Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Ben]

Hi David,

Good to see you here, and many thanks indeed for those clarifications, and for confirming your initial impressions after having contacted the family:

"Like I said though, for me he probably wasn't the witness. I had a number of objections before I contacted the family, some of which have now disappeared, but others of which are now greater than they were before."

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?p=66223#post66223

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

About these “facts” you’ve referred to above:

“It is a absolute fact that no other Hutchinson, apart from Topping, has ever come foreward and made himself known.”

I'm afraid it isn't. There’s no evidence that Toppy himself ever came forward with a desire to make “himself known”. We know about him from his son, and strictly speaking, we don’t know if Reginald “came forward” as opposed to being simply tracked down by Fairclough and Gorman Sickert. Since very few descendants of ripper personalities have made themselves “known” to researchers and enthusiasts over the years, it wouldn’t be of any significance if Hutchinson’s descendants (assuming he had any) were also included in that vast majority who didn't bother.

“It is a absolute fact, that a sum of money [allegedly] was paid to the said gentleman”

Wait a minute. If something is “alleged” it can’t be a fact, surely? Or do you mean it’s a fact that the Wheeling Register mentioned a pay-off? True enough, but no other newspaper did.

“It is a absolute fact, that a sum of money similar to that article was ,mentioned in the Ripper and the Royals.”

It is absolutely NOT a fact. No sum of money was mentioned in the article. It claimed that he was paid off to the tune of five times his usual salary, which simply couldn’t have happened, because the police had by then accepted that Hutchinson didn’t have a “usual salary”.

You cannot responsibly use the word "fact" in connection with a radio interview that cannot be traced and which nobody else has ever heard of.

What flak "rained down" on JD Hutchinson, incidentally?

Best regards,
Ben

[David Knott]

Richard,

As you know, I am inclined to believe that the post by 'JDHutchinson' was genuine, as I managed to ascertain that Reg's younger brother has indeed got a daughter in law with those initials.

As regards the radio broadcast, I really think your memory is playing tricks with you. I spent a day at Colindale going throught the microfilm and all I found was the broadcast on 1 June 1972 "Who was Jack the Ripper". The entry is on page 49 of the 25 May 1972 issue of the Radio Times. It was broadcast on Radio 4, at 8pm on a Thursday, and therefore in those respects matches exactly your recollections, but as we know, the program did not feature an interview with Reg (or anyone else making a similar claim)

The only thing I can think is that it was repeated, and Reg or somebody else had been interviewed in the interim, and this was added on to the end of the broadcast.

David

[richardnunweek]

Hello David,
Many thanks for that, it at least opens the door for debate.
Appearing on radio in the 1970s was hardly a hugh event, it does not mean live in the studio, a taped message would suffice, and proberly was the case.
The daughter in -law of the younger brother of Reg, did indeed post on Casebook, but rather like Fiona Kendell resented the flak which rained down on her.
Who can blame them , for doing a runner.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for clearing that up, David - much appreciated!

The best,
Fisherman

[David Knott]

Oh dear!

Apologies - I have only just come across this thread, otherwise I would have stepped in sooner!

Firstly, I am not related to the Mr Knott who married Toppy's sister Jane.

A couple of years ago I did trace and contact certain descendants of Toppy, to see if they could shed any light on his identification as the witness George Hutchinson. This was purely out of my interest in the JtR case, nothing to do with family connections (I have also contacted numerous other people descended from other characters in the JtR story).

Prior to contacting them I was undecided as to whether Toppy was the witness. After contacting them, I was still undecided. They were able to give some information to suggest that the biographical objections such as location and occupation were not an issue, but at the same time I got the impression that nobody other than Reg knew anything about the story, and even he had never mentioned it before being contacted by Joseph Sickert.

I don't know where the 99.99% came from - I think I was referring to the likelihood of Reg having appeared on the radio, as the family members I contacted felt sure that they would have remembered had that been the case.

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.

David

[richardnunweek]

Hello Rubyretro,
With respect, I am not a person that, is such a novice in life, that I accept everything I see, or hear, as gospel.
It is a absolute fact that no other Hutchinson, apart from Topping, has ever come foreward and made himself known.
It is a absolute fact, that a sum of money [allegedly] was paid to the said gentleman, that is in print, and it can be found in the Wheeling Register,
It is a absolute fact, that a sum of money similar to that article was ,mentioned in the Ripper and the Royals.
And it is a absolute fact that the informant, was one Reg Hutchinson[ late] the picture of his father, that features in the book, used to be in Regs flat.
It is a absolute fact [ at least to me] that my 1970s radio broadcast, featured the same person ie Reg, because the information was the same that featured in Faircloughs book nearly two decades later.
I am not looking for any sinister , or clever explanations, how my mind is reacting, I simply know what reality is, I trust my sanity.
Look at reality, look at the handwriting[ mixed views].
Hutchinson remains an enigma, we dont trust his motives, and doubt his story, and even when the real man stands up to be counted, we dismiss his identity.
Strange...but true.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

