Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"They’ve perked up again…"

I don´t "perk up", Ben. Maybe you do, but I sure as hell don´t. Nor do I "dredge up" things, come to think of that.

The technique is age-old, Ben. It does not work.

"How many times to I have to say “back to Toppy” before Fisherman and Lechmere respect that?"

Only mutual respect works, at least to my mind. You may think differently.

"Kelly’s magical sobering up"

Ask yourself, Ben: Has somebody - anybody will do - ever gone from reasonably drunk to resonably sober in a few hours. Has that ever happened? Outside the circle of magicians, I mean? Get real, get real, get real ...

"I can only assume"

Mmmm - I know that. And my, do you assume wrong!

"It also seems very obvious that some people debate suggestions on the basis of who made them, and not on the merit (or lack thereof) of the suggestions concerned."

THAT is 100 per cent correct!

"For example, if Poster A has already chummed up with, and found a ripperological ally in, Poster B, he will argue against Poster C despite agreeing with his views and not Poster B’s."

Ah - Garry, Ruby, Sally and you, you mean? That´s OK - I´m used to it from earlier threads.

"Call it a “fairytale” if you like, but you’re insulting a large number of people. "

You have a touching sense of respect towards these people, Ben! Very thoughtful of you, I´m sure. But I prefer to avoid insulting intelligence. Moreover, I don´t think that these boards are about keeping the Garrys, the Rubys and the Sallys (or the Fishermans and the Lechmeres) happy, but instead of presenting as rational and god arguments as possible, come what may in terms of personal disappointment. If you agree with somebody, fine. If not, fine.

"...it stands to reason that he must have seen Lewis..."

Must, Ben? Asserting the unassertable again? How unscientific of you.

"Did you acknowledge these other so-called possibilities in your article? If not, why not?"

You would still be reading if I had elaborated on all the possibilities involved. I know that you want me to tie myself to things and then never leave any of it, not even for theoretical speculations sake, but why would I do that? Others have exploited that particular niche to the full already.

"It was “seemingly” a “considerable amount”, according to you."

Yes, Ben! So it was. 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! That is why I say "seemingly". The word seemingly points out that there is an appearance about, leading our thoughts in a certain direction. And that is all good and well - until we loose track of the fact that this is not the only POSSIBLE direction. For instance, if I say that it seems you understand this, I can´t be at all sure that you do.

"Which makes sense really."

Prepare, Ben: Both do.

"Judging from Roy's response, it would appear I'm not the only one to register this blatant contradiction."

That´s fine! If it had gone unnoticed, I would be really worried. I want people to see the points I am making, just as I want them to realize that 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. I´d avoid that at any price. Well, not when it comes to the signatures (I use a four-legged calf), but that´s for another thread.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherman
"This is irritating nonsense."
Sorry for replying, Fish !...I just saw that you mean't this for

Lechmere :
Quote:
irritating nonsense
LECHMERE IRRITATING Lechmere nonsense
N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E LECHMERE

Sorry -my computer seems to have a mind of it's own apparently the 'key word' Lechmerenonsensenonsenceirritating..I will try and reply to you soon"

I take it, Ruby, that this is some sort of joke. Can´t say I appreciate it, if that´s the case. I like my jokes funny.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Roy Corduroy:

"Whoa there Fisherman, you just published an article that Hutch had the wrong night. So forget what he said about drunk or anything else. Right? Nothing he said matters because he had the wrong night."

Rephrase that, Roy: Nothing he said matters IF he had the wrong night. If he did NOT, well then it´s a different story, is it not?

I don´t really get this thing where somebody who has presented a theory of some kind is somehow supposed to cling onto it for dear life afterwards, no matter what happens. I think that each and everyone is entitled to argue different aspects of the case if they see it fit to do so.
Not that I am in any way less convinced about my theory now than before; I I think it is the best one by far, for sure, at least if we accept that it was either a case of Hutchinson getting the time wrong OR the police believing so and dropping him for that reason. I favour scenario one, since I do think that this is what happened.

...but why it should hinder me to comment on other things, I just can´t understand. Sorry about that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

They’ve perked up again…

How many times to I have to say “back to Toppy” before Fisherman and Lechmere respect that?

