The Statement of George Hutchinson

Ben you are a smart man and a good friend, but the essence of what Im suggesting is in the records,..if only in their absence. I dont see any restrictive elements in the memos and reports that were submitted regarding the Canonical investigations, in that if someone was suspected of something that they wouldnt come right out and say so. Dont we have 3 named suspects without any real evidence against any one of them?

If Hutchinson had been thought of as anything but a pain in the ass diversion from the actual facts of the case, they would have said so. To my knowledge there is not one contemporary source or even credible press report that suggests or intimates that GH should be or was suspicious by his false statement. Not one suggestion that he is Wideawake Man. Which to me suggests he was exactly as he appears to be, a man they thought made up a story. Not just parts of one.

My best regards Ben

[Ben]

It seems some modern researchers would think then that his admission of being at a certain location that is corroberated by a credible witness, but not for the reasons he suggested Monday night, make him a viable suspect.

That's because it does, Mike.

It became public knowledge on the afternoon of 12th November that Sarah Lewis had noticed a man standing opposite the court, apparently watching or waiting for someone at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly's death. Later that afternoon, Hutchinson came forward with a claim to have done precisely that. As far as I'm concerned, there is little escaping the conclusion that he realised he'd been seen and came forward to legitimize his presence.

The fact that we have "not one quotation from anyone connected with that incident suggests that the contemporary police thought he should be treated as suspicious" permits us to conclude one of the following:

1) They never enterained the possibility of Hutchinson being Kelly's killer or the ripper.

In which case, if Hutchinson was the killer, his ploy worked perfectly. It would mean his intended tactic of duping the police into believing that his presence at the crime scene was prompted by innocent circumstances worked brilliantly, as did his blame-shifting in the direction of his fictional creation: "Mr. Astrakhan", a bogeyman Jewish black bag-wielding stereotype designed to deflect suspicion away from himself.

Or...

2) They rejected his story and suspected him as a consequence.

In which case, there's no reason at all for assuming that they were ever in a position to determine his guilt or innocence. It's one thing to suspect somebody of nefarious deeds, but quite another to prove or deny it either way; a problem faced by countless police forces over many decades. Just look as Gary Ridgway. They suspected him. They couldn't prove anything. They let him go.

Its clear they didnt think he was Sarah's loitering man, and that he likely was nowhere near there at 3am.

No, that isn't "clear" at all. We have no evidence either way. They may not have entertained the possibility that he was the wideawake man (as above - see point #1), they may have thought he was, but couldn't prove it (as above - see point #2), but to decide with no evidence whatsoever that he was not the wideawake man is a bit fallacious, especially in light of Lewis' evidence.

[DVV]

Hi Mike,

on the contrary, I think Abberline did believe Hutch because he could be the man seen by Lewis.

Amitiés,
David

The one thing we do know here.....is that a Senior Investigator withdrew his support of whomever said he was GH of the Victoria Home, and that the investigation logged his statement, set it aside by the 16th, and once again investigated the last official sighting, that of a Blotchy Faced Man at 11:45pm on November 8th.

It seems some modern researchers would think then that his admission of being at a certain location that is corroberated by a credible witness, but not for the reasons he suggested Monday night, make him a viable suspect. Though not one quotation from anyone connected with that incident suggests that the contemporary police thought he should be treated as suspicious for making a false claim and being seen loitering near a murder site.

In fact the mere dismissal of him and his claims outright, which seems to be the case here, suggests they did not believe excerpts of his story either, and therefore he was not considered to be the Wideawake Man by police. If he was considered as such, we would have some indication of that suspicion on record. We dont.

For reasons known to only those policemen, he was considered a liar.

So Romford walks, sixpence loan requests, Astrakan Man, and his loitering may well all be fictional. There has never been any proof or real interest in the possibility that he was Wideawake by the police, obviously....so why do some modern researchers still want to make something of him as suspect?

Its clear they (investigators) didnt think he was Sarah's loitering man, and that means they thought he likely was nowhere near there at 3am.

Wideawake is suspicious...... but Hutchinson has become nothing more than tedious...and they are not likely the same.

