One on one with Stephen Senise

[Abby Normal]

As I see it, Abby, there's really not that much of a match. For one thing, Aussie George has a somewhat longer face; for another, I really don't see the broken nose in the IPN drawing - the line of the nose in the drawing is more or less perfectly straight to my eyes. I can imagine it, though; I guess that's partly because we're dealing with a blown-up, crude drawing of what might be a generic face. The MO of the IPN points in that direction and, as I say, there's nothing in the text that suggests, still less claims, that George was actually interviewed by an IPN staffer.

To each his own. I see the similarities. Broad face, big ears, stout body/shoulders.

But I agree, it’s somewhat of a generic drawing.

The whole point of my post though was how the photo/mugshot fits most, if not all of the witness descriptions, down to the strange eyes/ weak eyelashes etc.

And it shows how powerfully built he was again, undoubtedly as was the ripper.

[cnr]

I should perhaps add that the raison d'être of the Illustrated Police News was not investigative journalism, but to present its largely working-class customers with exciting picture stories about crime. Its roots lay not with (e.g.) the Times and Telegraph but, according to Wikipedia, in the tradition of the sensationalist Newgate Calendar and Penny Dreadfuls.

Its focus is reflected, perhaps, in the titles of books about the IPN published in recent years, viz. "Cruel Deeds and Dreadful Calamities", "Orrible Murder" and "Victorian Court Cases and Sensational Stories". I must get a copy of one or other of these some day.

On a personal note, I find it interesting that in the editions previous to the 24th the newspaper boasted that it, “faithfully pictures... this sensational story and fully describes all the details connected with these Diabolical Crimes”.

As you say, it was an illustrated newspaper, so it wouldn't be surprising - it was after all, its bread and butter - and as I point out in the interview with Jonathan, newspaper illustrators were an integral part of at least some newspapers, who were even known to travel to keep up with the news (ie Queen Victoria tour of Ireland in the 1860s).

Stephen

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

[Sam Flynn]

Hi sam
I was talking about the mug shot of Aussie George.

But however inaccurate the picture from the IPN that you think, what a coincidence that it matches also the photo.

As I see it, Abby, there's really not that much of a match. For one thing, Aussie George has a somewhat longer face; for another, I really don't see the broken nose in the IPN drawing - the line of the nose in the drawing is more or less perfectly straight to my eyes. I can imagine it, though; I guess that's partly because we're dealing with a blown-up, crude drawing of what might be a generic face. The MO of the IPN points in that direction and, as I say, there's nothing in the text that suggests, still less claims, that George was actually interviewed by an IPN staffer.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Abby,

Yes, I bring up the issue of the eyes in both editions.

Adam Wood's cover to edition 146 of Ripperologist, going off (I suspect / from memory) a high-res image which I provided him from the NSW State Archives really brought the eyes up well. Possibly due to the use of a dark brown wash. I've never really seen the question of the eyes drawn out as well as in that particular reproduction.

For all of that, I think the 1888 illustrator doesn't do a bad job either given the technology s/he was working with and that we're dealing with a relatively, background figure.

See attachment, please.

Stephen
https://www.timesofisrael.com/were-t...mitic-frameup/

Hi Stephen
Thanks! I would also point out that the side view mugshot of Aussie George is also very significant. I think it was reproduced on the other forum.

From that angle you can really see how powerfully built he was.. huge head, neck, shoulders and chest.

Even before I had drawn any conclusions about viability of suspects, I always thought that the ripper must have been a strong man, given the apparent quickness in which he took down his victims and rendered them powerless.

The mugshots of Aussie George is the first time I’ve seen a photo of a suspect and thought, yes, here is a man that could do it.

Edited... I see you just added it. Thanks!!

[cnr]

IPN's depiction of "George Hutchinson" - much like those of Mary Kelly and Mr Astrakhan in the same edition - bears all the hallmarks of having been the product of a draughtsman's imagination, and there is little evidence to suppose that it was drawn from life.

...which just so happens to look like the George Hutchinson who left the port of London in 1889 - and they both happen to have a very particular kind of (broken) nose with a dorsal bump on the same part of the bridge of the nose; and a dip at the tip.

