Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Jane Welland]

Hello and Thankyou Garry

That all makes sense!

I, like the police authorities, find Mr Astrakhan to be less convincing and still less convincing, for reasons I have already touched upon.

To concur, I should have thought the nightime antics of Mr 'Look at me I'm a wealthy Jew with a whole load of Bling to rob' in Whitechapel of all places, ought to make one wonder for a start.

As you say, a mugging waiting to happen.

Yet, on the other hand, being a Jew makes him capable of all sorts of worrisome and suspect behaviour by contemporary standards, doesn't it?

I wonder if Mr Hutchinson's account gained some credibility, at least, from his clear and detailed description of a wealthy Jew - who as a stereotype, to judge by contemporary accounts, was not only non-Gentile, and your classic social 'other', but cunning and clever to boot?

Although I do believe it to be a story - the very fact of 'Mr Astrakhan' being there and then on the night of Mary Kelly's murder surely lends him extra power - because Hutchinson was believed at the time, wasn't he?

Who, but the killer, especially since he turned out to be a prosperous Jew, would have dared Whitechapel in such circumstances? Who, but the cunning and powerful Jew - who knew the dangers, knew the turf - and didn't care?

Now, if you wanted to put the police on a false trail, who better to fit the bill?

I don't want to commit myself to a 'side' particularly, but having said that, this false trail does seem rather more sophisticated than Packer's grapes - the two seem very far apart to me - assuming of course that Hutchinson did indeed lay a false trail to begin with.

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

She married James Knott in Lewisham in 1886.

The couple's first child, Gertrude Florence Knott, was born on 21st March 1887, at 47 Ronver Road, Lee (London SE12)

The couple's second child, Lillian Jane Knott, was born on 22nd April 1889

In 1891 she was recorded in the census as living at 59 Summerfield Street, Lee.

Never knew that, Ben - thanks. That said, we don't know that she was stationed in Lee precisely at the time of Kelly's murder, do we?

Lest anyone think my earlier point about Eltham was in any way misleading, Lee is right next to Eltham, and practically the same distance from Romford as that latter borough, as I said earlier. (I speak as an ex-Bexley & Sidcup person, and one time frequenter of the "Beehive" pub in Eltham.)

[Sam Flynn]

It may be worth noting that Toppy's parents lived in Hornchurch, ostensibly a suburb of Romford, in 1861 - and his sister was born there.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Jane.

The sentiments expressed within your most recent post carry a certain resonance in that even contemporaneous newspapers stated that the Ripper murders could not possibly be ‘the work of an Englishman’, the inference being that a foreigner (Jew) must have been responsible. But I’m not sure that Abberline and his men were similarly predisposed. In the aftermath of the Chapman murder, for example, Emmanuel Delbast Violenia came forward with a story that not only identified John Pizer as Leather Apron, it also placed Pizer in Hanbury Street threatening to stab Chapman not long before her murder – and this during a timeframe when any number of newspapers were openly accusing Leather Apron of being Jack the Ripper. Rather than take Violenia’s story at face value, however, the police fully investigated it and then subjected Violenia to a lengthy interrogation, a process that exposed Violenia’s accusations as being utterly untrue.

On the basis of the Violenia episode, therefore, it must be concluded that the police, at least, were not unduly affected by the raging anti-Semitism that was clearly evident in many newspapers and much of the East End populace at the time of the murders.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

You're very welcome, Gareth.

I'd say it's a near-certainty that the Knott family were living in Lee at the time of the murders, though, what with the 1886 marriage (registered in nearby Lewisham), the 1887 birth of Emily Jane's first child, and the 1889 birth of her second child. I can find no Romford area connections for the extended Toppy family for the relevant period, although oddly enough, Toppy himself died in Hornchurch in 1938.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say the Star was 'so adamant' in it's reporting of Hutchinson discredited - indeed, I think I sense a little disappointment there, following the rather salacious headlines of the previous day."

Well, Jane, the story is headed "Worthless Stories Lead the Police on False Scents", and followed (after discussing Packer) by "Another story now discredited is that of the man Hutchinson ...", putting it all in the league of obviously "worthless" stories. And I think that IS pretty adamant. Admittedly, it tells us little about Hutchinson himself and more about his particular story, but if the shortcomings of the story (whatever they were) could not be blamed on Hutchinson himself, then the wording and context is a very harsh one.

"As to the plumbing business - I have little to add here, save to say I concur with the view that in general, one would expect Toppy to have followed his father's trade at that time. As You rightly point out, Fisherman, generalities are not always the case, but I think, gratuitous speculation (entertaining as it is) aside, we have no way of knowing the specifics in this case, so we must adhere to the generalities, even if with an open mind. "

That is correct, Jane; but since I am of the opinion that there can be next to no doubt about Toppy having been the man that signed the police report, I cannot offer an open mind here. And since Toppy was the Dorset Street witness as far as I´m concerned, I do not see much relevance in accepting that he would have followed the normal plumber´s line of education. And, obvioulsy, this being the case, I am certain that the explanations are there for the simple reason that they must be.

