Mjk

[Sally]

That was what I thought you meant, Richard. I think it is fair to say that the two witness accounts of MJK's movements that night do not tally very well.

On the one hand she was apparently extremely drunk at around midnight - consistent with returning from the pub after a night drinking.

On the other hand she was apparently no more than slightly tipsy when she was seen on the streets at 2am by Hutchinson.

Assuming the first to be true, one has to wonder how she managed the second.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jon,
It was actually not a reference to a street walker, it was reflecting on her knowledge of events , one could say ''being paranoid'' of danger, which she apparently was.
Regards Richard.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Richard

What do you mean by " a woman like Mary Kelly"?

[lynn cates]

well known

Hello Richard.

"It really takes some believing, that a woman like Mary Kelly, who was well aware of the killer's presence, would journey out alone on the streets at 2am, be picked up by Mr Suspicious, and take him back to a room.
That is unless she knew him very well, and there is more to this than meets the eye?"

Now you're talking.

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
One could almost say Mary and the A man, were having a laugh at Hutchinson's expense, almost as if they were intending to be noticed.
We would have Kelly walking out in the streets at 2am, the very area where she remarked to Mrs McCarthy the day before saying ''I hear he is ripe in the area'' [reference to the killer], we have the coincidence that she should play act with Hutch, asking him for money, just a few mitres away from the lingering A man, and what's more he would accost Kelly.
The laughter, the conversation heard , the romantic stroll back to Dorset street, the kiss before entering the court,
Its almost telling the stalking Hutchinson...Remember this... I am entering the court with a bogey man.
Its almost like the couple seen, laughing at the reward poster, before entering the court[ which allegedly was Kelly] by some men in Dorset street that morning.
It really takes some believing, that a woman like Mary Kelly, who was well aware of the killers presence, would journey out alone on the streets at 2am, be picked up by Mr Suspicious, and take him back to a room.
That is unless she knew him very well, and there is more to this then meets the eye?
Regards Richard.

[lynn cates]

genome

Hello Richard, Sally. You may not have to wait much longer. The BBC genome project should be finished in a month or two. It should include ALL the "Radio Times."

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

third possibility

Hello Sally. I think I see a third possibility. If one takes GH's story seriously, it seems that A-man knew "MJK" from another time/place.

Why must he be stalking prostitutes?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

change of mind

Hello Phil.

"I think the whole description smells - too detailed . . ."

Yes, I thought that at one time. Then two excellent veteran researchers--Norma Buddle and Simon Wood--pointed out that Frank Millen's file gave a description very like A-man. Then Christy Campbell gave the official description for Red Jim McDermott and Chris Phillips found a blurb proclaiming Red Jim the ripper.

Both men had worked for Sir Ed.

I had to change my mind.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

acquainted

Hello Scorpio.

"Would a respectable woman approach men in the street at 2.00 AM ?"

Possibly. It might depend on whether she knew him.

IF Astrakhan man really existed, and IF Hutch reported the meeting accurately, then, given the exchange between "MJK" and "A-man," they may well have been previously acquainted.

Cheers.
LC

[Sally]

a well-dressed man stalking the prostitutes of Whitechapel with a knife-shaped parcel in hand

A knife wrapped up in a "parcel" is hardly the best way of carrying it for quick work.

"Oh, hold on Polly dear, while I just undo this parcel. String's a bit damp, fingers cold... Got something nice for you, though ... oh damn this knot! Oh.. aren't you gonna wait then?"

Phil H

It's not, is it? Yet reports of the well-dressed, knife-shaped parcel carrying chap abound in the press at the time. It's quite possible that it can all be attributed to sensationalist press tittle-tattle - but who knows?

Then again, if he liked his parcels, perhaps he did go on to become the Torso Murderer. The Pimlico Parceller, perhaps...

[Sally]

Hi Richard, thanks for your reply

It is a fact, that such a article was printed[ Wheeling], and putting the radio show aside , the payment figured in Faircloughs book.

Yes, quite true, Richard. But my point is that Fairclough himself could have obtained the information from the Wheeling Register gossip. Because of that possibility, the two documentary sources - the press report and the reference in Fairclough's book - do not corroborate any fact. One may be derived from the other.

Sally..As for the radio broadcast it is a extremely frustrating for all of us, that it has vanished into obscurity , I can only say hand on heart it very much existed, and the tale spoken on air , was precisely what figured in the book some 18 years after.
It definitely was in the Radio times, that's how I knew it was forthcoming.

I'm sure it is frustrating, Richard. I don't disbelieve your recollection, but I'm sure you realise that a documentary reference to that radio broadcast would be very helpful to your case. Perhaps if that documentary evidence could be discovered, we might even be able to get hold of a copy of the tape with luck and a fair wind?

As for the argument[ old] how does five times a salary = one hundred shillings.
The average labourers wage in 1888 was approx 21 shillings, so five times that, would as good as be a fiver.

Yep, I understand your logic. I don't think, however, that a general 'average' wage is much use here as it varied considerably depending on which part of London you were in - where did that figure come from if you don't mind my asking? I have a dim recollection that the average wage of a general labourer in Whitechapel was coniderably less at the time - I'll see if I can find a reference.

I take your point about Hutchinson being in casual work at the time. I wonder though, how much reliance we should place on the Wheeling Register at all - the information isn't repeated in the British press, so where did it come from to begin with?

