Romford

[Bridewell]

Maligning Caroline Maxwell

There are a couple of points I would make here. The first relates to the subject of the thread - "Romford". As has been acknowledged, we don't know much about George Hutchinson. It is therefore conceivable that he came from the north of England originally. Although his statement reads "to Romford", not "the Romford", he could (just a possibility - don't shout at me) have alluded to "t'Romford".

I'd also like to take issue with Perry Mason's description of Mrs Maxwell:

"She was all but called a liar, or a scatterbrain...forgetting the correct day the event happened.... if at all. Her story is not credible based on her own content"

The fact that her statement is at odds with the accounts of other witnesses does not prove that she was wrong, mistaken, or some kind of nincompoop. Walter Dew, a young officer at the time of the murderers, but who retired in the rank of Chief Inspector, referred to her thus:

"If Mrs Maxwell had been a sensation seeker - one of those women who live for the limelight - it would have been easy to discredit her story. She was not. She seemed a sane and sensible woman, and her reputation was excellent. In one way at least her version fitted into the facts as known. We knew that Marie had been drinking the previous night, and, as this was not a habit of hers, illness the next morning was just what might have been expected."

Perry Mason says she was "a scatterbrain". Walter Dew says she was "a sane and sensible woman". They can't both be right. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Mrs Maxwell, like any other witness then as now, may or may not have been right, but she was seen as a credible witness at the time.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE][QUOTE]

That is a good point, sadly we don't know how old George was in 1888, so how long a stint could he have served?, we don't know.
[note: all the soldiers serving at the Tower should be in the 1881 census]

After 1870, soldiers would of enlisted for 12 years. Interesting that they got extra pay for taking on extra duties , of which 'groom' was one (cook, and 'officer's servant' were others)

Note, There is a Joseph J. Hutchinson, Single, age 32?, General Labourer, from Mile End, living at 63 Cleveland St. (with his Mom), in the 1891 Census.[/QUOTE

]
interesting

[Wickerman]

There is a possibility that George Hutchinson had been in the army. Only a possibility mind you, based on his 'military' description -yet London held many ex-soldiers without a trade and looking for casual work, and it would explain why Hutchinson had been a groom but was now a labourer.

That is a good point, sadly we don't know how old George was in 1888, so how long a stint could he have served?, we don't know.
[note: all the soldiers serving at the Tower should be in the 1881 census]

Certainly soldiers did use an alias, not forgetting, as you rightly point out, the general populace would also use an alias, either to the police or press.

What occured to me was that "George" may not have been his legal first name. I don't know how many people I've come across who prefer to use their second name but still acknowledge their first name in official circles.

There are so many points to consider, Hutchinson could still be in a Census, under a different 'first' name.

Regards, Jon S.
Note, There is a Joseph J. Hutchinson, Single, age 32?, General Labourer, from Mile End, living at 63 Cleveland St. (with his Mom), in the 1891 Census.

[Rubyretro]

On the Jewish issue:
I take it as most likely that the victim led the Ripper to the murder scene.

I
Certainly, but that doesn't mean that he didn't know beforehand where prostitutes working certain pitches would most likely lead him.

f this was the case then it would mean that Stride took him to Duffield’s Yard, rather than the Ripper choosing that spot

.
But maybe he knew that Liz would lead him to Dutfield's yard..or anywhere in the vicinity of the club would have done.

Although if the Ripper was a local man he would probably have
known that the Berner Street area had a large Jewish population.

Obviously. He probably knew there was a club meeting, too. It doesn't sound like a 'secret' meeting.

It must be the case that the Ripper then chose to go to the vicinity of Mitre Square (presuming that he committed both crimes which I believe was almost certainly the case).

Well, yes. I can't believe anyone dragged him there.

But again the exact location of the murder scene, Mitre Square itself, was most probably chosen by Eddowes rather than the Ripper.

