Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Mayby my post was not clear, I was merely suggesting that although some of our elite Ripperologists may well contridict the article, that does not mean that their opinions are correct.
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, I then suggested that of course that would be ''unthinkable'' to hold the opposite opinion.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

You’ve acknowledged that the Wheeling Register is contradicted by all other respectable sources, and that it would be “unthinkable” if it turned out to be true. Why, then, would it be “foolhardy” to dismiss an unthinkably bad source?

Hi Fisherman,

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. 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. The chances of him instead seeking out the worst pocket in the East End to live the life of an unemployed labourer and enforced “chronic wanter” are remote in the extreme.

Even if you’re insistent on these fantasy fill-in-the-blank explanations that involve a falling out with his father and an ensuing break from his plumbing prospects, you’re still faced with the reality that he would still have been a plumber by trade, unlike the real George Hutchinson who gave a totally different trade – that of a groom.

That 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.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Let’s have look at Mike’s “facts”:

"Fact 1: Two George Hutchinsons existed at the same time in the same area, virtually within saloon-crawling distance from each other."

Reality 1: There is absolutely no evidence that Toppy lived anywhere near "the area" in 1888. There is no evidence that he lived anywhere in the East End until he met his East End wife in 1895. Toppy can be placed in Norwood (South London, formerly Surrey) in 1881, and in Warren Street, in London’s West End in 1891. We have no evidence for his movements or whereabouts in between.

“Fact 2: Reginald Hutchinson claims that his father was the witness of one of the murders and knew the woman, bearing out (in part) GH's story.”

Reality 2: This claim appeared in a Royal Conspiracy theory suspect book that was later discredited by its own author after it transpired that his chief source of information had lied.

“Fact 3: Reginald's story contains a toff fitting GH"s testimony. The Churchill stuff was reportedly spoken by Reginald, and not GH who only said it was a lord type.”

Reality 3: The real George Hutchinson never “said it was a lord type”. He stated that man “lives in the neighbourhood” and had a Jewish appearance. Clearly, he was not depicting a “lord” or anything even remotely close to one. Reg’s claim that his rather “really did” (oh yes!) see Lord Randolph Churhill with Mary Jane Kelly does not “fit” the real Hutchinson’s evidence in any particular.

“Fact 4: Signatures, several, of GWTH have been uncovered that have remarkable similarities to each other.”

Reality 4: Sue Iremonger, a professional document examiner, compared all three statement signatures with Toppy’s 1898 marriage certificate signature. She concluded that Toppy was not responsible for any of those signatures, and could not therefore have been the 1888 witness. She outlined her findings at the 1993 World Association of Document Examiners conference, where her Maybrick diary findings were also discussed. Ms Iremonger’s professional credentials carry considerably more weight than Mike’s “guarantees” which should be dismissed as nonsense.

“Fact 5: No one else has been uncovered in any census that can even remotely be considered a possible Hutch match.”

Reality 5: For those of us who accept Ms Iremonger’s professional judgment, Toppy can be included amongst those who cannot “remotely be considered a possible Hutch match”. There are plenty of unknown entities out there whose handwriting has not been dismissed as a mismatch by a professional document examiner.

“Fact 6: People have to use unrealistic arguments to pick apart every fact, and each argument has nothing to do with another. They are only solitary arguments attacking individual aspects of the whole”

Reality 6: The above is, in fact, not a fact at all, but rather Mike’s aggressively phrased personal views on the subject. Nobody has picked apart any fact. They’ve merely proved that the “facts” Mike has just described as such are nothing of the kind.

[The Good Michael]

My words from #533

It is merely a large amount of coincidental information whose weight is heavily unbalanced in the direction of Hutch being Toppy. I'll show you:

Fact 1: Two George Hutchinsons existed at the same time in the same area, virtually within saloon-crawling distance from each other.

Fact 2: Reginald Hutchinson claims that his father was the witness of one of the murders and knew the woman, bearing out (in part) GH's story.