"In regard to dossing in Whitechapel - seriously, who would have chosen it with another option? That, not to put too fine a point on it, is nonsensical."

Well, thanks for that, Jane, but you may need to keep in mind that I have never said that Hutchinson stayed at the Victoria home because of the swimming pool and the nice breakfast buffet. I have said that people DO migrate between differing social conditions all the time in a society, and that there is always an explanation as to why this happens. A sudden lack of money and no place else to go may constitute such one of many such explanations, and so there is very little call for you to speak of nonsense.

The best, Jane
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"There were certainly better opportunites to become a plumber than there were after 1886, i.e. post-regulations. He was living with his father in 1881 when he was 15 (in Eltham, Kent), and at an age where he could embark upon a plumbing apprenticeship from home, and most logically by his father."

In a perfect world, everything goes down the simple way, Ben. In more complex universes, we find that a set of signatures may persuade us to realize that things do not always happen in that perfect manner. I have no problems seeing what you are pointing too, as you will appreciate, but it is all very secondary to me.
If we had not had them signatures, I would have awarded the "trouble" with the East End connections and the plumbing education much, much more interest. And since I know that you do not see what I see in the signatures, you are doing the logical thing, no doubt about it. To me, though, it is the other way around, and that is why I speak of probable trivialities, when it comes to looking for explanations.
In fact, even if a document was found that told us that Hutchinson had gone through a seven-year education to become a plumber, that would not make me say" Ah, then Toppy could not have been the Dorset Street witness". My immediate reaction would have been that he had for some reason been lying about other parts of his story, his whereabouts, where he was staying, how well he knew Kelly and so on and so forth.
We address this issue in totally differing manners and from totally different wiewpoints, and that is the way it must be, taking a look at our differing convictions. The crossroads are not situated here, discussing plumbers educations - it is situated in the signature issue.
On the plumber question, I think that it may be very hard to ever establish which road Toppy travelled by. But I feel certain that if one was to take a look at the regulations and the differing ways of gaining an education that allowed you to work in skilled handicrafts back then, we will find lots and lots of exceptions to the more generally formed rules of how to go about things.
If, Ben, you will allow me to be provocative here, how do we know that a friend of Hutchinsons did not turn up at the police station and say "Hey Gov´, don´t you believe my friend Toppy! He´s not a groom and he never has been, he´s a bleeding plumber, he is! Works with his ol´man, he does! Lives uptown, he does, and not in any sodding doss house!"

Of course, this is all just conjecture and fiction, and I realize that you may think it provocative. But it goes to show that my conviction about the signatures leads my thinking down totally different paths that the ones you travel by. The obstacles you see ARE bridgeable since they must be from my perspective.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Hi Fisherman

Please, I hope you don't see hostility in my words where none was intended? To respond to yours: as to the Star, I meant, and find it curious, that a brief and almost cursory nod to Hutchinson on the 15th followed the emphatically glowing report of his credibility the previous day. As to the headline-it's a headline-of course it's dramatic. Regarding the rest, you consider the case proven in so far as Toppy was Hutchinson in your view, yes? In which case, there is little need for further debate. Conclusion, by its very nature, signifies an end. Jane x

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland:

"Please, I hope you don't see hostility in my words where none was intended?"

Thanks for that, Jane; good to hear.

" To respond to yours: as to the Star, I meant, and find it curious, that a brief and almost cursory nod to Hutchinson on the 15th followed the emphatically glowing report of his credibility the previous day."

It IS odd - and the manner in which the "execution" was performed seems to point to a newspaper standing with it´s pants down. It´s almost as if Hutchinson had played a prank on them. In such a case, the very cursory reaction would feel at least somewhat logical.

"Regarding the rest, you consider the case proven in so far as Toppy was Hutchinson in your view, yes?"

That is correct, Jane - I think that the signatures are very much alike, and as you will find if you go through the "1911" thread, I contacted one of the foremost authorities in Sweden when it comes to forensic signature analysis, and he too was of the same mind, stating that it would surprise him if the signatures were not written by the same man.
And once we add the surrounding circumstances, like the relative dearth of George Hutchinsons around in the approximate geographical area, it defies (my) logic not to believe that the witness has been identified.
But of course, this is my contention, and others hold differing convictions as you will appreciate!

"In which case, there is little need for further debate."

