Innocent, By George!

[Malcolm X]

``Here is where Chapman's story ends and Abberline's begins. Once Godley had arrested Chapman, Abberline is said to have remarked to him, "You've got Jack the Ripper at last!" Although there is reason to believe this remark was actually made when Chapman was convicted and not arrested (Sugden), the fact remains that Abberline held strong suspicions toward this man. ``

this means that the top brass weren't that sure if GH was lieing or not, because to suspect G.Chapman must have meant that the MJK sighting was still bothering them.... for sure !

still bothering both men; or only one and we're not sure when this was exactly said, means nothing, because what it means is, they were thinking exactly like us, they were swaying both ways.

but they have one massive advantage over us.... ENORMOUS, they both knew GH.

so what does this tell you about GH, and the fact that they never suspected him instead....... he didn't look or behave anything like JTR, not even close.

e.g nothing like BS/ Leather Apron/W.Bury/ J.Kelly and finally LE GRAND.

WHY NOT ? he was either an honest person, or higly intelligent..... an outright liar ?...... No because this weakens G.Chapman....

you see we have something that backs this up...... the Cox woman never said that the bloke she saw was not GH, or otherwise he would have been dismissed as a liar straight away, and never asked to go for walkies with them the next day...... i have to presume that Abberline checked this.

finally, GH realising that this woman saw a man outside, is bloody stupid coming forward as a total liar, isn't he !

you see, it really does look like GH was there.

[caz]

Hi Caz
But the idea of MJK's killer getting away with murder, getting away with putting himself under the spotlight, taking early retirement from such violent crime, and then deciding to hoodwink his family with unnecessary tales of his experience as a mere witness in the case just doesn't ring true

But if Toppy=Hutch=JtR, then the lie is so big (Just being the witness) that he may have felt he needed to repeat it to his family-as it would be much more suspicious to be a famous witness in a famous murder case and NOT mention it to his family, as they would more than likely find out sometime.

Hi Abby,

One wonders how the family of GH the star witness would ever have found out, if he didn't tell them himself. No other bugger on earth seems to know who this man really was, emerging from nowhere to grab his fifteen minutes of fame before disappearing again in a puff of dodgy smelling smoke.

If they had managed to find out somehow, all he had to say was that he didn't want to talk about it after the papers used the 'discredited' word.

Everything about GH the witness: the extremely detailed description he gave; wasting no time in talking to the papers; taking the cops round looking for the man again and probably expecting to be paid for his time; and then suddenly finding himself dropped in favour of other witnesses describing very different suspects - suggests to me a man who would definitely have told his family all about his brief claim to fame and the part he played in this enduring mystery. I can't see the killer of MJK having a similar need or desire to pass on his own bogus witness account to his nearest and dearest. It would have served its purpose and been best forgotten.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

be warned

Hello Greg. IF Millen were A-Man, I'd like to think that he was there to offer a friendly word of warning.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Fenian in Whitechapel...

Most certainly not. Don't forget he was in British pay on and off since the 1860's.

By the way, he never tried to blow up the Queen. I think Francis Millen would be hard pressed to blow up a balloon.

Fair enough Lynn. Then what was Millen doing with MJK? Was he simply availing himself of her services or was he the set up guy?



Greg

[Abby Normal]

Hi All,

Looking forward to seeing if Melvyn Fairclough can be contacted and persuaded to comment. I met him back in 2001 at the Bournemouth ripper conference and found him to be a very pleasant chap, around my age I think, and relatively (in the field of ripper folk) normal.

I hope that means he will be willing and able to shed some much needed light on this subject.

I would find it natural enough for a 'star' witness, as GH was initially but all too briefly considered to be, to want to hand down his story through the family, so his role in this infamous case would not be entirely forgotten. That gives the basic Toppy story a ring of truth to my mind, despite the various problems with the finer details. Just like the police memoirs, we can doubt that the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth was told by any of 'em, but it doesn't mean the individuals concerned did not have genuine parts to play at the time.

But the idea of MJK's killer getting away with murder, getting away with putting himself under the spotlight, taking early retirement from such violent crime, and then deciding to hoodwink his family with unnecessary tales of his experience as a mere witness in the case just doesn't ring true somehow. So I can certainly appreciate why some Hutch-as-ripper fanciers cannot entertain the idea of him emerging again later as Toppy. It wouldn't be cricket, would it?

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
But the idea of MJK's killer getting away with murder, getting away with putting himself under the spotlight, taking early retirement from such violent crime, and then deciding to hoodwink his family with unnecessary tales of his experience as a mere witness in the case just doesn't ring true

But if Toppy=Hutch=JtR, then the lie is so big (Just being the witness) that he may have felt he needed to repeat it to his family-as it would be much more suspicious to be a famous witness in a famous murder case and NOT mention it to his family, as they would more than likely find out sometime.

[lynn cates]

blow up

Hello Greg.

"Lynn, does this mean you think the Fenian Millen massacred MJK? What, he couldn't blow up Queen Victoria so he settled for the Queen of Whitechapel?"

