One on one with Stephen Senise

[cnr]

in response to post #34...

Hi Stephen.
...Good luck with the book Stephen.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

I agree that interest in the murders never went away. We even have evidence of an early form of 'Ripper tourism' or proto guided tours, as early as 1900 from that early Dutfield's Yard photo.

Regarding what you refer to as your "insistence" about the radio interview, I'm not about to crucify you, as you were on that other thread. You seem genuine from what I can tell, and motivated by a desire to share some information on the basis that it may be important - I hear ya brother. Which is not to say that it wouldn't be good to get a handle on it, beyond someone recalling a childhood (?) episode nearly half a century ago (no disrespect intended - I trust you know what I'm saying).

I am less inclined towards sympathy re the actual Toppy saga itself, however. Is that because of the reasons that I've already outlined ? The reasons others have discussed ? Is it my head speaking or my my gut ? Am I being cynical ?

I'm the last person objectively qualified to make that call. What I can tell you, is that Reg's take, particularly that whole 'Toppy was a very quiet man, kept to himself, very stoic, didn't elaborate' thing speaks to me of a transparent, pre-emptive attempt at defending the great Achilles heal of his argument: that Toppy died in 1938 without leaving anything vaguely tangible in the public domain in the fifty years since 1888 to suggest he was the Miller's Court witness. Fifty years is a long time to be, oh so very stoic given he was the only man ever to have claimed that he'd got a good look at Jack The Ripper.

Not to mention that this whole shyness and reluctance to elaborate about anything, doesn't jell with the Hutchinson of 1888, the great horseshoe-pin-spotting, eyelash-noticing, spats-sensitive (etc, etc) George Hutchinson, who goes on to recite a melodrama of raconteur-like proportions - towards the end of which, one's left half muttering to the effect that it might be better if he just wound it up.

But that's just my two cents worth...

I thank you for your good wishes, and good luck with your own research. I trust that one day you'll be vindicated with the radio program.

Stephen

https://www.timesofisrael.com/were-the-jack-the-ripper-murders-an-elaborate-anti-semitic-frameup/

[cnr]

But... little boys versus alcoholic, middle-aged bag ladies? (Even Kelly was old compared to the Australian victims)

Hi Gareth. To clarify, if I might.

The crimes against the two boys resulted in a maximum sentence, including the provision of hard labour, the temporary shutting of the courtroom, and a standout pioneer of colonial jurisprudence throwing the book at Hutchinson, lamenting only that he couldn't have him whipped.

As for JTR's motivation, the issue, after 130 years is still open; and this isn't a card game of Snap - not that you're suggesting that, I know. But why should we preclude the possibility of JTR also being a pedophile ?

...and people kill for all sorts of reasons.

To take that sober reality all the way through to the terrain of the fantastic, reductio ad absurdum: as a study we've allowed all sorts of theories to find expression, encompassing everything from mad magicians to shochets run amok...

Of course, I realise that my proposal (that these murders were essentially, politically motivated - for the sake of theatrical optics - hate crimes, if you will) breaks the paradigm. But who's to say it might not provide some sort of groundwork for moving forward with our understanding of the case ?

If that sounds fanciful, consider that nobody's ever gotten into trouble in Ripperology by talking of Spitalfields as the place of jellied eels and Cockney rhyming slang; or by the liberal use of an emphatic "bloomin'" or three to colour the background scene. So why can't we entertain the mere possiblity (only the possibility) of a Whitechapel narrative consistent with the socio-historic, industrial and demographic drama of that moment ? A more realistic framework for a story straight out of the Spitalfields ghetto, as it were ?

Know-what-I-mean, guv ?

As I see it, one alternative which looms too close for my personal comfort is another 130 years of talking about the guy with the top hat and cape, Cockney street urchins, hansom cabs, ladies of the night and swirling fog. I think that is a very safe place to sit down. A safe place that I find terrifying.

...with or without Sir Randolph lurking in the shadows (and other such Reg inspired banalities).

It may be that some kind of vague resolution, or at least a slightly better understanding of what transpired in 1888, necessitates us moving beyond the conventional view. What has the straight up and down, simple case of a serial-murder rampage, interpretation yielded ? Is it possible that the conventional view has not delivered, for good reason ?

