Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally.
The mention of sixpence gave me a thought.
What if it infact was Hutchinson, who asked Kelly to lend HIM sixpence, with the remark 'Hello Mary Jane , could you lend me sixpence, i have been down to Romford and have spent out.
That would make more sense then Kelly approaching him at 2am, after all she had a room to sleep in, he hadnt.
I find it strange that here we have two people of approx age, who knew each other meeting at 2am in commercial street, one tired and in need of a roof, the other in need of money and company.
If one takes Astracan out of the equasion, what a solution.
If I promise to give you a shilling tommorrow night, could I spend the rest of the night in your room?
All right my love , you will be comftable..
Two friends in the night, innocent scenerio, that is until he realizes Mary was butchered, but she was alive when he left her room at 615, shutting the door on his way out, en-route to the Victoria home.
Fear can make a person react in all sorts of ways, mayby placing a innocent man, who he saw at the corner of Thrawl street , just before he encountered Mjk, and elaborating him into a suspicious character, making him the man who entered that room, with all the conversation, that proberly he had spoken to Mary.
All possible??
Regards Richard.

[jason_c]

Many thanks indeed for the kind words about my article, Garry, and for your generous encouragement when putting it together.

For what it’s worth, I agree entirely with your view that Maxwell was likely to have confused the identity of the woman rather than the date of the encounter.

Hi Hunter,



Very true, although even more significant is Abberline’s next observation:

“…the people who alleged that they saw Jack the Ripper at one time or another, state that he was a man about thirty-five or forty years of age. They, however, state that they only saw his back, and it is easy to misjudge age from a back view”

As far as Abberline was concerned, therefore, the only witnesses still being considered as such who described a man of that age group were only able to obtain a rear view, and since Hutchinson described a man from this age-bracket and claimed a full-on frontal view, he can’t have been considered a potentially ripper-spotting witness at this stage. He is effectively ruled out by Abberline’s criteria.

All the best,
Ben

Abberline gives no reason for ruling out Hutch. Too long a time gap between the sighting and Kelly's death is as good a reason as any.

[Ben]

Hi Sally,

Very good points – agreed all round.

It doesn’t make any sense for Hutchinson to have set off on a very extensive trek in the certain knowledge that the place where he “usually slept” would have been closed for well over an hour by the time he arrived. He claimed to have had no money, thus “explaining” his failure to secure lodgings at another establishment, and yet he later informed the press that he “walked about all night” from 3.00am onwards because the Victoria Home was closed. But what relevance has the closure of the home to a person with no money to pay for a bed? Hutchinson had quite simply changed the reason for his failure to gain entry to the Victoria Home. The implication, therefore, is that he was in possession of some money, and could have secured a bed had he wanted one. The whole Romford claim strikes me as an attempt to legitimize his presence on the streets in the small hours, and to provide a superficially credible reason for his failure to secure lodgings.

The police might well have come to doubt the Romford tale, but the likelihood is that any such doubts would have been used as additional fuel for their suspicions that Hutchinson was yet another time-waster of the Matthew Packer variety.

“Too long a time gap between the sighting and Kelly's death is as good a reason as any.”

I strongly disagree, Jason.

This would have been a terrible reason for ruling out a witness.

If the police still accepted Hutchinson’s account, they couldn’t possibly have ruled Astrakhan out as the killer purely on the assumption that he must have left the scene before the real murderer arrived unseen shortly afterwards. He would still have been the last person observed in Kelly’s company.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sally]

Hi Ben

It doesn’t make any sense for Hutchinson to have set off on a very extensive trek in the certain knowledge that the place where he “usually slept” would have been closed for well over an hour by the time he arrived. He claimed to have had no money, thus “explaining” his failure to secure lodgings at another establishment, and yet he later informed the press that he “walked about all night” from 3.00am onwards because the Victoria Home was closed. But what relevance has the closure of the home to a person with no money to pay for a bed? Hutchinson had quite simply changed the reason for his failure to gain entry to the Victoria Home. The implication, therefore, is that he was in possession of some money, and could have secured a bed had he wanted one.

Spinning a yarn, wasn't he? Well, in any event, he appears to have acquired some money by the time the Victoria Home opened the next morning, since that's where he said he went. Hmm...

