Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Ben]

“Habitual drinkers often get drunk and sober up quickly. I believe such imbibers are known as topers.”

A “toper” is simply a chronic drinker, Lechmere, and no, they don’t “sober up quickly” after getting incredibly drunk. When Mary Cox last saw Kelly, she was so intoxicated that she could scarcely bid her neighbour a simple goodnight, and there was yet more booze to consume from Blotchy’s ale pale at that time. Surely nobody really wants to argue that this would have had a positive effect on Kelly’s “sobriety”? Because if so, they might wish to conduct a bit of field research on the subject! If you’re not sober, you’re under the influence of alcohol, and if Kelly was under such an influence when she was seen by Mary Cox, she couldn’t possibly have become more “sober” as a result of drinking more alcohol.

“do you think that there would be scant trade for a prostitute after 3am?”

…On a night of particularly bad weather, yes.

“If Hutchinson was there at 2.30 am are you suggesting he noticed Kelly going in with Blotchy at midnight?”

No. If he was waiting for Blotchy to leave, then I suggest that Garry Wroe’s version makes the most sense:

“But after reaching through the broken window pane and pulling aside the curtain, he saw by the flickering firelight a blotchy-faced man lying beside her on the bed. Both were sleeping. Cursing his misfortune, Hutchinson withdrew from the court and installed himself on the opposite side of Dorset Street.”

This from his excellent book, Person or Persons Unknown:

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media/book_reviews/non-fiction/garrywroe_full.html

This would imply that he entered the court itself in advance of Lewis arriving on the scene. Clearly he would not have been required to “break in” in order to ascertain whether or not Kelly had company, as the broken window pane would have aided him in the expedient of checking from outside the room.

“After that she could have gone out at any time in the morning to find her last client.”

Rather unlikely, for the reasons I’ve already provided, and her behaviour when in the company of the Blotchy man is hardly consistent with any grave concern over imminent rent collection.

“Flemming may have lived at the Victoria Home a year after the murders”

May have done, yes. He was also living there during the year of the murders.

[Roy Corduroy]

Good evening Ben,

George Hutchinson is discussed as though he were a real person. But if he was not Toppy, who was he? Because at some point, you have to wonder, if he can't be found, was George Hutchinson an alias.

Any help would be appreciated.

Roy

[Ben]

Hi Roy,

An alias remains a compelling possibility as far as Hutchinson is concerned, certainly. I've always considered it very unusual that Hutchinson appended three decidedly different signatures to his statement. One had a conspicuously florid capital "H" which was completely absent from the other two, and another had the abbreviated "Geo" as a substitute for the full "George". Clearly this was someone quite unaccustomed to writing "George Hutchinson" as a standardized signature.

That said, there are several other George Hutchinsons from the East End who appear in earlier census records who haven't been investigated yet.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“So, it seems possible that he did give a statement to Abberline and then testified.”

What - before the inquest?

Absolutely impossible, Mike.

Hutchinson was not known to the police until after the inquest, when he approached the Commerical Street police station at 6.00pm on the 12th November.

I realise what you’re getting confused about, though:

“Many articles say that Hutchinson gave his account to a reporter which matched with what he gave the police”

Yes.

This is because the police circulated the Hutchinson description to the press in time for the morning papers on 13th November, at which time no name was given, and the full account of his alleged activities that night was withheld. It was simply the description in isolation from anything else, and the likely intention behind this early release was to prevent a possible murderer’s trail from growing cold. The following day, Hutchinson himself communicated with the press and delivered his full account. The press then had both a name and an account to go with the description that had appeared the previous day. It seems likely to me that Hutchinson’s direct communication with “a reporter” was against the wishes of the police.

But there’s certainly no suggestion whatsoever that Hutchinson “testified” at the inquest. Fookin 'ell!

[DVV]

Lechmere

DVV
Venturney said someone called Joe (who may or may not have been Flemming) gave Kelly money (but this may have been a mix up with Barnett).

Nope, once again, just compare Venturney and Barnett's testimonies.

Flemming may have lived at the Victoria Home a year after the murders

If you could develop, I'd be interested.
Sources tell us that he moved to Whitechapel/Spitalfields in September 1888, and his only known address there is the Victoria Home.

