Hutchinsons statement....

[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]

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

[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.

[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.....

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.
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?

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?

[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 here´s 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]

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]

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 I´m not supposed to butt in here, but I really don´t 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...?

[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.

[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.

[Sam Flynn]

"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.

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

Spot on, Fish.

[Wickerman]

Jon it's amazing how you are so well informed considering that the only information about this is from garbled and inconsistent newspaper accounts.

But what you are saying happened is not what Kozebrodski was reported as saying.

He said:

"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."

He can't even confirm it was Deimschitz who asked him to look for a policeman let alone that he went with him to find one. And how do you know that "at the request of" means "with"?

But we are so far off topic. There are plenty of examples of witnesses talking about doing in things in the presence of others at inquests.

David.

A reporter provided a summary of the incident where he explains the roles of Diemschitz and Kozebrodski.

"A member of the club named Kozebrodski, but familiarly known as Isaacs, returned with Diemshitz into the court, and the former struck a match while the latter lifted the body up. It was at once apparent that the woman was dead. The body was still warm, and the clothes were wet from the recent rain, but the heart had ceased to beat, and the stream of blood on the gutter, terminating in a hideous pool near the club door, showed but too plainly what had happened. Both ran off without delay to find a policeman, and at the same time other members of the club, who had by this found their way into the court, went off with the same object in different directions."
Morning Advertiser, Oct. 1st. 1888.

It was apparent at the time, so this is not a modern interpretation.
"Garbled" is often a popular term to use when something doesn't quite say what a modern theorist wants it to say.