Romford

[Lechmere]

I find it hard to believe that Hutchinson would have taken a day off work, bearing in mind he was skint on Friday. Also I find it almost impossible to believe that the crowd outside the inquest would have heard anything of any substance that transpired within - particularly the uncommented on aspects of Lewis's testimony.

But I do think it probable that Hutchinson was Toppy.

Although... Le Grand was of military appearance (or rather one of the people called Le Grand was of military appearance)... but then Le Grand (the one who was of military appearance) wasn't not tall but stout.
Just thought I'd throw that one into the mix.

[The Good Michael]

Let me throw another wrench into the works. If Toppy knew Kelly for about 3 years (big if) one presumes he was in the area often, of not in the Court. Lewis lived not far away and seems to have spent a lot of time with the Keylers and knew Kelly as well. One would think that they would have known each other by sight, if not by name. Even if it was a little dark, Lewis should have been able to fathom a guess as to whom the man was that she claimed she saw based on his being short and stout and in the area if she knew had seen someone like that before in the vicinity. This adds to Fisherman's (and Dew's) wrong night theory, but it also leans itself to a complete fabrication by Hutchinson and the idea that he was never in the area at all. THis could mean that he did indeed go to the inquest, discovered that no one really knew anything and decided to try for some money.

What we have here are still more possibilities that lead away from Toppy being the murderer.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Similarly as the Lewis connection wasn’t made at the time – and Hutchinson was closely discussed by the press and was a key police witness at least for a time – I cannot ‘just’ accept that Hutchinson equals wide-awake man. Indeed in my opinion the presumption must be that he was not."

Exactly so, Lechmere. I am of precisely the same opinion - after having weighed the material together, the better guess is actually that these men were not one and the same. But after decades of acceptance that they WERE the same, heaps of work lies ahead of us to make this point count, not only amongst those sworn to the theory of Hutchinson as the killer, but also to mainstream Ripperology.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro – having shattered my mental image of you, you have made up for, in part at least, by accepting the common sense proposition that Hutchinson did indeed go to Romford and walk back.
It is one of those things that wasn’t commented on at the time as being ‘odd’ and which could easily have been ‘checked out’, so it strikes me as being a pretty fruitless issue to dispute.

Similarly as the Lewis connection wasn’t made at the time – and Hutchinson was closely discussed by the press and was a key police witness at least for a time – I cannot ‘just’ accept that Hutchinson equals wide-awake man. Indeed in my opinion the presumption must be that he was not.
Aspects of the A-man’s description is another matter.
I also find it unlikely – for reasons I have gone through before – that he knew Kelly for three years (she lived in other parts of the East End and the East End was like a very big city in its own right). But that is something that would be difficult for the police to corroborate – or impossible as we and they clearly knew so little about Kelly’s real identity and background. I wouldn’t discount the possibility that he knew her ‘a bit’.
Also so far as his behaviour dovetailed with what we know about modern serial killers goes, what we know is that they behave in all sorts of different ways, so a very wide range of behaviour patterns could be claimed to match that of at least one serial killer.

In general terms his behaviour doesn’t match and has to be explained by a combination of oddities:
The drastic change in MO (yes they do happen) combined with a desire to insert himself as he could have moved away (yes it does happen) and fear at being caught despite his deliberate insertion being the reason for the killings ending (yes they do stop for that reason sometimes).

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" I will amend that to "was historically always accepted as an undoubtedly honest witness"

Not at all - Paul Begg, for example, has expressed the exact same doubt as I do. So you are wrong again, Ruby.

A new try, perhaps? Or not?

"On his say so alone, and I adore your understatement -"this is contested".

I prefer his own say to yours, strange though it may sound. He would not have been a Hutchinsonian.

Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I have always taken this position, Mike.

Now, of course the idea of a premeditated murder is less likely than one of the moment, but it is possible

.

I think for Mary Kelly, it's very possible indeed. Probable, even. She certainly denotes from the other murders.

The fact that Kelly might well have been premeditated, doesn't mean that the killer wasn't also an opportunist when it suited him.

You might have noticed that I became fascinated by the Danilo Restivo trial recently. His murder of Heather Barnett was definitely planned and premeditated..but he still 'opportunistically' stalked random potential victims in a park. One method doesn't exclude the other.

[Rubyretro]

Nobody can establish that Lewis was "undoubtedly" honest.

I am sorry, I will amend that to "was historically always accepted as an undoubtedly honest witness until Fisherman needed to discredit her in order to support his personal theory. Something that he failed to do for the majority of people who are interested in the case, the evidence being a public Poll".

Better ?

2. He DID go to the police BEFORE Lewis stement - on Sunday morning, by his own admission. This is contested, but in no way proven false.

On his say so alone, and I adore your understatement -"this is contested".

[The Good Michael]

But Fish... a little credit for the other...you know? c'mon.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"All that matters is whether he was lurking for 3/4 of an hour outside Mary Kelly's room just before the killing (and his story appears to be corroborated by Mrs Lewis -an undoubtedly honest witness), his believable story of being an aquaintance of Mary, his unbelievable statement about Astrakhan Man, his failure to go to the Police until after Lewis had testified, his unverifiable 'alibi' of "walking around all night" for the time of the killings, his behaviour (involving himself in the case -which dovetails with what we know about modern Serial Killers), and the fact that the (canonical) murders stopped after he became a known to Police , Press, and Public. Oh, yes, and his geographical home, right in the centre of the killings. (there are more details -that's a synopsis)."

