Witness statement Dismissed-suspect No. 1?

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

I can't envisage too many people kicking off in response to your suggestion, which seems perfectly valid and reasonable. Obviously, the Victoria Home was where he "usually" slept prior to his 12th November visit to the station, but yes, the police could well have subsidized his accommodation there for some time thereafter.

No problem at all.

Regards,
Ben

[Scott Nelson]

And free morning papers too.

[Wickerman]

... Obviously, the Victoria Home was where he "usually" slept prior to his 12th November visit to the station, ....

You wouldn't have felt it necessary to throw that hint in, if it wasn't for the fact that interpretation has been shown false.
A bit of insecurity surfacing Ben?


Wherever his usual place was, it was closed, and the Victoria Home did not close.

[Ben]

You wouldn't have felt it necessary to throw that hint in, if it wasn't for the fact that interpretation has been shown false.

According to you, and perhaps one other person.

According to everyone else, however, the Victoria Home was the place where Hutchinson usually slept prior to introducing himself to the police. Yes, we had a couple of people arguing senselessly and noisily to the contrary recently, but did it topple mainstream thinking on the subject? Nope, it sank without trace, and rightly so.

I'd just hate to have to locate and regurgitate that whole argument now.

We'll see if that becomes a necessity.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

I'd just hate to have to locate and regurgitate that whole argument now.

You did, and it is easy to see why.

[Sally]

that interpretation has been shown false.

Wherever his usual place was, it was closed, and the Victoria Home did not close.

I think that's a bit strong Jon. It's hardly been 'shown false'

[Batman]

How could Hutchinson have 'identified' MJK if even Barret could only identify her from her ears and eyes?

Just look at the quality of Eddowes been put back together. There are even doubts (although wrong) over one of her photographs in the coffin because she looks so unlike the other photos of her after reassembly.

There is simply no way a reconstruction of MJK could have Hutchinson identify her realistically in her condition.

[Wickerman]

Cheers Jon.

I can't quite believe we were allowed to get away with the suggestion that it may have been the police who organised Hutchinson's Victoria Home 'abode' to fix his sleeping arrangements for as long as they needed him close to hand.

The offer of sequestration for a witness would likely come from Abberline if it was deemed necessary. As the Victoria Home address is at the heading of the voluntary statement to Sgt. Badham, prior to Abberline being notified, then it likely was his true address on that date.
Besides, the Victoria Home is not the kind of place to secure an important witness away from the press & public. Evidence, the subsequent interview Hutchinson gave to the Central News reporter the very next day, which appears to have taken place at that location.

[Wickerman]

How could Hutchinson have 'identified' MJK if even Barret could only identify her from her ears and eyes?

Just look at the quality of Eddowes been put back together. There are even doubts (although wrong) over one of her photographs in the coffin because she looks so unlike the other photos of her after reassembly.

There is simply no way a reconstruction of MJK could have Hutchinson identify her realistically in her condition.

Her ears were mutilated, it was her hair & eyes.
If that is good enough from Barnett, then it is equally good enough from anyone else.
But he wasn't asked to identify the body as "Mary Kelly", he was taken to the mortuary to confirm the body was the woman he met that morning, there is a difference.
Hutchinson doesn't have to give a clinical identification, all he has to say is "ay, that looks like her, whats left of her".

[Wickerman]

I think that's a bit strong Jon. It's hardly been 'shown false'

It doesn't matter which way you look at it Sally, Hutchinson referred to two different establishments, where he lives now at the time of the interview, and where he used to live until the night of the murder.
That is why Ben's steadfast attempt to defend the indefensible, is false.

[Ben]

If the police neglected to record Hutchinson's place of residence on the night of the murder (which played such a pivotal role in his narrative), they would have been guilty of gross incompetence. We can either admonish them accordingly or accept - as researchers have accepted, logically, for a century - that the establishment recorded on the statement, the Victoria Home, was where he attempted to seek lodgings on the night of the murder; the place where he "usually" slept.

Where is the evidence to suggest the press interview took place at the Victoria Home?

