Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[caz]

Hi Claire,

I'll be disappointed if you don't come to the conference because of Rubyretro. I was looking forward to meeting you and having a chinwag.

I'm also surprised that you didn't simply ignore her (or put her on 'ignore') when she began to wind you up that much. She's only one poster. When she first arrived she complained about me shortening her username to Rubes, because she didn't like the fact it rhymed with "pubes". I did wonder then if it was going to be worth my while arguing the toss with her about anything, as we seemed to be on such totally opposite wavelengths. I couldn't care less what anyone wants to call me, but I now address her strictly as Rubyretro since she appears a tad sensitive about it.

If you reconsider, there'll be a drink with your name on it this weekend. You don't strike me as someone who would normally let anyone bully you off the boards, so it's something I thought we would have in common.

Along with a dislike of so many unrelated threads (not this one, before they pipe up) being taken over by done-to-death Hutch opinions.

Love,

Caz
X

[claire]

Last thing: I have never, ever said that you should leave Casebook. Ever. Please do not insinuate same. I, however, am sick to death of this idiotic debate and will not be lambasted by you. It beggars belief that you would go to these lengths, really. Keep your Hutchinson, whoever you might think him to be. I really am uninterested in competition of any description; I used to be interested in debating this case but now the thought of continuing here sickens me to the stomach, to the extent that I don't even plan to go to the conference now.

I just don't want to be told by someone to 'stay away' 'when [you] discuss X', or that I am competitive, or sneery, or anything else, thanks very much. So I give up. You're just too omnipresent on these boards to make it worth my while staying here...So that's it. No more. And, no, bullying someone off the boards doesn't make you right.

[Rubyretro]

Claire -listen..I don't feel superior to anyone, and I don't feel very inferior to anyone either (yes, I feel inferior to people who have gifts that I particularly admire); I'm just 'Me' , I don't have a particular complexe. I'm not very beautiful, not so young, not particularly gifted in anything. I enjoy Casebook because I simply enjoy the debate -and of course I try to defend my point of view (what IS the point otherwise ?). Why do you feel so threatened by me that you need to systematically aggress me ?

I can promise you that I am the most mild and concilitory person that you've ever met..but I don't like being walked over because of that.

Why should I just leave Casebook, if I enjoy it, because 'Claire doesn't want me here'? and why, if I come on these forums, shouldn't I just simply not say what I like, even if 'Claire doesn't like it '?

QUOTE=claire;147852]Personal calumny? That's going it a bit, isn't it? I was giving an example of how your position that all people who have their own business must be smart could be erroneous.

People that make a success of running their own business are not dim, and even if they're 'horrible' they have to be admired on that level. It is insulting to Toppy not to recognise his achievements, and I wonder why they don't correlate with what we know of GH?

We all have seen, or have lived through, very traumamatic things in our lives.
Before deciding that it was too 'bad taste' to get into a 'competition' (you seem to be a competetive person I think) of 'trauma' -I dredged up mine, and I can safely say that it has ruined my afternoon off. Thing is though-it didn't ruin GH's afternoon -he wanted to bask in attention. Accidents and natural events are not the same as Murder either, I would propose.


As it happens, so I do have experience of rotting animal bodies..I shouldn't think that they Smell much different than a humans. Well, a human that eats meat, possibly smells much worse than a vegetable eating animal .

I'm not suggesting that you stay away from any Posts -only that you stay away from Hutch Posts when I discuss Hutch, if it bothers you so much.

[claire]

Personal calumny? That's going it a bit, isn't it? I was giving an example of how your position that all people who have their own business must be smart could be erroneous.

Here are some examples that I had in mind when I mentioned the sorts of things that people could choose not to allow to colour their lives. I don't normally indulge in this sort of thing, but since I'm getting rather angry with your position that it is fine to interpret whatever I say however you choose and make suppositions about my character, I'm going to. At school, walking home, a friend and I were amongst a small group who came across the completely destroyed body of a woman who had thrown herself off a building. There was local interest, as there tends to be, along with police interest and so forth. I have barely thought of it since. Same with a girl who threw herself under a tube train at Bounds Green when I was a teenager...although it still shocks me the extent to which others on the platform were capable of complete BS to the police in the immediate aftermath. After her death, I discovered my grandmother had been held in a concentration camp. Her husband had died in the same camp. Never mentioned a thing. A family friend was similarly stunned to discover her father had been shot down over France and held as a PoW. She'd never even known he'd been a pilot. When I was in Iraq I was 200 metres away from a car that exploded the contents of its driver all over the interior of the vehicle, its boot blown out and killing passers-by. Do I talk about it? Do I want to? No way. But what one talks about in the first few days or weeks after an incident is substantively different to what you might want to revert to years later.