I don't know the answer to these questions, but I think that asking them may be helpful. It certainly can't hurt at this point. (Except maybe for the credibility of the person asking, I realise).

Peace. Shalom.

Stephen

https://www.tweeddailynews.com.au/news/the-real-reason-behind-jack-the-rippers-rampage/3177827/

[cnr]

Not so. The way I form my first initial - also "G", as it happens - changed two or three times between my teens and thirties.

Re your first name, Gareth, has the way the 't' strikes the 'h' remained fairly consistent ? And the backbone of the 'h' ?

Toppy's two signatures did remain stable, in every which way you want to look at it, over a 13 year time-lapse, 1898-1911. Remarkably so. I have no problem whatsoever believing them written by the same hand.

It's when we get down to 10 years at its nearest comparison, 1888 v 1898 that there are problems.

See 'Ripperologist' edition n.160. I know that you have seen it, Gareth; but there are others reading who may not. Also, it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to thank you for being so gracious as to have worked to ensure the publication of that material, for all that you don't necessarily agree with it.

Kudos.

Stephen

[Abby Normal]

Not so. The way I form my first initial - also "G", as it happens - changed two or three times between my teens and thirties.

Hi Sam
my sig has changed in 40 years also, but not the first letter of my first and last names.

the rest has gotten lazy over the years, and instead of forming the letters its evolved into basically a squiggly line. but the initials havent changed at all.

ive noticed this in not only my family members but in my job, where part of it involves looking over signed paperwork.

and i think it also may involve the fact that alot of times over the course of ones lifetime, you have to sign your initials only to alot of things, like paperwork were you have to signify youve read specific sections down a page.

no way the sigs are the same, or even similar, especially that close in time, as Stephen also pointed out.

its actually the final straw for me in ruling "toppy" out.

the second one being, which I re iterate, since it seems to get overlooked alot, that the suspect has magically morfed from sinister jew to royal family or churchill. LOL!!!

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam
my sig has changed in 40 years also, but not the first letter of my first and last names.

The way I sign my initials definitely has changed, Abby, and it happens to many other people, too. I suggest you check out previous Toppy threads for more info, because I'm not going to go over that territory again.

[Sam Flynn]

Also, it would be remiss of me not to take this opportunity to thank you for being so gracious as to have worked to ensure the publication of that material, for all that you don't necessarily agree with it

Cheers, Stephen. Opinions are there to be challenged, and I'm all for open, reasoned debate

[Abby Normal]

The way I sign my initials definitely has changed, Abby, and it happens to many other people, too. I suggest you check out previous Toppy threads for more info, because I'm not going to go over that territory again.

Thanks sam
I don’t either.

[cnr]

...the suspect has magically morfed from sinister jew to royal family or churchill. LOL!!!

That's right, Abby. It needs to be repeated, often.

I've created a tabloid-esque snippet, below, merging the overall absurdity of George Hutchinson and Reg's statements - and their obvious inconsistency to each other. Is the 'Pall Mall Gazette' still in operation ? Maybe they can publish it in the historical section:

Spitalfields, Sunday.

Local resident, his most Jewish Duke of Marlborough, Lord Randolph Churchill, was spotted this morning at the Petticoat Lane market among the throng of his co-religionists.

When he's not sitting in the House of Commons, reforming the Conservative Party, or tending estate business beyond Whitechapel, Lord Randolph likes to spend his free time perfecting his famous Leather Apron impersonation.

Stephen

https://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Senise/e/B071HCHW3N/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

[cnr]

Miller's Court witness + Reg =

I've created a tabloid-esque snippet, below, merging the overall absurdity of George Hutchinson and Reg's statements - and their obvious inconsistency to each other. Is the 'Pall Mall Gazette' still in operation ? Maybe they can publish it in the historical section:

Spitalfields, Sunday.

Local resident, his most Jewish Duke of Marlborough, Lord Randolph Churchill, was spotted this morning at the Petticoat Lane market among the throng of his co-religionists.

When he's not sitting in the House of Commons, reforming the Conservative Party, or tending estate business beyond Whitechapel, Lord Randolph likes to spend his free time perfecting his famous Leather Apron impersonation.

...continued:

While organising Government business in the House, Lord Randolph has been known to entertain colleagues by concluding his parliamentary orations with his signature 'soft-shoe shuffle' of East End bogey-man notoriety.

