Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Lechmere]

Ah Mr Ben...
We have no proof for what Toppy did prior to 1891 nor how he came to regard himself as a plumber.
The logical inference is that he learnt from his father and given the collapse of the apprenticeship system we can assume he did not serve a seven year apprenticeship. He may have got himself certified (as a plumber). Or he may not.

Because the Worshipful Company of Plumbers advocated that plumbers should become certified and that employers or contractors should only employ certified plumbers, I would say that uncertified plumbers would still have been around in large numbers – and always have been in fact. That’s life.

Toppy could easily have worked with his father for a few years from the age of 14. Indeed it is likely that he did and once he had learnt his trade he moved away to Warren Street. We have no idea why he moved away from the rest of his family. Maybe he was uncomfortable with his father’s new wife. It isn’t important.

How unlikely is it that he could have fallen out with his father, or just decided to be independent, and so moved away from home? But before he was properly competent to work as a plumber on his own account. He could have ended up in skid row as a consequence. This is what happens to people in the real world from time to time.

The scenario is irrelevant actually. I merely showed that there is nothing to prevent Toppy from having lived briefly in the East End.
His parents married there, he moved there, married a girl from there and settled there. So I would say it is plausible he could have passed through there a few years earlier.

There is nothing in the time line to stop Toppy, if he was Kelly’s Hutchinson, from getting certified as a plumber by 1891.
He could have gained all the experience necessary from say the age of 14 to 19 and then from 23 to 25. The anti-Toppyites have pretended that this is physically impossible. This is painfully wrong. Reading some of the posts on that long thread was frankly embarrassing.

Mr Ben I have been meaning to ask. Since your father was born in Wigan, have you ever lived there yourself? Have you married a Lancashire lass and bought up a family in Wigan? Was a crime committed in Wigan where a witness coincidentally called Mr Ben gave evidence? Was your signature coincidentally similar to that of this other Mr Ben’s? Has your son said you were connected to that crime? Did your son say you were paid as a consequence of your involvement. Did an American newspaper coincidentally mention that the other Mr Ben was also paid.
Just wondered.

Mr Ben –you can use as many adjectives as you like – and you do like them. The ‘must have’ seven year apprenticeship that you spent many posts defending is utter rubbish. I was going tom use a word beginning with S.
Change tack now Mr Ben and say that this comfortable fey youth would never leave the parental bosom and stray. No one ever does that do they? It only happens in Disney films doesn’t it?
Yeah right.

[Ben]

Lechmere,

Seven-year apprenticeships were simply the standard means of gaining entry into the plumbing profession in the late Victorian period, as discussed extensively on this thread. This process had been in decline until the mid 1880s, and after the negative effects of this decline had been noted, the regulations were tightened-up once more. This tightening up occurred before Toppy was supposed to have become a plumber, according to your suggestion.

None of this has anything to do with the chief objection to the proposed Toppy scenario, which is predicated on an imagined decision on his part to wait until his mid-twenties before deciding it might be advantageous to follow his father into the trade, despite the fact that he could have taken steps to do so much earlier, and at least become apprenticed or tutored in that trade when when plumbing aspirants normally start their learning process, i.e. their mid-teens. This is the nonsensical element; the decision to spurn this obvious opportunity in preference to a life as a failed (or failing) groom-cum-labourer in a crowded lodging house in the squalid East End, which according to you had a “magnetic” appeal!

Toppy would have been well equipped for a legitimate entry into the profession at the earliest opportunity, and never had any need to “bodge” his way in as an “uncertified plumber”. The only way round this commonsense reality is by inventing highly speculative and highly improbable scenarios that involve Toppy having either a post-pubescent “I’m angry at my father” syndrome or a desire to forgo his opportunities and “strike out alone”, both of which would have prompted to him to seek out an existence of “chronic want” in one of the worst areas in London, according to you.

“He could have gained all the experience necessary from say the age of 14 to 19 and then from 23 to 25.”

But it's very clear that none of this happened in Toppy's case, because that would have made him “a plumber by trade, now working as a labourer”, as opposed the account he gave of his professional history to the press: “a groom by trade, now working as a labourer”. The real George Hutchinson claimed to have had a “trade” in 1888, and it wasn't that of a plumber, so your "Toppy could easily have worked with his father for a few years from the age of 14" is obviously very inaccurate if you want him to have been the witness. If you don't, there would be no problem, and you'd probably be right.

