Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[The Good Michael]

Well Harry, the police did take Hutchinson in tow. Maybe they insisted that he come along because they were paying him, or they didn't quite trust him. I can't think of any other reasonable reasons, though I'm sure there are some.

Mike

[harry]

Two things.Why would the police need Hutchinson to look for Astrakan?.The witness description,detailed as it was,was itself sufficient,and distributed among the police forces,could cover a whole wider area,and for a whole lot longer than employing Hutchinson.

Two.It seems strange that Astrakan would allow Hutchinson to follow,and then stand for three minutes watching,without remonstrating in some way.It couldn't have been because Astrakan was frightened,or he wouldn't have walked so close when passing the 'Queens Head'

[The Good Michael]

Sorry, Garry, I still can't accept that line of reasoning. Mentioning Lewis's arrival in Miller's Court would only have served to corroborate Hutchinson's story, thereby rendering him more superficially trustworthy. In contrast, IF he truly knew that the police were aware of Lewis's arrival, his omitting to mention her would almost certainly have lain him open to suspicion.

It would have been far simpler to say that he saw another woman at the court, but because she appeared completely inebriated and wasn't with the couple, he paid her no attention... something like that. Nip it in the bud, so to speak.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

And this, I would suggest, only serves to reinforce my earlier contention that Hutchinson ‘made no mention of Sarah Lewis because he didn't want to convey the impression that her sighting of him was the factor that influenced his decision to come forward.

Sorry, Garry, I still can't accept that line of reasoning. Mentioning Lewis's arrival in Miller's Court would only have served to corroborate Hutchinson's story, thereby rendering him more superficially trustworthy. In contrast, IF he truly knew that the police were aware of Lewis's arrival, his omitting to mention her would almost certainly have lain him open to suspicion.

[richardnunweek]

Hello,
It as Garry says, almost certain that the witness Hutchinson was earning money on a regular basis, as the Victoria home was run on a no nonsense policy, infact I believe the police actually vetted the residents, and because of this no dosser would have resided there.
I cannot say if the amount of one hundred shillings was correct, but the report in that publication of 1888 mentions a fee of five weeks wages, and as I keep on saying. that paper was rare, and unlikely to have been seen by your average east ender at the time.
It may have simply relayed idle gossip from the area, but is it not strange that the figure stated equalls Toppings.
Regards Richard.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Harry.

Personally, I think it likely that Hutchinson was slipped a few shillings as a gratuity for his efforts. Remember that, initially, at least, Abberline stated his belief in the veracity of Hutchinson’s story. As such, Hutchinson would have been regarded as an extremely important witness as far as senior investigators were concerned. And whilst Hutchinson may have been temporarily unemployed, it should not be inferred that he was idle. Since he was living at the Victoria Home, he must have had some kind of income in order to pay for his bed. My suspicion, therefore, is that Hutchinson, like many East Londoners who fell victim to the prevailing economic slump, would have been working on a casual basis several days a week.

Assuming this to have been the case, Hutchinson was certainly ‘assisting’ the police between six o’clock on the Monday evening and three o’clock the next morning. A little more than eight hours later, he again met with detectives and was accompanied to the mortuary where he identified Mary Kelly’s remains. A few hours later, again accompanied by detectives, he embarked on another night-time trawl of the district in search of the Jewish-looking suspect.

The issue here, then, is that, whilst Hutchinson was officially unemployed, he must have been in receipt of some form of income in order to reside at the Victoria Home. Given the likelihood that he was working casually, the co-operation he afforded the police would not only have prevented him from working, it would have prevented him from searching for casual work. Hence, bearing in mind the importance with which Hutchinson was viewed by Abberline, I would be astonished if he wasn’t given a few shillings (and fed and watered) in appreciation for his efforts.

This isn’t to say that I believe the story relating to the five pounds or one hundred shillings. To my mind, this is nonsense. But if Hutchinson wasn’t given a small gratuity for his efforts, then either he or Abberline must have been truly anencephalic.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[harry]

Mike,
Thanks for that information,but how to apply it to what happened in 1888 is somewhat hard.It's been acknowledged that paid informers would most likely have been around then,but was George one of them?I would doubt it.If we look to the lower scale of present day payments as in that report,it would seem small compared with five pounds in 1888,and today as then,I would expect payment to be made on positive results.Hutchinson supplied nothing of a positive nature in his walk,and certainly,as an out of work labourer,he incured no expenses.That,together with with his story seemingly soon out of favour,it is hard to see anyone of senior standing in the police force recommending payment of any kind.
Regards.

