Toffs in Spitalfields

[Nothing to see]

Very good points, Claire and NTS.

Agreed all round.

All the best,
Ben

Thanks.

[Fisherman]

Noticing that there are forty-plus pages to this thread, I will not venture to digest them all. Instead I will offer a suggestion that may - or may not - have been aired before. If so, Iīm sorry.

On another thread, Hutch in the 1911 census, there is an ongoing discussion about whether George William Topping Hutchinson was the man who offered his testimony to the police three days after Kellys death. As for myself, I feel certain that this was the case - the material presented on the thread is overwhelming in itīs pointing in this direction, I feel.

This, of course, is of significant importance to this thread too. If an understanding is reached that Hutchinson has been found, then we are also faced with the fact that he stated his name correctly and honestly, and such a thing adds to the overall credibility of the man.

Meaning that he may have been honest about Astrakhan man too.

...which leads me back to the point I would like to make on this thread:
It has been refuted by many posters that "toffs" like the one Hutch described would have walked the streets of "Tiger Bay" back in 1888. It has been suggested that such a man would be a fool and a kamikaze pilot.
But need this be so? Are we not forgetting about a kind of man that actually would have done so, in as brazen a manner as possible?

Think Reg and Ronnie Kray. Think Al Capone, Dion OīBanion, Lucky Luciano. Think top mobsters and gangsters.
The Krays could dress up as fancy as they wanted to and take a stroll through East end without any risk at all; dire health risks were involved for those who took too active an interest in any jewelry on the fingers or round the necks of the Krays.
Could this have been the answer to the boldness of our "toff" - was he a local bigwig of crime, someone who loved to show off his wealth in as obvious a manner as possible, and somebody who felt comfortable doing so since he knew that nobody would dare to try and rob him?
The weak side of the suggestion is of course that one would have thought that such a man would have been known by the police. Then again, he may have been a rising star on the criminal night heaven, or that astrakhan coat may have been a new attire. Or he may have been a guest in the East end, on business of some kind.
Just a suggestion, and one that may have been mentioned before. If so, Iīm sorry!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

As for myself, I feel certain that this was the case - the material presented on the thread is overwhelming in itīs pointing in this direction, I feel.

As for myself and an expert document examiner and others who have a closer familiarity than you or I do with handwriting comparisons, I'm supremely confident that Toppy was not the witness who introduced himself as George Hutchinson to the police on 12th November 1888. Even if we entertain - for one outlandish moment, in my view - that Hutchinson the witness was Toppy the 22-year-old plumber, it wouldn't lend any additional weight to the unpopular theory that he told the unembellished truth. The fact that he used his own name tells us very little. Lots of liars and serial killers (including lying serial killers who inject themslves into their own investigations) use their own name, so it's not as if the Hutch-as-liar hypothesis is dependant upon him having used an alias.

Are we not forgetting about a kind of man that actually would have done so, in as brazen a manner as possible? Think Reg and Ronnie Kray. Think Al Capone, Dion OīBanion, Lucky Luciano

...And while you're thinking of them, observe that none of them were serial killers, but gangsters and mobsters whose cocksure, bling-boasting antics were made possible chiefly because of their willing army of dupes and recruits all willing to be puppets to a perceived master. Worlds apart, I would suggest, from a lone serial killer whose plans were chiefly to facillitate the execution of their crimes without side distractions, and a distraction would have resulted from dressing in a manner that was guaranteed to attract attention from what could only have been an unwanted source; the "vicious semi-criminal" element in the district he was targetting. Needlessly creating an obstacle and a hindrence to the likelihood of pulling of a crime and escaping, in other words.

These gangsters only knew that "nobody would dare to try and rob" them because of their army of henchmen. If you're talking about a solo excursion into the East End at a time when a surly Jewish wealthy outsider was already Public Enemy Number 1, and no criminal empire, henchman or lacky to rally to his side, that bold outlook simply wouldn't have availed. Of course people would "dare" to rob him if they fancied his gold chain. He'd be completely outnumbered, and his bumptious, strutting overconfidence would count for nothing.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

If the killer was affluent and not based in the East End but commuted on foot, theres no reason to think any wealth he may have had he would advertise by wearing opulent garments in the area. Even if he thought it might attract women easier, he would also know the clothing would be memorable by anyone else who sees him in that area.

In Liz Strides murder investigation, and Mary Janes ..a toff is offered by a witness each night....neither witness is thought to be telling the truth, and those 2 victims are arguably the most contentious inclusions in the Canonical Group. And it changes nothing about the remarks on the "suspects" seen with the remaining deceased Canonicals as being decidedly lower class men in both dress and demeanor.

