Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[DVV]

Lechmere

The FACT is we cannot know for sure that Venturney’s Joe was Flemming.

Funny post, really.
The fact is we cannot be sure you are honest.

The FACT is we cannot be sure that the person called Joseph Flemming was living in the Victoria Home from September 1888.

True. I bet he was dossing in Buckingham Palace.

[Ben]

An intriguing possibility, Garry. Such an explanation would certainly tie-up several loose ends. On a semi-related note, are you familiar with a 1930s book which attributed Hutchinson's account and description to a Benjamon Amos Soloman?

http://www.casebook.org/witnesses/bejamin_amos_soloman.html

And an honest mistake tallies far, far better with what we have.

According to you, Walter, and pretty much nobody else, Fisherman.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

Try "You are perfectly correct in stating that a mistaken day on Hutchinsons behalf is a very viable suggestion, tallying with Lewis´not being mentioned and the weather issues. And the fact that Dew suggests this makes it very, very compelling".

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.

“It does no such thing. And Lewis is the key factor here. Abberline and Dew had Hutchinson down as an honest man. He did not mention her”

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. Given the near certainty that Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis, it stands to reason that he must have seen her, and that he deliberately omitted any reference to her to avoid making it appear obvious that his hand was forced by her evidence. 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. Dew’s assessment, by contrast, has been known about but rejected in the main as not worth talking about, let alone considering, for over seven decades. Repetition/stamia war, anyone?

“The police are professionals when it comes to solving crimes.”

But not only was policing in its relative infancy in 1888, they had no knowledge of serial killers. It is folly to ascribe infallibility to a nascent police force, especially when we know that modern investigations are littered with examples of error and oversight. An assumption that the 1888 police force dotted every “i” and crossed every “t” is a rather foolish one.

“But if you take a closer look at the report, you will find that nothing is said about the aquaintance between Kelly and Hutchinson; no comment about having known her for three years on Hutchinson´s behalf, no mentioning of the money he had given her”

What are you talking about?

This is exactly what is contained in Abberline’s report.

All of the details you mentioned appeared in the report.

There is no reference to Kelly’s clothing in either the statement itself or the accompanying report.

“There is one already. And who needs "reviving" it? It is Hutch the liar that´s creeping inch by inch down into the soil, Ben.”

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

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“As yet we have no proof that he was being truthful, and no proof that he wasnt, and its because of that, that the term ''benefit of the doubt'' must surely be the order of the day.”

This isn’t the way it works, though, Richard.

If a claim is made, such as the one you’ve referred to, we assess the evidence to determine its veracity or lack thereof. We certainly don’t give it the “benefit of the doubt” in the absence of any evidence. The same applies to the absence of any description of Kelly’s clothes from Hutchinson. We don’t just fill in the blank with a mythical reference report that got lost in the blitz, or whatever. Instead we accept that absence of evidence is rather obviously evidence of absence, in this particular case.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

" it must remain a considered possibility that he was recognized by a police officer and linked to another identity – a name under which he had previous criminal convictions."

...which is why a police who worked the case and would reasonably have been in the know speaks of him fifty years later as a witness of the best of intentions, a man on whose character he´d find no reason to reflect.

"his is pure speculation on my part."

I know that, Garry. And I don´t think it´s a very useful speculation. The police force as a whole (but most probably not the press, due to the element of embarrasment) would have known at the time what was the underlying reason to Hutchinson´s dismissal. And an honest mistake tallies far, far better with what we have.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

An alias remains a compelling possibility as far as Hutchinson is concerned, certainly. I've always considered it very unusual that Hutchinson appended three decidedly different signatures to his statement. One had a conspicuously florid capital "H" which was completely absent from the other two, and another had the abbreviated "Geo" as a substitute for the full "George". Clearly this was someone quite unaccustomed to writing "George Hutchinson" as a standardized signature.

