Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Ben]

we know you're very military

Thanks, David!

Nah, the nearest I got to anything military was cub-scouts, but I chucked it in because I didn't like the idea of militarizing a pleasant series of stories about jungle animals. I just couldn't bring myself to address a humourless woggle-wearing man as "Baloo" (a funny singing bear in my ten-year-old mind) with a straight face.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben

we know you're very military.

And you were not credible on stage as the 7th dwarf in Snow White, I must say.

Bestest !

[Ben]

Hi all,

Just a quick recap on what we have established thus far:

1) There is no evidence whatsoever that “military appearance” means (or has ever meant) tall and thin. You can’t get more tall and thin than me, and suffice to say I have never been recommended for military service. This sort of physique might be well suited to comedy officer-types off the telly (think of Hugh Laurie’s character from Blackadder Goes Forth), but in reality a square-built sturdy physique is more commonly associated with the military ideal.

2) The newspaper sketch of Hutchinson does not depict a tall and thin man, but a shorter and fleshier individual who was clearly older than Toppy’s then 22 years, who wore a wideawake or billycock hat. In fact, the sketch is a very good match for the loitering man Sarah Lewis described as “not tall, but stout” and having worn a “wideawake black hat” – a man who most people accept was probably the real George Hutchinson. Is this one of those epic “coincidences” yet again?

3) Toppy had no reason whatsoever to come a bogus “bodging” plumber for the simple reason that he had a father in the profession, and had ample means and opportunity to go about entry into the plumbing trade in the standard fashion. He would only have been required to bodge if we accept the faintly ludicrous suggestion that he turned his back on these opportunities for the life of a semi-destitute lodger in one of the worst areas of East London to become a former groom and labourer, only to decide later that enforced deprivation wasn’t such a clever idea after all, and that throwing his lot in with his dad as a respectable plumber – which he could have done from his mid-teens onwards - might be the way forward.

4) It is bizarre nonsense to claim that the Hutch=Toppy premise requires less speculation than the idea that the real Hutchinson, whoever he was, might have been responsible for the murders. The latter amounts merely to a suggestion that a man who lied about the reasons behind his loitering presence near a crime scene - as observed by a genuine witness - may have been the killer. Toppy on the other hand, can’t even be placed in the East End until some time after 1895 when he met his East End wife, and the case for his identification as the real Hutchinson is predicated on the endorsement of certain outlandish claims – long rejected by everyone else – that appeared in the discredited conspiracy theory book “The Ripper and the Royals”.

5) The only professional examination conducted on the Toppy signatures resulted in the conclusion that he was not responsible for any of the “George Hutchinson” signatures appended to the 1888 police statement, and was therefore not the “witness” of ripper notoriety.

In other words, no change at all from when we first discussed all this on this thread back in 2009.

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Lechmere

The marriage certificate to which you refer is digitised and available on Ancestry as part of the London Marriage and Banns collection. Anyone with a membership to Ancestry can therefore see it at will. The date is 1898.

[Lechmere]

Frau Retro
I would suggest that whatever anyone says on here – no matter what reputation they may have if they are a known quantity – should be treated equally.
I don’t personally feel intimidated by the reputations of others and nor should you or anyone else.
If I gave a long list of qualifications and achievements would that lend any more weight to what I have said? I suggest not. It should not anyway.
Most of what I have said could be checked– such as the military service stuff. I know where to look and what to look for due to my existing knowledge about such matters though, which is a minor advantage.

I haven’t said my opinion is worth more than yours.
I am suspicious of claims that people have data banks of research that they have not published and merely mysteriously refer to.

To be honest some people here obviously feel obliged to defend ridiculous positions that if they stepped back and looked at the situation with some perspective, they would probably agree were foolish.
A lot of this is based on common sense and reading what was said back then with an open and logical mind.

If I am unsure about something I would not comment – I have commented in an enquiring way on numerous other threads – where I don’t know something and am asking. There is no shame in that.

I actually got drawn into this as people were going o about the Lord Mayor’s Show and the mistaken idea that it was a public holiday – and that irked me as I knew it wasn’t a public holiday and also knew something about the event and its likely impact on people’s consciousness.

I would only argue about something if I was sure of my position, not for the sake of arguing.
My first reaction when reading about Toppy was that it could hardly be true that Hutchinson’s son was alive in the 1980s. I am sceptical about most Ripper claims. But when I looked at the Toppy case it is fairly compelling in my opinion and the more I look the more it seems that way. Most objections (eg the plumbing apprentice one) are not valid.
You only need logic and the ability to read basic source texts that other people have helpfully posted on this site to determine that. However it was clouded over when these texts were presented on here by some very vociferous but entirely misleading posts.

We can all get into intransigent corners.

I will confess that when Mr Ben recently said that Toppy’s father married in 1890 not 1888 and that Toppy married in (I think) 1898 not 1895, and also he gave an alternative maiden name for Toppy’s step mother, I let these remarks pass.
These details have some bearing on the suggestion that Toppy could be Kelly’s Hutchinson, but I let Mr Ben’s claims on these matters pass uncommented upon. Perhaps I should have acknowledged Mr Ben’s comments.
I had seen the 1898 date myself but I had also seen it refuted and 1895 pressed. I have not seen the marriage certificate so I don’t know what’s true, and I am not sufficiently interested to personally acquire a copy of the marriage certificate – although I could go down and get it tomorrow if I really wanted to.
Similarly I had seen the alternative maiden name for Toppy’s step mother but have seen a different one more frequently. I had not seen the marriage date given as 1890.
Where there two George Hutchinson Seniors who married two Emmas – one in 1888 and one in 1890? I don’t know, but again I’m not that bothered.
Having said that, it would be interesting if someone posted up the marriage certificates.
For Toppy to be Hutchinson it is better that his father married in 1888 and that he married in 1895. It isn’t fatal by any means if his father married in 1890 and he married in 1898, but it fits less well.

The only other time where I found myself arguing almost for the sake of it was over whether Jack London stayed in the Victoria Home. I still think he probably didn’t, but I would not exactly be shocked if it somehow turned out that he did.

And no Frau Retro, I didn't say anything to impress you (intentionally)

[babybird67]

hi Lechmere

Babybird – no I haven’t seen the original documents – but I would suggest that scans in this day and age make for pretty accurate reproduction.

The scans were altered to make the similarities more observable, for non-nefarious purposes but unfortunately this nullifies any conclusions that can be made about the similarities. I would argue it IS important to examine the originals before making up one's mind one way or the other for definite. Currently I don't feel the similarities are enough to outweight the differences: elements like not signing himself as Toppy which he did on the other official document and the size/slanting of the signatures being altered does not give us the best evidence in favour of an identification of Toppy with Hutchinson of the Police statement. Combine this with the fact that Hutchinson was a groom/labourer not a plumber and that there were no known connections with the East End until well after Hutchinson said he had known Mary Kelly for three years there, and you have the evidential conclusion that Toppy and Hutchinson were not the same person.

I would suggest a handwriting test based on comparing three different signatures from the witness statement to those available from the census forms and the marriage certificate is a small sample.

Absolutely. You may not be aware that the least similar signatures were even left OUT of this particular small sample when being analysed in a non-professional manner by Frank Leander.

This, and the fact that Victorian handwriting was fairly standardised between individuals will always make it arguable.

Absolutely. So standardised that it would be foolish to put too much store in a few apparent similarities when the evidence suggests the differences were just as significant. After all, in the ONLY professional opinion we have on the matter, from Sue Iremonger, who actually did examine the documents, the conclusion was reached that the person who signed those signatures was not the same person.

In the non-professional one we have, Mr Leander's, we have to take into account he saw only a select few of the signatures available, regrettably not giving him the opportunity to give a fully informed opinion; that he did not have access to the documents themselves, which restricted him severely in his own admissions, and again did not give him the opportunity to make a fully informed opinion; and his conclusion was merely that the possibility that they were written by the same person could not be ruled out. That is not a particularly positive argument in favour of Toppy and Hutch being the same person. All the evidence suggests otherwise I'm afraid.

Regards

Jen

[Rubyretro]

I don’t think qualifications are available in or for Ripperology.

Not exactly -but showing whether you're just sounding off the top of your head or you've a long history of researching primary sources must count for alot (the bits which get condensed on Internet can't compare to the breadth of information that the original researcher must hold).
.
But Frau Retro, I prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons - although I will go to ast least one (London) and possibly both conferences this year. I will be the one of 'military appearance'.[/QUOTE]

Heil Herr Lechmere ( the spy ?)!

(am I supposed to be impressed ? So far you haven't explained at all why your opinion is worth any more than mine, and on what you base your
sweeping assessments).

[Lechmere]

Ha! – yes there were even the bantam battalions in the First World War.
But they were not the stereotype!

Babybird – no I haven’t seen the original documents – but I would suggest that scans in this day and age make for pretty accurate reproduction.
Unless someone is going to do a forensic examination based on determining up and down strokes then I would suggest this is not relevant.
I would suggest a handwriting test based on comparing three different signatures from the witness statement to those available from the census forms and the marriage certificate is a small sample. It’s not like we have two pages of prose to compare. This, and the fact that Victorian handwriting was fairly standardised between individuals will always make it arguable.

[DVV]

I will be the one of 'military appearance'.

I'm sure you can exhibit an air of "quite confidence, respect and dependability" (1), even though your friends call you Shorty.

(1) copyright Archaic

[Lechmere]

Roast lamb?
Don’t worry about level playing fields – we are all equal in the eyes of God!
I don’t think qualifications are available in or for Ripperology.

But Frau Retro, I prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons - although I will go to ast least one (London) and possibly both conferences this year. I will be the one of 'military appearance'.

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -I have to make dinner for my family now, and don't have time to answer..

Can we just make sure that we're starting off on a level playing field before I reply ?

I don't know anything other than I've read on Casebook or googled .

I don't have any qualifications whatsoever for Ripperology.

I've never published anything (nor have any ambition to do so).

Please outline your qualifications , and job, before I write my reply.

[DVV]

How military are you ?
5 ft 7 mon général !

[Lechmere]

Flat?
Well, I'm not not tall and not stout anyway.
I posted up a number of archetypal pictures of Victorian soldiers - here is another...

[babybird67]

hi Lechmere

Not least because the signatures are obviously similar. If the two different signatures (the first one from the witness statement and any from the census form) were compared when writing a cheque (if anyone writes cheques anymore) for example, then they would be passed. Or when you vote by post you have to provide a specimen signature which is checked against one that accompanies the ballot. The two signatures would easily pass that verification.

Have you seen the documents themselves, or is this opinion based upon the altered signatures that have been uploaded on the internet?

[DVV]

Lechmere, flat as you are, I'm sure you're able to provide examples in which "military appearance" is used as a synonym of "tall".