[DVV]

Hi Roy

George Hutchinson is discussed as though he were a real person. But if he was not Toppy, who was he? Because at some point, you have to wonder, if he can't be found, was George Hutchinson an alias.

Any help would be appreciated.

Roy

I'm sorry you did not appreciate my help.

All the best

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’m not excluding the “possibility”, Fisherman. I’m dismissing the suggestion as improbable, because it relies on the discredited evidence being correct and the police-endorsed evidence, given under oath, being mistaken. I’m glad we seem to be in agreement over this, because to argue otherwise would very much undermine your published theory."

Once again, Ben, I don´t anticipate any personal defeat should my theory be wrong. A theory is a theory, nothing else, and if I was to invest my personal mental health in peddling the view that I must be correct, I´d be doing myself and the boards an injustice. Therefore, I have no problems at all to argue along other lines than the one representing my main thinking - which is why I immediately point out that nobody ever took any oath to press the point that Mary Kelly did not venture out after 3 AM. Nor is there any evidence that conclusively tells us that this was so.
And if we were to accept that the evidence does allow for us to say that the book was closed on this particular errand, we still need to realize that we are faced with more questions afterwards. If she could not possibly have sobered up in the manner Hutchinson implied, then he is either lying about it or mistaken about it. And if we disallow a mistake as to how drunk she really was, then the only mistake we can argue is one of timing - if it is not possible to go from much drunk to spreeish in two hours, then some other time passage lay inbetween the sightings.

So, if we must have a longer passage of time, allowing for the sobering up, then that time passage either lies behind 2AM - and it could not, since it would take us past the moment when she reasonably died - or IN FRONT OF IT, due to Hutchinson mistaking the days.

And if he DID, then we should go searching for corroboration in the material. We should look for things like discrepancies in the weather and a failure to point out things we know occured at the time and place he believed himself to have been present in Dorset Street. For instance, although we KNOW that Sarah Lewis passed through that street and walked up the court, we also realize that what it takes for a suggestion of a mistaken day to be viable is that George Hutchinson did NOT see Lewis. And whaddoyouknow...?

Once again, I am not saying that this is correct. It is, though, the best suggestion, given the material we have. This is not something that will hinder me from recognizing that Kelly could have been alive and well, merely spreeish, and out on the East End streets after 3 AM that morning. I don´t THINK she was, but I KNOW she may have been.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I suspect he never mentioned Kelly's clothing for the same reason - he didn't know what she was wearing before she retired for the night."

I fail to see that no questions were asked about this, Ben. Of course, we do not have it on record, but we all know that the interrogation would have brought up many a point that we have not on record. Do you really think that Abberline would have overlooked to ask about it?

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
George, William, Topping. Hutchinson, has been named as being the witness Hutchinson , by his late son Reginald, that is a fact.
As yet we have no proof that he was being truthful, and no proof that he wasnt, and its because of that, that the term ''benefit of the doubt'' must surely be the order of the day.
What we do know is that GWTH, was the proven father of Reg, and we know he was 22 years old in 1888, we should also note that Mary kelly was believed to have been around 24-25 years old at the time of her death, which makes it quite believable that both being young could well have been friends.
I would suggest that Hutchinson proberly told Abberline a lot more then is written in the statement, and could have been a considerable help in the investigation that followed after Kellys death, more then just a walkabout or two.
I also believe he was paid by the police, but asked not to put it ''about'' which would be an obvious ploy for any police informer, past. or present[ for obvious reasons].
I would consider Topping to have been a man of morals, and dignity, and not a time waster, and as for knowing one of the victims... no big deal in the 1920/30s, which is only 40 plus years after the crimes, I can recall knowing many people back in the late 60s early 70s, which is the same length of time, as Toppings recollections.
I am suggesting all of this because I am pro Toping, and who is to say that belief is wrong?, however no one can disprove the anti Topings wrong, so stale mate folks.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would suggest it would be a certainty that Hutchinson was asked to verify the clothing Kelly was wearing when she stopped and asked him for sixpence.
As he managed to give a full description of Astracan, it would be rather surprising if he could not recollect any clothing worn by Mary,
Also he was asked to view the body the following morning [ tues]and identify the body as that of the woman he met.
We should also note that Mrs Maxwells description of kellys clothing was found in room 13, that being the case, I am amazed that she was not asked to view the body at the morturary, as her sighting of Mjk would be of the utmost importance.
She obviously did not, as it would have been mentioned at the inquest,
Why not? did the police want the element of doubt to remain.
and if so Why?
The police seemed to want Hutchinsons account brought to light, ie, death being brought about by the murderous hands of ''Astracan'' in the middle of the night.
But not so the level headed Maxwell , quoted as a ''Respectable lady'', who identified clothing worn by kelly, and had stated she had seen kelly hours after medical opinion reported her dead.
Huge witness, but no viewing the body...how strange.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben
I believe I am right about a Toper – they have high levels of alcohol in their blood and one or two drinks makes them drunk and appear drunk – and when that works its way out of their system they seem sober. In fact they are never really sober but mask it. I have had extensive experience of such people. That is how they appear. Kelly could easily have been such a type – she clearly was a heavy drinker.

