Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Abby Normal]

-she was drunk
-the pubs were shut
-the weather was cold and wet
-her room was warm with a fireplace
-she had just made some money from Blotchy

Why an earth would she go out "after 3" , Lechmere ?

Hi Ruby
as I stated earlier, I am starting to doubt wether she went out after Blotchy(let alone after 3:00), which means Hutch did not see her out at all.
What do you think about that? Do you think she went out again after Blotchy?

[Abby Normal]

But Kelly could have gone out again after 3 and found another client for all we know.

Hi Lechmere
She could have but in my mind for the reasons I previously stated she probably did not. But you're absolutely correct- she could have.

She could have also been out when Hutch said he saw her after Blotchy and before "A-man" but as I said I am starting to think that he may not have seen her out on the streets at all when he claims he did.
No other witness said they saw her during that time period.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Why an earth would she go out "after 3" , Lechmere ?"

Read again, Ruby. Lechmere - who has a very good grip on things, and does not resort to guesswork - did not say that she "would" have gone out after 3. He said that she COULD have. And how does that cut with your points? Let´s see:

-she was drunk

There is good reason to believe she was at least partly intoxicated after 3 AM, but it is very hard to say just how much. Hutchinson merely called her "spreeish" (owing, of course to him seeing her on Thursday and not Friday morning ) And no matter how we look upon it, there is ample evidence that drunken people sometimes go out.

-the pubs were shut

They were. But according to Hutchisonians, the streets, and most particularly Dorset Street, may well have been absolutely swarming with loud people between 2.15 and 3 AM. And if that is true, we may safely assume that these hoards had the odd drunkard amongst them.

-the weather was cold and wet

Absolutely! But Sarah Lewis did go out into it, the loiterer outside Crossinghams did, the couple Lewis saw did, the overcoatless man and the woman he spoke to did ... well, you get the drift!

-her room was warm with a fireplace

Maybe so - but there can be no certainty in suggesting that all the people who were out and about on that morning had left cold rooms behind, I´m afraid.

-she had just made some money from Blotchy

She did? Aha. Well, I suppose that can be passed off as a viable suggestion, although as far as I know there are no records at all telling us that this was the case. Nor are there any records telling us that Blotchy was a punter, although the guess as such is not a bad one.
On the other hand, the fewest of punters settle for an hour or two of singing on behalf of their chosen lady. Plus, if Blotchy still WAS a punter, who can tell how he payed? He had drink with him, and that may have done the trick.
Whichever way, it has very little bearing on any suggestion that Kelly would have stayed in because she had been payed (if this was the case). Many a prostitute manage more than one client per night, and not all of them see beercarrying punters with blotchy faces as the evenings´ stopping point when it comes to potential takings.

So yes, Kelly could - but not necessarly would (we can´t tell, can we, Ruby?) - have gone out after 3 AM. Lechmere is perfectly correct in that. In fact, when he says something, the better guess is that he has good reason for it. I for one normally bank on that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

But Kelly could have gone out again after 3 and found another client for all we know.

-she was drunk
-the pubs were shut
-the weather was cold and wet
-her room was warm with a fireplace
-she had just made some money from Blotchy

Why an earth would she go out "after 3" , Lechmere ?

[Lechmere]

But Kelly could have gone out again after 3 and found another client for all we know.

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal
I will try and answer your questions – but I am a maybe sort of a person, and I also am more concerned with pointing out false assumptions that are taken as fact when they are not, rather than in proposing alternative theories.
So...
1. Do you think Lewis loiterer and Hutch are the same man?

There is a possibility they are but I am by no means certain as I believe there is a discrepancy between a military appearance and ‘not tall but stout’ and I am slightly suspicious that Hutchinson made a whole lot up that night. Also many people lived in Dorset Street there had to be a good possibility that someone would be hanging around at any given time. Hutchinson said he didn’t see her as well.

2. Do you believe Hutch's claim that he loitered? If so, why do you think he waited there.

If he did loiter then he was probably at best a nosey parker and at worst a sad stalker.