Well, Jane, debate arises from the fact that two persons hold differing opinions, and I welcome any debate on the topic. Ben feels that it would be strange in the extreme if Toppy did end up in the East End and if he was a plumber in 1891 but not in 1888, and statistically he will be right; most people who could avoid a move to Whitechapel probably chose to stay as far away as possible from there, and it is a fair assumption that plumbers´ sons who grow up to be plumbers themselves normally do so by educating themselves for the occupation at the first opportunity.
And in the cutting point inbetween the assertion that Toppy would not have gone through what Hutch seemed to go through and the contention that he MUST have, since he signed the police report, there inevitably arises objects for both debate and research. Sam has already dug up some very interesting material teaching me a lot more about Victorian plumbing than I have ever known before, and I am sure that more is to come. Personally, I find it quite absorbing, since my wiewpoint is that every tiny piece of information will potentially play a role in confirming Toppys role as the Dorset Street witness.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Thanks Fisherman

For your thoughtful and thought provoking post.

Regarding the Star report of the 15th November, I like your term 'execution'! It does appear thus, doesn't it? As in the space of a day, the paper lost interest in him, for reasons unknown to us, but had anyway to write something for their readership after the report of the previous day.

Therein lies the mystery - what happened to change the view? It must have been quite a serious event considering the obvious confidence held in Mr Hutchinson by the police and press alike (though perhaps one follows the other here)

I see from what you say that you are totally convinced by these signatures - thus you conclude that Toppy and Hutchinson are one and the same. That is what I meant by a conclusion - you may choose to continue to debate the hows and whys with others, but if your mind is firmly set, then these are relatively trivial points.

I only really have one query about that - is this proven? If so, then splendid - but I personally would use caution in a situation which is unproven. Every historian - and what are we here if not that? - knows that the evidence should never be made to fit the theory - it has to work the other way around!

So if there are facts (I speak hypothetically, for the avoidance of confusion) or certain features of this matter that do not fit well with your theory, saying there MUST be an explanation since Toppy is the witness takes the conclusion (the theory) first and wraps everything else around it. I am impressed by your confidence in your theory, having said that!

Just an observation. If you look forward to the day that Toppy is acknowledged by all as the witness, then the fastest way to that day seems to me to be to resolve these matters where they can be resolved, and where not, to say as much. If your evidence for this identification is as strong as you suggest, then there should be no problem with minor quibbles.

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"I only really have one query about that - is this proven? If so, then splendid - but I personally would use caution in a situation which is unproven."

Ask yourself, Jane, to what degree absolute proof exists when comparing signatures? If two men, named George Hutchinson (or using that name) existed alongside each other in the correct area and at the correct time, did write their names in so similar a fashion as to be able to put a forensic document examiner on the wrong track, then I may be wrong.
But just how much of a chance is there that such a thing would occur? To my mind, it is not even large enough to deserve a verdict of "microscopical". We also have the Fairclough book, in which Toppys son Reg states that his father had spoken of being the Dorset Street witness, and although some posters will lend no (or in fact even negative) weight to this, I think it further elucidates that Toppy was our man.

Once you find the time, I thoroughly recommend reading through the "1911" thread; it covers the issue in great detail and it will teach you more foul language than you could ever hope to learn ...

All the best!
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Where was the couples second child born? Lilian Jane Knott that is.

all the best

Observer

Hi Observer,

She was also born in Lee, as were all six of her siblings.

Best regards,
Ben

Thanks for that Ben, the reason I asked was due to the fact that an address for the birth of the second child was absent, do you happen to have the address? I will be in the area shortly and intend taking photographs of the area.

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

In a perfect world, everything goes down the simple way, Ben. In more complex universes, we find that a set of signatures may persuade us to realize that things do not always happen in that perfect manner.

Although in this particular world, I've found a set of signatures which seem perfectly compatible with my suggstion that the plumbing issue would tend to identity Toppy and the witness as seperate entities. My comments on the plumbing issue served to highlight what I believe to be one of several pointers against Toppy being the witness, which include his handwriting.

We address this issue in totally differing manners and from totally different wiewpoints, and that is the way it must be, taking a look at our differing convictions.

Which is fine, as long as it doesn't result in force-feeding the evidence into the conclusions we've already jumped to. I'm not saying you're doing that. It's just a cautionary reminder.

But I feel certain that if one was to take a look at the regulations and the differing ways of gaining an education that allowed you to work in skilled handicrafts back then, we will find lots and lots of exceptions to the more generally formed rules of how to go about things.

But I feel equally certain that we have yet to encounter an example of an entry into a skilled trade - one that usually requires a seven-year a apprenticeship - at an age when apprenticeships were not usually offered, being secured within a two-year period. If someone has evidence to the contrary, I'd gladly revise my stance.

If, Ben, you will allow me to be provocative here, how do we know that a friend of Hutchinsons did not turn up at the police station and say "Hey Gov´, don´t you believe my friend Toppy! He´s not a groom and he never has been, he´s a bleeding plumber, he is! Works with his ol´man, he does! Lives uptown, he does, and not in any sodding doss house!"

In that scenario, we'd still be left of the unsettling coincidence of Toppy the publicity-seeker having lied about loitering fixatedly opposite Miller's Court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly's death when, according to an independent witness who gave evidence at the inquest, somebody really was loitering fixatedly opposite Miller's Court at 2:30am on the night of Kelly's death.

That is correct, Jane - I think that the signatures are very much alike, and as you will find if you go through the "1911" thread, I contacted one of the foremost authorities in Sweden when it comes to forensic signature analysis, and he too was of the same mind

We also had one of the foremost authorities from this country analyse the original documents personally, and arrive at the conclusion that they were not written by the same man. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, the Swedish expert in question revised his stance whenever he was contacted, but most crucially, his "spontaneous" reaction was that the possibility of a match "could not be ruled out". Which is another way of saying "It's not impossible", and NOT another way of saying "It is probable". He also stated that his comments should not be taken as an expert opinion, since the material didn't allow it.

Please let's not go through this again, Fisherman.

All you had to do was direct Jane to the revelant thread.

I'd hate to have to reintroduce those hostilities to this thread.

And once we add the surrounding circumstances, like the relative dearth of George Hutchinsons around in the approximate geographical area

But there isn't a dearth of George Hutchinson's in the area at the time. You've based that assumption on the contents of the 1911 census, despite the fact that any number of viable George Hutchinsons could have left the area, permanently or temporarily, between 1888 and 1911. If the name George Hutchinson was an alias, we're forced to cast the proverbial net even wider.

Personally, I find it quite absorbing, since my wiewpoint is that every tiny piece of information will potentially play a role in confirming Toppys role as the Dorset Street witness.

With respect, Fisherman. That doesn't come across very well, since it sounds very much like the mentality I cautioned against; looking for ways to force-feed any emerging evidence into prior conclusions. It's far better to base our conclusions on the emerging evidence. You're more than welcome to respond to any non-Toppy-friendly piece of evidence with "Yes, but the signatures!", but since I disagree that the signatures match, it will be pretty pointless.

If two men, named George Hutchinson (or using that name) existed alongside each other in the correct area and at the correct time, did write their names in so similar a fashion as to be able to put a forensic document examiner on the wrong track, then I may be wrong

I don't believe forensic document examiner Sue Iremonger was "put on the wrong" track when she opined that the signatures were not written by the same person. We have no evidence that Toppy lived in the "correct area at the correct time", and as far as I'm concerned, Sue Iremonger's stance would seem to be the correct one. As such, I think your "I may be wrong" to be quite an understatement, and you're a long way from proving something that an expert doesn't even consider to be likely.

Similarly, I wouldn't advocate using Fairclough's book as a means to bolster Toppy's candidacy, since it's contents were disavowed by its own author, and contained faked material. There's nothing to say that Reg's contribution "My dad saw Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper and was paid loads to keep quiet about it" wasn't just another example of bogus material in an already bogus compilation.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Thanks for that Ben, the reason I asked was due to the fact that an address for the birth of the second child was absent, do you happen to have the address?

Unfortunately not, at present. I'd imagine she was born at the same location as the eldest child, but I will make further enquiries! Good luck with your trip.

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Well now, Fisherman

Examples of signatures and handed down stories are not equivalent evidence, as I'm sure you appreciate.

I don't know if the story about Toppy being the witness Hutchinson is:

a)true

b) was actually believed by Reg, the purveyor of the story.

Being in no way personal, neither do you, or any other observer. Only the purveyor of the story knows that. And even then, he may have been misinformed, so what he believes to be true may not be.

Such is the case with stories.

It comes down to what you believe, in the end - as how can you prove it, one way or the other?

Signatures, on the other hand, are a fact of and in themselves. They exist in the world as objects or parts thereof, and this cannot be disputed. Since they exist in reality and are tangible (unlike a story, which of and in itself does not exist in 3 dimensional space) physical affairs, they are surely 'hard' evidence?

The difficulty, it would appear, is determining what they signify. You say a foremost expert pronounced them similar, whilst I see that Ben pronounces the opposite. Well, experts may disagree of course, but I would have thought that would have been rather harder to do in such a case than one in which theory is the mainstay of argument.

Simply put, a letter either resembles another or it does not - I'm aware that as with all things which are a product of personal endeavour, there must be a margin for difference - but in general.

I see that these signatures do appear similar overall, but I notice that a closer look demonstrates some differences - how you account for these I don't know - and I think you have already discussed at length, but it seems to me that this must ultimately be your key to proving your case, if you are to ever demonstrate that you are correct.

Since there are clearly those who do this kind of work, it would follow that they have a reasonable success rate in demonstrating whether a pair, or more, of samples match, or no.

If they can do this with other writing samples, why not with these? That, surely, would settle the question?

Jane x