George William Topping Hutchinson Records

[Lechmere]

On the contrary – this investigation is tending to show that Toppy and his son (and the whole family) were not lying and that Dew (about his age) and the Wheeling Register (about his payout) were broadly accurate as well.
I think we can assume that Toppy gilded the Lillie when he gave his police and press interviews and may even have conceivably got his days mixed up! My general opinion remains that he over elaborated and added bits to make his testimony seem more important as he was after earning a few easy shillings.

I think we need to look elsewhere for the savage mutilator.

[Lechmere]

Doing these sorts of investigations it is tempting to see someone living at an address in one census year, and another in the next census year and assume they just moved from one to the other at some time in between. In reality human life is often more complicated.
For example we know the Hutchinsons were living in Hornchurch in Essex in 1861 and in Norwood in Surrey in 1871.
To close it down a bit we also know that Toppy’s sister Jane Emily (or Emily Jane) was born in Hornchurch after the census in 1861 and that Toppy was born in Norwood in 1866.

That would tend to suggest that they moved between 1861 and 1866.

However it is know that there was another Hutchinson child, who died young. This is a matter of interest for two reasons. It shows that families make unexpected moves about the country. It also tells us something about the use of names in this particular family.

The child was called Elizabeth Topping Hutchinson and was born in the second quarter of 1863.
She was born in Dorchester, the county town of Dorset.

She was baptised on 19th July 1863. George and Jane Hutchinson are listed as her parents and George was a plumber.

She did not live long enough to be enumerated in a census. Elizabeth died aged just 7 in the third quarter of 1870 in Lambeth. Norwood of course came under Lambeth.
Incidentally look at the infant mortality rates for the 22 Hutchinson names that can be seen. No less than twelve died before they reached the age of 20.

I have no idea why they might have moved briefly to Dorchester. Perhaps George senior had an employment opportunity that didn’t work out.

I think the more interesting aspect is in Elizabeth’s name. Her middle name Topping was recorded as such in all three official entries relating to her short life.
By contrast, for ‘Toppy’ the middle name ‘Topping’ rarely features and then only after 1891 – as far I am able to determine currently.
It is my theory that Toppy adopted ‘Topping’ as a middle name after he left home in memory of his mother, who would seem to have suffered a long debilitating illness which must have dominated his childhood. It was an affectation. An act of defiance against his father.

So I don’t think Toppy was Toppy!

[Malcolm X]

On the contrary – this investigation is tending to show that Toppy and his son (and the whole family) were not lying and that Dew (about his age) and the Wheeling Register (about his payout) were broadly accurate as well.
I think we can assume that Toppy gilded the Lillie when he gave his police and press interviews and may even have conceivably got his days mixed up! My general opinion remains that he over elaborated and added bits to make his testimony seem more important as he was after earning a few easy shillings.

I think we need to look elsewhere for the savage mutilator.

ok so if he was there....then his description is still over elaborated, this is a fact ! my guess is that he described a theatrical LA DE DA Jew on purpose, for maximum tabloid publicity, this means we're screwed, because we cant peel off the layers to reveal a more realistic suspect.

also, if he did see the Kelly suspect, what is wrong with describing exactly what he saw!!!! he didn't because his whole statement is flawed from beginning to end, almost everything he said...... he thus had to make up the suspect from scratch, as said, he was after the money only.

that is, if this really is the GH that we're after.

it has always been said that GH went to the police because he was seen standing outside miller's court, but JTR wouldn't give a toss about being seen would he, because we've noticed this already havent we...JTR would think ``who gives a sod if they saw me``

thus, there is no way that JTR would ever have gone to the police, unless he wanted to, to spread his anti-semetic hatred, but taking this huge risk would only ever apply to an intelligent and highly confident person and definitely not Toppy.

JTR can only be another GH..... or someone like Blotchy face.

finally, JTR going to the police as GH is totally awesome, but is this stretching a theory too far ?........yes, but only if the signatures are proven to match!

so i hate to say this, but JTR could still be GH, but not Toppy

[David Knott]

[QUOTE
If Reg had a younger brother then he must be ancient. Toppy had Reg late in life as it was.
The family must have a good memory – few would know anything that far back unless there was a big something to rememeber
QUOTE]

Reg's brother was born Q3 1920.

