Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Fisherman]

Are you not, Ben, the guy who often tells me not to write too long ...?

You now elaborate in a lengthy manner over a number of points I have made and you call them "not even remotely applicable".

On doing so, you - among other things - make it clear that you consider a falling-out with his father on Toppys behalf "not even remotely applicable". And itīs fine by me if you hold this belief. Apparently you seem to think that there was no reasonable way in which Toppy could have sunk into the circumstances in East End; if his father did not want to "save" him, other relatives would.
In conclusion with this, we can deduct that no man or woman, born somewhere else than in the East End, would EVER end up there, as long as he/she had any relative left on earth.
It makes one wonder where the Eastenders came from?

And I do not "need" to posit the existence of "some family feud" at all, since we all know - giving it some afterthought - that people DO migrate between social conditions. And that, Ben, is EXTREMELY trivial, regardless of the address they end up in belongs to the East End or not.

You display a total unflexibility when it serves your purposes, Ben, and that appllies as a rule. You tell us that plumbers served a seven-year education and that you - how was it - "very unlikely that Toppy was able to start his lifelong career as a plumber in his early twenties. I'd say that's unheard of for the Victorian period".
That was what you wrote earlier, and we all know, thanks to Samīs contribution, that apparently heaps of people of all sorts of educations and ages started carreers as "plumbers" in the Victorian period.
Then again, you can get EXTREMELY flexible when other purposes have to be served; we are adviced not to put any belief in Hutchisnon telling us that he could afford to give Kelly rather substantial money from time to time. And of course, that passage did not fit in with your picture of a desperately poor Hutchinson, living a "squalid" life.
Him being out of work, though, is something you galdly take on board, and would you believe it - it serves well to bolster your thinking. So in this particular instance, we are told to BELIEVE what Hutchinson says...? Howīs that for flexibility?

Such antics, Ben, become a burden once you start to tell me that my suggestion that people may migrate from a slightly more prosperous address to a "lower" one is not even "remotely applicable".

"by far the most logical explanation to all of them is that Toppy was not the George Hutchinson who signed the police statement. That way, all of those problems are resolved"

...but the price tag becomes unsurmountable as long as the signatures tally - and they do. Which is why I remain at my stance that very trivial explanations will lie behind Toppys East End saga. In the end, it will amount to a prime example of the saying that life has itīs ups and downs, and nothing more than that.

Oh, and I HAVE read "The people of the abyss". Didnīt come across Toppy in it, though.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"Far from being ridiculous, I see Mr Astrakhan as just too convenient – too perfect for the job by far."

Well, Jane, I think you hit the nail on the head when you point out that we need to believe that the man was in no way at all too strange for the police to accept. The same will go for the description - they did not think it outlandish either. Same thing goes for the lighting - they would have considered it good enough in the streets we are dealing with to allow for a sighting and description like that of Hutchinson.

The bottom line is that we need to be careful saying that a man like Astrakhan man would have been extremely unusual on them streets. Apparently he was credible enough for the police to swallow the story, and that is a clear pointer.

In the end, though, I am of the same opinion as you are - that Astrakhan man did not exist. I am not at all sure though, and I do not ground my suspicion on his appearance so much as I do it owing to the fact that Hutchinson seems not to have mentioned Lewis (who he must/would) have seen, just as he does not describe Kelly at all and just as the point made by Garry Wroe (among others) that a good case can be buuilt to show that she was drunk and not "a bit spreeish" at the time (althoug this too can be challenged) - plus he was appently dropped soon after his appearance. So it would perhaps all - in consequence with my insight that the police found no initial reason not to believe him - owe to something else, like for example proof emerging that he had not been at the spot.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

On doing so, you - among other things - make it clear that you consider a falling-out with his father on Toppys behalf "not even remotely applicable".

Fair enough, Fisherman.

Perhaps the terminology was too strong there.

What I meant was that we cannot assume a feud between Toppy and father with no evidence. If there was such a feud, it becomes even less likely that Toppy was in a position to become a plumber without any help from his father, and without completing anything like the usual period of apprenticeship. I don't think it's very likely that Toppy would have been compelled to live in such dire domestic and economical circumstances, considering his family background and the fact that he joined his father's trade as a plumber so soon afterwards. I find it even less likely that he was ever in position to go from such dire circumstances in 1888 to having a skilled trade in 1891.

That was what you wrote earlier, and we all know, thanks to Samīs conntribution, that apparently heaps of people of all sorts of educations and ages started carrers as "plumbers" in the Victorian period.

No, Fisherman.

