Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Are you sure about that?"

No. Then again, how could I be? Just like you, I have an impression. Neither of us can be sure.

"It would mean that the "vast majority" knew nothing about Walter Dew’s Hutchinson reference..."

No, not necessarily. My guess is that most people have read the literature that is fairly adamant in stating that if Hutchinson was really there, then he was arguably the person Lewis saw. It is an unescapable conclusion - up to the point when you realize that there is another possibility: that he WAS there, but not on that morning.
A seasoned guy like Tom Wescott reacted to it by asking himself why he had never seen this before. And I donīt think we can blame Tom for being badly read up, can we?
So, in conclusion, you can be a very, very much in the know about Ripperology, and still live with the misconception that a true identification or a lie on Hutchīs behalf are the only two dishes served at this table. Wrong.

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

I know. I wrote it. But you forget that I also wrote that she was "WITNESSED to be substantially drunk". By Cox, that is. It is not ME saying that she was so, please remember that. Plus you may also want to remember that I wrote my article to show that all the issues that have been hard to explain before suddenly are given an explanation if we use the muddled day premise. The witnessed-about severe intoxication is one of them. IF she was very drunk, and IF she had more to drink from that pail, I STILL can explain the discrepancy between much drunk and spreeish using my theory.
But if you think that this is the same as me in any way claiming that it has been proven that she WAS much drunk and that it has been proven that she could not reach a stage of spreeishness in little more than two hours, then think again.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
With regard to Mrs Cox following Kelly and Blotchy up the passage, there are actually two versions of that.
1] From Mrs coxs police statement, which states that she ''followed ''them up the passage, and implied her alcohol consumption.
2] From Mrs Cox neice to 'My aunt was standing by her door in the court awaiting her husband to come back from the pub , when she saw kelly being led up the passage by a man , and kelly asking him ''Not to pull her along''.
This also refers to kellys morals, and a reference to often returning to her room with a sailor[ she liked sailors] with a bottle of ''GIN'' slung under one arm.
Note that in both cases ''alcohol'', is a factor, something I would suggest Mrs Cox was not in ''favour' of, her neice implied that he was[ her husband] a violent man and a drunkered.
So the truth is we. dont know the alcohol consumption of Mjk on the evening / morning of the 8th/9th. i would suggest ''Spreeish'' would be the most likely.
To be honest, if there is one witness , I find unreliable that being Cox, kellys companion/client is one minute carrying a pot of ale, and also described as a ''fine looking gentleman'' with a hat not silk.
Sounds dodgy to me.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi Richard!

The two versions you name is a first-hand source, attaching to the actual event and taken down at the actual time, and a second-hand source, taken down much later.

There can be little doubt which is the better choice, I think.

"So the truth is we. dont know the alcohol consumption of Mjk on the evening / morning of the 8th/9th."

This is so totally obvious and true that one would expect nobody to challenge it or try to use a chosen angle as some sort of established truth. And still that is exactly what is being done.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fisherman,
Obviously my two suggestions are 70-80 years apart, but I still dont dismiss the neices version entirely.
If Mrs Cox was in the habit of awaiting her ''drunk'' of a husband to arrive back from the pub, it would be a safe bet that she would stand at her door,rather then venture out into Dorset street.
So where had she been when she was returning home, and allegedly walking behind Kelly and Blotchy?.
Her neice discribed [albeit oral history] that her aunt described the man with kelly as being a 'Fine looking man' , high hat , but not silk. which obviously is not refering to Blotchy and pail of ale..
Intrestingly Mrs Maxwell was asked if the man she saw with Mary at 845am, had a silk hat.... why?
Is it not possible that Mrs cox infact saw two people with kelly that night?
Blotchy on returning home to check on her husbands whereabouts, and Hutchinsons man whilst she was standing anxiously at her door, for her husband who still had not returned home.
I am simply attempting not to dismiss the neices version out of hand.
I think it is extremely obvious that in all events during that autumn, we are clutching at straws, and there are many details that are missing, that when in place would explain many mysteries.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"I am simply attempting not to dismiss the neices version out of hand."

Thatīs fine, Richard - but I prefer to use Coxīs own testimony myself. The discrepancies are so large inbetween her own story and her neices, and both canīt be right, so ...

"I think it is extremely obvious that in all events during that autumn, we are clutching at straws, and there are many details that are missing, that when in place would explain many mysteries."

Wholeheartedly agreed!

The best,
Fisherman

[curious4]

Sir Randolph

Buying petticoats perhaps?

[DVV]

You got this from the down-to-earth Toppy, I'm sure.

Cheers !