The family had a few oral traditions relating to Toppy, and, I suspect, had done their own research, some of which duplicates your own work.

David

[Lechmere]

David
The interesting aspect is that the family oral tradition complements the facts as can be established via the records.

Malcolm - Hutchinson is hardly the only suspect out there!

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=David Knott;193512]

As I have posted previously, when I contacted the family a few years back, the biographical details provided allayed any doubts I had regarding the likelihood of Toppy having been in the East End in 1888, also of him not having been a plumber at that time.

The negative aspect was that nobody in the family (Reg included it was inferred) seemed to know anything about the connection with the witness GH prior to 'The Ripper and The Royals'.

So, infact we're almost back at square one, since I remember David's posts and have never doubted that Toppy was in the East End at this time
and did some jobs other than plumbing. It was also suggested that there had been a falling out with the stepmother.

I bet you that he was never a groom though. The witness was defined as
being a groom now labouring....that is a proper job description, not looking after a horse once or twice. Nowhere is Toppy described as a groom.

I used to use the 'Essex' connection in all my arguements when I believed that Toppy and Hutch were one and the same ; but how many people in the East End must have had family connections to Essex -it being a few hours walk away ?

Despite the repeated use of the words 'lodging house', Toppy's lodgings seem more the equivalent of the sort of bedsit land houses or delapidated residential hotels/boarding houses, which I remember from my youth -not at all the same as a hostel-type common lodging house with 400 residents.

Still, the crux of the matter is whether Toppy was the witness or not, and
there is absolutely nothing to say that he was (I don't believe that Toppy was the killer -and I haven't for a very long time). David Knott's assertion that the family
-including Reg- didn't know about a connection between Toppy and the witness before 'The Ripper and the Royals' casts an enormous doubt.

I think, Lechmere, that you will have to show that Toppy certainly lived
at the Victoria Home at the date that interests us, and that he was certainly a groom. Not that he lived in an over populated area of a big city teeming with people.

Still, there was something very interesting which emerged : Gary pointed out that the 1881 Registrar's handwriting is very similar to Toppy's, yet they obviously weren't the same person...

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...7&postcount=44

(Registrar)

Actually, I think that the Registrar was the witness !

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...4&postcount=22

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Although many new family ties have emerged thanks to Lechmere, it still does not connect Topping as being the witness George Hutchinson.
What needs to be found is the Radio times that I have been rambling on about for years..which featured 'The man that saw Jack', for it is within that programme that 'either 'Reg' or someone representing him. orally spoke the same story precisely, which featured in 'The Ripper and the royal' some eighteen years later, proving that the author was not the instigator of the tale.
As I have mentioned on Casebook, I and two members of my family, conducted a search three years ago at Brighton University [ library] and concentrated on editions from 1971-74 , but because of the huge amount, and the heat [ height of summer] and the fact that only the pages leading up to the programmes list was viewed, we drew a blank, and three extremely hot and ratty folks returned to a very hot car frustrated.
However after some serious thought, I was able to picture an article on the programme actually being in the rear pages of the edition[ left hand side], which we left.
So once again I offer this information to the more active, and perhaps younger, amongst you who are more experienced at library research than myself
Its there somewhere... that is a fact.
Regards Richard.

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro
What sources do we have for Toppy and Hutchinson?
The police report, various newspaper cuttings and Dew’s memoires.
We have various official records – the census, births, deaths marriages, baptisms and the electoral roll.
We have family oral history.
We have handwriting analysis.

I am checking the official records to see if they dovetail with the other sources and in my opinion they do almost as a hand fits a glove.
The family oral history will inevitably be contradictory. This is due to the passage of time and no doubt also internal family rivalries. It will also get tainted by research and later suggestion.
Nevertheless the family tradition, if taken in the round, also dovetails with the official records and the police and press reports.