The problem is that the drawing appears in the Illustrated Police News of November 24th 1888. Not only is that a long time after the event, but the account of Hutchinson's statement in the same paper evidently derived from a press agency release, as it was repeated in several newspapers a full 10 days earlier - the Pall Mall Gazette, St James Gazette, the Times, the Daily News and the Evening News of 14th November, to name but five.

The 'Illustrated Police News' was a (Saturday) weekly. I think the fact they didn't publish that montage in the edition of the 17th is testament to the fact that they didn't go with the media accounts of the 14th, but rather took the time to track Hutchinson down to flush out as much detail as possible re the depiction of his gentleman - publishing at the first opportunity immediately thereafter, being the 24th. Hutchinson just incidentally (and fortuitously for us, I propose) got caught in the illustrators net, as it were.

Stephen

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

[Abby Normal]

The problem is that the drawing appears in the Illustrated Police News of November 24th 1888. Not only is that a long time after the event, but the account of Hutchinson's statement in the same paper evidently derived from a press agency release, as it was repeated in several newspapers a full 10 days earlier - the Pall Mall Gazette, St James Gazette, the Times, the Daily News and the Evening News of 14th November, to name but five.

There is thus no evidence that the IPN personally interviewed Hutchinson, indeed all the indicators point to the opposite conclusion. Not only that, but the IPN was known to produce made-up, and not particularly good quality, illustrations in any case - compare their efforts at depicting Martha Tabram, Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, for example. All rather generic, I'm afraid.

Bearing all this in mind, the IPN's depiction of "George Hutchinson" - much like those of Mary Kelly and Mr Astrakhan in the same edition - bears all the hallmarks of having been the product of a draughtsman's imagination, and there is little evidence to suppose that it was drawn from life.

Hi sam
I was talking about the mug shot of Aussie George.

But however inaccurate the picture from the IPN that you think, what a coincidence that it matches also the photo.

[cnr]

Hi Stephen
If ever there was an actual photograph of hutch or the ripper..that is it.

I mean it nails pretty much all the descriptions. Round face, broad shoulders, mustache, fair complexion...even the slightly foreign look. And even the weak/ strange eyes/ eyelashes.

Again congrats on the book and keep up the good work!

Thanks Abby,

Yes, I bring up the issue of the eyes in both editions.

Adam Wood's cover to edition 146 of Ripperologist, going off (I suspect / from memory) a high-res image which I provided him from the NSW State Archives really brought the eyes up well. Possibly due to the use of a dark brown wash. I've never really seen the question of the eyes drawn out as well as in that particular reproduction.

For all of that, I think the 1888 illustrator doesn't do a bad job either given the technology s/he was working with and that we're dealing with a relatively, background figure.

See attachment, please.

Stephen

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

[Sam Flynn]

I should perhaps add that the raison d'être of the Illustrated Police News was not investigative journalism, but to present its largely working-class customers with exciting picture stories about crime. Its roots lay not with (e.g.) the Times and Telegraph but, according to Wikipedia, in the tradition of the sensationalist Newgate Calendar and Penny Dreadfuls.

Its focus is reflected, perhaps, in the titles of books about the IPN published in recent years, viz. "Cruel Deeds and Dreadful Calamities", "Orrible Murder" and "Victorian Court Cases and Sensational Stories". I must get a copy of one or other of these some day.

[cnr]

Hi,
I shall be listening to the podcast with extreme interest , I am very much a Toppy believer, and for many years claimed to have heard a radio programme 1970's , with the son of the witness[ Reg] giving an account of his fathers recollections.
This was aired many years prior to 'The Ripper and The Royals'. and to everyone the tale of Topping was new material , to me it was not.
Topping claimed he received the sum of Five pounds for his efforts, and a publication in 1888 mentioned the witness was paid.
This was from a rare publication, certainly not read by everyone, so surely only the real witness named Hutchinson would have confirmed this many years later.
Still listen I shall , and try to be non bias.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your post on the matter - and your non-bias, which is always a tribute to the bearer.

