Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Fisherman]

My concern, Maggyann, is but one; before you choose who and what you should listen to, taking a look at what has passed on the threads will ensure that you do not get things wrong. It is essential that each and every poster who wants a fair assessment of this case finds out as quickly as possible which sources are reliable and which are not.

I have an - it seems - age-old conflict with Ben, for the simple reason that he has proven agenda-ridden and quite unable to assess the evidence in a proper way. This leads him to state that wiews of his that go 180 degrees against the evidence are as much worth as the wiews of those who actually concur with the evidence. It also leads him to imply that posters like me fabricate evidence, whenever he feels it would help his cause to do so. He also questions the professional judgement and the working ethics of experts - not as long as they say what he wants to hear, but the second they deviate from his agenda. All of this he drapes in heaps of insults and personal remarks, and I detest it to the bone.

But fear not, Maggyann - 99 per cent of the posters out here are honest, discerning people who would never resort to such things. Undoubtedly, you will find this out by yourself and I wish you many rewarding discussions on the differing topics out here!

Thanking you for your time,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Your bizarre fixation with me is tedious at the best of times, but when you insist on dragging new posters into your anti-Ben crusade (posters who obviously have no intention of embroling themselves in a personal "battle" of your own obsessive crafting), your antics become incredibly selfish. We were all having a perfectly amicable and level-headed discussion before you decided to derail it with irrelevant character assassinations, and you did precisely the same thing on the Stride thread, with your offensive and false claim that I suffered from a mental disorder.

If you wish to court the embarrassing delusion that anyone who disagrees with you must not be assessing evidence in the "proper way", then be my guest, but don't spend all your time imploring every new poster to be as obsessed with disliking me as you are. They have better things to do, I'm sure. If you detest what I say "to the bone", you're not forced to read it, and it certainly doesn't make sense for you to spend more time on me than any other poster on Casebook.

Your assertion that my "wiews" go "180 degrees against the evidence" doesn't reflect the reality of the situation either. You just can't bear being disagreed with, hence your astonishingly egocentric warning for me not to tell you that your theory doesn't add up. Why? Because "it does!", you confidently exclaim. If you consider that a laudable and productive approach to historical discussion, again, fill your boots, but "Don't disagee with me, because I know I'm right!" generally irritates people.

[Maggyann]

Good Grief!

I make a perfectly logical statement on the likelihood of someone preferring to describe themselves in the best light possible when placed in a given scenario

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.

and toddle off to go about my day. I return to, well I don't really know how to describe it.


Mea Culpa, I should not have posted in a thread I had not completely read through, I lost it at Carol Thatcher - sorry. I do find I lose interest in some of the threads here this way - but I do go back and try to plough on through because I am fascinated by all your opinions, theories and the incredible research you have all undertaken and shared.

I really don't know you all as individual characters yet nor do I know how any cliques are delineated so I don't know who I may upset, anger or whatever when voicing MY opinions but I will voice them nonetheless when I feel it appropriate. I will not comment any further on this thread until I have rectified my slovenly approach to the thread and apologise for 'jumping in' with my previously mentioned comment before appraising myself fully of the subject matter.

Maggyann

[Ben]

Hi Maggyann,

For what it's worth, I agree entirely with your initial observation, and I hope today's silly exchange between myself and Fisherman won't deter you from sticking around and making equally valid contributions in the future. You owe us no apology, but I certainly extend one to you for my part in the temporary derailment of the thread.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

""Don't disagee with me, because I know I'm right!" generally irritates people."

Hilarious! Thatīs my moneyīs worth a hundred times over!

"Your assertion that my "wiews" go "180 degrees against the evidence" doesn't reflect the reality of the situation either."

It does, actually - every degree of it - when it comes to the Schwartz testimony.

"You just can't bear being disagreed with"

Breathtaking stuff! There is no way I could ever hope to reach as hypocritical a height as that! Wow and triple-wow!

Well, Maggyann! Donīt let this scare you off; you are ever so welcome to comment on things and ask any questions you feel like asking. And I assure you that you are not at risk to bump into any other relationship as infected as that between Ben and me. There is - luckily - no such thing around!

