Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Rubyretro]

Blimey Lechmere, you do come out with a load of bollocks !

I would say that proposing of provenance for Hutchinson as Toppy should require no more weight of evidence than coming up with a Ripper suspect (eg Hutchinson). You should use the same benchmarks.

How can you possibly say this ? It is evident that our knowledge of all
the Ripper suspects is sketchy to a greater or lesser extent, involves speculation, and will be difficult to prove. Toppy on the other hand was a person who has descendants who obviously hold some information on him, which they're not communicating to us now -but I hope will one day come into the public domain. I expect that we will one day know if Toppy was ever a groom, if he was ever in the army, when he took up plumbing, where he lived in 1888, and if Reg was ever on the radio. In the meantime, despite
a superficial similarity between the signatures, they have been judged to be
not the same by Sue Iremonger..I am astonished that you feel able to have such confidence in your ability to judge with your naked eye that you feel able to override her professional opinion. You have gob smacking arrogance.

I will say the same about your dismissals of Garry Wroe's extensive research
after a couple of hours googling.

The phrase military bearing had a meaning – and that was tall, erect and slim.

.
Only in your opinion. I expect that when the British Empire was desperate to find enough cannon fodder to keep the colonies under control, they weren't so bothered in selecting recruits to match some decorative engravings.
You are confusing Hutch with a 1960s Air Hostess ?

The sketch of Hutchinson with a bowler type hat and a moon face was a very indistinct and almost certainly not done from life. The good likenesses were drawn at inquests and so forth. The sketch (from Penny Illustrated?) is clearly just representational.

Amazing ! Newspaper sketches at the time were extremely good likenesses.
Hutch was talking directly to the press, so why they wouldn't draw him from life, I don't know. The sketch is anything but indistinct, and is clearly notjust "representational". I don't know how you find the nerve to make such a sweeping assertion.

there isn’t that much to being a groom, and it is the sort of thing he could have readily learnt by a number of means.

How an earth would you know ? I have been a sheep farmer, and by the same light one could say that 'anyone' could be a shepherd. The truth of course is that no one would be able to the job without learning it and having practical experience. Of course Hutch could have just learned if he were born
and brought up with horses (which is not Toppy's case), otherwise he probably started work as a young boy...as most grooms did at the time.

Archaic came up with some interesting further proof that bodging plumbers long proliferated after 1891, which common sense told us anyway.

Poor Toppy ! -sucessfully self employed, 'rarely if ever out of work'..and
relegated to the ranks of 'bodging plumber' now !

Out of curiosity -what is your job, Lechmere ?

[DVV]

Nothing about Toppy being a murderer either.

Agreed, Mike.
"He can't be a plumber", as they said.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Only in your opinion."

Eh... No!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Military bearing = tall, erect and slim.

Waow....I've missed my vocation.

[The Good Michael]

David,

Erect is only one of the traits.

Mike

[DVV]

BIG lol......!

[Lechmere]

Mr Wroe
Prevalent means widespread. In my opinion there are lots of rubbish plumbers around today. I can ‘adduce’ this from first-hand experience after engaging the services of plumbers from the Yellow Pages.
I did not say that a majority of plumbers were bodgers. Where did you get that idea from?

As for over-egging the role played by the Worshipful Company of Plumbers, I think you are mixing me up with Mr Ben. He seems to think that the new tests that the Worshipful Company of Plumbers encouraged meant that a new rigorous regime was in place that would have made life difficult for a potential bodger by 1891.
In contrast I have emphasised that there would have been bodger plumbers working away long after 1891. I am by no means certain that Toppy would have sat the test, as a good self taught plumber would still have been able to get plenty of work. I have spelt this out several times.

Oh dear Frau Retro
I may be eccentric but so far as I am concerned if someone wants to propose a candidate for Jack the Ripper, I would subject that claim to exactly the same sort of critical examination that I would expect for any other historical identification. I would not excuse a Ripper claim from proper scrutiny nor deny it comparison to other personal historic identifications, as if Ripper suspects are sacrosanct. I find it remarkable that anyone should make such a claim.
It shows the intellectual bankruptcy of the Hutchinsonite view that it is claimed that to compare the weight of evidence in favour of Toppy being Kelly’s Hutchinson, with the lack of evidence that suggests Hutchinson was the Ripper – is ‘a load of bollocks’.

How many people do you think know what their ancestor was doing in 1888?
As I’m in possession of breathtaking arrogance, I will answer that question for you. Hardly any.
So I rather doubt that Toppy’s ancestor’s will be able to provide any extra information on that topic. There would be a slim chance I guess. Maybe they still have a certificate showing that Toppy did pass a plumbing test on a certain date. Very unlikely though I am sure you will agree.

