Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

Hello CD
Exactly my point, that is why I do not believe that he was bribed, if any money was paid it was given to him for assisting the police, to what extent we do not know, but it would have to have been more then , just pounding the streets.
Regards Richard.

I think what both you and cd fail to consider is that in the situation I suggested, do you think George would be as afraid of making a false statement as he might be if he said no to a man he already suspects cut a woman to bits by the telling his story to George?

If someone he knew at The Victoria Mens Home...who we know was very close to Mary, had been seen in the courtyard with her, and maybe even had lived with her in the past....and that person had reason to believe he was seen by Sarah as the Wideawake Man, then might he go to a pal that he shares an address with and tell him, "look, Ive a fiver for ya if you will help me out of a fix....I think that young lady in Millers Court saw me and my hat when I went to visit Mary Jane Friday mornin. I try to keep an eye out out to make sure shes ok now and then with all the recent madness about....so I was meaning no harm by being there, but if I go and tell the police they will arrest me on suspicion. But If you go and say you were the fella watching out, and you were Marys friend, at least you cant be tied in with Mary and maybe seen as her murderer. You know I lived with her a while back, dont ya? Well....Ive been seeing her since then, and the people in that court seen me before."

It could have gone like that.....we know both an ex-lover and roommate and brother of a recent lover, Flemming and Barnett, roomed at the Victoria Home at that time....and the first man was seeing Mary while the brother of the second man lived with her. And it seems Mary was seen out that week with Daniel Barnett.

A Triangle or maybe Love Squared?

Cheers Richard

[richardnunweek]

Hello CD
Exactly my point, that is why I do not believe that he was bribed, if any money was paid it was given to him for assisting the police, to what extent we do not know, but it would have to have been more then , just pounding the streets.
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

Hi Richard,

I think that would make Hutchinson either a damn good friend or a complete and total fool. Making yourself suspect number one in a gruesome murder where the penalty is hanging is not the greatest show of smarts.

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Michael,
If Hutchinson was approached by someone he knew [ mayby from the Victoria home] asking him to do a mighty favour, would he not be mighty suspicious?
Scenerio 1.
Hey George, I could be in big trouble , I was in the dead womans room early last friday morning, having a drink, i left about 2am, she was very much alive, i swear, and as I was seen entering her room, and not leaving it, the police will believe I did it.
'I swear I did not do her, could you say to the police that you saw her around 2am, dont worry she was still in her room at that time, so nobody will know any different, just say you saw some jewish bloke enter the court with her.
Do that George and This five pound note is yours.
Ok Blotchy, I believe you, I will tell them rozzers a good story.
Michael.
Neither of us believe that is probable do we?
Regards Richard.

If Hutchinson was paid 5L from anyone regarding his story given that Monday night, it might be a man that gave him some money to even make the statement in the first place.

The starting point on his credibility begins with the time he comes forward to help someone who he says was his friend......but thats not Friday afternoon, nor Saturday morning or eve,...must have had Church conflicts on Sunday, ...and at the dinner hour on Monday night, Mary Janes hero...the witness to her murderer comes out of his hiding place and bravely puts his knowledge on record....almost 4 full days after the alleged sighting.

Why wait that long? In my opinion, because there was no story to tell until someone paid him to make up one and give it to the Police.

Someone who was seen by Sarah watching the court maybe...someone who COULD be linked to Kelly, ...which George cannot be.

Best regards

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
My believe in Topping would not be anywhere near as strong, if it were not for my conviction that I heard someone on radio claiming to be the son of the witness named Hutchinson in, the early-mid seventies
As the radio broadcast mentioned the same story , that would appear in the Ripper and the Royals many years later, and Faicloughs informant was one Reg Hutchinson, son of GWTH, and that publication mentioned a sum of money paid, I must conclude that it was Reg also. who was on radio 18years previous, as the exact sum was mentioned on air.
There surely can be no doubt that Reg was the same man on both occassions.
And not for the first time, I must add that the sum of a mans five weeks wages was reported to have been paid to the witness known as Hutchinson. back in 1888, by a very rare publication, which would not have been read by your average east-ender., as five weeks average wages for a manual worker would equal approx one hundred shillings back then, what a amazing coincidence it is that someone claiming to have been the witness mentions that sum to his family and friends years later.
I find it hard to accept that Topping pretended to be the witness GH, he would have had to have knowledge of Hutchinsons statement, also remembered the local gossip that this informant was paid for his efforts, and the sum also.
I have reason to believe that the late Reg Hutchinson was clueless about the Ripper murders, so I would dismiss him from inventing this story, and therefore taking everything on board, and knowing I heard that broadcast some 35 years ago, I have more reason to accept it, then I would mayby if the book was my first knowledge of it.
Regards Richard.

