Why Did The Police Discount Hutchinson's Statement So Quickly?

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

The fact that we harbour doubts that Hutchinson was out of work doesn't invalidate the fact the police haboured no such doubts. As far as the police were concerned, he was not taking home a weekly salary, which means they wouldn't have reimbursed him for five times that non-existent salary. So I'm afraid the Toppy-Wheeling "coincidence" is nothing of the sort. Two dubious sources that don't agree with eachother in any case don't somehow equate to good provenance and thus the likely explanation.

However the very fact that for instance Barnett was accused of being drunk, was proberly a opinion of his speech impediment

Barnett was described as being "furiously drunk at the inquest". Rather easily distinguishable from a mere speach impediment, I would have thought, not that there's much evidence that he had one of those either.

I'd respectfully submit that we return now to the premise of the thread, which concerns the apparent "discredting" of Hutchinson's evidence.

Best regards,
Ben

[celee]

Hi Ben,

Is it possible that Hutchinson's description was what led to Tumblety being questioned concerning the Kelly murder?

Your friend, Brad

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

I'd say that's unlikely. Aside from the flashy nature of Tumblety's attire on occasions, he would have been a total misfit for the Astrakhan man at 56 years of age and nearly 6ft in height, even if the statement wasn't discredited.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hello All.

Way back in the Eighties and Nineties when I was conducting research into Hutchinson for my book, I always found it puzzling that, despite Abberline’s stated belief in Hutchinson’s veracity as an important eyewitness, the police nevertheless continued with their local sweeps on common lodging houses. It just didn’t make sense given the affluent appearance of the Jewish-looking suspect.

Recently, having been away from the Casebook for some five years or so, it became apparent that someone had succeeded where I’d failed and had managed to uncover a repudiation of Hutchinson’s account carried by The Star on 15 November. On checking the newspaper sources here on site, however, I discovered the following reference contained in the London Echo dated 13 November:-

From latest inquiries it appears that a very reduced importance seems to be now - in the light of later investigation - attached to a statement made by a person last night that he saw a man with the deceased on the night of the murder. Of course, such a statement should have been made at the inquest, where the evidence, taken on oath, could have been compared with the supposed description of the murderer given by the witnesses. Why, ask the authorities, did not the informant come forward before? As many as fifty-three persons have, in all, made statements as to "suspicious men," each of whom was thought to be Mary Janet Kelly's assassin. The most remarkable thing in regard to the latest statement is, that no one else can be found to say that a man of that description given was seen with the deceased, while, of course, there is the direct testimony of the witnesses at the inquest, that the person seen with the deceased at midnight was of quite a different appearance.

This revelation, of course, was published the day after Hutchinson’s police interview and pre-empted The Star by fully two days. And if factual, one can only surmise that it came about as a consequence of a police tip-off, and that Hutchinson had given himself away whilst searching the Whitechapel district with his police escort on the Monday evening. Then, as had been the case with Violenia before him, he was quietly dropped – viewed by the police as persona non grata.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

Hi Gary,

I think that last line needed a punch-up....because its clear that once his story was not believed, nothing he had said remained as potentially viable information. He was discarded just like his entire story.

It seems that perhaps he was viewed as a huge waste of time and the subject of misplaced trust.

My suspicion is that they discovered a reason to discard him, as his evidence if true was critical, and my guess would be that they were able to place him elsewhere at the time he said he was loitering there. Its the only part of his story that has any kind of potential corroboration by Sarah's Wideawake man, and In my opinion, if they still believed only that much, then he would have had to turn their attention on him from witness to suspect.

But they didnt. He faded away from lack of interest in him or his story.

Best regards Gary

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

I think Garry touches on an important point when he observes that Hutchinson was "viewed by the police as persona non grata". I'd share that observation, and would point out that it's a lot different to actually proving he was. Violenia and Packer were also discredited, but not because they were proven to have have lied about who they saw or where they were, or any other conclusive "reason" along those lines. Instead, the police appeared to have arrived at the collective opinion that they were mere time-wasters and publicity-seekers.