Absolutely, Ben. And whereas I believe it likely that Hutchinson was discredited after giving himself away whilst on walkabout with the two detectives on the Monday night, it must remain a considered possibility that he was recognized by a police officer and linked to another identity – a name under which he had previous criminal convictions. Hypothetical though it may be, such a scenario would have been sufficient for Hutchinson to have been deemed untrustworthy and dropped like a stone. Given the individual and collective embarrassment over Abberline having been duped by Hutchinson and his story, moreover, we also have a neat explanation as to why, unlike Packer or Violenia, the circumstances relating to Hutchinson’s fall from grace were never elaborated.

Again, though, this is pure speculation on my part.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Whatever I might argue, whether for or against your theory, you’ll be disagreeing with me."

Try "You are perfectly correct in stating that a mistaken day on Hutchinsons behalf is a very viable suggestion, tallying with Lewis´not being mentioned and the weather issues. And the fact that Dew suggests this makes it very, very compelling", and THEN see if I disagree with you.

"As you know full well, the factors you introduced such as the weather, and Hutchinson’s failure to mention Lewis lend themselves far better to the inference that Hutchinson lied than it does to any “wrong day” consideration."

It does no such thing. And Lewis is the key factor here. Abberline and Dew had Hutchinson down as an honest man. He did not mention her. The simplest conclusion is NOT that he lied about it, but instead the very trivial thing that people you don´t see, you don´t remember. So no, the liar scenario argues against both Abberlines and Dew´s respective assessments as well as against logic.

"Ah, good."

Not really. There is nothing "good" about it as such, unless we can prove it correct. If we cannot, and it turns out to be wrong, then it is not good. Then it is bad.

"I fail to see any evidence that Hutchinson was questioned about Kelly’s clothing. "

Everybody does, Ben. It´s because it is not there.

"The parsimonious conclusion, therefore, is that he wasn’t. Were it otherwise, this detail would almost certainly have been included in the statement."

Then let me introduce you to another "parsimonious" conclusion: The police are professionals when it comes to solving crimes. They have developed tools over time to reach as far as possible when it comes to disclosing the truth about things.
Some tools are of very late date, such as DNA and such.
Other tools have been there from the start of the police force. One such thing would be to ask witnesses about the clothing of people they claimed to have seen, in order to avoid mistakes on the witnesses behalf.
This is an unshakeable truth. After it, you are very welcome to claim that the omittment to mention this detail in the police report somehow proves that the question was never asked. But if you take a closer look at the report, you will find that nothing is said about the aquaintance between Kelly and Hutchinson; no comment about having known her for three years on Hutchinson´s behalf, no mentioning of the money he had given her, no elaborations about how he came to know her in the first place. Should that not have been there, or was it "unimportant"? Hm?
I guess that the "parsimonious" explanation to this is that Abberline never asked about it? Oh, wait; he DID ask, we know that from the message sent out later. Well, we cannot be sure that Abberline asked, since Hutchinson may have volunteered it all to an astounded Abberline who never thought about asking himself. And we still don´t know whether he asked about the nature of the aquaintance inbetween Hutchinson and Kelly and how it started. I guess he just forgot to ask.
What do you think, Ben? Did he? Was the police in the habit of forgetting to ask things like these in top priority murder cases where the nations eyes were upon them?

"If you want to revive “wrong day” again, start another thread."

Why? There is one already. And who needs "reviving" it? It is Hutch the liar that´s creeping inch by inch down into the soil, Ben...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“I believe I am right about a Toper”

No, Lechmere. Apparently not.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/toper

A toper is merely a “chronic drinker”.

“and when that works its way out of their system they seem sober.”

But the alcohol consumed by Kelly would not have worked its way out of her system. The alcohol that she undoubtedly consumed in the company of blotchy companion had yet to take full effect at the time of consumption, so there is no credibility to the suggestion that she sobered up or even appeared to sober up at the time Hutchinson claimed in his discredited account.

“Something tells me you are going to argue until the cows come home that this is impossible.”

Not a bad prediction, Lechmere, although for the sake of argument, we’ll stick with very unlikely.

“So Hutchinson looks through the window and sees a sleeping Blotchy and decides to wait. That was clever of him. How did he know that Blotchy would leave before daylight?”

