If Topping is the witness...

[DVV]

On another thread (Hutch in the 1911 census), Ben wrote:

"I don't think that the identity issue impacts particularly on Hutch's potential culpability in these crimes."

I personally don't think so.
Topping, being 22 years old in 1888, seems too young to be the Ripper.
And I can't imagine the Ripper becoming a plumber and living a "normal" life after 1888.
Could Topping be MK's murderer? I don't think so, being definitely convinced that MK is a Ripper victim.
IMHO, if Topping is the Dorset Street witness, he just can be a liar (something like Packer), or he can be, as already suggested, "the man who shielded JtR."

Amitiés,
David

[richardnunweek]

Hi David,
I feel another mammoth thread on the horizon...
It is all a question of identity, if we have Topping as the witness, then he is simply not JTR, i would be flabbergasted if he was.
If however he was positively identified as being not Topping, then that opinion would instantly change.
Mayby i am too easy going, and tend to accept the word of people as a rule, although in saying that, i consider myself street wise, and a reasonable judge of character.
I appreciate that being so adamant that Topping was the man known as Gh,annoys many, i have the edge in being the only person on Casebook, who heard that radio broadcast, and as it was a carbon copy of what Reg said in the 'Ripper and the Royals' approx 18 years later, then i believe it to have been the same man.
I feel justified in suggesting that George Hutchinson, aged 22 years, met Mary Kelly who he knew[ dont forget she was only 2/3 years older] in commercial street, at the time he reported in his statement, i also feel that the sighting of the man was an accurate one, and i also feel that Topping believed he saw her killer for the remainder of his life.
I am also of the opinion that the police took him seriously, and he assisted them as best he could, and he was paid out of police funds, for his tireless efforts.
Saying all that i also hold that opinion that father/son liked the attention, but in saying that neither of them had much , if any knowledge of the case, although i know that other relatives have read up .
I dare say others[many] will not take my view, but i believe in Topping being George Hutchinson of Ripper fame, and it would take a good deal of evidence, to alter that .
Best regards,
Richard.

[DVV]

Hi Richard,
I have a lot of comments about your post, since I don't think AM has ever existed, etc etc.
But just one thing for the time being:
why would a person out of work go to the police station at 6pm? I personally rather have my pastis 51 at such a time.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Mayby i am too easy going, and tend to accept the word of people as a rule, although in saying that, i consider myself street wise, and a reasonable judge of character.

You certainly have much in common with Abberline, my dear!

Amitiés,
David

[richardnunweek]

Hello David,
It therefore appears, that you are of the opinion, that the man known as Gh, was either a,
Timewaster
liar with a motive,
It is of course perfectly possible, that one of those is correct, bu i repeat' Not if he was[ in my opinion[ GWTH.
let us take the timewaster theory... We should remember that in this instance the perpretrator of this [ Gh] was actully prepeared to place himself at the scene of the crime, at the relevant time, that medical opinion suggested she was killed, not only that but without any alibi to boot.
Question .. Does that seem more likely, then it simply being a question of the witness Hutchinson being truthful?
Now the liar with a motive theory...Three possiblle reasons here,
He was covering for someone, by giving the police a false description,
He was the only man that was with Kelly that morning, and he was scared of being seen with her, because he did not kill her, mayby he had given her his own hankerchief, that would explain him being certain of its colour, and he knew it was still in her room.
He was after the reward.... Answer.. How can you catch someone , if the description given is pure invention?
I can see no other reason for placing himself in the hands of the police, it is of course possible that he was worried about being seen by Sarah Lewis, and that prompted him to come foreward, lets face it, any 22year , would be hesitant to say that they were present at the crime scene, without a alibi, and confirm that they were familar with the victim.
That fear does not mean he had done any harm to Mary Kelly.
Regards Richard.

[Jon Guy]

But just one thing for the time being:
why would a person out of work go to the police station at 6pm? I personally rather have my pastis 51 at such a time.

Hello David

A unemployed man would have no money for pastis 51, food and a bed.

At 18.00hrs, any chance of finding work to pay for the above would be gone for the day.

[The Good Michael]

I'll have to agree with Richard re: monetary gain. A 22 year-old with possibly no job and no money is much more likely to try and make a buck on a situation than to cover up a murder, or commit a murder against someone who doesn't have any money (Kelly) and is living in crummy conditions. Much easier to go to the police and see what they're offering up. I'm sure George didn't tell Reg that much.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Hello David

A unemployed man would have no money for pastis 51, food and a bed.

At 18.00hrs, any chance of finding work to pay for the above would be gone for the day.

Hi Jon,
You may have a point, but it's definitely a strange time to go to the police station. You'd fear to spend the whole night with them.
I was 3 times to the police last week, and I have to come back tomorrow (to bring testimonies that I wasn't where I'm accused to have been).
Tomorrow morning, of course.

Amitiés,
David

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
As far as i can understand, all Topping told his son was, he knew one of the victims, and gave the police a statement, and went on walkabouts with them , the man looked more respectable then most, [higher up the social ladder] and for his efforts was paid a hundred shillings.
That is about all there was to the tale, Topping only mentioned it when the conversation arose, although i would hazard a quess that he, like Reg, enjoyed the limelight.
We should remember that Toppings youngest son Arthur, born 1920 also recalled his fathers recollection on the murders.
I must stress again , it appears that no proper knowledge of the case was known by Reg, he obtained a basic understanding from a book , which was lent to him, yet prior to that in the seventies, he understood about the witness that was Hutchinson.
But he would., would he not, being that mans son?
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi David,

Interesting idea for a thread!

If Toppy was the witness...

Firstly, I believe for a moment that he was, but I don't think it would impact much on any Hutchinson-as-suspect theory. Toppy was 22, that much is correct, and although I might be disinclined to think that JTR was as young as that, it's noteworthy that some of the leading suspects - Kosminski, Klosowski and Cutbush - were of a similar age, with nothing to suggest that any of those three lied about their actions and movements near a crime scene.

As for living a normal life afterwards, firstly we don't know enough about Toppy to assess how "normal" he was, and secondly, we know that other serial killers have continued to live normal lives after a series of brutal murders, with Denis Rader being a good example.

He could just be a liar without any additional naughtiness, but as ever I'm struck by the "coincidence" of coming forward and admitting to an interest in the crime scene entrance at 2:30am as soon as it became public knowledge that an independent witness had seen someone doing precisely that.

But I don't think Toppy was the witness.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben,
I personally am inclined to dismiss too young suspects more categorically than you do.
You're right about Rader, but Fleming's fate, for example, is more likely to have been that of the Ripper than Toppy's ("Je suis plombier-bier-bier-bier-bier, j'aime mon métier"...an old French song...).

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

But I don't think Toppy was the witness.

Ben, I think everybody has understood this!

Amitiés mon cher.

[Crystal]

Look! A very confusing Elephant!



Maybe Toppy was the witness, maybe he wasn't - Let's ask the elephant and see what he thinks....

And once more with feeling - WE NEED MORE INFORMATION!

So I, for one, am off to do some research. And yes, I will be consulting the elephant.

[DVV]

And once more with feeling - WE NEED MORE INFORMATION!

No, Crystal,
that's not the point. This thread is about Toppy and Hutch's status.
Suppose for the sake of discussion that Toppy is the witness; does it change Hutch's ambivalent status?
In other terms: does it "clear" Hutch?

Amitiés,
David

[Crystal]

The point is surely that we cannot know or even reasonably guess whether Toppy is the witness or not, because there isn't enough information at present - so this thread will be purely in the arena of speculative theorising - which I don't have a problem with at all.

IF Toppy was the witness, then no, it doesn't clear him of suspicion. It is still possible that:

Toppy is the murderer - we are, of course a very long way from demonstrating that this is anything like the case, but the possibility exists, nonetheless.

Toppy fabricated his statement - either because he was of the fabricating type of disposition, or he wanted his 15 minutes of fame (yes, I'm aware that it's an anachronism..), or he thought there might be some cash in it for him.

Toppy was telling the truth - he really was there when he said he was and really did see a cartoon foreigner straight out of contemporary popular fiction.

IF Toppy was the witness, then that fact would open up a lot of new avenues of enquiry - which would have to be followed if he was to be discounted from the suspect list. Marrying, having children, and working as a plumber does not automatically exempt him from suspicion.