The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Fisherman]

You are clearly not following here, Ben.

Anybody realizes that Toppys claim to be the Dorset Street witness may be one of two things: true or false.

Those who speak for Hutch not being Toppy have spent a lot of time trying to paint Toppy and Reg out as completely unbelieavable characters - not a word coming from them is to be trusted, it would seem.

And, of course, it is a stance that is very easy to take, since it cannot be conclusively PROVEN as yet that Toppy was correct in claiming the witnessī role. It can, of course, be very nearly proven by a comparison of the signatures, and many of us believe that this comparison borders on absolute proof. But that is not the issue at hand for the moment. So letīs leave that bit aside just now.

As I said, the veracity of Toppys claim has been questioned to a very high degree by trying to make Reg out as a liar and an inventor of stories. And as long as that claim had legs to stand on, it could easily be claimed that Toppy may well never even have said that he was the witness.
Therefore, the thing that changes when we get another of Toppys kids telling us that Toppy DID make the claim, is that we can no longer say that what Reg said about the particular issue of Toppys claim to be the witness would/could have been hogwash. We are faced with a corroborated story telling us that Toppy DID make the claim.

Putting it in other words, we move from a situation where we cannot even prove that Toppy ever said that he was the witness, to a situation where we know that he did just that.
And that changes the likelihood of the story being a true one in a positive direction. It has got nothing to do with how Toppy worded it, just as it has nothing to do with the degree in which Toppy was likely to lie about it. It only concerns itself with the fact that we have corroboration on the fact that Toppy DID make the claim - and THAT in itself moves the suggestion onto dryer land to a significant extent.

"...any one of Reg's relations could have chimed in in "support" of the story that appeared in the Ripper and the Royals without it reflecting a grain of truth, and without their father (Toppy) having told them anything. The other possibility is that Toppy was indeed the originator, and told the false tale to more than one of his children, which they in turn related."

Are you not forgetting the all-important THIRD possibility here, Ben? I find that just as amusing as telling!

Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
Mayby i am living in the land of make believe, i cannot make a case out for a man called Hutchinson a resident of the 'Victoria home', walking into commercial street police station on the monday following victim number 5, of the man nicknamed Jack The Ripper, and inventing such a story, which as you quite rightly say is far fetched[ i agree], without any fear of being looked upon with great suspicion, of not only being the killer himself, but at the very least guilty of deliberately wasting police time, which at that time would have been not tolerated.
I would suggest that either that description was accurate to the best of Hutchinsons ability, or it was fabricated by the police , and he signed it[ for reasons of giving the killer a false sense of security].
There is no way i believe that Hutchinson lied, but if a small chance he did, it was only to protect himself from being involved, but not in a murderous way, mayby an attempt to get out of a tricky situation.
I have said many times the Wheeling acount of a paymount to the witness, was not a paper that Topping , or any of his descendants would have come across, infact it was only discovered in the last three years, but Topping refered to it back in the Twenties/Thirties, 'I was paid one hundred shillings, for my efforts' he said.
Five times a weeks salary= approx one hundred shillings does it not.
I would say the jury is out, but i am confident.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

It can, of course, be very nearly proven by a comparison of the signatures, and many of us believe that this comparison borders on absolute proof. But that is not the issue at hand for the moment. So letīs leave that bit aside just now.

And many of us are rather aghast at how any could claim that the signatures border on "absolute truth", just as there are many of us who believe that Toppy makes an improbable candidate on the basis of the signatures, coupled with what was obviously an incredibly bogus tale supplid to advocators of a Royal Conspiracy theory.

But yes, let's leave that bit aside for now.

Therefore, the thing that changes when we get another of Toppys kids telling us that Toppy DID make the claim, is that we can no longer say that what Reg said about the particular issue of Toppys claim to be the witness would/could have been hogwash. We are faced with a corroborated story telling us that Toppy DID make the claim.

Well, not really, since any one of Toppy's kids could have learned about Reg's claims as related in Fairclough's book and claimed falsely that they were supplied with the same story. That's one explanation. The other is that Toppy was the originator himself, and that he supplied more than one of his kids with the story. If the latter, then it could be observed that his claim to ripper fame is weakened even further, since it would mean that Toppy was responsible for all the nonsense involving Lord Randolph Churchill, ridiculously OTT sums of money and the faintly ludicrous notion that a series of murders in the East End had "more to do with the Royal family than ordinary people".

It's one thing if Reg was simply fabicating a story related to him, but quite another if Toppy himself was the creator of all this obvious nonsense. In other words, the suggestion that Toppy was the originator not only fails to increase the plausibility of the tale (as per my Santa analogy), it positively detracts from it, since we can no longer lay all the blame for the dog-do at Reg's door.