If, after my response to this latest thread-derailment, Fisherman or Lechmere continues to argue the case for Kelly’s magical sobering up, or where Joseph Fleming lived in 1888, or anything not relating to “Topping Hutchinson” then I can only assume that the only reason some people contribute to this thread is generalized nay-saying against posters they are accustomed to having disputes with. Don’t expect me to take the lead in getting the thread back on track either. It wasn’t me who attempted to mutate this into yet another generic “Was Hutchinson guilty” thread, and as such, it is only reasonable to expect the original “derailers” to revert to topic.

It also seems very obvious that some people debate suggestions on the basis of who made them, and not on the merit (or lack thereof) of the suggestions concerned. For example, if Poster A has already chummed up with, and found a ripperological ally in, Poster B, he will argue against Poster C despite agreeing with his views and not Poster B’s.

“the fact that Hutch does not mention a woman we all know were there, but instead nails two (2) other people close to the scene of the crime, claiming they were the only ones there, is and remains something that speaks loudly and clearly about the flaws in your conception.”

My “conception” is that Lewis saw George Hutchinson outside Miller’s Court on the night of Kelly’s murder, a conception that is endorsed by the rank-and-file majority for quite some time now, irrespective of whether or not they give any credence to the suggestion that he may have been responsible for the murder. Call it a “fairytale” if you like, but you’re insulting a large number of people. Given the overwhelming likelihood that Hutchinson and the man in the wideawake were one and the same, it stands to reason that he must have seen Lewis, and that he therefore omitted any reference to her either accidentally or deliberately. I’ve explained numerous times why I consider the latter infinitely more likely, and won’t do so again. Actually, I might. We’ll see who’s up for some repetition fun first.

“I think - just like Lechmere - that you need to be a bit more wary of other possibilities than the one you favour”

But you favour this possibility too, Fisherman, remember?

You said so in your article:

“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”

Did you acknowledge these other so-called possibilities in your article? If not, why not? You registered the drunk-to-spreeish disparity in your article, and you used your “wrong day” hypothesis to explain it, so why are you arguing against your own article’s conclusions now? What if someone who had never contributed to the Hutchinson threads gave you feedback on your article along the lines of: “Well done, Fisherman, your explanation neatly accounts for the drunk-to-spreeish disparity”. Would you give them the same gainsaying treatment you’ve just given me? Would you say, “hang on, on second thoughts there’s no problem at all with Kelly appearing spreeish after consuming a good deal of alcohol”. I hardly think so.

“We don´t know what it was, and even if we accept that it was beer, how in the whole world can we tell how much of it there was?”

It was “seemingly” a “considerable amount”, according to you.

Read that paragraph of yours again.

“It could have been close to empty, with just the last sip on the bottom.”

“Seemingly” not, according to you.

Which makes sense really. When pubs close, punters generally take beer home, if permitted, only when they have a good deal left in their container, otherwise they “drink up” and leave. This is obvious common sense to all pub-goers.

Here's what you told Babybird on the "Wrong night" thread:

"Kelly was badly drunk at midnight, and quite possibly heading for worse, given the beer Blotchy supplied - but only perhaps spreeish two hours later."

You had no trouble asserting that Kelly was both badly drunk, and "supplied" with beer by Blotchy when you posted the above six days ago.

Now why on earth would you argue against your own published conclusions all of a sudden?

Judging from Roy's response, it would appear I'm not the only one to register this blatant contradiction.

Regards,
Ben

[Sister Hyde]

Är detta en komplimang, Syster Hyde? Jag älskar hummer i alla fall .. och Fiskare

ahah nej, det är bara att jag har inte ätit smörgås tårta i tre år, det var för länge sen.

[Rubyretro]

hmmm smörgåstårta med kräft...

Är detta en komplimang, Syster Hyde? Jag älskar hummer i alla fall .. och Fiskare

[Sister Hyde]

They pick and choose. Like a Smorgasbord

hmmm smörgåstårta med kräft...

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

"This is irritating nonsense."

Sorry for replying, Fish !...I just saw that you mean't this for

Lechmere :

irritating nonsense

LECHMERE IRRITATING Lechmere nonsense
N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E LECHMERE

Sorry -my computer seems to have a mind of it's own apparently the 'key word' Lechmerenonsensenonsenceirritating..I will try and reply to you soon

[Roy Corduroy]

Kelly appeared drunk at midnight, and spreeish at 2AM if we are to accept the weighed-together evidence from Cox and Hutchinson.

Whoa there Fisherman, you just published an article that Hutch had the wrong night. So forget what he said about drunk or anything else. Right? Nothing he said matters because he had the wrong night.

And this goes to a point that has been on my mind. In the scenario that "George Hutchinson" whoever he was in real life becomes a suspicous character, it is because he placed himself at the scene of the crime. At the approximate time Lewis saw a man there. Okay, I understand that. But if Hutch is a suspicous character, then the only, and I mean only part of his story that can be believed is the part about being there. Everything else, and I mean everything else he said is suspect. Likewise if you think he got the wrong night.

That does make sense, what I said, doesn't it? Tell me I'm not off my rocker. Because sometimes these extended Hutch thread arguments go beyond circular, they become a figure-eight with loops. Or like listening to Beatles tapes backwards and hearing stuff in there.

Roy

ps; People use what part of Hutch's statement how they want, when they want, for what reason they want. They pick and choose. Like a Smorgasbord

[Lechmere]

Sally – the reason I questioned Flemming’s residence status in Victoria Home in November 1888 is that posters regularly state as a matter of faith that he was resident there and so could have known Hutchinson or even been Hutchinson. No more, no less.
As for whether he felt the need to lie or not – I am fairly sure that the rules for obtaining relief were that the claimant should have settlement of at least a year. I have read a précis of the relevant Act that says this. I took one look at the whole Act and frankly couldn’t bothered to plough through it to find the exact reference. However, in practice they may have turned a blind eye to cases – but that wouldn’t mean that he may have thought it best to guild the lily. It is a possibility, no more.

Mr Wroe – the point at issue was not the human body’s ability to absorb and dissipate alcohol, nor was it whether Kelly would have been able to pass a breathalyser.
The issue was, is it possible for someone to appear drunk at 11.45 pm and appear more sober (not totally sober) at 2.15 am?
I gave the example of regular drinkers who have a high quantity of alcohol in their system at any given time and who can get visibly drunk quite quickly as a result. But also as a result they can apparently sober up quite quickly. Such people would probably fail a breathalyser at any time of the day, every day of the week. What we are talking about is the ability of some people to absorb more alcohol and act normally (or reasonably normally) than others. I would suggest that people who drink a lot tend to be able to mask their behaviour better than others.
Considered together this suggest to me that it is not at all implausible that someone like Kelly could appear drunk at 11.45 pm and merely spreeish by 2.15 am. Or rather that she would not necessarily be comatose and could quite easily have gone out looking for another client after disposing of Blotchy.
On a personal level I know people who fit exactly this behaviour pattern, as I am sure other people do unless the lead incredibly sheltered lives. To suggest it cannot happen is, as I said, nonsense.

Mr Ben – it isn’t being pig headed and obstinate to suggest that Blotchy may not have shared his beer. It is a normal possibility. To pretend that he ‘must have’ shared his beer or even drunk it at Miller’s Court is arrant nonsense. It is just one of those many false claims that make up the Hutchinson story. Your abject inability to even concede the common sense point that Blotchy may not have drunk his beer with Kelly demonstrates yet again the paucity of your case. As Fisherman has pointed out, the pail may have been empty anyway. He may have kept hold of it to take it back later.

What on earth prompted this risible statement:
‘what seems clear is that it wasn’t a case of “in out, no strings attached”’
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. That tends to by how prostitutes conduct themselves.

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.

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

Your serial killer with the ever changing MO was not just a serial killer was he? He was a serial loiterer. He loitered outside Miller’s Court. Then he loitered inside Miller’s Court. Then he loitered outside Shoreditch Town Hall waiting to hear the evidence. Then he loitered before presenting himself to Commercial Street Police Station.
Maybe you could introduce that as further evidence that Hutchinson is the man – he had this readily discernable habit of loitering that seems to add up to guilt.

