Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Sally]

I don't disagree that there were some long term residents at the Victoria Home Sally and some were even reasonably well off as a contemporary account makes clear. I was speculating on the likelihood of Flemming living there for 14 months as some posters take it as axiomatic that he was. I am comfortable to assert that the vast majority of inmate would be of irregular domiciliary status.

I think 'vast majority' may be overstating it somewhat. We can't know whether Fleming was resident for 14 months straight or not - but I see no reason to suggest that he couldn't have been - it's quite possible.

I was under the impression that after 1865 the period of settlement in a parish in order to qualify for relief was one year. Perhaps I was wrong on that

Theory and practice don't always match perfectly. The principle may well have stated a year, but the records tell us that a person certainly didn't have to be resident in a parish for anything like a year to claim relief.

[Lechmere]

This is one of those situations when a fact is created by an exponent of one particular suspect.
It is only a theory that Flemming was in the Victoria Home in 1888, no matter how much anyone huffs and puffs.

So Sally are you actually saying that the rules were bent sometimes and people who did not claim local residence for over a year were given allowed in a local Poor Law Infirmary?

[DVV]

It is only a theory that Flemming was in the Victoria Home in 1888, no matter how much anyone huffs and puffs.

Most funny.
There are solid evidences that he was in the VH.

And you can provide none to support your own theory.

[Lechmere]

I'm in the luxurious position of not proposing a theory - I'm merely pointing out the cold hard fact that there is no proof that Flemming was in the Victoria Home in November 1888.
...you by contrast have to make 'not tall but stout' actually mean 'very tall and thin'.

[DVV]

The "no proof" tag is meaningless. In our case, we are dealing with evidence, not proof.

Evidences indicate that Fleming was most probably dossing in the VH in 1888.

Clear, simple.

As for the the meaning of "military appearance", you have already been proven wrong by Archaic.

[Lechmere]

We are back in the territory where Jack the Ripper theories are to be judged by a different benchmark to any other historical examination. Accordingly a lack of proof is unimportant, we can go on a series of pieces of evidence, which are joined up by assumptions and called facts.

Archaic didn't really provide any meaningful information on the meaning of 'military appearance'. Her evidence related to 'military bearing' and indicated that it was associated to 'military appearance' no more.

My reference to very tall and thin was however to your favourite suspect Flemming.

[Sally]

So Sally are you actually saying that the rules were bent sometimes and people who did not claim local residence for over a year were given allowed in a local Poor Law Infirmary

Lechmere, the fact of the matter is that many people, often, received relief at a local Poor Law Infirmary with considerably less than a year's residence. Weeks, sometimes. I expect how much the 'rules were bent' would depend on individual circumstances?

Again, you are quite correct in that we cannot prove that Fleming was resident at the VH in 1888, but there is no reason that he couldn't have been, either, is there? You could argue for circumstantial evidence to the contrary in fact.

Anyway, once again, the thread is wandering. What does this have to do with Toppy, exactly?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Your opinion is ''Unless you[ myself] can prove that Topping was the witness Hutchinson, shut up and be quiet''
Making your opinion, that Topping was not the witness, the obvious solution.
With respect Ben, that is not the way it works...
It is a classic ''stalemate'', with no party having any concrete evidence.
At least in my quarter, there is a name put foreward, we even have a picture of him in later life, which according to Ivor Edwards was in Regs flat, the same picture as in Faircloughs book, we have the handwritting to compare, which are similar to the eye, and we have Regs family stating they knew of the story, albeit not having heard the radio broadcast, but whats new in that department[ I was priviliged..]
And last but not least.
We have the very much ''frowned upon'' Wheeling report, something that for the life of me , cant accept as worthless, it is the only time a mention of a payment was forewarded in print in 1888, and therefore I cannot discredit Regs insistance that his father received a decent sum.[ note no mention of a wage Ben].
Thats enough of me , how about introducing to us the real George Hutchinson? so we can compare..
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
Please can you explain where it is mentioned that Mrs Maxwell viewed the body three times?
I have been into this subject since I was sixteen years old ..48 years, and if you could supply Casebook with the source of that, all of the Ripper universe, would be extremely grateful, for it would be a major discovery.
in anticipation
Richard.

[Rubyretro]

Hi Rubyretro,
Please can you explain where it is mentioned that Mrs Maxwell viewed the body three times?
I have been into this subject since I was sixteen years old ..48 years, and if you could supply Casebook with the source of that, all of the Ripper universe, would be extremely grateful, for it would be a major discovery.
in anticipation
Richard.

I read it on Casebook yesterday -I'm sorry, I was (am) trying to 'multi-task'
and I didn't copy the reference..I'll try and find it now..it was in a 'dissertation'..

[Rubyretro]

I must apologise, Richard ! You are quite right !

Although I was scanning an excellent dissertation, by Dave Yost ?, on Mrs Maxwell's evidence -the 'viewing the body 3 times' detail actually referred
to Mrs Malcolm mis-identifying Liz stride.

Thank you for correcting me.

Multi-Tasking is not always a good thing !!

