Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[halomanuk]

I am out of this one now for the 1st and last time,it is not productive to the Ripper investigation as it stands and is now becoming pain in the a** for all concerned so enjoy it if you think this really helps things lads and lasses ,i,personally,am going to continue to research the Whitechapel Murderer...enjoy..

(Admin,sort this out please )..

[Sam Flynn]

If you don't like what we're saying, ignore us.

That'd be fine in the scheme of things, Ben, but - without taking sides - there seem to have been more ad hominem arrows fired on this thread than there were at Agincourt. Would that we'd have focused more on the core questions, rather than on semantics and personalities.

[Ben]

Oh my...

What the....?

It's not possible. Not again.

Fisherman, a handful of us were having a few lighthearted bets and guesses as to how long you'd be able to resist the temptation to return to the thread, despite the number of times you've told us "This is my last post" or expressions to that effect. The fact that you're back already is obsessive even by your standards. If you're sick of us all, and don't want to have any further dealings with us and all the rest of it, don't read the thread. Simple. But if you don't have the self-discipline to avoid reading the thread, don't keep making "I'm leaving" swansongs.

It was not, I´m afraid, Ben. And I hope you will leave Crystal to answer for herself in the future.

Her meaning was so obvious that I didn't even need to consult her first.

When Crystal expressed her intention to post "what (Leander) said" in "due course", she was referring of course to the translation that she had earlier promised to divulge with us. This is obvious, and true to my delighted expectation, she did precisely as she promised and provided a translation, by a Swedish friend of hers, of "what (Leander) said" earlier this morning. She certainly wasn't talking about a phonecall, since you can hardly "post" a "phonecall". Crystal was clearly joking when she mentioned that she had Leander on the phone - that, too, is as obvious as it is innocent. She spoke of mud-wrestling with Babybird, and here's the astonishing thing - she wasn't serious about that either. Does that mean that both of them were fibbing vixens for duping us into believing they did?

She expressed an intention to post what he said, not her friend. Her friend was merely the translator, and not the source of the observations themselves. Accusing people of lying on the basis of blatent misunderstanding on your part is appalling behaviour.

Interestingly, Leander has subseqentially confirmed my wiews in his own clarifications.

His view didn't need "clarifying", as we learn once again from the recent translation. It was perfectly clear. His stance was neutal and inconclusive, and didn't betray even the vaguest insinuation that he felt that Toppy was "probably" the witness. If the whole probability factor arrived on the scene later, it would not have been a "clarification". It would have been an alteration, and a very marked one.

Is what you say. Phew, David; what do you think he means by telling us that he would be surprised if the signatures proved a non-match?

That isn't worth taking seriously, and Crystal and others have every right to be incredibly sceptical about so drastic an alteration of stance, especially as it contrasts so markedly with his earlier comments.

Did you not notice that he spoke of a matching style, a matching skill level, a matching spreading over the paper AND matching letters?

And then he mentioned the various differences which offset those perceived similarities, at no point suggesting that the similarities outweighed the differences, or vice versa.

Now, give yourselves a fair chance of not having to deal any further with me on this thread

Why would I want to do that? I'd be delighted to "deal with you" any day of the week, as you're perfectly aware. The only thing I find annoying is the regularity with which your "I'm leaving!" swansongs are followed hot on the heels by your swift return a few hours thereafter. If you don't like what we're saying, ignore us. If you're not capable of that, put us on the "ignore", and if you can't bring yourself to do that either, don't bother with the swansong posts. Shouldn't be difficult.

[DVV]

It is a stupid thing to say, if you´ll forgive me, David.

I forgive you, Fish,

and I even hope you will recover soon.
For everyone can read your posts and see the obvious unlikeness between Leander's expression and yours.

Amitiés,
David

Breaking News! Fisherman Returns To Thread!!!

Why Fish?

What do you hope to achieve?

Do you really imagine that everybody who happens to disagree with you is your enemy?

Have you ever considered that you might have lost perspective here a little?

Fish

I don't think many people like being misrepresented: and that's putting it nicely.

And that is what you have done: repetitively, to those disagreeing with you on this thread. Your response to complaints by other posters about your attitude is to say you'll apologise - except you never do.

If other posters decide they don't want to argue with you on your terms: why then, Fisherman, back you come with more combative nonsense, trying to provoke them into another round.

Your credibility is in grave doubt: and entirely at your own doing.

Perhaps if you had a little more respect for people they might take you more seriously.

Now, no doubt you will come back at me with yet more hostile drivel..but sadly, I won't see it.

