PDA

View Full Version : Is this the right Hutchinson?


kerrypn
04-03-2015, 01:09 PM
Hi, Im very much the novice and am interested in finding out a bit about the witness George Hutchinson. In the census 1881, I have come across a George Hutchinson living on Spencer Street St George in The East London, listed as married to Margaret and occupation a butcher. It was a bit harder finding him in the 1891, but I believe him to then be living in Ratcliff London, now with two children, George and Eliza. By the time the 1901 is published, his wife and eldest child are living in Newington London, his son is also a butcher. George by this time is lodging (which I know sometimes can just mean visiting-he is still listed as married, although Margaret lists as "living on her own means") at a different address in Newington.

Is this the George Hutchinson who came forward as a witness to MJK please?

Thank you!!

Paddy
04-03-2015, 01:19 PM
Hi I found this same chap some time ago, He lived down near Breezers HIll and if you look on his marriage cert...(I will give you details in a moment) You will find he was a groom at that time....

Pat..................

kerrypn
04-03-2015, 01:20 PM
Oooh thanks Pat that would be great, I couldn't find his marriage record! Am I on the right person then? :)

Paddy
04-03-2015, 01:33 PM
June 22nd 1974

George James Hutchinson (Groom) 21 married Margaret Isabella Stevens 19
at Christchurch St George in the East. It says he lived at 12 Martha street and his ather was Thomas Hutchinson a Stone Mason.
Margarets address was given as 17 Tarling street. Her father was John Stevens a rope maker.
Witnesses were: Maria Jane Danvill or Parvill?? and W.S Johnston.

Pat............

GUT
04-03-2015, 03:42 PM
June 22nd 1974

George James Hutchinson (Groom) 21 married Margaret Isabella Stevens 19
at Christchurch St George in the East. It says he lived at 12 Martha street and his ather was Thomas Hutchinson a Stone Mason.
Margarets address was given as 17 Tarling street. Her father was John Stevens a rope maker.
Witnesses were: Maria Jane Danvill or Parvill?? and W.S Johnston.

Pat............

Sorry Pat just can't help myself.

Paddy
04-03-2015, 04:47 PM
Oops ........make that 1874....I am always getting my centurys mixed up. I spent half the day today thinking it was Saturday....and its friday....:rolleyes2:
Thanks
Pat....

Paddy
04-03-2015, 06:22 PM
Oooh thanks Pat that would be great, I couldn't find his marriage record! Am I on the right person then?

Not sure, The fact that he lived down near Breezers Hill where Mary Jane Kelly lived makes it possible. He said he had known her about three years.

Here is his signature from wedding.


Pat..............

kerrypn
04-04-2015, 01:18 AM
Thanks very much Pat! I think I was unsure as I am sure I remember reading somewhere that the George Hutchinson who gave a statement gave his occupation as a labourer, and then elsewhere that he wore military type dress (although I am less sure on the latter!)

I did wonder how likely a married man would be to come forward and admit knowing a prostitute, is there anything else known about the George who approached the police at all?

Im grateful for the wedding info, I am a but hit and miss on the search malarkey at the moment! Was there ever a sample of the Hutchinson signature (I know some believe that the signature on the statement was not signed by him but on his behalf)

Thanks so much Pat, you've been a star!

GUT
04-04-2015, 01:27 AM
Oops ........make that 1874....I am always getting my centurys mixed up. I spent half the day today thinking it was Saturday....and its friday....:rolleyes2:
Thanks
Pat....

No worries Pat, sorry just couldn't help myself, I keep thinking It's Sunday today when it is Saturday, but that's probably just because it's the 2nd day off work, yipeee.

GUT
04-04-2015, 01:32 AM
Thanks very much Pat! I think I was unsure as I am sure I remember reading somewhere that the George Hutchinson who gave a statement gave his occupation as a labourer, and then elsewhere that he wore military type dress (although I am less sure on the latter!)


