Romford

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would bet money on it...Reg was not a liar.not everyone is obsessed with the Jack the Ripper murders, and to Reg it was great being in the limelight, but a pain in the butt towards the latter of his life.
All he relayed was his fathers tale, that he knew one of the witnesses , and gave a statement to the police, and assisted them to no avail.
Its that simple., no big deal, it is Casebook that has made it so.
Was his statement relevant in the death of Kelly we can not be sure, I will keep a open mind on that.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

and once the suspect has been decided, there is no possible way for them to look objectively at the inofrmation, In this case, it makes me just as big a nutcase arguing with people who can't possibly release their hold. And this is why I choose to joke rather than debate about it because it is something that needs to be laughed at in my opinion.

Mike

[Lechmere]

The area of the East End where the Ripper murders took place was heavily populated by Jews. The chances of an event taking place near an establishment that was frequented by Jews would have been high, just by the law of averages. It is a bit like those silly, ‘near a school’ links that are made.

Anyway Hutchinson didn’t mention the J-word did he?
You can interpret his statements as suggesting a Jew and you can read into it that he was being anti-Semitic, but it is all very conjectural.

The Toppy connection isn’t proof that he didn’t do it but added to all the other improbabilities it is extra counter evidence which is why the Hutchinsonites are so desperate to believe it ain’t him. For Toppy not to be the one, then Reg must be a total liar. Unlikely in my opinion.

[The Good Michael]

?
If of course, Hutchinson was his real name, he actually came from the area, and he had family or anything that we can get a handle on, and he didn't leave 6 months later etc etc

Exactly! This is the BS argument that always comes up. "We can't find him because er, uh, it was an alias." Absolute crap, really. We have one guy who fits, and that is not an agenda. That is putting all pieces together and coming up with the only possibility we have so far. Oh wait, aside from a guy who chose the alias George Hutchinson because no one would have believed Smith or O'Reilly.

What you Hutchers fail to see is that I and Fisherman don't say GWTH wasn't the Ripper. The likelihood is lsight that he was. That's all. Whereas you nutcases have everything riding on him, like a 20-1 horse at Preakness, only he's an also-ran as of now.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

I am not fighting about GWTH. I know he is teh same George Hutchinson that stands accused.

But this is the exact same closed -mind attitude that you accuse
'Hutchinsonians' of having ! Infact, you interpret any evidence pertaining to Hutchinson from the perspective that he was irrefutably 'Toppy'. You claim to " 'know' that he is the same George Hutchinson that stands accused". But of course you can't 'know' anything of the sort. I bet you any sum that you want that Mr Leander would not claim to 'know' that
Hutch and Toppy were one and the same person.

I have almost no doubt

.
So there is hope then.

As far as signature comparisons, despite the nonsense that Ben has fed you, there was only one handwriting expert who made the comparisons and he suggested that they were similar enough to be investigated further. Sue Iremonger did not compare all signatures and only looked at those from the statement, so what she had to say is invalid for the argument. Of course this is something that Hutchers fail to comprehend or to admit

.

Ben didn't feed me any nonsense at all. I was an utterly conviced Toppy-ite and found myself arguing my corner -so , believe me, I know all the arguments- and I lost because, globally, the Toppy argument doesn't hold up.

Nevermind, Leander and Iremonger -take them out of the equation. What are we left with ?

Nothing that stands up -really stands up- on the Toppy side.

Of course someone that wants to argue for Toppy -someone like Fish that will wrap you up in bits and bobs -can win an individual point. But it's like winning Little Big Horn -a bummer if you're Custer, but it makes no difference to The Big Picture: nothing logical allows you to shoehorn Toppy into the role of Hutch the witness.

In point of fact, we laypeople can do just as good a job in most cases comparing such unforged and innocuous signatures

.
I'm not so arrogant. There are superficial similarities but we know that there were fashions for certain styles of writing, and they were learned by rote. We don't even have 100% proof which, if any, signatures were really written by Hutchinson;

Those without agenda are pretty certain of GWTH being GH

.
However , you have an agenda. It's just a different agenda.

