Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[DVV]

We can safely assume that one of the reasons that prompted Abberline to accept Hutch story was that he could be the man noticed by Lewis. And that man was not strikingly tall. Looks quite simple to me.

[The Good Michael]

We can safely assume that one of the reasons that prompted Abberline to accept Hutch story was that he could be the man noticed by Lewis. And that man was not strikingly tall. Looks quite simple to me.

Or that he was the only man who came forward to say he was there. There needn't have been any description, and Lewis' was an afterthought. It doesn't change anything.

Mike

[DVV]

I don't know what you mean, Mike.

It's up to you to believe that Lewis had no idea what the man looked like, whereas she said he was rather short, as Hutch certainly was.

[The Good Michael]

David,

How do you know Toppy/Hutch was short? I don't remember reading anything about that. In fact, he had to look down at A Man (according to his story).

What I'm saying is that since we don't have a description of Hutch, except a questionable one by Lewis, it doesn't really matter as he said he was there at the time she saw someone. Unless Fish is right about being a day off, she certainly may have seen Hutch.

Mike

[DVV]

David,

How do you know Toppy/Hutch was short?

Mike

I don't remember having said anything about Toppy.
I reasonably assume Hutch wasn't strinkingly tall - see post #736.

[Archaic]

More 1880's Usages of "Military Appearance", "Military Bearing", etc.

Hi guys. I did some more searching for additional late Victorian era usages of "military appearance". It was hard to find an additional definition or usage that wasn't circular, with personal "bearing" being used to describe or reinforce the phrase "military appearance", such as in the first snippet below. It's from an 1885 Civil War memoir.

The second attachment is from an 1889 report on the Parnell Commission. It shows how in London the phrase "military appearance" was applied to a civilian who happened to have a rather striking personal bearing and appearance.

After more looking I came up with an 1884 U.S. military report that used these terms and expounded on them a bit. Please note that this report is specifically discussing the uniforms, accessories, and “fashion” of the U.S. Cavalry, and complaining that when soldiers go out West they stop being neat and clean and professional-looking, lose their self-respect and become sloppy, which he says gives a poor impression. The report uses the term “military appearance” in conjunction with an individual paying attention to details, being polished, neat and clean, and having an impressive personal bearing.

U.S. Military report 1884: “Our drill, soldierly bearing, and neatness and uniformity of dress are usually the only standards which the populace have by which to judge us in time of peace... It is for the officer to set the example of this military appearance. At West Point the cadet is the pink and perfection of it. His dress is trim and fits him well; his shoes are always polished; his trousers and gloves always spotless... It is this neat appearance, added to his bearing, which makes him what he is,—the model cadet in the world.”

So perhaps George Hutchinson was a young man of confident and respectful demeanor, who carried himself well, was neat and clean, and made a positive impression on the news reporter?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
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. This would have been a stereotyped or archetypal image, and as such is precisely that ‘Victorian military ideal’ which you think is something altogether different. It was the same as the ‘Victorian military ideal’.
It is an archetypal image that was reinforced – or rather placed – in peoples’ minds by prints they saw in the popular press of soldiers. Images they saw in military paintings – which went on public display and attracted huge crowds. The image the public had when they saw soldiers performing ceremonial duties such as Trooping the Colour – or even while parading through London or lining the route on the Lord Mayor’s Show.
That is why I reproduced some of these images for comparative purposes.
A description ‘not tall but stout’ cannot be made to conform with this image. That is trying to put a not tall but stout peg into a round hole.

And it is an ‘image’ as the word ‘appearance’ should tell us. That ‘image’ includes an impression of height and weight. The archetypal ‘military appearance’ was one that emphasised height and slim wastes. The uniforms were designed to accentuate such features deliberately.
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. The same goes (but even more so) for Full Dress which is the red worn by the Guards on Royal duty but was the standard uniform in 1888, and the No 1 Dress (which is blue) which is the other ceremonial dress.

While Archaic’s references are very interesting indeed they actually do not tell us anything much about what the Times journalist meant by ‘military appearance’ in its descriptive sense. It clearly did have a descriptive sense and was not exactly the same as ‘military bearing’, although it is equally true that the two terms are linked.
The difference is that someone could be said to have a ‘military appearance’ yet once they started to talk it might become apparent that they had no ‘military bearing’. Their appearance could be deceptive. They might not conduct themselves in a military manner.
Incidentally the ‘military bearing’ definition is just as misleading as ‘military appearance’ in determining the real nature of soldier and is another stereotype. I could produce numerous press reports of soldiers (officers even!) who were swindlers and so forth. This does not invalidate the use of the term ‘military bearing’ any more than the existence in reality of short fat soldiers invalidates the concept of ‘military appearance’.

Archaic’s American references are to making sure the soldiers’ kit is spick and span and not scruffy as a cowboy might be, and are not informative as to what ‘military appearance’ might mean when applied to a civilian in Victorian London.

James O’Kelly served in the Foreign Legion and was also a war correspondent: in the late 1870s accompanying the US cavalry to cover the final acts of the Sioux uprising; and in 1883 he went out and covered the early stages of the Mahdist revolt in the Sudan. War correspondents in such campaigns had to be prepared to fight and die alongside the troops they were accompanying.

I cannot comment on the nature of Kelly’s appearance at the Parnell commission.
However the ludicrous claim that the terms ‘military bearing’ and ‘military appearance’ were exactly cognate is disproved by the repetition ‘military bearing and appearance’ and then ‘military appearance and bearing’. Clearly they were two different things. Linked but different. One relates to how the person conducted themselves, and one to how they looked. If this were not the case the author would have just written ‘military bearing’.
The manner in which this very obvious fact was misinterpreted and this misinterpretation was so vigorously seized upon and blasted across these pages is another one of those little indications that the whole Hutchinson theory is built on sand.

[Lechmere]

I'm not sure actually that both those press reports relate to the Parnell Commission, but that isn’t actually very important for the issue at hand. I also notice the use of the term ‘military form’ which is a clear indication of physical build and is also clearly linked to the term ‘military appearance’ rater than ‘military bearing’.

[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-free/pdf?res=F30E14F7395911738DDDAF0A94DA405B8585F0D3

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-free/pdf?res=F30617F73A5D15738DDDAA0894DB405B8585F0D3

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.

[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!

[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.

[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..

[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]

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 !)

[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!