They may well have lumped Hutchinson into the same catergory, but not through any proof.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Hi Mike,

I think Garry touches on an important point when he observes that Hutchinson was "viewed by the police as persona non grata". I'd share that observation, and would point out that it's a lot different to actually proving he was. Violenia and Packer were also discredited, but not because they were proven to have have lied about who they saw or where they were, or any other conclusive "reason" along those lines. Instead, the police appeared to have arrived at the collective opinion that they were mere time-wasters and publicity-seekers.

They may well have lumped Hutchinson into the same catergory, but not through any proof.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben, nice to see you....I knew youd want a piece of that post.

My point is that there is nothing in the recorded data that suggests GH was anything but discarded. Maybe you believe they missed seeing him as suspicious based on Sarah story... if they believed that single part of his story,...but it appears to me that they didnt. At least there are no records to show that interest.

Im inclined to abandon witnesses that were summarily abandoned by the investigators checking their stories.

Ive always agreed with you that the Wideawake Man is suspicious...I just dont agree that Hutchinson placing himself in those shoes via his story was thought to be credible evidence.

Best regards amigo...and Happy Fathers Day to you and all the Pops here.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Maybe you believe they missed seeing him as suspicious based on Sarah story

That's a strong possibility, yes.

Since the police were deluged with false statements and bogus witnesses, it's entirely possible that they lumped him into that already burgeoning category while overlooking the actual implications of his false claims in the process. Yes, it's quite possible that they came to believe he wasn't there at all, but that doesn't mean they ever secured proof for that assumption.

Nor can it be ruled out that the Lewis angle was seized upon by the police and Hutchinson was suspected as a consequence. In which case, there's no reason to assume they were ever in a position to convert those suspicions into proof either way. In that case, discreet surveillance was the only option, although considering that Hutchinson didn't belong to the any of the "mad", foreign, butchery, medical, outsider models, he may never have been seriously considered.

Best regards amigo...and Happy Fathers Day to you and all the Pops here

And to you, Mike.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Richard

Indeed, I am aware of the Reg/Toppy/Hutchinson debate and, of course, the Wheeling reference. With respect, however, I don’t share your view on the Hutchinson signatures. The handwriting is similar – though, as Ben has pointed out on a number of occasions, it exhibits sufficient differences to warrant a cautionary approach. As for the signatures themselves, I have indicated on other threads my bewilderment that anyone can discern a match between ‘George Hutchinson’ and ‘George William Hutchinson’. This is not to say that I would completely discount the Hutchinson/Toppy link, merely that, on the basis of the signatures, the evidence is far from compelling. And neither would I place undue weight on stories handed down through the generations. I lived in East London for some ten years and spent a good deal of time there over a period of twenty years. During that time, I lost count of the number of East Enders who recounted tales of a grandfather who interrupted the Ripper in the process of mutilating a victim, only to give chase and lose the killer in the fog. All complete nonsense, of course. But such stories, along with similar tales relating to the Krays, have enmeshed themselves in the very fabric of East London history and have become every bit as real as the horrors of the Blitz. The problem, however, is that they are nothing more than folklore. And whilst I wouldn’t for a moment question the integrity of Toppy’s descendants, they are doing no more than reiterating a story that has been passed down through the generations and for which there is not an atom of supporting evidence. But if you believe the Wheeling reference constitutes such proof, I would again advise a cautionary approach on the grounds that the majority of Ripper stories carried by American newspapers were grossly inaccurate – often to the extent that one wonders whether they were simply made up in order to fill column space. Yet if you or anyone else could adduce the evidence that provides a definitive Hutchinson/Toppy link, I would be the first to offer my congratulations. Unfortunately, as things stand, that evidence is conspicuous by its absence.

Hi Michael.

