Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

“We judge this man with our 21st century glasses when it was just a small incident and maybe he made a buck or two. Yet, does that define him as a murderer and a liar? I think not.”

It doesn’t “define” him as such, no, but surely we can apply the same logic to most if not all other suspects? If you’ve pre-decided the innocence of any given suspect attached to the ripper crimes, you can argue that their involvement in the Whitechapel murder investigation constituted a mere footnote in their lives (often literally just that, and in many case involving no connection whatsoever to the area in which the murders were committed).

If Hutchinson really did monitor the crime scene of the most brutally dispatched victim in the most famous murder series in history, isn’t that rather a significant “incident”? And even if he wasn’t at the crime scene and lied about his very presence there in order to make a buck or to seek publicity (which I don’t consider remotely plausible for reasons outlined elsewhere), surely this says something about his character and mindset at the time, even if it doesn’t “represent the man” in terms of the totality of his life experience?

I’m of the opinion at that Hutchinson came forward as soon as he discovered he’d been seen by another witness, and I arrived at this opinion because I found that no other explanation satisfactorily accounted for the various coincidences of timing, and because instances of similar behaviour have occurred over the decades since 1888. Whatever this might say about his “character” is merely a by-product of those evidential connections insofar as I've observed them, and that holds true irrespective of the man’s identity. The mistake is when you decide on a person’s identity, decide what sort of personality the individual must have had, and address the evidence with preconceptions of either virtue or naughtiness.

Hi David,

His own father had worked as a labourer in the East End before becoming a plumber.

Thanks for that reminder. I believe this when when Toppy Sr was in his mid teens (14 if memory serves) and when it was not possible (at his age) to be a fully-fledged plumber).

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

“One could hardly blame JD for her lack of intrest in this site”

She wasn’t disinterested enough not to contribute to the thread, and to be honest, I really resent your continued implications that I was partly responsible for scaring her off, or that I was guilty of raining down “flak”. Yes, based on the evidence I reserve the right to find Hutchinson a suspicious character and to outline the reasons for this opinion if ever the subject comes up and I'm in the mood to discuss it, and I am far from alone in that regard. We have suspect threads to discuss the potential culpability of various ripper candidates, and there will naturally be arguments both against and in favour. You can moan as often as you like that by using suspect threads for their intended purpose, we’re scaring off potential relatives, but I can see any changes about to occur any time soon.

Since I’ve never accused George William Topping Hutchinson or lying or stalking or killing, and nor has anyone else, to my knowledge, it hardly stands to reason that she intimidated off the boards on that basis.

“The Wheeling Register, [ mayby rumour based] reported this figure as five times weekly wage, which roughly coincided with Regs claim.”

Oh, for the love if...No it doesn’t, Richard! I swear on everything I have ever held dear in my life that it doesn’t, and I’ve explained to you a ludicrous number of times WHY it definitely, definitely doesn’t. You accuse me of “nitpicking” which, I must admit, does annoy me rather intensely. I’ve been attempting throughout this thread to disabuse you of this vast, inexplicable confusion you seem to have over the issue of payment, but at no point to you engage with the rebuttal that explains – in increasing detail – why the figures are not compatible. You just repeat the original claim as though it had never been thoroughly refuted, which it has – lots of times. Here you are again:

“five times weekly wage which roughly coincided with Regs claim.”

No it doesn’t. Whose wage? The police didn’t think Hutchinson was taking home a weekly wage, so they wouldn’t have paid him five times a non-existent figure. But I still don’t think you’ll listen, and worse, you’ve resorted to reminding me which “prominent posters” from the past agreed with you at one time or another.

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

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

Mike

[David Knott]

The suggestion has been made that Toppy, having married into a family perceived to be somewhat posher than his own, would not have spoken much about his former association with East End prostitutes (if, indeed, there was such an association!)

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.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben.
Remember the thread 'The lying eyes of George' which I am sure both of us parcipitated in many times= Liar.
Remember the 'rather good ' book 'From hell' by our own Bob Hinton.? = Stalker, possible killer.
And if memory serves me well, it has been suggested that Hutchinson may have been Kellys pimp, which would explain him watching out for her.
Also it has been suggested that he may have been a lookout for kellys killer.
Infact Ben, what hasnt Hutch been accused of?
One could hardly blame JD for her lack of intrest in this site, I personally not only E-mailed her, but wrote to her at her only known address, but received no response, even though I offered her my sincerity in believing her husbands late uncle.
Once more the payment issue, further explanation.
I believe Topping was paid one hundred shillings for his efforts , I am not in a position to say what those efforts consisted of, was it a few walk abouts, or was it more?
The Wheeling Register, [ mayby rumour based] reported this figure as five times weekly wage, which roughly coincided with Regs claim.
That is it in a nutshell, I am not saying that any amount paid, was Hutchinsons earning potential, just a payment out of police funds, which the words of rumour, or the reporters, interpreted it as was written.
With respect Ben, your arguments are rather nit picking, for instance, when the Wheeling report came out, at least two prominent posters at the time, ie Mr Poster, and our own good Sam Flynn, found it rather favourable to what I had been saying for years, that a payment figure existed, which gave more weight to Regs claims,both on Radio/book.
That report does add more weight, but of course not conclusive...as yet.
I also share The Good Michaels view.
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.
Of to work now ..yes Sunday morning.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

What is easy to believe is that George Hutchinson was Toppy and that the event in which he gave testimony was a miniscule component of his life.