Did you read the full extract I provided a link to? He didn’t “know” that Blotchy would leave before daylight. Garry’s suggestion is that he waited around in the hope or possibly the expectation of Blotchy doing so. If Blotchy himself wasn’t the killer, he must have left some time before 3:45 or 4.00am when Mms. Prater and Lewis heard the cry of “murder”. Do most prostitutes cuddle up to bed with their clients? Probably not, but nor do they serenade them for an hour with Irish songs, as Kelly appears to have done. If Hutchinson investigated the room in the manner suggested by Garry, it is equally possible that he observed the couple “at it” rather than sleeping.

“I think you mean someone called Joseph Flemming (or Fleming) claimed to have been living somewhere in the Whitechapel registration district for 14 months prior to November 1889”

Don’t tell me what I mean.

The Joseph Fleming known to Mary Jane Kelly lived in Whitechapel at the time of the murders, and when he was admitted to the Whitechapel infirmary, he gave his address at the Victoria Home. There is no indication whatsoever that he lied about this detail, and if we accept your version of the Victoria Home entry guidelines, this is just the sort of thing that could have been “checked”.

“Would he have submitted himself to the degrading harsh and dehumanising realities of a common lodging house if he had somewhere else he could have gone?”

But we know he did.

So whatever argument you want to advance against it, the fact is that you’re flying in the face of the sources. We know he had downgraded significantly from a mason’s plasterer to a dock labourer, and the latter occupation is very commonly associated with the “degrading harsh and dehumanising realities of a common lodging house” (interesting U-turn there from how you previously sought to depict the Victoria Home), it being very low on the list of respectable and well paid jobs. All of this has been readily accepted by the researchers who uncovered these sources, and quite frankly, the only people who challenge them have tended, in the main, to be gainsaying nuisances on message boards or newbies who simply love to argue without first acquainting themselves properly with the source material, not that I'm suggesting you're either of those things.

“The chances of this Joseph Flemming being there continuously from September 1888 to November 1889 must be slim”

No, it’s not slim at all. You have no reason whatsoever to make any such inference.

[Rubyretro]

Hi Lechmere
Great questions. Since I am leaning towrds thinking that Hutch did not see A-man or MK out on the streets that night, I think he would have to go to MK's room. Perhaps he looked through the window or maybe even knocked on her door and was told to bugger off. Hence he began his vigil to wait for MKs guest to leave. If he was JtR then his vigil was a success as he saw the guest leave and then made his move. If he was not then he eventually just left.

Its interesting to note that one of his newspaper versions he said he did venture down the court to her room. Whether it was really before, during or after his vigil, well...

Very interesting, Abby....that waiting about outside the Court might have prolonged the 'pre-attack excitement' that you mentioned in an earlier post..

I expect that he did venture down the court to her room too, just as you
suggest..

[Abby Normal]

Habitual drinkers often get drunk and sober up quickly. I believe such imbibers are known as topers. Kelly may have been a toper.
This is not to be confused with Toppy.

Mr Ben - do you think that there would be scant trade for a prostitute after 3am? I am interested in your opinion on this matter.

I find it difficult to reconcile Hutchinson’s loitering outside Miller’s Court with Hutchinson waiting for Blotchy to leave – before going in either hoping to kill or to kip.
Blotchy went in before midnight. If Hutchinson was there at 2.30 am are you suggesting he noticed Kelly going in with Blotchy at midnight? This probably discounts the possibility that he went to Romford or if he did he got back much earlier than he said. Would he then have loitered around knowing he would miss the Victoria Home curfew?
If he got there later (i.e. at 2 ish) and didn’t witness Blotchy with Kelly, then how would he have known whether Kelly was alone in her lodgings? If he was a stalker and broke in he could have found another bloke in there. Barnett could have been back there for all he knew.
This is another weakness in the Hutchinson case. If Kelly did not come back out after she was seen with Blotchy, then you have to assume Hutchinson saw Blotchy leave. 13 Miller’s Court seems to have fallen silent before 1 am. This suggests that Hutchinson was loitering a lot earlier than 2 am – if he was the person seen by Lewis at 2.30 am.
Or did he knock on Kelly’s door on the off chance? That would have been a risk. There could have been a bloke in there or she may have been spark out.
Or perhaps Blotchy went in at midnight and left at 3am and was seen by Hutchinson leaving. If so when did Hutchinson began his vigil? Surely not at midnight? Other people were in and out and didn’t report a loiterer at an earlier hour, although such a negative does not prove no one was about. That would mean he was lurking outside a quiet address wondering what was inside when luckily Blotchy emerges, so telling him that the coast was clear.
None of it really fits.
I am sure she was picked up in the street and took her killer back there.

