Romford

[Lechmere]

Or
Show me the way to go Home
(the Victoria one from Romford)
Or
Give it to the girl next door
Or
I hear you knocking but you can't come in (Victoria Home)
I hear you knocking and you can come in (13 Miller's Court)

[Ben]

I was thinking... why would Hutchinson even say he had been down to Romford if it was an unusual thing to walk back from there?

Because he wanted or needed a good excuse for being on the streets in the small hours of the morning, Mike, in my opinion. It needn't necessarily have been Romford, but the location was required to be some distance away in order to validate superficially the suggestion that he missed closing time at the Victoria Home, and was consequently compelled to walk the streets all night. He clearly realized from Sarah Lewis' evidence that he had been seen loitering on Dorset Street, and thus in addition to feeling himself compelled to legitimize his presence and preoccupation with that particular spot (I saw a scary-looking Jewish man with gold chain and dark eyelashes, honest to piddliing goodness, guvna!), he also felt had to explain what he was doing on the streets at all.

A claim to have only just returned from some relatively far-flung location would have been ideally suited to the purpose, as it accounted for his "failure" to secure lodgings AND skirted round any consideration that he had been skulking round the district all night (which he could have been doing had he remained in Spitalfields all night).

Hutchinson's story was believed initially, remember, but apparently not in the long run.

[Chris]

Well if you go back to the 18th century, Mr Earnshaw walks from Yorkshire to Liverpool and back in Wuthering Heights.

Only from Yorkshire to Liverpool and back? Luxury! When I were a lad we used to get up, walk from Yorkshire to John O'Groats and back before breakfast ...

[The Grave Maurice]

If I'd had lyricists like you guys, I might have had more luck coaxing the birds from the trees. We don't need more of these.

[Ben]

I know! It’s because he had paid for a weekly ticket in advance but had neglected to get a special night pass – an item which anyone who reads the Victoria Home rules can tell at a simple glance is quite separate from a bed ticket.

Nah, Lechers.

Sorry, but I'm afraid this is still wrong, and hasn't stopped being wrong from when we discussed this business on the "Wrong Night" thread. The weekly ticket was still the special night pass. It is not listed as a "separate item" in any list of rules. The rules simply used alternating terminology to describe the same item once it was in use and fulfilling its various tasks, i.e. getting him past the doorman and towards the bedrooms. Let's not make the Victoria Home some maximum security multi-bouncered dwelling again, please.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Chris, Robert, Grave Maurice,

Right.

I used to get up half an hour before I went to bed, work all day in a Jewish butcher's shop for thruppence a decade, and pay the shop owner to work there, walk 92 miles in a round circle, in bare feet and with no clothes in the pouring rain except a tiny piece of apron I nicked from some covered entrance in Goulston Street, with no umbrella nor watch chain nor red stone to attract women, stand under a lamp-post with a one stringed ukelele singing "On Mother Kelly's doorstep," until the cats stopped walking over their owners faces, and had to sleep in a rolled up newspaper tucked under a smelly armpit in Berner Street on my day off- once every 6 years-and eat the residue of a used cat's meat tin kicked from Hanbury Street for breakfast.

Now you try telling the East-Enders of today that.. and they won't believe you.


kindly

Phil

[Lechmere]

"the location was required to be some distance away in order to validate superficially the suggestion that he missed closing time at the Victoria Home, and was consequently compelled to walk the streets all night."

I wonder why Hutch wasn't picked up on this my the gentlemen of the press.

[Wickerman]

.... It needn't necessarily have been Romford, but the location was required to be some distance away in order to validate superficially the suggestion that he missed closing time at the Victoria Home, and was consequently compelled to walk the streets all night.

Go for it Ben, ... why let research & facts get in your way, when you run out of solutions just make 'em up!!

He clearly realized from Sarah Lewis' evidence that he had been seen loitering on Dorset Street,

You don't know if he was even present at the inquest. And, considering Abberline was in the 'extremely small' inquest room, to then go and sit with the police & Abberline chancing being recognised is preposterous.
Then, he would be compelled to legitimize his presence.

and thus in addition to feeling himself compelled to legitimize his presence

Only if he was present in the inquest room, which is ludicrous. Alternately, when the Inquest closed your solution would require a 3rd party to have heard Lewis's testimony and go running to Hutchinson to tell him he'd been recognised. So now you have a 3rd party who knew Hutchinson was in Dorset St. that night.
All this in a matter of minutes from Shoreditch town hall?
(Hutch was talking with police by 6:00pm, likely before, and the inquest can't have closed much before 5:00pm)

[waiting with baited breath for the next installment of Mr Holme's ad-lid, off the cuff, shoot from the hip, solution process]

Someday Ben, you'll look back and laugh at all this, you don't mind if I start now?