I suppose I owe you a little something of an explanation and an excuse to go with it. My interpretation of things is that Ben - who, as you can see, claims that I have a fixation with him (he dubs people who disagree with him "crazy stalkers") - instead has it in real bad for me. This finds the oddest of expressions, one example being that when I once pointed out that Mary Kellys head obscured a portion of the bed behind it, he denied this and claimed that he could see all the way up to her neck. Fantastic stuff!
At another occasion, when I said that the reason that dr Killeen established that Martha Tabram had been stabbed with a pen-knife was that he deducted it from the size of the entrance holes, Ben actually disagreed!!
When I stated that there would have been powerful gas lamps about at the time Hutchinson strolled through Dorset street, Ben denied this too, claiming that there could have been no such thing, since the technique was not about to build such lamps. Of course, when I presented him with facts, showing that there were gas lamps about emitting 700 watts of light back in 1888, he said that he had meant that there were no powerful gas lamps about IN DORSET STREET! This assertion arrived with no substantiation at all, since neither him nor I could possibly know the quality of the privately owned lamps in the street. Another time ...

No, letīs stop here (although I could list dozens of likewise mystifying choices of arrgumentation on Bens behalf), since you will have gotten the general idea by now - do not let trifles like physical laws bother you when you have made your mind up, never admit that you have been wrong, change your story instead and claim that you never changed it in the first place!
Of course, it is all there in the threads for everybody to see, should the need arise. Most people, though, consider us a pair of crackpots and will not go near the brawls. But every once in a while, somebody like Scarletpimpernel surfaces, somebody who checks things out, and find themselves appalled by Bens antics. Thatīs when he steps in and intimidates and harrasses them off the boards. With Scarlet, it only worked halfways - he (or is it she?) left the discussion - but in style, and not until after having pointed out Ben for what he is.

Of course, this discussion per se is not strictly thread-related (and Ben is quick to point that out, since he understandably wants it to go away), but in a sense it is relevant to each and every debate where Ben participates. I have decided not to exchange with Ben directly, but I do not want to see his assertions about for example Reg Hutchinson "knowing" that his father never was out of work without being able to point out the very low value of evidence it has. Which is why you - asking a perfectly civil and legitimate question - to some extent became a casualty of war, if you take my meaning. I do hope that you at least had your question answered and that you wonīt feel too put off to ask the next one too - the risk of you running into Ben and me is luckily a very small one.

Now, why is it that I feel that somebody soon is going to call me a mad stalker who disrupts and derails all the civil and "level-headed (!) discussions out here? Strange...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Maggyann]

All is well with me boys. I understand what it is like when two testesterone fuelled brains clash. In the real world sometimes a slap is needed but here on t'internet we women just say sheeeeesh!

Maggyann

[lynn cates]

Kubrick

Hello Maggyann. One thinks here of the Stanley Kubrick line:

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here, this is the war room!"

(Actually, I know these 2 lads and they simply adore one another.)

The best, lassies and laddies.
LC

[Scott Nelson]

All the best,
Ben

The best,
Fisherman

Really guys?

Which best is the best? Or is it the beast?

[Garry Wroe]

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.

Precisely the point I was attempting to convey, Maggyann. Equally, given the strict class divides inherent in Victorian London, the tradesman was viewed as holding a higher social status than the unskilled labouring man. Hence it is nonsensical to argue that a newly-qualified plumber would have downgraded his status to that of a common labourer, whether employed or not. It would have been akin to someone today defining Professor Stephen Hawking as the bloke who once won the egg and spoon race on a school sports day.

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.

If Toppy qualified as a plumber, Fish, he would have completed his apprenticeship on his twenty-first birthday – in other words, in the year prior to the Whitechapel Murders. If, on the other hand, he failed to complete his service in full, he could not have qualified as a plumber and would have been debarred from engaging on any commercial plumbing work. It’s as simple as that.

