Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland insists:

"I think the words 'Jewish appearance' kind of give it away just a bit? "

Hutchinsons man looked Jewish.

Randolph Churchill did not.

Reasonably, the could never have been mistaken for each other.

Therefore we are faced with either:

1. Me being daft

2. Me having meant that the comparison was made on other grounds than personal looks

I have tried for a number of pages and scores of posts to make it unmistakably clear what ground the comparison would have had to Toppy - IF he ever made it. That is why I may come across as somewhat lacking in the patience department. Let´s just say that if I owned zillions of money and somebody said that I was a regular sheik of Bahrain, that statement would not primarily refer to my distinctly semitic looks or my flawless arab language. I posess neither.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ichabod Crane and Ben:

"I am convinced GWTH was definitely the witness, based on handwriting comparisons.
Oh, I am conviced GWTH was definitely NOT the witness, based on handwriting comparisons."

Interesting. One of you will be wrong.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"He did not see Mary Kelly as claimed, for example. Couldn’t have done, otherwise he would have been aware that she was blind drunk at the time of the alleged Hutchinson encounter. And yet, according to Hutchinson, she was not drunk, merely a little ‘spreeish’"

But that would mean that you choose to rely on Cox and disbelieve Hutchinson; you favour one testimony and one witness over another. Moreover, Cox´s encounter with a drunk Kelly was more than two hours prior to Hutchinsons encounter with her, and so there would have been some time to sober up - from a level of intoxication that we cannot exactly establish.
Admittedly, Kelly was heard singing later on, but sober people can sing too.

Personally, I think it is too little to draw any certain conclusions from.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Good Morning Fisherman..

..I don't think the comparison likely in any context. The 'Toff' Jew and the 'Swell' are subject to very different social perception historically-and parallels abound today. Really, though, I'm not sure why this is even an issue. Whether the comparison was ever made, or not, doesn't necessarily dictate whether Toppy was the witness, or not. Does it? Jane x

[Jane Welland]

Good Morning Fisherman..

..I don't think the comparison likely in any context. The 'Toff' Jew and the 'Swell' are subject to very different social perception historically-and parallels abound today. Really, though, I'm not sure why this is even an issue. Whether the comparison was ever made, or not, doesn't necessarily dictate whether Toppy was the witness, or not. Does it? Jane x

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland:

"..I don't think the comparison likely in any context. The 'Toff' Jew and the 'Swell' are subject to very different social perception historically-and parallels abound today. Really, though, I'm not sure why this is even an issue."

It is an issue because logic dictates that when we unsupported by conclusive proof rule things out, things will sooner or later go terribly wrong. Therefore I say that we have no proof at all that Astrakhan man WAS a "toff" - or that Toppy regarded his as such (which are two different things).
Getting ahead of oneself may produce the image that we are moving along quickly with the case, but if we refrain from stopping at all stations, we will end up with hoards of displeased travellers who have had their right to go along stolen from them (How is that for a metaphor!).

If Toppy used RC as a comparion, there would be nothing strange at all in it. We should/may/ought/can not simple rule the possibility out based merely on a "feeling" that he probably never did. We are left with the suggestion, we cannot disprove it and, in fact, some of us - that would be me - do not see anything outlandish at all in it.

"Whether the comparison was ever made, or not, doesn't necessarily dictate whether Toppy was the witness, or not. Does it?"

Of course not - but it has great bearing on the issue of the general reliability of what members of the Hutchinson family tells us in the sources. And they have been hard done by, to put it mildly.

The real clincher, if you need to establish whether Toppy was the witness or not, lies in the signatures. We have Toppys signature in a number of varieties, and we have the witness´ ditto, and to my mind, they display a similarity that tells us that the two were one and the same. But don´t let me decide it for you, Jane; have a look at the "Hutch in the 1911 census" thread - if you dare ...
If you feel you are not up to reading a stiff twohundred pages of personal insults, you can cut things short by taking a look at page 57, post 567. There you will be presented with the signatures, and you can see for yourself if they are very similar or totally dissimilar - both wiews have their champions.
...this is, of course, unless you have already taken a look at it and formed an opinion of your own!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Ah Well..

