wroe]

I don't see where the evidence is for this alleged other place he 'usually' slept at; nor the point in arguing for it to start with.

Nor I, Sally. Hutchinson claimed to have just returned from Romford when he discovered his lodgings to be closed. The Victoria Home aside, I know of no local lodging house that closed its doors in the early hours of the morning. Added to this, Hutchinson claimed to have encountered Kelly as he walked in a northerly direction along Commercial Street. This means that he had just passed the Victoria Home, which as chance would have it was the sole common lodging house on Commercial Street. So what are the chances that the place to which Hutchinson referred was anywhere other than the Victoria Home?

Hutchinson also remarked under newspaper interview that one of his fellow lodgers "here" advised him at some point on the Monday to relate his Astrakhan story to the police, "which I did at night." The fellow lodger rules out any possibility that Hutchinson had a room of his own, and since just hours later Hutchinson confirmed to Abberline that the Victoria Home was his home address, the 'here' is clearly a reference to the Victoria Home.

As a crucially important witness Hutchinson would have been required to provide police with an address where he could be reached at short notice. It is therefore inconceivable that Abberline or any of his subordinates would have been negligent in this context. The fact, then, that Hutchinson gave his address as the Victoria Home means that he was residing at the Victoria Home. The fact, too, that the pressmen who interviewed Hutchinson would have elicited his whereabouts from the police means that Hutchinson was found at the Victoria Home.

As for the referral to 'there' that has so excited Jon and Fish, it is entirely possible that the journalist(s) concerned conducted at least part of the interview over the road in the bar of the Princess Alice. Thus the 'there' would still refer to the Victoria Home, rather than the 'here' which was the place whare Hutchinson was being fed and watered.

[DVV]

Hutchinson claimed to have just returned from Romford when he discovered his lodgings to be closed. The Victoria Home aside, I know of no local lodging house that closed its doors in the early hours of the morning. Added to this, Hutchinson claimed to have encountered Kelly as he walked in a northerly direction along Commercial Street. This means that he had just passed the Victoria Home, which as chance would have it was the sole common lodging house on Commercial Street. So what are the chances that the place to which Hutchinson referred was anywhere other than the Victoria Home?

No chance at all.

[Garry Wroe]

That's right, Dave.

[DVV]

I believe so, Garry.
And in the sentence into which Jon has read too much, he failed to observe that the verb "to sleep" was the only one conjugated in the present.

[Sally]

As a defender of the faith, should we be surprised?

I don't believe in faith Jon.

But I'm certainly not surprised by your comment, it's typical of your response when you don't actually have a counterargument.

[Wickerman]

Counter argument to what?, all you offered was an observation.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:
As for the referral to 'there' that has so excited Jon and Fish, it is entirely possible that the journalist(s) concerned conducted at least part of the interview over the road in the bar of the Princess Alice. Thus the 'there' would still refer to the Victoria Home, rather than the 'here' which was the place whare Hutchinson was being fed and watered.

So he sat in the bar of the Princess Alice, spoke of "the place where I usually sleep", referring to the Victoria Home..?

Then why did he say that he told a fellow lodger HERE about his story? Was that a man that lodged in the bar of the Princess Alice? Or did Hutchinson pop over to the Victoria Home for five minutes, bringing the reporter with him?

Iīm afraid Hutchinson has locked the Victoria Home and thrown away the key, Garry. No ingenuity and no sudden moves to bars across the road will change that as far as I can see.

... but it is at least good to see that you have come to realize that you need to get Hutchinson out of the Victoria Home before he can speak of it as the place where he used to sleep!

I donīt think we need to make this yet another source of bad feelings between posters. It is too clear and unambiguous to be contested.

All the best,
Fisherman