Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Bob Hinton]

Lovely Black Adder clip Mr Pirate, extra peanuts for you tonight!

[Blues]

Not sure if this has come up...

...But if I remember correctly, George was brought around the East End with 2 policemen "looking" for the man that he saw that night. Is it possible that the 5 pounds that he was paid was for his services looking for the man and/or for lost wages while walking around instead of working?

Just a thought...as I said - someone else may have already asked or clarified this idear.

Blues

[Ben]

Hey Blues,

Is it possible that the 5 pounds that he was paid was for his services looking for the man and/or for lost wages while walking around instead of working?

That was the "gossip" from the Wheeling Register, but since the police believed Hutchinson to be out of work at the time, his walking around with police would not have eaten into his "working" time...because he wasn't working, as far as the police were concerned.

Ben

[Blues]

Thanks Ben...

I suppose it could have been for "services rendered"...although that sounds a bit much for what he did...a fiver at the time sounds more like a payoff than a payment...

Again, thanks.


Blues

[Jeff Leahy]

Lovely Black Adder clip Mr Pirate, extra peanuts for you tonight!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaB7BQ6PlHs

Your a love

[DVV]

I suppose it could have been for "services rendered"...although that sounds a bit much for what he did...a fiver at the time sounds more like a payoff than a payment...

Again, thanks.


Blues

Hi Blues,
and actually, this payoff is the only plausible detail in Reg's account...
As to the the rest... just compare: "He knew more than he told though, but he kept it close to his chest" with the mention of the royals and R. Churchill whenever East End people talked of the Ripper in the 20's and 30's...
Funny enough! And btw, did Astrakhan Man looked like Churchill?
Funny again is Topping's "biggest regret"...when we know that Hutch said he has seen the suspect again on Sunday morning.
My opinion is that Reg and his father have nothing to do with Hutch the witness, except that they are all liars.
Amitiés,
David

[Jeff Leahy]

Hi David

I think you should be careful about the use of the word ‘Liar’. It implies that someone knows the truth and has deliberately set out to deceive. People can tell and say things that are not true but not necessarily be liars.

There are a number of examples of this in Ripperology where people have gotten things wrong but have appeared very plausible, and may not have been liars, just miss-taken, which is a very different thing altogether.

For a start I draw your attention to an earlier post I made on the functioning of the human brain. As I’ve said it is an interpretation machine. It does frequently deceive us. It carefully re-analysis and re-files memories as we sleep. Often removing the painful parts.

If you’re told something when you are young by a mother or uncle you tend also to take it at face value and the truth. Digging into my own family tree I now know not everything I was lead to believe when young was the exact truth.

The problem with any Oral history is, do you dismiss it as a whole or do you investigate the kernels of possibility?

Throwing a blanket term like ‘Liar’ over information might be throughing the baby out with the bath water.

Trusting you are well

Yours Pirate

[richardnunweek]

Hello David,
The payoff is exactly that plausible, but excuses are being offered as .
a]No police force would pay for services rendered.
Reply.. In the good old days I have often been [ being well known in my area] approached and offered some pittance for imformation about possible crime in that area[ not that I did]
b] Hutchinson was a unemployed groom.
Reply... an unemployed groom mayby, but penniless?, his alleged words to kelly' I have spent all my money going down to Romford' would indicate some caual earnings, also the Victoria home was not for the penniless vagrant.
c] In Faircloughs book, Reg painted a picture of the highest in the land, and his father knew 'more then he let on'
Reply... As that publication was all to do with conspiracy, and the highest in the land , is it any surprise that Regs father[ alleged] sighting resembled someone like Lord churchill, infact GWTH may have actually said that, when the conversation arose, after all its a bit like me saying to my son, 'you know that girl you used to go with years ago Susan, well I saw her yesterday with a bloke, who looked just like Brad Pitt.
It would not be possible of course , rather like Lord Churchill wandering down commercial street in the early hours of the 9th November, with a common prostitute on his arm, it was just a way of describing a likeness.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

The payoff is exactly that plausible, but excuses are being offered

They're not "excuses", Richard.