On the issue of the door to Miller’s Court and how Hutchinson could have known how to open it. You seem to think that:
“Pushing it straight open would have done the trick, and no knowledge is required for that expedient”
That would certainly do the trick for any open door. At Miller’s Court or elsewhere. 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. Or do you think Kelly left it open to all comers?

As Fisherman points out you seem to find it very irritating when your non factual assertions are questioned and rational alternative explanations are proposed for things which you have erroneously and misleadingly put forward as ‘must haves’.

If I was you (!) I would comment on why you bother to post on here if you get so irritated and nauseous on such a regular basis, and over a weekend as well. But I won’t as it is your prerogative, and making such assertions all the time is more than a little tiresome.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"This is irritating nonsense."

For some reason, every- and anything that does not play along in your fairytale tends do be described in that way. Not that it matters - the fact that Hutch does not mention a woman we all know were there, but instead nails two (2) other people close to the scene of the crime, claiming they were the only ones there, is and remains something that speaks loudly and clearly about the flaws in your conception. To get around it, you choose to conjure up strange scenario of a killer who stood to benefit if mentioning Lewis, instead opting for leaving the police in doubts. So I fully realize what you find "irritating".

"there’s no evidence that Hutchinson was ever asked any such question."

And this time we need not use "common sense"? No?

You write, to Lechmere:
"Look, a pig-headed and obstinate refusal to stare common sense in the face is not the same as “pointing” something out."

"Irritating" though it may seem, Lechmere is completely correct: there is nothing in it to allow for any call either way. And not only do we lack the knowledge about when the beer was drunk and by whom - we should also refrain from drawing the conclusion that it WAS beer. I take it that to you, this is "glaringly obvious" and "common sense" - but to me, it is no such thing. We don´t know what it was, and even if we accept that it was beer, how in the whole world can we tell how much of it there was? It could have been close to empty, with just the last sip on the bottom. Or is it once again "obvious" that the couple had exited one of the nearby pubs minutes earlier with a full pale of ale?
I think - just like Lechmere - that you need to be a bit more wary of other possibilities than the one you favour:
1. Cox may have misjudged Kelly state of drunkenness.
2. If Kelly WAS drunk, she may have taken in the alcohol that caused it some significant time earlier - she may, quite simply, have been on the brink of starting to sober up.
3. Blotchy may not have shared any beer with her.
4. Blotchy may have had very little beer or no beer at all in his pale.
These are all very relevant points that - most unfortunately - all stand in the way of allowing you to pass your version of as some sort of truth or, hrm, "near certainty".

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.

"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.

Kelly appeared drunk at midnight, and spreeish at 2AM if we are to accept the weighed-together evidence from Cox and Hutchinson. We may marvel at that as much as we want to, but as long as we do not know how much alcohol Kelly had consumed and at what stage/s, I fail to see how we could conclude that the two testimonies are unreconcilable. Drunkenness wears of at some stage if it is not refuelled, and I fail to see how we can judge this errand in any direction without the necessary underlying information to bolster it with.

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 ...?

The best,
Fisherman

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Lechmere

Sally hasn’t disabused me of anything. There is no evidence Flemming was in the Victoria Home in November 1888. End of story.

Hmm. Actually, no.

What I challenged you over, Lechmere, was your assertion that a person had to be resident in a parish for a year before receiving relief at the infirmary etc. That is demonstrably incorrect. Therefore your suggestion that Fleming could have lied about the length of time he was resident in Whitechapel in order to scam infirmary treatment is invalid.

Secondly, whilst it cannot be proven at present that Fleming was resident in the Victoria Home in November; it cannot be proven that he wasn't, either - so its a meaningless statement.

People did remain resident at the Victoria Home for protracted lengths of time. Henry Turner, for example was living at the Victoria Home in August 1888 wen Martha Tabram was murdered. This is also the address given by him several months later when he was admitted to the infirmary. There is no reason to suppose that he wasn't there for the duration. I don't see why the same can't apply to Fleming.