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

My pleasure, Ben. You might also care to know that the Victorian apprenticeship was all but identical to that which was introduced in the Thirteenth Century. The boy was indentured (contracted) to his master such that he became a legal possession. Even if the master died, the boy could be passed on to his widow or another family member so long as the boy remained in gainful employment and continued to learn his trade. Equally, any boy who absconded could be arrested and imprisoned for an indeterminate period.

I mention this only because some posters appear to think that the apprenticeship was an informal pursuit, a casual undertaking that could have been commenced and then terminated on a whim. Only when one appreciates the true nature of the Victorian apprenticeship does the absurdity of the recently time-served Toppy declaring himself to be a common labourer become apparent. Sadly, however, I very much doubt that common sense will prevail with respect to this issue.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

I suppose I owe you a little something of an explanation and an excuse to go with it. My interpretation of things is that Ben - who, as you can see, claims that I have a fixation with him (he dubs people who disagree with him "crazy stalkers") - instead has it in real bad for me

Just have a little read back of this thread, Fisherman. There was never any ill-feeling until you decided to pester Maggyann with a wholly unnecessary thesis on why every new poster must immediately take a dim view of Ben and his opinions, and this despite the fact that I had expressed nothing but courteous disagreement over the points raised. You are absolutely obsessed with me, Fisherman, plain and simple, and this obsession has consumed every aspect of your interest in the ripper murders for the last few months. Why else would you disrupt a perfectly civil thread with a desperate lobbyist campaign designed to convert a new poster into taking a dim view of me? We all know why you do it. You spend a truly painful amount of internet activity following me round a serial killer message board, desperately seeking Ben-hating recruits in the process, and then what do you do? Provide a an embarrasing, immature list of people who agree with you as though they somehow gang up on me and my views.

This finds the oddest of expressions, one example being that when I once pointed out that Mary Kellys head obscured a portion of the bed behind it, he denied this and claimed that he could see all the way up to her neck. Fantastic stuff!

There was a large quantity of blood directly behind the neck, on the pillow, as depicted in the photograph. You wanted to posit the existence of a pristine, blood-free white patch between the neck and pillow, for reasons I have yet to fathom, and when I pointed out how damnably silly this was, you used your own children as photographic pawns to somehow illustrate how wrong I was. Besides failing miserably in that regard, it demonstrated your sickening propensity towards using other people to score points over me. You did precisely the same thing here, with your crazed attempts to convince Maggyann of my bad character.

Of course, if you want to start the Kelly/blood argument, Im playing. Copy and pastes at the ready.

At another occasion, when I said that the reason that dr Killeen established that Martha Tabram had been stabbed with a pen-knife was that he deducted it from the size of the entrance holes, Ben actually disagreed!!

If the knife moved inside the wounds, and increased their size and shape in the process, the actual weapon used becomes very ambiguous indeed. But then Fisherman's theory on the Tabram murder amounts to the very worst sort of minority-endorsed fringe lunacy, so I've no reason to be saddened by his accusations of knife-related confusion on my part. Of course, if you really wish to derail this thead with that topic, bring it on. Copy and pastes at the ready.

Of course, when I presented him with facts, showing that there were gas lamps about emitting 700 watts of light back in 1888, he said that he had meant that there were no powerful gas lamps about IN DORSET STREET!

But we know that they weren't in use on the streets of Whitechapel, so we know that a 700 watt gas lamp wasn't in use in Dorset Street, unless we entertain the absurdly fallacious concept that a lowly East End pub was likely to fork out for the latest and greatest in terms of light-emitting lamps. If you want to do "battle" on that topic again, let me know, and I'll arrange some useful copy-and-pastes. That is all that your desperate Ben-baiting efforts deserve.

I don't know whether to just mock the afflicted or entertain rather more serious concerns over your obvious fixation with me. You even have the gall and the stomach-churning gaucherie to accuse Maggyann of being a "casualty of war". She is nothing of the sort, and there was never any suggestion of a "war" until you decided to pollute this thread with your anti-Ben agenda. Maggyann came here to discuss George Hutchinson, and you have spent the last five of six posts imploring her to take a dim view of me, and you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourself for that. She did indeed ask a perfectly civil and legitimate question, and I fully agreed with her observations when I gave my perfectly civil and legitimate response.