What I said was quite correct about real plumbers, which Toppy ostensibly was. I don't remember disputing that other less reputable workers could feign plumbing credentials. Trouble is, we learn from Gareth's sources that phony plumbers were subjected to tighter restrictions and regulations in 1886, making it harder to enter the world of both the phony AND genuine plumber after that year, espeically if the aspirant was over 21 with no apprenticeship to speak of.

Then again, you can get EXTREMELY flexible when other purposes have to be served; we are adviced not to put any belief in Hutchisnon telling us that he could afford to give Kelly rather substantial money from time to time. And of course, that passage did not fit in with your picture of a desperately poor Hutchinson, living a "squalid" life.

Hutchinson's claim to have given Kelly "substantial money from time to time" didn't fit in with him living at the Victoria Home, meaning that one or the other stood a reasonable chance of being false. You can decide which one. That's all the advice I'm offering on that one.

Him being out of work, though, is something you galdly take on board, and would you believe it - it serves well to bolster your thinking

No, not at all.

Quite the opposite, in fact.

I'm more inclined to believe that he was employed in some capacity, however menial, otherwise he wouldn't be in a position to regularly doss down at the fourpence-a-night Victoria Home. Such a residence would not, however, be wholly compatible with the skilled trade of a plumber.

...but the price tag becomes unsurmountable as long as the signatures tally - and they do

Oh, but I don't think they do, remember?

So while you're busy arguing that he MUST have gone through this proposed transition, whatever the objections, because the signatures match, I'll be equally busy arguing that the numerous objections to the proposed transitions are just as problematic for his candidacy as a set of non-tallying signatures.

we need to believe that the man was in no way at all too strange for the police to accept.

...Though I think it should be borne in mind, again, that the police clearly didn't accept it in the long run. In fact, the earliest signs that the description had been "discredited" appeared on 15th November, three days after Hutchinson's first appearance.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Fair enough, Fisherman.
Perhaps the terminology was too strong there."

As is mine too, occasionally. Guess we shall have to give decency another try..?

I will begin by cutting things short and splitting your post in two.

1. The plumbership and East End faith of Hutchinson. All I am saying is that I cannot identify any real mountain to overcome. A man, born by a plumber, leaves home to stay in less prosperous surroundings. Later on, he changes his mind and takes up plumbing too. If I was to present such a script to MGM, I donīt think it would be rejected because it was too outlandish - I think Iīd be thrown out because it was too tedious and everyday-simple. That does not mean that I donīt recognize the merit in your reasoning: I am just as interested as you in the two questions why he moved to the East End and when he took up plumbing. What tells us apart is that I would have reacted with a "Ah, so THAT was it?" to his answer, whereas you would have reacted with "I KNEW it - you are not Toppy". For clearly, we would get different answers ...

2. The appearance of Astrakhan man. You write that "the police clearly didn't accept it in the long run", and I would just like to press the point that we do not know WHAT it was they suddenly disliked - and I think a fair point can be made for saying that if they had accepted Astrakhan manīs appearance and attire once, it would be more reasonable to look for the explanation elsewhere. I do not even think that the differences inbetween the police report and the press articles would ensure such a thing, since the points that tally are so many and those that do not are so very few. Plus we have the Schwartz example, where the differences were apparent, but did not seem to get his testimony discarded.
But thatīs just me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Fisherman, I agree..

..In that I don't think it can have been Mr Astrakhan's appearance that changed the minds of the interviewing police, either.

I can think of two possibilities, off hand -

Perhaps, Mr. Astrakhan was found! And perhaps he was found to have had an alibi after all! That being the case, Mr Hutchinson's evidence would no longer have had any weght, would it? Maybe, his trawling around the area with Coppers Dibbs and Dobbs finally bore fruit? Outlandish?

Or, perhaps, it was something about Hutchinson himself that led the interviewing police to reconsider their earlier faith in him?

There are many variations on this theme, but bascially, the consideration of either Mr Astrakhan or Hutchinson must have altered.

The actual reason is the thing we do not have, sadly.

Jane x

[Ben]

The plumbership and East End faith of Hutchinson. All I am saying is that I cannot identify any real mountain to overcome. A man, born by a plumber, leaves home to stay in less prosperous surroundings. Later on, he changes his mind and takes up plumbing too.

Not impossible, but very unlikely, in my view.

The objections you find rather trivial I tend to consider rather more significant. You accept that Toppy spurned the opportunity to get a head-start in such incredibly tough times by securing an apprenticeship in his father's trade, and actually chose instead to doss down in one of the worst slum areas in London, let alone the East End. Given that the vast majority of gutter-dwellers were there through want of better options, I find that unconvincing. It would only make sense if, like Jack's victims, he had descended into alcoholism and been rejected by potential employers and family members. But there's no evidence of such a calamitous family-fallout.

