Hutchinsons statement....

[Wickerman]

What a cop out!

I don't happen to think the answers to those questions are in the story if you go through the published details.

If you have any faith at all in what you are saying please provide the answers to each question.

I don't think you've looked.

If I need to make a point I look up the answers myself, I don't expect someone else to do it for me.

Comprende?

Anyhow, several people struck matches around the body, I suppose Diemschitz didn't want to share his candle, or his missus told him to put it back those candles cost money.

The man Diemschitz & Kozebrodski brought back was Spooner.

I'm not so sure Diemschitz said her heart had ceased to beat, I thought that was from the summary.

Tell you what, you just keep making lists and I'll look everything up for you. I can even ask your questions for you when I have time.

[Abby Normal]

All of them, Abby. I see no truly significant differences either within the witness statement, or between the witness statement and the others. I'm quite sure of this.

Ok. Thanks.
I do see a lot of differences and can't really make heads or tails out of any of them.

But I also see a lot of similarities. For me it's kind of still uncertain.

[David Orsam]

I think the answers to all those questions are in the story if you go through all the published details.

What a cop out!

I don't happen to think the answers to those questions are in the story if you go through the published details.

If you have any faith at all in what you are saying please provide the answers to each question.

[David Orsam]

Look further down the page in the testimony of Diemschitz.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881001.html

"A member named Isaacs went down to the yard with me, and we struck a match and saw the blood right from the gate up the yard. Then we both went for the police, but unfortunately it was several minutes before we could find a constable."

It's pretty clear David.

Whoa! Steady there Jon. Please don't refer to statements in the press as "testimony". You don't want to mislead people into thinking you are quoting from inquest testimony do you?

What you have quoted from is a supposed "statement" in a newspaper but another version of that "statement" (as I already mentioned in #871) said this:

"One of the members, who is known as Isaacs, went out with me. We struck match, and saw blood running from the gate all the way down to the side door of the Club. We had the police sent for at once, but I believe it was several minutes before a constable could be found."

So that potentially paints a different picture doesn't it?

You cannot rely on these newspaper accounts as accurate.

[David Orsam]

That was in Michael's post #864.

But there's no mention of Fairclough Street in Michael's post #864.

So that can't be the answer to my question.

[Wickerman]

Sorry Jon, you've lost me. Where in that paragraph does it say, as you told me earlier, that "Kozebrodski went out twice, the first time along Fairclough st. with Diemschitz, they did not find a policeman"?

That was in Michael's post #864.

Where does it say that both Kozebrodski and Diemschitz ran off together to find a policemen?

Look further down the page in the testimony of Diemschitz.

http://www.casebook.org/press_reports/morning_advertiser/18881001.html

"A member named Isaacs went down to the yard with me, and we struck a match and saw the blood right from the gate up the yard. Then we both went for the police, but unfortunately it was several minutes before we could find a constable."

It's pretty clear David.

How did the reporter, writing about an event that he had himself not witnessed, know that what he was writing about was true and correct?

If, as the reporter says, Diemschitz "lifted the body up", how do you explain Diemschitz's testimony at the inquest that "He did not touch the body"? And how do you explain the fact that he also said in his inquest testimony that he met a young man in Grove Street and this young man subsequently "lifted the woman's head up"?

Who was the young man he met in Grove Street?

Why did Kozebrodski need to "strike a match" when Diemschitz tells us in his testimony that he "got a candle" and could see blood by "the candlelight"?

Further, how could Diemschitz possibly have known that "The body was still warm...but the heart had ceased to beat" as the reporter claimed?

"Garbled" doesn't adequately cover it Jon. Are you seriously putting that newspaper article forward as an accurate account of events that morning?

I think the answers to all those questions are in the story if you go through all the published details.

[Wickerman]

I agree.It's clear.Name mix-up.For years understood as such .

The "name mix-up" is a modern theory, at the time it was understood they were two different people.

[David Orsam]

David.

A reporter provided a summary of the incident where he explains the roles of Diemschitz and Kozebrodski.

"A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood on the gutter, terminating in a hideous pool near the club door, showed but too plainly what had happened. Both ran off without delay to find a policeman, and at the same time other members of the club, who had by this found their way into the court, went off with the same object in different directions."
Morning Advertiser, Oct. 1st. 1888.

It was apparent at the time, so this is not a modern interpretation.
"Garbled" is often a popular term to use when something doesn't quite say what a modern theorist wants it to say.

Sorry Jon, you've lost me. Where in that paragraph does it say, as you told me earlier, that "Kozebrodski went out twice, the first time along Fairclough st. with Diemschitz, they did not find a policeman"?

Where does it say that both Kozebrodski and Diemschitz ran off together to find a policemen?

How did the reporter, writing about an event that he had himself not witnessed, know that what he was writing about was true and correct?

If, as the reporter says, Diemschitz "lifted the body up", how do you explain Diemschitz's testimony at the inquest that "He did not touch the body"? And how do you explain the fact that he also said in his inquest testimony that he met a young man in Grove Street and this young man subsequently "lifted the woman's head up"?

Who was the young man he met in Grove Street?

Why did Kozebrodski need to "strike a match" when Diemschitz tells us in his testimony that he "got a candle" and could see blood by "the candlelight"?

Further, how could Diemschitz possibly have known that "The body was still warm...but the heart had ceased to beat" as the reporter claimed?

"Garbled" doesn't adequately cover it Jon. Are you seriously putting that newspaper article forward as an accurate account of events that morning?

[Sam Flynn]

but the three don't all match let alone the three with toppys later sig.
which of the three do you think match with each other?and with toppys?

