Only one man would know

[The Good Michael]

It's very unlikely that any witness received payment.

Ben,

Absolutely untrue. Throughout history people have been paid for information, and much of it is kept hushed. You know this very well. To say it is unlikely that ANYONE got paid is to refute something that is almost a certainty.

Cheers,

Mike

[Malcolm X]

One thing that leads me to suspect that Hutchinson was paid was that initially, he was believed. In fact, his description seems to have been trusted. No doubt some would say that this was because he painted a picture of someone who was stereotypically a man many could dislike and could believe did it ('e ain't one'uv us!). Yet, if money was paid out, it would make sense that they would want to have something to show for their money, and so took the lead very seriously, more seriously than other leads for which, perhaps no money was doled out.

Cheers,

Mike

On with the arguing!

yes maybe he was paid...... but he did not see Churchill, the original statement points towards him seeing a foreign person/Jew and ``i think i saw him down Petticoat lane``

if he saw Churchill or a posh British gent, his decription would've said so... the Churchill farce came much later and is obviously total rubbish.

he also did not see Churchill and was thus paid to hush it up/ change his description to a LA DE DA jew.... this is in the realms of ``cloud cookoo land`` and i very much doubt Hutch even knew what Churchill looked like at that time!

[Ben]

I meant in this particular case, Mike, for the reasons I've outlined above. Of course there are examples of people being paid "hush" money throughout history, but given the case-specifics involved here, it wouldn't have made sense. The likelihood of such a payment becoming public knowledge was just to great, and the consequences too grave to risk it.

Best regards.
Ben

[The Good Michael]

given the case-specifics involved here, it wouldn't have made sense. The likelihood of such a payment becoming public knowledge was just to great, and the consequences too grave to risk it.

I completely disagree that it was unlikely. Did it happen? I don't know. Makes sense to me, but to call it unlikely is to deny history. If you'd like, I kind find many examples of money being paid out by government and police for rewards throughout history. This instance is no different. In fact, it is quite likely. I'm not referring to Hutch, but as a generality. Police do pay people for information, and it isn't always published information.

Cheers,

Mike

[Malcolm X]

this is like the Royal Conspiracy theory........... no foundation in fact whatsoever, just idol speculation

[The Good Michael]

Malcolm,

You mean 'idle' speculation, I think, unless Hutchinson is an idol of sorts.

There is nothing as bad as the Royal Conspiracy, thank you very much.

Mike

[Ben]

It's phenomenonly unlikely in this particular case, Mike, unless the police were in the business of courting opprobrium of the type they could easily avoid. Payment may well occur in the instances where the information has been proven to have created a postive, tangibile result, but paying someone just for coming forward and giving an unverified witness statement? Doesn't seem very plausible to me. It would be tantamount to a advertisement to bogus witnesses throughout the country.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

We know that Hutchinson took time out to accompany some police officers in a search for Mr Astrakhan - I can't see him being expected to do that without at least some remuneration.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I can't see him saying "no" either, since a flat refusal would have equated to obstucting police business.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

Don't give an inch, do you? Instead of "possibly" it's "phenomenally unlikely". That doesn't sound open-minded to me. What gives?

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

I can't see him saying "no" either, since a flat refusal would have equated to obstucting police business.

Can you see them (the police, that is) insisting on Hutchinson's abandoning the chance of a days' work for no compensation at all? I can't, Ben.

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Don't give an inch, do you? Instead of "possibly" it's "phenomenally unlikely".

Fair enough, I'll settle with the middle-ground (between the two), which in this case would be; possibly, but not very likely, in my opinion.

Hi Gareth,

Can you see them (the police, that is) insisting on Hutchinson's abandoning the chance of a days' work for no compensation at all?

Not unless the police had adequate grounds for believing that he wouldn't have been earning at the time anyway. It's the same principle as jury service, I'd imagine; if you're unemployed at the time, you can't claim loss of earnings. It isn't inconceivable that they slipped him a few coins in compensation for loss of work-seeking opportunitues, but certainly not to the tune of 105 shillings!

All the best,
Ben

[Crystal]

Maybe they didn't have to insist-maybe he volunteered.

[Malcolm X]

Malcolm,

You mean 'idle' speculation, I think, unless Hutchinson is an idol of sorts.

There is nothing as bad as the Royal Conspiracy, thank you very much.

Mike

sorry my spelling is awfall i know........

this from Richard is like a ``Royal Conspiracy theory``
and no i dont mean you at all, just dont get suckered in.

[DVV]

We know that Hutchinson took time out to accompany some police officers in a search for Mr Astrakhan - I can't see him being expected to do that without at least some remuneration.

Possible, why not ?
But it doesn't prove anything. If Reg's story is a fabricated one, the payment could easily be part of the fabrication. Hutch spent time with the police, and time being money...
According to Richard, the sum was equivalent to 5 weeks salary.
A bit too much, for a witness discredited after one week, and who, apparently, did accompany the police a couple of times.
Remember how low was a PC salary at that time.

Amitiés,
David