The press, what they knew and how they knew it.

[Fisherman]

DVV:

In your world, Hutch mistook the day.
Why ?
Because Dew suggested so in 1938.

It matters. But it is not the only reason. Hutch missed Lewis. He also missed other people, described by Lewis. The weather he describes does not tally with the murder night. Thereīs a good chance that the Dorset Street policeman told his superiors that there was nobody on watch in Dorset Street at the relevant hours.

I prefer to give the whole picture instead of having you claim that I only rely on Dew. But of course, at the end of the day, Dew is what we have. What you rely on is guesswork and conjecture only. Better then, to have a man like Dew, Britains most proliferate detective of all time.

Way, way better.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

DVV:

I understand : he rather makes a better suspect than a carman who could easily walk away to avoid another carman.

We are not discussing Lechmere here. But he is a far, far better suspect than Topping.

Donīt make the mistake of asking why.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Fish

[B]We are not discussing Lechmere here. But he is a far, far better suspect than Topping.

Agreed. Compared to somebody who was nowhere in the East End in 1888, whose prime suspect was Sir Randolph and whose son couldn't find any other interlocutor than Fairclough, he's indeed a better suspect.

All the best

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
First of all.
It is rewarding to know that Topping is referred to as Hutchinson, which in my opinion is correct.
I should point out that it was 'not' Reg's conclusion that Jack was Churchill , neither was it his father GWTH, the latter merely reflected , that it was someone higher up the social ladder ''resembling'' some one like Randolph .
As for Topping not being in the east end at the time...really?
I am led to understand that Reg Hutchinson had only a basic knowledge of the subject, he was not paranoid like we all are, he simply relayed what his long dead father used to say when the subject of the murders cropped up.
''He knew one of the victims, and gave the police a statement''
Fairclough simply used that tale to enhance his book, and why not?
When many of us think of Hutchinson, we still see a ''time waster''. a hoaxer, a person engulfed in suspicion , I personally[ most likely because of the radio show] do not have that doubt in my character reference of the man.
Hutchinson could only describe what he saw , and when he saw it, to the best of his ability, he most likely knew it would be looked upon as suspicious by the police and media, so no wonder he wrestled with the idea of coming forward?
He obviously came across as a trustworthy person, and not a time waster, the payment should be a pointer to that.
As for this ''alleged'' payment?
Reg mentioned a sum on air, and then some eighteen years later the exact figure, a figure which matches the ''five times salary'' which the Wheeling referred to in 1888...this broadsheet was not commonly read by the population of the east end.
So how did Topping know of it , unless he was the receiver of it?
Are we suggesting that he took over the witness Hutchinson's identity, became familiar with the statement, and lived that person for the remainder of his life, just for the sheer hell of it?
I for one do not...do you?
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Hi,
First of all.
It is rewarding to know that Topping is referred to as Hutchinson, which in my opinion is correct.
I should point out that it was 'not' Reg's conclusion that Jack was Churchill , neither was it his father GWTH, the latter merely reflected , that it was someone higher up the social ladder ''resembling'' some one like Randolph .
As for Topping not being in the east end at the time...really?
I am led to understand that Reg Hutchinson had only a basic knowledge of the subject, he was not paranoid like we all are, he simply relayed what his long dead father used to say when the subject of the murders cropped up.
''He knew one of the victims, and gave the police a statement''
Fairclough simply used that tale to enhance his book, and why not?
When many of us think of Hutchinson, we still see a ''time waster''. a hoaxer, a person engulfed in suspicion , I personally[ most likely because of the radio show] do not have that doubt in my character reference of the man.
Hutchinson could only describe what he saw , and when he saw it, to the best of his ability, he most likely knew it would be looked upon as suspicious by the police and media, so no wonder he wrestled with the idea of coming forward?
He obviously came across as a trustworthy person, and not a time waster, the payment should be a pointer to that.
As for this ''alleged'' payment?
Reg mentioned a sum on air, and then some eighteen years later the exact figure, a figure which matches the ''five times salary'' which the Wheeling referred to in 1888...this broadsheet was not commonly read by the population of the east end.
So how did Topping know of it , unless he was the receiver of it?
Are we suggesting that he took over the witness Hutchinson's identity, became familiar with the statement, and lived that person for the remainder of his life, just for the sheer hell of it?
I for one do not...do you?
Regards Richard.

