Proof of identity

[richardnunweek]

Hello Folks,
I have been very adamant that Reg Hutchinson was the son of Gwt Hutchinson, and that man being the witness who described 'Astracan'.
The reason I have been so persistant in that belief as you know stems from a 1970s Radio broadcast which yours truely appears to have been the only one in Casebook land to have heard.
At the end of the programme Reg Hutchinson gave a account of his fathers recollections and stated that he was paid the sum of Five pounds for his efforts, that amount I should add might have been said as One hundred shillings , or Five Guineas.
If one reads a very rare transcript from THE WHEELING REGISTER NOVEMBER 18 1888, and reads the quote.
Some clever individual having invented a detailed description of the man seen walking with mary Kelly just before she was murdered has been hired at five times his usual salary to walk about with the police and try to see the man again.
HAS BEEN HIRED AT FIVE TIMES HIS USUAL SALARY..
Clearly this man was the man known as George hutchinson , with that there is no doubt, and the mention of a fee to my knowledge was never mentioned in any newspaper but this [ rare] article, therefore my case is this.
As this quotation has only come to light within the last year, unless Reg. or Gwt had access to that piece how would either one of them know that a sum of money was paid, and that sum was Five pounds that being five times the average wage.
It is at least in my mind absolute proof that Gwt Hutchinson was the actual man who claimed to have seen Kelly and Astracan.
I should add that this does mean that he did not invent the whole story, but at least we have the right man.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Nunners,

I remarked on this over on Howard Brown's board a while back. The sum mentioned is certainly intriguing. I wrote:

"According to the Government's 1887 Blue Book survey of wages in Tower Hamlets, a labourer's average wage was 21s per week. The [Wheeling Register] article mentions that the man who invented the description was hired at 5X his salary, which is 105 shillings, or just over £5. Five pounds is precisely the sum that RichardN recalls hearing Reg Hutchinson claim in respect of Toppy's reward."

Whether that confirms that Reg was the son of the George Hutchinson remains to be proven, although this snippet would seem to do no harm to his claim to Hutchinson's throne. Quite the reverse, in fact.

[Bob Hinton]

Evidence? 'fraid Not...

The only problem is you are doing this backwards. Evidence doesn’t work this way; it starts from the beginning not the end. Let me explain.

You say Reg stated in 1970 or thereabouts that his father was paid the sum of approximately five pounds. You then say that an obscure article unlikely to have been seen by Reg has recently come to light stating that a person believed to be George Hutchinson was paid a similar sum – by all means let’s say it’s the same sum £5.

You then say this proof of Reg’s claims as he us most unlikely to have seen the article in the paper, but you are doing it backwards. You are assuming the article was based on information only just revealed.

However if you look at the evidence in the correct manner then all becomes clear.

After GH has made is statement certain wild rumours circulate through the East End, one of these is that GH has been paid £5 etc. Most papers disregard this as a rumour, or because the British papers can check with the police to ascertain the facts. However the story gets some credibility in America where it is published in some back street red top, The Wheeler Register.

Meanwhile the forbears of Reg use the rumour as an addition to the story and it is passed down to Reg. There you have it, nothing complicated, Reg and the paper are now repeating the same fictitious story.

It’s like a lot of urban legends. On the surface you have several sources telling the same stories and this is often used as proof that the story is true, however when you check back you find they all have the same source, but that doesn’t make it true.

For a perfect example of how this works look at the Angels of Mons stories.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Bob,
I accept your points, however one thing you cannot deny is that Reg Hutchinson is the son of a Gwt Hutchinson born 1/10/1866 this is proven by certificates.
What I believe you are suggesting is Gwt knowing that he has the same surname as a witness in the Ripper case decides to cash in on this by putting himself forward to anyone who would listen stating that he knew one of the victims, he remembers also that the real GH was rumoured to have been paid for his assistant so adds that into his fictitious account to give more credence.
To be honest Bob, I find it much easier to take the more obvious route.
Regards Richard.

[Bob Hinton]

The obvious route?

But you are not taking the obvious route. The obvious route is that someone with a similar name to a player in a drama, decided to spice up his rather mundane life my claiming the mantle of a major player.

This is not uncommon, fathers always like to weave patterns for their children, and people do like to claim that they have done things they haven’t.

I have a very good friend who was involved in the SAS assault on the Iranian embassy. He wasn’t one of the assault squad, but was in one of the vans nearby. According to him if everyone who says they were involved in the assault was actually there, they would have had to join a very long queue to get in the embassy.

Fathers make up things to tell their offspring – it happens.