Best regards all.

[DVV]

You better take some vacation and come here, my friend.
Have no time to go to the post office till September!

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

my village is full of cute girls

You lucky thing, Dave!

Mine isn't, so send some over!

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

How can you say that?

That doesn't follow at all.

People who usually claim that they saw Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper as part of a murder series involving the Royal family "are more often that not telling the truth"?

You can't have meant to suggest this.

If you want to determine whether or not someone told the truth, you have to examine their claim. If that claim is found to be lacking in veracity, the likelihood of the originator telling the truth is markedly reduced. It doesn't matter in the slightest if other people heard what the originator claimed and related it to others. That doesn't improve the quality of the original claim. It just means that the suspect tale has been circulated.

According to your above logic, I'm supposed to ignore the actual content of the claim, but simply assume it must be correct because statistically most people tell the truth when they say they saw something (?!?). Is that how police forces interview witnesses and suspects? "Well Sir, your tale is totally implausible and outlandish, but I'm forced to believe you, because most people tell the truth when they say they've seen something....apparently".

Come on...

If you want to determine the veracity of a claim, you have to get right to the heart of the matter by examining its content.



That's not corroboration.

That's people listening to a story and passing it on.

The kids who believed their dad's tale that Santa exists and told their friends about it do not "corroborate" the existence of Santa.



Not really. I just don't see the need to mention hundreds and thousands when there clearly weren't hundreds and thousands. Fundamentally, however, it's essential to understand the difference between corroboration and hearsay. They are not the same thing. If I lie to five people, and those five people relate to a group of others "Here's what Ben told me", they are not "corroborating" me. They're just passing on what I told them.

Y'see?

All the best,
Ben

You're right, Ben,

and here in Provence, the sun is shining, my village is full of cute girls... everything is all right.
However, those who accuse us to have an agenda are right.
But it's pastis 51, mojitos and pretty girls.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Just you look out, Mike - they are liars, the whole bunch of them...

Say hello to Fiji from me!

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

It was a nice day here too. Nearly the end of finals week and then a trip to Fiji and maybe New Caledonia. I may run into one of Hutch's many ancestors. Who knows?

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Hi Mike!

I do recognize it, yes. But this time I had decided to give it a few tries, and then - if nothing could be done - I would just leave it to the other posters to make up their own minds.

And no - nothing CAN be done, just like you say.

Still, it´s a brisk, fine day over here, the sun is shining and there are not many clouds about to challenge it. Think I´ll take your advice!

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Remember what we talked about? Nothing can be done, I'm afraid. I believe only family can ask for an intervention, with the help of qualified counselors, but even then the patient has to allow it. Nothing you do can help. Ignore is a great option at this point.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

And that in itself increases the possibility that he was the witness, for the simple reason that people who claim such things are more often than not telling the truth.

How can you say that?

That doesn't follow at all.

People who usually claim that they saw Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper as part of a murder series involving the Royal family "are more often that not telling the truth"?

You can't have meant to suggest this.

If you want to determine whether or not someone told the truth, you have to examine their claim. If that claim is found to be lacking in veracity, the likelihood of the originator telling the truth is markedly reduced. It doesn't matter in the slightest if other people heard what the originator claimed and related it to others. That doesn't improve the quality of the original claim. It just means that the suspect tale has been circulated.

According to your above logic, I'm supposed to ignore the actual content of the claim, but simply assume it must be correct because statistically most people tell the truth when they say they saw something (?!?). Is that how police forces interview witnesses and suspects? "Well Sir, your tale is totally implausible and outlandish, but I'm forced to believe you, because most people tell the truth when they say they've seen something....apparently".

Come on...

If you want to determine the veracity of a claim, you have to get right to the heart of the matter by examining its content.

The more corroboration we get on the story that Toppy laid claim to be the witness, the larget the chance that he actually did.

That's not corroboration.

That's people listening to a story and passing it on.

The kids who believed their dad's tale that Santa exists and told their friends about it do not "corroborate" the existence of Santa.

Are you concerned that people may get the impression that a hundred thousand people say that Toppy had claimed he was the witness?