[curious4]

Sir Randolph

Using the word in its colloquial sense, referring to females. You know, as in slips of girls.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
The reason I rejected Mr Wroe’s scientific data in advance was because it was entirely irrelevant for the reasons I stated. Re –read them to save me tiresomely repeating it

We don’t actually know how much beer, gin or rum Kelly consumed. We don’t know how good her ‘head‘ for drink was. All we can fairly safely say is that she seemed drunk at 11.45pm. Everything else regarding here state of inebriation for the remainder of the night, and of her life, and how much she drank before and after is conjecture.

I am sorry that you took my ribbing of your drink-driving episode so badly. I am glad to hear it was a ‘one-off’ as I was nervous of venturing down Sussex way in case I got mowed down.
But you seem to have adopted your over-exaggeration technique here as well, as I didn’t accuse you of being a habitual drink-driver. You really must stop reading imaginary things into what other people write.

Back to Ripper land, we know Kelly went into her lodgings at about 11.45 with Blotchy and started to sing. We have no idea how long he was in there for. You characterised most prostitute-client encounters as being momentary knee-tremblers. I would concur with you on that, even when the action takes place inside. My best guess is that Blotchy will have left within 15 minutes. Her continued singing does not imply an audience.

I’m glad to see that you have desisted from your usual hyperbole in discussing the possibility that Kelly didn’t sup from Blotchy’s pail.

Roy
“If Hutch only came forward because someone spotted him, then his whole story is trashed.”
That’s a big ‘if’ . (Well in the worldwide scheme of things a small 'if')Also he could have come forward to clear himself rather, than it be an admittion of guilt. Or he could have told half truths or elaborated.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

I’m afraid the “niece” account attributed to Mary Ann Cox is completely fictional.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“I of course never said that Blotchy supplied Kelly with beer”

I’m afraid you did, Fisherman.

On the 8th January of this year, you said:

“I am suggesting that we may need to accept that Hutchinson got the day wrong because…3. Kelly was badly drunk at midnight, and quite possibly heading for worse, given the beer Blotchy supplied - but only perhaps spreeish two hours later.”

Points 1 and 2 were concerned with Walter Dew and other details, which is why I snipped them from the quote, but I can provide the entire extract in full if you prefer.

You most emphatically stated, without question, that Blotchy supplied Kelly with beer. You also accepted without question that Kelly was “badly drunk” at midnight. You not only accepted both of these things to be true, you actually used them in an effort to bolster your suggestion. It looks very bad when you disavow previous extracts from your articles and message board posts, especially after they were used to form the basis of your entire thesis.

“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.

But you think she would have “stayed drunk”, because you think Blotchy did share his ale pail with her, in which case, the quantity would have been enough, according to your deductions. You think there is a problem with the attempt to reconcile “drunk with spreeish”, which is why you don’t think she was merely “spreeish” at 2:30am.

But why on earth would you want to argue with me about these things, when I agree with these deductions wholeheartedly? Just leave it. Life’s too short to argue against the things you believe to a true in addition to arguing against the things with which you sincerely disagree, and there shouldn’t be enough hours in any person’s day for both. Why argue with Garry, for example, after you came to precisely the same conclusion that he outlined in his book?

“By the looks of things, we donīt have a woman who was unable to take care of herself. She was not that drunk.”

You already accepted that she was “very badly drunk” - a fact on record. You acknowledged this and endorsed it to be true. Why change your mind from two months ago, and undermine one of the core components of your different day theory? I can’t think that Walter Dew would be terribly impressed. Sometimes you just have to do the unthinkable and make a stand that utterly goes against the grain for some people, and that is to concede a point to the opposition. It might seem like anathema to those accustomed to arguing aggressively for the sake of it, but if it actually helps a certain aspect of their own pet theory, it’s worth taking that plunge. Trust me. It really is. Otherwise, people only end up weakening or discrediting their own theories out of stubbornness.

Mary Kelly was observed to have been incapable of bidding Mary Cox goodnight with any degree of coherence, which suggests that your assessment of her condition as both “badly drunk” and likely to become worse as a result of consuming more alcohol is likely to be correct on both counts. We agree (hooray!), so don't bother arguing with me about it.

You have stated that Kelly was “badly drunk” at the time Mary Cox saw her, Fisherman.

If you’ve changed your mind about this since the 8th January when you made this observation, you are only piddling on your own bonfire and undermining your own theory. You have to decide what takes precedence; adherence to your stated beliefs, or solidarity with fellow anti-Hutchinsonions and Toppyites. This is a predicament you could easily have avoided had you chosen not to make a noise about the issue and argued against your own published conclusions.

“My guess is that most people have read the literature that is fairly adamant in stating that if Hutchinson was really there, then he was arguably the person Lewis saw.”

