Romford to Millers court

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

There'd have been no need to disown it, for it was only a red hanky. It couldn't be traced to him.

I trust no one is suggesting that GH first cooked up the Astrakhan story, then murdered MJK, taking care to leave his hanky at the crime scene? Why would he want to do that? Attention-seeking? Then why wait till the inquest was finished before coming forward?

Hi Robert
Thanks for the response. Maybe he thought it could be traced to him. Sometimes people tend to be "paranoid" about things other people may think/know about them when in reality no one knows/ remembers/cares.

If GH was JtR, it goes like this:

The first time he feels he's been seen well is the night of double event. in the act of attacking stride he is seen by Scwartz. To scare off this very jewish looking witness he yells "Lipski"-which does scare him off.

OK now he knows he has been seen by a jew.

Later, shortly before slaying Eddowes, he is again seen by 3 jews, one (Lawende) who tells police the suspect was wearing a red handkerchief.

Knowing he has been well twice, he thinks OK now I have got to do something to throw off suspician of me. Hence he does the piece of apron and the GSG to blame jews.

Why Blame jews?

1. He knows that there is a strong public suspician (and dislike) already of jews.

2. He has been spotted by a Jew. what better way to discredit a witness than to blame them?

(I may add here that I don't think JtR's main motivation in the killings was to arouse hatred on jews due to his anti-semetism. he was a serial murderer-he killed because he liked to. The jew blaming cam later as a convenient and needed scapegoat)

Also, much has been made of the (too long)time interval between the murder of Eddowes and the appearance of the GSG. What was JtR doing in this time period? Perhaps returning to his bolt hole (Victoria House?) to drop off trophies, knife etc and grab a piece of chalk?


In the interval between double event and MK murder, perhaps GH/JtR has been following the press, and knows that lawende told police the suspect was wearing a red handkerchief.

The night of MK murder, he has his opportunity with MK in the privacy of her own room, but not before he has to wait outside Millers court for her previous client to leave. While doing this S. Lewis sees him-he is more than likely the lurker she tells police she sees there. And perhaps he knows she saw him, if not that night then later when her testimoney is in the press.

After the MK murder, he realizes he has left the hanky in her room (whether he gave it to her or left it there).

After the inquest, which he does not want to go to for obvious reasons, he goes to the police (perhaps feeling he has to take direct action to give false info to throw off the police, and perhaps he feels its better to be a witness than a possible suspect) invents the jewish A-man and places his handkercheif in A-man's hand as giving it to MK.

[claire]

Claire,

I was just reading once again a dissertation on Casebook about Hutchinson's testimony.
Author mentions an article in his 'local newspaper' which describes Hutchinson as a man of 'military appearance', as it has been already adressed by others on this thread.
There are probabilities that JtR had been charged with 'minor' offenses earlier in his life, like many serial killers have been.
The army record path is definitely narrow, but if someone has the guts to embark upon, pourquoi pas ? :-)

The fact that you didn't see dozens of Hutchinsons after a brief look at enlistment rolls is somewhat reassuring, don't you think ? <VBG>

Oh, I did see a lot...there just wasn't anyone standing out age/location-wise, but since I am given to endless trawls of the census for certain other individuals involved in this case/these cases, I'm the last person to dissuade someone from potentially fruitless searches

Worth, too, under your reasoning cf. early offences, having a good old trawl of the census records for reformatory schools.

[Rubyretro]

Apparently Bob found a very good 'fit' -but the signatures didn't agree..

[Abby Normal]

One 'sticking point' with me with the 'Hutch as the killer' scenario has been the timing of his coming out with his statement. The argument tends to run thus: 'Hutch was the killer and was concerned he had been seen, so he came forward with a false statement to either explain his presence or to point the finger elsewhere', with or without him also devising some kind of thrill from inserting himself into the investigation.

However, would this not have made more sense (if he was indeed the culprit) BEFORE the inquest? Why wait until the inquest was over? Surely, in the above scenario, he would have thought he was pretty much in the clear by the time he did actually come forward? Maxwell's testimony was hardly going to hang anyone.

I have rarely brought this up before as I tend to avoid Hutchison threads, which too often degenerate quickly into either arguing or insanity, or both, but this seems a rather sensible one. So, any thoughts anyone?

Hi tnb
perhaps because if Gh was JtR he did not want to go to the inquest because:
It was too official
To many people people there and/or scared someone might "remember him"
found out after the inquest about S.lewis seeing him

[Robert]

Hi Abby

If Hutch liked sending messages, and if he killed Kelly, then he had on 9th November :

Lots of time
Lots of blood
Lots of wall

Still no message!

It's the worst case of writer's block I've ever seen.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby

If Hutch liked sending messages, and if he killed Kelly, then he had on 9th November :

Lots of time
Lots of blood
Lots of wall

Still no message!

It's the worst case of writer's block I've ever seen.

Good one-But...

he did leave a message, in the form of a "witness" statement saying the "suspect" was Jewish.

[Marc]

I have not stated it as a proven fact so there is nothing for me to prove,But I await anything that can prove he was capable of and did make the journey.

