Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Peter F Young]

early 70's Radio Prog

Nunners, would you or any of your supporters like to listen to 26,000 cassette recordings my mother taped from the radio every day from early 60's to late 90's comprising much pop music, military band music, poetic discourses, funerals (Churchill, Diana etc) to try and find your elusive programme?
I reckon 10 hrs per day for 5 days a week would take you 20 years...
Best Regards,
Peter.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Peter,
I bet those tapes hold a few gems, however even that amount of material, would i fear not produce such a elusive recording.
And as for supporters, I am looking around, and i cant see any, never has been, never will be, unless a certain first time poster, can add fuel to fire, and reveal some evidence to the fore concerning his wifes grandfather.
I live in anticipitation...
Regards Richard.

[Bob Hinton]

, unless a certain first time poster, can add fuel to fire, and reveal some evidence to the fore concerning his wifes grandfather.
I live in anticipitation...
Regards Richard.

And this is precisely your problem; you are doing a Mr Macawber and hoping that something will turn up. But what could our elusive poster possibly bring to the table that would be evidence? Let us assume that what he says is correct and there is oral history that supports his story. That still proves nothing. You cannot do it that way round.

When I researched the Tremble murder there were certain things that just didn’t add up. So I carried on digging until I had enough pointers to suggest a hypothesis. All the evidence I had fitted my theory. Then by a stroke of good luck I found the great great grandson of the murderer and interviewed him.

I let him talk about his family and he told me the oral tradition in his family about his forbears.

What he told me exactly corroborated what I believed – but it still didn’t prove anything, it merely was an interesting indicator that I might be on the right track.

I still would never dream of presenting my theory as fact and saying that it was proven to be so because the family tradition backed it up.

[Peter F Young]

Hello Peter,
I bet those tapes hold a few gems, however even that amount of material, would i fear not produce such a elusive recording.
Regards Richard.

Give me a memorable event that occured around the time you listened to that programme & I will peruse either side,
Regards,
Peter.

[Fisherman]

Just some information on the issue of Reg Hutchinsons statements about Randolph Churchill in that Fairclough book!

To begin with, this is how it is worded in the book: ”Whenever the subject of Jack the Ripper came up, as it often did in the East End in the twenties and thirties, because many people who were there when it happened were still alive, he used to say: "It was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people." And when asked who he thought it was he always said: "It was some one like Lord Randolph Churchill." Until you told me that about Abberline's diaries and that he named Churchill, I thought my father was merely saying that in his opinion the murderer was someone high up, like Churchill. Now I can see that he knew all along that the man he saw actually was Churchill, but he didn't want to come straight out with it."

What is Reg saying here? Is he saying that Toppy believed the man he saw was Randolph Churchill, or does he say that he himself believes that this is what Toppy thought?
The latter, obviously – Toppy only says that ”It was some one like Lord Randolph Churchill”. To me, this is more or less the same as saying that it was NOT Churchill himself, but somebody that resembled him in some fashion.

And what fashion would that be? Well, it could be one of two things – or a combination of them. Either he looked like Churchill – or he seemed to belong to the same uppermost class.

Letīs begin by comparing the two men involved when it comes to looks. We know how Hutchinsons man looked:

”Age about thirty four or thirty five; height five feet six inches; complexion pale; dark eyes and eyelashes; slight moustache curled up at each end and hair dark; very surly looking; dress – long dark coat; collar and cuffs trimmed with astrakhan and a dark jacket underneath; 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 with linen collar; black tie with horseshoe pin; respectable appearance; walked very sharp; Jewish appearance.'”

Could this apply to Churchill? No, it could not. In Arthur Anthony Baumanns book ”Persons & politics of the transition”, we have a descrition of lord Randolph. He was 39 years old at the time of the Kelly murder, and he was 5 foot 9 inches tall, a man of slight and fragile body construction. Moreover, his eyes were of the light blue colour that ”seemed to be hereditary in the royal family”.

So, wrong age, wrong height and completely wrong eye colour – Churchill displayed nothing of a Jewish appearance at all.

