Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Rubyretro]

Mike -obviously I mean't Garry Wroe, and mixed Stephen Knight with the W in Wroe -impossible to edit now !!!!

apologies to all -particularly Garry !

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

I'm kind of argued out about Hutchinson. He has been argued to death and those who find him guilty will not be swayed for whatever reasons they have conjured up or read. We argued for many long months, and when something as simple as the possibilities of two signatures being so similar from the men in question becomes impossible to reconcile, I give up. It's like arguing with religionists who have faith. How can a systematic approach be undergone from my side when I have to battle faith? Impossible and I'm done with it.
But... thanks for playing.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

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[/QUOTE]

David thanks for your reply..this question is still worrying away at me though.

I don't know that it is reasonable to assume that Toppy's Dad would have been 'together' with his second wife for a few years before marrying her.
I know that people DID have long courtships, and that working class people DID move into together before marriage...but even so, a man who had been married before and used to a regular sex life, would probably want to replace it pretty rapidly. Given the fact that it must have been difficult to find sex outside of marriage (bar with 'prostitutes'), and he had a regular job, a house to run, children to raise, and the money to afford a household..I'd have thought that he'd be looking to remarry fairly quickly. Financially, having a house and a Trade, he'd have been a 'good catch' for many women.

But who knows -I'm only speculating. So Toppy could have been doing all those macho jobs (I see 'nightwatchman' was another), and gained a 'military appearence' between ages 19-22. Living with those working men in the Victoria Home, would certainly have turned him into a bit of a Hard Man by 1888 ! No wonder he needed a spot of ice skating as a relief -and is it my imagination but, did Toppy also play the violin ?

Garry Wroe seems to think it 'likely' that Toppy qualified as a plumber in 1886,
after an apprenticeship. He's not much given to speculation, so I thought that he was basing his 'likelihood' on some clear indications -but maybe not.

Still we DO know that Toppy was educated, and since he went on to run his own business, we can deduce that he was a bright spark, and a bit artistic (given his hobbies, and the fact that he married an actress). It makes me wonder why, since he must have had superior writing skills, he didn't seek
to use them to get a a better paid and less strenuous job in London -rather than putting himself in competition with all those immigrants coming in who were willing and able to do physical labour for little money ?

What do you think ?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"he must have had superior writing skills"

I think, Ruby, that it would be arguments like these that sort of put people like me and Mike off ever so slightly when it comes to the Toppy issue.

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

Rubyretro is completely hung up on the word 'scholar.' She appears to believe this means he'd won an exhibition to Cambridge or something. I used to be fascinated with debating Hutchinson...now, even if one is in agreement with Rubyretro on any point, she reacts as though one is either arguing against her or stupid.

There is no reason to believe that Toppy would have had 'superior writing skills.' He wasn't bloody Dickens by virtue of having spent a few weeks or months in a crappy little school room. Nor should we assume he was particularly bright for having his own company...as anyone who has suffered a crap plumber would know. It appears that certain parties are taking the tiniest behaviour (ice skating, going to school) and dilating them until Toppy becomes an adept in everything he undertakes, thereby giving the lie to his identity with the Kelly case 'witness.'

I think it is perfectly possible for people to keep small events discrete (please disambiguate this homonym before accusing me of stating that I am saying it was on the QT) and not for them to talk about them all the time. Examples are legion and I don't think grandstanding about how 'memorable' certain events are gives any argument for or against Toppy's candidacy here.

[Rubyretro]

Claire, and Fish..I too get weary of arguing..although I really, really enjoy healthy debate..however, I feel I have to defend myself, so here goes :

I do not think that Toppy was a 'Cambridge Scholar -I think that he stayed in school longer than alot of working class people at the time, and therefore he could read and write better than many, and certainly better than your average labourer

Lot's of people have tried to question the literacy levels of people living in Whitechapel at the time , on these threads -and I have pointed out the fact that schooling was compulsory, and I have seen letters demonstrating that my Great Grandma (who attended the Ragged School in Mile End) was very literate.

