Tweet
Originally posted by lynn cates
View Post
But you are not dishonest, are you ?
-
Still not commenting the core of my post ? Still no reply to my question ? Gareth isn't the subject, and btw does not believe in Toppy because of Fairclough. And that you know, because he just opened the big thread in order to find Hutch, who wasn't Toppy in his opinion at the time.
But you are not dishonest, are you ? -
independent
Hello David. As far as Fairclough and his theory goes, likely no one believes it--probably not even Fairclough.
As far as Toppy is concerned, I have no idea where the theory came from. One theory I've heard is that Fairclough--or someone like him--heard of Toppy and then interviewed Reg. He then proceeded to put the Lord Randolph idea into his head.
I am still not clear on your point. If we had never heard of Toppy, and no one else had ever heard of Toppy, and then IF Fairclough invented the Toppy story, then yes, that might dispose one to think that Toppy was not Hutch.
I have only one point, and that is that Toppy's being Hutch is independent of Fairclough's estimate. But, as has been pointed out by both camps, Toppy's being Hutch is also independent from Hutch's being JTR. These are all independent propositions.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
honesty
Hello David.
"Still not commenting the core of my post ?"
Glad to, once I understand it.
"Still no reply to my question ?"
That being?
"Gareth isn't the subject"
Never thought he was. I was merely pointing out that other theorists were interested in the question.
"and btw does not believe in Toppy because of Fairclough."
Nor I. I've never read Fairclough; don't intend to read Fairclough; have no desire to read Fairclough.
"And that you know, because he just opened the big thread in order to find Hutch, who wasn't Toppy in his opinion at the time."
Opening threads and researching are good ideas. And I don't see those ideas as being attached to theorists.
"But you are not dishonest, are you ?"
I'd like to think not. Of course, as CS Lewis once said, " . . . no more dishonesty than comes naturally to human beings." I offered to help find an examiner for the signatures but was told that it would make no difference.
Is Toppy Hutch? Don't know. Wish I did.
Is Hutch JTR? Don't know. Wish I did.
Did JTR exist? Let's not go there. (heh-heh)
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Oh, that's becoming funny.I am still not clear on your point. If we had never heard of Toppy, and no one else had ever heard of Toppy, and then IF Fairclough invented the Toppy story, then yes, that might dispose one to think that Toppy was not Hutch.
For the 59th time : where else have you heard of Toppy-the-witness ? Nowhere ! all we have heard is from Fairclough.
It is thus, as you said, just as if we had never heard of Toppy.
No (see above, including your own post I've quoted).I have only one point, and that is that Toppy's being Hutch is independent of Fairclough's estimate. But, as has been pointed out by both camps, Toppy's being Hutch is also independent from Hutch's being JTR. These are all independent propositions.
And as long as we will have no other evidence than Fairclough's word, Toppy-the-witness is potentially as dubious as the Abberline diaries.Comment
-
Adieu
Hello David. As I say, not sure of his origin.
Abberline diaries? Well, I suppose one could ask whether they are authentic or not, independently of whom discovered them. The answer seems to be that, given the kinds of errors they contain, it is likely they are not authentic. And that would most likely hold whether Fairclough had discovered them, or I, or anyone else.
At any rate, my intuition says it's time to leave this thread. It's not worth being upset. As I say, all I know about Fairclough is how to pronounce his name properly. (heh-heh)
And, on my part, absolutely no hard feelings.
Cheers.
LCComment
-
Hi Guys,
I know what happened,.. way back in the 1970s , one midweek evening at 8pm, two people tuned in to a radio programme, one was Fairclough , the other was me, we were both curious that a man claiming to be the son of the witness George Hutchinson , related a tale of payment, and someone up the social ladder, I did no more then just remember the broadcast, so that I could recall it some 30 + years on a website called Casebook, whereas Mr fairclough decided prior to starting his book 'The Ripper and the Royals', to trace a london costermonger, with the same surname into introducing this tale into his book ,as a plus for his Ripper book.
He also introduced a photograph of a unknown person , and placed it in his publication, after insuring the silence of that entire Hutchinson family.
Wow .. great idea Mr Fairclough.
So now we have poor 'yours truly' having been duped way back in the mid 70s by initially a tale invented by the BBC, and then by crafty MF, who went out of his way to secure a bogus Hutchinson., namely Reg, who was so besotted with visions of riches, that he allowed his poor innocent long dead father GWTH, name to be printed, and Toppings name to be associated with the Jack the Ripper crimes.
I apologize for sounding sarcastic, but I am totally convinced that Topping was the witness Hutchinson, and I find all the tales of ''dirty tricks', and all so frustrating, and to some degree amusing.
Regards Richard.Comment
-
What I know about Fairclough, my dear Lynn, is that he has used fake diaries and at least a fake pic to sell a book he called an essay.
That book being the first and the only one in which one Reginald Hutchinson said his father was the Dorset Street witness.
