Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“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”

I have no idea what Toppy made of the description when he presumably read about it in the papers, but there’s certainly no evidence that the real George Hutchinson ever sought to depict Astrakhan man as an individual who shared the same "status" as Lord Randolph Churchill or any member of the royal family, or else he would not have identified him as an individual believed to be living in the same district as the impoverished masses, where many of whom dwelt in what were widely regarded as some of the worst streets in London, famed for their “vicious, semi-criminal” element.

“Why would anybody at any time embellish on a story? To seem a bit more important, perhaps?”

But that doesn’t enervate the implausible and outlandish coincidence of Toppy’s “embellishments” just happening to coincidence with the Royal Conspiracy theories that had been doing the rounds for a few decades; the same conspiracy theory being unashamedly touted by the individual interviewing Reg (who also evidently supplied him with more than the barebones of said conspiracy theory BEFORE interviewing him!).

Again, whatever Hutchinson believed (or was intending to convey) Astrakhan man enjoyed in terms od "status", it clearly was not on a par with Lord Randolph Churchill or any member of the Royal family. The original Hutchinson makes that very clear, and yet years later, Reg and/or Toppy are telling a couple of royal conspiracists that the latter group were not only involved (or someone “like” them, but they were observed at the crime scene. It doesn’t bear any resemblance to the already tall tale supplied by Hutchinson in 1888.

“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.”

But there’s no evidence that Hutchinson was attempting to implicate the “top class” anything.

“And indeed, nor did he say so - what Toppy said was that it was someone LIKE Churchill.”

Toppy might have said that.

The Hutchinson from 1888 neither said nor intimated that the man he claimed to have seen was anything like Churchill. Someone like that (and anyone involved with the Royal Family) would not have lived in the neighbourhood, thus invalidating Churchill as a useful comparison. That’s not to say he didn’t consider the man wealthy, but by identifying him as a resident in the district, we’re clearly not talking about aristocracy or anything like it here.

“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?”

He could have done, but I’d find that a bit odd in light of the coincidence as discussed above – that the embellishment just happened to coincide with the latest infestation into ripper lore, and in particular, the nonsensical nature of Fairclough’s own royal conspiracy.

“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”

I’m afraid I disagree. If Churchill and “more to do with the royal family that ordinary people” crept into Toppy’s version of events, I’m afraid that hinders his second-hand claim to ripper fame rather seriously, in my view.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"there’s certainly no evidence that the real George Hutchinson ever sought to depict Astrakhan man as an individual who shared the same "status" as Lord Randolph Churchill"

...just as there is no evidence telling us that he did NOT do just that. And it need not have been status - it could just have been a question of wealth.
As for living in the neighbourhood. nothing was said about whether it was the immediate neighbourhood or a more wide such - and there were very big differences in the social conditions inbetween the streets. Of course not enough to allow for Randolph Churchill - but probably quite enough to allow for somebody of great wealth, at least in Toppys eyes.

"the implausible and outlandish coincidence of Toppy’s “embellishments” just happening to coincidence with the Royal Conspiracy theories that had been doing the rounds for a few decades"

There is no outlandish coincidence in saying that somebody seems rich enough to compete with lord Churchill, Ben - not at all, in fact. Toppy spoke of somebody LIKE Churchill in SOME perceived respect - he never said that it WAS Churchill as far as we know. That belongs to Reg´s speculation world.

"whatever Hutchinson believed (or was intending to convey) Astrakhan man enjoyed in terms od "status", it clearly was not on a par with Lord Randolph Churchill or any member of the Royal family. The original Hutchinson makes that very clear"

Just how does he make that clear, Ben? By saying that he fancied he had seen him in the neighbourhood? That is not enough by a far stretch. We have no idea just how well off Hutchinson consider Astrakhan man to be, simple as that. He never speculates about it.

"there’s no evidence that Hutchinson was attempting to implicate the “top class” anything"

Unless it was top class wealth, as evinced by the gold chain and the seal stone. Like I say, Hutchinson does not lay down the text on the matter, so it could be either way.

"The Hutchinson from 1888 neither said nor intimated that the man he claimed to have seen was anything like Churchill. Someone like that (and anyone involved with the Royal Family) would not have lived in the neighbourhood, thus invalidating Churchill as a useful comparison."