On one occasion, Lord Randolph famously continued to soft-tap shuffle his way to the very high reaches of the backbenches, before the Serjeant-at-Arms and the Speaker could restore the Commons to order.

When he's not in residence at his ancestral seat of Blenheim Palace, the Duke of Marlborough chooses to conduct his political and Government affairs from a London pied-à-terre, not far from Dorset Street in Spitalfields.

He enjoys taking strolls in the early morning hours, in freezing temperatures and wet conditions, mainly along Commercial Street.

Stephen

https://www.amazon.com/Stephen-Senise/e/B071HCHW3N/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

[richardnunweek]

Hi Stephen.
Just to clarify one point.
The Radio broadcast was not heard whilst I was a child,I was around 28 years old at the time.
As for Topping never leaving a legacy .
He had no idea that decades later , the witness Hutchinson was going to be a big deal. he simply knew one of the victims, and gave a statement , and tried to assist the police.
Many witnesses gave statements to the police, Mrs Long in Hanbury street for instance, did she find it necessary to leave a legacy, or Mrs Cox, Or Thomas Bowyer.
In recent years, people that knew many well known killers like Ruth Ellis,. James Hanratty, The Wests, Harold Shipman, Peter Sutcliffe, are they leaving legacy's .?
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Lord Randolph Churchill was in his early 30s in 1888, only entered public life in 1886, and died in January 1895 - long before Reg was born. I thus find it inherently unlikely he would have been called to the mind of a down-at-heel groom/labourer in the slums of Whitechapel in 1888, still less that he'd subsequently have used this long-dead politician as an illustrative example when telling his story to his son.

It is partly for these reasons that I find it very hard to believe that George Topping Hutchinson "always" used to say to Reg that the man he saw at Miller's Court was "someone like Randolph Churchill"; on the contrary, I don't think he'd have said such a thing at all. If he needed to illustrate his point, why didn't he mention Balfour, Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, or any other toff/politician of more recent memory? Instead, he named someone who to Reg, and possibly to the 1888 Toppy, meant little or nothing, but who happened to mean something to Fairclough's theory.

This bears all the hallmarks of a retrospective embellishment, and one which was quite probably "suggested" to Reg by Fairclough himself. After all - let's face it - this would not have been the only dodgy "fact" contained in The Ripper and the Royals.

[Joshua Rogan]

Many witnesses gave statements to the police, Mrs Long in Hanbury street for instance, did she find it necessary to leave a legacy, or Mrs Cox, Or Thomas Bowyer.

Hi Richard,
According to Dan Farson, Mrs Cox told her niece that the man she saw with Kelly (Blotchy) was; "a real toff....a fine looking man, wore an overcoat with a cape, high hat, not a silk one, and a Gladstone bag." Which doesn't really fit with her inquest evidence.
So there's definitely a bit of elaboration going on somewhere down the line.

[Sam Flynn]

Good call, Joshua. A very perceptive point, too.

[Sam Flynn]

...I find it very hard to believe that [Toppy] "always" used to say to Reg that the man he saw... was "someone like Randolph Churchill"; on the contrary, I don't think [he said it] at all. If he needed to illustrate his point, why didn't he mention [a] toff/politician of more recent memory? Instead, he named someone [who'd have meant little or nothing to Reg or possibly Toppy], but who happened to mean something to Fairclough's theory.

In the interests of clarity, I meant to say that "he is claimed to have named someone...".

[richardnunweek]

Hi Joshua.
One can argue That Mrs Cox elaborated the truth full stop,
When she saw Kelly with Blotchy, she described her wearing vastly different clothing to which Mrs Prater saw her less then three hours before.
She is the type to mislead an investigation.
We have no evidence that Hutchinson ever did so
She allegedly told the posh gent description to her niece, who then relayed to Dan Farson,[which may have been true] , but on a previous night, when Kelly was not in possession of Mrs Harvey's bonnet.
We know that Kelly apparently did not own a bonnet.
We know that Mrs Harvey told her ''I am leaving my bonnet for you''
Mrs Prater explained she spoke to Kelly at 9.pm, she was then wearing a jacket and bonnet, so apparently had not mistaken the day,as Mary had not had that bonnet another night.
So how come , less then three hours later, Mrs Cox describes her in vastly different attire,?
Regards Richard.