Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere Re:

Ben is right, and your idea of this place is more Oliver Twist/Old Hovis Ad..

I'm sure that the Sally Army had more or less the same ethos as the Victoria..

Although Orwell was writing at a later date, read what he had to say about being forced to wash in conditions (at a Salvation Army Home) that I 'd rather not wash in..I shouldn't think that things were much different in 1888..


I maintain that such conditions would be foul for Toppy -and he had known better and had a choice.

As far as Hutch goes -are you now telling me that, not only he had access to a private lock up, but he wouldn't attract attntion if he washed himself and his clothes -he was obliged to ??

(this gets better and better)

[Ben]

Excellent points, Ruby.

“Same answer, but in this case we must realize that the EXACT wording Toppy used is not possible to establish.”

Fisherman, we only have Reg’s word for exactly what his father said, and if we’re using him as basis for an identification of an historical figure from 1888, we can’t “fiddle” with the quotes directly attributed to Toppy in an effort to make them seem less outlandish. I’m afraid that until you’re in a position to prove that Reg meant anything other that what he claimed regarding his father's view, you’re essentially stuck with “It was more to do with the royal family than ordinary people” and “someone like Lord Randoph Churchill”. Yes, it’s suspiciously convenient that both quotes attributed to Toppy just happen to correlate with the suspect theory being touted by the interviewer at the time, but unfortunately, the blame for these outlandish claims originates not from Fairclough in this case, but from Reg, who claimed to have quoted his father directly.

It was a specific implication royal involvement in the murders, something you simply don’t do if you’re only wishing to convey the impression that the individual came from a higher echelon in society.

“The Toppy connection just adds to it. That is why the connection is opposed so vehemently by the Hutchinsonians.”

It has been opposed vehemently for years by many people, Lechmere, not just “Hutchinsonians” for whom such an identification would not make a scrap of difference, unless it is to be argued that family men or plumbers can't be serial killers. I could just as easily argue that the only reason you’re picking and choosing which aspects of Hutchinson’s account you want to be true is because you’re now a card-carrying “Toppyite”, and that you’re dismissing the proposed three-year acquaintance because Toppy was unlikely to have been bumming around with Kelly near Pennington Street in 1885. But as a general rule I try to steer clear of inflammatory categorizations of posters.

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Fisherman, we only have Reg’s word for exactly what his father said, and if we’re using him as basis for an identification of an historical figure from 1888, we can’t “fiddle” with the quotes directly attributed to Toppy in an effort to make them seem less outlandish."

The only outlandish thing around here is your claim that a forty year old chat between a father and his son would be exactly reiterated when an author with an agenda (sounds vaguely familiar) scribbles it down all them decades later. A good thing, then, that "it had more to do with the royal family than ordinary people" does not point out any more than a wish to level society on Toppys behalf, just as "someone LIKE Churchill" is not the same as "Churchill"! So I´m merrily "stuck" with that, Ben.

"it’s suspiciously convenient that both quotes attributed to Toppy just happen to correlate with the suspect theory being touted by the interviewer at the time, but unfortunately, the blame for these outlandish claims originates not from Fairclough in this case, but from Reg, who claimed to have quoted his father directly."

Oh, he SAID that: "I am quoting my father directly". I really should read that book again. I never saw that before!

You DO realize that this is silly, don´t you? And still, you try to squeeze something out of it that is not there, just as you try to make me look as if I have borrowed from the Ripper and the royals. Says a lot, that does!

"It was a specific implication royal involvement in the murders, something you simply don’t do if you’re only wishing to convey the impression that the individual came from a higher echelon in society."

Aha . So that´s why people who say that somebody moves like a queen are always speaking of Elizabeth II, right? And the king of Rock n´roll, Elvis Presley, is really prince Philip. Where do you HAVE these things from, Ben? From "What you say when you wish to convey societal status and importance", paragraph two, first section? Yes?

"I could just as easily argue that the only reason you’re picking and choosing which aspects of Hutchinson’s account you want to be true is because you’re now a card-carrying “Toppyite”.

That is one of the funnier things that has been claimed lately - that the Hutchinsonians have an opposing camp that have sold their souls to the devil in exchange for an ever ongoing support for Toppy.
Not true, I´m afraid. The only fanatic wiews around these boards are signed by people who endorse Hutchinson as the murderer. T´was always thus, and thus t´will always be.

"as a general rule I try to steer clear of inflammatory categorizations of posters."

Agreed, then!

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Fiskare,

Jag känner att du bara försöker få det sista ordet genom att vara dum och tråkig.

