Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Ben]

Hi Jane,

clearly they are all alike.

Not really.

The witness signature stands out a mile from the others in Gareth's column, or at least it should do.

It's the only one with a looped h-stem.

It's the only one with a t-cross bar that doesn't attach to the vertical stem of the same letter.

It's the only one that doesn't feature a final n-tail that veers dramatically upwards (the witness sig even points downwards).

It's the only one where the H doesn't connect to the "u".

It's the only one where the most of the lower-case letters have a particularly compressed appearance.

It's the only one where the "t" is conspicuously shorter than the "h".

I personally see very little likeness, but to each his/her own.

Another relevant point is that the signatures weren't the same size. The witness signature is significantly larger than all Toppy's 1911 efforts.

The prank scenario is distinctly implausible for the following crucial reason, which I outlined earlier today: We'd still be left with the unsettling coincidence of Toppy the publicity-seeking "prankster" 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's a very implausible coincidence to take on board, and I've yet to find a single example from history of a false witness pretending to be a real witness seen at the crime scene by another real witness.

...Unheard of for good reason, I suspect!

All the best,
Ben

P.S. Gareth, nothing can be ruled out of course, but the strong probability is that Emily Jane was living in Lee at the time of the murders.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Try to condense your posts a bit, Fisherman."

At it again, Ben. Please donīt. I can only ask you courteously so many times.

The rest of your post does what you ask me not to do - it repeats itself. Therefore, I will not answer any of the points you bring up, but for one of them, for obvious reasons:

"I have an obligation to find as plausible explanations as I possibly can to anything that may point away from the Hutch/Toppy connection (my wording)

That reads very badly, Fisherman.
It means: here's my conclusion, and I will try my best to demolish any argument that might go against that conclusion.
Why not let your conclusions be dicatated by the evidence as it emerges? (your wording)"

This, Ben, is your interpretation, and - consequentially - you do your best to paint me out as the worst kind of debater; the kind who, on no good grounds at all, has made his mind up and will not listen to any arguments at all, no matter how superior they are to his own.

Of course, you put me in the role of such a character, and there can be little doubt which role you award yourself; the guy with the superior arguments. Nice, Ben! Thanks!

...but you may allow me to explain where this is untrue? Unless it once again makes my post too long? Right, then! Here goes:

To begin with, the obligation I have when I take the stance that Toppy was Hutch, is of course EXACTLY what i say: to find plausible explanations to anything that points away from this identification. My obligation is not, as you propose, to shut up and stay away from any debate, since my mind is made up. Instead, my stance allows anybody who does not share it to question my on any point that they feel point away from the identification, and none of these questions should be met by silence on my behalf.
I am not saying that I will be able to come up with satisfying answers on all counts. Nor am I saying that I will demolish any arguments that may come along.
What I am saying, though, is that IF I am correct on the identification, then there WILL be arguments that explain each and every questioning of that identification. Logic dictates it - it is only if I am wrong that an argument can come along that is theoretically unanswerable.

And I will be either right or wrong. The same goes for you. There are only two options offered by the question "Can we reasonably deduct that these signatures were made by the same man?". I say yes, and you say no. That does not make me cocky, and it does not make you a coward. What it DOES however, is to touch on your sentence "Why not let your conclusions be dicatated by the evidence as it emerges?" Asking such a thing, is to say in a backward manner that I do not use emerging evidence when drawing my conclusions, while in fact it is exactly the other way around: Evidence HAS emerged that Toppy and Hutch were one and the same man, and I HAVE used that evidence to draw conclusions from.
What you seem to suggest is that new evidence may emerge in the future, pointing away from the connection, and that I should refrain from making the identification til that time. That is a wise strategy in most cases, Ben. But in the cases where you already KNOW the answer, it is not. In such cases the only reasonable thing to do is to accept that the case is closed, after which you can turn to filling in the blanks, making the picture fuller. And that is exactly what I am doing. And if we are dealing with a case where we have TWO "George Hutchinsons" who BOTH wrote in the same fashion, I will be both fascinated and interested to share such evidence too when and if it comes along, so donīt you fear for my ability to listen to others and weigh different parametres against each other, Ben. I actually think that this issue is the ONLY one I have ever been so adamant about in the Ripper case.
I think Tabram was Jacks - but I am not saying that she must be.
I think Stride was NOT Jacks - but she may have been.
I donīt believe in Astrakhan man - but I am not saying he could not have existed.