I am not sure whether Hutchinson was there at all that night. I believe she was certainly spotted with Blotchy. After that she could have gone out at any time in the morning to find her last client.
She was supposedly behind in her rent and may have been trying to get some money together.

DVV
Venturney said someone called Joe (who may or may not have been Flemming) gave Kelly money (but this may have been a mix up with Barnett).
Flemming may have lived at the Victoria Home a year after the murders

Hi Lechmere
Great questions. Since I am leaning towrds thinking that Hutch did not see A-man or MK out on the streets that night, I think he would have to go to MK's room. Perhaps he looked through the window or maybe even knocked on her door and was told to bugger off. Hence he began his vigil to wait for MKs guest to leave. If he was JtR then his vigil was a success as he saw the guest leave and then made his move. If he was not then he eventually just left.

Its interesting to note that one of his newspaper versions he said he did venture down the court to her room. Whether it was really before, during or after his vigil, well...

[Ben]

“Therefore, I have no problems at all to argue along other lines than the one representing my main thinking”

Very commendable, Fisherman, although it is interesting to note that whenever you’re arguing in favour of your theory or playing devil’s advocate against it, the consistent running theme is that you’ll be arguing with me about it. Whatever I might argue, whether for or against your theory, you’ll be disagreeing with me. As long as you’re gainsaying Ben, any position is fair game, apparently. My new argument is that the Pope is catholic – what say ye to this, Fisherman? “Actually Ben, I am of the meaning that he is Caribbean Sikh”.

The above was my humorous, friendly way of making a sincere observation for which I don’t expect any form of chastisement.

“If she could not possibly have sobered up in the manner Hutchinson implied, then he is either lying about it or mistaken about it. And if we disallow a mistake as to how drunk she really was, then the only mistake we can argue is one of timing”

Which carries with it all the attendant problems that we’ve already spent 150 pages discussing, which is why I’m personally inclined to dismiss the “mistaken” premise as improbable – not impossible – and to conclude instead that Hutchinson probably lied about it. You seem to be the only person, aside from Dew, who considers the “wrong day” scenario not just possible but “the best suggestion, given the material we have.” As you know full well, the factors you introduced such as the weather, and Hutchinson’s failure to mention Lewis lend themselves far better to the inference that Hutchinson lied than it does to any “wrong day” consideration. But please don’t keep going over the “Hutchinson didn’t mention Lewis” issue as though it had never been addressed. You know my thoughts on that issue by now.

“This is not something that will hinder me from recognizing that Kelly could have been alive and well, merely spreeish, and out on the East End streets after 3 AM that morning. I don´t THINK she was”

Ah, good.

Me neither.

“I fail to see that no questions were asked about this”

And I fail to see any evidence that Hutchinson was questioned about Kelly’s clothing. The parsimonious conclusion, therefore, is that he wasn’t. Were it otherwise, this detail would almost certainly have been included in the statement. An important trap to avoid is the dreaded Lost Report Syndrome, which I tried to caution Lechmere against. It asserts that “I have no evidence that this report ever existed, but trust me it did once upon a time, and trust me, it would have said exactly what I'm claiming it said!" We don’t do that here.

But back to Toppy…

If you want to revive “wrong day” again, start another thread.

[Rubyretro]

I think that Mrs Maxwell viewed the body 3 times !

