"In the character of a groom out of work"

[Sally]

Do we know what John McCathy would have worn? He was a man of some power and substance and might not have been worried about being attacked.

Exactly Phil. He was a man of substance who nobody would've dared attack. And certainly not on his own doorstep. Hutchinson was living locally. He hadn't seen Mr Astrakhan in Dorset Street before. If he didn't recognise him, he obviously wasn't a 'Big Man' like McCarthy.

Evidently GH did not consider it inappropriate to place a man so dressed in Dorset St.

Of course not. Hutchinson's Astrakhan Man was the well-dressed, pacel-carrying menace already reported to be stalking the local streets.

[Sally]

Hi David -

That was the point I tried to make, Sally : Astrakhan Man and the Groom-out-of-work are two convenient figures, although not so subtle.

I think Astrakhan man is the only figure Hutchinson could have described seeing if he hoped to be believed - apart from Blotchy.

The 'figure' of the groom is very generic though, as others have observed, and entirely plausible.

He may have been a groom - in fact, he probably was. Some of his account to the police may have been fabricated - but if it was entirely fabricated, he'd have been at greater risk of being found out. It had at least to be plausible.

Let's say he had been a groom. Why might he have walked from Romford to Whitechapel on a rainy night? The police would surely have asked him.

And he'd have said that he'd been to Romford Market, where horses were traded every Wednesday - and where a groom might easily find casual work. No doubt he'd have said that he'd found a day's work - perhaps with Stephen Maywood, who he might plausibly have known - and had spent his money there before returning home to Whitechapel in order to look for work the next morning. Perhaps he regularly went to Romford - it's the sort of thing an out-of-work groom might plausibly do.

His account of walking through the night from Romford to Whitechapel is not unique, by the way. The year before, a groom named Richard Blake walked from Romford to Whitechapel, arriving there at about half past nine in the morning - he too had set off from Romford at an unsociable hour.

The point is, whilst we today might doubt Hutchinson's account - and it appears that at some point so did the police at the time - he was believed to begin with. That means that his story was considered plausible; including his being an ex-groom who walked through the night from Romford to Whitechapel.

[jason_c]

Hi David -



I think Astrakhan man is the only figure Hutchinson could have described seeing if he hoped to be believed - apart from Blotchy.

The 'figure' of the groom is very generic though, as others have observed, and entirely plausible.

He may have been a groom - in fact, he probably was. Some of his account to the police may have been fabricated - but if it was entirely fabricated, he'd have been at greater risk of being found out. It had at least to be plausible.

Let's say he had been a groom. Why might he have walked from Romford to Whitechapel on a rainy night? The police would surely have asked him.

And he'd have said that he'd been to Romford Market, where horses were traded every Wednesday - and where a groom might easily find casual work. No doubt he'd have said that he'd found a day's work - perhaps with Stephen Maywood, who he might plausibly have known - and had spent his money there before returning home to Whitechapel in order to look for work the next morning. Perhaps he regularly went to Romford - it's the sort of thing an out-of-work groom might plausibly do.

His account of walking through the night from Romford to Whitechapel is not unique, by the way. The year before, a groom named Richard Blake walked from Romford to Whitechapel, arriving there at about half past nine in the morning - he too had set off from Romford at an unsociable hour.

The point is, whilst we today might doubt Hutchinson's account - and it appears that at some point so did the police at the time - he was believed to begin with. That means that his story was considered plausible; including his being an ex-groom who walked through the night from Romford to Whitechapel.

If unemployed grooms were so common then it in no way brings Hutchinson's statement into further doubt. It could just as easily add weight to it. It all depends upon your own pre-conceived views of the man.

People putting so much doubt on Hutchinson's travel arrangements is a pet peeve of mines. Just over two hundred years before this the aging writer Ben Johnson walked to Scotland from London. As late as the 1930's many football supporters walked to away games. This was an entirely different world to our own. The precise reasons for this walk home at night is lost to us. However, if you were to spend an evening outside I suspect you may rather spend it in an area you know well. Heck, with luck a down at luck prostitute you know may well give you "accomodation" at a discount rate.

