Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Don't worry, you'd have only been wrong for a few days.
And please note that even if you were right (which you're not), Hutch must have been dossing in the area nonetheless - so it changes nothing regarding his candidacy. Indeed, what was he doing around Commercial Street/Whitechapel Road/Thrawl Street (still according to the DN 14 Nov) ?

Hi Dave.
There is no suggestion of a change in his candidacy, you are quite entitled to still believe he was in the area 'with intent', that has not changed.

Having made no mention of the VH, there is stricly nothing to baulk at when the DN chooses to write : "After I left the court, I walked about all night, as the place where I usually sleep was closed."

Have you noticed that the verb "to sleep" is the only one in the sentence conjugated in the present ?

The "place where I usually sleep" is clearly not where the interview is taking place, otherwise it would be, "this place was closed".

And yes, I addressed the present tense of "sleep" (as opposed to "slept"), which indicates that his present residence at the V.H. is temporary, because "this" is not the place where I usually sleep.
If his new lodgings at the V.H. were to be viewed as permanent, then "where I usually slept", or "used to sleep", would have been appropriate. The past tense.

Other little details, Jon. Hutch said he walked about all night, right ? What for ? He was just killing time waiting for his doss-house to open.
Strange, isn't it ? According to your interpretation, I mean.
Here is a man able to spend hours in the streets because his well-loved doss-house was closed, but who would move to another place one right after ?

Why strange?
His "usual place" was closed on the night of the 8-9th, but we do not know if he returned there for the 10th and 11th. What we do know is that by the 12th, he was relocated at the V.H.
What reason is there to speculate further?

And in that new place, he would have found himself at ease with another lodger, so much that he would have told him what he had witnessed on Friday night...

Yes, we will tell perfect strangers our life story if they show an interest.
Ask any truck driver.

Again : do you think Badham and Abberline didn't ask him which was the lodging-house that was closed on Friday night ? That was SO important.
Had Hutch given another address, would we read : "George Hutchinson of the Victoria Home" in his statement without any mention of another address ?

Badham was not asking Hutchinson any questions, he was there to take down his voluntary statement.

The interrogation by Abberline will produce a document suitable for a court of law, should a trial ever materialize. The voluntary statement is not a suitable document.
Abberline will undoubtedly have asked every detail, but that interrogation record has not survived. We have no idea what the full & accurate story was.

[Ben]

Jon’s still going, look…

“His statement was devalued, quite possibly & quite reasonably, due to contradictory evidence being offered by Dr Bond. Though his veracity was never in doubt.”

We’ve done this one, many times, but I was looking for an excuse to repeat it all again, and this is where you never fail to come to my aid.

It was nonsense when you first brought it up, and I’m afraid your situation hasn’t improved since the first time it was demolished.

The police did not endorse Bond's time of death to the exclusion of all other witness testimony, and these include the Miller's Court witnesses, two of whom independently supported a time of death sometime between 3.00am and some time after 4.00am, and another doctor who opted for a time of death between 5.00am and 6.00am. The alleged preferential treatment of Dr. Bond's evidence quite simply never happened, and as a Star article I provided ages ago aptly demonstrates, the likelihood is that the police were swayed by the time of death inferred from the evidence of Prater and Lewis.

The "very reduced importance" alluded to in the Echo had absolutely nothing to do with Bond or Mary Cox. Hutchinson's statement didn't get reduced in terms of importance and then subsequently discredited simply because another witness saw the victim earlier on the evening, which was old news anyway. If we're going to use the Echo as a source, at least acknowledge what they actually recorded as reasons for Hutchinson's evidence being "considerably discounted".

"such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?"

...(it was) considerably discounted because the statement of the informant had not been made at the inquest and in a more official manner"

Reasons that related directly to the issue of credibility in other words. It is entirely consistent with the report in the Star on the 15th November, which stated that the account was "now discredited" along with Matthew Packer's - both witness having supplied "worthless stories (that) lead the police on false scents".

“The term 'liar' is too heated, it betrays emotion.”

That's a very silly thing to say.

