Innocent, By George!

[Ben]

Apologies for the late reply, Fetchbeer.

“Regarding the police’s checking powers, you will naturally be familiar with the following report”

Yes, I am familiar with the report in question. This isn’t the first time you’ve reproduced this report, and as such, this will not be the first time I’ve addressed its content. In a nutshell, it is very clear that the first man attracted the suspicion of the police because he attempted to “persuade” two women to accompany him into a side alley. As for the other two men, it is likely that they attracted attention for similar reasons. No man would have been “arrested” or “taken into custody” purely for sharing physical similarities with a “suspect” described in an alleged witness account, and as such, you are clearly onto a very losing wicket when you claim that the other two suspects supposedly fitted the Astrakhan description and were arrested solely for that reason. Good luck to any copper who wanted to get that one through as a legitimate arrest: "you did nothing wrong, but you look slightly like Mr. Astrakhan". Nah.

“You continuously conjure up Packer and Violenia”

I conjure them up only when strictly necessary, chiefly to offer them up as examples of witnesses who were considered to have given false witness accounts, and who were ultimately discredited for that reason. These two men were ostensibly investigated as witnesses only - never suspects - and they were discredited not because the police had procured proof positive to the effect that they were lying, mistaken, or elsewhere at the time of the murder, but because they were assumed by the police to have been lying.

Next time you refer to the “checking” activities of the contemporary police, I want to see that crucial witness/suspect distinction properly acknowledged by you, please. If Packer and Violenia came to be treated as false witnesses only, despite being near the crime scene, there is simply no case for inferring that the 1888 police would have been more interested in Hutchinson as a suspect, who unlike the aforementioned pair, did not live in the same street in which the murders were committed.

It is clear that Hutchinson’s statement was “checked out” to some extent, since The Echo stated quite explicitly on the 13th November that a “reduced importance” had been attached to his account in light of “later investigations”. Significantly, however, these investigations clearly did not involve any consideration that Hutchinson might have been the killer, nor did they result in any proof positive that the account was either false or mistaken. The police discredited Hutchinson’s account on the basis of opinion only, just as Walter Dew did in the late 1930s.

“Your explanation for the police dropping Hutchinson was that he told the press he spoke to a policeman on the Sunday. The Police exposed that as a lie and left it at that?”

No, not at all. Once they had exposed the lie, the police probably took Hutchinson to have been a two-a-penny publicity-seeker who was prompted dismissed as a promising lead. It was unlikely to result in any punishment, as it is clear that neither Packer nor Violenia suffered appreciably for their obvious lies. An acceptance and realisation of this obvious reality is infinitely preferable to conjuring up a whole host of imaginary, hoped-for reports that “must have” been conveniently lost.

“The lie I proposed a guilty Hutchinson could have told was hideously different to the complicated version that he chose to tell.”

And…?

What are you saying here, exactly? That if you were Hutchinson, you would have told a specific, less “complicated” lie that differed wildly from the “version” on record? This is nonsense, and irksomely preposterous nonsense at that (I’m glad you like my phraseology, but please get a thesaurus and cultivate your own!) as it perpetuates the patience-testing fallacy that if a lie seems too outlandish, it cannot have been a lie at all. It’s akin to the Maybrickian suggestion that mismatching handwriting lends weight to Maybrick being the author on the grounds that no forger would have been so “stupid” as to overlook the necessity of mimicking the real Maybrick’s handwriting.

“Are you now really saying that there would have been no precedent for real offenders coming forward as potential witnesses?”

No established prededent, no.

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, which I know you don’t.

“How can you possibly say it is nonsense that he misjudged the time it took to walk back?”

Misjudgment of time is fine as a general concept, but not by an hour and a half, especially if energy preservation and sleep were essential requirements for a person in Hutchinson's situation as you've described it. Your version of events extends far beyond mere sleep deprivation for one night, but a whole night’s lack of sleep substituted with 13 miles of walking from Romford, plus more walking around for the remainder of the night, plus even more walking around in search of employment. It is sheer obstinacy and stupidity to embrace this as a likely or even vaguely acceptable version of events, especially for a contemporaneously discredited account. Why bother? Nobody makes these sorts of mind-numbingly crap excuses for Packer and Vionenia, who were both discredited like Hutchinson.

“I won’t mention this again”

Yes, you said that when the gargantuan "Wrong day" thread was only about ten pages old!