[richardnunweek]

Bob,
I am fully aware what you are saying, however answer me one question, Why would Regs Father be intrested in assuming another mans identity?
It certainly did not gain him financial reward.
As i have already mentioned, if Gwt was not the original he seems to have stepped into his shoes rather well , equiped with all sorts of knowledge.
Incidently I would state that Reg during his lifetime was unlkely to have read that American report, and his father also.
If Gwt was a scoundrel then he was a very well read one, and he never had Casebook to obtain knowledge either.
Anyway let others decide, as our opinions obviously differ.
Regards Richard.

[Bob Hinton]

Oh for goodness sake Nunners!

You seem to be trying to put all sorts of sinister reasons why GWTH should tell fibs to his son Reg. There’s nothing sinister, it’s just what people do. They make up things, they embellish, they tell fibs to make themselves appear more important than they really are.

I bet you if you took a survey of all the people in Dallas the day Kennedy was shot, the vast majority of them will claim to be right next to him when the shots were fired.

You seem to be stuck in this track that either GWTH is telling the absolute unvarnished truth or that he’s some kind of master criminal. He’s not he’s just someone who had a similar name to a major player in a big drama and made up some stories about it. I’m quite sure every police officer who was in the Met at the time bounced their grandchildren on their knees and regaled them with the tale of the night they almost caught Jack the Ripper.

[Bob Hinton]

Bob,

Incidently I would state that Reg during his lifetime was unlkely to have read that American report, and his father also.


Regards Richard.

But they wouldn't have too if the origin of that information was a rumour circulating around the East End at the time - can't you grasp that?

[FrankO]

Hi Bob, Richard,

I’m quite sure every police officer who was in the Met at the time bounced their grandchildren on their knees and regaled them with the tale of the night they almost caught Jack the Ripper.

Just look at what major Smith wrote.

Best,
Frank

[The Good Michael]

I just have to say this about Rob's story. I have had discussions, independent of any newspaper articles or radio broadcasts, of the possibility of Hutchinson coming forward in hopes of something from petty cash. Indeed, I even wrote a bit of a satire on this topic, on this very site 2 years ago. Remember, all this was just surmise on my part, and on the parts of the others involved in conversation, but it rang true to us. Rob's story, though uncorroborated, rings true in that same fashion to me. It isn't a sealed and delivered package, but it is a possibility. How strong, I couldn't say.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Agreed all round, Bob.

What I find rather disturbing is the fact that those endorsing the untenable notion that GWTH was the 12th November witness (and that he told the unembellished truth etc etc) conveniently ignore the fact that this same article stated, in no ambiguous language, that the account had been "invented".

If one assertion in a dubious article is to be accepted as gospel, why not the other one?

It's extremely unlikely that any witness would be paid for his efforts, let alone a sum on that scale. If the police adopted that strategy, they'd be bombarded with hoards of "witnesses" all claiming to have seen this and that and expecting to be paid off.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Wasn't the Shroud of Turin found to carbon date miraculously to the time the story of the shroud first was circulated? Roughly 1200 years after Christs death.

Believing is all well and good, but not anything near proof. The records are clear that Blotchy Man was the suspect to Marys murder as of the 16th. He wasn't believed, or believable...take your pick.

My best regards all.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
when I started this thread I did so with a intention to suggest that GWTH was the original Gh, it was not meant to suggest that he had to have been telling the truth about events of the 9th just that he was the real deal.
Up to that radio broadcast the only mention of a payment appears to have been in the American article which appears in my first post, as Reg relayed that payment of Five pounds over the wavelengths some eighty plus years after that publication, I suggest that he got that figure and story from his father.
To suggest that Gwth was not the real GH I find hard to accept, would it be that strange if he was?.
Regards Richard.

[c.d.]

Hi all,

Wasn't the Shroud of Turin found to carbon date miraculously to the time the story of the shroud first was circulated? Roughly 1200 years after Christs death.

Believing is all well and good, but not anything near proof. The records are clear that Blotchy Man was the suspect to Marys murder as of the 16th. He wasn't believed, or believable...take your pick.

My best regards all.

Hi Michael,

Interestingly enough, that carbon dating testing has been called into question. msn.com has the story.

c.d.

[Tom_Wescott]

The carbon dating testing, if I remember correctly, occurred in the 70's and was rather rushed. it didn't take into account that the shroud was exposed to a fire that would have thrown off the results of such a test.

The Shroud is either really the death shroud of Jesus Christ with His image manifested in it, or it's an example of photography many centuries before the invention of photography. Either way, it's an amazing item.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott