Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Lechmere]

I found the baptism record for Toppy’s son, also called George Hutchinson today.
I don’t know whether it has been seen before.
It is dated 2nd April 1899 and is from Holy Trinity Church, Stepney. This was on Morgan Street E3, in what I would describe as Bow, but is quite near Mile End tube station.
Their address is however 10 Barbel Street, Westminster Bridge Road, in Lambeth SE (I was thrown for a bit thinking it said Barbel Street, Westminster).
In the 1901 census the Toppy family was living at 80 Tower Street SE (in the Southwark area).

It is interesting that Toppy’s father was called George, Toppy was called George and his eldest son was called George.
George was a popular name in this branch of the Hutchinson family.

They were at 12 Tuscan Street, Bethnal Green by 1911, but the children at that time were born in such diverse places as Westminster, Stratford, Mile End and Bethnal Green.
His wife, who he married in 1895, was from Poplar.
Bearing in mind he was from Norwood, near Croydon, and he lived off Tottenham Court Road in 1891, clearly Toppy moved around quite a lot.

He had a son called William born around 1907 in Stratford. I’m wondering whether this is William Percy Hutchinson of 16 Bonwell Street, who lost two children in the Bethnal Green Tube Disaster in 1943. One was called William George Hutchinson and was born in 1937, and may have been Toppy’s grandson. Bonwell Street was one street over from Tuscan Street.

[Fisherman]

Ah - you didn´t see the difference, Ben. Pity, that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Two words, Ben: "quite possibly". Sip them, taste them, contemplate them, and then tell me what they mean.”

You didn’t say it was merely “quite possible” that she was badly drunk, Fisherman. You asserted quite unambiguously that she was “badly drunk” and “quite possibly heading for worse, given the beer blotchy supplied”, not “may have” supplied, but actually supplied according to you. The only link in the chain that you expressed any degree of doubt over was the bit about her “quite possibly” heading for worse. Everything else you pretty much accepted as a given.

Contrary to what you might think, I’m not raising these glaring inconsistencies out a desire to be “childish” or to belittle you in any way, but to highlight the pitfalls of being so eager to do “battle” with familiar combatants that you forget to acknowledge points of agreement. The more you challenge my conclusions with regard to the likely extent of Kelly’s drunkenness, the more you undermine your own published theory. Don’t trap yourself into contradictory positions out of solidarity with other posters who usually unite with you against Ben the common enemy.

Perplexingly, you wrote:

“Look here, Ben: I said that Blotchy supplied beer”

Followed almost immediately by:

“Where do I write that Blotchy gave beer to Kelly?”

Try two sentences ago!

“And you think that means that I MUST abide by these things and not question them and not look at the alternative possibilities.”

Not at all, but it does become very tedious when I express agreement with one aspect of your conclusions, only to receive long posts of unnecessary naysaying in return. We both agree that Cox’s impression of Kelly’s drunkenness was likely to have been correct. We both agree that she was likely to have become more drunk after drinking from Blotchy’s ale pail, and we both agree that her likely state of intoxication afterwards is not compatible with the "spreeish" condition described by Hutchinson two hours later.

“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.”

But whatever’s "happening up here", you’ll be disagreeing with me. It doesn’t matter if I’m disagreeing with or endorsing your conclusions; you seem to find any excuse to challenge what I’ve said. This is the only consistent element to your contributions. On this occasion, it is supreme folly to disagree with me because in so doing, you are downplaying one of the core tenets of your “different day” theory, and I don’t think this is particularly fair on the people who complimented you on your article in the immediate aftermath of it being published. Some people believed your conclusion to be viable for the reasons you outlined in the article. If you then downplay one of those reasons and concede that it may be a complete non-issue after all, the overall premise has one less leg to stand on.

It would be akin to a Daddy Long-Legs lopping off one of its own wings or legs. It didn’t fly very well before, but now it’s just making things worse.

What makes this so silly is that I never insisted on my suggested version of events as fact, just the most likely explanation on the basis of the evidence.

“Can you see anything that points in any other direction in Tom´s case? I can´t.”

So you think he forgot all about Dew’s memoirs because he was so distracted by modern literature making a link between Hutchinson and Lewis’ man? It’s possible, but I would give him a little more credit than that, personally. Do you really think that the people who complimented your article were ignorant about Dew’s memoirs until you mentioned them?

“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”

But I was the one who brought it up, here:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=149106&highlight=walter#post149106

This was on the 30th September 2010, and my exact words were:

“Potentially revealing, in this regard, is (sic) Walter Dew's suggestion that Hutchinson got the wrong day!”