It conveys reality if it’s the truth. You can’t seriously be suggesting that if Swanson had written, quite dispassionately, that “Packer has been discarded as a credible witness because he has been proven to have lied”, Anderson would have come back with “Donald, calm down, you Scotch nutcase! Think of your blood pressure! You tone down that dreadful rhetoric of yours or I’ll fire you".

“So long as we can all read that Hutchinson did not claim that "this place" was closed, only that "my usual place" was closed, and yet referred to speaking to a lodger "here" (at the V.H.), then anyone with a decent command of the English language can understand that "here" and "my usual place" were not the same”

But indifferently educated Hutchinson didn’t have a decent command of the English language – that’s the whole piddling point. We cannot, therefore, expect him to communicate as you or I (well, I) would communicate. He evidently did not feel obliged to clarify - in terms that a fully literate individual would find acceptable - that the “place where he usually slept” was the same place that the interview took place. Either that or, as Garry suggested, the interview was set up somewhere nearby, such as the Princess Alice pub; in which case “here” would apply to the pub, where Hutchinson was perfectly capable of talking to a fellow lodger from across the road. In such a scenario, Hutchinson would have communicated with a fellow Victoria Home-boy on the Sunday at the pub, i.e. “here”, where the interview took place.

You still aren’t receiving the point about the irrelevance of his “usual” place being closed. If they were, and he had money for other lodging houses, he could have found one open – easily. Alternatively, if he had no money, the closure of any home is irrelevant, and it remains suspicious that he didn’t cite a lack of money as his primary reason behind “walking about all night”, instead of the irrelevant closure of a home he couldn't have gained access to anyway.

Badham certainly DID ask Hutchinson’s questions. That was how his entire statement was recorded, initially – through a series of question and answers.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

How come all Crossmere threads sink without trace whenever a single Hutchinson thread gets busy? How come a short-lived flurry of Crossmere threads require me to instigate them on a Hutchinson thread? How come Hutchinson will always be a more popular and mainstream suspect than Crossmere? How come major rifts are emerging between the two most post-happy Crossmerians?

There is no possibility of the press being error with regard to Hutchison's evidence being "considerably discounted" for reasons directly relating to his credibility; not on this particular occasion at least, because we know for a fact that the Echo did extract accurate information from Commercial Street police station, just as they claimed.

The silence of the police on the subject of Hutchinson, especially when it came to the writing of memoirs, is deafening.

Looking forward to out-repeating you on this subject, though, if you fancy revisiting it properly, and I do mean properly - or not at all.

The Victoria Home affair will never return to it´s old status.

And Dew-inspired "date-confusion" will reign supreme as the only solution to the Hutchinson riddle, my auntie acquires bollocks, and pigs are currently airborne over the snow-covered planes of hell...

Or not.

Are you seriously suggesting that it will hereafter be accepted in mainstream "ripperology" that the Victoria Home was not where Hutchinson usually slept? I bet you everything I have ever held dear in this world that this will never happen, but you keep trying, Fisherman! That's what I love about you and Jon - you're both tryers. You jolly well have a go, damn it! Okay, so you don't succeed and you rarely challenge perceptions, but you cares? At least you put in the time.

[harry]

Hutchinson's place of residence the night Kelly was killed, was the Victoria Home.That is quite clear.He had the opportunity to sleep there that night.The fact that the main entrance door was closed or locked,does not exclude the probability that there were other means of entry or exit.
Hutchinson's claims show a desire to place a suspect in Kelly's room,at a time when medical information points to her having been killed.This was accepted by Aberline at the time of telling.It later lost acceptance as being a truthfull account of what did happen.It is the opinion of many that Hutchinson lied.If he lied,there is a strong possibility that it was to ptotect himself.Now there is nothimg to show that he told the truth,and the onus would have been on him to do so.

[Fisherman]

He evidently did not feel obliged to clarify - in terms that a fully literate individual would find acceptable - that the “place where he usually slept” was the same place that the interview took place.

This is the new approach to Ripperology - 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.

