Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[DVV]

Nope, and the problem is rather about what you are looking for.
What you call "similarity" is far too vague to identify the A-Man and the "gentleman" noticed by Lewis, that's all.
Not to mention the timing.

[The Good Michael]

What you call "similarity" is far too vague to identify the A-Man and the "gentleman" noticed by Lewis, that's all.

Not by intelligent detectives looking for a killer. By you, Ok.

Mike

[DVV]

Lol....you look a desperate desperate detective, my dear.

[The Good Michael]

David, well I LOOK that's for sure.

Mike

[Ben]

Letchington,

I love the fact that you recognised that I would argue that this matter “until the cows come home” but still decided to plug away at it anyway.

“The reason I raised the toper issue was to counter your confident assertion that someone who appeared drunk at 11.45 pm, couldn’t possibly appear to be merely speeish by 2.15am”

I didn’t say it was impossible. I said it was very unlikely, although I would tend to endorse Garry’s observation that “it would further appear to be a physiological impossibility”. You have presented no evidence to suggest that Kelly had ever been a “toper” as you understand the expression (i.e. not very well, in my opinion), and the witness evidence from the inquest would tend to suggest instead that she was an occasional heavy drinker. If she was concerned about the rent and “had a need” to go out again, why did she get incredibly sloshed before hand when she knew it would only a provide a disincentive, if not a very strong impediment, to venturing out again into a cold night in miserable weather than there were previous few clients around?

The idea that Blotchy didn’t share his booze amounts to a rather nonsensical resistance to the glaringly obvious likelihood that he did. If he wasn’t a client, it was only natural for Blotchy to have shared his pail if he had any intention of remaining in the room, and if he was a client, it is reasonable to assume that the pail contents pay have contributed towards the payment for her services. As for street soliciting, it is clear that Mary Cox was doing precisely that on the night of Kelly’s death rather than going to and from the court, and the rain would hardly have been a deterrent given the proliferation of covered passages in and around the district.

“Oh – so you are qualified to tell us that Victorian murder victims shouted out ‘murder’ are you?”

No, I’m saying that you are most assuredly NOT qualified to assert that a Victorian murder victim would not shout out “murder” just because you think it seems a bit weird from your modern perspective. Nobody ever said that cries of “murder” were common in the district; only that cries in general were not unusual. If you think this remotely enervates the “coincidence” factor between a cry of murder coming from the court, and someone getting murdered later that morning in the same court, I’m afraid you’re sorely mistaken. But then again, you’ve already dismissed several glaringly obvious evidential links as having no connection.

“I haven’t suggested he lied about living at the Victoria Home in November 1889. I have suggested that it is unlikely that he lived there for the full fourteen months preceding”

But you have no reason to suggest any such thing, Lechmere, so why bother?

Sally has disabused of you of some of your misconceptions now, anyway.

Since when did Fleming enter into a discussion about “Topping Hutchinson”?

“Archaic didn't really provide any meaningful information on the meaning of 'military appearance'.”

Ah, that’s nice.

The source doesn’t mesh up too cleverly with Lechmere’s conclusions, so Lechmere rejects the source.

Archaic provided an unambiguous source that informed us exactly what “military appearance” meant in the late 19th century, so any protestations to contrary are hereafter to be considered worthless.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“I also think it is not a very nice thing to do - to try and implement the ppicture that a poster that opposes you do not do so out of rational decisions tied to the material of the case, but instead because of some sort of strange obsession."

Well then just say “I agree” when it comes to aspects of the case where we do happen to agree, such as the likelihood that Kelly was not up and about in sobered up "spreeish" fashion at 2.00am that night. We already have enough to disagree over without creating additional unnecessary discord.

“What stands to reason is that he WOULD have seen her IF HE WAS THERE. If he was NOT there, we should be very forgiving that he didn´t.”

But the chances of him not being there are astronomically slim, in my opinion, especially when we considere Lewis’ evidence. The chances of him not having seen Lewis, therefore, are to be considered equally remote.

“Mine is supported by a policeman from the time, yours is not.”

