Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Rubyretro]

Ruby:

" I really, really enjoy healthy debate"

So do I, Ruby - that is why I objected.

The best,
Fisherman

WE agree !
Object all you like with anything I say -only demolish it forensically -don't dismiss it with a one liner because it's difficult to debate ; that's just a coward's way out..

[Ben]

How can a systematic approach be undergone from my side when I have to battle faith?

Well, I'm sorry you feel that's what you've been "battling" against, as opposed to a contrary opinion, the reasons for which have been discussed in considerable detail and have nothing whatsoever to do with "faith". 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.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" I really, really enjoy healthy debate"

So do I, Ruby - that is why I objected.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Claire, and Fish..I too get weary of arguing..although I really, really enjoy healthy debate..however, I feel I have to defend myself, so here goes :

I do not think that Toppy was a 'Cambridge Scholar -I think that he stayed in school longer than alot of working class people at the time, and therefore he could read and write better than many, and certainly better than your average labourer

Lot's of people have tried to question the literacy levels of people living in Whitechapel at the time , on these threads -and I have pointed out the fact that schooling was compulsory, and I have seen letters demonstrating that my Great Grandma (who attended the Ragged School in Mile End) was very literate.

However, nobody is surely going to argue about the fact that some people
were/are more literate than others, and that was so in the East End then as now ?

Who could argue that if Toppy benefited from longer schooling (together with the clues about his later life), that he wouldn't be somebody who was more literate than average ? Where is the problem ? Why wouldn't he try to use his skill ?

Running your own business is something admirable that takes alot of work
-I don't need to go into the fact that you need to be able to work out the
accounts... expenses/time spent/money charged/number of customers/investments/rentability and wages of workers if you have them/ material in stock etc, and then have the training and expertise, experience and publicity to make a go of it : starting your business is one thing, making a go of it is another (and Toppy was 'rarely if ever out of work'), and building up a faithful clientele and I presume a reputation.

Your crack about 'crap plumbers' is so snobbish and patronising. Give the man his due !! Plumbers are skilled people, and successful self employed people are admirable, and Toppy appears to be someone who was 'rounded' with some artistic leanings, and a good Family man (who knows about his family relationships, but he stayed married to the same woman and brought up his children without them ending up in Prison or on the streets).

The life of many of the men living in the Victoria Home, by contrast, must have been a series of dead end, casual, physical labour with increasing competition and hand-to-mouth finances. It was not their fault (in many cases), but they didn't have the advantages that Toppy undoubtably did.
Nor did they have the chance to afford to marry and found a foyer, and were obliged to sleep with prostitutes for an outlet for their healthy sexual needs : hence the number of prostitutes to satisfy the demand.

Claire -I don't know why you are so aggressive towards me ? I'm a very mild mannered person, I promise you ! You have successfully made me think twice about bringing Hutch into other Threads..but this is a Hutch Thread , so I don't know why I shouldn't write about him ? On the other hand, if you don't like the subject, why are YOU here ??

ps when it comes to 'grandstanding memorable events', as you so sneeringly put it ...no one has yet
taken the facts and tried to argue that they wouldn't have been memorable events for Toppy (had he been the witness) -except for Richard, who tried to compare it to loading Ronnie Bigg's van with wood ( nothing to do with the GTR)., and I promise you that I will change my mind if you give me a good enough reason to do so.

[claire]

Rubyretro is completely hung up on the word 'scholar.' She appears to believe this means he'd won an exhibition to Cambridge or something. I used to be fascinated with debating Hutchinson...now, even if one is in agreement with Rubyretro on any point, she reacts as though one is either arguing against her or stupid.

There is no reason to believe that Toppy would have had 'superior writing skills.' He wasn't bloody Dickens by virtue of having spent a few weeks or months in a crappy little school room. Nor should we assume he was particularly bright for having his own company...as anyone who has suffered a crap plumber would know. It appears that certain parties are taking the tiniest behaviour (ice skating, going to school) and dilating them until Toppy becomes an adept in everything he undertakes, thereby giving the lie to his identity with the Kelly case 'witness.'

I think it is perfectly possible for people to keep small events discrete (please disambiguate this homonym before accusing me of stating that I am saying it was on the QT) 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.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"he must have had superior writing skills"

I think, Ruby, that it would be arguments like these that sort of put people like me and Mike off ever so slightly when it comes to the Toppy issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

1&2) Toppys dad remarried in Q2 1888 - it must be reasonable to assume that he had been together with the lady in question for some time prior to that - who knows - could have been 3 years!

