Innocent, By George!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Stephen,
Absolutely agree..is Malcolm being serious? that post simply comes across as someone who has extremely limited knowledge of the case, and devoid of any common sense [ I hate to be rude..especially on Xmas day] and logic.
Dorset street was pulled down in 1928 [ how old is Ivor?]
I have mentioned many times the same Reg story was aired at least 18 years prior to Fairclough's publication on radio, so it most certainly was not invented to help the authors finances .
Hutchinson's [ Topping] living family are aware of the tale, and believe, Toppings other son knew of it.
Ivor came aware from his meeting with Reg , not certain, however did state that Reg's wife [ who was present] certainly believed her husband.
I attempted to contact J D Hutchinson wife of Toppings grandson, but she did reply, and I for one can not blame her, her husbands family members have been slanted for years on Casebook, his Uncle Reg a teller of untruths, and that man's father a stalker/mugger. pimp/ liar/and last but not least a Killer.
Charming would you not say,?
Regards and a happy Xmas
Richard.

[lynn cates]

constant

Hello Richard. Your story remains constant and your belief, unwavering. I admire a man who sticks by his guns.

Could you PM me on details about precisely how the Topping story could be corroborated?

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

.

I attempted to contact J D Hutchinson wife of Toppings grandson, but she did reply, and I for one can not blame her, her husbands family members have been slanted for years on Casebook, his Uncle Reg a teller of untruths, and that man's father a stalker/mugger. pimp/ liar/and last but not least a Killer.
Charming would you not say,?
Regards and a happy Xmas
Richard.

[/QUOTE]

Happy Christmas, Richard !

There is a very easy way to stop the speculation about Toppy: J D and her family could put everything they know about him in the public domain.

They apparently do know some things, according to David Knott, but only told him on condition that it was not made public! That is provocative, if anything.

David did mention that they had no knowledge of your radio programme, something that they should remember since it must be rare for a family member to be interviewed on national radio, and one would expect the rest of the family to have excitedly tuned in. If you can remember that programme
today, then there is no reason that they shouldn't, since they were directly
concerned by it.

They apparently know that Toppy had done other jobs other than plumbing, so they may also what those jobs were and if 'groom' was amongst them.
They might know very well where Toppy was as a teenager and whether it was likely or even possible that he had been a groom. I would have expected that someone who gave 'groom' as a job description would have continued to love horses and have an interest in them for the rest of his life, even if he became a plumber. What can they say about that ?

It may well be the case that they know exactly where Toppy was in 1888 aged 21/22. If they don't, they might at least narrow it down to an area or know if it was possible that he might have lodged at the Victoria Home.

I am well aware that Toppy came to fatherhood late, and has been dead many a year, yet my own Great Grand Mother died before I was born and I know quite a lot about her from my Mother and Grand Mother and family letters and documents. I contend that J D and her family may know quite a bit about Toppy -they might know things that they are unable to judge the significance of to us...

Whilst J D (and her husband ?) are still alive, we want the Hutchinson Family to put their cards on the table now. As these people die off, Toppy recedes further into the distance and precious information may be lost.

Until the cards are on the table, J D has no one but herself to blame that we continue to speculate that Toppy was a "stalker/mugger pimp/liar and killer".

[The Good Michael]

I agree with Richard's assessment. The sorriest thing is that no matter what the Hutchinson family might suggest, a few diehard Hutch haters will keep the nonsense going because they cannot bear to be mistaken. They have forgotten how to rationalize and how to assimilate new data because the blinders never come off. If you think I'm wrong, trawl through all the Hutch threads and look at the dolts who have never changed their minds about anything. It isn't so many really, but it's an obnoxious, vocal minority. Merry Christmas.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Maybe Toppy’s descendents are not obsessed with Jack the Ripper and do not aspire to be feted by sundry ‘Ripperologists’. I would hazard a guess that they might be the sort of people who would not be posting on or even reading a Jack the Ripper internet forum on Christmas Day (gulp). Maybe their world does not revolve around this matter. Maybe they don’t care what people on here think about them and their ancestor.
On a separate note, what proportion of the population would know what their ancestors were doing in 1888? I will answer that one in general terms – a very tiny proportion.
What proportion of the population would know if their ancestor took on the work of a groom for a few months in 1888 and then did something else for the rest of their life? Again, a miniscule proportion.
As there were over 500,000 working horses in London at the time I doubt that those who had to groom these beasts developed a ‘my little pony’ attitude.