Your points regarding Hutchinson and his evidence take me back to 1986 when I read my first book on the Whitechapel Murders – Don Rumbelow’s The Complete Jack the Ripper, as it happens. I remember reading the Miller’s Court chapter and being drawn again and again to the section involving Hutchinson. At that time, probably as a consequence of Abberline’s elucidations, Hutchinson and his stated version of events had gone unchallenged. But to my mind there was something about this man and his story that simply didn’t add up. It was at this point that I began writing to such Ripper luminaries as Robin Odell, Colin Wilson and Joe Gaute in the expectation of discerning evidence to corroborate either Hutchinson’s integrity or the concatenation he described to Abberline. To my amazement, I discovered that no such evidence existed. He and his story had simply been taken at face value. And now, here we are some twenty-odd years later facing something of a role-reversal. Whereas Hutchinson’s integrity once went unchallenged because his story regarding the Jewish-looking suspect was accepted unreservedly, that very same integrity is now under fire because his story is no longer accepted as it once was. I doubt very much whether we will ever determine if the police first began to doubt Hutchinson or his story. In essence, this amounts to the same thing. If Hutchinson’s story was untrue, it raises questions as to his integrity, and vice versa. The shocking element in all of this, as far as I’m concerned, is that Hutchinson’s blatant mendacity went largely unrecognized for the best part of a century.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[Rosey O'Ryan]

Hi all,
Hutchinson was a poor working man! How could he wield this sword of "blatant mendacity" against the brainy men of Scotland Yard? The consequences of such mendacity leave little to the imagination...a good beating in a dark alleyway for one.
Rosey :-)

[richardnunweek]

Hi Garry,
So what it boils down to at this stage is opinion, mine being that any mention of a payment in Wheeling, is a possible link to identity, yours being we cant always believe what we read.
We have known that Garry, ever since we have been old enough to read any press article, however how can one split the fact from the fiction?
The two points that refered to as 'Gossip', were the condition of Barnett at the inquest, and some clever individual receiving the sum equivilent of five weeks wages, for 'inventing a story'.
Both of these do not have the look of 'Made up', in my opinion.
Barnett had a speech impediment, and had a habit , of repeating the last word of a sentence , when beginning another, so if one takes that into consideration, and the almost certain fact that he was still in deep shock, then he may have come across as 'having had one or two' , infact he may well have done.
Refering to the 'Invented story' , it is obviously fact that this was a reference to the man Hutchinson, who obviously did exist...and the fact that a sum of money was paid [ equivilent of five weeks wages] was mentioned.
What i am trying to get across, is the article refered to is a rare American publication , that was not avaliable on the streets of London , infact Casebook only became aware of it a short time ago, so the question must be asked 'How did a man of the same man, know of any payment being paid, unless he was the actual witness?, to suggest that he read that article way back in 1888, and used it as a party piece is not on..
So Did Reg [ Toppings son] know of that article prior to the 1970s, from a private source?
I say prior to the 1970s as it was mentioned on his broadcast.
I would say almost impossible, according to private information given to me, Reg knew absolutely nothing about the Whitechapel murders, he was actually given a book , by a younger member of the family to read about it.
[ Incidently i am hot on the trail of that elusive broadcast, and hopefully within two weeks from now , i shall disclose it on site]
I would say with conviction that if any hoax did occur , it had to lay with Topping.
But lets look at that suggestion with common sense.
So we have a man , that all of a sudden realized he had the same name as a witness during the Ripper murders, so for many years after, he cashed in a pint or two by relating to a man that incidently was similar to the REAL, Hutchinsons statement, when he was a complete fraud.
That will not wash with me,if one takes Toppings account , relayed by his eldest son Reg, incidenty confirmed by Toppings youngest son Arthur, and his
grandson [JDS husband] there are two many points that only the real witness would have known, especially the money . one hundred shillings was the figure given , rather a good guess to the 'Five weeks wages figure, especially as this 'Alleged Hoaxer' never saw that wheeling report, neither did any of his family.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

The Wheeling Register claimed that Barnett was "furiously drunk" at the inquest. All other press versions of Barnett's behaviour at the inquest described him as respectable, and to really put the nail in the Wheeling coffin, the coroner actually congratulated him on giving his evidence so well. I don't think he'd offer such praise if he thought for a moment that the witness was "furiously drunk". Deduction? The Wheeling Register was totally wrong in its description of Barnett's behaviour. Hardly surprising considering they weren't there themselves (unlike the journalists who described his behaviour and appearance as respectable), but were simply picking up "Gossip".