[Malcolm X]

it is very unlikely that the police would've checked his story, they at most, would only have checked that he was staying at the victoria home and that he would have been available over the next 2 weeks. i very much doubt that they checked his I.D either, it's more likely that they were far too excited by his suspect description

it is very unlikely considering the long walk home, that GH would have mistimed his journey and arrived back here too late, plus this 13 miles is a very long way to walk home and then to have to wait outside for a further 50 mins, still standing up, he would have been tired and very hungry, legs and feet hurting like hell, and it's cold and raining, plus after this he continued to walk until the next morning, at about 4mph, so this is at least another 16 miles around in circles, dont forget that he never said that he stopped to rest, we are either missing a lot of information here, or that this has to be a total lie, it is impossible to do this much walking etc etc etc.

because i used to this type of orienteering at school, when i was super fit, and a 15 mile hike really tires you out, you get blisters, burning legs etc, so i dont believe any of this, it's garbage, especially considering that he was described as stout !

i expect the police were too dumb to realise this, plus to check if he was at the victoria homes the night of the other murders too.

just think of how much walking and standing up he did that day, it's virtually impossible, without an hour break to rest and to eat/drink etc.

if he's still JTR, then he's simply been patrolling his kill zone as per normal and probably in the pub earlier on.

so if he's JTR then LA DE DA is a load of rubbish.... it is anyway, so how did he target MJK when she was still inside with BLOTCHY?

1.....JTR patrols until he sees something interesting, usually he'll see this at range first and then he'll decide what to do..... unless he's targeting a chosen location like Dutfields.... was he targeting Millers court as well, but no particular victim.

2.....JTR definitely waited because he was seen, so the 2 to 3am time is correct

3....dont tell me he waited that long to find a victim, because there's loads of women around as said.

4....he probably saw MJK at range at 2am going back with another bloke after Blotchy had left, but was too far off to intercept, he was probably entering Dorset st when she was chatting up some guy outside.

5....this wait took an hour and then he went in !

but is this so, because the A.CHAPMAN sighting looks like a foreigner, even though she never saw him full face, because i dont give a damn if his face is not looking at you, because you'll still be able to see the side of it...... definitely!

but the EDDOWES suspect is ok, so i dont quite know what to think, because both of these will almost definitely be JTR

[DVV]

Hi Malcolm

you will soon realize Mary wasn't a random victim if you think Hutch did it.

Hutch said he knew her for years, it is therefore certain that Abberline questioned him about this acquaintance, as to test his credibility, and also, as it was his job to collect all info about the victim's personality and background.

The conclusion is that Hutch did know her more than an ordinary client. If the murderer, he wouldn't have challenged Abberline on this.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Malcolm

you will soon realize Mary wasn't a random victim if you think Hutch did it.

Hutch said he knew her for years, it is therefore certain that Abberline questioned him about this acquaintance, as to test his credibility, and also, as it was his job to collect all info about the victim's personality and background.

The conclusion is that Hutch did know her more than an ordinary client. If the murderer, he wouldn't have challenged Abberline on this.

Yea sorry i forgot about this, but GH can find out all he knows about MJK simply by going to the inquest and chatting to the women outside, and reading the papers about her murder, plus of course from killing her.

he might have therefore told Abberine ``i knew her for ages but only really as a casual aquaintence, she was like this that and the other``..... because you can guess what she was like anyway and thus pretend to know her.

this is easy to lie about, what is hard to lie about is getting your times right if you werent there, because other women might also have been down dorset street from 2 to 3am and said...``i didn't see GH outside``, he was therefore outside, because nobody came forward to contradict him, he was likewise using this same arguement, not outside after 3am.

the killer has to get this right, it's crucial he does, he MUST BE SEEN OUTSIDE between 2 and 3am and he was.... or maybe he was, this gives his account of a LA DE DA a legitimate feel, but it also and never noticed well enough at the time, makes him look very guilty too.

all of this plus everything else makes him appear like JTR, BUT RIGHT NOW, nothing more than this.

how did Abberline interrogate him ? we dont know because we dont know enough about his personality, he might have gone easy on him, especially if GH played it like a Joe Average, rather than a smart arse with attitude.

dont forget that GH supposedly saw JTR up close and personal, so this was distracting Abberline.

Abberline later on, after giving his statement much more thought, just like us, didn't believe what he said any longer, unfortunately he didn't realise due to the times back then, that this inserting yourself into the case is a tactic that a few Serial killers try, they wouldn't believe back then that anyone could be this foolish.... so he would have been dismissed as a liar only.

of course by then, GH was long gone, whoever he was, thus we have no more ripper murders, simply because not only had he shot off home, he was unable to ever kill again simply because the police would recognise him again, how many ?... oh at least 20 of them, he would also have been recognised by the papers too, plus half of Whitechapel.

dont forget that if JTR is indeed G.Chapman that he too is screwed after MJK, because he was seen way too well by GH, who is therefore Toppy, and will easily be able to identify him again even 2 years later.

so this knock on effect of going to the police as JTR really does screw up the killer in the future, and this is true for GH, GC, TUMBLETY, D'ONSTON.

but is this what happened ? no idea and this is where it gets so confusing.... none of your research will help you here because you need to be looking after 1889.

the key player here is GH, no doubt about it, but definitely not someone around the 6ft 7'' mark

[DVV]

Who was 6'7 ?

