George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement

[Wickerman]

Even clearer? Got it right, more like. The Daily News would have us believe that the couple was drunk, which is a clear sign that its account of Lewis's testimony had been trimmed to the point where the wrong information was conveyed. It's obvious that the Daily News omitted the important fact that it was "the latter" - i.e. the woman - who was "in drink", a detail that the Telegraph picked up on.

The Daily News does not say both were drunk, that is how you choose to interpret what was written. You are obviously taking any view in order to dismiss the parallels.

Why didn't she say that? Whether it was of interest to the inquest or not, it's the natural thing for Lewis to have said in her narrative without prompting. Had she actually said such a thing, it should have appeared in all the newspapers, not least because a couple actually entering Miller's Court is more newsworthy than a couple merely seen "further on". Perhaps this is what caused the error in the Daily News.

But that's not a natural thing to say; one says "in front of me", or "ahead of me" - one does not say "further on", unless one is referring to things further down the street.

None of these accounts, including the court record, use Lewis's actual words. All sources paraphrase Lewis. So you are criticising Lewis on the sole basis of what the reporter wrote to encapsulate an unimportant part of her story.
People in the street coming or going were of no interest to the coroner unless as potential suspects.

[Wickerman]

again- the man and women sarah lewis saw couldn't have been Kelly and Aman.

hutch saw them enter the court at 2:15. Lewis arrived later and also went into the court shortly after 2:30. Both fixed there times with a clock.


so mary and aman (if hutch is being truthful) have already been in Marys room for about 15 minutes before sarah lewis even arrives.

end of.

But Abby, it is you who put "2:15" in there, no-one else.
The time is your choice.
All Lewis said was that she was at the Keylers at 2:30 (obviously, because she would hear the clock chime), not that she arrived there at 2:30, and I know I've pointed this out before, but you still.......

We are not told what time Lewis arrived at the Keylers.

[Wickerman]

"Another man with a woman passed along" - not "Another man with a woman entered Miller's Court".

One passes along a street; one doesn't "pass along" by turning into an entrance passage.

Can I just clarify something with you?

Are you suggesting Lewis saw a completely different couple in Dorset street that night?
I've assumed that is your view but I don't recall directly asking.

[Wickerman]

It would take much more than a jungle grapevine for a person to insert themselves into someone else's story without knowing who that person was, and if that person would even be a witness, or even if someone else would come forward and admit to being the loiterer.

The point about interpreting evidence is, to determine what the evidence suggests, not what can I dream up to support a theory.

[Sam Flynn]

No ...George Hutchinson would have known nothing of Sarah Lewis or her testimony at 6pm on the 12th .
Sarah Lewis did not make the evening press .

We understimate the jungle grapevine at our peril.

[packers stem]

And for Curious cat, who's thread has spiralled without providing an answer to the original question .....

No ...George Hutchinson would have known nothing of Sarah Lewis or her testimony at 6pm on the 12th .
Sarah Lewis did not make the evening press .
Only witnesses and press were present at the inquest as the room was too small to admit members of the public .
Some may try some bits of desperate straw clutching like he was standing outsude the door with a glass to it but if you want to be real .... then no , he couldn't know the details of that testimony .Never mind formulating a statement in time to shadow

[packers stem]

I agree with Abby
You can't claim Toppy as being genuine , accept his sighting as genuine and then deny what he said to his son because it doesn't suit .
Toppy and royal conspiracy go hand in glove.
You can't use typical ripperology selectivity on that one
Reg Hutchinson appeared in the appendix of the paperback version of Melvyn Fairclough's 'The Ripper and the Royals ' in 1992 .
As it wasn't in the main text I'm guessing that he read the hardback version and contacted the author .
He was interviewed by Melvyn and Joseph Sickert in May 1992

Reg told us that his father said that he knew one of the women and was interviewed by the police .
He told his son that it was "more to do with the royal family than ordinary people" and when asked who he thought it was he always said " it was someone like Lord Randolph Churchill"
Reg continued "he was paid a hundred shillings , but he never said why"

[rjpalmer]

It's not difficult to see how the Jimmy Saviles and the Jerry Sanduskys of the world got away with serial sexual abuse for decades. Always someone willing to rush in and claim it was 'consensual,' or that the victims were blackmailers, despite a complete lack of evidence.

