Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Jane Welland]

Kippers at Dawn, then?...

...No, Fisherman. I meant I read them. You can take that to mean that I understood. I simply don't see why one would think this witness description could reasonably indicate Randolph Churchill.

I think the words 'Jewish appearance' kind of give it away just a bit?

There are many several issues here, I think. Quite apart from whether the author of the eponymous statement was 'Toppy' or not - on which I have no particular view as yet - the witness, whoever he was, could have made up the description of the 'Jewish appearance' suspect. Let's say he did. He could have done so for a number of reaosns - yes? We could speculate about them ad infinitum, if we assumed that this was the case.

Or, he could have really seen a person looking just like he said. A thought that occurs to me is that maybe Jewish well-to-do's really did dress like that. Well to some extent at least - maybe more than we think, today.

A stereotype has to come from somewhere, after all. The difflculty - impossibility, perhaps - lies in determining where the reality and the perception divide. I might go away and think about that - it's interesting.

Anyway, in any case, the description, if false, must have been sufficiently recognisable to others to be acceptable - comedic as it may now appear to us.

Still, I wonder at the need to confirm that the suspect was of 'Jewish' appearance, when it would have been quite evident from the way in which he was dressed that he was the social climbing Jew type.

Race you to the kipper stall.

Jane x

[Jane Coram]

Hi Jane,

You've brought up some very good points on this thread......and a warm welcome to casebook.

victorianlondon.org (which I suspect you may be familiar with anyway) has some very interesting reports by contemporary social commentators, which would seem to agree quite strongly with the caricature of the stereotypical Jew that Hutchinson gives us.

I'll see if I can dig a couple out and post them up. I would have to say that they would not seem to correlate with any descriptions of Randolph Churchill I've seen about...........but I've long since given up trying to make sense of anything in this case.

Hugs

The other Jane

xxxxx

[IchabodCrane]

"Astrakhan man" was not Johny on the spot, Jew or otherwise, he simply didnt exist except in an attempt to be overdescriptive by a "witness", possibly planted in an attempt by either the police or the papers to create a response from the real killer

This is the best post on this board so far and an interesting speculation that the witnes was paid by the press to deliver his statement to the police. It would explain a lot, not only why he was never considered by police as a suspect, also why the police first believed and then soon afterwards dismissed him. Also it could explain certain statements made by George William Topping Hutchinson to his son Reginald, namely that he knew one of the victims and saw a suspect. Makes for a good story to tell your kids and grandchildren, although not quite historically accurate. All the rest concerning Lord Randolph Churhill may be embellishment and suggested by the interviewers to point towards the RCT, but I am convinced GWTH was definitely the witness, based on handwriting comparisons.

[Ben]

Hi Ichabod,

interesting speculation that the witnes was paid by the press to deliver his statement to the police.

Why would the press do that? On what grounds would they single him out, and what was preventing Hutchinson from dobbing the naughty, bribing pressmen to the police? And how would it explain the coincidence of his coming forward as soon as Sarah Lewis' description of her wideawake loiterer became public knowledge? For that matter, why would any of this preclude the police from considering Hutchinson a potential suspect?

I am convinced GWTH was definitely the witness, based on handwriting comparisons.

Oh, I am conviced GWTH was definitely NOT the witness, based on handwriting comparisons.

[IchabodCrane]

For that matter, why would any of this preclude the police from considering Hutchinson a potential suspect?

One possibility is because the police learned that Hutchinson was planted by the press, and inquired and found out that he was in fact not the man seen and described by Sarah Lewis. It is only speculation, but would be a satisfying explanation for what otherwise remains one of the biggest mysteries of the case: why Hutchinson was never considered suspect, and if he was (for which there is no evidence), how he was cleared?

[DVV]

I simply don't see why one would think this witness description could reasonably indicate Randolph Churchill...
Jane x

Hi Jane,

...and you're simply right.
Toppy's (or Reg's, or Reg's brother in law's...) story has nothing to do with Hutch's.

