One on one with Stephen Senise

[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.

[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!!!

[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

[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]

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]

Thanks, Stephen! I still believe that Hutchinson, whoever he may have been, is a dodgy witness

Oh, he was a character...

Stephen

[Sam Flynn]

sorry but they are not remotely similar. the first letter of the name is completely different. peoples sigs can change over many years, but the part that usually stays the same is the first letter (initials) part.

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

[Herlock Sholmes]

Thanks Herlock,

I very much appreciate the attitude you express in your post. We're on the same page there and don't go changin'.

Yes, people will see things differently, and after 130 years of good work, and less so (just take a look at Paul Begg's reviews section in Ripperologist), everyone's entitled to their say – no point getting our knickers in a twist. Jack might use the moment to get away.

Please note: if you've already read 'Jewbaiter', be aware that 'False Flag' is but an expanded edition of the same. About 20% additional meat and potatoes; plus sundry window dressing, ie new images, restructuring, bits and pieces here and there etc..

I'm glad you enjoyed 'Jewbaiter'.

Stephen

Thanks Stephen.

I was aware that False Flag is an expanded version of Jewbaiter but thanks for the heads up. Ive recently seen an author on here react adversely to contrary opinions and questions but its to your credit that you dont take that approach Stephen.

[Sam Flynn]

"what radio interview?"

Richard Nunweek recalls Reg being interviewed in 1974/75, Abby (see his posts above), and I've no reason to doubt him.

[Sam Flynn]

"right so the only documented evidence toppy was there is in 1891."

Toppy was born and had lived around London for most of his life - ALL his life, as far as I can recall - and married a girl from Bethnal Green/Mile End.

All we know about Aussie George is that he left London one day in September(?) 1889. Where he was before then, even where he was born, I really don't know.

[Abby Normal]

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

OK I admit its a stretch. but still....

[Abby Normal]

Two months after the murder.

JM

right-so a murder series that lasts almost a year-Tabram-Mckenzie, (and I would include millwood which would make it much longer) then the term I used "shortly" is comparably accurate I would say.

and the only documented evidence of Toppy in London is 1891, whereas for Aussie George its 1889.

Aussie George wins by two years! : )

[Sam Flynn]

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

[Abby Normal]

[

How did Melvyn Fairclough know of Reg's existence? I doubt very much that he speculatively trawled through every Hutchinson in the phone book. Perhaps there was a newspaper article featuring Reg, or did Fairclough hear that same radio interview with Reg to which Nunners refers?

In other words, Reg's family story about Toppy being the Miller's Court witness almost certainly existed before The Ripper and the Royals was a twinkle in Fairclough's imaginative eye, or a flicker in his fertile mind.
If Fairclough was capable of "producing" the Abberline Diaries in order to bolster his theory - oddly enough, about the Ripper and the Royals - then he was capable of anything. We needn't blame Reg for that bit.
Sorry, but Reg's claim about the "reward" his father got is spookily close to what was subsequently found in the very obscure Wheeling Register. That detail, at least, is not something "that anyone could easily have gotten right".Sorry, but the signatures are practically identical, in my honest opinion. I have no skin in this game - indeed, I was very much a "Toppy isn't Hutch" person until I saw the real Toppy signatures, and I was forced to publicly admit that my opposition to Toppy had been entirely misplaced.

Incidentally, when I say "real Toppy signatures", I had initially obtained a copy of his marriage certificate from the National Archive, where the signature clearly didn't match. Being inclined to the anti-Toppy position at the time, I took this as proof positive that he wasn't the MJK witness, and said as much with great glee on these very boards. I ended up with egg on my face a while later when someone pointed out that the signature on that copy was that of a registrar, not of Toppy himself. When the actual marriage certificate was located and scanned, it became immediately apparent to me that there was indeed a close resemblance between the signature on the certificate and the signatures on the 1888 witness statement.

I repeatedly asked (Bob Hinton among others) whether, when Sue Iremonger was asked to comment on the similarity of the signatures, they actually sent her a copy of the original marriage certificate or the National Archive copy. A straightforward enough question, I'd suggest, but one to which I never, ever got an answer.
Unfortunately, we don't have a witness description for Hutchinson. We have (often vague, "everyman") descriptions for potential Rippers, but to use those as the basis for assessing Hutchinson candidates is to make the a priori assumption that he WAS the Ripper, which is a circular argument.
Toppy married a woman from Bethnal Green, which is next door to Whitechapel, and he came from a part of Kent that is practically South East London. He was living in a lodging-house in Warren Street, West Central London - just off Tottenham Court Road - in the 1891 (?) census. All that's from memory, I'm afraid, but I don't think I'm too far wrong.
But where is the evidence that he was in London, or had any connections to (South) East London, at the time of the - canonical - Ripper murders?He looks rather weedy to me. Then again, that might be down to prison food. (See also my earlier comment on "Unfortunately, we don't have a witness description for Hutchinson".)
Against little boys.

hello Sam

How did Melvyn Fairclough know of Reg's existence? I doubt very much that he speculatively trawled through every Hutchinson in the phone book. Perhaps there was a newspaper article featuring Reg, or did Fairclough hear that same radio interview with Reg to which Nunners refers?

what radio interview? please point me in that direction or give more specifics.