Unemployed labourer and former groom from memory.

kerrypn
04-04-2015, 01:45 AM
Thanks GUT! That is a bit odd in and of itself... the man who lived on Spencer street always gave his occupation as a butcher, but as Pat found on his marriage certificate, gave his occupation as a groom....either these are two different men (does not seem likely since the marriage and birth places etc match)...or it is not the George who gave a statement (this is quite likely I suppose, Im guessing there were several George Hutchinsons in London at that time!) or George gave his occupation as different to the police and to the census...there seems little doubt the George I refer to was a butcher, since his son later followed him into the profession and it is listed on three consecutive censuses.

kerrypn
04-04-2015, 02:01 AM
In terms of a suspect, I have several problems with George Hutchinson, which relates mainly to who JTR victims actually were. I have always struggled with any kind of assertion that Jack simply voluntarily stopped killing and remained at large in the community. I also find it difficult to imagine a serial killer committing a crime as ferocious as MJK (and I do believe MJK was a JTR victim-I know some people do not) would then commit further murders either dropping is MO completely (as has been postulated with murders following MJK for example) or not quite mutilating to the level he had previously. I think the step up from Eddowes to Kelly suggests he has to increase the level of violence to achieve the same satisfaction.

That being said, I know there are some prolific serial killers, I think the green river killer was one, who did stop killing for a prolonged period voluntarily so I realise that it cannot be excluded JTR just stopped. Also, the coming forward voluntarily to bring yourself into police attention does not seem typical, but again, there are examples such as Ian Huntley.

All that being said, I think GH is a person of interest, that's why I am trying to find out a bit more about him, the description he gave was just so detailed...

Am I right in thinking GH identified MJK? If so, this could be construed as revisiting the crime couldn't it, or equally GH could have been telling the truth-was there no one else who could ID the body?

Sorry for the waffle haha and thanks for the help so far!

GUT
04-04-2015, 02:04 AM
Thanks GUT! That is a bit odd in and of itself... the man who lived on Spencer street always gave his occupation as a butcher, but as Pat found on his marriage certificate, gave his occupation as a groom....either these are two different men (does not seem likely since the marriage and birth places etc match)...or it is not the George who gave a statement (this is quite likely I suppose, Im guessing there were several George Hutchinsons in London at that time!) or George gave his occupation as different to the police and to the census...there seems little doubt the George I refer to was a butcher, since his son later followed him into the profession and it is listed on three consecutive censuses.

I am not persuaded that your GH and Pat's GH are one and the same, [thay may be but I'm not yet convinced] George was a very common first name and Hutchinson wasn't exactly rare.

Good luck in your hunt though.

kerrypn
04-04-2015, 02:07 AM
Thanks GUT! I think Pat said that they were, although I could be mistaken :) I suppose it will be difficult to prove absolutely who he was.

Sally
04-04-2015, 02:36 AM
Hi Pat, all.

I had a look at this George Hutchinson a couple of years ago now [I think this may have come up last year sometime? don't exactly recall]

Anyway, here's a bit more for any who are interested.

This George Hutchinson was the son of Thomas Hutchinson, a stonemason from Bishop Auckland [where Hutchinsons abound] Thomas Hutchinson was dead by 1871, when his widow, Susan, was working as a dressmaker and living at 9, Russell Street, Mile End [Old Town] with her three sons, Thomas, George and William. George is listed in the 1871 census as a ‘Manager at Green Grocers’ which has always seemed intrinsically unlikely to me; given that he was 15 at the time.

From the basptim records of his children, Susan Eliza [b.1st October 1886] and George Thomas [b.24th March 1883] we can see that George Hutchinson and his family were living at 36, Usher Road, Old Ford in 1883 and had moved to Horner's Buildings [Asby & Horner] in Shadwell by 1886.

I think that this GH has a few things going for him as the GH - name, sometime occupation, location etc. There are some summary issues but most can be explained. The witness GH claimed to be single and a former groom now labourer; whereas GJH was married, was a former groom but by 1888 had been a butcher for some years.

However, if they were one and the same, I can see why he might not a] want his family to know that he'd known a recently murdered prostitute; and b] why he might not want to tell the police he was a butcher. The VH was often frequented by married men who'd become estranged from their wives - there is documentary evidence to the fact - so his presence there wouldn't have been unusual.

The big problem, which I think would be difficult to surmount, is that his signature is not similar to those on the witness statement; either on his marriage certificate; or his daughter's death certificate from 1893. You might argue that somebody else had signed for GJH in 1888; but I don't know why that would be the case? He was literate and thus capable of signing for himself.

GJH died in 1905 from heart failure. His estranged wife Margaret registered his death, presumably as next of kin.

kerrypn
04-04-2015, 02:45 AM
Sally that's fab thank you! When you were looking into George did you find any other likely candidates as GH? Was there any indication of his age etc given by the police description of him that might help? Thanks so much for your help!

GUT
04-04-2015, 02:54 AM
Thanks GUT! I think Pat said that they were, although I could be mistaken :) I suppose it will be difficult to prove absolutely who he was.

Sorry my last post wasn't perhaps expressed as well as it should have been, your GH and Pat's GH may [or may not] be one and the same, what I would need a lot more to persuade me is if he, or either of them, are the witness GH.

kerrypn
04-04-2015, 03:01 AM
Ah I see what you mean sorry GUT! Yes I think it would be extremely difficult to determine absolutely who he was unfortunately :(

GUT
04-04-2015, 03:15 AM
Ah I see what you mean sorry GUT! Yes I think it would be extremely difficult to determine absolutely who he was unfortunately :(

G'day Kerrypn

No need to be sorry it was my fault for not expressing myself somewhat better, I was [as is usual for me dong 3 or 4 things at once].

Wickerman
04-04-2015, 10:49 AM
Oooh thanks Pat that would be great, I couldn't find his marriage record! Am I on the right person then?

Not sure, The fact that he lived down near Breezers Hill where Mary Jane Kelly lived makes it possible. He said he had known her about three years.

Here is his signature from wedding.


Pat..............

Hi Pat.
Here are another few examples of 'Hutchinson' signatures:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=67619&postcount=1

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=67816&postcount=18

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=67824&postcount=22

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=67868&postcount=26

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=67951&postcount=37

kerrypn
04-06-2015, 12:47 AM
Thanks a lot Wickerman! I am in awe of people who can match handwriting, they all look so similar! :scratchchin:

kerrypn
04-06-2015, 01:13 AM
I also have a bit of a query with regards to Kelly's murder. I wonder if Eddowes was in fact JTR's "ultimate offence", that's the one he really satisfied his urges, his adrenaline already pumping from Stride* , the increased risk of being caught and JTR carries out some pretty comprehensive mutilations, including of course the face. When JTR murders Kelly, he has of course the time to fulfil his desires fully...however, what if Kelly's murder was not quite living up to the satisfaction he got from Eddowes, so he escalates, he mutilates the face reminiscent of Eddowes to recreate the scene for himself, he makes bizarre mutilations perhaps not as tidy as seen previously and escalates and escalates, but the relative safety of the indoors scene does not provide him with the same satisfaction as the outdoor slayings, as the risk of capture is much lower. What I am getting it in a very waffle way, is, Was Kelly assaulted so extensively as JTR tried to equal the satisfaction from Eddowes and was unable to do so? If so, do you think this would make whether JTR knew Eddowes more important than whether he knew MJK?



*(Im going to assume that Stride is a victim, I am not convinced, I feel some aspects of her injuries/murder may have strongly proven her to be a JTR victim that may not have been publicised)

Sally
04-06-2015, 02:51 AM
Sally that's fab thank you! When you were looking into George did you find any other likely candidates as GH? Was there any indication of his age etc given by the police description of him that might help? Thanks so much for your help!

Hi kerrypn,

No, I don't think a likely candidate for GH has turned up yet. As to indication of age, I have heard that Bob Hinton may have come across a reference to GH having been 28 at the time; but I'm afraid that I don't know what the source of this information was.

Robert
04-06-2015, 03:43 AM
If I remember correctly, Bob's research partner found a newspaper reference to his age, but then lost it and couldn't find it again.

richardnunweek
04-06-2015, 05:09 AM
Hi.
We appear to have forgotten the obvious candidate.
Who else has come forward and declared himself to be George Hutchinson,since the murders happened.then George William Topping Hutchinson?
Answer Nobody...
Who else made a comment that he was paid One hundred shillings, but topping.?
The reference to a payment was only printed in a rare sheet from 1888, that was only discovered , in relatively recent years...certainly after the book 'The Ripper and the Royals was published in 1992, that made reference to it..
Only the real Hutchinson would know about a payment. because he received it.
The Hutchinson family, including Topping's brother, knew of the account for many years..but we on Casebook. are still running around like headless chickens, looking for the witness, when we already know who he was..
The word ' Blinkers'' springs to mind...all roads lead to suspicion , and focuses entirely on mistrust, and the truth is pushed aside,,
Regards Richard.