..That's a different matter. Perhaps the proof of whether Toppy or no resides therein. Really though, I was basing my views to date on social perception, in which, as you see, I am most interested. I suppose, looking at this on a slight slant, if one disbelieved Toppy on the Churchill tale, and one disbelieved Hutchinson on the Astrakhan Man, it could be concluded that they were possibly one and the same given their propensity for tall tales! A thought. Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

Cox´s encounter with a drunk Kelly was more than two hours prior to Hutchinsons encounter with her, and so there would have been some time to sober up - from a level of intoxication that we cannot exactly establish.

Indeed, Fish - unless Cox and Hutchinson could "breathalyse" people on sight.

It strikes me that it might have been the case that Hutchinson was giving a "safe" reply to a journalist's question anyway. If - as I suspect - Hutchinson wasn't there at all, but merely making things up from odds and sods he'd read in the papers, he might not have known about Cox's testimony yet (he seemingly didn't know of Sarah Lewis's entry into Miller's Court either), but chances are that the journo interviewing him would have. That being the case, a pressman's question, "Was she drunk?", would have put Hutchinson on the spot - he then playing it safe by responding with the lame, "She didn't seem to me to be drunk, but was a little spreeish" (note the qualifier: "...didn't seem to me..."). One can imagine an unconscious "Oh, $hit! What do I say now?" echoing in Hutchinson's head before he answered.

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland:

"I suppose, looking at this on a slight slant, if one disbelieved Toppy on the Churchill tale, and one disbelieved Hutchinson on the Astrakhan Man, it could be concluded that they were possibly one and the same given their propensity for tall tales!"

Ooops, Jane - beware! Ben lurks in the shadows, and he does not take kindly to allegations like these.

I do, however!

The best!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"It strikes me that it might have been the case that Hutchinson was giving a "safe" reply to a journalist's question anyway. If - as I suspect - Hutchinson wasn't there at all, but merely making things up from odds and sods he'd read in the papers, he might not have known about Cox's testimony yet (he seemingly didn't know of Sarah Lewis's entry into Miller's Court either), but chances are that the journo interviewing him would have. That being the case, a pressman's question, "Was she drunk?", would have put Hutchinson on the spot - he then playing it safe by responding with the lame, "She didn't seem to me to be drunk, but was a little spreeish" (note the qualifier: "...didn't seem to me..."). One can imagine an unconscious "Oh, $hit! What do I say now?" echoing in Hutchinson's head before he answered."

Nothing short of brilliant, Sam - and I think that Hutchinson not having been in Dorset Street at all on the occasion is a very obvious possibility. I have, as you may recall, on occasions thrown forward the possibility that the sudden dismissal of Hutch´s evidence could be due to somebody turning up at the police station and telling them what our plumber REALLY did on the evening - and where. I don´t believe for a moment that it was due to any sudden reconsidering on Abberline´s behalf that the testimony was too good to be true.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

.if one disbelieved Toppy on the Churchill tale, and one disbelieved Hutchinson on the Astrakhan Man, it could be concluded that they were possibly one and the same given their propensity for tall tales! A thought. Jane x

Jane,

Truly another good argument to put in the ever mounting Toppy-is-Hutch evidence corner. It's becoming very lopsided in that direction. This is an example of THEM wanting to believe parts of each story to support their argument rather than taking the whole and coming up with such an idea as you have.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Gosh, Fisherman, what a lot of posts you've made this morning!

I somehow suspected (knew) that the "whatever" approach wouldn't last long.

I have tried for a number of pages and scores of posts to make it unmistakably clear what ground the comparison would have had to Toppy - IF he ever made it. That is why I may come across as somewhat lacking in the patience department.

Well, with respect, Fisherman, if people keep disagreeing with you, is there really much point in re-stating the original argument? There's no need for you to lose patience. Nobody's disputing that you've made yourself clear. You have, many times, but I remain utterly unconvinced that Toppy was ever responsible for a Churchill comparison with Astrakhan man, primarily because - as Jane points out - he was obviously depicted as a surly Jew of some wealth, and not an English aristocrat. Describing such a person as "someone like Lord Randolph Churchill" and hoping that everyone will understand that you only meant "like" him in terms of money and in no other respect, is simply too tenuous.