They're an important pointers against the suggestion that Hutchinson, whatever his identity, was paid off for his efforts, and I'm troubled that it has become necessary to repeat them again:

a) You say you were paid off in the good old days, but unfortunately, that is hearsay as far as I'm concerned on a par with the radio interview you keep mentioning, and since it can't be accepted as evidence for that reason, it has no bearing on the issue of Toppy being paid off.

b) No, as I've told you before, Hutchinson may well have been more than an unemployed groom. He may well have had money, but the salient fact is that he informed police he was currently out of work, and they clearly believed him.

is it any surprise that Regs father[ alleged] sighting resembled someone like Lord churchill

If Reg was simply feeding Fairclough and Sickert whatever conspiratorial guff they wanted to hear, than no, it isn't any surprise at all. If Reg was simply recounting his father's genuine experiences, it would be extremely surpising for him to start flinging Churchill and "It was more to do with the Royal family than ordinary people" around.

Best regards,
Ben

[Nemo]

Hi all

Regarding the possibility of Hutchinson being paid...

Originally posted by Ben
"No police force was remotely likely to have paid off a witness, otherwise they'd be bombareded with false "witnesses" all eager to be paid off for their stories"

Originally posted by Richardnunweek
I would never suggest that the payment of witnesses was normal practise, for the very reasons you suggested, however if GH did venture out and assist the police then he could well have received payment, it hardly is uncommon for payments to be made nowadays to informers, and expenses occured by helpers.


Originally posted by Ben
"Extremely unlikely.
If one witness came forward and received payment, the police would have been deluged with other "witnesses" as soon as that payment was made public knowledge."



I came across the case of HENRY GLENNIE, tried for murder, 22nd October 1888.

Mary Dominey who was a witness in the case stated...

"I have not been at work at all lately, not since this affair; I have been allowed a guinea a week from the police, since then I have been doing nothing at all — Sergeant Mackenzie pays me the guinea a week, he brings it to me — I believe Phœbe Field is living under his care...

—it was after I had been taken to Whitehall that I knew I was to be a witness — the allowance of a guinea a week began about three weeks ago, after I was examined at the police-court on 12th October — I then gave evidence of what the prisoner had told me—the guinea a week commenced three weeks before that, a week or a fortnight after I went to Whitehall—

Police constable Robinson came to me about half-past 9 at night; from what he said, I went to the police-station in Upper Street, Islington, and' I was detained there all night, in the library; Sergeant Robinson came out with me to fetch my baby, and I returned and was there all night; I had breakfast there in the morning, and then I was taken in a cab to the solicitor's office at Whitehall—I had not said anything to the police during the night—I made a statement at Whitehall, which was taken down; I went there twice, and then went home—"


...Which was confirmed by THOMAS GLASS (Police Inspector)

"I pay Dominey a guinea a week—it comes from the Treasury—I advance it out of my own pocket, but I send my bill to the Treasury—I have got leave of the Treasury to give her that; I can give you the reason why she is having it—I do not think a guinea a week is too much to give to a witness of that kind"

Full transcription can be read at...

http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/browse.jsp?id=t18881022-977&div=t18881022-977&terms=1888

As well as showing that witness payments were not unknown at the relevant time, it also opens up the possibility of finding a reference to Hutchinsons payment as it seems that an application would have had to have been made to the Treasury office.

There should be a paper trail to follow somewhere...

Notice that Mary was not working but was being paid 1 guinea per week. She was also practically arrested and detained in her role as an important witness.

PS
Phoebe was another witness in the case and I think Mary alludes to her also receiving payment.

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Nemo.

The crucial difference here is that the witness in question wasn't being "paid off". She was being reimbursed for loss of earnings while she helped the police. That occurs very regularly, and if you spent a week doing jury service, you can expect similar reimbursement. That's quite different to what was being alleged with regard to Hutchinson, which was an unambiguous up-front payment of five-times his normal sallary. He couldn't even claim reimbursement since the police were under the impression that he was out of work.

If it became public knowledge that you could receive appreciably more money than you'd normally get for working (i.e. a whopping pay-off as opposed to standard reimbursement), the police would have been deluged with money-seekers all churning out invented stories. One guinea per week for continued assistance over that period is of course worlds away from five guineas up front.

Best regards,
Ben

[Nemo]

Hi Ben

From what I can gather from this thread, Hutchinson was paid a hundred shillings, but he never said why. Alternatively he was paid five weeks wages for his "assistance".

I don't see where a "pay-off" is mentioned.