The whole Romford claim strikes me as an attempt to legitimize his presence on the streets in the small hours, and to provide a superficially credible reason for his failure to secure lodgings.

He'd still have needed a reason to have set off so late though - lucky for him there was one to hand, wouldn't you say?

The police might well have come to doubt the Romford tale, but the likelihood is that any such doubts would have been used as additional fuel for their suspicions that Hutchinson was yet another time-waster of the Matthew Packer variety.

Which is clearly the conclusion they did come to. Hardly surprising.

Best


Sally

[Garry Wroe]

Again you state that Maxwell proberly got the wrong person, also adding that she was proberly a honest witness.
But no mention of the speech impediment?
That would be the gem in identification would it not.
If Carrie was adamant in that , and all the others had not noticed that in kelly, then not only the police , but the good woman herself, would have known instantly wrong person ....full stop.

The speech impediment, Richard, was mentioned by Maxwell during the course of at least one press interview, but not, so far as I’m aware, in her official police statement. It may well be the case, therefore, that investigators were unaware of this particular aspect of her story. There again, had they been aware of it, it would have represented yet another reason for scepticism regarding her Kelly-related claims.

Not to mention Kellys distinctive hair, and the fact that she had all weekend to realize her error, yet.
a] she was still called to the inquest
b]she was still sworn under oath....even if she was describing a completely different person to all the others.
I cannot buy that Garry.

As I’ve already stated, Richard, Maxwell’s appearance at the inquest hearing should in no way be taken as confirmation of her veracity.

The only other alternative is wrong day.

Maxwell was interviewed within hours of her last alleged meeting with Kelly, on the basis of which it is nigh on impossible that she confused the day of this encounter. Thus we can only infer that she either fabricated her story or told the truth to the best of her knowledge. Personally, I plump for the latter option. But the fact that she had only ever met Kelly twice, encountered her when the medical evidence clearly stated that Kelly was dead, then described the tall Kelly as short and dumpy (throwing in a speech impediment just for good measure), means there is every indication that the Kelly sighting was no more than a case of mistaken identity.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Tom_Wescott]

For instance, have ever you ever called Fisherman “the fish,”

Yes. And Fish Stix, etc. Wow, you really are new to the boards.

You still seem to be edging around your use of the “negative stance.”

No edging, just waiting for you to provide me with the quote of me using the term 'negative stance'. You do that and I'll be able to explain my meaning. As it stands, I don't recall using those words, so no explanation is therefore possible.

Insecure and paranoid? Again emotive words. Now what is the reason for that?

Your posts reaked of insecurity and paranoia, so I asked you why that is.

Could it be perhaps that you have already nailed your colours to the mast in stating that you believed that Fisherman’s article deserved the Beadle prize?

What's that mean? I stand by it. But to be fair, Rip's output over the last year has left much to be desired, so Fish's competition would be light. It's all a moot point since he didn't publish in Rip. And as for nailing my colo[u]rs to a mast, I'd say the only colors I see are the ones you're using to paint me into a corner.

Are you trying now to regain some peer respect?

Wow, you really are new to the boards.

Since you're asking silly questions, here's one - why are all your posts to me edited? You in the habit of second guessing yourself?

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

P.S. The poli-sci crap gets old quick, so experiment with different approaches.

[jason_c]

Hi Sally,

Very good points – agreed all round.

It doesn’t make any sense for Hutchinson to have set off on a very extensive trek in the certain knowledge that the place where he “usually slept” would have been closed for well over an hour by the time he arrived. He claimed to have had no money, thus “explaining” his failure to secure lodgings at another establishment, and yet he later informed the press that he “walked about all night” from 3.00am onwards because the Victoria Home was closed. But what relevance has the closure of the home to a person with no money to pay for a bed? Hutchinson had quite simply changed the reason for his failure to gain entry to the Victoria Home. The implication, therefore, is that he was in possession of some money, and could have secured a bed had he wanted one. The whole Romford claim strikes me as an attempt to legitimize his presence on the streets in the small hours, and to provide a superficially credible reason for his failure to secure lodgings.

The police might well have come to doubt the Romford tale, but the likelihood is that any such doubts would have been used as additional fuel for their suspicions that Hutchinson was yet another time-waster of the Matthew Packer variety.



I strongly disagree, Jason.

This would have been a terrible reason for ruling out a witness.