I'm putting you on 'ignore'.

Bye Fish.

[babybird67]

Finally, I have not heard a word from the administrators. I take the liberty to interpret this as a clearance from the allegations made by Babybird.”

Fisherman

that sounds about right.

You wouldn't ascribe it to the mods just being busy having lives and doing important things would you?

The standard of evidence that is acceptable to you obviously leads you to conclude what you do, Fish, unfortunately. As in the Toppy/Hutch question, believing something or saying it repeatedly over and over does not make it true.

I did not make allegations Fish. You made allegations that i had fabricated what you said, even when, quite clearly, time and time again, i quoted you verbatim.

That was attacking my character. I admit i am new here, but anyone who has spoken to me in the chat room will hopefully have seen that i am a happy, honest, outgoing person...i have no interest in fabricating anything, nor do i care for baseless aspersions cast about me on a public message board. I could quite easily have accused you of fabrication in the saga of Leander and his Multi-coloured Dream-report, but i did not...i ascribed your posts to honest mistake. You did not afford me the same respect. Therefore you no longer have mine.

I asked you for an apology. Anyone with any moral fibre would have offered one, without having to be instructed to offer one by the Admin here. I tend to do the right thing without having to be told by someone else what the right thing is...i dont have many qualities, but introspection with a view to improving myself and doing the right thing is one of them. I think it's important. I think everyone should do it. But sadly some people can't be taught and don't know right from wrong, and they are hopeless cases as far as progress is concerned.

So as this thread goes leandering on...ooops i mean MEandering on...and on and on...please refrain from seeing silence as "victory" in the moderation stakes; it's sad and merely shows that you have no moral compass whatsoever. or what you should do would be perfectly clear to you, as it must be to anybody reading this debacle of a thread.

Oh, and please stop using my terminology and trying to suddenly argue that it is everyone else who is illogical whilst you are the pinnacle of reason. There is no rhyme nor no reason in any of your postings which flail wildly between Toppy being variously spoken of as possibly, probably, very probably or definitely Hutch...i'm surprised you have a handle at all on what you do actually think...i think your brain must be like a pinball machine with the ball clanging randomly on various parts of it, lighting up each different theory as it strikes you. Very odd indeed.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"The number of times you've expressed the intention to leave the thread without following through is nothing short of astonishing."

As soon as people stop slandering me and distorting my wiews, I may make a point of leaving the thread - I sincerely hope this will happen.

"This was entirely unrelated to her light-hearted comment about being on the phone to Leander."

It was not, I´m afraid, Ben. And I hope you will leave Crystal to answer for herself in the future.

This was my post:

“By now, I think the time has come to point to what has happened in the three errands raised to put me right and show the boards that I have been wrong and malicious from the outset:

1. A telephone call was made to Frank Leander two days ago - at least this is what we are told by Crystal - to check the veracity of my contacts with him.

2. It was said that I was demonstrably wrong on a number of points.

3. I was reported to the administrators of the boards, by Babybird. The allegations and implications were, once again, that I was not playing fairly.

In short, the result of all this has been that not a word has been said about the phone call to Frank Leander. I suggest that this can only mean that Leander has confirmed that I have mirrored his wiews here on the boards in a fair manner. Not a point has been raised that has bolstered the allegations that I would have been "demonstrably wrong" in a number of instances - no examples provided, no substantiation given, no apologies supplied. Finally, I have not heard a word from the administrators. I take the liberty to interpret this as a clearance from the allegations made by Babybird.”

And this was Crystals answer:

“Fisherman

We went through this yesterday. Is there something the matter with your memory, perhaps?

Very well: My credentials are not hidden from 'us'. They're hidden from YOU.

It isn't a secret. Except from you.

I explained it yesterday. Look.

So stop your tiresome inferences.

As for Leander, well, I will post what he said in due course.”

So, Ben, “what he said” relates to Leander, and nobody else. There are no other linguistic possibilities around. Crystal does NOT write "as for Leander, I will post what my friend said", did she?
Therefore, Crystals “light-hearted” comment was nothing but a blatant lie. There can be no other “interpretations”, much as you like to “interpret” things beyond their true meaning.

David writes:
“You've posted Leander's comments on these boards, and we're all thankful for that.
Now you should admit that you've gone - several times - beyond Leander's words.

Like you, Leander has observed some matching letters.
Unlike you, he hasn't said Toppy was the witness.
What else ?”

