Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[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'.

[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]

[

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'.

[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]

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]

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]

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]

flexibility

Hello Ruby. Good to be flexible.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -regarding 'evidence' and 'proof'

-in the Papers today, regarding Rebecca Leighton :
"CPS prosecutor Nazir Afzal said: 'The inquiries, which are still ongoing, have not so far provided us with a stronger case which would meet the test that there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction."

The terms appear to be interchangeable here.

Certainly 'proof' is 100% and 'evidence' weaker -but 'evidence' is something that one hopes to become 'proof' either of the prosecution or of the defense
case.

I don't see that 'so-and-so-said-so' could ever become 'proof' for either side.

[Lechmere]

Heresay evidence in itself isn't enough of course which is why I listed a whole series of other things - and I will do my best to unearth some more fresh evidence so we are not just arguing (or debating) over (to you) old ground.
I have several good areas to investigate and I am fairly certain I can turn some new info up.
Unlike you, when I first heard about the Toppy thing, my first reaction was 'a likely story'.

[Lechmere]

And how can you tell who's 'on-line'? I can't see any names anywhere.

[lynn cates]

let there be light

Hello Lechmere. Look for the light.

Blue = off; green = on.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Unlike you, when I first heard about the Toppy thing, my first reaction was 'a likely story'.

[/QUOTE]

You couldn't be further from the truth ! My first reaction (as attested by my first posts on casebook) was -'a likely story'.

[Lechmere]

How did that just start happening

[Rubyretro]

How did that just start happening

Enigmatic.

I've often had the same feeling.