If the police still accepted Hutchinson’s account, they couldn’t possibly have ruled Astrakhan out as the killer purely on the assumption that he must have left the scene before the real murderer arrived unseen shortly afterwards. He would still have been the last person observed in Kelly’s company.

Best regards,
Ben

I agree it would be terrible to rule out such a witness in the short term. This of course did not happen. All we know is that Abberline had reached such a conclusion nearly 20 years later.

[babybird67]

Your posts reaked of insecurity and paranoia, so I asked you why that is.

Really Tom? I think Hatchett's posts are always admirably assured, competent and professionally worded. Not surprising to me as I know what he does for a living. You even said yourself in one of your posts you were surprised he was new because of the apparent assurance and confidence he appears to have for a newbie. Yet now you think he's insecure and paranoid? There is only one person on this thread whose posts reek of that, and it isn't Hatchett.

Since you're asking silly questions, here's one - why are all your posts to me edited? You in the habit of second guessing yourself?

Lol! And you accuse Hatchett of paranoia and yet you are reading something sinister in to his use of the edit facility? Wow. Just wow.


It's understandable you have to stand behind the article you described as worthy of the Beadle prize. Backtracking now would mean admitting you were wrong and not many people are capable of that. However, the article, which i originally described as being well written, being the mean cruel bitch that I am lol, is not based on any new evidence or any solid evidence in fact, and i would assume for the Beadle prize a slightly higher standard would be required, going on past recipients. I expressed that view with passion. It's no secret Fish and I clashed on the other Hutchinson thread however had he produced any evidence for his article i would have been happy to congratulate him.

You say i was offended by the article and have been mean. Yes i was offended by the fact that Fish took liberties with his primary sources, and suggested they supported his hypothesis which, when access to the primary source was provided, was actually untrue. So yes, that offends me, and yes i say so with passion. Does that make me mean? Well i have a hell of a long way to go to rival some people who post here. And if defending truth and wanting evidence for published claims makes me mean, then I can certainly live with being 'mean' once in a while.

Hope you had a lovely Christmas.

[Observer]

No, Observer, as far as we know, he wasn't a suspect. The police thought he was a time waster, like the other 50 odd people who turned up between the 9th and the 13th November with stories of 'witness' sightings. There's safety in numbers, you know.

Regards

Sally

Hi Sally

I think it best to leave the Romford story, you have your views, I have mine, we'll never agree.

Regarding Hutchinson the suspect, how many of the 50 odd people who turned up between the 9th and 13th November were stood opposite the murder site, acting suspiciously within an hour of Kelly's death? How many of those witnesses were found to be lying regarding a sighting of Kelly with a potential vital suspect? There is another inconsistency in Hutchinson's story, he maintained that he had failed to gain entry to the Victoria Home citing the fact that the Home was shut when he arrived back in Spitalfields. Wouldn't he have needed money to gain entrance? In the next breath he's saying that he had no money to give Kelly. A clear inconsistency. Would the police have picked up on that? I think they would have. I have speculated that it's possible he paid for his nights lodging on the morning of the 8th, which would tally with his assertion that he had no money to give to Kelly. However I have been reliable informed that this is unlikely, for if he he had paid for his nights lodging in advance, then entry to the Home was possible at any time.

There are several posters to this site who believe that Hutchinson murdered Mary Kelly, Ben is one of those posters. They have used the available evidence to make a good case against Hutchinson, why then didn't the police make the same assumption in 1888? I believe they eventually found out a lot more about Mr Hutchinson and his story, than we know today. In my opinion, if Hutchinson was eventually labelled a time waster, then some other factor emerged. I believe his whole story fell apart, including his presence in Dorset Street, he wasn’t there, he made it all up.

Observer

[Sally]

Hi Observer

I think it best to leave the Romford story, you have your views, I have mine, we'll never agree.

Fair enough. I don't think its worth arguing about, myself.

Regarding Hutchinson the suspect, how many of the 50 odd people who turned up between the 9th and 13th November were stood opposite the murder site, acting suspiciously within an hour of Kelly's death? How many of those witnesses were found to be lying regarding a sighting of Kelly with a potential vital suspect? There is another inconsistency in Hutchinson's story, he maintained that he had failed to gain entry to the Victoria Home citing the fact that the Home was shut when he arrived back in Spitalfields. Wouldn't he have needed money to gain entrance? In the next breath he's saying that he had no money to give Kelly. A clear inconsistency. Would the police have picked up on that? I think they would have. I have speculated that it's possible he paid for his nights lodging on the morning of the 8th, which would tally with his assertion that he had no money to give to Kelly. However I have been reliable informed that this is unlikely, for if he he had paid for his nights lodging in advance, then entry to the Home was possible at any time.

