Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"No, Fisherman.
Here is what Crystal said:
"As for Leander, well, I will post what he said in due course."
She was, of course, referring to "what he said" in his initial latter, as translated by her Swedish friend."

I think not, Ben. But there is always post 2037 if you feel very uncertain:

"OH

Hang on... Leander on the phone....
__________________
Clear as Mud.."

Now, I think it is time to wawe goodbye to the collected indecency of this thread. The lies, the smokescreens, the stupidity and all the rest of this farce. It is a complete disgrace, and that owes to the complete rubbish that has been served on your behalf, seconded by a number of ecually clouded minds and judgements, no-one named, and no-one forgotten.

I will have no further dealings with any of you on this issue - it is detrimental to the mental health.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

I will have no further dealings with any of you on this issue - it is detrimental to the mental health.

Fisherman

Only to those who are already apparently insane...no names mentioned.

[Ben]

Fisherman,

The number of times you've expressed the intention to leave the thread without following through is nothing short of astonishing. When Crystal referred to "what he said", there is no doubt whatsoever that she was referring to "what he said" in his initial letter, as translated by her Swedish friend, and which, true to her word, she posted in "due course". This was entirely unrelated to her light-hearted comment about being on the phone to Leander. If you want to accuse her of being a mean-spirited liar on the basis of the latter remark (in a sort of last ditch "I know you are but what am I?" attempt) then I suppose the logic goes that BB should be hurling the same accusations at Crystal for failing to actually engage in mud-wrestling? Or might it be more circumspect to fathom that maybe - just maybe - she was kidding?

Bye Fisherman.

[babybird67]

then I suppose the logic goes that BB should be hurling the same accusations at Crystal for failing to actually engage in mud-wresting? Or might it be more circumspect to fathom that maybe - just maybe - she was kidding?

Ben...Crystal hasn't told you???? I really have "seen her credentials" and thoroughly lovely they are!

Although i am sure others will say "she would say that."

[halomanuk]

Can we cut out the slanderous words on here ?
There is no need to get personal on this and call people 'liars' on a chat forum.

[DVV]

Hi Halomanuk,

I suppose we can't...
Hutch is the witness that drive people mad.
The Great Miller's Court Battle is even greater than expected.
No holds barred.

Amitiés,
David

[halomanuk]

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

[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!

[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

[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

[perrymason]

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.

[Malcolm X]

you might well think so Michael

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

[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.

[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

[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