[

QUOTE=The Good Michael;147722]What is easy to believe is that George Hutchinson was Toppy and that the event in which he gave testimony was a miniscule component of his life.

I find this VERY hard to believe.

(I'm working all weekend, and have no time to participate in this Thread now.
I've read it with great interest though, and I must quickly reply to you, Mike).

Toppy was aged 22 at the time of these events. His father had a Trade, there was a family home in somewhere rather nicer than the Whitechapel slums, and we know that he went to school (being listed on a census as a 'scholar') (I'll leave the whole 'plumbing' issue until tomorrow). I think that you must agree that he had a rather privileged upbringing compared to the lives of many of the men who'd grown up in the East End.

Now imagine the reality of Mary Kelly's body when Hutch was taken to identify it (as he was). We've all seen the photos
-now put them into 'technicolour' in your mind's eye. Even patched up by the Doctor's she must have been the most gruesome sight imaginable, and lying in a morgue (an environment that must surely have 'marking' as well); Imagine the odour of the body -it brought back all my memories of dead sheep, when I read the description of Catherine Eddowes's body
being silvery green at the autopsy. Believe me dead animals (and people ) smell..it's a particular smell and it makes you automatically want to throw up. Mary's body had been in a room with intense heat from the fire (enough to melt a kettle), and she would have started decomposing rapidly. The smell of her body, mixed with products used to try and hide the odour
and slow down the decomposition process, must have been something that even experienced men like Abberline would never forget..and I cannot believe that 22 year old Toppy wouldn't have the memory etched into him for life.

He was supposed to have known Mary alive.

He was supposedly outside the room when he saw her go inside with the suspected murderer.

He was at the heart of the investigation for (albeit) a short while. It was a major murder case, that everybody was talking about, worldwide.

He gave interviews to the Press, who must have been clamouring to talk to him.

The name of Jack the Ripper was infamous (and still is), even if you don't know anything about the events

It is small potatoes. It is a non-event except to a few.

We judge this man with our 21st century glasses when it was just a small incident

It certainly is a non-event to most people. But to Toppy (if he were the witness), it beggars belief that it wouldn't be a MAJOR event in his life (which as you say, Mike, was pretty uneventful after that and more taken up with work and family ).

[The Good Michael]

What is easy to believe is that George Hutchinson was Toppy and that the event in which he gave testimony was a miniscule component of his life. The rest, his signatures, his employment, his marriage, and his fathering of children were the reality of his life. If we look at that small moment in time as a bit of opportunism gone awry instead of as a defining, or damning moment of infamy, much has to be embellished and recreated, and thus, his life becomes something different from the reality.

We judge this man with our 21st century glasses when it was just a small incident and maybe he made a buck or two. Yet, does that define him as a murderer and a liar? I think not. The insignificance of his testimony with regards to the totality of his life, must surely make the incident something that would not have been naturally told to his siblings or children or grandchildren. It was a small thing, and no need to go there.

I imagine a conversation: "Grandpa, you were around in 1888, during the time of the murders, right?" Yes child, I was. A terrible time." "Did you know much about it?" "Oh yes. Many of us knew a few of the victims; poor women who never hurt no one. Tragic it was." "Thanks grandpa."

Today, most people I talk to know nothing about JTR save the idea that he existed and killed people. No one, I repeat, no one knows about Hutchinson's testimony except us. Why? It is small potatoes. It is a non-event except to a few. It does not represent the man in any way unless we fantastically create a scenario in which it does. But I'm no Tolkien, and my fantasies are much smaller.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

... and thanks once again to David for chiming in and claryfying matters!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I only meant that David was confirming his earlier impression that discussions with the family had left him undecided on the issue."

Fair enough. And agreed.

"While I've no reason to believe that the JDHutchinson post is anything other than genuine, I don't really see how it advances the likelihood of Toppy having been involved in the events of 1888."

Tecnically correct, of course - no matter how many members of the family says that Toppy took on the role of the witness, it does not in itself make him so. But it would take the pressure off Reg to some extent, showing that he did not make that part up by himself.

"It seems slightly odd that the younger brother never mentioned the ripper story to the other members of the family."

It does, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I only meant that David was confirming his earlier impression that discussions with the family had left him undecided on the issue. I was quoting a post from July of last year.

While I've no reason to believe that the JDHutchinson post is anything other than genuine, I don't really see how it advances the likelihood of Toppy having been involved in the events of 1888. I rather share Garry Wroe's view as expressed on the Romford thread that: "The problem with the Toppy angle, however, is that, at best, it amounts to second- and third-generation hearsay. And whilst I don’t for a second doubt the sincerity of Toppy’s descendants, they are simply relaying a form of familial folklore for which there is not a shred of evidential corroboration."