[Jane Coram]

Hi Letchmere,

Thanks. I think it very unlikely that Hutchinson had known Mary for three years, in view of her nomadic lifestyle, unless he had just bumped into her at one of her addresses and then lost contact with her again. It would seem nigh on impossible that he knew her consistently through those three years, unless he was following her about. This is especially true if Topping and Hutchinson are one and the same.

Hugs

Janie

xxxxx

[Fisherman]

Ruby!

Au contraire - je suis certain que tu n´as pas raison.

Pecheur

[Fisherman]

Hey Ben!

Guess what? I just saw "Castaway" on TV, the Tom Hanks movie, you know? And in it, just at the end, Hanks suddenly says about his lost fiancée: "We both had done the math."

So I checked on Google, and found 566 000 hits for "do the maths" and 2 880 000 for "do the math".

What has the world come to, Ben - am I now lecturing you about your own language? You should try Swedish sometime, it has a lot less words in it to confuse. Ruby had a go and did not do all that bad!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Mrs Retro (and Mr Ben), what do you mean my idea of the Victoria Home? I was only quoting contemporary accounts. I didn't provoide any extra information.

I don't think the washing facilities were very private - so a blood splattered Hutchinson would be a bit of a give away I suspect.

Orwell's 'Down and Out in Paris and London'? A good read but a polemic work, designed to raise hackles. Also he was not used to it - even if he did go to public school.

Mr Ben - I'm not totally convinced by the Toppy connection incidentally but he is the best match anyone has presented.

[Garry Wroe]

From the ‘By George’ thread:-

"Assuming your final sentence to be true, Lechmere, Hutchinson must have come forward in total ignorance of Lewis’s testimony and yet still placed himself at the same location as the man seen staring intently into Miller’s Court. Unless (as I suspect you might) you dismiss this co-occurrence as nothing more than coincidence, it must be concluded that the Lewis account provides independent corroboration for Hutchinson’s claimed Dorset Street vigil. More to the point, it extinguishes any potentiality that Hutchinson confused the date on which this vigil occurred."

Over the years, very much has been said about the "independent corroboration" you speak of, Garry. And the loiterer and Hutchinson have come to be treated as one and the same, since all they did was "so very alike"

But if, as Lechmere has argued, Fish, Hutchinson had no prior knowledge of the Sarah Lewis revelations, this is overwhelmingly the most logical and common sense conclusion.

What we know is that Hutchinson said he was there from 2.15 to 3 AM, approximately. Dew tells us that he is of the meaning that Hutchinson was confusing the dates.

Dew assumed Hutchinson to have been an honest witness who, owing to either date or time, must have been in error regarding his alleged encounter with Kelly. He leaves no room for doubting his belief that Carrie Maxwell was mistaken over the date, as witness, ‘[I]f the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.’

Tellingly, however, no such imputation was directed at Hutchinson. But then, how could it have been? According to Dew, ‘[t]he doctors were unable … to say with any certainty just when death took place …’ Thus, if the medicos were unable to specify a precise time of death, there was no possibility that Hutchinson’s alleged 2:00am encounter with Kelly was discounted on the basis of the available forensic evidence. No possibility whatsoever. Accordingly, we are left with but one alternative – Dew believed Hutchinson to have been mistaken over the timing of the Kelly encounter, not the date.

The evidence has been there all along: ‘Was the man in the billycock hat Jack the Ripper? In spite of contradictory evidence which came to light later, and in spite of a departure from his method of swift and sudden attack, I think he was, always providing Mary Cox was correct in what she said.’

So there it is. Dew believed Blotchy to have been Kelly’s killer. And since Kelly and Blotchy entered Kelly’s room shortly before midnight, Hutchinson could not have seen Kelly touting for business two hours later. In other words, Dew believed that Hutchinson’s Kelly encounter occurred significantly earlier than midnight.

So it turns out that you were right all along, Fish. According to Dew’s version of events, Hutchinson didn’t meet Kelly in the early hours of 9 November, he met her late on the eighth. And this, albeit in an unexpected way, certainly supports the notion of date confusion on Hutchinson’s part – assuming, of course, that one attaches any credence whatever to Dew’s evidentially uncorroborated conclusions.

[Ben]

Your latest observation was spot on, Janie!

Hi Fisherman,

“And in it, just at the end, Hanks suddenly says about his lost fiancée: "We both had done the math."..”

Oh boy…

Yes. This is because “math” is an American expression and Tom Hanks is an American. In England, we don’t use the expression “math”. We talk about “maths”. It appears that your googling efforts may have led you astray again, because you clearly missed Wikipedia’s entry:

In English, the noun mathematics takes singular verb forms. It is often shortened to maths or, in English-speaking North America, math.

