Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
I agree both your good self , and Ben, make valid points for the prosecution, but the fact remains the late Reg, myself , and a handful of Casebook members, are not the only ones that remain faithful, many of the older members of that family still believe the account, infact Regs brother [ still alive?] remembers his father mentioning it.
I agree on one point although.
Five pounds/hundred shillings was a huge sum in 1888, however Jack the Ripper was someone, who the police were desperate to catch, and someone like hutchinson [ who Abberline originally believed] might have led them to the whitechapel fiend, so cheap at the price ?
Informers today are paid huge sums , for important imformation, rewards are substancial also.
Even the reward, for the capture of the Ripper, posted all over the district was hardly a poultry sum in 1888.
Regards Richard.

[claire]

You haven't tried the Radio Times Archive, Richard? (Am presuming you have.) If not, why not just drop them a line? You'll be in the best position to describe said programme and someone there might be feeling helpful. enquiries@radiotimesarchive.co.uk

[Rubyretro]

I have heard privately that Reg was promised a wedge if the book was a success, so naturally spicing up the story would have ok by him.

Richard, I think that you must be a lovely man, and very honest to tell us that
...and unflinchingly loyal to Reg and Toppy.

I didn't know that bit of info ! It certainly colours our interpretation of what
Fairclough quoted Reg as saying...I certainly hope that you DO find that radio
show (my offer still stands)...because otherwise it will surely make me question who was the fabulator between Toppy and Reg !

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I obviously respect your opinion, however I oppose your view when it comes to the Wheeling Register.
Several points to make.
With regard to Barnett being drunk at the inquest, we are not in a position to say, have we the knowledge how long the inquest took that day, for instance when did JB , give his evidence, did they adjourn for lunch? if that being the case he could have had his fill, then returned to the inquest worst for wear,if not the case his speech impediment could have given that impression.
Also it was claimed that he took of with one of the women witnesses, since the death of kelly, which is entirely possible, infact for all we know they might have been of a ''together appearance at the inquest, and given that impression.
I agree the Wheeling Register is reported to have been a gossip paper, but where does a lot of other news derive from?.
It could also be the reporters opinion that 'some clever individual' invented a story, simply because of the elaborate description[ rather like many do today]
But the payment.
Five times a mans weekly wage...which according to the average rate for a labourer would be approx five pounds, which so happens to tally with both the radio report in the 1970s, and Faircloughs account in 1992, and this report was only featured in this rather obscure edition, descovered only relatively recent.
Unless a rather dubious radio researcher, fed that snippit to Reg Hutchinson as part of a story , which he relayed on the wavelengths in a slot of that 40 minute airing , or the whole story told by Reg was true.
Fairclough could not have been involved as the broadcast was the best part of two decades earlier.
Lets clarify one thing.
The broadcast did suggest that 'Astracan' looked as if he came from higher up the social ladder, but the interview with Reg [ which it had to have been] did not imply that his father said he was paid to keep ''quiet', infact he maintained that his father[ [proven Topping] never revealed why he was paid.
one could speculate all one wishes, but it never came from Toppings lips.
infact the words used allegedly from Topping to his son /family were I quote as best to my ability.
'It was his biggest regret, that dispite all his efforts, nothing came of it'
Which implies to yours truely... assisting the police, and if any payment occured it was proberly from them.
Although one could never rule out a more sinister explanation.. I repeat that suggestion was never made originally, but I suggest was implied to Reg by Fairclough, with the intention of sales, and I have heard privately that Reg was promised a wedge if the book was a success, so naturally spicing up the story would have ok by him.
I too could argue my conviction until domesday, because as I have said .I heard that broadast, I was not imagining, or smoking joints etc.
8pm one weekday evening , and at a guess 1973/4.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

Richard,
if Toppy couldn't actually have been the witness, and every known fact about Toppy is in opposition to every description of Hutch (there is not ONE thing that links these men other than a shared common name -and even then not the Topping bit -). Your whole argument reposes on the fact that it MUST be true because Reg said so.

None of us know anything about the integrity of Reg Hutchinson -however, I am totally willing to believe that Reg was telling the absolute truth.