And then you came along...

I have decided not to exchange with Ben directly, but I do not want to see his assertions about for example Reg Hutchinson "knowing" that his father never was out of work without being able to point out the very low value of evidence it has.

No, you have not decieded not to exchange directly. You lie about this over and over again, and it's becoming a running joke. You have failed to challenge my assertions with respect to Toppy and his employment history. It is overwhelmingly logical that Reg's remarks on Toppy's plumbing history should have applied to the period in history that he was then being interviewed about.

Now, please, go and make a nuisance of yourself on the Stride threads as you usually do. Or, failing that - and you can't resist your Ben-bothering crusade - at least be honest with yourself and drop the laughable pretense at not wanting to have any further exchange with me. You're far too weak to ever make good that promise - face it.

[Ben]

Thanks for the additional information, Garry, and for the welcomed attempts to steer the thread back on topic.

Most appreciated.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben, again:

" There was never any ill-feeling until you decided to pester Maggyann"

Firstly, I did not pester Magyann - I provided a reason for her to be careful before buying your stuff, Ben.
Secondly, the ill-feeling you are speaking of has been about for the longest time, and you have done nothing to improve on it - on the contrary.

"There was a large quantity of blood directly behind the neck, on the pillow, as depicted in the photograph. You wanted to posit the existence of a pristine, blood-free white patch between the neck and pillow"

Once again, neither you nor me could know if there was any blood DIRECTLY behind the neck, since the area was not visible. Once again, I did not "want to posit" any existence of a pristine blood-free white patch between neck and pillow. But I DID point out that since neither you or me could possibly KNOW how the area behind the neck looked, it could have been red, green, blue, chequered or filled with empty baloons. It MAY have been bloodied and it MAY have been unbloodied - the point of the matter was not, though, that I said that it must have been either of it - only YOU were dimwitted enough to claim that you KNEW that it was bloodied, since you could see what no other human being has ever seen on that picture.

"If the knife moved inside the wounds, and increased their size and shape in the process, the actual weapon used becomes very ambiguous indeed. But then Fisherman's theory on the Tabram murder amounts to the very worst sort of minority-endorsed fringe lunacy, so I've no reason to be saddened by his accusations of knife-related confusion on my part."

Taking it from the beginning here, Ben, what theory I have on Tabram is of no relevance at all to the matter at hand: did Killeen conclude that a pen-knife was used because the entrance holes of the wounds led him to believe so?
I say yes, you say no. Consider that bid of yours before you speak of fringe lunacy. If it was not the size of the entrance holes that made him speak of a pen-knife, then what was it? And donīt copy and paste, Ben, since the pathetic suggestions you have come up with thus far are worthless.

"we know that they weren't in use on the streets of Whitechapel, so we know that a 700 watt gas lamp wasn't in use in Dorset Street, unless we entertain the absurdly fallacious concept that a lowly East End pub was likely to fork out for the latest and greatest in terms of light-emitting lamps"

