George William Topping Hutchinson: Witness

[The Good Michael]

This thread is based upon the strong contention that Topping Hutchinson and George Hutchinson are one and the same. The evidence makes this a near certainty for this poster. This is not a thread to argue about this particular point and I hope posters can just begin at the conclusion of the two being the same man and then go from there.

The question is, after looking at Topping's family history, what credibility as a wtiness does he have? Again, one must begin with the conclusion that Topping is Hutchinson and that he was never a suspect that we know of. This is about his witness statement and his credibility as a witness.

Mike

[lynn cates]

Astrakhan

Hello Michael. Good idea for a thread. Thanks for starting it.

Accepting your point of departure, would you agree that the existence or non-existence of Astrakhan Man is the most crucial piece of his testimony?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Accepting your point of departure, would you agree that the existence or non-existence of Astrakhan Man is the most crucial piece of his testimony?

Hi Lynn, well if you mean a man who has been labled Astrakhan Man by doubters, yes a man who was seen with Kelly would be the biggest part to this and must be what the police based their initial belief in Hutchinson's testimony on. To take it further, there still must have been belief by some component of the police department for GWTH to not have gotten into trouble for lying, if he did lie. So first, was there a man with Kelly who was seen by GWTH, and second, was teh description accurate, embellished, or fancied.

Mike

[Malcolm X]

This thread is based upon the strong contention that Topping Hutchinson and George Hutchinson are one and the same. The evidence makes this a near certainty for this poster. This is not a thread to argue about this particular point and I hope posters can just begin at the conclusion of the two being the same man and then go from there.

The question is, after looking at Topping's family history, what credibility as a wtiness does he have? Again, one must begin with the conclusion that Topping is Hutchinson and that he was never a suspect that we know of. This is about his witness statement and his credibility as a witness.

Mike

ok, firstly his statement is shot to pieces, take this as almost a fact, but unfortunately ``THE QUESTION WHY`` is far too complicated to answer here, it's virtually a 5 page essay, whatever the case you've heard it all before.

now i am going to be totally unbias

1..... he either made it all up before going to the police

2......he pretended to be this GH years later

3...... it looks like Toppy is a bit of a ``fly by night character `` and very likely the type to come forward to claim a reward, or to lie years later....... i did not realise this until i studied the other thread, this pleases me !

this must be said..... if this statement is actually from JTR, then it's perfect for achieving what he was trying to do.... it's virtually faultless.
he could not have attacked the Jews better than the M.KELLY murder.

but is this GH JTR...... or is it Toppy ?......... i honestly dont know, but it looks more like JTR than it did 2 weeks ago.

food for thought :-

1...... this GH eyewitness statement is definitely a lie..... GH whoever he is, definitely did not see kelly/LA DE DA that night. this is accepted by so many people here, but maybe not realised by them fully yet.

the person who said this has not made too many mistakes between the police/ newspaper statements, so this image of a Jew is fairly well fixated in his head. my longshot guess is that this Jew actually existed, he's describing someone from Petticoat lane, that he probably saw during the day.

[Malcolm X]

the police were very pleased to have such an accurate suspect description, from somebody who was reportedly seen standing outside millers court... and he was too, this makes him seem legitimate.

the police therefore went hell for leather to trace this mysterious Jew, all they needed from GH, was for him to remain at the Victoria Homes for the next few weeks, just in case they wanted to talk to him again, plus they probably had a few other signatures of his, so he was maybe a visitor to Whitechapel in search of work ?....... yes maybe, well what just like so many others.

this GH lost credability some weeks later with the police and to make matters worst, he probably left Whitechapel too....this sort of thing seems to happen quite a lot with regards to this case, and also this looks very embarassing too. this is therefore something that the top brass dont want to mention too much, so rather than to go chasing after GH, they prefer to sweep it under the carpet, and concentrate their efforts on other lines of enquiries.

GH didn't get into trouble for lieng, well maybe they couldn't prove he was lieing, just like we cant, they can only be highly suspicious... maybe the police never saw him again and couldn't care less if they did, because it's only in the last 40 years that we realise that this lie could point towards something else far more serious !!!!!!!!! But back then it meant that he was a ``reward seeking time waster``

[lynn cates]

start

Hello Michael.

"So first, was there a man with Kelly who was seen by GWTH, and second, was the description accurate, embellished, or fancied."

Good. This is the starting point. Entirely agree.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Jewish?

Hello Malcolm. What leads you to think that A Man is Jewish?

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hello Malcolm. What leads you to think that A Man is Jewish

?