All the best, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon,

We can speculate all we want I suppose, but the question...

"Why did Hutchinson walk all that way to Whitechapel?" is important.

He certainly didn't do it for his health. Most people have a reason to walk that distance, at that time of night.

Now, given that a very PLAUSIBLE reason would have been that this was the "place where he sleeps", one has to ask why he set off so late.
Ok. Was he aware of the closing time? We don't know. Again, we can make assumptions. But the point remains he did it. Now having arrived there, and being too late to gain access, he then stands around on a cold November night, and may well have been seen doing this,

Now IF, and I say that very carefully.. IF he was the killer of Mary Kelly, he knew that he may have been seen and identified, re. newspapers. In his own mind, he may possibly the last identified person known to have been seen near Mary Kelly. (Remember I don't believe Hutch was the killer)

This gives this killer a choice. Jump the gun and go to the police himself with a story, before he gets recognised by a local and gets hunted down.. or leave the area. He didn't do the latter. So he may well have been in two minds mulling over what was the choice.

I only suggest this as Abberline initially "believed his story"... which tells these ears at least Abberline was either looking for this man's alibi to have holes in, or he wasn't the killer and was there for other reasons. (which I personally prefer)

It is just an personal opinion based on my thoughts on the matter

I believe it is certainly plausible... and I don't believe Hutchinson was the killer of Kelly, remember.

kindly

Phil

[Ben]

Whether Hutchinson attended the inquest or not, he must have learned of Lewis' evidence though some channel, or else we're prepared to accept that his evidence, coming hot on the heels of the release of Sarah Lewis' evidently Hutch-spotting testimony, was just pure "coincidence". He wouldn’t have needed to absorb Lewis’ testimony in any great detail. It could have resulted from word of mouth – the type that allowed details of Leather Apron and John Pizer to spread like wildfire. In addition, there were reportedly crowds in Shoreditch that threatened to overwhelm the coroner’s office, and it could simply have been a case of somebody noting that Sarah Lewis was one of the witnesses about to give evidence. But there's nothing remotely "ludicrous" about Hutchinson having attended the inquest in person.

Alternately, when the Inquest closed your solution would require a 3rd party to have heard Lewis's testimony and go running to Hutchinson to tell him he'd been recognised

No, actually, my "solution" would require nothing of the kind, and I have no idea what sort of eccentric nonsense could have prompted you to conclude otherwise.

Someday Ben, you'll look back and laugh at all this

I'm laughing now, Canadian Jon, but I ought to stop, as it may come across as rude to mock the afflicted.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon,

We can speculate all we want I suppose, but the question...

"Why did Hutchinson walk all that way to Whitechapel?" is important.

Hi Phil.
Yes, it maybe important.
The thing is, when constructing a legitimate theory the researcher must find a solution to this question. What is being touted here is one of two propositions:

1 - I can't answer this question therefore it does not make sense, therefore Hutchinson must be lying. (solution born of ignorance)

2 - I don't care about this story, he is likely lying about the trip to Romford anyway (solution born of lazyness)

Whereas, if all reasonable attempts at finding a solution have failed then we are compelled to accept his story unless some direct evidence surfaces to contradict it. Like, being seen somewhere else earlier in the night.

Now, given that a very PLAUSIBLE reason would have been that this was the "place where he sleeps", one has to ask why he set off so late.

We do not know when he set off, so why assume he set off late?
Was it raining heavy between the East End and Romford requiring him to take shelter for a couple of hours? That might be easy to check.
Did he stop to rest, fell asleep?
He does not say how long it took him so we should not jump to any conclusions, certainly not negative ones, about why he arrived about 2:00am.

Now having arrived there, and being too late to gain access, he then stands around on a cold November night, and may well have been seen doing this,

Waiting for astrachan to leave, yes, then he walks around all night. All that means is he did not come in off the streets till morning.

Now IF, and I say that very carefully.. IF he was the killer of Mary Kelly, he knew that he may have been seen and identified, ....

Right, but why would a killer stand around in front of a shop, in front of a passage, with people passing in and out where he is obviously going to be recognised to begin with?
This is not the action of a killer, or anyone thinking straight. Hide & seek is the name of the game when eyeing up a potential victim.
Not, loitering in full view of anyone for 3/4 of an hour then going to the police, twice?, and telling them, "hey, that was me standing outside her room".
What kind of defence is that?