But you and me realizing that is useless, Ben - it´s what Hutchinson thought about the man he met that counts. And mentioning Churchill may only have meant that there was a smell of money and influence about his man, nothing more. Just because a man uses what we consider to be a somewhat inadequate metaphor, we cannot write it off as something that never could have been said.

"I’d find that a bit odd in light of the coincidence as discussed above – that the embellishment just happened to coincide with the latest infestation into ripper lore, and in particular, the nonsensical nature of Fairclough’s own royal conspiracy."

A bit odd - or exactly what could be expected. If Toppy felt like adding some extra spice to his memories of Dorset Street, and if the talk of the town was that Jack may have been of royal descent, whose to say that he did not combine his own experience with the latest gossip? The possibilities are abundant, Ben, and I feel that you are trying to close the book on this issue in a manner that I can´t agree with.

"I’m afraid I disagree. "

Meaning that you consider malicious intents and lies a proven thing?

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

...just as there is no evidence telling us that he did NOT do just that

I respectfully disagree. I think it's very obvious from Hutchinson's description that the Astrakhan man was not depicted as someone from a superior class, let alone anyone related to the English aristocracy or the Royal family. Even if you don't feel that the description is sufficient to make that determination, the "belief" that he lived in the district (coupled with his "Jewishness") surely clinches it, thus rendering Lord Randolph Churchill a very flawed comparison. Churchill was hardly characterized for his wealth. He was far better known as an aristocrat and politician, so there again, Churchill would be a very odd candidate to refer to if all you're intending to convey is the suspect's wealth. "It was someone like Lord Randolph Churchill" cannot mean simply "He looked very wealthy".

When people usually refer to a neighbourhood, they speak of a fairly concentrated locality. It would be extremely unusual, for example, for anyone to refer to the whole of Tower Hamlets as "the neighbourhood".

There is no outlandish coincidence in saying that somebody seems rich enough to compete with lord Churchill, Ben - not at all, in fact.

But he didn't say that. He said "it was someone like Lord Randolph Churchill", and nobody can be expected to read into that "It was someone who could be as wealthy as Churchill, but is wholly dissimilar to Churchill in all other respects". It's just a non-inference. And to compound the gaffe, he also spoke about the murders being more to do with the royal family than normal people, which is an unsettling coincidence if it meant that Toppy's alleged embellishments just happened to coincide with the latest nonsense being bandied around in ripperology.

Just how does he make that clear, Ben? By saying that he fancied he had seen him in the neighbourhood? That is not enough by a far stretch.

It really should be, considering that the fantastically wealthy and socially well-connected (let alone royalty) did not live in the "neighbourhood" under scrutiny. There was nothing about Astrakhan's appearance that would remotely lend itself to a comparison with Lord Randolph Churchill. Money is far too tenuous a connection. It was not Churchill's distinguishing feature. That would be akin to describing me as "someone like Paris Hilton" because she and I both have blond hair. The assumption that maybe Toppy used a hideously flawed comparison is one I find unconvincing, I'm afraid.

I'm not trying to close any book or claim I've proven my case, but personally, I think it's far more likely that Reg invented the Churchill and Royal connections to please the interviewer, Melvyn Fairclough, who made the fatal mistake of nailing his colours to the "I'm a royal conspiracist. Please help my theory along" mast before conducting the interview.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

I always thought...

Astrakan Man was meant to be a Jew. No? Now, if only Toppy had written a Diary, we'd know the truth...

Jane x

[Mr Chumley]

"Astrakhan man" was not Johny on the spot, Jew or otherwise, he simply didnt exist except in an attempt to be overdescriptive by a "witness", possibly planted in an attempt by either the police or the papers to create a response from the real killer

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Reg did not make up the whole churchill saga for the benefit of Fairclough, as that book was published in 1992, and he mentioned the same account on my elusive radio broadcast at least eighteen years before.
That is of course my word only folks , as i am the only one in Ripperland that ever heard of it.
Regards Richard

[Sam Flynn]

As I've suggested elsewhere, I find it extremely unlikely that:

(a) Reg ever encountered that many situations to justify the "whenever Jack the Ripper was discussed" statement;

(b) Reg's father would have used the image of a long-dead man to describe the person he claims to have seen at Miller's Court;

(c) As a 22 year-old in an East End slum, Reg's father would even have known what Randolph Churchill looked like at the time;

(d) If his father was unlikely to have made the comparison in the first place, it's scarcely believable that his son would have made it up for the benefit of his interview with "Sickert" and Fairclough - Randolph Churchill being even "deader" and even further out of the public eye by the 1990s.

