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

[Archaic]

Weighing Witness Credibility

I have a question regarding the manner and processes by which the police judged the relative worth of witness statements and the credibility of the witnesses.

If Hutchinson had lied or "fibbed" about some other, perhaps 'noncritical' aspect of his story, and the police had subsequently uncovered the discrepancy, would they then throw ALL of his testimony out the window?

Completely Hypothetical Example: Hutch testified that he had just gone down to Romford and come back, and that's why he was tired, broke & had no lodgings.
>What if the police discovered this part wasn't true?
What if the police went down to Romford & Hutch's sister and everyone said he had not been down lately?

>And what if the police had a tip that Hutch had actually spent the day elsewhere, doing something he couldn't be proud of: gambling, visiting a brothel, or having an affair with another man's wife... in other words, doing something entirely unrelated to the murder but which he was too embarrassed to admit- would the police then dismiss his entire story?

If so, the critical part of Hutch's story could still be perfectly true, but the damage to his credibility as a witness for any police purposes would have been significant.

Best regards, Archaic

[celee]

Hi Brad,

Tumblety was known for his fancy dress in the past, but when interviewed by the press in connection with the Whitechapel murders in 1888, he wasn't conspicuously attired in the slightest, and his other physical particulars (age, height, ethnicity etc) don't correspond to Mr. Astrakhan in the slightest. Tumblety complained that he was arrested on the flimsy basis that he wore a "slouch hat", despite the fact that no eyewitness, barring Packer (I think), mentioned any such headgear.

Hi David,

The St. James Gazzette attributed the following quote to Hutchinson on 14th November:

"I was quite sober, not having had anything to drink all day."

He could have invented it, of course.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your reply. People for the longest time have down played Tumblety because they claim he was to flamboyant and would stand out in a crowd. Now you are suggesting he would not have been dressed fancy.

I am just thinking to much again. You know if you get a chance check out some of my new threads I have started. I respect your opinion and would be interested to know what you think. I think the casebook is still a good learning source and we can all learn things from eachother.

Your friend, Brad

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Richard.

Please don’t misunderstand me. In expressing scepticism regarding the prospective Hutchinson/Toppy link, I am in no way attempting to infer that Toppy was in the habit of accosting strangers in the street, regaling them with tales of how he brought about the downfall of Jack the Ripper. His recollections, or so it would seem, were reserved purely for family consumption – a way of entertaining the youngsters on cold, dark, winter evenings, perhaps. And, as I stated in an earlier post, such stories are legion in the East End and invariably lead nowhere from the standpoint of serious research.

As for the supposedly corroborative Wheeling piece, I will merely say that Joe Barnett, as a potentially important witness, would never have been permitted to testify at the Kelly inquest whilst under the influence. Indeed, given such circumstances, he would, in all probability, have been held in contempt and promptly arrested. Equally, despite having examined thousands of newspapers during my researches into the Whitechapel Murders, I cannot recall a single negative reference to Barnett in context of his inquest evidence. On the contrary. As I stated in my book, Barnett emerged from the proceedings having earned the respect of all concerned. This, I would suggest, severely militates against the Wheeling article, rendering it all but worthless from an evidential perspective.

Hi Sam.

Point taken. What I was trying to convey in such a clumsy, maladroit fashion was simply that, by his own admission, Hutchinson was present at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder and yet had simply been taken at his word by not only the police, but generation after generation of Ripperologists. Prior to contacting those in the know, my assumption was that some exonerating factor had surfaced during the police investigation – a piece of information so compelling that it left no question as to Hutchinson’s veracity. It emerged, however, that no such information was known to exist. Of course, recent findings demonstrate that the police did not accept Hutchinson’s version of events uncritically. But since no policeman has publicly expressed misgivings about Hutchinson, it seems highly unlikely that he ever fell under suspicion at a senior police level. As such, the primary issue is to determine why official doubt was cast on Hutchinson’s story, and whether, given his apparent fall from grace, he was ever properly investigated.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[Roy Corduroy]

I am thinking, since Tumblety claimed that he was questioned concerning the Kelly murder because of the style of hat he wore. maybe a witness describtion was used. Two Witnesses Sarah Lewis and George Hutchinson come to mind.

Hi Brad,

Your post got me thinking, too, and I have made a poll just for this purpose. It's under Witnesses, called Hutch's Man.

Because you are barking up the wrong tree here. This is a Suspect Thread. About Hutch the mass murderer, not he the witness.

Roy

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

Tumblety was known for his fancy dress in the past, but when interviewed by the press in connection with the Whitechapel murders in 1888, he wasn't conspicuously attired in the slightest, and his other physical particulars (age, height, ethnicity etc) don't correspond to Mr. Astrakhan in the slightest. Tumblety complained that he was arrested on the flimsy basis that he wore a "slouch hat", despite the fact that no eyewitness, barring Packer (I think), mentioned any such headgear.

Hi David,

The St. James Gazzette attributed the following quote to Hutchinson on 14th November:

"I was quite sober, not having had anything to drink all day."

He could have invented it, of course.

All the best,
Ben

[celee]

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

Thanks for your responce. I been told to share my thoughts so, I am thinking, since Tumblety claimed that he was questioned concerning the Kelly murder because of the style of hat he wore. maybe a witness describtion was used. Two Witnesses Sarah Lewis and George Hutchinson come to mind.

If Hutchinson was drinking it is possible he got some details wrong.

Your friend, Brad

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Garry,

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.

None existed, or none survived? Given the depleted state of the Ripper Files, I think we can only assume the latter, unless good reason (or evidence!) suggests otherwise.

BTW, I have little doubt that Hutchinson's story is a load of baloney.

[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

[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

[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

[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.

[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 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.

[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 :-)

[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.