“His parents married there, he moved there, married a girl from there and settled there.”

Well, let’s at least get the order right and avoid creating a misleading impression. His parents married in the East End, yes. I’m not sure quite how this is supposed to be relevant to Toppy’s proposed relocation there, especially if it took the form of a move AWAY from his parents! He married a girl who happened to come from the East End, and moved there afterwards and as an obvious consequence of that meeting.

“Mr Ben I have been meaning to ask. Since your father was born in Wigan, have you ever lived there yourself?”

No. I have nothing to do with the place. That’s precisely my point. The birthplace of a person’s parents needn’t have any impact whatsoever on where that person ends up living, especially if the purpose of the move to that place was to escape the parents.

Please try to keep all the signature silliness separate from the discussion regarding Toppy’s plumbing credentials, and certainly avoid “The Wheeling Register” because it is a discredited gossip column contradicted by all other respected sources.

“Mr Ben –you can use as many adjectives as you like – and you do like them.”

So do you, apparently, since you copy and misappropriate mine very regularly.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
As you rightly say the ''Wheeling Register'', has been contridicted by all other respectable sources... but 'hey', what if the unthinkable happened.. in that I was right [ poor humble me] and they were wrong?
It is foolhardy to dismiss.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Seven-year apprenticeships were simply the standard means of gaining entry into the plumbing profession in the late Victorian period, as discussed extensively on this thread. "

They were apparently not the only way, though, not by a far cry, as evidenced by Lechmeres earlier post. Instead, it would seem that lots of people entered the trade in other manners, and certainly did so as late as 1889, once again as evidenced by Lechmeres eminent work. And when we know that, the discussion has reached a stage where we know that it would be perfectly possible for Toppy to not fulfill his education, if he had indeed embarked upon it, and instead try to eke out a living of his own in the East end, doing other things than plumbing. And if he did so, and if he had in fact decided that he would never be a plumber like his father - then why would he say that he was a plumber by trade in 1888 if he never even had finished the education at that stage, and instead worked with other things?

Lechmere is totally correct - there is nothing but loud dismay on behalf of some posters, mainly you, to tell us that Toppy could not have become a plumber as the result of a reconciliation with his father between 1888 and 1891 - or as the result of any other decision on his part.

After that, anybody may go on quibbling about it for any amount of time. That would not be very wise, though. If instead evidence to the contrary of Lechmeres finds and presentation could be provided, it would be a lot better. But until it does, this matter is very much settled as far as I can see.

Many thanks to Lechmere for his work on this, which has been thoroughly enlightening.

Richard:

"what if the unthinkable happened.. in that I was right [ poor humble me] and they were wrong?
It is foolhardy to dismiss."

Foolhardy in the extreme, Richard - indeed.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

My words from #533

It is merely a large amount of coincidental information whose weight is heavily unbalanced in the direction of Hutch being Toppy. I'll show you:

Fact 1: Two George Hutchinsons existed at the same time in the same area, virtually within saloon-crawling distance from each other.

Fact 2: Reginald Hutchinson claims that his father was the witness of one of the murders and knew the woman, bearing out (in part) GH's story.

Fact 3: Reginald's story contains a toff fitting GH"s testimony. The Churchill stuff was reportedly spoken by Reginald, and not GH who only said it was a lord type. This fits with his description true or not, and that truth is unimportant here.

Fact 4: Signatures, several, of GWTH have been uncovered that have remarkable similarities to each other. I say as identical as a man's can get on separate occasions, but that is unimportant as well. What is important is that I can guarantee all of us arguing about this, in a blind test of writing the same signature, say 'Pocahontas', would come nowhere near as close to matching as these signatures do. Yet, these are two men with the same name! Coincidence? Very nearly impossible.

Fact 5: No one else has been uncovered in any census that can even remotely be considered a possible Hutch match.

Fact 6: People have to use unrealistic arguments to pick apart every fact, and each argument has nothing to do with another. They are only solitary arguments attacking individual aspects of the whole.

These facts stand in the way of Hutchinsonians. As Gary said on this very thread, and I paraphrase, "If Toppy is Hutchinson then he is effectively out of the ruuning as a suspect."

