Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Fleetwood Mac]

Gents, is there a thread anywhere comparing the signatures? Can anyone point me in the direction, please? Cheers.

[The Good Michael]

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’.

It also isn't a certainty that Blotchy was a customer. He may well have just been a resident of the Court and they were just sharing some beer. Prostitutes had acquaintances as well as clients.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Roy Corduroy:

"You have already taken your article around the block from Helsinki to Berlin and back and put it up in the shed."

Rest assured, Roy, that I am still as much of a supporter ot the muddled day theory as ever. That wonīt stop me from discussing the case from other angles too, since that would be to give up much learning. And I like to learn.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

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

Ah - progress! You admit that I was the one who wrote it. For the longest time I thought you were claiming it yourself...

"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."

Yes, because if things were what they seemed to be, the time inbetween drunk and spreeish seems short. But that, mind you, involves one "seemed" and one "seems", and I believe I just gave a lecture on the meaning of that word.
We cannot judge things exactly here, Ben. My own stance is that the timeline involved points to the more credible thing being that she did not have the time required to sober up - but just because a researcher guesses that this is the more credible thing 123 years after it happened, it does not prove that this was the case. Room for doubt is what it is called.

"Why are you arguing against your own published research?"

Youīd never so that, would you? Nor do I. I donīt argue against it - I simply point out my awareness that I may not be right. There is, once again, room for doubt. I THINK I am right - but I cannot be certain. Not yet, at least.

"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."

Haha! Sorry - no!

"as we’ve discovered from your Fleming article, this wouldn't be the first time you’ve disavowed your own published conclusions"

It would not be the first time I was clever enough to admit that there may be other solutions than the on I suggest or point to. Room for doubt, Ben. Once again. Try it sometime!

"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"

Look at it my way, Ben: the vast majority that believe in an identification have never even pondered the muddled day possibility. Tom Wescott is an excellent example. And if this is so, the only insult I could inflict would be not to point it out, and thus keep people in the dark. Likewise, trying to point my theory out as wildly impossible -like you do - is ALSO to insult other peoples intelligence. You really ought not do that.

"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."

You are taking it a bit too far, Ben, but you are not making to disatrous a job of catching on:

Yes, Kelly was probably drunk when Cox saw her. I would not say "very" drunk, since I think this is going a bit too far, all things considered. But PROBABLY noticeably drunk, yes.

She may have drunk from Blotchyīs pail, thatīs all I will say. Thatīs all we CAN say.

She probably was not on the streets at 2.15 (!) AM at all, since that would be the wrong day. But she may well have been on Thursday morning, spreeish and all. And people may sober up quite fast at times, so this point of yours is no given thing at all.

Howīs that?

"Don’t ever scare me like that again."

Oh, come on, Ben - we all know you are not easily scared! And I am not very scary, am I?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Back to toppyc.

What was Sir Randolph Churchill doing in Petticoat Lane, Sunday 11 Nov 1888 in the morning ?

[Garry Wroe]

"I will merely state that alcohol takes a full twenty-four hours to dissipate within the human body."

But that does not mean that somebody who appear spreeish could not have appeared drunk in any of the 24 preceding hours. And that is the issue here.

It most certainly is not the issue, Fisherman. The issue is that Kelly was near-incoherently drunk a little before midnight and in all probability continued drinking thereafter. Given that she stopped singing and snuffed out her light source at approximately one o’clock, it might be reasonably supposed that this was when the alcohol ran out. And yet Hutchinson claimed that she ‘was not drunk’ just one hour later.

"Indeed, there are plenty of cases on record involving people who have consumed alcohol during the evening, had a good night's sleep, and have then been stopped by police the next morning whilst driving a vehicle and failed a breathalyser test."

Absolutely. But it STILL is not what we are discussing, is it? Many of these people appear perfectly sober, and it is not until the police test them that they realize that an alcohol level in their blood is present.

I don’t know about Sweden, but here in the UK the police need a valid reason to stop a motorist. Thus it is often apparent that a motorist is under the influence before he or she is pulled over.

Of course, the obvious thing that Cox and Hutch give different versions of this may be explained by the two not seeing Kelly on the same day. But THAT is something you will not even go near, is it not ...?

I’ve been near it, had a good look, but came away unconvinced.

[Lechmere]

By quirk of fate I was breathalysed tonight merely for being spotted driving out of a pub car park. Unlike someone else I could mention I didn't require an Oscar and passed the test as I'd prudently only had one pint. But I was not stopped because I had done anything wrong or driven badly.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Garry,

I'm not getting something. We're in a Suspect thread. You believe George Hutchinson is a suspect. A suspect who placed himself at the scene of the crime where he was spotted by a resident. So why argue about any of it. How do we have three or four George Hutchinson Suspect threads going simultaneously like Whack-A-Mole. All arguing these minute points endlessly. If you think he was a suspect, then his entire story is discredited. Except being there of course.