Are you not forgetting the all-important THIRD possibility here, Ben? I find that just as amusing as telling!

Oh that!

Can't say as I'm too huge on that one, I'm afraid.

[Ben]

Mayby i am living in the land of make believe, i cannot make a case out for a man called Hutchinson a resident of the 'Victoria home', walking into commercial street police station on the monday following victim number 5, of the man nicknamed Jack The Ripper, and inventing such a story

You really could, Richard.

And successfully at that.

You just point out that people lie to the police all the time, irrespective of the consequences or the severity of the crime being investigated. That's setting aside Hutchinson's possible motivations for lying for the sake of argument, but really, in general, if you're disputing that anyone would lie to the police on the grounds that it would be too risky, you need only seek out examples from this and other high profile police investigations, and you'll discover the reverse to be true.

And you'd have made your case - easily.

There is no way i believe that Hutchinson lied, but if a small chance he did, it was only to protect himself from being involved

It could have been for other reasons.

He could have been a publicity-seeker. He could have been trying to save his bacon for some reason (which, yes, could include a murderous one). So I'm afraid we can't limit ourselves to the mentality that, if he lied, it can only have been for X or Y reason.

I have said many times the Wheeling acount of a paymount to the witness, was not a paper that Topping , or any of his descendants would have come across, infact it was only discovered in the last three years, but Topping refered to it back in the Twenties/Thirties, 'I was paid one hundred shillings, for my efforts' he said. Five times a weeks salary= approx one hundred shillings does it not.

It does not.

Hutchinson was not in regular employment at the time. He didn't have a "usual" salary, and as such, he would not have been entitled to one hundred shillings. The Wheeling Register carried the headline "Gossip" and made claims that contradict all other press accounts. Reg claimed that his father was paid to keep quiet about seeing Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper.

Two nil provenance sources don't equate to good provenance, alas.

And I'm obliged to point out that we shouldn't state with any degree of confidence that Kelly was "victim number 5"

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben again:

"any one of Toppy's kids could have learned about Reg's claims as related in Fairclough's book and claimed falsely that they were supplied with the same story."

Yes, Ben, they could. And if all the friends of Toppys had made the same claim, it could equally be said that they too may have had the book and wanted to help out. And if business associates, neighbours, enemies, milkmen and parrot salesmen from Bethnal Green Road made the same claim, they too would be possible liars.

It will not matter how long we make the list of people theoretically coming to Toppys defence, filling in their own bits about how they remembered that Toppy had said he was the witness - it can be claimed that none of them were telling the truth about it.

But the fact of the matter, and the part that has a tendency to function in courts of law, is that when we go from a situation where we have only Reg telling us that Toppy made the claim (in combination with an otherwise rather dodgy story) to a situation where more people make the exact same claim, we are moving closer to a verdict of it being proven that Toppy DID make the claim with every added testifier. And the more we move towards such a certainty, the more likely it becomes that he WAS the witness. It lies not in Toppys veracity - it lies in the fact that a corroborated story telling us that he had made the claim is a far better tool in any court than an uncorroborated story by a man whose veracity can be seriously questioned.

If one person out of 100 000 in Camp Nou stadium tells us that the referee at one time swallowed his whistle and coughed it up again, and nobody else tells us the same story, then that man can be seriously doubted.
But if ALL 100 000 specttors tell us the same thing, then the massive corroboration speaks for a truthful story.
It should not be forgotten, though, that technically they MAY all be lying. And just like the case with Toppy and his kids, if I cannot come up with any proof to the contrary, you can keep claiming that it is all a lie no matter if the story is told by one, ten, a hundred or a hundred thousand people. But the fact of the matter is that you are more likely to be wrong whenever an extra person is added to the ones who claim that the story about the whistle is true. And that is EXACTLY what applies in this case too - the added testimony of the younger brother means that we have an increased chance that Toppy did make the claim. And once that is established, we must also open up for the possibility that he made a rightful claim in that respect.

We are beyond Reg territory, and we are therefore also to some extent moving away from the territory where we can easily shout "Bogus"! It is a very simple mechanism, and one that we all must live by in our decisionmaking unless we feel a need to be pointed out as intellectually corrupt. And if you feel that this is not how things work when we deal specifically with Toppy, I think you have a lot of explaining to do.

"Oh that!"

Yes, that!

Fisherman

[Crystal]

FYI - NRO Copyright conditions and Crown Copyright stipulations

FYI

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES T&C COPYRIGHT.doc

Crown Copyright under current provisions set out in the 1988 Act does not expire until 1st January 2040. Any images taken privately of any such material exist under agreed conditions and are subject to the same rules and stipulations. This includes my own images that are 'being passed around behind the scenes'.