On the issue of a pass and Hutch’s work status:
He was not unemployed or out of work – he was not in regular employment. This is quite a different thing.
The pass was required to let him enter the Victoria Home late – after 1 am or so. It was not the same as a bed ticket. He may well have prepaid for a weekly bed ticket (with Sunday thrown in free). This also makes sense with his story. That he went to his usual place where he had prepaid for a bed but could not get access as he got back too late and had not thought before hand to get a late night pass to gain entry. It is that simple.
The notion that no one would get back late is nonsense. I have done it. A friend of mine who lives in Waltham Cross told me the other day that he had to walk back from Trafalgar Square as he had run out of money one night. And he went to work next day. That is further than the Romford walk. Normal people do this sort of thing all the time.
It is only in the crazy world of Ripperology that some try to present walking from Romford to Spitalfields as a rival to one of the labours of Hercules.

[Robert]

Richard, re this radio programme that you are sure you heard : have you tried writing to the BBC radio accounts to ask if they have a record of a payment to Reg at the appropriate time? Of course, the accounts may have been shredded or Reg may have given his interview for free - but worth a try?

[lynn cates]

blitz

Hello Robert. At least I think it's a safe bet that they did not perish in the blitz.

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;202012]

Maybe Toppy’s descendents are not obsessed with Jack the Ripper and do not aspire to be feted by sundry ‘Ripperologists’

Toppy's descendants included his son Reg, who may have given a radio interview on the matter, definitely was interviewed for a book, and the next generation who have opened their doors to at least one researcher (Mr Knott). Therefore, even if they are not 'obsessed' with the Ripper story, they are well aware of the speculation, and that the roots of the speculation were laid down by them. If they want to be left alone, they should stop doing the Dance Of The Seven Veils (giving information and then refusing that it should be made public).

. I would hazard a guess that they might be the sort of people who would not be posting on or even reading a Jack the Ripper internet forum on Christmas Day (gulp).

I was getting tips for drawing the Turkey. What's your excuse ?

Maybe their world does not revolve around this matter. Maybe they don’t care what people on here think about them and their ancestor.

However, Richard told us that they do...

On a separate note, what proportion of the population would know what their ancestors were doing in 1888? I will answer that one in general terms – a very tiny proportion.

It would be interesting to know. Maybe more than you think. In History terms
1888 is a very short time ago. For example, I knew my maternal Grand Mother very well , and she would often talk about her Grand Father (b. 1847) about whom I remember some stories. I expect that if I questioned my Mother, then she would know alot more.

What proportion of the population would know if their ancestor took on the work of a groom for a few months in 1888 and then did something else for the rest of their life? Again, a miniscule proportion.

It defies logic that Hutchinson the witness had only taken on the job of 'groom' "for a few months" and then chose to give that as his profession to the Police, rather than labourer (or plumber !) which was his most recent
status. 'Groom' was a real job description, and if Hutch used it, then reason dictates that he done the job for a good while and groom is how he saw himself. Or do you think that he was lying to the Police, now ?

As there were over 500,000 working horses in London at the time I doubt that those who had to groom these beasts developed a ‘my little pony’ attitude.

I would think that some one who referred to themselves as a 'groom', and saw that as part of their identity, would like horses, yes..otherwise he would surely have wiped the whole experience from his mind. A fondness for the animals, or a hobby linked to them (such as following the Racing, or visiting
Horse Fairs), might be something remembered or referred to in family letters.

(comprehensively trounced, Lechmere !)

[DVV]

I attempted to contact J D Hutchinson wife of Toppings grandson, but she did reply, and I for one can not blame her, her husbands family members have been slanted for years on Casebook, his Uncle Reg a teller of untruths, and that man's father a stalker/mugger. pimp/ liar/and last but not least a Killer.
Charming would you not say,?
Richard.

Hi Richard

so they have no problem talking to Royal Theorists who clearly accuse INNOCENTS of being the Ripper (and btw Reg did name Churchill, if I'm correct), but refuse anything coming from more serious researchers, including your very good self who have chosen to believe them whatever they say ?

I can't accept this argument.

[DVV]

Ah ...now David, we might start agreeing...

Hello my dear

I've always defended Hutch candidacy as a viable and extremely serious one.

Simply, I have demonstrated that Fleming, if the killer, had excellent reasons to come forward as Hutch.

Which, of course, does not mean he did.

But since you think Hutch was the killer, since you don't believe he was Toppy, since you believe he was a liar (=possibility for 'Hutchinson' to be an alias), since you haven't yet identified your Hutch, and since you have no specific reason to dismiss Fleming's candidacy (as Hutch) a priori.....the disagreement you're alluding to is still beyond me, Ruby.

