Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Your opinion is ''Unless you[ myself] can prove that Topping was the witness Hutchinson, shut up and be quiet''
Making your opinion, that Topping was not the witness, the obvious solution.
With respect Ben, that is not the way it works...
It is a classic ''stalemate'', with no party having any concrete evidence.
At least in my quarter, there is a name put foreward, we even have a picture of him in later life, which according to Ivor Edwards was in Regs flat, the same picture as in Faircloughs book, we have the handwritting to compare, which are similar to the eye, and we have Regs family stating they knew of the story, albeit not having heard the radio broadcast, but whats new in that department[ I was priviliged..]
And last but not least.
We have the very much ''frowned upon'' Wheeling report, something that for the life of me , cant accept as worthless, it is the only time a mention of a payment was forewarded in print in 1888, and therefore I cannot discredit Regs insistance that his father received a decent sum.[ note no mention of a wage Ben].
Thats enough of me , how about introducing to us the real George Hutchinson? so we can compare..
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

So Sally are you actually saying that the rules were bent sometimes and people who did not claim local residence for over a year were given allowed in a local Poor Law Infirmary

Lechmere, the fact of the matter is that many people, often, received relief at a local Poor Law Infirmary with considerably less than a year's residence. Weeks, sometimes. I expect how much the 'rules were bent' would depend on individual circumstances?

Again, you are quite correct in that we cannot prove that Fleming was resident at the VH in 1888, but there is no reason that he couldn't have been, either, is there? You could argue for circumstantial evidence to the contrary in fact.

Anyway, once again, the thread is wandering. What does this have to do with Toppy, exactly?

[Lechmere]

We are back in the territory where Jack the Ripper theories are to be judged by a different benchmark to any other historical examination. Accordingly a lack of proof is unimportant, we can go on a series of pieces of evidence, which are joined up by assumptions and called facts.

Archaic didn't really provide any meaningful information on the meaning of 'military appearance'. Her evidence related to 'military bearing' and indicated that it was associated to 'military appearance' no more.

My reference to very tall and thin was however to your favourite suspect Flemming.

[DVV]

The "no proof" tag is meaningless. In our case, we are dealing with evidence, not proof.

Evidences indicate that Fleming was most probably dossing in the VH in 1888.

Clear, simple.

As for the the meaning of "military appearance", you have already been proven wrong by Archaic.

[Lechmere]

I'm in the luxurious position of not proposing a theory - I'm merely pointing out the cold hard fact that there is no proof that Flemming was in the Victoria Home in November 1888.
...you by contrast have to make 'not tall but stout' actually mean 'very tall and thin'.

[DVV]

It is only a theory that Flemming was in the Victoria Home in 1888, no matter how much anyone huffs and puffs.

Most funny.
There are solid evidences that he was in the VH.

And you can provide none to support your own theory.

[Lechmere]

This is one of those situations when a fact is created by an exponent of one particular suspect.
It is only a theory that Flemming was in the Victoria Home in 1888, no matter how much anyone huffs and puffs.

So Sally are you actually saying that the rules were bent sometimes and people who did not claim local residence for over a year were given allowed in a local Poor Law Infirmary?

[Sally]

I don't disagree that there were some long term residents at the Victoria Home Sally and some were even reasonably well off as a contemporary account makes clear. I was speculating on the likelihood of Flemming living there for 14 months as some posters take it as axiomatic that he was. I am comfortable to assert that the vast majority of inmate would be of irregular domiciliary status.

I think 'vast majority' may be overstating it somewhat. We can't know whether Fleming was resident for 14 months straight or not - but I see no reason to suggest that he couldn't have been - it's quite possible.

I was under the impression that after 1865 the period of settlement in a parish in order to qualify for relief was one year. Perhaps I was wrong on that

Theory and practice don't always match perfectly. The principle may well have stated a year, but the records tell us that a person certainly didn't have to be resident in a parish for anything like a year to claim relief.

[DVV]

Really ?
Let's sum it up.
Sources tell us that Fleming was dossing in the VH from Sept 88 to Nov 1889...then again in 1892.....
And both Barnett and Venturney confirm that he must indeed have been around, since he used to visit Mary.

Now if you want to dispute that, provide your evidence.

[Lechmere]

I don't think you can claim it indicates anything of the sort

[DVV]

It confirms that Joe was around, at least, that's all I meant.
"Used to" is quite different than "he had visited Mary at times".
This little detail + the 1889 source indicate that Fleming may well have been a long term resident in the VH, contrary to what you've suggested.

[Lechmere]

Which, btw, seems to be confirmed by the sentence "he used to visit her".????
What on earth has that to do with whether he lived at the Victoria Home.

[DVV]

Well, the sources tell us that Fleming had probably been a long-term resident in the VH, that's all.
Which, btw, seems to be confirmed by the sentence "he used to visit her".

[Lechmere]

I don't disagree that there were some long term residents at the Victoria Home Sally and some were even reasonably well off as a contemporary account makes clear. I was speculating on the likelihood of Flemming living there for 14 months as some posters take it as axiomatic that he was. I am comfortable to assert that the vast majority of inmate would be of irregular domiciliary status.

I was under the impression that after 1865 the period of settlement in a parish in order to qualify for relief was one year. Perhaps I was wrong on that.

[Sally]

No...

Lechmere says -

I think you mean someone called Joseph Flemming (or Fleming) claimed to have been living somewhere in the Whitechapel registration district for 14 months prior to November 1889 (he had to say this in order to get treatment which makes it possible he made it up)

Wrong. No he didn’t. Treatment was available to people who had been inhabitants of the area for weeks, Lechmere, not months. Fact.

The Victoria Home was for people of irregular domiciliary status

Wrong. No again. The Victoria Home , like any other common lodging house; was for people for whom it was the best choice for a variety of reasons. Many men who stayed in the Victoria Home were evidently passing through. That does not mean, however, that the Victoria Home had no medium or long term residents. That should be obvious. It depends on for how long the Victoria Home remained a viable and best option; which in turn depends on the specific circumstances of the individual. Mayhew’s census of lodging house residents in an unamed east end lodging house in 1851 demonstrated that some of them had been living there for several years. Men of ‘irregular domiciliary status’ as you so succinctly put it were doubtless residents of the Victoria Home, yes, but by no means the only residents of the Victoria Home.

There is no reason to suppose that Fleming could not have been resident at the Victoria Home for several months, as it appears that Henry Turner in fact was.