The Red Handkerchief...

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Okay.we then have two other options regarding Hutchinson.
1] He was the killer of Mary Kelly, and for some reason known to himself , came forward to mislay the police, and play cunning games..
2] He was not the killer of Mary Kelly, but had something to hide, which led him to become paranoid , and come forward with his statement.
So what's it to be Ben?
He was telling the whole truth, with no hidden motives..?
He was the killer of Mary Kelly.?
He had something to hide, and was scared of that being discovered by the police, and attempted to shield himself.?
I am with ''The whole truth''
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

1. He was the killer of Mary Kelly, and for some reason known to himself , came forward to mislay the police, and play cunning games..

No, not "some reason known to himself".

A specific reason: self-preservation.

The realisation that he'd been seen loitering outside the murder scene by a witness, and the proactive measures he accordingly adopted to "legitimise" that loitering presence and derail the investigation in the process - as adopted by known serial killers.

That doesn't mean he can't also have been motivated by the "thrill" of getting one over on the police right under their noses - again, like other killers have done.

That above is a criminologically sound explanation for Hutchinson's behaviour, and that's really boring for me, because it means that if Hutchinson was the killer, and did inject himself into the investigation in a fashion comparable to known offenders, it would make Jack the Ripper a boring working class local, and not an interesting top-hatted celebrity.

...And I really wanted him to have been one of those.

That doesn't mean I rule out your option "2".

All the best,
Ben

[Sally]

Richard,

Whilst its perfectly credible to have faith in the honesty of witnesses and to take an account at face value in the first instance; in this case, there are actual, factual indications that Hutchinson was telling porky-pies.

Sorry, but there it is. His account is generally and specifically derivative, as I, and other posters, have demonstrated over the last few years and Sam has remarked upon earlier in this thread. It isn't just that his Mr Astrakhan closely resembles the smartly-dressed, bag-carrying suspect prevalent in the press in the days preceding Hutchinson's statement to the police; it's the entire scenario that he recounts, including his alleged conversation with Kelly.

Unless this is a remarkable coincidence, he was at the very least embellishing, if not fabricating outright.

It is difficult to get round this. That's why I don't put much faith in his account.

Having said that, he could have lied for several reasons, most of which don't necessarily imply that he was a killer.

[Wickerman]

Where I work has a posted list of what might be equated with 'House rules'.
- "Employees only" (posted on the door). Well actually customers use this door also.
- "Open at 6:30 am". Actually we can walk in at 6:00 am.
- "Do not use as an Exit", We often use this as an exit.
And a host of other examples. However, if someone a hundred years down the line found a copy of our 'House Rules', and then read my post, the automatic assumption among a select few might be that, "this guy must be lying".

Such is the real world, but then most of us know this. Except perhaps a few who pretend that the real world and the perfect world are one and the same.

[richardnunweek]

Hi ,
I have said this so many times, but we have to keep it relevant, for the sake of us losing the plot.
Reg Hutchinson claimed that his father George was the witness that knew Mary Kelly, his uncle also was aware of this.
We have no reason to reject this claim, simply because it has not been proven to be a lie.
Fortunate for me I heard a radio broadcast in the 1970s relaying this, many years before the book ''The Ripper and the Royals was published, so I am different from everyone else , who only became aware of this tale from that publication.
That very point, proves to my satisfaction, that this story was not added to spice up any theory.
Since 1888, only one persons name, has been forwarded by relatives to have been the Witness George Hutchinson, and that person is Topping...Nobody else...
We should also take into consideration that Topping claimed to have been paid five pounds for his help in assisting the police., and we should also take into account the Wheeling register report, which runs concurrently.
It is irrelevant that this was a gossip sheet[ allegedly] it substantiates Hutchinson's tale.
I appreciate the ''Not again'' sighs, but I have maintained the truth in my radio broadcast since I have been on casebook, which is a long time now..and I will continue to do so , because it is true..
Regards Richard.

[Sally]

Hi Richard,

Fair enough. But whether Hutchinson was 'Toppy' or not has no bearing on whether he told the truth about his encounter with Kelly on the night of her death, it's irrelevant.

Let's forget about current speculation as to what he could and couldn't have seen in that lighting; minor changes in the description of Astrakhan Man etc etc. All that would've been as obvious at the time as it was today and it doesn't appear to have been an issue then.

All other things being equal then, if you want him, whoever he was, to have told the honest to goodness truth, you still have to account for the striking similarity between his account and accounts published in the press before he gave his statement.

I'm afraid I think it stretches coincidence too far.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Have you managed to make contact with Rob Hutchinson yet?