On the Hutchinson moon face picture – he is a background character. He is indistinct. He did not attend an event such as the inquest when sketch artists were present. It is probable that the picture was not taken from life. That is why I have the nerve to suggest it may well not look like him and is just representational.

Shepherdess Retro, I don’t think there is much connection between being a sheep farmer and being a groom. Besides both involve messing around with animals. How do I know that “there isn’t that much to being a groom, and it is the sort of thing he could have readily learnt by a number of means.”
I guess I just do know it. Sometimes you can just know something for no apparent reason! Sometimes common sense tells us things.

Frau Retro – I haven’t said that Toppy was a bodging plumber. Not even hinted at it. I said there were bodging plumbers about!!! As there were and are.

As for Reg saying his father was rarely if ever out of work, that may well be true. If Toppy slipped up for a couple of years around 1888 this hardly constitutes a long-standing shoddy attitude to work. When Toppy (who was an elderly father to Reg) in his dotage recounted his work experiences, if he had been a groom or labourer for a couple of years in his early 20s this would not exactly loom large in his reminiscences would it?

The signature issue is far from settled – and my opinion, is that I can see obvious similarities.

The Good Michael...
I think you are barking up the wrong tree with the military business.
I am pretty certain that Toppy couldn’t have been in the army as the minimum term of enlistment in 1888 was four years. An occasional person may have been discharged – for injury and so forth, but that again wouldn’t seem to fit Toppy if he was Hutchinson.
The period of service was defined by the Army Enlistment (Short Service) Act (1870). Under this Act the maximum term of enlistment was twelve years. Most opted for six, but the minimum was four in the infantry and eight in the cavalry or artillery because in those branches extra training was needed. On discharge the soldiers had to serve in the reserve for the remainder of their twelve year service. So it could be four years with the colours and eight with the reserve.
If Toppy had joined at 18 and just left then I would suggest it would have been mentioned in the various reports that Hutchinson was a recent ex-serviceman, as he would have been a reservist.
I am fairly certain the term of service in the Royal Navy was ten years.
The Army and Navy were very strict and not like the rest of British society.

I think too much is being read into ‘military appearance'. This term implied a general look and posture. I don’t think we can extrapolate from the use of the term by a journalist with respect to Hutchinson, to imply he actually had served in the military.

Irrespective of Frau Retro’s objections, my definition of what was meant by ‘military appearance’ is exactly what the term meant. As I spelt out, the fact that in reality and in practice some soldiers were indeed not tall but stout is entirely irrelevant to what the term ‘military appearance’ was taken to mean. It is an expression to signify a stereotype. I am sorry if this again sounds like breathtaking arrogance.
The refusal of Hutchinsonites to even accept what the term ‘military appearance’ means says it all. But I suppose there is a different rule at play that I am not aware of (similar to the rule that you cannot compare the weight of evidence that is deployed in support of a Ripper suspect against the weight of evidence required for anything else). This rule states that the term ‘military appearance’ can mean not tall and stout.

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

I'm not saying Toppy was in the military. I'm saying it's possible and I go no further than that.

Mike

[DVV]

Lechmere, flat as you are, I'm sure you're able to provide examples in which "military appearance" is used as a synonym of "tall".

[babybird67]

hi Lechmere

Not least because the signatures are obviously similar. If the two different signatures (the first one from the witness statement and any from the census form) were compared when writing a cheque (if anyone writes cheques anymore) for example, then they would be passed. Or when you vote by post you have to provide a specimen signature which is checked against one that accompanies the ballot. The two signatures would easily pass that verification.

Have you seen the documents themselves, or is this opinion based upon the altered signatures that have been uploaded on the internet?

[Lechmere]

Flat?
Well, I'm not not tall and not stout anyway.
I posted up a number of archetypal pictures of Victorian soldiers - here is another...

[DVV]

How military are you ?
5 ft 7 mon général !

[Rubyretro]

Lechmere -I have to make dinner for my family now, and don't have time to answer..

Can we just make sure that we're starting off on a level playing field before I reply ?

I don't know anything other than I've read on Casebook or googled .

I don't have any qualifications whatsoever for Ripperology.

I've never published anything (nor have any ambition to do so).

Please outline your qualifications , and job, before I write my reply.

[Lechmere]

Roast lamb?
Don’t worry about level playing fields – we are all equal in the eyes of God!
I don’t think qualifications are available in or for Ripperology.

But Frau Retro, I prefer to remain anonymous for various reasons - although I will go to ast least one (London) and possibly both conferences this year. I will be the one of 'military appearance'.

[DVV]

I will be the one of 'military appearance'.

I'm sure you can exhibit an air of "quite confidence, respect and dependability" (1), even though your friends call you Shorty.

(1) copyright Archaic