Speaking of that, you always claim that it would be impossible - not improbable - for Hutch to take in all he said that he took in when meeting Astrakhan man. To me, that is a mind made up on MUCH looser grund than the identification of Toppy as Hutch. And you did not need to wait for any new evidence to take that stance, Ben, did you?
Thing is, many a renowned researcher, perhaps Stewart Evans being the most well-known and accepted authority of them, are saying that it may well have been done.

It belongs to another thread, of course, but the parallel is obvious: If you have made your mind up, would you not say that you are likely to run into the same trouble of not being unbiased that you think I am on the Toppy/Hutch issue? Should you refrain from commenting on it since you have already chosen your path? Should you not have waited to make that decision, Ben; why not let your conclusions be dictated by the evidence as it emerges?

Because, Ben, you - just like me - are perfectly welcome to make any decision you think is called upon by the evidence existing - but you are obliged to answer whatever questions may arise that challenges your wiew.

Fair enough?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The prank scenario is distinctly implausible"

Please note, Ben, that I am saying "something LIKE a prank". I am looking at it from the wiewpoint of the press reaction - and that reaction is exactly the type of reaction you get with an embarrased paper.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben, again:

"Not really."

Donīt you think, Ben, that Jane is able to decide for herself if the signatures are all alike or not? You could take ANY of the eleven signatures and compare it to ANY of the others, and you will find differences inbetween them.
That, though, does not detract from the fact that Jane put so eloquently: Clearly they are all alike.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Now instead of being a liar, mugger, pimp, stalker. savage killer, he is finally being described as a Prankster....
I am amazed, so the man calling himself Hutchinson calmly walked into Commercial street police station on the monday evening, complete with well rehearsed story, which placed him near the scene of the crime, he did this knowing that he had no alibi, and even admits that he knew the woman well, he then accompanied by two police officers, tours the district for hours, in the hope such a man could be spotted, and on the tuesday morning is shown the body.
Reason for all this is obvious of course ....He was a prankster, a hoaxer, a waster of time.
Pull the other one guys.
We simply do not know that the police discredited him, Abberline initially certainly did not' He formed an opinion that his evidence was true'.
I have said before many times, the only person in 121 years that has come foreward to say they were that witness, is one George William Topping Hutchinson, this was relayed to his family, and anyone else that was present when the subject arose whilst he was alive.
We have signature comparisons which show major likenesses, we have his eldest son Reg talking on radio[ sorry Ben] and in a book, we have Ivor Edwards state that he interviewed Reg and his wife in their london flat some years back, and although Ivor left undecided , he stated two things.
The picture of his father in the flat,[Topping] was the same as in the Ripper and the Royals.
Also Regs wife had no doubts that the Hutchinson history was correct.
We also recently had a post from the wife of Toppings grandson, who confirmed that history.
We also have the question of money paid to the witness hutchinson, from the Wheeling article, and as this was not mentioned in any national press in England, only the real Hutch could devulge that , the sum in the article refered to approx five weeks wages, which would relate favourably with one hundred shillings would it not?.
All of this and we still doubt that Topping was the witness, and we mistrust his intentions still.
What is wrong with the idea that Regs Father, knew one of the victims, and gave a statement to the police? its that simple.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard writes:

"He was a prankster, a hoaxer, a waster of time.
Pull the other one guys."

Richard, I will tell you, just as I have told Ben, that I am NOT saying that Hutchinson must have been a prankster. My suggestion is entirely related to the reaction of the press, as evinced by the article in the Star of November 15 and not at all in most of the papers that had formerly published Hutchinsons story.
These are reactions that are very similar to those of a press that feels embarrased after having been the subject of a prank.
Please note that THE REACTION IN ITSELF is what I am assessing here, Richard - that is why I spoke of something LIKE a prank. It could also be something else, but the bottom line is that it seems the press felt it had been caught with itīs pants around the ancles. That is what Iīm after!

The best, Richard!

Fisherman

[Ben]

To begin with, the obligation I have when I take the stance that Toppy was Hutch, is of course EXACTLY what i say: to find plausible explanations to anything that points away from this identification.

You're not "obliged" to do any such thing, Fisherman,

You are strongly encouraged to assess the evidence and decide for yourself whether or not it points away from the Toppy identification. What is strongly discouraged is starting off with an unshakable conclusion, and deciding how you intend to treat the evidence before it even arrives; in this case, to find ways to explain away non-Toppyish evidence in order for Toppy to remain the witness, in your view.

I'm not saying your debating ethics in general are poor, far from it, but I'd caution against the above approach. That's all.