I think the majority view is that the handwriting matches also – notwithstanding the point that people tended to be taught to write in a similar manner. A glance through the various handwritten records actually does display a wide variety of written styles. Toppy’s was not unique – but few people’s handwriting style is. His matches the style used by Hutchinson even though the examples of Toppy’s handwriting that are used as a match are at least ten years later and in some instances 23 years later.

We are not going to get a record that places him squarely in the Victoria Home in 1888. All we can do is amass as much information as possible and see what is the most likely answer.

For example, we know that he probably left his family home around 1887.
We know that he had Topping relatives in the East End who his family almost certainly had been in contact with.
Therefore it is likely that his first port of call would have been the East End, where accommodation was cheap and plentiful.
The Victoria Home is precisely the sort of place where someone like him would have ended up. It was not a grubby doss house. It may have been large but it was universally acknowledged as being well run and orderly.

We know he married an East End girl and there’s a story that they met at a music hall in 1895. The presumption must be that this was in the East End. This implies that wherever Toppy lived at that stage, he used to hang around the East End, perhaps with his cousin or friends he made in that area.

The only lodging house that we know Toppy lived in was at Warren Street. It was a proper, medium sized lodging house – which were also universally called common lodging houses. It was not a bedsit. The fact that he was living in a lodging house in 1891 is evidence that he could have been in one in 1888.

Thereafter he seems to have shared houses in the worst areas of London and even by the time he was 40 he had not put enough by to get a proper place to live. A hard working plumber should have been able to do that.

There were about 500,000 working horses in London. I have no doubt that many Carmen did their own grooming. But there would have been plenty of extra casual vacancies in that line of work. In a country estate or perhaps in a grand house off Eaton Square they would have expected a proper trained groom. However I am certain this would not have been the case in the majority of situations.
The fact that many working horse users must have acted as their own groom argues against it being a proper trade.

In short – we can place someone called George Hutchinson as probably living in the East End in 1888 and matching many of the presumed characteristics of the witness. If this were suspectology he would be the favourite suspect to an overwhelming degree.

(And I will try to get down to Colindale soon – I have been once already to have a quick look around and join)

[Malcolm X]

Hi,
Although many new family ties have emerged thanks to Lechmere, it still does not connect Topping as being the witness George Hutchinson.
What needs to be found is the Radio times that I have been rambling on about for years..which featured 'The man that saw Jack', for it is within that programme that 'either 'Reg' or someone representing him. orally spoke the same story precisely, which featured in 'The Ripper and the royal' some eighteen years later, proving that the author was not the instigator of the tale.
As I have mentioned on Casebook, I and two members of my family, conducted a search three years ago at Brighton University [ library] and concentrated on editions from 1971-74 , but because of the huge amount, and the heat [ height of summer] and the fact that only the pages leading up to the programmes list was viewed, we drew a blank, and three extremely hot and ratty folks returned to a very hot car frustrated.
However after some serious thought, I was able to picture an article on the programme actually being in the rear pages of the edition[ left hand side], which we left.
So once again I offer this information to the more active, and perhaps younger, amongst you who are more experienced at library research than myself
Its there somewhere... that is a fact.
Regards Richard.

the person that talked to GH's son was Ivor Edwards, he of D'Onston fame, he interviewed him years ago, Ivor told me this via private email whilst i was a member of his old JTR forum...... now sadly gone......Ben knows about this too.

Ivor told me that he did not believe that GH son was telling the truth and that also, GH was talking crap about what he saw that night, this is because Ivor walked these very same streets years ago before the area was redeveloped.... at night and in the rain !

GH son was indeed Toppy's son, so that part of the story is ok.

i am not convinced at all; considering what has also been said here today, that GH is Toppy, Toppy maybe impersonated him years later.

but to get more meat on the bones, i need to get those signatures checked by at least 5 professionals

thanks for your research Lechmere, because you're actually starting to tarnish Toppy with a few negative traits, unfortunately this isn't anywhere near enough to match him as a possible JTR, he's more ``fly by night, catch me if you can``.... which means he'll make a good liar.

for me, this is good ammunition !

