Romford

[Sally]

Please reassure me that we're not back to this distressing business about lodging houses, passes and tickets?

No, it looks as though we are, doesn't it? Sorry to ruin your afternoon, and all that, but hey - that's just how it goes, I'm afraid...

Money is the thing here. Hutchinson had no money, according to himself. This if true would explain why he couldn't seek lodgings in Romford - plenty of them about, I understand - rather than hoofing it all the way back to the East End to arrive just in time to be the last person to see his dear friend Kelly alive.

And indeed, he recounts how he told his dear friend Kelly that he had no money. And yet.

And yet, by the time the Victoria Home was open the next morning, Hutchinson was able to enter, which means by then he had the money for a bed. If he was paying for his bed on a nightly basis.

If this is the case, where did he get it from?

If it is not the case, and he did not acquire money for his bed between the night and the morning, then this means he had paid in advance and so should have been able to enter the Victoria Home whenever he came knocking.

What a conundrum.

See, this is why I prefer Lewis Carroll. Nice and simple.

[Ben]

"everyone", reading your strained responses should not be repeatedly exposed to your "backdoor clause" of denouncing any source which disagree's with your entrenched position.

But the source you are using is incorrect, Jon. That’s the major difference here. It argues against all other press sources as well as Lewis’ original police statement, and yet you champion it as correct for some fascinating reason. The other newspapers you mention were most assuredly not “incomplete” just because they didn’t include a bogus detail reported by the Morning Advertiser that you insist must be true. No other newspaper claimed that Lewis’ “in drink” couple passed “up the court”, nor did Lewis herself state as much in her police report. The couple in question had nothing whatsoever to do with the court. They merely "passed along" Dorset Street.

All these journalists had access to the testimony. Is it plausible that one of them managed to pick up on a detail that was mysteriously missed by all other journalists, or dare we accept that the 99% majority of press reports were correct and that the Morning Advertiser had confused certain details?

“Lewis never claimed to know Kelly, nor looked her in the face at any time that night/morning”

Yes, I realise that. But your contention is that the female half of the “passing along” couple was Kelly – an idea you’ve arrived at on the basis of a seriously mistaken press report. My point was that if there had been any police consideration that this woman was Kelly, Lewis would have been called to the mortuary in an attempt to compare the body with her recollections of the women in question, much like William Marshall had done with the female half of his “couple” from Berner Street. Lewis never stated that she did not see the face of the women “in drink”.

“What she said, among other reports, was:
" In the doorway of the deceased's house I saw a man in a wideawake hat standing. He was not tall, but a stout-looking man."

You’re just not listening to me, Jon.

Lewis never stated any such thing – fact.

The Daily News is factually in error on this point.

Lewis stated in her police report that the man was standing against the lodging house, which was on the other side of the road from the Miller’s Court entrance. When speaking later at the inquest, she cemented this location as “opposite the court”, which tallies perfectly with her police statement. I am quite aware that Hutchinson claimed to have entered the court itself after aborting his Dorset Street vigil, and he may well have done so, but when Lewis saw the man at 2:30 (whose identity was probably Hutchinson, as we both appear to accept), he was at that time on the other side of the road, and certainly not outside Kelly’s doorway.

Best regards,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

As for this “checking out” business, yes, if he told the truth about going to Romford, his presence there could have been verified, but if he LIED about, the police would NOT have been able to expose the lie, since Hutchinson could have come up with any manner of bad excuse for his lack of alibi there. “Gosh, I forget the same of the road, sir, and the employer was a bloke named Smith I think, or was it?” Anything.

Ben -this argument makes me feel rather uneasy...

If Hutchinson wasn't in Romford, then it's understood that he was somewhere else.

It's not logical to think that, if he wasn't in Romford, then he could have been anywhere else outside London. The precise place had no bearing on his story.

Having accepted that, you must surely accept that if lied about going to Romford, then the most likely alternative is that he stayed in London.

But London was teeming with people. Sleeping in a lodging house as he did,
doing casual labouring jobs as he did, and drinking in pubs (as is probable),
for all he knew anyone might have seen him in the East End, and his lie be exposed.