Those with agenda look for small details to try and prove they are not the provenance of the same person, a disingenuous thing to do when there is no reason to believe there was deceit on anyone's part to distort the record

.
And those with the opposite agenda look for different details to prove that they were by the same person. I prefer to admit that I'm not an expert, and I can't possibly 'choose' between Leander and Iremonger, and so I will say that their opinions cancel each other out and judge on the rest of the facts.

Tell you what, if you can prove that there was another George Hutchinson with similar signatures of the same age living in the east End and spending his whole life in that area, I will stop using GWTH or Toppy. Until then, I shal and it isn't an argument. It is just the bare facts, jack.

Mike

?
If of course, Hutchinson was his real name, he actually came from the area, and he had family or anything that we can get a handle on, and he didn't leave 6 months later etc etc

[Wickerman]

Not bad at all. Again, much better than 'the wrong night' as a theory. I think that there are quite a few clues to indicate that Hutchinson was 'highly anti-semitic :

Well, pardon me for not being too over enthused about it, certainly it is a possibility but no more than that in my opinion.
You have though, hi-lited a number of possibly contributing factors to the proposal, it is something to keep in mind.
I'm all in favour of rationale explanations as opposed to failing to understand and in consequence just branding him a liar.

Well, I believe that Hutchinson invented A Man -and if he did, then he is really giving away his hate and jealousy with this story.

Whereas, I don't think it was necessary for him to invent A-man, the man Sarah Lewis saw was already present. Unfortunately, Lewis did not provide the depth of detail that Hutch did so we do not know whether her 'man' wore an Astrachan-trimmed coat or not.

The detail provided by Hutch may be due to his description being a composit from the two sightings, Friday morning in the dark and Sunday morning in daylight.
Although we cannot be certain if these two men were the same, given the lack of information that night I think it is advisable to keep the possibility in mind, we cannot dismiss it, is what I'm saying.

(Re: Police induced to pursue alternate line of inquiry)

I've got no quarrel with that -given the alacrity with which the GSG was wiped off. The Police did decide to 'withdraw' as you put it.

Yes, I think we are presented with a situation where the Echo suggest the police had a change of heart, but with no suggestion of Hutchinson being an unreliable witness. We have to find a middle ground which is consistent with both situations.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

I am not fighting about GWTH. I know he is teh same George Hutchinson that stands accused. I have almost no doubt. As far as signature comparisons, despite the nonsense that Ben has fed you, there was only one handwriting expert who made the comparisons and he suggested that they were similar enough to be investigated further. Sue Iremonger did not compare all signatures and only looked at those from the statement, so what she had to say is invalid for the argument. Of course this is something that Hutchers fail to comprehend or to admit. In point of fact, we laypeople can do just as good a job in most cases comparing such unforged and innocuous signatures. Those without agenda are pretty certain of GWTH being GH. Those with agenda look for small details to try and prove they are not the provenance of the same person, a disingenuous thing to do when there is no reason to believe there was deceit on anyone's part to distort the record. Tell you what, if you can prove that there was another George Hutchinson with similar signatures of the same age living in the east End and spending his whole life in that area, I will stop using GWTH or Toppy. Until then, I shal and it isn't an argument. It is just the bare facts, jack.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

It doesn't matter if GWTH was anti-semitic or not. If he was a master planner, he would have used extant anti-semitism to bolster his story.

You're right. I think that his story points to the fact that he was anti-semite though.

Do i believe he did? No. It's rare for very young serial killers to stop and have a family and become respectable citizens whose children have sung his praises.[/

QUOTE]Mike

We don't need more Toppy fights on this thread. Try presenting the Toppy
argument as a Balance Sheet though, and see what you get. Given that the
differing expert opinions on the signatures cancel each other out, and the two similar 'George Hutchinson' names also cancel each other out, all you're left with on your side is 'Reg said so' (and there are very many possible reasons why Reg could have been wrong).

[The Good Michael]

It doesn't matter if GWTH was anti-semitic or not. If he was a master planner, he would have used extant anti-semitism to bolster his story.

