Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

I'm not saying Toppy was in the military. I'm saying it's possible and I go no further than that.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Mr Wroe
Prevalent means widespread. In my opinion there are lots of rubbish plumbers around today. I can ‘adduce’ this from first-hand experience after engaging the services of plumbers from the Yellow Pages.
I did not say that a majority of plumbers were bodgers. Where did you get that idea from?

As for over-egging the role played by the Worshipful Company of Plumbers, I think you are mixing me up with Mr Ben. He seems to think that the new tests that the Worshipful Company of Plumbers encouraged meant that a new rigorous regime was in place that would have made life difficult for a potential bodger by 1891.
In contrast I have emphasised that there would have been bodger plumbers working away long after 1891. I am by no means certain that Toppy would have sat the test, as a good self taught plumber would still have been able to get plenty of work. I have spelt this out several times.

Oh dear Frau Retro
I may be eccentric but so far as I am concerned if someone wants to propose a candidate for Jack the Ripper, I would subject that claim to exactly the same sort of critical examination that I would expect for any other historical identification. I would not excuse a Ripper claim from proper scrutiny nor deny it comparison to other personal historic identifications, as if Ripper suspects are sacrosanct. I find it remarkable that anyone should make such a claim.
It shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the Hutchinsonite view that it is claimed that to compare the weight of evidence in favour of Toppy being Kelly’s Hutchinson, with the lack of evidence that suggests Hutchinson was the Ripper – is ‘a load of bollocks’.

How many people do you think know what their ancestor was doing in 1888?
As I’m in possession of breathtaking arrogance, I will answer that question for you. Hardly any.
So I rather doubt that Toppy’s ancestor’s will be able to provide any extra information on that topic. There would be a slim chance I guess. Maybe they still have a certificate showing that Toppy did pass a plumbing test on a certain date. Very unlikely though I am sure you will agree.

On the Hutchinson moon face picture – he is a background character. He is indistinct. He did not attend an event such as the inquest when sketch artists were present. It is probable that the picture was not taken from life. That is why I have the nerve to suggest it may well not look like him and is just representational.

Shepherdess Retro, I don’t think there is much connection between being a sheep farmer and being a groom. Besides both involve messing around with animals. How do I know that “there isn’t that much to being a groom, and it is the sort of thing he could have readily learnt by a number of means.”
I guess I just do know it. Sometimes you can just know something for no apparent reason! Sometimes common sense tells us things.

Frau Retro – I haven’t said that Toppy was a bodging plumber. Not even hinted at it. I said there were bodging plumbers about!!! As there were and are.

As for Reg saying his father was rarely if ever out of work, that may well be true. If Toppy slipped up for a couple of years around 1888 this hardly constitutes a long-standing shoddy attitude to work. When Toppy (who was an elderly father to Reg) in his dotage recounted his work experiences, if he had been a groom or labourer for a couple of years in his early 20s this would not exactly loom large in his reminiscences would it?

The signature issue is far from settled – and my opinion, is that I can see obvious similarities.

The Good Michael...
I think you are barking up the wrong tree with the military business.
I am pretty certain that Toppy couldn’t have been in the army as the minimum term of enlistment in 1888 was four years. An occasional person may have been discharged – for injury and so forth, but that again wouldn’t seem to fit Toppy if he was Hutchinson.
The period of service was defined by the Army Enlistment (Short Service) Act (1870). Under this Act the maximum term of enlistment was twelve years. Most opted for six, but the minimum was four in the infantry and eight in the cavalry or artillery because in those branches extra training was needed. On discharge the soldiers had to serve in the reserve for the remainder of their twelve year service. So it could be four years with the colours and eight with the reserve.
If Toppy had joined at 18 and just left then I would suggest it would have been mentioned in the various reports that Hutchinson was a recent ex-serviceman, as he would have been a reservist.
I am fairly certain the term of service in the Royal Navy was ten years.
The Army and Navy were very strict and not like the rest of British society.

I think too much is being read into ‘military appearance'. This term implied a general look and posture. I don’t think we can extrapolate from the use of the term by a journalist with respect to Hutchinson, to imply he actually had served in the military.