Most certainly not. Don't forget he was in British pay on and off since the 1860's.

By the way, he never tried to blow up the Queen. I think Francis Millen would be hard pressed to blow up a balloon.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hi Caz

What Fairclough believes or doesn't believe is neither here nor there.
Caz

Wish it could be true, but that's not the case. Who said Toppy was the witness ? Reginald. Where did he say so ? In Fairclough's book, near to the Abberline diary.

Dvvvv

[DVV]

I would suggest that he exaggerated in saying he knew Kelly for three years

Problem is that the known sources invalid your suggestion, as far as we know. Now why would Hutch have exaggerated ?

Dvvvv

[GregBaron]

Visage confusion...

Hello Malcolm. Regarding your second point above, does that disregard the phenomenon of "slumming"?

I believe this phenomenon certainly existed Lynn, as it still does. See Hugh Grant in L.A. a few years back...

I do NOT think Lord Randolph was Astrakan man. I reserve that honour for General Francis Millen.

Lynn, does this mean you think the Fenian Millen massacred MJK? What, he couldn't blow up Queen Victoria so he settled for the Queen of Whitechapel?

It doesn't look like Toppy -nor of a 'chancer' aged- only just 22.

It does look like a stout man in a wideawake hat.

I agree Ruby, it looks more like Buddy Hackett from this Rifleman episode...not the lean, gaunt, square-jawed look of our Hutch Fotomat photo....


Greg

[Malcolm X]

unfortunately you cant go by that illustation at all, but it does look atmospheric, i bet the original is worth a fortune ! GH looks scruffy, he also looks way older than 22, his shoulders look too wide, HANG AROUND, he fits as Broad Shoulders doesn't he HA HA ONLY KIDDING.

now in this other illustration of him GH looks too smart and way too old as well, this is the worst portrayal of all 3 that i've ever seen...what are those other people doing there as well....... ooops, MJK looks rediculous, mind you she looks awfall in others too.

[Rubyretro]

A sharp young man could present a military appearance I would say – he could be spruce and erect.
As for the sketch image – firstly we don’t know for sure it’s even meant to be him.
Secondly the nature of how sketches were done and engraved suggests it was not done from life.

Here is just one more conundrum of the case for me : I went looking for the picture of the witness Hutchinson, and it is a weird thing....
It certainly does look as if was done from life. It doesn't look at all like the
generic pictures already shown -it looks far too character filled and personal.
Also, this rather uncomfortable and shifty looking individual doesn't at all look like an illustration of the reports -and this decalage with the written descriptions is extremely interesting to me...



This doesn't look like the ' spruce, erect' person that you imagine from the words 'military appearance'. Very far from it. (why would someone choosing a generic image choose something so contrary to...well, I suppose only to your visual idea ?).

It might look like the image of the type of 'ex-soldier' knocking about London
who had a notorious repution and was banned from some pubs because of a propensity for drunkeness and violence. It certainly could be an ex groom.
It doesn't look like Toppy -nor of a 'chancer' aged- only just 22.

It does look like a stout man in a wideawake hat.

[QUOTE]

The overall image that the picture appears within is quite complex but the way they were composed is that they were divided into squares. The primary illustrator did the main image and his assistants did the rest.

Your knowledge is impressive...but it doesn't look at all to apply with this drawing. I am very interested in Art...and I can't see this sketch of being anything other than 'of a piece' and a rapid character sketch of a real person.

I don’t believe for a second that the journalists who interviewed Hutchinson turned up with an illustrator

.
You would be right on that if it is a snatched as opposed to a posed sketch.

However Hutchinson wouldn’t have known that – and if he was going under a false name that would have posed a real danger. The life illustrations were usually rather good.

Well, maybe he didn't know that he would be drawn, and his likeness distributed by the papers ? Maybe that is why the man in the sketch looks rather discomforted at being captured by an artist ? Maybe that's why 'Jack' stopped ? (he was too afraid at being recognised near another murder scene ).

But then if Hutch was JtR it was reckless indeed to follow up his insertion in the police investigation (forced by Lewis’s sighting and testimony we are led to believe by the adherents of that theory) by gratuitously following it up with a press interview. And by the way not just inserting himself but making himself a start witness for a while and walking the streets with coppers in tow. But then we know all this already.

yeah, yeah, yeah....we know that this is behaviour that Serial Killers indulge in. Besides...surely Jack the Ripper was going further and further in his flamboyance ?

I didn’t know you had a fixed mental image of what a late 19th century urban-groom-currently-working-as-a-labourer-but-not-in-regular-employment actually looked like. But I don’t think that image fits the bill very well.

Don't you ? Type 'Audley End. Then 'Stable Yard 1880s' and scroll down a bit to the second video. Listen to it till the end (I presume that the people that make these things do research them).

You are right to point out that there is no evidence that Toppy was a groom – but as I have said it isn’t the most skilled of professions – and he was not working as a groom which suggests he was not the most skilled of professional grooms

.
It doesn't. It suggests that 'groom' jobs were more difficult for an 'outsider' to come by in London.