But that would mean that you choose to rely on Cox and disbelieve Hutchinson; you favour one testimony and one witness over another

Which would be a step in the right direction considering that the police did precisely that. They discredited Hutchinson's statement. They didn't discredited Cox's statement which, incidentally, was given way in advance of the inquest, rather than waiting for the inquest to terminate and then giving your evidence. There could have been time to sober up, but it should be observed that her comparion carried a quart can of ale into room #13, so it is likely that Kelly indulged further even after being observed in an intoxicated condition by Cox at 11:45pm.

Getting ahead of oneself may produce the image that we are moving along quickly with the case, but if we refrain from stopping at all stations, we will end up with hoards of displeased travellers who have had their right to go along stolen from them (How is that for a metaphor!).

It depends what you're attempting to convey. If your argument is basically that we shouldn't rule out all improbable scenarios because, eventually, one of those improbable scenarios will end up being the correct one, then perhaps you're right on statistical grounds. Unfortunately, in this case, I don't see the improbable scenario of Toppy mentioning Lord Randolph Churchill as an Astrakhan-comparison ending up as the correct explanation.

If Toppy used RC as a comparion, there would be nothing strange at all in it.

That's your opinion, which you've repeated a number of times now.

I disagree, since there's everything strange about a comparison that is totally inapplicable and inappropriate, and rather suspicious since it just happened to come to the fore at a time when toff/royal theories were becoming popular.

We have Toppys signature in a number of varieties, and we have the witness´ ditto, and to my mind, they display a similarity that tells us that the two were one and the same

Well, again I disagree, and that's a rather different discussion from the one we're currently having. It really isn't a question of me "not taking kindly" to suggestions such as the one Jane posited. She raises a good point in that, perhaps the only thing the original Hutchinson and Toppy/Reg had in common was a propensity to economise with the truth.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

An alligator?..

..is a little beyond my inference, Fisherman-I think it's an interesting thought though. In a Field of enquiry in which proof is often lost, or simply not extant, it would be a great achievement to be able to resolve this issue of Toppy as witness, which maybe is possible? Hello there Good Michael-THEM? Jane x

[The Good Michael]

Hello there Good Michael-THEM? Jane x

Yes, THEM. They who refute all things that go against their theories, but cherry-pick the bits and pieces from their refuted suspects and stories that they feel might bolster these theories. Much like certain Christian sects do when they wave the Bible around. Obviously, no offense to Christians intended, only to nameless sects.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Truly another good argument to put in the ever mounting Toppy-is-Hutch evidence corner. It's becoming very lopsided in that direction.

Oh, but here it comes.

The triumphalist rhetoric!

The "I've won the argument because I say so" school of dogma. Still as unsuccessful and transparent as it was during the other Hutchinson threads. I also love the "How dare you refute my points! That means you must have an agenda!" being offered up by the same people who give us "Haha, I've refuted your points, and if you don't acknowledge this, that means you must have an agenda!"

Fills me with sympathy every time.

Hi Gareth,

It strikes me that it might have been the case that Hutchinson was giving a "safe" reply to a journalist's question anyway.

Yes, very possibly, especially if he hadn't actually seen Kelly in the company of a client that night. However, that shouldn't permit us to conclude that he wasn't there at all. He could easily have been precisely where he claimed to be, and precisely where Lewis described a loitering man, but simply gave a false explanation for being there: one that involved having followed Kelly and a client back to Miller's Court. I think the "playing it safe" explanation is a sound one.

It's extremely unlikely that he was oblivious to Sarah Lewis' evidence though. The "coincidence" of him coming forward as soon and admitting to loitering outside Miller's Court as soon as it transpired publicly that someone had been seen loitering there cannot be dismissed as random. The fact that there is an absence of any mention of her on the statement itself is more likely to be an indication that Hutchinson did mention her, but it wasn't included for whatever reason (hardly surprising, since other details also did not appear), or he deliberately avoided mention her to avoid making it obvious that it was her evidence that forced his hand.

Best regards,
Ben