In my opinion, and with respect, the problem is that you don't realize that 'Flemtchinson' fully belongs to the Hutch theory - it does not change it at all, on the contrary it makes it indisputably more convincing, Fleming being in that case not only Wideawake Hat, but also the regular visitor that could be looked for as a routine suspect (the jealous ex) or/and as a precious witness who knew a lot about Mary Kelly.

[richardnunweek]

Hi all,
Hope you all had a great Xmas day.
Lets put things into prospective.
Reg Hutchinson knew hardly anything about the Ripper case , only bits , and could only reflect on what his father told him, and in later years from a book lent to him from a junior member of his family.
He did enjoy the limelight, [ little as there was] and was hopeful of a financial reward if the Ripper and the Royals sold well[ which the author promised].
In the radio broadcast[ 1970s] a man claiming to be the son of the witness [ Hutchinson] spoke of his fathers tale which included,.. that he believed the man seen with Kelly was someone up the ladder in society , as he was dressed in clothes which gave off that impression,.
In other words he was just repeating that belief 18 years [ or so] later to Mr Fairclough,, and not therefore inventing the story, to give the plot a stronger feel.
The fact is, whilst readers of 'The Ripper and the Royals ' , were reading Reg's story for the ''first time'' , to me it was second hand,as quite incredibly It appear's that I am the only member of Casebook, that sat down at 8pm on that night in the mid 70s, and listened to the said broadcast.
JD Hutchinson for those that remember, actually wrote a post on Casebook, stating that their were other members of that family alive, that were familiar with that tale, including her father-in-law [ Toppings other son] who remembered his father speaking of it.
But we should understand, that not everyone has a thick skin, when it comes to publicity which could become rather damming to a living family, and did not continue her correspondence.
I wrote to the good lady [ from a private address given] but she did not reply , either from choice, or that address being a previous one.
I would say it is almost certain that Toppings tale, came from him alone, and was not invented by his eldest son Reg, for fame, or gain. and as the hundred shillings payment was included in the original tale, and no British newspaper revealed that initially, [ only present in the Wheeling register USA] then only the real deal would speak of it ..that being one GWT Hutchinson.
I rest my case.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

It is an interesting insight into the mindset of some in the ‘Ripperological’ field of study that when a real flesh and blood person is presented as a credible candidate to fill the boots of an individual witness in this tale, all sorts of slightly spurious objections are raised.
Yet suggest a candidate for Jack himself and all sorts of flights of fancy, leaps of faith and the pure ignoring of reality become the norm. It has to be said that judgment is often clouded by semi romantic notions of the culprit being burned by unrequited love for the fair maiden Mary Jane.
Invariably the ‘witness sceptics’ are invariably the self-same ‘suspect fantasists’.

Come to think of it the same sort of motivation is given to Maybrick. Murdering to get back at his errant wife.

Frau Retro – if young Toppy left home around the beginning of 1888 (which seems to be the case) he would have taken up whatever employment he could find. Working as a humble groom would be one such casual vacancy available to a likely lad who was largely unskilled and reluctant to follow his faithless father’s profession at that stage.

Being largely unskilled he would sometimes do other forms of work – such as being a labourer. If his ‘profession’ was as a groom then no doubt he would not have been necessary for him to have find work as a labourer. There were as we know over 500,000 working horses in London and a lot more were privately ridden by the middle and upper classes. There would have been regular vacancies for grooms had it been his ‘profession’.

In such circumstances, as a youngster newly extracted from the bosom of his family and finding his way in the world on his own, if asked by the police some months later what line of work he had been employed in, he would have naturally said ‘groom’ and sometimes a labourer, not being in regular employment, and such an individual would commonly end up temporarily living in a respectable common lodging house.

It fits what we know of the man. The man being Toppy.

And Frau Retro, because the late Reg Hutchinson chose to talk openly does not mean that his niece would also wish to do so, even if she did briefly raise her head above the parapet. You are imposing all sorts of preconceived motivations on people you do not know.

I know a lot about my ancestry – yet if I was to try and pin down what any of my great great grandparents were doing in 1888 it would be almost impossible. It would be difficult enough to pin down what my grandparents were doing in any given month in 1968 (and believe it or not I was alive then too).
Many people involved with animals in the pre internal combustion engine, central heating and electricity era would not treat their animals very well. You must take off your comfortable Home Counties bourgeois rose coloured spectacles.
Similarly letter writing was a bourgeois pastime (unless they are of the poison pen scrawled ‘I dun it’ variety perhaps). Do you seriously think Toppy, Hutchinson (if not Toppy) or Fleming (if anyone is still clinging to that sunk ship) wrote letters? Letters extolling the virtues of ‘Black Bess’, ‘Dobbin’ and ‘Beauty’?

