I understand your point..and I also accept that ''The Wheeling'' was a gossip sheet, but they heard that a man got paid five weeks wages , for information. which they considered was a clever ploy to obtain money under false pretences.
We have no mention of any payment, in any other press accounts during that period..
Exactly, and that ought to ring alarm bells straight away.
Is it likely that every single UK-based newspaper managed to miss out on something that a town in West Virginia inexplicably got the scoop on? No.
Is it likely that the police would fork out such an astronomically large sum for an alleged witness just for providing a statement? No.
Is it likely that any of the Wheeling's other "gossip" is correct? No.
Hutchinson would not have been paid 100 shillings just for telling a story - he just wouldn't have been. No police force has ever been that stupid. It's not even a possibility. It is therefore completely irrelevant if Reg Hutchinson and the Wheeling Register both mentioned such a pay-off, since they are both 100% wrong about it happening in the real Hutchinson's case.
We have a man named George Topping Hutchinson in the 1920's-30's [ and likely before] informing people, including his brother, and son, that he knew one of the victims . and assisted the police
No, we don't.
We have a man named Reginald Hutchinson in the 1990s being interviewed by a royal conspirator (conspiracist?) and a man pretending to be the son of Walter Sickert, who told them both that his father was paid to "keep quiet about what he really knew". There is, as I've already said, no Toppy-Hutchinson provenance prior to the publication of the Ripper and the Royals. I'm afraid that until you can produce evidence of a 1970s radio show supporting Toppy's Hutchinson/witness credentials, it is wholly inadmissible as evidence - much like that murder confession I found in the foundations of the old Victoria Home that was signed by Hutchinson himself, and which I've since mislaid.
I therefore submit. that as the Wheeling sheet, mentioned a sum of five weeks wage, and if that was classified as a average figure
Hutchinson wasn't taking home a "wage", as I've already explained. An odd-jobbing labourer in "no regular employment" did not have a "usual salary", so we may permanently forget the idea that there is any correlation between the Wheeling's "five times (his) usual salary" and R&R's preposterous "100 shillings".
I’m with Jon on this one, Richard (it has been known to happen!).
The deeply obscure and deeply, deeply wrong "Wheeling Register" ran a gossip column wrongly stating that Barnett was living with a new woman and was "roaring drunk" at the inquest. It also claimed that Hutchinson was paid five times a non-existent (according to the police, who would have done the "paying") salary, which is beyond preposterous.
The Wheeling Register also stated that the man in question had “invented” the story, but you tend to gloss over that bit.
It is reassuring to see the story described as "invented" being lumped in with all the other false statements in that article.
Without dismissing Topping, I'd say there's nothing wrong with keeping an open mind and, as you've all undoubtedly done, trying out different possibilities.
The 3 Hutchinson signatures on his Police statement look quite different to me - did he actually make them. Even if he did, he could have been using an alias as everybody seemed to do back then.
The other thing is that his name (real or just written slightly different in records at that time) could have been a variation on the theme, such as Hutchenson, Hutchison, Hutcheson etc.
In fact my own favourite for Hutch is the man, who at 30th October 1885 was aged 30 when he was recorded as admitted to Saint George's Workhouse in Southwark (in the Mint Street Register of Vagrants). He gave his calling or occupation as "Groom" and when asked where he had slept the night before answered "walking about". That seems to characterise our Mr Hutchinson to a tee. The record has him as George Hutchenson, but the paperwork seems to be correct as Hutchinson.
If that is our man, then he would be around 33 in 1888 and that would fit better as Hutch for me. Of interest too, maybe, is the man below him in the paperwork, admitted at the same time, a John Hamblin, simply because his destination on discharge is shown as Romford. Both men were put to work breaking stones.