Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Stephen Thomas]

As I have repeatedly stated on Casebook , the programme in question most certainly appeared in a edition of the booklet, between the years stated,1972-75, It had to have done so, otherwise I would never had known of its airing , that was no illusion.
I remember sitting on my aunts settee [ where we then lived] waiting for the programme to start, it was around 8pm one weekday, and ran for approx 40minutes.

Well I for one don't doubt for a moment that you heard this radio show.

One doesn't mis-remember such things. What would be the point?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
I am afraid I do not come under the '' Fantasy world of Richard'' as you accuse me of.
I believe it was you who privately E mailed me , offering your sister who was ''into research'' to gain access to the relevant Radio Times editions.
I assume that this never came to pass.
As I have repeatedly stated on Casebook , the programme in question most certainly appeared in a edition of the booklet, between the years stated,1972-75, It had to have done so , otherwise I would never had known of its airing , that was no illusion.
I Remember sitting on my aunts settee[ where we then lived] waiting for the programme to start, it was around 8pm one weekday, and ran for approx 40minutes.
The programme was called [ to the best of my memory] ''The man that saw Jack'', and it featured the Hutchinson sighting[ which I was familiar with].
I Believe that a description of the show was in the rear pages, left hand side , but that ''blast from the past'' did not rear its head under the Nunweek family returned home from our search from Brighton University, having searched only the front pages of features.
I am confident that if any one, has the inclination to venture on such a enterprise, they will find the very programme, that featured the son of the witness, which was known to have been Reg[ as featured in The Ripper and the Royals] for obvious reasons ie,.that the same story was repeated.
I Can assure everyone on Casebook , that my mind in my twenties, was not linked to a imaginary world, and albeit, my body has changed, I am still sharp , and free from fantasy's at least one hopes..
Regards Richard.

[curious]

The search? Slow and painful--did I mention expensive? (heh-heh)

Permit me to recommend Molony's "The Phoenix Park Murders." It actually shows step by step a real LVP crime investigation, along with the bits of genius and the flawed reasoning. Very helpful--a must read.

Cheers.
LC

So -- terribly, terribly painful then?

Thanks for the book recommendation. I'll try to pick up a copy.

I realize the times were so different then to now. I just wonder if we can understand in any real way how differently people must have thought about things during that era. I'm thinking of MJK and Barnett and their relationship in particular (if it was as it appears. May have been something very, very different). Women really had so very few employment choices and almost had to have a man in their life to survive. I doubt that we can begin to understand their lives and their thought processes.

oh, well, too deep. I need to go back to bed and try to get to sleep.

later,

Velma

[lynn cates]

etc

Hello Velma. Oh, no need to be sorry. It was an excellent question at any rate.

The search? Slow and painful--did I mention expensive? (heh-heh)

Permit me to recommend Molony's "The Phoenix Park Murders." It actually shows step by step a real LVP crime investigation, along with the bits of genius and the flawed reasoning. Very helpful--a must read.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Hello Velma. That is quite true. But it strikes me that at least one detail should have been corroborated after all this time.

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn,
I think I know somewhat your thinking on this, and I essentially agree with it and think that if MJK were really MJK something would have turned up by now.

I was discussing second-hand stories in general (having a boring day), using MJK and Barnett as examples when they really weren't. Sorry.

How's the search going?

best,
Velma

[lynn cates]

bedeviling details

Hello Velma. That is quite true. But it strikes me that at least one detail should have been corroborated after all this time.

Cheers.
LC

[curious]

Noticing the many discrepancies in Barnett's story about MJK, I naturally assumed that he was lying. I even though his "stammer" was a sign of nervousness FROM the prevarication. But then I read Chris Scott's excellent book. He suggests that it could be that MJK was lying to Barnett. Quite plausible.

Cheers.
LC

Hi, Lynn,
There is another way discrepancies occur in second-hand stories.

When people talk about their lives over a period of weeks or months, they can be telling the truth -- bits and pieces at a time. Their memories, of course, color the stories.

Plus, they tell one part now, another later. In the teller's head, it is all one piece. The teller may think it makes sense, but may not really have expressed him/herself exactly the way he/she intended.

Then, the person hearing the stories assembles the parts so that the whole, as the listener hears it, is somewhat askew.

People don't always hear and understand what the person talking thinks he said. It's simply misunderstanding. Then, once someone is dead and you can't ask any more questions, well . . . . perhaps you just do the best you can as you tell the story as you understood it not as it actually was.

I suspect that when MJK first met Barnett, she was working him for a "permanent" situation to take her out of prostitution. It seems natural, to me at least, that she was presenting herself in as favorable a light as possible. And probably had to continue with the charade. Perhaps she did not tell out right lies, but shaded her story to appeal to Barnett.

curious

[Rubyretro]

PS Lechmere -if you go into ' Quick Links' and scroll down to 'online' you can
see what people are reading or replying to.

[Rubyretro]

How did that just start happening

Enigmatic.

I've often had the same feeling.

[Lechmere]

How did that just start happening

[Rubyretro]

Unlike you, when I first heard about the Toppy thing, my first reaction was 'a likely story'.

[/QUOTE]

You couldn't be further from the truth ! My first reaction (as attested by my first posts on casebook) was -'a likely story'.

[lynn cates]

let there be light

Hello Lechmere. Look for the light.

Blue = off; green = on.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

And how can you tell who's 'on-line'? I can't see any names anywhere.

[Lechmere]

Heresay evidence in itself isn't enough of course which is why I listed a whole series of other things - and I will do my best to unearth some more fresh evidence so we are not just arguing (or debating) over (to you) old ground.
I have several good areas to investigate and I am fairly certain I can turn some new info up.
Unlike you, when I first heard about the Toppy thing, my first reaction was 'a likely story'.

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -regarding 'evidence' and 'proof'

-in the Papers today, regarding Rebecca Leighton :
"CPS prosecutor Nazir Afzal said: 'The inquiries, which are still ongoing, have not so far provided us with a stronger case which would meet the test that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction."

The terms appear to be interchangeable here.

Certainly 'proof' is 100% and 'evidence' weaker -but 'evidence' is something that one hopes to become 'proof' either of the prosecution or of the defense
case.

I don't see that 'so-and-so-said-so' could ever become 'proof' for either side.