Romford

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

" I will amend that to "was historically always accepted as an undoubtedly honest witness"

Not at all - Paul Begg, for example, has expressed the exact same doubt as I do. So you are wrong again, Ruby.

A new try, perhaps? Or not?

"On his say so alone, and I adore your understatement -"this is contested".

I prefer his own say to yours, strange though it may sound. He would not have been a Hutchinsonian.

Fisherman

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro – having shattered my mental image of you, you have made up for, in part at least, by accepting the common sense proposition that Hutchinson did indeed go to Romford and walk back.
It is one of those things that wasn’t commented on at the time as being ‘odd’ and which could easily have been ‘checked out’, so it strikes me as being a pretty fruitless issue to dispute.

Similarly as the Lewis connection wasn’t made at the time – and Hutchinson was closely discussed by the press and was a key police witness at least for a time – I cannot ‘just’ accept that Hutchinson equals wide-awake man. Indeed in my opinion the presumption must be that he was not.
Aspects of the A-man’s description is another matter.
I also find it unlikely – for reasons I have gone through before – that he knew Kelly for three years (she lived in other parts of the East End and the East End was like a very big city in its own right). But that is something that would be difficult for the police to corroborate – or impossible as we and they clearly knew so little about Kelly’s real identity and background. I wouldn’t discount the possibility that he knew her ‘a bit’.
Also so far as his behaviour dovetailed with what we know about modern serial killers goes, what we know is that they behave in all sorts of different ways, so a very wide range of behaviour patterns could be claimed to match that of at least one serial killer.

In general terms his behaviour doesn’t match and has to be explained by a combination of oddities:
The drastic change in MO (yes they do happen) combined with a desire to insert himself as he could have moved away (yes it does happen) and fear at being caught despite his deliberate insertion being the reason for the killings ending (yes they do stop for that reason sometimes).

[Fisherman]

Lechmere:

"Similarly as the Lewis connection wasn’t made at the time – and Hutchinson was closely discussed by the press and was a key police witness at least for a time – I cannot ‘just’ accept that Hutchinson equals wide-awake man. Indeed in my opinion the presumption must be that he was not."

Exactly so, Lechmere. I am of precisely the same opinion - after having weighed the material together, the better guess is actually that these men were not one and the same. But after decades of acceptance that they WERE the same, heaps of work lies ahead of us to make this point count, not only amongst those sworn to the theory of Hutchinson as the killer, but also to mainstream Ripperology.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Let me throw another wrench into the works. If Toppy knew Kelly for about 3 years (big if) one presumes he was in the area often, of not in the Court. Lewis lived not far away and seems to have spent a lot of time with the Keylers and knew Kelly as well. One would think that they would have known each other by sight, if not by name. Even if it was a little dark, Lewis should have been able to fathom a guess as to whom the man was that she claimed she saw based on his being short and stout and in the area if she knew had seen someone like that before in the vicinity. This adds to Fisherman's (and Dew's) wrong night theory, but it also leans itself to a complete fabrication by Hutchinson and the idea that he was never in the area at all. THis could mean that he did indeed go to the inquest, discovered that no one really knew anything and decided to try for some money.

What we have here are still more possibilities that lead away from Toppy being the murderer.

Mike

[Lechmere]

I find it hard to believe that Hutchinson would have taken a day off work, bearing in mind he was skint on Friday. Also I find it almost impossible to believe that the crowd outside the inquest would have heard anything of any substance that transpired within - particularly the uncommented on aspects of Lewis's testimony.

But I do think it probable that Hutchinson was Toppy.

Although... Le Grand was of military appearance (or rather one of the people called Le Grand was of military appearance)... but then Le Grand (the one who was of military appearance) wasn't not tall but stout.
Just thought I'd throw that one into the mix.

[Wickerman]

All that matters is whether he was lurking for 3/4 of an hour outside Mary Kelly's room just before the killing (and his story appears to be corroborated by Mrs Lewis -an undoubtedly honest witness),

Even, to the extent of seeing a man & woman walk up the court while the loiterer/Hutchinson was standing watch.

