Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[harry]

Mike,
The authority that Hutchinson had dealings with,were the police.The persons that would benefit,should anything be uncovered by Hutchinson,were the police.The authority that could have granted,or recommended payment to Hutchinson ,was the police.It is common sense to state that five pounds ,being a large sum of money at that time,would not,by the police authorities or an indivdual policeman,have been paid for a couple of hours walk through the streets of Whitechapel,that produced nothing.
I do not claim a monopoly of common sense,but if you can state an authority or individual,that did or would make such payment,and a reason why it was,or would be made,then please do so.

[The Good Michael]

Harry,

I didn't say it had to be 5 pounds. It could have been 5 shillings. That was my point; that compensation for one's time makes sense. This is done daily in the court system.

Cheers

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
If one takes Reg Hutchinsons tale seriously, and it indeed did come from one Gwth, then we should take heed of the words used on two occasions which were similar .In Faircloughs book he mentions his father was paid one hundred shillings at the time but never said 'why'.
On the radio in the 1970s the same story of payment was raised, with no suggestion where it came from.
Topping never said who paid him the sum , one should therefore assume that he was instructed not to name the source.
If he was a honourable man, mayby his word was his bond.
Regards Richard.

[harry]

Mike,
The courts can compel persons to attend.In the case of Hutchinson,the police did not compel him to walk the streets in the hope of sighting a person.Hutchinson did that voluntry.Now it could be accepted that a sum large enough to buy a beer or two might be given,perhaps a shiling,but in respect of 'Toppy',the figure stated was five pounds.
Regards.

[The Good Michael]

Now it could be accepted that a sum large enough to buy a beer or two might be given,perhaps a shiling,but in respect of 'Toppy',the figure stated was five pounds.

That's why I said the amount could have been off in my first post. Things tend to evolve through storytelling. It's even possible that 5 shillings in 1888 equaled 5 pounds or thereabout in 1980ish when Reginald told his story. In that case it could have been the equivalent of 5 pounds. For example, $1 in 1888 is about $9 in 1980. That sounds close to what we're looking at with shilling vs shilling. We don't know, but one thing is certain, police have always paid money for tips and in London it is done to the tune of millions of pounds.

Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
The sum mentioned was hundred shillings, on both radio, and in the book, It was never said the he was paid the equivilent of a fiver in the 1970s.
Fact is if Topping was Hutchinson, we have to determine why he should be paid such a large sum of money, for what appears to have been just a walkabout or two.
The radio broadcast mentioned that 'Dispite all his efforts in assisting the police, his biggest regret was 'Nothing came of it'.
My question is..what was all his efforts, what else was he asked to do to help secure arrest.
I am sorry for relating to that radio broadcast, and I appreciate that nobody else on Casebook has ever heard it, but myself, I can only give you my honest recollections of it.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

I know what was said or reportedly said. That doesn't mean it wasn't subject to change over time, erroneous, or a misquote.

Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
Agreed over time sums can be exaggerated, however the wheeling report does mention in 1888, the sum of five weeks wages was paid to the witness, and as that witness was a man called Hutchinson, it does ring true that indeed a large sum was paid to that gentleman.
That paper was known as a gossip paper, but as that sum would be approx one hundred shillings[ five weeks average manual workers wages] and it equals the sum that Topping always related to, that sounds like point proven to me.
Regards Richard.

[Dorian Gray]

You shall, Dorian. Meantime, I would like to express my gratitude for your objective, eloquent and erudite contributions. Long may they continue.

for Dorian...I echo Garry's sentiments. Your postings are a pleasure to read.

Garry, babybird67,

Thank you for your kind words. I have found your postings wonderful and informative. Indeed, I look forward to each new post.

Regards,

Dorian.

[Dorian Gray]

Here's something from the Straight Dope about handwriting analysis:

No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong--in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time." The most basic principles of handwriting analysis--for example, that everyone's handwriting is unique--had never been demonstrated. "The technique of comparing known writings with questioned documents appears to be entirely subjective and entirely lacking in controlling standards," the court wrote. Testimony by the government's handwriting expert was ruled inadmissible.

This is what several of us have been trying to say. We can all do it. Things like aging documents and detecting alterations require some expertise and tools, but all the rest seems to be based upon what the naked eye can tell. Look at the "Diary" for example. No one can conclusively say anything about it that satisfies everyone. In what I see, the similarities are far too great for chance. There really should be no argument against that, but there is. If someone wants to argue fraud, that's a different matter. This debate will never end, but I know the answer and that suffices for me. As a teacher, I know that I can't make everyone learn as hard as I might try. There comes a time where one simply must be satisfied in the knowing. I'm pretty much there.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike,

Thank you for your reply.

I composed a rather lengthy reply to your post above while I was away, but I do not wish to derail the thread. If you don't mind, I will start a new thread under Hutchinson, George, labelled, "The Admissibility of Scientific Evidence in the United States."

Regards,

Dorian.

[perrymason]

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.