But if he knew that prostitutes used Mitre Square, and he stood outside Mitre Square and made eye contact with a prostitute, he might guess that she would lead him to Mitre Square. On the otherhand he could just say "Wait ! I know a better place near here.."

He must have chosen to pass Goulston Street and throw the apron and possibly scrawl the graffiti at the same time.

what ? -he got out a candle, and some handy chalk, turned his back on the dangers on the street, and concentrated on his neat little letters and grammar ? Rather than just buzzing the cloth in the open doorway and hurrying on ?

But the route past Goulston Street may have effectively been chosen for him if it was on his route home.

I've no quarrel with that.

Why drop the apron there? Maybe he used it to wipe his hands and by the time he got that far he had no further need for it. Maybe he saw someone and ditched it. Who knows.

Maybe he knew (living nearby), that the building was inhabited by Jews.

Wentworth Model Dwellings had only been built about a year before. I very much doubt they would have resembled slum dwellings that would likely be frequented by ‘low class Jews’.

It would have required very detailed local knowledge to know that most residents were in fact Jewish

, although it would be widely

known that lots of Jewish people lived in that vicinity.

If he lived in the Victoria Homes, then he was a neighbour. If he was very anti-semite, then he might have been particularly aware of the fact.

Having said this... I think that it is probable that the Ripper was a local. That being the case, unless he was Jewish himself, there would have been a good chance that he harboured some sort of anti-Jewish sentiment to one degree or another

.
yes.

On aliases – they tended to be used by people who were on the wrong side of the law. Like prostitutes. I don’t think there is any evidence that they were used by the general population. That is of course why Cross is suspicious.

Well, Hutchinson might not have been the most law abiding citizen prior to 1888 for all we know. Soldiers weren't criminals, and Cross seems to have had a good reason for using a different name..

I read what you said about Cross -just don't tell me that you have no agenda !

Regarding Toppy, what other explanations are there apart from Reg being a liar?

[/QUOTE]
Quite a few -but they'll have to wait for my morning coffee !

[Monty]

Also, the implication of a Jew in the GSG and in Hutch's story has always stood out to me.

Agreed.

Disagreed.

Monty

[Rubyretro]

On Toppy it isn’t just the name is it?

It mainly is.

There is the bit about getting paid. Hutchinson went out with the police at least twice and the police did pay people for exactly this sort of thing. Also the Wheeling register, however unreliable it might be, also mentioned it.

For me, this is one of the details that point to the story not being true.
Hutchinson could not logically have been paid the sums that Reg suggested.
The story almost certainly originates with that erroneous newspaper account, proof that either Fairclough, Reg, or George had read it...but more of that later.

There is the posh suspect aspect – matching to some degree the Hutchinson description

.
It also pre-dates Reg/Fairclough's story, and even if it came from George, only repeats the story printed in the Press for anyone to read.

His parents got married in Shoreditch Church if my memory serves me correctly. Possibly another schoolboy error, although I am certain there was a pre-existing East End connection and I think to Shoreditch church

.
As an ex-Toppyite I can give you more East End connections if you wish -they still can't magically turn Toppy into the witness.
[QUOTE]

signatures do seem to match, but I know people were taught to write the same way and that one ‘expert’ was less than convinced.[/QUOTE

yes, true.

The plumbing thing is a red herring as we now know that it was perfectly feasible for him to become a plumber by 1891.

Certainly. I don't know how he fitted in being a Groom before 1888 -after
the time we know that he was in school- though? Nor even why he would have begun a job usually started as an illiterate child -coming from a family with a Father with a trade, his own house, having an education, and the sort of personality that led him to be successfully self employed ?

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro
On the Jewish issue:
I take it as most likely that the victim led the Ripper to the murder scene.
If this was the case then it would mean that Stride took him to Duffield’s Yard, rather than the Ripper choosing that spot. Although if the Ripper was a local man he would probably have known that the Berner Street area had a large Jewish population.

It must be the case that the Ripper then chose to go to the vicinity of Mitre Square (presuming that he committed both crimes which I believe was almost certainly the case).