Roy

[Ben]

“I am afraid Mr Ben that any empirical evidence that Mr Wroe may be able to present would be worthless."

It’s no surprise to hear that you are once again rejecting all sources that interfere with the precious shepherding of your wildly flawed conclusions, only now you're rejecting them in advance of their arrival, which hints at an even more eccentric approach to the dismissal of inconvenient evidence. I think you can be secure in the knowledge that Garry knew precisely what you meant, and that he no more misunderstood your nonsensical position that I did.

“As a self confessed drink driver, you should know that pints of Adnams Broadside Ale would make some people drunk and act accordingly.”

I think we may safely conclude that Kelly had consumed ever so slightly more alcohol than four pints of good Norfolk ale. It was widely known that spirits were the favoured tipples of the East End prostitutes, and that gin in particular could be very cheaply procured along with Rum, which was Annie Chapman’s beverage of choice. It was the proximity and easy access to this inexpensive liquor that led to alcohol abuse amongst the working class poor.

Incidentally, would you describe a person who had only smoked one cigarette in his or her entire lifetime as a “self-confessed smoker”? Of course you wouldn’t, which is why I’m compelled to treat your despicably poisonous slurs and generalizations with the contempt that they richly deserve. I already explained how ashamed I was at the one occasion in which I drove home after consuming alcohol, and I can only assume you have some unsuccessfully belittling motive in attempting to claim that I do this habitually.

“I find it excruciating having to repeatedly point out the glaringly obvious”

Well if you find it “excruciating”, go away and make a nuisance of yourself on other threads, and take your insulting mischaracterizations of people you have never met with you.

If you repeat, I’ll repeat, so by all means stick around and get more “excruciated”.

“Just because she continued singing does not imply that she had an audience.”

Oh boy…

She did have an audience, Lechmere.

As she and Blotchy entered the room, she told Mary Ann Cox that she was going to “have a song”. She then had a song; making it clear beyond any doubt that she had an audience at the time of her singing.

“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.”

If I’ve said it’s “more likely” I cannot have described it as a “certainty”, can I?

It is simply more likely than not that he shared the contents of his pail. This is acknowledged as the most probable explanation by Fisherman, who stated less than a week ago that Blotchy “supplied” Kelly with beer from his can.

[Roy Corduroy]

If you repeat, I’ll repeat, so by all means stick around and get more “excruciated”. .

get more “excruciated”.

Ben I believe that's what's happening to me.

It is simply more likely than not that he shared the contents of his pail.

So it's down to this. Could be a new thread - "Did Blotchy share his beer?"

Do you see what I'm getting at though Ben? If Hutch only came forward because someone spotted him, then his whole story is trashed. Worthless. And if anyone tries to tell you otherwise, why bother? Surely there is logic in that.

Or am I getting excruciated.

Roy

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“My own stance is that the timeline involved points to the more credible thing being that she did not have the time required to sober up”

Excellent. I agree entirely.

So there was no reason for having an argument about it, really.

“Look at it my way, Ben: the vast majority that believe in an identification have never even pondered the muddled day possibility.”

Are you sure about that?

I’m very sceptical.

It would mean that the "vast majority" knew nothing about Walter Dew’s Hutchinson reference that appeared in his memoirs, which were published in the 1930s and have been freely accessible on this website for at least five years (when I joined) and probably much longer. If nobody’s ever pondered the suggestion, it paints a rather worrying picture. Where did I call Dew’s theory “wildly impossible”, by the way? I believe I described the suggestion as implausible, which is not in the slightest bit “insulting” to anyone’s intelligence.

“Yes, Kelly was probably drunk when Cox saw her. I would not say "very" drunk”

“Substantially drunk” was the expression you used in your article.

“Badly drunk” was the version you gave Babybird on the Wrong Night thread, and in the same post you asserted that Blotchy had “supplied” Kelly with alcohol.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=160528&postcount=456

Best,

Ben

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

Do you see what I'm getting at though Ben? If Hutch only came forward because someone spotted him, then his whole story is trashed. Worthless.

Yes, this is precisely as I see it. He realised he'd been seen, and so concocted a story that seemingly legitimized his presence there whilst deflecting suspicion in a false direction.

You're quite right, of course; I shouldn't get nearly as bothered as I do by any aggressive insistence to the contrary, but these Hutchinson threads are unique amongst ripper studies in that they very quickly descend into wars of persistence.

I'm not at all sure how this situation came about in the first place, as it takes two to tango, but boy are some people anxious to tango with me! We're on over 9000 posts now.

[Roy Corduroy]

are some people anxious to tango with me!

I see! (click) for the dance.