3) Perfectly valid observation which I wouldn't disagree with.

David[/QUOTE]

David thanks for your reply..this question is still worrying away at me though.

I don't know that it is reasonable to assume that Toppy's Dad would have been 'together' with his second wife for a few years before marrying her.
I know that people DID have long courtships, and that working class people DID move into together before marriage...but even so, a man who had been married before and used to a regular sex life, would probably want to replace it pretty rapidly. Given the fact that it must have been difficult to find sex outside of marriage (bar with 'prostitutes'), and he had a regular job, a house to run, children to raise, and the money to afford a household..I'd have thought that he'd be looking to remarry fairly quickly. Financially, having a house and a Trade, he'd have been a 'good catch' for many women.

But who knows -I'm only speculating. So Toppy could have been doing all those macho jobs (I see 'nightwatchman' was another), and gained a 'military appearence' between ages 19-22. Living with those working men in the Victoria Home, would certainly have turned him into a bit of a Hard Man by 1888 ! No wonder he needed a spot of ice skating as a relief -and is it my imagination but, did Toppy also play the violin ?

Garry Wroe seems to think it 'likely' that Toppy qualified as a plumber in 1886,
after an apprenticeship. He's not much given to speculation, so I thought that he was basing his 'likelihood' on some clear indications -but maybe not.

Still we DO know that Toppy was educated, and since he went on to run his own business, we can deduce that he was a bright spark, and a bit artistic (given his hobbies, and the fact that he married an actress). It makes me wonder why, since he must have had superior writing skills, he didn't seek
to use them to get a a better paid and less strenuous job in London -rather than putting himself in competition with all those immigrants coming in who were willing and able to do physical labour for little money ?

What do you think ?

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

I'm kind of argued out about Hutchinson. He has been argued to death and those who find him guilty will not be swayed for whatever reasons they have conjured up or read. We argued for many long months, and when something as simple as the possibilities of two signatures being so similar from the men in question becomes impossible to reconcile, I give up. It's like arguing with religionists who have faith. How can a systematic approach be undergone from my side when I have to battle faith? Impossible and I'm done with it.
But... thanks for playing.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

Mike -obviously I mean't Garry Wroe, and mixed Stephen Knight with the W in Wroe -impossible to edit now !!!!

apologies to all -particularly Garry !

[Rubyretro]

.

Most people have exiting events in their lives, some extremely traumatic, and both the good ,and bad, stay in ones memories.for Eg, when I was sixteen years old , I worked in a timberyard in Redhill, and I often loaded up Ronnie Biggs vehicle, with wood, as he was a carpenter, but I have only mentioned in proberly a dozen times since, and that was over 47 years ago.
I have also known people that have had aweful accidents , horrible injuries, decapitated etc, but only mention it , if the subject arose, rather like Toppings version of knowing Mjk, and being interviewed.

Richard -
there are 'exciting events' and exciting events (and I agree that they stay in one's memory. I don't think that loading up Ronnie Bigg's van, compares to Toppy's 'experience', had he been the witness. Nor that The Great Train Robbery compares to the Whitechapel murders ( you would also have mentioned it alot more, had you been an actual witness to the robbery, and you had been all over the papers).

However, on the 'dozen' or so occasions on which you mentioned your connection with Ronnie Biggs, what were people's reactions ? Didn't they ask you questions ? If you HAD of been at the heart of events, and a witness to the GTR itself, wouldn't those questions have been alot more ?

Don't you think it 'odd' that Reg apparently didn't question Toppy ? -or, if he did, that Fairclough didn't question Reg much ? The only things that Toppy apparently told Reg, were general details that had been printed in the papers
-no personal details at all (the Churchill 'or someone like him' detail was just a description of A Man). The only details that Fairclough got from Reg, likewise, were things that his own researchers could have found out by themselves.

As to not talking about people who've had 'accidents' -it hardly compares to them being victim's of the world's most notorious serial killer, and you viewing the body..and you being a witness who was the last person to see the victim alive.

[Rubyretro]

[

QUOTE=The Good Michael;147750]Ruby,

You seem a little obsessed with Hutchinson and one author's opinions. Take some time off is my suggestion.

