Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Lechmere]

Ha! – yes there were even the bantam battalions in the First World War.
But they were not the stereotype!

Babybird – no I haven’t seen the original documents – but I would suggest that scans in this day and age make for pretty accurate reproduction.
Unless someone is going to do a forensic examination based on determining up and down strokes then I would suggest this is not relevant.
I would suggest a handwriting test based on comparing three different signatures from the witness statement to those available from the census forms and the marriage certificate is a small sample. It’s not like we have two pages of prose to compare. This, and the fact that Victorian handwriting was fairly standardised between individuals will always make it arguable.

[Rubyretro]

I don’t think qualifications are available in or for Ripperology.

Not exactly -but showing whether you're just sounding off the top of your head or you've a long history of researching primary sources must count for alot (the bits which get condensed on Internet can't compare to the breadth of information that the original researcher must hold).
.
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'.[/QUOTE]

Heil Herr Lechmere ( the spy ?)!

(am I supposed to be impressed ? So far you haven't explained at all why your opinion is worth any more than mine, and on what you base your
sweeping assessments).

[babybird67]

hi Lechmere

Babybird – no I haven’t seen the original documents – but I would suggest that scans in this day and age make for pretty accurate reproduction.

The scans were altered to make the similarities more observable, for non-nefarious purposes but unfortunately this nullifies any conclusions that can be made about the similarities. I would argue it IS important to examine the originals before making up one's mind one way or the other for definite. Currently I don't feel the similarities are enough to outweight the differences: elements like not signing himself as Toppy which he did on the other official document and the size/slanting of the signatures being altered does not give us the best evidence in favour of an identification of Toppy with Hutchinson of the Police statement. Combine this with the fact that Hutchinson was a groom/labourer not a plumber and that there were no known connections with the East End until well after Hutchinson said he had known Mary Kelly for three years there, and you have the evidential conclusion that Toppy and Hutchinson were not the same person.

I would suggest a handwriting test based on comparing three different signatures from the witness statement to those available from the census forms and the marriage certificate is a small sample.

Absolutely. You may not be aware that the least similar signatures were even left OUT of this particular small sample when being analysed in a non-professional manner by Frank Leander.

This, and the fact that Victorian handwriting was fairly standardised between individuals will always make it arguable.

Absolutely. So standardised that it would be foolish to put too much store in a few apparent similarities when the evidence suggests the differences were just as significant. After all, in the ONLY professional opinion we have on the matter, from Sue Iremonger, who actually did examine the documents, the conclusion was reached that the person who signed those signatures was not the same person.

In the non-professional one we have, Mr Leander's, we have to take into account he saw only a select few of the signatures available, regrettably not giving him the opportunity to give a fully informed opinion; that he did not have access to the documents themselves, which restricted him severely in his own admissions, and again did not give him the opportunity to make a fully informed opinion; and his conclusion was merely that the possibility that they were written by the same person could not be ruled out. That is not a particularly positive argument in favour of Toppy and Hutch being the same person. All the evidence suggests otherwise I'm afraid.

Regards

Jen

[Lechmere]

Frau Retro
I would suggest that whatever anyone says on here – no matter what reputation they may have if they are a known quantity – should be treated equally.
I don’t personally feel intimidated by the reputations of others and nor should you or anyone else.
If I gave a long list of qualifications and achievements would that lend any more weight to what I have said? I suggest not. It should not anyway.
Most of what I have said could be checked– such as the military service stuff. I know where to look and what to look for due to my existing knowledge about such matters though, which is a minor advantage.

I haven’t said my opinion is worth more than yours.
I am suspicious of claims that people have data banks of research that they have not published and merely mysteriously refer to.

To be honest some people here obviously feel obliged to defend ridiculous positions that if they stepped back and looked at the situation with some perspective, they would probably agree were foolish.
A lot of this is based on common sense and reading what was said back then with an open and logical mind.

If I am unsure about something I would not comment – I have commented in an enquiring way on numerous other threads – where I don’t know something and am asking. There is no shame in that.

I actually got drawn into this as people were going o about the Lord Mayor’s Show and the mistaken idea that it was a public holiday – and that irked me as I knew it wasn’t a public holiday and also knew something about the event and its likely impact on people’s consciousness.

I would only argue about something if I was sure of my position, not for the sake of arguing.
My first reaction when reading about Toppy was that it could hardly be true that Hutchinson’s son was alive in the 1980s. I am sceptical about most Ripper claims. But when I looked at the Toppy case it is fairly compelling in my opinion and the more I look the more it seems that way. Most objections (eg the plumbing apprentice one) are not valid.
You only need logic and the ability to read basic source texts that other people have helpfully posted on this site to determine that. However it was clouded over when these texts were presented on here by some very vociferous but entirely misleading posts.

We can all get into intransigent corners.

I will confess that when Mr Ben recently said that Toppy’s father married in 1890 not 1888 and that Toppy married in (I think) 1898 not 1895, and also he gave an alternative maiden name for Toppy’s step mother, I let these remarks pass.
These details have some bearing on the suggestion that Toppy could be Kelly’s Hutchinson, but I let Mr Ben’s claims on these matters pass uncommented upon. Perhaps I should have acknowledged Mr Ben’s comments.
I had seen the 1898 date myself but I had also seen it refuted and 1895 pressed. I have not seen the marriage certificate so I don’t know what’s true, and I am not sufficiently interested to personally acquire a copy of the marriage certificate – although I could go down and get it tomorrow if I really wanted to.
Similarly I had seen the alternative maiden name for Toppy’s step mother but have seen a different one more frequently. I had not seen the marriage date given as 1890.
Where there two George Hutchinson Seniors who married two Emmas – one in 1888 and one in 1890? I don’t know, but again I’m not that bothered.
Having said that, it would be interesting if someone posted up the marriage certificates.
For Toppy to be Hutchinson it is better that his father married in 1888 and that he married in 1895. It isn’t fatal by any means if his father married in 1890 and he married in 1898, but it fits less well.

The only other time where I found myself arguing almost for the sake of it was over whether Jack London stayed in the Victoria Home. I still think he probably didn’t, but I would not exactly be shocked if it somehow turned out that he did.

And no Frau Retro, I didn't say anything to impress you (intentionally)

[Sally]

Lechmere

The marriage certificate to which you refer is digitised and available on Ancestry as part of the London Marriage and Banns collection. Anyone with a membership to Ancestry can therefore see it at will. The date is 1898.

[Ben]

Hi all,

Just a quick recap on what we have established thus far:

1) There is no evidence whatsoever that “military appearance” means (or has ever meant) tall and thin. You can’t get more tall and thin than me, and suffice to say I have never been recommended for military service. This sort of physique might be well suited to comedy officer-types off the telly (think of Hugh Laurie’s character from Blackadder Goes Forth), but in reality a square-built sturdy physique is more commonly associated with the military ideal.

2) The newspaper sketch of Hutchinson does not depict a tall and thin man, but a shorter and fleshier individual who was clearly older than Toppy’s then 22 years, who wore a wideawake or billycock hat. In fact, the sketch is a very good match for the loitering man Sarah Lewis described as “not tall, but stout” and having worn a “wideawake black hat” – a man who most people accept was probably the real George Hutchinson. Is this one of those epic “coincidences” yet again?

3) Toppy had no reason whatsoever to come a bogus “bodging” plumber for the simple reason that he had a father in the profession, and had ample means and opportunity to go about entry into the plumbing trade in the standard fashion. He would only have been required to bodge if we accept the faintly ludicrous suggestion that he turned his back on these opportunities for the life of a semi-destitute lodger in one of the worst areas of East London to become a former groom and labourer, only to decide later that enforced deprivation wasn’t such a clever idea after all, and that throwing his lot in with his dad as a respectable plumber – which he could have done from his mid-teens onwards - might be the way forward.

4) It is bizarre nonsense to claim that the Hutch=Toppy premise requires less speculation than the idea that the real Hutchinson, whoever he was, might have been responsible for the murders. The latter amounts merely to a suggestion that a man who lied about the reasons behind his loitering presence near a crime scene - as observed by a genuine witness - may have been the killer. Toppy on the other hand, can’t even be placed in the East End until some time after 1895 when he met his East End wife, and the case for his identification as the real Hutchinson is predicated on the endorsement of certain outlandish claims – long rejected by everyone else – that appeared in the discredited conspiracy theory book “The Ripper and the Royals”.

5) The only professional examination conducted on the Toppy signatures resulted in the conclusion that he was not responsible for any of the “George Hutchinson” signatures appended to the 1888 police statement, and was therefore not the “witness” of ripper notoriety.

