Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

what i have heard from a private source, is Fairclough promised a wedge of money to Reg , if the book did well

Oh dear!

If true, it would explain a great deal.

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

Indeed. I suspected as much - on both counts.

to Topping he just mentioned he knew a victim, when the subject crept up

But the real Hutchinson didn't just "know a victim". According to him, he was the last person to see the most brutally murdered victim alive and in the company of a suspect which, if accurate (snort!) reveals the killer as very much the physically sinister pantomime villian that everyone in their ignorance assumed he must have been. He was the temporary star witness. He was the individual who witnessed the destruction exacted upon the corpse of Mary Kelly. If he simply told his son that he "knew one of the victims", that's troubling, in light of the forgoing.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"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."

I know you canŽt - which is why I invite to to share how (some, at least one) other people think.
And I think that a nonsensical choice of comparison may hold the key to it all - there is no reason to believe that Hutchinson needed a penny-by-penny, collar-by-collar, sealstone-by-sealstone likeness to make his choice. Quite the contrary; if Astrakhan man was bafflingly elegant and obviously well off, then THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN ENOUGH for Toppy to reach for the top comparison.
Nobody would have lifted an eyebrow if in 1888, a man clothed in rags but with a new jacket had come into a pub and been greeted by his friends with a "Look at Žim - Žes a regular lord Churchill, that one!"

Not a fully functioning comparison, I know - but a step on the road to realizing what I am talking about, I should hope. The pub guests would

A/ Not have thought that the man with the new jacket was Churchills spitting image
B/ Probably not know anything more about Churchill than his rank in society
C/ Still have conveyed exactly what the wanted to convey - that the new jacket looked nice and made the man look a tad nicer too.

All in all, such a thing would have been said with a glimpse in the eye, and that would not have been the same in Hutchinsons case, I think. In his case, he would have reached for a known man from higher social ranks to pinpoint something of the feeling Astrakhan man had given him - and in doing so, Randolph Churchill may have leapt to mind.
And of course, it makes for an irrelevant comparison, or a nonsensical one - but it in no way tells us that such a comparison could not have been made. In fact, if one needed to point very clearly up the social ladder, Churchill would have been a prime example and one that easily sprung to most peoples minds.

I still see nothing strange at all in such a choice of comparison on Toppys behalf - on the contrary. And I am quite fine with you disagreeing - somehow, I have gotten used to it.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

If we are to go on cutting quotes into bits and pieces, this makes a nice addition:

"the most brutally murdered victim alive"

Fisherman

[Ben]

And I think that a nonsensical choice of comparison may hold the key to it all - there is no reason to believe that Hutchinson needed a penny-by-penny, collar-by-collar, sealstone-by-sealstone likeness to make his choice.

Oh agreed, but on the other hand there is ample reason to believe that he'd avoid using a wholly inapplicable and inappropriate comparison which actually contrasted, in many respects, with what George Hutchinson claimed with regard to the individual's appearance in 1888. Obviously we cannot rule out the possibility that he did precisely that, but I believe the simpler explanation is that Toppy had nothing to do with any Churchillian references, and that Fairclough was the instigator - with Reg just nodding in acquiescence, "remembering" helpful conspiracy-supporting details in the process, especially if there was the promise of a payment if all went well.

I find that more likely than Toppy's 1920s/1930s observations about the possible involvement of royalty just coming to the fore at the same time that a handful of authors were trying to place royalty under suspicion in the Whitechapel murders. Too much of an unsettling coincidence for me.

Nobody would have lifted an eyebrow if in 1888, a man clothed in rags but with a new jacket had come into a pub and been greeted by his friends with a "Look at Žim - Žes a regular lord Churchill, that one!"

But they'd be saying so in jest.

They wouldn't actually believe that the man in the new jacket was "like" Churchill. Conversely, the way Reg phrases it (via Fairclough), we're left in little doubt as to the intended meaning: that Toppy actually believed that the man he saw "someone like Lord Randolph Churchill".

In his case, he would have reached for a known man from higher social ranks to pinpoint something of the feeling Astrakhan man had given him - and in doing so, Randolph Churchill may have leapt to mind

But the "feeling" in Hutchinson's case was evidently not one of aristocracy or great social breeding. If he really thought so at the time, he certainly undermined that silent observation by identifying him as living in the neighbourhood - immediately taking him out of the ranks of the aristocrats and royals, and more in the direction of the sinister wealthy Jew.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But they'd be saying so in jest.

