Hutchinsons statement....

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
I really cannot see the obsession with making Hutchinson a fabricator of the truth.
What is so wrong with his statement,?
He saw a man accompany Mary back to Dorset street,since Barnett left, this may have happened several times.
The only reason Hutchinson would have twisted the truth , would have been to protect himself.
It is quite possible that he had witnessed the encounter with Mr A, and had stayed outside the court, and waited until he had left. before visiting Mary, and asked to stay until 6am, in her room, until the home opened.
If he did this , and left just after 6.[ someone was heard to leave the court at this time] and admitted it, he would have put himself well in the frame.
Far better to say he walked about all night.
It is entirely possible that he had left a red hanky in the room, and incorporated this into his tale, so if the police found one, they would have assumed his statement was correct, and it belonged to Mr A.
Looking at a future Topping, he appears a dapper kind of man, attending music halls with a suit and cane. so him owning a red silk hanky is not out of the question.
We should not forget that medical evidence, and accounts of a cry , would have put the murder around 4.am. and although Hutchinson knew this was not right, it mattered not , his neck did though.
He could never admit to being in room 13. he would have believed she was killed after 6.am, and may have thought that this suspicious man could have returned after daylight.?
He may have heard him telling Kelly, 'I shall return in the morning, and take you to the Show'' but if the police/doctors said that she was killed in the night, he could never put himself in her room, but because he believed Mr A intended to come back,gave a description to the police Monday evening,as he believed he killed her.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

I agree.It's clear.Name mix-up.For years understood as such .

Nope. It is NOT "clear" at all. It is unclear.

I am not saying that they were not one and the same - they may well have been. In any case, though, it is not "clear" at all.

If it was, we would not have this discussion.

[Fisherman]

Varqm: Yes Astrakhan man could have been a good suspect,last man seen with Kelly before estimated time of death 3-4 AM, since he could have left the court at around, more or less, 3:05-3:15 A.M. or 3:10-3:20 A.M..Although if death was at 4 AM, another man could have come in after,around 30 minutes was enough time.

I think Astrakhan man was regarded as THE suspect - up until it was revealed that Hutchinson had mixed up the days. After that, Astrakhan was still of some interest, but nowhere near the interest he originally aroused.
That, by the way, fits the evidence perfectly.

3:15: if Hutch's "I went to the court to see if I could see them, but I could not " and Sarah's "was looking up the court as if waiting for someone" from across the street were the same.

(I know Iīm not supposed to butt in here, but I really donīt think they spoke of the same man at all)

i3:05: if Hutchinson went to court and looked again as seen by Sarah (while waiting for 45 minutes) if separate incidents."Went to the court" could mean in front of the court or inside but also walking to the court but not necessarily reaching the court (same as 3:15 ).Which could mean the initial report was incomplete.

We have zero evidence of Hutchinson placing himself in any other spot than "at the corner of the court". Ergo, as far as I am concerened, when he said he went to the court, I think he was telling us that he walked into the court itself.

IF Hutchinson was an upstanding citizen and his story checked out,it's clear he knew Kelly,he went to Romford,what would happen to Astrakhan man's importance as a suspect and Hutchinson as a witness?

Astrakhan man would be the prime suspect, and Hutchinsons story would not be graded down in importance.
But what happened...?

[Varqm]

great discussion-but it looks like to me that the logical answer is that lewis and Kennedy were same person.
It should pretty much be a no brainer at this point.

I agree.It's clear.Name mix-up.For years understood as such .

[Fisherman]

Hello PatHe might have become a plumber later, but that doesn't mean he didn't do whatever it took to earn a crust when the need arose. He might even have been a plumber's labourer, come to think of it; gotta learn the ropes somewhere.

All very sound reasoning, Gareth.
Some years back, when Edward was still posting here, he posted a snippet about Toppys father and uncle. I have shortened the post down, but hereīs the gist of it:

"Toppy’s father George Hutchinson had a brother called John. In other words he was Toppy’s uncle.
In the 1841 census, John was a 20 year old painter and George was a 15 year old labourer, while their mother Hannah was a widow aged 45.
By 1851 the family had split up – and George was a plumber aged 23.
But what of John?
In 1851 he was living in Chelmsford High Street with his wife Sarah, four children and a servant. He was a 31 year old plumber."

