Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Ben]

It strikes me that, if he'd really been there - mysterious client or not - he'd have been able to pronounce more emphatically on her state of intoxication, instead of "She didn't seem to me... a bit spreeish".

I agree wholeheartedly, Gareth, but none of this means he wasn't present at the crime scene and wasn't thus aware of her actual condition at the time of the alleged encounter (i.e. asleep?).

As we discussed earlier, it seems reasonable to me that Hutchinson may well have mentioned Lewis, but the detail was ommitted from the body of the statement, as were his claims to have known Kelly for three years and to have given her a few shillings on occasions. There was certainly no mention of policeman sightings or other male lodgers in his police statement. That appeared in the press, presumably when they asked whether any other potentially suspicious men were seen in the area, or whether there were any policemen about.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Dunno about that, Fish. Toppy was a "plumber, who was rarely, if ever, out of work", not an unemployed labourer who was formerly a groom.

I have been rarely out of work since 1989, Ben. In fact, I've been constantly employed and doing the same work ever since. Prior to that time I was, amongst other things, a market researcher, a shop assistant, a pizza chef and a chicken strangler - with the odd period on the rock'n'roll.

I am none of those things now and, barring accidents, I hope to be doing the same sort of job uninterruptedly for the next 20 years. At which point, I hope people don't say "You must be thinking of someone else, because the Sam Flynn I know couldn't have been an unemployed pizza chef 40 years ago".

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

The crucial point here is that Toppy had the golden opportunity to escape the impoverished masses by joining his father's profession as a plumber. Even if he wasn't directly apprenticed by his father, he would have been in the favourable position to at least procure some business "connections" in order that he might get "connecting" pipes earlier than the average working class youngster. I can't see him spurning all that, somehow, in favour of boning off to the East End to spend some odd wilderness years, during which time he stikes up a three-year acquaintanceship with an East End prostitute. The biographies just don't mesh up, somehow.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Sam.

Earlier, you wrote, ‘[T]he omission of any mention of Lewis's arrival remains a problem. One would have thought that, if Hutchinson wanted to consolidate the notion that he really WAS there, he'd have had everything to gain and nothing to lose by mentioning Lewis.’

The answer, I would suggest, lies in the three-day delay in Hutchinson coming forward to present his story to the police. By completely omitting any reference to Sarah Lewis, Hutchinson was able to skirt around the near-certainty that it was the Lewis sighting that effectively forced his hand, compelling him to come forward with what most now regard as a highly suspicious explanation for his presence on Dorset Street at a time critical to a Ripper murder. Bearing this in mind, I would also suggest that Hutchinson had no way of knowing if Lewis’s story had been deliberately unerplayed by the authorities (as had most certainly been the case with other witnesses), or indeed whether she could recognize him or maybe even knew him. For a much fuller examination of this argument, I would suggest that you look at the final couple of chapters in:-

http://www.casebook.org/ripper_media...roe_full2.html

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

I wouldn't know about "especially", Ben. It strikes me that, if he'd really been there - mysterious client or not - he'd have been able to pronounce more emphatically on her state of intoxication, instead of "She didn't seem drunk to me... a bit spreeish".

And the omission of any mention of Lewis's arrival remains a problem. One would have thought that, if Hutchinson wanted to consolidate the notion that he really WAS there, he'd have had everything to gain and nothing to lose by mentioning Lewis. (He'd already admitted to keeping a watch on the Court, remember.) However, the best we get is the rather vague account of his seeing a policeman passing by Commercial Street at a safe distance, and a man entering "a" lodging-house somewhere along Dorset Street.

Gareth,

Me too. What I am isn't what I was. My grandfather who came here about 1916, started as a child working in the copper mines. He then became a gardener in his early twenties, and finally a technician at Universal Studios for the rest of his life. My other grandfather was a farm worker who became the owner of a construction company. It beggars belief that one could really believe a person doesn't change professions, and all for the sake of nothing but agenda.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Nobody's suggesting that "a person" doesn't change professions. It has only been observed that Toppy was unlikely to have done, given that he joined his father's trade as a plumber, where he was noted as having been "rarely, if ever, out of work". To accept otherwise would mean that he spurned those parental connections in favour of living in an East End hell hole of a lodging house. No agenda. It just doesn't convince. He was listed as a plumber living in Warren Street in 1891, and it seems reasonable to surmise that he found himself in similar circumstances a couple of years earlier.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

" It has only been observed that Toppy was unlikely to have done, given that he joined his father's trade as a plumber, where he was noted as having been "rarely, if ever, out of work".