But again the exact location of the murder scene, Mitre Square itself, was most probably chosen by Eddowes rather than the Ripper.

He must have chosen to pass Goulston Street and throw the apron and possibly scrawl the graffiti at the same time. But the route past Goulston Street may have effectively been chosen for him if it was on his route home.
Why drop the apron there? Maybe he used it to wipe his hands and by the time he got that far he had no further need for it. Maybe he saw someone and ditched it. Who knows.

Wentworth Model Dwellings had only been built about a year before. I very much doubt they would have resembled slum dwellings that would likely be frequented by ‘low class Jews’. It would have required very detailed local knowledge to know that most residents were in fact Jewish, although it would be widely known that lots of Jewish people lived in that vicinity.

Having said this... I think that it is probable that the Ripper was a local. That being the case, unless he was Jewish himself, there would have been a good chance that he harboured some sort of anti-Jewish sentiment to one degree or another.
If he was aware that the Berner Street club was Jewish, he may have cursed them for interrupting his work, and this may have given him the incentive to scrawl the graffiti (if he did the graffiti of course).

On aliases – they tended to be used by people who were on the wrong side of the law. Like prostitutes. I don’t think there is any evidence that they were used by the general population. That is of course why Cross is suspicious. (He also spent most of his life near Berner Street, would have known it was a Jewish area, before the summer of 1888 he used to go to work on the route Berner Street to Mitre Square, and at the time of the murders lived on the route from Mitre Square via Goulston Street, - although his mother and one of his daughters still lived near Berner Street - and would have known all the back streets in this area).

Regarding Toppy, what other explanations are there apart from Reg being a liar?

[Sally]

Also, the implication of a Jew in the GSG and in Hutch's story has always stood out to me.

Agreed.

[Abby Normal]

Granted, but the night of the Double Event the killer chose to murder close to
busy 'club nights', where Jewish men were coming to and from the meetings.
I don't think that this was the case every night of the week, nor every day of the month. It looks as if (from the map), he made a choice to go to Mitre Square from Berner Street and then to Goulston street. Furthermore, he could have chucked the apron piece away in any doorway along the way, or
hid it along the street...I would have thought that he would have wanted to get rid of it as quickly as possible...yet he held on to it until he threw it into a building inhabited by Jews (never mind under the graffiti), with no attempt to hide it.


As Jon pointed out -yes, he did.

.
Not necessarily, there could be several explanations.

Hi Ruby
I think that if Hutch made up A-man-he was based on a jewish man who Hutch worked for/with and was possibly jealous of.
(i beleive it was actually you who I first heard this idea from).

Also, the implication of a Jew in the GSG and in Hutch's story has always stood out to me.

[The Good Michael]

The signatures do seem to match, but I know people were taught to write the same way and that one ‘expert’ was less than convinced.
The plumbing thing is a red herring as we now know that it was perfectly feasible for him to become a plumber by 1891.

Lechmere,

There was no other expert who reviewed all the signatures aside from Leander, and the majority of casebookers who have observed them have detected similarities that mere chance seems to unable to account for.

Sue Iremonger had not looked at the signatures that we have had the priviledge of seeing thanks to Deb Arif (I believe), and so, much like some say about Hutchinson's testimony, her opinion doesn't enter into it and must be discredited. I was going to say 'discounted' but Ben tells me they mean the same thing, so It's ok to say she was discredited.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Anyway Hutchinson didn’t mention the J-word did he?
Well actually, yes he did.
As Jon pointed out -yes, he did.

A school boy error. That will teach me to not check before I type.

Rubyretro
On Toppy it isn’t just the name is it?
There is the bit about getting paid. Hutchinson went out with the police at least twice and the police did pay people for exactly this sort of thing. Also the Wheeling register, however unreliable it might be, also mentioned it.
There is the posh suspect aspect – matching to some degree the Hutchinson description.
His parents got married in Shoreditch Church if my memory serves me correctly. Possibly another schoolboy error, although I am certain there was a pre-existing East End connection and I think to Shoreditch church.
The signatures do seem to match, but I know people were taught to write the same way and that one ‘expert’ was less than convinced.
The plumbing thing is a red herring as we now know that it was perfectly feasible for him to become a plumber by 1891.

