Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Fisherman]

I think 'mediocre hilarity' may be a contradiction in terms.

In some cases, yes - but it was easy to see what Observer meant.

Fisherman

[Observer]

Not for you, evidently.

What more, give me an alternative interpretation.

[Sally]

In some cases, yes - but it was easy to see what Observer meant.

Fisherman

I'm sure it was, Fish. After all, it was Team Lechmere's 'Mediocre Hilarity' that led me to mine to begin with

[Ben]

if it does not support your theory, make the assumption that what goes against that theory, is in fact just an expression on behalf of the source of a low level of command of the British language.

It does support "my" theory, and this presumably is one of the reasons why the overwhelmingly vast majority agree that Hutchinson "usually" slept at the Victoria Home. Yes, there is "ample" evidence that this was the case - there was no other lodging house mentioned in connection with Hutchinson, Badham recorded him as being "of" the Victoria Home, and it would have been an act of extraordinary incompetence of the part of police and press to have failed to record the name of Hutchinson's residence on the night of his alleged experience, if different form the Victoria Home.

“If you live for fifty years in Oxford Street, but move to Regent Street the day before you speak to the police, then you will be Mr X of Regent Street in the report written.”

Yes, but if your previous address played a pivotal role in your eyewitness account, you would expect to divulge the location of that address, or failing that, have it extracted from you. If, as you now controversially and unpopularly suggest, Hutchinson’s “new” lodgings were at the Victoria Home, the police would have made damnably sure to find out where his "old" ones were if he intended to sleep at them on the night of his experience. Nowhere else do we find an example of such dereliction of obvious duty. Every other witnesses of note had their address recorded for the night on which their sightings occurred, i.e. on the murder nights, and it is quite ludicrous to expect Hutchinson to have been any different.

Why do you keep going on about the Daily News, incidentally? Central News conducted the interview with Hutchinson, which was then circulated to several daily papers.

There were no other lodging houses in the district that closed early, and which denied entry even to those with money to pay, so unless you wish to wheel in yet another one of those extraordinary “coincidences”, the detail that the lodgings had closed points unquestionably to the Victoria Home – the only lodging house mentioned in connection with Hutchinson. Garry raises an extremely important point on the other thread; if Hutchinson was heading initially to his “usual” place, the only lodgings that make sense in terms of his chosen route – Whitechapel High Street then Commercial Street – were the Victoria Home (the only doss house on Commercial Street), and the houses of horror that branched off that thoroughfare, such as those situated on Flower and Dean Street. In other words, his lodging house was almost certainly located bang in the heart of the murder district, regardless which building you want it to have been. The problem for you is that none of the dodgy places off Commercial Street make sense of Hutchinson’s claim that the lodgings were closed, which only the Victoria Home does; and moreover, that no sane person would ever prefer the former hell-holes to the latter.

The irony here is that even if the Victoria Home had never been mentioned in Badham’s report, a clever person would deduce from the available clues that it must have been the building in question.

I never claimed that Hutchinson did not have a “useful” (you do like that adjective) command of English. I simply observed that he used it reductively, in common with many with little formal education. The alternative is that he used “here” in the literal sense to mean somewhere else, i.e. the pub where the interview may have taken place. In which case, we can take Hutchinson at his word; “I told a fellow lodger (from the place where I usually sleep – the Victoria Home) about it here (at the pub).”

“Can we help him out in any way, so he does not have to feel embarrased about that? Maybe you could call me something and I could sulk, or something like that?”

Oh, I think you’re better off just doing what you’re doing over on those Crossmere threads which, sad to say, have pretty much died a death - claim that you like Lechmere’s arguments so much that you completely reject them and argue something completely different, and anxiously distance yourself from them whenever I erroneously conclude that you’re in sync on the subject.

[Observer]

In reality "Carry on up the Carman" was a rather silly selection wasn't it?

You really should have chosen "Carry on Carman". That would have made a lot more sense.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

I can assure you that more people agree with my ideas, which aren't even my ideas. I just appropriated them from a distressed gentlefellow

I know you did, and I can't imagine Michael Connor's too happy about it either.

