Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Roy Corduroy]

There is no hiding that I think that Hutch was the Ripper.

Do you think he came forward using his real name? Or was George Hutchinson an alias.

Roy

[Rubyretro]

Do you think he came forward using his real name? Or was George Hutchinson an alias.

Roy

Roy -I have no idea at all whether the witness, George Hutchinson came forward using his 'usual' name or the name with which he was born.

It is striking that when we start looking at the biographies of any of the participants in the Ripper Story, so many of them do have aliases.

If the 'military appearance/bearing' had any foundation in a true army background ( quite likely, I think ?), then an 'alias' would become an even stronger possibility.

I think that, given the fact that according to contemporary sources, the lodging houses in Spitalfields were half empty in summer (because of the itinerant agricultural work available out of London to people of this station), our hutchinson was not a born and bred local resident.

An Hutchinson 'just passing through', using a name which doesn't appear on his birth certificate is the most probable and very difficult (not impossible !) to trace...

[Abby Normal]

Abby Normal
I will try and answer your questions – but I am a maybe sort of a person, and I also am more concerned with pointing out false assumptions that are taken as fact when they are not, rather than in proposing alternative theories.
So...
1. Do you think Lewis loiterer and Hutch are the same man?

There is a possibility they are but I am by no means certain as I believe there is a discrepancy between a military appearance and ‘not tall but stout’ and I am slightly suspicious that Hutchinson made a whole lot up that night. Also many people lived in Dorset Street there had to be a good possibility that someone would be hanging around at any given time. Hutchinson said he didn’t see her as well.

2. Do you believe Hutch's claim that he loitered? If so, why do you think he waited there.

If he did loiter then he was probably at best a nosey parker and at worst a sad stalker.

3. Do you believe Hutch's claim about A-man? Do you believe he could have remembered all that detail?

I believe it is possible to remember that amount of detail but unlikely. He may have someone and over elaborated. Or he may not really have seen anyone. I am not sure.

4. In General, what do you believe and not believe about hutch's story?

I think he at least over-elaborated the A-man story and may have made it up totally – or maybe deliberately inserting an event from a previous night - in order to get some cheap notoriety and maybe some easy money from the police.
I suspect he didn’t see the A-man on the Sunday – that sounds like a justification for going out looking for him in the area - to get money.
I don’t think he knew Kelly for three years as she had moved around a lot, although he may have vaguely known her.
I think he probably went to Romford and got back late, spoke to a policeman about the case, spoke to another inmate about it and lived in the Victoria Home. These things could be easily verified by the police – then again that may mean that one or several of these items are not true and may be why he was dismissed.

5. Why do you believe he was "dropped" by police as a witness?

I think he was dropped as his story was not corroborated or conflicted with better evidence. It could be because he got the nights wrong, or could be that his story unravelled for other reasons. I think they will have checked him out in various ways and that will have led to his story being disbelieved. Maybe someone like Abberline didn’t want to admit he had been taken in by a pack of lies and so didn’t press the point as he didn’t want to look stupid. Don’t forget the police were very jumpy by this stage and sensitive to criticism. That could explain why Dew still thought Hutchinson was honest.

6. Do you believe Toppy and hutch were the same man?

I think there is a good chance they were.

7. Do you believe Hutch is a viable suspect in MK's murder? As JtR?

Not if he was Toppy at all. But having said I think Hutchinson is fairly viable in general compared to other Ripper suspects (most of whom are really poor).
My objections are that as he was in the police’s direct vision they are likely to have given him and his story fairly close scrutiny.
I don’t think it is likely that his appearance at Commercial Street police station had anything to do with Lewis’s testimony at the inquest.
I don’t think the Victoria Home was a suitable base for the Ripper given its restrictions on late night entry.
A Ripper based around the Victoria Home area signifies to me a disorganised killer, roving out from his central base. For Hutchinson to be the culprit, he has to exhibit a much more organised and calculating approach.
For the one killing that Hutchinson can be linked to it requires a change in his MO on several levels – he becomes a stalker, prowler, voyeur who deliberately kills someone he knows in doors and inserts himself in the investigation.
If he was spotted by Lewis the more usual response would be to flee to another part of London which would be easily done.
I think there’s a good chance he was Toppy who lived a normal life in the area thereafter.