The only reasonable conclusions that occur to me are that, either the idea of Randolph Churchill was planted in Reg's head, or his story was somehow misrepresented in the book.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Sam,
As far as i can remember, the radio broadcast of the 70s simply recalled a description that refered to someone 'Higher up' the social ladder, simply Reg was recalling his fathers account from many years before.
This broadcast was many years before any meeting with Fairclough, and as faircloughs book was about the 'Ripper and the Royals', one must consider the description was enlarged to fit the frame of the books plot.
Recent private information indicates that the much ridiculed Reg knew absolutely nothing about the whitechapel murders, he even had to borrow a book on the subject, which suggests to me that he would never have purposed a tale on this subject in which he was clueless about.
Was his father spinning a tale? is the only question to answer .
A biased opinion ....No
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Some interesting points being made all round here. I am in no way opposed to Fairclough having had an influence on the final outcome of Reg´s wording, although one must be opposed to any suggestion that this MUST have been the case.
On Sam´s point that he finds it strange that Toppy would have used a long-dead man to describe the man from Millers Court, it must be added that Churchill was very much alive at the time of the murder, and we have no indication as to when Churchill entered Toppys story as a suitable comparison to Astrakhan man. Just like Sam says, it would however be very odd if Reg himself chose to introduce lord Randolph on the stage by his own choice all those years later. I tend to think that Toppy actually DID mention Churchill - but heaven knows it is nothing but an ubsubstantiated gut feeling on my behalf. Could have tickled a few pub chums fantasy, though!

Richards addition is interesting - it would seem Reg spoke of a man "higher up the social ladder" in that illusive radio show, and that would strengthen the Churchill candidacy. I think the contemporary drawings of Astrakhan man, as well as the theorizing about him as somebody who looked more or less a vaudeville artist may well have led us astray over time. Myself, I have often speculated that he was a local crime bigwig, thus not afraid to take to the East end streets at night, wearing fancy jewellery and gold chains; some sort of 1888 Kray brother - but that only goes to show that I have swallowed the bait too, and somehow subconsciously accepted that he was NOT a class act.
The Churchill inference and Richards mentioning of someone of a higher class at least urges me to give it all some serious rethinking.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fisherman.
The local tough guy image , i recently brought up, but on reflection such a character would have been well known by Hutchinson, and is hardly likely that he would have followed such a man, and certainly not bent down to give him the eye.
Would you have given the eye to one of the krays?
Astracan did not appear menacing to Hutchinson, he never considered him a danger, he was just according to him ...curious about the mans appearance.
I feel we are making to much about all of this ., why cant he be just a observant witness to a sighting that may not have any relevance to Marys murderer.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Fish,

On Sam´s point that he finds it strange that Toppy would have used a long-dead man to describe the man from Millers Court, it must be added that Churchill was very much alive at the time of the murder.

Trouble is - aside from the fact that I can't see how a rather young slum-dweller would have known especially what Randolph looked like - Churchill would have been long dead by the time Toppy told Reg about him. If I were to make such a comparison, it'd be of someone that was very much in the public eye - and very much alive - at the time I was telling the story to my son. I'm sure there'd have been plenty of "toffs" around in the 1920s or thereabouts (when Toppy's story is likely to have first been discussed with his son) for him to choose from.

Even that's not certain, given that we're talking about the years before the media came up with the cult of the celebrity. At that time, the average working man's immediate visual impressions of specific members of the ruling class might not have extended much beyond the Prime Minister, Lord Kitchener and the King.

[Ben]

Reg did not make up the whole churchill saga for the benefit of Fairclough, as that book was published in 1992, and he mentioned the same account on my elusive radio broadcast at least eighteen years before.
That is of course my word only folks

And it is inadmissible as evidence for that very reason, Richard.