If for example that Lawende saw Kate with a man, he is most probably her killer based on the timing, and if the Ripper....not obviously a toff at all. Broadshouldered Man doesnt sound too uppity either...and he pulls a woman off her feet while drunk.

The toff is a suspect concept that is found in 2 of 5 deaths, and negated by data like Sailor Man in Kates death, and Broadshouldered Man with Liz....or for that matter, Blotchy with Mary Jane.

Best regards all.

[Nemo]

Hi Ben et al

Astrakhan is not necessarily the killer - even with the later embellishments to Hutchinson's story in which he says he left the area nearer 3am, Kelly may have been killed up to or beyond an hour later.

If the Astrakhan story is true, it only points to Mary being out during the early hours picking up clients.

It does not even put Blotchy out of the frame as he may have returned surreptitiously after Astrakhan had left

[Ben]

Absolutely, Nemo

I personally don't believe Astrakhan man even existed, however; or if he did, the description was very heavily embellished.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The fact that he used his own name tells us very little."

perhaps. But one of the things it DOES tell us in such a case, is that he came clean on that point. And since it has been suggested that the man who spoke to the police under the name of George Hutchinson was a pack of lies altogether, the one thing our knowledge that he used his real name prompts us to do, is to be more careful before we paint him out as a liar. If the suggestion that Toppy was Hutch holds water, then we find ourselves in a situation where the only thing we can prove in his story is that he was honest about his name. And of course that must colour our further assesments too.

"while you're thinking of them, observe that none of them were serial killers, but gangsters and mobsters "

Exactly, Ben. Which is the very thing I suggest on behalf of Mr A too, nothing else.

The best,
Fisherman

[Nothing to see]

Hi Fish,



As for myself and an expert document examiner and others who have a closer familiarity than you or I do with handwriting comparisons, I'm supremely confident that Toppy was not the witness who introduced himself as George Hutchinson to the police on 12th November 1888. Even if we entertain - for one outlandish moment, in my view - that Hutchinson the witness was Toppy the 22-year-old plumber, it wouldn't lend any additional weight to the unpopular theory that he told the unembellished truth. The fact that he used his own name tells us very little. Lots of liars and serial killers (including lying serial killers who inject themslves into their own investigations) use their own name, so it's not as if the Hutch-as-liar hypothesis is dependant upon him having used an alias.



...And while you're thinking of them, observe that none of them were serial killers, but gangsters and mobsters whose cocksure, bling-boasting antics were made possible chiefly because of their willing army of dupes and recruits all willing to be puppets to a perceived master. Worlds apart, I would suggest, from a lone serial killer whose plans were chiefly to facillitate the execution of their crimes without side distractions, and a distraction would have resulted from dressing in a manner that was guaranteed to attract attention from what could only have been an unwanted source; the "vicious semi-criminal" element in the district he was targetting. Needlessly creating an obstacle and a hindrence to the likelihood of pulling of a crime and escaping, in other words.These gangsters only knew that "nobody would dare to try and rob" them because of their army of henchmen. If you're talking about a solo excursion into the East End at a time when a surly Jewish wealthy outsider was already Public Enemy Number 1, and no criminal empire, henchman or lacky to rally to his side, that bold outlook simply wouldn't have availed. Of course people would "dare" to rob him if they fancied his gold chain. He'd be completely outnumbered, and his bumptious, strutting overconfidence would count for nothing.

Best regards,
Ben

I agree absolutely. Jack was a loner and he was there for one thing only - to kill and mutilate. He wasn't going to advertise his presence with a display of jewellery and fine clothes. He'd only be setting himself up if he did that. Mind you, I don't think you'd have wanted to be in Jack's way when he was good to go.

That's not to say it isn't possible he couldn't be a toff, change clothes, come slumming and murdering in the East End. I just don't believe it. Jack was home. Probably not in the immediate area but not far away. Certainly close enough to walk.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

perhaps. But one of the things it DOES tell us in such a case, is that he came clean on that point.

In the Toppy scenario, that's the only thing it would tell us. Trouble is, Matthew Packer and Emanuel Violenia also both gave their real names, so did John Eric Armstrong and various other lying serial killers. The fact that they gave their real names in no way increases the likelihood that they told the truth. The key is in the content.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

One very salient point here, Ben, is of course that you have spent lots of time and effort to paint a picture of a man who was a killer and an imposter, who was lying about his identity and lying about his meeting a "toff" on the night in question. The emerging overall portrait has had nothing of honesty about it at all, and there has been a clear-cut logic in the step inbeween lying about identity and lying about the meeting with Mr Astrakhan - from that sort of man, we should not hold any hopes at all to receive an honest answer to anything.

