One on one with Stephen Senise

[cnr]

re Richard's post n.55 etc...

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...

My apologies Richard.

And to be sure, I did put a question mark in parentheses because it was hard to tell your age at the time of the broadcast from reading the posts on this thread.

To be clear, I'm not proposing Toppy was seeking or would have naturally left a "legacy" as such - just something, anything, in the public domain (not even on the public record, necessarily) in the fifty years between coming forward to claim one of the most extraordinary occurrences in the annals of this extraordinary tale (that he'd got a good look at JTR), and passing away in 1938.

And there's nothing tangible in the public domain before Reg and Joseph Sickert sat down for a nice chat one fine day in 1992 - a red flag BTW if you ask me, in and of itself. Personally, I don't think Reg does Toppy's candidacy too many favours by what he has to say, when he finally does start putting things on the record, but that's just me. I've tried to highlight some of the more glaring issues here and there on this thread, but it's alright not to agree, and it's been interesting enough discussing the matter more generally.

As Gareth says a few posts previously, this discussion has been had and re-had, and - as I have more or less said elsewhere, for what it may be worth - I do get the impression there's a very genuine desire on your part to share this anecdote, recognising a potential to generate interest in the broader Hutchinson question. I can't fault you on that score...

If it's any consolation, look at all the records we're still coming to terms with in various ways from 1888. New things do pop up. Maybe we'll be able to know more about this radio program, when it's ready to reveal itself, in its own good time. In the meantime, I think you've done as much as might be expected to put it on the radar for consideration.


Stephen

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

[cnr]

just an observation intended in the most general sense...

"what radio interview?"

The obvious answer to that question is: Orson Welles' 1938 broadcast of 'War Of The Worlds'.

Now there's a lesson in being careful of the myriad of potential and unintended interpretations listeners might be liable to make of what they're hearing on radio. (No disrespect to Richard).

But if we're talking of historical irony, I find it almost amusing that the hotel in Manhattan where Welles was staying in those days, and retired to that night after the broadcast, was, wait for it.....

...the St Regis.


Stephen

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

[Sam Flynn]

Lord Randolph Churchill was in his early 30s in 1888

Sorry, late 30s. Only just spotted that.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Abby
Took her bonnet, and ''jacket'' off?
May have heard her singing without sighting her.
Regards Richard.

[Abby Normal]

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.

Because she took the hat off?
Cox has corroboration from other witnesses RE Mary singing. Cox sighting is innocuous like all the others, except the elaborate story told by hutch who has no corroboration to his story except his stalking behaviour.

[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.

[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...".

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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