That said, I'm of the belief that we can only aspire to non-bias as we all carry our biases, conscious as well as subconscious, which I admit, may account for an added veneer of cynicism on my part when it comes to Toppy, as I've said elsewhere - most recently in edition 160 of 'Ripperologist' where I take a layman's look at the signatures, in support of Iremonger:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10753

As I see it, the matter you raise can be viewed via a still open and extensive thread where eminently interested and qualified parties on both sides of the discussion have gone over it and then some, including yourself - has anything changed ? The thread is entitled, 'Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account':

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2113

Irrespective, and as I said in the interview, I don't see my role as raining on the Toppy parade. Far from it: please refer to my concluding paragraph in my Gareth-related post above.

And with that in mind, I wish you well with your research.

Stephen

https://www.tweeddailynews.com.au/news/jack-the-ripper-keeps-cabarita-author-in-time-warp/3388264/

[cnr]

I am listening to the podcast now and was interested to hear he had a broken nose. I dont know if the author had picked up on this but I found a news article some time ago that mentioned an east end boxer named George Hutchinson.
I also found a george Hutchinson who had been placed on the Exmouth training ship. I believe his mother was called Kezia.

Pat......

Thanks, Paddy. Always keen to know more, if you might point me in the right direction, please.

Stephen

https://www.forward.com/fast-forward/376940/did-jack-the-ripper-hope-to-inflame-anti-semitism-with-murder-spree/

[Sam Flynn]

If ever there was an actual photograph of hutch or the ripper..that is it.

The problem is that the drawing appears in the Illustrated Police News of November 24th 1888. Not only is that a long time after the event, but the account of Hutchinson's statement in the same paper evidently derived from a press agency release, as it was repeated in several newspapers a full 10 days earlier - the Pall Mall Gazette, St James Gazette, the Times, the Daily News and the Evening News of 14th November, to name but five.

There is thus no evidence that the IPN personally interviewed Hutchinson, indeed all the indicators point to the opposite conclusion. Not only that, but the IPN was known to produce made-up, and not particularly good quality, illustrations in any case - compare their efforts at depicting Martha Tabram, Polly Nichols and Annie Chapman, for example. All rather generic, I'm afraid.

Bearing all this in mind, the IPN's depiction of "George Hutchinson" - much like those of Mary Kelly and Mr Astrakhan in the same edition - bears all the hallmarks of having been the product of a draughtsman's imagination, and there is little evidence to suppose that it was drawn from life.

[Abby Normal]

Thanks Gareth. It was a real treat chatting to Jonathan again, no question.

All the same, I missed the dulcitone notes of your Richard Burton-like involvement. (I almost felt like Elizabeth Taylor and that I'd been stood up). And now that we have the appropriate forum available, we might get back to the real world of petty squabbling etc. – nothing by the way of Burton-Taylor like proportions, mind you.



Forgive me if I suggest that there seems to be some feasting on the cherries going on while cursing the orchard. These are the things that come to mind in that respect, following.



The way I might read your post is, that it's a pity such a “(ahem!)” 'helpful' researcher* got to Reg first. Do we know of any other researchers - pre Ripper & The Royals ? In other words, if we are to go along with the logic of what I think you're suggesting, before 'the well was poisoned' ?

In regard your above cited proposal, it would be good to know which parts of Reg's contribution you are saying may, or may not, be unadulterated – equally, your reasons for drawing the line here or there. It's not rhetoric on my part. I would really like to get a better understanding. Until now I had assumed the statements like the one below, were unquestionably Reg's (quoting Toppy). My apologies in advance to Jonathan in case he falls over in fits of laughter again:

...he used to say: “It was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people”. And when asked who he thought it was he always said: “It was someone like Lord Randolph Churchill”

If I understand correctly, you're saying a quote like that can't be taken as a genuine, bona-fide Reginald, but other quotes can be. Please bear with me. I'm not being facetious, just trying to get a better handle on things...

Also, do we know whether Reg ever backed away, retracted, or in any way tried to contextualise such statements as you suggest he may have been “helped” with, for example, the apparent 100 shillings hush-money which he says his father was paid ?

In other words, is there anything to suggest that Reg felt that he'd been somewhat misrepresented (as I understand you're proposing) ?