Of course there is no proof he stayed there – that sort of proof would be exceptionally unlikely to turn up.

So it's void then.

There are no other George Hutchinsons who come even remotely close to filling Kelly’s Hutchinson’s shoes.

But if you can't catch the real person, should the next person coming closest 'do'

It could be an alias....

Absolutely.

But we have someone who’s life story as we can reconstruct it, dovetails quite neatly – to expect it to tally in every little detail with the scant records we have of Kelly’s Hutchinson is utterly unrealistic. We have a family tradition, we have some corroboration from the press (e.g. Wheeling Register) and we have the signatures which while arguable, are clearly similar at the very least

.
The Family Tradition is worth little (see Nathan Shine. The Wheeling Register is maybe a source of aspects of the story -not a corroboration. The signatures, until proven, are merely similar).

Try beyond reasonable doubt.

What is 'reasonable doubt' is subjective , since we don't have the people (Hutch and Toppy) before us. For me the doubt remains big.

I'm sorry Lechmere..as tempting as you try and decorate your garden path, I'm just still unwilling to walk down it..

(If I were a teacher , my report would read ' Good efforts this term, but still needs to try harder').

[lynn cates]

slumming

Hello Malcolm. Regarding your second point above, does that disregard the phenomenon of "slumming"?

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

[

Caz
X
(Late fifties and feeling it)

[/QUOTE]

I've seen your photo in the photo archive, Caz -you're doing remarkably well !

[caz]

I would suggest that he exaggerated in saying he knew Kelly for three years and this goes for whoever Hutchinson was - I have given reasons for this before - she moved from place to place over the whole of the East End.
Fairclough nor anyone else need not believe that anyone looking like Randolph Churchill did it, to still believe Reg. Hutchinson did not see any crime committed - he said he saw Kelly with someone. If he did he may have exaggerated his appearance and may have himself been the victim of recreated memory based on the popular hysteria that prevailed then.
Fairclough is perfectly entitled to reject the person seen by Hutchinson as the culprit. It doesn't detract from the alleged sighting one iota.

Well observed, Lechmere. What Fairclough believes or doesn't believe is neither here nor there.

Love,

Caz
X
(Late fifties and feeling it)

[Malcolm X]

I would suggest that he exaggerated in saying he knew Kelly for three years and this goes for whoever Hutchinson was - I have given reasons for this before - she moved from place to place over the whole of the East End.
Fairclough nor anyone else need not believe that anyone looking like Randolph Churchill did it, to still believe Reg. Hutchinson did not see any crime committed - he said he saw Kelly with someone. If he did he may have exaggerated his appearance and may have himself been the victim of recreated memory based on the popular hysteria that prevailed then.
Fairclough is perfectly entitled to reject the person seen by Hutchinson as the culprit. It doesn't detract from the alleged sighting one iota.

1.......yes exactly i've been saying this for ages, how could GH say these things when there is no proof that LA DE DA is anything other than an earlier client, but does he jump to this conclusion, or is this on purpose, i'm not sure yet

2...... realising the rigid and very snobbish class structure back then, is to realise that somebody from the Upper classes would never talk, or be interested in a prostitute from Whitechapel, i've discussed this with many people, it's virtually impossible, back then a prostitute from the lower classes was considered Vermin, if you dont realise this then you need to research victorian attitudes far more, there could never have been a Royal Conspiracy.... FACT, middle classes may be different though.

3....... if GH knew her for 3 years, he would have given the police far more info about her personality/ friends/ life etc...... but no, nothing!

4.......if GH saw JTR, THEN HE SAW HIM VERY WELL INDEED far too well to get his description wrong, or to be influenced by others, but no; he describes somebody that JTR would never dress like, especially considering that he has to leave the crime scene later on, still dressed exactly like what the locals thought that JTR looked like.... liable to be arrested, yes of course; come on please this isn't Rocket science!

i guarantee you as a fact that JTR did not dress as LA DE DA, he can only be a downgraded version of this, i'm sorry but sooner or later you have to think realistically, JTR did not carry a blag bag full of knives and organs etc, i would hope by now that we should all realise this.

i am not that pro- GH, but unfortunately this other suspect AS DESCRIBED ONLY, is totally crap.

now then, if GH saw JTR, why did he exaggerate.... this is crucial and for an honest person it makes no sense..... now you know why he looks so suspicious.

because even if he described him accurately, then it still isn't easy to find a suspect, because neither G.C/ Druitt/ W.Bury would be stupid enough even in their wildest dreams, to dress like this, would they....................... oh Dear.

yes, so everything to do with JTR is a confusing mess..... conclusion:- LA DE DA is fictional and if true, must therefore be tamed down, this means that GH is lieing for some reason.

now lets get real, he got his description wrong from point blank range... he's lieing !

but was he there?....... aah i'm not sure, because he was seen by Cox and any copper would have checked to see if GH matched her sighting, for sure, this is basic leg work..... so i'm not really sure what to say here, but my guess is that he was outside