Romford

[babybird67]

Babybird – Hutchinson said he had no money, so if true he wouldn’t be able to go with a prostitute.

That was my point Lechmere. I am being asked to accept that it is 'normal' behaviour for a man with no money to solicit a prostitute by keeping a 45 minute vigil outside her place of residence, even though five minutes before she actually approached him and asked him if he could lend her money.

I still can't see the 'normality' in the behaviour and I just wish someone who can would point it out to me and relieve me of my ignorance.

[Wickerman]

I may have misconstrued your intention as implying that Kelly was making an invitation to actually spend the night.

Thats ok Lechmere, I didn't make it clear but I did not mean to imply it was an overnight invitation, merely that it was an extended, in bed, invitation. I think they charge more for that....... so I've heard..

As for the Romford walk...
While it may be 14 miles as the crow files,

Google Earth provides a route via principal roads, not straight as the crow flies unless you draw a direct line, which I did not.

Romford Station opened in 1839 and by 1888 trains ran from Liverpool Street under Great Eastern Railways. I am certain that anyone regularly working in Romford and residing in the Spitalfields area would have let the train take the strain. That is not to say that someone who was skint and had overstayed in Romford wouldn’t find himself in a one off situation of having to walk back in the middle of the night.

Exactly, and he said he had spent his money "going down to Romford", which may mean he took the train or some alternate means of transport.
The only direct statement we have is that he "walked all the way (back)".

With no money and no pass to enable him access to the Victoria Home, the journey seems even more bafflingly pointless.

And may I ask again,....what makes you think he was headed for the Victoria Home, where do we read that he stayed there before the 2nd week of November?

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

What's even lazier is accepting something at face value on the unthinking, crass assumption that there must be some cozy, reassuring non-suspicious explanation behind it. It's the opposite of a critical approach. Whatever explanation might have been lost to history (?), anyone is quite entitled to observe that on the basis of the extent evidence, this particular claim does not add up.

Hello Ben,

Hear hear! Well spoken. (in my opinion, of course ;-) )


kindly

Phil

[Ben]

To look at this behavior as odd today because many lazy people do nothing but sit on the computer all day while eating chocolates and sipping cocktails

What's even lazier is accepting something at face value on the unthinking, crass assumption that there must be some cozy, reassuring non-suspicious explanation behind it. It's the opposite of a critical approach. Whatever explanation might have been lost to history (?), anyone is quite entitled to observe that on the basis of the extent evidence, this particular claim does not add up.

[Lechmere]

"naturally I'm foaming at the mouth"

Surely not - that would be truly filthy

[The Good Michael]

I do volunteer work on Saturday and I walk twelve miles and it's no sweat. Imagine how far someone would walk if they thought they could make money! To look at this behavior as odd today because many lazy people do nothing but sit on the computer all day while eating chocolates and sipping cocktails, is absolutely careless and is quite the opposite of logical thought. The hows and whys of why someone would walk, on one particular day, so many mlies is like asking why an Amish farmer would scythe wheat for 12 hours in the hot sun. Because some of you nimrods cannot fathom it glued to your Hutchinson thtreads 24/7, doesn't mean it's in the least peculiar. Put that in your pipe.

Mike

[Ben]

Gosh, people are really in the mood for a good old Hutch-fest these days, aren't they?

That is how people frequently wore those clothes – by showing the waistcoat.

Yes, but not on a night of miserable weather, when the sensible thing to do would have been to button up at least one of his coats, and certainly not exposing the watch chain on proud display in the worst possible district at the worst possible time, i.e. an area already known for its "vicious and semi-criminal" element when it was widely known that a serial killer was active in that particular district. We just have to use our imagination in order to arrive at the only realistic conclusion; that it probably didn't happen. As for rich men visiting a salubrious district, you might get the occasional man from a wealthier class using a prostitute, but they had absolutely no reason to venture that far into the East End for that purpose. The prostitutes themselves visited Aldgate in order to tout for business, Kelly included apparently. Visiting the prostitutes homes themselves is considerably less realistic and certainly unnecessary. Moreover, prostitution ran rampant throughout London. Why would any "rich man" need to venture into that particular grot-spot?

Have there ever been any instances of a rich man being taken by a prostitute to a bad district and getting mugged?

I'm doubtful that there have ever been any cases involving rich men who were so ostentatiously dressed for the district - for some unfathomable reason - that they conveyed the impression of almost wanting to be mugged.

It is inconceivable that anyone who knew of the "bogeyman" image associated with the murders would consider it a good idea to dress just like that bogeyman where the crimes weer being committed.

Similarly the A-man himself was not regarded as odd – although the detailed description was commented on.
Similarly the waistcoat/watchchain wasn't regarded as odd.
Similarly the walk from Romford wasn’t regarded as odd.

