One on one with Stephen Senise

[cnr]

Another excellent podcast guys

I favour Toppy as the witness and neither as the ripper but after listening to the podcast im decided on getting False Flag.

As you know Stephen youre never going to convince everyone but youve made a valuable contribution. I enjoyed Jewbaiter and im sure that ill enjoy False Flag and, who knows, opinions can change

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

[cnr]

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.

Gareth, I say this with good cheer and because I like both you and Churchill. To quote the great man:

"Anyone can rat, but it takes a certain amount of ingenuity to re-rat"

I will be the there to welcome you back to our benches in the event you ever do.

Stephen

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Stephen! I still believe that Hutchinson, whoever he may have been, is a dodgy witness - if that's any consolation

[richardnunweek]

Hi Stephen.
Just a couple of points.
We should remember the Ripper murders cooled down post 1888, it was not until Leonard Matters wrote about Dr Stanley that interest began to spark, albeit it had never gone away, Parents would have still on occasions informed their children it was time to come in, otherwise the London bogeyman may get them.[ My grandmother 1880-1963 was told that along with her sisters.]
Reg Hutchinson said, his father often remarked in company, that he knew one of the victims, and made a statement to the police.
He did this out of interest , we have no knowledge he used this to obtain a pint or two.
He said he thought the killer was someone up in class[ likely because of Mr A's attire].
He appears to have been a honourable man, with a eye for detail.
I should end with a repeat of my 2009 insistence that I heard a radio broadcast around 1974-5, when the son of the witness that saw Kelly around 2.am recalled his fathers recollections, this was around 17-18 years prior to M.F book, so indeed someone 'then' knew of this account, and research was in evidence then.
The last words the alleged son of the witness , said was ''It was my fathers biggest regret , that despite his efforts , nothing came of it''.
I have no doubt that the witness Hutchinson, was George ,William Topping, We are making it a big deal , to him it was just something which occurred one week in his life.
Good luck with the book Stephen.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Might Reg's radio interview have coincided with the interest raised in the Ripper case on the publication of the Rumbelow book, Nunners? Or, if it was actually 1976, the huge wave of publicity that accompanied Stephen Knight's? (It was the latter that first got me interested in the case, at any rate.)

[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.

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

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

[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! : )

[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....

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[cnr]

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

Oh, he was a character...

Stephen