Agreed, Observer, its a load of old cobblers.

There are several posters to this site who believe that Hutchinson murdered Mary Kelly, Ben is one of those posters. They have used the available evidence to make a good case against Hutchinson, why then didn't the police make the same assumption in 1888?

Observer, I don't know if Hutchinson was a killer. I would say though that hindsight is a wonderful thing. We can look back at the events of the day in the past tense. The police on the ground at the time had no such luxury. They had no idea what was going to happen next - there was no indication then that the murder of Kelly would be the last. Indeed, there was some uncerrtainty about that in the months that followed. For the most part, we believe today that Kelly was the last victim. That could place the actions of Hutchinson, were he the killer, in a rather different light - as an attention seeker who just couldn't resist the lure of his own fame (if I understand the arguments correctly)

I believe they eventually found out a lot more about Mr Hutchinson and his story, than we know today. In my opinion, if Hutchinson was eventually labelled a time waster, then some other factor emerged.

Observer, you are clearly right. The police did know more about Hutchinson and his story than we know today - therein lies the rub.

I believe his whole story fell apart, including his presence in Dorset Street, he wasn’t there, he made it all up

I think thats what the police probably concluded - and that's why they didn't consider him a suspect: they thought he was just another time-waster, albeit one with an initially convincing story. I have considered that he might never have been in Dorset Street at all that night - in fact I think I might have said as much at one point.

There are some points in favour of that explanation - he seems to have seen neither Lewis, nor the other people on the street seen by her. He mentions in his statements to the press only a policeman and a man entering another lodging house. If he had really been there when he said he was, how did he miss the other people on the scene?

I suppose also that, although he claimed to have known Kelly for 3 years, and certainly gives the impression in his statements of having known her quite well; nobody appears to have known about him. Lewis didn't recognise him, if he was indeed the man outside Crossinghams. Barnett didn't mention him. Perhaps the police doubted that he had even known Kelly.

But, there are some problems with that explanation too. If he wasn't there at all, why say he was? He would have had to have been terminally stupid or entirely deranged to put himself in the picture for no other reason than to be famous for a day. What if he had become a suspect? What then? A very high-risk strategy if he wasn't even there.

Besides which, Lewis saw somebody. Somebody was standing opposite Millers Court on that night.

Best regards, Observer.

Sally

[Hatchett]

Thank you Baby Bird for coming to my defense. Your very kind words are much appreciated.

Now Tom Westcott

“ Since you're asking silly questions, here's one - why are all your posts to me edited? You in the habit of second guessing yourself?”

Well you are right there. I think that is a silly question. After all, there is the edit facility and there is not a warning notice saying that anyone using it can be accused of “second guessing.”

It is not at all clear to me at what you mean by second guessing. Perhaps you should consider editing your posts and then they may make more sense.

“Yes. And Fish Stix, etc. Wow, you really are new to the boards”

Is that an answer? I don’t think so.

“As it stands, I don't recall using those words, so no explanation is therefore possible.”

Then perhaps you can provide an explanation for “negative stance,” which is what I asked you for and the words that you did use.

“Your posts reaked of insecurity and paranoia, so I asked you why that is.”

So the emotive phrase is extended. Are you trying to bait me? What are you afraid of Mr. Westcott?

“I'd say the only colors I see are the ones you're using to paint me into a corner.”

Not particularly good imagery, but I will say that I have not painted you in any colours. If anything I have merely reflected the colours that you have painted yourself. If they force you into a corner then that is your own doing.

“Wow, you really are new to the boards.”

That is the second time you have answered a question with that. To be helpful could I point out that that is not an answer at all.

“The poli-sci crap gets old quick, so experiment with different approaches.”

I am not at all sure what you mean by poli-sci. That you describe it as crap would imply that rather than getting old quick it is already a waste product. That it appears to be offered as advice deepens the vagueness and mystery. Because of this I am unable to respond.

