Innocent, By George!

[DVV]

Hi Richard

not surprisingly, this radio broadcast apparently dates back to the mid-70s, ie, when conspiracy theories were in favour.
You should thus take all that stuff with a pinch of salt, instead of arguing that it proves Toppy was the witness.

All the best

[Bob Hinton]

I have no doubt that Richard is making his claim in good faith and with perfect honesty - that doesn't mean it ever happened. A thorough search of the BBC Radio archives, a search of Radio Times and requests for anyone else who heard the broadcast have all failed.

However as I have said in the past even if we had the actors who made the broadcast complete with certified copy of script presented to us it is still meaningless as all it is is a person saying that his father told him something some time ago. Worthless as evidence. There is absolutely nothing to show that either the son or the father is telling the truth!

[Lechmere]

I hope someone does check the back issues of the Radio Times out but I suspect it will not absolutely clear the issue up as I have an inkling it will not say ‘Ripper witness George Hutchinson’s son Reg speaks to us about the mystery’.
It would however strongly corroborate Richard’s story if there was any similar programme listed.

Mr Ben has this thing about discredited sources. However to claim that every line in a discredited source is completely discredited because it is used in a source which overall is discredited is disingenuous.
I would prefer to look at all the evidence all the sources and see how it can fit together without arbitrarily discounting certain aspects.
I say arbitrarily as by Mr Ben’s standards (if he is being even handed) Hutchinson’s entire story should be excluded.
Historical research into mythical or semi-mythical figures (and I include Jack the Ripper in this) inevitably has to take cognisance of unreliable sources and has to try and tease out the nuggets of truth which often lie within. I gave the example in an earlier post of historical recreation of King Arthur – and you could add other figures such as Robin Hood, Hereward the Wake, or even Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ. Or more recent people like Dick Turpin, Jesse James or Crazy Horse. This even goes for biographies of well documented individuals like Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler or JF Kennedy!
That’s quite a variety I’ve covered!
I could go on and on listing names where scant real information is available and a variety of often inaccurate sources are legitimately used to tease out biographical details.
So now matter how vociferously it is gainsaid, the Wheeling Register comment and Reg’s statement are valid pieces of evidence.

The very fact that Reg didn’t know the inner details of Hutchinson’s statement actually make it somewhat more likely to my mind that he was speaking truthfully. The A-man details are exactly those that would be lost in the mist of time.

[Abby Normal]

I hope someone does check the back issues of the Radio Times out but I suspect it will not absolutely clear the issue up as I have an inkling it will not say ‘Ripper witness George Hutchinson’s son Reg speaks to us about the mystery’.
It would however strongly corroborate Richard’s story if there was any similar programme listed.

Mr Ben has this thing about discredited sources. However to claim that every line in a discredited source is completely discredited because it is used in a source which overall is discredited is disingenuous.
I would prefer to look at all the evidence all the sources and see how it can fit together without arbitrarily discounting certain aspects.
I say arbitrarily as by Mr Ben’s standards (if he is being even handed) Hutchinson’s entire story should be excluded.
Historical research into mythical or semi-mythical figures (and I include Jack the Ripper in this) inevitably has to take cognisance of unreliable sources and has to try and tease out the nuggets of truth which often lie within. I gave the example in an earlier post of historical recreation of King Arthur – and you could add other figures such as Robin Hood, Hereward the Wake, or even Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ. Or more recent people like Dick Turpin, Jesse James or Crazy Horse. This even goes for biographies of well documented individuals like Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler or JF Kennedy!
That’s quite a variety I’ve covered!
I could go on and on listing names where scant real information is available and a variety of often inaccurate sources are legitimately used to tease out biographical details.
So now matter how vociferously it is gainsaid, the Wheeling Register comment and Reg’s statement are valid pieces of evidence.

The very fact that Reg didn’t know the inner details of Hutchinson’s statement actually make it somewhat more likely to my mind that he was speaking truthfully. The A-man details are exactly those that would be lost in the mist of time.