I think Hutchinson is an interesting case which is probably why the various threads tend to go on at length – although repetitive posts obviously boost those numbers!

Hi Lechmere
Thanks for that. I really don't have a problem with any of what you say-except perhaps that someone with a military bearing could not be short! I'd give that one up if I were you! Haha!.

Any way, I look at things as probabilities and what i think is most likely- so right off the bat I will say that Hutch and Lewis loiterer were probably the same person. Hutch was probably not a day off. The one I feel strongest about is A-man. I just find that much detail the most improbable. So, Once I have my major probablies to get anywhere i take the next step. what I come up with is this:

Hutch Lied about A-man, so what then: Did he see anyone with MK that night out on the street? I say no, because if he saw MK with a regular Joe he would have told the police he saw her with a regular Joe. No need to make up A-man because he probably then did see her murderer and JtR and if he wanted to profit off it he would be looking for the man he saw and describing that man to police, not A-man. So no A-man and no anybody with MK that night.

So, we have Hutch that does not see Aman or anyone else with MK that night, what next?

Does he see her out alone on the street that night? probably not. I think in all probability taking the other witnesses claims-- that MK was done for the night when she comes home with Blotchy. Pail of beer, Very drunk, lots of singing, poor weather all point to me that she aint going anywhere after Blotchy.

So then probably Hutch is out there waiting for Blotchy to leave. But why, To kill MK or looking for a place to crash? This is where I have to be totally honest with myself. If say my life depended on making the right choice I would say chances are he is not JtR, there for he was waiting for someone else to leave so He could ask MK if he could crash. (So also, obviously he knew her.) When it looks like MK's guest is not leaving, Hutch is out of luck and gives up. Later making up A-man for the police to try and get something out of his unsuccessful vigil. So in all probability in my mind hutch was not JtR but he was at least a liar.

That being said, other than Blotchy he is the best known candidate as MK's killer and JtR IMHO. barnett as jilted lover who comes to her room after hutch leaves is also a(slight) possibility in my mind.

[Lechmere]

But Kelly could have gone out again after 3 and found another client for all we know.

[Rubyretro]

But Kelly could have gone out again after 3 and found another client for all we know.

-she was drunk
-the pubs were shut
-the weather was cold and wet
-her room was warm with a fireplace
-she had just made some money from Blotchy

Why an earth would she go out "after 3" , Lechmere ?

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"Why an earth would she go out "after 3" , Lechmere ?"

Read again, Ruby. Lechmere - who has a very good grip on things, and does not resort to guesswork - did not say that she "would" have gone out after 3. He said that she COULD have. And how does that cut with your points? Let´s see:

-she was drunk

There is good reason to believe she was at least partly intoxicated after 3 AM, but it is very hard to say just how much. Hutchinson merely called her "spreeish" (owing, of course to him seeing her on Thursday and not Friday morning ) And no matter how we look upon it, there is ample evidence that drunken people sometimes go out.

-the pubs were shut

They were. But according to Hutchisonians, the streets, and most particularly Dorset Street, may well have been absolutely swarming with loud people between 2.15 and 3 AM. And if that is true, we may safely assume that these hoards had the odd drunkard amongst them.

-the weather was cold and wet

Absolutely! But Sarah Lewis did go out into it, the loiterer outside Crossinghams did, the couple Lewis saw did, the overcoatless man and the woman he spoke to did ... well, you get the drift!

-her room was warm with a fireplace

Maybe so - but there can be no certainty in suggesting that all the people who were out and about on that morning had left cold rooms behind, I´m afraid.

