Proof of identity

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

In order, then:

One, what is the precedent that would allow us to assert that the police wouldn't have parted with a fiver, especially if they thought they were onto something good?

Hutchinson had no choice in the matter. It wouldn't have been a case of "Oh, come with us...please, we'll pay you!", but rather, "We need you to do this, and you'll be obstructing police business if you say no". If they wanted him, he'd have to jump to it. If they paid him, and that payment ever became public, it would attract all kinds of dubious witnesses all turning up with new "sightings" all eager to be paid off.

Two, was £5 such a large sum anyway?

Five times a normal salary would have paid for more than just a new wideawake and a tot of rum, methinks.

Three, if it was Hutchinson himself exaggerating the amount and originating the gossip, then how come Toppy gets to hear of the sum if he wasn't living comparatively locally at the time and/or wasn't one and the same person?

Toppy probably didn't hear of it at all. More likely he came up with the roundest figure possible in an effort to fuel the notion that dear old dad was paid off to keep quiet about Churchillstrakhan the Ripper, with a few leading remarks from Fairclough and Sickert, no doubt. I'm sorry, but what a trio, and what a book!

[Sam Flynn]

The trouble I have with the "had to be there" premise is that other journalists clearly were "there", and either missed these rumours completely, or flatly contradicted them as was the case with the "furiously drunk" revelation.

The "furiously drunk" story applied to Barnett, as I'm sure you know, Ben (just thought I'd clarify that for the sake of others).

As to the rest - I'm not suggesting that the Wheeling Register was right about any of this, or that its correspondent "was there". It's easy enough to pull together a mish-mash of a column based on press agency reports that other papers may have rejected, and this is what may well have happened in this case.

However, that still leaves us lacking an explanation as to where this story of "Hutchinson's windfall" came from, and it still remains for us to explain how Toppy arrives at broadly the same story - unless he was there to hear the same story that the other local newspapers decided not to print. If he was, then either we have two George Hutchinsons in the "gossip zone" at the same time, or we have only one. If the latter is true, then it's difficult to avoid the conclusion that Toppy was indeed the same George Hutchinson who came up with the Astrakhan story.

[Ben]

The East End working class - skilled and unskilled alike - were likely to have experienced fallow periods of employment at this time.

Not if you've got a dad in the biz who can apprentice you, Gareth, and even if he did experience a dry spell in 1888, that would have made him a "plumber by trade, now working as a labourer" not a "groom, now working as a labourer". Why would plumbing work be seasonal? Surely loos can go wrong at any time of year?

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

The police were extremely unlikely to have paid off a witness to the tune of such a large sum

Three things: One, what is the precedent that would allow us to assert that the police wouldn't have parted with a fiver, especially if they thought they were onto something good? Two, was £5 such a large sum anyway? Three, if it was Hutchinson himself exaggerating the amount and originating the gossip, then how come Toppy gets to hear of the sum if he wasn't living comparatively locally at the time and/or wasn't one and the same person?

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I really can't see that "Man in East End gets fiver" would ripple throughout London, Ben.

One wouldn't have thought so, but since it merited inclusion in the "Gossip" column of the Wheeling Register, it must have circulated somewhat. Unless the paper had an extraordinarily well-informed and sagacious "networker" amongst its journalists who picked up on details curiously and conspicuously overlooked by all British newspapers, it seems a safe bet that the gossip wasn't of the best quality, and was quickly dismissed for its all-round "wrongness". The trouble I have with the "had to be there" premise is that other journalists clearly were "there", and either missed these rumours completely, or flatly contradicted them as was the case with the "furiously drunk" revelation.

The thrust of the "payment" story wasn't that an East End man was paid a fiver, but that a man invented a suspect description in order to obtain a fiver. If this was true, it would have been a fairly big story, especially in light of the initial enthusiam for "Hunt Astrakhan" on 13th and 14th November.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

But Reg stated that his father was "rarely, if ever, out of work" after he followed his father's trade as a plumber.

Did he stipulate an age at which this run of employment started? Did Reg refer specifically to the 1880s, when Toppy was only in his third decade? I have my doubts. The East End working class - skilled and unskilled alike - were likely to have experienced fallow periods of employment at this time. Plumbers, bricklayers and plasterers were paid comparatively well, but the work was largely seasonal, and they'd have to shift for themselves for a proportion of the year. In the 1880s, an East Ender who was "rarely out of work" was a lucky man indeed.

[Sam Flynn]

I disagree. If gossip of that nature could be picked up by the Wheeling Register in Virginia, it could certainly be picked up in Warren Street or Norwood or wherever Toppy was living in 1888

I really can't see that "Man in East End gets fiver" would ripple throughout London, Ben. I hardly feel that it would steam across the Atlantic to reach the ears of the Wheeling Register columnists unless they had a man either on the ground ("our man in London"), or slavishly monitoring the telegraph wires. As the story never even made the pages of the Star or Pall Mall Gazette, or any other working class London rag, how was your average sub-Bloomsburyite or Norwoodite to get wind of it?

