Proof of identity

[richardnunweek]

Bob,
I had just finished a long reply to you when my post was lost, which was just as well as it contained some strong points.
Will you please refrain from using the term Nunners as it has nothing to do with my name which is Richard.
Whilst I accept that term from some members as some form of a nickname, your use of it comes across as Mickey taking.
The only person that would know if the signature on the statement of Hutchinson belonged to his father, or not, whatever the case may be, would have been the late Reg, and as to my knowledge he never suggested a negative response to that statement, and the handwriting,. I will still claim that Gwth was Hutchinson .
I hope that makes some kind of sense to you, but i have reservations.
Regards Richard.

[Bob Hinton]

Bob,

The only person that would know if the signature on the statement of Hutchinson belonged to his father, or not, whatever the case may be, would have been the late Reg, and as to my knowledge he never suggested a negative response to that statement, and the handwriting,. I will still claim that Gwth was Hutchinson .
I hope that makes some kind of sense to you, but i have reservations.
Regards Richard.

More nonsense. I would suggest that an expert in handwriting analyisis such as Sue Iremonger would be in a far better position to say whether the signature on the statement was that of GWTH. Or are you saying that Reg was a handwriting expert?

In any case you are making a silly point. Whether or not Reg said the signature belonged to his father is not recorded in the interview.

If you wish to claim GWTH made the statement that is your perogative and I would not dream of tying to stop you from doing so, all I am saying is that there is absolutely no evidence to support your claim and a great deal to the contrary. In the same way you can claim to believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth fairy if you wish and I'm sure no one would dispute your right to do so.

Please feel free to call me Bobbers if you wish.

[Bob Hinton]

Answer The Questions

The problem with you Nunners is that you bring up all these silly ideas and when someone presents you with cold hard facts you just ignore them and plough on. You expect people to believe you but you don’t engage in a debate, that is putting forward argument and answering points, you just keep ranting on.

Now I have made several points in my post no 27. Are you going to answer them and put your case or are you just going to suck your thumb and complain that the nasty man is calling you names?

[Suzi]

Now it's taken me a while to get to this thread c/o tradesmen arriving drinking tea and talking for England...Don't ask!

BUT the one thing that springs to mind is.....How The **** did we get from The Shroud......via Nunners .. to this?

Suz??i x

[Suzi]

That can be very painful!

Dear God don't let Clacky see that possibility!!!

[Suzi]

Right having had a trawl back through this....it seems to have started oddly with The Shroud....in some way or another and ended up with Hutch! I personally can't see the likeness.....but there again he does have the look of 'a foreigner' I suppose!
Hmmmmmmmmmmm




A CCTV shot taken at the time!
The truth........well at least a look at the Shroud is at www.shroud.com personally I'm a great believer in the conspiracy theory on this one........ Having had a serious trawl through the above site I think it's even more spurious!! Hmmmmm Have a look for yourselves

Now where were we Nunners?

[Suzi]

Warning!!!!!!!!!! This shroud site has just crashed my pc.......I was mindlessly trawling and looking at the pics etc and everything died......did it again and then it happened again...call me paranoid but......

Thinking back it may be the George Hutchinson Popular Front that are on my case!!!! [ AKA The GHPF to us afficionados!].......DONT let me admit my membership to the MMWR!

[richardnunweek]

Bob,
So what you are saying is we should discount the late Regs version of events that he was the son of George William Topping Hutchinson, and that his father gave the police a statement back in 1888, which would obviously make him the original Gh,
We should also ignore the suggestion that Regs father told his son he was paid the sum of five pounds by the police, even though that was recorded in a newspaper on the 18th November 1888, and as that article is a rare one unlikely to have been seen by Reg before that radio broadcast of the early 1970s.
We should also ignore the fact that the same photo that featured in the Ripper and the Royals hung in Regs London flat, which would indicate that it was his father GWTH.
We should also ignore that after Reg saw for the first time a copy of Hutchinsons statement, he has never been recorded as suggesting that his fathers handwriting was not present in signature form.
I therefore ask again Bob,
If GWTH was not the same George Hutchinson that witnessed events on that November morning , can you name the person that was?
I started this thread under the heading 'Proof of identity' in order to suggest that the American arcticle actually gives more strength to Regs claim which I believe it does, I obviously expect doubts, but I certainly do not feel I am talking rubbish just because I always stick to my guns.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

You keep using the word "ignore", but there's a difference between "ignoring" something outright and coming to the conclusion that that "something" is probably nonsense. To acheive the latter, one must first address it rather than ignore it, and most of us have done precisely that. Nobody can name the "real" GH with any degree of certainty 119 years on, but I can name you several more fitting candidates than Toppy.