3. Do you believe Hutch's claim about A-man? Do you believe he could have remembered all that detail?

I believe it is possible to remember that amount of detail but unlikely. He may have someone and over elaborated. Or he may not really have seen anyone. I am not sure.

4. In General, what do you believe and not believe about hutch's story?

I think he at least over-elaborated the A-man story and may have made it up totally – or maybe deliberately inserting an event from a previous night - in order to get some cheap notoriety and maybe some easy money from the police.
I suspect he didn’t see the A-man on the Sunday – that sounds like a justification for going out looking for him in the area - to get money.
I don’t think he knew Kelly for three years as she had moved around a lot, although he may have vaguely known her.
I think he probably went to Romford and got back late, spoke to a policeman about the case, spoke to another inmate about it and lived in the Victoria Home. These things could be easily verified by the police – then again that may mean that one or several of these items are not true and may be why he was dismissed.

5. Why do you believe he was "dropped" by police as a witness?

I think he was dropped as his story was not corroborated or conflicted with better evidence. It could be because he got the nights wrong, or could be that his story unravelled for other reasons. I think they will have checked him out in various ways and that will have led to his story being disbelieved. Maybe someone like Abberline didn’t want to admit he had been taken in by a pack of lies and so didn’t press the point as he didn’t want to look stupid. Don’t forget the police were very jumpy by this stage and sensitive to criticism. That could explain why Dew still thought Hutchinson was honest.

6. Do you believe Toppy and hutch were the same man?

I think there is a good chance they were.

7. Do you believe Hutch is a viable suspect in MK's murder? As JtR?

Not if he was Toppy at all. But having said I think Hutchinson is fairly viable in general compared to other Ripper suspects (most of whom are really poor).
My objections are that as he was in the police’s direct vision they are likely to have given him and his story fairly close scrutiny.
I don’t think it is likely that his appearance at Commercial Street police station had anything to do with Lewis’s testimony at the inquest.
I don’t think the Victoria Home was a suitable base for the Ripper given its restrictions on late night entry.
A Ripper based around the Victoria Home area signifies to me a disorganised killer, roving out from his central base. For Hutchinson to be the culprit, he has to exhibit a much more organised and calculating approach.
For the one killing that Hutchinson can be linked to it requires a change in his MO on several levels – he becomes a stalker, prowler, voyeur who deliberately kills someone he knows in doors and inserts himself in the investigation.
If he was spotted by Lewis the more usual response would be to flee to another part of London which would be easily done.
I think there’s a good chance he was Toppy who lived a normal life in the area thereafter.

I think Hutchinson is an interesting case which is probably why the various threads tend to go on at length – although repetitive posts obviously boost those numbers!

Hi Lechmere
Thanks for that. I really don't have a problem with any of what you say-except perhaps that someone with a military bearing could not be short! I'd give that one up if I were you! Haha!.

Any way, I look at things as probabilities and what i think is most likely- so right off the bat I will say that Hutch and Lewis loiterer were probably the same person. Hutch was probably not a day off. The one I feel strongest about is A-man. I just find that much detail the most improbable. So, Once I have my major probablies to get anywhere i take the next step. what I come up with is this:

Hutch Lied about A-man, so what then: Did he see anyone with MK that night out on the street? I say no, because if he saw MK with a regular Joe he would have told the police he saw her with a regular Joe. No need to make up A-man because he probably then did see her murderer and JtR and if he wanted to profit off it he would be looking for the man he saw and describing that man to police, not A-man. So no A-man and no anybody with MK that night.

So, we have Hutch that does not see Aman or anyone else with MK that night, what next?

Does he see her out alone on the street that night? probably not. I think in all probability taking the other witnesses claims-- that MK was done for the night when she comes home with Blotchy. Pail of beer, Very drunk, lots of singing, poor weather all point to me that she aint going anywhere after Blotchy.

So then probably Hutch is out there waiting for Blotchy to leave. But why, To kill MK or looking for a place to crash? This is where I have to be totally honest with myself. If say my life depended on making the right choice I would say chances are he is not JtR, there for he was waiting for someone else to leave so He could ask MK if he could crash. (So also, obviously he knew her.) When it looks like MK's guest is not leaving, Hutch is out of luck and gives up. Later making up A-man for the police to try and get something out of his unsuccessful vigil. So in all probability in my mind hutch was not JtR but he was at least a liar.