"...I saw a man standing on the pavement. He was short, stout, and wore a wideawake hat."

"... I also saw a man and a woman who had no hat on and were the worse for drink pass up the court."

"...The man was looking up the court; he seemed to be waiting or looking for some one. Further on there was a man and woman - the later being in drink."

This was the same story as Hutchinson provided, that Astrachan & Kelly walked up the court as he watched from the street, outside the archway.

Regardless whether anyone 'appreciates' the detailed description given by Hutchinson, at least Lewis witnessed a "man and woman" walking up the court directly ahead of her "Loiterer".
So, someone was with Kelly, regardless what he was wearing.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

No, Jon.

Lewis never said anything about a couple entering the court. She referenced a couple who passed along Dorset Street. You're relying on one confused newspaper that relayed an erroneous detail, whilst ignoring all the others who had no such confusion. Had there been the vaguest insinuation that the female half of the couple was Kelly, Lewis would have been requested to attempt an identification with the corpse, but there is no evidence of this happening, unsurprisingly. The male half of the couple was not "Astrakhan man" either. By the time of Lewis' sighting, which occurred at 2:30am, the loitering man was already installed opposite the court, and according to Hutchinson, Kelly and Astrakhan were already ensconced within room #13. You need to look at the vast majority of press versions of Lewis' testimony and her police statement. She is quite specific that there was nobody in the court.

[Ben]

As for the alleged Romford excursion, I don’t remember ever asserting that it didn’t happen. I have only challenged the inference that this was something that the police could have “checked out”. Had it been a true claim, yes, it is possible that the police were able to communicate with his contacts there, but had it been a false one designed to legitimize his presence on the streets in the small hours, the police were in no position to prove it false.

The Lewis connection was not made by the press – correct, but this does not mean that the connection was explored and then dismissed, as some are claiming, or else the press would surely have been aware of the development. It is very clear that neither press nor the police were overly concerned about this particular individual; they were far more preoccupied with investigating the more superficially “sinister” Bethnal Green Road man from her account. Naturally, most people accept that Hutchinson was probably the loitering man seen by Lewis, but because a small minority (usually the same few who enjoy extensive keyboard wars with me) panic that this realisation might fuel speculation that he might have been the killer, they come up with increasingly bad excuses for drawing a schism between the two.

I don’t know what Lechmere means when he says the behaviour “doesn’t match” – match what? His own perception of what this uncaught killer would or wouldn’t do? I’m afraid that isn’t good enough, nor is the suggestion that serial killers “move away” when they are spooked. The travelling serialist is not nearly as common as Hollywood makes out. No “drastic change of MO” is remotely necessary to envisage in order for Hutchinson to have been the killer, but as for “fear of being caught” I think we can take it as a given that the killer wished to avoid being caught.

“Also I find it almost impossible to believe that the crowd outside the inquest would have heard anything of any substance that transpired within - particularly the uncommented on aspects of Lewis's testimony”

You have no idea of the extent to which her testimony was commented upon by the general public, Lechmere. Hutchinson could easily have noted – visually noted – that the same woman who had passed him on the night in question was the same woman who was about to provide, or had just provided, evidence at the inquest.

[Ben]

Lewis lived not far away and seems to have spent a lot of time with the Keylers and knew Kelly as well.

No, Mike.

Lewis did not know Kelly.

She said so herself, "I did not know the deceased".

There is no evidence that Lewis spent any appreciable time with the Keylers or at Miller's Court.

There is no corroboration for Hutchinson's three year acquaintance with Kelly.

It is therefore unlikely in the extreme that Lewis knew Hutchinson by sight.

I wonder if we can keep all this Toppy nonsense out of this discussion. If anyone really wants to claim that Toppy was the real George Hutchinson, at least pick the fight on the relevant threads, please.

[The Good Michael]

I wonder if we can keep all this Toppy nonsense out of this discussion. If anyone really wants to claim that Toppy was the real George Hutchinson, at least pick the fight on the relevant threads, please.

