Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Garry Wroe]

I encourage you to hang out here a bit, but understand that there are those who only seek to further a theory and don't seem (in my mind) to want to get at the truth.

Please, Mike, tell me that you were being ironic.

Okay, then, here's a statement of fact. UK apprenticeships in the Victorian era (and indeed, well into the 1960s) began at the age of fourteen and almost always concluded on the boy's twenty-first birthday. This was the point at which the boy not only became a man, but a tradesman. Such were the physical, temporal and economic hardships of serving one's time - and I know because I did it - that the trade became a badge of honour, a way in which the working-class male distinguished himself from his unskilled compeers. According to Reg, Toppy was a plumber (a tradesman) who was seldom, if ever, out of work. And yet the George Hutchinson was consistently referred to as either an unemployed labourer or former groom, but never a plumber. From this, one conclusion is inescapable: whatever else he might have been, the George Hutchinson was neither a plumber nor any other tradesman. Accordingly, we may deduce on an evidential basis rather than the oft cited hidden agenda that Hutchinson and Toppy were different men. And if you disagree - fine. But please, search the municipal archives for some tangible evidence rather than simply slurring the intelligence and integrity of those who happen to disagree with your Toppy-related conclusions.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

Please, Mike, tell me that you were being ironic.

Okay, then, here's a statement of fact. UK apprenticeships in the Victorian era (and indeed, well into the 1960s) began at the age of fourteen and almost always concluded on the boy's twenty-first birthday.

Thanks for the anecdotal stuff. "Name?" George Hutchinson" "Occupation?" "One-time apprentice plumber." How do you earn your living?" "I do whatever I can. Sometimes I'm a groom." "Thanks. have a nice day."

End of story.

Mike

[Maggyann]

Even if someone is unemployed they usually state their trade when asked for an occupation - don't they? It sort of defines them in the eyes of others and there is the pride thing in actually having a trade especially back then.

[Fisherman]

Maggyann writes:

"Even if someone is unemployed they usually state their trade when asked for an occupation - don't they? It sort of defines them in the eyes of others and there is the pride thing in actually having a trade especially back then."

This would essentially hold true, Maggyann. But when we take David Knotts information on board we realize that if there was a falling out between senior and junior at this very time, then Toppy may perhaps felt a distinct dislike towards anything that knit him to a course that was once laid out for him by his father. Plus we do not know what he actually did for a living at the time, just as we do not know if he had served a full apprenticeship at this time. He may, for all we know, even have chosen not to fulfill that apprenticeship due to the tense situation with his father - or, similarly, his father may have cut off his possibilitites to fulfill it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Many thanks indeed for confirming my suspicions about ages of apprenticeships, Garry. A great help.

Even if someone is unemployed they usually state their trade when asked for an occupation - don't they?

Exactly, Maggyan, and yet the only occupation we have recorded for the witness Hutchinson is that of a labourer, although we learn from the press that he had previously been employed as a groom. Even if Toppy did have a falling out with his father in early 1888 and his plumbing career suffered as a consequence (which I don't consider very likely at all), there was no earthly reason to omit reference to his history as a plumber, including the apprenticeship that he was likely to have embarked upon. He would therefore have been a plumber by trade "now working as a labourer", but no plumbing references at all are made in the context of the witness Hutchinson, probably because he wasn't one, and was a separate entity to Toppy. It was observed by Reginald Hutchinson that his father was rarely, if ever, out of work, which also doesn't tally very well with an extended labouring spell in one of the worst areas of the East End.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Maggyann!

Just a few bits of information that may come in handy:

"there was no earthly reason to omit reference to his history as a plumber"

...but for, perhaps, the one I suggested. Or something else.

"It was observed by Reginald Hutchinson that his father was rarely, if ever, out of work"

...and Reg was born 28 years after the "autumn of terror", meaning that he may not have remembered much about his fathers line of occupation at that particular time. Myself, I only seldom elaborate on what my father did 28 years before I was born. I was not there.

The very best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I "was not there" when my father was 22, but that doesn't stop me knowing about his employment history from that period, and if I knew I was about to my interviewed on the subject for a forthcoming book, I'd make every effort to acquaint myself with the hazier details.

[Fisherman]

Maggyann!

"I "was not there" when my father was 22, but that doesn't stop me knowing about his employment history from that period, and if I knew I was about to my interviewed on the subject for a forthcoming book, I'd make every effort to acquaint myself with the hazier details."

I think you need to weigh in, Maggyann, that the very same posters who say that Reg would have gone to any lengths in order to get things right on his fathers carreer, in most other aspects point him out as totally unreliable and only in it for a quick stash of cash. These things come about when the posters in question need to sift things and keep only the parts useful to their theories.
The lesson at hand is about how to assess the value of selected information from selective minds.

The best, Maggyann!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Oh, this is fun.

We're playing a game of quote Ben, respond to his post, but actually address the post to someone else. That way Fisherman can't be accused of backpeddling on yesterday's decision to have no further exchanges with that naughty, narcissistic nemesis of his. Here I stand accused of having a selective approach to the evidence, despite the fact that Fisherman wants to believe the bit about his father being the Kelly witness, but discard the bit about him having been "rarely, if ever, out of work".

[Fisherman]

Maggyann!