Perhaps Toppy heard of it via a friend of a friend of a friend? Well, maybe - but it's still not much of a story, and the odds of another working-class Londoner named George Hutchinson tapping into the jungle drums at a distance must have been incredibly small.

I cannot avoid concluding that one simply "had to be there" in order to hear this story. Local hacks probably picked up on it and jettisoned it for whatever reason - perhaps "East End man gets fiver" wasn't even news(paper)worthy at a local level - but a Virginian hack thought it worthy of mention. Thank God, therefore, for the Wheeling Register, whose gossip column may yet prove to be the "Nabonidus Cylinder" of Hutchinsonology.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

If Toppy were not the originator of the gossip, but merely heard it, then we it is practically impossible that he acquired a copy of the Wheeling Register if he were living in, say, far-flung Warren Street.

I disagree. If gossip of that nature could be picked up by the Wheeling Register in Virginia, it could certainly be picked up in Warren Street or Norwood or wherever Toppy was living in 1888, and since the "gossip" about Barnett being furiously drunk at the inquest and living with Miss Dodgy is likely to be bogus, why should we expect the payment detail to be any less so?

It is not at all unlikely that a 22 year-old groom/labourer had yet to "find his trade" as a plumber

But Reg stated that his father was "rarely, if ever, out of work" after he followed his father's trade as a plumber. He didn't say that he mysteriously spurned the opportunities his father's line of work offerded, but elected instead to groom for while, ditch that, become an unemployed labourer and get acquainted with East End prostitutes over a three year period. The twain are irreconcilable, and if we're prepared to accept the "100 shillings" bit at his word, we ought really to do the same with regard to Toppy's employment history.

The police were extremely unlikely to have paid off a witness to the tune of such a large sum for reasons I've already outlined, unless the police were unbelievably incompetent and lacking in foresight. It might be borne in mind also that Hutchinson claimed to have in no regular employment, and five times "no regular employment" doesn't - or shouldn't - come to £5!

Finally, to give credit where credit is due here, Bob dismissed his candidate - who was always a far more realistic possibility than Toppy - as soon as he realized that the signatures didn't match. We ought really to do the same for Toppy, a less fitting candidate whose signature also didn't match. If Shadwell George is to be dismissed on that basis, Toppt certainly should be.

Hi Richard,

what research would be possible to prove that GWTH was GH, as both sources father/son are deseased.

A matching signature - and it didn't! Back to square one, I'm afraid. Toppy isn't our man.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

Absolutely, Gareth, and he could have been the originator of that gossip without having anything to do with the author of the statement.

The difficulty there is that the originator of the gossip - whether Toppy or not - would have had to have been in and around Spitalfields at the time in order for the reporter (or his contacts) to have heard the rumour in the first place.

If Toppy were not the originator of the gossip, but merely heard it, then we it is practically impossible that he acquired a copy of the Wheeling Register if he were living in, say, far-flung Warren Street. It is also unlikely that he would have been in position to have mopped up the local Spitalfield gossip that the Wheeling Register's hack wrote in his column.

Given that such gossip was more than likely short-lived, and confined to Ripper country, lends significant weight to the notion that Toppy was indeed resident in the area in November 1888.

It is not at all unlikely that a 22 year-old groom/labourer had yet to "find his trade" as a plumber - it was suggested earlier that plumbers would invariably have been apprenticed at a very young age, but I'm unaware of any source that would support this. Besides, 22 wasn't exactly "over the hill", even given the comparatively low life expectancy of the East End working class.

As to pay and reward - whereas a labourer's weekly wage was around 21½ shillings, a plumber's was only 23½ shillings. Five times a plumber's salary still weighs in at just over £5, so we can't even extrapolate from Hutchinson's alleged reward money to determine what job he was doing at the time.

[richardnunweek]

Bob,
Now that was a really good post, and quite respectful, and to be honest I agree that I tend to give the impression that I am right and must be believed.
It is true also to say that I am not gifted with the knack of research, and tend to repeat my opinions.
Having said that, what research would be possible to prove that GWTH was GH, as both sources father/son are deseased.
The fact is unless documents come to light, or more obscure press reports are revealed, we are left with oral history, and a long gone elusive Radio broadcast, which even if was ever traced, would not confirm anything, that is to everyones satisfaction.
Regards Richard.

[Bob Hinton]

In reply to David

but I think the Toppster is worthy of further investigation.



David,

I couldn’t agree with you more, and that is my main gripe with Nunners. He doesn’t do any further investigating; he just keeps repeating the same tire old dross time and time again. He doesn’t engage in any meaningful debate, making points and answering questions, he just keeps banging away and refuses to answer any questions and ignores any contrary points.

God help me for saying this but even Karen Trenouth did a great deal of research, even if it was hopelessly wrong and she was as mad as a bucket of frogs.

To draw a parallel with Nunners when I first started my search for GH all I had to go on was his name and the fact that he was 28 years old at the time of the statement. I had read this in a newspaper article and discussed it with Brian Marriner who actually had the article and promised to send me a copy, unfortunately he never did.