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
I believe I am right about a Toper – they have high levels of alcohol in their blood and one or two drinks makes them drunk and appear drunk – and when that works its way out of their system they seem sober. In fact they are never really sober but mask it. I have had extensive experience of such people. That is how they appear. Kelly could easily have been such a type – she clearly was a heavy drinker.

Something tells me you are going to argue until the cows come home that this is impossible.

So Hutchinson looks through the window and sees a sleeping Blotchy and decides to wait. That was clever of him. How did he know that Blotchy would leave before daylight? Do you suppose that most prostitutes cuddled up and went to sleep with their clients after conducting their business? How much light was there flickering? A noticeable amount it seems.

Please explain this remark: “her behaviour when in the company of the Blotchy man is hardly consistent with any grave concern over imminent rent collection.”

“He (Flemming) was also living there (the Victoria Home) during the year of the murders".
I think you mean someone called Joseph Flemming (or Fleming) claimed to have been living somewhere in the Whitechapel registration district for 14 months prior to November 1889 (he had to say this in order to get treatment which makes it possible he made it up) and was living at the Victoria Home in November 1889. Kelly’s Joseph Flemming had family in Bethnal Green. Would he have submitted himself to the degrading harsh and dehumanising realities of a common lodging house if he had somewhere else he could have gone? Even if he had a personal dispute perhaps with his parents, surely he could not have afforded himself the luxury of such diversions when faced with the grim reality of life in one of these bastilles?

Oh – and I think you will find that many East Enders will have been unaccustomed to writing their signatures.

DVV
The FACT is we cannot know for sure that Venturney’s Joe was Flemming.
The FACT is we cannot be sure that the person called Joseph Flemming was living in the Victoria Home from September 1888. Whitechapel had a lot of residences. The Victoria Home was for people of irregular domiciliary status. The chances of this Joseph Flemming being there continuously from September 1888 to November 1889 must be slim.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would suggest it would be a certainty that Hutchinson was asked to verify the clothing Kelly was wearing when she stopped and asked him for sixpence.
As he managed to give a full description of Astracan, it would be rather surprising if he could not recollect any clothing worn by Mary,
Also he was asked to view the body the following morning [ tues]and identify the body as that of the woman he met.
We should also note that Mrs Maxwells description of kellys clothing was found in room 13, that being the case, I am amazed that she was not asked to view the body at the morturary, as her sighting of Mjk would be of the utmost importance.
She obviously did not, as it would have been mentioned at the inquest,
Why not? did the police want the element of doubt to remain.
and if so Why?
The police seemed to want Hutchinsons account brought to light, ie, death being brought about by the murderous hands of ''Astracan'' in the middle of the night.
But not so the level headed Maxwell , quoted as a ''Respectable lady'', who identified clothing worn by kelly, and had stated she had seen kelly hours after medical opinion reported her dead.
Huge witness, but no viewing the body...how strange.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
George, William, Topping. Hutchinson, has been named as being the witness Hutchinson , by his late son Reginald, that is a fact.
As yet we have no proof that he was being truthful, and no proof that he wasnt, and its because of that, that the term ''benefit of the doubt'' must surely be the order of the day.
What we do know is that GWTH, was the proven father of Reg, and we know he was 22 years old in 1888, we should also note that Mary kelly was believed to have been around 24-25 years old at the time of her death, which makes it quite believable that both being young could well have been friends.
I would suggest that Hutchinson proberly told Abberline a lot more then is written in the statement, and could have been a considerable help in the investigation that followed after Kellys death, more then just a walkabout or two.
I also believe he was paid by the police, but asked not to put it ''about'' which would be an obvious ploy for any police informer, past. or present[ for obvious reasons].
I would consider Topping to have been a man of morals, and dignity, and not a time waster, and as for knowing one of the victims... no big deal in the 1920/30s, which is only 40 plus years after the crimes, I can recall knowing many people back in the late 60s early 70s, which is the same length of time, as Toppings recollections.
I am suggesting all of this because I am pro Toping, and who is to say that belief is wrong?, however no one can disprove the anti Topings wrong, so stale mate folks.
Regards Richard.