Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[The Good Michael]

Answers: Either it was the wrong night, or it was closer to 2:30.

To david: Of course Lewis didn't know Kelly or she'd have said, "Kelly was with the creepy guy I saw at 2:30." Duh.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

I've well understood that Mike's hypothesis doesn't help yours, my friend.

All the best

Too true, David !

We should leave them too it !!-they'll sink each other !

[DVV]

I've well understood that Mike's hypothesis doesn't help yours, my friend.

All the best

[Fisherman]

David:

"nobody sems to have seen Kelly near the Ringers at around 2.00 that night, although the police did try their best to ascertain her whereabouts."

Guess why, David, guess why ...

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

One problem here is that Lewis didn't know Kelly.
Another is that nobody sems to have seen Kelly near the Ringers at around 2.00 that night, although the police did try their best to ascertain her whereabouts.

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

I agree. Detailed descriptions of maybe 3 articles of clothing don't match. I call that acceptable variance if all other things are close and they are in the exact same spot within a few minutes of each other. And it doesn't matter if you think it is sooth. What matters is that rational people can see it as a possibility.
Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Hi Mike!

My estimation would be around a quarter of an hour, so I pretty much agree with you on that score. But the surrounding information and the clothing issue makes me think that the two men were not one and the same.
Can I totally exclude it? No, that I canīt. But the appeal is not there in my eyes. But youīll be better off using your own!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

How long did this process of Hutchinson passing surly man, then meeting Kelly, Kelly leaving him in the other direction, meeting another man, proceeding to the corner and then entering Miller's Court; how long did it take. We know it was 3 minutes that Hutchinson said he waited while they were standing there speaking, but what about the whole process from beginning to end? Was it 20 minutes? Was it 10? Let's say 12-18 minutes for argument's sake. It began at... Hutch says about 2. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt that he kind of knew what time it was. That's a big benefit, but I'm feeling generous.

And let's say 'about' means anything from 1:45 - 2:15 (again being kind). This gives us a window of time from between 1:57 - 2:33 for the time that Kelly and Surly walked into the Court. Lewis saw her Mr. Villainous at perhaps 2:30. This is a tight fit for two couples, men looking very similar, and two hatless women apparently looking for their 'company'.

It's in my ballpark, anyway.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I could try it, but I would be lying to myself in pretending to consider any of those suggestions to be “viable”, let alone “very, very compelling”, so if it’s all the same to you, I think I’ll stick with the considerably more simple explanation that Hutchinson lied was accordingly discredited."

Oh, Iīm quite fine with that. It would seem that you were the one having major troubles with MY stance on different matters. You somehow seem to believe that I make my choices only to be able to gainsay you. That is - if I may be so bold - grossly overestimating your influence. I also think it is not a very nice thing to do - to try and implement the ppicture that a poster that opposes you do not do so out of rational decisions tied to the material of the case, but instead because of some sort of strange obsession.
As you well know, Ben, over the years you have contradicted numerous suggestions that I have made. I have not once tried to imply that you have done so because you had a pathological need to see me gainsaid. I would very much appreciate if you could find it in your heart to do the same for me. Yes?

"Abberline’s view was clearly revised subsequently, which is why Hutchinson came to be discredited; almost certainly as a Packeresque witness and not as some silly date-befuddler. "

ītis a meagre soil that your almost certainlies arise from, Ben. Very meagre.

"Given the near certainty that Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis..."

Oh-oh ...!

"it stands to reason that he must have seen her"

No, Ben, that does not stand to reason as the result of any "near certainty". What stands to reason is that he WOULD have seen her IF HE WAS THERE. If he was NOT there, we should be very forgiving that he didnīt.

"It is irritating and outlandish nonsense to claim that it is “illogical” to infer that Hutchinson lied, which is by far the most popular perception at present."

Tsss, tss - thereīs that overexaggeration again. It may VERY well be that the irritating and outlandish nonsense lies in suggesting that Hutchinson lied, Ben. Mine is a suggestion, yours is another. Mine is supported by a policeman from the time, yours is not. Mine has the evidence that Lewis was not mentioned speaking for it, yours do not have this advantage. So I recommend that you cut down on the outlandishes together with the near certainties. Even if you find such a recommendation "unpopular" too.

"not only was policing in its relative infancy in 1888, they had no knowledge of serial killers."

But that, Ben, would not have prevented them from asking the very obvious questions about how Kelly was dressed and how he knew her. That was THERE from the police infancy years. It could well have been the first question they were taught to ask back in the 17:th century. And not only serial killers have victims that wear clothes. All do, but for the ones who specialize in killing butt naked victims only. So why you bring that up is inconceivable to me.

"What are you talking about?"

The police report, Ben: "About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly. And she said to me Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence. I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford. She said Good morning I must go and find some money. She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. They both burst out laughing. I heard her say alright to him. And the man said you will be alright for what I have told you. He then placed his right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern. They both went into Dorset Street I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her. She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss. She said she had lost her handkercheif he then pulled his handkercheif a red one out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.

Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance. Can be identified."

"Oh, but of course, we’re all fainting ‘neath the impenetrably logical arguments of Fisherman and Fetchbeer, with support from Mike"

Irony? Yes?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

....and, btw, even if you could prove Toppy was Hutch, that wouldn't mean Fleming wasn't dossing in the VH.

[DVV]

You cannot say so, Lechmere.
That Fleming was dossing there in 1888 is documented, while we have nothing that indicates Toppy was living in the VH, and even in Whitechapel, in 1888 - unless, of course, you can prove Toppy was Hutch.

[Lechmere]

Sally - I can't remember why Flemming came into the Toppy conversation, but to reconcile it...
How is it that some people are comfortable with the possibility that Flemming was living at the Victoria Home in November 1888? I can accept that as a possibility, but if he was there I would expect it to be temporary and for him not to be there for 14 months continuously but let's leave that.
Yet the same people cannot accept even the possibility that Toppy could have stayed there.
This illlustrates the argumentative holes that people dig for themselves on here.

[Rubyretro]

I must apologise, Richard ! You are quite right !

Although I was scanning an excellent dissertation, by Dave Yost ?, on Mrs Maxwell's evidence -the 'viewing the body 3 times' detail actually referred
to Mrs Malcolm mis-identifying Liz stride.

Thank you for correcting me.

Multi-Tasking is not always a good thing !!

[Rubyretro]

Hi Rubyretro,
Please can you explain where it is mentioned that Mrs Maxwell viewed the body three times?
I have been into this subject since I was sixteen years old ..48 years, and if you could supply Casebook with the source of that, all of the Ripper universe, would be extremely grateful, for it would be a major discovery.
in anticipation
Richard.

I read it on Casebook yesterday -I'm sorry, I was (am) trying to 'multi-task'
and I didn't copy the reference..I'll try and find it now..it was in a 'dissertation'..

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
Please can you explain where it is mentioned that Mrs Maxwell viewed the body three times?
I have been into this subject since I was sixteen years old ..48 years, and if you could supply Casebook with the source of that, all of the Ripper universe, would be extremely grateful, for it would be a major discovery.
in anticipation
Richard.