Do i believe he did? No. It's rare for very young serial killers to stop and have a family and become respectable citizens whose children have sung his praises.

Mike

[Rubyretro]

Forgive me for answering this again, but I found your answer so interesting, Jon, that I've been thinking about it all day at work..

The possibility exists, that after accompanying Hutchinson around the streets at night the police deduced, perhaps by his demeanor & conversation, that Hutchinson was highly anti-semitic. While we tend to think he could not live up to his claim of identifying his 'suspect', the reverse may have been true, Hutchinson just might have fingered too many "well-dressed" men who all were able to identify themselves.

Not bad at all. Again, much better than 'the wrong night' as a theory. I think that there are quite a few clues to indicate that Hutchinson was 'highly anti-semitic :
-He describes A Man's face as 'surly' and "he looked at me stern" it's really not sympathetic.
-His description is of someone 'ostentatious' (the coat trimmed with fur, two bits of gold jewellery, the watch with a flashy bit of onamentation added on ).
Gold is of course traditionally associated with Jews.

Hutchinson describes the man picking up a prostitute and laughing with her
-no crime there, and nothing threatening- we get arms round shoulders, kisses, the offer of a handkerchief... Infact Hutchinson says that he never suspected the man of being dangerous or the murderer...

What was Hutchinson's own behaviour (according to himself) in all this ?
He bent down to peer directly at the man's face, he stood staring, he followed the couple back down a dark and infamous street, he stood close enough to overhear their conversation and he lurked outside the room where
they were presumably bonking. And he must have been a strong labouring type that lived in a lodging house -pretty menacing to the likes of A Man.

I mean who is the threatening scary one here ?

Well, I believe that Hutchinson invented A Man -and if he did, then he is really giving away his hate and jealousy with this story.

That a poor casual labourer -with rudimentary education, competing for jobs with immigrants who might be more skilled than himself, but willing to work for lower wages out of desperation- would be anti-semite, is sadly all too easy to believe. Just like BS man and Pipeman.

[QUOTE]Given that the description he provided was suggested to indicate a Jew, and given his anti-semitic attitude, the police might have had cause for reconsideration. Not that there was anything specific they could put their finger on, but they may have prudently decided to withdraw[/QUOTE
I've got no quarrel with that -given the alacrity with which the GSG was wiped off. The Police did decide to 'withdraw' as you put it.

[QUOTE] Not that his truethfulness could be challenged[/QUOTE
Obviously he didn't become a suspect, so I don't think that the Police could 'challenge' him, as you say. But they nevertheless 'withdrew'.

Just to reiterate, I don't know if Hutchinson was anti-semitic, and I'm not suggesting he was, only, given the climate of the times, that he might have been.

Fine.

[Rubyretro]

We're suddenly getting on the same wavelength, Jon !

Could Hutch's description of A Man have anything to do with the fact that
on the night of the previous murders (the 'Double Event'), one prostitute was murdered outside a jewish club, then a second prostitute was murdered close to where men were coming out from a second jewish club, and then a piece
of Eddowe's apron was found inside the doorway of a building inhabited by lots of jewish people (just to hammer the message home) ?

[Wickerman]

...I think that Hutchinson absolutely wanted to blame a Jew for the murder. He literally said that the man looked jewish, but he also gave heavy hints in the description.

Precisly so, and I don't mind sharing the thought which came to my mind about why Hutchinson's description appeared to fade.

First of all, we don't really know if it did fade, but there's no evidence that the desription he offered was prominent for very long.

Here's what William Fishman wrote:
"The Pall Mall Gazette, a popular sensational paper, was, as early as February 1886, already referring to 'A Judenhetz brewing in East London' and warning its readers that 'the foreign Jews of no nationality whatever are becoming a pest and a menace to the poor native born East Ender'

Fishman also writes:
"1888 was the year that the 'problem' of foreign immigration finally broke surface, and the old scapegoat, the Jew, was available in all his vulnerability."

