Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Wickerman]

There is at least one in Ripperologist, Jon, .....

I was talking about the opinions of researchers, accomplished researchers. I doubt a Ripperologist is an accomplished position.

You can make as many negative inferences from that as you like, but if you refuse to obtain yourself a copy, I will continue to struggle to take your condemnations seriously.

If I read that he has established the identity, then I will buy the book. Otherwise, it is all conjecture.

What are you suggesting he did confirm?

I thought I answered that in the sentence you just replied to.

Why didn’t Bowyer mention anything about a “stranger at 3.00am” when he was initially interviewed prior to the inquest, where he gave his evidence?

That is easy to answer. Bowyer was not asked. His statement begins with "at 10:45", Abberline was only interested in Bowyer's account of how & when he found the body.
Whatever he was doing at 1:00 - 3:00 - or 5:00 in the morning was irrelevant, until Hutchinson came forward.
Now, if he saw someone in the court at 3:00 am, it mattered.

[Ben]

A good interviewer will ask many questions before writing a single word and will continue to ask questions until the witness's account is clear in his or her mind.

It’s one thing to “ask questions” - nobody is disputing that Abberline did so - but what was he supposed to do in the absence of any means by which to verify Hutchinson’s answers? Rely on his “experience” of local “villains”? What prior experience did he have of Hutchinson, and what prior insight did he have into his propensity or otherwise to lie convincingly?

I just don’t see how Hutchinson’s “localness” would have served as any sort of hinderance to his ability to fool Abberline.

The reality is that more experienced detectives than Abberline have been fooled by liars over the decades, and there is no good reason for concluding that it couldn’t have happened on this occasion. Quite the contrary, considering the police’s rapid about-turn in discrediting Hutchinson a day or so after his first appearance.

By the way, “interrogated” was Abberline’s own choice of word to describe his own reported activity, and while I don’t doubt that he was thorough in his approach, he was effectively writing his own review here.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Sometimes there is value in reading reviews and opinions from reliable sources before you buy the book

There is at least one in Ripperologist, Jon, and it neither gave away every detail of the proposed identification nor quoted extensively from the book itself, as you are expecting me to do here. And I’m still not going to. You can make as many negative inferences from that as you like, but if you refuse to obtain yourself a copy, I will continue to struggle to take your condemnations seriously.

Beyond what I have written, that I find no reason to reject Toppy, and his signature is sufficiently similar to that of Hutchinson the Witness, then you now have the extent of my interest.

Which is contrast to the opinion of an experienced professional document examiner who studied the original signatures, but fair enough.

The fact is, we do not know what Abberline was able to confirm.

What are you suggesting he did confirm?

It is quite possible this was when Bowyer told his complete story, involving the stranger at 3:00, to Abberline.

Obviously not.

Why didn’t Bowyer mention anything about a “stranger at 3.00am” when he was initially interviewed prior to the inquest, where he gave his evidence?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Spot on, Jon. A good interviewer will ask many questions before writing a single word and will continue to ask questions until the witness's account is clear in his or her mind. Only then will a formal statement be taken.

Badham certainly questioned Hutchinson and Abberline did likewise. Both were experienced detectives and knew the local area and many of its villains. Abberline even used the word "interrogated" which is not suggestive of a couple of thicko's naively taking a local chancer's word at face value. Given his experience and local knowledge, I place a great weight on Abberline's opinion that the statement was true (ie an honest account). If your starting position is that Hutchinson killed MJK then of course you dismiss his witness statement as bogus (ditto Lechmere).

And if your starting point is that Lechmere disagreed with the police, that the wounds of Nichols were hidden, that the timings seem to disagree with him, that he gave an alias, that his paths seem to agree with the murder sites generally speaking, Colin? If that is my starting point, then why would it be odd to question his witness statement?
You see, far from me having decided on Lechmere BEFORE I reseached him, it´s actually the other way around. I researched him first, I saw that there were many strange matters surrounding him, and THEN and THEREFORE did I look further into him.

It is a popular myth to say that all suspects are drawn out of a hat and the evidence thereafter fitted to them. In some cases, that may have more or less going for it, but it is wrong and deceptive to claim that it applies to all suspects.

Just saying.

[Bridewell]

There is far more to a witness interrogation than simply asking, "are you being truthful George?"
Reducing an interrogation to a simple question & answer exercise is what modern theorists do to try weaken the officers opinion.
If it were that simple anyone could do it.

Spot on, Jon. A good interviewer will ask many questions before writing a single word and will continue to ask questions until the witness's account is clear in his or her mind. Only then will a formal statement be taken.

Badham certainly questioned Hutchinson and Abberline did likewise. Both were experienced detectives and knew the local area and many of its villains. Abberline even used the word "interrogated" which is not suggestive of a couple of thicko's naively taking a local chancer's word at face value. Given his experience and local knowledge, I place a great weight on Abberline's opinion that the statement was true (ie an honest account). If your starting position is that Hutchinson killed MJK then of course you dismiss his witness statement as bogus (ditto Lechmere).