It's impossible now to know just how unique such a well dressed man walking around Whitechapel would have been. Even today in run down areas well dressed/flashy characters can be seen. Not all of them end up mugged, in fact its some of them that do the mugging. Such a well dressed man does seem unusual, however unusual does not mean impossible.

[Sally]

I think the point I was trying to make was that much of Hutchinson's account may have been true; or alternatively, plausible to the police at the time. In fact it must have been.

Therefore, we can probably assume that walking trips from Romford were not unprecedented (and we know this for a fact) and perhaps not even that unusual.

I can actually accept that Hutchinson was an ex-groom who had known Kelly for about 3 years and had walked from Romford. There is evidence to support the hypothetical existence of such a person.

What I doubt is that Astrakhan Man existed. I also suspect that 'George Hutchinson' was an assumed name.

What his motives were for his actions I don't think we can say for sure. All is open to conjecture there.

[Phil H]

I think it's the combination, Jason - rather than him being "well-dressed" (if that's what he was (actually a "well dressing" is something else entirely!!).

It's WHAT he was wearing - inappropriate, not reflecting current ettiquette of style; its evident ostentation; the time of day etc that make one raise an eyebrow.

The contradictions: spats, fur collar on over-coat; the jewellery - that cause me to ask was this made up?

But I now begin to ask, is this the way an affluent, showy, local boss might dress - to impress and show-off. In another thread I have named six (from Fiona Rule's book). These may have been men who had no real place in "society" were relatively classless (above their origins but in no way belonging to the next social level) and perhaps eager to flout convention.

On GH's walk - it is neitrher impossible nor implausible - I recall that Shakespeare's clown (Tarleton?) walked from London to Norwich; and geese were regularly brought into town that way.

What I wonder about is the totality of GH's story. I don't doubt he was there, but was he seeking to establish an alibi? Who knows? So I simply keep both alternatives in mind.

Phil

[Wickerman]

I think Astrakhan man is the only figure Hutchinson could have described seeing if he hoped to be believed - apart from Blotchy.

Then why the need for all the superfluous detail?
If, he intended to provide partly or wholly fabricated person, but needed to be believed, he would keep the description basic. Anybody would.
Obviously, the intent is to only provide generic detail so the police cannot locate a specific man.

All the other 'respectably dressed' men found in the press were described with limited detail, ie; type-of-hat, morning coat, parcel, moustache, height? - no need for anything more. So we do not see the source of the supposed inspiration from any of the basic details already known

The 'figure' of the groom is very generic though, as others have observed, and entirely plausible.

He may have been a groom - in fact, he probably was. Some of his account to the police may have been fabricated - but if it was entirely fabricated, he'd have been at greater risk of being found out. It had at least to be plausible.

Let's say he had been a groom. Why might he have walked from Romford to Whitechapel on a rainy night? The police would surely have asked him.

And he'd have said that he'd been to Romford Market, where horses were traded every Wednesday - and where a groom might easily find casual work. No doubt he'd have said that he'd found a day's work - perhaps with Stephen Maywood, who he might plausibly have known - and had spent his money there before returning home to Whitechapel in order to look for work the next morning. Perhaps he regularly went to Romford - it's the sort of thing an out-of-work groom might plausibly do.

His account of walking through the night from Romford to Whitechapel is not unique, by the way. The year before, a groom named Richard Blake walked from Romford to Whitechapel, arriving there at about half past nine in the morning - he too had set off from Romford at an unsociable hour.

The point is, whilst we today might doubt Hutchinson's account - and it appears that at some point so did the police at the time - he was believed to begin with. That means that his story was considered plausible; including his being an ex-groom who walked through the night from Romford to Whitechapel.

Which makes me wonder, as you are prepared to extend a degree of plausibility to Hutchinson himself, why not to a known suspect who was Jewish, the right height, right age, dressed flamboyant, lived nearby, did flaunt a gold watch-chain, and, for some reason was compared to Astrachan by the press.

It's almost like Joseph Isaac's is the Elephant in the room.

What else would you need to know about him in order to extend the same degree of plausibility?

[Cogidubnus]

What else would you need to know about him in order to extend the same degree of plausibility?