Something tells me you are going to argue until the cows come home that this is impossible.

So Hutchinson looks through the window and sees a sleeping Blotchy and decides to wait. That was clever of him. How did he know that Blotchy would leave before daylight? Do you suppose that most prostitutes cuddled up and went to sleep with their clients after conducting their business? How much light was there flickering? A noticeable amount it seems.

Please explain this remark: “her behaviour when in the company of the Blotchy man is hardly consistent with any grave concern over imminent rent collection.”

“He (Flemming) was also living there (the Victoria Home) during the year of the murders".
I think you mean someone called Joseph Flemming (or Fleming) claimed to have been living somewhere in the Whitechapel registration district for 14 months prior to November 1889 (he had to say this in order to get treatment which makes it possible he made it up) and was living at the Victoria Home in November 1889. Kelly’s Joseph Flemming had family in Bethnal Green. Would he have submitted himself to the degrading harsh and dehumanising realities of a common lodging house if he had somewhere else he could have gone? Even if he had a personal dispute perhaps with his parents, surely he could not have afforded himself the luxury of such diversions when faced with the grim reality of life in one of these bastilles?

Oh – and I think you will find that many East Enders will have been unaccustomed to writing their signatures.

DVV
The FACT is we cannot know for sure that Venturney’s Joe was Flemming.
The FACT is we cannot be sure that the person called Joseph Flemming was living in the Victoria Home from September 1888. Whitechapel had a lot of residences. The Victoria Home was for people of irregular domiciliary status. The chances of this Joseph Flemming being there continuously from September 1888 to November 1889 must be slim.

[Rubyretro]

I think that Mrs Maxwell viewed the body 3 times !

[Ben]

“Therefore, I have no problems at all to argue along other lines than the one representing my main thinking”

Very commendable, Fisherman, although it is interesting to note that whenever you’re arguing in favour of your theory or playing devil’s advocate against it, the consistent running theme is that you’ll be arguing with me about it. Whatever I might argue, whether for or against your theory, you’ll be disagreeing with me. As long as you’re gainsaying Ben, any position is fair game, apparently. My new argument is that the Pope is catholic – what say ye to this, Fisherman? “Actually Ben, I am of the meaning that he is Caribbean Sikh”.

The above was my humorous, friendly way of making a sincere observation for which I don’t expect any form of chastisement.

“If she could not possibly have sobered up in the manner Hutchinson implied, then he is either lying about it or mistaken about it. And if we disallow a mistake as to how drunk she really was, then the only mistake we can argue is one of timing”

Which carries with it all the attendant problems that we’ve already spent 150 pages discussing, which is why I’m personally inclined to dismiss the “mistaken” premise as improbable – not impossible – and to conclude instead that Hutchinson probably lied about it. You seem to be the only person, aside from Dew, who considers the “wrong day” scenario not just possible but “the best suggestion, given the material we have.” As you know full well, the factors you introduced such as the weather, and Hutchinson’s failure to mention Lewis lend themselves far better to the inference that Hutchinson lied than it does to any “wrong day” consideration. But please don’t keep going over the “Hutchinson didn’t mention Lewis” issue as though it had never been addressed. You know my thoughts on that issue by now.

“This is not something that will hinder me from recognizing that Kelly could have been alive and well, merely spreeish, and out on the East End streets after 3 AM that morning. I don´t THINK she was”

Ah, good.