Hi Lechmere
I posted below on a different thread but I'm not sure you saw it:

Hi Lechmere
I would like to know/clarify your thoughts on the following:

1. Do you think Lewis loiterer and Hutch are the same man?
2. Do you beleive Hutch's claim that he loitered?If so, why do you think he waited there.
3. Do you believe Hutch's claim about A-man? Do you believe he could have remembered all that detail?
4. In General, what do you believe and not believe about hutch's story?
5. Why do you beleive he was "dropped" by police as a witness?
6. Do you believe Toppy and hutch were the same man?
7. Do you believe Hutch is a viable suspect in MK's murder? As JtR?

I am not asking this to be a jerk-I really would like to know your overall thoughts on this. Your coherent story on what you beleive most probable that hapened that night between hutch, MK, A-man etc. as it were. BTW-I would be glad to answer these questions for you about what I think most probable to show that I really am asking you this in good faith. Obviously you know alot about the case,know alot about the period and are passionate about it so i would like to know-whats your story on what happened that night?

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Very best of luck with tracking down that elusive broadcast, although as Bob has pointed out, until you can produce any evidence for its existence, I’m afraid it has no value whatsoever.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

"I would prefer to look at all the evidence all the sources and see how it can fit together without arbitrarily discounting certain aspects."

But you don’t do any such thing, that’s your problem.

Whenever you are presented with genuine sources from the period, instead of seeing how they can “fit together”, you dismiss a potential connection as a random coincidence, despite it being astoundingly obvious that it was no coincidence at all, but a genuine connection. You do this because a genuine connection would be inconvenient for your conclusions. Of course, you apply precisely the reverse approach to the most dubious, discredited sources around; claiming, for example, that the assertions and insinuations made in the Ripper and the Royals and the Wheeling Register are “valid pieces of evidence”.

Are they, really?

Reginald Hutchinson’s suggestion that his father was paid a lofty sum to keep his “card close to his chest” about seeing Churchill the ripper with Kelly is, according to you, a “valid piece of evidence”.

And what about the Wheeling Register’s claim that “some clever individual” was “paid five times his usual salary”? Who paid him, by the way? Certainly not the police, who were very clearly under the impression that Hutchinson wasn’t taking home a “usual salary” at that time. Is this a “valid piece of evidence”? No, the source itself states otherwise, since this information appeared under the headline “Gossip”. This same article also claimed that Barnett was roaring drunk at the inquest, contradicting all other sources, and yet this is a “valid piece of evidence” according to you.

“The A-man details are exactly those that would be lost in the mist of time.”

…Only to be replaced by “someone like Lord Randolph Churchill” which just happened to tie in perfectly with the theory being touted by his then interviewer.

What an amazing non-coincidence.

[Bob Hinton]

I'm sorry Lechmere but you are talking nonsense. You say:
"So now matter how vociferously it is gainsaid, the Wheeling Register comment and Reg’s statement are valid pieces of evidence"

Of course they aren't, otherwise anything anyone said would be considered valid pieces of evidence. Every false confessor, and there are many ask any detective, would by your standards be presenting 'valid pieces of evidence' - which of course they are not - they are talking rubbish!

[Lechmere]

Abbey Normal
Yes I saw it – I will put a reply up on the other thread soon.

Mr Ben
You see you are bringing out details to invalidate every aspect of a story – and I don’t think that is a sensible way of weighing things up. It is called throwing the baby out with the bath water.
It is rather like saying the Loch Ness Monster doesn’t exist therefore St Columba never went to Scotland.

Which genuine source have I discounted? I don’t believe I have discounted any genuine source.
If you refer to identification of Lewis’s wide-awake-man with Hutchinson, then the contemporary sources tend to suggest that there was no identification between the two at the time. I am personally unsure about whether they were the same. My argument is against the ‘matter-of-fact’ assumption that they must be the same.
You regularly make hyperbolic claims such as “it being astoundingly obvious that it was no coincidence at all” which I not think are backed up by the evidence.
These hyperbolic claims undermine your case that Hutchinson is the culprit as they just demonstrate that it is a weak case that can only be buttressed by such techniques.

Another example is that Hutchinson must have learnt the nature of Lewis’s testimony (or the minor version is he saw her going in or out of Shoreditch Town Hall) before presenting himself at Commercial Street Police Station, or the convoluted argument that he deliberately didn’t mention seeing Lewis so that the police didn’t think he only presented himself because of her testimony, despite the fact he said he watched the court intently.

