George Hutchinson Shadowing Sarah Lewis' Statement

[Scott Nelson]

You are using a general template which is akin to bigotry or ethnocentrism imo.

It was sarcasm.

[Abby Normal]

There is far, far more in favour of George William Topping Hutchinson being the Miller's Court witness.

sigs don't match, found to support the royal conspiracy-not the hutch.

[Abby Normal]

Boy-fiddler, so not Jack. Not even the witness George Hutchinson.

Hi Sam
yes that is usually the case I agree. but this is many years later, and there are serial killers who have targeted mainly one sex but have involved both.

its a sex crime. similar.

its why I still have chapman on my top tier, eventhough MO is apparently drastic.

you cant rule people out because of these types of differences, when there are also similarities.

[Abby Normal]

As a general rule this is the case, however nothing is ever set in stone when it comes to an individual and their own psychosis. You are using a general template which is akin to bigotry or ethnocentrism imo.
And I took a few courses in college as well, I'm not sure how that qualifies you to belittle my opinion as a capable Ripperologist or point me in the direction of crackpot suspects or make 'unequivocal statements' like you are some kind of expert or something. Best of luck to you as well, try sticking suspects more your speed such as John Merrick and Lewis Carroll. All the most excellent best.

HI Mac
I think rj was being sarcastic here, as I believe he favors tumblety.

[Sam Flynn]

sigs don't match, found to support the royal conspiracy-not the hutch.

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.

[MrBarnett]

Gareth,

Where exactly were the ‘Stepney’ Gasworks?

Gary

[rjpalmer]

It was sarcasm.

Not it wasn't. I'm a closet advocate of the Lewis Carroll/John Merrick theory. Years ago I even submitted an article about it to The Ripperologist, but Paul Begg rejected it.

nothing is ever set in stone when it comes to an individual and their own psychosis.

Well said! I give you an A+

I apologize for my earlier post, MT; I was indeed having a bit of fun. Two of the police suspects that I am interested in (both widely dismissed these days) are thought to have been homosexual.

Like you, I think it is highly unlikely there is a simplistic ‘linear’ relationship between the murderer’s ‘normal’ sexuality, and those he choses to victimize. Anyone as extreme as the Ripper was, is not likely to adhere to pop-psychological clichés. If Hutchinson was proven to be a child molester and an exhibitionist, then I assure you that I would be among the last to suggest that this is was some sort of psychological ‘alibi’ and I am always rather surprised when otherwise intelligent people argue that it would be.

Let me give you a name. Michael DeBardelen. He is little-known, but might qualify as the worst criminal in American history. He was best known as a counterfeiter, but the FBI became convinced that he was also responsible for a series of cross-country murders. His victims were elderly and middle-aged women that he put on ‘display’ but did not sexually abuse. (Please recall that there is no evidence the Ripper sexually abused his victims). The police noticed that these women bore a strong resemblance to DeBardelen’s own mother.

An interesting if disturbing aspect to this loathsome man is that he was also responsible for a series of rapes. His victims in the rape cases were young, attractive women. He sexually assaulted them, but, as far as we know, never murdered them. Thus, there seems to be a clear ‘disconnect’ between those he chose to murder, and those he chose to sexually abuse. (The Freudians among us would no doubt be puzzled by this). To borrow your phrase, ‘nothing set in stone.’

To make matters even more muddled and convoluted, when the police finally caught up with DeBardelen, they broke open his private locker and found a great horde of homosexual pornography that he had collected. So now there appears to be a THREE WAY ‘disconnect’ between those he murdered, those he sexually abused, and those he privately fantasized about.

What’s the moral to the story? You've already given it. Nothing straight-forward in any of it. Just a dark, black-hole that makes very little logical sense. It has its own, internal logic that is beyond our comprehension. Ditto Jack the Ripper?? I don’t see why not.

So, my sarcasm aside, we are in agreement. Beware of psychological clichés. As you say, it’s not straight-forward. It’s not linear. Anyone as bat-&%$$# crazy as the Ripper undoubtedly was, is not likely to adhere to whatever psychological flavor is currently in vogue.

Now back to the Walrus and the Elephant Man!! All the best.

[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/#zoom=16.687494334894183&lat=51.5194&lon=-0.0373&layers=163&b=1

[Abby Normal]

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

[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

[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 !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.