Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=richardnunweek;188879]Hi,

Topping was 22 years old in 1888, only a couple of years younger the Mary Kelly, we tend to forget how young she was, and I can see no reason why Hutch was not familiar with her.

Youth has absolutely nothing to do with the question whatsoever. I certainly think that Hutch was familiar with Mary Kelly, even if he wasn't Toppy.

As for the hundred shillings payment... The Wheeling article mentioned a figure of approx that amount in 1888 , Gossip? remembered by a hoaxer named Topping many years later, as it has been stated by some .
Do we honestly believe that?

It could be -if the source of the Wheeling article was a story circulating in the East End at the time.
On the other hand, Fairclough was doing research for his book, and he could have found the Wheeling article and 'suggested' the sum to Reg.
It cannot be entirely discounted that either Toppy or Reg did read the article
-although highly unlikely (it is incredible how many people with 'false reincarnation fantasies' have been proved to have unwittingly gleaned their
details from very obscure sources -the proof being the identical 'mistakes' they make. The people also had conciously 'read up' -although they denied it- once they accepted the 'fantasy' as real).

Believe that Topping, adopted the real George Hutchinson's identity, researched his statement, remembered the payment from a rare [ non UK edition] article, all that for the ability to spin a yarn down the local?

I suggested 6 (there are probably more) alternative theories. If the sum of money was a widely circulating gossip of the time, then it would take no effort to know it.

Its not only son Reg's account, but Toppings tale was remembered by other members of the family including Toppings brother , remember J D Hutchinson's post on casebook a few years back?.

I cannot comment on that, not having read the posts. I can only remark that the Toppy/witness story is not entirely unique. There is also the surely bogus witness story of Nathan Shine in the Stride murder. Although the Shine story is also demonstrably false, his descendants appear to believe it.

[The Good Michael]

It is extremely doubtful that Topping or Reginald ever read the Wheeling Register, let alone heard of it. Reg was telling his side of things long before there was internet access to any newspapers. Who could logically think that he went to newspaper offices to find articles to create a story about his father? Who coudl logically think that Topping went around searching for newspaper articles so that he coudl take credit for being a different George Hutchinson? If he did this, then he forged signatures and the jig's up.


Mike

[Rubyretro]

Hello Richard and Michael. Wish I could add something to your posts. Unfortunately I can't. You have said it all.

Cheers.
LC

reply to Lynn Cates : you appear to believe that Israel Schwartz made up his witness story in the Stride murder.

The 'Family Recollections' of Nathan Shine's descendants (the Sassanie family ??) report a garbled version of Schwartz's story, with embellishments (which mean that it couldn't be true).

If you don't believe in Schwartz, then you can't believe in Shine -yet the same mechanisms are at work in his 'story' as in Hutchinson's.

Please explain to me the difference.

[Lechmere]

Abbey Normal
I’m not sure about the whole A-man thing and I am not at all sure that he was in Dorset Street. I don’t profess to be certain.
I am pretty certain he wasn’t guilty of anything more than over exaggerating and conning the police out off for a few quid.

Also I don’t think he was the wideawake man as the press and the police at the time didn’t make the connection – and the connection was there to be made... if they were connected. It is a bit like the Miller’s Court door lock ‘riddle’.

These things are mysteries and are discussed at length now but clearly were not then. I suspect that in both cases there was a simple and obvious explanation that wasn’t worth mentioning.
In other words it was known that Hutchinson wasn’t the wideawake man due to some, probably then obvious factor of which we are unaware, and the door was locked by some mechanism of which we are unaware but was also obvious at the time.

Some decisions made at the time and pieces of evidence merit the critical examination, but sometimes I think there is a tendency today to pour over little details, with attempts made to bestow significance on things which must have been clear at the time.

Rubyretro
The difference is the signatures seem to match and his father’s name was George Hutchinson and no other suitable George Hutchinson has been produced - although you could argue that Hutchinson provided a false name.
However claiming that Toppy’s remarks are not evidence just because you think they are untrue is somewhat ludicrous.

[Wickerman]

...I'm pretty certain that I read somewhere on Casebook (possibly in the archives ?), that it was also claimed that Packer had received the exact same sum. He surely didn't, so this points to an 'urban myth' circulating at the time amongst very poor people.

If the police had not been so reluctant to offer rewards then we might have treated these 'payment' myths with a degree of credibility. As it sits, we know the police were absolutely against offering payment for information or for citizens assistance, I think we can rest assured no money changed hands.
But the Press, thats a different story...

Regards, Jon S.

[Wickerman]

Lechmere
I find it surprising you find Hutch's statement of knowing MK for several years (because she moved alot) as the least beleiveable. I have no problem with that.

What else to Hutch's story do you find unbeleiveable?

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.

[lynn cates]

A picture is worth a Millen words.

Hello Ruby.

"you appear to believe that Israel Schwartz made up his witness story in the Stride murder."

Well, I don't think HE did it, but I think lads like Wess and Diemshitz did.

"The 'Family Recollections' of Nathan Shine's descendants (the Sassanie family ??) report a garbled version of Schwartz's story, with embellishments (which mean that it couldn't be true).

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

Fine by me.

"-yet the same mechanisms are at work in his 'story' as in Hutchinson's.'"

I don't understand. Toppy, er Hutch's story has always struck me as a bit off. My main problem was his spending 45 minutes looking up the court. Too, his description was a bit too precise for my taste--that is, until I saw the police description of Sir Edward's spy, Francis Millen. A perfect match for A-man. Look at his picture and description.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

It is extremely doubtful that Topping or Reginald ever read the Wheeling Register, let alone heard of it

.

I agree.
My point was that The Wheeling Register got the sum of money it quoted
from somewhere, and this could have been a figure being bandied around the area of Whitechapel at the time -so Toppy could have been aware of it.

Melvyn Fairclough was researching his book, and he could have had access to the Wheeling Register and 'suggested' the sum to Reg.

The fact that the sum of money is fictitious, but Reg mentioned the exact same sum points to The Wheeling Register being the source.

[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.

[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]

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 ?

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.