Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[lynn cates]

flexibility

Hello Ruby. Good to be flexible.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Certainly , Lynn.

I started out on Casebook as a confirmed Toppy-ite. I argued all the same things as Lechmere is arguing to me now. I found that other people debating against me had the more logical argument -so I changed my mind.

I've changed my mind about lots of details of the case because other people had good arguments.

[lynn cates]

jolt

Hello Ruby.

"you can learn a lot about the case from a good adversary"

You can indeed. Sometimes we are too close to the problem--at least, our take on it. Sometimes we need the "jolt" from another.

Case in point. Noticing the many discrepancies in Barnett's story about MJK, I naturally assumed that he was lying. I even though his "stammer" was a sign of nervousness FROM the prevarication. But then I read Chris Scott's excellent book. He suggests that it could be that MJK was lying to Barnett. Quite plausible.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Hello Ruby. In which case I thank you heartily.

Refreshing to have a good exchange of diverse views but NO acrimony.

Cheers.
LC

I couldn't agree more, Lynn !

I have thoroughly enjoyed some good humoured 'sparring' with Lechmere and Wickerman recently -I was quite petrified when I noticed F. reading this thread this morning, and filled with the desolate feeling that instead of some pleasant debate we might be dragged back to 'put downs' and silly insults (it's so easy to be sucked into it). It's especially silly, because you can learn alot about the case from a good adversery (because other people have a different focus of interest from yourself).

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Ruby. In which case I thank you heartily.

Refreshing to have a good exchange of diverse views but NO acrimony.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

[

I also think its possible that hutch and Toppy were one in the same. But even if Toppy is our hutch I think it possible he still lied to police about A-man and that he could still even be the murderer of MK and JtR.

There are many instances of serial killers having seemingly "normal" family lives.

The bottom line for me is i dont really care if Toppy is hutch-it does not diminish in any significant way that he may have lied to police or been a serial killer.

[/QUOTE]

I think that we joined Casebook at about the same time, Abby, so you probably remember that when I was a Toppy-ite, I argued the same thing.

Effectively, I'm debating here that Toppy and Hutch could not of been the same person -but, of course, even if they were, then that doesn't stop
Hutch being a good 'Suspect'.

[Rubyretro]

Hello Ruby.

"My point was simply that you seem to think it a ridiculous idea that the Toppy/Reg/Fairclough is a fabrication (even if it's an unconcious fabrication)."

No, not ridiculous at all. My judgment is based upon MY take on the signatures. As you say, the expert opinions cancel out. Hence, I look at them and notice that no 2 of my own signatures are that similar. Then, given the same cognomen, I ask, "Could it be the case that Hutch = Toppy?" My answer: "Yes."

But if so, what do we make of the story? What indeed!

Cheers.
LC

Good answer , Lynn. I accept that as fair enough.

[Rubyretro]

Hi.

Just to remind everyone , the sum of one hundred shillings was mentioned on radio some 18 years prior to The Ripper and the Royals, so that if anything... it came from Reg to the author, not visa-versa .
Naturally I shall be reminded that 'no proof'' about the existence of such a programme exists, and therefore irrelevant , however I will state till my dying day that it did, I obviously cannot discount that some radio researcher did not unravel that ''five times a weekly salary'' report, but according to the audio [ from memory] the man claiming to be the son of the witness Hutchinson, stated that his father was paid one hundred shillings, but never mentioned where from.
So the payment seems to derive from father to son , and not a newspaper account.
Regards Richard.

Richard -you, yourself, may very well be a good example of what I'm trying to say about 'false memories' being created and the person with those 'memories' totally believing in them.

You "state till (your) dying day" that your radio programme existed. You firmly remember finding the programme in the Radio Times, and then listening to
Reg Hutchinson on the radio.

It is possible that such a programme existed -however, as Bob pointed out earlier on this thread, he didn't find it, no one else has found it, and even you failed to find it in your search of the archives of Radio Times.

You may well have unwittingly created the memory of that Radio programme yourself. You have by your own admission had a long interest in the Ripper case, and you have had access to the source material to construct your 'memory'.

I don't think that anyone that knows you on Casebook would ever accuse you of being dishonest -just as I don't think that anyone on Casebook would take your belief alone as 'evidence', let alone 'proof' that the radio programme existed : everyone knows that mechanisms exist for being 'honestly mistaken'.

Reg Hutchinson might have been 'honestly mistaken'.

[Abby Normal]

Hutchinson said he had known Kelly "about 3 years".
Kelly's whereabouts since that time is not known except through what Elizabeth Phoenix told the press.
That, Kelly had lived at her brother-in-law's house (about 3 years ago) in Breezers Hill, off the Ratcliff Highway, down by the London Docks.
That about 2 years ago Kelly left Breezers Hill and settled around Commercial Rd, and "offered her wares" in Aldgate.
That being the case, it is not "unbelievable" that Hutchinson, if also resident in the area (and IF labouring at the Docks?), might have known Kelly.
Given the limited variety of her kind, Kelly seems to have had a memorable appearance.

Regards, Jon S.

Hi Wicker

That being the case, it is not "unbelievable" that Hutchinson, if also resident in the area (and IF labouring at the Docks?), might have known Kelly.

Totally agree.