Hutchinson caregorically stated "Jewish appearance can be identified."

[The Good Michael]

But Malcolm says GWTH lied about everything. He must have lied about A man being a Jew and about there even being a man with Kelly.


Mike

[lynn cates]

Jerusalem, Ireland?

Hello Ruby. Quite right. But given that Toppy THOUGHT him Jewish, it does not follow that he was. I have posted elsewhere a photograph and description of A Man--down to his pin. Turns out he was Irish--not Jewish.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

....So first, was there a man with Kelly who was seen by GWTH, and second, was teh description accurate, embellished, or fancied.

I don't think we can take Hutchinson's statement in isolation.
We already know a 'well-dressed' man was seen by another witness(s) at approximately the same time, at the same end of the street and according to one, also talking with Kelly.

Therefore, we either have to assume there were two such men, or these men were one and the same. Given a well established caveat that no two witnesses ever see precisely the same thing, we must allow for differences in the two descriptions. This is just human nature.

I prefer to think the two descriptions refer to one individual, that such a man existed should be the most likely conclusion, but that Hutchinson embellished his statement to some degree. The reason why can only be guessed at, like so much else in this case.

Regards, Jon S.

[The Good Michael]

I
We already know a 'well-dressed' man was seen by another witness(s) at approximately the same time, at the same end of the street and according to one, also talking with Kelly.

Jon,

I assume you are referring to this from the Daily News: A woman named Kennedy was on the night of the murder staying with her parents at a house in the court immediately opposite the room in which the body of Mary Kelly was found. This woman's statement, if true - and there seems little reason for doubting its veracity - establishes the time at which the murder was committed. Her statement is as follows:

About three o'clock on Friday morning she entered Dorset street on her way to her parents' house, which is situate immediately opposite that in which the murder was committed. She noticed three persons at the corner of the street near the Britannia public house. There was a young man, respectably dressed, and with a dark moustache, talking to a woman whom she did not know, and also a woman poorly clad, without any headgear. The man and woman appeared to be the worse for liquor, and she heard the man ask, "Are you coming?" whereupon the woman, who appeared to be obstinate, turned in an opposite direction to which the man apparently wished her to go. Kennedy went on her way, and nothing unusual occurred until about half an hour later. She states that she did not retire immediately she reached her parents' house, and that between half past three and a quarter to four she heard a cry of "Murder!" in a woman's voice proceed from the direction in which Mary Kelly's room was situated. As the cry was not repeated she took no further notice of the circumstance until the morning, when she found the police in possession of the place, preventing all egress to the occupants of the small houses in this court.

Kennedy has been questioned by the police as to what she had heard during the night, and she has repeated substantially that statement as follows:-

On Wednesday evening about eight o'clock she and her sister were in the neighbourhood of Bethnal green road, when they were accosted by a very suspicious looking man, about forty years of age. He wore a short jacket, over which he had a long top coat. He had a black moustache and wore a billycock hat...


I would agree that this could be the very same man and that the hatless woman was Kelly. It seems that being hatless is remarked upon in the case as being somewhat noteworthy. The night of Kelly's death the man didn't have an overcoat on, though that doesn't mean he didn't have one nearby, or had laced it about one of the women's shoulders he was talking with as perhaps you or I would have done.

As for the embellishment, there are several possible reasons including wishful thinking as one of the simplest. Horrific murder seems to be the least possible reason to create a story and then come forward to be interrogated for. Making money ultimately must be what GWTH had in mind overall.

Mike

[Fleetwood Mac]

Last night, for the first time, I had a look at the signatures.

They're a far closer match than many of my own signatures and I can guarantee you that I alone pen those signatures.

I suppose there's nothing much that you can be certain about in this world, and there's even less in this case, but if there's one thing you can be 99.9% sure about it's this: those two signatures were written by the same man.

[lynn cates]

upon my word(s)

Hello Mac.

"They're a far closer match than many of my own signatures"

Those are the EXACT words I used when I first saw them.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Everyone, please let us not get into any debates over signatures and such here. As I explained in the beginning, this thread begins at the conclusion that GWTH is the witness and is for forward thinking posters who want to explain the hows and whys of GWTH's sighting, testimony, and his future in the LVP, and not for contentious arguments that will most certainly derail this objective.

I look at this as a companion thread to Lechmere's and hope that it can contribute enough thought to generate knowledge and also can bring aboard any of the living relatives of GWTH who might want to add something here; those who may have been afraid to do so on the contentious threads of which I was sometimes a part and sometimes to blame for the argumentative states they were often in.

Mike