[Abby Normal]

Sorry, the sigs do match, and emphatically so. And the fact that a silly Royal conspiracy theory was cooked up in the latter half of the 20th Century can't have any bearing on Topping's being on the spot on Nov 9th 1888. I don't believe he could even have heard of this conspiracy, as it wasn't invented during his lifetime, on which basis it would have been impossible for him to have supported it.

The fact that Topping's son (allegedly) told Melvyn Fairclough that his father likened Mr Astrakhan to Randolph Churchill is just a wee bit convenient given that Fairclough's theory places Randolph Churchill at the centre of the conspirators. This same Fairclough who evidently wasn't averse to including facsimiles of a patently forged "Abberline Diary" in his wretched book. We can hardly blame GWT Hutchinson for all that.

What we do know is that Topping's family story - however subsequently muddied - identifies him as the Miller's Court witness. He was of the right age to be an acquaintance of Mary Kelly's, and we know that he courted and subsequently married a girl from Bethnal Green. A girl, moreover, who lived within spitting distance of Stepney Gasworks, a place to we know that Kelly's boyfriend "Morganstone", and subsequently Kelly herself, also had connections. (Toppy's family once lived in Romford - Hornchurch, specifically, 2 miles away - but that might just be coincidental. If not, that's another synergy with GH the witness.)

Topping's father (also George Hutchinson) was a labourer before he became a plumber, so there's no reason why his son's career couldn't have followed a similar trajectory, which is fully congruent with his being a labourer in 1888.

Indications are that Topping had connections to the right part of the East End at approximately the period in which we're interested, and that he was there often, if not a resident. He also apparently had pretty normal relations with women. Neither of these can be easily argued in respect of the transient winky-fiddler, Aussie George - who, as far as I recall, is only known to have boarded a ship at London's Docklands on one day in September 1889.

hi Sam

Sorry, the sigs do match, and emphatically so.

in your opinion. to me they don't-emphatically not. I have a little experience in the matter, and to me it would be a major red flag they are NOT the same person. Hell, the three original hutch sigs don't even match each other, so its useless to compare anyway.


but any way-one part of a persons signature that is least likely to change is the first initial of the first and last name and they are TOTALLY different than toppys.


and I believe the one expert who did examine also said they were different , no? I think you could find an equal amount of people , who would say they are different as would say they are the same.

And the fact that a silly Royal conspiracy theory was cooked up in the latter half of the 20th Century can't have any bearing on Topping's being on the spot on Nov 9th 1888. I don't believe he could even have heard of this conspiracy, as it wasn't invented during his lifetime, on which basis it would have been impossible for him to have supported it.

The fact that Topping's son (allegedly) told Melvyn Fairclough that his father likened Mr Astrakhan to Randolph Churchill is just a wee bit convenient given that Fairclough's theory places Randolph Churchill at the centre of the conspirators. This same Fairclough who evidently wasn't averse to including facsimiles of a patently forged "Abberline Diary" in his wretched book. We can hardly blame GWT Hutchinson for all that.

seriously? totally disagree. the fact that they were looking for people to cook up support for a crack pot theory, and that Fairclough was dubious only makes it more likely anyone they found is also dubious. someone looking for there 15 minutes of fame and guided by a dubious hand is more likely to give them exactly whatb they are looking for and embellish at the least and flat out lie at best.
reginald said his father said it had to do with Churhill, exactly what was being asked for. cmon-credibility out the door.

