Why did Abberline believe Hutch ?

[c.d.]

Thank you, Garry. I don't know where I got that from but I was wrong.

I'll be damned if you can't learn something on these boards every now and then.

c.d.

[Garry Wroe]

It is, CD. As Monty says, Hutchinson performed the identification of Kelly's remains as well as the two known night trawls in search of Astrakhan in the company of two detectives.

[c.d.]

Abberline assigned two detective to Hutchinson in hopes of finding a suspect. He did the same with Harris, and was successful.

Belief or not, it was worth a punt.

Monty

I was under the impression that Abberline himself accompanied Hutch around Whitechapel. Is that incorrect?

c.d.

[Garry Wroe]

It's a matter of record, Jon, that during the summer months many East Enders abandoned the doss house in favour of outdoor sleeping. It is also an historical fact that during colder periods rough sleepers deliberately broke shop windows in order to incur a prison sentence and so escape the hardship of living on the streets. This could not have been the case if, as you assert, police arrested everyone found sleeping outdoors. You might also wish to consider the events of 1887 when for months thousands of 'vagrants' slept nightly in Trafalgar Square. These people were not arrested on mass. For one thing there simply weren't enough cells to accommodate any such 'mob', much less the many thousands of homeless individuals who occupied the East End and other areas of London. This isn’t to say that outdoor sleepers weren’t arrested from time to time. They were. But by and large they were simply moved on by beat constables – a situation which gave rise to criticism expressed by social reformers who argued that a man or woman deprived of sleep would start the day in an exhausted state and therefore in no condition to undertake work which in turn would allow the person concerned to secure lodgings. Far from helping matters, the contention was that the moving on policy was one which exacerbated the homeless situation in the East End and beyond.

So Hutchinson had nothing to fear from revealing to Abberline that he had slept outdoors on the morning of the Kelly murder. Nothing whatsoever. Like everyone else in London he knew that investigators were desperate to lay hands on the killer. The notion, then, that the man who Abberline believed to have been an important witness would have been bundled into a cell courtesy of a minor misdemeanour is beyond preposterous.

And just for the record, Jon, other posters do not incur my ‘wroth’. Were I to become angry every time I encountered unscholarly, ill-informed nonsense on the Casebook site I’d be living in a permanently choleric state. My approach is simply to shrug my shoulders and let people get on with it. Life’s easier that way.

[Wickerman]

Once again, Jon, you are treating personal interpretation as firmly established fact....

James Field, 35, John Park, 21, and Frederick Scott, 19, were charged with being found sleeping in the open air......
About half past three on Tuesday morning (May 22nd) a constable heard a noise of snoring in one of the arches of Frederick St. St. George's. He then found the prisoners asleep. No money was found on either of the men.
East London Observer, 26 May, 1888.

Even fifty years prior (1833), the same rule applied.

Re:FREDERICK WILLIAM ELLIOTT (prisoner).
ROBERT DREW (police-constable R 140). I took the prisoner on the 7th of November - I charged him with vagrancy, as he was sitting about the doors..

As to your observation about Itchy Park, yes of course, it was a Church Yard. Since the middle ages (and before), anyone who finds rest on Church premises is beyond the reach of the law, but only for minor offenses such as this.
This was the same 'rule' that was applied to prostitution, why the ladies of the night were allowed to congregate at St. Botolphs, Aldgate.

Hope this helps.

[Ben]

Absolutely, Monty.

[Monty]

Abberline assigned two detective to Hutchinson in hopes of finding a suspect. He did the same with Harris, and was successful.

Belief or not, it was worth a punt.

Monty

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

So he didn't really have no money, he just told her that.
And, as a result, he tells the police what he said to her.

Garry's arrival is timely, as his book addresses every point you raised, including this one. He observes that even if Hutchinson's claim to have had no money was "a ruse intended to preserve what little cash he had", there was nothing preventing him from securing a bed in "one of the hundreds of other lodging houses which proliferated the neighbourhood". It could further be observed that if he had money, there ought to have been nothing preventing a man with "no regular employment" from dossing down in Romford for most of the night, and leaving early for "home" the following morning - had he really been there, of course.

