Is this the right Hutchinson?

[GUT]

Topping may have meant the value in the day's currency which was, if I remember, 1972-ish when he spoke of it.

Mike

Which would make it what a week or two pay.

But we will never know for certain.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
Information given in the 'Ripper and the Royals', was from Reg Hutchinson, son of Topping , the latter died in 1938, he remembers his father saying, he knew one of the victims, and was interviewed by the police.
He also informed that he was paid One hundred shillings, [ £5] which would have been approx 5 weeks salary as a labourer
The media only knew that, from a rare publication the ''Wheeling Register'' published 1888, no other newspaper recorded it[ as far as we know]..so it becomes obvious , that unless Topping read that at the time, and also studied the statement of a person who was his namesake,he most likely was the real deal.
We only became aware of the Wheeling report a few years back,well after ''The Ripper and the Royals, if Reg was making up the entire story. he would have had had to have access to information , not known by any researcher at that time.
I am totally convinced that Topping was the witness Hutchinson, not withstanding the radio broadcast in the early 70's which I alone appeared to have heard, mentioning the same payment figure,allegedly from the son of the witness,[ which has to have been either Reg..or his younger brother,].
Unless Topping was a very cleaver hoaxer.he was George Hutchinson , aged 22 years,who knew Mary Kelly from Millers court..
I also will state , that I believe his account of that morning to be true...
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Hi Richard.
Typically, I never comment on the Toppy theory, it is something yet to be firmly established, but from what is known, I do not see any reason to dismiss the idea.
And yes, I agree with your last line, but the sum of this payment is very suspect in my opinion.
I would be inclined to ask Monty if he was aware of any witnesses being payed such a sum, or even being paid at all.
Covering expenses, as was the case with Lawende, is one thing, but paying them for their time is something else, and that is a huge payment for two nights work.

[Ben]

I’m with Jon on this one, Richard (it has been known to happen!).

The deeply obscure and deeply, deeply wrong "Wheeling Register" ran a gossip column wrongly stating that Barnett was living with a new woman and was "roaring drunk" at the inquest. It also claimed that Hutchinson was paid five times a non-existent (according to the police, who would have done the "paying") salary, which is beyond preposterous. Does this "interestingly coincide" with Reg's claim that Hutchinson was paid hush money to keep quiet about seeing Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper? Not even slightly.

These are two independently bogus stories involving an absurdly ludicrous “payment”. They don’t corroborate each other, and they don’t mention the same sum. A silly tale about a huge pay-off to conceal Churchillian culpability in the ripper murders doesn’t require “inspiration” for its conception. Like Jon says, “covering expenses” was likely to have been the full extent of any “payment” Hutchinson received.

The Wheeling Register also stated that the man in question had “invented” the story, but you tend to gloss over that bit.

We have no evidence that Toppy ever “declared himself” to be the man in question; in fact we have nothing from Toppy himself in his lifetime, just second-hand hearsay quotes in a discredited royal conspiracy book published in 1993. The whole Toppy=Hutch claim has absolutely zero provenance prior to the publication of that book.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,,
Five times salary would be in the region of one hundred shillings in 1888, not exact, but near enough.[ for an average worker]
All I can say, is the researchers of the radio show, must have seen The Wheeling register, or invented the hundred shilling amount, which surely is a coincidence..
This sheet is rare,it was not seen until just a few years ago, by anyone in Ripperland, so are you saying that they struck lucky, or someone like Toppy read it in 1888, and became the witness Hutchinson, because it earned him a pint or two over the years.?
I remain confident, that Toppy was Hutchinson, and he was the man that the Wheeling Register, was referring to.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Hutchinson was in "no regular employment", according to Abberline.

People in "no regular employment" do not take home a "salary".

The Wheeling Register article is provably nonsense because its claim regarding Hutchinson's finances is utterly at odds with Abberline's statement that he was in no regular employment and thus not on a "salary".

It's important that you extricate yourself from the idea that anyone wishing to invent a silly story about payment must have derived inspiration from another silly story about payment. That does not need to happen. The Wheeling Register is absolutely not required as a source of inspiration for anyone wishing to concoct a bogus tale about Hutchinson receiving an implausibly large sum.

What we have here are two entirely separate, entirely bogus accounts of payment - one from a seriously ill-informed source and the other from a palpably ludicrous source.

Two wrongs don't make a right, nor do they combine to create good provenance!

All the best,
Ben

[packers stem]

Just another crazy coincidence then

[Ben]

Hi Pack,

No, not a "coincidence" at all, crazy or otherwise.