[Rubyretro]

Just mulling over the idea of aliases (when I was at work !) and their feasibility when applied to 'Hutchinson' and came up with two more 'possibles'

-a perfectly innocent reason like the Lechmere/Cross situation...that was probably quite a common occurrence since people died earlier.

-(only if you think that Hutchinson could have been the Ripper)
"B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of aliases"
(from definition of a sociopath DSM-1V)

I reiterate -not finding a viable alternative to Toppy for George Hutchinson, in no way makes Toppy 'a contender'. If only one 'dud' put himself forward for 'X-Factor' would that make him a Star ??

[Rubyretro]

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.

Granted, but the night of the Double Event the killer chose to murder close to
busy 'club nights', where Jewish men were coming to and from the meetings.
I don't think that this was the case every night of the week, nor every day of the month. It looks as if (from the map), he made a choice to go to Mitre Square from Berner Street and then to Goulston street. Furthermore, he could have chucked the apron piece away in any doorway along the way, or
hid it along the street...I would have thought that he would have wanted to get rid of it as quickly as possible...yet he held on to it until he threw it into a building inhabited by Jews (never mind under the graffiti), with no attempt to hide it.

Anyway Hutchinson didn’t mention the J-word did he?

As Jon pointed out -yes, he did.

For Toppy not to be the one, then Reg must be a total liar

.
Not necessarily, there could be several explanations.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

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.

When this idea of 'an alias' was first brought up, I thought that it was a BS
argument as well, but now I'm really not so sure. Despite your belief in Toppy
as the suspect, there is no proof whatsoever that that this is the case since we know so little about the witness (and what we do know doesn't match with Toppy).

There is a possibility that George Hutchinson had been in the army. Only a possibility mind you, based on his 'military' description -yet London held many ex-soldiers without a trade and looking for casual work, and it would explain why Hutchinson had been a groom but was now a labourer. I thought that
I would try to get into some 'research' and try to find George Hutchinson in the army...but I gave up almost straight away. Infact, it was extremely common for men to take an alias when joining the army at the time (like the Foreign Legion today) -nothing sinister about it, it was a custom (so unless you already know the regiment, and have some precise information as to names and dates, then it is nigh on impossible to conclusively find someone).
In short, had Hutchinson been in the army, he could have picked up a name which he wasn't born with.

Next is the fact that when we read about people who touch on the Ripper case, it is astounding how many of them did use aliases in this milieu. It appears to have been very common -so why not Hutch as well ? Who knows ?

Another thing depends on whether you think that Hutch was the Ripper, and if so, whether the Ripper just suddenly went out murdering one day -or began with lesser crimes, for which he may never have been caught but may have been suspected. Hutch could have come from almost anywhere in the Country (although with no mention of a regional accent, he probably came from the Home Counties), and simply changed his name and disappeared into the lodging houses of London, had he wanted to escape his past. And equally have drifted away from London in the years following Kelly's death, and settled elsewhere.

Anyway, to deduce that, because we haven't found a suitable candidate for
'George Hutchinson' in the London area then he must have been Toppy, is plainly codswallop.

We have one guy who fits, and that is not an agenda. That is putting all pieces together

But there are a distinct lack of pieces to put together -there is only 'George Hutchinson' as a name, and 'Because Reg said so'.
He doesn't 'fit' at all.

[Wickerman]

Anyway Hutchinson didn’t mention the J-word did he?

Well actually, yes he did.

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.

Yes Lechmere, thats what was meant by "highly speculative", we need to take into account all the evidence, not just opt for the most dramatic, nor the one that best suits our own theories.

Regards, Jon S.