Me neither.

“I fail to see that no questions were asked about this”

And I fail to see any evidence that Hutchinson was questioned about Kelly’s clothing. The parsimonious conclusion, therefore, is that he wasn’t. Were it otherwise, this detail would almost certainly have been included in the statement. An important trap to avoid is the dreaded Lost Report Syndrome, which I tried to caution Lechmere against. It asserts that “I have no evidence that this report ever existed, but trust me it did once upon a time, and trust me, it would have said exactly what I'm claiming it said!" We don’t do that here.

But back to Toppy…

If you want to revive “wrong day” again, start another thread.

[Abby Normal]

Habitual drinkers often get drunk and sober up quickly. I believe such imbibers are known as topers. Kelly may have been a toper.
This is not to be confused with Toppy.

Mr Ben - do you think that there would be scant trade for a prostitute after 3am? I am interested in your opinion on this matter.

I find it difficult to reconcile Hutchinson’s loitering outside Miller’s Court with Hutchinson waiting for Blotchy to leave – before going in either hoping to kill or to kip.
Blotchy went in before midnight. If Hutchinson was there at 2.30 am are you suggesting he noticed Kelly going in with Blotchy at midnight? This probably discounts the possibility that he went to Romford or if he did he got back much earlier than he said. Would he then have loitered around knowing he would miss the Victoria Home curfew?
If he got there later (i.e. at 2 ish) and didn’t witness Blotchy with Kelly, then how would he have known whether Kelly was alone in her lodgings? If he was a stalker and broke in he could have found another bloke in there. Barnett could have been back there for all he knew.
This is another weakness in the Hutchinson case. If Kelly did not come back out after she was seen with Blotchy, then you have to assume Hutchinson saw Blotchy leave. 13 Miller’s Court seems to have fallen silent before 1 am. This suggests that Hutchinson was loitering a lot earlier than 2 am – if he was the person seen by Lewis at 2.30 am.
Or did he knock on Kelly’s door on the off chance? That would have been a risk. There could have been a bloke in there or she may have been spark out.
Or perhaps Blotchy went in at midnight and left at 3am and was seen by Hutchinson leaving. If so when did Hutchinson began his vigil? Surely not at midnight? Other people were in and out and didn’t report a loiterer at an earlier hour, although such a negative does not prove no one was about. That would mean he was lurking outside a quiet address wondering what was inside when luckily Blotchy emerges, so telling him that the coast was clear.
None of it really fits.
I am sure she was picked up in the street and took her killer back there.

I am not sure whether Hutchinson was there at all that night. I believe she was certainly spotted with Blotchy. After that she could have gone out at any time in the morning to find her last client.
She was supposedly behind in her rent and may have been trying to get some money together.

DVV
Venturney said someone called Joe (who may or may not have been Flemming) gave Kelly money (but this may have been a mix up with Barnett).
Flemming may have lived at the Victoria Home a year after the murders

Hi Lechmere
Great questions. Since I am leaning towrds thinking that Hutch did not see A-man or MK out on the streets that night, I think he would have to go to MK's room. Perhaps he looked through the window or maybe even knocked on her door and was told to bugger off. Hence he began his vigil to wait for MKs guest to leave. If he was JtR then his vigil was a success as he saw the guest leave and then made his move. If he was not then he eventually just left.

Its interesting to note that one of his newspaper versions he said he did venture down the court to her room. Whether it was really before, during or after his vigil, well...

[Rubyretro]

Hi Lechmere
Great questions. Since I am leaning towrds thinking that Hutch did not see A-man or MK out on the streets that night, I think he would have to go to MK's room. Perhaps he looked through the window or maybe even knocked on her door and was told to bugger off. Hence he began his vigil to wait for MKs guest to leave. If he was JtR then his vigil was a success as he saw the guest leave and then made his move. If he was not then he eventually just left.

Its interesting to note that one of his newspaper versions he said he did venture down the court to her room. Whether it was really before, during or after his vigil, well...

Very interesting, Abby....that waiting about outside the Court might have prolonged the 'pre-attack excitement' that you mentioned in an earlier post..

I expect that he did venture down the court to her room too, just as you
suggest..