It seems slightly odd that the younger brother never mentioned the ripper story to the other members of the family.

Best regards,
Ben

[David Knott]

I would say, if it helps, that prior to my contacting the family, I would have placed the chances of Toppy being our man at about 30%, and immediately after contacting the family, about the same (albeit for different reasons).

That was two years ago, and prior to the 'JDHutchinson' post.

If that post is genuine, then it allays to some extent my concerns that nobody else in the family seemed to know anything about it, so I would probably say 50% at the present time, maybe more.

When I was tracing Toppy's descendents, I decided to avoid Reg's children and concentrated on Reg's nephews and neices.

Unfortunately, I completely missed the children of Reg's younger brother, firstly because The Ripper and The Royals suggested that Reg was the youngest, and secondly because I was looking for Hutchinsons with a mother's maiden name of Jervis - Ancestry unhelpfully transcribed the younger brother's mother's maiden name as Jarvis.

The family alerted me to the existence of the younger brother, who was still alive in 2008 (don't know if he still is) but I had no intention of badgering an 88 year old man (I was advised that there would have been no point in it anyway). He had never mentioned the Ripper story to any of the family that I contacted.

As I say, I have managed to ascertain that the younger brother has a daughter in law with the initials 'JD' so am inclined to accept her post as genuine. I can think of no reason why it wouldn't be - very few people would have even know that Reg had a younger brother.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes, to David Knott:

"many thanks indeed for ... confirming your initial impressions after having contacted the family:
īLike I said though, for me he probably wasn't the witness.ī"

Hm, Ben - I cannot see David making any such confirmation. From what I got out of Davidīs posts, he makes no stance towards either side:

"Prior to contacting them I was undecided as to whether Toppy was the witness. After contacting them, I was still undecided ... I remain undecided as to whether Toppy was the witness, although note that a person alleging to be the daughter in law of Reg's younger brother posted on Casebook to say that her father in law had also heard the story."

I donīt know in which manner this confirms an impression of Toppy probably not having been the witness. As far as I can see, he says that he reamins undecided, and my interpretation of that is that he thinks itīs either or - but maybe you can point me to the part you think confirms something else?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Since 1888 no name apart from GWTH, has ever been linked to Hutchinson the witness, that has verbally, albeit second hand, spoken out, no other GH, that has been kind of traced, have admitted to being the witness.

I appreciate this, Richard, but as I explained in my first paragraph of my recent post, I don't see how this lends any weight to his candidacy as the witness, particularly given its assosiation with a notoriously flawed version of an already outlandish conspiracy theory; one that was ultimately rejected by its own author.

It has been mentioned that the average labourers wage was approx one guinea per week

But this ceases to have any relevance if the police were not under the impression that Hutchinson was taking home an "average labourer's wage", and we know they were not. It was the police who, according to the article, were responsible for dishing out this inordinately large sum - the implication being that they were aware of his "usual salary" and knowingly paid him five times that amount. Fortunately for the truth, we have a police report from Abberline which reveals that this wasn't remotely the case.

So there is not an "equivalent" sum or anything resembling it, and it would not, therefore, matter in the slightest whether you heard the broadcast or read the Wheeling Register first.

As for JD , I would say to have her father-in laws brother accused as a Liar.a stalker. a pimp, an accomplice, even a killer, would put anybody of, continuing to post.

I've never heard anyone accuse Toppy of being any of those things.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello David,
As you know I have never been certain of the date, I am well aware of that 25th may edition , and it certainly was not the broadcast that I am refering to.
I was a regular listener to the series The Great Victorians of that period, and I used to look for any radio broadcasts to see if Jtr was mentioned, thats how I came across the relevant show , which included, one would imagine a taped message , which apparently was spoken by Reg, or someone acting on his behalf.
The show featured the Toff theory, and at the end, the son of the witness Hutchinson was heard.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
Let me put my thoughts into words that are clear.
Since 1888 no name apart from GWTH, has ever been linked to Hutchinson the witness, that has verbally, albeit second hand, spoken out, no other GH, that has been kind of traced, have admitted to being the witness.
The Wheeling register as you correctly mentioned was the only newspaper that quoted a sum of money .
It has been mentioned that the average labourers wage was approx one guinea per week, so five weeks , would be as good as dammed five pounds/hundred shillings.
Even if you dismiss the broadcast, there is still that sum , or near equivient of, mentioned by a person named Reg Hutchinson in Faircloughs book.
You have my absolute word that when I Obtained a copy of The Ripper and the Royals, I most definately was well aware of the hundred shilling figure, before I read the relevant page, also the point that his father never said where he got it.
Also please inform me how would I have in my mind the words'It was my fathers biggest regret that dispite his efforts , nothing came of it.
That was not in Faircloughs book...neither have I ever read an edition of The Wheeling Register,except in the last couple of years on Casebook, and you know amongst others. I have been insistant about that radio broadcast for years now, long before that article was found.
As for JD , I would say to have her father-in laws brother accused as a Liar.a stalker. a pimp, an accomplice, even a killer, would put anybody of, continuing to post.
Regards Richard.