The possibility exists, that after accompanying Hutchinson around the streets at night the police deduced, perhaps by his demeanor & conversation, that Hutchinson was highly anti-semitic. While we tend to think he could not live up to his claim of identifying his 'suspect', the reverse may have been true, Hutchinson just might have fingered too many "well-dressed" men who all were able to identify themselves.

Given that the description he provided was suggested to indicate a Jew, and given his anti-semitic attitude, the police might have had cause for reconsideration. Not that there was anything specific they could put their finger on, but they may have prudently decided to withdraw, in favour of Cox's statement.

Not that any of Hutchinson's story was untrue. Not that his truethfulness could be challenged, but that the authorities could not be certain just how much his anti-semitic opinions might have contributed to his description.
It's a possible solution, but only a highly speculative one.

Just to reiterate, I don't know if Hutchinson was anti-semitic, and I'm not suggesting he was, only, given the climate of the times, that he might have been.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

Gor Blimey, you should ask Bob.

You think Hutchinson walked past a Tailors window every day and fell in love with one display, "I think I'll make up a story about this dummy"?

No, I think that when he wanted a description, then he he knew where to go to make sure that the details stood up (ifa tailors dummy is the answer to how he invented his description).

I'd love to see someone explain the mechanics of how this "tailors dummy" comes into play in Hutchinson's mind?

mechanics ? I can imagine Hutchinson needing a story for 'damage limitation' (because he feared he'd been seen), making up a story in his head, and then looking for the details to make it believable.

Wouldn't it have been easier to give the police a description which equated to the last published description (Lawende's) issued by the police

?

I think that Hutchinson absolutely wanted to blame a Jew for the murder. He literally said that the man looked jewish, but he also gave heavy hints in the description. He still tried to link the description to Lawende's by writing in the red handkerchief, which ties in with Sailor Man's red kerchief.

Was there even a Tailors display 'shop' in the area? Fishman informs us (East End, 1888), that among the Jews Tailoring establishments were the most prolific of trades in the East End. Though the vast majority were backroom sweatshops, and many working for West End clients. How many streetfront Tailors shops were they in the East end? With space being at a premuim and overcrowding so endemic, who could aford the space for a window display?

I've no idea Jon, but if he could walk to Romford, then he could get to a window display in London, I'm sure.

[Fleetwood Mac]

.

However , Sarah Lewis saw someone doing the exact same thing as
Hutchinson claimed to be doing at the same time.

Which is not the same as Hutchinson being identified.

.

Why did Hutch come forward, after the inquest, to -and you would have it 'by
coincidence'- put himself into the shoes of Sarah Lewis's loiterer ?

The problem you have with Lewis is this: "between 2 and 3 am". Now that is not specific by anyone's stretch of the imagination. If you add 10 minutes either way, then there's a 35 minute window of opportunity for someone standing there outside of the time Hutchinson claimed to be standing there.

.

gone to the Police and put himself in the Hot seat. (why ?)

And of course he did go to the police, but didn't put himself in the hot seat. Perhaps he was confident this would be the case with him not being the murderer.

Why? Chancer.

.

Such a convincing hoax that Abberline himself interviewed Hutch.

Out of curiosity, if he was so convincing then why do you feel his statement is so unconvincing?

[Wickerman]

The tailors dummy could be viewed, at leisure, in daylight, with all the time needed to memorize details.

But why?
You think Hutchinson walked past a Tailors window every day and fell in love with one display, "I think I'll make up a story about this dummy"?

I'd love to see someone explain the mechanics of how this "tailors dummy" comes into play in Hutchinson's mind?
Wouldn't it have been easier to give the police a description which equated to the last published description (Lawende's) issued by the police?

Was there even a Tailors display 'shop' in the area? Fishman informs us (East End, 1888), that among the Jews Tailoring establishments were the most prolific of trades in the East End. Though the vast majority were backroom sweatshops, and many working for West End clients. How many streetfront Tailors shops were they in the East end? With space being at a premuim and overcrowding so endemic, who could aford the space for a window display?

Regards, Jon S.