Wickerman
04-06-2015, 01:57 PM
But Richard,....100 Shillings?
This, in a time when 15 Shillings a week was good pay?

GUT
04-06-2015, 05:22 PM
But Richard,....100 Shillings?
This, in a time when 15 Shillings a week was good pay?

That's only about 6 weeks pay though, so not really that much, like a reward of 5,000 today.

Wickerman
04-06-2015, 05:24 PM
That's only about 6 weeks pay though, so not really that much, like a reward of 5,000 today.

But you get a reward for finding him, not for looking for him.

GUT
04-06-2015, 05:38 PM
But you get a reward for finding him, not for looking for him.

Actually Jeff I know here sometimes rewards will be given just for helping the police.

But yes 100 quid dos seem a bit steep.

Ithink that there were a few rewards offered or suggested in JtR and all up they were about 1,000l for information leading to arrest

The Good Michael
04-06-2015, 06:17 PM
Actually Jeff I know here sometimes rewards will be given just for helping the police.

But yes 100 quid dos seem a bit steep.

Ithink that there were a few rewards offered or suggested in JtR and all up they were about 1,000l for information leading to arrest

Topping may have meant the value in the day's currency which was, if I remember, 1972-ish when he spoke of it.

Mike

GUT
04-06-2015, 08:20 PM
Topping may have meant the value in the day's currency which was, if I remember, 1972-ish when he spoke of it.

Mike

Which would make it what a week or two pay.

But we will never know for certain.

richardnunweek
04-07-2015, 01:38 AM
Hi Guys,
Information given in the 'Ripper and the Royals', was from Reg Hutchinson, son of Topping , the latter died in 1938, he remembers his father saying, he knew one of the victims, and was interviewed by the police.
He also informed that he was paid One hundred shillings, [ £5] which would have been approx 5 weeks salary as a labourer
The media only knew that, from a rare publication the ''Wheeling Register'' published 1888, no other newspaper recorded it[ as far as we know]..so it becomes obvious , that unless Topping read that at the time, and also studied the statement of a person who was his namesake,he most likely was the real deal.
We only became aware of the Wheeling report a few years back,well after ''The Ripper and the Royals, if Reg was making up the entire story. he would have had had to have access to information , not known by any researcher at that time.
I am totally convinced that Topping was the witness Hutchinson, not withstanding the radio broadcast in the early 70's which I alone appeared to have heard, mentioning the same payment figure,allegedly from the son of the witness,[ which has to have been either Reg..or his younger brother,].
Unless Topping was a very cleaver hoaxer.he was George Hutchinson , aged 22 years,who knew Mary Kelly from Millers court..
I also will state , that I believe his account of that morning to be true...
Regards Richard.

Wickerman
04-07-2015, 03:26 PM
Hi Richard.
Typically, I never comment on the Toppy theory, it is something yet to be firmly established, but from what is known, I do not see any reason to dismiss the idea.
And yes, I agree with your last line, but the sum of this payment is very suspect in my opinion.
I would be inclined to ask Monty if he was aware of any witnesses being payed such a sum, or even being paid at all.
Covering expenses, as was the case with Lawende, is one thing, but paying them for their time is something else, and that is a huge payment for two nights work.

Ben
09-16-2015, 06:31 AM
I’m with Jon on this one, Richard (it has been known to happen!).

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.

These are two independently bogus stories involving an absurdly ludicrous “payment”. They don’t corroborate each other, and they don’t mention the same sum. A silly tale about a huge pay-off to conceal Churchillian culpability in the ripper murders doesn’t require “inspiration” for its conception. Like Jon says, “covering expenses” was likely to have been the full extent of any “payment” Hutchinson received.

The Wheeling Register also stated that the man in question had “invented” the story, but you tend to gloss over that bit.