That being said, other than Blotchy he is the best known candidate as MK's killer and JtR IMHO. barnett as jilted lover who comes to her room after hutch leaves is also a(slight) possibility in my mind.

[Rubyretro]

Do you think he came forward using his real name? Or was George Hutchinson an alias.

Roy

Roy -I have no idea at all whether the witness, George Hutchinson came forward using his 'usual' name or the name with which he was born.

It is striking that when we start looking at the biographies of any of the participants in the Ripper Story, so many of them do have aliases.

If the 'military appearance/bearing' had any foundation in a true army background ( quite likely, I think ?), then an 'alias' would become an even stronger possibility.

I think that, given the fact that according to contemporary sources, the lodging houses in Spitalfields were half empty in summer (because of the itinerant agricultural work available out of London to people of this station), our hutchinson was not a born and bred local resident.

An Hutchinson 'just passing through', using a name which doesn't appear on his birth certificate is the most probable and very difficult (not impossible !) to trace...

[Roy Corduroy]

There is no hiding that I think that Hutch was the Ripper.

Do you think he came forward using his real name? Or was George Hutchinson an alias.

Roy

[Lechmere]

Ah you have caught me out at last. I didn’t know that Archaic is a woman.
As for the rest, it isn’t worth replying to as you singularly fail to even acknowledge the existence of counter evidence and you even think the soldier cartoon is a bell hop with a parrot on his shoulder – rather than a soldier with a thatched cottage behind him!

[Rubyretro]

I think that it may also have been Hutchinson's 'spick and span' neatness.

There is no hiding that I think that Hutch was the Ripper.

Although the Ripper would not have been covered in blood after a murder, as we can see that he took some care to this effect, he would surely have got some minor spattering on him..so I feel that the Ripper would have been a person continually keeping himself clean (Lady Macbeth !)

[Ben]

“Mr Ben – I have no argument with Archaic or his sources”

Her sources.

And yes you have: you described the definitions she provided as “misleading” and “irrelevant” which is ridiculous because they are clearly nothing of the sort. I don’t know what “interpretations” I’m supposed to have made that you have an “argument” with. I haven’t done any "interpreting". I’ve simply relayed the sources exactly as Archaic provided them.

“To clear up another one of your multiple misapprehensions - the military posture is designed to enhance and accentuate height”

No it isn’t. It is designed to encourage a healthy posture, and to discourage slouching.

“The Marquis de Castellane does not look at all stout in the photo”

Well we know he was, so who cares?

He was short, stout, and with a military appearance, demonstrating conclusively that there is no mutual exclusivity between any of these expressions. If it wasn’t Hutchinson’s comportment and posture that conveyed the impression of a “military appearance” to the journalist – which it almost certainly was – it may have been his facial hair.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Abby Normal
I will try and answer your questions – but I am a maybe sort of a person, and I also am more concerned with pointing out false assumptions that are taken as fact when they are not, rather than in proposing alternative theories.
So...
1. Do you think Lewis loiterer and Hutch are the same man?

There is a possibility they are but I am by no means certain as I believe there is a discrepancy between a military appearance and ‘not tall but stout’

Military Appearence comes down to demeanour rather than physique so no discrepancy.

and I am slightly suspicious that Hutchinson made a whole lot up that night.

you clever thing, you ..!

Also many people lived in Dorset Street there had to be a good possibility that someone would be hanging around at any given time.

except when it was pouring with rain..

Hutchinson said he didn’t see her as well.

He didn't say that he didn't see her; He neglected to mention her.
2. Do you believe Hutch's claim that he loitered? If so, why do you think he waited there.

If he did loiter then he was probably at best a nosey parker and at worst a sad stalker.

at worst a 'serial killer...'
.

Do you believe Hutch's claim about A-man? Do you believe he could have remembered all that detail?

I believe it is possible to remember that amount of detail but unlikely. He may have someone and over elaborated. Or he may not really have seen anyone. I am not sure.