He is Toppy's grandson, and posts on another ripper forum. I would respectfully submit that if you hope to make progress with the Toppy line of inquiry, that's where you need to go with your investigation, and not with this elusive and probably non-existent radio interview from yesteryear. Until that happens, I fear that the sighs of "not again" will continue whenever the subject is raised. I'm not for a moment suggesting you're lying; I'm suggesting that your memory is playing tricks on you. Had this radio interview existed as you relate it, it would have turned up by now. I'm afraid that's only realistic. Moreover, not a single family member knows anything about this alleged interview, leading one researcher who communicated with the family to conclude it never happened.

What we're looking for is concrete evidence of a pre-"Royals" link between Toppy and the real Hutchinson; not an untraceable radio interview, not a modern-day claim from Uncle Jim's nephew's dog that "Ah yes, dear old Toppy always used to say...", but good hard evidence. Even Rob Hutchinson (whose "Jack" tattoo is very impressive, by the way!) concedes that he knew nothing of any family connection to a ripper witness until...guess what? That's right: The Ripper and the Royals - from where all Toppy roads lead.

We should also take into consideration that Topping claimed to have been paid five pounds for his help in assisting the police., and we should also take into account the Wheeling register report, which runs concurrently.

No.

Sorry.

I'm afraid this is where I really must offer a sighing protestation of "not again". The deeply obscure and deeply, deeply wrong "Wheeling Register" ran a gossip column wrongly stating that Barnett was living with a new woman and was "roaring drunk" at the inquest. It also claimed that Hutchinson was paid five times a non-existent (according to the police, who would have done the "paying") salary, which is beyond preposterous. Does this "interestingly coincide" with Reg's claim that Hutchinson was paid hush money to keep quiet about seeing Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper?

Not even slightly.

But meanwhile, back on Toppyc!...

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

Where I work has a posted list of what might be equated with 'House rules'.
- "Employees only" (posted on the door). Well actually customers use this door also.
- "Open at 6:30 am". Actually we can walk in at 6:00 am.
- "Do not use as an Exit", We often use this as an exit. And a host of other examples

And where Abberline worked has a posted list of what might be equated with "Police Rules".

- "Never divulge case-related information to the press". Well actually the police did divulge such information.

- "Never alter your initial face-value opinion in accordance with new findings". Actually they did.

- "Mutton chops strictly forbidden". Abberline gave the middle finger to that.

And a host of other examples.

[Sam Flynn]

What we're looking for is concrete evidence of a pre-"Royals" link between Toppy and the real Hutchinson; not an untraceable radio interview, not a modern-day claim from Uncle Jim's nephew's dog that "Ah yes, dear old Toppy always used to say...", but good hard evidence.

...like his signature on the witness statement? That's good, hard evidence enough for me, Ben. And I'm unusually picky, as you know.

Pass the tin-opener - I want some worms

[Sam Flynn]

For all Jon’s craziness over the Daily News, he at least accepts the likely identity of the wideawake man as Hutchinson, which is an [un]avoidable conclusion to my mind.

We don't know what, if anything, Hutchinson had on his head that night, and we don't even know whether Hutchinson was "stout". However, we do know that a stout man wearing [something that was as-near-as-dammit] a wideawake was seen carousing with Mary Kelly that night. This man was actually in Mary Kelly's room for some time, and must have left not long before Sarah Lewis saw a stout, wideawake-wearing man staring fixedly at the passage that led directly to No 13 Miller's Court. And that man was Mr Blotchy, not George Hutchinson.

If there is an unavoidable conclusion here, it's that Mr Blotchy was the man seen by Sarah Lewis.

[Wickerman]

What we're looking for is concrete evidence of a pre-"Royals" link between Toppy and the real Hutchinson; not an untraceable radio interview, not a modern-day claim from Uncle Jim's nephew's dog that "Ah yes, dear old Toppy always used to say...", but good hard evidence.

Yes we are, we're waiting for this concrete evidence of Hutchinson being discredited, of Hutchinson even lying, of Isaacs being jailed, of the Echo obtaining legitimate case related information.

Not, by zealously promoting erroneous press conjecture. Not by accepting singular press reports without a shred of supporting evidence. Not by displaying a blind passionate faith in questionable sources, but by actually providing good hard evidence.

