Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[DVV]

Just wonder how the big thread could have been so big, in retrospect...

[Ben]

Beautifully summed-up, Beebs.

And spot on.

X

[babybird67]

Which meant he would have left the family home in 1888 (which wasn’t in the East End), whereas the real Hutchinson had clearly been in the East End since at least 1885.

Absolutely spot on Benz! None of the timings support the contention that Toppy was in the East End at the relevant times. Combine that with the fact that Hutchinson was a groom/labourer not a plumber and that the signatures do not match according to the only professional examination of the documents that has been performed and there is clear evidence that Toppy was not the same person as the Hutchinson of the Ripper case.

Jen x

[DVV]

It doesn't matter, however, because we know Toppy is Hutch. The doubt is gone.

Mike

Lol....

[The Good Michael]

The son of a plumber, trained as a plumber, would more likely introduce himself as a plumber than as a groom.
Quite simple.

Unless he wasn't yet a plumber and liked the sound of groom better than laborer.
It doesn't matter, however, because we know Toppy is Hutch. The doubt is gone.

Mike

[Ben]

Exactly, David.

Fisherman,

“...or took another route altogether to his plumbership, as suggested by Lechmere.”

…Which took him into a crowded lodging house in the worst part of the East End, where his “other” route (which he embarked upon after snubbing his nose at his father’s plumbing profession) quickly went tits-up, and he started forming three-year friendships with prostitutes. But then it was a quick “reconciliation” with daddy, even quicker entry into the plumbing profession.

That is the complicated, purely hypothetical, zero evidence explanation required to cast Toppy in the mould of the real George Hutchinson.

The more rational explanation, of course, is that Toppy became a plumber at the earliest opportunity, like his father and probably grandfather before him, and never looked back since, making sense of both the 1891 entry listing him as a plumber and Reg’s reference to his father as having been “rarely, if ever, out of work” (Reg being a source you trust and use as evidence to support Toppy’s candidacy, remember?).

I have always been more than prepared to accept that plumbing apprenticeships weren’t always seven years long, and that Toppy’s own tuition might have been carried out by his father, but all this talk about “intermittent fall outs” and subsequent "reconciliations” is resulting in some rather outlandish conclusions. Many people fall out with their parents, but these fall-outs rarely result in lives of enforced (but quickly reversible!) destitution in some of the worst places imaginable.

Your reference to David Knott’s information contains a crucial and obvious flaw. Toppy’s father remarried in 1888, and it was suggested that son and stepmother did not get on. Hence, if any sort of fall-out occurred that prompted Hutchinson to get the ‘ump and move into the East End, it must have happened in 1888.

But we’re all spotting the problem here, of course.

Yep! The real George Hutchinson informed the police that he had known Kelly for three years, i.e. from 1885 when she was living off Pennington Street in the East End near the docks. This implies that the real George Hutchinson had lived in the East End for three years before Toppy’s father re-married, when Toppy was supposed to have fallen-out with his father. David Knott himself wrote:

“It has also been suggested that Toppy did not get on with his father's new partner, which may be a reason for him leaving the family home.”

Which meant he would have left the family home in 1888 (which wasn’t in the East End), whereas the real Hutchinson had clearly been in the East End since at least 1885.

“the whole argument about this was initiated because it was stated (by you, for example) that the rules and regulations meant that we could be sure that Toppy got his education during an unbroken stretch of seven years, and that there was seemingly no other way that any young man could become a plumber.”

Really?

Let’s go back through this thread and discover what I really said:

“Plumbing apprenticeships usually lasted seven years (between the ages of 14 and 21) meaning that if Hutchinson had been bumming round the East End as an unemployed labouring former groom at age 22, he had most assuredly missed the boat, and was very unlikely to be a working plumber by 1891 (as Toppy was)” – 13th June 2009

“It has emerged that it was easier to become a plumber prior to 1886, which meant that Toppy had even lessincentive to resort to the slums of Whitechapel. Why would he endure such degradations and squalor if he could gain entry into the profession? I say easily, for two reasons: A) Because his father was already in the plumbing trade, and B) Because the restrictions were clearly very lax prior to 1886.

After 1886 the regulations were tightened, and yet it is only after the tightening of these regulations that you want Toppy to have suddenly entered the plumbing profession. Thanks to Gareth's article, we learn that it became even more difficult to become a plumber after 1886, with little or no apprenticeship to speak of, and at an age when apprenticeships weren't generally offered” - also 13th June 2009.