Is it possible that Reg was perfectly content for his statements to stand as recorded – ultimately, it would have been for him repudiate them, not us, on his behalf, without his say-so. Did he ever back-track ? The discussion would seem to be a bit moot otherwise. Can you imagine the Pythonesque conversation - anachronisms aside ?.....

Present-day researchers (for argument's sake, let's call them Gareth and Stephen):

“It's our sad duty to inform you that you may have been quoted out of context, Reg.”

Reg:

“No I wasn't !”

As I see it, either his contribution stands, or not, by Reg's reckoning of what he is supposed to have said. Surely, we can give him that much ? The alternative is to declare him a pliable ingénue, which I don't think is fair on anyone.

Did he recant any part of his account or dispute it ? If not, we may be stuck with his words on the matter, for better or worse. I doubt it's cricket to go in with our surgical lasers and selectively recant/dispute it on his behalf.

Another way to look at it may be, that you and I might well write a sci-fi piece using nothing but those words which appear in 'The Cherry Orchard' - but would it be appropriate to say that Chekhov had written about the colonisation of Mars ? Well, possibly, sort of, except that what he wrote was, 'The Cherry Orchard'. In other words, we run the risk of misrepresenting Reg by speaking for him.

I would also like to know whether Toppy (†1938) was ever on record as suggesting anything along the lines of these statements, as attributed to him ? Otherwise, as I understand such matters, it is hearsay, uncorroborated by direct evidence - happy to stand corrected.

But for all of that - and let us put aside Iremonger and the signatures even, and the striking similarity in the two faces (below) - look closely at the nose Gareth, just the nose. Even the bump is in the right place. How do we just walk away from that, given the Twister-like contortions we're prepared to perform for Toppy (warranted or unwarranted as they may be) ?

It's not that I don't see the value of your argument all things being equal; rather, it is competing with all sorts of considerations, and so we are left to sort through it and weigh it up. There's the rub. And it's quite an irksome rub. Mine is but a personal take on that dilemma; and after 130 years of chasing our tails, it would seem I'm in good company, your's included.

So don't get me wrong. In a way, I almost hope you're right about Toppy. And as a non sequitur, I'm also cheering for Sir Randolph's above stated candidacy. The way I see it, either or both of them might just about be my ticket out of Whitechapel.

Stephen
* NB: researchers, plural – Joseph Sickert was at the interview.

Hi Stephen
If ever there was an actual photograph of hutch or the ripper..that is it.

I mean it nails pretty much all the descriptions. Round face, broad shoulders, mustache, fair complexion...even the slightly foreign look. And even the weak/ strange eyes/ eyelashes.

Again congrats on the book and keep up the good work!

[cnr]

please excuse the slightly lengthy post...

Great podcast guys.

Thanks Gareth. It was a real treat chatting to Jonathan again, no question.

All the same, I missed the dulcitone notes of your Richard Burton-like involvement. (I almost felt like Elizabeth Taylor and that I'd been stood up). And now that we have the appropriate forum available, we might get back to the real world of petty squabbling etc. – nothing by the way of Burton-Taylor like proportions, mind you.

Thanks for the reply, Jon. You were quite right to criticize the source (Fairclough's book), by the way; you won't hear any arguments from me on that score

Forgive me if I suggest that there seems to be some feasting on the cherries going on while cursing the orchard. These are the things that come to mind in that respect, following.

we should not write off Reg Hutchinson's identification of "Toppy" as the Miller's Court witness because an account of Reg's story appears in Fairclough's Ripper & The Royals. We don't know how much of this came directly from Reg, or how much Fairclough "helped" to jog Reg's memory; certainly, Fairclough didn't seem averse to a bit of (ahem!) "elaboration" elsewhere in his book.

The way I might read your post is, that it's a pity such a “(ahem!)” 'helpful' researcher* got to Reg first. Do we know of any other researchers - pre Ripper & The Royals ? In other words, if we are to go along with the logic of what I think you're suggesting, before 'the well was poisoned' ?

