Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[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.

[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,
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.

[perrymason]

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 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.

[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]

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.

[perrymason]

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]

Hi Michael,
Your scenerio reads extremely plausible, and as you say We have the trio of victoria home residents Hutchinson, Fleming, and Dan Barnett, all known to the victim.However if either Fleming or Barnett [ Dan], had asked GH to lie for them, would he have done so?.
Surely his suspicions would have so aroused that he would have had to contact the police, and even if he was scared of saying no, the person asking the favour would have been a sitting target for blackmail, and may have done away with Hutch as the person who knew to much.
I still tend to believe it was a payment from the police , that for reasons known to himself ,Topping never disclosed what for.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

...and that person had reason to believe he was seen by Sarah as the Wideawake Man

An interesting idea, Mike, but it that very fact reveals one almighty flaw in the entire Hutchinson affair. One would think that, if Hutchinson were lying on behalf of a friend - or to deflect suspicion from himself - he'd have made sure that the story emphasised the fact that he was the man seen outside the lodging-house, and that he'd make a point of saying that he'd seen Sarah Lewis walk past. This opportunity for verisimilitude surely would not have been passed up if he wanted to make his story stick.

The fact that Lewis doesn't feature in his story at all - she's about the only thing that doesn't - is a very strong indicator that he, or his hypothetical friend, simply wasn't there in the first place.

[Garry Wroe]

Of course, Sam, the alternative is 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.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Garry,

Of course, Sam, the alternative is 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.

On the premise that his excuse for loitering in Dorset Street was that he was "waiting for the nasty man to come back out", why wouldn't he have mentioned seeing Lewis walk past? After all, she actually witnessed a man loitering in Dorset Street, which fitted his "alibi" perfectly - so I really don't see a problem there.

On the contrary, the fact that Hutch doesn't say he saw Lewis enter Miller's Court during his vigil actually makes his story less credible, when one thinks about it. That, surely, would be the last thing one would want in a strategy of deflection of blame.

[perrymason]

Of course, Sam, the alternative is 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.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

I was formulating a reply Sam when I checked ahead in another window to see if new comments were being added and should be mentioned.....and I see Garry has given you my argument. Merci Monsieur Garry!

I do see your argument, but perhaps the best "story" is one that is made within the minds of the listeners themselves, should they conclude he was Sarahs man, he achieves the desired effect, but if his story isnt corroberated by any other statements and he is not seen as being the Wideawake Man, what harm could he do to himself? No-one saw him ...he just says he was there.

One angle in here could be that the Police may have suspected someone already for being Wideawake,... before he came in. It might explain why that is not addressed in any police recording...to my knowledge...why do they not state outright that he was probably Wideawake judging by his and Sarahs story? And why does he not have the term suspicious character attached to him, again based on a loitering man watching a soon to be crime scene, after they refer to him as being "discreditted"?

My hunch is that they did think they knew who Sarah's man was, but they didnt know if he was the accomplice waiting or the killer checking for a clear coast.

Thats why they had "certain circumstances" to warrant the Pardon for Accomplices....cause they thought they knew at least one of the guys but they didnt know Wideawakes role yet.

My best Samuel

[Sam Flynn]

I was formulating a reply Sam when I checked ahead in another window to see if new comments were being added and should be mentioned.....and I see Garry has given you my argument.

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.

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

Obviously we cannot say why Topping went to the police, and maybe I'm crazy, but in a complete mess of 'what ifs' and 'could haves', isn't the most likely scenario one that involves a young, downtrodden man's hope for compensation? Isn't that one thing that young, uneducated, and perhaps underemployed men share in all big cities and throughout history; that opportunity to make a fast buck? If that is quite unlikely, please tell me where my error in reasoning is? I trust your judgment on that. I can see some problems, but nothing that changes my opinion on the nature of human character.

Cheers,

Mike