Perhaps not initially, but the account was ultimately discredited, which introduces the obvious possibility that these implausible elements eventually came to be recognised as such.

Ben - you have no basis whatsoever to suggest that Hutchinson’s walk was not necessary.

Trust me, Lechers, I've tried to envisage all manner of scenarios that involve a "necessary" Romford jaunt of such proportions, but try as I might, even the "must haves" and the "fill in the blanks" are unlikely to come to our rescue this time.

But this discussion has been regurgitated an obscene amount of times, and naturally I'm foaming at the mouth at the possibility of going at it again.

[Chris]

only serviing or ex-Police officers are competent enough to have a view on the Ripper case at all...only those with experience of prostitutes can decide if there is anything fishy about Hutchinson and his claims...what next? Only people who have been beheaded can empathise with what it was like to live under Henry VIII?

I guess this approach rules men out of having any views at all on childbearing since they can never experience the joy of giving birth!

And of course none of us is qualified to speak about any historical matter unless we were personally there to witness it.

Oh Intellectual Freedom, where art thou!

I'm afraid the great danger of the modern age is precisely the opposite one - that everyone with an Internet connection thinks their opinion is just as "valid" as anyone else's, regardless of whether they have any knowledge or experience of the subject under discussion.

Of course, some areas are still still immune - for example translating ancient Greek, tensor calculus, neurosurgery and a few others - but no doubt some software will soon be developed to mop up these last bastions of elitism.

[Lechmere]

Wickerman...
‘"She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable "
That sounds very much like an invitation to bed, not just a quicky under her raised skirt.’

I may have misconstrued your intention as implying that Kelly was making an invitation to actually spend the night.

As for the Romford walk...
While it may be 14 miles as the crow files, from Romford Station to Liverpool Street station is 16 ½ miles by AA routeplanner. Not at all fatal as a one off but not what you would choose to do unless you had to.
My Grandfather used to walk nearly 7 ½ miles to school every day and 7 ½ miles back (Winchcombe to Cheltenham).

Romford Station opened in 1839 and by 1888 trains ran from Liverpool Street under Great Eastern Railways. I am certain that anyone regularly working in Romford and residing in the Spitalfields area would have let the train take the strain. That is not to say that someone who was skint and had overstayed in Romford wouldn’t find himself in a one off situation of having to walk back in the middle of the night.

(And Grave Maurice – I’ve always heard it pronounced schlap in the East End!)

On this silly issue about the A-man ‘flaunting’ his watch chain.
That is how people frequently wore those clothes – by showing the waistcoat.

Also is it unheard of for a rich man to be taken by a prostitute to an insalubrious district?
Some people are trying to suggest that someone like the A-man (who by Hutchinson’s description need not be a toff at all) would not be found in Dorset Street! What? Because he would be worried about getting mugged?
Have there ever been any instances of a rich man being taken by a prostitute to a bad district and getting mugged? Hmmm let me think. Not too long though (and that isn't a confession).

The subject of the ‘key’ and access to the room was not a mystery to anyone at the time. There was almost certainly a simple and commonplace explanation. Making it a mystery now is clutching at straws.
Similarly the A-man himself was not regarded as odd – although the detailed description was commented on.
Similarly the waistcoat/watchchain wasn't regarded as odd.
Similarly the walk from Romford wasn’t regarded as odd.

It’s all very well trying to tease out new angles from the existing and meagre records but using this sort of ‘teasing’ to bolster a theory is somewhat threadbare.

Babybird – Hutchinson said he had no money, so if true he wouldn’t be able to go with a prostitute.

Ben - you have no basis whatsoever to suggest that Hutchinson’s walk was not necessary.
You have no idea why he went to Romford, why he left it that late to come back, why he had no money, what he had to do the next morning etc.

[Ben]

Considering we do not know what time he left Romford, perhaps he did leave early enough, was he held up along the way?

It's unlikely, Jon. The cut-off point for lodgers not in possession of a pass is given as 12:30am (1.00am in other sources), which would mean he misjudged the journey by over an hour. If he had a pass, the cut-off time was irrelevant as he could have gained entry at any time. But if we accept your "delayed" suggestion, his intention must have been to pay his doss on arrival. But this begs another question: with what money? With no money and no pass to enable him access to the Victoria Home, the journey seems even more bafflingly pointless.

All the best,
Ben

[Wickerman]

Exactly, which is why they wouldn’t waste energy, waste time, and deprive themselves of sleep for that purpose if it wasn’t remotely necessary, and there was no chance of getting into the place where he usually slept when he returned home.

Considering we do not know what time he left Romford, perhaps he did leave early enough, was he held up along the way?
What was his intended destination ?
If it was the Victoria Home and he did not use a nightly pass then perhaps he did not have one. Perhaps, he was not even staying at the Victoria Home in the 1st week of November?

Did it occur to you that he only took up residence there on the weekend, after he had some money in his pocket from a weekend job?

Regards, Jon S.

[babybird67]

I am beginning to wonder what kind of history this all is...

only serviing or ex-Police officers are competent enough to have a view on the Ripper case at all...only those with experience of prostitutes can decide if there is anything fishy about Hutchinson and his claims...what next? Only people who have been beheaded can empathise with what it was like to live under Henry VIII?

I guess this approach rules men out of having any views at all on childbearing since they can never experience the joy of giving birth!

And of course none of us is qualified to speak about any historical matter unless we were personally there to witness it.

Oh Intellectual Freedom, where art thou!

[Ben]

We don't know why he would be concerned, but if this was the same man who had been seen accosting women in the area it may be that this was the basis for his concern.

Surely you're not suggesting that Hutchinson was already aware of the clearly bogus stories attributed to Kennedy, Paumier, and Rone, Jon? These were bogus witnesses whose stories did the rounds on the 10th November, a day that was infamous for errors, misinterpretation and fabrication, including most notably the claim that Kelly had a little boy. If you wish to depict Hutchinson as credible and honestly motivated, the very worst argument you can make in his defense is that he harboured suspicions that the Astrakhan man was a cause for concern to him. Besides arguing against Hutchinson's own claims, it renders his inactivity opposite the Miller's Court entrance all the more illogical. Why, if he was so concerned, did he not alert either Kelly herself or a PC? And why station himself in a position that rendered him utterly useless in the event of the possible killer attacking?

Petticoat Lane was an element introduced by Hutchinson, in my opinion, to fuel suspicions that the killer may have been Jewish. The market was "substantially" Jewish, as you note. Hutchinson claimed to be able to swear to the man "anywhere", but upon spotting him on a subsequent occasion, he only "fancied" he saw him against, and "could not be certain". Obviously, the two claims don't correlate. The Astrakhan man would have stood out like a sore thumb, and yet Hutchinson was unsure on that subsequent occasion, perhaps because the eyelashes weren't quite the same shade.

The vast majority of press information was to the effect that Kelly had been murdered during the small hours, and Hutchinson was hardly likely to delay coming forward and presenting his evidence purely on the assumption that his sighting occurred too early for the time of death.

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

Jen,

You are placing your own life experiences against Hutchison and making a conclusion his behaviour is not normal without considering the alternatives or dismissing them in favour of your judgement.

You admit you haver no experience on such matters, so how can you draw conclusion that 'it stinks'?

Jason has partly explained (thank you JC), the rest is there to be researched or, if you fancy it, experienced.

Monty

Hi Monty

Maybe I am, but we all do that, that is part of the bias we bring to anything we study. I tend to go by common sense and I cannot see any sense in waiting around for forty five minutes for a prostitute when the East End was full of them..

So on to the next point, if Hutch maybe glossed over his reason for waiting for her...why? And if he lied about that, what else did he lie about? Lying for his motive for being there is pretty interesting to me.

Is it also normal in your experience, by the way, for men to solicit prostitutes when they have no money? This particular prostitute approached him and he turned her away saying he had no money...then hung around for 45 minutes waiting for what...charity?

Still trying to get a handle on how 'normal' this all is...but thanks for your reply, much appreciated.

Jen

[Ben]

“a typical working-class man had to work 16-18 hour days and go without food for 12 or more hours at a stretch. These people always had to give more, to get less.”

Exactly, which is why they wouldn’t waste energy, waste time, and deprive themselves of sleep for that purpose if it wasn’t remotely necessary, and there was no chance of getting into the place where he usually slept when he returned home. I do which people wouldn’t keep insisting that their own experiences bears any relation to this. It’s hopelessly irrelevant for people to claim that just because they go for long walks occasionally, there is nothing remotely odd about hoofing it 14 miles in the small hours of a wet November morning to a doss house that he knew full well would deny him entry by the time he got there. It does raise suspicions and questions, including by those who don't entertain any suggestion that Hutchinson was responsible for the crimes.

“Secondly, Hutch may have had an ulterior motive. Its possible he was wanting to hook up with Kelly, either for sex or simply a bed.”

In other words, Jason, you are suggesting that he lied or glossed over his true reasons for waiting outside Kelly’s home? I can’t disagree with you here, but in which case, it is only reasonable to concede that he could have lied in other aspects of his account, such as the implausible Romford jaunt. In this particular instance, I don’t consider it very likely he was waiting for a bed or sex with Kelly. If, as you’re suggesting an indoor session would last about 30 minutes, there is no reason to prevent him going back and checking the dwelling for the remainder of the night, when he was apparently just “walking about” – as you do.