Even if it happened, we're left with an even more pressing concern, to my mind: How did he manage to improve his lot so suddenly, apparently without ever looking back? If he was dossing down in the East End at age 22 with no plumbing background and no apprenticeship, I find it highly improbable that he should emerge into the skilled trade just two years down the line. Plumbing apprenticeships were simply longer, and they were generally not issued to those over the age of 21. He'd have missed the boat.

I do not even think that the differences inbetween the police report and the press articles would ensure such a thing, since the points that tally are so many and those that do not are so very few.

Well, we're getting off-topc here, but suffice to say I disagree. The Astrakhan description contained not only major embellishments, but polar opposites. When considered alongside the various other additions that crept into other aspects of his press statements, a good case emerges for his havng been discredted on the basis of the press/police discrepancies. Certain claims could have been proven false for starters. Hutchinson claimed to have told a policeman about it who took no action, but did not go to the police station. Since all coppers patrolled a delineated beat, it was simply a case of checking with the policeman concerned. A simple denial would have injured his credibility significantly.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"Perhaps, Mr. Astrakhan was found! And perhaps he was found to have had an alibi after all! That being the case, Mr Hutchinson's evidence would no longer have had any weght, would it? Maybe, his trawling around the area with Coppers Dibbs and Dobbs finally bore fruit?"

But then, why would the Star be so adamant in telling us that Hutchinson had been discarded? The negative wording points away from the kind of confirmation it would have been to find Astrakhan man.

"Or, perhaps, it was something about Hutchinson himself that led the interviewing police to reconsider their earlier faith in him?"

I find that a lot more credible. But, as you say, we have not got the entire picture yet - and we may never have.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"You accept that Toppy spurned the opportunity to be apprenticed in his father's trade"

I am not so sure that the opportunity was ever there, Ben. So I am not saying he spurned anything, just that I find it apparent that he either could not or did not choose the fastest way to a plumbing career.

"and actually chose instead to doss down in one of the worst slum areas in London"

This is a question that is often dealt with from the perspective of "our" victims; did they sink to the depths the ended up in by own free will? Did they actually make a choice at all?
Same goes for Hutchinson - we donīt know if he made a choice to stay in the East End. If he - say - had a disagreement with his relatives, and fled the scene, then he may have been pressed to accept very bad circumstances. Then again, it is extremely hard to assess the exact difference between what he came from and where he ended up. And that need not have been the Victoria home from the outset.
What if he had a friend/s who offered him free or very affordable lodgings in the East End, an arrangement that did not last? Just as an example.
The bottom line is that people move inbetween social conditions all the time, some down and some up. And there is always a reason for their doing so, of course - and that reason we are not familiar with in this case.

As for Astrakhan man and Hutchinsons dismissal, we can only disagree so many times, I think ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

I am not so sure that the opportunity was ever there, Ben. So I am not saying he spurned anything, just that I find it apparent that he either could not or did not choose the fastest way to a plumbing career.

There were certainly better opportunites to become a plumber than there were after 1886, i.e. post-regulations. He was living with his father in 1881 when he was 15 (in Eltham, Kent), and at an age where he could embark upon a plumbing apprenticeship from home, and most logically by his father.

Same goes for Hutchinson - we donīt know if he made a choice to stay in the East End. If he - say - had a disagreement with his relatives, and fled the scene, then he may have been pressed to accept very bad circumstances.

Possibly, but we know Toppy had relatives dotted about all over the place at the tme who could have accommodated him. I doubt he fell afoul of all of them, and even if he did, that particular locale would have constituted a very last desperate resort. We should bear in mind that Hutchinson's stay in the East End must have been at least a three year affair if his claims to have known Kelly for that long are anything to go on.

If the proposed step downwards from relative security seems unlikely to me, the proposed step upwards in so short a space of time is even harder to swallow, for aforementioned reasons.

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Hmm, Fisherman...

...I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the Star was 'so adamant' in it's reporting of Hutchinson discredited - indeed, I think I sense a little disappointment there, following the rather salacious headlines of the previous day.

In all seriousness, the Star of 15th November seems rather more inclined towards discussion of Packer and his 'grapes' story - clearly the opportunities for further salaciousness there did not escape the attention of the editor.

Hutchinson, Toppy or otherwise, gets but a single line, which I would hardly expect if his discreditation was very sensational.