Enjoy,

Roy

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"The issue is that Kelly was near-incoherently drunk a little before midnight and in all probability continued drinking thereafter. Given that she stopped singing and snuffed out her light source at approximately one o’clock, it might be reasonably supposed that this was when the alcohol ran out. And yet Hutchinson claimed that she ‘was not drunk’ just one hour later."

This is becoming a bit ridiculous. I for one will readily admit that I would never try and establish just how drunk Kelly was as Cox saw her - we donīt know WHEN she got the alcohol into her body and we donīt know HOW MUCH it was, and therefore, we stand no reasonable chance of getting it right.
You choose to lean very much against a few words said about Kelly, but you may need to keep in mind that there are other things to consider too, that makes it a lot less clear how intoxicated she was. Here, have a read:

"I last saw her alive on Thursday night, at a quarter to twelve, very much intoxicated.
[Coroner] Where was this ? - In Dorset-street. She went up the court, a few steps in front of me."

Apparently, Garry, she was fit enough to walk on her own. And is there not a passage somewhere, where it says that Cox did not realize that Kelly was drunk until she spoke to her? Coorect me if Iīm wrong, but I think I have seen this somewhere.

"[Coroner] Did you see them go into her room ? - Yes; I said "Good night, Mary," and she turned round and banged the door.
[Coroner] Had he anything in his hands but the can ? - No.
[Coroner] Did she say anything ? - She said "Good night, I am going to have a song." As I went in she sang "A violet I plucked from my mother's grave when a boy."

So she was also quite able to handle a conversation with Cox, by the looks of things! She was purposeful; she said that she was going to sing, and then she did so.
By the looks of things, we donīt have a woman who was unable to take care of herself. She was not that drunk. She reportedly spoke somewhat incoherently, but that is something you can quite easily do even without drinking. Of course, the better guess is that it was due to alcohol, but just how much alcohol does it take to make us stumble on the words? Ah, I see - it is individual? Yes, that would be just about it, Garry - some people would need less drink than others to end up in this predicament, and there is no knowing where Kelly was on the scale. But we DO know that the general picture of a stupendeously drunk person involves things like incoherent speech, severe problems to walk and stand up due to balance incapacitation, and an incapacitation to discuss rationally with others. And I would say that the two latter parameters are the ones that REALLY point to a very drunken person, whereas I have heard many women stumble over syllables and giggle at it in states of very little drunkenness.
So no, there is not necessarily anything unsurmountable around here, Garry. She may have had as much as two and a half dry hours to sober up before she met Hutchinson, and she was not stone cold sober then, by the looks of things, but a bit spreeish. Itīs much like the plumber thing - you see one side and forget about the other. Itīs more convenient than useful. And people can sing without being drunk, mind you ...

"I don’t know about Sweden, but here in the UK the police need a valid reason to stop a motorist. Thus it is often apparent that a motorist is under the influence before he or she is pulled over."

There is a difference, yes - we allow for less than 0.2 %, whereas you allow for a lot more. But I do hope that you do not draw the line just before the blackout stage? That would be rather reckless. And so I do believe that you too must have drivers that are only caught out after the police have stopped them for other reasons altogether.

"I’ve been near it, had a good look, but came away unconvinced."

Thatīs fine by me. Just donīt forget to look at it again. You will be amazed to see how it tallies all the way...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This is acknowledged as the most probable explanation by Fisherman, who stated less than a week ago that Blotchy “supplied” Kelly with beer from his can."

Distinctions, Ben, distinctions! I am wary enough about these things never to put my foot in them in the manner you wrongfully claim that I do.

I of course never said that Blotchy supplied Kelly with beer! I said that by the looks of things, he may well have.

But I donīt know that he did. I donīt know that there was beer in the pail. I donīt know how generous a fellow he was. I donīt know if he was a punter. I donīt know where he got the pail from. I donīt know if Kelly wanted to drink more.
As a consequence of all this, I would never say that he supplied Kelly with drink. I will say that by the looks of things, he may well have done so. I can even stretch to a guess that it would be the more probable thing to do, but that is a guess that leaves much to ask for, Iīm afraid.

So there you are. You should not misrepresent what I say, because it will have me using valuable space to correct it. And people may believe that I am sloppy about things like these, which I am not in any way.
Here it is, by the way:

“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”

"Seemingly", Ben. That means "by the looks of things". It seemed that she would get a chance to drink more. It is a good guess that she may have done so. And IF she did, she would have stayed drunk, if the quantity was enough. And if this holds true, THEN we have a problem to reconcile drunk with spreeish. And if I am forced to guess, I guess that she would not have been merely spreeish at 2.15. But that is just my guess, which I cannot prove in any way. We are not there. We cannot prove it. There is room for a lot of doubt, once again.

The best,
Fisherman