The Statement of George Hutchinson

[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.

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.

[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

[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

[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 let´s 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.

[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.

[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 witness´ 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 let´s 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

[Ben]

The fact is that statement was made by a man calling himself George Hutchinson, signed to the fact that it was a truthful account, so who are we to dispute that

Discerning commentators, I would dearly hope, Richard.

I'm afraid that simply signing ones name doesn't automatically make an account truthful. You have to look at the content of the statement itself, and as one classic piece of journalistic understatement observed, it "engenders a feeling of scepticism". Added to which, there's the plentiful and compelling indications that Hutchinson's statement was credited shortly after it was made public. There's the family tale that asserts that Toppy was the individual in question, but I'm sceptical of that family claim for various reasons, not least of which is the suggestion that Toppy was paid hush money for keeping quiet about having seen Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper with Mary Jane Kelly.

So no, the balance of probability weighs heavily against Toppy being the witness, in my view, and there's no signifiance whatsoever to be invested in the fact that no other descendants have come forward. How many other characters from 1888 have had descendants who have made themselves known over the years?

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
Opinions are what keeps Casebook alive, no one should doubt that, however we are on opposite sides when it comes to the Topping question.
I am of the opinion that Topping was the witness Hutchinson , this is based on strong form credentials, not only Regs small part in Faircloughs book.
you form the opinion that he was not the witness, based on intuition, and the police statement, which you find impossible to believe, because of that he becomes 'Mr Sinister'.
The fact is that statement was made by a man calling himself George Hutchinson, signed to the fact that it was a truthful account, so who are we to dispute that, especially as that statement appears to have partially been told to a family of Hutchinsons, in which a man called George Topping claimed to have been that witness, and was able to relay to at least one son Reg, details that only the real Hutch could possibly know.
If one adds that to the signature comparisons, which are similar to say the least, and the absolute fact that no one else in history has come foreward saying they were that witness, surely the balance of proof sways towards proven in favour of Topping.....
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Since the claim on behalf of those who dislike the suggestion that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness has always been that Reg may have lied in order to satisfy the authors of the book he participated in, the bottom line has been that Toppy may never have said anything about any knowledge at all about Mary Kelly

Neither of those things are mutually exclusive, Fish:

Toppy could easily have been the originator of a false story, which he related to one or more of his kids.

Reg could easily have embellished that initial false story when communicating with a couple of authors advancing a Royal Conspiracy theory.

I don't believe I ever stated that Reg must have invented the entire story himself. That's a possibility, and it remains a reasonable one, since 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. But there is always the other possibility that Toppy was indeed the originator, and told the false tale to more than one of his children, which they in turn related.

Neither possibility actually increases the credibility of the story. Two children idependently relating their father's tale that Santa comes down the chimney at Christmas doesn't actual increase the likelihood of the Santa-chimney story being true.

All it does is pinpoint either Toppy or Reg as the originator of the tale.

[Fisherman]

Not agreed. Not at all, in fact. Since the claim on behalf of those who dislike the suggestion that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness has always been that Reg may have lied in order to satisfy the authors of the book he participated in, the bottom line has been that Toppy may never have said anything about any knowledge at all about Mary Kelly.
Therefore, any testimony on behalf of more than one of Toppys children telling us that Toppy did indeed claim that he was the witness speaks clearly against the allegations made against Reg - in all probability, Reg did NOT make the story up all by himself.
And that in itself means that the particular alley of making Reg out to be a possible/probable liar on the point in question is effectively closed. And so we move from a situation where we can claim that we have no corroborated evidence telling us that Toppy claimed he was the witness, into another situation altogether - for here we HAVE that corroboration. And that means that we find ourselves on another level when it comes to the credibility of Toppys claims - they are no longer something that Reg would have cooked up independently, but a corroborated matter.
Ergo, we are dealing with an issue where the added testimony has increased the chances that we have found our witness.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

If we were to find evidence that each and everyone of Toppys children had stated that Toppy had told them that he was the Dorset Street witness, would that not speak any more in favour of it being true

No.

It would speak more in favour of Toppy himself having been the originator of the false tale, as opposed to one of his children being responsible. It would speak more in favour of Toppy having told his tall tale to more than one of his children, not just Reg. If a father tells all five of his children that Santa's coming at Christmas, it doesn't increase the likelihood of Santa actually coming, and by the same token, the fact that the Toppy's tale may have been told to more than one of his children doesn't increase the plausibility of the tale itself. All it does is increase the likelihood of Toppy being the source.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"nor do I doubt that "JD Hutchinson" was who she claimed she was (i.e. not Reg's younger brother), but I'm afraid it doesn't make the claim to witness fame anymore plausible."

That is interesting. So you mean that when the ones that speak for the solution "A" step in in increasing numbers, it does not increase the likeliness that solution "A" is the correct one?
Would that be expandable? If we were to find evidence that each and everyone of Toppys children had stated that Toppy had told them that he was the Dorset Street witness, would that not speak any more in favour of it being true than what is the case with only Reg speaking for it? I thought Reg was the one led astray, playing along for money or fame.

Just how does this construction of yours work? I´m intrigued, and I bet there are more of us who share that sentiment. Most of them would be people who say that the more witnesses that concur on a topic, the larger the chance that they are correct.

Please explain, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

I've gone from being demoralized by the BS you spread to being the messiah of absolution for Hutchinson.

Music to my ears.

Fight fire with fire, Mikey! That's what I'm after!

Please assure me that your crusade will involve the type of fatuous drivel that asserts that alias-users only use "common" pseudonyms, and please continue to compare me to one of the orchestrators of the mass extermination of the Jews during WW2. That sort of thing helps immensely, and I can only hope others will join you.

Yes, I do want to keep arguing.

No, I won't pause from shouting you down whenever your observations are as crass as your latest.

It's all too much easily obtainable fun - sorry.

Hutchinson requires you as his "messiah of absolution" as much as an angler requires a trombone, but if people want to re-instigate another Hutch hate-war, I can only take solace in the fact that the latest aggressor is dear ol' hapless Mike, whose latest gem is that anyone who doesn't agree with him must have an "agenda".

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

Everyone knows your agenda. It is as plain as day. You create nonsense and you spew it often enough that others have come to your side, though those with no agenda quickly drop off. Much like Himmler's, your propaganda is seriously flawed, and once you pause from shouting people down long enough, your sieve-like arguments will drip-drop into the deep cesspool where they belong. If you want to argue, keep going. I've gone from being demoralized by the BS you spread to being the messiah of absolution for Hutchinson. I am on a mission from God. Keep it up if you can. Viagra might help.

Cheers,

Mike