So why don't you say that you think that he lied ?

I suspect he didn’t see the A-man on the Sunday

so he lied again.

he may have vaguely known her.

he lied more or less
5. Why do you believe he was "dropped" by police as a witness?

Maybe someone like Abberline didn’t want to admit he had been taken in by a pack of lies and so didn’t press the point as he didn’t want to look stupid.

We agree, Lechmere ! Well put !

Don’t forget the police were very jumpy by this stage and sensitive to criticism. That could explain why Dew still thought Hutchinson was honest.

not bad..

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben – I have no argument with Archaic or his sources – I have an argument with how you chose to interpret them.

To clear up another one of your multiple misapprehensions - the military posture is designed to enhance and accentuate height.
The Marquis de Castellane does not look at all stout in the photo, notwithstanding the description by the journalist. I would suggest that the whiskers etc gave his face a military appearance which judging by the photo is the case. It is nothing like the appearance of Hutchinson in the sketch is it though? It has some similarity to the other later sketch of Hutchinson that does have a military appearance about it.
All your other quotations which you seem to delight in repeatedly cutting and pasting relate to ‘Military Bearing’ Mr Ben so are irrelevant – interesting as they were the first time.
Rather tellingly you were incapable of answering any other of the points I raised.

[Lechmere]

Abby Normal
I will try and answer your questions – but I am a maybe sort of a person, and I also am more concerned with pointing out false assumptions that are taken as fact when they are not, rather than in proposing alternative theories.
So...
1. Do you think Lewis loiterer and Hutch are the same man?

There is a possibility they are but I am by no means certain as I believe there is a discrepancy between a military appearance and ‘not tall but stout’ and I am slightly suspicious that Hutchinson made a whole lot up that night. Also many people lived in Dorset Street there had to be a good possibility that someone would be hanging around at any given time. Hutchinson said he didn’t see her as well.

2. Do you believe Hutch's claim that he loitered? If so, why do you think he waited there.

If he did loiter then he was probably at best a nosey parker and at worst a sad stalker.

3. Do you believe Hutch's claim about A-man? Do you believe he could have remembered all that detail?

I believe it is possible to remember that amount of detail but unlikely. He may have someone and over elaborated. Or he may not really have seen anyone. I am not sure.

4. In General, what do you believe and not believe about hutch's story?

I think he at least over-elaborated the A-man story and may have made it up totally – or maybe deliberately inserting an event from a previous night - in order to get some cheap notoriety and maybe some easy money from the police.
I suspect he didn’t see the A-man on the Sunday – that sounds like a justification for going out looking for him in the area - to get money.
I don’t think he knew Kelly for three years as she had moved around a lot, although he may have vaguely known her.
I think he probably went to Romford and got back late, spoke to a policeman about the case, spoke to another inmate about it and lived in the Victoria Home. These things could be easily verified by the police – then again that may mean that one or several of these items are not true and may be why he was dismissed.

5. Why do you believe he was "dropped" by police as a witness?

I think he was dropped as his story was not corroborated or conflicted with better evidence. It could be because he got the nights wrong, or could be that his story unravelled for other reasons. I think they will have checked him out in various ways and that will have led to his story being disbelieved. Maybe someone like Abberline didn’t want to admit he had been taken in by a pack of lies and so didn’t press the point as he didn’t want to look stupid. Don’t forget the police were very jumpy by this stage and sensitive to criticism. That could explain why Dew still thought Hutchinson was honest.

6. Do you believe Toppy and hutch were the same man?

I think there is a good chance they were.

7. Do you believe Hutch is a viable suspect in MK's murder? As JtR?

Not if he was Toppy at all. But having said I think Hutchinson is fairly viable in general compared to other Ripper suspects (most of whom are really poor).
My objections are that as he was in the police’s direct vision they are likely to have given him and his story fairly close scrutiny.
I don’t think it is likely that his appearance at Commercial Street police station had anything to do with Lewis’s testimony at the inquest.
I don’t think the Victoria Home was a suitable base for the Ripper given its restrictions on late night entry.
A Ripper based around the Victoria Home area signifies to me a disorganised killer, roving out from his central base. For Hutchinson to be the culprit, he has to exhibit a much more organised and calculating approach.
For the one killing that Hutchinson can be linked to it requires a change in his MO on several levels – he becomes a stalker, prowler, voyeur who deliberately kills someone he knows in doors and inserts himself in the investigation.
If he was spotted by Lewis the more usual response would be to flee to another part of London which would be easily done.
I think there’s a good chance he was Toppy who lived a normal life in the area thereafter.