I'm actually being very kind to Reg here -you say that Reg didn't know anything about the case, and had to borrow a book to read up on the subject...I find that rather strange. Jack the Ripper was probably the most infamous murderer in History, and Reg would have to have lived on another planet to have not been familiar with the name and notoriety at least...and there was his Dad not only telling him that he had been standing in Miller's Court on the night of the last murder, that he believed that he had seen the murderer...and he knew the murdered woman ? You'd have thought that Reg would have been full of questions !

"you knew her ? How well ? what was she like ? How come you were living in a Doss House, with no money..when you'd spent so long training to be a plumber and are never out of work now ?" Yet Reg seems to have been strangely incurious :

...he doesn't seem to have had any description of Mary at all, any knowledge of why his Father would have been living in such circumstances, and no urge to find out more about the case by getting a book out of the library or ordering one from the bookshop. Infact , the only things that he seemed able to repeat from his Father, was information that had been published in Newspapers. Fairclough must have been so disappointed in Reg not being able to give him new info, when he surely questioned him, and only things that he could find for himself by 'research' -a bitter blow.

But, no matter, I will believe that Reg was entirely honest, and the one fabulating was Toppy. A Toppy who was 22 at the
time of the immense publicity surrounding the murders, who was educated and able to read newspapers, who's attention was taken by the coincidence that he and the witness shared a name, and who had a very good memory for detail (according to our oracle).

I will also be kind to Toppy and say that he didn't begin telling his son fibs, to make himself more interesting..he had identified himself in his mind with the witness and could visualise the whole scene in Miller's Court in his mind, like a film director with himself as the actor. This is a known mechanism of the mind (I'll still lend you my book if you want), and to a lesser extent one that everyone experiences when they visualise their own childhood memories -those incredibly clear memories of
family holidays, or weddings, often turn out to be false when the facts are checked, photos looked at, parent's questioned etc;

The Wheeling Register, I hear you say :

Well, like Ben said, it made other mistakes..but that sum of money mentioned is entirely unbelievable. Infact 5 WEEKS wages is totally preposterous. We are talking about an unemployed casual worker living in a Doss House in a place of extreme poverty -why an earth would the Police pay him such a fabulously princely sum, when he didn't even have a job
not to go to anyway ? Couldn't they just compel an important witness to assist them ? That they might pay his lodgings and food (expenses) for the day -fair enough. He only accompanied them for a few days though..

I think that Chris Scott pointed out that the exact same sum was supposed to have been offered to Mathew Packer to
close his shop, and help them..boy did those coppers chuck cash about needlessly !

This sounds to me like an 'urban myth' repeated by incredibly poor East Enders, and picked up by the Wheeling Register (if you prefer that Toppy couldn't have read that document, and Fairclough didn't discover it during rsearch and feed it to Reg).

Either way, it helps prove that Toppy's 'memories' were false, because he was repeating an error.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Please understand that the Wheeling Register does not support, in any shape or form, any claim made by Reginald Hutchinson in The Ripper and the Royals, and I am asking nicely. The Wheeling Register claimed that Barnett was drunk at the inquest and that he was living with a woman other than Kelly at the time. Pretty much every other source disputes both of these allegations, and most claim the reverse, especially in the former case. In a headline entitled "Gossip", the Wheeling Register claimed that some clever individual "invented" a description and was paid to accompany police in search of a man fitting that "invented" description, whereas Reg insinuated to Melvyn Fairclough that his father was paid to keep quiet about having seen Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper in the company of Mary Kelly.

Once again, I couldn't urge more strongly against using a highly dubious contemporary press account from America to bolster an even more dubious claim in a modern book touting the Royal Conspiracy - or rather, an even more outlandish version thereof - as the most viable solution to the ripper murders.

I repeat - and I look forward immensely to banging on about this if ever the issue is raised again - nobody needed to have read the "Wheeling Register" to form a basis for the story about Toppy being paid for his eyewtiness "services". The Wheeling Register does not lend weight to any of Toppy or Reg's claims - most emphatically and irrefutably.