You are quite correct in calling it questioning ,
My whole take on Topping being Hutchinson , stems from the radio broadcast, its because of that, I place faith, in what Reg relayed to Fairclough , as it clearly was not first hand, anyone that tuned in at 8pm on the night of the broadcast would have the same opinion, but clearly no members of Casebook or JTR forums did...

I'm sure if I was you, Richard, I'd hold the same view.

[Phil H]

a well-dressed man stalking the prostitutes of Whitechapel with a knife-shaped parcel in hand

A knife wrapped up in a "parcel" is hardly the best way of carrying it for quick work.

"Oh, hold on Polly dear, while I just undo this parcel. String's a bit damp, fingers cold... Got something nice for you, though ... oh damn this knot! Oh.. aren't you gonna wait then?"

Phil H

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sally,
Good response.
With reference to the man Hutchinson being a hoaxer , I may indeed have the same opinion, if I never heard that broadcast...but I did, and when I read the tale in the Ripper and the Royals , to everyone but me, that was news.
As for word of mouth, and the allegedly angle.
It is a fact, that such a article was printed[ Wheeling], and putting the radio show aside , the payment figured in Faircloughs book.
The wheeling article was a rare publication not found ,until recent years,. many moons after Radio broadcast/book.
Sally..As for the radio broadcast it is a extremely frustrating for all of us, that it has vanished into obscurity , I can only say hand on heart it very much existed, and the tale spoken on air , was precisely what figured in the book some 18 years after.
It definitely was in the Radio times, that's how I knew it was forthcoming.
As for the argument[ old] how does five times a salary = one hundred shillings.
The average labourers wage in 1888 was approx 21 shillings, so five times that, would as good as be a fiver.
If Hutch was doing casual work at the time, then the wheeling report simply timed the average wage , giving some importance to the sum given.
I could never grasp the mystery in that.
You are quite correct in calling it questioning ,
My whole take on Topping being Hutchinson , stems from the radio broadcast, its because of that, I place faith, in what Reg relayed to Fairclough , as it clearly was not first hand, anyone that tuned in at 8pm on the night of the broadcast would have the same opinion, but clearly no members of Casebook or JTR forums did...
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Hi Richard

To report to the police several days after the murder, with a description straight out of the ''penny dreadful'' would be rather risky does not one think?
If a bogus account , the police would never have accepted him as anything but a waste of space. and would have charged him with wasting police time, as since the 9TH,they were in no mood for ''time wasters''

Quite true. But - the description given matched that of the 'well-dressed' man circulating in the press to a substantial degree; which even if not true, obviously would have lent weight to his account. And of course, if he was a timewaster and the police didn't know it, there would have been little they could have done about it.

As for that ''alleged '' payment..lets look at the time frame.
In the words of Reg Hutchinson[ son of Toppy] the payment was mentioned on at least three occasions.
From Topping himself prior to his death 1938

Word of mouth. Allegedly is the word here in the absence of any proof.

Either by Reg on audio tape[ or someone reading his words] on the radio in 1974[ approx]

That is according to you, Richard. Truly, I mean no offence, but the claim for Toppy might be strenghened somewhat if this radio programme were to come to light.

To Fairclough which was used in his 1992 publication. The Ripper and the Royals.

Again, Allegedly. Fairclough' treatment of the Hutchinson story is often taken to be proof that he and Toppy were one and the same; but I think it should be remembered that the whole tale was a means to an end for Fairclough - namely to bolster the Royal Conspiracy theory. How much weight we should accord it in these circumstances is a matter of opinion.

No mention of any payment was ever mentioned in any UK newspaper at any time , the only mention came from the Wheeling article in 1888, a rare US publication , that would not have been in wide circulation on the streets of Whitechapel...
The sum mention

True enough, but wouldn't Fairclough have known that?

''Five times his normal salary'' would have corresponded with the figure mentioned by the Toppings ie.One hundred shillings [ five pounds]
So not only do we have the payment mentioned, but a sum which adds up.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion, Richard. How can 100s be '5 times' anybody's wage if we don't know how much they earned to begin with?

To the doubters of the identity of Hutchinson give that real ''consideration''before dismissing not only who he was, but his honesty..

I don't know about dismissing, Richard - questioning, yes. I think that's fair enough, and the perogative of anybody who wishes to do so.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I have always maintained that we should believe the statement made by Hutchinson as a sincere account of his sighting.
To report to the police several days after the murder, with a description straight out of the ''penny dreadful'' would be rather risky does not one think?
If a bogus account , the police would never have accepted him as anything but a waste of space. and would have charged him with wasting police time, as since the 9TH,they were in no mood for ''time wasters''
They interviewed him , or rather interrogated him , and were satisfied of his account, if indeed a payment was allotted that would verify that.
As for that ''alleged '' payment..lets look at the time frame.
In the words of Reg Hutchinson[ son of Toppy] the payment was mentioned on at least three occasions.
From Topping himself prior to his death 1938
Either by Reg on audio tape[ or someone reading his words] on the radio in 1974[ approx]
To Fairclough which was used in his 1992 publication. The Ripper and the Royals.
No mention of any payment was ever mentioned in any UK newspaper at any time , the only mention came from the Wheeling article in 1888, a rare US publication , that would not have been in wide circulation on the streets of Whitechapel...
The sum mention ''Five times his normal salary'' would have corresponded with the figure mentioned by the Toppings ie.One hundred shillings [ five pounds]
So not only do we have the payment mentioned, but a sum which adds up.
To the doubters of the identity of Hutchinson give that real ''consideration''before dismissing not only who he was, but his honesty..
Regards Richard.