Mike

[/QUOTE]

Thanks, Mike for that, you gave me a good laugh -I nearly wet myself !

a) you neatly side stepped answering my Post. Probably because you can't.

b) If you think that I'm "obsessed " with Hutch, it can only be because of the number of replies that I've given concerning him...which you would only know about if you had spent your time reading them ! Maybe YOU need some 'time off' too ?

c) I am so intrigued about the 'one author's opinions' ; what author would that be ? Up until about 2 weeks ago, I had only read one author on the Ripper Case -and that was Stephen Knight (I bought the book, second hand, about a year after it was published). Still, since I've never believed in the Freemasons/Royal Conspiracy thing, I don't think that Knight can be the 'one author' that you can be referring to.

I'm not going to act the innocent..I can very well guess that you must mean
either Garry Wright or Bob Hinton. I actually only read Garry's book about 2 weeks ago (I would have done so before, but I didn't know that you could download it for free). I have ordered and paid for Bob's book from Amazon,
but it is yet to be dispatched (after a month) let alone read. I also ordered Jack the Ripper's London at the same time incidently, which I have yet to read. I have cited Garry a few times -both because I read his Posts with particular attention since they're based on first hand factual research, and not just his opinion, and I did PM him with questions sometimes, for the same reason that I like his Posts. I came to my own conclusions about Hutch, by reading about the Case on Casebook -and THEN became aware and interested in Garry and Bob's opinions ; I certainly didn't read a book and then take the author's opinions as my own !! (which is why I have slightly differing ideas from Garry, as to Hutch's motivations -Bob's I wouldn't know, yet).

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

My apologies for snapping earlier. I went a little overboard, and I’d hate to be responsible for reigniting Toppy tensions!

The only similarity between the Wheeling Register and the R&R claim is that a payment of some description was mentioned. In that respect only do we find compatibility, but most assuredly not in the sums mentioned, as I hope has been clarified by now. This in itself shouldn’t be invested with too much significance. The issue of pay-offs has long been associated with the roles of the police and their informers, and as such, it wouldn’t surprising that tales of Hutchinson being paid for his efforts began to circulate once his account his the press, even if no payment had occurred in reality. Crucially, therefore, neither the Wheeling Register nor the R&R needed to know of each other’s existence to come up with the idea – independently – of a pay-off story.

In both cases, however, we’re dealing with highly dubious sources, and unfortunately, two nil provenance sources don’t equal good provenance. One of them intimated, in a discredited royal conspiracy book, that Hutchinson was paid to keep quiet about having seen Lord Randolph Churchill with Kelly, while the other was not only fully refuted by Abberline’s own handwriting, it was at adds with every other press source which, mysteriously and inexplicably, failed to pick up on this payment rumour.

“Topping longed for attention, and took a intrest in the murders...fair enough.
Topping realising he shared the same surname as a person that gave a statement to the police, decided that he would become that person , and memorise his statement, so that in later life when the pennies were short, could obtain a few nights out , with tales from the past, he also added the payment rumour as a bonus, as he remebered that, from years back, mayby even read the infamous Wheeling Registe.. and to top it all he said all this bull.. to his own flesh and blood.
Do you believe that Ben?”

No, but then that’s because you’ve added prerequisites for the scenario that don’t need to be there in order for it to be perfectly plausible. Why would Toppy have needed to “memorise his statement”? All Reg reported was that he knew one of the victims. Not only is the whole sequence of events, including Mr. Astrakhan, not referred to, even the victim herself is not remembered by name. He didn’t need to "remember" any rumour about payment. Either he or Reg could have made it up, without NEEDING to have any knowledge about the Wheeling Register. They just needed to know that stories of pay-offs are quite commonly allied to stories involving the police and their informers.

So if you take away those unnecessary pre-conditions, it shouldn't be at all unfathomable that Toppy or Reg could have invented the pay-off story independently of any press snippet, especially with "help" from Fairclough and Gorman Sickert, whose eagerness to pin the knife on the toff may well have been ill-concealed.

“I hope you dont take offence at my posts, I never intend to .”

No worries whatsoever, Richard, and apologies again for my snippiness.

Best regards,
Ben

[David Knott]

Ruby,

I'm not sure that I'm any better qualified to answer your questions than anyone else, but here goes...

1&2) Toppys dad remarried in Q2 1888 - it must be reasonable to assume that he had been together with the lady in question for some time prior to that - who knows - could have been 3 years!