Cheers,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

I agree with you, but that doesn't make him NOT the murderer. If he were, he would need to have been very Joran-like, brininging this back on thread.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Rubyretro,
I find it hard to agree with you , when suggesting that Regs Father GWTH, actually believed he was the witness GH, Because he had convinced himself, that he was, and that he knew the deseased MJK.
All this was the result of reading newspapers, and he lost all sense of reality.
Dont agree...
The Wheeling reports content regarding payment, I sincerley believe, adds considerable weight, to at the very least Regs honesty, simply because I have heard it privately that he knew absolutely nothing about the Ripper case, he even had to borrow a book on the subject from a younger relative to educate himself.....Hardly likely to have read the Wheeling report I would suggest.
Yet he mentions payment, which no other paper mentioned.
Ah yes.
Fairclough came across the report , and fed him the payment idea.
Fair point.
However Fairclough, was not on Regs scene in the 1970s , when it was mentioned on radio. was he?
So that leaves Topping who conned everyone , including his own mind,who read the wheeling report in 1888, who read the entire Hutchinson statement in 1888, and developed the story , for a chance to get a few pints in later life, informs his own family of this., who never doubted him, according to his close family, even Regs wife believed her father -in laws account.
I have said many times on casebook[ two many] that the only identification of Hutchinson that has come to light since 1888, is Topping, and as that account tallies with all the facts known, I Simply find it conclusive.
We have the witness....GWTH.
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

PS : reading back back over my own reply to Richard has brought so many of my own teenage memories flooding back ...I WAS weird :

I must have been one of the only 'hardcore' Punks that tried everything to join the Morris Men (TRUE -I was rejected). (It still 'smarts' all these years later).

I also joined 'The Sealed Knot' -but my Mother wouldn't let Me go away for weekends as a 'camp fire wench' ( I'm just surprised that they allowed Me into their meetings in the Historical village pub -I was underage and had spikey red hair with pictures of Iggy Pop attached everywhere by safteypins).

Thank God that the Pogues arrived on the scene, and I was no longer a 'split personality' , eh ?

[Rubyretro]

Hi Richard -

I have an offer for you !

My Family live right near Brighton and I take a holiday to visit them a couple of times a year. Due to work commitments up until the end of December, the next time will be in January. I will PM you near the date, and if you give me exact instructions, I think that it would be an interesting experience for Me to go to Brighton University and try and track down for you, your radio programme; I would be thrilled for you to get proof that it existed.

In return though, I'd like you to do something for Me. I have a book called 'Reincarnation ? The Claims Investigated' by Ian wilson. I would have bought you a copy, but can't find one...still, if you PM me with your address, I will lend you my sellotaped together copy. It will demonstrate to you, without a shadow of a doubt, how people can read something, identify with what they are reading and visualise it like a film in their mind, and then totally forget, conciously, what they've read. Years later they can dig up this 'film', place themselves in it, and be utterly convinced by the realism of their own 'false memory' that they have lived through the event.

I have no doubt that these people are sincere -and as they are so convinced themselves by what they 'remember', so they are convincing for others. My Mother owns a
copy of the Arnall Bloxham/Jeffery Iverson recordings cited in the book, and by a strange quirk (Edward Ryall* was dead by the time this book was published), Ryall was my 'penfriend' when I was about 16, and I actually went to stay with him at his house near Southend (he must have been around 80 at the time) (yes, I WAS a weird teenager -
a punk rocker with a 'crush' on the Duke of Monmouth !). These people, recounting these fantasies in short, are entirely believable when you hear them BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE THE TRUTH OF WHAT THEY'RE TELLING YOU THEMSELVES.

Yet, at the end of Wilson's book, he cites the published historial novels from which these people constructed their 'memories' : there is not a 'shadow of a doubt' as to the source material, since not only were the novels published before the 'memories' came to the fore, but of course the authors of the novels had done alot of research. Although, the people 'remembering' came out with so much period obscure detail - there wasn't anything which could not be found in the novels. The clincher though, was that they repeated the authors MISTAKES and 'artistic license'.