If Hutch and Toppy were one and the same, it stands to reason that we must seriously contemplate a de-criminalization of the man, and in line with that we must also accept that such a man would be more probable to be truthful than the sort of character you propose when discussing Hutch.

You brought the demon on stage - I try to de-demonize him, since I think it is the logical thing to do.

What are your own sentiments, if we are to theorize that Hutch was Toppy, and not Fleming? What would that do to your overall picture of the case? Would you still - like I do - favour Fleming as the Whitechapel killer, or would you put Toppy forward as the more probable choice? Just being curious here, Ben!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

There are more suspect-related books championing Hutchinson's candidacy than there are on any other suspect, to the best of my knowledge. Not one of them has argued that he must have been using an alias, simply because the premise that Hutchinson may have lied and/or murdered prostitutes is not dependent upon him having resorted to one.

If Hutch and Toppy were one and the same, it stands to reason that we must seriously contemplate a de-criminalization of the man, and in line with that we must also accept that such a man would be more probable to be truthful than the sort of character you propose when discussing Hutch.

That isn't a problem for me, personally, since I've no doubt whatsoever that Toppy was not the George Hutchinson who introduced himself by that name to police. But no, it certainly wouldn't follow that a hypothetical identification of Toppy as the witness would make it more likely that he was telling the truth, since it wouldn't alter the actual content of the statement. He would still be liar, at the very minimum on scale of naughtiness, as far as I'm concerned.

Would you still - like I do - favour Fleming as the Whitechapel killer, or would you put Toppy forward as the more probable choice?

In that scenario, with which I disagree very strongly, Fleming would emerge as the more likely candidate and I'd argue that Toppy would have been an attention-seeker who made the whole thing up. I don't think JTR was likely to have been been 22 years old, although ironically some of the mainstream suspects (Kosminski, Klosowski, Cutbush) were around the same age.

But again, Toppy was not Hutchinson as far as I'm concerned, so the above theorizing is unlikely ever to enter into the equation.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S Probably best we return to the topic now, rather than allow this to mutate into another generic Hutchinson thread.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that answer, Ben!

Just to make things clear: I am not saying that a man who gives his real name to the police automatically will be an honest man - I am merely stating that the chances of him actually being honest, is larger that the chances of an imposter being honest. I feel that the picture of Hutch has become tinted over the years, and I am speaking for the sense in re-assesing him from the start if we work from the assumption that Topping was our man.

By the way: When you state that you donīt think Jack would have been 22 years old - is that grunded on the witness evidence or on something else? I myself donīt see why he could NOT have been 22.

Regards
Fisherman

[Ben]

Fair enough, Fish.

There's nothing wrong with assessing Hutchinson's character from the hypothetical premise that he was Toppy. "What if" is a valuable theoretical exercise, and I certainly don't begrudge you that.

But I really, genuinely, sincerely don't think Toppy was the witness.

And on those grounds, I see no need to reassess.

The contents of his statement and the timing of his appearance at the police station doesn't change.

All the best,
Ben

[protohistorian]

professionals in Spitalfields

Here are the locations of a pair of sugeons and a pair of solicitors from the 1888 directory. Dave

[Rubyretro]

Here are the locations of a pair of sugeons and a pair of solicitors from the 1888 directory. Dave

I get your point, Dave -but surely people like these surgeons and soliciters would be very well known (at least visually) to anyone in the immediate area.

Wouldn't we expect them to have maids and so forth? People that were used to seeing them every day, knew their movements, and laid out their clothes /did the laundry.

Surely if GH's description of A Man was correct, then people would be aware of a toff wearing a gold watch with a red stone combined with a gold horseshoe pin (even if they all owned Astrakhan coats).

Everyone was talking about the Whitechapel murders and there were articles
about GH's A Man in the papers.

If such a man used prostitutes, surely he would be remarked on and known to the prostitute community ?

If he left his usual haunts and went to low pubs and dives, surely he'd be noticed by all ? (I bet you those surgeons and solliciters mixed with their own
social circles -as they would today- not with costermongers etc).

I do not believe A Man existed in Whitechapel (although he may have been a composite based on real people). I think GH made him up.