Incidentally, going back to an early comment you made concerning Communism. I am not a Communist. I am a Socialist. But that has nothing to do with it. I have always made it a principle of life that everyone is deserving of respect, unless they prove themselves to be undeserving.

Best wishes for the New Year.

[Phil Carter]

More possibilities?

Hello all,

With apologies to both Ben and Fisherman, but I feel it perhaps correct to introduce other possibilities into the discussion. Both their ideas are most intruiging and compelling.
On the Jtr Forums site a while ago, I had a few ideas about Hutchinson, following the following article:-

Morning Advertiser (London)
14 November 1888

THE WHITECHAPEL MURDER.
IMPORTANT CLUE.

The Press association says that since the termination of the coroner's inquest on Monday the police have become possessed of a most important link in the chain of evidence in the case of the murder of Mary Jane Kelly. This information may not result in the immediate capture of the assassin, but it will, it is thought, place the police in a position to guard effectually against further outrages. For obvious reasons certain particulars are withheld.

The person who has had an opportunity of being within speaking distance of the supposed assassin is an individual whose veracity is not doubted for a moment. It is now conclusively proved that Mary Jane Kelly, having spent the latter part of Friday evening in the "Ringers," otherwise the "Britannia" public-house, at the corner of Dorset-street, returned to her home about midnight with a strange man, whose company she had previously been keeping. Nothwithstanding that no evidence was produced at the coroner's inquiry to show that she left her apartment after one o'clock, at which hour she was heard singing, there is every reason to believe that she came out after that hour. This circumstance will account for the fact that no light was observed in the room after one o'clock, as stated by one of the witnesses at the inquest. The police have received statements from several persons, some of whom reside in Miller's-court, who are prepared to swear that the deceased was out of her house and in Dorset-street between the hours of two and three o'clock on the morning in question. It has been established to the satisfaction of the police that the unfortunate woman had been murdered at three a.m. or thereabouts on Friday morning. The name of the man who has given the information referred to to the police is purposely withheld for reasons which are necessary for his own safety. He states that he knew Mary Jane Kelly well, and that on the morning of Friday last he was in Dorset-street shortly after two o'clock. There he saw the deceased with a strange man. He spoke to the murdered woman. In consequence of the recent crimes his suspicions were aroused by the man's appearance, and he did not leave the vicinity, but watched the couple and saw them enter Miller's-court. After the lapse of a few minutes he went to the court, but could see no one about, and after waiting sufficient time he concluded that all was right and retired from the scene. He afterwards heard of the murder, but for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police. He took elaborate notes of the man's appearance, from which it appears that the supposed assassin's age is about 35 years, height 5 feet 6 inches, pale complextion, dark hair, curly dark moustache. He was wearing dark long overcoat, trimmed on collar and cuffs with astrachan, dark short coat beneath, light waistcoat, check trousers, white collar, black necktie with horseshoe pin, hard felt hat, and button boots with gaiters and light buttons. He also displayed from his waistcoat a gold chain. The detective officers engaged in the case attach the utmost importance to this statement, and are acting accordingly.

(my emphasis)

IF, and I say if delicately, "Hutchinson" was an informant, vigilance man, amateur detective in disguise or even a Met Policeman in plain clothes and underway with a surveillance operation, then there are obvious reasons for him NOT appearing at the inquest, and his real name NOT being given.
It would explain (apart from the later introduction of Topping) the fact that the man cannot be traced, it would explain the apparent ease that Abberline dismissed him being an obvious candidate for being a murderer desite him being possibly the last to see MJK alive.

I note the comments.. "his suspicions were aroused", "The name of the man who has given the information referred to to the police is purposely withheld for reasons which are necessary for his own safety.", "He states that he knew Mary Jane Kelly well" even though no one else knew of him, it seems,
"for certain reasons which it would be imprudent to state he did not immediately put himself in communication with the police.", and " He took elaborate notes of the man's appearance"...

Now that sounds like an undercover policeman/informant at work.

However. He made no notes, as far as we are aware of. So there is a plausible possibility the man "Hutchinson" was an independant amateur.
He could also be a vigilance man. He could also be a Special Branch informant.
The description of the man Hutchinson gave is SO detailed. Do I detect a trained eye here?

Without taking the man as a Special Branch detective (which is doubtful)... where do we lie, plausibility wise?