Amongst other things possibly that this particular Isaacs isn't the same one as the youngster, Kosebrodski, in the club...doesn't fit in well otherwise...somehow don't see this as a youngster...

Cross-threading here, I know, but...

All the best

Dave

[jason_c]

I think it's the combination, Jason - rather than him being "well-dressed" (if that's what he was (actually a "well dressing" is something else entirely!!).

It's WHAT he was wearing - inappropriate, not reflecting current ettiquette of style; its evident ostentation; the time of day etc that make one raise an eyebrow.

The contradictions: spats, fur collar on over-coat; the jewellery - that cause me to ask was this made up?

But I now begin to ask, is this the way an affluent, showy, local boss might dress - to impress and show-off. In another thread I have named six (from Fiona Rule's book). These may have been men who had no real place in "society" were relatively classless (above their origins but in no way belonging to the next social level) and perhaps eager to flout convention.

On GH's walk - it is neitrher impossible nor implausible - I recall that Shakespeare's clown (Tarleton?) walked from London to Norwich; and geese were regularly brought into town that way.

What I wonder about is the totality of GH's story. I don't doubt he was there, but was he seeking to establish an alibi? Who knows? So I simply keep both alternatives in mind.

Phil

Fair enough, I can't say I don't have my own doubts about GH. I simply think that some of the criticism of him is off, or people are looking at such things as his walking from Romford from a very modern perspective.

You were so close with Tarlton, it was Shakespeare's clown Will Kempe who "danced" from London to Norwich in nine days. It's where we get the phrase "nine day's wonder" from.

[Wickerman]

Hi Dave.

Do I read you right?
You need to be sure that Joseph Isaac's, age 30, is not the same as Isaac Kozebrodski, age 18?

[Phil H]

Thanks for the correction re Kempe. I was sure I hadn't got the name right, but was in the midst of composing a quite complex post and had no time to check.

Phil

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Jon

Do I read you right?
You need to be sure that Joseph Isaac's, age 30, is not the same as Isaac Kozebrodski, age 18?

Oh good I'm greatly reassured...it appears that skipping between two threads I may have misunderstood what you were suggesting

All the best

Dave

[DVV]

Hi David -
The 'figure' of the groom is very generic though, as others have observed, and entirely plausible.
He may have been a groom - in fact, he probably was.

Hi Sally,

it's not that I disagree, but it seems to me that anybody without a stable job (no pun intended) could easily have worked as a groom at one time or another.
Just as people could go every morning to the docks to try their luck, without being dockers "by trade".

That's what I meant when I said that the "groom out of work" would have been a convenient figure.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon

Oh good I'm greatly reassured...it appears that skipping between two threads I may have misunderstood what you were suggesting

All the best

Dave

Hi Dave.

Perhaps you remember Michael R. suggesting Joseph was the "Isaac's" mentioned in Berner St.?

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Who was George Hutchinson, was he the obvious ie, a man called George William Topping Hutchinson, [ who did exist] or was he another George Hutchinson that has not been identified , or was the name a complete alias?
How you interpret the whole scenario is down to what the individual cares to believe.
It is quite clear to me, that the Topping Hutchinson was either a complete time waster, who repeated his tale to anyone who would listen throughout his life, complete with very intimate knowledge of the police witness, or completely genuine. there is no other alternative in my personal opinion.
I am convinced that he was completely genuine, and repeated to the police on the Monday what he witnessed with the best intentions.
If Topping was the witness then clearly he never used an alias.
The reason why a lot of people see this individual as somewhat sinister, is the result of Bob Hinton' excellent book, which cast a different shadow over Hutchinson's intentions, and the many threads on Casebook, that have fingered him as a prospective Mugger, a liar, and even possibly a killer.
All of which I strongly disagree with.
I should add that The Ripper and the Royals and the conspiracy plot, does nothing to enhance the late Reg Hutchinson tale as told by his father[ Topping]
I know I am a minority but I am a believer solely because of one reason, and you will not want yours truly to repeat that?, because the flak will fall.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Hi Richard,

Have you ever heard Toppy talking ?
No.
All you have heard or read comes from Reg.
Was Reg a reliable person?
Apparently he was not.

Cheers