In conclusion, the resemblance Toppy was talking about was one in status, and not one of looks. In fact, we need not even accept that Toppy knew what Churchill looked like – he knew his position in society, and that would have been where he meant that Astrakhan man resembled Randolph Churchill.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us with a man who once used the highest in the land to make a useful comparison when he needed to describe a man he had (or claimed he had) seen in Dorset Street with Mary Kelly, and a son of that man who makes his own interpretation of what his father had said – and gets it wrong.

What I do not think we can read into this is any reason to believe that neither Toppy nor Reg were careless with the truth. To my mind, I donīt think that this passage should merit any dismissal at all of Regīs honesty or good will, and it should absolutely not pave the way for dismissing the suggestion that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Ben]

The latter, obviously – Toppy only says that ”It was some one like Lord Randolph Churchill”.

Well, there's our first problem:

The original George Hutchinson didn't describe anyone remotely similar in appearance to Lord Randolph Churchill, so if Toppy was referring to someone of Churchillian appearance, already that engenders a feeling of scepticism. Mr. Astrakhan was clearly not "someone like Lord Randolph Churchill". If you want to describe someone of a higher class, you can simply say so: he was someone from a higher class. You don't provide a confusing and hopelessly inapplicable individual paralell such as Lord Randolph Churchill and hope everyone realises that you only meant he was "like" him in terms of class, and that he was dissimilar in pretty much all other respects.

Moreover, there is absolutely nothing about Mr. Astrakhan's appearance that remotely hints at aristocracy of the order that Churchill belonged to, or the "uppermost class", as you term it. The man described was more of a flashy bling merchant, and obviously not one of Churchillian breeding, or else he would not have "lived in the neighbourhood" as Hutchinson claimed. Another crucial Toppyism is the observation that the murders "had more to do with the Royal family than ordinary people". Again, the original Hutchinson never conveyed any remote hint that the man he described had anything to do with royalty.

I'm afraid it looks very much as though Reg was simply milking the Royal Conspiracy cow that had become popular at the time, although if Toppy was the originator of the Churchill nonsense as well as the alleged involvement of the Royal family, I'm afraid he's no better.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Hello

Sorry to barge in - I always thought this was interesting (well, along with a dozen or so other case-related things). I just wonder though, did Hutchinson actually say Astracan 'lived' in the neighbourhood? I thought he said he thought he might have seen him again, which is not the same thing.

I could be wrong, and quite happy to be.

Jane x

[Ben]

Hi Jane and welcome,

Hutchinson's exact words were: "I believe he lives in the neighbourhood, and I fancied that I saw him in Petticoat lane on Sunday morning, but I was not certain."

I doubt very much that he'd subscribe to this belief if he seriously believed the man in question belonged to the aristocracy!

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

But then...?

But then, isn't that a bit odd?

Jane x

Oh, and thanks for the welcome!

[Fisherman]

Ben (who else?) writes:

"The original George Hutchinson didn't describe anyone remotely similar in appearance to Lord Randolph Churchill, so if Toppy was referring to someone of Churchillian appearance, already that engenders a feeling of scepticism."

...which I why I say that he never did - he would have been speaking of status, not looks.

"If you want to describe someone of a higher class, you can simply say so: he was someone from a higher class."

...and would it not be nice if we all always chose the best semantical option, clearing away all possible mistakes. But we donīt, do we? We use metaphores and pictures, and we are not always crystal clear when doing so.
I think we need to weigh in the fact that the Churchill comparison was something Toppy fed his kids and friends - we have no reason to believe that the same dish was served Abberline.
And when you realize that you have played a peripheral part in the crime of the century, you may well embellish things a bit some years down the road. Besides, the kind of effect Toppy would have been looking for was that Astrakhan man was a man of apparent wealth and obvious status, and one may easily go slightly (or massively) over the top at such times. A man who sees a nice sports car without knowing itīs make may say "it was kind of like one of them Ferraris" when he speaks of it - although it could have been a Toyota Celica he saw.