Interestingly, there is also something in common with the type of person having the 'memories' : they are all 'artistic' 'visual' personalities that that paint, write, act etc.
They are people that empathise with other people. They are touched by having something in common with a character in the novel, and 'identify' with them (they nearly never take the role of the protagonist, but of a minor character...which always makes their story more believable). I think that Toppy has something in common with this type of
person, and I think that the same 'mechanism' is at work :
-Toppy carried a cane, went to the Music Hall and married an Actress (it points to him being 'artistic' ).
-Toppy was educated -he is listed as being a 'scholar', and he could read the papers
-Toppy had a name in common with George Hutchinson, he knew the East End, and one can understand that he would have been attracted to reading about things pertaining to Hutch, at the time, although he may have forgotten doing so. He had a reason for identifying with the witness.
-Although Randolph Churchill has obviously nothing to do with the case, one can imagine that the description of A Man could correspond in Toppy's mind, when he read the
original description -he visualised someone 'very like' Churchill.

The clincher for Me is the Wheeling Report : Richard, you always cite this obscure document as being the 'evidence' both for the Wheeling Report being true (it was confirmed by Toppy years later), and for Toppy's memories of being 'the Witness' being true, because he cites information which could only come from the Wheeling Report. Yet, reading over the forums concerning the payment of the sum of money to Hutch, it seems clear to Me that the Wheeling Report got things wrong -and as in the Reincarnation cases, this is proof of Toppy's 'source' -the Newspapers !

So I will try and find that Radio show for you, Richard, but I don't know what it will prove : I have always believed that Reg was sincere anyway, and I think that
Toppy was sincere ...but he was not the witness George Hutchinson. Every concrete Fact goes to prove that it was nearly impossible for him to have been so (yes, I will go along with 99.99% impossible).

* published book, memories of the Monmouth uprising "Second Time Around" Edward Ryall

[richardnunweek]

Hello Guys,
Every so often on casebook another thread on our infamous Hutch springs to life, and so it should.
I can say with hand on heart, that anyone that has the time, and inclination, to trace this elusive broadcast of mine[ ie Reg] they will be rewarded if they search through editions of the Radio times between the dates[ sorry about the gap of time, but best to be sure] 1971-1975 up to may that year.
The article explaining the programme figures on the left hand side of one of the Rear pages.
When yours truely, accompanied by my wife, and eldest daughter, visited Brighton University a year or so back, we looked at the relevent editions , but only the pages at the front, that discussed the programmes that week.
That was a huge mistake, as it was the rear , as I now recall.
With regard to that programme, again hand on heart, it was aired at 8pm on a weekday tuesday/wednesday?, it lasted about forty minutes, and it was to the best of my knowledge entitled 'The man that saw jack', or similar.
Near the end of the broadcast there apparently was a taped interview with the son, of the man that saw Jack, ie Hutchinson, who mentioned exactly the same, as was relayed to Fairclough, and which featured in his 'Ripper and the Royals' some 18 years later.
The same sum paid was the same , the someone 'up the social ladder' figured also, and to the best of my memory, the words used, by the alleged son of the witness, said by his father reflecting on the event was.' It was his deepest regret that dispite his efforts in assisting the police, nothing came of it.
Because the radio programme , and the book were nearly two decades apart, and reflected the same, it surely points to Reg Hutchinson, does it not?
Either that or its an amazing coinidence.
Military appearance, indicates a smart type, possibly well groomed...an eye for detail perhaps. rather like Topping[ or what we know of him.
Refering to nobody else of older generation in the family, hearing that broadcast, whats new,.. nobody but me, on Casebook has ever heard it.
But Guys the evidence is there, just research, and you will find. I Should have been succesful, but blew it, but to be honest I dont need convincing because I heard it .
But Casebook does...
Regards Richard.

[Rubyretro]

Hi All,

So if Hutch went forward as a direct result of Lewis saying she saw a man wearing a wideawake hat loitering in the vicinity of the latest murder, are people here saying that he did or did not take a wideawake hat with him for his police interview?

