Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

"This is irritating nonsense."

Sorry for replying, Fish !...I just saw that you mean't this for

Lechmere :

irritating nonsense

LECHMERE IRRITATING Lechmere nonsense
N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E LECHMERE

Sorry -my computer seems to have a mind of it's own apparently the 'key word' Lechmerenonsensenonsenceirritating..I will try and reply to you soon

[Sister Hyde]

They pick and choose. Like a Smorgasbord

hmmm smörgåstårta med kräft...

[Rubyretro]

hmmm smörgåstårta med kräft...

Är detta en komplimang, Syster Hyde? Jag älskar hummer i alla fall .. och Fiskare

[Sister Hyde]

Är detta en komplimang, Syster Hyde? Jag älskar hummer i alla fall .. och Fiskare

ahah nej, det är bara att jag har inte ätit smörgås tårta i tre år, det var för länge sen.

[Ben]

They’ve perked up again…

How many times to I have to say “back to Toppy” before Fisherman and Lechmere respect that?

If, after my response to this latest thread-derailment, Fisherman or Lechmere continues to argue the case for Kelly’s magical sobering up, or where Joseph Fleming lived in 1888, or anything not relating to “Topping Hutchinson” then I can only assume that the only reason some people contribute to this thread is generalized nay-saying against posters they are accustomed to having disputes with. Don’t expect me to take the lead in getting the thread back on track either. It wasn’t me who attempted to mutate this into yet another generic “Was Hutchinson guilty” thread, and as such, it is only reasonable to expect the original “derailers” to revert to topic.

It also seems very obvious that some people debate suggestions on the basis of who made them, and not on the merit (or lack thereof) of the suggestions concerned. For example, if Poster A has already chummed up with, and found a ripperological ally in, Poster B, he will argue against Poster C despite agreeing with his views and not Poster B’s.

“the fact that Hutch does not mention a woman we all know were there, but instead nails two (2) other people close to the scene of the crime, claiming they were the only ones there, is and remains something that speaks loudly and clearly about the flaws in your conception.”

My “conception” is that Lewis saw George Hutchinson outside Miller’s Court on the night of Kelly’s murder, a conception that is endorsed by the rank-and-file majority for quite some time now, irrespective of whether or not they give any credence to the suggestion that he may have been responsible for the murder. Call it a “fairytale” if you like, but you’re insulting a large number of people. Given the overwhelming likelihood that Hutchinson and the man in the wideawake were one and the same, it stands to reason that he must have seen Lewis, and that he therefore omitted any reference to her either accidentally or deliberately. I’ve explained numerous times why I consider the latter infinitely more likely, and won’t do so again. Actually, I might. We’ll see who’s up for some repetition fun first.

“I think - just like Lechmere - that you need to be a bit more wary of other possibilities than the one you favour”

But you favour this possibility too, Fisherman, remember?

You said so in your article:

“We understand how Mary Kelly, witnessed to be substantially drunk at around midnight and seemingly about to consume a considerable amount of beer to top things off, is suddenly only a “bit spreeish” two hours later”

Did you acknowledge these other so-called possibilities in your article? If not, why not? You registered the drunk-to-spreeish disparity in your article, and you used your “wrong day” hypothesis to explain it, so why are you arguing against your own article’s conclusions now? What if someone who had never contributed to the Hutchinson threads gave you feedback on your article along the lines of: “Well done, Fisherman, your explanation neatly accounts for the drunk-to-spreeish disparity”. Would you give them the same gainsaying treatment you’ve just given me? Would you say, “hang on, on second thoughts there’s no problem at all with Kelly appearing spreeish after consuming a good deal of alcohol”. I hardly think so.

“We don´t know what it was, and even if we accept that it was beer, how in the whole world can we tell how much of it there was?”

It was “seemingly” a “considerable amount”, according to you.

Read that paragraph of yours again.

“It could have been close to empty, with just the last sip on the bottom.”

“Seemingly” not, according to you.