They wouldn't actually believe that the man in the new jacket was "like" Churchill. Conversely, the way Reg phrases it (via Fairclough), we're left in little doubt as to the intended meaning: that Toppy actually believed that the man he saw "someone like Lord Randolph Churchill"."

We are merging two steps into one here, Ben. I pointed out that, just like you say, the guys at the pub would be saying what they said in jest. But I also pointed to the fact that Churchill would have been fair game when looking for somebody to represent the upper steps of the societal ladder.
Similarly, I never thought that Toppy was of the meaning that the two men resembled each other very much - he would probably not even have known, as a matter of fact - but if he felt the need to exemplify higher social class, lord Randolph was a good bid. It is only with Reg that we get the suggestion that Toppy would have held the conviction that the man in fact WAS Churchill - but we have nothing to bolster that Toppy himself really did think that. The far more credible thing is to believe that IF Toppy used Churchill as a comparison, he did so only because the man represented the top end of societyŽs ladder. And that need not have involved any feeling on Toppys behalf about "aristocracy or great social breeding". In fact, I am not sure that Toppy would have recognized such things if they were put before him.
But if we allow ourselves to speculate that Astrakhan man perhaps NOT first and foremost conveyed the expression of a toff or a sinister jew, but instead that of quite a welldressed, obviously wealthy, elegant man, then there we are - that may have been all it took for Hutch to put him down as somebody way above himself.
In fact, in some of the newspaper reports, Astrakhan man is mentioned as "elegant" and such things - I do not remember the exact wording, but that is the core of it; he is not written about as a music hall villain. That is something that has surfaced later, I think.

Not sure that I can phrase this in very many more ways, Ben - but I think you have got most of what I am saying by now? Reciprocally, I know exactly where you are coming from.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

This would be what I was remembering, Ben; "STORY OF THE MAN WHO SAW KELLY WITH A "GENTLEMAN." (the Star 14 nov). It does not say elegant, but it speaks of a "gentleman". That makes me wonder if Astrakhan man was perhaps more of a discreetely elegant fellow than has been thought. Gold chains and seal stones can belong to both flashy, dodgy sinister jews and well-to-do, high-brow gentlemen, I think. And in the end, it is Toppys perception that counts - not our knowledge that the absolute upper class was very un-flashy.

Fisherman

[Ben]

But I also pointed to the fact that Churchill would have been fair game when looking for somebody to represent the upper steps of the societal ladder

Quite possibly, Fish.

Although, as Gareth pointed out, it's doubtful that Toppy had much, if any familiarity, with Lord Randolph Churchill. The other problem is that Hutchinson was clearly not attempting to depict Astrakhan as somebody who belonged to "the upper steps of the societal ladder". Astrakhan man, as described by Hutchonson, was not only worlds away from royalty or the English aristoracy, he clearly didn't belong to the upper echelons of society.

If we disregard Churchill as a comparison intended to highlight Astrakhan's lofty social standing (because this image was not implicit in the statement), I can't see where else he'd fit it. I can see him being used as a convenient vehicle for projecting a nonsensical early 1990s conspiracy theory involving toffs and royals.

but I think you have got most of what I am saying by now? Reciprocally, I know exactly where you are coming from.

Thanks Fish, and likewise of course.

I just feel the whole whiff of royal involvement and men of social standing has a depressing modernity to it. As with most component of Fairclough's book, including the notorious Abberline diaries, I doubt it had its origins in 1888.

All the best,
Ben

Edit: Re. The "gentleman" reference. That was a press term, it should be remembered. It wasn't Hutchinson who used the word "gentleman", hence "A man coming in the opposite direction..."

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The "gentleman" reference ... was a press term, it should be remembered. It wasn't Hutchinson who used the word "gentleman"

That is correct. But somehow it would seem that the picture of Astrakhan man back in them days did not necessarily hold the more sinister and "cheap-jewelry" vaudevill elements that are so common to us today - and that urges us to be careful in that respect.

Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

But hang on...

..doesn't the eponymous author of the statement use the term 'Jewish appearance' ?

