Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Lechmere]

Some claim that it is unlikely that Toppy would have moved from the Booth poverty map blue of the Victoria Home to the light pink of Warren Street.
But what of his other known (so far) addresses:
Barbel Street SE
Tower Street SE
Tuscan Street E2
Violin or not they are all shades of blue.

Ah - Bletchingley actually.
So wouldn't it have been the London version of the Radio Times?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Lechmere,
London version Radio Times.. yes.
As for Bletchingley , I have frequently some good ale houses there my friend.
Richard,

[Lechmere]

Yes there are still six pubs in the village I think

I'll probably do my search at Colindale next week

[Malcolm X]

the person who spoke to Toppy's son, if this is what you're talking about is Ivor Edwards, from the old R D'ONSTON JTR Forum from years ago.

He actually met and interviewed him, Ivor told me that he believed that Toppy was telling the truth...... Ivor said to me ``i think Toppy was telling the truth``, Ivor then went on to say roughly, ``i dont know what went on that night, it's very strange, i dont really understand the Kelly murder``

i dont know what has happened to Ivor Edwards since, because this was years ago, or if he was telling the truth etc, but he did not shout his mouth off about this, he told me this via private email ( maybe because it cast doubts over R D ONSTON) ...but also, Ivor Edwards said to me, to contradict himself, ``i walked Dorset st years ago to reinact that night, and there's no way that Toppy could have described the suspect so well, or even heard what Mary said to him ``. !!!!

so it's all a bit confusing i'm afraid, Tom Wescott might know more about this.

[Malcolm X]

sorry, i messed up that post a bit and you cant reedit it after 1/2 hour.

Ivor walked the route of Mary Kelly/ GH, in Dorset st as it was before it was redeveloped, and he did this with his friends, this was many years ago and this was when he spoke to GH son.

he believed what GH son told him, but not after he walked the crime scene, this is hard for me to recall now, but it was something like this.

but this doesn't help us much, because he never met the real GH, only his son, and his son is bound to defend his father; even if he knows sod all about him...... and you can bet he didn't know everything

so you can forget all of this, because what is important is :- Ivor Edwards said, ``there's no way GH could have described LA DE DA as well as he did, or heard what Kelly said to him, all of that is rubbish ``.

i said to Ivor ``bloody hell, what do you make of this murder then ``.

Ivor replied ``i've no idea, i dont understand that night at all``.

you have here GH who appears as JTR, i could portray him in a book as JTR easily, both BEN and i can for sure.......

1.....but there are things here that still seriously bother me, GH describes a tarted up version of George Chapman too well, he almost describes a photo of him !

2.....for GH to be a strong JTR, then those signatures must not match, JTR could be him i suppose, but your gut sais no !

basically GH is either JTR, wasn't there, or saw LA DE DA, but bullshitted his description to make him appear even more guilty.

the only thing i can say that's different now to 4 years ago is:- he might have seen JTR but over emphasised his dress to make him appear more guilty.

to me the killer is either GH or George Chapman, so it's as it was 10 years ago

[The Snapper]

Wheeling Register

With this buisiness of the reward I wonder if the Wheeling Register isn't due a little credit for once. Given the infant state of the internet at the time of the book I'm struggling to explain where either the interviewer or interviewee could have got this information from. With this in mind I have a mental picture of both parties encouraging each other. A heady mix of truth and fantasy. In my mind at least though Reg might actually be repeating something he was told rather than something read or fed. That still doesn't make the story of the reward true but I feel he might be a little more credible than I thought.

Snapper

[Ben]

Hi Snapper,

I'm struggling to explain where either the interviewer or interviewee could have got this information from.

It's not so much a case of obtaining information, but rather one of invention. Eyewitnesses and pay-offs have gone hand-in hand throughout history, and it wouldn't have required much originality on Reg's part to invent a payment - in this case the ludicrous sum of 100 shillings (which the police would never have paid) to conceal his knowledge about Lord Randolph Churchill encountering Kelly on the night of her death. The Wheeling Register, on the other hand, conceded that they were printing nothing more than "gossip" from across the pond, and the quality of that gossip is hinted at by their curious claim that Joseph Barnett was "roaring drunk" at the inquest, and was now living with another woman. Evidently, they'd got wind of the fact that Hutchinson had been discredited as they described his description as "invented", but somewhere along the way picked up the erroneous piece of "gossip" that he'd "cleverly" pocketted "five times his usual salary" from the police as a result of this invention.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Some claim that it is unlikely that Toppy would have moved from the Booth poverty map blue of the Victoria Home to the light pink of Warren Street.

There were working-class lodging-houses in Warren Street, too. Besides, Booth made the mistake of starting his survey in the worst part of London, which is a bit like setting out to map average height by calibrating your tools in Lilliput. Consequently, when Booth widened his sphere of interest, his categories - and especially his colour coding - become rather less reliable. Taking his maps at face-value, one might believe that the less wretched parts of the East End were on a par with the second-division streets of Knightsbridge and Fitzrovia.