You then told me not to listen to Dew because he got things terribly wrong and made lots of mistakes. And then you wrote an article, very shortly afterwards, endorsing his suggestion as the correct one after all.

As for your Cox-related observation, it is not impossible that Blotchy departed between “11:46 and 11:55” (I love the specificity of these suggested timings!), although she was quite meticulous in her observation concerning entrances and departures from the court as we learn from her other evidence. Additionally, if Kelly and Blotchy’s transaction was intended only to be a brief bit of business, why would she launch straight into sing-song as soon as the pair entered the room? Whatever she planned to do with Blotchy later on, it is clear that her first priority was to “have a song”, which is not consistent with a desire to do the dirty and get rid of him quickly. For these reasons, I consider it far more likely that Blotchy was still ensconced within the room when Mrs. Cox left the court.

But let’s not argue forever about this, because it undermines your published theory.

Best instead to return to the topic, which is “Topping Hutchinson”.

"This aspect of Hutchinson’s story is not implausible –it just isn’t Mr Ben"

Not impossible you mean, Lechmere. It certainly isn't plausible. Ask Fisherman, who used this implausibility to argue the case for a date-befuddlement with regard to Hutchinson.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Yes, it was Farson.

http://wiki.casebook.org/index.php/Mary_Ann_Cox

I don't need another "source" to demonstrate the niece's version is complete fiction. Its content should speak for itself.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Lechmere, Mike!

I should have known better than to try and pull that off right under your noses. Goes to show how desperate one can get.

Anyway, sorry about that!

The best,
Fisherman
much ashamed

[The Good Michael]

will confirm that of she was singing with Blotchy at 11.45 pm, he will not have left her company before 1 am -

It was the one song as well. It had 4,275 verses and was composed to be the English equivalent to the Rig Veda, But Fisherman has to go and make up some nonsense like, because she wasn;t heard between 11:45 and 1 am, she may have been doing other things. How dare you think, you bastard! If it wasn't in the highly coveted Hutchinson suspect books, it didn't happen.

Mike

[Lechmere]

No, no, no, Fisherman what gut wrenching, blindingly obvious, grating, catastrophic, nauseating repellent nonsense, everyone involved in Ripperology since the last five years and who has researched the facts and read the books will confirm that of she was singing with Blotchy at 11.45 pm, he will not have left her company before 1 am - in other words until she had completed her recital, as they were not having a mere knee trembler. He will not have left until he had allowed her to quaff his ale, finish singing and pass out. Then and only then will he have departed, and left the door ajar.

Mr Ben – Kelly was seen as drunk by Cox (although I hazard she didn’t chemically analyse her blood) – exactly how drunk and incapable is unclear. All we can clearly say is Kelly was drunk.
Roughly two and a half hours later – not one hour, I notice how you regularly massage your timings to suit your story –she seemed spreeish. Which I take to mean half cut, and we have no way of knowing whether she had in fact drunk in the meantime.
This aspect of Hutchinson’s story is not implausible –it just isn’t Mr Ben, no matter how many adjectives you use.

[Fisherman]

Ben (to Lechmere):

"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."

But Cox did not stand outside Kellys room listening to the song between 11.45 PM and 1 Am, did she? Let´s check things out:

"As I went in she sang "A violet I plucked from my mother's grave when a boy." I remained a quarter of an hour in my room and went out. Deceased was still singing at one o'clock when I returned."

A-ha! She heard Kelly commence to sing at 11.45, she says nothing about 12 o clock, when she went out, although she adds that Kelly was "still singing" at 1 AM when she returned home.
Correct me if I am wrong here, but could it not be that she sang at 11.45, served Blotchy the punter (if that he was) between 11.46 and 11.55, wawed goodbye to him and took a look at the coins he had left in her hand, and became so happy about it that she took to singing once again? It is not as if the singing and Blothcy´s presence must be interconnected for some magical reason, is it? Nor is it in any fashion the more probable deduction, is it? No, it is UNRELATED to the singing as far as we can tell, and therefore we do not know at what time Blotchy left, just as we don´t know what he had been doing there - although a reasonable guess would be that he bought and payed for sex.

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 can´t 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

[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 don´t believe them is ... hmm ... let´s 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 DON´T 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 don´t 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 it´s unscientific, unwise and induces unpleasant discussions since no real wish to look at the alternatives is ever there. So that´s 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 I´m sorry, but that´s how I go about it. You don´t. 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 Tom´s case? I can´t. 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 don´t lend much weight to Dew since they regard him as totally unreliable, then you are not reading Tom´s 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 don´t 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

[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.

[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.

[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 don´t 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]

Hi Richard,

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

All the best,
Ben

[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.