Believe me I can keep this sort of thing up for post after post, then brag at how many posts there are - do you want to try it?
Come on, so-called Fisherman, I've nothing better to do with my life than regurgitate my own vomit.

You have my sympathy for that, but what I advised on the Crossmere threads was that continued tag-team multi-posting and vomit regurgitation might not be the most sensible strategy if you have a book in the pipeline.

[Fisherman]

Ben: It does support "my" theory, and this presumably is one of the reasons why the overwhelmingly vast majority agree that Hutchinson "usually" slept at the Victoria Home. Yes, there is "ample" evidence that this was the case - there was no other lodging house mentioned in connection with Hutchinson, Badham recorded him as being "of" the Victoria Home, and it would have been an act of extraordinary incompetence of the part of police and press to have failed to record the name of Hutchinson's residence on the night of his alleged experience, if different form the Victoria Home.

So the Badham report is the only active evidence then, just as I thought? That is not ample evidence at all, Ben. The fact that we have no other lodging mentioned visavi Hutchinson is of little weight. We donīt have Abberlines interrogation of him on record either, and it is anything but fancyful to expect the information to have been there.

Yes, but if your previous address played a pivotal role in your eyewitness account, you would expect to divulge the location of that address...

That is where the interrogation material comes in.

If, as you now controversially and unpopularly suggest, Hutchinson’s “new” lodgings were at the Victoria Home, the police would have made damnably sure to find out where his "old" ones were if he intended to sleep at them on the night of his experience.

Yes, they would. And they would have known where that address was.

Nowhere else do we find an example of such dereliction of obvious duty.

We cannot possibly begin to howl "derelection of duty" until we have the full material, can we?
We know that his story was dismissed, but we donīt know why. Is that derelction of duty too? Or was it once available in the police reports and interrogation material?
There are hundreds and thousands of details that have gone lost to us, that were painstakingly collected in 1888. Please letīs not accuse the responsible ones of any dereliction of duty because their efforts were lost over the past 126 years.

Every other witnesses of note had their address recorded for the night on which their sightings occurred, i.e. on the murder nights, and it is quite ludicrous to expect Hutchinson to have been any different.

Yes it is. And nobody expects it. It would have been there, I fully agree. But I donīt agree that it must be available to us today to have been there back then.

Why do you keep going on about the Daily News, incidentally? Central News conducted the interview with Hutchinson, which was then circulated to several daily papers.

The Daily News being among them and being the source available to us on these boards.

There were no other lodging houses in the district that closed early, and which denied entry even to those with money to pay...

But we donīt KNOW where the place where he used to sleep was situated, do we? And I feel pretty certain that you donīt know about all the opening hours of each establishment, lodging houses, pubs, etcetera, in the rather vast area we may be looking at. Or?

Garry raises an extremely important point on the other thread; if Hutchinson was heading initially to his “usual” place, the only lodgings that make sense in terms of his chosen route – Whitechapel High Street then Commercial Street – were the Victoria Home (the only doss house on Commercial Street), and the houses of horror that branched off that thoroughfare, such as those situated on Flower and Dean Street. In other words, his lodging house was almost certainly located bang in the heart of the murder district, regardless which building you want it to have been.

There it is again: "almost certainly". Let me remind you that Hutchinson came in from Romford, and as far as I can tell he could have found out that the place where he usually slept was closed long before he arrived in Commercial Road for all we know. He could also have KNOWN that the establishment was closed beforehand, and skipped going there due to this knowledge. It therefore applies that his route on the night need not have had much to do with his regular place anyway. Let me further point out that it need not even have been a lodging house. In which case Garrys point would be anything but "extremely important".

Like it or not, Ben, that lodging could have been just about anywhere.

The problem for you is that none of the dodgy places off Commercial Street make sense of Hutchinson’s claim that the lodgings were closed, which only the Victoria Home does; and moreover, that no sane person would ever prefer the former hell-holes to the latter.

The possibilitites extend far beyond the lodging houses, and equally far beyond Commercial Street. So I have no problem at all. You, on the other hand ...!