Apart from Police interviewing his lodging house, entourage etc about him,
there is the fact that once he started stating to the Press that he'd been in Romford, he risked someone coming forward and saying 'oh, no he wasn't !'.

I just can't believe that he'd risk his neck on the Romford story when, wherever he was before the killing, it wasn't a hanging offense.
(I made that statement because, had he been exposed as a liar on this detail, he risked becoming a suspect).

However, there were certainly other lies possible to explain why he wasn't
at his usual lodgings on the night in question. So why 'Romford' ? -unless it was simply true.

[Ben]

Sorry, Lesley, I should clarify:

When I suggested that "Romford" had been invented, I was specifically referring to the circumstances of his alleged return. It is quite possible that he was "out of the way" for most of Thursday, or even in Romford itself, but I don't accept for a moment that that he had nowhere to stay that night, or that he was compelled to to "walk about all night" with no money and no pass. I agree that he was unlikely to have been knocking around the pubs of the Spitafields on Thursday, as this had the potential to compromise his Romford account, as you note.

Hi Sally,

You didn't ruin my afternoon. You may even have enhanced in with some interesting observations. I wonder what time the Home did open "in the morning"?

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Oh I know, I wasn't serious!

6am. Although, the kitchens must have been open sooner (yes, must...) to meet the requirements of the many lodgers who would have been at work by then.

[Rubyretro]

but I don't accept for a moment that that he had nowhere to stay that night, or that he was compelled to to "walk about all night" with no money and no pass.

I think that he made sure that he had nowhere to stay that night, and a
prepared explanation as to why he was compelled to "walk about all night".

[Lechmere]

Ben
The problem is you have built your case on the wilful misreading of two contemporary sources which explicitly explain that there was a requirement to get a separate late night pass and you also ignore that this is effectively confirmed up by what Hutchinson said.
Do you know what? That is how he gained access next morning as he almost certainly had a pre –paid weekly ticket. Mystery solved!

We know from those very interesting Booth papers, that I have a copy of right here, that most inmates were weekly inmates.
That is no doubt why he wanted to return to his pre-paid lodgings even if he was too late for that night. Mystery solved!

Of course we don’t know if he was asked to substantiate his Romford story in any way, but he would have been a real idiot, an utter buffoon in fact, to come out with a story that would have fallen apart at the first push. He had all that time to concoct the story didn’t he?
“Gosh, I forget the same of the road, sir, and the employer was a bloke named Smith I think, or was it?”
Yeah that would really get him off the hook wouldn’t it? Even a bungling nascent police force unused to the ways of serial killers wouldn’t just have shrugged that alibi disposal off... surely?

There really is no mystery about why he couldn’t get in at 2 am and why he could when the Victoria Home opened in the morning. Except through an Alice in Wonderlandish misreading of the explicit contemporary records. But I will labour the point no further as doing so is clearly pointless.

[Ben]

The problem is you have built your case on the wilful misreading of two contemporary sources which explicitly explain that there was a requirement to get a separate late night pass

No, Lechmere.

Still no, Lechmere.

No contemporary source ever said that the Victoria Home required its lodgers to present a bafflingly pointless extra pass in order to gain entry after a certain time. If a lodger paid for a weekly pass earlier in the week, he would have been supplied with a ticket - invariably a metal one - that stated as much. He would then show this proof of prior purchase to the doorman whenever he wished to gain entry. There would be no earthly reason for the Victoria Home authorities to insist on an extra pass (one that said, "I really really have paid, honest!", presumably?). I think you might be running away again with a the idea of an East End lodging house as a meticulously and rigorously controlled fortress.

Of course we don’t know if he was asked to substantiate his Romford story in any way, but he would have been a real idiot, an utter buffoon in fact, to come out with a story that would have fallen apart at the first push.

Of course, but if he lied about what he was doing in Romford, or even that he was there at all, such a lie was very unlikely to fall apart, however heard people pushed. I'm not suggesting it would have "got him off the hook". I said it was very unlikely to expose him as a certain liar. Once again, you're presupposing with no evidence that he was ever on the hook in the sense that he was obliged to defend himself as a suspect. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was ever converted from a discredited witness into a discredited suspect.