[Maggyann]

Maybe the 'hundred shillings' if it existed was paid by the chap he saw in exchange for a really unhelpful description? Maybe he did recognise him or did find him during the days before he went to the police?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Harry,
I agree with you, it does seem incredible that a sum as large as that was paid to a eyewitness, even if he did go walkabouts with police officers.
I agree that the whole episode seems a work of fiction, something which would have suited Fairclough back in 1992, the only point is , I heard the story about 18years before on Radio, therefore if the story was someones hoax, then it was from much earlier, and nothing to do with 'The Ripper and the Royals'.
According To Reg his father said he was paid the sum of a hundred shillings, but did not say from who, assumption being it was from police funds, but that may not have been the case,?
If the story is true, then someone was pleased with Hutchinsons account...
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

The only sensible assumption,is that the five pounds,like the the man with the Astrakan coat,is a figment of someone's imagination.

Why is this the only sensible solution? Why isn't exaggeration a sensible solution for both items you've mentioned? What about one exaggeration and one lie? How about one exaggeration and one assumption? How about one truth and one lie? Why do you decide what is sensible? I'm not arguing about it. I'm only suggesting that you don't have the market cornered on common sense because you say there's one answer. There are many possibilities that can make sense. Paying someone for their times makes complete sense. We know Toppy was led around by the coppers while in their custody. Coming forward in hopes of a reward makes absolute sense and has been done often and is still done every day. 5 shillings maybe? 5 pounds? Who knows?

Cheers,

Mike

[harry]

Lets look a little more at the five pound gratuity.Can we believe it was given.First of all it is a well known(or is it?)principle,in England,and was in 1888,and long before then,that a person has a responsibility to help police.In doing so they are performing a public duty,and normally expect nothing in return.

There are persons,called informers,who have to be registered as such,who do receive payment.They are rarely,if ever,identified,and are known as informers to very few people.They are not numerous,and are carefully screened as to their usefulness and knowledge.Most law enforcement agencies use them.Their payment come out of public funds,channeled normally through the agency that use them.There can also be payments,usually of a small nature, that can be paid out of what are called 'Slush'funds.They are paid on results.Rewards are usually proclaimed,are normally of a high value,and are paid on result.

Law enforcement officers can also have informants of a personnel nature,known only to themselves,and paid out of their own pocket.This practice is not encouraged by most forces.

George Hutchinson was an eye witness.There is no evidence he was any kind of a paid informer.He came forward voluntry.He could not bargain his information.He was not entitled to any reward for he produced nothing that led to an arrest and conviction.Five pounds was a large sum in those days,and it would be beyond credibility that Aberline or any other officer would have personnely paid that amount out of their own pocket.

The only sensible assumption,is that the five pounds,like the the man with the Astrakan coat,is a figment of someone's imagination.

[Sam Flynn]

Everyone is thankful, for new information which can be evaluated and discussed. Discussed, Mike; not have the discussion silenced by people’s whose logic stretches only to “I believe it, ergo so must you,” which is not particularly convincing, to be honest.

Well, some of the "Toppy-as-Ripper" believers seem to be doing just that. I don't include you in their number, by the way, Jen, because...

Denial is the wrong word. We remain unconvinced by the evidence.

... you can't speak for everyone so the use of the "we" is misplaced, if typically noble, of you. There are some, however, who certainly give the impression of being in denial. The sometimes hysterical tone, the gainsaying, nitpicking and the harking back to a single [supportive] expert opinion leaves me in no doubt that there's more than a whiff of defensiveness in the air.

I think what we have seen - in some cases - is the Ripperological equivalent of the dawning realisation that Santa Claus might not exist after all.

(Of course, kiddies, he does exist really... )

[babybird67]

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

For Mike:

Perhaps because there have only been fabulous books that regarded Hutchinson as an evil-doer which many people have read, agreed with, and now refuse to excise like the cancerous growth this pretend knowledge has become.