I find it extremely disappointing that you should insist on Richard providing something that you have repeatedly failed provide yourself.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Its quite amazing , [and I am as fault as anyone] that no researcher, be it amateur /professional has ever looked through every single Radio times from 1971-75 to find the programme I have mentioned for donkeys years.
I did attempt this a few years back with two members of my family at Brighton University library , but after spending our 90 minute spot, searching frantically through the front pages of countless editions, we unfortunately did not look in the back pages, which a later memory cell informed me we should have done....
I can assure everyone that the article''The man that saw Jack'' is there somewhere, I listened to the programme a few days after I read the article, that is how I knew it was going to be aired.. I remember vividly sitting on my couch, and listening to the tale of Hutchinson the witness, and his vivid description, and at the end of the broadcast, the alleged son of the witness, talked about his fathers tale, and the last words he said,which I can quote..were''It was his biggest regret, that despite his efforts, nothing came of it''.
This is not my imagination, or is it my memory playing tricks on me, I heard that,one hundred per cent....
We must not forget this radio broadcast was approx 40 years ago, it is not surprising members of the family never heard of it. it is even conceivable that the son was not Reg, or his younger brother, but someone relaying what they knew, from a past meeting....it is irrelevant to me, it does not prove that the tale is true, or that George was not a shady customer, or even a killer..what is important is the tale was not invented for the Ripper and the Royals, it was known years before...That is my point.....
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

...like his signature on the witness statement? That's good, hard evidence enough for me, Ben.

For me too, Gareth.

Good hard evidence against Toppy being the witness, in my opinion. (See 250 pages of "Hutch in the 1911 Census". )

"However, we do know that a stout man wearing [something that was as-near-as-dammit] a wideawake was seen carousing with Mary Kelly that night"

Indeed, it was little ol' me many years ago that first* observed a similarity between Lewis' man and Blotchy, and until I illustrated with contemporary dictionary definitions that wideawake and billycock hats were interchangeable, most people assumed a "wideawake" referred to a Quaker-style hat of the type worn by Tennyson. I don't rule out the possibility that Lewis's man and Blotchy were one and the same, but then nor do I see any mutual exclusivity between Blotchy and Hutchinson. Obviously it wouldn't have been the most prudent maneuver for the latter to present his blotchy, carrotty countenance, at the police station, but then that would depend if he had one, and by extension, how accurate Mary Cox's ostensibly rear sighting of the man was.

Lawende didn't register any ginger fuzz furnishing the face of his Church Passage man, and if Blotchy was the ripper, he was almost certainly identical with this individual. Lawende, unlike Cox, unquestionably saw the man's face.

It may also be worth considering Ada Wilson's attacker in the context of Lewis and Cox - not tall, about 5'6", with a sunburnt face and a wideawake:

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?pid=387&fullsize=1

The attack occurred on Maidman Street, off the Mile End Road, and very near Joe Fleming's old gaff on Wellington/Cyprus Street/Crescent.

All the best,
Ben

*As far as I've been able to ascertain, anyway.

[Ben]

Yes we are, we're waiting for this concrete evidence of Hutchinson being discredited, of Hutchinson even lying, of Isaacs being jailed, of the Echo obtaining legitimate case related information.

All been provided, Jon.

And objections to the contrary all painstakingly demolished, not with short shrift, but with detailed explanations that people can either take the trouble to digest and understand or not. I'm arguing points that some people would consider controversial and contentious, I get that; but you regularly argue for the acceptance and revival of things that can't possibly be true. Lack of evidence is one thing, but a wealth of evidence proving a given stance wrong is quite another.

And regrettably, the latter is your all-too-frequent affliction.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Its quite amazing , [and I am as fault as anyone] that no researcher, be it amateur /professional has ever looked through every single Radio times from 1971-75 to find the programme I have mentioned for donkeys years.

It's far more amazing that it hasn't yet been found if it truly existed as you remember it, and I'm sorry to say that as much as amazing things do happen once in a blue moon, the safer bet is that it hasn't been found because it never existed as you remember it. "Assurances" are absolutely useless in this game, and that's absolutely nothing personal. It's just the way it works when assessing historical sources. There is currently some excavation work going on at the site of 39/41 Commercial Street, and when I got my little trowel out and dug under the foundations, I found a box containing a knife, a ripper confession signed Joseph Fleming alias George Hutchinson, and the remains of a coconut that exhibited unmistakable signs of having been "shied". I wouldn't expect you to trust my "assurances" that this happened, would I?

I don't recall you ever before mentioning an "article" that accompanied the alleged radio interview. Had there been one, it would certainly have been advertised on the front pages, and you were quite right not to bother with the back ones.

We must not forget this radio broadcast was approx 40 years ago, it is not surprising members of the family never heard of it

Really?

I'd say that's hugely surprising.

I would argue that most "normal" families would remember pretty vividly if one of their members gave a radio interview regarding a parental connection to Jack the Ripper.

Remember that Reg's claim in the Ripper and the Royals was that prior to Fairclough showing him the statement, he knew nothing beyond the alleged fact that his father had known one of the victims, and gave evidence to the police. Nothing about any suspect sighting. Prior to Fairclough, Reg betrayed no knowledge that his father was "the man who saw Jack".

Again, why not get in touch with members of the family posting on the message boards? Maybe they can clear the mystery up?

Regards,
Ben