[caz]

I don’t think that it is very credible to build a suspect theory on believing the press and police were that stupid and negligent in looking at a major witness’s testimony. It is one those ‘revisionist’ aspects of the case that doesn’t stand up to proper scrutiny in my opinion.

Hear hear, Lechmere!

It’s a wonder the boards are not full to bursting with threads fingering Emanuel Violenia as a likely suspect, considering this discredited witness said he had walked from Manchester to London with his wife and two children. But then even the most committed Hutch theorist would surely find that idea too silly for words. So what makes Hutch so much more suspicious than Violenia? Mrs Long is one up on Lewis because the man she saw from behind in Hanbury St, who looked foreign, was actually talking to the woman she identified as Annie Chapman. It’s all looking very bleak for Violenia… isn’t it?

Why did he stay so late? Who knows. People sometimes are late. I am often late. I have missed last busses and trains and walked long distances, not having enough for a cab. Maybe he got a train there and misjudged the time it would take to walk back. It is almost pointless speculating why he was late. Suffice it to say, if he had no credible reason then if challenged his whole story would have unravelled (see above).

Indeed so. Hutch may have spent his last coins on booze and then misjudged everything, gradually sobering up as he was making his way back on foot. Or he may have started out with a late pass (or Ben's metal proof of payment) but - heaven forbid - lost it en route. Drink makes people careless with even their most important possessions, funnily enough. When him indoors was a lot younger, he was known to fall fast asleep drunk on village greens, cheque book and cash in pocket, luckily making it through the night with everything still present and intact.

The idea that if Hutch told the truth he had to be stone cold sober when he set out from Romford, and fully aware (taking his timing, finances and pocket contents into account) that there would be no bed for him when he arrived at the Victoria Home, is only in the minds of those who need to put the least likely and therefore most suspicious complexion on even this part of the tale, which is supposedly a minor irritation. Everyone else can see that the alternative scenarios are more likely in terms of human experience. But of course they would only lend unwelcome credence, so out they go.

It’s a shame really, because it’s a bad theory that relies on bad practice to prop it up, and on such a regular basis. A good one should almost stand unaided.

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Hear hear, Lechmere!

It’s a wonder the boards are not full to bursting with threads fingering Emanuel Violenia as a likely suspect, considering this discredited witness said he had walked from Manchester to London with his wife and two children. But then even the most committed Hutch theorist would surely find that idea too silly for words. So what makes Hutch so much more suspicious than Violenia? Mrs Long is one up on Lewis because the man she saw from behind in Hanbury St, who looked foreign, was actually talking to the woman she identified as Annie Chapman. It’s all looking very bleak for Violenia… isn’t it?



Indeed so. Hutch may have spent his last coins on booze and then misjudged everything, gradually sobering up as he was making his way back on foot. Or he may have started out with a late pass (or Ben's metal proof of payment) but - heaven forbid - lost it en route. Drink makes people careless with even their most important possessions, funnily enough. When him indoors was a lot younger, he was known to fall fast asleep drunk on village greens, cheque book and cash in pocket, luckily making it through the night with everything still present and intact.

The idea that if Hutch told the truth he had to be stone cold sober when he set out from Romford, and fully aware (taking his timing, finances and pocket contents into account) that there would be no bed for him when he arrived at the Victoria Home, is only in the minds of those who need to put the least likely and therefore most suspicious complexion on even this part of the tale, which is supposedly a minor irritation. Everyone else can see that the alternative scenarios are more likely in terms of human experience. But of course they would only lend unwelcome credence, so out they go.

It’s a shame really, because it’s a bad theory that relies on bad practice to prop it up, and on such a regular basis. A good one should almost stand unaided.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
Didn't hutch say he had not been drinking all day?

Anyway, I am one who finds the Hutch very fishy, but the Romford trip, while not entirely sensible in my view, does not really bother me. Its the ridiculous amount of detail in A-man, missing the inquest, placing himself at the murder scene, admitting he knew MK, living in the area, waiting (corrobarated) outside her place, implicating a jew (GSG anyone?)all taken as a whole that shoots up the red flag for me. While maybe not MK's killer or JtR-something is up with that cat.

[Wickerman]

Hi Caz
Didn't hutch say he had not been drinking all day?