We have no evidence that Toppy ever “declared himself” to be the man in question; in fact we have nothing from Toppy himself in his lifetime, just second-hand hearsay quotes in a discredited royal conspiracy book published in 1993. The whole Toppy=Hutch claim has absolutely zero provenance prior to the publication of that book.

All the best,
Ben

richardnunweek
09-16-2015, 09:54 AM
Hi Ben,,
Five times salary would be in the region of one hundred shillings in 1888, not exact, but near enough.[ for an average worker]
All I can say, is the researchers of the radio show, must have seen The Wheeling register, or invented the hundred shilling amount, which surely is a coincidence..
This sheet is rare,it was not seen until just a few years ago, by anyone in Ripperland, so are you saying that they struck lucky, or someone like Toppy read it in 1888, and became the witness Hutchinson, because it earned him a pint or two over the years.?
I remain confident, that Toppy was Hutchinson, and he was the man that the Wheeling Register, was referring to.
Regards Richard.

Ben
09-16-2015, 10:13 AM
Hi Richard,

Hutchinson was in "no regular employment", according to Abberline.

People in "no regular employment" do not take home a "salary".

The Wheeling Register article is provably nonsense because its claim regarding Hutchinson's finances is utterly at odds with Abberline's statement that he was in no regular employment and thus not on a "salary".

It's important that you extricate yourself from the idea that anyone wishing to invent a silly story about payment must have derived inspiration from another silly story about payment. That does not need to happen. The Wheeling Register is absolutely not required as a source of inspiration for anyone wishing to concoct a bogus tale about Hutchinson receiving an implausibly large sum.

What we have here are two entirely separate, entirely bogus accounts of payment - one from a seriously ill-informed source and the other from a palpably ludicrous source.

Two wrongs don't make a right, nor do they combine to create good provenance!

All the best,
Ben

packers stem
09-16-2015, 12:44 PM
Just another crazy coincidence then :scratchchin:

Ben
09-16-2015, 12:49 PM
Hi Pack,

No, not a "coincidence" at all, crazy or otherwise.

We just have one totally untrue payment story not remotely coinciding with another totally untrue payment story.

richardnunweek
09-16-2015, 01:26 PM
Hi Ben..
I understand your point..and I also accept that ''The Wheeling'' was a gossip sheet, but they heard that a man got paid five weeks wages , for information. which they considered was a clever ploy to obtain money under false pretences.
We have no mention of any payment, in any other press accounts during that period..
We have a man named George Topping Hutchinson in the 1920's-30's [ and likely before] informing people, including his brother, and son, that he knew one of the victims . and assisted the police..
In 1974?. on the radio,I heard with my own ears, an account of the sighting of the man Hutchinson, and a oral dialogue , from what was allegedly the man's son...
As this dialogue was precisely what was written in The Ripper and the Royals some 18 years later, it is a fair assumption , that it derived from that radio broadcast.
That was the first time a payment was ever mentioned, being received by the witness, and it was exactly the same sum mentioned in the book ..
This proves that the story was not especially formulated for Fairclough's book..
We know that Reg Hutchinson's father was Topping[ proven], we know that his brother also was aware of his fathers tale.
I therefore submit. that as the Wheeling sheet, mentioned a sum of five weeks wage, and if that was classified as a average figure, it is a good chance that it equalled the hundred shillings mentioned.
I will say now Ben, if you , or any other member of Casebook heard that radio broadcast, you too, would have a different opinion in this argument.
Regards Richard.

Wickerman
09-16-2015, 03:28 PM
I’m with Jon on this one, Richard (it has been known to happen!).

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.

These are two independently bogus stories involving an absurdly ludicrous “payment”. They don’t corroborate each other, and they don’t mention the same sum. A silly tale about a huge pay-off to conceal Churchillian culpability in the ripper murders doesn’t require “inspiration” for its conception. Like Jon says, “covering expenses” was likely to have been the full extent of any “payment” Hutchinson received.

The Wheeling Register also stated that the man in question had “invented” the story, but you tend to gloss over that bit.

We have no evidence that Toppy ever “declared himself” to be the man in question; in fact we have nothing from Toppy himself in his lifetime, just second-hand hearsay quotes in a discredited royal conspiracy book published in 1993. The whole Toppy=Hutch claim has absolutely zero provenance prior to the publication of that book.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben.