A really good post, Richard! It is refreshing to see your take on things, all very simple and straight forward; much the way Topping himself would have appeared when speaking to the police after the Kelly deed, I suppose.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi Richard

No, Topping never took the witness identity. Topping never said he was the witness, as far as we know. First and important point.
So, was he "familiar with the statement" ? Probably not.
It all comes from Reg and Fairclough.
I personally would be a bit disappointed, if not angry, if the name of my father had been used the way Fairclough used it.
Nothing easier than trying to get in touch with more serious ripperologists.
And btw, I've heard Reg did tell his story to Ivor Edwards, who wasn't impressed, to say the least.

Fairclough and Reg, only them. Quite telling, imo.
As for Topping's whereabouts at the relevant period, we have nothing. Remember Hutch said he had known MJK for two or three years. Which means : the very young Topping, younger than MJK, should have known her at the time she was not living in Spitalfields. Strange.... Did he follow her ? And MJK would have called this young labourer, who helped her with money (!!!), "Mr Hutchinson" ??!!

If you don't smell a big rat, I do.

Cheers

[Fisherman]

Hi Fish



Agreed. Compared to somebody who was nowhere in the East End in 1888, whose prime suspect was Sir Randolph and whose son couldn't find any other interlocutor than Fairclough, he's indeed a better suspect.

All the best

A really bad post, Dave - you should learn from Richard. He straightened you out on the Churchill issue, just as he pointed out that it is ridiculous to state that Toppy was nowhere in the East End in 1888.

The untenable assertions leap like frogs from your mouth, while you consistently claim that those who disagree with you (on the best of grounds!) are the desperate ones.
Itīs as gutsy as it is wrong.

Extremely so, in other words. But when it comes to Ripperology, I prefer factuality and correctness over guts whenever I have to make a choice. Hipshot cabaret-style Ripperology is not my cup of tea.
Itīs funny when you think about it - you say that one witness was the killer, masquerading as somebody he was not, and I say the exact same thing about another witness.

One could easily get the idea that you and I reason in the same fashion.

Iīm glad thatīs not the case.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David:

No, Topping never took the witness identity. Topping never said he was the witness, as far as we know. First and important point.
So, was he "familiar with the statement" ? Probably not.
It all comes from Reg and Fairclough.

You forgot the "imo" here, David.

I personally would be a bit disappointed, if not angry, if the name of my father had been used the way Fairclough used it.

And...?

Fairclough and Reg, only them. Quite telling, imo.

Ah - THERE it is! Thanks!

As for Topping's whereabouts at the relevant period, we have nothing. Remember Hutch said he had known MJK for two or three years. Which means : the very young Topping, younger than MJK, should have known her at the time she was not living in Spitalfields. Strange....

Yes, extremely strange - normally, people cut the ties to any friend, relative or aquaintance that moves. I am sure that you will provide us with a list of how you cut your own ties with everybody you once knew because they moved a block or two - or perhaps even to another part of town.
And we must also keep in mind that if you were asked about any of these people how long you had known them, you would deny knowing them at all, since they had moved.

Did Hutchinson say that he had met Kelly and consorted with her on a regular basis for three years, or did he say that he had known her for three years? Letīs say that he first met her in 1885, at a place unknown to us, and made her aquaintance then. Toppy would have been 19 and Kelly 22, and even if you think it extremely odd that 19 year old men and 22 year old women sometimes meet and become friends, I just donīt agree.

Now, if this was so, and if he later met with her on the odd occasion, enjoying her company - why would he lie about that when asked by the police how long he had known her? What is it that means that he could only have gotten to know her after she moved to Millerīs Court? How does that work?

Iīve known you for around six or seven years, David, I swear - and I donīt even know if you have moved during that space of time.

If you don't smell a big rat, I do.

Whiff, whiff, whiff...? Nope.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Iīm glad thatīs not the case.
Fisherman

Not as glad as I can be, Fish.
We all remember the outlandish and far-fetched theories you have hammered over the years.
Before changing your mind.
It sure could make a fascinating collection.
Now it's "Hutch mistook the day, as Dew clearly shows us".
What will be your next hobby-horse ?
God knows.

And please, if I'm SO wrong in my previous post, feel free to tell us more about Topping's whereabouts in 1886-87-88.
Or please explain why the honest son of the real witness has been seriously taken by Fairclough, and Fairclough only.

I'm all ears.

All the best

[DVV]

Toppy would have been 19 and Kelly 22, and even if you think it extremely odd that 19 year old men and 22 year old women sometimes meet and become friends, I just donīt agree.
Fisherman[/B]

Where have I said so, Fish ?
In which post ?
I said : if they were friends for years, why did she call him "Mr Hutchinson" in November 1888 ?