In other words, no change at all from when we first discussed all this on this thread back in 2009.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben

we know you're very military.

And you were not credible on stage as the 7th dwarf in Snow White, I must say.

Bestest !

[Ben]

we know you're very military

Thanks, David!

Nah, the nearest I got to anything military was cub-scouts, but I chucked it in because I didn't like the idea of militarizing a pleasant series of stories about jungle animals. I just couldn't bring myself to address a humourless woggle-wearing man as "Baloo" (a funny singing bear in my ten-year-old mind) with a straight face.

All the best,
Ben

[Archaic]

re: "Military Bearing"

Hi everyone.

Regarding the phrase "military bearing", this thread might be of interest: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...786#post167786

It's a thread devoted to Ripper-related Victorian vocabulary, phrases, jargon and slang. I had already saved up a bunch of mid-to-late 19th C. definitions and "military bearing" was one of them, so since I saw its meaning was under discussion I went ahead and posted it first. Hope you find it helpful.

Alas, I have no military bearing... I'm sleepy and slumped on the sofa most disgracefully.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Ben]

Excellent find, Archaic!

I hope your information will have a deterring effect to any further suggestion that the phrase referred to physique, since it is clear that the sources have put paid to any such suggestion.

Many thanks,

Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben

Surprisingly,the "military bearing" has to do with.....bearing - not height.

But ripperology being what we know it is, it had to be confirmed...

And Bunny made it clear.

Bestest my dear

[The Good Michael]

In fact, it was 'military appearance', which could mean anything from the way he stood (at attention), or some article of clothing that he wore (wideawake=Teddy Roosevelt cavalry look). We need to nip this height and stoutness thing in the bud as it cannot be proven, nor dicussed rationally... not that I'm always rational, mind you.

Mike

[DVV]

I disagree. Even "military appearance" can't refer to the height. It would be absurd.
Do we say : "tall as a soldier" ??

Cheers Mike

[Lechmere]

The term used by the Times on 13th November was ‘military appearance’ not ‘military bearing’.
There is a significant difference between the two terms.
Archaic unearthed some very interesting and accurate information on what was regarded as ‘military bearing’, which refers to how someone comports themselves rather than what they looked like at a distance.
The significance is that we were comparing or trying to reconcile Lewis’s testimony for the wide-awake man as being ‘not tall but stout’, with someone of ‘military appearance’. Lewis will not have been able to discern how the wide-awake man comported himself.
Having said that there is an element of description as someone of ‘military bearing’ would stand upright, as if to attention – erect. Here is Archaic’s research:

- Exhibiting an air of confidence, integrity, competence, calmness, courtesy, and respect.
- Comporting oneself with poise and dignity.
- Standing proudly erect with a respectful, confident, manly attitude.
- How one comports oneself; poise.
- A respectful manner which inspires confidence.
- A fine proud soldierly posture.
- Listening carefully and respectfully to one’s superiors; giving direct and forthright replies when spoken to.

I have provided sufficient contemporary pictures to illustrate what was regarded as an archetypal ‘military appearance’. It most certainly would not be described as ‘not tall but stout’.
I don’t think anyway has said ‘military appearance’ meant thin – contrary to Mr Ben’s assertion.

Mr Ben
The picture of Hutchinson in a low Bowler hat is of indeterminate age. I would say he bears a passing resemblance to the white East End rapper Plan B who is 27.
He has crumpled trousers, is a bit podgy looking and seems to have something protruding from under his jacket. A drill sergeant would make mincemeat of that ‘orrible little man.
He couldn’t have less of a ‘military appearance’.
Having said this it is fairly obvious that he sketch wasn’t drawn from life and is representational. I suspect it may indeed be representational of Lewis’s description – which means that it isn’t much of a coincidence that it in some ways matches it. With the added proviso that the figure is drawn as a young man – much younger than the other picture of Hutchinson from apparently a later date, which depicts him looking like a retired Guards officer.

No one has suggested that it is likely that Toppy became a bodging plumber. He may have been a good unqualified plumber. That is a different proposition.

It is obvious nonsense to claim that the signature issue has been settled one way or the other.

[The Good Michael]

I disagree. Even "military appearance" can't refer to the height. It would be absurd.
Do we say : "tall as a soldier" ??

David,

If you would read my post again, you would see that I was agreeing with you.

Mike