I think Hutchinson is an interesting case which is probably why the various threads tend to go on at length – although repetitive posts obviously boost those numbers!

[Ben]

Many thanks for the additional information, Archaic. I’m very sorry to see a few – well, one – naysayer continue to pooh-pooh these unambiguous sources, but rest assured they are valued and accepted by the vast majority.

Lechmere.

“What you are missing is that the use by a journalist of the term ‘military appearance’ was used to convey a visual impression that would be understood by an average person on the street”

I’m not missing anything.

We have established exactly what “military appearance” meant when the expression was used in the late 19th century, and unfortunately, it’s not what you want it to have meant. Here is the definition as provided by Archaic:

"Characterized By Military Bearing And A Soldierly Attitude"

“Bearing” and “attitude”, not height or weight.

Here again, is what was meant by military bearing/appearance:

'Military Bearing' is a term used to describe subjective impressions of professionalism, manliness, and dependability.

-Exhibiting an air of confidence, integrity, competence, calmness, courtesy, and respect.

-Comporting oneself with poise and dignity.

-Standing proudly erect with a respectful, confident, manly attitude.

- How one comports oneself; poise.

- A respectful manner which inspires confidence.

- A fine proud soldierly posture.

- Listening carefully and respectfully to one’s superiors; giving direct and forthright replies when spoken to.

I’ll never tire of pointing this out, Lechmere.

This is what was understood by the “man on the street” in Victorian London.

Whatever you imagine the Victorian military ideal to have meant, it did not mean “tall and thin”, nor was it ever remotely at odds with a “not tall but stout” image. It really is incredibly tiresome to see you constantly dismiss the sources kindly provided by Archaic. Here is another source, reinforcing once again that the term "military appearance", as understood in bygone years, had nothing whatsoever to do with height and weight:

The Marquis de Castellane, who is short and stout, and wears whiskers and a moustache, which give him a military appearance, seems to be well pleased with what he has seen of America…

There you go - short, stout, and with a military appearance.

This is from the New York Times article entitled: “For the Gould Wedding”

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...DA405B8585F0D3

Unfortunately no date is given, but it is quite clear that the article originates from the late Victorian or Edwardian period. Here is a sketch of the short, stout man in question, who had a military appearance:

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive...DB405B8585F0D3

Here we have yet further reinforcement, if any was really needed, that the term “military appearance” was not connected with physique. Comportment, yes. Posture and carriage, yes. Facial appendages, yes. Height and weight, no. Unlucky. In Hutchinson’s case, therefore, it could easily have been his facial furniture that conveyed the impression of a military appearance.

“This is the case to this day. No. 2 Service Dress is the parade smart dress for most of the British Army (it is based on the combat dress that was in use before the First World War) and is made to measure, and fits like a glove, with a pulled in waste and is designed for the wearer to stand tall and erect.”

This relates to posture, Lechmere, which is inextricably linked to attitude and all the other attributes that made up the definition of a “military bearing”.

You can’t stand any taller than you ARE.

You are flying in the face of every source provided in a gauche attempt to create some non-existent physical schism between Lewis’ description and Hutchinson. This attempt has failed, and it’s about time you realised this. I cannot believe you can have the intolerable arrogance to claim that the sources provided by Archaic have been remotely "misleading". How can you say this? They unambiguously and irrefutably apply to the era in question. They tell us exactly what the terms “military appearance” and “military bearing” meant, and they have nothing to do with the erroneous interpretations of both phrases that you are currently trying to force-feed into your conclusions.

The term “military appearance” as defined and used by the Victorians is not remotely at odds with a “not tall but stout" image. Fact. Now kindly accept and get over it.