Proof of identity

[joelhall]

Sadly, as you say, nothing of interest about George (in fact he appears twice, once as George Hutchinson and once as William Topping Hutchinson). It does clear up a minor mystery as to why nobody could find Jane on the 1891 census though - we should have been searching for Emily instead!

A few months ago on this thread I said that I would contact descendants of G W T Hutchinson to see if they could shed any light on his candidacy as the witness. They were extremely helpful, but did ask that I didn't post any of the information that they provided on the internet. I would say, however, that the identification remains unproven.

David

was there any information you gained regarding the story of payment either, or does this just seem to be an interesting tale on his sons part?

joel

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,

The photo in the Ripper and The Royals is certainly of G W T Hutchinson.

Thanks for the confirmation, David. That's one controversy well and truly cleared up, and a personal suspicion dispelled.

[David Knott]

Sam,

The photo in the Ripper and The Royals is certainly of G W T Hutchinson - that is not in doubt. Simply haven't been able to prove that he was the witness.

David

[Sam Flynn]

A few months ago on this thread I said that I would contact descendants of G W T Hutchinson to see if they could shed any light on his candidacy as the witness. They were extremely helpful, but did ask that I didn't post any of the information that they provided on the internet. I would say, however, that the identification remains unproven.

Thanks for that information, David. I must say that, having compared the alleged photograph of GWT Hutchinson reproduced in Melvyn Fairclough's book with the Ancestry photo of Emily Jane, I see some cause for doubt. Reg Hutchinson, if it is him portrayed in Melvyn Fairclough's book, seems to share the same prominent cheekbones and frizzy hair as his aunt - features which don't seem to be shared by the gentleman in the "GWT" photograph in the same book. I may be wrong, of course, but it would be good to know whether the latter photograph is really GWT after all. Not that I'm asking you to do so - I fully respect the family's wishes.

[David Knott]

Sadly, as you say, nothing of interest about George (in fact he appears twice, once as George Hutchinson and once as William Topping Hutchinson). It does clear up a minor mystery as to why nobody could find Jane on the 1891 census though - we should have been searching for Emily instead!

A few months ago on this thread I said that I would contact descendants of G W T Hutchinson to see if they could shed any light on his candidacy as the witness. They were extremely helpful, but did ask that I didn't post any of the information that they provided on the internet. I would say, however, that the identification remains unproven.

David

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, David. Shame there's no additional info given about Brother George, though - apart from his birth year. Still, it's really good to put a face to a name, and this find is very much appreciated.

[David Knott]

For anyone who is interested, and has access to the Ancestry website, there is a photo of George W T Hutchinson's sister Jane (the one born in Hornchurch nr Romford) taken in 1914. This was posted by her great grandson I think. Just search under "Emily Jane Hutchinson" and you should find it. At the time of the Whitechapel Murders she was living in Lee nr Lewisham with her husband James Knott.

[caz]

Aha! So wicked Sir Jim was the "Colin Pitchfork" to Hutchinson's "complete twat" who took the DNA test in his name?

Got it in one, Ben. It looks like whoever popped Sir Jim in the frame may well have taken advantage of 'His Real Blotchiness' in 1888 in doing so. And the constant headaches the real one had between August and November may have helped too.

No headaches here though. Blissfully quiet and peaceful.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Here you go, Bob:

http://www.casebook.org/dissertations/ripperoo-hutch.html

[Ben]

How convenient for you Ben

Not convenient, Caz. Simpler. Unfortunate for the dupe if there was a dupe, yes, but there probably wasn't. I'm not really looking for evidence that Hutchinson had a skin condition. I just found those physical similarities in the witness evidence worth remarking upon.

someone with documented skin eruptions in November 1888 from excessive drinking and drug taking.

Aha! So wicked Sir Jim was the "Colin Pitchfork" to Hutchinson's "complete twat" who took the DNA test in his name?

[Bob Hinton]

Hutchinson

Where might this article by Mr Osbourne be found? Sounds interesting.

[caz]

I just find it simpler to condense it to one person...

How convenient for you Ben.

How convenient for the ripper too, and how unfortunate for the man who may have been his dupe.

So you let the ripper get away again while you accuse some poor sod in his place. Nothing like the traditional route.

...Skin conditions such as rosacea cause the sufferer to appear both blotchy and sunburnt, and are often exacerbated by excessive drinking.

Now all you need is evidence that Hutch was suffering from skin eruptions at the right time.

A rather infamous hoaxer got there before you and dumped another poor sod in the frame: someone with documented skin eruptions in November 1888 from excessive drinking and drug taking.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

You write:

"My "Osbourne's wrong" observation was specifically in response to his statement that the wideawake description didn't tally with someone of military appearance, and I fully stand by that observation"

My apologies if I was mistaken here, but the full context of our exchange reads thus:

Me:
Since you point me to some reading, I will do you the same service: Read Derek Osbornes dissertation on Hutch, and you will be provided with A/ an author that says the same thing that I do about Lewis´man and Hutch

You:
And?
Osbourne's wrong.
There's nothing to suggest they "don't tally" at all. If you think Osbourne's conclusion was "nice and simple", it's clear that you either haven't read the full article or we have redically different notions of clarity and simplicity.

...and that did not for one moment lead me to believe that you were speaking solely of the "military appearance" part. Myself, I was discussing the wider picture of the possibility of Hutch covering for the Ripper.

Whichever, having read the passage again, I of course accept your explanation. I just thought I would point out to you why I failed to pick up on it from the outset.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

PS. I second your "I still don't accept that "something else" was required to discredit Hutchinson." That is, if we can ommitt the "don´t" ...

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

You have to admit that "I too have heard worse explanations Hutchinson's role in the Dorset Street saga" differs ever so slightly from your statement "Osbourne´s wrong" in post 169 on this thread

My "Osbourne's wrong" observation was specifically in response to his statement that the wideawake description didn't tally with someone of military appearance, and I fully stand by that observation.

I still don't accept that "something else" was required to discredit Hutchinson. Other discredited witnesses didn't need any big "something else" beyond a lack of police faith in their truthfulness, and Hutchinson was surely no different. But that's another dead and well-flogged horse.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

You have to admit that "I too have heard worse explanations Hutchinson's role in the Dorset Street saga" differs ever so slightly from your statement "Osbourne´s wrong" in post 169 on this thread.

But never mind; long as it points to your acceptance of a scenario like this one being at least to some extent credible ...

Caz, nice to see that you see the potential in the dissertation too. I really think that we need to find something more than Hutch´s phenomenal memory for details if we want to know why the coppers eventually sent him on his way. Abberline swallowed that pill without any questions (and he was a streetwise copper, more lightly than most to see through a false description), meaning that SOMETHING ELSE came up afterwards to discredit Hutch. If I am right, that is, but why wouldn´t I be...?

The best, Caz, Ben!
Fisherman