[Sam Flynn]

..doesn't the eponymous author of the statement use the term 'Jewish appearance' ?

A very, very good point, Jane. Even if Hutchinson had possessed a photographic (lithographic?) memory of Lord Randolph Churchill, he'd scarcely have used him as his benchmark for someone of "Jewish appearance", still less - as described in his press interview - a "foreigner"!!

[Jane Welland]

Thankyou Sam..

As any can see who choose to, and as you doubtless know, the statement is here on Casebook to read. Which I did. I shouldn't think, from what I gather so far, that the Randolph Churchill tale warrants very much credibility. Somebody made it up, even if we can't tell who. Jane x

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"A very, very good point, Jane. Even if Hutchinson had possessed a photographic (lithographic?) memory of Lord Randolph Churchill, he'd scarcely have used him as his benchmark for someone of "Jewish appearance", still less - as described in his press interview - a "foreigner"!!"

It IS a good point - or two, to be exact, joining your efforts together, Sam. But it does not change the fact that Toppy allegedly spoke of someone LIKE RC, and not of RC himself - and that means that if he was merely referring to a feeling on his own behalf that Astrakhan man was somebody who had reached fairly high among the pinnacles of society, it matters little if the man looked Mongolian, Far Eastern or distinctly Phillipin - in these countries too, there would be people who belonged to the upper part of the social ladder, and so, in that respect, they too WERE someone like RC.

I would very much like to move away from the very apparent fact that the man described by the Dorset Street witness did not LOOK like RC - since he may well have shared other things with him, that -and that only - is what may make a difference here.

It is strange how one may bring up a detail and try to shed some light over it, only to a few posts down the line find oneself looking like a fervent defender of something you knew from the outset was only one of many possibilities. I am in no way stating that Toppy MUST have spoken of Churchill - I am only saying that it does not take a very big leap of the imagination to accept that he may well have. To me, it is not necessarily dodgy, strange, ridiculously coincidental or anything such. Well-known people always become the property of the man in the street when it comes to comparisons and such; a "She sings better than Madonna", "He looks just like Elvis Presley" and "Sam, usually as bright as Edison, may be missing out more than the guy that invented the Ford Edsel" kind of thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

and that means that if he was merely referring to a feeling on his own behalf that Astrakhan man was somebody who had reached fairly high among the pinnacles of society

But the original Hutchinson clearly did not "feel" that "on his own behalf", Fisherman. By identifying him as someone who lived in the neighbourhood (where the upper echolons of society rarely ventured, and certainly didn't live) he was clearly seperating him from the Lord Randolph Churchills of the day. His evidence tells us as much. The fact that he described the man in question as having a Jewish or foreign appearance takes us even further away from Lords, Ladies and Royalty. Anyone Jewish or foreign would obviously not have joined the ranks of the highest classes in this country, so in no respect can he be compared to Churchill.

If the only thing they shared was wealth, then I find it too outlandish to accept that he described Astrakhan man as "someone like Lord Randolph Churchill" purely on that basis. It's just too tenuous. The example I used was a description of me as "someone like Paris Hilton" on the grounds that we're both blonds!

Well-known people always become the property of the man in the street when it comes to comparisons and such; a "She sings better than Madonna

But as Gareth pointed out - a point with which I agree - it's doubtful in the extreme that Churchill was the "Elvis" or "Madonna" or his day. There's no reason to assume that Toppy knew anything about him, let alone what he looked like.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"the original Hutchinson clearly did not "feel" that "on his own behalf", Fisherman. By identifying him as someone who lived in the neighbourhood ... he was clearly seperating him from the Lord Randolph Churchills of the day."

Phew, Ben - I was rather hoping that I had come across by now; I KNOW that Churchill would not have chosen Tiger Bay over the more posh parts of London when looking for somewhere to settle down, I KNOW that Astrakhan man did not look like RC, I KNOW that Astrakhan manŽs clothing would perhaps have been of a less discreet elegance than that of RC, I KNOW that even Toppy would have realized that somebody living in the vicinity of Dorset Street would probably not be of royal descent.
It is not because of this I feel that he still may have used RC as a comparison - it is IN SPITE OF IT!