Which makes sense really. When pubs close, punters generally take beer home, if permitted, only when they have a good deal left in their container, otherwise they “drink up” and leave. This is obvious common sense to all pub-goers.

Here's what you told Babybird on the "Wrong night" thread:

"Kelly was badly drunk at midnight, and quite possibly heading for worse, given the beer Blotchy supplied - but only perhaps spreeish two hours later."

You had no trouble asserting that Kelly was both badly drunk, and "supplied" with beer by Blotchy when you posted the above six days ago.

Now why on earth would you argue against your own published conclusions all of a sudden?

Judging from Roy's response, it would appear I'm not the only one to register this blatant contradiction.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Roy Corduroy:

"Whoa there Fisherman, you just published an article that Hutch had the wrong night. So forget what he said about drunk or anything else. Right? Nothing he said matters because he had the wrong night."

Rephrase that, Roy: Nothing he said matters IF he had the wrong night. If he did NOT, well then it´s a different story, is it not?

I don´t really get this thing where somebody who has presented a theory of some kind is somehow supposed to cling onto it for dear life afterwards, no matter what happens. I think that each and everyone is entitled to argue different aspects of the case if they see it fit to do so.
Not that I am in any way less convinced about my theory now than before; I I think it is the best one by far, for sure, at least if we accept that it was either a case of Hutchinson getting the time wrong OR the police believing so and dropping him for that reason. I favour scenario one, since I do think that this is what happened.

...but why it should hinder me to comment on other things, I just can´t understand. Sorry about that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
"This is irritating nonsense."
Sorry for replying, Fish !...I just saw that you mean't this for

Lechmere :
Quote:
irritating nonsense
LECHMERE IRRITATING Lechmere nonsense
N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E LECHMERE

Sorry -my computer seems to have a mind of it's own apparently the 'key word' Lechmerenonsensenonsenceirritating..I will try and reply to you soon"

I take it, Ruby, that this is some sort of joke. Can´t say I appreciate it, if that´s the case. I like my jokes funny.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"They’ve perked up again…"

I don´t "perk up", Ben. Maybe you do, but I sure as hell don´t. Nor do I "dredge up" things, come to think of that.

The technique is age-old, Ben. It does not work.

"How many times to I have to say “back to Toppy” before Fisherman and Lechmere respect that?"

Only mutual respect works, at least to my mind. You may think differently.

"Kelly’s magical sobering up"

Ask yourself, Ben: Has somebody - anybody will do - ever gone from reasonably drunk to resonably sober in a few hours. Has that ever happened? Outside the circle of magicians, I mean? Get real, get real, get real ...

"I can only assume"

Mmmm - I know that. And my, do you assume wrong!

"It also seems very obvious that some people debate suggestions on the basis of who made them, and not on the merit (or lack thereof) of the suggestions concerned."

THAT is 100 per cent correct!

"For example, if Poster A has already chummed up with, and found a ripperological ally in, Poster B, he will argue against Poster C despite agreeing with his views and not Poster B’s."

Ah - Garry, Ruby, Sally and you, you mean? That´s OK - I´m used to it from earlier threads.

"Call it a “fairytale” if you like, but you’re insulting a large number of people. "

You have a touching sense of respect towards these people, Ben! Very thoughtful of you, I´m sure. But I prefer to avoid insulting intelligence. Moreover, I don´t think that these boards are about keeping the Garrys, the Rubys and the Sallys (or the Fishermans and the Lechmeres) happy, but instead of presenting as rational and god arguments as possible, come what may in terms of personal disappointment. If you agree with somebody, fine. If not, fine.

"...it stands to reason that he must have seen Lewis..."

Must, Ben? Asserting the unassertable again? How unscientific of you.

"Did you acknowledge these other so-called possibilities in your article? If not, why not?"

You would still be reading if I had elaborated on all the possibilities involved. I know that you want me to tie myself to things and then never leave any of it, not even for theoretical speculations sake, but why would I do that? Others have exploited that particular niche to the full already.

"It was “seemingly” a “considerable amount”, according to you."