It does also mean, of course, that unless permission was sought and granted from the NRO, all images taken from the 1911 Census and published on this site are illegal. I hope that this is not the case. If it is, anyone who has published Census material from the 1911 Census, here, or anywhere else, should consider removing them and making the proper application for permission to publish.

[Ben]

Yes, Ben, they could. And if all the friends of Toppys had made the same claim, it could equally be said that they too may have had the book and wanted to help out. And if business associates, neighbours, enemies, milkmen and parrot salesmen from Bethnal Green Road made the same claim, they too would be possible liars.

Well no, that wouldn't be remotely the same, since we have no evidence whatsoever of a large number of people attesting to the Toppy tale, and if they did, it wouldn't increase the likelihood of Lord Randolph Churchill escorting Kelly to her room and killing her as part of a murder series that involved the Royal family rather than ordinary people. But rather than positing the existence of lots and lots of imaginary people, let us instead remind ourselves that Reg's tall tale has no corroboration beyond a poster named "JD Hutchinson" claiming that her husband was another of Toppy's sons who had heard the story.

If true, it would simply pinpoint Toppy as the originator of the tale.

It wouldn't increase the likelihood of the tale.

If false, it would mean that Reg's brother chimed in in support of Reg's tale without Toppy having related anything to them about the events of 1888.

It wouldn't increase the likelihood of the tale.

we are moving closer to a verdict of it being proven that Toppy DID make the claim with every added testifier. And the more we move towards such a certainty, the more likely it becomes that he WAS the witness.

No, this is a false connection to establish.

If Toppy was the originator of the account, it would NOT increase its likelihood. That just doesn't work. See my Santa analogy. Say all five kids independently attest to the fact that their father had told them Santa exists. Would that increase the likelihood of Santa actually existing? No. Not remotely. In fact, if Toppy was the originator, I'd say it detracts from his candidacy even more, since it would mean that Toppy - not Reg - was responsible for creating all the nonsense about Churchill and the royals. If I'm to be painted out as "intellectually corrupt" for pointing out this obvious, commonsense reality, I find that very offensive.

A dodgy implausible account is a dodgy implausible account, irrespective of the source.

And just like the case with Toppy and his kids, if I cannot come up with any proof to the contrary, you can keep claiming that it is all a lie no matter if the story is told by one, ten, a hundred or a hundred thousand people.

I'd be most appreciative if you didn't keep referencing "hundreds and thousands" of people. We don't have hundreds and thousands of people attesting to Toppy's tale. We have Reg, and possibly a brother, but the brother could simply be endorsing Reg for the heck of it, and not because he was really told any story about Kelly.

And that is EXACTLY what applies in this case too - the added testimony of the younger brother means that we have an increased chance that Toppy did make the claim.

Possibly, but not necessarily.

And once that is established, we must also open up for the possibility that he made a rightful claim in that respect.

But that door wouldn't be any more open that it would be if Reg made the claim himself. It wouldn't improve the content. It wouldn't make Lord Randolph Churchill or the Royal family any more likely to have been involved.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben.
I am not disputing that Hutchinson was not in regular work, however the report mentioning the five weeks equvilent wages, was just indicating that the witness was paid that, not a actual reference to hutchinsons work status at the time.
The fact is Ben , Topping refered to a payment which would relate to a sum that Wheeling stated, and i am sure you will agree that it would have been very unlikey that any of that family would have seen that article.
It is also been privately relayed to me, that Reg although enjoyed the limelight for a bit, he had no knowledge of the whitechapel murders, infact he had to borrow a book to read up on it from a younger member of the family.
and pray tell me , how did Topping know all about the witness Hutchinson, if he was not the original?, he never had Casebook then, i quess he must have realised that he had the same name as a witness, and studied in between his estimates, for the company he worked for.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

was just indicating that the witness was paid that, not a actual reference to hutchinsons work status at the time.

It said he was paid "five times his normal salary", but as we learn from Abberline's report, Hutchinson did not have a "normal salary". He was without regular employment, entitling him to very little reibursement for his efforts and certainly not the implausibly loopy sum referred to by Reg.

The fact is Ben , Topping refered to a payment which would relate to a sum that Wheeling stated

No! Did I not just explain this? It does not relate to the sum Wheeling mentioned (in an American press report headlined "Gossip" that was contradicted by pretty much every other press source). The Wheeling didn't even give a sum. Five times the normal salary of someone without regular employment does not equal five pounds, so no, it doesn't tally with any claim made by Reg. Nor indeed was the reason. Wheeling claimed that "some clever individual" had "invented" a description of someone seen with Kelly and was paid to accompany police round the district. Reg claimed his father was paid hush money to conceal the fact that he'd seen Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper with Kelly.

how did Topping know all about the witness Hutchinson

By reading the contemporary press accounts from the time of the murders, of course. He was almost certainly living in London at the time (and resident in Warren Street in the West End in 1891), and must surely have read Hutchinson's account in the papers.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben, you are not fully understanding the mechanisms here. But I will explain! I have made practical AND theoretical examples, and that may be what has you confused.

"If true, it would simply pinpoint Toppy as the originator of the tale.
It wouldn't increase the likelihood of the tale."

Ben, what you need to realize here is that I am NOT saying much about the likelihood of Toppys tale. I am saying that if we can establish that he DID make the claim, then that in itself means that we have more to go on than we would have without that insight. And that in itself increases the possibility that he was the witness, for the simple reason that people who claim such things are more often than not telling the truth. If we divide all those who say "I was there" - in ANY context - into groups of liars and truthful people, we will end up with a much bigger group of truthful testifiers than liars; people who say "I saw it" generally do so because they did. People who say "I did it" generally say so because they did. Not all - some lie, for a variety of reasons. But if we take - for example - all the ones who say "I was in Barcelona last week", you will find that the overwhelming part of them actually were there.

Therefore this applies:

1. The more corroboration we get on the story that Toppy laid claim to be the witness, the larger the chance that he actually did make that claim.

2. In accordance with the above - that people more often than not tell the truth about what they have done/seen/heard - the chances increase that Toppy was the witness with every corroborating voice telling us that he made the claim.

I am having trouble to see why you think it somehow unfair to prove this using a comparison involving a huundred thousand people on a football stadium. Are you concerned that people may get the impression that a hundred thousand people say that Toppy had claimed he was the witness?
That comparison was made to make it extremely clear that there is a connection between corroboration and truth, and that this connection grows with growing corroboration. And yet, it can be argued that the most important corroboration is the first one - until we have that, we have nothing to go on, but once we have it, we have changed the picture radically. More corroboration will strengthen the case, but corroboration number one is the all-important one. And that is the one given to us by Regīs younger brother.

Now, letīs not confuse this any further!

Fisherman

[Ben]

And that in itself increases the possibility that he was the witness, for the simple reason that people who claim such things are more often than not telling the truth.

How can you say that?

That doesn't follow at all.

People who usually claim that they saw Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper as part of a murder series involving the Royal family "are more often that not telling the truth"?

You can't have meant to suggest this.

If you want to determine whether or not someone told the truth, you have to examine their claim. If that claim is found to be lacking in veracity, the likelihood of the originator telling the truth is markedly reduced. It doesn't matter in the slightest if other people heard what the originator claimed and related it to others. That doesn't improve the quality of the original claim. It just means that the suspect tale has been circulated.

According to your above logic, I'm supposed to ignore the actual content of the claim, but simply assume it must be correct because statistically most people tell the truth when they say they saw something (?!?). Is that how police forces interview witnesses and suspects? "Well Sir, your tale is totally implausible and outlandish, but I'm forced to believe you, because most people tell the truth when they say they've seen something....apparently".

Come on...

If you want to determine the veracity of a claim, you have to get right to the heart of the matter by examining its content.

The more corroboration we get on the story that Toppy laid claim to be the witness, the larget the chance that he actually did.

That's not corroboration.

That's people listening to a story and passing it on.

The kids who believed their dad's tale that Santa exists and told their friends about it do not "corroborate" the existence of Santa.

Are you concerned that people may get the impression that a hundred thousand people say that Toppy had claimed he was the witness?

Not really. I just don't see the need to mention hundreds and thousands when there clearly weren't hundreds and thousands. Fundamentally, however, it's essential to understand the difference between corroboration and hearsay. They are not the same thing. If I lie to five people, and those five people relate to a group of others "Here's what Ben told me", they are not "corroborating" me. They're just passing on what I told them.

Y'see?

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Remember what we talked about? Nothing can be done, I'm afraid. I believe only family can ask for an intervention, with the help of qualified counselors, but even then the patient has to allow it. Nothing you do can help. Ignore is a great option at this point.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Hi Mike!

I do recognize it, yes. But this time I had decided to give it a few tries, and then - if nothing could be done - I would just leave it to the other posters to make up their own minds.

And no - nothing CAN be done, just like you say.

Still, itīs a brisk, fine day over here, the sun is shining and there are not many clouds about to challenge it. Think Iīll take your advice!

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

It was a nice day here too. Nearly the end of finals week and then a trip to Fiji and maybe New Caledonia. I may run into one of Hutch's many ancestors. Who knows?

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Just you look out, Mike - they are liars, the whole bunch of them...

Say hello to Fiji from me!

Fisherman