What we do know is that Topping's family story - however subsequently muddied - identifies him as the Miller's Court witness. He was of the right age to be an acquaintance of Mary Kelly's, and we know that he courted and subsequently married a girl from Bethnal Green. A girl, moreover, who lived within spitting distance of Stepney Gasworks, a place to we know that Kelly's boyfriend "Morganstone", and subsequently Kelly herself, also had connections. (Toppy's family once lived in Romford - Hornchurch, specifically, 2 miles away - but that might just be coincidental. If not, that's another synergy with GH the witness.)

OK so hes in London at the time, about right age-so were other George Hutchinsons. the other "connections" tenuous at best. we could play this six degrees of separation game with probably anyone who was alive at the time!

Indications are that Topping had connections to the right part of the East End at approximately the period in which we're interested, and that he was there often, if not a resident.

what evidence is there he was in the east end at the time of the ripper murders??

He also apparently had pretty normal relations with women.

like stalking them and lying about seeing a killer of one? That dosnt sound normal to me nor good ole "normal relations" Toppy.

Neither of these can be easily argued in respect of the transient winky-fiddler, Aussie George - who, as far as I recall, is only known to have boarded a ship at London's Docklands on one day in September 1889.

exactly-a liar who broke the law and with a sex crime on his record! sounds like our hutch to me!

and who also skipped town right after the ending of the ripper series! fits with him being the ripper as well!

[Abby Normal]

Hi Abby. Well Tumblety was arrested on November 7th, 1888 on charges of gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms against four men between July 27th and November 2.
This suggests that these four men were not consenting adults.
But in the Sourcebook, P685, It says Committing an act of gross indecency with John Doughty etc.
It would be interesting to see if these four adults were charged as well. I am sure that would clear it up.
Regards Darryl

Hi DK
thanks. Of course homosexuality was a crime at the time. we are a little more enlightened now.

If Ts sexual relations were all with consenting adults, that kind of puts a chink in the idea he was the ripper and also in comparing him to aussie georges crime-which undoubtedly was a crime and would be now.

[Sunny Delight]

There's absolutely no evidence implicating anyone so someone's feelings are going to be "probably insulting" posthumously. As far as your other sanctimonious comments, I'm quite sure that this attitude you're displaying is what caused the case to never be solved in the first place. To much outrage over appearances and good form.

It might interest you to know that this "real person" as you call him fled to Australia and molested two boys after the Mary Kelly murder. Sounds like a monster to me. Have a nice day.

That ID has not been confirmed. Neither has the George Topping Hutchinson one. We simply do not know who he was. So to label a man a killer and now a paedophille is simply wrong. The reason the case wasn't solved I am quite sure had more to do with a lone wolf operator who was extremely lucky and the lack of scientific techniques such as fingerprinting and DNA. Even photohraphing crime scenes was not the norm.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Abby. Well Tumblety was arrested on November 7th, 1888 on charges of gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms against four men between July 27th and November 2.
This suggests that these four men were not consenting adults.
But in the Sourcebook, P685, It says Committing an act of gross indecency with John Doughty etc.
It would be interesting to see if these four adults were charged as well. I am sure that would clear it up.
Regards Darryl

In order to catch a bigger fish sometimes the smaller ones are thrown back !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Darryl Kenyon]

Was tumbletys sexual relations all with consenting adults, or was rape and or minors involved?

Hi Abby. Well Tumblety was arrested on November 7th, 1888 on charges of gross indecency and indecent assault with force and arms against four men between July 27th and November 2.
This suggests that these four men were not consenting adults.
But in the Sourcebook, P685, It says Committing an act of gross indecency with John Doughty etc.
It would be interesting to see if these four adults were charged as well. I am sure that would clear it up.
Regards Darryl

[Abby Normal]

Was tumbletys sexual relations all with consenting adults, or was rape and or minors involved?

[Joshua Rogan]

Where exactly were the ‘Stepney’ Gasworks?

I believe it was the Commercial Gas Company, Harford Street, Stepney

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoo...layers=163&b=1