Who are these ‘people’ Mike, about whom you know so much, down to their motivations and the workings of their minds? For the umpteenth time, please listen up, and wise up, I have not read any books yet regarding Hutchinson’s candidacy as the Ripper, therefore I don’t ‘agree’ with them, nor have I ever said I regard Hutchinson as the Ripper, nor do I espouse any ‘pretend’ knowledge, which is why I strongly repudiate your contention that there is any factual co-incidence between Toppy’s occupation and Hutchinson’s which is patently FALSE.

Everyone here has the right to evaluate the evidence as it stands and come to their own ‘reasoned’ conclusions; those on the ‘identification not proven’ side of the fence have offered such reasoned conclusions; rebuttals from yourself have included accusations of evil and, still, as evidenced by your reply to my posting above, in which you glibly bypass all the objections to your own beliefs regarding Toppy, accusations of perverted agenda. You may like to remember that when I was compiling my poll to ask people had the extant evidence convinced them an identification had been established, none other than Rob Clack, whom I respect immensely, suggested a category was missing: to wit, the possibility of Toppy being Hutch did not have a cat’s chance in hell of being true. I wondered for a moment which ‘author’ it was you were attempting to malign when you slyly slipped in your rather uncalled for comments of author agenda…perhaps you would care to elaborate on them for us? Either way, whether you meant Garry or Rob, I am happy to be in such good company in my wayward analysis of the data presented.

All this about Toppy being Hutch is very new and has evolved right here on this stage and everyone should be thankful that it has.

Everyone is thankful, for new information which can be evaluated and discussed. Discussed, Mike; not have the discussion silenced by people’s whose logic stretches only to “I believe it, ergo so must you,” which is not particularly convincing, to be honest.

Yet, some remain in denial.

Denial is the wrong word. We remain unconvinced by the evidence.

There really is no need for a book because we don't know so much about Topping's life

Article? No? Why not? It’s new information as you have already pointed out.

By the way, Raleigh wasn't a good guy. I wouldn't quote the man.

I studied Ralegh for my M.A. I know he did things which were wrong, but he, like many historical figures, was a product of his time, and I happen to agree with his quotation that it is incumbent upon a person to follow the guidance of their conscience, not adapt their behaviour to evade the censure of people flinging around insults and trying to intimidate free speech. That was my point. I had hoped you would grasp it.

[Garry Wroe]

The arguments presented by Sam Flynn, Garry Wroe, and others concerning how one would list their occupation for the census, and the apprenticeship process, is fascinating reading and has not confirmed the "Hutchinson is Toppy" hypothesis. To be honest, I prefer Garry's stance at this point, but unfortunately the discussion has not been resumed--I hope to read more in the future.

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

Perhaps because there have only been fabulous books that regarded Hutchinson as an evil-doer which many people have read, agreed with, and now refuse to excise like the cancerous growth this pretend knowledge has become.

‘Pretend knowledge’? As an author of one of those books and the first person to question Hutchinson’s then accepted status as an honest and relieble witness, I would point out, Michael, that Hutchinson has been demonstrated to have been a liar by virtue of the fact that he gave conflicting versions of events to the police and press. During the course of my researches I also discovered that, contrary to his official version of events, Hutchinson admitted in a press interview to having wandered into Miller’s Court where he stood outside Mary Kelly’s room. This placed him at a crime scene at a time critical to Kelly’s murder. Perhaps you think it likely that he was merely checking the plumbing, but in any competent modern murder investigation, any such revelation would be sufficient to raise considerable investigative suspicion.

There really is no need for a book because we don't know so much about Topping's life, and the way so many have disparaged the family name through nothing more than BS conjecture, it's doubtful that any family members will want to play in our reindeer games.

Given that there are legitimate suspicions attached to George Hutchinson, the people who have really ‘disparaged the family name through nothing more than BS conjecture’ are those who insist that Hutchinson and Toppy were the same man. But for this position, Toppy would be regarded by most sensible people as a decent, hard-working family man who did no more than regale his children with urban folk tales on cold, dark winter nights.

Garry Wroe.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Good. Thanks for that. I'd no idea. Well, perhaps my suggestion should be scuttled?

The best.
LC

[The Good Michael]

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