[Garry Wroe]

Was Mr Wroe an apprentice doctor? It isn’t physiologically impossible to appear drunk at 11.45 pm and merely spreeish at 2.15 am – what nonsense.

No, Lechmere. But I am a qualified psychologist with a more than sufficient knowledge of human physiology to be able to shred such ill-informed nonsense with little difficulty. For the time being, however, I will merely state that alcohol takes a full twenty-four hours to dissipate within the human body. 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.

Now, if you'd like me to provide the empirical evidence for such, I'd be happy to oblige.

[Ben]

“You ask why she got drunk if she had to earn to pay her rent? Hmmm let me think – maybe because she was a drunk.”

Exactly, and if she was getting drunk, it suggests that she can’t have been overly concerned about rent-collection, unlike Mary Cox who was heading back and forth onto the streets at all hours of the night. The fact that Kelly had let the rent mount up to such an extent is another compelling indication that she couldn’t have been that fussed about anything rent-related. But you go ahead and accept that an incredibly drunk Kelly could convert into a spreeish chatty Kelly in search of money from “Mr. Hutchinson” just two hours later and after almost certainly consuming more booze. It isn’t just Messrs. Wroe and “Ben” who find this unusual. Paul Begg also raised this inconsistency when we were both participants on the Mary Kelly podcast.

“Again you make an extreme claim that it was “glaringly obvious likelihood that he (Blotchy) did” share his drink. I have pointed out why it is not obvious.”

Look, a pig-headed and obstinate refusal to stare common sense in the face is not the same as “pointing” something out. Kelly was a prostitute and she returned home with a man with a pail of ale in his hands. They were headed for her room. What are the realistic chances of Blotchy refusing the already “in drink” Kelly a share of the pail once he was inside her room? Very remote. He would have been the tetchiest weirdo imaginable, and I’m afraid that if I have to point out to you why this sort of behaviour would be considered very odd by everyone else, that I’m afraid it reflects rather badly on you. Can’t see it from shabby ol’ Blotchy though, “We will engage in coitus as arranged, and then I intend to consume my beverage in private, thank you very much.”. We have no way of determining for certain whether Blotchy was a client or fellow boozer, but what seems clear is that it wasn’t a case of “in out, no strings attached” (in more ways than one), but one that involved some casual boozy singing.

Perhaps she was trying to convince Mr. Stingy-Bollocks to loosen up and share the pail.

“However common sense tells me that someone in any era would not cry out ‘murder’ just before being murdered.”

Lechmere, I sense increasingly that it would be a waste of emotional energy to become truly exasperated by your nonsense, such is its frequency of occurance, but once again, you delight in resisting the astoundingly obvious and claiming that the most compelling evidential links from the case are mere "coincidence". Sarah Lewis heard a cry of “murder” from a female voice emanating from the court. Elizabeth Prater heard the same cry. The next morning, a female was found actually murdered in that same court. The idea that this could be random coincidence just makes me feel sorry for the people who pretend to support it. Two independent sources heard a cry of “murder” from a court in which someone was murdered at around the same time. If people want to dismiss this is coincidence purely because of their laughable misconception that “someone in any era would not cry out ‘murder’ just before being murdered”, they are welcome, but don't expect the vast majority of discerning commentators to go along with it. Yes, the late 19th century Victorians spoke the same language, but they also used different expressions when applying them to certain situations.

“Talk me through this.”

No.

If you’ve got a problem with Garry’s suggested version of events once Hutchinson entered the room, then take that clearly irrational non-existent problem up with him. You were specifically asking me how Hutchinson could have been aware of Blotchy’s presence, and I told you that Garry’s book offers a very reasonable suggestion in that regard. I have no intention of “talking through” another author’s book at your behest. I would only point out that Hutchinson would not have been required to be “very well informed” about “how to open the door quickly and silently.” Pushing it straight open would have done the trick, and no knowledge is required for that expedient, despite your MO-related confusion. I would suggest MO and serial crime in general are not topics that you appear to be particularly familiar with.

“There is no evidence Flemming was in the Victoria Home in November 1888.”

There is evidence, there is just no proof.

But don't worry, lots of people confuse the two.