Lastly, I am really, really resenting this paragraph: 'First of all, I think that you've no experience of a decomposing corpse to say that, and either you lack imagination or you're desensitised to photos of MJK's body -the reality would be an unforgettable experience for any normal person.' One: that's what I mean about grandstanding--I am presuming that we are meant to take, from that, that you have experience of decomposing corpses, hence putting you in a superior position here. Two: lacking imagination? Desensitised? Sorry, but what the heck makes you think you can make those accusations/suppositions about me? What is it? Please let me know. Three: for the last time, I did not say that anyone in GH's position, whoever he was, would 'forget' the experience. I said that he may not choose to allow it to colour or define his life, for a range of reasons.

This, too: 'you shouldn't go into a Toppy/Hutch discussion Thread if you're (really) not interested in that topic.' I 'shouldn't go'?? Well, then, let's see if that holds as a general rule across the boards, because I'm damned certain that there are plenty of people who aren't as keen as you are on topics but routinely post. So, should we all steer clear of those topics, or does your instruction just relate to me?

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=claire;147837]Oh, I am so sorry. The thing is, you see, every single thread that involves Mary Kelly over the past several months has evolved into a discussion about Hutchinson...

Hardly surprisingly Claire since the Lewis/Hutch thing is a major part of Kelly's murder. This is like complaining that everytime there is a discussion on Stride we discuss Schwartz/BSM and Pipeman or everytime we discuss Eddowes, Lawende always pops up. It's inevitable.

openly debate a range of possibilities about the character of Hutchinson

without being told who he is and who he is not

,

Well, I'm certainly not 'telling ' you -I don't know. I'm certainly allowed to voice an opinion based on available info. If you have an alternative interpretation of the info (that's all it is -an interpretation), then voice it too. Concerning other suspects, other people frequently voice their interpretations. The Policemen actually involved in the case also only gave interpretations -since they didn't have a clue to who Jack actually was.
If speculation and interpretation were banned from Casebook, then it would have ceased to exist a long time ago -because the Facts are sparse.

Plumbers can be crap in just the same way as doctors or teachers or astrophysicists. It's not patronising.

Hmn ? When the 'crack' comes up in a discussion about literacy and scholars,
and plumbing is a manual 'Trade' I'm inclined to be suspicious of your meaning. Still, that is right, and had you made a cheap snipe at Teachers (for example) then I would have defended them. Still 'crap plumbers' in a discussion about Toppy is still a bit of a personal calumny, and unjustified.

What I was, in fact, referring to, was the way that some people choose to make something of an event or experience, and allow it to colour their life, whereas others don't. Clearly, your experiences with dead bodies, animals or otherwise, have coloured your life and would feature in the topics you would share with others. For some others, this is not the case.

First of all, I think that you've no experience of a decomposing corpse to say that, and either you lack imagination or you're desensitised to photos of MJK's body -the reality would be an unforgettable experience for any normal person.

if he made the event up, that the viewing of the body may have made him regret that? Or even if he had not made it up, perhaps he may have had regrets about getting involved?

oh ? Why did he spend time expanding on the subject to the Press then ? (if he were Hutch).

I

don't see what, in all this, means I don't have any interest in the GH conundrum. Or why it means that, because I don't agree with some of your suppositions, I should not be here. You are, of course, free to appeal to the administrators to ban me from this, or all other topics, if you disagree with this position.

[/QUOTE]

I never said that you shouldn't be here Claire -only that you shouldn't go into a Toppy/Hutch discussion Thread if you're (really) not interested in that topic.

