Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Jane Welland]

I know you all

know a lot about this, so forgive me if I'm gauche-but I'm not sure I'm sure an alias is ever 'random'. If it was random it would be meaningless. An alias must have meaning to its author since it is their creation and thus a product of choice. It is not, thus, random-albeit appears so to an observer. IF Hutchinson was an alias, it may well have held special meaning for the witness. Maybe there's a connection there. Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, I did, and it was admirable sleuthing on your part is those comparatively enlightened, good old days...

... thing is, Ben, I'm more enlightened now.

Please don't lose sight of the combined effect of selecting a name (whether random or not) out of the ether, and coming up with a signature that is almost identical with that of a real person with that name.

As to ticker-nicker George - I seem to recall that we were labouring under the misapprehension that the witness was 30 years old or so when I found him. Sadly, we've yet to find any contemporary record that gives Hutchinson's age as 30 in 1888 - and the ticker-nicker was 34 by then.

Neither Debs nor I have been able to find him yet, besides - and at £3 per census image, I think I've spent enough for the moment!

PS: If you kept any info on the others, please send me a PM, as I lost those particular posts in the Great Casebook Crash.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Please don't lose sight of the combined effect of selecting a name (whether random or not) out of the ether, and coming up with a signature that is almost identical with that of a real person with that name.

It's not so much a question of losing sight of it, as it is of a sincere and strongly-held belief that the above does not apply in this case. Since I don't believe the signatures match closely, and since I know that aliases are drawn from various inspirations, the "alias Hutch" scenario continues to warrant strong consideration, in my view. I appreciate that those who do perceive a match would reason otherwise.

I'm afraid I'm completely working from memory when it comes to your earlier census findings, but I'll have a bash at re-accumulating the lost data, and will certainly let you know if I'm successful in that regard!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

It's not so much a question of losing sight of it, as it is of a sincere and strongly-held belief

Please - not "beliefs", Ben! Far, far better to think it through. (And please don't come back to me on that - I know what you'll say )

that the above does not apply in this case. Since I don't believe the signatures match closely.

That "B" word again! Never mind belief - trust your eyes, Ben, laddie!

Anyhow, I said earlier - even a vague similarity with a real George Hutchinson's signature would be quite remarkable, if he picked the name at random. And, surely, even you can't deny that there's more than just a vague similarity between them.

[Ben]

Please - not "beliefs", Ben! Far, far better to think it through. (And please don't come back to me on that - I know what you'll say

What I mean, Gareth, is that I subscribe to that belief as a direct result of "thinking it through" and analyzing the evidence (with my eyes!). I will substitute the word "belief" for "conclusion" in future to avoid confusion.

The similarity that I detect between the Toppy and witness signatures is a superficial one that can be accounted for quite plausibly, in my view, on the basis that many handwriting samples resemble eachother to some degree from the Victorian period. You'll recall that another poster provided an example of a "George" that very closely matched the witness style, but was penned by someone other than the witness AND Toppy. So I'd have to say I wouldn't find the name-picking "coincidence" to be especially noteworthy, if name-pick he did.

I can say with the utmost sincerety that the odd one out in your montage is easily detectable.

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

The Many Variables of Memory…

I’ve been thinking about this – in general – and have tried to apply it here – not sure if it makes sense, but here goes:

Memory is subjective. I mean by this that it is the product of many variables, most of which may be difficult to detect, observe, or diagnose in retrospect. This can phenomenon can easily be seen in instances of group memory – some features of individual recollections are likely to coincide, others are not, because individual memory also has a part to play, and is very much subject to personal perception. It also appears to be the case that group memory can, and has a tendency to, alter over time under the influence of exchange between group members (I’ll try to dig out some examples).

Memory is a product of hindsight, essentially. What we remember and how we remember it is also subject to variation. What we remember can be events, places, or people which occur in our lives with familiar repetition. These memories become homogenised – we remember them as one group, essentially. We also remember, as particular occurrences, events to which we attribute special significance – because of their difference: either in anticipation (like childhood birthdays); at the actual time of the event, or because of their place in susbsequent events.


In the case of Mr Hutchinson, giving his statement, these are some ideas. What he remembers is apparently largely grounded in familiarity, which would typically strengthen his subsequent conviction that what he remembered was a fact. So in this case, he lives close to the site of Mary Kelly’s murder, and is, I think we may take it, familiar with the turf. He knows the landscape – the setting for his memory is a familiar one.

Perhaps, if we believe him, he also knows Mary Kelly. If this is the case, this is another part of his memory which is grounded in familiarity.

What is clearly not grounded in familiarity in these contexts is his sighting and observations of the suspect, ‘Mr Astrakhan’. As I have previously put forward, it appears to me that the type figure of Mr Astrakhan is familiar. It is his appearance in this particular scenario which is different – possibly it is that which helps to make Hutchinson’s statement convincing, at least initially. Mr Astrakhan is out of his place – and thus, retrospectively, since Mary Kelly has since been murdered; and also , according to Hutchinson, at the time, Mr Astrakhan is immediately suspicious if one takes him as being real, on account of his presence.

Now, it seems fairly evident that Mr Hutchinson could not have observed all the detail that he includes in his statement. We might argue that he was particularly observant. Yet then, we would also have to explain how it was that he apparently came up with the wrong pub in his initial statement to the police. In all fairness, and without prejudice, it does appear as if some details of his suspect account are a little too embellished.