The police are not compelled to believe in his description of Astrachan, once he places himself at the scene of the crime they can haul his 'ass in jail pronto!.
On the other hand, assuming he made up this Astrachan description, why not make up a description that has already been published by police?, he had several to choose from, he had access to a reading room, remember? He knew who the police were looking for after Mitre Square, or Berner St.

I believe it is certainly plausible... and I don't believe Hutchinson was the killer of Kelly, remember.

I understand, you pose reasonable questions.

Regards, Jon S.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Jon,

Thanks for the reply.

Indeed, the one line that I most certainly do agree with is the point of "hide and seek". No, killers don't normally wait around for a long time to risk possibly later identification. I agree.
It is one of the many reasons I do not think Hutchinson killed Mary Kelly.. but I don't think he really was a long time friend of hers either. Because I cannot believe no-one in the police, as far as we know of course, checked his statement of his background with Kelly. Known friends of Kelly would have known Hutchinson, yet.. we hear nothing of any other person knowing Hutchinson. Therefore I doubt, both on this point or others re Hutchinson, that he was actually telling the truth. However I digress a little from the thread. My apologies.

kindly

Phil

[Ben]

The thing is, when constructing a legitimate theory the researcher must find a solution to this question. What is being touted here is one of two propositions:

Go to bed and find something else to make nuisance of yourself over, "Wickerman". I wish to do so myself, but I obstinately refuse until such time as I see your silly green "on-line" light go blue, as only then will I be reassured that you've finished talking nonsense for the night. There are most assuredly not only two "propositions", as you haughtily declare. I do not adopt the position of not "caring" about his statement, nor would I claim not to be able to answer various "questions" associated with it. The idea that because we can't prove the more obviously bogus elements associated with his account, we should accept it blindly, is obvious nonsense. But "compelled to accept his story" we most assuredly are not, especially since it was discredited by the police.

As for the fabulously implausible Romford claim, I think Phil's point was a perfectly reasonable one; "late" in this instance very obviously meant too late to return to a lodging house that closed at 12:30/1.00am to lodgers not in possession of a pass for entry. In that sense, he is absolutely spot on. Taking shelter for two whole hours is a transparently nonsensical idea if Hutchinson knew full well it would have resulted in him being denied a bed for the remainder of the night. And really, what sort of rain stops people in their tracks for two hours?

Waiting for astrachan to leave, yes, then he walks around all night.

Because he says so - terrific.

So on top of 14 miles of walking, he decides to embark upon more walking for the remainder of the night.

Right, but why would a killer stand around in front of a shop, in front of a passage, with people passing in and out where he is obviously going to be recognised to begin with? This is not the action of a killer, or anyone thinking straight

Conduct some research into serial crime, silly. It's a subject you purport an interest in. God knows you're not very clued up on the subject, and irritate the living piddle out of those who are, but monitoring a crime scene is precisely what we should expect from an organized killer who was "thinking straight". It wouldn't have entailed loitering in "plain view" either. He would have been operating in darkness when there were very few people about.

"On the other hand, assuming he made up this Astrachan description, why not make up a description that has already been published by police?"

He did. His description incorporated numerous elements from other eyewitness descriptions associated with the ripper. Moreover, given it's very fanciful components, it should be very clear that Hutchinson's purpose in fabricating it was to deflect attention away from himself and in the direction of the most obvious scapegoat around: the surly-looking wealthy Jew.

[curious]

I only suggest this as Abberline initially "believed his story"... which tells these ears at least Abberline was either looking for this man's alibi to have holes in, or he wasn't the killer and was there for other reasons. (which I personally prefer)

Hi, Phil,
I'd love for you to expand upon what other reasons Hutchinson may have had for loitering there in the rain.

Thx,

curious

[The Good Michael]

Hutch took the train to Romford to look for day eork in the large, busy marketplace. He got a job for the afternoon and like most hop pickers in Kent, hit the pubs with his workmates after he finished, say 5:30 pm. He spent all his money in the pub, part of it on drink part of it on wagers, and had to walk back to Whitechapel without even the price of a bed in his pocket. Or he took the train back, or he hopped a wagon going back and there went the last bit of coin.

Or... he made the whole thing up because he was a liar....but he didn't make up things which made hiim look guilty, only things that don't fit with his guilt... and, it's pointless.

Mike