The irony here is that even if the Victoria Home had never been mentioned in Badham’s report, a clever person would deduce from the available clues that it must have been the building in question.

Maybe we define "clever" in our own separate ways, Ben.

I never claimed that Hutchinson did not have a “useful” (you do like that adjective) command of English. I simply observed that he used it reductively, in common with many with little formal education. The alternative is that he used “here” in the literal sense to mean somewhere else, i.e. the pub where the interview may have taken place. In which case, we can take Hutchinson at his word; “I told a fellow lodger (from the place where I usually sleep – the Victoria Home) about it here (at the pub).”

Yes, absolutely. I think you can even come up with how he dictated the American constitution in retrospect to the reporter, if you only make a little changes here (and there).
Like I said, it opens up brand new alleys of research once we adapt this thinking. I canīt wait to see how much it will improve on the Lechmere suggestion!

Or maybe I can, come to think of it.

Oh, I think you’re better off just doing what you’re doing over on those Crossmere threads which, sad to say, have pretty much died a death - claim that you like Lechmere’s arguments so much that you completely reject them and argue something completely different, and anxiously distance yourself from them whenever I erroneously conclude that you’re in sync on the subject.

This is the type of garbage I really couldnīt be arsed to comment on. Shape up, man, and try to get SOME sort of decent act together! Youīve already taken the bold step to admit that the wording Hutchinson used clearly implies that something is amiss, just like Gary has started to shift people into the bar of the Princess Alice in recognition of the same fact.

Thatīs not a bad start. Donīt ruin it by trying to get personal.

All the best,
Fisherman

[bolo]

Hi all,

there is an interesting piece of info in the transcript of the Eddowes inquest where the deputy of the Flower & Dean-street lodginghouse Frederick William Wilkinson was interviewed. During his second testimony, the following was mentioned by a juryman (taken from Sourcebook, p. 246):

"It was usual for the place to be open at 2 o'clock in the morning. They generally closed at 2:30 or 3."

To me, this seems like the Victoria Home was not the only lodginghouse that closed down for the night.

Maybe they all did (or at least pretended to do so) in light of laws that prohibited to keep a common lodginghouse open 24/7?

Best wishes,

Boris

[Sally]

In reality "Carry on up the Carman" was a rather silly selection wasn't it?

You really should have chosen "Carry on Carman". That would have made a lot more sense.

Yeah, but it wouldn't have been nearly as much fun.

[Fisherman]

I'm sure it was, Fish. After all, it was Team Lechmere's 'Mediocre Hilarity' that led me to mine to begin with

You really should not compare the Hutchinson bid to the Lechmere bid, Sally - but I can see why you do so.

Fisherman

[Sally]

You really should not compare the Hutchinson bid to the Lechmere bid, Sally - but I can see why you do so.

Fisherman

Oh, on that score you are quite wrong, Fisherman.

[Ben]

You need to use the quote feature, Fisherman. It makes your posts easier to read. I’m sure you would prefer it if people read your posts thoroughly as opposed to skimming cursorily through them?

“The fact that we have no other lodging mentioned visavi Hutchinson is of little weight”

It is of tremendous weight, because it means that adherents to this brand new theory of Jon’s need to conjure up an alternative lodging house entirely from the ether, and then have a devil of a time trying to account for the astonishing failure on the part of both police and press to make any record of it. No, Badham’s report is not the only “active evidence” of Hutchinson’s lodgings being the Victoria Home. There was also the route he claimed to have taken home, coupled with his assertion that his lodgings had closed. Boris has reminded us that a doss house on Flower and Dean Street – also in the very heart of the murder district – officially closed at 2:30 or 3.00am, giving Hutchinson plenty of time to go there if his “usual” lodgings had closed.