Nowhere.

If the press agency interviewed him at the Princess Alice pub over the road, for instance, Hutchinson could have told a fellow Victoria Home lodger about the Kelly encounter* at the Princess Alice, making sense of his statement that he told a fellow lodger about it "here".

The Victoria Home closed its doors to those not in possession of a pre-paid ticket at 12:30am or 1.00am, whereas most other doss houses in the locality were far more relaxed about entry rules.

All the best,
Ben

*Or lied about it.

[Wickerman]

If the police neglected to record Hutchinson's place of residence on the night of the murder (which played such a pivotal role in his narrative), they would have been guilty of gross incompetence. We can either admonish them accordingly or accept - as researchers have accepted, logically, for a century - that the establishment recorded on the statement, the Victoria Home, was where he attempted to seek lodgings on the night of the murder; the place where he "usually" slept.

I am sure there are many who would continue to charge the police with gross incompetence, but serious researchers already know that Abberline's interrogation paperwork has not survived. The minute details of Hutchinson's story are now lost, which includes his address on the night in question.

Where is the evidence to suggest the press interview took place at the Victoria Home?

Nowhere.

I know Ben, but you and your compadre's have all promoted this as if it were a fact.
Unless of course, you now feel the need to back away from this perceived certainty?

If the press agency interviewed him at the Princess Alice pub over the road, for instance, Hutchinson could have told a fellow Victoria Home lodger about the Kelly encounter* at the Princess Alice, making sense of his statement that he told a fellow lodger about it "here".

Agreed, but that does not tell us he was living at the Victoria Home on the night in question. I have had plenty of time to think of alternatives myself.
Not so much a certainty anymore, is it?

Perhaps now you can appreciate how the 'mainstream' thought process works - unless you have tangible evidence promoting an idea as a certainty becomes foolish.
Howzabout a tête-à-tête with your compadre's to see if you can arrive at a consensus before you make any rash decisions?

[Ben]

I am sure there are many who would continue to charge the police with gross incompetence, but serious researchers already know that Abberline's interrogation paperwork has not survived.

Yes, it has.

Abberline forwarded Hutchinson's statement to his bosses with an accompanying report, and we're very lucky that has survived. If you're expecting full transcripts to have been made of the entire dialogue that occurred between Abberline and Hutchinson (which then got conveniently bombed by the Nazis, as usual), then you're dreaming again, I'm afraid.

Agreed, but that does not tell us he was living at the Victoria Home on the night in question

Yes, it does.

As accepted by everyone for decades.

It was the responsibility of the police to record the name and location of Hutchinson's lodging house if it differed from the one on the official record, especially as the establishment in question had a direct bearing on his movements that night. The fact that only the Victoria Home is mentioned tells us either that it was Hutchinson's intended lodgings on the night of the murder, or that the police were revoltingly negligent. Your call, but I know what 99.9% of "ripperologists" reckon.

Find me an "alternative" lodging house that made sense of Hutchinson's alleged route that night, and which closed at 2.00am.

[harry]

Jon,
You claim Aberlines interrogation paperwork has not survived.What paperwork would that be.I'm sure it would have been a verbal interview between Aberline and Hutchinson,followed by a written statement by Sgt Badham.The later report by Aberline would be an inclusion of statements by Hutchinson not deemed necessary in the official statement taken by Badham.
I do not think anything of importance is missing.
The impression given,is that Kelly took a male person to her room about 2.15 AM,November 9,1888.Hutchinson was being honest or he was lying.
I believe he was lying about that particular item,but not about being a resident of the Victoria Home.

[Sally]

It doesn't matter which way you look at it Sally, Hutchinson referred to two different establishments, where he lives now at the time of the interview, and where he used to live until the night of the murder.

Really? This is the outcome of careful thought? As already outlined by others Jon, this is not a safe conclusion given the known facts.

Like so very many minor details in the past, absolute proof is lacking either way; but the simpler explanation is that Hutchinson was already living at the Victoria Home when Kelly was murdered and continued to live there afterwards. There is no evidence to the contrary.