"Moreover, there is absolutely nothing about Mr. Astrakhan's appearance that remotely hints at aristocracy of the order that Churchill belonged to, or the "uppermost class", as you term it. The man described was more of a flashy bling merchant"

To begin with, we do not have his appearance in that much detail, I think - there are incredibly expensice and elegant Astrakhan coats and there are flashy, cheap ones. Same goes for seal stones and spats - how do we know that the red seal stone was not a priceless ruby? Correct - we donīt.
And, in the end, I think we need to realize that the poor man on the street is a lot more impressed by "flashy" wealth than he would be by discreet, incredibly expensive elegance. To Toppy, the display of jewellery and clothing may have matched his own ideas of how he would have dressed if rich.

"Again, the original Hutchinson never conveyed any remote hint that the man he described had anything to do with royalty."

..and, like I said, that may have emerged in chats with friends in pubs. Moreover, on an adjacent thread, you have told us that we do not know what parts of Hutchinsons testimony that was never put on print by Abberline. As for the press, they do not seem to judge Astrakhan manīs status to any significant degree.

"I'm afraid it looks very much as though Reg was simply milking the Royal Conspiracy cow that had become popular at the time, although if Toppy was the originator of the Churchill nonsense as well as the alleged involvement of the Royal family, I'm afraid he's no better."

And THAT is the vulgar picture of Reg and Toppy that has been painted out over the years, in spite of the fact that there is very little to bolster it with. If Toppy was quite impressed with Astrakhan manīs wealth, and genuinely believed him to be of large means and high status, then it does not matter that he MAY not have been - and that is only a "may" since we canīt possibly know - a genuine top of society. To TOPPYS eyes, he would not be speaking "nonsense" - and, consequently, it would not be nonsensical to convey his words on Regīs behalf. We may be dealing with genuine good will and honesty, and to categorically dub it nonsense is to allow oneself far too much in my wiew.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"But then, isn't that a bit odd? "

Absloutely, Jane - it is. We need to offer at the very least the benefit of a doubt here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

What I meant was...

Isnt' it a bit odd that he would say 'I believe he lives in the neighbourhood'? How would he know that? Even if true, seeing him a couple of times need not imply residence, need it?

I dont' know anything about Toppy - when, if, I get up to speed on that one, I might feel qualified to comment, but not at the moment.

Jane x

[Ben]

...which I why I say that he never did - he would have been speaking of status, not looks.

But Churchill is a total mismatch on pretty much all counts, so it doesn't matter what aspect he was alluding to for the comparison.

I think we need to weigh in the fact that the Churchill comparison was something Toppy fed his kids and friends - we have no reason to believe that the same dish was served Abberline

Why would he feed his kids anything different to what he told Abberline, let alone drastically different? It's just a little bit suspicious that the "dish" Toppy just happened to have fed his kids in later years coincided with a popular myth that just happened to have entrenched itself in ripper lore at the time of the Reg interview; the Royal conspiracy. So when Toppy goes "over the top" to the extent that he mutates a surly Jewish bling-parader who lived in the district to an aristocrat associated with the Royal family (who clearly would not have lived in the district), it just happens to tie in nicely with the suspicions of a modern day conspiracy theorist.

The Reg interview has all the regrettable hallmarks of an individual who simply told the interviewer what he wanted to hear, from the claim that his father was involved in the whole sorry mess to the sudden "support" for the possibility that royalty may be involved. It's Fairclough's fault; if he didn't announce his agenda from the outset (by showing Reg the "Abberline Diaries"!!!), it wouldn't have happened.

A man who sees a nice sports car without knowing itīs make may say "it was kind of like one of them Ferraris" when he speaks of it - although it could have been a Toyota Celica he saw.

If the glance was a fleeting one, yes, but the one alleged in Hutchinson's case wasn't fleeting at all. It was lavishly and implausibly detailed, enabling him to distinguish very easily between a genuine aristocrat (who obviously would not have lived in the neighbourhood) and a Jewish flashy man who ostensibly did.

Same goes for seal stones and spats - how do we know that the red seal stone was not a priceless ruby? Correct - we donīt.

It wouldn't matter. There was no reason whatsoever for believing that the aristoracy were in the habit of parading their priceless rubies on proud display, especially when they ventured into the heart of the worst pocket of the East End. By indentifying the individual as someone who apparently lived in the area, he clearly wasn't conveying the impression that he belonged to the aristocracy.

