Proof of identity

[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]

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]

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]

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.

[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

[richardnunweek]

Hi David,
As I started the 'Proof' thread, may I thank you for your research in this matter,we must of course respect the relations wishes, but at least Gwt was pictured in 'The Ripper and the Royals' and that same picture was hanging on the wall of Regs Flat when interviewed by Ivor a few years after that publication, making it crystal clear that the picture of the said gentleman we are all familiar with is authentic.
It in hindsight is regretable that George Hutchinson was not considered anything more then a witness for much of the twentieth century, it was only after Bobs excellent book that he became looked upon as 'mayby more'
Not that I consider him as any thing more then a observant witness. but as GH has been labled as all kind of undesirables in the last few years, its a great shame that the late Reg Hutchinson is not able to shed more light on the matter.
Regards Richard.

[David Knott]

Joel & Richard,

There were no major revelations from the family.

Without posting specific details, I would say that the biographical information about GWTH tends to support the notion that he could have been the witness, but other information provided casts doubt on the story.

After contacting them, I am a bit less inclined to accept GTWH as the witness than I was before, but there remains room for argument on both sides. Not sure we're any further forward to be honest.

David

[richardnunweek]

Hi David,
Thanks for being so honest, the whole crux of the matter is , we as Ripper folk, at least in the past few years, have on the whole looked upon Hutchinsons statement as suspicious, but that in general has been since 1998 when 'From Hell' was published.
Before that George Hutchinson was merely a witness that came forth in 1888, a couple of days after the Millers court bloodbath, and seemed to have been the observant type.
To the late Reg Hutchinson, it was no big deal that his old man knew one of the victims, after all he was around at the time, and was similiar age to Mjk.
My question has always been.
'Why is it out of the question , that Gwth was not that witness.?
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Sleuthing efforts greatly appreciated, David!

Hi Richard,

'Why is it out of the question , that Gwth was not that witness.?

It's not out of the question, just unlikely considering that the signature and personal circumstances don't match.

Best regards,
Ben

[joelhall]

Joel & Richard,

There were no major revelations from the family.

Without posting specific details, I would say that the biographical information about GWTH tends to support the notion that he could have been the witness, but other information provided casts doubt on the story.

After contacting them, I am a bit less inclined to accept GTWH as the witness than I was before, but there remains room for argument on both sides. Not sure we're any further forward to be honest.

David

thanks david

joel

[Normy]

Hi Richardnunweek
Erm this might a bit of a spanner and I honestly haven't had a drop today...well not yet.
But, I do remember in the 70's a tv programme advetising an interview with the man who's dad saw the ripper.
I'm sure it was Reg, I've always thought it was a tv show like Nationwide or someting like that.
You could have heard it on the radio but it might not have been a radio show. I used to tune my radio in to listen to shows that were on channels my parents weren't watching I distinctly heard Bilko many times even taped it for my dad while he was at work once.

Hope this helps!

[DVV]

According to Reg, his father said something like: "I tried my best to help the police, and I regret that we failed to catch the murderer."
Ironically enough, such a statement sounds like Hutch's ordinary lies!
Why didn't Reg's father say: "I regret that I did not catch him myself on Sunday morning in Petticoat Lane"?
Whether: "I shouldn't have talked to the press. Maybe JtR shaved his moustache because of my mistake..." ?

[diana]

One thing that is almost universally agreed upon is that Hutchinson's tale is improbable. Nobody would have witnessed that many details, etc.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Richard's memory is correct, we now have a plausible reason for Hutchinson coming forward and spinning this yarn.

Incidentally, in reading earlier posts I noticed that he politely asked that other posters stop truncating his last name. It is one thing to disagree with someone and to present your points. It is quite another to try to trivialize someone by ridiculing their surname. This is something children do.

I'm not saying Richard is correct or incorrect or partially correct. If possible we should keep an open mind and go on looking.

[Ben]

Hi Diana,

It's not Richard's memory that's in doubt so much as Toppy's original story. Even if Richard did hear a 1970s interview, I'm afraid it wouldn't lend weight to the story that appeared in the "Ripper and the Royals".

Just for the record, I've only ever addressed Richard by his christian name.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Absolutely right, Diana,
nobody actually doubts Richard's word.
Even Reg himself must have been honest.
But his father...

Amitiés,
David