I don't necessarily agree with the above, but Gary does. What does this suggest? It suggests that Hutchinsonians, much like attorneys, are in this game to win a battle and not to seek truth and justice. How then is it possible for the good and just side (my camp) to win the argument? Answer: By their stooping to mere refutation, we have won... or really, the Hutchinson family has won a small battle for Toppy's name. He isn't cleared, however, as It's possible for the prosecution to find other plumbers who were married with children, respectable, who lived in the East End, had the same name, and who had a similar signature. It's possible... just.

Mike

[Ben]

Let’s have look at Mike’s “facts”:

"Fact 1: Two George Hutchinsons existed at the same time in the same area, virtually within saloon-crawling distance from each other."

Reality 1: There is absolutely no evidence that Toppy lived anywhere near "the area" in 1888. There is no evidence that he lived anywhere in the East End until he met his East End wife in 1895. Toppy can be placed in Norwood (South London, formerly Surrey) in 1881, and in Warren Street, in London’s West End in 1891. We have no evidence for his movements or whereabouts in between.

“Fact 2: Reginald Hutchinson claims that his father was the witness of one of the murders and knew the woman, bearing out (in part) GH's story.”

Reality 2: This claim appeared in a Royal Conspiracy theory suspect book that was later discredited by its own author after it transpired that his chief source of information had lied.

“Fact 3: Reginald's story contains a toff fitting GH"s testimony. The Churchill stuff was reportedly spoken by Reginald, and not GH who only said it was a lord type.”

Reality 3: The real George Hutchinson never “said it was a lord type”. He stated that man “lives in the neighbourhood” and had a Jewish appearance. Clearly, he was not depicting a “lord” or anything even remotely close to one. Reg’s claim that his rather “really did” (oh yes!) see Lord Randolph Churhill with Mary Jane Kelly does not “fit” the real Hutchinson’s evidence in any particular.

“Fact 4: Signatures, several, of GWTH have been uncovered that have remarkable similarities to each other.”

Reality 4: Sue Iremonger, a professional document examiner, compared all three statement signatures with Toppy’s 1898 marriage certificate signature. She concluded that Toppy was not responsible for any of those signatures, and could not therefore have been the 1888 witness. She outlined her findings at the 1993 World Association of Document Examiners conference, where her Maybrick diary findings were also discussed. Ms Iremonger’s professional credentials carry considerably more weight than Mike’s “guarantees” which should be dismissed as nonsense.

“Fact 5: No one else has been uncovered in any census that can even remotely be considered a possible Hutch match.”

Reality 5: For those of us who accept Ms Iremonger’s professional judgment, Toppy can be included amongst those who cannot “remotely be considered a possible Hutch match”. There are plenty of unknown entities out there whose handwriting has not been dismissed as a mismatch by a professional document examiner.

“Fact 6: People have to use unrealistic arguments to pick apart every fact, and each argument has nothing to do with another. They are only solitary arguments attacking individual aspects of the whole”

Reality 6: The above is, in fact, not a fact at all, but rather Mike’s aggressively phrased personal views on the subject. Nobody has picked apart any fact. They’ve merely proved that the “facts” Mike has just described as such are nothing of the kind.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

You’ve acknowledged that the Wheeling Register is contradicted by all other respectable sources, and that it would be “unthinkable” if it turned out to be true. Why, then, would it be “foolhardy” to dismiss an unthinkably bad source?

Hi Fisherman,

Toppy either embarked upon a formal apprenticeship like most plumbing aspirants – this usually lasted seven years from the mid teenage years to early twenties – or was apprenticed by his father and learned the trade accordingly. If he took the latter option, and it is far from incredible to suppose that he did, he would clearly have done so at the earliest opportunity rather than throwing away an opportunity that many working class youngsters would have been deprived of. The chances of him instead seeking out the worst pocket in the East End to live the life of an unemployed labourer and enforced “chronic wanter” are remote in the extreme.

Even if you’re insistent on these fantasy fill-in-the-blank explanations that involve a falling out with his father and an ensuing break from his plumbing prospects, you’re still faced with the reality that he would still have been a plumber by trade, unlike the real George Hutchinson who gave a totally different trade – that of a groom.