I've also learnt that soon after, Fairclough decided Maybrick was the Ripper, which strongly suggests a virulent type of diarymania.
Enough, indeed.Comment
-
Your devotion is admirable, Richard, but ill-placed.
A man that gives an interview to a radio, and 20 years later, appears in a ripper book, is certainly aware of what ripperology is like.
Then why choosing the most dishonest royal theorist ever ?
Again, a man involved in a ripper-book, and who had previously gone to the radio, is certainly eager to be heard and believed.
And to be believed, it was so easy to talk to any other researcher than Fairclough, or even to any average journalist, and present his evidence.
Why do you think he did not ?Comment
-
Hi DVV,
We are creating a mystery , when there is none, if memory serve me correct, back on that broadcast, the man claiming to be the son of the witness Hutchinson, said he had never ''heard'' his fathers statement before, and some 18 years later informed Fairclough that he had never ''seen'' the actual statement, until the author showed him.
That all make sense does it not?
Casebook in recent years, makes a huge deal in discussing Hutch as a shady character, and accused him as a Pimp/mugger/ killer of MJK/ even JTR,not to mention a deliberate liar.
Whereas all Reg was doing was relating a tale , which was known by other members of the family, ie. Topping knew one of the victims, and gave a statement to the police.
No big deal to them... but to Casebook Huge ''debate''
Dear Bob Hinton turned a witness into a monster, then admitted he accused the wrong person, but as good as that book was, it clouded over reality.
I have no idea how the BBC researcher uncovered Reg Hutchinson, to either get a taped message, [ or spoken on his behalf] for the radio broadcast, neither have I any idea how MF got word of his existence , maybe it was a friend of a friend, or by using the directory[ like Ivor did]
But I do stand by my conviction that it existed , I haven't dreamt up an illusion, and I am of sound mind[ normally..]
I am sure Mr Fairclough could at least clarify a few points, and the discovery of that [rare] proramme advertised in the Radio Times would at least indicate my being of sound mind, but what we need is audio proof...
Regards Richard.Comment
-
Hi Richard
No, it's Reg that created a mystery choosing Fairclough as his first and main confidant, the other one being Edwards who is said to have disbelieved him.We are creating a mystery
Does it ? Why he should have seen the statement, please ?if memory serve me correct, back on that broadcast, the man claiming to be the son of the witness Hutchinson, said he had never ''heard'' his fathers statement before, and some 18 years later informed Fairclough that he had never ''seen'' the actual statement, until the author showed him.
That all make sense does it not?
With all respect and friendship, Richard, how come that you believe anything is "normal" with Hutch, Toppy and Reg ?Casebook in recent years, makes a huge deal in discussing Hutch as a shady character, and accused him as a Pimp/mugger/ killer of MJK/ even JTR,not to mention a deliberate liar.
Hutch procrastinating 3 days ? No problem.
Hutch seeing the suspect again on Sunday ? Just routine.
Hutch talking to the press, as he wanted to warn the suspect, at the very time he was looking for him with the police ? How cute.
Reg involved with a raving author and nobody else ? That's ok.
But your masterpiece may be the anthem "Reg is hurt and thus keeps silent", for he had better be hurt by his father's name being thrown into a theory that just can be compared to recent Elvis sightings.
As you had rich and romantic days with Bob, I won't comment on this one...Dear Bob Hinton turned a witness into a monster
...but unless I've missed something (which is very possible), Bob is indeed still looking for Hutch (quite a hard task, Hutch being Fleming), but hasn't changed his theory.then admitted he accused the wrong person
Personally I don't need it as a proof, I believe the programme did exist, I'd just be curious to listen.what we need is audio proof...
But tell me, you can't remember whether it was Reg talking ?Comment
-
"Bob is indeed still looking for Hutch (quite a hard task, Hutch being Fleming), but hasn't changed his theory."
Hi DVV,
I see you have convinced yourself that Hutch (GH) was in fact Fleming (JF). That makes it very hard for you not to condemn anyone who remains open to the possibility that Hutch (GH) was Toppy (GH).
Fairclough didn't invent Toppy. He didn't fake Toppy's handwriting. (Some would say he didn't need to.) He didn't make up his date of birth or any of the details of his life that have been independently researched - any more than a journalist invented a series of mutilation murders in the fall of 1888.
There were not many George Hutchinsons worth researching, but you surely cannot be arguing that Toppy was one who could safely be dropped like a stone, and all because it was Fairclough who happened to pick him up and run with him? That would be plain daft. There was a witness, who told the police his name was George Hutchinson. That is the starting point. You have already reached your end point, with GH not being GH at all, and not being a witness but a murderer. But oddly enough you don't appear to have the kind of evidence that would even be worth putting in a book, never mind the final solution to MJK's murder. So you tell me, how is this any sounder than Fairclough's claim that GH the witness was GH (Toppy) the witness, regardless of whether his GH had told the truth or a complete pack of lies, and regardless of whether Fairclough built shamelessly on the basic story to make a silk purse from a sow's ear?