I dont think its such a stretch that he could have found a willing partner, especially since there was that possible alluring 15 minutes of fameor fortune. happens all the time.

In other words, Reg's family story about Toppy being the Miller's Court witness almost certainly existed before The Ripper and the Royals was a twinkle in Fairclough's imaginative eye, or a flicker in his fertile mind.

"almost certainly'?? almost certainly not. for such a blabbermouth at the time of the murders, and apparently since by telling his family, and then the current family continuing with this chatty tradition, its a wonder theres no documented evidence anywhere that Toppy claimed to be one of the most important witnesses in the most famous murder case in the world, before fairclough got his hands on him.

If Fairclough was capable of "producing" the Abberline Diaries in order to bolster his theory - oddly enough, about the Ripper and the Royals - then he was capable of anything. We needn't blame Reg for that bit.

exactly-which is why its all a bunch of crap-and probably regs story too.

Sorry, but Reg's claim about the "reward" his father got is spookily close to what was subsequently found in the very obscure Wheeling Register. That detail, at least, is not something "that anyone could easily have gotten right".

bah. it sure is. "yeah I tried to help the police find her killer, even got a few quid for it".

Sorry, but the signatures are practically identical, in my honest opinion. I have no skin in this game - indeed, I was very much a "Toppy isn't Hutch" person until I saw the real Toppy signatures, and I was forced to publicly admit that my opposition to Toppy had been entirely misplaced.

Incidentally, when I say "real Toppy signatures", I had initially obtained a copy of his marriage certificate from the National Archive, where the signature clearly didn't match. Being inclined to the anti-Toppy position at the time, I took this as proof positive that he wasn't the MJK witness, and said as much with great glee on these very boards. I ended up with egg on my face a while later when someone pointed out that the signature on that copy was that of a registrar, not of Toppy himself. When the actual marriage certificate was located and scanned, it became immediately apparent to me that there was indeed a close resemblance between the signature on the certificate and the signatures on the 1888 witness statement.

I repeatedly asked (Bob Hinton among others) whether, when Sue Iremonger was asked to comment on the similarity of the signatures, they actually sent her a copy of the original marriage certificate or the National Archive copy. A straightforward enough question, I'd suggest, but one to which I never, ever got an answer.

sorry but they are not remotely similar. the first letter of the name is completely different. peoples sigs can change over many years, but the part that usually stays the same is the first letter (initials) part.

Unfortunately, we don't have a witness description for Hutchinson. We have (often vague, "everyman") descriptions for potential Rippers, but to use those as the basis for assessing Hutchinson candidates is to make the a priori assumption that he WAS the Ripper, which is a circular argument.

yes we do. he was short, not tall and stout according to Lewis-which fits Aussie george.

there was also the "of military bearing"-aussie george in the ships log was described as an able seaman. former navy perhaps?


[QUOTE]

Toppy married a woman from Bethnal Green, which is next door to Whitechapel, and he came from a part of Kent that is practically South East London. He was living in a lodging-house in Warren Street, West Central London - just off Tottenham Court Road - in the 1891 (?) census. All that's from memory, I'm afraid, but I don't think I'm too far wrong.

right so the only documented evidence toppy was there is in 1891.
Aussie George was there in 1889.
Aussie George over Toppy by TWO years!

He looks rather weedy to me.

Weedy? did you see the side view? his head ise size of a cinder block and hes built like a polish power lifter!

Against little boys

exactly. convicted of a sex crime. most serial killers have a criminal record other than their murders.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sam.
I heard the broadcast whilst we were living with my Aunt, and therefore as we left around the summer of 75, it was clearly not after that date , which eliminates Knights theory [76].
Rumbelow's edition was published 1975, but I doubt if he had anything to do with the broadcast, I had been corresponding with Colin Wilson for several months prior to that , but never mentioned the broadcast to him, so clearly was not aware of it. which suggests it was prior to the summer of that year, but not long previous.
I remember Colin informed me that Don Rumbelow was thinking of informing a 1888 club, I wrote to Don , who replied purely tongue -in -cheek idea.
I do not recall his book was then published?
I would say the Radio broadcast which had in its title ''The man that saw jack'' was to imply, that The Ripper was a member of the upper classes, maybe using Stowell's 1970 suggestion 'about informing ''S, but certainly not Stephen Knight's .
Regards Richard.