That said, all this nonsense about venturing into the “magnetic” East End, and putting himself in a predicament on enforced deprivation purely because he had yet to be “reconciled” with his father is hardly worth considering, as it has nothing in the way of supporting evidence.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Mayby my post was not clear, I was merely suggesting that although some of our elite Ripperologists may well contridict the article, that does not mean that their opinions are correct.
I was suggesting that mayby even my own humble self with approx 48 years of intrest in this subject, may infact be right, and the elite amongst us not, I then suggested that of course that would be ''unthinkable'' to hold the opposite opinion.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Toppy either embarked upon a formal apprenticeship like most plumbing aspirants – this usually lasted seven years from the mid teenage years to early twenties – or was apprenticed by his father and learned the trade accordingly."

...or took another route altogether to his plumbership, as suggested by Lechmere. Let´s not forget about the possibilities involved, shall we? That would look very biased.

"If he took the latter option, and it is far from incredible to suppose that he did, he would clearly have done so at the earliest opportunity rather than throwing away an opportunity that many working class youngsters would have been deprived of."

A few changes required here:
If he took the latter option, and he may have, he would normally have done so at the earliest opportunity rather than throwing away an opportunity that many working class youngsters would have been deprived of. Then again, things may have come up that led him down another part, such as an intermittent fallout with his father, and it if this holds true, he may have gotten his credentials between 1888 and 1891. There is no need to accept that he must have taken the seven-year road to the job, since many a plumber were produced by taking a test. And if he was reconciled with his fahter, then he could have gotten the training he needed at his hands.

"Even if you’re insistent on these fantasy fill-in-the-blank explanations "

What YOU suggest is ALSO filling in blanks. Neither you nor me know how he became a plumber. The only difference inbetween us is that you shout at the top of your voice that you must be correct and I must be ridiculously wrong. I, on the other hand, am quite content to point to the fact that the whole argument about this was initiated because it was stated (by you, for example) that the rules and regulations meant that we could be sure that Toppy got his education during an unbroken stretch of seven years, and that there was seemingly no other way that any young man could become a plumber. This misconception has now been dispelled, and just like Lechmere says, there is nothing in the whole wide world that tells us that Toppy could not be the witness as a result of the rules and regulations that falsely was claimed as a hindrance for this.
That is all we need to move on, acknowledging that whatever we feel about this issue and however extremely remote a few posters are eager to claim that it would have been for Toppy to have aquired his plumbership after the events of 1888, we still know that this could have happened. My own take on things is that the suggestion that he became a plumber between 1888 and 1891 is quite trivial. During them three years, thousands of young men would have left their homes after having disagreed with their families about something, and heaps of young man will have become plumbers by taking the test Lechmere described. The things to expect in this issue are two:
1. Toppy would normally have done seven years of apprenticeship in a row and joined his father as a plumber.
2. Things do not always go as expected.

"you’re still faced with the reality that he would still have been a plumber by trade"

"Reality"? If he had had a fall-out with his family (and you may perhaps recall that David Knott spoke of such a thing some time back, after having had contact with members of the family - so much for "filling in the blanks"), and quit the education to plumber (which we do not have on record anyway) for that reason - thenhe would not be a plumber by trade. He would be a man that once aspired to become a plumber but gave up on the prospect. I once started an education to become a lawyer, bu I don´t give my occupation as a lawyer because of that. It would be ridiculous. And in my case, there are no hard feelings involved. InToppy´s case, he may have decided that whatever he was going t be and call himself, it would at least not be "plumber". If he had been driven from home or had taken that step himself, then the prospect of being a plumber may have been a despicable thing to him.

It really is not hard in the extreme to understand once you put your mind to it, so I reccommend you do just that.

2That said, all this nonsense about venturing into the “magnetic” East End, and putting himself in a predicament on enforced deprivation purely because he had yet to be “reconciled” with his father is hardly worth considering, as it has nothing in the way of supporting evidence."

Okay, then, that´s that for Hutchinson as a killer then! No supporting evidence even near that one. I´ll make sure I´ll be the first in line to wave him off!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Richard:

"I was suggesting that mayby even my own humble self with approx 48 years of intrest in this subject, may infact be right, and the elite amongst us not"

There IS no "elite" amongst Ripperologists, Richard. When he have all the answers, then maybe some will look like the elite, but until then we are all foot soldiers.

