The Statement of George Hutchinson

Speculation. By all means, speculate. Invest your mental prowess in Toppy. It won't change a thing. Nope. Sorry. Toppy wasn't Hutch. I can prove it. I will do so. Defenders of the Ludicrous Order of Toppy, however, will have trouble doing likewise. All that is left is to talk about it, apparently ad infinitum-but faith is not logic, after all. Enjoy your micro arguments. Oh and Toppy isn't Hutch. NOW this the 1911 thread..

[Fisherman]

Of course, we do know that Toppy signed his 1911 census listing without adding any middle name. Maybe Mike is right here; he may have used the more posh middle name variety at times, when engaging with business associates and customers, whereas he did not do so when signing more trivial documents.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Well, the obvious reason one would switch from "George Hutchinson" to "George William Hutchinson" would be that there were two George Hutchinsons doing business in your town or at your bank. Obviously this is a "what if" scenario, but there are far less likely scenarios out there.

Also, when he became a plumber, George William sounded more distinguished. As you say, there are some obvious reasons. If He used GWH as a young man, then I don't see him dropping William late on in life. Adding it makes a lot of sense.

Cheers,

Mike

[Christine]

Well, the obvious reason one would switch from "George Hutchinson" to "George William Hutchinson" would be that there were two George Hutchinsons doing business in your town or at your bank. Obviously this is a "what if" scenario, but there are far less likely scenarios out there.

[The Good Michael]

Garry,

When I was a young man (lo these many years ago), I signed my name without my middle name. Now I use it. Things change, and I don't believe the addition of a middle name in later years means a thing. It is the sum of the parts that I look at. As for the idea that he wasn't investigated, how can you think that a person who was last seen in the area, had a description of a possible killer, and who admitted to being very acquainted with Kelly, was just glossed over by Badham and Abberline who undoubtedly spent many hours grilling him? That seems to me the height of impossibility.

Cheers,

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

I'm sorry, Mike, but nothing I've ever encountered in the police files or elsewhere even remotely suggests that Hutchinson was thoroughly investigated by Badham, Abberline or any other police officer. Let us not forget here that Peter Sutcliffe, who committed his crimes in a far more forensically sophisticated era, was interviewed by police on at least nine occasions and was never suspected of being the Yorkshire Ripper. And this can by no means taken as an isolated example. It need not necessarily be the case that an individual interrogated and cleared by police is innocent. The annals of crime are awash with cases which demonstrate this very point.

Equally, there is nothing about the signatures presently available that convinces me that Hutchinson and Toppy were one and the same. Whilst there is a certain stylistic similarity between the samples, there are sufficient differences to leave me unconvinced of a link of common authorship. Crucially, however, the signatures themselves are entirely different, to the extent that I cannot, for the life of me, comprehend how anyone can percieve concordance between 'George Hutchinson' and 'George William Hutchinson'. And if you can, Mike, please tell me that you don't work in the cheque endorsement department at my bank.

I suppose that, on this one, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

am of the belief that Hutchinson was at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder. On that basis alone, he merits close and careful investigation .

Garry,

I would suggest that he was given a close and careful investigation. He was interrogated by Badham and Abberline. He had to have been fairly thoroughly checked out. These things are much more than we can hope to achieve now that he's dead. Indeed, we have folks coming forward and telling us that Toppy, if he is Hutch, and I have no reason to doubt that any longer, wasn't a bad guy. If Toppy is Hutch, we have the police belief that his story amounted to something and at very least that he wasn't a criminal, and we have family anecodtal evidence. That combination is far more trustworthy than an inkling that something was amiss.

Cheers,

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

It's an interesting one, Sam. Another newspaper, on or about 15 November, was clearly suspicious about the microdetail inherent in Hutchinson's description of the Jewish-looking suspect. As such, I'm coming around to the view that a police officer (someone who had access to Hutchinson's witness statement) must have noticed the glaring inconsistencies between Hutchinson's police and press accounts. Another consideration is also the sheer implausibility of both accounts. The claim that Kelly was merely a little tipsy at 2:00am, for example, when other witnesses had her as blind drunk at midnight.

Irrespective of some of the opinions I have read on this and similar threads, I am of the belief that Hutchinson was at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder. On that basis alone, he merits close and careful investigation rather than the irrelevant nonsense of which the present thread largely consists.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

It's worth noting that it was Hutchinson's story that was reported as "discredited" by the Star, not Hutchinson himself. In this sense, "discredited" might simply have meant that the story was no longer believed.

I think thats a really interesting distinction there Gareth. If he told a story that was not believed, what does it matter whether the story or the man in general is what "discredited" refers to? Is someone who lies a liar...or is it just that the lie itself that is the offensive characteristic?

Was he disturbed mentally? There is no indication he was in the records...(save the fanciful invention of a horse head pinned Dandy)...but if he lied or told a falsehood intentionally without some kind of diminished mental capacity in evidence, then nothing else he might have said should be considered trustworthy.

Including that he was in fact there that night.

I do think this is a different case of extension of dis-belief than Caroline Maxwell's....I believe they assumed she told the truth, but didnt believe the medical evidence backed her story. Which leaves her as possibly a mistaken witness...not one that was deliberately incorrect. She may well have seen what she saw...but quite possibly on a different day. Therefore, she was not "discredited"....she was simply not believed, ....different animals. The records suggest he lied about his story.....whatever anyone takes from that account it should not be that he is still trustworthy regardless.

We all know the litmus test....and I hear "quacking".

Cheers Sam, all the best.

[Sam Flynn]

It's worth noting that it was Hutchinson's story that was reported as "discredited" by the Star, not Hutchinson himself. In this sense, "discredited" might simply have meant that the story was no longer believed.

[babybird67]

yes Ben very helpful thanks

i still havent made my mind up about Hutch. He's an annoying little thorn in my side right now!

[Ben]

Hi Jen,

Why was nothing officially confirmed as to what had discredited him?

If there was, it has regrettably been lost to us. As for any investigations being conducted to determine his motivation for lying, that cannot be ruled out either, but I'm unaware that Packer received any such treatment. Rather, it may simply have been a general acceptance that he was a publicity-seeker. They may well have cast Hutchinson in a similar role, rightly or wrongly.

How reasonable would it be to surmise in the circumstances that the Police were satisfied that there was no nefarious motive at the time?

I personally consider it unlikely that they could have procured proof to determine his guilt or otherwise, even if they did suspect him, for which we have no evidence. That doesn't mean they couldn't have arrived at the collective opinion that he didn't do it. A local nondescript labourer was worlds apart from the mad and/or foreign suspect that was evidently the preference at the time, and he had no pretentions to medecine or butchery.

Hope this helps,

Ben

[babybird67]

hi Ben

thanks for that.

Why was nothing officially confirmed as to what had discredited him? If his account was quickly thought to be untrue, was there really no investigation as to what had led him to lie?

How reasonable would it be to surmise in the circumstances that the Police were satisfied that there was no nefarious motive at the time?

[Ben]

Hi Jen,

Hutchinson's "discrediting" was first mentioned in The Star on 15th November, the same newspaper that had given it an enthusiastic endorsement the previous day, suggesting fairly strongly that whatever "discredited" him as a witness had occured at some point on 14th or 15th November, quite conceivably as a result of the various contradictions and embellishents that appeared in the press version of his account.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

general question about his statement..

when it is claimed that Hutch's statement was discredited, is this based upon the choice not to use him as a witness?