Yes, Ben! So it was. Now, this is going to take a good, long stretch of your receptability, but even though the implication of a man carrying a beer pail is that there is beer in the pail, there can be no certainty that this is so! That is why I say "seemingly". The word seemingly points out that there is an appearance about, leading our thoughts in a certain direction. And that is all good and well - until we loose track of the fact that this is not the only POSSIBLE direction. For instance, if I say that it seems you understand this, I can´t be at all sure that you do.

"Which makes sense really."

Prepare, Ben: Both do.

"Judging from Roy's response, it would appear I'm not the only one to register this blatant contradiction."

That´s fine! If it had gone unnoticed, I would be really worried. I want people to see the points I am making, just as I want them to realize that I have not tied myself to a theory to which I confess eighteen time daily, head dropped and a three-headed chicken sacrificed each time. I´d avoid that at any price. Well, not when it comes to the signatures (I use a four-legged calf), but that´s for another thread.

The best,
Fisherman

[Roy Corduroy]

Has somebody - anybody will do - ever gone from reasonably drunk to resonably sober in a few hours. Has that ever happened?

Yes. I once went to a friend's house in the country and drank almost a whole fifth of Jack Daniels. On the drive home, a cop pulled me over for a tail light out. He suspected I was drunk so I had to blow in the machine, but I passed! Don't ask me how.

I have not tied myself to a theory to which I confess eighteen time daily, head dropped and a three-headed chicken sacrificed each time.

But your article just came out. When I get something new I am so excited sometimes I leave it in the package for weeks. You have already taken your article around the block from Helsinki to Berlin and back and put it up in the shed. Now you're lined up again at the Smorgasbord.

Yall are so wrapped up with a guy in a fur coat wearing a Mr T Starter Kit you forgot all about Toppy.

Roy

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

I confess to my shame that I drove home once after four pints of 4.8% Adnam's Broadside ale, and when stopped by the police, I had to do an Oscar-winning performance to convince them that it was not even worth breathalizing me, and I'm ashamed to say it worked.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

Watch out, there’s a Lechmere still about!

The Victoria Home is the only address we have for Kelly’s Joseph Fleming for the 14-month period in question, commencing at the time the murders. This is not based on faith, but on what the extant evidence actually tells us.

It is very unlikely that someone who appeared too drunk even to bid a neighbour a simple goodnight would appear merely spreeish two hours later. If you take the trouble to read Garry’s book, you’ll observe that his observation related to appearances as well as the physiological realities involved. He has also offered to provide empirical evidence for the conclusions you dispute, and I would suggest this carries considerably more weight than your protestations of “my mate does this – honest! – so I must be correct”. And please stop saying that you’ve given “examples”. You’ve done nothing of the sort. You’ve only mentioned the word “toper”, confused its accepted definition, and attempted to claim that heavily intoxicated people can “apparently sober up quite quickly” as a direct result of drinking more alcohol.

You’ve also stated that this only occurs with habitual alcoholics, in spite of the evidence from the witnesses that she was quiet most of the time, and only became obstreperous, as opposed to “apparently sober”, when drunk.

In short, you’ve provided only bad and unconvincing explanations that attempt to reconcile genuine evidence with three-day late discredited evidence, which is silly because the contemporaneous discrediting should have been sufficient to deter any modern attempts to revive it as truthful and accurate.

“Mr Ben – it isn’t being pig headed and obstinate to suggest that Blotchy may not have shared his beer”

By all means suggest it as an outside possibility in the absence of total proof the contrary, but don’t use outside possibilities as ammunition for resisting the far more obvious explanation; that Kelly and Blotchy shared the pail, with the former becoming more intoxicated as a consequence. Blotchy would have been a tetchy, awkward oddball if he entered Kelly’s own room without letting her share it, and we know the meeting wasn’t a hasty rushed-through affair - if indeed it was contractual as opposed to friendly - which makes it even more likely that the ale was shared. It could even be observed that Kelly’s sing-songs and relaxed, boozy behaviour is more compatible with friendship than it is with pure, clinical business.