Now if you think it's easy to lie from A to Z to an Inspector after Kelly's murder, well, you miss something about Hutch and Abberline judgement.

[Observer]

it is very unlikely considering the long walk home, that GH would have mistimed his journey and arrived back here too late, plus this 13 miles is a very long way to walk home and then to have to wait outside for a further 50 mins, still standing up, he would have been tired and very hungry, legs and feet hurting like hell, and it's cold and raining, plus after this he continued to walk until the next morning, at about 4mph, so this is at least another 16 miles around in circles, dont forget that he never said that he stopped to rest, we are either missing a lot of information here, or that this has to be a total lie, it is impossible to do this much walking etc etc etc.

because i used to this type of orienteering at school, when i was super fit, and a 15 mile hike really tires you out, you get blisters, burning legs etc, so i dont believe any of this, it's garbage, especially considering that he was described as stout !

Hi Malcolm

I think you're confusing stout with fat, or overweight.

I also think you underestimate the human frame.

Not so very long ago, I and a friend, who is in his sixties, walked around the East End of London most of the daylight hours, with hardly a halt. We started at Tower Hill underground, on to Swallow Gardens, thence around Stepney, taking in the Ratcliffe Highway murder location Pichin Street, Berner Street etc. We then tramped around Spitalfields, on to Bethnal Green, to view various 1960's gangland places of interest, and of course all of the sites associated with JTR. It would take far too long to describe the route we took that day, the farthest East we hit was Eric Street, in Mile End, visiting Mr Lusks residence on the way. We later walked back to Aldgate, and finished off at Mitre Square. We did not use a car, or public transport, and decided to walk everywhere to take in as much as possible. God only know how many miles we covered that day. I think you'll find that most of the regular contributors to East End photographs and illustrations, have similar epic journeys that they could recount.

Observer

[drstrange169]

Catherine Eddowes walked home from the hop farms in Kent.
Such walks were typical back then when alternatives were not available.

[DVV]

Hutch's money

I agree with Obs (the length of the walk isn't the problem) and with Dr Strange (back then people used to walk more than we do).

The question isn't "how could he walk that long ?" but "why did he walk all night ?"

Hutch said it was too late to sleep in the VH. Then why not trying another lodging house ? Why not asking Mary to get some rest in Miller's Court ?

Don't tell me he had spent all his money between Romford and London, one must be stupid to walk back to London not only too late, but completely penniless.

[Wickerman]

Then why not trying another lodging house ? Why not asking Mary to get some rest in Miller's Court ?

Don't tell me he had spent all his money between Romford and London, one must be stupid to walk back to London not only too late, but completely penniless.

Dave.
It seems your first two questions are answered by your third point, I mean if having "no money" was his problem then that is sufficient reason why he couldn't find alternative accomodation for the night, but you know this.

Incidently, he did say he spent all he had "going down to Romford", which suggests that he either spent up in Romford, or also on getting there, that he may not have walked to get there.
So, the venture to Romford cost him all the money he had, hence he had to walk back. Without knowing why he went to Romford in the first place really hinders us from criticizing his story in any meaningful way.

Regards, Jon S.

[Malcolm X]

I agree with Obs (the length of the walk isn't the problem) and with Dr Strange (back then people used to walk more than we do).

The question isn't "how could he walk that long ?" but "why did he walk all night ?"

Hutch said it was too late to sleep in the VH. Then why not trying another lodging house ? Why not asking Mary to get some rest in Miller's Court ?

Don't tell me he had spent all his money between Romford and London, one must be stupid to walk back to London not only too late, but completely penniless.

yes, and why he walked all night is also very odd, this could be a convenient excuse to explain away what he did from 4 to 6am! and also what he did earlier on from 11.30pm to 2am, i.e stalking his kill zone instead.

because whilst walking he cant be fixed in any one locality, which means that he cant be accused of having no Alibi.....

he is still out and about and he doesn't seem to care less, at the very time that A.Chapman was killed too, the other women were killed earlier and thus he went home, but if not, expect to see all the other murders being committed at 4 to 6am as well.

what is odd here, is that GH does not seem to mind staying up all night long, which is the same as JTR too, because most normal people would be looking for somewhere to crash out at 3 to 3.30am.

having no money is yet again an excuse to be walking so much, this is because GH realises that all this walking around makes him look like he's stalking, if indeed he has money in his pocket.

he also sais he has no money simply because he needs an excuse to explain why she picked up LA DE DA, because if so, she would have returned home.

all of this plus miles more makes GH look very guilty, unfortunately it's not nearly enough.

