Innocent, By George!

[lynn cates]

Reg

Hello Stephen. Just saw your post. Reg dead? When? I found a website that said he was alive.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Reg dead?
LC

No, undead, that's the problem.
Haven't you seen "Reg, Prince of Darkness" with Richard Nunweek starring Klove ?

Dvvvv

[GregBaron]

Senior Citizen discount...

Of course, at his age, time is of the essence.

Lynn, is Fairclough also ancient?


Greg

[Stephen Thomas]

1938

Hi David

The Ripper and the Royals book was very readable but in the last analysis, to my mind, a piece of derivative and formulaic crap based on the totally discredited Stephen Knight Royal Conspiracy Theory with, ho ho, an Abberline diary where our Fred can't even spell his own name.

But Mr Fairclough seems to have friends in our sometimes benighted community

[lynn cates]

Fairclough

Hello Greg. I don't know about Fairclough. Not sure how much light he could shed on Toppy. If he just had an interview, it may not be much.

Wish you could contact the Hutchinson family.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hello mon poto

But Mr Fairclough seems to have friends in our sometimes benighted community

Yes, but as you have observed, just recently and for bad reasons.

Too many gregories and not enough Gabriel Syme, if you ask me.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hello Greg. I don't know about Fairclough. Not sure how much light he could shed on Toppy. If he just had an interview, it may not be much.

Certainly Fairclough could shed some light : For example, how did he come to be in contact with Reg ? Richard insists that there was a radio programme with Reg talking about his Father, but we have no proof whatsoever that the radio programme existed. If it didn't, then how did Fairclough know of Reg ?

Suppose that Fairclough decided to try and find out who the witness George Hutchinson really was, and whether his descendants had any information, and got his researchers to investigate likely Hutchinsons.....and they turned up Reg and suggested to him that his Father was the witness ? Wouldn't that put a different slant on things ?

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Stephen Thomas;202866]Hi David,

Well I imagine that it's indeed a photo of Reg Hutchinson's father. Whether it's the 1888 George or not, where would such a photo have come from otherwise?

I agree.

Of course this is not a 1920s picture. The British working class in the 1920s didn't have snapshot cameras

There are plenty of pictures from the '20s. It is impossible to know the circumstances in which the photo was taken. For example, Mr Retro's family have plenty of very old photos, simply because they had a cousin who owned a photographic studio, and whose hobby was photographing his family informally. Anyway, I have loads of snapshots of my grandmother from the
1920s -the brownie box camera was widely available from about 1900, and by the '20s ordinary families clearly did take snapshots.

[Rubyretro]

The question is; has someone already soured this fellow on casebook members? If he thinks some of you all are setting up a patsy he may react with disdain. Should I just say I'm an amateur interested in this case?

That's a good idea; I wouldn't mention Casebook.
I'd like to know (see my reply to Lynn) the circumstances in which Fairclough
first heard about Reg.

Other questions might centre on exactly what approach Fairclough made to Reg. For example, if he said something like " hello, I'm writing a book about Jack the Ripper and I have reason to believe that your Father was involved in the case and so I'd like to interview you...don't worry, I'll pay you for your time and reimburse any expenses and if the book is a success, well..." that would colour alot of things, wouldn't it ?

Also, did Fairclough tape record and transcribe the conversations with Reg ?
I'd like to know how he formulated his questions to Reg -you can obviously
manipulate the answers that you get from someone depending on how you phrase the question (and that is one reason why I don't want to contact Fairclough myself).

I would also imagine that Reg said very much more than appeared in the book....it's obvious that his interviews would have been edited.
So, what else did Reg say ? And what did Fairclough choose to edit out ?

I'm sure that other people can come up with questions.

[DVV]

Apparently Reg did not talk much : my father was a plumber, was a down-to-earth person, got some cash from the police, and saw a man that resembled Churchill. That is all.

Reg never said what his father was doing in Whitehapel ; never said anything about his acquaintance with Kelly ; never explained why he didn't come forward earlier.
And these blanks do tell a lot.

Telling also, the fact that Fairclough is the only ripperologist who had ever
been in touch with Toppy's relatives.

[Rubyretro]

Greg -here is another question : Was Fairclough aware of the Wheeling Report when talking to Reg ?

This is not a question for Fairclough, but an aspect of Reg's assertions which
have always disturbed me.... How come that Reg never said anything that couldn't either be found in a book on the JTR case, or found by Fairclough and his researchers ? For example, looking at MJK's body must surely have been a life long memory for Hutchinson (the way she was butchered was surely traumatising for any normal human being to see -it was hardly an ordinary dead body). Certainly some people don't like talking about things like that, but you would think that Toppy might have mentioned to Reg that he had seen the body ; wouldn't it have been straight away in his mind when he recounted his 'story' ? My intuition tells me that Reg doesn't touch on this because it isn't something touched upon in books he might have read (which he could have ordered from his local library), nor that Fairclough could have found in his research.

