No announcement yet.

Innocent, By George!

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
    dare I say it?

    Regards Richard.
    You can, Richard, I personally have no reason to doubt your word, as I have said several times. What is dubious is Reg's story.



    • I don't think Reg's story is dubious. I think Toppy embellished it a bit over the years. I think Reg told what he thought and Fairclough ate it up.



      • Mike,embellishment is an understatement in this case.

        Pace e salute.


        • David,

          The only thing that is difficult to understand is that he said his father said it had more to do with royalty than anything else. Obviously, Reg didn't say that and he can't be held responsible. When Toppy gave the statement he described someone wearing a thick gold chain (gold colored). Over the years, I'm sure that grew a bit. It's actually very logical that Reg would say this as that's what everyone says Toppy described, a toff.



          • So we have Toppy he embellisher.
            He clearly had nothing in common with Hutchinson then did he. Their story telling was so different.


            • Lechmere,

              Correct. Despite the overwhelming circumstantial evidence in favor of Toppy as Hutch, we do have to look for nuance to help the other side. They are failing fast.



              • Hi Richard,

                “Radio broadcast mid 1970s.... One hundred shillings”
                Any evidence that this broadcast ever happened? Because if not, it counts for nothing in this discussion, and it’s best not to mention it.

                “Faircloughs book hundred shillings.”
                Fairclough’s book: discredited by its own author, contained the claim that Toppy was paid hush money to keep quiet about having spotted Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper with Mary Kelly. This doesn’t lend any weight to the almost certainly false claim made in a gossip column of one single American newspaper that Hutchinson invented (interesting that you don’t embrace the “invented” bit as gospel) a description of a man seen with Kelly, and was paid to accompany police round the district on the basis of that invented description.

                Here are two appalling sources that are rightly considered to be beneath ridicule by all discerning commentators, and yet you’re claiming that they support each other and lend weight to the fabulously implausible Toppy being the real witness who introduced himself as George Hutchinson in 1888. I’d stop it.

                Best regards,


                • “When Toppy gave the statement he described someone wearing a thick gold chain (gold colored). Over the years, I'm sure that grew a bit”.
                  A bit?

                  How interesting.

                  So the presence of a gold chain mutated over the years – in Toppy’s mind – into a generalized impression that the murders had “more to do with the royal family than ordinary people” and that the murderer himself was “someone like Lord Randolph Churchill”?

                  That’s quite a significant embellishment really, isn’t it, and oddly specific, don't you think?

                  Nobody considers it just a tiny bit suspicious that the “embellished” version that Toppy just happened to have fed his kids in later years coincided with a popular myth that just happened to have entrenched itself in ripper lore at the time of the Reg interview; the Royal conspiracy? So when Toppy decided to allow his initial version of events to “grow a bit” to the extent that he mutates a surly Jewish bling-parader who lived in the district into an aristocrat associated with the Royal family (who clearly would not have lived in the district), it just happened to tie in nicely with the suspicions of a modern day conspiracy theorist?

                  Remember that royalty and Jack the Ripper only came to be associated with one another in the latter part of the 20th century; around the same time that Reg claimed his father implicated royalty. What a fun coincidence again – they’re really mounting up now.
                  Last edited by Ben; 03-07-2011, 12:53 AM.