There is no compelling evidence that Barnett had a speech impediment.

Already we know that some of the Wheeling's gossip is not only baseless but demonstrably wrong, so would it be unreasonable to surmise that the other baseless gossip was just as wrong? For the record, the idea that a newspaper in West Virginia should pick up on a crucial piece of evidence missed by all their British contemporaries at the scene is wholly implausible.

How did a man of the same man, know of any payment being paid, unless he was the actual witness?

He didn't need to "know". He just needed to invent it. Poor crime novels are awash with stories of people being paid off for important information, and if you throw a bogus Royal Conspiracy theory into a mix, then the temptation to introduce the element of "hush money" is bound to be there. It's as unavoidable as a dragon would be in a tale about knights, damsels and white horses. These paint-by-numbers elements are almost guaranteed to crop up eventually in some context, and Reg wouldn't have needed any obscure American newspaper to come up with the necessary inspiration for his "my dad was paid to keep quiet about seeing Lord Churchill the Ripper" nonsense.

So Did Reg [ Toppings son] know of that article prior to the 1970s, from a private source? I say prior to the 1970s as it was mentioned on his broadcast.

Wholly inapplicable as evidence, alas, because nobody else knows of its existence.

one hundred shillings was the figure given , rather a good guess to the 'Five weeks wages figure

Why is it a good guess, when I've explained in some detail why the two figures don't match each other at all?

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
Off to work again soon, so a quick response.
Its a question of Was Topping spinning a yarn?, or was he telling the truth?, you believe the former, i the latter.
I can just see Topping sitting in some pub in the 1920s, spinning his party piece, to all present, and one day a middle aged man sitting near by remarks.
You aint that man mate, he died in the boar war, shot clean through the head , he was'
Oh dear' a refund on pints i quess.
Can't except that Topping was full of bull.
Regards Richard.

[Jane Welland]

Gossip is as Gossip does....?

Definitions of the word 'Gossip' from an American online dictionary:

.
1. Rumor or talk of a personal, sensational, or intimate nature.
2. A person who habitually spreads intimate or private rumors or facts.
3. Trivial, chatty talk or writing.

Numbers 1 and 3 seem particularly pertinent in this case.

The point about gossip is surely that it is by definition sensational, sensationalist, and just possibly a little liable to exaggeration, colourful interpretation and at times, painful though it may be to accept, downright fabrication.

Gossip - by it's very nature in a periodical is there to titillate its readers - and under the heading 'Gossip', it could be argued, is disclaiming itself in the category of 'certain fact'.

It may be prudent, thus, not to take as total fact anything one reads in a gosisp column. That doesn't take a rocket scientist to establish - it's just common sense.

Having said that, I think that the Toppy story might have withstood the gossip if it wasn't for the Churchill baloney - as surely it is. That element makes the whole affair highly suspect -not to say that because of that we should be certain that there is not a shred of truth in the matter - clearly that remains unproven one way or the other as the moment - but it doesn't help the Toppy case, imo.

Jane x

[celee]

Hi Brad,

I'd say that's unlikely. Aside from the flashy nature of Tumblety's attire on occasions, he would have been a total misfit for the Astrakhan man at 56 years of age and nearly 6ft in height, even if the statement wasn't discredited.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Was not Tumblety Known for his fancy dress? Isn't the Knock on Hutchinson's description the fact that the man was to fancy dressed to be in the east end? I think that it is possible, even, that Tumblety had on the same cloths he wore the 7th when he was arrested that he wore when he picked up Kelly.

Did Huctchinson drink and had he been drinking the night he said he saw Kelly?

Your friend, Brad

[DVV]

Hi Brad,

I'm with Ben, for Astrakhan man has little to do with Tumblety.
Did Hutch drink that night ?
Imo he did - but never said so, unless I missed something.

Amitiés moun colègo,
David