Anyway, I am one who finds the Hutch very fishy, but the Romford trip, while not entirely sensible in my view, does not really bother me. Its the ridiculous amount of detail in A-man, missing the inquest, placing himself at the murder scene, admitting he knew MK, living in the area, waiting (corrobarated) outside her place, implicating a jew (GSG anyone?)all taken as a whole that shoots up the red flag for me. While maybe not MK's killer or JtR-something is up with that cat.

And that is how any misgivings about any witness should be presented, not accompanied by full blown negative conclusions.
We have incomplete information, therefore, any conclusions we draw should be an either/or proposal.

Hutchinson's trip to Romford is of no consequence, he could have stepped off a banana boat for all the police care. What the authorities are interested in is when he arrived at the location, who he saw, what was said and any activities he witnessed.

However, because he did place himself at Kelly's door shortly before the murder took place, they certainly would have been interested in an alibi from Hutchinson which might account for his movements for the next few hours.
They would have been especially interested in this alibi IF they had any suspicions about him. And, because the police did not know him from Adam, certainly they had to check him out.

The fact the police did not haul him in within days of first meeting him strongly suggests all he told them checked out.
They had a potential killer in the palm of their hands, who placed himself at the crime scene by his own admission, in no way can we argue the police were so negligent to let him go if he had told any lies to them at all about anything that they considered significant.
That circumstance alone exonerates George Hutchinson from any wrong doing.

Question:
What did Kelly want 6d for at that time of night?

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

The fact the police did not haul him in within days of first meeting him strongly suggests all he told them checked out.
They had a potential killer in the palm of their hands, who placed himself at the crime scene by his own admission, in no way can we argue the police were so negligent to let him go if he had told any lies to them at all about anything that they considered significant.
That circumstance alone exonerates George Hutchinson from any wrong doing.

Not quite, Wickerman.
I've already pointed out that good liars mix fact with fiction, and I don't believe that Hutchinson would have lied to the Police about anything that
could be checked out -so I'm willing to believe that he walked back from Romford and that he couldn't get into his lodgings.

However, it was impossible to prove that A-Man existed except by the Police
finding him -and they apparently never did, despite the very detailed
description which could only point to one man (with that particular alliance of jewellery).

It was also impossible to prove the "walking about all night" story for the crucial time of the murder.

Of course, if everything that the Police checked was true, they would be more inclined to believe the things that they couldn't check were also true.

[Sally]

Didn't hutch say he had not been drinking all day?

Anyway, I am one who finds the Hutch very fishy, but the Romford trip, while not entirely sensible in my view, does not really bother me. Its the ridiculous amount of detail in A-man, missing the inquest, placing himself at the murder scene, admitting he knew MK, living in the area, waiting (corrobarated) outside her place, implicating a jew (GSG anyone?)all taken as a whole that shoots up the red flag for me. While maybe not MK's killer or JtR-something is up with that cat.

Absolutely, Abby, I entirely agree.

However, because he did place himself at Kelly's door shortly before the murder took place, they certainly would have been interested in an alibi from Hutchinson which might account for his movements for the next few hours.

Not that this is in any way new, but how much 'checking out' do you think there could have been Wickerman? Alright, so Honest Geo. says he goes down to Romford for the day to (say) seek work. Are the police going to check that out? How?

Hutch says he knew Kelly for three years - nobody else ever mentions him that we know of (so we can't assume they did). How do the police check that out?

We know that he was consistent in giving the details of his statement to the police over several hours. As for the rest - semi-itinerant people sought work all over the place, all the time (although admittedly more in better weather); and prostitutes knew a lot of men.

You don't think the police would have taken these things on trust? I think the whole 'checking out' thing is overplayed - it's more in line with him being a suspect, and as we know, there is no evidence that he was ever considered a suspect at the time.

A time waster, quite possibly.

[bolo]

Hi Jon,

Question:
What did Kelly want 6d for at that time of night?

maybe she wanted to buy contraceptives (sponges)?

Just a wild guess of course.

Regards,

Boris

[caz]

Why would an alcoholic prostitute, with her own room but seriously behind with her rent, want 6d, from any Tom, Dick, Harry or George she met (because asking for ten bob might have offended and got her nothing)?

Gosh, I really haven't the foggiest.

Love,

Caz
X