Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[curious4]

Sir Randolph

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

[DVV]

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

Cheers !

[curious4]

Sir Randolph

Buying petticoats perhaps?

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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

[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

[Roy Corduroy]

are some people anxious to tango with me!

I see! (click) for the dance.

Enjoy,

Roy

[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.

[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

[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]

“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.