That's one of Toppy's problems, obviously.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Oh, I am conviced GWTH was definitely NOT the witness, based on handwriting comparisons.

We know, Ben - no need to remind us. Although, quite how you continue to state that you are thus convinced, when we're talking about such indisputably similar signatures (oh yes!), remains a complete mystery to me. Not that I need to remind you of that either

[Ben]

quite how you continue to state that you are thus convinced we're talking about such indisputably similar signatures (oh yes!), remains a complete mystery to me. Not that I need to remind you of that either

But you just did, Gareth!

And how anyone can be convinced of a similarity when we're talking aboout such indisputably dissimilar signatures has me scratching my had in utter bewildered disbelief!

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

One possibility is because the police learned that Hutchinson was planted by the press, and inquired and found out that he was in fact not the man seen and described by Sarah Lewis.

Although in this scenario, the question is begged: why weren't the press representitives treated very severely by the police for deliberately derailing the biggest manhunt in police history? If the police did make such a discovery, the chances of such a major revelation not becoming public knowledge must be considered remote. And there's really no great mystery about Hutchinson being suspected (or not). If he wasn't, the police can hardly be blamed, since policing was in its infacy back then, and they had no experience of serial killers coming forward under false "witness" guises. If he was, there's no reason to think they were able to convert those suspicions into a tangible result. It's quite possible to suspect someone, but lack the goods to rule the suspect either in or out.

[Sam Flynn]

"Indisputably dissimilar", Ben? Tilley-valley, Pish-tush, Fie and Pshaw! (A great firm of solicitors, by the way.)

[John Hacker]

And there's really no great mystery about Hutchinson being suspected (or not). If he wasn't, the police can hardly be blamed, since policing was in its infacy back then, and they had no experience of serial killers coming forward under false "witness" guises.

Even today there wouldn't necessarily be a great deal os suspicion laid on somehow who came forward with a transparently silly story. Killers who insert themselves into investigations in that way are rare compared to people who just crave attention which are a dime a dozen. Even in 1888 the police would have been swarmed with attention seekers. They might get a cursory check but that's about it without something more to go on.

[DVV]

Yes John, agreed.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Absolutely, John.

An astute observation.

A cursory check may have been all that Hutchinson was subjected to before being consigned - rightly or wrongly - to the pile of Packer-esque witnesses.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

But if..

..It was so transparently silly, I can't help but wonder that nobody seemed to think so at the time? There must have been sufficient credibility in Mr Hutchinson's statement that he was ostensibly believed-and that includes his Astrakhan Man. More interesting is that his credibility didn't last. I wonder why that was.

[Garry Wroe]

Hello All.

There are a number of issues that appear to be getting lost in the present thread. To begin with, Toppy’s Churchill claim is irrelevant when one examines the internal dynamics of Hutchinson’s police and press statements. He did not see Mary Kelly as claimed, for example. Couldn’t have done, otherwise he would have been aware that she was blind drunk at the time of the alleged Hutchinson encounter. And yet, according to Hutchinson, she was not drunk, merely a little ‘spreeish’. So if Hutchinson didn't see Kelly, he almost certainly didn't see the Jewish-looking suspect, either.

So why, if, as now appears to be the case, the police came to disbelieve Hutchinson’s version of events, did he not fall under suspicion? Because the press and police were deluged with time-wasters who sought to profit from the marketing of spurious information. Packer has several times been cited as an example of such by other posters, but I would suggest that the Violenia case provides a far better example if one is to understand official thinking where Hutchinson was concerned.

Much has been made of who said what in the press. The reality, however, is that journalists questioned interviewees, noted the responses, then later cobbled these responses into a more linear, cohesive form of text for public consumption. In other words, most of what we read in Victorian newspapers is paraphraseology – which explains why Hutchinson (as well as many others) appeared far more eloquent in press interviews than they ever did under police questioning.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.