[claire]

Fair enough...but do we know the extent to which that family regaled each other with 'oral histories' (stories) around the fireplace? Lots and lots of people are not particularly communicative, and this tendency hasn't erupted in recent years (the opposite, in fact). In many ways, the supposition that story-telling around the fire is factual isn't necessarily tenable--the point of story-telling is to entertain, really, at least as much as to impart information. I still believe that, even if we accept Toppy's (and I deal in a lot of 'ifs' here) involvement in all the ways you note, there may still be sound and acceptable reason for him not to disclose all the details of that.

Just as, on the other side of the coin, there may be perfectly explainable reason for Reg to invent on Toppy's behalf.

My point is, we just don't know, and I don't think we can impute a man's character or dispensation to disclosure on the basis of suppositions about oral history or a list of future hobbies/occupations. People move on, regardless of how iconic the thing they experienced seems to be to outside parties.

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Yes, yes, yes, but the salmon fishing is great in Kazakhstan regardless of signatures matching, lousy plumbing, and gold chains. Remember to bring your astracan because the weather is cold and the winds blow fast on the Aral Sea.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"to my way of thinking, it simply doesn’t ring true"

I can see the logic in what you are saying, Garry. But I think we may need to widen the perspective somewhat before opting for any choice in the issue.

As you may have noticed, I think that the off-hand manner in which Hutch was thrown out by the press may well owe to a feeling of embarassment on their behalf. They dropped him like a used diaper, is how I worded int in a former post, and that is how I perceive it - working as a journalist, I recognize this mechanism from cases where the press has been intentionally mislead, resulting in an awkward feeling when it comes to admitting it in the paper. Very short, very undetailed is the normal outcome.
And if this is what happened in Hutchinsons case, then maybe he did not feel very much like bringing it up in the family - although he may have felt tempted to make a false impression at some stage.

Also, although we apparently have some verification of his silence, Reg´s older siblings are long dead, and we have no way to ask them whether Toppy spoke to them about it all.
Over the years, many things that once seemed very important fall into oblivion, as you will know, Garry. And many a year has passed since the day our boy walked into the interwiew room. It could be that simple.

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

I think it is perfectly possible for people to keep small events discrete … and not for them to talk about them all the time. Examples are legion and I don't think grandstanding about how 'memorable' certain events are gives any argument for or against Toppy's candidacy here.

Here, Claire, I feel that you may be overlooking certain contextual elements of Reg’s upbringing. In an era which predated television and even widespread radio ownership, storytelling was an integral part of everyday family life. People sat around the fire on long, cold winter nights and talked. Such was the salience of the Whitechapel Murders within the oral traditions of East London that Jack the Ripper was frequently a favourite topic of discussion. Dan Farson certainly tapped into this oral history during his Ripper researches, and I have come across a number of accounts describing how the exploits of Jack the Ripper were recounted in all their gory detail amongst those who crammed into East London underground stations during the Blitz.

Like Ruby, therefore, I have considerable difficulty in believing that Toppy enjoyed an intimate association with Mary Kelly, observed her with the man likely to have been Jack the Ripper, met and related his story to the near-legendary Inspector Abberline, viewed Kelly’s mutilated remains, and became part of the Ripper manhunt courtesy of his trawling the Whitechapel district in the company of detectives, yet made next to nothing of these extraordinary events in decades of interaction with his children and grandchildren – and all of this in a geographical area wherein even today the crimes of Jack the Ripper assume a special resonance.

You, of course, are entitled to make of this what you will. But to my way of thinking, it simply doesn’t ring true.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[claire]

Oh, I am so sorry. The thing is, you see, every single thread that involves Mary Kelly over the past several months has evolved into a discussion about Hutchinson...and, for me, there is more to the Kelly case than Hutchinson. That is why it is frustrating for a person whose interest may be in the case itself to find that every thread has already degenerated into a Hutch discussion before one even gets there. You can see that it might be frustrating? In the past, people were quite strict about not drifting off topic...now, we can haul Hutch into Kelly, Stride and the development of the Haberdashers' Company. Sorry, but it is troubling, sometimes, when one's interest lies in a particular area.

And, the thing is, with regard to this thread, it would be nice to be able to openly debate a range of possibilities about the character of Hutchinson without being told who he is and who he is not, when as we all know, opinion remains divided on whether Hutchinson was an alias, or was Toppy, or another GH as yet unknown to us.