Faults:

1. Nobody can establish that Lewis was "undoubtedly" honest.

2. He DID go to the police BEFORE Lewis stement - on Sunday morning, by his own admission. This is contested, but in no way proven false.

Doubtful:

No, I won´t even bother. The bottom line is that much as anybody is welcome to any wiew, may it be ingenious or halfwitted, nobody is welcome to state as facts things that are totally and utterly unproven.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It's just more insults"

Are you opposed to insults, Ben?

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

So I think that he really did go to Romford. He had a work reason to go Romford, and it was physically possible.

Maybe the whole jaunt to Romford was something to do with the fact that he had planned in advance to kill Mary, and wanted to be known to have been out of London at the time ? -until someone he knew passed close to him at the murder site at the crucial time, and
came forward at the inquest, and he started worrying about the possible implications and imagining 'damage limitations' ?

Ruby,

Congratulations! You are the first Hutcher to admit that his going to Romford would have been checked out by the police and that would mean that he most probably did go. And your next conclusion that he planned to be away or at least to make it look as if he were away in advance. Now, of course the idea of a premeditated murder is less likely than one of the moment, but it is possible. And his goling to Romford is definitely more likely than his not. You are the first of the Hutchers to give ground. It is important that the rest follow suit.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

Here's my take on Romford :

Basically, it has no bearing at all on whether Hutchinson was the killer , if he had been to Romford or not.

All that matters is whether he was lurking for 3/4 of an hour outside Mary Kelly's room just before the killing (and his story appears to be corroborated by Mrs Lewis -an undoubtedly honest witness), his believable story of being an aquaintance of Mary, his unbelievable statement about Astrakhan Man, his failure to go to the Police until after Lewis had testified, his unverifiable 'alibi' of "walking around all night" for the time of the killings, his behaviour (involving himself in the case -which dovetails with what we know about modern Serial Killers), and the fact that the (canonical) murders stopped after he became a known to Police , Press, and Public. Oh, yes, and his geographical home, right in the centre of the killings.
(there are more details -that's a synopsis).

Still, the Romford story is extremely interesting -just because he chose to give it as the reason for not being tucked up in bed at the Victoria Home that night.

There are any number of stories -equally plausible or implausible that he might of given -but he chose that one.

When he volunteered to be interviewed by the Police as a major witness, he knew very well that he would be questioned at length (albeit as a witness and not a suspect), so why lie about his daytime movements, prior to the murder, on which he might be caught out as a liar (so his veracity as a witness called into question) but which had no real bearing on his guilt -except to possibly attract suspicion ?
So I think that he really did go to Romford. He had a work reason to go Romford, and it was physically possible.

If he was actively looking for work in Romford, he would have met people who could verify it.

He must have had contact with mates, officials, at the lodging house who were aware that he intended to look for work in Romford.

Had he not come forward to Police to volunteer the fact that he had been in Miller's Court on the night of Kelly's death (following Lewis's statement at the inquest), I would speculate that people who knew him might assume that he had been in Romford at the time of the murder.

Maybe the whole jaunt to Romford was something to do with the fact that he had planned in advance to kill Mary, and wanted to be known to have been out of London at the time ? -until someone he knew passed close to him at the murder site at the crucial time, and
came forward at the inquest, and he started worrying about the possible implications and imagining 'damage limitations' ?

[Ben]

I agree with whoever also suggested that perhaps he had managed to hitch a ride in a cart part of the way. Logical and possible.

But unfortunately contradicting Hutchinson's own claim to the press that he had "walked all the way" back from Romford.

[Ben]

So, why do I joke around? Maybe to lighten things up for me, and maybe as a satire on how absolutely ridiculous everyone is who takes their own opinions (though they are actually amalgamations of everyone's and hardly original) and processes them again and again ad nauseum until I can either laugh at or puke into the vomitorium they've created.

But that's not joking around, though.

It's just more insults and feigned exasperation at those naughty, nasty "Hutchinsonites"

"If this is how debate is supposed to work, I wan no part of it because I am far superior to that way of doing things."

So I guess it's back to pub-talk for you then.

Again, the distance alone has never been the problem. The problem concerns the alleged distance when embarked upon at that time of the morning, in those miserable conditions, when he knew the Home would have been closed to him by the time he arrived, penniless and with no lodging pass, back in Spitalfields.

[curious]

You see the problem with Mike is he doesn't really read or understand what is written,or bother to detail his thoughts.I haven't said 14 miles.I have put it nearer 38 miles,and not on my reckoning alone.Still Mike is wasting time here ,He should,if one believes HIS claims,be out on the track setting records.He wants no part of debate because he has nothing to offer,just silly little jibes.

Actually, Harry, that is not that great a distance -- even for some folks today. I know that because I have hung around a hiking club for years, and they hike some rugged territory. I don't recall them hiking 38 miles in one day, but a walk along a road is just a stroll. For most of us, the distance the hikers on the Appalachian Trail cover in one day seems incredible, esp. to those of us who are not in that kind of shape. One of my grandfathers worked away from home during the depression and would walk home occasionally. If I remember correctly, he covered right at 30 miles in one day -- that was his goal. Now, back in the 1888, when people walked everywhere much more than now, well, they simply thought nothing of it. They just went where they needed to go. I agree with whoever also suggested that perhaps he had managed to hitch a ride in a cart part of the way. Logical and possible.