Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"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."

Exactly, Sam; there is every chance that Hutchinson had no real idea what Randolph Churchill looked like. That is, in fact, to some extent my point. The papers of 1888 were not illustrated with photos to any larger extent (if any at all), and colour photos were not around.
So Hutch would probably not have known that Churchill did not correspond with his description of dark eyes and a Jewish appearance! Therefore, if he chose to compare Astrakhan man to Randolph Churchill, he did not do so in conflict with better knowledge when it came to looks - such a comparison would have pointed to other traits displayed by Churchill, at least the way Toppy perceived him. And the only other traits that are logical to mention here is wealth and status, being "higher up the social ladder", as Richard remembers it being referred to in a certain radio show.

So, to my mind, if Toppy did use the comparison, very much speaks of it originating from year one, more or less - the days when Churchill was still alive and spoken of. To think that Toppy would have started to speak of Churchill in the thirties is much less realistic, just as it is very unrealistic to think that Reg would have chosen the long dead lord himself if he wanted to make the story up all on his own.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"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."

This, Ben, is an equation that does not add up. If Fairclough did not contribute Fairclough, how on eart can it be a certainty that Reg must have done it? Why would we be able to exclude the possibility that Toppy was the man who introduced Churchill, and on what possible grounds could we call it a certainty?
Surely I am misreading you?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"If Fairclough did not contribute Fairclough"

...and that does not add up either. I of course meant "if Fairclough did not contribute CHURCHILL"!

Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben.
Any suggestion made by me which gave the opinion that Astracan, was a local heavy, was just a explanation why such a well dresssed man showed [ apparently] no fear in walking those streets, yet alone venturing into a dingy court , at the request of a young woman.
If one takes the statement of Hutchinson at face value, it would suggest that the man was not of a menacing kind, and was hardly a hard case, otherwise Hutch would have been in trouble eyeballing him as the couple passed by.
So why the confidence?
How did he know that this woman was not a police decoy?
How did he know that this woman was not leading him to a mugging?
what gave him the confidence to walk into Dorset street, dressed as a typical 'penny dreadful' character?
The obvious explanation , if one takes the laughter, and intimacy as a clue[ the hand on shoulder, and the kiss in Dorset street] would be that Astracan , and Mary were known to each other, which would explain his lack of fear in going with her to room 13, and her lack of fear in escorting him there.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

...unless a combination of sheer stupidity and sexual arousment did the trick!

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
Stupidness.?
Insanity if he was a total stranger to the area.
Sexual arousement?
He walked sharply[ statement] would that indicate an erection? more likely walked rather doubled up......
One could use the 'walked sharply' and Mrs coxs neice version of 'All right my luv , dont pull me along'[ whilst entering the passage] as indications of a man in a hurry.
Was it a sexual need, if so that would go against medical opinion would it not?and heaven forbid, victorian medical opinion is so trusted on Casebook.
If a murderous need , why the wait before killing kelly,that is if the actual cry was from kelly.
Far more simple by my suggestion that the couple knew of each other, and trust was present.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Could have been either way, of course. But sexual arousment among punters is not unheard of!

Plus, in the press version he walked very softly - whatever THAT is a pointer to, sexually?

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Fisherman.
In all seriousness, what is known from oral history suggests that Mary Kelly, was extremely frightened of venturing out alone, at least during the previous weeks, it was quoted at the time, that it was generally not her policy to bring any man home with her, although that contradicts Coxs neice account.
If Blotchy ever existed, he surely must have been well known to Mary to take a chance in inviting him back to her room, but i have major resevations of his actual existance, the singing for that amount of time with a man present does not ring true, especially as no male tones were heard.
But that goes against statements made..so just opinion.
I cannot see how paranoid Mary Jane, would allow herself to be accosted by a man dressed suspiciously, and carrrying a parcel, without any real concern for her safety..
it does not figure.
unless she knew him.
Regards Richard.

[halomanuk]

If Hutchinson's account is correct then Mary and blotchy definately knew eachother,hence them bursting out laughing at something and the immediate familiarity together.
And,as Richard states,she was very wary about the whole situation at that time so to bring someone back to her room that she didnt know just doesnt make sense in a lot of ways.

[Ben]

The reason I entertained the possibility of a local crimelord was that it was suggested on the "Toffs in Spitalfields"

If the individual in question was a local "crimelord" there is absolutely no way that he'd parade his expensive and ostentatious accessories into the worst area in the entirety of the East End, if not Greater London, especially in the small hours of the mornng...especially not alone...especially not when hoards of wannabe (and genuine) vigilantees were extremely twitchy about anyone who seemed to be a conspicuous outsider, particularly those who dressed in a manner that mirrored the popular bogeymen/ripper image almost perfectly.

These were the days before the advent of the flashy underworld (and frankly, rather Hollywood-esque) King-Pin who sat at the head of the Crime Council anyway.

Well-to-do people have certainly gone there, but they generally knew better that to waltz in their alone in the most conspicuous garb imaginable.

So Hutch would probably not have known that Churchill did not correspond with his description of dark eyes and a Jewish appearance!

So, therefore, Lord Randolph Churchill would have been a nonsensical comparison to make. If you don't know what a man looks like, or indeed if you don't know anything about the individual in question, don't refer to him in the first place. There is no evidence that Hutchinson believed the man enjoyed high status or belonged to the aristocracy (let alone royalty!). He effectively dispenses of this idea himself by indentifying him as someone who lived in the neighourhood. Wealth is far too tenuous a paralell for Churchill to be wheeled on as a comparison.

