Hutchinsons statement....

[Phil Carter]

It's a fair question, but equally fair is the fact no newspaper printed, "we have asked around about this Hutchinson fellow, but no-one has heard of him".

We should not draw conclusions about the lack of answers to questions we have no indication were even asked.

Hello Jon

I hope you are well 😊

Yes, on the face of it, a fair counter argument to bring forward.
However, my thoughts go to the time and place.
There must have been hundreds of reporters in and around Dorset Street at the time. This news, from Hutchinson, effectively put the dampners on any story of Kelly being seen the next morning. It was, infact, deemed as a significant statement..by no less a person than Aberline himself.
No reporter asked anyone who this fellow was? No policeman checked out his story of being such a friend of Kelly? The reason I say these things is obvious. What the man has actually done, in effect, is put himself into the spotlight of being one of, if not THE last person(s) to see Kelly alive. Any policeman would immediate think.."he could be the killer himself".
And any reporter..from the many swanning around, is bound to ask questions of the locals based upon that situation and possible suspicion.
Abberline believing his story actually makes asking questions of his background even more important, to establish any truth in said story.
Yet..nobody knows the man..apparently.

Of course, your counter argument may be that given Abberline believed his story..there would be no need to investigate it. But to be honest..believing a story like that without some sort of proof is frankly silly.
Anyone could have walked into the police station and said the same thing. Or a variation. It would have to be checked out.

It reminds me of the "old lady from the market" story and John Kelly. Nobody checked it.

All very frustrating to my mind. Were the police SO inept?
These questions have to be asked to my mind.

But then again.. we all have different thoughts. To each his or her own.


Regards


Phil

[Abby Normal]

Good points, Phil, but his identity is not in question as far as I'm concerned. No doubts in my mind - he was George William Topping Hutchinson.

Hi sam
Not that I care because IMHO if topping was the hutch, he still could have been the rippper..... but how can there be no doubt in your mind they are the same??

[Fisherman]

Hi sam
Not that I care because IMHO if topping was the hutch, he still could have been the rippper..... but how can there be no doubt in your mind they are the same??

I think both Gareth and I have the same main reason for it - George William Toppbing Hutchinson, who had a son who said he was the witness of Dorset Street fame, had a signature that was incredibly close to said witnesses´ ditto. Close enough for a handwriting specialist of great experience and reputation to say that he expected any forthcoming new evidence to confirm that the signatures hada the same originator.

There was quite a brawl about it back then, but I think the time has come to sensibly accept what Frank Leander said. To me, there is no doubt either - Topping was the witness. And just like you say, he may have been the killer too. Nothing I can disprove, at least, although I don´t invest in the idea.

[Abby Normal]

I think both Gareth and I have the same main reason for it - George William Toppbing Hutchinson, who had a son who said he was the witness of Dorset Street fame, had a signature that was incredibly close to said witnesses´ ditto. Close enough for a handwriting specialist of great experience and reputation to say that he expected any forthcoming new evidence to confirm that the signatures hada the same originator.

There was quite a brawl about it back then, but I think the time has come to sensibly accept what Frank Leander said. To me, there is no doubt either - Topping was the witness. And just like you say, he may have been the killer too. Nothing I can disprove, at least, although I don´t invest in the idea.

Thanks fish
I've seen the toppy sigs, and while they do look similar, there are too many differences between the three that he apparently signed his statement that it's almost impossible IMHO to be able to make a good comparison.

The whole circumstances of how and why he was found make it rather dubious also.

[Fisherman]

Thanks fish
I've seen the toppy sigs, and while they do look similar, there are too many differences between the three that he apparently signed his statement that it's almost impossible IMHO to be able to make a good comparison.

The whole circumstances of how and why he was found make it rather dubious also.

The three on the witness statement are dissimilar - but it has been suggested by other document specialists that they were not all signed by the witness, but instead some of them may have been signed by Sgt Badham.

The third signature, though, is very, very similar to Toppings, and that clinches the deal for me. Same man.

[DJA]

Hutchinson informed Abberline that he knew Mary Kelly for about three years,which put her in the London Dock area.
Prolly where Toppy got his military bearing,unless he was trained as a sailor

[Varqm]

A few points:

- Yes, we agree that Hutchinson was not in place in Dorset Street on Friday morning.
-No, I don´t agree that he didn´t see what he said he saw. I think he may well have - but on Thursday morning.
-It is completely possible that Hutchinson was not aware that Kelly had been killed on Friday/Saturday.
-His last known address was the Victoria Home, arguably because he had been placed there by the police. The place where he "usually stayed" was not the Victoria Home, in all probability.
-Just like you, I have not read that he left Spitalfields in the days leading up to his approaching the police. Just like you, nor have I read that he did not. Just like you, I simply don´t know where he was on those days, until Sunday. Differing from you, I prefer to say that instead of saying "I have not read that he was in Spitalfields on those days". It is what it is, so let´s respect that. And regardless if he WAS in Spitalfields or not, he could nevertheless be unaware of Kelly´s death, either altogether, or by way of only having heard that a woman had been killed in Whitechapel or even in Dorset Street - why would he surmise that it must have been Kelly? There are all sorts of possible explanations for why he may have been unaware of this, and positing that it would be only theoretically possible is simply not true.