In order to make things clear; I do not "want to believe" the bit about Topping being the Kelly witness. I am convinced that he was so, since I think that his signature tallies with the police witness Hutchinsons ditto. This was at least partly confirmed by one of the foremost authoritites in Sweden (where I live) on forensic document examination - he expressed the wiew that he would be surprised to learn that the signatures were not by the same hand.
So, Maggyann, it is not about any selecting bits and pieces on my behalf - when it comes to the part about Reg Hutchinson saying that his dad was rarely out of work, it makes eminent sense to me that he was speaking of the part of his fathers carreer he could remember himself.

But do not take anybody elseīs word for things like these, Maggyann! Look at the evidence and make your own conclusions, guided by nothing else than your own intuition.
The threads dealing with the signatures are sorting under witnesses: George Hutchinson, and they are called "Hutch in the 1881 census" and "The Leander analysis". Incidentally, you may notice that the latest participator to take an interest in the latter thread criticized Ben - and was harassed and intimidated for it. The same fate, I should think, awaits you or anyone who should equally come to the conclusion of foul play on Bens behalf - and just like in the latest case, in spite of Bens habitual harassment of disagreeing posters, he will state that he is a jovial, nice guy who wants everybodys best, and who is very cordial and soft-spoken in most any exchange.
Whatever truth lies in such a statement is, once again, for you to find out and assess on your own. Good luck!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Somehow I think Maggyann has more maturity and intelligence to succumb to Fisherman's rather desperate clarion calls for everyone to take a dim view of me. I can offer my personal assurance to Maggyann that I have no intention of harassing or intimidating her even if she chooses to disagree with me. As with the recent Stride thread, it is Fisherman himself who seems so keen on souring a perfectly friendly atmosphere.

I am convinced that he was so, since I think that his signature tallies with the police witness Hutchinsons ditto. This was at least partly confirmed by one of the foremost authoritites in Sweden (where I live) on forensic document examination - he expressed the wiew that he would be surprised to learn that the signatures were not by the same hand

Really? I'm convinced he wasn't, since I think his signature does not tally with the police witness Hutchinson ditto. This was at least partially confirmed by one of the foremost authories in England (where I live) in forensic document examination. She expressed the view that the signatures were probably not written in the same hand. Repetition breeds repetition, Fisherman, and if you want to go there for another exciting round of cyber ping-pong, I'm playing, of course.

when it comes to the part about Reg Hutchinson saying that his dad was rarely out of work, it makes eminent sense to me that he was speaking of the part of his fathers carreer he could remember himself.

That wouldn't make sense to me in the slightest, considering the basis of the entire interview was his alleged role in events that occured in 1888. Toppy's employment particulars 28 years after the murders wouldn't be remotely germane to that issue, rendering it rather obvious that the "rarely, if ever, out of work" observation at least encompassed the period of the murders.

Incidentally, you may notice that the latest participator to take an interest in the latter thread criticized Ben - and was harassed and intimidated for it.

If people accuse me of being a "lazy, laughing hyena" out of the blue with no provocation, I am not inclined to take it kindly, and the chances are I will respond with a similar degree of hostility. That is what occured on the thread in question. However, if people wish to disgree respectfully, I will respond in kind, and the disagreer can fear no vitriol from me. It seems you cannot resist the call to have acrimonious exchanges with me, Fisherman, despite your repeated threats to have nothing more to do with me.

[Fisherman]

Well. Maggyann! Letīs see if this:

"If people accuse me of being a "lazy, laughing hyena" out of the blue with no provocation, I am not inclined to take it kindly"

...holds true!

This is how Ben met the criticism from Scarletpimpernel:

"It's posts like yours that are of more questionable value. What are you hoping to acheive? I mean, let's assume I am the sort of person who really loves animosity and looks for any excuse for a scrap. Am I really likely to take your advice to find myself "another play-room"? Or will I just thank my lucky stars that someone else wants to take me on?"

So, being pointed out as a poster whose wiews are of questionable value may have had something to do with Scarletpimpernel turning sour on Ben. Plus, of course, when writing, Scarlet was very much aware of how Ben had behaved on the Leander thread - which was what brought on the criticism from the outset.

But once again, Maggyann - itīs all in the threads and easy to access!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Again, Fisherman, if you harbour a personal dislike for me, be my guest, but perhaps it has escaped your notice that your desperate efforts to assemble an army of fellow Ben-haters only serves to disrupt the thread and take us wildly off-topic. The rest of us have been debating the issue. You seem hell bent on debating personalities.

My response to Scarletpimpernel was merely an attempt to hightlight the paradox of complaining about "unrelated quarrels" in a post that was also an attempt to start another unrelated quarrel. If I'm the horrible menace depicted in the post, then it wasn't particuarly logical to expect such a person to meekly bow out in response to such a pompous dressing down.

[Fisherman]

...aaaand, Maggyann, this is how Scarlet "meekly bowed out":

"For a person who claims to be "stalked" by others...If I were you, I would be away from here and escape my imaginary "stalkers"
And you are wrong. I have just skimmed through all the miles and miles of insults and found myself bewildered when could we talk about something of substance but as that is not likely to be the case any time soon. I do not want to add to an already unpleasant and unproductive exchange. Good Bye."

This, I think, should complete the picture, and end this particular topic!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I am sorry about all this nonsense, Maggyann.

However much Fisherman may take a dim view of me, it's completely inappropriate of him to insist on dragging your name into it. I'm still not sure why he feels the need to do so, or why he would expect you to care about unrelated acriminious discussions with other posters, other than to recruit someone else to his "Please, everybody, hate Ben now" cause.

Best regards,
Ben