My stance on this question is that Hutchinson has been painted out as a fraud, an imposter and a potential killer over the years, and it has rubbed off on everything, turning his son into a liar and, interestingly, it has turned Astrakhan man into a sinister bling-bling vaudeville villain dresswise - although it has always been prioritized not even to believe in his existence! And that is incredible - he probably never existed, but IF he did, he MUST have been the archetype mentioned above!?

As you know, to my mind, Hutchinson has been found. And since I fortwith will work from that acceptance (on my behalf, Ben, no need for you to once again disagree; IŽll do it for you), it means that the whole issue must be reassesed. And that begins by taking an unflawed, fresh look at things, and when I do that, one of the first things that surface is the insight that Astrakhan man may very well have been exactly what the Star said: elegant - that wording came from somewhere! And elegant men in costly attire, displaying massive gold chains and seal stones and such, are quite simply men that belong to the upper steps of the societal ladder!
And - once again and once and for all - THAT is the only connection we need to be able to see some relevance for Toppys using RC as a comparison! It may be a BAD comparison - but bad comparisons are thirteen a dozen. It may be strange on behalf of Toppy to say that he thought the man could be living nearby - but if he HAD seen him in the vicinity at other times, the conclusion that there may be a connection would become logical, in spite of the fact that "everybody" knew that the Royal family had another address.

Once again, Toppy never said "The man I saw was Randolph Churchill", he never said "He must have been of royal descent", he never said "he came from this or that circle of people" - he simply said it was someone "like" Churchill. There was some sort of "like"-ness, that is ALL we have to go on, and we cannot allow ourselves to expand that to saying that since it would NOT have been Churchill he saw, he would NEVER have said such a thing.
He said there was a likeness in some respect - and since we have a man that is called "elegant" and who reeks of money (as in "gold chain", as in "seal stone"), we can easily see that this kind of likeness is there.

Now, please, please donŽt tell me that Toppy never would have used RC as a comparison since he would have known that it would be a bad comparison. It is not about that, and I hope I have made that clear by now!

Fisherman
resurrector of lost possibilities - not a denier of obvious options

[Ben]

My stance on this question is that Hutchinson has been painted out as a fraud, an imposter and a potential killer over the years, and it has rubbed off on everything, turning his son into a liar

But I don't know anything about Hutchinson's son, Fisherman. I have no idea if he had any direct descendants. As you know full well, I regard Toppy and Reg as a seperate entity entirely, and unrelated to the events of 1888. Even if I believed the original Hutchinson had come across as a paragon of truthful non-murderous virtue, it still wouldn't have made made Reg's observations - as quoted in The Ripper and the Royals - any less dodgy and implausible, I'm afraid.

it has turned Astrakhan man into a sinister bling-bling vaudeville villain dresswise

That's really how I see it, Fisherman. The physical particulars of the Astrakhan man are an amalgamation of many of the bogeyman elements that had crept into popular thinking from the early murders, and they aren't particularly sutble. The Jews quickly became the generic scapegoat, and given the anti-semitism that pervaded the district, that's hardly surprising; hence the scaremongering tales involving the Jewish "Leather Apron" with a surly or manacing countenance. Then, in the wake of the Hanbury Street murder, it became briefly accepted that the killer must have been medically trained, and would therefore have been well-dressed by virtue of his profession.

Combine all that with a tightly-grasped black package of potentially knife-shaped dimensions and we're left with the archetypal villain of the piece. It's laid on with a thick trowel, and the presented the ideal vehicle for deflecting suspicion in a false direction if and when the situation might call for it; like if you realise you'd been seen near a crime scene and needed a good reason for being there - "I saw a scary man".

And elegant men in costly attire, displaying massive gold chains and seal stones and such, are quite simply men that belong to the upper steps of the societal ladder!

Nobody ever used the word "elegant", though.

Because he wasn't.

Nor did Hutchinson ever convey the impression that he was. More so than the average Spitalfields labourer perhaps, but still worlds away from the upper reaches of society that would lend itself to a Lord Randolph Churchill comparison. If you're arguing that we should rule out that possibility completely, you'll get no argument from me. But it really is unlikely. Apparent wealth is just too tenuous a paralell to lend itself to the observation that he was "someone like LRC". Without any elaboration ("but I mean in terms of money only, and I acknowledge that he's different in all other respects"). All he had to do was point out that the man was wealthy.

Best regards,
Ben