-she had just made some money from Blotchy

She did? Aha. Well, I suppose that can be passed off as a viable suggestion, although as far as I know there are no records at all telling us that this was the case. Nor are there any records telling us that Blotchy was a punter, although the guess as such is not a bad one.
On the other hand, the fewest of punters settle for an hour or two of singing on behalf of their chosen lady. Plus, if Blotchy still WAS a punter, who can tell how he payed? He had drink with him, and that may have done the trick.
Whichever way, it has very little bearing on any suggestion that Kelly would have stayed in because she had been payed (if this was the case). Many a prostitute manage more than one client per night, and not all of them see beercarrying punters with blotchy faces as the evenings´ stopping point when it comes to potential takings.

So yes, Kelly could - but not necessarly would (we can´t tell, can we, Ruby?) - have gone out after 3 AM. Lechmere is perfectly correct in that. In fact, when he says something, the better guess is that he has good reason for it. I for one normally bank on that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

But Kelly could have gone out again after 3 and found another client for all we know.

Hi Lechmere
She could have but in my mind for the reasons I previously stated she probably did not. But you're absolutely correct- she could have.

She could have also been out when Hutch said he saw her after Blotchy and before "A-man" but as I said I am starting to think that he may not have seen her out on the streets at all when he claims he did.
No other witness said they saw her during that time period.

[Abby Normal]

-she was drunk
-the pubs were shut
-the weather was cold and wet
-her room was warm with a fireplace
-she had just made some money from Blotchy

Why an earth would she go out "after 3" , Lechmere ?

Hi Ruby
as I stated earlier, I am starting to doubt wether she went out after Blotchy(let alone after 3:00), which means Hutch did not see her out at all.
What do you think about that? Do you think she went out again after Blotchy?

[Ben]

Without wishing to get too sidetracked, I too wanted to endorse Ruby’s sensible points.

There is no credible non-discredited evidence that Kelly emerged from her room after returning there with Blotchy. The strong indication is that Kelly stopped singing shortly after 1.00am when Mary Cox headed out for the last time. Elizbath Prater arrived at the entrance to Miller’s Court shortly afterwards; by which time, the frivolities had clearly ceased. Prater stated that she would have noticed a glimmer of light (from Kelly’s room) through the partition had there been one, but no light was noticed as she ascended the staircase to her room at 1.30am. The next sighting of the room occurred at around 3.00am when, according to Mary Cox, there was no light or noise coming from Kelly’s room.

This sequence of events would suggest to me that Kelly retired for the night between 1.00 and 1.30, perhaps following some intimacy and certainly some booze with her Blotchy companion. It isn’t impossible that she headed out afterwards, but I consider it unlikely. When Cox last saw her shortly before 12.00 Kelly was barely capable of bidding her a simple goodnight, such was the extent of her intoxication, and there was still Blotchy’s ale-pail to consume, which she almost certainly did. The idea that she would convert to mere “spreeishness” a couple of hours later doesn’t bear scrutiny.

But back to Toppy….

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"There is no credible non-discredited evidence that Kelly emerged from her room after returning there with Blotchy."

No "credible non-discredited evidence"?? Me oh my!

There is no evidence EITHER WAY! And just as the evidence does not allow us to leisurely name the loiterer Hutchinson, it does not allow us to exclude the possibility that Kelly DID go out after 3 AM.

"The idea that she would convert to mere “spreeishness” a couple of hours later doesn’t bear scrutiny."

In this case, Ben, I am with you to a significant extent. I too am of the opinion that Kelly being only spreeish at 2 AM is something that arouses suspicion. But that does not mean that I am prepared to draw firm conclusions from it. Cox´s judgement was drawn from a short sighting, and she may have gotten things wrong to a greater or lesses extent. Therefore, although it serves my theory eminently to have a gloriously drunk Kelly at close to midnight, and a merely spreeish one at 2 AM, I accept that she could have been less intoxicated than one may be lead to believe by Cox´testimony, and, likewise, she may have had more alcohol in her blood at 2 AM than Hutchinson perceived.