Instead, my stance allows anybody who does not share it to question my on any point that they feel point away from the identification

But according to you, it wouldn't matter to you what points they make, and however persuasively, because you've made up your mind on the Toppy issue. Your only concern seems to be: Now, how do I get round this issue in order that Toppy stills ends up being the witness?

Evidence HAS emerged that Toppy and Hutch were one and the same man, and I HAVE used that evidence to draw conclusions from.

...Which is excellent, but don't let your unshaking conviction taint your approach to any future evidence. You just told me that you "know the answer" which, just to clarify, is wrong. You think you know, perhaps. If you really knew the answer, what do you feel is your responsibility to any new evidence or arguments? Well, you tell us yourself: "to find plausible explanations to anything that points away from this identification".

In other words, you're looking for ways to make the evidence fit your prior conclusion.

That's precisely what you've just admitted to.

You've even used expressions such as "the case is closed".

so donīt you fear for my ability to listen to others and weigh different parametres against each other

But whether you listen to them or not, we all know what your answer will be, irrespective of the arguments and irrespctive of the evidence. You've just told us. You know, before you've weighed any parameters, that the scales will tip ultimately in favour of "Toppy's the witness because of the signatures".

Speaking of that, you always claim that it would be impossible - not improbable - for Hutch to take in all he said that he took in when meeting Astrakhan man. To me, that is a mind made up on MUCH looser grund than the identification of Toppy as Hutch.

Much firmer, actually.

And I don't think many reputable ripper sources have claimed that Hutchinson reported the absolute unembellished truth - only that the barebones of his statement may be accurate, which I dispute for reasons discussed ad nauseam. Magistrate Bob Hinton doesn't consider it possible, and nor do I, but if further evidence emerges to suggest it is, I'll gladly reconsider my stance. I haven't done a "case closed" on it.

The difference between the two of us is that my stance on the above can be summarized as follows:

This is my strong opinion at present, pending further evidence.

Whereas yours is: This is my conclusion and no other evidence or arguments will ever alter it.

You could take ANY of the eleven signatures and compare it to ANY of the others, and you will find differences inbetween them.

No, you wouldn't.

The witness signature is the only one in which the differences are as appreciable as I outlined. The others are obviously very similar to eachother indeed. It sticks out like a store them.

But this, as with Hutchinson's super-memory, is somewhat off-topic.

All the best,
Ben

[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? I will be in the area shortly and intend taking photographs of the area.

all the best

Observer

Hi Observer,



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

Hi Ben, a thought. The birth of GH's sisters second child coincides with the period of time encompassed by the Whitechapel murders. Seeing as we do not have an address for the birthplace of the second child I'm wondering if they coud have moved back to the Romford area for this period? They of course moving back into the environs of Lee to have the third child.

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Seeing as we do not have an address for the birthplace of the second child I'm wondering if they coud have moved back to the Romford area for this period?

The problem with this is that they were never in Romford in the first place. It was not the Emily's family home immediately prior to her becoming engaged to James Knott, for example, and there's no evidence that she had any relatives living there at the time. Since the second child is registered as being born in Lee (presumably at the same Roper Street address), it seems likely to me that they remained in their new home in Lee for the period encompassing 1887 to, at least, 1901, when the last of the couple's children was born.

Hope this helps,
Ben

[Observer]

It does Ben. I'm only a casual observer to these threads these days, I was under the impression that GTH antecedents hailed from the Essex area. What threw me was your failure to mention that the child in question i.e. the second child was actually born in Lee, as were the others. I was under the impression that the place of birth was a mystery.

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

Reason for all this is obvious of course ....He was a prankster, a hoaxer, a waster of time.
Pull the other one guys.

I don't think he was a prankster, Richard.

If he was a prankster, it would mean he wasn't there at all; an explanation I find very unconvincing in light of the coincidence with Lewis' evidence concerning a man she was loitering opposite the crime scene, just where Hutchinson claimed to have stood, and with the same interest in Miller's Court that Hutchinson would later admit to.

I think he was there, but lied about his reasons after discovering he'd been seen. I prefer that explanation because it has historical precedent.

I have said before many times, the only person in 121 years that has come foreward to say they were that witness, is one George William Topping Hutchinson

He didn't "come forward".

His son Reg contributed to a discredited Royal Conspiracy book by claiming his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper. Either Toppy relayed this information to his son or Reg cooked it up himself, his imagination (and wallet) having been fuelled by Fairclough's theory.

