Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

Hi Wick, I take your point about the lodging houses maybe just entering an x in some cases, [after all not all Victorians could read or write] when a bed was taken. But I do feel that one of the first port of calls for the police would be the Victoria home to see if Hutchinson's story checked out. Perhaps somebody there knew Hutch quite well who could verify that he came in first thing the following morning, or didn't spend the night before there.

Hi Darryl.

I certainly do agree that they had the time to check what time Hutch came in that morning to the Victoria Home.

Hutch may even have told Abberline which lodger it was who advised him to go to police. So they may have spoke with several lodgers, but that doesn't confirm his activities in Dorset street on the night in question.
And JerryD's finding supports your suggestion.
Good point, thankyou.

[jerryd]

This is an excerpt posted by Debs from an article she found on the Victoria Home. It appears a register of names was used.

Registers are kept of lodgers. Every man's name and occupation is entered in the books and these records against the names are filled up and make brief histories. Lodgers who use the house regularly for 6 nights are taken in free on the seventh.

[jerryd]

For those interested, here is the thread concerning the Victoria Home and Debs find

https://forum.casebook.org/archive/index.php/t-1420.html

[Wickerman]

The Victoria Homes appear to have been better establishments than the regular common lodging-houses.

There has been some debate why Hutchinson would choose to be out on the streets for a couple of hours (3 till 5?) rather than take a spot in any number of common lodging-houses that must have been open.
As the place where he "usually slept" was closed, he chose to walk around until somewhere decent opened up, he chose the Victoria Home.

If this report of a common lodging-house is anything to go by, then spending a couple of extra hours on the street might be viewed as a couple of hours well spent.



I think I would prefer the streets for a couple of hours too.

[Darryl Kenyon]

For those interested, here is the thread concerning the Victoria Home and Debs find

https://forum.casebook.org/archive/i...hp/t-1420.html

Thanks Jerry

[Abby Normal]

The Victoria Homes appear to have been better establishments than the regular common lodging-houses.

There has been some debate why Hutchinson would choose to be out on the streets for a couple of hours (3 till 5?) rather than take a spot in any number of common lodging-houses that must have been open.
As the place where he "usually slept" was closed, he chose to walk around until somewhere decent opened up, he chose the Victoria Home.

If this report of a common lodging-house is anything to go by, then spending a couple of extra hours on the street might be viewed as a couple of hours well spent.



I think I would prefer the streets for a couple of hours too.

especially if you have no alibi

[Wickerman]

especially if you have no alibi

Badham didn't ask if he had an alibi. Hutch wasn't defending himself, he was only reporting an incident.
It's Abberline who would have asked him about an alibi, and we have no record of what was said.
So, it isn't true to say he didn't have one, we just don't know if he did.

[Darryl Kenyon]

One of the problems I have with Hutch is that the one person who could verify his movements, Sarah Lewis, he doesn't seem to mention.
There is the possibility he mentioned her to Abberline when he interrogated him but we simply don't know.

[Varqm]

One of the problems I have with Hutch is that the one person who could verify his movements, Sarah Lewis, he doesn't seem to mention.
There is the possibility he mentioned her to Abberline when he interrogated him but we simply don't know.

Or mentioning in newspaper statements.As posted before the sighting of the woman was more notable than the lodger who went to the lodging house and the PC who passed by Commercial St. side of Dorset St..
Without other people in the street the woman passed by in front of him,the others were farther away.Hutch was looking at Kelly's room ("looking as if waiting for someone") - his main interest or what was happening there,this woman went inside and passed by it.Surely this was the most mentionable experience/sighting.

There is/was something wrong with the picture.

----

[Paddy]

Like some of you I have been trying to trace different George Hutchinsons.

The one I found in the vagrants register in Southwark who was a Groom and had been walking about the night before seemed interesting...
This is a possible time line for him with his signature at the end. Any input would be great....

1845. (Ldn Marr & Banns) A Luke Hutchinson married an Eliza Louisa Knight in Poplar
1) Henry Richard Frederick born 1846 Dec Qtr Stepney (Died age 5) (Mum Knight)
2) Alice Louisa born Mar 1848 Wakefield (mum called Whentrop Knight)
3) George born 1852 Lambeth. (Mum Knight)

April 1851) Alice Louisa and Anna Maria were baptised All saints Manchester (Twins?) Alice was born in Wakefield. Where father Luke appears to have come from. Cant find Anna Maria.

Dec 10th 1856 a George Hutchinson was brought into St Georges by Ann Hare of Gun Street (Blackfriars) being abandoned by parents. Father not heard of for 4 years and mother gone to America (think it says she had a deformed back ?) seamstress

A Luke Hutchinson did go to America and also Corfu . Not seen in earlier UK census. He is living in Oxfordshire in later census with another family.