3) Perfectly valid observation which I wouldn't disagree with.

David

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
You are getting the wrong end of the stick, I have never suggested you as being a forerunner, in slagging of Hutchinson, whoever he was...,and the nitpicking was not intended to offend, it was just frustration in explaning what I feel is straightforeward to comprehend.
To use your term 'Oh for the love of it'.
I thought I explained myself throughly, but in simple terms let say that the witness Hutchinson[ whoever he was] was paid a sum of money by the police?, which rumour had it represented five weeks wages.
So in steps one wheeling reporter, and quotes that ....
The very fact that a [ alleged] payment was paid , and was not quoted in any other newspaper, suggests to me that rumour had it , [which may, or may not, have been true.]that this was so.
Therefore somebody called Reg Hutchinson had obtained that information, long before Casebook even existed, infact, long before many members were even born.
For someone who knew nothing more then the name JtR, Reg appeared to have been well versed.
I tend to go for the simple route, and plump for the story that Reg told, inherited from his [ proven ] father GWTH.
In order, for what I am saying, to be not plausible, one would have to scenerio the following.
Topping longed for attention, and took a intrest in the murders...fair enough.
Topping realising he shared the same surname as a person that gave a statement to the police, decided that he would become that person , and memorise his statement, so that in later life when the pennies were short, could obtain a few nights out , with tales from the past, he also added the payment rumour as a bonus, as he remebered that, from years back, mayby even read the infamous Wheeling Registe.. and to top it all he said all this bull.. to his own flesh and blood.
Do you believe that Ben?
I have never accused you of quoting Hutchinson as a stalker /possible killer, that was all Bob Hintons doing , and fair play he admitted, he got the wrong man, and i really enjoyed that book incidently.
So there we are Ben, I hope you dont take offence at my posts, I never intend to .
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

Toppy's mother died in 1880. Toppy's father then got together with a woman more than 20 years his junior, eventually marrying her in the second quarter of 1888. It has also been suggested that Toppy did not get on with his father's new partner, which may be a reason for him leaving the family home.

If correct, it would be natural for him to go to London to find work. His own father had worked as a labourer in the East End before becoming a plumber.

[/QUOTE]

Hi David! (I am thrilled to see you participating in this thread !!!!) -
here are a few questions...I am fine with the idea that Toppy went to London and did 'any job' to survive, including labouring, because he didn't get on with his new Stepmother (and I argued as much myself when I was a Topp-ite), but there are a few unescapable details which just don't add into the equation -please -what light do you feel able to shed on them ?

1) Toppy was irrefutably aged 22 at the time of the events. Hutch said that he had known Mary for (2 ? 3 ?) years. There is no proof that he knew her -yet that was the reason that the 'witness' gave for following her home and watching the Court, so it is an important detail. That would either mean that Toppy went to London well before the Stepmother made an appearance, he
commuted alot, or he lied. Why would he lie, if he was just an honest witness ?

2) We don't know very much about Hutch, but he was quoted in the papers variously as having been an ex-groom, (a specialised job), having humped barrels in a pub, as well as being a labourer. I think that you will agree that Hutch/Toppy was one busy, dynamic, 22 year old between the Spring and autumn of 1888. Or is every document we have just a lie ? Or were the Police just SO incompetent that they never checked ANYTHING about a man that placed himself at a murder scene with a 'suspicious' witness description ? What do you think ?

3) Physically, we CANNOT get around the fact that Mrs Lewis described the man that she saw as being 'short and stout'.
That Hutch would be 'stout' , I have interpreted as thick set and muscle bound elsewhere (afterall, with all that labouring and barrel humping it makes sense). I looked at the photo of men sitting in the Victoria Home, and yes they are short and stocky.

Then I imagine a 22 year old theatre going ice skater amongst them. I look at Toppy's photo (old)..and my imagination has a real job doing all the pirouhettes needed to make him fit both the Victoria Home/Miller's Court /newspaper image and the Reg/
Toppy photo image...

(I DID have an idea to put to Andrew Lloyd-Webber for a 'music hall' inspired 'Jack the Ripper on ice' show though ...with lots of grimy Victorian sets, swirling dry ice, and Leona Lewis or Alexandra Wotsit as Mary Kelly....)

I can't go on with my questions, because back from work, I now have to produce a family 'roast dinner'..but please try and
answer me, David..