Irrespective of Frau Retro’s objections, my definition of what was meant by ‘military appearance’ is exactly what the term meant. As I spelt out, the fact that in reality and in practice some soldiers were indeed not tall but stout is entirely irrelevant to what the term ‘military appearance’ was taken to mean. It is an expression to signify a stereotype. I am sorry if this again sounds like breathtaking arrogance.
The refusal of Hutchinsonites to even accept what the term ‘military appearance’ means says it all. But I suppose there is a different rule at play that I am not aware of (similar to the rule that you cannot compare the weight of evidence that is deployed in support of a Ripper suspect against the weight of evidence required for anything else). This rule states that the term ‘military appearance’ can mean not tall and stout.

[DVV]

BIG lol......!

[The Good Michael]

David,

Erect is only one of the traits.

Mike

[DVV]

Military bearing = tall, erect and slim.

Waow....I've missed my vocation.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Only in your opinion."

Eh... No!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Nothing about Toppy being a murderer either.

Agreed, Mike.
"He can't be a plumber", as they said.

[Rubyretro]

Blimey Lechmere, you do come out with a load of bollocks !

I would say that proposing of provenance for Hutchinson as Toppy should require no more weight of evidence than coming up with a Ripper suspect (eg Hutchinson). You should use the same benchmarks.

How can you possibly say this ? It is evident that our knowledge of all
the Ripper suspects is sketchy to a greater or lesser extent, involves speculation, and will be difficult to prove. Toppy on the other hand was a person who has descendants who obviously hold some information on him, which they're not communicating to us now -but I hope will one day come into the public domain. I expect that we will one day know if Toppy was ever a groom, if he was ever in the army, when he took up plumbing, where he lived in 1888, and if Reg was ever on the radio. In the meantime, despite
a superficial similarity between the signatures, they have been judged to be
not the same by Sue Iremonger..I am astonished that you feel able to have such confidence in your ability to judge with your naked eye that you feel able to override her professional opinion. You have gob smacking arrogance.

I will say the same about your dismissals of Garry Wroe's extensive research
after a couple of hours googling.

The phrase military bearing had a meaning – and that was tall, erect and slim.

.
Only in your opinion. I expect that when the British Empire was desperate to find enough cannon fodder to keep the colonies under control, they weren't so bothered in selecting recruits to match some decorative engravings.
You are confusing Hutch with a 1960s Air Hostess ?

The sketch of Hutchinson with a bowler type hat and a moon face was a very indistinct and almost certainly not done from life. The good likenesses were drawn at inquests and so forth. The sketch (from Penny Illustrated?) is clearly just representational.

Amazing ! Newspaper sketches at the time were extremely good likenesses.
Hutch was talking directly to the press, so why they wouldn't draw him from life, I don't know. The sketch is anything but indistinct, and is clearly notjust "representational". I don't know how you find the nerve to make such a sweeping assertion.

there isn’t that much to being a groom, and it is the sort of thing he could have readily learnt by a number of means.

How an earth would you know ? I have been a sheep farmer, and by the same light one could say that 'anyone' could be a shepherd. The truth of course is that no one would be able to the job without learning it and having practical experience. Of course Hutch could have just learned if he were born
and brought up with horses (which is not Toppy's case), otherwise he probably started work as a young boy...as most grooms did at the time.

Archaic came up with some interesting further proof that bodging plumbers long proliferated after 1891, which common sense told us anyway.

Poor Toppy ! -sucessfully self employed, 'rarely if ever out of work'..and
relegated to the ranks of 'bodging plumber' now !

Out of curiosity -what is your job, Lechmere ?

[Garry Wroe]

I am well aware exactly what the Worshipful Company of Plumbers is and used to be and their lack of clout (particularly outside the City of London) …

I wish I could say that that this is evident from some of your recent posts, Lechmere.

… which is why I have repeatedly said that bodger plumbers would have still been prevalent after 1891. As indeed they are to this day.

So you are of the opinion that the majority of today’s plumbers are untrained incompetents? Perhaps you’d care to adduce the evidence for such?