Now since I cannot trace that article it has taken on the legitimacy of Nunners Radio show, and therefore I have to dismiss it as evidence because I cannot produce it – even though I am sure it exists.

My GH was a sure fire shoe in for the right man. He lived in the area all his life; he used to live not far from MJKs old lodgings near the Ratcliff Highway. In 1881 he was a barman. The family was very close knit, and lived very close together. His mother died when he was sixteen from cancer of the womb (was he trying to save his victims by cutting out the womb?) and a surgeon to the Royal Household certified her death.

In 1889 something happened that tore the family apart. Everyone split up and shortly afterwards GH was disowned by his father who not only wrote him out of his will, but also took in his orphaned nephew and referred to him as his son.

Now putting all that together I thought I had struck gold and was just waiting for the long overdue 2001 census to put the last pieces together. Unfortunately when that came it showed he was married and when I compared the statement signature to the signature on the marriage register they were completely different. I immediately went on Casebook and announced I had got it wrong.

Now in spite of the years of work I had put into this, and all the hours wasted chasing down leads, there’s no point in me saying to everyone, oh well I’m sure I’m right and you’ve all got to believe me because I say so and I’m a really nice guy – honest. If I cannot provide solid evidence to back my claim, and answer all questions put to me about that claim, then either I stop pressing it or I carry on digging.

Nunners doesn’t do that. He doesn’t conduct any new research; he doesn’t answer questions he just insists everyone believe him because he says he doesn’t tell lies! If he just stopped repeating this tired old nonsense and brought something new to the table I would applaud him!

[Bob Hinton]

Hi Ben,

I was looking at the 1841 census - George Snr was only 15 at the time.

David

GWTH wasn't born until 1866.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

My aim in this thread is to suggest that GWTH was infact the man known as Gh, and although I was not the finder of that American arcticle, and therefore take no credit, I suggest that as the sum of money mentioned is relevant to the sum of money mentioned on Radio, and in Faircloughs publication, it does give credence to my opinion.

I respect your opinion here, and I'm honestly not trying to be difficult, but again I can only disagree. Two nil provevance sources don't equate to good provenance as I tried to explain to our nefarious Norweigan chum earlier today, and we're faced with the problem - again - with the issue of "Hutchinson's" occupation. The 1888 informant was a labourer and former groom, whereas Toppy was a plumber all his life. Multiply a plumber's wages by five, and you'll get appreciably more than 100 shillings.

So there's so "coincidence" over the sum of money here. It would only be a coincidence if Toppy wa a labourer, but if we're prepared to accept Reg at his word, his father was a plumber all his working life. If he spent his late teens and early twenties grooming and labouring, he couldn't have migrated to a plumbing career immediately thereafter. It doesn't work like that. He'd have jeapordised his plumbing apprenticeship during those wilderness years.

We know that a gentleman by the name of Reg hutchinson was the son of George William Topping Hutchinson born 1/10/1886, We can therefore state that at the time of Kellys murder, he was approx 22 years old, only a couple of years junior to Mjk

Yeah, but we have several George Hutchinsons living in the East End who were in their twenties and very early thirties. Toppy had no connection to the East End.

it is entirely possible that GWTH, taking into account that is actual son Reg ,always maintained that his father had a accurate memory, and a eye for detail, could have relayed to H division the exact truth, and that being the case, could have been classed as a very inportant witness , and if he assisted the police in a productive way, may well have warranted police funds being handed out.

No, Richard, because the description of the suspect was irrefutably impossible and his account subsequently discredited, so it doesn't matter if Reg said that his dad had a good memory. Like serial killer Ivan Milat, neither he nor the real GH had a "photographic memory". Reg also said that his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill with Kelly, and that he was paid possible hush money to cover up this grand conspiracy. Go figure, as our American mates would say.

Hi David,

George Snr was born in Chelmsford. By 1871 the family were living in Lambeth, and it was there than Toppy was born. In 1881, he was living in Eltham, Kent. In 1891, he was living in Warren Street. In 1895, he went to music hall and met a girl who came from the East End, and that's when his connection to that area started. Before then, there is no evidence of any connection to the East End of any description.

...And there are plenty of George Hutchinsons who can be placed in the East End.

Equally, the probability that Toppy's story and its homologue in the Wheeling Register had a common origin doesn't preclude the possibility that Toppy was himself the originator of the gossip

Absolutely, Gareth, and he could have been the originator of that gossip without having anything to do with the author of the statement.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Stephen.
Many thanks for you post , but alas the programme was forty minutes long entitled 'The man thats saw Jack'.
Is it not so strange, albeit I go back a long way in Ripper world, that even if that Radio broadcast was low key, nobody on Casebook heard it, and even disputes its existance..
Very sad.
Richard.

[Stephen Thomas]

http://www.casebook.org/authors/obituaries/mharris.html

I don't know if this has been discussed before but could paragraph 8 in the link above offer a clue regarding Richard's remembered radio show? I do realise that the length of the show and the time of airing are different from Richard's remembrances.