Lastly, grief, I need to provide a textual analysis to defend myself. Hardly worth it, really, but I *did not say* (snobbishly or patronisingly) that plumbers were crap. I said that anyone who had had a crap plumber would know...blah blah. Plumbers can be crap in just the same way as doctors or teachers or astrophysicists. It's not patronising.

And 'grandstanding memorable events' is not a 'sneering' phrase. I really wish you would learn not to impute according to your own personal interpretations. In fact, you pretty sharply dismissed Richard when he mentioned his associations. What I was, in fact, referring to, was the way that some people choose to make something of an event or experience, and allow it to colour their life, whereas others don't. Clearly, your experiences with dead bodies, animals or otherwise, have coloured your life and would feature in the topics you would share with others. For some others, this is not the case. Now, if (and I don't necessarily think this, it is mere hypothesis) Topping had been our GH, and if he had had involvement in the murder(s), wouldn't that be reason enough to conceal it? And, if he was our GH and was not involved (and I am one of those who believes that there is a fair possibility that he was not directly involved), perhaps he, in the fullness of life, would choose not to define himself with regard to the case. Possible? Possible, also, that he *was* thoroughly disturbed by the events...consider, if he made the event up, that the viewing of the body may have made him regret that? Or even if he had not made it up, perhaps he may have had regrets about getting involved? Perhaps, too, it became a matter of some shame to him. Even if not, there is reason enough to be sufficiently traumatised as to not wish to relive that with younger relatives. It occurs to me that there are at least five things I have seen in my life that I would not wish to discuss with my children, or anyone else for that matter.

I don't see what, in all this, means I don't have any interest in the GH conundrum. Or why it means that, because I don't agree with some of your suppositions, I should not be here. You are, of course, free to appeal to the administrators to ban me from this, or all other topics, if you disagree with this position.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I was writing in response to what I took to be another insinuation that the signatures are being falsely dismissed by some because Toppy is somehow considered antithetical to the image of a serial killer."

Numerous serial killers are antithetical to the vulgar picture of such creatures, so, just as you reccommend, we should stay away from clearing anybody unless we have better evidence for it than a life as a family man.

"The findings of the ostensibly neutral document examiner, Ms. Iremonger, would of course make a nonsense of the first half of that accusation..."

Well, Ben, if we are to keep an open mind on issue number one, I think that we may need to do so on issue number two also, by considering what the likewise ostensibly neutral document examiner Frank Leander said on the very same subject.

Quid pro quo, to put it slightly more Hannibalish.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I think you will find, Ruby, that I have no intentions at all to stay out of the discussion on the whole. None whatsoever, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

I am very glad to hear it Fish -because I did so enjoy our last 'spat' !

I don't remotely think that Toppy was murderous either ! I can admire HIM on alot of levels: alas not Hutch.

I can't spend all day 'chatting' on Casebook though..so thought that I'd relax with the Leander Analysis for a while (never read it)..I'll be back soon..

[Ben]

Then again, to be honest, I do not think that anybody is arguing such a thing.

I don't believe you are, Fish, which is to your credit. I was writing in response to what I took to be another insinuation that the signatures are being falsely dismissed by some because Toppy is somehow considered antithetical to the image of a serial killer. The findings of the ostensibly neutral document examiner, Ms. Iremonger, would of course make a nonsense of the first half of that accusation, and evidence of murderous men who are nonetheless violin-playing family guys certainly dispenses with the second.

Not that I consider Toppy remotely murderous!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"that's just a coward's way out.."

Or, as an alternative, the way out of somebody who hast lost hope to participate in a balanced discussion. One safe sign of this being the case is when the counterpart you are dealing with starts yelling "coward" after you have pointed out that Toppy is not exactly proven to be a writer of "superior writing skills". Only the fewest are.

I think you will find, Ruby, that I have no intentions at all to stay out of the discussion on the whole. None whatsoever, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"For the record, and speaking only for myself, a recoginition that Hutchinson ought to be considered a reasonable suspect has very little to do with the issue of matching or mismatching signatures."

Very much agreed, Ben. The two issues are not really connected. Of course, it can be argued that a man who lived an ordinary family life would perhaps not be as obvious a choice for the Ripper as many other characters, but being Toppy is by no means the same as being in the clear. Then again, to be honest, I do not think that anybody is arguing such a thing.

The best,
Fisherman