There are two possible explanations for this that seem obvious. Firstly, he may have embellished the account without realising he had, as a product of memory which was heightened by subsequent events – the murder of Mary Kelly. Hutchinson could not, feasibly, have seen and heard all that he said on this wet November night under poor lighting conditions – but he may have imagined that he did. His memory of those events would likely have taken on an enlarged significance – but since (in this scenario) he knew both the vicinity and the victim, his brain could have filled in details that he didn’t actually observe at the time, based on precedent – for example, what Mary Kelly said.

I think one has to also factor into this the contemporary hysteria surrounding the Jews. In the mind and memory of the witness, therefore, may have existed a genuine belief in what he thought he saw, and a genuine belief that what he saw was a Jew. Even if he wasn’t sure that the man he saw was a Jew, he might have been convinced that it was the case that the murderer was a Jew, and thus consciously, or subconsciously, have steered his suspect description in that direction.

And there we are – a plausible explanation for an innocent witness Mr Hutchinson.

I think, personally, that he probably was there – and that he didn’t make the whole thing up for attention and/or money – just my view.

Yet, still things about the whole thing don’t quite add up. There are still questions that appear impossible to answer! Why did he wait so long before going to the police? If he walked from Romford, as he reputably said, presumably he knew that it would be too late to get lodgings when he got back to London – so why didn’t he set off earlier, or failing that, find alternative lodgings? And if he was there, outside Millers Court in the early hours of the morning, what was he doing there?

Toppy or not – and one can easily play the same memory games with his story – there must remain the possibility that Mr Hutchinson was up to no good.

Any thoughts?

Jane x

[Ben]

Some interesting points there, Jane.

I think if Hutchinson was accidentally embellishing, or "confabulating", we wouldn't expect the acutely specific myriad of accessorial and clothing detail that he spewed out with near exactitude when subsequently communicating with the press. I find that too indicative of meticulous preparation for the confabulation hypothesis to be applicable in this case.

I find it unlikely that Hutchinson accidentally and subconciously invented something as specific as a horseshoe tie-pin, to cite one example. Either he deliberately invented it or he really saw it, and I find the latter option most implausible

This is where the "confabulation" explanation falls short for me.

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Unless of course....

Those details were stock details from the stereotypical Jew wot like Hutchinson would have seen on a daily basis....?

Oh don't get me wrong - I don't believe him for a second.

But one has to look at all possiblilities, hey?

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

Those details were stock details from the stereotypical Jew wot like Hutchinson would have seen on a daily basis....?

Not in such detail, I fancy. However, if you look at the descriptions of various earlier Ripper suspects in the popular press - as well as the then more recent descriptions of creepy men connected with the Kelly murder - you'll see most, if not quite all, the ingredients that go to make up Astrakhan Man. Height, age, moustache, respectable appearance, foreignness, mysterious parcel... it's nearly all there bar the spats, watch-chain and fur trimmings.

[DVV]

Anyhow, I said earlier - even a vague similarity with a real George Hutchinson's signature would be quite remarkable, if he picked the name at random.

Hi Sam,

and no, mon cher, you cannot say so, since Lambeth Hutch, whose handwriting is vaguely similar with Toppy's, is definitely not Toppy.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

and no, mon cher, you cannot say so, since Lambeth Hutch, whose handwriting is vaguely similar with Toppy's, is definitely not Toppy.

But Lambeth George was Lambeth George, Dave. I can understand a real GH (albeit only one in well over a dozen I've looked at) having some similarity to another real GH's signature, but the scenario I'm getting at here is that it's extremely unlikely that a bogus GH would come up with a made-up signature that so closely resembled that of a REAL George Hutchinson who lived in London at that time. So I can say so, mon petit choux

[DVV]

But Lambeth George was Lambeth George, Dave. I can understand a real GH (albeit only one in well over a dozen I've looked at) having some similarity to another real GH's signature, but the scenario I'm getting at here is that it's extremely unlikely that a bogus GH would come up with a made-up signature that so closely resembled that of a REAL George Hutchinson who lived in London at that time. So I can say so, mon petit choux

Mon coeur à moi,

you're perfectly aware that I ne mange pas de ce pain-là, and I'm sure you hear me laugh (truly I laugh too much!).
Glad to know about pendereyn (welcome to Welsh whisky, I read whisky magazine)...*
But seriously, I'm right Sam, and what you said turned out to be a "vue de l'esprit", thanks to my Lambeth friend.

Iechid da,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Glad to know about pendereyn (welcome to Welsh whisky, I read whisky magazine)...

I was born and grew up not far from where the distillery is, Dave. It's a seriously nice whisky, by the way - well worth trying.

But seriously, I'm right Sam, and what you said turned out to be a "vue de l'esprit", thanks to my Lambeth friend.

Not at all, Dave - as I just explained.

Les derrières dans l'air et menton-menton!

("Bottoms up and chin-chin" )

[DVV]

I was born and grew up not far from where the distillery is, Dave.

Ah,
everything is clear now!

[The Good Michael]

I searched through this site, but I didn't find this:

357 F iv. Lillian CUSHWAY was born c1921.
Lillian married Reg HUTCHINSON. Reg was born 1916. He died 1997

Is this the same Reginald Hutchinson? He was born the same year in Bethnal Green. Lillian was the daughter of an Emma Doree and a William Cushway. They had many children. They were married in Bethnal Green, so it would be a huge coincidence if this Reg Hutchinson born in 1916 in Bethnal Green was a different guy.

This might mean that there is information lurking in the Cushway domain somewhere.

Cheers,

Mike