If a guinea per week can be paid to one or possibly two people to retain them as witnesses in a "minor" murder case, would not Hutchinson be offered a higher rate considering he was initially thought of as being the most important witness in the land at the time?

He may well have been in line to get £5 per week - until his statement was discredited shortly afterward (according to the press etc etc)

Unlike the witness Mary, receiving 1 guinea as a retainer, Hutchinson was ACTIVELY seeking the suspect, accompanying detectives around the East End. This may also account for the high payment for inconvenience, expenses and a form of wage.

[Ben]

Hi Nemo,

From what I can gather from this thread, Hutchinson was paid a hundred shillings

Not "the" Hutchinson, but G.W.T. Hutchinson, who is a poor contender for the real witness. The chief difference here is pay-off as opposed to reimbursement. In the extract you provided, the witness was being reimbursed for loss of earnings while she assisted police. This happens all the time, most notably for jury service.

The moment you start offering to pay witnesses appreciably more than they would normally be earning, you're unwittingly giving any number of fraudsters an invitation to come forward as witnesses in order to receive a similar payment. It doesn't matter how serious the crime was - in fact, the more serious the crime, the greater the incentive to avoid resorting to financial arrangments that are likely to attract frauds hoping to get paid loads for skiving off work.

£100 was a huge sum for an out-of-work Spitalfields labourer, and was ludicrously over-the-top for the assistance of accompanying the police on an Astrakhan hunt, especially if he had little choice in the matter anyway.

Best regards,
Ben

[Nemo]

Hi Ben

I can see your point, but these were exceptional circumstances.

At one point at least, for whatever reason, Inspector Abberline regarded Hutchinson as the most important lead he had in the investigation.

I would have expected him to put Hutchinson in some Victorian equivalent of a witness protection programme.

Abberline may well have feared the Ripper killing Hutchinson. There had been speculation about threats to witnesses before, including some threatening letters purporting to have come from the Ripper.

Abberline would also have not wanted to lose sight of Hutchinson himself - for obvious reasons.He kept Hutchinson under the control of some of his detectives for a while, actively employing him to seek the Ripper,but he had to let Hutchinson loose at some point.

I can imagine Abberline wanting to actually house Hutchinson in a "safe-house" rather than releasing him to return to the lodging house or wherever.


Hutchinson's initial information was voluntary - not monetary. He would as you say, probably have had no choice in the matter regarding being taken with the detectives,but he could not be "detained" in any way past a reasonable time. He was a witness, not a suspect.


The money could have been expenses, ie new lodgings and clothes, and/or a retainer to make sure he reported back to the police if so required.

I therefore see a good possibility, almost a probability, of Hutchinson receiving money for his overall "assistance" - and I don't think £5 /100 shiilings was an outlandish sum considering the circumstances.

It would be interesting if someone can access Treasury records from the period. If a list exists it would surely show such a substantial sum being paid, if it were ever paid. It may even state something like "payment to witnesses" and if it does, then I'm sure that witness would be named.

Has anyone got the expenses records from the police stations/detective dept. etc?



Best Regards

Nemo

[Ben]

Hi Nemo,

Abberline may well have feared the Ripper killing Hutchinson

In which case, it would have been the worst possible decision to pay him such a ludicrously high sum of money for assistance that he would have been compelled to provide anyway, before allowing him to blab about it to the press. The greater the severity of the case, the more essential it was to ensure that any informers or witnesses were honest in their motives. The moment you start introducing silly sums, the honest incentive runs the perilous risk of being supplanted by a dishonest one, wherein hoards and hoards of dodgy, hard-up geezers bombard the police with "important information" all expecting to be paid equally large sums for their bogus information.

No police force could have expected anything less, unless they were seriously naive, and it was the Home Secretary's policy not to offer "rewards" for the very reason I've outlined. The promise of large sums of ready-money would have seriously derailed the investigation, while all the bogus leads were investigated and hundreds of pounds wasted. You don't give him money to pay for new lodging and clothes either - what message does that give to the impoverished droves who didn't like their lodgings and wanted/needed new clothes? Just invent a witness account and wait for the cash to roll in.

Totally and hopelessly inpractical, which is why I find it impossible to accept that Hutchinson would have been paid off, especially not to the tune of so hefty a sum, and especially if the police were under the impression that he wasn't even suffering from a loss of earning.

Best regards,
Ben