We have signature comparisons which show major likenesses

We have signature comparisons which show major dissimilarities.

we have his eldest son Reg talking on radio

"We" have evidence of no such thing.

and in a book, we have Ivor Edwards state that he interviewed Reg and his wife in their london flat some years back, and although Ivor left undecided , he stated two things.

Which book is this? Edwards made no such observation in Black Magic Rituals. However, I've since learned from Howard Brown, via the Hutchinson podcast, that he did indeed interview Reg and came away with the impression that he was not the son of the real witness. No evidence was provided apparently, and a photograph and a supportive wife really don't qualify on that score. I know that other researchers interviewed Reg and departed unimpressed.

We also recently had a post from the wife of Toppings grandson, who confirmed that history.

Which could have had its entire basis in the 1992 Fairclough-Reg interview for all we know.

We also have the question of money paid to the witness hutchinson, from the Wheeling article, and as this was not mentioned in any national press in England, only the real Hutch could devulge that

No, that doesn't follow at all.

If the real Hutch divulged it, however did it find its way into one single American newspaper? Let's not forgot the nature of the article, which was headlined "Gossip". How accurate was this gossip? Well, considering that it made claims about Barnett that were in direct contradiction to all other press accounts of Barnett's circumstances and behaviour, I'd say we're dealing with some lousy, untrue gossip here.

the sum in the article refered to approx five weeks wages, which would relate favourably with one hundred shillings would it not?.

It would not, and I've explained this heaven knows how many times. Hutchinson claimed to be temporarily unemployed. This was the version he gave the police. He was not earning a weekly wage, so the police cannot have paid him five times a sum he was not earning.

All of this and we still doubt that Topping was the witness, and we mistrust his intentions still

It's precisely because of "all this" that we mistrust his intentions.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Toppy's father's side hailed from Essex, but George Hutchinson Sr left the area apparently for good in the early 1860s, prior to the birth of Toppy, thereafter living in Surrey and Kent. I will ascertain the birth address of child #2, but it was certainly in Lee, and most probably Roper Street.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Where do i start?
I quess we will always disagree, until such time one of us is confronted with the actual truth.
Regarding Ivors interview, i was not suggesting that it was mentioned in a book, that was a reference to Reg, and you are correct in relaying that Ivor was not over impressed, but he has stated he was ' Not convinced one way or another'.
The signature comparisons are there for all to see, and i vote positive.[ in favour of Topping]
When i said Topping was the only person to have come foreward, i was not suggesting that he made it nationally public,but he is the only name we have that claimed to have been the witness..
That is a fact , regardless if you personally do not trust either father/son.
The reference to the payment, always has you using the remark. five times nothing =nothing.
The five times a weeks wages,, was refered to as a exsample. ie. a sum equal to five weeks wages for a normal manual worker.
Only the real Hutch would have known that he received any payment, so if Topping was a fraud, he must have had pyschic powers.
This article was not dicovered until a couple of years ago, and it would be a fair bet, that Topping never came across it, and most certainly not Reg, whose knowledge of the case was extremely minimal.
so how did he have knowledge of any money being paid?, or are you suggesting a good 'Guess'.
I respect your view on Hutchinson, however i would say if the shoe was on the other foot, and all the evidence pointed to the whole Topping story being rubbish, i would have to eat humble pie, without reservation.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

The five times a weeks wages,, was refered to as a exsample. ie. a sum equal to five weeks wages for a normal manual worker

But the police didn't consider him to be a "normal manual worker". They considered him to be an unemployed one, and thus not somebody who took home a "usual salary". Hutchinson was therefore not entitled to five times a salary he wasn't receiving.

Only the real Hutch would have known that he received any payment, so if Topping was a fraud, he must have had pyschic powers.

Why? He wouldn't have needed to see the article. An American article, headlined gossip, and containing demonstrably bogus claims stated that some clever individual had "invented" a suspect and was paid to accompany police round the district. No other press source claims this, but then no other press source claimed any of the Barnett-related nonsense touted in that same article either.

In 1992, Reg speculated that his father was paid to keep silent about seeing Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper in the company of Kelly. That's two zero provenance sources that were alomost certainly bogus, and when the two are combined, you don't suddenly get good provenance. Two wrongs don't make a right, broadly speaking.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Just a quick reply , have to go to work.
Out of work, unemployment men did not gain regular lodgings at The Victoria home', it was much more vetted then say, the average lodging house.
It is on record is it not 'I have spent all my Money going down to Romford; so some money must have entered Georges pockets.
Richard,