Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Rubyretro]

PS : reading back back over my own reply to Richard has brought so many of my own teenage memories flooding back ...I WAS weird :

I must have been one of the only 'hardcore' Punks that tried everything to join the Morris Men (TRUE -I was rejected). (It still 'smarts' all these years later).

I also joined 'The Sealed Knot' -but my Mother wouldn't let Me go away for weekends as a 'camp fire wench' ( I'm just surprised that they allowed Me into their meetings in the Historical village pub -I was underage and had spikey red hair with pictures of Iggy Pop attached everywhere by safteypins).

Thank God that the Pogues arrived on the scene, and I was no longer a 'split personality' , eh ?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
I find it hard to agree with you , when suggesting that Regs Father GWTH, actually believed he was the witness GH, Because he had convinced himself, that he was, and that he knew the deseased MJK.
All this was the result of reading newspapers, and he lost all sense of reality.
Dont agree...
The Wheeling reports content regarding payment, I sincerley believe, adds considerable weight, to at the very least Regs honesty, simply because I have heard it privately that he knew absolutely nothing about the Ripper case, he even had to borrow a book on the subject from a younger relative to educate himself.....Hardly likely to have read the Wheeling report I would suggest.
Yet he mentions payment, which no other paper mentioned.
Ah yes.
Fairclough came across the report , and fed him the payment idea.
Fair point.
However Fairclough, was not on Regs scene in the 1970s , when it was mentioned on radio. was he?
So that leaves Topping who conned everyone , including his own mind,who read the wheeling report in 1888, who read the entire Hutchinson statement in 1888, and developed the story , for a chance to get a few pints in later life, informs his own family of this., who never doubted him, according to his close family, even Regs wife believed her father -in laws account.
I have said many times on casebook[ two many] that the only identification of Hutchinson that has come to light since 1888, is Topping, and as that account tallies with all the facts known, I Simply find it conclusive.
We have the witness....GWTH.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

I agree with you, but that doesn't make him NOT the murderer. If he were, he would need to have been very Joran-like, brininging this back on thread.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Please understand that the Wheeling Register does not support, in any shape or form, any claim made by Reginald Hutchinson in The Ripper and the Royals, and I am asking nicely. The Wheeling Register claimed that Barnett was drunk at the inquest and that he was living with a woman other than Kelly at the time. Pretty much every other source disputes both of these allegations, and most claim the reverse, especially in the former case. In a headline entitled "Gossip", the Wheeling Register claimed that some clever individual "invented" a description and was paid to accompany police in search of a man fitting that "invented" description, whereas Reg insinuated to Melvyn Fairclough that his father was paid to keep quiet about having seen Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper in the company of Mary Kelly.

Once again, I couldn't urge more strongly against using a highly dubious contemporary press account from America to bolster an even more dubious claim in a modern book touting the Royal Conspiracy - or rather, an even more outlandish version thereof - as the most viable solution to the ripper murders.

I repeat - and I look forward immensely to banging on about this if ever the issue is raised again - nobody needed to have read the "Wheeling Register" to form a basis for the story about Toppy being paid for his eyewtiness "services". The Wheeling Register does not lend weight to any of Toppy or Reg's claims - most emphatically and irrefutably.

Cheers,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

Richard,
if Toppy couldn't actually have been the witness, and every known fact about Toppy is in opposition to every description of Hutch (there is not ONE thing that links these men other than a shared common name -and even then not the Topping bit -). Your whole argument reposes on the fact that it MUST be true because Reg said so.

None of us know anything about the integrity of Reg Hutchinson -however, I am totally willing to believe that Reg was telling the absolute truth.

I'm actually being very kind to Reg here -you say that Reg didn't know anything about the case, and had to borrow a book to read up on the subject...I find that rather strange. Jack the Ripper was probably the most infamous murderer in History, and Reg would have to have lived on another planet to have not been familiar with the name and notoriety at least...and there was his Dad not only telling him that he had been standing in Miller's Court on the night of the last murder, that he believed that he had seen the murderer...and he knew the murdered woman ? You'd have thought that Reg would have been full of questions !

"you knew her ? How well ? what was she like ? How come you were living in a Doss House, with no money..when you'd spent so long training to be a plumber and are never out of work now ?" Yet Reg seems to have been strangely incurious :

...he doesn't seem to have had any description of Mary at all, any knowledge of why his Father would have been living in such circumstances, and no urge to find out more about the case by getting a book out of the library or ordering one from the bookshop. Infact , the only things that he seemed able to repeat from his Father, was information that had been published in Newspapers. Fairclough must have been so disappointed in Reg not being able to give him new info, when he surely questioned him, and only things that he could find for himself by 'research' -a bitter blow.

But, no matter, I will believe that Reg was entirely honest, and the one fabulating was Toppy. A Toppy who was 22 at the
time of the immense publicity surrounding the murders, who was educated and able to read newspapers, who's attention was taken by the coincidence that he and the witness shared a name, and who had a very good memory for detail (according to our oracle).

