Did Hutchinson get the night wrong?

[lynn cates]

which

Hello Ben.

"the mason's plasterer and son of Richard and Henrietta Fleming is almost certainly the mason's plaster Joseph Fleming mentioned by Barnett"

Just for clarity's sake, I wonder if you are familiar with Bob Hinton's alternative identification of Flem(m)ing? I believe he rejects the offspring of Richard and Henrietta and plumps instead for a son of George and Sarah.

Cheers.
LC

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It was all “relayed by Reg”, Fisherman. But in this case, he claimed to be quoting his father directly, as can be seen in the sentences wrapped in quotation marks below in the relevant extract from The Ripper and the Royals:

Whenever the subject of Jack the Ripper came up, as it often did in the East End in the twenties and thirties, because many people who were there when it happened were still alive, he used to say: "It was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people." And when asked who he thought it was he always said: "It was some one like Lord Randolph Churchill".

It is quite true that Reg offered some rather fanciful speculations of his own, but here he was putting words in his father’s mouth."

Right, Ben. Letīs see what weīve got! To begin from the end, just like you say, this is Reg putting wordīs in his fatherīs mouth. Which is what I said from the outset. This is what REG says that Toppy told him, filtered through Faircloughs authorship. So whatever we are dealing with, we need to be very wary.
It must also be pointed out that you - and next to everybody else - would seem to be of the meaning that Fairclough seemingly had a decided interest to try and lean things in the direction of a royal connection.
Those who say so - and I am among them - would make a very counterproductive argument if they claim that Reg`s wording would never have been tainted by Faircloughs interests, as you may understand.
And, in the end and at any rate, we STILL donīt have any safe pointing out of either the royal family OR Churchill, even if we make he call that the phrasings in Faircloughs book must be true. "It was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people" means that the affair was something that led the thoughts more to the royals than to ordinary people, just like "It was some one like Lord Randolph Churchill" means that the thoughts in this instance were led more to someone LIKE Churchill than to ordinary people.
And please appreciate that Reg was speaking of a father who had been dead for many a decade!

"You asked me where all the criminals were that I mentioned as having frequented Dorset Street to give it its bad reputation, and I alluded to the presence of Jack the Ripper."

Absolutely, Ben. So you did! But please remember WHY you did it - to bolster that the street was too noisy to allow for Hutch to make out what the couple said. And really, pointing out that Jack MAY have been there inbetween 2.15 and 3 AM (although Hutch did not mention him), is not exactly the same as proving your point on the noise ...!
But never mind - you will never be able to prove that one anyway, will you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"Although no broadcast has yet been found, I must make it clear that the Radio broadcast which I heard in the early-mid 1970s made mention of a man of 'higher up the ladder', which allegedly came from the lips of the witnesses son"

Radio programme or no radio programme, Richard, that is EXACTLY how I perceive what Hutch reckoned astrakhan man was about. No royalty, no Churchill - just a man of enough importance to have himself discarded.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Well Fisherman thinks that he stayed out on at least the night of Kelly's murder."

Do I? Really? Or have I said that I think he was there on the night BEFORE Kelyīs murder?

Which was it, Ruby? Give it some hard and long afterthought, please!

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Well, Mr Ben:
I am certain you are wrong over the mean of late night entry to the Victoria Home;
I am certain you are wrong about the best time in the day for a prostitute to earn a good living in the East End of 1888 (Polly Nichols had her did money three times over early in the evening yet took an hour to find the Ripper almost certainly her last client);
I am certain that you are wrong to characterise the streets as still crowded between 1 am and 4 am.

I will readily concede that we only have Reg’s word for those core facts. I was being gallant and am reluctant to accuse Reg of being an outright liar of the worst order, which I guess is how you view him. The only caste iron facts are that his father was called George Hutchinson, he was aged 22 at the time of the murders and he lived in London and his later life at least was spent in the East End. I would then distill Reg’s ‘claims’ associated with his father to establish his core ‘claims’.

Hutchinson’s claim to have walked about all night as he was late (rather than because he had no money) was in exact accord with what we know were the published rules of the Victoria Home. They are not in accord with your version of the Victoria Home’s rules.

We have no idea whether he was a fully fledged plumber in 1891, rather than someone who picked up the trade maybe by on-the job learning. Do you suppose the census enumerator asked to see his certificates? Is everyone who works as a lumber now fully qualified? Of course not!
How do we know that he didn’t learn in his teens, fall out with his dad, moved to the East End, did some itinerant work, trying to be independent, failed and picked it up again later. There are so many potential options, that make ruling out the possibility on the grounds you mention far from sound.
As I said and as you actually demonstrated, the whole Flemming business is ‘filling-in-the-blanks’ (what a wonderful all-purpose expression).
.
Princess? We will have to wait and see

[Debra A]

Hello Ben.

"the mason's plasterer and son of Richard and Henrietta Fleming is almost certainly the mason's plaster Joseph Fleming mentioned by Barnett"

Just for clarity's sake, I wonder if you are familiar with Bob Hinton's alternative identification of Flem(m)ing? I believe he rejects the offspring of Richard and Henrietta and plumps instead for a son of George and Sarah.

Cheers.
LC

There were definitely two Joseph Flem(m)ings about of the same age and both with connections to Bethnal Green. One of them is Bob's man.

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=11601&highlight=flemming

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Debs. Thanks.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

Hi Lynn,
Although I think Bob found a legitimate alternative candidate, I don't think Joseph Flem(m)ing had the alibi of being in the Bethnal Green workhouse in 88 at the time of the murders like Chris says at the beginning of the link I posted. I think this was Bob's man, who I don't think was MJK's Flem(m)ing...if that makes sense?

[sleekviper]

Plumber in 1891? Well that was the year that Thomas Crapper patented the valve toilet, the basic flushing model of today. Talk about steady work, it would have been a gold mine of steady work if he made the move.

[lynn cates]

t'other

Hello Debs. Then the Evans/Flem(m)ing chap is still on the list?

Cheers.
LC

[harry]

On the question of whether Hutchinson got the day/night wrong,I have yet to hear a plasible reason of WHY he should have done so.If it's a cause of memory plays false tricks,then maybe it was Lewis who got it wrong,or Cox seeing Blotchy on another night.Then we have Maxwell and Prater.Each gave their evidence on the Monday.

[Lechmere]

Harry - but most gave statements more or less immediately after the body was found.

I'll throw this one in.
It is repeatedly stated that Hutchinson was out of work when these events unfolded. I believe this is based on Abberline's report that was sent to Scotland Yard aftre Hutchinson's interrogation.
This is how Abberline phrased it:
“Hutchinson is at present in no regular employment”
That does not mean he was unemployed. It suggests he was working casually - in other words taking a day's work here and a day's work there. Doing that is harder than having regular work. He may in fact have worked every day.
Apart from the day he went to Romford perhaps, as he claims to have no money at the end of that day and he also claims not to have been drinking.

[Monty]

Ben,

Prostitution never has been illegal.

Initially the women were charged with loitering. So to combat that them perambulated up and down certain areas.

So the law was change to state that soliciting was illegal.

A small point, and doesn't alter your point at all.

Monty

[Rubyretro]

Eureka !

Hutch felt safe loitering in Dorset street, because while (according to reports on conditions in Dorset street) there would normally be knots of people gathered talking after the pubs closed, and homeless people sleeping along the pavement (as the Police didn't patrol there) -on the night of Kelly's
murder Dorset Street was relatively deserted, BECAUSE OF THE RAIN.

[Ben]

“This is what REG says that Toppy told him, filtered through Faircloughs authorship.”

I might accept that some aspects of the Reg interview showed signs of undue influence from Fairclough’s authorship, Fisherman. It is clear, for example, that he came to accept the “Abberline diaries” as genuine purely because Fairclough explained to him that they were. In other respects, however, it is very clear that Reg was prepared to provide a few tall tales of his own. The fact remains that Reg attributed those statements regarding Churchill and the royals directly to his father. Either Toppy really said these things or he didn’t. If he didn’t, it is clear that Reg made them up in order to attract the interest of Fairclough, in which case, it is more than reasonable to infer the same about the entire Toppy association with anything ripper-related. I’m afraid there can be no other realistic explanations for the quotes Reg attributed directly to his father.

A specific implication that the murders involved the royal family was what Toppy provided, according to Reg, and this is not something sane people do if they merely wish to convey the impression that the man observed was ostensibly of a higher social class. Regardless, it still makes a complete nonsense of the real description provided by Hutchinson of an ostentatious Jewish looking man who “lived in the neighbourhood” in which the murders were committed, i.e. nothing “like” Lord Randolph Churchill or any member of the royal family.

I’m afraid this is a simple case of throwing out the bathwater with the…well, bathwater.

“But never mind - you will never be able to prove that one anyway, will you?”

What, are we still on noises and decibels and distances?

No, I don’t think I will ever prove it, but I think good old-fashioned screamingly obvious common sense will suffice.

Best regards,
Ben