In my response to Lechmere saying that he thought one of the most unbeleiveable things of Hutch's story was that he had known MK for about 3 years-one reason being because she moved around alot.

I think its possible Hutch knew her for 3 years even if she did move around alot. I also think its possible for a 22year old to have known a prostitute, lived in the Victoria home and made trips to Romford.

I also think its possible that hutch and Toppy were one in the same. But even if Toppy is our hutch I think it possible he still lied to police about A-man and that he could still even be the murderer of MK and JtR.

There are many instances of serial killers having seemingly "normal" family lives.

The bottom line for me is i dont really care if Toppy is hutch-it does not diminish in any significant way that he may have lied to police or been a serial killer.

[lynn cates]

Doesn't that Top all?

Hello Ruby.

"My point was simply that you seem to think it a ridiculous idea that the Toppy/Reg/Fairclough is a fabrication (even if it's an unconcious fabrication)."

No, not ridiculous at all. My judgment is based upon MY take on the signatures. As you say, the expert opinions cancel out. Hence, I look at them and notice that no 2 of my own signatures are that similar. Then, given the same cognomen, I ask, "Could it be the case that Hutch = Toppy?" My answer: "Yes."

But if so, what do we make of the story? What indeed!

Cheers.
LC

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Just to remind everyone , the sum of one hundred shillings was mentioned on radio some 18 years prior to The Ripper and the Royals, so that if anything... it came from Reg to the author, not visa-versa .
Naturally I shall be reminded that 'no proof'' about the existence of such a programme exists, and therefore irrelevant , however I will state till my dying day that it did, I obviously cannot discount that some radio researcher did not unravel that ''five times a weekly salary'' report, but according to the audio [ from memory] the man claiming to be the son of the witness Hutchinson, stated that his father was paid one hundred shillings, but never mentioned where from.
So the payment seems to derive from father to son , and not a newspaper account.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro I think you are confusing the word 'evidence' with the word 'proof'.
Evidence needs to be weighed and ideally corroborated.
The Shine case is evidence that some people recreate memory and false family traditions can arise.
Evidence can be accepted, sifted, partially accepted or rejected.
It is something that should go into the mix.

The Reg story is not an incredible out of this world ridiculous story. It is corroborated on several levels.
By Dew saying Hutchinson was young.
By the Wheeling Register and the fact we know the police did pay informants for their time spent out accompanied by an officer looking for suspects (e.g. the Islington case – Wickerman this is quite different from paying rewards which they were reluctant to do).
By the toff aspect.
By the signatures.
By the many East End Toppy Hutchinson family connections before and after 1888.
By the fact that Toppy had several different central London domiciles away from the bosom of his family.
By the absence of any other suitable Hutchinson candidate
If there was none of this then Reg’s story would be totally unsupported.
However it is sensible to look at everything in the round when trying to make an assessment.
Each individual part of the above can be countered.
For example Dew made mistakes – he said Bower was young, but there may be an explanation for that.
But taken together it adds up to a good case that Toppy was Hutchinson. It clearly isn’t beyond dispute but there is no damning hole in the Toppy equals Hutchinson case.

The proposition that Toppy manifestly couldn’t or wouldn’t have been a labouring sometime groom in the Victoria Home at the age of 22 is a drastic over exaggeration that ignores the many twists and turns that occur in most people’s lives and personal fortunes.

Reg’s story isn’t proof, any more than the Wheeling Register is or Dew’s account. However it should all be weighed up together.

[Rubyretro]

ps Lechmere -if Toppy had told Reg that he had a pint everynight in the Ten Bells pub when he was younger, please tell me how that would be 'evidence' that he had ever set foot in the place ?

[Rubyretro]

Rubyretro

The difference is the signatures seem to match

But we have two conflicting expert opinions on that. If you set out the problem like a 'balance' sheet, then the two opinions cancel each other out.

and his father’s name was George Hutchinson and no other suitable George Hutchinson has been produced

-
And I remarked to you that if only one candidate presented himself to the X-Factor, then that wouldn't make him a 'Star'. It's not because we haven't
found the real Hutch, that makes him Toppy.

However claiming that Toppy’s remarks are not evidence just because you think they are untrue is somewhat ludicrous.

[/QUOTE]
Then you don't understand what the word evidence means.
To go back to Nathan Shine again, can you take Shine's word as 'evidence' that Stride was killed on the street and then dragged behind the gate (presumably) ? No, because the real evidence shows that she died behind the gate. Someone's 'remarks' are not 'evidence'.

[Rubyretro]

If you don't believe in Schwartz, then you can't believe in Shine"

Fine by me

.

My point was simply that you seem to think it a ridiculous idea that the Toppy/Reg/Fairclough is a fabrication (even if it's an unconcious fabrication).

Yet there is another family with 'recollections' of a relative who was a witness in the Ripper case -and who appear to be sincere. People readily
accept that Nathan Shine's story is a fabrication, and Shine/his family
obviously based it on the statement of Israel Schwartz, with whom he may have felt an identification (although maybe unconciously).

I think that Toppy's story and Shine's story came about for the same reasons
-with the added possibility in Toppy's case that a researcher (Fairclough) was involved, and he did have access to information and 'obscure' documents about the case.