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE=Lechmere;193693]Rubyretro

What sources do we have for Toppy and Hutchinson?
The police report, various newspaper cuttings and Dew’s memoires.
We have various official records – the census, births, deaths marriages, baptisms and the electoral roll.
We have family oral history.We have handwriting analysis

.

Hang on ! -what an earth is this ?

"The Police report" -so where does that say that Hutch is Toppy ? It doesn't say anything of the sort, or even indicate a similarity (for example both men were grooms, both men lived at the Victoria Home etc). There is nothing whatsoever in the Police report to tie Hutch to Toppy.

"various newspaper cuttings" -this really does have me at a loss...what or which newspaper cuttings say that Hutch is Toppy ? I've never seen one..

"Dew's memoires" -which don't say anything at all about a comparison between the two men. All they do is make clear that, whilst Dew continued
to believe in the bona fides of Hutch,, he knew that his story didn't add up, and at a loss to explain why, was reduced to speculating that he maybe got the day mixed up (which has been ably demonstrated to be a laughable suggestion).

"The various official records" -which all concern Toppy, and are very interesting...thank you very much, Lechmere (and I am emphatically not being ironic or sarcastic ). Not one single record ties Toppy to Hutch though.

"family oral history" -we have both David Knott's comment (the family, including Reg, did not seem to be aware of the link prior to 'The Ripper and the Royals') and Malcolm X's comment (he corresponded with the man who interviewed Reg, and thought that he was not telling the truth). David also suggests that the family had done a bit of research themselves...
family oral history ? -mon cul.

'handwriting analysis' -stop trying to wriggle away from Garry Wroe's extremely apposite parallels between the 1881 Registrar's writing of the name 'George Hutchinson', and the witness signatures - and Toppy's.

Obviously, the Registrar wasn't either of the men, so that neatly proves how very similar 'learn by rote' handwriting can be...

In short there is still nothing to link Hutch to Toppy apart from wishful thinking.

ps...and if you think that I'm just someone determined not to change my beliefs 'come what may' (despite the fact that I've already turned my coat once), then I can promise you that I approached each bit of information with the determination to consider that information with honesty, with the idea to the forefront that I might have to seriously revise my opinions

In the event I wasn't convinced -and by a long chalk...

[David Knott]

Rubyretro,

re post #141, small point of order, but I can't assert that Reg didn't know about a connection with GH the witness prior to 'The Ripper and the Royals'.

I can only assert that the 4 or 5 family members I contacted knew of no connection, and inferred (without saying it in so many words) that they didn't think Reg did either.

David

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro,

I didn't mean to imply that it was proved that Hutchinson equals Toppy - I meant these are the sources available and at our disposal relating to the possible connection. The sources which we can sift and which are in my opinion quite rich - much more so than for virtually all potential suspects.

[Malcolm X]

great stuff RUBYRETRO..

i never thought of it like that; but you are so right and your logic is whiter than white can be, there is no proof that this GH is Toppy, it's only years later that this theory/link came along and even then, it doesn't seem that convincing does it

but at that time, it just sais that the eyewitness is someone called GEORGE HUTCHINSON......nothing else!

but this weekend, i must send off those signatures

the great work Lechmere has done here, just tells us that Toppy was around at that time, but it doesn't say how many other GH were around at that time as well. if my memory servs me right SAM FLYNN found a few others too, because i can remember talking about it here years ago.

[Abby Normal]

Rubyretro,

I didn't mean to imply that it was proved that Hutchinson equals Toppy - I meant these are the sources available and at our disposal relating to the possible connection. The sources which we can sift and which are in my opinion quite rich - much more so than for virtually all potential suspects.

AHA! So you admit that he is a potential Suspect!!

Just kidding. Keep up the good work Lechmere.

[The Good Michael]

Rubyretro,

re post #141, small point of order, but I can't assert that Reg didn't know about a connection with GH the witness prior to 'The Ripper and the Royals'.

I can only assert that the 4 or 5 family members I contacted knew of no connection, and inferred (without saying it in so many words) that they didn't think Reg did either.

Many of my relations have no idea that my grandfather was involved with the Mafia, even my aunts. Yet, I do, and so do my brothers.

Mike