We just have one totally untrue payment story not remotely coinciding with another totally untrue payment story.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben..
I understand your point..and I also accept that ''The Wheeling'' was a gossip sheet, but they heard that a man got paid five weeks wages , for information. which they considered was a clever ploy to obtain money under false pretences.
We have no mention of any payment, in any other press accounts during that period..
We have a man named George Topping Hutchinson in the 1920's-30's [ and likely before] informing people, including his brother, and son, that he knew one of the victims . and assisted the police..
In 1974?. on the radio,I heard with my own ears, an account of the sighting of the man Hutchinson, and a oral dialogue , from what was allegedly the man's son...
As this dialogue was precisely what was written in The Ripper and the Royals some 18 years later, it is a fair assumption , that it derived from that radio broadcast.
That was the first time a payment was ever mentioned, being received by the witness, and it was exactly the same sum mentioned in the book ..
This proves that the story was not especially formulated for Fairclough's book..
We know that Reg Hutchinson's father was Topping[ proven], we know that his brother also was aware of his fathers tale.
I therefore submit. that as the Wheeling sheet, mentioned a sum of five weeks wage, and if that was classified as a average figure, it is a good chance that it equalled the hundred shillings mentioned.
I will say now Ben, if you , or any other member of Casebook heard that radio broadcast, you too, would have a different opinion in this argument.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

I’m with Jon on this one, Richard (it has been known to happen!).

The deeply obscure and deeply, deeply wrong "Wheeling Register" ran a gossip column wrongly stating that Barnett was living with a new woman and was "roaring drunk" at the inquest. It also claimed that Hutchinson was paid five times a non-existent (according to the police, who would have done the "paying") salary, which is beyond preposterous. Does this "interestingly coincide" with Reg's claim that Hutchinson was paid hush money to keep quiet about seeing Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper? Not even slightly.

These are two independently bogus stories involving an absurdly ludicrous “payment”. They don’t corroborate each other, and they don’t mention the same sum. A silly tale about a huge pay-off to conceal Churchillian culpability in the ripper murders doesn’t require “inspiration” for its conception. Like Jon says, “covering expenses” was likely to have been the full extent of any “payment” Hutchinson received.

The Wheeling Register also stated that the man in question had “invented” the story, but you tend to gloss over that bit.

We have no evidence that Toppy ever “declared himself” to be the man in question; in fact we have nothing from Toppy himself in his lifetime, just second-hand hearsay quotes in a discredited royal conspiracy book published in 1993. The whole Toppy=Hutch claim has absolutely zero provenance prior to the publication of that book.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben.

Purely out of curiosity, do we have a copy of this oft mentioned Wheeling Register article anywhere?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Here you go:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=2571

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

I understand your point..and I also accept that ''The Wheeling'' was a gossip sheet, but they heard that a man got paid five weeks wages , for information. which they considered was a clever ploy to obtain money under false pretences.
We have no mention of any payment, in any other press accounts during that period..

Exactly, and that ought to ring alarm bells straight away.

Is it likely that every single UK-based newspaper managed to miss out on something that a town in West Virginia inexplicably got the scoop on? No.

Is it likely that the police would fork out such an astronomically large sum for an alleged witness just for providing a statement? No.

Is it likely that any of the Wheeling's other "gossip" is correct? No.

Hutchinson would not have been paid 100 shillings just for telling a story - he just wouldn't have been. No police force has ever been that stupid. It's not even a possibility. It is therefore completely irrelevant if Reg Hutchinson and the Wheeling Register both mentioned such a pay-off, since they are both 100% wrong about it happening in the real Hutchinson's case.

We have a man named George Topping Hutchinson in the 1920's-30's [ and likely before] informing people, including his brother, and son, that he knew one of the victims . and assisted the police

No, we don't.

We have a man named Reginald Hutchinson in the 1990s being interviewed by a royal conspirator (conspiracist?) and a man pretending to be the son of Walter Sickert, who told them both that his father was paid to "keep quiet about what he really knew". There is, as I've already said, no Toppy-Hutchinson provenance prior to the publication of the Ripper and the Royals. I'm afraid that until you can produce evidence of a 1970s radio show supporting Toppy's Hutchinson/witness credentials, it is wholly inadmissible as evidence - much like that murder confession I found in the foundations of the old Victoria Home that was signed by Hutchinson himself, and which I've since mislaid.

I therefore submit. that as the Wheeling sheet, mentioned a sum of five weeks wage, and if that was classified as a average figure

Hutchinson wasn't taking home a "wage", as I've already explained. An odd-jobbing labourer in "no regular employment" did not have a "usual salary", so we may permanently forget the idea that there is any correlation between the Wheeling's "five times (his) usual salary" and R&R's preposterous "100 shillings".

Regards,
Ben

[Abby Normal]

Hi Ben
Exactly.

$0 X $0= 0

as does any secondhand evidence, rumor or alterior motive of a book seller from the 50s.

Go Toppy!

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

Here you go:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=2571

Much appreciated Ben, thank you.

[Wickerman]

I’m with Jon on this one, Richard (it has been known to happen!).

The deeply obscure and deeply, deeply wrong "Wheeling Register" ran a gossip column wrongly stating that Barnett was living with a new woman and was "roaring drunk" at the inquest. It also claimed that Hutchinson was paid five times a non-existent (according to the police, who would have done the "paying") salary, which is beyond preposterous.
.
.
The Wheeling Register also stated that the man in question had “invented” the story, but you tend to gloss over that bit.

It is reassuring to see the story described as "invented" being lumped in with all the other false statements in that article.