When I stated that, “it has emerged…” I was referring to the articles Gareth provided ages ago, all of which were reproduced by Lechmere on the “wrong night” thread (not in full, though, significantly). What you describe as “Lechmeres eminent work” and “Lechmeres finds” were actually sources that had already been provided by Gareth on this thread. In future, Lechmere might consider telling us where he obtains the sources he provides and avoid creating the erroneous impression that he is telling us something new when he isn't.

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=90278&postcount=228

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=90283&postcount=231

[DVV]

If Toppy worked with his father for a period and then moved to the East End, and was not fully trained as a plumber at that stage, then why would he call himself a plumber – when he wasn’t?

The son of a plumber, trained as a plumber, would more likely introduce himself as a plumber than as a groom.
Quite simple.

[Lechmere]

Oh dear Mr Ben - the contemporary records show that the apprenticeship system for plumbers had almost totally broken down by the mid 1880s.
Also we have no idea whether any misfoprtune may have befallen poor Toppy.
I do not have to fill in any blanlks or copme up with any must have's. All I have to do is who that there is no reason for him not ending up in the East End - which I have.

[Ben]

“Do you have some sort of strange attraction or connection to the word apprentice such that you are reluctant to surrender its usage?”

It’s not so much of an "attraction" to the word, Lechmere, but rather a realisation that it is inextricably linked to the plumbing trade in the Victorian era. Plumbers simply were apprenticed in their trade more often than not, and these apprenticeships tended to last seven years. If Toppy “worked” for his father for “a period”, then it would be fair to describe his “trade” as that of a plumber, rather than bringing the trade of a groom into the equation. The census records list Hutchinson as a plumber in 1891, and since his father and grandfather belonged to the same profession, it is only reasonable to assume that Toppy joined the profession at the earliest opportunity. Speculative forays into the East End, three-year friendships with East End prostitutes, and enforced “chronic want” in one of the worst areas in London are just very bad attempts to reconcile the known particulars of the real Hutchinson with Toppy’s history.

“As for your increasingly frantic claim that no one would have moved away from a reasonably settled home life”

It is most assuredly sustained in Toppy’s case, and the “In Whitchapel” reference bears this out. Look again at the two reasons given for the decline of these men:

“some by misfortune, some by vice”

Misfortune? Well no, as Ruby has correctly pointed out, that one doesn’t work for Toppy at all. As we’ve already discussed, Toppy would have been fortunate in the extreme to have a father who worked as a plumber, and who was in a position to train him up at the earliest opportunity. Which leaves us with “vice”, and as blank-fillers go, that's really rather a hefty void to fill in the total absence of evidence for Toppy's "vice". I dearly hope I’m not going to hear any riposte to this along the lines that Toppy “must have” gone through a naughty phase that "must have" propelled him on his path to strictly temporary destitution in the East End.

I don’t know why any “re-evaluation” is necessary.

“Now we know it was a non-issue all long.”

You’re doing that thing I really dislike: “You all thought this until I came along, and now, thanks to me, you must all think the opposite!"

How about no, Lechmere?

[Lechmere]

But Frau Retro, you can have no idea whether any misfortune befell young Toppy... therefore it is hardly implausible.
Frau Retro, you said that you couldn't knock the square pegged Toppy into the round holed Hutchinson because of the apprenticeship issue. Now we know it was a non-issue all long. Time for a re-re-evaluation perchance?

[Rubyretro]

some by misfortune, some by vice.’[/I]

Toppy would hardly fit either category. He was at the beginning of a (relatively) bright future -not on his way down.

In short it isn't unlikley that Toppy could end up there at all. No proof that he did, but it is not in the least implausible.

It is implausible.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fisherman,
In absolute agreement,we are the greatest detective force in the world, all working on the same case, each of us believing we hold the key, but none of us can make it fit.
One point I will remain adamant on, is Topping was Hutchinson our witness.
I also am certain that ,he or Mrs Maxwell, saw Mary Kellys killer.
Whilst we can suggest it is possible that Hutchinson mistook the day, we should not tar Maxwell with the same brush.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben - if Toppy did on the job training as a plumber with his father this would not mean he was apprenticed to him. Do you have some sort of strange attraction or connection to the word apprentice such that you are reluctant to surrender its usage?
If Toppy worked with his father for a period and then moved to the East End, and was not fully trained as a plumber at that stage, then why would he call himself a plumber – when he wasn’t?

You seem to miss the point that the requirement here isn’t to prove that Toppy must have done this. This is obviously impossible. It is to illustrate that he could have. There is nothing to stop him from having done it as you and some of your co-Hutchinsonites previously claimed.