“The fact that a prostitute was drunk while with a client? The fact that she chose to sing a song? I think the basic premise we should work with is that it was precisely a ‘no strings attached’ connection between her and Blotchy.”

So you think excessive drunkenness and Irish songs involving picking violets and mother's graves was all part of Kelly’s business scheme as far as her approach to prostitution went? What a very strange thing for anyone to conclude, especially when we know the vast majority of prostitute-client encounters in that area at that time were brief knee-trembling affairs.

“On the murder cry Mr Ben, I am well aware that I am not the first to suggest that it was unconnected and that such cries were commonplace – and I am sure you are equally aware of this.”

Yeah, you’re right actually. Richard Nunweek suggested, I believe, that Mary Kelly woke up from a nightmare at the time and shouted, “murder”, only to get actually murdered very shortly thereafter. So you’re in good company there.

“I would however be interested to hear you explanation as to how Kelly came to cry murder at 4 am when Hutchinson (by your reckoning) was spotted lurking outside at 2.30 am”

If I must, but if you want to address this afterwards, please do so on a more suitable thread. If Hutchinson was responsible for the murder, then I suspect that when he entered the court itself (as he would later tell the press, but not the police) he didn’t just wait outside as he claimed, but entered the room directly shortly before 3.00am. He would then have heard Mary Cox walking down the passage very shortly afterwards, and decided to allow a reasonable interval of time to elapse in order for that unseen court-entrant to settle down to sleep before he attacked.

That is one possibility. Another is that he was still installed opposite the court when Cox returned for the last time, and withdrew to a more concealed location on Dorset Street before she had a chance to notice him, anxious to avoid another Lewis-esque sighting. Once she had entered the court, he would then have waited a while for the reason I've already suggested.

I’m only offering these suggestions because you inquired specifically about them, but if you want to pursue it any further, take to another thread, please.

“Your serial killer with the ever changing MO was not just a serial killer was he?”

It wouldn’t be an "ever changing" MO. Even taking on board the suggestions advanced in my article, it would make his MO less “changing” that the vast majority of serial killers.

“He was a serial loiterer. He loitered outside Miller’s Court. Then he loitered inside Miller’s Court.”

I would suggest so, yes, and if he was the murderer, this wouldn’t be unusual amongst serial killers, many of whom made a habit of loitering especially when it came to surprise attacks indoors. I would suggest reading up on the cases of Richard Trenton Chase, Dennis Rader, Ted Bundy and Robert Napper, all of whom were notorious loiterers when the occasion arose.

“However you have not addressed the thorny issue of how Hutchinson would have known how to unlock and open the door to 13 Miller’s Court in the dark on the night in question.”

Please pay a visit to some of the earlier threads in the Kelly and Hutchinson forums which address this very issue. In all likelihood, no unlocking would have been required of a would-be intruder. Mary Cox did not refer to any “window trick” when she returned with Blotchy, which indicates that the door was left on the latch. We have no evidence of the spring lock being taken off the latch afterwards. If Hutchinson wanted to enter the room, therefore, the likelihood is that he had only to push the door open.

“But I won’t as it is your prerogative, and making such assertions all the time is more than a little tiresome.”

If you’re “tired” of my posts, you’re not compelled to respond at length to them, nor am I forcing you against your will to become entrenched in Hutchinson debates.

[The Good Michael]

Roy,

No one forgets Toppy. After all, we have his statement.


Mike

[Ben]

No one forgets Toppy. After all, we have his statement.

We certainly do, Mike:

"It was someone like Lord Randolph Churchill"

"It had more to do with the royal family than ordinary people"

Not easily forgettable!

“Has somebody - anybody will do - ever gone from reasonably drunk to resonably sober in a few hours. Has that ever happened?”

Do you actually remember what you wrote in your article, Fisherman?

You stated that Kelly was “witnessed to be substantially drunk” and you used this “substantial drunkenness” and its incompatibility with “sudden” spreeishness to argue the case that Hutchinson confused the day.