(to be continued on next post...)

[Phil Carter]

(continued from previous posting)

The problem with this suggestion, is the consequences that possibility leads to.

For the sake of the comment only, which some may find interesting, allow me to follow the possibility a little?

"George Hutchinson" is either...

a) a Metropolitan policeman wearing plain clothes
b) a police informant
c) a vigilance member
d) a private detective

1. We first look at his name. Obviously, we know of nobody with that name pertaining to a, b, c, d.
Police informants (b) are not generally known to us (at the present moment in time )

2. Do any of those titles above use "nom-de-plumes"? (b and d may well do)

3. Would the publishing of this name affect further work , given that is a false
name? In my opinion, it is not the name that would be revealing, if it were false.
More likely a wide-spread description and public sighting of that person would.
Appearance, however, at the inquest would bring a detailed drawing or
two in the newspapers, possibly a written description as well. (We do have
one drawing of Hutchinson, but as we do not know the true appearance of
MJK in the same drawing, nor her "aquaintance" apparently proposing her
as they walk, is the "George Hutchinson" drawing reliable?)

4. To keep the true identity of this man quiet from the general public, is it
likely that reasons for his being in Dorset Street are concocted?

5) If there is concoction of a story, a background, would this explain the fact
that nobody of whom MJK was connected with ever gave a comment
about this man, even though he claimed to have known her on a regular
basis for many years?

6) The details of the statement, when examined, are very descriptive. Does
this indicate a trained eye? Also, the statement was changed "Jewish
appearnce" being replaced. Are these things significant in light of any of
the above possibilities?

7) Would publishing the description be logical if any of the above were
realistic? Is it a case of the police using the press for their own use,
whatever the role of this man?

8) Do any of the above explain the apparent problem with tracing this person
in the years after the event?

9) Would any of the above explain the reason for Abberline taking this man's
statement personally?

10) This man is possibly the last known person to have seen MJK alive. That
puts him in a precarious position. Therefore, three things are
questionable here. If he was NOT a member of the general public, and his
story is concluded as true, then it would be logical for the police to
corroberate his story, by trying to find the man he mentioned the story
to during the weekend at the Victoria home. We have no record that
they did this. "Hutchinson" would logically have been a suspect by sheer
dint of timing and appearance very near the scene of the crime. Abberline
stated that he "believed" the story to be true. Would any of the above
explain Abberline's decision about the story and the man?

11) Is there a possibility of a noted line in the Special Branch ledgers if
the man were one of the above, possibly under his real name which
would corroberate this man being one of the above?

12) Has the sighting of Hutchinson from a woman in her statement a bearing
on all of this in terms of revealing, on the Friday, the sighting of a man
working undercover? Would this mean the man be publically "found" and
a statement presented?

13) Finally. Would the police use this type of under-cover surveillance, be he
Met Police informant, private detective or Vigilance
man?

Of course, some of the above give answers that are clearer than others. If undercover, then the possibility is that "Hutchinson" may have been in the area for other reasons. That would limit one or two of the above possibilities. (Vigilance man, Met Policeman in plain clothes).

I only do this in light of the article presented, which I find singular in many ways, I do not know the answer, but I would delicately leave the possibility open.

As stated before, undercover work by it's very description means varying degrees of secrecy. All normal rules are thrown out of the window. As in the case of an informant.

Plausible? Possible? I do not know. I do not think it should be discounted out of hand, given that article description. That is just a personal opinion though.

Something to think about and discuss perhaps? Enjoy!!

best wishes

Phil

PS My apologies to both Ben and Fisherman, but felt it perhaps correct to introduce other possibilities into the discussion. Both their ideas are most intruiging and compelling.

[Hunter]

That is, indeed, thought provoking Phil... so please excuse me for making this statement...

Would the individuals that have chosen to conduct a personal diatribe beyond the intended discussion of this thread please do so in the future through the PM option so the train of discussion on this subject will not be interfered with or other posters be unnecessarily exposed to such behaviour.

Thank you

[Tom_Wescott]

Hi Hatchett. Who's this 'Westcott' person you're talking to?

Babybird,

You must be a parrott because your post read like a poor mimic of things Hatchett had already said. Now be a good girl and get us some drinks.

A wonderful New Year to you both.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott