Questions for Fairclough

[DVV]

What if Hutch went to Mary's room hoping for a bed or some floor space for the night, found she was already 'entertaining', gave it three-quarters of an hour then called it a night? When he found out what had happened to her, and realised he may have been seen there, he could have thought through his options and decided his best bet was to make up a description of a man he had never actually seen - the man he effectively left in the room with Mary, who was likely the last man to see her alive.

No, no, no, Caroline. If so, the man would have never shown up, or he would have shown up in time. How can an innocent man that nobody could trace be mad enough to come forward with such a lie ?
It doesn't work.

I'm as innocent as Toppy and if I had seen Mary's corpse already, believe me, I wouldn't have asked for more.

I also sense that if you were right, then Reg's account would have been completely different.

Toppy is a joke. This is more and more obvious, thanks to Fairclough-the-joker.
You're welcome to argue against Hutch-the-Ripper, but trust me, Toppy can't do anything for you in this respect.

He's the weakest evidence ever against Hutch's candidacy.

[DVV]

So what if Fairclough believes or believed Maybrick was Mary's killer? Why could he not still entertain the possibility that the witness was Toppy? The two positions are very far from being mutually exclusive.

The two positions are far from being mutually exclusive in our opinion, Caroline, that's right, but not in Fairclough's.
The fact that Fairclough never alluded to Reg nor Toppy in 1999, and chose to support a completely different theory, speaks volumes, don't you think ?

[Garry Wroe]

What if Hutch went to Mary's room hoping for a bed or some floor space for the night, found she was already 'entertaining', gave it three-quarters of an hour then called it a night? When he found out what had happened to her, and realised he may have been seen there, he could have thought through his options and decided his best bet was to make up a description of a man he had never actually seen - the man he effectively left in the room with Mary, who was likely the last man to see her alive.

In which case, why did he not simply relate the truth to Abberline rather than the convoluted concatenation involving Astrakhan?

[Garry Wroe]

The only thing is if what I am saying happened ...

But it didn't, Richard. The cry of 'Murder!' coupled with the medical testimony are sufficient to place the time of death at several hours prior to 6:00am.

... and GH was Topping, why bring up the subject ever again...would you??

According to Reg, this is precisely what Toppy did do. He related a story to his family in which he claimed to have been Abberline's witness.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Caz,
It is not impossible that Hutchinson fabricated the story for his own protection, it is entirely possible that Mr A did exist, but left Millers court around 3am, and Hutchinson [ maybe by prior arrangement] went to Kelly's room , and dossed down on the floor until around 6am, when he left the court to go back to the Victoria home.
I appreciate the discussion about the bolster has burnt out, but in the back of my mind, I can see Hutchinson using that as a head rest, whilst on the floor, and placing it on the table upon leaving.
I cannot see that item being a mound of flesh, complete with fabric pattern.
So why would GH come forward?
He was seen lingering opposite the court , he could well have been aware that he had been seen talking to Kelly in Dorset street, and by his own admission ventured up the court, and could have even have been seen by Bowyer, who was still fetching water until 3am.
After he had heard the medical opinion on T.O.D, he would have realized that if he admitted being with MJK.he would have placed himself in her room when she was killed..not a good move. so hence the story on the Monday evening.
The very fact that he had to wait opposite the court must point to Kelly having someone in the room, and he was denied access, until that person left, was it Mr A, or someone else...maybe Blotchy, but whoever it was could not have killed Mary between 3-6am, unless believing that Hutchinson did, a view I do not endorse.
The only thing is if what I am saying happened , and GH was Topping, why bring up the subject ever again...would you??
Regards Richard.

[caz]

I don't get it.

There was a witness who called himself George Hutchinson. Nobody, not even Fairclough, can claim to know how much of what this witness said was truthful, or how much may have been made up for whatever reason.

What if Hutch went to Mary's room hoping for a bed or some floor space for the night, found she was already 'entertaining', gave it three-quarters of an hour then called it a night? When he found out what had happened to her, and realised he may have been seen there, he could have thought through his options and decided his best bet was to make up a description of a man he had never actually seen - the man he effectively left in the room with Mary, who was likely the last man to see her alive.

So what if Fairclough believes or believed Maybrick was Mary's killer? Why could he not still entertain the possibility that the witness was Toppy? The two positions are very far from being mutually exclusive.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

Aha !

"These people should remove their blinkers, be true to themselves and answer the questions Feldman posed. Their silence speaks voluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuumes."
Melvyn "Reg Fooled Me" Fairclough

[DVV]

Having just re-read Fairclough's contribution to the "Mammoth Book of JtR", published 8 years after the Ripper and the Royals, I'm definitely sure I have no question to ask him.

Indeed, there isn't a single mention of Hutchinson. And nothing about Reg and Toppy, notwithstanding several mentions of Randolph Churchill.
Churchill's candidacy, as alluded to by Fairclough in 1999, comes straight from Joseph Sickert.

No Toppy, no Reg.

Instead, Fairclough concludes Maybrick was the Ripper, and Paul Feldman, in his opinion, has solved the case - Feldman, the one who, just like Edwards, wasn't impressed with Reg's patter.

Now tell me : if Reg was the true son of Hutch-the-witness, how come that Fairclough so quickly forgot the only achievement he could be proud of ?

That (a handful of) casebookers are still convinced Toppy was the witness while the possibility isn't entertained anymore by Fairclough himself is extremely amusing, don't you think ?

[GregBaron]

We'll get him...

Patience, Greg...people can be very busy. I hope that you sent the snail mail to the address that I mailed you ?

Patience yes Ruby. It is a busy world and people must continue those important cell phone discussions.................I did indeed use the address you sent me...........

We'll give it a while, and then I have Plan B...

Can't wait to hear it. Better yet, hopefully we won't have to...


Greg

[Rubyretro]

Patience, Greg...people can be very busy. I hope that you sent the snail mail to the address that I mailed you ?

We'll give it a while, and then I have Plan B...

[DVV]

but even i wont go that far

I've been thankul for that already. What else is needed ?

[Malcolm X]

Hi Malcolm,

since you are wrecking Hutch candidacy without knowing it, I'm glad to see you have no interest for Fleming.

Amen.

well no, i might assume and speculate too much, but even i wont go that far

[GregBaron]

Letter etc.

Hi all,

Just an FYI. I have emailed Fairclough's publishers to no avail (so far).

I have also prepared a letter which I will send snail mail tomorrow. I tried to disarm him as much as possible so we'll see? I don't expect success but I suppose it's worth a try.

By the way, does anyone think it worthwhile to purchase Ripper and the Royals? Are there other photos in there? Could there be some facts among the morass of nonsense worth contemplating? Just askin...


Greg

[DVV]

Anybody candid enough to believe Fairclough will confess all his tricks ?
It amuses me to no end.

Regarding Toppy's pic, nothing to baulk at.
When you can take a photograph of Prince Albert Victor in 1910, nothing easier than catching Toppy during the roaring twenties.

Indeed, how could Fairclough publish his book without the witness face ? This won't do.

For this guy, a footnote is an Abberline diary, mind you.

[DVV]

oh God you dont do you, i didn't realise this !!!!!!

there is no mileage in Fleming being JTR, because a suspect being 6ft 7'' is virtually impossible...JTR was definitely seen, but nobody this tall... not even close, not even over 6FT!

Hi Malcolm,

since you are wrecking Hutch candidacy without knowing it, I'm glad to see you have no interest for Fleming.

Amen.