Love,
Caz
XLast edited by caz; 01-13-2012, 02:55 PM."Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov
Comment
-
Hi Caz
You wouldn't believe, but that's not me. I don't think Toppy was Hutch because there is no solid evidence to suggest so. Whatever my conviction at the present time, I'd be glad to revise it if more solid and convincing evidence, one way or another, comes to light.I see you have convinced yourself that Hutch (GH) was in fact Fleming (JF). That makes it very hard for you not to condemn anyone who remains open to the possibility that Hutch (GH) was Toppy (GH).
At the present day, I have better reasons to believe Fleming was Hutch, compared to Toppy. And this is no obsession with me (well, a bit...), since Fleming doesn't need to have passed himself as Hutch to make a viable suspect.
As for the handwriting, the only expert who has ever examined the original documents concluded Toppy wasn't the witness. What can we do ?
Fact is : the more we learn about Fairclough's creativity (Abberline diaries, Albert Victor the Undead), the less plausible is Toppy, not that Fairclough invented Toppy, as was your objection, but because it was so easy for Reg to prove his good faith, which he never did, appearing once in a raving study based on fakes, and being disbelieved by Edwards another time.
No news since, except from Fairclough who shifted to Maybrick.
DvvvvComment
-
oh God you dont do you, i didn't realise this !!!!!!Originally posted by DVV View Post
there is no mileage in Fleming being JTR, because a suspect being 6ft 7'' is virtually impossible...JTR was definitely seen, but nobody this tall... not even close, not even over 6FT!Last edited by Malcolm X; 01-13-2012, 03:37 PM.Comment
-
also, if GH as Toppy is rubbish, then we have nobody else coming forward at that time to say, ``who the hell is this, no; i'm the real GH witness``..... or years later, or another family member years later.
therefore this GH is either Toppy, as said, or pretending to be so..... but he is not a fake pretending to be another ``legitimate GH``.this is obvious but quite important, it's reinforcing two possibilities only.
nobody else came forward to say that he was the GH Witness, but someone was indeed there for at least 4 days, so if you dismiss Toppy as bullshit, then the other GH is almost definitely JTR.
a local man the same as Toppy ? he would have, or his family would have, gone to the police if someone else was pretending to be him, or their father... for sure; even years later!
Toppy has fallen foul of Fairclough, who is nothing more than another P.Haining, this really damages his credabilit..... sorry, Reg; it's Reg that's the target only, Toppy is innocent in all of this; he has nothing to do with JTR.
all the other GH living in this area must have thought, ``good grief someone with the same name as me saw JTR..... WOW, damn it; why didn't i see him instead``.
``my father always claimed that he saw JTR``........ UUUM, it's strange isn't it, so so strange !Last edited by Malcolm X; 01-13-2012, 04:21 PM.Comment
-
[QUOTE]Malcom, Malcolm, Malcolm......Malcolm....Originally posted by Malcolm X View Post
Well, since assertions, accusations and assumptions appear to be flying in all directions on this and the 'Innocent' thread, I thought that I'd just set out my position :
Everytime the Toppy-Hutch debate comes up (as it has done regularly), one of the pins of the 'pro-' argument has always been 'Family Tradition', which then yawningly drags up the Wheeling Report and Randolph Churchill etc
Since Reg Hutchinson can only be definitely ascertained (for the moment) to have recounted his story to the author Melvyn Fairclough, the debates always come back to how Fairclough found Reg and how he conducted his interviews...
...call me loony (don't all rush at once), but when I want to know something
about a person /people, then asking them directly (instead of speculation)
very often works. Of course people can ignore the question, decline to answer, prevaricate or plain lie their pants off -but if you work from the position that the person that you ask is just a person, like yourself, that often ( but not always -witness the Hutchinson Family) doesn't like speculation about themselves, then they will reply.
Certainly, even if Fairclough was duped by Reg -wittingly or unwittingly-
it wouldn't make Toppy not Hutch at the base.
Still -questions like :
-was it Fairclough who first suggested to Reg that his Father was the witness, or did Reg speak out first ?
-what financial incentives (if any) did Fairclough offer to Reg for interviews ?
-What research had Fairclough done beforehand (pertinently -did he know of the Wheeling Report) ?
-How 'leading' were Fairclough's questions ?
-What did Fairclough edit out of Reg's interviews (I mean, did he edit out things that he knew from his research to be impossible) ?
Wouldn't those things be interesting for us to know for sure, rather than going round in ever smaller circles when arguing about them ?
Some concrete answers wouldn't nail the Toppy-Hutch question but they would put Facts instead of speculation (on these subjects) into the debate.Last edited by Rubyretro; 01-13-2012, 05:01 PM.Comment
Comment