In regard your above cited proposal, it would be good to know which parts of Reg's contribution you are saying may, or may not, be unadulterated – equally, your reasons for drawing the line here or there. It's not rhetoric on my part. I would really like to get a better understanding. Until now I had assumed the statements like the one below, were unquestionably Reg's (quoting Toppy). My apologies in advance to Jonathan in case he falls over in fits of laughter again:

...he used to say: “It was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people”. And when asked who he thought it was he always said: “It was someone like Lord Randolph Churchill”

If I understand correctly, you're saying a quote like that can't be taken as a genuine, bona-fide Reginald, but other quotes can be. Please bear with me. I'm not being facetious, just trying to get a better handle on things...

Also, do we know whether Reg ever backed away, retracted, or in any way tried to contextualise such statements as you suggest he may have been “helped” with, for example, the apparent 100 shillings hush-money which he says his father was paid ?

In other words, is there anything to suggest that Reg felt that he'd been somewhat misrepresented (as I understand you're proposing) ?

Is it possible that Reg was perfectly content for his statements to stand as recorded – ultimately, it would have been for him repudiate them, not us, on his behalf, without his say-so. Did he ever back-track ? The discussion would seem to be a bit moot otherwise. Can you imagine the Pythonesque conversation - anachronisms aside ?.....

Present-day researchers (for argument's sake, let's call them Gareth and Stephen):

“It's our sad duty to inform you that you may have been quoted out of context, Reg.”

Reg:

“No I wasn't !”

As I see it, either his contribution stands, or not, by Reg's reckoning of what he is supposed to have said. Surely, we can give him that much ? The alternative is to declare him a pliable ingénue, which I don't think is fair on anyone.

Did he recant any part of his account or dispute it ? If not, we may be stuck with his words on the matter, for better or worse. I doubt it's cricket to go in with our surgical lasers and selectively recant/dispute it on his behalf.

Another way to look at it may be, that you and I might well write a sci-fi piece using nothing but those words which appear in 'The Cherry Orchard' - but would it be appropriate to say that Chekhov had written about the colonisation of Mars ? Well, possibly, sort of, except that what he wrote was, 'The Cherry Orchard'. In other words, we run the risk of misrepresenting Reg by speaking for him.

I would also like to know whether Toppy (†1938) was ever on record as suggesting anything along the lines of these statements, as attributed to him ? Otherwise, as I understand such matters, it is hearsay, uncorroborated by direct evidence - happy to stand corrected.

But for all of that - and let us put aside Iremonger and the signatures even, and the striking similarity in the two faces (below) - look closely at the nose Gareth, just the nose. Even the bump is in the right place. How do we just walk away from that, given the Twister-like contortions we're prepared to perform for Toppy (warranted or unwarranted as they may be) ?

It's not that I don't see the value of your argument all things being equal; rather, it is competing with all sorts of considerations, and so we are left to sort through it and weigh it up. There's the rub. And it's quite an irksome rub. Mine is but a personal take on that dilemma; and after 130 years of chasing our tails, it would seem I'm in good company, your's included.

So don't get me wrong. In a way, I almost hope you're right about Toppy. And as a non sequitur, I'm also cheering for Sir Randolph's above stated candidacy. The way I see it, either or both of them might just about be my ticket out of Whitechapel.

Stephen
* NB: researchers, plural – Joseph Sickert was at the interview.

[cnr]

Thank you once again to Stephen Senise for appearing on the show.

Hi Jonathan,

Firstly, my thanks for your ongoing interest and kind remarks for the book.

It's also been brought to my attention that these twin podcasts notched-up the 140th episode milestone for Rippercast, and I'd like to add my congratulations to those of others presently posting online - also, my thanks to Paul Begg for his very gracious Twitter comments by way of generating interest in our interview/s.

Stephen

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

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I shall be listening to the podcast with extreme interest , I am very much a Toppy believer, and for many years claimed to have heard a radio programme 1970's , with the son of the witness[ Reg] giving an account of his fathers recollections.
This was aired many years prior to 'The Ripper and The Royals'. and to everyone the tale of Topping was new material , to me it was not.
Topping claimed he received the sum of Five pounds for his efforts, and a publication in 1888 mentioned the witness was paid.
This was from a rare publication, certainly not read by everyone, so surely only the real witness named Hutchinson would have confirmed this many years later.
Still listen I shall , and try to be non bias.
Regards Richard.