Excuse me? We have a nearly positive identification of Toppy as Hutchinson. I use the name 'Toppy' to shorten things and not to antagonize. If I discuss George Hutchinson who is George William Topping Hutchinson, I will continue to use the name... Yet, maybe 'Topping' would be better and less familiar to a respectable man of military appearance that I never knew.

Mike

[harry]

I have never queried that a trained person,or a person used to walking,such as a hiker or sporting club member,could cover distances.Show me information as to Hutchinson being of such,and I would modify my views.Show me information,that supports Hutchinson's presence in Romford,and I would change my stance.This is about Hutchinson and what he could do,or claimed to have done..As for things to ponder,w hy would he remain in Romford untill ten O'clock at night.Why ten oclock?Because by Fisherman's reckoning it would take three and a half hours to cover the distance to Whitechapel,and I will allow extra time,and by Hutchinson's own addmission it was two AM when he reached Commercial street.As for seeking work.Building work would have commenced about eight o'clock in the morning.To get there at that time would mean a start of Four thirty AM.Getting there any time after would reduce any chance of work that day.Think of the allround circumstances that would entail a trip to Romford and back,and arrive penniless,and you might begin to understand that it is not the distance alone,that I take into consideration.

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"I have never queried that a trained person,or a person used to walking,such as a hiker or sporting club member,could cover distances.Show me information as to Hutchinson being of such,and I would modify my views."

That is doing it backwards, Harry. Why would we work from the presumption that Hutchinson was NOT "used to walking"? Since we do not know anything about whether Hutchinson was up to the task physically or not, we are obliged to accept that doing a 14 mile walk (he may have hiked in the other direction, so 14 miles may be the only stretch he walked between Whitechapel and Romford) IS something that most normally fit people could do. Therefore we are equally obliged to accept that George Hutchinson could have done it, all certainties set aside.

But you seem to work from other presumptions altogether: If we cannot find proof for Hutchinson´s being in Romford on Wednesday (or Thursday), or proof that he was physically fit enough to do the walk, we must for some reason accept that he could not have done it?

Is this what you propose?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

Here's my take on Romford :

Basically, it has no bearing at all on whether Hutchinson was the killer , if he had been to Romford or not.

I think it does.

Take away the excursion to Romford and he has no good reason to be anywhere near Mary Kelly at that time of the morning.

[Ben]

You miss the point, Mike.

I have no problem at all with people using the abbreviation “Toppy”. On the contrary, I’m very fond of it, and it was probably my creation anyway. I meant there’s no need to keep mentioning that particular individual whenever Hutchinson is discussed. We’re quite familiar with your views on that very controversial theory, but suffice to say, I don’t believe Toppy was the witness in question. There are plenty of Toppy threads if you want to bring up the argument for that particular theory.

Meanwhile, back on topic...

[Rubyretro]

I think it does.

Take away the excursion to Romford and he has no good reason to be anywhere near Mary Kelly at that time of the morning.

Fleetwood -I get your point, however if he went to Romford he could have been the killer, and if he lied about it then he still could have been the killer.

Alternatively, he could have lied about going to Romford -and still not of been the killer (nor lied about A Man).

So , in the sense that whatever he did the day before the murder neither exonerates him nor incriminates him; It isn't important.

Since that is true, I can't believe that that he would have lied to the Police
with a very specific account of what he was doing and a place name.
Whereas the existance of A man couldn't be disproved -even if it's unbelievable- , and 'walking about all night' during the crucial hours couldn't be disproved, the Romford story could have been disproved, not only by checking in Romford, but also by someone potentially coming forward to witness that he had been in London. Why risk being caught out on that detail and suddenly becoming a 'suspect' ?

I've already said that I think that good liars mix fact and fiction...facts because they can be checked and lend credence to the fiction, which can't.
So, on balance, I think that he had walked back from Romford.

Of course it has been suggested that it was a long and pointless hike to come back, knowing that his lodgings would be closed. But maybe it wasn't pointless at all if he was was driven on by the thought of killing Mary Kelly -and that it would be assumed by those that knew him that he had found work and stayed in Romford, and therefore could not be the killer ?