Come to think of it; what if Hutchinson saw her the day BEFORE; that would explain a thing or two

It is a comfy position to take - I don´t need to speak of any tongue-wriggling "credible non-discredited evidence" that way!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

Without wishing to get too sidetracked, I too wanted to endorse Ruby’s sensible points.

There is no credible non-discredited evidence that Kelly emerged from her room after returning there with Blotchy. The strong indication is that Kelly stopped singing shortly after 1.00am when Mary Cox headed out for the last time. Elizbath Prater arrived at the entrance to Miller’s Court shortly afterwards; by which time, the frivolities had clearly ceased. Prater stated that she would have noticed a glimmer of light (from Kelly’s room) through the partition had there been one, but no light was noticed as she ascended the staircase to her room at 1.30am. The next sighting of the room occurred at around 3.00am when, according to Mary Cox, there was no light or noise coming from Kelly’s room.

This sequence of events would suggest to me that Kelly retired for the night between 1.00 and 1.30, perhaps following some intimacy and certainly some booze with her Blotchy companion. It isn’t impossible that she headed out afterwards, but I consider it unlikely. When Cox last saw her shortly before 12.00 Kelly was barely capable of bidding her a simple goodnight, such was the extent of her intoxication, and there was still Blotchy’s ale-pail to consume, which she almost certainly did. The idea that she would convert to mere “spreeishness” a couple of hours later doesn’t bear scrutiny.

But back to Toppy….

Hi Ben
In a previous post before Ruby's I had also pointed out those reasons(MK very drunk, pail of beer with Blotchy,singing, bad weather) as why I think that MK probably did not venture out after Blotchy. And you have further pointed that the other witnesses have the room dark and quiet by 1-1:30 indicating that she was probably retired by that time.

Also, I find it telling that no one other than Hutch saw her out after that time. You would think if she was out then someone else would have seen her.

[Ben]

I agree entirely, Abby.

The client pickings would also have been very slim after 3.00am in bad weather.

it does not allow us to exclude the possibility that Kelly DID go out after 3 AM.

I’m not excluding the “possibility”, Fisherman. I’m dismissing the suggestion as improbable, because it relies on the discredited evidence being correct and the police-endorsed evidence, given under oath, being mistaken. I’m glad we seem to be in agreement over this, because to argue otherwise would very much undermine your published theory.

My reference to “credible non-discredited evidence” is not “tongue wiggling”, but an accurate and appropriate description of Mary Cox’s account.

[Rubyretro]

What do you think about that? Do you think she went out again after Blotchy?

[/QUOTE]

Abbey..

-I don't think that Blotchy was the killer at all : the Ripper's MO was to strike fast and in silence -not to sit about drinking and singing and being observed by the neighbours. The carroty 'blotchy' physique is pretty individual , too.
Re: Harry's thread...I think that Blotchy was happy to look Mrs Cox full in the face...not the Ripper's style..

-So that would mean that either Mary went out again after Blotchy (but I've already explained why I think that she didn't) or the Ripper stalked her home and waited until Blotchy left... (a 'loiterer' anyone ?).

I agree with Garry that Hutchinson certainly didn't speak to Mary that
night...at least in the immediate hours before the murder : that 'spreeish' is a
lovely example of 'sitting on the fence' and not giving an opinion one way or the other..

[DVV]

that 'spreeish' is a
lovely example of 'sitting on the fence' and not giving an opinion one way or the other..

Excellent point, madame Ruby !

[Ben]

Yes, a very astute observation, Ruby.

It's as though he didn't want to "commit" himself to any definite impression as to the extent of her intoxication or otherwise, in order to avoid being contradicted by doctors and other witnesses who were in a genuine position to determine such things. I suspect he never mentioned Kelly's clothing for the same reason - he didn't know what she was wearing before she retired for the night.

All the best,
Ben