Dec 13th 1856 George Hutchinson discharged from St Georges Workhouse
Mint street to go to Mitcham Industrial school in Sutton Surrey (aged 10 ?)

1861 census) George is in District Lambeth Workhouse Industrial School and his mother Eliza Louisa Hutchinson is a servant born Manchester in Islington and said to be a widow.
Alice is a servant aged 13 born N Yorkshire in Thames Ditton, Surrey.

1871 census) 247 Waterloo Road Lambeth
Eliza Hutchinson 43 Married born manchester Needlewoman
Alice born 1849 Wakefield Yorks machinist
George born 1853 Lambeth Telegraph messenger

1872) Alice Louisa Hutchinson marries Arthur Taylor a gemsmith in Lambeth

1881 census) Mother Eliza Louisa Hutchinson a nurse in Poplar (widow) born Manchester

1885) George Hutchinson aged 30 Saint George´s Workhouse, Mint Street Register of Vagrants, Groom.... Spent last night walking about. Going to London

That's all I can find so far? Cant find George in 1881 on census.
Pat.....

[Sam Flynn]

Good work, Paddy, but the man you want was George William Topping Hutchinson. Look no further.

[Paddy]

Hutchinsons signature at sister Alices wedding

Regarding the previous post....His Signature
Pat....

[Paddy]

1891 census

There is also a Henry Hutchinson born 1852 in City, London.... in St Pancras workhouse said to be a pauper, single, 39 years old and a Groom / Horsekeeper

Pat....

[packers stem]

Good work, Paddy, but the man you want was George William Topping Hutchinson. Look no further.

The one who's son claimed he told him it was all about Lord Randolph Churchill ?
He's the Hutchinson you're looking for ?

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

I have no reason to dismiss Toppy as being the long sought witness, but I've said before some of the background information attributed to him by others is in my opinion nothing less than rubbish.

Agreed, but unfortunately that “rubbish” is inextricably and irreversibly linked to his candidacy as the 1888 Hutchinson. It is noteworthy that many researchers who were active in the early nineties were well aware of Reginald Hutchinson and his claims; he wasn’t a secret entity known only to the not-so-dynamic duo comprised of Melvyn Fairclough and Joseph Gorman Sickert. Melvin Harris was apparently all for conducting an exposé to catch Reginald out in a self-incriminating lie, but it never materialised owing to the (then!) relatively scant interest attaching to Hutchinson.

In this case, because we have no alternate professional opinion on this subject (that I know of), does not mean Sue Iremonger must be correct

True, but we also have no reason to believe her professional opinion was incorrect, and in the absence of any other analysis of the original documents, her opinion carries considerable weight.

If you are unable to faithfully offer a quote from the book, perhaps you need to resist the temptation to do so.

I’m not in the slightest bit “tempted” to provide a quote. Just read the book, Jon. What’s the problem? If you’re interested in the subject, and you clearly are (Hutchinson being your white-hot topic for the last ten years), what’s the impediment?

The primary value in writing a book aimed at identifying the Witness George Hutchinson, is to make the connection between his subject and the real Witness in that book.

But you haven’t read the book, you don’t know the source material, and you haven’t remotely familiarised yourself with Senise’s research or conclusions, so what “value” are you expecting anyone to invest in your review? If you’re interested in the book, read it.

Similarly, if you’re interested in Toppy all of a sudden, why don’t you read the many threads on the subject, rather than expecting regurgitation of the entire sorry saga? I’d hate to have to copy and paste from gargantuan Toppy threads purely to assuage your week-old fascination with the subject.

I never agreed that "he couldn't possibly" have made some investigation in the four or five hours prior to the end of the day

Where are you getting “four or five hours” from? Hutchinson only made himself known to the police when he approached them voluntarily at 6.00pm on the evening of the 12th...then he provided and signed his statement to Badham...then Abberline had to be called in from Leman Street...who then had to “interrogate” him. All of which would have taken a great deal of time, leaving Abberline with nothing like “four or five hours” in which to conduct an investigation.

No connection was ever made, apparently, between Hutchinson and Lewis’s loiterer, and even if there was, Lewis most likely would not have been able to provide a positive identification (which Hutchinson himself was not to know, of course). I don’t see how speaking to “beat constables” would have achieved much, considering that only one of them passed by the eastern end of Dorset Street during his vigil.

I don’t know what Bowyer has to do with any putative investigation into Hutchinson’s claims, but he certainly never provided anything resembling confirmation or support for them.

So, in short, no; Abberline had nothing like “four or five hours” at his disposal, and none of your suggested avenues of “investigation” would have assisted remotely in either confirming or repudiating Hutchinson’s claims.

But best wishes all the same,

Ben