All of them, Abby. I see no truly significant differences either within the witness statement, or between the witness statement and the others. I'm quite sure of this.

[Wickerman]

I agree with Phil on this one. Also why would a plumber say he was a labourer and once a groom? Hes also younger than I imagine Hutch to have been.....
Pat.....

The only detail I find questionable is that £5 he claims to have been given, 5/- (shillings), would be believable, but not £5.

[Abby Normal]

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath-water, Phil. Just because Reg Topping's story appears in a silly book doesn't mean that his dad wasn't the Miller's Court witness. Reg's story may have been flowered up - most family traditions are - and Toppy's own story (whether told to Reg or the police!) could have been exaggerated, too; but that doesn't rule out Toppy as "the" George Hutchinson.

Besides, like I say, I have absolutely zero doubt that the signatures on the police statement and Toppy's own were made by the same hand; that's the clincher for me. You may recall that I was a vociferous "anti-Toppist" once, but I had to eat humble pie and change my mind when I saw the objective evidence.

but the three don't all match let alone the three with toppys later sig.
which of the three do you think match with each other?and with toppys?

[Abby Normal]

Hi.
I really cannot see the obsession with making Hutchinson a fabricator of the truth.
What is so wrong with his statement,?
He saw a man accompany Mary back to Dorset street,since Barnett left, this may have happened several times.
The only reason Hutchinson would have twisted the truth , would have been to protect himself.
It is quite possible that he had witnessed the encounter with Mr A, and had stayed outside the court, and waited until he had left. before visiting Mary, and asked to stay until 6am, in her room, until the home opened.
If he did this , and left just after 6.[ someone was heard to leave the court at this time] and admitted it, he would have put himself well in the frame.
Far better to say he walked about all night.
It is entirely possible that he had left a red hanky in the room, and incorporated this into his tale, so if the police found one, they would have assumed his statement was correct, and it belonged to Mr A.
Looking at a future Topping, he appears a dapper kind of man, attending music halls with a suit and cane. so him owning a red silk hanky is not out of the question.
We should not forget that medical evidence, and accounts of a cry , would have put the murder around 4.am. and although Hutchinson knew this was not right, it mattered not , his neck did though.
He could never admit to being in room 13. he would have believed she was killed after 6.am, and may have thought that this suspicious man could have returned after daylight.?
He may have heard him telling Kelly, 'I shall return in the morning, and take you to the Show'' but if the police/doctors said that she was killed in the night, he could never put himself in her room, but because he believed Mr A intended to come back,gave a description to the police Monday evening,as he believed he killed her.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard

I really cannot see the obsession with making Hutchinson a fabricator of the truth.
What is so wrong with his statement

and then you go on to suggest a scenario that would make hutch a fabricator of the truth? LOL!

but you bring up an interesting point about the red hanky. There was some good discussion about it a while back and Wescott had an interesting take.

I think Hutch made a big dal about the red hanky, because as you say it was his. or he read about sailor mans hanky and incorporated it into fictional Aman like he did with other aspects of his description.

I think he may have given it to her before the big blow off and or left it in her room.

[Wickerman]

You're contradicting yourself a bit here...

Lewis specifically mentions that she went to stay with Mrs. Keyler. When she talks about the suspicious man, she mentions that she was with a friend. She does not go into any "we's". She simply says these things to establish what she was doing when the events she talks about happened. She mentions other people in this context of why she was in a certain place (she went to see Mrs. Keyler) or what she was doing (she was walking with a friend).

She could have talked about Kennedy in this same way. She wouldn't have needed to go into we's any more than she did to talk about Mrs. Keyler.

Nothing contradictory whatsoever.

In his original post on this subject David said it was "surprising" that Lewis never mentioned Kennedy, if she was in the same room (I think these were single room dwellings).
I replied by pointing out there was no expectation that a witness should mention the presence of others when relating her story to the court.

The fact that Lewis does on occasion (your post) make third-person references does not change that fact.
The expectation is still to say "I saw", "I said", "I did", therefore, it is not surprising that she did do just that.

[Wickerman]

Jon it's amazing how you are so well informed considering that the only information about this is from garbled and inconsistent newspaper accounts.

But what you are saying happened is not what Kozebrodski was reported as saying.

He said:

"I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one."

He can't even confirm it was Deimschitz who asked him to look for a policeman let alone that he went with him to find one. And how do you know that "at the request of" means "with"?

But we are so far off topic. There are plenty of examples of witnesses talking about doing in things in the presence of others at inquests.

David.

A reporter provided a summary of the incident where he explains the roles of Diemschitz and Kozebrodski.

"A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood on the gutter, terminating in a hideous pool near the club door, showed but too plainly what had happened. Both ran off without delay to find a policeman, and at the same time other members of the club, who had by this found their way into the court, went off with the same object in different directions."
Morning Advertiser, Oct. 1st. 1888.

It was apparent at the time, so this is not a modern interpretation.
"Garbled" is often a popular term to use when something doesn't quite say what a modern theorist wants it to say.

[Sam Flynn]

"Toppy’s father George Hutchinson had a brother called John. In other words he was Toppy’s uncle.
In the 1841 census, John was a 20 year old painter and George was a 15 year old labourer, while their mother Hannah was a widow aged 45.
By 1851 the family had split up – and George was a plumber aged 23.
But what of John?
In 1851 he was living in Chelmsford High Street with his wife Sarah, four children and a servant. He was a 31 year old plumber."

So both men came to plumbing later in life, one of them starting out as a labourer and the other as a painter.

Ergo, there is no need whatsoever to suggest that Toppy must have been a plumber in 1888.

Spot on, Fish.