[Malcolm X]

you can hardly expect Toppy to be considered anything other than highly suspicious, due to what he said, it is his words and actions that raise suspicion... because what he sais is garbage... FACT!

BEN and i have proven this many times.

as to his family right now, i very much doubt that they know what Toppy was like simply because it's so many years ago, to show you what i mean, simply ask anyone in my family what my Grandad was like and they'll all paint a different picture, especially loved ones, they're even wrong about my father too and he only died 3 years ago..... let alone someone that lived in 1888.

Toppy ? as said, he's probably not this GH and if he is, then he probably saw JTR but foolishly lied about it...

[lynn cates]

A-man's status

Hello Malcolm. Given that Toppy is Hutch, I'm still not following why Hutch probably saw JTR. Why could MJK not have met a well dressed man, a man whom she knew, and had a visit with him? Why must he be either a killer or a client? There were certainly well dressed men in London--even in the East End. And even given MJK had resorted to prostitution after Barnett left, why could not a prostitute have a friend?

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Frau Retro

Lech-meeere (said with a curled lip, and a sneer in the inflection. You should know what I think of you by now).

Working as a humble groom would be one such casual vacancy available

Well, it wouldn't be actually. Since most grooms started as children, Toppy would have found that with no experience, no contacts in the horse-y world, and not that many grooms jobs going in an urban environment, that he would not find such a 'casual vacancy' easily available. Heck ! Even Hutch, a professional groom, was obliged to accept casual labouring jobs when he came to London.

Being largely unskilled he would sometimes do other forms of work – such as being a labourer. If his ‘profession’ was as a groom then no doubt he would not have been necessary for him to have find work as a labourer

.
'Groom' was a skill. I have just told you the reasons (above), as to why he couldn't find work easily as a groom in London (no contacts, lack of openings, jobs being done by underpaid children working their way up..)

There were as we know over 500,000 working horses in London and a lot more were privately ridden by the middle and upper classes. There would have been regular vacancies for grooms had it been his ‘profession’.

Most of those horses were cared for by their owners directly, or by the carmen driving them. Like any profession, it was probably a pretty closed shop with jobs going to people who had contacts in the milieu -particularly true of jobs with any kudos attached (such as working for a posh family).
He would have needed references ; I have wondered if -were Hutch JTR- he had not mutilated any horses somewhere, and could not provide references ?
(and do keep your cheap Equus jokes to yourself, won't you).

if asked by the police some months later what line of work he had been employed in, he would have naturally said ‘groom’ and sometimes a labourer, not being in regular employmentIt fits what we know of the man. The man being Toppy.

The man called Toppy might have said labourer. Hutch would have said groom, if that's the job which he had done for most of his life.

And Frau Retro, because the late Reg Hutchinson chose to talk openly does not mean that his niece would also wish to do so, even if she did briefly raise her head above the parapet. You are imposing all sorts of preconceived motivations on people you do not know.

I only judge by what I can see for myself directly. I see that J D might profess to not like the attention, but she is encouraging speculation by not
coming clean. I can only assume that she secretly gets a vicarious
pleasure from Toppy's notoriety (methinks the lady doth protest too much).
.

It would be difficult enough to pin down what my grandparents were doing in any given month in 1968 (and believe it or not I was alive then too).

I can readily believe it ! I'm only suprised that you can't remember what your
grand-parents were doing about the time that you must have been getting your first job.

Many people involved with animals in the pre internal combustion engine, central heating and electricity era would not treat their animals very well. You must take off your comfortable Home Counties bourgeois rose coloured spectacles

.
Home Counties ? I thought I was part of the Luftwaffe. What sort of argument is this on the subject ? I don't suppose that they were any more or less likely to kick the cat then any of us ( didn't you once Post that these
people coughed up for cat meat (re: the many cat meat businesses) rather than just chuck them an occasional fish head or something). If it's horses that you want to refer to in some oblique circuitous way, I expect that some were cruel to their horses and some were sentimental and every shade inbetween.

Similarly letter writing was a bourgeois pastime

What ? In an age before telephones, mobile phones, e-mails etc. ?
Even MJK got letters.

Do you seriously think Toppy, Hutchinson (if not Toppy) or Fleming (if anyone is still clinging to that sunk ship) wrote letters?

er...why not, if they wanted to keep in touch with people? ( If they couldn't write, then they went and found someone who could to write for them). Toppy went to school....I wouldn't mind betting that he had his 3 Rs drummed into him.

Letters extolling the virtues of ‘Black Bess’, ‘Dobbin’ and ‘Beauty’?

[/QUOTE]
That's sweet ! I see that you know all about 'My Little Pony"....are those the names that you gave to yours ?