So both men came to plumbing later in life, one of them starting out as a labourer and the other as a painter.

We also know that there was some sort of falling out on behalf of Toppy visavi his family, meaning that he may have not followed in his fathers footsteps originally.

Ergo, there is no need whatsoever to suggest that Toppy must have been a plumber in 1888.

[Varqm]

Varqm: If anything Hutch appear more as a reluctant witness than somebody who forgot the day.We have to agree to disagree.

If he was a reluctant witness, he was a reluctant witness who nevertheless sought out the police voluntarily.
Iīm fine with disagreeing about it - I am ever so used to disagreeing over Hutchinson with people...

"Yes, we agree that Hutchinson was not in place in Dorset Street on Friday morning."

Let me ask what's more likely to you ,did Kelly had a client after Blotchy or none.

More likely? That is a tough question, and it predisposes that Blotchy did exist, something for which we have no corroboration. But if he was not a figment of Mrs Coxī imagination only, Iīd say that the timings suggest that he was not Kellys final customer.

I think that Kelly died at around the same time as the other Ripper victims killed on weekdays, and I make that time somewhere between or around 3-4 AM. So we would be looking at Blotchy staying for three or four hours, and that was not the ordinary time to stay with a prostitute.

Then again, Blotchy was described as being around 36 and Lechmere was around that age (slightly older) plus going from the photo, he may well have had the type of blotchy skin described by Cox..

So who knows?

Yes Astrakhan man could have been a good suspect,last man seen with Kelly before estimated time of death 3-4 AM, since he could have left the court at around, more or less, 3:05-3:15 A.M. or 3:10-3:20 A.M..Although if death was at 4 AM, another man could have come in after,around 30 minutes was enough time.

3:15: if Hutch's "I went to the court to see if I could see them, but I could not " and Sarah's "was looking up the court as if waiting for someone" from across the street were the same.

3:05: if Hutchinson went to court and looked again as seen by Sarah (while waiting for 45 minutes), if separate incidents."Went to the court" could mean in front of the court or inside but also walking to the court but not necessarily reaching the court (same as 3:15 ).Which could mean the initial report was incomplete.

IF Hutchinson was an upstanding citizen and his story checked out,it's clear he knew Kelly,he went to Romford,what would happen to Astrakhan man's importance as a suspect and Hutchinson as a witness?

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Pat

I agree with Phil on this one. Also why would a plumber say he was a labourer and once a groom?

He might have become a plumber later, but that doesn't mean he didn't do whatever it took to earn a crust when the need arose. He might even have been a plumber's labourer, come to think of it; gotta learn the ropes somewhere.

My own thoughts are that Hutch maybe the one that was in (southwark?) workhouse in 1885 who was described as a Groom that had been walking about the night before. On following this up he may be the baby born c 1855...

An 33 year-old groom? No wonder he wasn't currently in employment

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed. A different kettle of fish. However, my disbelief comes from the original source..that book.
I find it highly unlikely that a book with so many poor assumptions and claims can provide one gleaming white clean one. Im sorry. Just my honest opinion. ☺

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath-water, Phil. Just because Reg Topping's story appears in a silly book doesn't mean that his dad wasn't the Miller's Court witness. Reg's story may have been flowered up - most family traditions are - and Toppy's own story (whether told to Reg or the police!) could have been exaggerated, too; but that doesn't rule out Toppy as "the" George Hutchinson.

Besides, like I say, I have absolutely zero doubt that the signatures on the police statement and Toppy's own were made by the same hand; that's the clincher for me. You may recall that I was a vociferous "anti-Toppist" once, but I had to eat humble pie and change my mind when I saw the objective evidence.

[Abby Normal]

great discussion-but it looks like to me that the logical answer is that lewis and Kennedy were same person.
It should pretty much be a no brainer at this point.

