Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Marlowe]

The next important question regarding Hutchinson should be:

Was Hutchinson a "N-A-V-V-I-E"?

If the answer is yes and it turns out that he was also born in 66, then let me just say, "Here's to the devil, With his wooden pick and shovel".... :-))

And as for Jack's favorite tunes, how about this oldie but goodie, called Navvy On The Line...

"I'm a nipper, I'm a ripper, I'm a navvy on the line...All the ladies love the navvies, And the navvies love the fun, There'll be plenty little babies When the railway's done..."

(keep up the good work, folks!)

Marlowe

[perrymason]

Hi again,

Its not that Rader took breaks,...its that he hadnt finished killing. Had Toppy finished in 1911...or was he on a break since November 9th, 1888? If he killed in between those times, where are they?.....Why do we have vehement statements from the medical authorities and investigators...almost unanimously agreeing Jack the Ripper stopped after Mary Kelly? That it was just those 5.

I just posted this on another thread, but I think its very relevant here...

Hutchinsons story was believed for a few days, that meant the Police believed his story, and the man seen with Mary was likely the last one with her and her killer. The police never associated the story of Wideawake with George Hutchinson...we have no reason other than our own curiousity and logic to match Wideawake with Hutchinson. Hutch didnt say he was Wideawake when giving his story, though Wideawake was known and on record and surely would have been looked at based on Georges story. He isnt asked to be seen by Sarah...nor does he claim to be the man in the Wideawake hat.

Which begs the question....if Astrakan is supposed by the Police to be the killer for a few days, and Hutch is the man believed to have seen Mary and Astrakan enter her room, but he is not directly associated with the story of Wideawake that preceded his story by the Police, or himself....then who was Wideawake, and what do they think he was doing there?

Issuance of a Pardon for Accomplices..."at any rate, after the fact"... the day after Marys murder might answer that.

Even though Hutch places himself at the scene where another witness stated she saw a man with a Wideawake Hat...there is no indication anywhere the conclusion by the authorities was that they were the same person.

Best regards all.

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"obviously Reg's story argues strongly against Toppy as the witness, far more, in my opinion, than the signatures could argue in his favour."

I find this slightly hard to swallow, David. To begin with, the signatures are first-hand evidence as Crystal has correctly pointed out.
Reg´s story is not - if we look away from the radio program that Richard speaks of, we only have what parts the authors of the famed book found fit to print. We can be sure that it is sifted, and we cannot swear ourselves free from the possibility that much of it is tinted by the authors. It may have been force-fed to Reg, wawing with a paycheck.
Therefore, we should not start speaking of the evidence value of Reg´s participation in that book on the same day as we speak of the signatures. It is not a relevant comparison, whatever we choose to believe of it.

In this context, I would also like to take the opportunity to say that we must not blame Reg for having asked too little about it all. We simply don´t know how much he was told, and what he was told, by Toppy. For all we know, he may have served a lot more than the authors chose to bring to the table - for it is a striking thing that what they DID choose to bring there was only material that fit their own agenda in a very precise manner. Let´s not forget that.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Its not that Rader took breaks,...its that he hadnt finished killing.

How do you know, Mike?

For all we know, Rader could have resolved completely to stop, only to decide at a later period to start up again. We don't know what Rader's mindset was at the time. Did he decide to stop, or simply to pause for a while? The ripper could have resorted to precisely the same tactic; deciding to stop and possibly making a conscious decision to resume ripping activities anew at a later point.

Why do we have vehement statements from the medical authorities and investigators...almost unanimously agreeing Jack the Ripper stopped after Mary Kelly?

He may have done, but it would still be imprudent to place weight in the vehemence of statements made by police officials who had no knowledge of experience in serial crime or its perpetrators.

All completely moot, of course, since I don't believe for a moment that Toppy was the witness or the killer.

Hutchinsons story was believed for a few days, that meant the Police believed his story, and the man seen with Mary was likely the last one with her and her killer. The police never associated the story of Wideawake with George Hutchinson...we have no reason other than our own curiousity and logic to match Wideawake with Hutchinson. Hutch didnt say he was Wideawake when giving his story, though Wideawake was known and on record and surely would have been looked at based on Georges story. He isnt asked to be seen by Sarah...nor does he claim to be the man in the Wideawake hat.

And I countered with:

But there's no indication anywhere that the police believed he wasn't either, and if they believed him for a couple of days but didn't identify him with wideawake, they'd have been embracing the same implausible "coincidence" that I outline above. Obviously, Astrakhan would have deflected suspicion away from both Blotchy and Wideawake, albeit temporarily. Hutchinson's account of his movements mirror the actions of the widewake man too closely to be dismissed as coincidence. If Hutchinson lied about his very presence there, he was outrageously unlucky that the circumstances of his lie just happened to coincide with the recorded circumstances of a person who really was reported at the scene.