I will also be kind to Toppy and say that he didn't begin telling his son fibs, to make himself more interesting..he had identified himself in his mind with the witness and could visualise the whole scene in Miller's Court in his mind, like a film director with himself as the actor. This is a known mechanism of the mind (I'll still lend you my book if you want), and to a lesser extent one that everyone experiences when they visualise their own childhood memories -those incredibly clear memories of
family holidays, or weddings, often turn out to be false when the facts are checked, photos looked at, parent's questioned etc;

The Wheeling Register, I hear you say :

Well, like Ben said, it made other mistakes..but that sum of money mentioned is entirely unbelievable. Infact 5 WEEKS wages is totally preposterous. We are talking about an unemployed casual worker living in a Doss House in a place of extreme poverty -why an earth would the Police pay him such a fabulously princely sum, when he didn't even have a job
not to go to anyway ? Couldn't they just compel an important witness to assist them ? That they might pay his lodgings and food (expenses) for the day -fair enough. He only accompanied them for a few days though..

I think that Chris Scott pointed out that the exact same sum was supposed to have been offered to Mathew Packer to
close his shop, and help them..boy did those coppers chuck cash about needlessly !

This sounds to me like an 'urban myth' repeated by incredibly poor East Enders, and picked up by the Wheeling Register (if you prefer that Toppy couldn't have read that document, and Fairclough didn't discover it during rsearch and feed it to Reg).

Either way, it helps prove that Toppy's 'memories' were false, because he was repeating an error.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I obviously respect your opinion, however I oppose your view when it comes to the Wheeling Register.
Several points to make.
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? if that being the case he could have had his fill, then returned to the inquest worst for wear,if not the case his speech impediment could have given that impression.
Also it was claimed that he took of with one of the women witnesses, since the death of kelly, which is entirely possible, infact for all we know they might have been of a ''together appearance at the inquest, and given that impression.
I agree the Wheeling Register is reported to have been a gossip paper, but where does a lot of other news derive from?.
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]
But the payment.
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 with both the radio report in the 1970s, and Faircloughs account in 1992, and this report was only featured in this rather obscure edition, descovered only relatively recent.
Unless a rather dubious radio researcher, fed that snippit to Reg Hutchinson as part of a story , which he relayed on the wavelengths in a slot of that 40 minute airing , or the whole story told by Reg was true.
Fairclough could not have been involved as the broadcast was the best part of two decades earlier.
Lets clarify one thing.
The broadcast did suggest that 'Astracan' looked as if he came from higher up the social ladder, but the interview with Reg [ which it had to have been] did not imply that his father said he was paid to keep ''quiet', infact he maintained that his father[ [proven Topping] never revealed why he was paid.
one could speculate all one wishes, but it never came from Toppings lips.
infact the words used allegedly from Topping to his son /family were I quote as best to my ability.
'It was his biggest regret, that dispite all his efforts, nothing came of it'
Which implies to yours truely... assisting the police, and if any payment occured it was proberly from them.
Although one could never rule out a more sinister explanation.. I repeat that suggestion was never made originally, but I suggest was implied to Reg by Fairclough, with the intention of sales, and I have heard privately that Reg was promised a wedge if the book was a success, so naturally spicing up the story would have ok by him.
I too could argue my conviction until domesday, because as I have said .I heard that broadast, I was not imagining, or smoking joints etc.
8pm one weekday evening , and at a guess 1973/4.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

I have heard privately that Reg was promised a wedge if the book was a success, so naturally spicing up the story would have ok by him.

Richard, I think that you must be a lovely man, and very honest to tell us that
...and unflinchingly loyal to Reg and Toppy.

I didn't know that bit of info ! It certainly colours our interpretation of what
Fairclough quoted Reg as saying...I certainly hope that you DO find that radio
show (my offer still stands)...because otherwise it will surely make me question who was the fabulator between Toppy and Reg !

[claire]

You haven't tried the Radio Times Archive, Richard? (Am presuming you have.) If not, why not just drop them a line? You'll be in the best position to describe said programme and someone there might be feeling helpful. enquiries@radiotimesarchive.co.uk

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
I agree both your good self , and Ben, make valid points for the prosecution, but the fact remains the late Reg, myself , and a handful of Casebook members, are not the only ones that remain faithful, many of the older members of that family still believe the account, infact Regs brother [ still alive?] remembers his father mentioning it.
I agree on one point although.
Five pounds/hundred shillings was a huge sum in 1888, however Jack the Ripper was someone, who the police were desperate to catch, and someone like hutchinson [ who Abberline originally believed] might have led them to the whitechapel fiend, so cheap at the price ?
Informers today are paid huge sums , for important imformation, rewards are substancial also.
Even the reward, for the capture of the Ripper, posted all over the district was hardly a poultry sum in 1888.
Regards Richard.

[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.

[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]

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,

“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

[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.

[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.