Was he discredited? Or was it just his story?

And if the latter, then either of my off-the-cuff options could apply.

As to the plumbing business - I have little to add here, save to say I concur with the view that in general, one would expect Toppy to have followed his father's trade at that time. As You rightly point out, Fisherman, generalities are not always the case, but I think, gratuitous speculation (entertaining as it is) aside, we have no way of knowing the specifics in this case, so we must adhere to the generalities, even if with an open mind.

In regard to dossing in Whitechapel - seriously, who would have chosen it with another option? That, not to put too fine a point on it, is nonsensical. Accounts of the less than salubrious nature of the district are older than 1888 - it had a bad reputation in the 18th Century, was similarly full of undesirables in the 17th Century - even if in that case, they were Spaniards rather than Jews.

If you chose to doss in Whitechapel in 1888, then either you had no choice about it (likely) or you were there for nefarious purposes (possible). Or even both.

And as for being a groom - why wasn't Mr Hutchinson a groom in Romford? It's a thought, anyway - doubtless not an original one.

Jane x

P.S. 15th November also happens to be the birth date of Field Marshall Rommel (1891). Co-incidence? You decide....

[Ben]

Hi Jane,

I personally doubt that Astrakhan was found and dismissed on the grounds of an alibi. The time of death was too ambiguous for any alibi to hold water, and if Astrakhan had been ensconced with Kelly in the room as late as 3.00am, there's almost no chance of him procuring an alibi for the generally accepted time frame for the murder so shortly afterwards.

Your second explanation is very persuasive, however.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Indeed Ben...

... I bow to your superior knowledge!

I was flipping a few thoughts about, really.

Whatever it was, though, it happened quickly, didn't it?

Is it not strange that no further details of why his story was quickly considered a 'false lead' are not forthcoming - I would have thought the Star would have elaborated?

Tea Time!

Jane x

[Ben]

The lack of elaboration is strange, Jane, I agree.

It's possible that the police simply didn't expand on the matter for fear of losing face to an already critical press. Perhaps a fear of censure for allowing themselves to be taken in, initially, by yet another false witness might account for the lack of elaboration?

I fully agree with your observation that dossing down in Whitechapel in 1888 (or at least that part of it) was an extremely unlikely move for anyone with even vaguely better options.

All the best!

Ben

[Jane Welland]

Unless of course....

...The latter observation applied and one wanted to be in Whitechapel?

But hardly suitable work for a Plumber...

Actually, thinking about it, not such bad work for a plumber at all...

Hmm.

A discussion for another day and another thread, I should think!

Jane x

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Jane.

You make some very interesting and sensible points regarding the Jewish-looking suspect. I would agree, for example, that, whether real or a figment of Hutchinson’s imagination, he must have at least represented a generalized model of a kind of person who was seen in and about Whitechapel during the relevant timeframe, particularly as Hutchinson stated his belief that the man lived in the immediate neighbourhood. Let us not forget that more than a few local Jews made a good living through the sweatshop system which, as I’m sure you are aware, thrived in the late-Victorian East End where mass-unemployment was a fact of life. On the other hand, it is also a matter of record that individuals such as Mayhew and Booth could only get about the Whitechapel district with some degree of safety when accompanied by a police escort. For whilst London as a whole was awash with crime – particularly alcohol-fuelled crime – Bell Lane, Wentworth Street, Dorset Street and Flower and Dean Street were each contemporaneously described as the most dangerous street in the whole of London. And yet, according to Hutchinson, he witnessed a man walking these streets alone, in the early hours, making no attempt to disguise what was in reality an ostentatious display of wealth. Frankly, this was a mugging waiting to happen and is all the more unbelievable for that reason.

As for Hutchinson’s story being officially discredited, I have never found any such reference in either the MEPO or Home Office files, so it is difficult to know what might have been the police thinking in this context. But I have no reason to believe that the Jewish-looking suspect was found and exonerated. Remember, too, that Hutchinson went on a night-time trawl of the district accompanied by two police officers on Tuesday, 13 November. Earlier the same day, however, the Echo reported that:-

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before?

As such, it may well be that police suspicions regarding Hutchinson’s veracity grew and that the Tuesday night search afforded the accompanying police officers an opportunity to discreetly pick at his story. In the meantime, it wouldn’t have proved too difficult to first identify and then question the beat policemen to whom Hutchinson claimed to have spoken on the Sunday in the Petticoat Lane area. And if, as appears highly likely, this story was untrue, it would have cast more than a shadow of doubt over the remainder of his account(s).

Regards,

Garry Wroe.