Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Wickerman]

There has never been a single objection raised to the reality that the Victoria Home was the place Hutchinson referred to when he spoke of where he "usually" slept.

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

So now the objection is raised, officially, so deal with it.
Or, you could admit that there is no reliable foundation for any subsequent assumptions raised against Hutchinson based on his unknown address up until the 8th of November.

The likelihood of the other, grottier lodgings houses being "closed" was very slim indeed.

Who said 'grotty'?, more assumptions?

Garry was asking for evidence for your assertion that "walking about all night" was a euphemism, and you failed to provide any, electing instead to respond with an irrelevance.

You might want to read his post again ("nothing to fear with regard to vagrancy proceedings"), no mention of establishing the euphemism. Only that people were sleeping all over the place, and therefore my suggestion that they could be arrested is my 'belief'.

Another example of switching horses when cornered?

[Sam Flynn]

Wrath.

Garry was asking for evidence for your assertion that "walking about all night" was a euphemism.

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

[The Snapper]

So Hutchinson didn't name the pub but it's name was automatically inserted for him by Badham ... which Hutchinson later pointed out was the wrong pub and got Badham to correct.
The idea that Badham is putting things into Hutchinsons statement which Hutchinson never originally said is pushing it. Mistakes are one thing but substitution is quite different. If he was sure enough to get Badham to correct it why didn't he mention it by name in the first place ? The more likely inference to my mind is that he did and that he was wrong. And another thing. How do we even know that it was Hutchinson that spotted this error ?

Snapper

[Cogidubnus]

I don't think it's pushing it that much Snapper...certainly it's not pushing it anywhere near as far as suggesting the manuscript correction to the statement is evidence of lying or wrongdoing...it is simply a correction entered before the statement is signed...no more...no less...

Unless of course you have irrefutable evidence it's something more?

All the best

Dave

[The Snapper]

I didn't use the words "lying" or "wrongdoing". My point was that IMHO Badham didn't substitute anything and just took the statement as dictated. Ergo the mistake was Hutchinsons.

Snapper

[Wickerman]

At the end of the day all that matters is whether you think there is cause to interpret the error as a result of Hutchinson lying, or was it an honest mistake.

[The Snapper]

I'm leaning towards lying.

Snapper

[Wickerman]

Identifying cause, and guessing, are at opposite ends of the spectrum.

[The Snapper]

That really goes to the heart of it. If Hutchinson is lying then why ? BTW I remain unconvinced with regards to him being Jack.

Snapper

[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.

[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.

[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]

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

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

[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?

[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.