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

"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.

[Observer]

Hi Observer

It may be that, with anti-German sentiment rising and war looming, Joseph got spooked. Perhaps, after the marriage, he regarded himself as the first casualty of World War One.

Re John Walter, at his birth the address was 39 Nottingham Place, Mile End.

John's death was registered 3rd quarter 1891. I don't know when Caroline entered the asylum, but she seems to have left it during 1891 because she has a son Walter John Lewis last quarter of 1891 (name as a tribute to John Walter?)

She remained out of the asylum for the following two censuses.

The two other births I have certs for are Ann Lewis born May 24th 1891 and Catherine Lewis born 9th June 1893. As Chris said in his article, Joseph in the censuses called himself Joseph Lewis, and this is reflected on these two certificates. but this presented Sarah with a problem : with Joseph using the Lewis surname, she had to invent a maiden name for herself. She seems to have decided that if you are going to muddy the waters, do it properly, and therefore on both of these certificates she describes herself as formerly Smith!

There are four more children for the couple - William, Sophia, Rachel and Alfred. I don't have certs for those but as far as I can tell, those too have mother formerly Smith.

Hi Robert

Thanks for the info.

I'm starting to wonder whether the Sarah Lewis, as claimed by the Castle family, to be the Sarah Lewis the witness at the Kelly inquest to be the genuine article.

The Castle family's ancestors seem to have settled in Bethnal Green, that is Sarah Lewis's mother and father.

As you know Sarah Lewis around the year 1886 met, and in all probability co-habited with Joseph Gotheimer.

Sarah Lewis gave birth to her first child Emily in 1886, as you posted, the birth certificate failed to reveal the father. I would guess the father was Joseph Gotheimer.

According to Chris Scott Emily was born in Old Ford Bow. You have provided addresses for two further children at the time of birth, both Mile End addresses.

The birth of John Walter is particularly interesting. John was born in Nottingham Place Mile End in August 1888, and yet three months later, on November 9th, Sarah Lewis is living in Great Pearl Street Spitalfields.

In short, the Castle family's Lewis ancestors seem to have lived in Bethnal Green, and moved Eastward to Mile End , and Bow. The Great Pearl Street address seems at odds with the Mile End and Bow addresses. Of course it's entirely possible that Sarah Lewis, and Joseph Gotheimer de-camped to Spitalfields for a short period in time. It would be interesting to see the addresses during the births of the other nine Gothmeimer children though.

[Michael W Richards]

Just by way of an example we see the same with the testimony of Louis Diemschitz, when he ran down Fairclough street looking for a policeman.
His testimony is based on what he did, "I ran", "I could not find", "I took", "I shouted", "I met", etc.
We all know he was with Isaac Kozebrodski at the time. So why didn't Diemschitz say "we"?
So you know the answer to your question before you ask.

You are aware of this press account from Issac?

"I was in this club last night. I came in about half-past six in the evening. About twenty minutes to one this morning Mr. Diemschitz called me out to the yard. He told me there was something in the yard, and told me to come and see what it was. When we had got outside he struck a match, and when we looked down on the ground we could see a long stream of blood. It was running down the gutter from the direction of the gate, and reached to the back door of the club. I should think there was blood in the gutter for a distance of five or six yards. I went to look for a policeman at the request of Diemschitz or some other member of the club, but I took the direction towards Grove-street and could not find one. I afterwards went into the Commercial-road along with Eagle, and found two officers. The officers did not touch the body, but sent for a doctor. A doctor came, and an inspector arrived just afterwards. While the doctor was examining the body, I noticed that she had some grapes in her right hand and some sweets in her left. I saw a little bunch of flowers stuck above her right bosom".[

[Fisherman]

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.
I´m 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 Cox´ imagination only, I´d 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?

[Bridewell]

However..I ask again. Why is it that it is impossible to find one person well known to Mary Kelly who uttered one word of acknowledging exactly who this Hutchinson fellow was in the aftermath of his statement to the police? Surely, he must have been known to them. He claimed to know Kelly well.

One can make up reasons or presumptions as to why no one said anything about the man. But the fact remains, nobody ever did. This gives me serious doubts as to both his story, his statement and not least, his identity.

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?

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Phil

To each his own. For my own part, I find the "Topping" story unbelievable. But..there again..to each his own.

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.

[Sam Flynn]

"The news"?, no-one knew when she died, what news are you talking about?

I refer to "the news" that there had been another 'orrible murder during the night in Miller's Court. No printed copies of Maxwell or (Maurice) Lewis's conflicting testimony yet in circulation, just the mere fact that Mary Kelly had been killed at some time during the night that Hutchinson had been tailing her and her mysterious man.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi sam
Not that I care because IMHO if topping was the hutch, he still could have been the rippper..... but how can there be no doubt in your mind they are the same??

Their written signatures put the matter beyond doubt, as far as I'm concerned.

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks fish
I've seen the toppy sigs, and while they do look similar, there are too many differences between the three that he apparently signed his statement

There are few significant differences between the signatures on the pages of the witness statement, and what small differences exist can be explained.

Not that I'm going over all that again here