Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[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

[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.

[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.

[DVV]

Back to toppyc.

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

[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?"

You´d never so that, would you? Nor do I. I don´t 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 Blotchy´s pail, that´s all I will say. That´s 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.

How´s 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

[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 won´t 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

[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

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

[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.

[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’.

[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

[The Good Michael]

Roy,

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


Mike

[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.

[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

[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