You say that the American article "gives more strength to Reg's claim", but we don't know that Reg ever made any such claim about a financial reward. Unless it was mentioned it TRATR (anyone?), we've only heard of it from your frequent references to this 70's broadcast that nobody has ever heard of, and in all fairness, how do we know that your orginal source wasn't the press all along, and that you didn't - by accident, rather than design - confuse it with a radio broadcast you heard a long time ago? At least one other newspaper besides the Wheeling Register carried the "One clever individual.." story.

I'm not, for a moment, asserting that this is what happened, but at the moment, the "1970s radio claim" is nil provenance, and must responsibly be accepted as such.

All the best,
Ben

[perrymason]

Just a thought,....if the real man who identified himself as George Hutchinson to the police was any real George Hutchinson, just how eager would he be to regale his family about the time when he was thought to have lied to Police about seeing a murder suspect?

If a real George Hutchinson did as we believe the one did Monday the 12th, I would think by the following weekend he would be wishing he never opened his mouth, and would like to distance himself from that moment...not embrace the episode like a tale of the good old days.

Surely it would have been a humiliation for him.

My best regards all.

[Stephen Thomas]

You say that the American article "gives more strength to Reg's claim", but we don't know that Reg ever made any such claim about a financial reward. Unless it was mentioned it TRATR (anyone?), we've only heard of it from your frequent references to this 70's broadcast that nobody has ever heard of.

Hi Ben

In The Ripper and the Royals the sum quoted by Reg was 100 shillings.

[Ben]

Cheers for that, Stephen.

Been a while since I read that piece of ripperological genuis!

Edit: I've found the relevent extract, and Reg is quoted thusly:

"Now I can see that (Hutchinson) knew all along that the man he saw actually was (Lord Randolph) Churchill, but he didn't want to come out straight with it. He said that at the time he was paid a hundred shillings, but he never said why. Perhaps he was paid to keep quiet about what really happened, and say nothing about what he really knew".

Dear oh dear.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Folks,
I must admit that reading that passage, as it is written from Faircloughs book,casts a bad light on Reg Hutchinson, it seems to imply that he is easily led in suggestion from people with financial intentions.
However if one looks at the actual statement made by George Hutchinson, it does imply that the person described as 'Astracan' is a well dressed man which was in contrast with Mjks normal tricks, and if true would have led the witness known as Hutchinson to have described him privately as someone up the ladder. and not of lower classes, and it may have reminded him of Churchill senior.
This obviously suited Faircloughs conspiracy theories, and thus it came across as that.
As mentioned earlier, when I heard that elusive[ so annoying] radio broadcast in the 1970s, I did state that the term Five pounds, may have been referered to as a Hundred shillings, or Five guineas, which is obviously 105 shillings,
One hundred shillings was proberly accurate.
I should state that no one should believe that Randolph Churchill was involved in the east end murders , but GWTH simply just gave a exsample
Regards Richard.

[Doctor X]

BUT the one thing that springs to mind is.....How The **** did we get from The Shroud......via Nunners .. to this?

Suz??i x

AND MASONS!11!!!1Eleventy!!11

IT IS ALL CONNECTED!!! LIKE BEING UNABLE TO DISENGAGE A CAPSLOCK!!11!



Yours truly,

--J.D.

P.S. Nevertheless, the shroud serves as a good example of myth developing around error and fraud.

[Suzi]

Hi Nunners-
Now we all know that Randolph (or even Winston )Churchill wasn't even remotely invoved (a slightly odd character but not THAT odd!),unless we're moving into Masonic/ Somerset/trowel-waving territory -which I sincerely hope we're not!

I am slightly disturbed by your view of Mary turning 'tricks' (nasty line!) with purely the 'lower orders' and therefore GH spotting a suposed 'toff' thought it worthy of mention.

Sorry but Five guineas at the time wasn't OBVIOUSLY 105 shillings...after a bit of rekkie... it was about 95 shillings........call me a pedant but......

Oh and Ben-
I've just re -read that bit too.... ...Hmmmmmmm 'Dear Oh dear ' indeed!