Sorry Harry, case closed for me, the police believed he could do it (walk back from Romford) or they wouldn't have taken him as a credible witness, which they did for a certain amount of time.

You wouldn't ask me to prefer your opinion on this matter rather than the opinion of Abberline and al. ?

The evidence burden is a very old internet discussion board trick, and I'm too
grown up to fall in that sort of trap.
This trap might be very shortly returned against you though, if I was into playing the internet discussion alpha male baboon game, toward which, happily, I feel no inclination.

[Marc]

Whoever owned that hanky would have been a wanted man

Hi Caz, any thought on the number of people who have might possessed a red hanky in the East End, November 88 ?
Wouldn't that make a huge number of suspects to investigate ?
Even taking into account only those who more or less knew MJK ?

Problem is that, perhaps and for whatever reason, you seem to think I absolutly want Hutch to be JtR.
As I've said already on this board (we all have to repeat things sometimes) I've no interest in 'suspectology', i.e supporting one individual upon others as a possible/probable suspect.
If you do, I of course respect that entirely, but it's not my stuff.

This thread is at it seems, about Hutch as a witness, and specifically 'pondering' around a part of his statement to the police.
My previous post mentioned that Hutch, being possibly innocent but a relative of MJK might have known of the red hanky, and, as Ruby said, weaved it in his story to add credibility to his AM caracter.

That's all, let's have this pint now

P.S : everyone is innocent until proven guilty, isn't it ?
You might have well have other individuals we could drink a pint and talk about, don't you

[harry]

The trick was Marc,you tried to trap me,and it didn't work.
Any how I have given sources for my beliefs,lets see if you will provide sources for your claims of what you say were carried out.Books,papers,military records.Anything except folklore.This is no trick.you must know of those sources to state them.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
As mentioned earlier, we have a name for the witness Hutchinson, ie Topping ,if one takes his version [ remembered by son Reg] that he met his wife whilst at a musical hall, and introduced himself to her, as she nearly tripped over his cane.
One could imagine therefore that young Topping had a taste for refinery, infact one could imagine a rather 'Dapper' sort... one could even imagine a silk hanky in his top pocket?
Appearance military, a smart type, very meticulous, liked pride in his work, as son Reg recalled .
I believe quite strongly that Hutchinson alias 'Topping' did meet kelly when he stated, and infact did ask him for sixpence, the reason being she wanted some fish and chips,
He asked her if in rerurn, he could doss down in her room until the Victoria home opened at 6am.'
To which the reply came' All right my love you will be. comftable'.
I also now tend to believe that kelly mentioned that she had lost her hanky, and he gave his to her
I also believe he was the man that left the court aroud 615am, leaving Mary very much 'alive'.
When he heard of the murder, knowing that he was seen in the vacinity with kelly aroud 2am, and realizing that not only that, but he had left his hanky in her room, that was possibly a reconized trademark with the 22 year old,he decided that he had to 'alien' himself from her room, so replaced dapper Hutch, with Dapper 'Astracan' complete with the hankerchief incident, a story he dare never alter from then on.
The mistake he made, which has had Casebook convinced of the 'Lying lies of George' is the word RED.. simply because only the person who gave it to kelly would know of its actual colour.
The only reason he came forward was believing he had been seen , also the hankie was his , and he was paronoid that he would be accused of committing that horrific act, when he just dossed for 4hours.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

Richard -here are a couple of questions for you (I am interested in your replies
because you know that I USED to firmly believe that Toppy & Hutch were one -before being convinced as to the contrary).

If, as Garry Wroe pointed out to me, Toppy qualified as a plumber in 1886, after a 7 year apprenticeship (and as his Father was a plumber himself -this is perfectly logical), how come Hutch was described as an unemployed groom and not an unemployed plumber ?

Whatever other odd jobs you might do to earn a crust on a daily basis, surely you would define yourself by your real trade ? (I gave the example before of an unemployed trained nurse, still defining herself as a nurse, even if she'd been barmaiding or waitressing).

Furthermore, if Hutch needed to earn money on a hand to mouth basis and took jobs by the day or week, then one might imagine that 'groom' was more of a fixed position and it was difficult to find 'casual' work as such -but a plumber could easily find work (and far better paid than a labourer). Why, amongst labourer, nightwatchman, humping barrels in pubs, there isn't any mention of any plumbing jobs ?

If to be a plumber was a real trade, lending respectability, why wouldn't Hutch have used that to lend more weight to his character when giving his witness statement ?

If Toppy was only 22, and had followed a 7 year apprenticeship, he wouldn't have had time to be a groom as well. Yet, if you admit that A Man was a figment of Hutch's imagination, you have to take into account his description of a horse-shoe tie pin -would you link this symbol more to the fantasy of a plumber or a groom ? (I have looked at many photos, and I've looked at victorian tie pins everywhere on the Net, and I do not believe that this was
a common or garden design).

I haven't read Reg's account in the'Ripper & the Royals', but according to
David Knott, Toppy's family have no recollection of Reg being on the radio
(surely an extraordinary event within living memory).

Please answer Richard..