Hutch came forward to the Police and identified himself as the witness seen by Lewis lurking in Miller's Court. He did so after Lewis had spoken of a loitrer at the inquest -a man looking down the Court "as if waiting for someone", whom she described as short & stout and wearing a wideawake hat.
There are only 3 possibilities to my mind (and leaving aside any suggestion that Hutch was the killer) :
1)-Hutch didn't know anything about Lewis and came forward spontaneously, in which case his testimony agrees with hers, because he states that he WAS in the Court at that time, and he was looking towards Mary's room, waiting to see if A Man came out.
2)-Hutch heard about Lewis's witness statement, it agreed with his description, he recognised himself and felt obliged to come forward rather than risk an identification as the possible killer.
3) Hutch was nowhere near the Court, but heard about Lewis' witness statement and came forward as an attention seeker

If Hutch were NOT short stout and did NOT own a wideawake hat, in the 3 cases it would have given this result :
1) Mrs Lewis got her description wrong, but Hutch WAS in the Court because he had spontaneously described his actions that night, without knowing anything about anything that she said;
2) Mrs Lewis was right, she had described Hutch, and he came forward as 'damage limitation', recognising himself in her description.
3) Hutch was only an attention seeker, not even there at the stated time, but he felt able to pass himself off as the 'loiterer' because he matched the description given.

We know so very little about how Hutch came across in terms of his physical appearance, and there is nothing at all to indicate whether any sort of mental comparison was made between Hutch and Lewis's man, either by the police or by Hutch himself.

In the immediate days after Hutch coming forward, his story of standing in Miller's Court, watching Mary's room for A Man to come out, at that particular moment in time, was believed because it was seemingly corroborated by Mrs Lewis's statement. Ergo, he matched her description (short/tall, thin, in a saltn'pepper jacket and a flat cap would not do). Proof that the Police believed Hutch, was that they began searching for A Man, marching Hutch around town looking to identify him. Journalists (notoriously cynical) also interviewed Hutch, and believed him -if he had not matched the witness statement of Lewis and her physical description of the 'loiterer', hard bitten journalists would have picked up on the fact straight away.

Unless there would have been very few people passing, entering, leaving or just hanging about the court late at night, and unless those who did so could pinpoint, virtually to the second, when they were actually there on the night in question, and whether anyone else was there too, I don't see why it follows that Hutch had to be the man Lewis saw at one point, or that he had to notice her during his own vigil, or had to recognise himself from her witness testimony

.
The early hours of the morning were so lonely, and Miller's Court was so tiny,
that it is impossible that two people in it would not be in very close proximity
and not notice each other. Hutch apparently could overhear A Man and Mary
( who would surely choose to stand some way away from a third person ??)
-Hutch could assert believably that he had heard Mary and A Man talking , because people in the Court would be virtually on top of each other..plus it was silent and echoey). It is totally believable that in an isolated dark spot at that hour, Lewis would scurry past Hutch in a hurry feeling vulnerable, but Hutch would (not feeling physically in danger) notice lots about her, more than she did of him.

If, for example, he lied about being there, or didn't own or ever wear a wideawake hat, this whole line of speculation is misleading and will not take us anywhere. If, on the other hand, he sat there with Abberline, bold as brass with the same wideawake hat he knew Lewis had seen him wearing, shortly before he entered that room to commit murder (figuring that he would instantly be recognisable as Lewis's man without having to say a word about her, and would be taken for an equally honest witness when telling his own story) it beggars belief that they would not have made the connection and made more of it, at least while he was considered such a potentially vital witness.

I can't believe that Hutch had a vast wardrobe, nor, as a Dosser, he didn't have his possessions with him. If the Police believed that he was Lewis's witness then he must have had a wideawake hat with him. The Police did not need to 'make more of it' since Hutch was volunteering that he was the man seen by Lewis -not trying to hide it.

You'd think at the very least that Abberline, armed with this intelligence, would go back to Lewis to see if she could remember anything else at all in connection with her lurker, considering his account of Mary taking Mr A back to her room. And yet there is nothing even to hint that Hutch wore a wideawake to the cop shop. Without one, the theory that he was forced out of the shadows because this very item of headgear would have made him identifiable starts to fall apart at the seams.

X

Mrs Lewis evidently didn't remember anything more about the loiterer -but Hutch couldn't be sure of that in advance. He couldn't be sure that Mrs Lewis hadn't actually given the Police more information as to the description of him, than the Police had made public.