[Garry Wroe]

With the utmost respect, to both you and Garry, it's an argument which doesn't bear much scrutiny, I'm afraid. If he were worried about admitting that it was Lewis's (as-yet not published) story about seeing Wideawake Man that had prompted him to come forward, all he had to do was not admit that her story was what prompted him. Which is what, in fact, he did. No problemo!

If, on the other hand, he was worried that his story should sufficiently convince the police, then he could easily have included the detail of Lewis's arrival - irrespective of whether he was there or not. But he doesn't mention her at all. Now, assuming he knew about Lewis's Wideawake story, this was an exceedingly dangerous omission, being as it was the single piece of corroborative detail which placed him opposite Miller's Court at the time his "deflection strategy" needed him to be there.

Hutchinson had already permitted three full days to elapse, Sam, before he eventually entered Commercial Street Police Station with his story concerning the Jewish-looking punter. Is it mere coincidence that he did so just hours after Sarah Lewis delivered her inquest testimony? Personally, I think not. Is it coincidence that, whilst Hutchinson described watching the interconnecting passage from his vantage point on Dorset Street, Lewis detailed a man staring intently into Miller’s Court as though “looking or waiting for someone”? Again, I think not.

It would appear, therefore, that Hutchinson was not only aware of the Sarah Lewis inquest testimony, but that he also came forward as a consequence of it. Had he been a mere time-waster masquerading as a witness with important case-related information, there can be little doubt that he would have sought to establish his bona fides by referring to Lewis. But Hutchinson made no mention of her either in his police statement or subsequent press interviews. From this, it may be deduced that Hutchinson was either the most incompetent publicity seeker in the annals of British criminal history, or he deliberately made no mention of Lewis. And this, I would suggest, only serves to reinforce my earlier contention that Hutchinson ‘made no mention of Sarah Lewis because he didn't want to convey the impression that her sighting of him was the factor that influenced his decision to come forward.’

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
I can say from experience that police are prepeared to pay for information, I was once stopped in the 1960s, and told to get in the back of a police car, at the same time saying, 'we have got you '
I had no idea what they were on about, and told them so, however another barrage of 'we are going to throw the book at you' remarks followed, it was only when they realised that I was not guilty of anything, they switched the subject to ' We know you are known in this town, if you want to earn a fiver, or more, just contact the nick...if you hear of anything.
The police have always relied on police informers, and will continue to do so in the future., however one hundred shillings back in 1888, was to much for a walkabout, so what was it for?
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Harry,

Here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8173638.stm

I don't make up stuff.

Mike

[harry]

Mike,
All monies paid by law enforcement agencies,are public monies,and have to be accounted for.That is,except for that paid unofficially(out of individuals pockets).While you may have evidence that millions are paid(annually?),that sum seems exceptional.I doubt though ,that in 1888,any large amounts were given.As I have previously stated,it was the civic duty of people to help police,then as now,and most did,without thought of reward.There were litterally,hundreds who came forward in the Ripper crimes,and Hutchinson seems the only one credited with receiving anything.I will need more convincing evidence before I accept it happened.
Regards.

[The Good Michael]

I feel there must be an explanation for Hutchinson in the details somewhere, and Im troubled by the absence of police sentiments that suggest he was ever seen by them as a potential suspect

Mike, you know, if you add this to everything else, it is virtually an impossibility that he was the murderer. He placed himself there at roughly the time of Kelly's death, yet was never suspected. The absence of anything surely must point to there being a thorough checking out of the man and either a dismissal of testimony because no one could be found that resembled his suspect, or a dismissal because his testimony wasn't believed. Either of those should have lead into an investigation of the man, and it must have occurred. It simply must have. This was the hottest case for generations. Could they just have let Hutch go without a thorough investigation? It really wasn't possible of they trusted his lead and ran around town looking.
Again, adding this to everything else we have, Hutch must be an innocent (of murder or anything regarding Kelly), but perhaps opportunistic man. Neither Toppy nor he had a criminal record. They had the same name, the same signature, lived in the same area, had the same fingerprints, and ate the same bangers and mash at the same tavern. Reggie was telling what he knew.

Cheers,

Mike

With the utmost respect, to both you and Garry, it's an argument which doesn't bear much scrutiny, I'm afraid. If he were worried about admitting that it was Lewis's (as-yet not published) story about seeing Wideawake Man that had prompted him to come forward, all he had to do was not admit that her story was what prompted him. Which is what, in fact, he did. No problemo!

If, on the other hand, he was worried that his story should sufficiently convince the police, then he could easily have included the detail of Lewis's arrival - irrespective of whether he was there or not. But he doesn't mention her at all. Now, assuming he knew about Lewis's Wideawake story, this was an exceedingly dangerous omission, being as it was the single piece of corroborative detail which placed him opposite Miller's Court at the time his "deflection strategy" needed him to be there.