But I really think we should try to avoid duplicate threads.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi David,

It may be worth pointing out that it is most unlikely that Fairclough and Sickert enticed Reg into making those rather bizarre observations. I know of several ripper authors who established contact with Reg themselves, all of whom came away decidedly unconvinced and chose not to include Toppy and Reg in their forthcoming books for that reason.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
We should not forget that Reg, was only twenty years old when his father died, and his youngest son was eighteen, it seems extremely unlikely that the former who appears to have recalled his recollections on radio[ not believed by many to have existed] and in Faircloughs publication, knew of the Ripper case, infact i am led to believe that he was clueless , and had to read about it.
That being the case isnt it strange, that on radio in the 1970s[ sorry but i did hear it] and in the infamous book of 1992, that the mention of money was raised, he clearly made reference to that in both.
Yet the fact is, no mention of that was published at the time of the murders by any publication , except one obscure article, that Ripperology only found a couple of years back.
It would be almost certain that GWTH, and Reg never came across Wheelers, so how did the paynent enter the story, if it was all a hoax?
I have mentioned that point many times before, but it has been brushed over , with non satisfactory replies.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"It may be worth pointing out that it is most unlikely that Fairclough and Sickert enticed Reg into making those rather bizarre observations. I know of several ripper authors who established contact with Reg themselves, all of whom came away decidedly unconvinced and chose not to include Toppy and Reg in their forthcoming books for that reason."

How likely or unlikely it was that Reg was "fed" some of the stuff from the book must be anybodys guess, I think. But even if you don´t make something up yourself, you can often reach the results you are looking for by choosing only the parts that will serve to that effect.
I know. I am a journalist...

Is there any possibility that you could elaborate a bit on those other writers, Ben, and what they said about Reg?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I find this slightly hard to swallow, David.
Fisherman

With a nice akwavit, Fish, that will be o'right!
More seriously, I simply think that we have a common aim: we want to know if we have found Hutch or not.
And we have to consider everything, in my view, ie, comparing hanwritings, but also Reg's story with the little we know about Hutch.
Let's go on, Fish, please, and we shall see.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Reg's story

Re. Reg's story... let's not forget that it is also Fairclough's story.

[DVV]

Hi David,

It may be worth pointing out that it is most unlikely that Fairclough and Sickert enticed Reg into making those rather bizarre observations. I know of several ripper authors who established contact with Reg themselves, all of whom came away decidedly unconvinced and chose not to include Toppy and Reg in their forthcoming books for that reason.

Best regards,
Ben

Hi Ben,
certainly Reg's story is bizarre.
Bizarre in itself, mon cher cousin.
And even more bizarre if it came from the real Hutch.

Amitiés,

[DVV]

Re. Reg's story... let's not forget that it is also Fairclough's story.

Hi Sam,
this thread taught me that this story, or at least its nucleus, did exist before Fairclough met Reg.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,
this thread taught me that this story, or at least its nucleus, did exist before Fairclough met Reg.

Not the bit about Randolph Churchill, Dave - perhaps more besides. Let's face it - The Ripper and the Royals is hardly the best example of dry, unsensational reportage one could think of.

[DVV]

Hi again Sam,
so, was the "nucleus" of this family tradition reliable?
And if so, how do you explain that it has completely disappeared?

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

so, was the "nucleus" of this family tradition reliable?

Let's put it this way, Dave - I'm fairly convinced that the Randolph Churchill bit wasn't part of that nucleus. Indeed, the very idea that the Ripper was "someone high up in society" (or whatever) could have come from any of the several urban myths that proliferated about the Ripper during the last century, which had received an enormous boost in the public imagination thanks to Stephen Knight's best-selling book.

As to the core of the nucleus (pardon the tautology), Toppy may just have told Reg that he'd seen Mary Kelly with her killer - with some elaboration, perhaps, but probably not to the extent that a named personage (still less Randolph Churchill) was implicated.

And if so, how do you explain that it has completely disappeared?

I don't know that it has, Dave - but I can fully understand why the family might not want to wash their ancestral laundry on a public forum.

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"More seriously, I simply think that we have a common aim: we want to know if we have found Hutch or not.
And we have to consider everything, in my view, ie, comparing hanwritings, but also Reg's story with the little we know about Hutch."

I´m with you on the issue of the common aim, with a light alteration; I genuinely think that we HAVE found Hutch. But you are aware of this already!
On the rest, I am just warning about measuring the signatures and the Rag saga against each other and allowing them the same weight. If we do so and if we allow ourselves to speculate that Reg´s story in fact tells us that Toppy was NOT the Dorset Street witness, well, then we end up with a tie. And I don´t use ties - they make my neck itch.

The best,
Fisherman