                  • Hi Ben,
                    If GWTH was not the witness Hutchinson, then who was?
                    Have we a name given to us, that has been suggested by a member of a family, apart from Regs Hutchinsons ?
                    Are the handwriting samples from Topping ''completely'' different from the signature on the statement?
                    Can we disprove that Reg, or his father were not telling the truth?
                    As for the wheeling article.
                    I accept it was known as a 'Gossip' paper, and I accept that the word 'invented ' was thrown in, however the article in discussion, simply relayed what the British press was, Hutchinsons account was discredited, and proberly also refered to a payment figure which was known which did not figure in our press.
                    If one also takes the Barnett article, ie ''Drunk at the inquest'', we have a explanation that his speech impairment may have come across as ''having a drink''
                    So we cant blame that report as coming across the way it appears.
                    I have always maintained that it is extremely unlikely that GWTH, adopted the witnesses identity, knowing he was of the same surname, became familiar with the statement made, and whats more knew of a payment mentioned, unless he was the real deal.
                    On top of that maintained he knew of Mary Kelly, was a friend of hers, and walked about with constables.
                    Talk about identity fraud.
                    Of course it may be that Reg was the guilty party, and it was he that invented the whole story.
                    Not bad for a man that knew nothing about the subject, and it has been suggested [privately] that he had to borrow a book on the subject to know any details.
                    Are we, also suggesting that Reg would include his long dead father in instigating a pack of lies?
                    As for that ''darn '' radio programme, I have informed on this site that it lies within the pages of an edition of the ''Radio Times'', and if one has the inclination /patience to visit Brighton university [ by appointment slot] and looks through the rear pages [ left hand side] one will find it dating between 1972-april 75[ I was not resident in the house I heard it, after that date]
                    What would that prove ...if found,?
                    That yours truely is not bonkers,
                    That Reg supplied the imformation as the son of Topping, and it was either his voice on a taped message, or spoken on his behalf. some 18 years before the Ripper and the Royals, and long before he borrowed a book on the subject from a younger relative.
                    Which would give more credence to having gained the knowledge as ''claimed'' from his then late father ''Topping''
                    My case rests..
                    Regards Richard.


                    • Ben:

                      "You really must stop threatening to alert the moderators at every perceived slight "

                      Let me start doing so before you accuse me of it. I have told you that I very much dislike the allegations you repeatedly throw forward, stating that I reached my stance on Dew and the off-day theory only because of you. This is not true, since I have read Dew a number of times, just like I have told you.

                      If I was to contact the administrators every time I have been misrepresented or slighted on the Hutchinson threads, I would not have the time to visit the toilet occasionally.

                      Can we get back on topic now?

                      The best,


                      • Hi Richard,

                        “Have we a name given to us, that has been suggested by a member of a family, apart from Regs Hutchinsons ?”
                        Why would we expect one? How many other descendants of “ripper” personalities have made themselves known to authors? Hardly any. The likelihood, therefore, of the real descendants of the real George Hutchinson coming forward must be considered slim, assuming he had any direct descendants in the first place. Toppy was introduced to the public in the worst royal conspiracy book yet published, and he is inextricably linked to the outlandish theory contained therein. In addition to which, his signatures do not match the statement three according to a professional document examiner, and the biographical information fails to correlate with what we know of the real witness.

                        As for the Wheeling Register, it relayed “gossip” that was contradicted by all other sources, indicating that the gossip was of a very dubious quality. It contained the claim that Barnett was roaring drunk at the inquest, which is very difficult to confuse with a “speech impediment”, not that there’s any evidence that he had one of those either. It was observed that despite “labouring under great emotion” at the inquest, the coroner congratulated him for having given his evidence well. In other words, the polar opposite of the Wheeling Register’s claims.

                        If the British press knew anything about any payment, especially an inordinately large one, they would certainly have made reference to it.

                        “I have always maintained that it is extremely unlikely that GWTH, adopted the witnesses identity, knowing he was of the same surname, became familiar with the statement made”
                        No, no.

                        This is where you’ve gone wrong before, Richard. Neither Toppy nor Reg evinced any knowledge whatsoever of the actual content of Hutchinson’s statement. Reg simply observed that his father allegedly knew one of the victims and was interviewed by the police. You’d think that if Toppy was the real McCoy, he might have provided a few more details to his son than that, and would at the very least have mentioned the Astrakhan description and the likelihood that he was the last person to see Kelly alive.