Sorry.

I agree with Gareth that Fairclough may well have had an influence on Reg when it came to the Churchill/Royalty claims being bandied about. Unfortunately however, the blame cannot be laid entirely at Fairclough's door since Reg was quoted directly. In fact, not only was Reg quoted directly, but he was quoted as quoting his father, so unless Fairclough lied and invented a whole load of dialogue that never took place, it must be considered a certainty that Reg was at least partially responsible for creating, or at the very least contributing to, some of the Churchill/royalty nonsense.

And speaking of nonsense, can I respectfully but with some vehemence caution against the image of Mr. Astrakhan as a local "heavy" or 1888 equivalent of a Kray brother? That's even worse than comparing him to an English acristocrat who rubbed shoulders with the royal family. We know what the local tough guys were like - they were the "Squibbys" of their day, and they certainly didn't attire themselves in a manner that was guaranteed to attract attention of the worst kind. If you saunter alone and unprotected into the heart of the worst pocket of the East End dressed in a manner that utterly pandered to the surly Jewish bogeyman image of the ripper, you were very unlikely to depart the locality unmugged.

why cant he be just a observant witness to a sighting that may not have any relevance to Marys murderer.

Because the content of his statement and the fact that his evidence was discredited oblige us to avoid taking such things at face value.

[Sam Flynn]

Unfortunately however, the blame cannot be laid entirely at Fairclough's door since Reg was quoted directly...so unless Fairclough invented a whole load of dialogue that never took place...

... I wouldn't rule that out, Ben - quite the opposite, to be honest.

Like I say, I can no more imagine why Toppy would have used the (already) long-deceased Randolph Churchill to describe Astrakhan Man to his son, than I can imagine that Reg would have plucked the name of said B-List toff out of the air, nigh-on a hundred years after the latter's death.

I'm fairly well-read, and have been interested in history for a long time, but I swear that I'd only vaguely heard of Lord Randolph Churchill before I started reading Ripper books - and all I knew then was that he was Winnie's dad! If I'd had to have hazarded a guess as to his appearance, I'd have based it on the stereotype of the more prominent 20th Century members of that illustrious clan. Namely, the two Winstons Churchill and Nicholas Soames - i.e. chunky frame, sober attire, clean-shaven, thinning on top - not the suave, moustachioed dandy of the LVP.

[Ben]

If I'd had to have hazarded a guess as to his appearance

I'm fortunate in that regard, Gareth. I live very close to Winston's former Chartwell residence near Westerham, and have seen portaits aplenty there of his father!

Just to clarify, I don't believe Toppy himself was responsible for any of the Churchillian nonsense. As you know, I don't believe he had anything to do with the events of 1888, nor or do I believe that Fairclough was responsible for deliberately misquoting Reg. What I am prepared to accept is that a hideously misguided interviewing technique could have resulted in an exchange that resembled the following:

Fairclough: As you know, I'm writing a book about the royal family's possible involvement in the Whitechapel murders. Those Abberline diaries are quite convincing aren't they?

Reg: Hmmm...yeah, my dad always said it had more to do with the Royal family than ordinary people.

Fairclough: I've always thought Lord Randolph Churchill matched some of the witness descriptions, including your father's.

Reg: 'Ow funny! My dad always said it was some toff like Churchill!

You get the idea! I suspect Reg came to the notice of Fairclough in a similar fashion, whereby Fairclough supplied the information and Reg simply replied in the affirmative, regardless of the truth.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Richard writes:

"on reflection such a character would have been well known by Hutchinson"

And not only by Hutchinson, but reasonably also by the police!

The reason I entertained the possibility of a local crimelord was that it was suggested on the "Toffs in Spitalfields" thread that a man like the one Hutchinson tells us about would even have ventured into the rougher parts of the East end, and I think that such a suggestion does not function as a general rule. A number of well-to-do people will have gone there - how many, though, is impossible to say.
One thing I am not so very happy about with the thread mentioned is that it focuses on "toffs", whereas we may need to ponder the possibility that Hutchinson did not experience his man as such a character.

The best, Richard!
Fisherman