He is listed as having lived in Whitechapel for the period of time in question (encompassing November 1888), and the only address provided in the Victoria Home. That is evidence.

“I repeat – Archaic provided a definition of ‘military bearing’ and a one line reference saying ‘military appearance’ was associated with it.”

Yes, and it had nothing to do with any of the things you were trying to “associate” with it, happily for the truth.

Now back to Toppy...

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
Was Mr Wroe an apprentice doctor? It isn’t physiologically impossible to appear drunk at 11.45 pm and merely spreeish at 2.15 am – what nonsense. You ask why she got drunk if she had to earn to pay her rent? Hmmm let me think – maybe because she was a drunk. Maybe she did it most nights. I would suspect that would be a strong possibility that she did.

Again you make an extreme claim that it was “glaringly obvious likelihood that he (Blotchy) did” share his drink.
I have pointed out why it is not obvious. Why should he have done? He would have been paying the going rate for her services. The going rate would not include a swig of beer. I presume he was not chatting her up and needed to get her drunk (or drunker) in order to have his wicked way. I hear some disreputable fellows do this sort of thing.
While there is a possibility that Blotchy was not a client – it has to be regarded as a somewhat remote possibility.
He may or may not have given her any drink. He may or may not have drunk it while in her premises. We don’t know. I would suggest it is just as likely that he took the beer home with him as it is that he drank it there. To pretend otherwise is slightly pitiful.
With respect to these commonplace possibilities Mr Ben, all you have to do is say this:
“Yes there is a good chance he took the beer home with him. But he may have drunk it and he may have shared it with Kelly, we simply don’t know. I (you) favour the idea that she drank it and got utterly sloshed so that she was incapable of rising and was spark out when Hutchinson broke in later and killed her.”
That would make things a lot simpler and we could discuss something else.

On Cox – we have no idea whether she successfully found any clients. She may have and conducted her business outdoors. She may have preferred to do this. Maybe she wanted to keep her own lodgings private. Horses for courses.

Different witnesses did say that cries such as ‘murder’ were commonplace.
While I was not alive in 1888 (and I presume you were not either), I doubt that any dictionaries of Victorian expressions will have an entry such as ‘Murder – the common cry of a victim just before they are despatched’.
However common sense tells me that someone in any era would not cry out ‘murder’ just before being murdered. In any era it is more likely to be an expletive. They spoke the same language and thought largely the same thoughts as us. This repetitive ‘oh you don’t understand the late Victorian setting’ line of yours is very tiresome.

Talk me through this.
Hutchinson waited for Blotchy to leave, then he went up to the window, pushed the curtain aside, opened the door and entered.
It is 3 am and the ‘murder’ cry was at 4 am. So he has to hang around inside the room for an hour. He has to leave her asleep and untouched.
Apparently this is because Hutchinson is worried that Maria Harvey might show up and disturb him. So he doesn’t just get on with it, as he has done in the previous four or five instances (another change in MO). He loiters, for the second time in the evening, only this time inside 13 Miller’s Court.
Incidentally Hutchinson is very well informed about who may be coming and going and how to open the door quickly and silently. He has prepared a full mental dossier on Kelly (another change in MO)
He is very anxious about Harvey turning up unexpectedly so what does he do? He takes his clothes off and dries them by the fire. That is what anyone would do in a similar situation, isn’t it? Well anyone in late Victorian London anyway I reckon.
Eventually he shakes Kelly awake from her comatose slumber. She opens her drunken sleepy eyes, clocks the knife in an instance and screams ‘murder’ before the laggard Hutchinson’s knife could fall on her naked throat.

None of it fits a likely scenario in my humble opinion.

Sally hasn’t disabused me of anything. There is no evidence Flemming was in the Victoria Home in November 1888. End of story. Huff and puff all you like. Go on and on all you like. It changes nothing.

I repeat – Archaic provided a definition of ‘military bearing’ and a one line reference saying ‘military appearance’ was associated with it. Incidentally that one line reference made no mention of a bewiskered face – but you readily accepted that detail. Hmmmm. Consistency of argument isn’t one of your strong points though is it - as I have pointed out several times.