I only commented on this in an earlier post because I was surprised to hear a Swede using the Americanized version.

If this was your attempt to “lecture” me “about my own language”, I’m afraid it backfired very badly.

Meanwhile, back on topic…

“The only outlandish thing around here is your claim that a forty year old chat between a father and his son would be exactly reiterated when an author with an agenda (sounds vaguely familiar) scribbles it down all them decades later.”

But the author’s "agenda" didn’t enter into the equation when it came to quotes directly attributed to Toppy by Reg, and I’m surprised to see you keep missing this distinction. Fairclough only comes into it if you want to suggest that he deliberately or unwittingly encouraged Reg to lie about what his father had told him, and invent Toppy quotes that Toppy was never responsible for. In which case, everything uttered by Reg should reasonably be treated as suspect, because if his father was the real witness, he would have no need to resort to outright fabrication when communicating with Fairclough.

“So that´s why people who say that somebody moves like a queen are always speaking of Elizabeth II, right?”

No, Fisherman.

“More like the queen” carries an entirely different meaning to “More to do with the Queen”. The latter involves the personal involvement of the real queen, whereas the former is merely an illustrative simile.

“That is one of the funnier things that has been claimed lately - that the Hutchinsonians have an opposing camp that have sold their souls to the devil in exchange for an ever ongoing support for Toppy.”

I think you’ll find that it has been those with a long history of hostility towards the suggestion that Hutchinson lied and/or murdered prostitutes that have demonstrated the most eagerness to establish “sides” over the issue, as witness their continued references to “Hutchinsonians”. It is faintly amusing to see the term “fanatic” applied to the calm and considered contributions of Garry Wroe and Bob Hinton, but fortunately a long way from reality. In all seriousness, though, it might be an idea if those sorts of accusations were kept to a minimum.

Regards,
Ben

[Ben]

What you say makes perfect sense to me, Garry.

It also neatly accounts for Dew's reference to witnesses being confused as to "time and date".

Going back a bit, it appears you're right about the lighting issue. I was probably thinking of Prater.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

No intellectual gymnastics required, Ben. The issue is beyond dispute. Or so you'd think ...

[The Good Michael]

So I checked on Google, and found 566 000 hits for "do the maths" and 2 880 000 for "do the math".

Of course 'do the math' is the preferred construction as 'math' is a logical abbreviation for mathematics. 'Maths' is actually unpopular among many British educators these days, but old habits die hard, and they seem to be stuck with it.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Garry:

" if, as Lechmere has argued, Fish, Hutchinson had no prior knowledge of the Sarah Lewis revelations, this is overwhelmingly the most logical and common sense conclusion."

It is a conclusion that most people - and that emphatically includes Abberline, since he would have seen the possible connection - would be prepared to draw. But there is little sense in not acknowledging that the similarities involved do not necessarily amount to very much! Very many lonely men will have stood outside Crossinghams over the years; thousands of them, I would think. To rule out that one such man - not Hutchinson - could have stood there for a minute or two at around 2.30 on the morning of the 9:th is nonsensical. I think you will admit this. And after that, what do we have? A perceived gaze towards the other side of the street, that´s all. A very good case can be made for Lewis not taking too good a look at her man - if she HAD, then why would she not be able to describe one single feature about him at the police interview? What if she simply saw him standing outside Crossingham´s, and when she turned into the archway, she had a nasty feeling that she could feel his gaze tickling in her back? She was a lone woman in the dead of night, and may have felt uneasy about the man´s presence - after all, it was a time when a seemingly mad killer stalked women. Maybe that was all there was to it.

"Dew assumed Hutchinson to have been an honest witness"

Apparently, yes. And so did Abberline. And without wishing to sound naïve, that tells us something.

"He leaves no room for doubting his belief that Carrie Maxwell was mistaken over the date, as witness, ‘[i]f the medical evidence is accepted, Mrs. Maxwell could not have been right. The doctors were unable, because of the terrible mutilations, to say with any certainty just when death took place, but they were very emphatic that the girl could not have been alive at eight o'clock that morning.’"

That´s how I read it before too, Garry. But the implication that she must have been wrong on the dates is actually NOT there. Lechmere is correct on that score. What Dew is saying here is simply that Kelly could not have been alive at eight. From that, however, it does not follow that Maxwell therefore must have been wrong on the day - she could just as easily have been wrong on person! Try and read it that way, and you will see that it works! Maxwell said she saw Kelly at eight - Kelly must have been dead at eight - therefore Maxwell must have been mistaken about seeing Kelly at that hour - BUT SHE MAY HAVE SEEN SOMEBODY ELSE THAT SHE MISTOOK FOR KELLY!