Didn´t we have David Knott stating on another thread that evidence had emerged that implied that Hutchinson was not a plumber at the time of the Millers Court murder? It would be interesting to get the details involved!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"In an earlier post I stated it as my belief that Hutchinson could not have seen Kelly on Dorset Street as claimed because in subsequent statements to the press he claimed that Kelly was only a little tipsy at the time of their alleged encounter. In response, you cast doubt on this interpretation both by raising doubt as to the veracity of Mrs Cox’s account and suggesting that Kelly could have sobered up in the two hours following the Cox/Kelly encounter.

To begin with, the claim that Kelly was very drunk on the evening under scrutiny was echoed by several witnesses, not just Cox, each of whom remained steadfast under cross-examination at the Kelly inquest hearing. As such, there remains little room for doubting that Kelly was indeed extremely intoxicated when encountering Mrs Cox shortly before midnight.

As for the possibility that Kelly somehow sobered up in the interim period separated by the Cox and supposed Hutchinson encounters, this would be highly unlikely under normal circumstances. What must be borne in mind here, however, is that Kelly entered her room shortly before midnight accompanied not only by Blotchy, but more alcohol. And the notion that Mary Jane, who at this point in her life was clearly alcohol-dependent, passed up the chance to share in the pail of beer is so unlikely as to be almost nonexistent. Hence my contention that she was blind drunk at the time of the alleged Hutchinson encounter"

Hmmm, Garry; I think you will get a many of my answers to some of your points by reading my answers to other posters, for example when it comes to the quart can of beer. I will just take the opportunity to say that I am in no way pressing any agenda when I say that Kelly MAY have sobered up when meeting Hutchinson - I simply distinctly dislike the idea of ruling out things on too little evidence.
In fact, if Kelly WAS drunk and at home at the time Hutch said he met her, that would suit my own thinking admirably. My solution to the Ripper murders is that the first four victims (swopping Stride and Tabram) were killed out of lust to eviscerate, whereas Kelly was killed by the same man - but for different reasons. To my mind, the Kelly killing was a personal deed, and performed by somebody very close to her - like Joe Fleming.
I wrote a piece on it in Ripperologist Nov-08, and in doing so, I left out Hutch altogether, since I am in no way sure that he is connected to the killing in any real fashion.
I certainly do not see him as Marys killer at any rate; to me, Toppy was the witness, and his story may well have been an invention. That, however, does NOT mean that I buy the reasoning that it MUST have been so, for there remains a possibility that he DID see Astrakhan man with Kelly, just as there remains a possibility that he DID take in all the details he testified about, and just as there remains a possibility that he DID tell people that the man he had seen was someone that belonged to the upper circles of society - just like Randolph Churchill.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

To accept otherwise would mean that he spurned those parental connections in favour of living in an East End hell hole of a lodging house.

Do we know what Hutchinson senior's situation was in 1888? Do we know precisely when Toppy entered his "golden era" of seldom being out of work?

No agenda. It just doesn't convince. He was listed as a plumber living in Warren Street in 1891, and it seems reasonable to surmise that he found himself in similar circumstances a couple of years earlier.

When I was in my early 20s, I was tasting independence for the first time - I was young, and wished to make my own way in the world. I shunned the taste and comfort of my family home to live in one grotty bedsit after another. After a succession of low-paid jobs and spells on the dole, I eventually sought a more worthwhile career, and actually applied - albeit unsuccessfully - to join my father's "trade".

All that happened within the space of a mere two years.

[Fisherman]

Yep, Sam - that would be a very normal picture of a guys early twenties, though I think it is only fair to say that back in 1888, it would be a more common thing to follow your dad´s profession than it was when you were twenty - and certainly the situation today is totally different.

My own contribution to the issue will be that I remember that my own father (he died when I was twenty-one, more than thirty years ago) worked as a car mechanic when I was very young. When I was about eight years old, he set up his own business in the oil cistern trade.
What I do NOT know, however, is what he did in the years when I was too young to remember today, and, of course, the years leading up to my birth. I have absolutely no idea. He may have been out of work, he may have been fixing with cars - and he may have done something totally different from that.