All the best

[Fisherman]

Not as glad as I can be, Fish.
We all remember the outlandish and far-fetched theories you have hammered over the years.
Before changing your mind.
It sure could make a fascinating collection.
Now it's "Hutch mistook the day, as Dew clearly shows us".
What will be your next hobby-horse ?
God knows.

And please, if I'm SO wrong in my previous post, feel free to tell us more about Topping's whereabouts in 1886-87-88.
Or please explain why the honest son of the real witness has been seriously taken by Fairclough, and Fairclough only.

I'm all ears.

All the best

What I am saying is that Toppy had East End connections, married an East End girl etcetera. Therefore it stands to reason that he could well have been living in the East End at the relevant stages.
I donīt, however, claim to know.

What you say is - and let me quote - that Toppy "was nowhere in the East End in 1888".

See, thatīs where we differ, David. Thatīs the gist of it all, the core, the bottom line. If I donīt know, I say so. I donīt claim to know just because it suits my thinking.

Another example:

"the honest son of the real witness has been seriously taken by Fairclough, and Fairclough only."

Not true, Iīm afraid. I take him seriously, Richard does, Edward does and a good deal more people do. Sam Flynn is one of them, nowadays. He originally thought that Toppy was not the witness, but once he saw the signatures and compared them, he immediately changed his mind and decided that he had made a mistake. So he is one more of those unreliable Ripperologists that one should not listen to. One wonders what will be his next hobby-horse ...?

So, David, youīve once more made a number of wobbly claims, and you try to substantiate them by implicating that changing your mind in the face of new findings points to bad Ripperology.
To me, the exact reverse applies - which is why I consistently say that the Hutchinsonian/Flemchinsonian era is over.
As one of the captains, though, I will not deny you the honour of going down with your ship. And no jokes about wet dreams, please!

Over to you now - Iīve had my say.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Have just the time for a quick reply :

1: the signatures and Reg's story are two distinct problems.

2: the fact that Topping married an East Ender (in 1898 if memory serves) tells us strictly nothing as to his whereabouts in 1888.

3: Reg, nor any of his relatives, never tried to get in touch with Sam Flynn, Richard, or Fisherman. And it is said, I repeat, that Edwards disbelieved him.
So I have to maintain : nothing that we are aware of is proven to have come from Topping. All we have : Reg and Fairclough's ramblings.

Am I wrong saying so ? Certainly not. And you know it.

Have a good day

[harry]

Fisherman,
What really had the papérs written about Hutchinson's honesty in the aftermath of the interviews with them?As ha s been pointed out by Ben ,Garry, and others, the last impressions were that his cla ims were not to be trusted,and nowhere in the next fifty years of publishing,did they retract that decision,a nd police wise,nothing,outside of Aberline's opinion,can be construed as to a police belief in Hutchinson's tale,and Dew's remarks, as Dave has pointed out,simply outlines a different circumstance might be implied if Hutchinson had been unsure of the days.Well Aberline and Hutchinson didn't declare themselves to be unsure of the timing,a nd they were talking from only a couple of days hence.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
This is just like a court of law..prosecuting v defence.
None of us can know for sure, the truth behind Toppings tale.
As I said.. it is known[ from private source] that Reg knew nothing about the Ripper crimes, and even had to borrow a book from a younger member of the family to educate himself.
In 1974[ Radio show approx] he would have been completely clueless about the statement made by George Hutchinson in 1888[ as he only borrowed a book around the time of Fairclough's offer], yet some 18 years prior to that he was able to give a audio interview, this would suggest that he heard the tale from who he claimed..his father.
I should remind that J D Hutchinson made a brief visit to Casebook a few years ago, [Topping's brothers..daughter in law] and she confirmed that the family had heard about the tale, her father-in-law was aware of it.
Unfortunately she was reluctant to continue on Casebook , because of the ''put up, or shut up brigade amongst us''.
Because of all of the evidence I personally am aware of , I will continue to accept Hutchinson's statement as the truth, but I reserve the right to have some doubt to query exactly what his motives were...
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

2: the fact that Topping married an East Ender (in 1898 if memory serves) tells us strictly nothing as to his whereabouts in 1888.

...because there were no census records in '88. There were in 1881 however, and Topping, along with his family are in the East End with Topping's father being a plumber...just like Topping became later. I'd suggest that if he was in the East End in 1881, and on the day of his birth, and on the day of his christening, and in 1898 and married twice in the East End, he probably was there in '88 when he wasn't at Romford.

Mike