What we DO know, Ben, is that you got things totally wrong from the beginning, believing that no gas lamp of 1888 COULD emitt strong light. If you need to go through the painful process of ME "copying and pasting" to prove this, just say the word! That goes to show a little bit about your insights in the topic.
What we do NOT know, however, is whether such a lamp or lamps were about in Dorset Street in 1888. Of course, since you were caught ignorant about the history of gas-light power in the first place, you now need to dub the mere suggestion "absurdly fallacious", but that only goes to show that you are wrestling with a suggestion that may be true. You go from "There were no such lamps around in 1888" to "Ehrm, what I meant was of course that there were no such lamps around in Dorset Street in 1888" with an ease that is quite telling. I would have been ashamed if I were you - but then again - praise the Lord! - I AM NOT!
We know that there were people of reative wealth in the East end too, some of them even keeping servants. To suggest that people who owned a number of boarding houses could be into a bit of money is not a stretch at all, and to further suggest that they - or pubowners, for example - may have wanted to attract customers to their establishments by way of providing a bright gas lamp is anything but a dim suggestion (pun intended). Furthermore, these bright gas lamps were NOT very new, very rare inventions as you seem to imply, and they did not come in just the one type. They had been about for a number of years when we reached 1888.
All in all, we have no way to establish any proof in any direction when it comes to the suggestion that Hutchinson may have taken a look at Astrakhan man in 200, 300, 400, 500 or even as much as 700 watts of light. There is only the sad old truth that you are willing to fabricate all sorts of things in order to try and disprove anybody elseīs suggestions that go against the beliefs you hold - you are even ready to state as a proven fact that there were no strong gas lamps about in Dorset Street - a street that was witnessed about as comparatively well lit, mind you! - when George Topping Hutchinson claimed to have seen Kelly and Astrakhan man.
...and if you are thinking of once again copying and pasting, I think you need to take the quality of that argument of your under consideration before you do so, and answer me this question:
Is it proven that there were no strong gas lamps on Dorset Street in 1888?
Or is it just a suggestion of yours?
And donīt tell me how very brilliant your suggestion would be, just answer these two questions with either yes or no. After that, we will know the exact value of your assertion on this point. No bright gas lamps on Dorset Street - is that a proven point, or is it just a suggestion on your behalf? That is all I want to know.

So far, Ben, you have been correct on one point and one point only - this is and remains a thing between you and me and nobody else. Which is why I undergo the sickening process of adressing you directly again.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Scott Nelson:

"Really guys?
Which best is the best? Or is it the beast?"

I am the best, Scott. Ben is the beast. Shame on you to even ask such a thing ...!

No, honestly, I feel certain that Ben has this the other way around. He habitually does. I really donīt think there is no other way for you to get as good an answer as possible than to look at the issues at hand and reach your own conclusions.
Apologies for any inconvenience I may have caused you, Scott. I distinctly dislike it myself, but I am not willing to let Ben have his way. Who knows, maybe the administrators of the boards will get fed up and decide to throw us both off the boards. I would not be opposed to it myself - the total outcome would be for the best, adding things together.

The be... Sorry, the wor ... No, thatīs no good either. Hmmm ... best wishes? Howīs that?

Fisherman

[babybird67]

many thanks for this Garry

My pleasure, Ben. You might also care to know that the Victorian apprenticeship was all but identical to that which was introduced in the Thirteenth Century. The boy was indentured (contracted) to his master such that he became a legal possession. Even if the master died, the boy could be passed on to his widow or another family member so long as the boy remained in gainful employment and continued to learn his trade. Equally, any boy who absconded could be arrested and imprisoned for an indeterminate period.

[FONT=Verdana]I mention this only because some posters appear to think that the apprenticeship was an informal pursuit, a casual undertaking that could have been commenced and then terminated on a whim. Only when one appreciates the true nature of the Victorian apprenticeship does the absurdity of the recently time-served Toppy declaring himself to be a common labourer become apparent. [FONT]

Just a quick thank you for this posting Garry. It's always a pleasure to come to the boards and read a well-informed interesting post which teaches me something i did not know before.

Jen

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"If Toppy qualified as a plumber, Fish, he would have completed his apprenticeship on his twenty-first birthday – in other words, in the year prior to the Whitechapel Murders. If, on the other hand, he failed to complete his service in full, he could not have qualified as a plumber and would have been debarred from engaging on any commercial plumbing work. It’s as simple as that."

...until he DID qualify as a plumber, I take it? Or would there be any obstacles in the way for a man who set out on an apprenticeship and did not complete it, to do so at a later stage? Presumably, you were not barred for life from a fulfilling of the education even if there was some sort of time-out on the way?

Iīd appreciate any further light shed on such a suggestion. I have no problems realizing how the education was USUALLY formed - but I am, as you will appreciate, of the meaning that our man OBVIOUSLY either lied to the police, chose to omitt his true occupation - or took another route to a fulfilled plumberīs education than the ordinary one.

The best,
Fisherman