Fact 3: Reginald's story contains a toff fitting GH"s testimony. The Churchill stuff was reportedly spoken by Reginald, and not GH who only said it was a lord type. This fits with his description true or not, and that truth is unimportant here.

Fact 4: Signatures, several, of GWTH have been uncovered that have remarkable similarities to each other. I say as identical as a man's can get on separate occasions, but that is unimportant as well. What is important is that I can guarantee all of us arguing about this, in a blind test of writing the same signature, say 'Pocahontas', would come nowhere near as close to matching as these signatures do. Yet, these are two men with the same name! Coincidence? Very nearly impossible.

Fact 5: No one else has been uncovered in any census that can even remotely be considered a possible Hutch match.

Fact 6: People have to use unrealistic arguments to pick apart every fact, and each argument has nothing to do with another. They are only solitary arguments attacking individual aspects of the whole.

These facts stand in the way of Hutchinsonians. As Gary said on this very thread, and I paraphrase, "If Toppy is Hutchinson then he is effectively out of the ruuning as a suspect."

I don't necessarily agree with the above, but Gary does. What does this suggest? It suggests that Hutchinsonians, much like attorneys, are in this game to win a battle and not to seek truth and justice. How then is it possible for the good and just side (my camp) to win the argument? Answer: By their stooping to mere refutation, we have won... or really, the Hutchinson family has won a small battle for Toppy's name. He isn't cleared, however, as It's possible for the prosecution to find other plumbers who were married with children, respectable, who lived in the East End, had the same name, and who had a similar signature. It's possible... just.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Seven-year apprenticeships were simply the standard means of gaining entry into the plumbing profession in the late Victorian period, as discussed extensively on this thread. "

They were apparently not the only way, though, not by a far cry, as evidenced by Lechmeres earlier post. Instead, it would seem that lots of people entered the trade in other manners, and certainly did so as late as 1889, once again as evidenced by Lechmeres eminent work. And when we know that, the discussion has reached a stage where we know that it would be perfectly possible for Toppy to not fulfill his education, if he had indeed embarked upon it, and instead try to eke out a living of his own in the East end, doing other things than plumbing. And if he did so, and if he had in fact decided that he would never be a plumber like his father - then why would he say that he was a plumber by trade in 1888 if he never even had finished the education at that stage, and instead worked with other things?

Lechmere is totally correct - there is nothing but loud dismay on behalf of some posters, mainly you, to tell us that Toppy could not have become a plumber as the result of a reconciliation with his father between 1888 and 1891 - or as the result of any other decision on his part.

After that, anybody may go on quibbling about it for any amount of time. That would not be very wise, though. If instead evidence to the contrary of Lechmeres finds and presentation could be provided, it would be a lot better. But until it does, this matter is very much settled as far as I can see.

Many thanks to Lechmere for his work on this, which has been thoroughly enlightening.

Richard:

"what if the unthinkable happened.. in that I was right [ poor humble me] and they were wrong?
It is foolhardy to dismiss."

Foolhardy in the extreme, Richard - indeed.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
As you rightly say the ''Wheeling Register'', has been contridicted by all other respectable sources... but 'hey', what if the unthinkable happened.. in that I was right [ poor humble me] and they were wrong?
It is foolhardy to dismiss.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Lechmere,

Seven-year apprenticeships were simply the standard means of gaining entry into the plumbing profession in the late Victorian period, as discussed extensively on this thread. This process had been in decline until the mid 1880s, and after the negative effects of this decline had been noted, the regulations were tightened-up once more. This tightening up occurred before Toppy was supposed to have become a plumber, according to your suggestion.

None of this has anything to do with the chief objection to the proposed Toppy scenario, which is predicated on an imagined decision on his part to wait until his mid-twenties before deciding it might be advantageous to follow his father into the trade, despite the fact that he could have taken steps to do so much earlier, and at least become apprenticed or tutored in that trade when when plumbing aspirants normally start their learning process, i.e. their mid-teens. This is the nonsensical element; the decision to spurn this obvious opportunity in preference to a life as a failed (or failing) groom-cum-labourer in a crowded lodging house in the squalid East End, which according to you had a “magnetic” appeal!

Toppy would have been well equipped for a legitimate entry into the profession at the earliest opportunity, and never had any need to “bodge” his way in as an “uncertified plumber”. The only way round this commonsense reality is by inventing highly speculative and highly improbable scenarios that involve Toppy having either a post-pubescent “I’m angry at my father” syndrome or a desire to forgo his opportunities and “strike out alone”, both of which would have prompted to him to seek out an existence of “chronic want” in one of the worst areas in London, according to you.

“He could have gained all the experience necessary from say the age of 14 to 19 and then from 23 to 25.”

But it's very clear that none of this happened in Toppy's case, because that would have made him “a plumber by trade, now working as a labourer”, as opposed the account he gave of his professional history to the press: “a groom by trade, now working as a labourer”. The real George Hutchinson claimed to have had a “trade” in 1888, and it wasn't that of a plumber, so your "Toppy could easily have worked with his father for a few years from the age of 14" is obviously very inaccurate if you want him to have been the witness. If you don't, there would be no problem, and you'd probably be right.

“His parents married there, he moved there, married a girl from there and settled there.”

Well, let’s at least get the order right and avoid creating a misleading impression. His parents married in the East End, yes. I’m not sure quite how this is supposed to be relevant to Toppy’s proposed relocation there, especially if it took the form of a move AWAY from his parents! He married a girl who happened to come from the East End, and moved there afterwards and as an obvious consequence of that meeting.

“Mr Ben I have been meaning to ask. Since your father was born in Wigan, have you ever lived there yourself?”

No. I have nothing to do with the place. That’s precisely my point. The birthplace of a person’s parents needn’t have any impact whatsoever on where that person ends up living, especially if the purpose of the move to that place was to escape the parents.

Please try to keep all the signature silliness separate from the discussion regarding Toppy’s plumbing credentials, and certainly avoid “The Wheeling Register” because it is a discredited gossip column contradicted by all other respected sources.

“Mr Ben –you can use as many adjectives as you like – and you do like them.”

So do you, apparently, since you copy and misappropriate mine very regularly.

[Lechmere]

Ah Mr Ben...
We have no proof for what Toppy did prior to 1891 nor how he came to regard himself as a plumber.
The logical inference is that he learnt from his father and given the collapse of the apprenticeship system we can assume he did not serve a seven year apprenticeship. He may have got himself certified (as a plumber). Or he may not.

Because the Worshipful Company of Plumbers advocated that plumbers should become certified and that employers or contractors should only employ certified plumbers, I would say that uncertified plumbers would still have been around in large numbers – and always have been in fact. That’s life.

Toppy could easily have worked with his father for a few years from the age of 14. Indeed it is likely that he did and once he had learnt his trade he moved away to Warren Street. We have no idea why he moved away from the rest of his family. Maybe he was uncomfortable with his father’s new wife. It isn’t important.

How unlikely is it that he could have fallen out with his father, or just decided to be independent, and so moved away from home? But before he was properly competent to work as a plumber on his own account. He could have ended up in skid row as a consequence. This is what happens to people in the real world from time to time.

The scenario is irrelevant actually. I merely showed that there is nothing to prevent Toppy from having lived briefly in the East End.
His parents married there, he moved there, married a girl from there and settled there. So I would say it is plausible he could have passed through there a few years earlier.

There is nothing in the time line to stop Toppy, if he was Kelly’s Hutchinson, from getting certified as a plumber by 1891.
He could have gained all the experience necessary from say the age of 14 to 19 and then from 23 to 25. The anti-Toppyites have pretended that this is physically impossible. This is painfully wrong. Reading some of the posts on that long thread was frankly embarrassing.

Mr Ben I have been meaning to ask. Since your father was born in Wigan, have you ever lived there yourself? Have you married a Lancashire lass and bought up a family in Wigan? Was a crime committed in Wigan where a witness coincidentally called Mr Ben gave evidence? Was your signature coincidentally similar to that of this other Mr Ben’s? Has your son said you were connected to that crime? Did your son say you were paid as a consequence of your involvement. Did an American newspaper coincidentally mention that the other Mr Ben was also paid.
Just wondered.

Mr Ben –you can use as many adjectives as you like – and you do like them. The ‘must have’ seven year apprenticeship that you spent many posts defending is utter rubbish. I was going tom use a word beginning with S.
Change tack now Mr Ben and say that this comfortable fey youth would never leave the parental bosom and stray. No one ever does that do they? It only happens in Disney films doesn’t it?
Yeah right.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

I thought I’d address your second Toppy post on a more suitable thread, as promised.

With regard to the plumbing-related sources you quoted, it is clear that they all appeared before Toppy himself became a plumber, according to you. Inferentially, therefore, the lax regulations that had been in place before 1888 were tightened thereafter, making it more difficult for him to have “bodged” his way in. Even more significantly, Toppy would never have been required to bodge his credentials because he had a plumbing father who could so easily have facilitated a legitimate entry into the profession. Nor would he have had any reason to wait until his early twenties before taking advantage of his father’s obvious work-related connections.

This is why the proposed East End period of odd-jobbing in an area of “chronic want” makes not the slightest bit of sense for someone in Toppy’s situation. He had the opportunity to embark upon a career as a plumber at the earliest opportunity, but according to those who would identify Toppy with the real Hutchinson, he decided to spend most of his formative years bumming around the East End as a labouring former-groom, even listing his “trade” as that of a groom. Why on earth would he state this if his father had already instructed him in the plumbing trade? It makes no sense at all.

The overwhelming likelihood, of course, is that Toppy was taught by his father (either through a formal apprenticeship or as a form or less formal private tuition), and became a plumber at the earliest opportunity, with no silly wilderness years in between that involved a three-year friendship with an East End prostitute. Since most apprenticeships terminated at around the age of 21, it shouldn’t be surprising that he should be listed as one in the 1891 census when he was in his mid-twenties. The idea that he came to the conclusion in his early to mid-twenties that it might be a good idea to abort the enforced existence of a semi-destitute “chronic wanter” in crowded and squalid conditions, and become a plumber like dear old dad after all is painfully ludicrous nonsense.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Harry,
We are all assuming that Hutchinson was paid one hundred shillings for a couple of walkabouts, if that was the case why didnt Topping confirm that to Reg.
He always assumed [Reg] that this was the case, but he could not be sure, as his father would not add any more, infact he never said why he was paid.
I heard that on radio [ elusive broadcast] and the reason I am completely biased on this subject is, its because of that airing that I know that Faircloughs 'Ripper and the Royals' was not responsible for any skullduggery, it was just a repeat of the story as told by Reg many years before.
For any of Casebook who has the time and patience to visit Brighton University, and search through every Radio times from their archives from 1971-1975, and start from the back of each edition, not the front like my wife , my daughter, and myself unfortuately did last summer, they will definately find it amongst the inside back pages of a edition, ie a paragraph or two about the radio programme.
It was not until later I realised that articles were in the back pages.
Regards Richard.

[harry]

The trouble with any identification observed at night time,is going to be diminished by Hutchinson's alledged sighting on Sunday,in daylight,when Hutchinson declared he couldn't be certain.My opinion is that,to the police, the clothing was of more value in identifying Kelly's companion,and that was detailed.

Although Aberline states Hutchinson had agreed to accompany the police,can it be certain it was Aberline who made the suggestion.Either way,I am still of the opinion that one hundred shillings was not an agreed deal.
Regards,
Mike,Michael.

[Garry Wroe]

Sorry, Garry, I still can't accept that line of reasoning. Mentioning Lewis's arrival in Miller's Court would only have served to corroborate Hutchinson's story, thereby rendering him more superficially trustworthy. In contrast, IF he truly knew that the police were aware of Lewis's arrival, his omitting to mention her would almost certainly have lain him open to suspicion.

