Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[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

[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..

[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.

[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

[Fisherman]

Thanks for clearing that up, David - much appreciated!

The best,
Fisherman

[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.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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