That would be Walter Dew, who you told me got things “terribly wrong”, and whose memoirs you told me are “riddled with mistakes”. You personally urged me not to listen to him.

“Mine has the evidence that Lewis was not mentioned speaking for it, yours do not have this advantage.”

This is irritating nonsense. “Mine” has the advantage of Sarah Lewis’ evidence miraculously coinciding, with near exactitude, with Hutchinson’s account of his location and movements at a certain time on the night of Kelly’s murder. Hutchinson probably deliberately avoided mentioning Sarah Lewis to avoid making it obvious that it was her evidence, and particularly her sighting of him, that forced his hand.

“But that, Ben, would not have prevented them from asking the very obvious questions about how Kelly was dressed and how he knew her”

Bu there’s no evidence that Hutchinson was ever asked any such question. There’s no reference to it in the statement, the police report, or any press version of his account. This tells me – and should tell everyone else – that absence of evidence almost certainly equated to evidence of absence in this, unlike other loose ends that were clarified in Abberline’s report.

“The police report, Ben: "About 2 am 9th I was coming...”

No.

That’s not the police report. That’s the actual statement. The police report was the document appended to the statement in which Abberline outlined his views on Abberline and fleshed out certain aspects of his statement (aspects that did not include Kelly’s clothing).

"Oh, but of course, we’re all fainting ‘neath the impenetrably logical arguments of Fisherman and Fetchbeer, with support from Mike"

Irony? Yes?”

You are astonishingly perceptive.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

"Your opinion is ''Unless you[ myself] can prove that Topping was the witness Hutchinson, shut up and be quiet''

I don’t demand proof, Richard, just evidence. Unfortunately, you haven’t even done that. A radio show that may or may not have existed, and which may or may not have featured Toppy fails spectacularly to qualify as anything vaguely resembling “evidence”, especially when we only have your word for it that existed, let alone featured Toppy.

A possibly non-existent, zero-provenance radio show from the 1970s doesn’t help “The Ripper and the Royals” in lending weight to the Toppy theory, nor does it assist the disastrously nonsensical Wheeling Register “gossip” column.

“Thats enough of me , how about introducing to us the real George Hutchinson? so we can compare..”

I would suggest the Hutch-comparison website off the telly might help:

Go compare!
Go compare!
Let’s find that chap
Who spouted crap
At Go Compare.

It wasn’t Toppy
But don’t get stroppy.

Just say thank you, Ben, for suggesting Go Compare!

Or failing that there’s always census research.

All joking aside, though, I don’t need to find a “rival” candidate of my own to demonstrate that Toppy is a misfit for a role of the real witness, anymore that the Maybrick diary detractors need to find a “rival” candidate to Maybrick in order to demonstrate that the document was forged.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

With respect, Mike, it is very clear that Astrakhan and the Bethnal Green botherer could not have been the same person, even if Hutchinson was telling the truth. Both Lewis and Hutchinson claimed to have recorded the time from church clocks that were unlikely to have been in error, and at 2:30am, Hutchinson was already waiting for the Astrakhan man to come out of Miller's Court. Not so coincidentally, Lewis saw someone "waiting for someone to come out" of Miller's Court at the same time.

Lewis saw her first man, the Bethnal Green Botherer at the same time (2.30) when the latter was stationed outside the Britannia, near the market on Commercial Street.

Put simply, these three things happened more or less simultaneously.

1 - Hutchinson was waiting for Astrakhan to emerge from Miller's Court.
2 - Lewis' wideawake man was apparently waiting to emerge from Miller's Court.
3 - Bethnal Green botherer was on Commercial Street.

BGB and Astrakhan must therefore have been separate entities, the recognition of which does not exclude the possibility that Hutchinson borrowed details from Lewis' BGB description for incorporation into a bogus account and description, nor does it negate the suggestion that Abberline might initially have endorsed Hutchinson's account because of the superficial similarity between Astrakhan and BGB.

But as we know, this endorsement was not to last.

All the best,
Ben

[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.

[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...

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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