Richard
Here is something else to bear in mind when considering Reg/Toppy -

-you are not married to either of them, and you will not be comitting adultery if you are 'unfaithful' to them
-you are not their son, and you are not their Father, and they will not be any loss to you, nor you to them, if you don't believe them (same goes with Maxwell).
-it has absolutely no bearing on your life, or anyone else's, and the 'Real World' will not even notice for a second if you change your mind
-'This Lady's Not For Turning' is possibly one of the stupidest things quoted -it takes more courage to publically change your mind than stick to a wrong descision.

Try and put these things in your head when you consider the evidence over
Toppy/Hutch. Obviously, if you're STILL convinced carry on thinking as you do..

[Rubyretro]

"cards to your chest"..it's a writer's or dramatist's device (the reader or 'public' supply the rest from their imaginations -something that the 'audience' find most convincing as a argument, and you don't have to 'bother' to make up).

People who 'play their cards to their chest' are either plain empty, because there IS nothing to discover -or life's natural Drama Queens (the worst is a combination of the two).

Be suspicious, Richard

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I have just read page 246 of The Ripper and the Royals, and to be honest Regs account does not differ to much from his 1970s version, in which he mentioned someone higher up[ cant recall the churchill bit , but may have] but he said on both occasions radio, and book, that his father kept his cards close to his chest, and its therefore only speculation why he was paid.
Did he assist the police much more then is known, if that sum was paid proberly 'Yes'
As I mentioned in such a high profile case such as this, a witness that they believed saw the killer up close, would be worth his weight in gold.
Richard.

[Rubyretro]

many of the older members of that family still believe the account, infact Regs brother [ still alive?] remembers his father mentioning it.

The thing is, I don't think that the family all DO believe it. Some time ago, a woman who has studied the geneology of the 'Toppy' Family, PM'd Me bcause
although she still reads Casebook, she doesn't participate anymore, because the arguments get so convoluted and futile. However, seeing that I was interested in Hutch, she only wanted to direct me to some Threads that she felt that I ought to read (because I'm a relatively new member, and wouldn't have read them).

I want to stress here that this person in no way gave me her own opinion on who was JtR, or whatever SHE thought about the case -her interest seemed to lie in researching, and that is all.

One of the threads that she pointed me to as being of great interest, was a thread which David Knot(t) participated in. According to her, David is a member of the 'Toppy' Family, from Toppy's sister, Jane -(I absolutely don't know that this is true, anymore than you know that Reg's story is )-
however, given that Toppy's Family don't talk to Ripperologists, did apparently show all their info to David on the subject, and that neither he or she showed the least hint of being other than reasonable & grounded individuals, I have a tendancy to believe her.

He contended that, although he had promised not to publish private Family info on the net, and although he could say that Toppy WAS in the East End at this time, and that Toppy HAD done other jobs (shades of yourself Richard - limpid), yet looking at all the available information, as a 'betting man' he was "99.99% sure that " Toppy "COULD NOT" have been Hutch.

It was also Knott who said that the older members of the Family could not remember Reg ever having been on the radio -although they feel sure that they would have remembered such an unusual event. It doen't sound to me as if Reg's bother remembered it (which doesn't mean it's not true).

My correspondant went on to say that David only was a member of Casebook for such a very short time, because members simply sneered , walked all over what he was saying, blithly disregarded it all, and engaged in futile prejudiced arguments
(those are my own words, and based on reading all the thread). We should have 'groomed' the guy, and coaxed any info out of him ! -he would have tripped himself up if he was a 'fake'

Even the reward, for the capture of the Ripper, posted all over the district was hardly a poultry sum in 1888.
Regards Richard.

[/QUOTE]

No -but that was for the CAPTURE -something concrete -and probably 'private' money. It wasnt for parading around with a '****' (!) n'bull story for a few days out of the public purse.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

“You keep saying five times salary = nothing, when one is unemployed, but the word equivilent springs to mind.”

But even this is inapplicable.

The police accepted that Hutchinson was without regular employment at the time. He would not, then, have been taking home a weekly salary or anything “equivalent” to it. Hutchinson could hardly have convinced the police that he was earning the same amount in his temporarily unemployed state, as he had been accustomed to receiving in the capacity of a salaried labourer. So there’s still no interesting similarity between the sums mentioned. Just two dubious sources providing implausible accounts of excessively large and almost certainly fictional pay-offs.

Again, and as frustrating as it may be, the radio interview cannot have any relevance to the discussion until evidence for its existence is produced.

As for Reg, there was never any need for him to "go along with Fairclough" in the latter's effort to assign the ripper toff-status, especially if he was an honest unbiased source revealing what he knew of his father's connections to the case.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
Again all valid points, and points I myself may well have made, if not for my recollections of that broadcast.
Because of that I know that Fairclough did not invent the payment, because of the broadcast, I know that the person who spoke on that show was Reg, simply because he said most of the same, some 18 years later in the book.
It is a fact that the late Reg was just a costermonger, who like anybody, welcomed a few extra quid, his knowledge of the case was minimal, apart from the name JTR, and there is no doubt he went along with Fairclough, and Toppings story as a toff, but he most certainly never admitted 18 years earlier that his father ever mentioned a pay off, for sinister reasons, simply he kept quite about where the money came from, but admitted the sum.
Ben.
You keep saying five times salary = nothing, when one is unemployed, but the word equivilent springs to mind.
Regardless of work status, equvilent to five weeks wages, =approx five pounds/hundred shillings.
I am intriqued, you state that no members of the family remember a radio broadcast, at least as I remembered.
Ben we are talking about a broadcast which took place around 36 years ago, on a obscure radio programme, i was only 27 years old then , 63 now , no wonder anybody cant recall it.
Explanation....Not as I heard it? meaning...
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

“With regard to Barnett being drunk at the inquest, we are not in a position to say, have we the knowledge how long the inquest took that day, for instance when did JB , give his evidence, did they adjourn for lunch?”

Not enough to secure proof, but there’s such a weight of evidence in support of Barnett not having been “furiously drunk” at the inquest, and such plentiful indications to the contrary, that the claim made in the Wheeling Register must be treated as extremely suspect at best. And no, I doubt very much that Barnett was plied with alcohol when they “adjourned for lunch”. The coroner even congratulated Barnett at the end for having given his evidence “very well”, something he was very unlikely to have done if the witness had been “furiously drunk” when giving it.

Here’s what the Wheeling Register said about Barnett’s post-Kelly romance:

"He was furiously drunk at the inquest and is living with a certain notorious Whitechapel character who testified at the inquest and became enamored of the drunken brute because, as she said, of the romantic interest attaching to him"

Is it remotely plausible that only a newspaper from West Virginia should have picked up on this gossip while all British newspapers overlooked the details that A) Barnett was a drunken brute who gave outward and visible signs of being so, B) Barnett ended up cohabiting with one of the women who gave evidence at the inquest, and C) that the woman in question was a “notorious Whitechapel character”. That’s an entirely difference issue from the question of how far-fetched (or not) the actual claims are. The contentious issue is how every other press source could have failed to pick up on these gossip segments IF they were true.

“It could also be the reporters opinion that 'some clever individual' invented a story, simply because of the elaborate description[ rather like many do today”

Usually, though, the journalists in questions make clear the distinction between opinion and fact, such as that wonderfully understated observation that Hutchinson’s account “engenders a feeling of scepticism”. In this case, however, it was simply stated that that “clever individual” in question had invented a description. Of course, if they were expressing an opinion only, they’d be guilty of recklessly misleading phraseology and arming us with yet another reason not to take their “gossip” seriously.

“Five times a mans weekly wage...which according to the average rate for a labourer would be approx five pounds, which so happens to tally”

Oh no! This again! The police were under the impression that Hutchinson was not in regular employment, and that he would not therefore have been taking home a usual salary. The police would not, therefore, have paid Hutchinson to the tune of five times a non-existent usual salary. So there is no interesting coincidence between the figures provided by the two dubious sources, Ripper and the Royals and The Wheeling Register’s gossip column. That’s even disregarding the outlandish nature of the claim. One can accept that the police might have provided Hutchinson with basic expenses for his efforts, but a huge pay-off such as the one hinted at here? It would have opened the floodgates to any number of bogus witnesses coming forward and expecting to be paid off in a similar fashion.

“but it never came from Toppings lips.”

But what did come from Topping’s lips, according to Fairclough, was an acceptance that the man his father allegedly saw “really was Churchill”.

Until a record emerges of that radio interview, it is simply impermissible as evidence here. I’d only add that a researcher who has been in contact with the Topping Hutchinson family has expressed the view that the radio interview never occurred, at least not as you remembered it.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Claire,
I personally havent, but someone else did [ name escapes] but the archives got the right subject ie JTR, but the wrong programme, one of the 'Great Victorian episodes which was not the relevant broadcast..
As mentioned previous , myself and two members of my family went to the Brighton University, a year or so back, but we were only alloted a two hour slot, in their librairy and although we searched through four years of radio times editions, we only searched the pages up to the weeks listings , and ignored the rear pages , which as i now know had many write ups also.
I am confident that that is where the article is, and 1973-up to may 75 is to the best of my memory where it will be found.
Regards Richard.