Hi Sam,

I was still thinking about this after I logged off as I feel there must be an explanation for Hutchinson in the details somewhere, and Im troubled by the absence of police sentiments that suggest he was ever seen by them as a potential suspect despite essentially putting himself in Sarah Lewis's Wideawake Man's shoes, a man seen that night watching a soon to be crime scene. In fact they dont openly suggest that Wideawake may be the killer or his lookout....which are clearly possibilities for Wideawake Man. They do not connect Hutchinson with Wideawake after they heard his story Monday night...having already put Sarahs story on record that day. There must also be a good reason why the police felt there were "certain circumstances" that warranted an Accomplice pardon for only this murder initially....and yet when they have a possible accomplice in the form of Hutchinson as Wideawake, they dont suggest that he is suspicious by merely his presence there at that time.

Maybe......Flemming and/or Daniel Barnett of the Victoria Mens Home was Loitering Man with Wideawake Hat. They were likely there in connection with the murder that occurs that night, but it is unclear whether as an accomplice or lookout or as the killer. Both men would be recognizable by witnesses that appeared at the Inquest as being from Marys Janes inner circle. Either through a press report that weekend, which I believe exists in a local paper, or by the appearance at the Inquest on Monday,.. they/he learn that Ms Lewis stated that she saw a man watching Millers Court near 2am. At that time we have good reason to believe that either Blotchy Face is still inside with Mary, or he has left and she is alone.

Daniel or Joe Flemming then approach a friend and lodgemate at the Victoria Mens Home..(surely its an odd coincidence that Hutchinson and 2 of Marys closest friends live at the same boarding house, with so many others in the area)...he is offered money to go in to the police and make a statement that he was a friend of Marys and saw her enter her room with a suspicious man. As her friend he naturally wanted to be sure she was ok so he waited a bit to be sure no noise or screams came from the court....he likely would be in no danger of being suspected himself as a result.

Which as it turns out might just be the case, there is no document that shows us that Hutchinson was ever considered a suspect of any kind. Yet he logically should have been seen that way, especially after they disbelieve the story he came in with.

Why doesnt Hutch become a named suspicious person after placing himself in the shoes of Wideawake and then being discredited by the police? One guess is because the police never matched the 2 men. But why wouldnt they, there is obvious logic in assuming he was suspicious if he gave a false story and was in fact watching Marys room at 2am?

Im wondering whether this was because they suspected they knew the ID of the Wideawake Hat Man, that he wasnt this Hutchinson fellow, but they couldnt know whether the man loitering was watching so he could kill himself, or watching out for someone who did.

The pardon they issued on Saturday was in my opinion based at least in part on Sarah's loitering Wideawake Man.

When Hutch comes in Monday night, they now had someone in the room with Mary....becoming a primary suspect and relegating Wideawake to a probable lookout.

When they knew Hutch was lying about Astrakan....they had no further interest in him....they only saw Astrakan as being a possible factual element in the story, they never put Hutch in the shoes he places himself in as Wideawake because they felt they knew that man.

So he becomes a prank. Nothing more is said about him.

Isnt that roughly following the actual storyline?

Cheers Sam

[The Good Michael]

I feel there must be an explanation for Hutchinson in the details somewhere, and Im troubled by the absence of police sentiments that suggest he was ever seen by them as a potential suspect

Mike, you know, if you add this to everything else, it is virtually an impossibility that he was the murderer. He placed himself there at roughly the time of Kelly's death, yet was never suspected. The absence of anything surely must point to there being a thorough checking out of the man and either a dismissal of testimony because no one could be found that resembled his suspect, or a dismissal because his testimony wasn't believed. Either of those should have lead into an investigation of the man, and it must have occurred. It simply must have. This was the hottest case for generations. Could they just have let Hutch go without a thorough investigation? It really wasn't possible of they trusted his lead and ran around town looking.
Again, adding this to everything else we have, Hutch must be an innocent (of murder or anything regarding Kelly), but perhaps opportunistic man. Neither Toppy nor he had a criminal record. They had the same name, the same signature, lived in the same area, had the same fingerprints, and ate the same bangers and mash at the same tavern. Reggie was telling what he knew.

Cheers,

Mike

[harry]

Mike,
All monies paid by law enforcement agencies,are public monies,and have to be accounted for.That is,except for that paid unofficially(out of individuals pockets).While you may have evidence that millions are paid(annually?),that sum seems exceptional.I doubt though ,that in 1888,any large amounts were given.As I have previously stated,it was the civic duty of people to help police,then as now,and most did,without thought of reward.There were litterally,hundreds who came forward in the Ripper crimes,and Hutchinson seems the only one credited with receiving anything.I will need more convincing evidence before I accept it happened.
Regards.

[The Good Michael]

Harry,

Here you go: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8173638.stm

I don't make up stuff.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
I can say from experience that police are prepeared to pay for information, I was once stopped in the 1960s, and told to get in the back of a police car, at the same time saying, 'we have got you '
I had no idea what they were on about, and told them so, however another barrage of 'we are going to throw the book at you' remarks followed, it was only when they realised that I was not guilty of anything, they switched the subject to ' We know you are known in this town, if you want to earn a fiver, or more, just contact the nick...if you hear of anything.
The police have always relied on police informers, and will continue to do so in the future., however one hundred shillings back in 1888, was to much for a walkabout, so what was it for?
Regards Richard.