And maybe Reg had the same sort of memories of HIS father; as far back as he could remember, Toppy was almost always in steady employment. But did he know what had happened BEFORE the times he could remember? We cannot know, quite simply.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Yep, Sam - that would be a very normal picture of a guys early twenties, though I think it is only fair to say that back in 1888, it would be a more common thing to follow your dad´s profession than it was when you were twenty.

No doubt, Fish - but far from being automatic or universal. For one thing, it would largely depend on how much work there was going around in a given trade at any one time - and those in the lower-class "manual" trades (plumbing, plastering, painting, bricklaying, etc.) would have been familiar enough with peaks and slumps back then.

And maybe Reg had the same sort of memories of HIS father; as far back as he could remember, Toppy was almost always in steady employment. But did he know what had happened BEFORE the times he could remember? We cannot know, quite simply.

We do know, however, that Reg arrived on the scene a long time after Toppy was in his early twenties.

[Fisherman]

Agreed on the whole, Sam; absolutely!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Do we know what Hutchinson senior's situation was in 1888? Do we know precisely when Toppy entered his "golden era" of seldom being out of work?

No, but considering that his father was a plumber, it is reasonable to assume that the period of being "rarely, if ever, out of work" commenced from the completion of his apprenticeship. It this period of being in consistent employment only happened after a few wilderness years, I'm sure Reg would have specified as much.

I'm not invalidating your experiences, but you would not have experienced poverty in the LVP, the extent of which was likely to provide a major disincentive for anyone wishing to spurn parental connections. Far more than it would today. He really would have been pooing in his own fishpond, especially if it meant heading East and living amid the worst slums in London when he could so easily have avoided it. The sheer grottiness of places like the Victoria Home ensured that they were a mecca only for the very desperate, and Toppy simply didn't qualify on that score. He had "outs". His father lived elsewhere, providing him with a home if necessary, to say nothing of potential emloyment connections in the plumbing trade. He also had a sister living in Lee at the time. I can't accept that anyone in that position would ever have recourse to somewhere like the Victoria Home.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

I have absolutely no idea. He may have been out of work, he may have been fixing with cars - and he may have done something totally different from that.

But then you'd say so, Fish, wouldn't you, if quizzed along those lines?

So would I.

You wouldn't say, "He was rarely, if ever, out of work" and leave it to stand as a blanket statement. You'd say something akin to; I remember him being in consistent employment during my lifetime, but he may have done other odd jobs - and experienced periods of unemployment - before I was born." You'd be saying so in the obvious interests of clarification, of course. In Reg's case, the inference seems to be that Toppy was a plumber at the time of the murders. In fact, he specifically refers to the skills picked up in the plumbling trade to account for his "detailed" description. How did he notice all he claimed to have seen and then memorized it all? Oh, because he was a plumber and accustomed to measurements, figures etc.

But of course, the Hutchinson who signed the statement was not a plumber. He was apprently a unemployed labourer who used to work as a groom. No mention of plumbing at all. Plumbing apprenticeships usually lasted seven years (between the ages of 14 and 21) meaning that if Hutchinson had been bumming round the East End as an unemployed labouring former groom at age 22, he had most assuredly missed the boat, and was very unlikely to be a working plumber by 1891 (as Toppy was).

I really don't think Kelly could have sobered up to a spreeish extent if she was not only heavily intoxicated when she was seen at 11:45pm, but within easy reach of even more booze. As Garry observes, her "sobering up" is very unlikely, from a physiological point of view. I would encourage you conduct some extensive field research for additional confirmation. I'm not saying you'd be singing songs about violets and graves, necessarily, but I doubt you'd be up and about.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:

"But then you'd say so, Fish, wouldn't you, if quizzed along those lines?"

I´m not sure of that at all, Ben - my guess is that I would have done what Reg did: said that he was never out of work. And to the best of my knowledge, that would be true.

We cannot ask from people that they interwiew others to find out what happened before they were born - and even if they do, they will be conveying what other people told them, instead of providing first-hand evidence.

"I would encourage you conduct some extensive field research for additional confirmation."

Interesting advice - but I have no sorrows to drench. How ´bout you, Ben?

Fisherman