Not really. I just don't see the need to mention hundreds and thousands when there clearly weren't hundreds and thousands. Fundamentally, however, it's essential to understand the difference between corroboration and hearsay. They are not the same thing. If I lie to five people, and those five people relate to a group of others "Here's what Ben told me", they are not "corroborating" me. They're just passing on what I told them.

Y'see?

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben, you are not fully understanding the mechanisms here. But I will explain! I have made practical AND theoretical examples, and that may be what has you confused.

"If true, it would simply pinpoint Toppy as the originator of the tale.
It wouldn't increase the likelihood of the tale."

Ben, what you need to realize here is that I am NOT saying much about the likelihood of Toppys tale. I am saying that if we can establish that he DID make the claim, then that in itself means that we have more to go on than we would have without that insight. And that in itself increases the possibility that he was the witness, for the simple reason that people who claim such things are more often than not telling the truth. If we divide all those who say "I was there" - in ANY context - into groups of liars and truthful people, we will end up with a much bigger group of truthful testifiers than liars; people who say "I saw it" generally do so because they did. People who say "I did it" generally say so because they did. Not all - some lie, for a variety of reasons. But if we take - for example - all the ones who say "I was in Barcelona last week", you will find that the overwhelming part of them actually were there.

Therefore this applies:

1. The more corroboration we get on the story that Toppy laid claim to be the witness, the larger the chance that he actually did make that claim.

2. In accordance with the above - that people more often than not tell the truth about what they have done/seen/heard - the chances increase that Toppy was the witness with every corroborating voice telling us that he made the claim.

I am having trouble to see why you think it somehow unfair to prove this using a comparison involving a huundred thousand people on a football stadium. Are you concerned that people may get the impression that a hundred thousand people say that Toppy had claimed he was the witness?
That comparison was made to make it extremely clear that there is a connection between corroboration and truth, and that this connection grows with growing corroboration. And yet, it can be argued that the most important corroboration is the first one - until we have that, we have nothing to go on, but once we have it, we have changed the picture radically. More corroboration will strengthen the case, but corroboration number one is the all-important one. And that is the one given to us by Reg´s younger brother.

Now, let´s not confuse this any further!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

was just indicating that the witness was paid that, not a actual reference to hutchinsons work status at the time.

It said he was paid "five times his normal salary", but as we learn from Abberline's report, Hutchinson did not have a "normal salary". He was without regular employment, entitling him to very little reibursement for his efforts and certainly not the implausibly loopy sum referred to by Reg.

The fact is Ben , Topping refered to a payment which would relate to a sum that Wheeling stated

No! Did I not just explain this? It does not relate to the sum Wheeling mentioned (in an American press report headlined "Gossip" that was contradicted by pretty much every other press source). The Wheeling didn't even give a sum. Five times the normal salary of someone without regular employment does not equal five pounds, so no, it doesn't tally with any claim made by Reg. Nor indeed was the reason. Wheeling claimed that "some clever individual" had "invented" a description of someone seen with Kelly and was paid to accompany police round the district. Reg claimed his father was paid hush money to conceal the fact that he'd seen Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper with Kelly.

how did Topping know all about the witness Hutchinson

By reading the contemporary press accounts from the time of the murders, of course. He was almost certainly living in London at the time (and resident in Warren Street in the West End in 1891), and must surely have read Hutchinson's account in the papers.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben.
I am not disputing that Hutchinson was not in regular work, however the report mentioning the five weeks equvilent wages, was just indicating that the witness was paid that, not a actual reference to hutchinsons work status at the time.
The fact is Ben , Topping refered to a payment which would relate to a sum that Wheeling stated, and i am sure you will agree that it would have been very unlikey that any of that family would have seen that article.
It is also been privately relayed to me, that Reg although enjoyed the limelight for a bit, he had no knowledge of the whitechapel murders, infact he had to borrow a book to read up on it from a younger member of the family.
and pray tell me , how did Topping know all about the witness Hutchinson, if he was not the original?, he never had Casebook then, i quess he must have realised that he had the same name as a witness, and studied in between his estimates, for the company he worked for.
Regards Richard.