Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
Agreed over time sums can be exaggerated, however the wheeling report does mention in 1888, the sum of five weeks wages was paid to the witness, and as that witness was a man called Hutchinson, it does ring true that indeed a large sum was paid to that gentleman.
That paper was known as a gossip paper, but as that sum would be approx one hundred shillings[ five weeks average manual workers wages] and it equals the sum that Topping always related to, that sounds like point proven to me.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

I know what was said or reportedly said. That doesn't mean it wasn't subject to change over time, erroneous, or a misquote.

Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
The sum mentioned was hundred shillings, on both radio, and in the book, It was never said the he was paid the equivilent of a fiver in the 1970s.
Fact is if Topping was Hutchinson, we have to determine why he should be paid such a large sum of money, for what appears to have been just a walkabout or two.
The radio broadcast mentioned that 'Dispite all his efforts in assisting the police, his biggest regret was 'Nothing came of it'.
My question is..what was all his efforts, what else was he asked to do to help secure arrest.
I am sorry for relating to that radio broadcast, and I appreciate that nobody else on Casebook has ever heard it, but myself, I can only give you my honest recollections of it.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Now it could be accepted that a sum large enough to buy a beer or two might be given,perhaps a shiling,but in respect of 'Toppy',the figure stated was five pounds.

That's why I said the amount could have been off in my first post. Things tend to evolve through storytelling. It's even possible that 5 shillings in 1888 equaled 5 pounds or thereabout in 1980ish when Reginald told his story. In that case it could have been the equivalent of 5 pounds. For example, $1 in 1888 is about $9 in 1980. That sounds close to what we're looking at with shilling vs shilling. We don't know, but one thing is certain, police have always paid money for tips and in London it is done to the tune of millions of pounds.

Cheers,

Mike

[harry]

Mike,
The courts can compel persons to attend.In the case of Hutchinson,the police did not compel him to walk the streets in the hope of sighting a person.Hutchinson did that voluntry.Now it could be accepted that a sum large enough to buy a beer or two might be given,perhaps a shiling,but in respect of 'Toppy',the figure stated was five pounds.
Regards.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If one takes Reg Hutchinsons tale seriously, and it indeed did come from one Gwth, then we should take heed of the words used on two occasions which were similar .In Faircloughs book he mentions his father was paid one hundred shillings at the time but never said 'why'.
On the radio in the 1970s the same story of payment was raised, with no suggestion where it came from.
Topping never said who paid him the sum , one should therefore assume that he was instructed not to name the source.
If he was a honourable man, mayby his word was his bond.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Harry,

I didn't say it had to be 5 pounds. It could have been 5 shillings. That was my point; that compensation for one's time makes sense. This is done daily in the court system.

Cheers

Mike

[harry]

Mike,
The authority that Hutchinson had dealings with,were the police.The persons that would benefit,should anything be uncovered by Hutchinson,were the police.The authority that could have granted,or recommended payment to Hutchinson ,was the police.It is common sense to state that five pounds ,being a large sum of money at that time,would not,by the police authorities or an indivdual policeman,have been paid for a couple of hours walk through the streets of Whitechapel,that produced nothing.
I do not claim a monopoly of common sense,but if you can state an authority or individual,that did or would make such payment,and a reason why it was,or would be made,then please do so.

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

Obviously we cannot say why Topping went to the police, and maybe I'm crazy, but in a complete mess of 'what ifs' and 'could haves', isn't the most likely scenario one that involves a young, downtrodden man's hope for compensation? Isn't that one thing that young, uneducated, and perhaps underemployed men share in all big cities and throughout history; that opportunity to make a fast buck? If that is quite unlikely, please tell me where my error in reasoning is? I trust your judgment on that. I can see some problems, but nothing that changes my opinion on the nature of human character.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

I was formulating a reply Sam when I checked ahead in another window to see if new comments were being added and should be mentioned.....and I see Garry has given you my argument.

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.

Of course, Sam, the alternative is 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.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

I was formulating a reply Sam when I checked ahead in another window to see if new comments were being added and should be mentioned.....and I see Garry has given you my argument. Merci Monsieur Garry!

I do see your argument, but perhaps the best "story" is one that is made within the minds of the listeners themselves, should they conclude he was Sarahs man, he achieves the desired effect, but if his story isnt corroberated by any other statements and he is not seen as being the Wideawake Man, what harm could he do to himself? No-one saw him ...he just says he was there.

One angle in here could be that the Police may have suspected someone already for being Wideawake,... before he came in. It might explain why that is not addressed in any police recording...to my knowledge...why do they not state outright that he was probably Wideawake judging by his and Sarahs story? And why does he not have the term suspicious character attached to him, again based on a loitering man watching a soon to be crime scene, after they refer to him as being "discreditted"?

My hunch is that they did think they knew who Sarah's man was, but they didnt know if he was the accomplice waiting or the killer checking for a clear coast.

Thats why they had "certain circumstances" to warrant the Pardon for Accomplices....cause they thought they knew at least one of the guys but they didnt know Wideawakes role yet.

My best Samuel

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Garry,

Of course, Sam, the alternative is 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.

On the premise that his excuse for loitering in Dorset Street was that he was "waiting for the nasty man to come back out", why wouldn't he have mentioned seeing Lewis walk past? After all, she actually witnessed a man loitering in Dorset Street, which fitted his "alibi" perfectly - so I really don't see a problem there.

On the contrary, the fact that Hutch doesn't say he saw Lewis enter Miller's Court during his vigil actually makes his story less credible, when one thinks about it. That, surely, would be the last thing one would want in a strategy of deflection of blame.

[Garry Wroe]

Of course, Sam, the alternative is 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.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

...and that person had reason to believe he was seen by Sarah as the Wideawake Man

An interesting idea, Mike, but it that very fact reveals one almighty flaw in the entire Hutchinson affair. One would think that, if Hutchinson were lying on behalf of a friend - or to deflect suspicion from himself - he'd have made sure that the story emphasised the fact that he was the man seen outside the lodging-house, and that he'd make a point of saying that he'd seen Sarah Lewis walk past. This opportunity for verisimilitude surely would not have been passed up if he wanted to make his story stick.

The fact that Lewis doesn't feature in his story at all - she's about the only thing that doesn't - is a very strong indicator that he, or his hypothetical friend, simply wasn't there in the first place.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael,
Your scenerio reads extremely plausible, and as you say We have the trio of victoria home residents Hutchinson, Fleming, and Dan Barnett, all known to the victim.However if either Fleming or Barnett [ Dan], had asked GH to lie for them, would he have done so?.
Surely his suspicions would have so aroused that he would have had to contact the police, and even if he was scared of saying no, the person asking the favour would have been a sitting target for blackmail, and may have done away with Hutch as the person who knew to much.
I still tend to believe it was a payment from the police , that for reasons known to himself ,Topping never disclosed what for.
Regards Richard.