Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[Wickerman]

Lodging houses of the size of the Victoria home,would be nigh impossible to lock down.There would always be movement of individuals for various reasons.Pretty much the same as large hotels today.They are not prisons,nor are the residents prisoners.

I don't think we are supposed to believe that no-one could get out. Just that after 12:30 am, no-one could get in, without the all important pass.

The idea that we have been sold, and without question, is that the V.H. was the only lodging-house that did close.
All the other Common Lodging Houses across the East End were open 24/7.
Hutchinson is therefore a liar.

In actual fact, as shown in the associated press article, it was the opposite that was true.

It was all the other Common Lodging Houses which closed, between 2:00 - 4:00 am, as per requirements of the Lodging House Act of 1851. Between 2:00-4:00am is precisely when Hutchinson's story unfolded.

The V.H. did not close, entry was restricted yes, but it was still open.
Admittance by pre-purchased pass only.

Again,it is only Hutchinson's word,that he could not gain admittance,and to be fair to Aberline,it was a claim that was not easy to dismiss given the time interval.

Agreed, but there is also nothing to contest Hutchinson's word either.
In the voluntary statement to Badham, Hutchinson had no need to mention his "usual place" where he slept up until the night in question.
Only his current address is given.

That the sergeant and Aberline would have conferred at some length on what was told them,seems logical,and as seems likely they may have needed to contact Hutchinson again,an address was needed,and that address was given as the Victoria Home.

Right, so it is natural that anyone looking at this in later years would assume Hutchinson was always at the V.H.
That is where the error crept in.

To complicate matters, the subsequent press interview conducted by the Central News, when published, omitted the name of the place of the interview. They also omitted the name of the "public house", and likewise omitted the name of the place where "I usually sleep".
What ever their reason's were we do not know, but at least they show consistency. Unfortunately, it only exasperated the situation for modern theorists, and allowed the error to go unnoticed.
The sad thing is, as the theory was being created almost two decades ago, no-one ever spotted this.

It is by no means certain that the interview was conducted at the Victoria Home, but that is the most reasonable assumption.
So, when Hutchinson talks about speaking to a lodger "here", we can quite reasonably conclude that "here" is also the V.H.

Which then makes his next reference inconsistent.
In reply to a question he offers, "the place where I usual sleep was closed", which clearly implies another address entirely, away from the V.H., not "here", not "this place", therefore, not the V.H.

As the majority of Common Lodging Houses did close between 2:00 and 4:00 am, then his claim that "the place where I usually sleep was closed", is verified.
His claim no longer points to the V.H.

As a consequence, accusations of lying against Hutchinson based on the assumption his regular domicile was the V.H. and it being closed; also based on him not having a pass which, they suggest, he clearly should have had; and subsequently, that he must have been a regular resident of the area, so have known the names of the two pubs on his doorstep, all turn out to be spurious accusations.

[harry]

Jon,
You are taking closed to mean one could not get in or out.Not so.I doubt any lodging place the size of the Victoria home was so restricted.As Hutchinson's statement has it's beginning around Thrawl street,w e can rightly assume he had by then passed his usual place of lodging for that night,and as the Victoria home is given, and not contradicted by Hutchinson when signing the statement,that is the lodging house in question.By all means,if you can determine a better address,be free to do so.It isn't a case of HUtchinson having a need to state his usual place,more so the police needing it in case of further contact.They would have asked him.
No one is assuming anything about the various places Hutchinson may have resided,w hat is important is the address given when appearing at the police station that Monday evening,and if any place other than the Victoria home was mentioned,that would have been noted.

[Garry Wroe]

Who is this Garry that you now take orders from on the vexed issue of the Victoria Home opening hours?

The same Garry to whom you posted this little gem some time ago, Lechmere:-

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=6802&page=21

‘As for Coles I would have to say that there is a good chance that she was kiled by the same person and I would say it should be kept on the file. On balance I think Saddler probably did it - he was very much in the frame, which makes this one quite unlike the other murders. Also to be brutally honest the Coles murder doesn't fit to my mind with being committed by my favoured suspect and so I would have to strike it out for that reason!’