[DVV]

Hi David

The Ripper and the Royals book was very readable but in the last analysis, to my mind, a piece of derivative and formulaic crap based on the totally discredited Stephen Knight Royal Conspiracy Theory with, ho ho, an Abberline diary where our Fred can't even spell his own name.

But Mr Fairclough seems to have friends in our sometimes benighted community

Hi Stephen

yes it is based on Knight's theory, in which Hutchinson is a key witness : "He (Hutch) was the only man to give a good description of the person most likely to have been Jack the Ripper" (Knight)

Hence Abberline diary, hence Reg, in his disciple's "Ripper and the Royals".

Moreover, finding the 1888 witness would have been a formidable achievement : so if Toppy was Hutch, Fairclough would have undoubtedly published unshakable proofs of this. But he did not, and Reg didn't either.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
With respect,there is a awful lot of rubbish being voiced here.
The Topping picture is authentic, it was always present in Reg Hutchinson's home[ Ivor Edward's ] it is a genuine picture of his father, all this discussion on ageing the photo is silly , we have a genuine late 20s/early 30s picture of a man early sixties, no mystery there...
In our desperate plight to trace the Ripper, we tend to focus on unrealistic suspects , and Hutchinson is one of them, he was simply a witness that at least tried to assist the police, in catching the man that he believed[ and the police] killed Mary Kelly.
In other words quote.. Reg's own words.
He said he knew one of the victims, and had to give the police a statement, he was paid one hundred shillings, but never said from who, but it was his greatest regret , that it came to nothing.[ radio broadcast][
What is wrong, or mysterious, about a 22 year old male , knowing a 24 year old female, especially a young lady that was quite attractive?
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Hi Richard

In our desperate plight to trace the Ripper, we tend to focus on unrealistic suspects , and Hutchinson is one of them

No Richard, we are merely trying to ascertain whether Toppy was the witness or not.

he was simply a witness that at least tried to assist the police, in catching the man that he believed[ and the police] killed Mary Kelly.

In my opinion he was a man who didn't come forward in due time, even though he supposedly saw the man again on Sunday morning (which is by the way highly unlikely) and who was quickly discredited.
He regained some credit in risible royal theories and nowhere else, as far as I'm concerned.

In other words quote.. Reg's own words.
He said he knew one of the victims, and had to give the police a statement, he was paid one hundred shillings, but never said from who, but it was his greatest regret , that it came to nothing.[ radio broadcast][

Yes, he said so. And I believe the son of the real McCoy would have said much more.

[Rubyretro]

The Topping picture is authentic, it was always present in Reg Hutchinson's home[ Ivor Edward's ] it is a genuine picture of his father, all this discussion on ageing the photo is silly , we have a genuine late 20s/early 30s picture of a man early sixties, no mystery there...

Yes, I'm with you thus far, Richard..

In our desperate plight to trace the Ripper, we tend to focus on unrealistic suspects , and Hutchinson is one of them

He's a very realistic suspect in that he places himself at 'the last' (canonical, at least) crime scene, at a crucial time. So unless you now want to call Hutch a liar, Richard, you have to admit that he is a viable suspect. He is a whole lot more viable than other suspects that can't be placed anywhere near any of the crime scenes, and some of them not even in London (or England, for that matter).

he was simply a witness that at least tried to assist the police

Is how he presented himself. Obviously, JTR didn't want to be caught (if he had , he would have been), therefore JTR was hardly going to admit to being the Ripper.

in catching the man that he believed[ and the police] killed Mary Kelly.

Hutchinson -(whilst painting a caricatural Ripper-like portrait to the Police)-
professed to have had no idea that Astro Man could have been Jack. He afterwards embroidered the description, rather than back tracking. That is suspicious, Richard.

In other words quote.. Reg's own words.

We know absolutely nothing of Reg's integrity. You never met Reg, and on what basis can you form an opinion as to his honesty, other than taking his words at face value ?

He said he knew one of the victims, and had to give the police a statement, he was paid one hundred shillings, but never said from who

(Toppy, now) Well, evidently he wasn't paid 'one hundred shillings' by the Queen Of Sheba

but it was his greatest regret , that it came to nothing

.
Easy to say, and we don't yet know if the radio programme even existed.
'His greatest regret that it came to nothing' might be your own feelings about the witness projected onto him
]

What is wrong, or mysterious, about a 22 year old male , knowing a 24 year old female, especially a young lady that was quite attractive

Nothing per se. However, we are talking about a 'young lady' who was a rather rough and dissoulute prostitute. If you take your vision of an honest,
helpful, caring young Toppy (giving her free money an' all) and try and put the two together -(trying to superimpose the photo of one above the other as it were-) then your romantic ideal of an altruistic platonic friendship between the two appears very very unlikely ; They have no common background nor interests. The only interest that they might logically have in common is sex...and that (if their personal relationship was void) involved 'paying sex'.

All that, I'm afraid, Richard, would make Hutch a viable suspect for the murder of Kelly. Since I firmly believe that the killer of Kelly murdered the others (the canonicals at least -probably more), then it makes Hutch a viable suspect for JTR. It doesn't make Hutch Toppy.