Hi Sam,

I was still thinking about this after I logged off as I feel there must be an explanation for Hutchinson in the details somewhere, and Im troubled by the absence of police sentiments that suggest he was ever seen by them as a potential suspect despite essentially putting himself in Sarah Lewis's Wideawake Man's shoes, a man seen that night watching a soon to be crime scene. In fact they dont openly suggest that Wideawake may be the killer or his lookout....which are clearly possibilities for Wideawake Man. They do not connect Hutchinson with Wideawake after they heard his story Monday night...having already put Sarahs story on record that day. There must also be a good reason why the police felt there were "certain circumstances" that warranted an Accomplice pardon for only this murder initially....and yet when they have a possible accomplice in the form of Hutchinson as Wideawake, they dont suggest that he is suspicious by merely his presence there at that time.

Maybe......Flemming and/or Daniel Barnett of the Victoria Mens Home was Loitering Man with Wideawake Hat. They were likely there in connection with the murder that occurs that night, but it is unclear whether as an accomplice or lookout or as the killer. Both men would be recognizable by witnesses that appeared at the Inquest as being from Marys Janes inner circle. Either through a press report that weekend, which I believe exists in a local paper, or by the appearance at the Inquest on Monday,.. they/he learn that Ms Lewis stated that she saw a man watching Millers Court near 2am. At that time we have good reason to believe that either Blotchy Face is still inside with Mary, or he has left and she is alone.

Daniel or Joe Flemming then approach a friend and lodgemate at the Victoria Mens Home..(surely its an odd coincidence that Hutchinson and 2 of Marys closest friends live at the same boarding house, with so many others in the area)...he is offered money to go in to the police and make a statement that he was a friend of Marys and saw her enter her room with a suspicious man. As her friend he naturally wanted to be sure she was ok so he waited a bit to be sure no noise or screams came from the court....he likely would be in no danger of being suspected himself as a result.

Which as it turns out might just be the case, there is no document that shows us that Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect of any kind. Yet he logically should have been seen that way, especially after they disbelieve the story he came in with.

Why doesnt Hutch become a named suspicious person after placing himself in the shoes of Wideawake and then being discredited by the police? One guess is because the police never matched the 2 men. But why wouldnt they, there is obvious logic in assuming he was suspicious if he gave a false story and was in fact watching Marys room at 2am?

Im wondering whether this was because they suspected they knew the ID of the Wideawake Hat Man, that he wasnt this Hutchinson fellow, but they couldnt know whether the man loitering was watching so he could kill himself, or watching out for someone who did.

The pardon they issued on Saturday was in my opinion based at least in part on Sarah's loitering Wideawake Man.

When Hutch comes in Monday night, they now had someone in the room with Mary....becoming a primary suspect and relegating Wideawake to a probable lookout.

When they knew Hutch was lying about Astrakan....they had no further interest in him....they only saw Astrakan as being a possible factual element in the story, they never put Hutch in the shoes he places himself in as Wideawake because they felt they knew that man.

So he becomes a prank. Nothing more is said about him.

Isnt that roughly following the actual storyline?

Cheers Sam

[Dorian Gray]

Here's something from the Straight Dope about handwriting analysis:

No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong--in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time." The most basic principles of handwriting analysis--for example, that everyone's handwriting is unique--had never been demonstrated. "The technique of comparing known writings with questioned documents appears to be entirely subjective and entirely lacking in controlling standards," the court wrote. Testimony by the government's handwriting expert was ruled inadmissible.

This is what several of us have been trying to say. We can all do it. Things like aging documents and detecting alterations require some expertise and tools, but all the rest seems to be based upon what the naked eye can tell. Look at the "Diary" for example. No one can conclusively say anything about it that satisfies everyone. In what I see, the similarities are far too great for chance. There really should be no argument against that, but there is. If someone wants to argue fraud, that's a different matter. This debate will never end, but I know the answer and that suffices for me. As a teacher, I know that I can't make everyone learn as hard as I might try. There comes a time where one simply must be satisfied in the knowing. I'm pretty much there.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike,

Thank you for your reply.

I composed a rather lengthy reply to your post above while I was away, but I do not wish to derail the thread. If you don't mind, I will start a new thread under Hutchinson, George, labelled, "The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in the United States."

Regards,

Dorian.

[Dorian Gray]

You shall, Dorian. Meantime, I would like to express my gratitude for your objective, eloquent and erudite contributions. Long may they continue.

for Dorian...I echo Garry's sentiments. Your postings are a pleasure to read.

Garry, babybird67,

Thank you for your kind words. I have found your postings wonderful and informative. Indeed, I look forward to each new post.

Regards,

Dorian.