Enough said.

As for some of the lodging house-related nonsense that has begun to appear courtesy of the Victoria Home discussion, I would suggest that the pedlars of such undertake some basic research into the subject before presenting further misleading posts. To begin with, East End doss houses were not referred to as low lodgings without reason. Many first-hand accounts describe filthy kitchens and unwashed bedding, thus dispelling the notion of a scrupulous cleaning regimen commencing at two in the morning as per ‘regulations’. It was a common complaint, in fact, that lodgers were forced out of the doss house during the daytime, often into cold and wet conditions, for the purpose of facilitating cleaning that seldom took place. On top of this the lifestyles and working patterns of many lodgers meant that people came and went throughout the night. There are accounts of those who would routinely rise, take a meal or drink in the communal kitchen, then head out for the docks at three o’clock in the morning in the hope of securing casual work. This was the reality of life as part of the East End underclass. Thus the vast majority of East End doss houses placed no restrictions on the comings and goings of their patrons, which explains why Crossingham’s gaslamp was not extinguished until four o’clock in the morning. But then historical reality is meaningless to those who disregard it whenever it suits the purpose of their argument: the Coles murder doesn't fit to my mind with being committed by my favoured suspect and so I would have to strike it out for that reason.

[DVV]

Perhaps so - but could a poor local nobody not be of foreign extraction and mad?
That is what I am asking.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish,

Of course he could.
But in his interview, although Moore walked the French guy through the Jewish area, he didn't seem particularly hot on the Jewish scent, if I remember well.

Cheers

[DVV]

Hi Jon,

Believe me, it's time to chill out.

At the end of the day, your over-interpretation of an ill-written article doesn't stand scrutiny.

To begin with, its wording does not suggest Hutch had moved, since the article doesn't begin by : "We had the chance to meet today Mr Hutchinson at the Victoria Home..."

And to put an end to it, since the witness' statement is that of one "George Hutchinson of the Victoria Home", without any mention of any other lodging house on the mrder night, it simply and clearly means that the only lodging house worth to mention in relation with such an important witness was the Victoria Home.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Jon,
You are taking closed to mean one could not get in or out.

I can't believe I am reading this!
Didn't I just write:
"I don't think we are supposed to believe that no-one could get out. Just that after 12:30 am, no-one could get in, without the all important pass."

How on earth does that sound like a prison?

As Hutchinson's statement has it's beginning around Thrawl street,w e can rightly assume he had by then passed his usual place of lodging for that night,.....

It began for us when he passed the Whitechapel Church, Whitechapel High Street, which is before he passed the V.H.
Regardless, this matters little. We do not know at what time he arrived at his lodgings to find them closed.
We don't know if he arrived there before he met Kelly at 2:00am, or after he left Dorset St., at 3:00am

.....as the Victoria home is given, and not contradicted by Hutchinson when signing the statement,that is the lodging house in question.

The statement was not written on the night of the murder.
It was written three days later, three days later he was living at the V.H.
This debate centers on the question, "where was he living up until the night of the murder, three days previous.?"

....w hat is important is the address given when appearing at the police station that Monday evening,and if any place other than the Victoria home was mentioned,that would have been noted.

He can't live at two places at once!
The police record his present address, not his previous addresses, however many they may be.

As far as previous addresses are concerned, this was not Badham's duty. If this issue was important it falls to Abberline to gather this information at the interrogation.
What you are referring to is the voluntary statement where his place of residence on the night of the murder was not even mentioned by Hutchinson.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Believe me, it's time to chill out.

At the end of the day, your over-interpretation of an ill-written article doesn't stand scrutiny.

It's called, 'paying attention to detail'.

The article published by Central News is not 'ill-written', it is very clear. What has caused confusion among the Hutchinson theorists is the apparently intended omission of the names of public premises, which led them to assume the article referred to the same location.

[Wickerman]

...To begin with, East End doss houses were not referred to as low lodgings without reason. Many first-hand accounts describe filthy kitchens and unwashed bedding, thus dispelling the notion of a scrupulous cleaning regimen commencing at two in the morning as per ‘regulations’.

Have you taken note of whether you are reading about Registered, or Unregistered Lodging-houses?

That aside, this is not an issue of enumerating personal complaints, what offends any given person is not what we are discussing.

This concerns The Lodging-House Act 1851, and section 343 of the Public Health Act of 1875.
H Division had their own Lodging-house inspector. The 127 Registered lodging-Houses were inspected on average once a week (Reynolds News, 14 Oct. 1888). Other accounts quote deputies of these places complaining how picky the police were on their visits.

Were these lodging-houses in compliance with the codes or not?, that is the question, not how many complaints you can list. That is irrelevant.

[harry]

Jon it is you that doesn't either read my posts or do not understand.My contention is that place s like the Victoria Home were accessible to residents like Hutchinson,to enter or leave,at any time of day or night,with or without passes.In effect,there would be more entry or exit points than the main entrance,that residents could use.
It was not up to Aberline alone to establish residence.This would have been done by Badham,and Badham before sending for Aberline,would have established the credentials and relevance of what Hutchinson had to tell.Badham would have been the first to question Hutchinson.Standard procedure.Had there been any question of a different residence other than the named Victoria home,during the period under discussion,that is the Friday morning until Hutchinson's appearance on the Monday evening,it would have been established and noted.Police were not that innefficent.You of course seem to believe otherwise.

[Lechmere]

Harry
Your contention that the Victoria Home had numerous entrance and exit points and was accessible at any hour of the day or night is not backed up by the various contemporary accounts we have of the place.

[harry]

What are those accounts Lechmere? I would be very surprised that any building the size of the Victoria Home would have just one.

[Sally]

Harry
Your contention that the Victoria Home had numerous entrance and exit points and was accessible at any hour of the day or night is not backed up by the various contemporary accounts we have of the place.

Ah, I see. I'm sure that you're right, Ed. Nonetheless, it'd be good to see the evidence that confirms that this 4 storey building plus basement which housed up to 700 men every night of the week had one door [locked at night] and was effectively a prison in the early hours of the morning. What of those men who needed to be up at 3 or 4 to go to their jobs on the docks [or as Carmen, or Bakers, or etc. etc. etc.]

Locked in, I expect. It's a wonder any of them stayed there at all. But wait - perhaps those many hundreds of entries in the infirmary records for those many hundreds of men living at the Victoria Home are fictitious? Who knows where they were really staying?

I was under the impression that lodging houses generally had deputies who were on duty around the clock - you know, to keep a semblance of order and all that - Like the Maxwells at Crossinghams, you know?

Obviously that wasn't the case at the VH, where the deputy [Walter somebody or other, came from Newcastle] slept through the night and the door was firmly locked.

Come on then, let's see what you've got.

[GUT]

G'day Sally

Huge difference between not letting people out and not letting them in. Just think of some college dorms.

[Sally]

Huge difference between not letting people out and not letting them in. Just think of some college dorms.

Of course. Yet this was a business, philanthropic or no. A great many residents lived there on a permanent basis over months or years. Were they really denied admission because of a locked door policy? Would this even have been practical to enforce? Evidence that residents would be unable to secure admission if they returned late will be difficult to procure.

Beyond that, it's mere opinion.

[Lechmere]

What have I got Sally?
Well, you know I have copied all the Booth records about the Victoria Home.
Clearly they restricted entry which must have meant restricting the number of doors through which people could come in or out.
Clearly they had night porters.
It wasn't the Hotel California, so you could leave. But you could not get back in after a certain time without a Special Pass - which clearly had to be presented to the night porter.
Is this so difficult to understand?
You seem to be denying that there are accounts in black and white that say the Victoria Home very deliberately did not want people who stopped out late or who slept in late. It is not opinion. Denying this historical record is pure desperation on the part of people who want Hutchinson to be able to roam as he pleased. He couldn't of he lived at the Victoria Home.