On the issue of Hutchinson being paid – we know the police did pay people as witnesses even when they had no salary. Also we know that Hutchinson was not in regular employment. This does not mean that he was not in employment nor that he did not need to go looking for work, rather than walk around with a copper all day. We do not know what Hutchinson would have regarded as a normal weeks pay for his irregular work.

Am I right in saying that the source for Hutchinson being out of work is Abberline, and that he actually said he was not in regular employment, rather than saying he was unemployed? I can’t find where I read that now.

[Lechmere]

Mr Hinton - by saying they are valid pieces of evidence what I meant was they should not be dismissed out of hand as if they did not exist. Different amounts of weight should clearly be put on different pieces of evidence. To suggest that the Wheeling Register and Reg's statement should not be regarded as evidence at all is to my mind nonsense.
One is a contemporary document - the other is someone who's father was factually called George Hutchinson and had East End connections.

[Rubyretro]

I sometimes get the feeling, Lechmere, that we do not speak the same language...I find it impossible to seize some of your 'workings'.

It would however strongly corroborate Richard’s story if there was any similar programme listed.

Bob just explained, very reasonably, that it wouldn't make either Toppy's , nor Reg's story true, if the radio programme did exist.
Bob did a lot of FIRST HAND research, for his book, into the Toppy/Hutch
question -he looked for the radio programme and didn't find it, and neither did he find that the two men could possibly be the same person.
I just don't understand how you can refute Bob and Garry's work by quoting Mike and Fisherman's opinion (I'm fine if you want to use new research, from primary sources, to construct a solid counter-argument..you might even change my mind !).

Mr Ben has this thing about discredited sources. However to claim that every line in a discredited source is completely discredited because it is used in a source which overall is discredited is disingenuous.

Errrr?! can't you see his point of view, Lechmere ?? If my immediate neighbour told me today that the man who lived 2 doors away was dead, and that man turned out to be very much alive and thriving, then my neighbour
would be totally inadmissable as the source of any future gossip.
It would not matter one iota whethersome of the things my neighbour
told me were true or not...I would either have to dismiss him as being untrustworthy altogether, or independantly corroborate each piece of gossip
in the future -I couldn't just picn'mix arbitrarlily what I wanted to pass on.

I say arbitrarily as by Mr Ben’s standards (if he is being even handed) Hutchinson’s entire story should be excluded.

Not quite - Mrs Lewis is generally seen to have corroborated Hutch's 'waiting' outside Miller' court on the night of the murder -the time that he took before coming forward to Police is a fact.

Historical research into mythical or semi-mythical figures (and I include Jack the Ripper in this) inevitably has to take cognisance of unreliable sources and has to try and tease out the nuggets of truth which often lie within. I gave the example in an earlier post of historical recreation of King Arthur – and you could add other figures such as Robin Hood, Hereward the Wake, or even Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Jesus Christ. Or more recent people like Dick Turpin, Jesse James or Crazy Horse. This even goes for biographies of well documented individuals like Winston Churchill, Adolf Hitler or JF Kennedy!

I don't understand, at all, your purpose in mixing semi-mythical figures with well documented individuals.
There would be a strong case for arguing that 'Jack the Ripper' is also a
romantisized figure amongst the general population: but not amongst Casebookers, surely ? Not when it comes to research ?
These murders happened a relatively short time ago. People like Toppy died
(early by today's standards) at an age when lots of people of my parent's age
could have known him. I knew my grandparents well -Toppy was only 30 years older than them. We are not talking in the least about 'King Arthur' and 'Robin Hood'.

So now matter how vociferously it is gainsaid, the Wheeling Register comment and Reg’s statement are valid pieces of evidence.

You're looking at it the wrong way round : the 'urban myth' with this fantastical amount of money,recounted in the Wheeling Register, is a clear indication of the source of Reg/Fairclough's story.

The very fact that Reg didn’t know the inner details of Hutchinson’s statement actually make it somewhat more likely to my mind that he was speaking truthfully. The A-man details are exactly those that would be lost in the mist of time.

You didn't want to tell me your job, Lechmere -let's hope that it's not
psychologist ! : Why would anyone 'forget' (lost in the 'mists of time' )the person, that they had described so well, and who was the likely butcher of a very good friend, whilst they had been standing outside the murder site ?
A murder that had quickly become famous/notorious/mythic Etc ??