However, nobody is surely going to argue about the fact that some people
were/are more literate than others, and that was so in the East End then as now ?

Who could argue that if Toppy benefited from longer schooling (together with the clues about his later life), that he wouldn't be somebody who was more literate than average ? Where is the problem ? Why wouldn't he try to use his skill ?

Running your own business is something admirable that takes alot of work
-I don't need to go into the fact that you need to be able to work out the
accounts... expenses/time spent/money charged/number of customers/investments/rentability and wages of workers if you have them/ material in stock etc, and then have the training and expertise, experience and publicity to make a go of it : starting your business is one thing, making a go of it is another (and Toppy was 'rarely if ever out of work'), and building up a faithful clientele and I presume a reputation.

Your crack about 'crap plumbers' is so snobbish and patronising. Give the man his due !! Plumbers are skilled people, and successful self employed people are admirable, and Toppy appears to be someone who was 'rounded' with some artistic leanings, and a good Family man (who knows about his family relationships, but he stayed married to the same woman and brought up his children without them ending up in Prison or on the streets).

The life of many of the men living in the Victoria Home, by contrast, must have been a series of dead end, casual, physical labour with increasing competition and hand-to-mouth finances. It was not their fault (in many cases), but they didn't have the advantages that Toppy undoubtably did.
Nor did they have the chance to afford to marry and found a foyer, and were obliged to sleep with prostitutes for an outlet for their healthy sexual needs : hence the number of prostitutes to satisfy the demand.

Claire -I don't know why you are so aggressive towards me ? I'm a very mild mannered person, I promise you ! You have successfully made me think twice about bringing Hutch into other Threads..but this is a Hutch Thread , so I don't know why I shouldn't write about him ? On the other hand, if you don't like the subject, why are YOU here ??

ps when it comes to 'grandstanding memorable events', as you so sneeringly put it ...no one has yet
taken the facts and tried to argue that they wouldn't have been memorable events for Toppy (had he been the witness) -except for Richard, who tried to compare it to loading Ronnie Bigg's van with wood ( nothing to do with the GTR)., and I promise you that I will change my mind if you give me a good enough reason to do so.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" I really, really enjoy healthy debate"

So do I, Ruby - that is why I objected.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

How can a systematic approach be undergone from my side when I have to battle faith?

Well, I'm sorry you feel that's what you've been "battling" against, as opposed to a contrary opinion, the reasons for which have been discussed in considerable detail and have nothing whatsoever to do with "faith". For the record, and speaking only for myself, a recoginition that Hutchinson ought to be considered a reasonable suspect has very little to do with the issue of matching or mismatching signatures.

[Rubyretro]

Ruby:

" I really, really enjoy healthy debate"

So do I, Ruby - that is why I objected.

The best,
Fisherman

WE agree !
Object all you like with anything I say -only demolish it forensically -don't dismiss it with a one liner because it's difficult to debate ; that's just a coward's way out..

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"For the record, and speaking only for myself, a recoginition that Hutchinson ought to be considered a reasonable suspect has very little to do with the issue of matching or mismatching signatures."

Very much agreed, Ben. The two issues are not really connected. Of course, it can be argued that a man who lived an ordinary family life would perhaps not be as obvious a choice for the Ripper as many other characters, but being Toppy is by no means the same as being in the clear. Then again, to be honest, I do not think that anybody is arguing such a thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"that's just a coward's way out.."

Or, as an alternative, the way out of somebody who hast lost hope to participate in a balanced discussion. One safe sign of this being the case is when the counterpart you are dealing with starts yelling "coward" after you have pointed out that Toppy is not exactly proven to be a writer of "superior writing skills". Only the fewest are.

I think you will find, Ruby, that I have no intentions at all to stay out of the discussion on the whole. None whatsoever, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Then again, to be honest, I do not think that anybody is arguing such a thing.

I don't believe you are, Fish, which is to your credit. I was writing in response to what I took to be another insinuation that the signatures are being falsely dismissed by some because Toppy is somehow considered antithetical to the image of a serial killer. The findings of the ostensibly neutral document examiner, Ms. Iremonger, would of course make a nonsense of the first half of that accusation, and evidence of murderous men who are nonetheless violin-playing family guys certainly dispenses with the second.