FINALLY, if GH does all this walking all the time and is a very determined character, why is he unemployed !

[DVV]

Hi Jon

Incidently, he did say he spent all he had "going down to Romford"

Yes, but he apparently had enough to pay for one night in the VH, then why not trying other lodgings ? He didn't say he spent his money between the Victoria Home and Miller's Court.

which suggests that he either spent up in Romford, or also on getting there, that he may not have walked to get there.
So, the venture to Romford cost him all the money he had, hence he had to walk back. Without knowing why he went to Romford in the first place really hinders us from criticizing his story in any meaningful way.

That's a possibility, I agree, but at the same time, we can't do as if Hutch wasn't already a suspect, and in this respect the trip to Romford is a bit too convenient.
It doesn't explain why Hutch walked all night, in any case.

Dvvvv

[DVV]

because whilst walking he cant be fixed in any one locality, which means that he cant be accused of having no Alibi.....

Yes Malcolm, that's why he couldn't say he sat and tried to sleep somewhere, as most would have done after such a day.

[Malcolm X]

Yes Malcolm, that's why he couldn't say he sat and tried to sleep somewhere, as most would have done after such a day.

he's JTR, it's pretty obvious that he is, but unfortunately we've got nothing after 1889 and i can guarantee you that he comes from Romford.

he returns here to kill and stays at the Victoria home quite often... he sais he's looking for work, to explain returning home during the week...TO WORK!!!

this isn't rocket science, this guy has to have a relatively normal life, but during this C5 time period, he's probably taking time off, doing this and that, so nothing is fixed, but basically he's coming to London to kill and returning home on maybe sunday, monday or tuesday etc.

this might mean that he's self- employed, or has his own casual business, or employs loads of others etc, but he returns to London as an unempoloyed person, so he's a master of lies/ disguises and is highly intelligent too.

this killer isn't foolhardy and careless, he knows exactly what he's doing, he knows that due to his ground work beforehand, that he cant get caught, this is no semi- crazed loonie, or a down and out unemployed bum.

he's in disguise and he's called himself GH by sheer fluke, rather than John Thomas... because if so, then we'd have another JT pretending to be this innocent witness years later too

it's REG's father that has screwed this up.... or the son only!... not sure which.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Malcolm,
Are you being serious?
George Hutchinson ..[Topping] was JTR, throughout the autumn of 1888 this 22year old went berserk, visited the police, walked about on the beat with them, was paid for his services, and vanished into a respectable human being, married, took up ice skating and violin playing, not to mention a good old knees up at the local music hall dressed in a boater, and sporting a cane, just like the 90s dapper Dan...
Well I'll be a son of a gun....
To the vast majority of Casebook, the name Topping has become a joke, his late son Reg was merely spinning a tale to a enterprising author for a 1992 book, who used this as a booster for his theory.
Wrong.
This tale/story was broadcast on radio in the 1970s, some 18 years previous to that publication, the LA De DA character was mentioned along with the Hundred shillings payment, all the information that appeared in The Ripper and the Royals, were orally aired by the son/sons of Topping[ we forget Reg had a brother] or a actor reading on behalf of.
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that I heard that programme, and I am submitting the truth.
Because of this , and the Wheeling article of 1888, which confirms a payment was made to the witness, ie Hutchinson, and bearing in mind that no newspaper in the UK of that period revealed that money changed hands, except for this rare american report, I am totally convinced of Topping being the witness.
To fake somebody's identity, and pretend to be someone who knew a victim , because of realisation that he had the same name as yourself, educate oneself all about the murders, and the statement initially made , not to mention have access to the Wheeling Registrar, and feed that payment into your tale of dark days past, and spin a yarn not only down the local, but to your family for years to come.. is too far fetched to take seriously.
Topping was Hutchinson, he knew Mary Kelly, and like many others, some on record, parted with their money far to easily to her desperate pleads for help.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

It doesn't explain why Hutch walked all night, in any case.

As opposed to what Dave, walking the streets of Romford all night just to walk back to London in daylight?
Isn't that 6 of one and half-a-dozen of the other?

Regards, Jon