Purely out of curiosity, do we have a copy of this oft mentioned Wheeling Register article anywhere?

Ben
09-16-2015, 03:38 PM
Hi Jon,

Here you go:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=2571

Ben
09-16-2015, 04:08 PM
Hi Richard,

I understand your point..and I also accept that ''The Wheeling'' was a gossip sheet, but they heard that a man got paid five weeks wages , for information. which they considered was a clever ploy to obtain money under false pretences.
We have no mention of any payment, in any other press accounts during that period..

Exactly, and that ought to ring alarm bells straight away.

Is it likely that every single UK-based newspaper managed to miss out on something that a town in West Virginia inexplicably got the scoop on? No.

Is it likely that the police would fork out such an astronomically large sum for an alleged witness just for providing a statement? No.

Is it likely that any of the Wheeling's other "gossip" is correct? No.

Hutchinson would not have been paid 100 shillings just for telling a story - he just wouldn't have been. No police force has ever been that stupid. It's not even a possibility. It is therefore completely irrelevant if Reg Hutchinson and the Wheeling Register both mentioned such a pay-off, since they are both 100% wrong about it happening in the real Hutchinson's case.

We have a man named George Topping Hutchinson in the 1920's-30's [ and likely before] informing people, including his brother, and son, that he knew one of the victims . and assisted the police

No, we don't.

We have a man named Reginald Hutchinson in the 1990s being interviewed by a royal conspirator (conspiracist?) and a man pretending to be the son of Walter Sickert, who told them both that his father was paid to "keep quiet about what he really knew". There is, as I've already said, no Toppy-Hutchinson provenance prior to the publication of the Ripper and the Royals. I'm afraid that until you can produce evidence of a 1970s radio show supporting Toppy's Hutchinson/witness credentials, it is wholly inadmissible as evidence - much like that murder confession I found in the foundations of the old Victoria Home that was signed by Hutchinson himself, and which I've since mislaid.

I therefore submit. that as the Wheeling sheet, mentioned a sum of five weeks wage, and if that was classified as a average figure

Hutchinson wasn't taking home a "wage", as I've already explained. An odd-jobbing labourer in "no regular employment" did not have a "usual salary", so we may permanently forget the idea that there is any correlation between the Wheeling's "five times (his) usual salary" and R&R's preposterous "100 shillings".

Regards,
Ben

Abby Normal
09-16-2015, 04:58 PM
Hi Ben
Exactly.

$0 X $0= 0

as does any secondhand evidence, rumor or alterior motive of a book seller from the 50s.

Go Toppy!

Wickerman
09-16-2015, 05:38 PM
Hi Jon,

Here you go:

http://www.jtrforums.com/showthread.php?t=2571

Much appreciated Ben, thank you.

Wickerman
09-16-2015, 05:47 PM
I’m with Jon on this one, Richard (it has been known to happen!).

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.
.
.
The Wheeling Register also stated that the man in question had “invented” the story, but you tend to gloss over that bit.


It is reassuring to see the story described as "invented" being lumped in with all the other false statements in that article.

MysterySinger
12-05-2015, 03:25 PM
Without dismissing Topping, I'd say there's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and, as you've all undoubtedly done, trying out different possibilities.

The 3 Hutchinson signatures on his Police statement look quite different to me - did he actually make them. Even if he did, he could have been using an alias as everybody seemed to do back then.

The other thing is that his name (real or just written slightly different in records at that time) could have been a variation on the theme, such as Hutchenson, Hutchison, Hutcheson etc.

In fact my own favourite for Hutch is the man, who at 30th October 1885 was aged 30 when he was recorded as admitted to Saint George's Workhouse in Southwark (in the Mint Street Register of Vagrants). He gave his calling or occupation as "Groom" and when asked where he had slept the night before answered "walking about". That seems to characterise our Mr Hutchinson to a tee. The record has him as George Hutchenson, but the paperwork seems to be correct as Hutchinson.

If that is our man, then he would be around 33 in 1888 and that would fit better as Hutch for me. Of interest too, maybe, is the man below him in the paperwork, admitted at the same time, a John Hamblin, simply because his destination on discharge is shown as Romford. Both men were put to work breaking stones.