As for the police being "hoodwinked, they weren't; at least not for very long, or else it would not have been reported less than 24 hours after Hutchinson's first appearance that his evidence had suffered a "very reduced importance" for reasons that concerned his credibility. Hutchinson's Astrakhan description was derivative, as Sally points out, regardless of whether or not the police were "hoodwinked" by it for a very short time. It contained a myriad of details borrowed from earlier witness accounts, and pandered to all the “scary” attributes that had been circulating in the press with regard to the ripper’s likely appearance. The McKenzie suspect you refer to – William Wallace Brodie – confessed to being Jack the Ripper, and there was obviously a significantly reduced likelihood of the police being “hoodwinked” by such a confession than by “another” witness description.

As far as “remembering details” is concerned, the more pressing doubts concern Hutchinson’s ability even to notice the items he supposedly memorized, and if we’re deferring to the opinions of policemen, you should note Bob Hinton’s finding: “I have spoken to many serving and ex-police officers, and without exception they all dismiss Hutchinson’s description as pure fantasy. The general consensus of opinion being that witnesses generally get the sex and the height about right, but after that it’s pot luck”.

"Complexion pale" as opposed to "complexion dark" does not make a liar out of the witness. A typo on behalf of the press is just as likely.”

A typo?

How on earth does a policeman confuse “pale” for its absolute polar opposite – dark? Not as a result of a “typo”, that’s for sure.

Regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Secondly, the phrase was not always taken literal, it was a euphemism because to admit to sleeping in doorways or on the property of others was to admit vagrancy.

Once again, Jon, you are treating personal interpretation as firmly established fact. The reality is that Hutchinson had conveyed potentially case-breaking information to Abberline and thus had nothing to fear with regard to vagrancy proceedings. Many locals opted to sleep outdoors during the summer months rather than pay for lodgings. Itchy Park and any number of local railway arches were infested with rough sleepers. So long as they didn't become a nuisance they were generally left alone by the authorities. This contention of yours, therefore, is a complete red herring and ought to be treated as such until you are able to provide something in the way of evidential support. And I, for one, am not holding my breath.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,
He says so himself, I think - something like 'My usual place was closed' [not exact, I don't think, but more or less that]

Hi Sally.
Yes, we read, "the place where I usually sleep was closed."

Ok, two things here.
Because he was a resident of the Victoria Home on the 12th, you assume this was the same place referred to in his statement, on the night of the 8th?

Alternately, if that assumption is correct, we must ask what "usual" meant, whether it means 'the last couple of nights', or 'couple of weeks' or 'couple of months'?
What did "usual" mean?

Just looking for something more concrete to base a conclusion on.

Actually, my conclusion is that he's a liar because his account is demonstrably derivative .....

demonstrable, is often in the eye of the beholder.

There is an interesting press report, I think concerning the McKenzie case, where a man came in to confess to the murder.
The reporter explains that the police questioned him and sent him packing, the reason given was, this man had obviously made himself aware of the case through newspaper articles and as such the police knew he was making it all up.

The police were certainly aware of press reports and stories circulating about the murders, they used the press as there were more reporters about the city than available detectives.
To suggest they were so easily hoodwinked is probably more befitting the realms of paperback fiction.

....and because he can't remember which pub he stood against in his statement to the police

Ah, so consistent with him not being a regular (long-term) resident of the street?

...although he can recall in extraordinary detail, everything about his surely fictional flashy Jew.

Well, Stewart had already maintained that remembering such detail is not extraordinary (I can point you to his post, if you like), and he should know.

Although actually, perhaps not, since he gave a different description to the press mere hours later.

"Complexion pale" as opposed to "complexion dark" does not make a liar out of the witness. A typo on behalf of the press is just as likely.

Or, are you able to list all these differences you see, you must think them significant?

[Sally]

Hello Jon,

- Where has it been established that Hutchinson was a regular resident of the V.H.?