P.S. The real Hutch viewed Kelly's body -is it feasible that he and/or Reg forgot this ?
I'd of thought that it was a major event in someone's life..not just a dead body, but one of the most notoriously mutilated bodies in history -of a close friend (why those 'shillings' if not a 'close' friend ??).

[Ben]

“You see you are bringing out details to invalidate every aspect of a story – and I don’t think that is a sensible way of weighing things up. It is called throwing the baby out with the bath water.”

No, it’s not, Lechmere.

It’s called throwing out the used shampoo with the bathwater.

“These hyperbolic claims undermine your case that Hutchinson is the culprit as they just demonstrate that it is a weak case that can only be buttressed by such techniques.”

I resort to “hyperbole”, on occasion, out of irritation when I see the obvious being resisted so staunchly. For the purposes of this discussion, the only incentive behind establishing the likely identification of Hutchinson with Lewis’ man is to illustrate just how unlikely the “wrong day” hypothesis is. You must surely have noticed that other researchers and authors have used the Hutchinson=wideawake premise to argue the case for him being an honest witness. It is nonsense, therefore, to claim that this non-coincidence has only been referred to in attempt to implicate Hutchinson.

“the convoluted argument that he deliberately didn’t mention seeing Lewis so that the police didn’t think he only presented himself because of her testimony”

It really doesn’t bother me that you consider it convoluted. It clearly isn’t anything of the sort, but rather a prudent course of action that clearly paid off.

“On the issue of Hutchinson being paid – we know the police did pay people as witnesses even when they had no salary.”

No evidence for this in Hutchinson’s case, though, and you keep missing the point that despite the absence of a salary in Hutchinson’s, as acknowledged by Abberline who interviewed him, the laughable Wheeling Register claimed that Hutchinson was paid five times his “usual salary”. That would be five times a non-existent salary. Great.

[Lechmere]

Frau Retro
If you read the first sentence that I wrote then I think it answered your problem with my workings...
“I hope someone does check the back issues of the Radio Times out but I suspect it will not absolutely clear the issue up as I have an inkling it will not say ‘Ripper witness George Hutchinson’s son Reg speaks to us about the mystery’.”

I haven’t said that the existence of the radio programme would make the story true – I said it would tend to provide further corroboration – which in my opinion in would. I have also said that I think all evidence from all sources should be weighed. Bob Hinton has effectively said that he dismisses these sources out of hand. I don’t share that view – very reasonably in my opinion.

I am sorry but I do not think that anyone’s work in this field is sacrosanct and cannot be challenged. I also would point out that Mr Wroe was (I think anyway I may be doing him an injustice) one of the main protagonists of the theory that Toppy must have served a seven year apprenticeship in order to qualify as a plumber – which is not the case.

The reason I alluded to mythical and non mythical historical figures and their biographies was that all sorts of reliable and unreliable sources are always used and dissected in order to get at the truth. This is true of recent historical figures which is precisely why I included recent historical figures in the list – more recent than Jack the Ripper.
Take the example of St Columba. He almost certainly existed but we are almost totally reliant for knowledge on his life on Adomnan’s Vita Columbae which is full of completely fanciful tales. No historian would discount everything in Vita Columbae - it is almost the only source! Similarly the information we have about virtually everyone related to the Ripper case is scanty and has to be pieced back together. It is often contradictory and based on myth.

There are lots of misapprehensions about this case and lots of false ‘facts’. As for your touching...
“but not amongst Casebookers, surely? Not when it comes to research?”
I would say that most people would accept that suspect driven Ripperologists nearly always discount inconvenient evidence in order to drive their preferred culprit forward. I don’t think I’m the only person to ever suggest this by a long chalk. It is in many ways just an expression of human nature.

I think you are going some to try and establish a link between the Wheeling Register and Reg’s story by the way.

When looking at Reg’s account, if we take it that he was telling the truth and his father was the real George Hutchinson – just for a minute – then you have to bear in mind it was oral history. It was transmitted to him forty or fifty years after it happened, he then recounted it forty years later to a writer who may have planted other ideas related to the case in his mind. The case as a whole was also a matter of mythology and tales, particularly in the East End and these will have entered Reg’s mind along with whatever his father chose to tell him.