[Lechmere]

Sally - I can't remember why Flemming came into the Toppy conversation, but to reconcile it...
How is it that some people are comfortable with the possibility that Flemming was living at the Victoria Home in November 1888? I can accept that as a possibility, but if he was there I would expect it to be temporary and for him not to be there for 14 months continuously but let's leave that.
Yet the same people cannot accept even the possibility that Toppy could have stayed there.
This illlustrates the argumentative holes that people dig for themselves on here.

[DVV]

You cannot say so, Lechmere.
That Fleming was dossing there in 1888 is documented, while we have nothing that indicates Toppy was living in the VH, and even in Whitechapel, in 1888 - unless, of course, you can prove Toppy was Hutch.

[DVV]

....and, btw, even if you could prove Toppy was Hutch, that wouldn't mean Fleming wasn't dossing in the VH.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I could try it, but I would be lying to myself in pretending to consider any of those suggestions to be “viable”, let alone “very, very compelling”, so if it’s all the same to you, I think I’ll stick with the considerably more simple explanation that Hutchinson lied was accordingly discredited."

Oh, Iīm quite fine with that. It would seem that you were the one having major troubles with MY stance on different matters. You somehow seem to believe that I make my choices only to be able to gainsay you. That is - if I may be so bold - grossly overestimating your influence. I also think it is not a very nice thing to do - to try and implement the ppicture that a poster that opposes you do not do so out of rational decisions tied to the material of the case, but instead because of some sort of strange obsession.
As you well know, Ben, over the years you have contradicted numerous suggestions that I have made. I have not once tried to imply that you have done so because you had a pathological need to see me gainsaid. I would very much appreciate if you could find it in your heart to do the same for me. Yes?

"Abberline’s view was clearly revised subsequently, which is why Hutchinson came to be discredited; almost certainly as a Packeresque witness and not as some silly date-befuddler. "

ītis a meagre soil that your almost certainlies arise from, Ben. Very meagre.

"Given the near certainty that Hutchinson was the man seen by Sarah Lewis..."

Oh-oh ...!

"it stands to reason that he must have seen her"

No, Ben, that does not stand to reason as the result of any "near certainty". What stands to reason is that he WOULD have seen her IF HE WAS THERE. If he was NOT there, we should be very forgiving that he didnīt.

"It is irritating and outlandish nonsense to claim that it is “illogical” to infer that Hutchinson lied, which is by far the most popular perception at present."

Tsss, tss - thereīs that overexaggeration again. It may VERY well be that the irritating and outlandish nonsense lies in suggesting that Hutchinson lied, Ben. Mine is a suggestion, yours is another. Mine is supported by a policeman from the time, yours is not. Mine has the evidence that Lewis was not mentioned speaking for it, yours do not have this advantage. So I recommend that you cut down on the outlandishes together with the near certainties. Even if you find such a recommendation "unpopular" too.

"not only was policing in its relative infancy in 1888, they had no knowledge of serial killers."

But that, Ben, would not have prevented them from asking the very obvious questions about how Kelly was dressed and how he knew her. That was THERE from the police infancy years. It could well have been the first question they were taught to ask back in the 17:th century. And not only serial killers have victims that wear clothes. All do, but for the ones who specialize in killing butt naked victims only. So why you bring that up is inconceivable to me.

"What are you talking about?"

The police report, Ben: "About 2 am 9th I was coming by Thrawl Street, Commercial Street, and saw just before I got to Flower and Dean Street I saw the murdered woman Kelly. And she said to me Hutchinson will you lend me sixpence. I said I cant I have spent all my money going down to Romford. She said Good morning I must go and find some money. She went away toward Thrawl Street. A man coming in the opposite direction to Kelly tapped her on the shoulder and said something to her. They both burst out laughing. I heard her say alright to him. And the man said you will be alright for what I have told you. He then placed his right hand around her shoulders. He also had a kind of a small parcel in his left hand with a kind of strap round it. I stood against the lamp of the Queen’s Head Public House and watched him. They both then came past me and the man hid down his head with his hat over his eyes. I stooped down and looked him in the face. He looked at me stern. They both went into Dorset Street I followed them. They both stood at the corner of the Court for about 3 minutes. He said something to her. She said alright my dear come along you will be comfortable He then placed his arm on her shoulder and gave her a kiss. She said she had lost her handkercheif he then pulled his handkercheif a red one out and gave it to her. They both then went up the court together. I then went to the Court to see if I could see them, but could not. I stood there for about three quarters of an hour to see if they came out they did not so I went away.

Description age about 34 or 35. height 5ft6 complexion pale, dark eyes and eye lashes slight moustache, curled up each end, and hair dark, very surley looking dress long dark coat, collar and cuffs trimmed astracan. And a dark jacket under. Light waistcoat dark trousers dark felt hat turned down in the middle. Button boots and gaiters with white buttons. Wore a very thick gold chain white linen collar. Black tie with horse shoe pin. Respectable appearance walked very sharp. Jewish appearance. Can be identified."

"Oh, but of course, we’re all fainting ‘neath the impenetrably logical arguments of Fisherman and Fetchbeer, with support from Mike"

Irony? Yes?

The best,
Fisherman