Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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]

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

[perrymason]

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.

Hi Harry,

On the above,....wouldnt a logged suspect sighting be of far greater value when later accompanied by a direct identification by the witness?

Or maybe they wanted to see if the suspect recognized him...to validate his story?

One thing bothers me a lot about this Hutch statement....it seems clear that his story suggests he was the man Sarah Lewis saw that night,...yet it appears they didnt take any steps to have Sarah ID Hutch, or for him to provide and hats or coats he might own for her to take a look at. They seem to understand the value of ID's in the arrest and prosecution of criminals, but did they employ the same procedures when validating the claims of alleged witnesses I wonder?

Best regards Harry

[The Good Michael]

Lewis' testimony says there was a man opposite the lodging house looking in the Court and further on there were a man and a woman, but that there was no one in the court. I think this is somewhat confusing testimony. The two must be Kelly and Astrakhan or the man behind Astrakhan, but that they weren't in the Court makes no sense. One thought is that Hutch saw them walk through the passage and then lost them after they exited the other end, and that Lewis saying there were two people further up, but no one was in the Court, meant in the passage of the Court. Further up might have meant where the public toilets were or something like that, in which case Lewis may not have had the lighting to see who they were. I would imagine she'd know who Kelly was if she was a frequenter of the Court as she seems to have been.

It's possible that none of this made sense to the authorities after Hutchinson told his story and was believed, so Lewis' testimony was discarded.

Cheers,

Mike

[perrymason]

Lewis' testimony says there was a man opposite the lodging house looking in the Court and further on there were a man and a woman, but that there was no one in the court. I think this is somewhat confusing testimony. The two must be Kelly and Astrakhan or the man behind Astrakhan, but that they weren't in the Court makes no sense. One thought is that Hutch saw them walk through the passage and then lost them after they exited the other end, and that Lewis saying there were two people further up, but no one was in the Court, meant in the passage of the Court. Further up might have meant where the public toilets were or something like that, in which case Lewis may not have had the lighting to see who they were. I would imagine she'd know who Kelly was if she was a frequenter of the Court as she seems to have been.

It's possible that none of this made sense to the authorities after Hutchinson told his story and was believed, so Lewis' testimony was discarded.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike,

I agree with your sense of confusion, and one thing struck me in your post, if someone watched a couple enter the archway and then exit it 20 or so feet later they would then walk out into the gaslight that was mounted on the wall above either Julia Vanturney's or the Keylers door...it shone towards Marys door.....he would have had to have seen people enter that door if they did....almost as soon as they get into the light.

Best regards mate

[Garry Wroe]

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.

What laid him open to suspicion, Sam, was the three-day period of inertia. Hutchinson claimed to have witnessed a concatenation that even the most intellectually challenged of village idiots would have recognized to be crucial relative to Mary Kelly’s death. Yet for three days he did nothing. Only after Sarah Lewis testified to having seen a man (who closely resembled Hutchinson) staring intently down the Miller’s Court interconnecting passage did he eventually come forward. All things considered, I think it inconceivable that the two events were unrelated.

What appears to have been overlooked is the fact that Hutchinson was interviewed by journalists on at least two occasions subsequent to his police interrogation. Even if Hutchinson had been a Packer-like profiteer, it must surely have occurred to him that his hitherto failure to mention Sarah Lewis was a glaring tactical error that served only to raise questions as to his credibility. And yet, paradoxically, whilst he was more than prepared embellish his official story with details relating not only to the alleged conversation with a policeman in Petticoat Lane, but also the admission that he’d ventured into Miller’s Court and listened outside Kelly’s room, he never at any stage amended his story to accommodate a reference to Sarah Lewis.

The inescapable conclusion, therefore, is that Hutchinson consciously side-stepped the issue of Sarah Lewis. To my mind, the only plausible explanation for such an approach is that it constituted an avoidance strategy – an attempt to allay any suspicion that Sarah’s inquest testimony was the real motivational factor behind his belated decision to come forward.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[harry]

The trouble with any identification observed at night time,is going to be diminished by Hutchinson's alledged sighting on Sunday,in daylight,when Hutchinson declared he couldn't be certain.My opinion is that,to the police, the clothing was of more value in identifying Kelly's companion,and that was detailed.

Although Aberline states Hutchinson had agreed to accompany the police,can it be certain it was Aberline who made the suggestion.Either way,I am still of the opinion that one hundred shillings was not an agreed deal.
Regards,
Mike,Michael.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Harry,
We are all assuming that Hutchinson was paid one hundred shillings for a couple of walkabouts, if that was the case why didnt Topping confirm that to Reg.
He always assumed [Reg] that this was the case, but he could not be sure, as his father would not add any more, infact he never said why he was paid.
I heard that on radio [ elusive broadcast] and the reason I am completely biased on this subject is, its because of that airing that I know that Faircloughs 'Ripper and the Royals' was not responsible for any skullduggery, it was just a repeat of the story as told by Reg many years before.
For any of Casebook who has the time and patience to visit Brighton University, and search through every Radio times from their archives from 1971-1975, and start from the back of each edition, not the front like my wife , my daughter, and myself unfortuately did last summer, they will definately find it amongst the inside back pages of a edition, ie a paragraph or two about the radio programme.
It was not until later I realised that articles were in the back pages.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Lechmere,

I thought I’d address your second Toppy post on a more suitable thread, as promised.

With regard to the plumbing-related sources you quoted, it is clear that they all appeared before Toppy himself became a plumber, according to you. Inferentially, therefore, the lax regulations that had been in place before 1888 were tightened thereafter, making it more difficult for him to have “bodged” his way in. Even more significantly, Toppy would never have been required to bodge his credentials because he had a plumbing father who could so easily have facilitated a legitimate entry into the profession. Nor would he have had any reason to wait until his early twenties before taking advantage of his father’s obvious work-related connections.

This is why the proposed East End period of odd-jobbing in an area of “chronic want” makes not the slightest bit of sense for someone in Toppy’s situation. He had the opportunity to embark upon a career as a plumber at the earliest opportunity, but according to those who would identify Toppy with the real Hutchinson, he decided to spend most of his formative years bumming around the East End as a labouring former-groom, even listing his “trade” as that of a groom. Why on earth would he state this if his father had already instructed him in the plumbing trade? It makes no sense at all.

The overwhelming likelihood, of course, is that Toppy was taught by his father (either through a formal apprenticeship or as a form or less formal private tuition), and became a plumber at the earliest opportunity, with no silly wilderness years in between that involved a three-year friendship with an East End prostitute. Since most apprenticeships terminated at around the age of 21, it shouldn’t be surprising that he should be listed as one in the 1891 census when he was in his mid-twenties. The idea that he came to the conclusion in his early to mid-twenties that it might be a good idea to abort the enforced existence of a semi-destitute “chronic wanter” in crowded and squalid conditions, and become a plumber like dear old dad after all is painfully ludicrous nonsense.

All the best,
Ben