If Toppy was quite impressed with Astrakhan manīs wealth, and genuinely believed him to be of large means and high status

But the original Hutchinsin clearly didn't think that, and never conveyed such an impression at any point, otherwise he wouldn't have indentifed him as someone who he believed lived in the district. Such a belief is wholly at odds with Toppy's second-hand hearsay claim that it was more to do with the "royal family" than ordinary people.

Fairclough had a Royal conspiracy theory that Reg clearly pandered to be supplying some bogus elements of his own. To even suggest that his father was paid 100 shillings to keep quiet about seeing Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper would mean that Reg was either mind-bogglingly stupid and incredibly easy to dupe, or he was simply milking the cow. I go with the latter.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"But Churchill is a total mismatch on both counts, so it doesn't matter what aspect he was alluding to for the comparison. He's a total mismatch on pretty much all counts."

He may not have been a mismatch in Toppys eyes when it comes to status - flashing the horse-shoe pin and the red seal stone, Toppy may have thought "Hereīs a guy that is richer than anyone Iīve seen before" - and that is all we need to realize that Toppy may have THOUGHT Astrakhan man a man of great wealth and status.

"Why would he feed his kids anything different to what he told Abberline?"

Why would anybody at any time embellish on a story? To seem a bit more important, perhaps?
Thing is, it happens - all the time. And we donīt know that he told Abberline that the man was NOT seemingly very wealthy and of high status.

"It's just a little bit suspicious that the dish Toppy just happened to have fed his kids in later years coincided with a popular myth that just happened to have entrenched itself in ripper lore at the time of the Reg interview; the Royal conspiracy."

You think so, Ben, and I realize that it is not unviable. But I also recognize that IF Toppy thought the man looked wealthy and of high status, there was only so much he could do about it when he told his story. When we want to point to topp-class wealth and such things, we do not compare with the local well-off grocer - we compare with the richest of them all. So there is no absolute need at all to see Hutchinsons story or Regīs conveying it as any sort of proof that they supported the Royal Conspiracy. Also, we must realize that Fairclough may have embellished on a point or two - if Toppy said "He seemed as rich as Churchill", then it may have been a fruitful bridge to something that fit in better with Faircloughs purposes - and completely innocent on behalf of Toppy.

"There was no reason whatsoever for believing that the aristoracy were in the habit of parading their priceless rubies on proud display, especially when they ventured into the heart of the worst pocket of the East End. By indentifying the individual as someone who apparently lived in the area, he clearly wasn't conveying the impression that he belonged to the aristocracy."

And indeed, nor did he say so - what Toppy said was that it was someone LIKE Churchill. That does not mean that he could not have lived in - OR VISITED! - the area. It is not very logical - but who knows if Toppy realized this to itīs full extent?

"the original Hutchinsin clearly didn't think that"

Then where is the evidence telling us that Hutchinson did NOT think Astrakhan man a man of wealth? At what point does he say that the jewelry was imitation and the man a cheap shot? I, for one, canīt find it.
And even if he DID think him of lesser wealth than Churchill, who is to say that he could not have polished somewhat on the story - and Astrakhan mans possible wealth - over the years?

"To even suggest that his father was paid 100 shillings to keep quiet about seeing Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper would mean that Reg was either mind-bogglingly stupid or simply milking the cow. I go with the latter."

...and I point out that the other possibility remains there - Reg may well have been an uneducated man, prone to make unviable guesses, plus Fairclough may have helped him along somewhat - but that still leaves us with the clear possibility that Toppy had spoken of Churchill IN SOME ASPECT, and that Reg got it wrong - just as I said. And then it all becomes a measure of stupidity combined with a core of truth, and nothing much else - and certainly nothing that allows us to speak of proven malicious intents and lies.
It leaves us with ignorance, trivialities and a tall pub tale - and the very real possibility that tale originated in Toppys being the Dorset Street witness.

Fisherman

[Ben]

“Isnt' it a bit odd that he would say 'I believe he lives in the neighbourhood'?”

I agree, Jane, it doesn’t seem to have any firm basis. My guess is that he wanted police activity in “the neighbourhood” to be focussed on the hunt for the fictional Mr. Astrakhan.

Best regards,
Ben