Why are you arguing against your own published research?

If you protest that you’re not doing it because you simply delight in arguing with me at any cost about anything including your own views (and I'll believe you if you say so), then why do you do it? I can only assume that you’re back-tracking because it has dawned upon that the drunk-spreeish inconsistency better supports the contention that Hutchinson lied than it does the contention that he confused the date. In which case, I don’t blame you, but as we’ve discovered from your Fleming article, this wouldn't be the first time you’ve disavowed your own published conclusions.

“You have a touching sense of respect towards these people, Ben!”

Well, of course. I will extend respect to everyone until they give me a reason to disrespect. But this is quite beside the point of my observation, which was that the vast majority of researchers, authors, and casual commentators accept that Lewis’s man was probably Hutchinson, and that to describe this majority endorsed view as a "fairytale" is tantamount to insulting a very large number of people, not that any of them would take such a condemnation very seriously, necessarily.

“Now, this is going to take a good, long stretch of your receptability, but even though the implication of a man carrying a beer pail is that there is beer in the pail, there can be no certainty that this is so!”

Oh, good.

This is all I wanted to establish.

So from now on, whenever you lecture me about the importance of acknowledging “possibilities”, I can at least be assured of what you consider probable.

According to you and your article therefore:

Kelly was probably very drunk when she was seen by Mary Cox.

She probably drank from Blotchy’s pail.

She probably wasn’t spreeish and on the streets at 2:30am.

There is a disparity, according to you, and it's one of the reasons you decided to endorse Dew's speculations.

Phew!

Don’t ever scare me like that again.

BACK TO TOPPY!

(Gosh, imagine if anyone didn't go back to Toppy after this)

Regards,
Ben

[Lechmere]

Gosh
I am afraid Mr Ben that any empirical evidence that Mr Wroe may be able to present would be worthless.
As a self confessed drink driver, you should know that pints of Adnams Broadside Ale would make some people drunk and act accordingly. Some people might be spreeish on the same quantity. Someone else may be able to pull off an Oscar winning performance and convince a policeman that they had not touched a drop.
Alcohol affects each individual differently.
The rate at which they sober up differs as well.
However alcohol affects people physiologically in a similar manner. If your blood had been tested the alcohol would have showed up.
That is why Mr Wroe’s empirical evidence is utterly worthless.
Do you understand that now? Good I will move on to your next point.
I find it excruciating having to repeatedly point out the glaringly obvious.

On Kelly and Blotchy
“we know the meeting wasn’t a hasty rushed-through affair”
What nonsense – we have no idea how long they were together in 13 Miller’s Court for. It may have been 15 minutes it may have been 5 minutes. Just because she continued singing does not imply that she had an audience.
Similarly the notion that it is more likely that he shared his drink, rather than that he didn’t is also nonsense. Where do you dream up these certainties. It does not make him a Scrooge type just because he didn’t share his drink with a prostitute that he met up with for a quick one before going home. I am certain the rules of client-prostitute etiquette circa 1888 didn’t stipulate ‘Thou shalt share thy booze with unfortunate prior to copulation’.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
The notion that Mary Kelly awoke from a nightmare, and the cry heard was the result , was not my suggestion, but that of Mrs Prater, who witnessed the cry , and described it at the inquest as 'Like awakening from a nightmare'.
I have always maintained that this observation by Mrs P, was backed up by room 13 resident Lottie in 1891 , who claimed that [ by means of deduction] somewhen between the 1st october, and the 8th November, Mjk had a nightmare that she was being murdered, and it frightened her somewhat.[ interview with Kit Watkins 1891].
I have simply suggested that as the cry heard was 'Oh Murder' it would be apt for the reoccurence of that dream.[ being murdered].
Coincidence that she was murdered shortly after, mayby/mayby not, who might know of that dream?
Barnett.. almost certainly
Her other lover/lovers the JOE perhaps?
Was it a coincidence that she met her death on the very bed she had originally dreamt she was being murdered.?
Did someone in her life make that nightmare a reality?
Regards Richard.