Proof of identity

[David Knott]

Bob,

Re your post #84, the point was that Ben was doubting that Toppy would have ever been anything other than a plumber (or apprentice), whereas Toppy's own father spent some time labouring before entering the family trade. Toppy's uncle also started out in a different trade before becoming a plumber. Also, Toppy's dad was married in the Shoreditch district so if Toppy was our witness, he may have been following in his father's footsteps by labouring in the East End for a while. Maybe!

Ben,

Re your post #69, I don't see how GH the butcher, for example, would be a better bet than Toppy. He appears to have been married with a child in 1888, the child being born in the same area where he was residing in 1891.

Reg certainly had siblings, much older than he was. Toppy and Mrs Toppy were pushing 50 when Reg was born. Shouldn't be too difficult to trace some of Toppy's other descendents.

[Simon Wood]

Hi Sam,

Many thanks.

Another candidate for the trash can.

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Hi All,

The Times—September 2nd 1887

Been there, Simon! If there hadn't been a server crash, I'd point you to the thread! As it is, I can at least inform you that the watch-stealer was George S Hutchinson/Hutchison, a stationer, whom I found at Cottage Grove, Mile End, in the 1891 Census. There he is listed as a widower, and living with his parents.

[Simon Wood]

Could This Be Our George?

Hi All,

The Times—September 2nd 1887

Regards,

Simon

[Ben]

there are two accounts separated by 80 years suggesting that Hutchinson recieved a payment of five times his weekly salary.

Not quite, Observer.

The best we can say is that there are two accounts mentioning payment in connection with Hutchinson's account, and that isn't all that weird or coincidental at all. One says he lied, and that he was paid to go on an Astrakhan hunt, the other says he told the truth and that he was paid to keep quiet about spotting a well know historical figure with Mary Kelly. Not much congruity there, m'afraid, and Reg doesn't mention anything about "five times the salary".

...And the handwriting doesn't match.

All the best,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Ben

perhaps...perhaps

Of course, it's more than likely Hutchinson was oblivious to the inducement as you suggested but it still remains (as Sam pointed out) there are two accounts separated by 80 years suggesting that Hutchinson recieved a payment of five times his weekly salary.

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

That's [i.e. the alleged £5 reward] an inducement for liars and frauds to come forward and get paid off for giving false information and derailing the investigation in the process.

...which might, oddly enough, explain why the story appeared only in an American newspaper, rather than in any organs of the local press.

[Ben]

But would they, considering the nature of the case?

Oh like a moth to a lightbulb, Observer.

All they had to do was invent a story that couldn't be disproven or verified, complete with an invented description, and just wait for the money to roll in. And if loads of hungry, desperate, unemployed people did that...

Ben

[Observer]

Hi Ben

But would they, considering the nature of the case? I certainly wouldn't, even if I was hungry and out of work. Also one would have to be pretty convincing to recieve the inducement. It could well be that many tried but were shown the door as chancers.

Observer

[Bob Hinton]

For Richard

Re Richards post No 86.

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.

Ah but therein lies the rub Nunners old son. That’s where the days and months of searching through records, following up leads, suffering triumph and disaster come into the picture. If you want to push your point you’ve just got to start looking for the elusive evidence.

For example if I was in your shoes the first thing I would do is to contact Melvyn Fairclough and get the full story from him. Ask him for his original notes and or tape recordings. Pick his brains get every last bit of information out of him.

Next did Reg have any brothers and sisters? If so find them, trace every last descendent of GWTH. Ask Neal Shelden for help he’s a genius at doing this sort of thing. You’ve already got some of the posters on this thread giving you a lot of census information about GWTH – that’s a good start.

The fact is Nunners if you want documents to come to light it’s up to you to shine a torch on them.

Good Luck!

[Ben]

Hi Observer,

Only a week's worth of salary , they multiplied it five times apparently, as an inducement to come forward.

That's an inducement for liars and frauds to come forward and get paid off for giving false information and derailing the investigation in the process. If that strategy was advocated by police, you'd have hoards and hoards of false witnesses bombarding the police and requesting "five tmes their normal salary" in exchange for information that can't be proven to be bogus but almost certainly is.

Ben

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

What's yet to be explained satisfactorily is how the Register and Reg Hutchinson came to recount ostensibly the same tale in respect of Hutchinson's reward

Dodgy accounts and financial incentives are never far removed from eachother, especially in connection with "rewards" and the like. To be honest, I'm surprised that "Was Hutchinson paid off for anything" hasn't been falsely advocated more often than it has. Significantly, the payment was for different reasons in each version. In the Wheeling Register, it was for accompanying detectives round the district (implausible), and in the Reg version, it was suggested that the payment was "hush" money to conceal a pseudo royal-political scandal involving Churchill.

No regular employment isn't unsual for the East End, but if he wasn't on a "salary" at the time, he can't have been paid five times that non-salary.

Regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Sam

Hi Observer,

As I said, it's a matter of secondary importance whether he received 5 pennies or 5 pounds - the crucial point is that we have two accounts, seemingly independent and separated by some 80 years, both of which claim that Hutchinson received that level of recompense.

Which would suggest that there is some truth in the assertion that informers recieved such an inducement

Observer

[Observer]

Hi Ben

Only a week's worth of salary , they multiplied it five times apparently, as an inducement to come forward. It could well be that it was common knowledge to the local populace. I can't imagine that many people coming forward to take them up on their offer considering the nature of the case

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

The dodginess of both sources, coupled with the fact that the signatures don't match, pretty much ennervates any "coincidence" in association with the payment issue

See my response to "Observer" above - the details are inconsequential to this discussion. What's yet to be explained satisfactorily is how the Register and Reg Hutchinson came to recount ostensibly the same tale in respect of Hutchinson's reward - irrespective of whether the £5 figure is true, and irrespective of the "dodginess" of the source(s) in question.

and since the real Hutchinson claimed to be in no regular employment at the time, the question of "salary" is rendered moot.

He says in his police statement that he was a groom, now working as a labourer - hence, on average, he'd have expected to earn just over 21/- per week. As I've pointed out, "no regular employment" was hardly unusual for the East End.