But would this preclude them from having access to, or knowing about, Walter Dew’s easily accessible memoirs in which his Hutchinson reference can be found? You keep mentioning Tom Wescott and other researchers as examples of people who, you suggest, were so overawed by the “literature that is fairly adamant in stating that if Hutchinson was really there, then he was arguably the person Lewis saw”, that they completely forgot all about Dew’s little bit of speculation regarding Hutchinson.

Gosh, so all these modern books were so damn distracting that everyone forgot about Dew? And until you came along to remind us all about it, the researchers you named – Tom and everyone else - were just “living with the misconception” (what a phrase) that it was only a choice of lying or truthful accuracy as far as Hutchinson is concerned? Did we really need you to say, “Guys…guys, guys, wait: what about Dew’s date-confusion suggestion that you’ve all foolishly forgotten about because you’ve been too busy reading modern literature?” We didn’t just a need a long-rejected suggestion in a very well known and long-acknowledged set of memoirs – we needed you to tell us all about it.

If you're worried about wasting "valuable space" attempting to reconcile your published conclusions with the arguments you're advancing here, it might have been better not to waste "valuable space" in this demonstrably futile exercise in pure devil's advocacy.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

We don’t know how good her ‘head‘ for drink was. All we can fairly safely say is that she seemed drunk at 11.45pm.

She was very heavily intoxicated at 11.45pm, according to Mary Ann Cox in her police endorsed, non-discredited account which was given under oath at the inquest, Lechmere. Afterwards, she was likely to have consumed more alcohol (ask Fisherman - he agrees!) and become even more intoxicated as a consequence. She was very unlikely, therefore, to have converted into the spreeish, concerned, money-seeking Kelly reported by discredited Hutchinson an hour or so later.

I am glad to hear it was a ‘one-off’ as I was nervous of venturing down Sussex way in case I got mowed down.

I wouldn't need any Dutch Courage for that, Fetchbeer, not that I live in Sussex.

"You characterised most prostitute-client encounters as being momentary knee-tremblers. I would concur with you on that"

Good. In which case, you would also appreciate that "momentary knee-tremblers" tend not to consist of "having a song" about plucking violets from parental burial locations. Whatever the nature of Blotchy's business, a knee-trembler was clearly not on the cards, whereas casual companionship evidently was. That's not to rule out that client possibility - I would even call it a probability - but it clearly wasn't over in a flash, and instead appeared to be the sort of situation that would obviously lend itself to casual ale-sharing.

I’m glad to see that you have desisted from your usual hyperbole in discussing the possibility that Kelly didn’t sup from Blotchy’s pail.

It is very likely that she did.

I hope that isn't too hyperbolic.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Can you confirm for me that Coxs neices account is ''Fictional', from a source that is not that of your own opinion.
Correct me If I am wrong, but was she not interviewed by Colin Wilson[ or was it Farson?] are you suggesting that the interview was ''fiction'',
I ask, because I have never come across a confession of such...
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’m afraid you did, Fisherman.

On the 8th January of this year, you said:

“I am suggesting that we may need to accept that Hutchinson got the day wrong because…3. Kelly was badly drunk at midnight, and quite possibly heading for worse, given the beer Blotchy supplied - but only perhaps spreeish two hours later.”

Two words, Ben: "quite possibly". Sip them, taste them, contemplate them, and then tell me what they mean. Do they mean that:
A/ I say that Kelly had beer from Blotchy, or...
B/ I say that Kelly MAY WELL have had beer from Blotchy?

Tough call, this one, eh? See the difference?

You really should not go around telling people that you know better what they mean than they do themselves! Most posters dislike such things, I gather. And whenever these people tell you that they mean X and not Y, then please accept that this is so, Ben! Pointing fingers at them and telling them that you donīt believe them is ... hmm ... letīs get this correct ... Ah - "childish" is the word I am looking for!

More of this sad exercise of yours:

"You most emphatically stated, without question, that Blotchy supplied Kelly with beer."

Me oh my. "I got you, Fisherman, hahaha", sort of. Yawn ...

Look here, Ben: I said that Blotchy supplied beer. Even that is questionable, but if there was beer in the pail, then he DID supply beer.
But where does it say that Kelly drank it?
Where do I write that Blotchy gave beer to Kelly?
I have, time and time again, "supplied" you with the good advice not to state things that you cannot support. But have you consumed that advice? I think not.
See the difference?

"But you think she would have “stayed drunk”, because you think Blotchy did share his ale pail with her, in which case, the quantity would have been enough, according to your deductions. You think there is a problem with the attempt to reconcile “drunk with spreeish”, which is why you don’t think she was merely “spreeish” at 2:30am."

And you think that means that I MUST abide by these things and not question them and not look at the alternative possibilities. But it is one thing to suggest something as a good, and possibly the best, explanation, and another one to turn a blind eye to the alternatives.
See the difference?

"Why argue with Garry, for example, after you came to precisely the same conclusion that he outlined in his book?"

If I had come to precisely the same conclusions as Garry, I would not argue with him. It is when you DONīT draw the precise same conclusions, or have differing perceptions as to the firmness of these conclusions, that you argue.
See the difference?

"Sometimes you just have to do the unthinkable and make a stand that utterly goes against the grain for some people, and that is to concede a point to the opposition. It might seem like anathema to those accustomed to arguing aggressively for the sake of it, but if it actually helps a certain aspect of their own pet theory, it’s worth taking that plunge."

When I "plunge", Ben, I do so with the intention of every once in a while returning to the surface again, to inhale fresh oxygen and see what is happening up there. I donīt tie myself to something and then defend it at any cost, since I think that is irrational. I see others doing that all the time, and itīs unscientific, unwise and induces unpleasant discussions since no real wish to look at the alternatives is ever there. So thatīs how I do it, as opposed to you.
See the difference?

"You have stated that Kelly was “badly drunk” at the time Mary Cox saw her, Fisherman.
If you’ve changed your mind about this since the 8th January when you made this observation, you are only piddling on your own bonfire and undermining your own theory. You have to decide what takes precedence; adherence to your stated beliefs, or solidarity with fellow anti-Hutchinsonions and Toppyites."

There is good reason to believe that Kelly WAS badly drunk. There is no absolute evidence to show this, though. Therefore, none of us should take it upon us to make some sort of definite call. It would be moot.
But the much more interesting thing here is that you seem to believe that there are only two options involved in matters like these! Even more interestingly, you believe that they are made up of:
A/ A dogmatic belief that you must cling to in a fundamentalistic fashion, or
B/ Adjusting to the views of fellow posters.

This says a lot about how you go about your research, Ben. It fully explains a lot of things that I have had difficulties to grasp at times.
But please let me tell you that you are wrong! There is a THIRD possibility, a C possibility (or "see" if you like):

C/ You can FAVOUR a view but keep an open mind on it and be able to argue along other lines than your main ore.

I do just that, without deserting my theory about the muddled days. I THINK that she was substantially drunk, I ADMIT that she may not have been, and I dont think that matters much to the Hutchinson problem since I believe he was there the day before.
If this is too hard to take on board, then Iīm sorry, but thatīs how I go about it. You donīt. You either cling on to something, come what may, or team up with "chums". And this has to be true, since you said so yourself in post 911, dated the 16 of February 2011.
See the difference?

"would this preclude them from having access to, or knowing about, Walter Dew’s easily accessible memoirs"

No. But having access to and using that access productively is not the same thing.
See the difference?

"You keep mentioning Tom Wescott and other researchers as examples of people who, you suggest, were so overawed by the “literature that is fairly adamant in stating that if Hutchinson was really there, then he was arguably the person Lewis saw”, that they completely forgot all about Dew’s little bit of speculation regarding Hutchinson. "

Can you see anything that points in any other direction in Tomīs case? I canīt. When somebody clearly states that they are amazed that they have missed something, that is often a very good pointer to the fact that they are amazed that they have missed something. If you think that it points more to an admittance that they really donīt lend much weight to Dew since they regard him as totally unreliable, then you are not reading Tomīs words the way I do.
See the difference?

"Did we really need you to say, “Guys…guys, guys, wait: what about Dew’s date-confusion suggestion that you’ve all foolishly forgotten about because you’ve been too busy reading modern literature?”!"

No, I donīt think so. I am not as convinced about my own superiority as you are trying to paint it out like. The power of the muddled day suggestion lies in itself, and it would have had the same impact if you had been the one that presented it. Then again, I was the more likely one to bring it up, since your thinking ... well, no doubt you see the difference!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"(ask Fisherman - he agrees!)"

Yep. I agree that Cox said that Kelly was much drunk. And I agree that there is a likelihood that she drank more alcohol after that, although I will not rate that likelihood in numbers.

But I ALSO agree that we canīt be very certain about how drunk Kelly was, since she apparently could do her own walking, as she seemed coherent enough and as sober people can sing. And I ALSO agree that thre is a fair chance that she did NOT have more to drink.

So yes, ask Fisherman and you will find out what he thinks. Asking YOU what Fisherman thinks is a complete non-starter, though. You only give half the answer. For some reason.

The best,
Fisherman