This, Ben, is an equation that does not add up. If Fairclough did not contribute Fairclough, how on eart can it be a certainty that Reg must have done it?

I'm suggesting that Fairclough put the very idea of Churchill into Reg's head, and Reg simply went along with it, adding fuel to the fire in the process by "remembering" a few details of his own. Fairclough had a Royal conspiracy to tout, so Reg went along with. He also had Churchill involved, so Reg went along with that partyline too.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Richard and Barry (is it?)

Sensible, of course - but then again, the trade of a prostitute is to supply sex to strangers. And since we cannot tell just how pressed she was for money on the fatal evening, it is hard to determine what she would do and what she would refrain from. And to make things worse, it seems she was intoxicated on that evening, something that has a habit of clouding peoples judgement.
All in all, not an easy call, I fear.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I cannot see how paranoid Mary Jane, would allow herself to be accosted by a man dressed suspiciously, and carrrying a parcel, without any real concern for her safety..
it does not figure.
unless she knew him.

But Richard, if she knew him, then the chances are strong that he was familiar with the district, and if he was familiar with the district, he wouldn't have dressed up like a swaggering peacock with his thick gold watch on proud display. It's simply forsaking your reason to argue otherwise. Astrakhan man is generally speaking a paint-by-numbers amalgamation of two things:

1) The various bogeyman traits that had crept into the public thinking with regard to the killer's image (surly, Jewish, conspicuous, black parcel, possible medical training etc)

2) Other witness accounts (walked very softly, red hankerchief/neckerchief, carrying a package of some description etc)

And the description was ultimately discredited.

He walked sharply[ statement] would that indicate an erection?

Oh, come on...

That was when Hutchinson changed the man's gait from "softly" to "sharp".

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben quotes:

"The reason I entertained the possibility of a local crimelord was that it was suggested on the "Toffs in Spitalfields"

...but that is just half the quotation, Ben. It should go on something like "...that no man who differed so much from the ordinary East-ender would venture into Dorset Street at that time".
The suggestion of a local crimelord was on my behalf - to exemplify how at least one such type could have broken the suggested rule.

"So, therefore, Lord Randolph Churchill would have been a nonsensical comparison to make. If you don't know what a man looks like, or indeed if you don't know anything about the individual in question, don't refer to him in the first place."

But what I am saying, Ben, is that Toppy would have had knowledge of the man - not of his looks but of the fact that he was someone high up the social ladder.
And - once again - I do not think we can crave that Toppys comparisons must have been a hundred per cent relevant. If Churchill had a name about him as being very much up that social ladder, then there would have been at least some sort of relevance, and that is what I have been pointing to for a number of posts by now.
Putting it differently, when you write "Wealth is far too tenuous a paralell for Churchill to be wheeled on", I think that a tenuous parallel may be exactly what we need to believe in Toppy having mentioned Churchill - once there was greater knowledge about the man on Toppys behalf, he probably would have dropped the idea.

"I'm suggesting that Fairclough put the very idea of Churchill into Reg's head, and Reg simply went along with it, adding fuel to the fire in the process by "remembering" a few details of his own. Fairclough had a Royal conspiracy to tout, so Reg went along with. He also had Churchill involved, so Reg went along with that partyline too."

...which was not how I read that passage on the former occasion - but I agree that if Toppy never brought up Churchill, Reg would be very unlikely to do so. In that case, just like you say, Fairclough seems the likelier perpetrator. But thatīs if....

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

The suggestion of a local crimelord was on my behalf - to exemplify how at least one such type could have broken the suggested rule.

Thanks for clarifying.

I personally doubt very much that there was such a thing as the underworld bling-bedecked crimelord in 1888, and if there was, they'd know better to venture out alone dressed in such a manner.

But what I am saying, Ben, is that Toppy would have had knowledge of the man - not of his looks but of the fact that he was someone high up the social ladder.

Right, but Lord Randolph Churchill was extremely high up the social ladder. The very prefix "Lord" gives the game away here, and yet the George Hutchinson from 1888 clearly did not believe (or rather did not attempt to convey the impression) that the Astrakhan man was on a par with Churchill on a social level for the simple reason that anyone who was would not have lived "in the neighbourhood". Whoever he was, or whoever Hutchinson was trying to depict him as, he was not "someone like Lord Randolph Churchill". He's a misfit on so many levels that without any specificity as to precisely which aspect of Churchill is being compared, the comparison is rendered bizarre and nonsensical, and I simply cannot buy the idea that he made it without any knowledge on Toppy's part of Churchill's particulars, physical or otherwise.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
what i have heard from a private source, is Fairclough promised a wedge of money to Reg , if the book did well, lets not forget it was less then forty lines in the book, that Topping was refered too.
Its almost certain that he was prompted by Fairclough, to the best of my knowledge no such name was mentioned on radio, just 'someone higher up'
we should also remember that costermonger Reg, liked the limelight of being refered to in a book., but was completely ignorant about the whitechapel murders so much so[ private information] refers to him being lent a book on the subject by a younger relative.
we are making a real molehill over the whole Hutch scenerio, to Topping he just mentioned he knew a victim, when the subject crept up.
The world is full of people that knew someoned famous/infamous, film stars, singers, and goodness knows what.
I met many famous people in my life, Roger moore in a Reigate pub , in the sixties, Cliff/ Mary Michelmore[ family favourites] in the same pub, Andre previn, and his then wife Mia Farrow, in a country pub in Leigh].
All very nice people, but whats the big deal in saying that , there is none, so why do we find Toppings peice of history so fascinating?
Regards Richard.