See what I mean? And that may be why Dew stated that eminent people like Maxwell may be mistaken, NOT NECESSARILY AS TO PERSON (like Maxwell was) BUT SOMETIMES AS TO TIME (like Hutchinson).

I had major problems scaling that wall, but once I saw the relevance in Lechmere´s view, it was easy. Now, there is no way to tell for certain if Dew meant that Maxwell was wrong on person OR on date, but my hunch is that she mistook persons. I think that is what Dew tries to tell us (he could have been clearer, mind you!)

"if the medicos were unable to specify a precise time of death, there was no possibility that Hutchinson’s alleged 2:00am encounter with Kelly was discounted on the basis of the available forensic evidence. No possibility whatsoever. Accordingly, we are left with but one alternative – Dew believed Hutchinson to have been mistaken over the timing of the Kelly encounter, not the date."

Not agreed, I´m afraid! The failure to mention Lewis speaks a very clear language here, as does the walking the streets all night in spite of the hard rain. And other things too may and would have been dug up that made the police realize that Hutch was off on the days. Just like you say, the time he was there would not have discounted his evidence as such in relation to the time of death -but other things would have taken care of that, I believe.

"The evidence has been there all along: ‘Was the man in the billycock hat Jack the Ripper? In spite of contradictory evidence which came to light later, and in spite of a departure from his method of swift and sudden attack, I think he was, always providing Mary Cox was correct in what she said.’

So there it is. Dew believed Blotchy to have been Kelly’s killer."

Yes, it is perfectly clear that he did. And?

"And since Kelly and Blotchy entered Kelly’s room shortly before midnight, Hutchinson could not have seen Kelly touting for business two hours later."

Correct, Garry. Spot on - he definitely could not. It is a very good point.

"In other words, Dew believed that Hutchinson’s Kelly encounter occurred significantly earlier than midnight."

No, no, no - Dew KNEW, just like we do, that Hutch had passed the clock he mentioned as it marked the two o clock time. Dew knew, just like we do, that if Hutch had been there before midnight, he would have been able to bed down at the Victoria Home. And Dew clearly told us that he had no wish to reflect on either witness, not Maxwell and not Hutchinson. Just like you say, "Dew assumed Hutchinson to have been an honest witness", and an honest witness would not lie about the times, would he?
So what are you suggesting? That he heard the clock strike eleven, but mistook it for two? The pubs would have been open at that time, Garry. The whole of Whitechapel would still have been bustling. He would not have mistaken that for the dead of night, would he? No, he would have followed what was seemingly his original plan and gone to his lodgings, would he not?

Dew´s belief, Garry, was thus not that Hutch was a few hours off. He was there on Thursday, not Friday - THAT´S what Dew banked on!

"So it turns out that you were right all along, Fish. According to Dew’s version of events, Hutchinson didn’t meet Kelly in the early hours of 9 November, he met her late on the eighth."

Garry, you are so close now, so don´t stop going! Although I am immensely grateful for your words, I have actually never suggested that Hutch was there late on the 8:th, for that would make no sense. I have said that he would have been there on the morning of the 8:th, listening to the clock striking two, taking in the deserted Whitechapel streets, realizing that he had missed cerfew on the Victoria Home. George Hutchinson was dropped because the police subsequently realized this, and once we accept this, all the bits and pieces fall in place.


The best, Garry!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"In English, the noun mathematics takes singular verb forms. It is often shortened to maths or, in English-speaking North America, math.

I only commented on this in an earlier post because I was surprised to hear a Swede using the Americanized version."

Then you are not aware that Swedes are allowed to use American English as well as British English. In our school books, it says that color is as fine as colour.
Apparently I was right. And you. In a sense.

"the author’s "agenda" didn’t enter into the equation when it came to quotes directly attributed to Toppy by Reg, and I’m surprised to see you keep missing this distinction."

I am a lot more surprised to see your complete faith in Fairclough´s total honesty, I must say! He would never, NEVER tamper with a quotation, sort of?

"In all seriousness, though, it might be an idea if those sorts of accusations were kept to a minimum."

If we can arrive at a stance where it is not suggested, for example, that researchers in an effort to get people off their backs resort to outright lying, it would help immensely. I have said myself, and will stand by it, that I would much prefer a sane discussion to slights directed at various posters. It had me called sanctimonious (and yes, I have done my share of scorning at times), but that does not bother me a bit - I am of the same meaning anyway.

The best,
Fisherman