Ruby x

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

It cannot, of course, be proven beyond reasonable doubt that Hutchinson was the man in question, but a strong case can obviously be made in that regard. Hutchinson claimed not only to be standing in the same location – and at the same time - as Lewis had earlier described her loitering man in a wideawake, but engaging in the same activity of watching and apparently waiting for someone to emerge from the entrance to Miller’s Court. Unless anyone wants to argue that such solitary vigils were commonplace at that location - especially at that wee hour of the morning and in miserable weather – it follows that Hutchinson either was the individual seen by Lewis, or knew about her account and wanted to assume the loiterer’s identity for some reason, and I don’t find the latter option at all credible for reasons outlined in an earlier post to this thread.

Moreover, it seems scarcely credible to me that the timing of Hutchinson’s account, coming on the scene so soon after the termination of the inquest, was mere random coincidence, especially when we consider that he could have made himself known at any time over the three days that elapsed between the murder becoming public knowledge and 6.00pm on 12th November, or indeed any time after that.

That said, I agree that he was unlikely to have been “forced out of the shadows because this very item of headgear would have made him identifiable”. As I discovered from some earlier net sleuthing, and as Fisherman has pointed out, the definitions regarding Billycocks, Wideawakes and even Bowlers had become somewhat blurred around the period in question. Ada Wilson described her attacker as having worn a wideawake, and here’s how the headgear was depicted later by the press:

http://photos.casebook.org/displayimage.php?pid=387&fullsize=1

In other words, hardly distinctive and a far cry from the Quaker-style hats I once assumed they were. Interestingly, press sketches of Hutchinson himself featured him sporting similar headgear, although whether this signifies that he wore his “Dorset Street” hat to the interview may never be determined. Even if he did, it’s doubtful in the extreme that this would have rendered him “instantly (..) recognisable as Lewis's man”. That’s not to say the police never inferred a connection between Lewis and the loiterer, and if they did, they may well have made "more of it", but that doesn’t mean that this “Eureka!” moment should have survived in written report form.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi All,

So if Hutch went forward as a direct result of Lewis saying she saw a man wearing a wideawake hat loitering in the vicinity of the latest murder, are people here saying that he did or did not take a wideawake hat with him for his police interview?

We know so very little about how Hutch came across in terms of his physical appearance, and there is nothing at all to indicate whether any sort of mental comparison was made between Hutch and Lewis's man, either by the police or by Hutch himself.

Unless there would have been very few people passing, entering, leaving or just hanging about the court late at night, and unless those who did so could pinpoint, virtually to the second, when they were actually there on the night in question, and whether anyone else was there too, I don't see why it follows that Hutch had to be the man Lewis saw at one point, or that he had to notice her during his own vigil, or had to recognise himself from her witness testimony.

If, for example, he lied about being there, or didn't own or ever wear a wideawake hat, this whole line of speculation is misleading and will not take us anywhere. If, on the other hand, he sat there with Abberline, bold as brass with the same wideawake hat he knew Lewis had seen him wearing, shortly before he entered that room to commit murder (figuring that he would instantly be recognisable as Lewis's man without having to say a word about her, and would be taken for an equally honest witness when telling his own story) it beggars belief that they would not have made the connection and made more of it, at least while he was considered such a potentially vital witness.

You'd think at the very least that Abberline, armed with this intelligence, would go back to Lewis to see if she could remember anything else at all in connection with her lurker, considering his account of Mary taking Mr A back to her room. And yet there is nothing even to hint that Hutch wore a wideawake to the cop shop. Without one, the theory that he was forced out of the shadows because this very item of headgear would have made him identifiable starts to fall apart at the seams.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Simon:

"Sarah Lewis was wearing her Mrs Kennedy hat when she reported seeing people outside the Britannia at the corner of Dorset Street.
We are spoiled for choice as to whom she saw, and when. There are three variations amongst Mrs Kennedy's 11 newspaper appearances–
1. Untimed: 1 man and 2 women [all unidentified]
2. 3.00 am: 1 man (who had earlier accosted her) and Kelly [man recognised, woman identified].
3. 3.30 am: 1 woman and 2 men [all unidentified].
Interesting that at 3.00 am Kelly was in Room 13 with Mr Astrakahn.
Also that it was Abberline who interviewed Sarah Lewis, Mrs Kennedy and George Hutchinson."

Thanks for that, Simon. Chewing time ...!

The best,
Fisherman