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

You seem to be taking a page from the 'Toppy couldn't have been a plumber' book. First, I believe enlisted men had to do 7 years service (I could be wrong), plus there was reserve service, Could toppy have served only 1 or 2 or 3 years? There are plenty of dischargees who have done so. Could Toppy have been in the navy at a young age? Plenty of young boys in the navy. I was only suggesting a possibility about where a guy could gain a military experience. I was only in the Air Force for 4 years, 2 months, 20 days and 18 hours, but I still make hospital corners on my bed, fold my underwear into 6 inch squares, and many people ask me if I'm in the military. The funny thing is, I hated the military and found it to be only valuable to me because it paid my education and the library on base could get anything I wanted.

Back to the facts: they are that many things are possible before one should consider someone as a slayer and skinner and parts remover of human beings. That is absolutely bug nuts to me,

Mike

[Lechmere]

Oh if I must elaborate DVV...

“Since we all very well know that we can't prove who the ripper was, it's nonsense - and quite unfair - to say : my minor point (ie: Toppy) is more likely to be proven than JtR identity.”

I would say that proposing of provenance for Hutchinson as Toppy should require no more weight of evidence than coming up with a Ripper suspect (eg Hutchinson). You should use the same benchmarks.
It is a slightly interesting exercise establishing the credentials of Toppy and recreate his life from the meagre sources available. He was a ‘nobody’ and as such will have left very little trace. To his family of course he wasn’t a nobody, but to the historical record he was.
In my opinion there is a fairly compelling case that he was Kelly’s Hutchinson.

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.

I think Toppy can’t have been in the army as he will have to have served at least 4 years.
The military bearing thing will have just meant he stood straight and was slim.
The fact that some soldiers were not tall but stout is absolutely irrelevant. The phrase military bearing had a meaning – and that was tall, erect and slim.
That is another reason why it is quite possible that Lewis saw someone else altogether.

The sketch of Hutchinson with a bowler type hat and a moon face was a very indistinct and almost certainly not done from life. The good likenesses were drawn at inquests and so forth. The sketch (from Penny Illustrated?) is clearly just representational.

If Hutchinson wasn’t Toppy and he was older, then he could have been in the army, and been a groom. But there isn’t that much to being a groom, and it is the sort of thing he could have readily learnt by a number of means.

I would suggest that no one will ever get any further with the Hutchinson Ripper case as I can’t see than any other evidence will come to light to ’finger him’.

Archaic came up with some interesting further proof that bodging plumbers long proliferated after 1891, which common sense told us anyway.

[The Good Michael]

, nothing about Hutch being fresh from the army.

Nothing about Toppy being a murderer either. Sorry, but the Hutch argument needs the legs of a millipede to be able to stand. And who said anything about Hutch being 'fresh' from the army. Not me. And as you Hutchinsonians like to proclaim, he wasn't even checked out by the police. They saw the blood on his cuffs, dismissed it as being a shaving accident, took his story, and sent him on his way clutching a fiver.

Army service IS a possibility regardless of the what spews forth from the Hutchinson camp.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Actually, Lord Dunsany is more popular than Shakespeare in Kazakhstan.


Mike


Maybe I lied

[Archaic]

Dunsanian To The Max

That idea is fancy of Dunsanian proportions. Mike

Wow, Mike, "Dunsanian"... what a great literary term! - And quite obscure, which makes it even better!

You definitely get extra points for that one.

I wonder if there's anyone in Kazakhstan besides you who knows what it means?

Best regards,
Archaic

[Archaic]

Under-trained Plumbers A Threat To "Sanitary Security"

Hi guys. I'm just going to dip one toe in this Toppy argument...

Just wanted to say that having read through LVP periodicals on a wide range of subjects, I've come across many references to the danger of badly-trained or under-trained plumbers. These references even occurred even in the late 1890's and early 1900's. Some of them were quite long articles written in tones of outrage, sarcasm and disgust.

The outrage was fueled by a growing awareness of the importance of hygienic plumbing in stopping the spread of dangerous diseases such as Typhoid, Cholera and Dysentery. Household drains were often poorly designed, and under-trained plumbers were frequently blamed for hooking up the pipes in improper configurations that caused them to leak or made it impossible for them to drain properly. It seems to have been a serious national issue. The apprentice system was said to be highly prone to abuse, permitting incompetent plumbers to shirk the requirements and rapidly go into business for themselves.

The article attached is from 1904, so despite efforts to enact new plumbing regulations in the interest of public health, it continued to be a problem well past the 1880's.

Best regards,
Archaic