I have never gone ”beyond Leanders words”. I have clarified them, and I have given my wiew of how they should be read, something everybody has had a chance to disagree with. When I have quoted Leander, I have made it very clear, when I have added my own thinking, that has been equally obvious. Interestingly, Leander has subseqentially confirmed my wiews in his own clarifications.

Leander has, however, not just observed “some matching letters” - far from it. It is a stupid thing to say, if you´ll forgive me, David. Did you not notice that he spoke of a matching style, a matching skill level, a matching spreading over the paper AND matching letters? Missed that, did you? Or did you just choose to leave it out.
If so, one has to ask why. Could there be some reason? You tell me.

What good could it possibly do you not to recognize this? It is deeply, deeply dishonest, and it points to a desperation I once believed was something you would never engage in. But one learns!

Finally, Leander has not said that he thinks Toppy was the witness, Is what you say. Phew, David; what do you think he means by telling us that he would be surprised if the signatures proved a non-match? That he thought Toppy was NOT the witness?

Now, give yourselves a fair chance of not having to deal any further with me on this thread, and stop resorting to antics like these. Please! It is beyond silly, totally illogical, and very improductive.

Fisherman

[DVV]

For me the irony here is that this may be one of the longest threads Ive seen personally here, and it may be about a completely innocuous witness who police assumed lied about a statement he gave. I dont see Packer threads going near 200 pages.

Hi Mike,

Hutchinson and Packer have little in common.
Hutch came in as soon as the inquest was closed.
Hutch said he knew the victim for years.
Hutch is a more plausible suspect than many others, while Packer has never been given this status.
And this thread isn't a suspect thread. It's about Hutch's identity.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Even if he was Wideawake... that just makes him a nosey person

It might make him "just" a nosey person, Mike, but unfortunately, it could also make him a potential suspect in the death of Mary Jane Kelly, considering that he was observed loitering outside the crime scene, and apparently fixated with it, shortly before the generally accepted time of the murder. Since other serial killers have done precisely that, it would be churlish and historically irresponsible to write the Wideawake man off the list of potential suspects, whether he was Hutchinson, Toppy or Gandhi.

If he presented himself as Hutchinson, but was actually someone else, then we would need some indication of what his real identity was to make him plausible as a suspect.

No, we wouldn't.

See above.

It is sufficient to infer that he lied about his activities and behaviour near a crime scene as soon as he realised he'd been seen. That holds true of the individual who introduced himself to the police as Hutchinson, irrespective of his actual identity.

To undo his historical status requires more than just a good imagination about who George Hutchinson really was

It would take a few logical inferences from the extant evidence coupled with a bit of knowledge from other historical cases to re-think that status. He's one of the best of an extremely limited bunch.

[Malcolm X]

you might well think so Michael

but uuuuur, i hasten to totally and utterly disagree 100%

For me the irony here is that this may be one of the longest threads Ive seen personally here, and it may be about a completely innocuous witness who police assumed lied about a statement he gave. I dont see Packer threads going near 200 pages.

It would be interesting if the man could be identified,...but in terms of the case of Mary Kellys death, he has virtually no influence on the investigation. Even if he was Wideawake... that just makes him a nosey person.

If the man who gave the statement was the Hutch in 1911, you can essentially cross him off any potential suspects list, and place him back where the contemporary police did...in the file. If he had anything to fear from being located later in his life its not apparent. If he presented himself as Hutchinson, but was actually someone else, then we would need some indication of what his real identity was to make him plausible as a suspect.

Hes a man that came in suspiciously late with a story that was believed by authorities for only a few days. Which would indicate they could not corroborate anything he said once investigated, and he was not thought to be a suspect based on his false witness claims.

To undo his historical status requires more than just a good imagination about who George Hutchinson really was, and what he might have done that night.

Best regards Hutchites.

[DVV]

think the line has been crossed many times in this thread, so it can now be locked...but only after one of my postings cos i want the last word!

Hi BB

I sincerely hope this thread won't be locked.
We can give it a break, but I hopefully wait for new expert opinions, and for SI's work.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hi Fish,

You've posted Leander's comments on these boards, and we're all thankful for that.
Now you should admit that you've gone - several times - beyond Leander's words.

Like you, Leander has observed some matching letters.
Unlike you, he hasn't said Toppy was the witness.
What else ?

Amitiés,
David

[babybird67]

yep

think the line has been crossed many times in this thread, so it can now be locked...but only after one of my postings cos i want the last word!

[halomanuk]

Oh i know he is,but it needs to be heated fair enough but less personal..