Mr Ben
I don’t claim that the wide-awakeman=Hutchinson connection is only made by Hutchinsonites.
And I don’t think the counter claim (i.e. that they may not be the same) only has relevance for the missing day theory. I am not sure that Hutchinson didn’t make the whole thing up.

I would suggest there is some evidence that Hutchinson was paid. I base this on the fact we know the police paid witnesses who took time off to accompany them. We know that Hutchinson took time off to accompany them. We know the police were desperate for a lead. We know that the Wheeling Register suggested he got money. We know that his possible son suggested he got money. You may want to wish that away but I do not think it is credible to do so.

On the subject of a non-existent salary – do you accept that it was only Abberline who described him as not being in regular work rather than out of work? (again I stress I think this is the case but I may be wrong).
Do you think that Hutchinson was totally ‘unwaged’ (let’s drop the term ‘salary’)?
The point of the Wheeling Register story as with Reg’s story isn’t the detail, it is the general nature of it. The five times salary bit is a detail as I have pointed out.

I notice you failed to point out which sources I have discounted.

[Ben]

“I would suggest there is some evidence that Hutchinson was paid.”

And I would disagree very strongly, Lechmere, because no such evidence exists. Dubious, discredited sources don’t qualify as “evidence” purely by virtue of their existence, as Bob has already pointed out. By that logic, the Abberline diaries (which also appeared in the Ripper and the Royals) are valid evidence, and so are the Maybrick diary entries. That’s not to say that the notion of Hutchinson being given some sort of reimbursement for loss of job-seeking opportunities (for example) should be dismissed. I’ve only pointed out that the Ripper and the Royals and the Wheeling Registers are useless as “evidence” for any sort of payment, since they clearly amount to complete invention.

It is ludicrous to suggest that all British newspapers overlooked the detail of payment while one journalist from America managed to pick up on it. It is ludicrous to suggest that Hutchinson was paid five times a non-existent salary. It is ludicrous to suggest that Hutchinson was paid 100 shillings to keep quiet about Churchill the ripper. It is ludicrous to infer any sort of mutual support amongst these almost certainly fictional sources.

You can’t just divorce the “detail” from the “general picture”, and hope that by glossing over the former, the sources in question become any less ridiculous. It is the very “details” of these sources that reveal them to be the fictional, dreamed-up nonsense that they clearly are. If you want to ascertain the truth, wisdom lies in assessing genuine sources from the period, and not by heading straight for the most bogus nonsense around and hoping to unearth a nugget of gold from the wreckage. These two ridiculous “sources” - that were laughed off the stage ages ago - should be considered in complete and utter isolation from any possibility that the real Hutchinson might have received some sort of reimbursement.

“On the subject of a non-existent salary – do you accept that it was only Abberline who described him as not being in regular work rather than out of work?”

Abberline stated it, and he would have represented the police as a collective when it came to assessing his suitability for any form of payment. As it stands, we have no evidence of any form of payment occurring in Hutchinson’s case.

[Sally]

Lechmere

No, you are right. The Wheeling Register is evidence - evidence of an imaginative journalist at work. If the 'Gossip' contained therein was corroborated elsewhere (not repeated - I'm sure you appreciate the distinction) then that would be another matter.

So far, however, it stands on its own, and has been given far too much weight for what it is.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Unemployed men , or those of irregular working habits were not residents of the Victoria home, it was strictly run , and rules had to be in place,
I was of the opinion that the vast majority of residents were tradesmen, plasterers, plumbers,licensed porters etc, and it is for that reason I cant accept Bens reasoning.
It surely is acceptable to suggest, that hutchinson was of regular income , even if not in a permanent position, otherwise he would not have been a resident.
Five weeks salary, if one takes the 1887 average labourers wage would be equivilent to approx one hundred shilliings , which is the sum Reg claimed his father was paid.
The argument that Five times salary to a out of work person cant be calculated, would be correct...... but Hutchinson was bringing in a wage otherwise, he would have been on the streets, the Victoria home would not have entertained a man that did not pull his weight.
Regards Richard,