He says so himself, I think - something like 'My usual place was closed' [not exact, I don't think, but more or less that]

Your conclusion is, that he is a liar because having no money is no excuse when the V.H. was closed anyway.

Actually, my conclusion is that he's a liar because his account is demonstrably derivative and because he can't remember which pub he stood against in his statement to the police - although he can recall in extraordinary detail, everything about his surely fictional flashy Jew.

Although actually, perhaps not, since he gave a different description to the press mere hours later.

[Wickerman]

Of course, as a regular resident, one would imagine that he'd have known when the doors shut for the night and planned his journey from Romford accordingly, eh?

Absolutely, Sally, and as the "rules" make perfectly clear, any lodger in possession of a daily or weekly pass could access the home at any hour of the night; hence, if Hutchinson had such a pass,...

Ok, seeing as you both appeared together (again), here's a couple of observations.

- Where has it been established that Hutchinson was a regular resident of the V.H.?

- Was Hutchinson delayed, on his way back from Romford, or did he have to leave early?

- We are given two apparently (your opinions), contesting scenario's.
He claimed to Kelly to have no money.
Yet, having no money is no excuse for the V.H. being closed, it was irrelevant?

Your conclusion is, that he is a liar because having no money is no excuse when the V.H. was closed anyway.

Rather than, consider that he lied to Kelly because she was apparently trying to cadge his last few pennies, and as with previous experiences, he never saw that again either.
That would be human nature, once bitten twice shy, as they say.

So he didn't really have no money, he just told her that.
And, as a result, he tells the police what he said to her.

[Ben]

The only way around this is if he'd paid up front for 6 nights at the VH, Ben [with the 7th free] in which case he wouldn't have needed cash had the home been open

Absolutely, Sally, and as the "rules" make perfectly clear, any lodger in possession of a daily or weekly pass could access the home at any hour of the night; hence, if Hutchinson had such a pass, he could have entered the building immediately upon arrival from Romford, and Dorset Street vigils (to say nothing of "walking about all night") need not have entered the equation.

I've spied a spot of nonsense to the contrary on a recent thread, and I look forward to addressing that soon!

Hi Jon,

Vagrancy carried a fine/sentence ranging from several shillings, to several days hard labour. Examples in the press, at your fingertips.

Yes, thanks, I understand that bit, but I'm afraid you haven't demonstrated that it was a "euphemism". If dossing in a doorway entailed so severe a punishment, why can't we take Kelly at his word and assume he fully intended to "walk about all night" if Eddowes returned with no money, in lieu of the "getting utterly caned for doorway-dossing" option? We're straying slightly from the point, which is that regardless of whether or not Hutchinson told the truth about "walking about all night", it was a useful excuse for the real killer to invoke in the event that he was asked what he was doing between 3:30 and 4:30 on the morning of the murder (and the likely time of Kelly's death), as it could neither be verified nor contradicted.

Regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Hutchinson’s claim to have “walked about all night” because the Victoria Home was closed was at odds with his earlier claim to have had no money. If he had no money, the closure or otherwise of the home is irrelevant, and he should have said that he walked about all night because he had no money to get in anywhere.

The only way around this is if he'd paid up front for 6 nights at the VH, Ben [with the 7th free] in which case he wouldn't have needed cash had the home been open. It was fairly common practice in the 'better' lodging houses.

Of course, as a regular resident, one would imagine that he'd have known when the doors shut for the night and planned his journey from Romford accordingly, eh?

[Wickerman]

So after all these years of Hutch the squeaky clean witness, Jon suddenly decides that he lied to conceal his criminal activity. Welcome aboard, Jon…

Hardly 'squeaky clean' this was the East End.
No-one else uses terms like 'Toff' & 'Squeaky clean' except yourself when you resort to scorn and ridicule in order to defend your theory.

John Kelly offered the same excuse to Coroner Langham.

[Coroner] What do you mean by "walking the streets?"
[Kelly] I mean that if we had no money to pay for our lodgings we would have to walk about all night.

A euphemism.
Vagrancy carried a fine/sentence ranging from several shillings, to several days hard labour. Examples in the press, at your fingertips.