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
We should remember that in the 1880s/90s young people started their employment very young , indeed my own grandmother was in service aged 11 in 1890.
I see your point regarding the unemployed groom remark, however he may well have recently had that position, and may have considered that more of a 'Dapper' profession then that of a plumber.
As for the Radio broadcast, it appears that I am the only one who witnessed that , I made a search of every Radio Times between 1971 and 75 at the Brighton university records[ along with my wife and eldest daughter] last year to no avail, however, we did not search the rear few pages on the left hand side of each edition , as memory believes that indeed an account of the show was printed there not the front that we all searched.
It is entirely possible that relatives of Topping never knew of such a broadcast after all it was around 1973/74, therefore over 36 years ago, but I sat throught the entire show, I remember were I sat, and the time it started 8pm. and its duration of 40 minutes.
I believe the article came under the heading 'The man that saw Jack', but cannot be positive.
It was all about Hutchinsons sighting, and the consequences of that, and ended with a interview with the mans son , who recalled exactly , what was to appear in 'The Ripper and the Royals' some 18 years later.
That being the case there surely can be no doubt that he was the same man who spoke on the radio.
I have stated on Casebook many times my word as a gentleman of its authenticity, I would even take a lie detector test.
Was Topping... Hutchinson of Ripper fame? I would say a definate 'Yes'
I have mentioned before The rare 'Wheeling arcticle' and its lending weight to Toppings claim, and i agree its a gossip paper, however it was only discovered a couple of years ago, and as no english puplication mentioned any payment made, or sum equivilent of , only the real GH, would know this .
That was George William Topping Hutchinson.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

We should remember that in the 1880s/90s young people started their employment very young , indeed my own grandmother was in service aged 11 in 1890.

I agree with you Richard -and when I first looked at the career of a Victorian groom, I saw that they could start at about 10 years old mucking out stables.
Still , if Toppy had qualified as a plumber in 1886 at aged 20, and had spent 7 years training, then he was 13 when he began. I believe that he is noted as a 'scholar' on a census before that, so we're agreed (I think) that Toppy could not have been a child groom.

I see your point regarding the unemployed groom remark, however he may well have recently had that position, and may have considered that more of a 'Dapper' profession then that of a plumber.

Now we get to a several unbelievable things : firstly, why would a plumber's child, from Norwood, be able to substitute himself into a professional groom's job? Would YOU be able to confidently deal with horses, if you'd had no experience ? Why would anyone actually employ an urban plumber,with no experience, to deal with their horses ?

I read around the lives of Victorian grooms recently (although the best text is from Yorkshire) and it was a very specialised job, although grooms were very working class and considered below plumbers : why would it be more 'dapper' ?

Why , in a list of Hutch's recent jobs, no horsey ones are ever mentioned ?-if Toppy thought that job was the more important one (important enough to cite it over 'plumbing') you'd have thought that there would be a trace of him having done that job -but niet.

I mean, I can believe that Hutch, having worked as a professional groom for some years (having maybe started as a farrier in the army) would cite it, even if he'd lately been working as a labourer because of the availability of casual work and better pay -but Toppy ?????

[QUOTE]It is entirely possible that relatives of Topping never knew of such a broadcast after all it was around 1973/74, therefore over 36 years ago[/QUOTE[But YOU remember it why wouldn't his family ? It's within living memory.

I would even take a lie detector test.

I have cast iron faith in your good word Richard (I don't say that idly), but you may simply be mistaken.

I have mentioned before The rare 'Wheeling arcticle' and its lending weight to Toppings claim, and i agree its a gossip paper, however it was only discovered a couple of years ago, and as no english puplication mentioned any payment made, or sum equivilent of , only the real GH, would know this .
That was George William Topping Hutchinson.
Regards Richard.

One thing is -I DO believe that Toppy was in the East End at that date (after David Knott) and he was a 'scholar' -so we know that he could read the papers. Wouldn't he have paid attention to a major story involving an
homonym ? He could have known that info and told Reg porkies ..?

[harry]

Richard,
Your explanation in post 860,would mean that Hutchinson lied.That he introduced a fictitional person,to cover the fact he(Hutchinson) had been in Kelly's room that night.So why,as you have done in the past,decry those who have also labelled'Poor Toppy"a liar.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Harry,
As none of us our in a position to know what exactly happened in 1888, one can only make suggestions, and suggests scenerios, even if they appear to differ from a previous post.
I would say lies were told in Hutchinson statement, but I suggest if Topping was our man, the lies may well have been necessary.
Hi Rubyretro.
I stress that the Wheeling article was a rare publication . and not read amongst the vast population, especially in the east end.
What you are suggesting is, somehow Topping got hold of this report, and realising he had the same name as the witness, decided to use it, complete with knowledge of his namesakes statement, as a future party piece, when he needed to get some beer money.
I dont but that one.
That report,.. is the only press that mentioned payment, and includes the term. equivilent to Five weeks wages.
So the fact remains that a man named Topping Hurchinson, according to his son Reg, informed himself, and others, that he was paid the sum of one hundred shillings , for services rendered, which would equate to the average weekly wage x5.
I find that a strong means of Identification.
Regards Richard.