Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[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

[Fisherman]

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

The best,
Fisherman

[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

[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 ).

[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.

[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.

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

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

Mike

[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.

[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

[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..

[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.

[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

[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

[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).

[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.