[Wickerman]

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.

Are suggesting that everyone who read the book is keeping the solution to the long sought mystery a secret?
We both know the names of several very capable researchers here who would be very interested if Mr Senise's book was the final solution to the identity of Hutchinson the witness.
Sometimes there is value in reading reviews and opinions from reliable sources before you buy the book.

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.

Beyond what I have written, that I find no reason to reject Toppy, and his signature is sufficiently similar to that of Hutchinson the Witness, then you now have the extent of my interest.

No connection was ever made, apparently, between Hutchinson and Lewis’s loiterer, and even if there was,....

Which means you are not certain.
The fact is, we do not know what Abberline was able to confirm.

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.

Bowyer's report was published on the 14th. As Abberline had returned to interview the Millers Court residents on the 13th (also reported on the 14th), after interrogating Hutchinson. It is quite possible this was when Bowyer told his complete story, involving the stranger at 3:00, to Abberline.

[Abby Normal]

It isn't at all. A genuine person can have a rubbish story tacked onto them subsequently, but that has no bearing on who they were and what they did in reality. George Washington certainly existed, but the "I cannot tell a lie" story about the cherry tree was invented by biographer Mason Weems, who wanted to portray his subject as saintly from a young age. The Weems fiction doesn't detract from the reality of Washington's existence in the slightest.

poor analogy Sam
were talking about a famous person and mythology that sprung up about them much later.

compared to a nobody whom the churchill thing was attributed to at the time he was SPOKEN too.

it seems to me more than likely he was led on by the interviewers and wholeheartedly went along for his 15 minutes of fame.


...wait a minute-maybe that trait runs in the family?? maybe it was the son of the real hutch after all!! ; )

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
''Shut this thread down''
You will never get rid of Hutch, he is here to stay, and also a certain Lechmere , we have resorted to two witnesses being the most discussed on Casebook.
Regards Richard.

[rjpalmer]

Agreed, but unfortunately that “rubbish” is inextricably and irreversibly linked to his candidacy as the 1888 Hutchinson.

Simon Wood will correct me if my memory fails, but I seem to recall that Hutchinson's police statement itself first appeared in Stephen Knight's The Final Solution--ie., the royal conspiracy, forever linking Hutch to Sir William Gull.

What's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Shut this thread down.

[Ben]

Wilkinson, from the Eddowes case, the lodging-house keeper in Flower & Dean street, testified that he did not enter the names of his lodgers in the book, he just wrote an 'X' and the room number taken.
Given that there was no form of identity in those days taking names may have been viewed as pointless.
Likely the main concern of a deputy is to fill the beds, with no concern for who is in the beds.

Absolutely agreed on all counts, Jon.

The policy at the Victoria Home was very similar. Although registration may have been required for new residents*, it was certainly not mandatory for regulars; a simple “x” to record the occupancy of a bed or cabin would have sufficed. Ascertaining Hutchinson’s presence or absence there that night would have been a near impossible task owing to the sheer numbers lodging there on an average night, many of them itinerants, and all with very different work hours.

We can’t really posit the existence, minus any evidence, of a fellow lodger being conveniently stationed at the door of the Victoria Home to record Hutchinson’s arrival “as soon as it opened in the morning”. Bear in mind that there would have been great egress from the building owing to the opening of the nearby markets at 5.00, preventing Hutchinson from “standing out” or being conspicuous in any way. Even if there was such a lodger, how would it conform the rest of his account?

As the place where he "usually slept" was closed, he chose to walk around until somewhere decent opened up, he chose the Victoria Home.

The Victoria Home was the place where he usually slept, as everyone has accepted (and will continue to accept) for over a century. It was the only establishment of its kind that would have been closed to those who hadn’t pre-purchase a bed ticket. Everywhere else was open at 2.00am to anyone with money to pay for a bed - unless you can provide me with the name of one that wasn’t?

The Victoria Home was certainly a cut above many of the grotspots in the area, but it is completely nonsensical to argue that all the other lodging houses in the entire east end, without a single exception, were of such inferior quality that a night walking the streets in the rain was preferable to sleeping in one of them.

All the best,
Ben

*That said, when Jack London stayed at the Victoria Home for the first and last time, he simply purchased a brass bed ticket, without going through any registration process.

[Sam Flynn]

unfortunately that “rubbish” is inextricably and irreversibly linked to his candidacy as the 1888 Hutchinson

It isn't at all. A genuine person can have a rubbish story tacked onto them subsequently, but that has no bearing on who they were and what they did in reality. George Washington certainly existed, but the "I cannot tell a lie" story about the cherry tree was invented by biographer Mason Weems, who wanted to portray his subject as saintly from a young age. The Weems fiction doesn't detract from the reality of Washington's existence in the slightest.

[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

[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 ?

[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....

[Paddy]

Hutchinsons signature at sister Alices wedding

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