Not that I consider Toppy remotely murderous!

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

I think you will find, Ruby, that I have no intentions at all to stay out of the discussion on the whole. None whatsoever, in fact.

The best,
Fisherman[/QUOTE]

I am very glad to hear it Fish -because I did so enjoy our last 'spat' !

I don't remotely think that Toppy was murderous either ! I can admire HIM on alot of levels: alas not Hutch.

I can't spend all day 'chatting' on Casebook though..so thought that I'd relax with the Leander Analysis for a while (never read it)..I'll be back soon..

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I was writing in response to what I took to be another insinuation that the signatures are being falsely dismissed by some because Toppy is somehow considered antithetical to the image of a serial killer."

Numerous serial killers are antithetical to the vulgar picture of such creatures, so, just as you reccommend, we should stay away from clearing anybody unless we have better evidence for it than a life as a family man.

"The findings of the ostensibly neutral document examiner, Ms. Iremonger, would of course make a nonsense of the first half of that accusation..."

Well, Ben, if we are to keep an open mind on issue number one, I think that we may need to do so on issue number two also, by considering what the likewise ostensibly neutral document examiner Frank Leander said on the very same subject.

Quid pro quo, to put it slightly more Hannibalish.

The best,
Fisherman

[claire]

Oh, I am so sorry. The thing is, you see, every single thread that involves Mary Kelly over the past several months has evolved into a discussion about Hutchinson...and, for me, there is more to the Kelly case than Hutchinson. That is why it is frustrating for a person whose interest may be in the case itself to find that every thread has already degenerated into a Hutch discussion before one even gets there. You can see that it might be frustrating? In the past, people were quite strict about not drifting off topic...now, we can haul Hutch into Kelly, Stride and the development of the Haberdashers' Company. Sorry, but it is troubling, sometimes, when one's interest lies in a particular area.

And, the thing is, with regard to this thread, it would be nice to be able to openly debate a range of possibilities about the character of Hutchinson without being told who he is and who he is not, when as we all know, opinion remains divided on whether Hutchinson was an alias, or was Toppy, or another GH as yet unknown to us.

Lastly, grief, I need to provide a textual analysis to defend myself. Hardly worth it, really, but I *did not say* (snobbishly or patronisingly) that plumbers were crap. I said that anyone who had had a crap plumber would know...blah blah. Plumbers can be crap in just the same way as doctors or teachers or astrophysicists. It's not patronising.

And 'grandstanding memorable events' is not a 'sneering' phrase. I really wish you would learn not to impute according to your own personal interpretations. In fact, you pretty sharply dismissed Richard when he mentioned his associations. What I was, in fact, referring to, was the way that some people choose to make something of an event or experience, and allow it to colour their life, whereas others don't. Clearly, your experiences with dead bodies, animals or otherwise, have coloured your life and would feature in the topics you would share with others. For some others, this is not the case. Now, if (and I don't necessarily think this, it is mere hypothesis) Topping had been our GH, and if he had had involvement in the murder(s), wouldn't that be reason enough to conceal it? And, if he was our GH and was not involved (and I am one of those who believes that there is a fair possibility that he was not directly involved), perhaps he, in the fullness of life, would choose not to define himself with regard to the case. Possible? Possible, also, that he *was* thoroughly disturbed by the events...consider, if he made the event up, that the viewing of the body may have made him regret that? Or even if he had not made it up, perhaps he may have had regrets about getting involved? Perhaps, too, it became a matter of some shame to him. Even if not, there is reason enough to be sufficiently traumatised as to not wish to relive that with younger relatives. It occurs to me that there are at least five things I have seen in my life that I would not wish to discuss with my children, or anyone else for that matter.

I don't see what, in all this, means I don't have any interest in the GH conundrum. Or why it means that, because I don't agree with some of your suppositions, I should not be here. You are, of course, free to appeal to the administrators to ban me from this, or all other topics, if you disagree with this position.