                        But no, suspiciously this is all absent until Fairclough did the talking (big mistake), provided the statement, and introduced the “Abberline diaries”. Only then did Reg perk up with “Oh, I didn’t know any of this until you told me all about it, but yes, I’ve suddenly remembered that dad did mention the royals and Churchill and all that stuff that you’ve just told me comprised your new ripper theory.”

                        There’s no evidence that either Toppy or Reg “new” of any payment issue. It could have been pure invention, and let’s face it, Reg’s suggestion that his father was paid to keep quiet about having seen Lord Randolph Churchill does nothing to enhance the provenance of that claim.

                        “On top of that maintained he knew of Mary Kelly, was a friend of hers, and walked about with constables.”
                        But Reg said nothing about any of this, let alone Toppy. No friendship with Kelly was ever specified, and not even her name was mentioned.

                        “Of course it may be that Reg was the guilty party, and it was he that invented the whole story. Not bad for a man that knew nothing about the subject”
                        But that’s just the thing.

                        Reg displayed no knowledge whatsoever about the subject.

                        The claims made in the Ripper and the Royals are precisely what we would expect from a man with no knowledge of the crimes.

                        Best regards,
                        Last edited by Ben; 03-07-2011, 04:34 PM.


                        • Ben:

                          "What a rude thing to say about Fisherman’s theory! I can’t imagine he would take too kindly to being compared to a lemming destined for the cliffs."

                          My theory on Fleming being a good bid as the Ripper was formed before it surfaced that Fleming was 6 ft 7, Ben. If this holds true, I think that much is taken away from my proposal. And as it stands, the best bet is that he was a very tall man; the documents leave very little to challenge, since they seem quite clear.
                          The logical reaction to things like these, is not to say "that must be wrong, he must have been FIVE feet seven", and I must be correct". It is instead to recognize that one has probably been wrong, and I don´t mind doing that. If it can be proven that the records are wrong, and that Fleming /Evans WAS 5 ft 7, then I will immediately upgrade him again.
                          This is how I function - everytime new evidence is added, the time has come to reassess what it means to the thoughts you have in the case. And far from it being shameful to adjust to the known facts, it is instead wise. Those who are unable to do so will suffer badly.

                          So I´m fine with Mike´s verdict. In fact, I would have been so at any rate. We all see things differently from time to time, and that´s as it should be.

                          The best,


                          • I thought you just said you wanted to return to the "topic", Fisherman.

                            So I´m fine with Mike´s verdict.
                            Okay, so anyone who reads your Ripperologist article and agrees with its conclusions deserves to be compared to a "lemming" headed for the cliffs?


                            • "I thought you just said you wanted to return to the "topic", Fisherman."

                              Oh, I do - and, in fact, I was not the one that brought up the perceived brawl between Mike and me over this question. I just put it to rest.

                              And everybody/anybody who reads my article is welcome to make up her/his own mind about it´s value, just as anybody else is welcome to make his /her own call about how them minds were made up. It´s a free world - long as we are prepared to take the consequences of our choices.

                              The best,
                              Last edited by Fisherman; 03-07-2011, 04:46 PM.


                              • Hello Ben,
                                Memory cap on.
                                I know, and appreciate, your views on the alleged radio broadcast of the 1970s, however all Reg said on that broadcast[ regardless of taped , or spoken on his behalf] was his father told him that he saw a man of a toff appearance approach the last victim, on the morning in question, and he followed them out of curiosity, he remarked it appeared to be of a higher class of gent, which made him take note.
                                The programme did not state that Reg was aware of his fathers statement, but was obviously informed that it had a similar pattern.
                                He [ Reg] could only give a character reference of his father, and maintained he knew nothing about where the hundred shillings payment came from '' He never mentioned where it came from'' was all he could state.
                                He added that [ words I shall never forget
                                It was dads biggest regret that dispite all his efforts, nothing came of it.
                                Thats all I can say Ben, I must sound very repetative to someone that is alien to such a broadcast, but I can only relay to casebook, a happening which no one else apparently heard, in good faith and honesty.
                                Regards Richard.