The best,
Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Mr Ben - if Toppy did on the job training as a plumber with his father this would not mean he was apprenticed to him. Do you have some sort of strange attraction or connection to the word apprentice such that you are reluctant to surrender its usage?
If Toppy worked with his father for a period and then moved to the East End, and was not fully trained as a plumber at that stage, then why would he call himself a plumber – when he wasn’t?

You seem to miss the point that the requirement here isn’t to prove that Toppy must have done this. This is obviously impossible. It is to illustrate that he could have. There is nothing to stop him from having done it as you and some of your co-Hutchinsonites previously claimed.

As for your increasingly frantic claim that no one would have moved away from a reasonably settled home life (if it was, we have no way of knowing what his home life was like) to the East End, well, Mr Ben, that is what a rather large number of people did in the late Victorian period. Not everyone who moved to the East End (or ended up in the Victoria Home) were starving Irish, persecuted Jews or rural vagabonds, driven there in frantic desperation.
Take a gander at ‘In Whitechapel’ Mr Ben if you will – or better still I will save you the botheration:
‘Amongst the men present there that Sunday were those who were formerly merchants, doctors, master-builders, lawyers, undergraduates of Oxford and Cambridge, besides artisans, working-men out of work, day labourers, costermongers, discharged soldiers – in fact, men of every sort and condition. All are poor, some by misfortune, some by vice.’

The son of a plumber is humble indeed next to that aristocracy.
In short it isn't unlikley that Toppy could end up there at all. No proof that he did, but it is not in the least implausible.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Fisherman,
In absolute agreement,we are the greatest detective force in the world, all working on the same case, each of us believing we hold the key, but none of us can make it fit.
One point I will remain adamant on, is Topping was Hutchinson our witness.
I also am certain that ,he or Mrs Maxwell, saw Mary Kellys killer.
Whilst we can suggest it is possible that Hutchinson mistook the day, we should not tar Maxwell with the same brush.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

some by misfortune, some by vice.’[/I]

Toppy would hardly fit either category. He was at the beginning of a (relatively) bright future -not on his way down.

In short it isn't unlikley that Toppy could end up there at all. No proof that he did, but it is not in the least implausible.

It is implausible.

[Lechmere]

But Frau Retro, you can have no idea whether any misfortune befell young Toppy... therefore it is hardly implausible.
Frau Retro, you said that you couldn't knock the square pegged Toppy into the round holed Hutchinson because of the apprenticeship issue. Now we know it was a non-issue all long. Time for a re-re-evaluation perchance?

[Ben]

“Do you have some sort of strange attraction or connection to the word apprentice such that you are reluctant to surrender its usage?”

It’s not so much of an "attraction" to the word, Lechmere, but rather a realisation that it is inextricably linked to the plumbing trade in the Victorian era. Plumbers simply were apprenticed in their trade more often than not, and these apprenticeships tended to last seven years. If Toppy “worked” for his father for “a period”, then it would be fair to describe his “trade” as that of a plumber, rather than bringing the trade of a groom into the equation. The census records list Hutchinson as a plumber in 1891, and since his father and grandfather belonged to the same profession, it is only reasonable to assume that Toppy joined the profession at the earliest opportunity. Speculative forays into the East End, three-year friendships with East End prostitutes, and enforced “chronic want” in one of the worst areas in London are just very bad attempts to reconcile the known particulars of the real Hutchinson with Toppy’s history.

“As for your increasingly frantic claim that no one would have moved away from a reasonably settled home life”

It is most assuredly sustained in Toppy’s case, and the “In Whitchapel” reference bears this out. Look again at the two reasons given for the decline of these men:

“some by misfortune, some by vice”

Misfortune? Well no, as Ruby has correctly pointed out, that one doesn’t work for Toppy at all. As we’ve already discussed, Toppy would have been fortunate in the extreme to have a father who worked as a plumber, and who was in a position to train him up at the earliest opportunity. Which leaves us with “vice”, and as blank-fillers go, that's really rather a hefty void to fill in the total absence of evidence for Toppy's "vice". I dearly hope I’m not going to hear any riposte to this along the lines that Toppy “must have” gone through a naughty phase that "must have" propelled him on his path to strictly temporary destitution in the East End.

I don’t know why any “re-evaluation” is necessary.

“Now we know it was a non-issue all long.”

You’re doing that thing I really dislike: “You all thought this until I came along, and now, thanks to me, you must all think the opposite!"

How about no, Lechmere?