What laid him open to suspicion, Sam, was the three-day period of inertia. Hutchinson claimed to have witnessed a concatenation that even the most intellectually challenged of village idiots would have recognized to be crucial relative to Mary Kelly’s death. Yet for three days he did nothing. Only after Sarah Lewis testified to having seen a man (who closely resembled Hutchinson) staring intently down the Miller’s Court interconnecting passage did he eventually come forward. All things considered, I think it inconceivable that the two events were unrelated.

What appears to have been overlooked is the fact that Hutchinson was interviewed by journalists on at least two occasions subsequent to his police interrogation. Even if Hutchinson had been a Packer-like profiteer, it must surely have occurred to him that his hitherto failure to mention Sarah Lewis was a glaring tactical error that served only to raise questions as to his credibility. And yet, paradoxically, whilst he was more than prepared embellish his official story with details relating not only to the alleged conversation with a policeman in Petticoat Lane, but also the admission that he’d ventured into Miller’s Court and listened outside Kelly’s room, he never at any stage amended his story to accommodate a reference to Sarah Lewis.

The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that Hutchinson consciously side-stepped the issue of Sarah Lewis. To my mind, the only plausible explanation for such an approach is that it constituted an avoidance strategy – an attempt to allay any suspicion that Sarah’s inquest testimony was the real motivational factor behind his belated decision to come forward.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

Lewis' testimony says there was a man opposite the lodging house looking in the Court and further on there were a man and a woman, but that there was no one in the court. I think this is somewhat confusing testimony. The two must be Kelly and Astrakhan or the man behind Astrakhan, but that they weren't in the Court makes no sense. One thought is that Hutch saw them walk through the passage and then lost them after they exited the other end, and that Lewis saying there were two people further up, but no one was in the Court, meant in the passage of the Court. Further up might have meant where the public toilets were or something like that, in which case Lewis may not have had the lighting to see who they were. I would imagine she'd know who Kelly was if she was a frequenter of the Court as she seems to have been.

It's possible that none of this made sense to the authorities after Hutchinson told his story and was believed, so Lewis' testimony was discarded.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike,

I agree with your sense of confusion, and one thing struck me in your post, if someone watched a couple enter the archway and then exit it 20 or so feet later they would then walk out into the gaslight that was mounted on the wall above either Julia Vanturney's or the Keylers door...it shone towards Marys door.....he would have had to have seen people enter that door if they did....almost as soon as they get into the light.

Best regards mate

[The Good Michael]

Lewis' testimony says there was a man opposite the lodging house looking in the Court and further on there were a man and a woman, but that there was no one in the court. I think this is somewhat confusing testimony. The two must be Kelly and Astrakhan or the man behind Astrakhan, but that they weren't in the Court makes no sense. One thought is that Hutch saw them walk through the passage and then lost them after they exited the other end, and that Lewis saying there were two people further up, but no one was in the Court, meant in the passage of the Court. Further up might have meant where the public toilets were or something like that, in which case Lewis may not have had the lighting to see who they were. I would imagine she'd know who Kelly was if she was a frequenter of the Court as she seems to have been.

It's possible that none of this made sense to the authorities after Hutchinson told his story and was believed, so Lewis' testimony was discarded.

Cheers,

Mike

Why would the police need Hutchinson to look for Astrakan?.The witness description,detailed as it was,was itself sufficient,and distributed among the police forces,could cover a whole wider area,and for a whole lot longer than employing Hutchinson.

Hi Harry,

On the above,....wouldnt a logged suspect sighting be of far greater value when later accompanied by a direct identification by the witness?

Or maybe they wanted to see if the suspect recognized him...to validate his story?

One thing bothers me a lot about this Hutch statement....it seems clear that his story suggests he was the man Sarah Lewis saw that night,...yet it appears they didnt take any steps to have Sarah ID Hutch, or for him to provide and hats or coats he might own for her to take a look at. They seem to understand the value of ID's in the arrest and prosecution of criminals, but did they employ the same procedures when validating the claims of alleged witnesses I wonder?

Best regards Harry