How should a thing like this be assessed? It´s easy: If there is ample evidence/proof that "the place where I usually sleep" was the Victoria Home, then we can begin to question what Hutchinson said in the interview.

So what do we have that goes to show us, without a trace of doubt, that the Victoria Home was Hutchinsons regular haunt?
We have the police report, where Badham describes Hutchinson as "George Hutchinson of the Victoria Home, Commercial Road".
But that only tells us that Hutchinson stayed in the Victoria Home when Badham spoke to him. 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.
And if you move back to Oxford Street the day after the report, you will still remain Mr X of Regent Street in that report.

In the Daily News article, not a word is said about the Victoria Home - it is just Badhams report that has led us to believe that Hutchinson spoke of the Victoria Home when he mentioned "the place where I usually sleep".

What other sources are there that tell us that George Hutchinson was a regular of the Victoria Home? I think that you, Ben, have spoken of mentionings of this in the press, but I am uncertain whether it was there or not - and if it WAS, could it not be due to the press having caught wind of Badhams report? It would seem this was what the reporter that sniffed Hutchinson out did.

If we have nothing more in terms of proof - or circumstantial evidence - that the Victoria Home was where Hutchinson normally stayed, then why would we argue that he meant the polar opposite of what he said? With that approach, the whole paper interview could be questioned along the same lines, and where would that leave us? Not to speak of all the many other witnesses who could be argued to have a perhaps even worse grasp of the language!

The far better and only recommendable stance is to accept that Hutchinson had a useful command of the English language, and that the Victoria Home was not his regular place.

I don´t see what use it would be to refuse to accept this; you can still argue that he may have lived in the general murder area, and you can still argue that he was both this and that.

What´s the big deal about the Victoria Home? That you must have him living there, in a cubicle of his own?

He could have had a place of his own somewhere else.

It´s not the end of the world, is it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Because he thinks Hutchinson and a truncated Fleming were one and the same.

[Fisherman]

Because he thinks Hutchinson and a truncated Fleming were one and the same.

That´s easily taken care of - Hutchinson could have lied to the Daily News reporter, simple as that. And for a reason! Maybe he did not want the coppers sniffing around the Victoria Home, and so he set them on the wrong trail with a false clue?

The only thing Hutchinson can be trusted to do is lie, so why not?

The best,
Fisherman

PS. According to Ben, there are "major rifts" inbetween you and me nowadays. 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?

Ideas?

[Lechmere]

Nay
Nay
And thrice nay.
Shut that door, Everard.
Are you free Mr Humphries?

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.
Any alternative explanation would
be the most stupid nauseating suggestion I've ever heard. The bile came into my mouth and almost issued forth like a projectile at the thought.
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.

[Fisherman]

That should do it, Edward, thanks! Now I´ll just do my part and sulk for some time, and we will all be on dry land!
Fisherman

[Sally]

Nay
Nay
And thrice nay.

Yes, I expect that's what Hutchinson said when he was closeted in that Romford stable for three days.

It's like something out of a Carry On film - I can almost hear the dulcet tones of Kenneth Williams right now...

Carry on up the Carman, perhaps?

'Oooh Mizen!!'

[Observer]

Carry on up the Carman, perhaps?

'Oooh Mizen!!'

That's a bit risqué is it not? I'm sure Pc Mizen would not entertain such behaviour. Not while he was on duty at any rate.

[Sally]

That's a bit risqué is it not?

It could be. It all depends on how you interpret it - it always does when it comes to the behaviour of a carman.

But I digress - this is, after all, a Hutchinson thread. Crossmere has quite enough of his own.

[Observer]

"Carry on up the Carman.Oooh Mizen." Are there any other ways to interpret it? Now if you had put a comma after the word on. It is indeed a Hutchison thread, hence it's descent into mediocre hilarity.

[Sally]

"Carry on up the Carman.Oooh Mizen." Are there any other ways to interpret it? Now if you had put a comma after the word on. It is indeed a Hutchison thread, hence it's descent into mediocre hilarity.

Not for you, evidently.

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

[Observer]

Not unlike Hutchinson 's candidacy as a suspect in the Whitechapel murder series then.