Tweet
I decided to look at the account of Hutchinson given by his supposed son to Melvyn Fairclough in 'The Ripper and the Royals' (1991/2003) usually this is dismissed just because of which book it appears in, which really is insufficient a reason to dismiss it.
First the account:
"Hutchinson's seventy-four-year-old son, Reginald Hutchinson, whom Joseph Sickert and I interviewed recently (May 1992), thinks otherwise. 'Reg' worked with his father for many years and was very close to him. 'Dad took careful note of details,' he said, 'and could remember things accurately. Part of his job was to work out estimates, and, no matter how big the job, he always remembered exactly which materials were needed, and in what quantities, without ever writing it down.' (245)
'I remember,' said Reg, 'he mentioned several times that he knew one of the women and was interviewed by the police, but I'd never seen his actual statement until today, when you came round. But if that's what he said, that's what he saw. Dad was a very down-to-earth man, and didn't elaborate anything. It just wasn't in his nature. He knew more than he told though, but he kept it close to his chest. Whenever the subject of Jack the Ripper came up, as it often did in the East End in the twenties and thirties, because many people who were there when it happened were still alive, he used to say: "It was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people." And when asked who he thought it was he always said: "It was some one like Lord Randolph Churchill." Until you told me that about Abberline's diaries and that he named Churchill, I thought my father was merely saying that in his opinion the murderer was someone high up, like Churchill. Now I can see that he knew all along that the man he saw actually was Churchill, but he didn't want to come straight out with it. He said that at the time he was paid a hundred shillings, but he never said why. Perhaps he was paid to keep quiet about what really happened, and say nothing about what he really knew.' (246)
Time to look at this as a piece of oral history:
As with any qualitative account we have to work on the assumption that Reginald Hutchinson (from now on RH) was being totally honest.
The account was given to Royal Conspiracy theorists and this has to be kept in mind (I will return to this towards the end of this post).
The only point in this argument that can be confirmed in the police files is "'I remember,' said Reg, 'he mentioned several times that he knew one of the women and was interviewed by the police"
On the face of it this is 'our' GH, however there are problems:
As Stewart P. Evans has shown the RCT cannot be traced further than the 1960's http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...nsorigins.html. However it is not impossible that vernacular accounts predate that, it is unlikely in this case as there is considerable evidence that RG's account has been contaminated by the researchers: "Until you told me that about Abberline's diaries and that he named Churchill, I thought my father was merely saying that in his opinion the murderer was someone high up, like Churchill. Now I can see that he knew all along that the man he saw actually was Churchill" (1)
This contamination has implications for believing this is our GH "I'd never seen his actual statement until today, when you came round." It is probable that RH's father had stories about Jack the Ripper but poor interviewing has rendered it valueless as this account may be an attempt to reconcile old information with new info. This interview should have been conducted in an open ended fashion, the interviewers should have asked what RH had heard in his childhood or later about JTR, and if he raised for example 'he mentioned several times that he knew one of the women and was interviewed by the police' try and draw more out from him on that point.
With this in mind this account is of little value for determining if this is our GH.
(1) Contamination could have entered the narrative through other sources, considering the popularity of the RCT.
Regards,
Chris Lowe
First the account:
"Hutchinson's seventy-four-year-old son, Reginald Hutchinson, whom Joseph Sickert and I interviewed recently (May 1992), thinks otherwise. 'Reg' worked with his father for many years and was very close to him. 'Dad took careful note of details,' he said, 'and could remember things accurately. Part of his job was to work out estimates, and, no matter how big the job, he always remembered exactly which materials were needed, and in what quantities, without ever writing it down.' (245)
'I remember,' said Reg, 'he mentioned several times that he knew one of the women and was interviewed by the police, but I'd never seen his actual statement until today, when you came round. But if that's what he said, that's what he saw. Dad was a very down-to-earth man, and didn't elaborate anything. It just wasn't in his nature. He knew more than he told though, but he kept it close to his chest. Whenever the subject of Jack the Ripper came up, as it often did in the East End in the twenties and thirties, because many people who were there when it happened were still alive, he used to say: "It was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people." And when asked who he thought it was he always said: "It was some one like Lord Randolph Churchill." Until you told me that about Abberline's diaries and that he named Churchill, I thought my father was merely saying that in his opinion the murderer was someone high up, like Churchill. Now I can see that he knew all along that the man he saw actually was Churchill, but he didn't want to come straight out with it. He said that at the time he was paid a hundred shillings, but he never said why. Perhaps he was paid to keep quiet about what really happened, and say nothing about what he really knew.' (246)
Time to look at this as a piece of oral history:
As with any qualitative account we have to work on the assumption that Reginald Hutchinson (from now on RH) was being totally honest.
The account was given to Royal Conspiracy theorists and this has to be kept in mind (I will return to this towards the end of this post).
The only point in this argument that can be confirmed in the police files is "'I remember,' said Reg, 'he mentioned several times that he knew one of the women and was interviewed by the police"
On the face of it this is 'our' GH, however there are problems:
As Stewart P. Evans has shown the RCT cannot be traced further than the 1960's http://www.casebook.org/dissertation...nsorigins.html. However it is not impossible that vernacular accounts predate that, it is unlikely in this case as there is considerable evidence that RG's account has been contaminated by the researchers: "Until you told me that about Abberline's diaries and that he named Churchill, I thought my father was merely saying that in his opinion the murderer was someone high up, like Churchill. Now I can see that he knew all along that the man he saw actually was Churchill" (1)
This contamination has implications for believing this is our GH "I'd never seen his actual statement until today, when you came round." It is probable that RH's father had stories about Jack the Ripper but poor interviewing has rendered it valueless as this account may be an attempt to reconcile old information with new info. This interview should have been conducted in an open ended fashion, the interviewers should have asked what RH had heard in his childhood or later about JTR, and if he raised for example 'he mentioned several times that he knew one of the women and was interviewed by the police' try and draw more out from him on that point.
With this in mind this account is of little value for determining if this is our GH.
(1) Contamination could have entered the narrative through other sources, considering the popularity of the RCT.
Regards,
Chris Lowe
Comment