[Paddy]

However, my disbelief comes from the original source..that book.
I find it highly unlikely that a book with so many poor assumptions and claims can provide one gleaming white clean one

I agree with Phil on this one. Also why would a plumber say he was a labourer and once a groom? Hes also younger than I imagine Hutch to have been.

My own thoughts are that Hutch maybe the one that was in (southwark?) workhouse in 1885 who was described as a Groom that had been walking about the night before. On following this up he may be the baby born c 1855 that was handed into Lambeth Workhouse abandoned by his parents and later sent to Mitcham industrial school in Surrey.
I am casting the net quite wide so have to prove this yet. Its possible his military bearing may have come from being institutionalised. If anyones interested I can show details...

I dont think he was the Ripper though because although it is common for murderers to put themself in the case they dont as far as I know put themseves in that far as to be chief witness....

Pat.....

[Robert]

Hi Observer

I do tend to go along with Chris's identification, but I'll answer your post today or tomorrow, as I am dog tired at the moment.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Phil
Whilst it's true that (Reg) Topping's amazing story about his father was written up in a risible suspect-based book, that's a separate matter to identifying who "our" George Hutchinson was. I have absolutely no doubt that "our" George and George William Topping Hutchinson were one and the same person.

Hello Gareth,

I hope you are well. ☺

Indeed. A different kettle of fish. However, my disbelief comes from the original source..that book.
I find it highly unlikely that a book with so many poor assumptions and claims can provide one gleaming white clean one. Im sorry. Just my honest opinion. ☺


Regards


Phil

[Phil Carter]

We don't know how many words were uttered between all these people. For all we know he could have been someone well known to a great many of them and talked about at great length. He could also, as you suggest have been known to nobody. We only know that the press reports don't make mention of anybody having said that they knew him, but why would they bother to report that even if it was spoken of?

Hello there

Thanks for the reply. Yes..your counter argument is fine.
My only answer to the last question is one Ive replied to Jon with.. see above.

regards


Phil

[Phil Carter]

Humph, still working for a living but otherwise can't complain.
Hope you and yours are keeping well.

Thank you Jon. I'm ok. Still struggling with CKD but now and again have days with more energy..hence my intermittent postings here.

Incidentally, there is no account of Hutchinson reading the papers, but suggestions have been made that the place he was staying had a reading room.

Ahh.. my memory wasnt all at sea. Thank you for correcting me and refreshing my memory!

All I can speak to Phil is that we have no evidence the press asked the question, though I'm not saying they didn't. However, it is my view that the police would check out what they could of Hutchinson's story.

Which is why I suggest the reporters would do the same, no?

Totally agree, several have made the same argument. That he did put himself in the firing line to be a principal person of interest in this case. Not a rationale step to take if he was truly involved in the murder in some way.

I tend to think that Abberline took whatever steps he could to satisfy himself that Hutchinson's story was basically true. He doesn't need to check every little detail.

ditto the above reply. Reporters would surely have tried yo follow up on his background


I don't believe they were inept, they are not about to believe someone on their word alone.

Good to talk to you Phil.

and to you Jon. Stay well

Regards

Phil

[Flower and Dean]

You of all people know that when you are in court you are expected to limit your replies to what "you" saw, "you" heard, and what "you" did, regardless of how many people were present with you. The court is not interested in any "we's", "ours" or "they's".
Do you think the Keylers were out of the house too? I mean Lewis doesn't mention Mr & Mrs Keyler being present either.

You're contradicting yourself a bit here...

Lewis specifically mentions that she went to stay with Mrs. Keyler. When she talks about the suspicious man, she mentions that she was with a friend. She does not go into any "we's". She simply says these things to establish what she was doing when the events she talks about happened. She mentions other people in this context of why she was in a certain place (she went to see Mrs. Keyler) or what she was doing (she was walking with a friend).

She could have talked about Kennedy in this same way. She wouldn't have needed to go into we's any more than she did to talk about Mrs. Keyler.