As far as I’m aware, in every recorded witness statement associated with the case, the witness’s residence on the night of the murder was recorded; and this holds especially true for statements in which the witnesses' homes were relevant to their experience, as was the case with Hutchinson. These addresses were not secretly squirrelled away in conveniently bombed and destroyed interrogation records, but at the top of the statements themselves, as occurred with Hutchinson (again). Moreover, and as I will no doubt find occasion to repeat “ad nauseam”, Abberline made a record in his accompanying report of any pertinent detail NOT included in the body itself. It any other lodging house came into the equation, it would have appeared in at least one of these documents, but we see nothing.

“The Daily News being among them and being the source available to us on these boards”

Along with several others, yes.

“Let me remind you that Hutchinson came in from Romford, and as far as I can tell he could have found out that the place where he usually slept was closed long before he arrived in Commercial Road for all we know. He could also have KNOWN that the establishment was closed beforehand, and skipped going there due to this knowledge”

But he gave the closure of this “usual place” (obviously the Victoria Home) as the very reason for being compelled to “walk about all night”. Are you seriously suggesting that Hutchinson walked 13 hours in the cold and wet, in the small hours, all the way back from Romford, with the full expectation that he’d be doing yet more walking the rest of the night? Are you seriously suggesting that this was preferable to dossing down in Romford and then leaving for Whitechapel early the next morning? Are you seriously suggesting that Hutchinson was oblivious to the existence of alternative lodging houses in London which would not have closed by the time he arrived back in the district? Are you seriously suggesting that a groom-turned-labourer had the funds for any other type of accommodation than a lodging house? If you answer yes to any of the above, then I’m afraid an equally serious re-think is in order.

Incidentally, if his intended lodgings were far from Commercial Street, he would have taken a very different route to the one he claimed to have taken.

“Yes, absolutely. I think you can even come up with how he dictated the American constitution in retrospect to the reporter, if you only make a little changes here (and there).”

No change is necessary. We don’t know where the interview took place, but either the Victoria Home or a nearby pub would make sense from the point of view of a reporter finding a suitable location in which to conduct an interview. In neither case would the word “here” make any different to the identity of the place where Hutchinson usually slept, which will continue to be recorded by history – in spite of a few uninfluential hobbyists – as the Victoria Home. Shockingly enough, lodgers from the same home can meet up in other places, pubs being the most obvious.

“Thatīs not a bad start. Donīt ruin it by trying to get personal.”

I’m not getting personal. I get regularly annoyed by what I perceive as hypocrisy and double-standards employed by proponents of the not-going-down-very-well Crossmere theory, and I think anyone seeking to promote a witness-turned-suspect should keep very quiet on the subject of Hutchinson, on whose coat-tails all other “suspects” fitting that model ride. That doesn’t mean I have any disdain for anyone personally, and I’m more than entitled to observe a contradiction between your observation that a fellow theorist’s arguments are "excellent" and your non-agreement with those arguments.

Now I want a longie from you in reply to this, Fisherman.

I want to cement the fact that we're done with the brief Crossmere hoo-haa, and we're back on the Hutch.

(No, that's not a personal attack either, but rather a simple request that genuinely reflects what I actually want to see happen).

[Lechmere]

Of course there is no interpretation in the Hutchinson case - it is a fact that he was non interrogated and it is a fact that Lewis saw him and a fact that the Victoria Home was an anonymous doss house of the worst order with no curfew (although I was most amused to see some Flutchinsonite revisionism on the quality of the Victoria Home and it's curfew policy on another thread, in the face of suggestions that Toppy may not have stayed there exclusively).

[Ben]

Toppy never slept there at all, Lechers. He was working hard as a plumber at the time, and almost certainly not in the east end.

The VH was a grotspot in isolation, but undoubtedly superior to the worst places off Commercial Street.

Hutchinson may well have been interrogated, like all witnesses.

It's not a fact that Lewis saw Hutchinson, but rather an overwhelmingly strong likelihood.

P.S. Fisherman, on the subject of "getting personal", unless you're unfamiliar with the comedy references in Lechmere's post #263, you'll note that he's basically calling me gay. Nice!

[Fisherman]

Now I want a longie from you in reply to this, Fisherman.

When you have something new and/or mildly interesting to say, then I will accomodate you on that score, Ben.

Fisherman