As for your increasingly frantic claim that no one would have moved away from a reasonably settled home life (if it was, we have no way of knowing what his home life was like) to the East End, well, Mr Ben, that is what a rather large number of people did in the late Victorian period. Not everyone who moved to the East End (or ended up in the Victoria Home) were starving Irish, persecuted Jews or rural vagabonds, driven there in frantic desperation.
Take a gander at ‘In Whitechapel’ Mr Ben if you will – or better still I will save you the botheration:
‘Amongst the men present there that Sunday were those who were formerly merchants, doctors, master-builders, lawyers, undergraduates of Oxford and Cambridge, besides artisans, working-men out of work, day labourers, costermongers, discharged soldiers – in fact, men of every sort and condition. All are poor, some by misfortune, some by vice.’

The son of a plumber is humble indeed next to that aristocracy.
In short it isn't unlikley that Toppy could end up there at all. No proof that he did, but it is not in the least implausible.

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"I was suggesting that mayby even my own humble self with approx 48 years of intrest in this subject, may infact be right, and the elite amongst us not"

There IS no "elite" amongst Ripperologists, Richard. When he have all the answers, then maybe some will look like the elite, but until then we are all foot soldiers.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Toppy either embarked upon a formal apprenticeship like most plumbing aspirants – this usually lasted seven years from the mid teenage years to early twenties – or was apprenticed by his father and learned the trade accordingly."

...or took another route altogether to his plumbership, as suggested by Lechmere. Let´s not forget about the possibilities involved, shall we? That would look very biased.

"If he took the latter option, and it is far from incredible to suppose that he did, he would clearly have done so at the earliest opportunity rather than throwing away an opportunity that many working class youngsters would have been deprived of."

A few changes required here:
If he took the latter option, and he may have, he would normally have done so at the earliest opportunity rather than throwing away an opportunity that many working class youngsters would have been deprived of. Then again, things may have come up that led him down another part, such as an intermittent fallout with his father, and it if this holds true, he may have gotten his credentials between 1888 and 1891. There is no need to accept that he must have taken the seven-year road to the job, since many a plumber were produced by taking a test. And if he was reconciled with his fahter, then he could have gotten the training he needed at his hands.

"Even if you’re insistent on these fantasy fill-in-the-blank explanations "

What YOU suggest is ALSO filling in blanks. Neither you nor me know how he became a plumber. The only difference inbetween us is that you shout at the top of your voice that you must be correct and I must be ridiculously wrong. I, on the other hand, am quite content to point to the fact that the whole argument about this was initiated because it was stated (by you, for example) that the rules and regulations meant that we could be sure that Toppy got his education during an unbroken stretch of seven years, and that there was seemingly no other way that any young man could become a plumber. This misconception has now been dispelled, and just like Lechmere says, there is nothing in the whole wide world that tells us that Toppy could not be the witness as a result of the rules and regulations that falsely was claimed as a hindrance for this.
That is all we need to move on, acknowledging that whatever we feel about this issue and however extremely remote a few posters are eager to claim that it would have been for Toppy to have aquired his plumbership after the events of 1888, we still know that this could have happened. My own take on things is that the suggestion that he became a plumber between 1888 and 1891 is quite trivial. During them three years, thousands of young men would have left their homes after having disagreed with their families about something, and heaps of young man will have become plumbers by taking the test Lechmere described. The things to expect in this issue are two:
1. Toppy would normally have done seven years of apprenticeship in a row and joined his father as a plumber.
2. Things do not always go as expected.

"you’re still faced with the reality that he would still have been a plumber by trade"

"Reality"? If he had had a fall-out with his family (and you may perhaps recall that David Knott spoke of such a thing some time back, after having had contact with members of the family - so much for "filling in the blanks"), and quit the education to plumber (which we do not have on record anyway) for that reason - thenhe would not be a plumber by trade. He would be a man that once aspired to become a plumber but gave up on the prospect. I once started an education to become a lawyer, bu I don´t give my occupation as a lawyer because of that. It would be ridiculous. And in my case, there are no hard feelings involved. InToppy´s case, he may have decided that whatever he was going t be and call himself, it would at least not be "plumber". If he had been driven from home or had taken that step himself, then the prospect of being a plumber may have been a despicable thing to him.

It really is not hard in the extreme to understand once you put your mind to it, so I reccommend you do just that.

2That said, all this nonsense about venturing into the “magnetic” East End, and putting himself in a predicament on enforced deprivation purely because he had yet to be “reconciled” with his father is hardly worth considering, as it has nothing in the way of supporting evidence."

Okay, then, that´s that for Hutchinson as a killer then! No supporting evidence even near that one. I´ll make sure I´ll be the first in line to wave him off!

The best,
Fisherman