Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Sam Flynn]

Hutch's (dis)honesty needs another thread.

Hello Observer

I’m being a bit unfair in truth, as all you’ve ever argued against in this thread is whether George the witness and Toppy’s signatures match

This thread is about Hutchinson's signature in the 1911 Census - so you're not being unfair at all

but it would be interesting to know whether you believe that Hutchinson the witness was at least telling the truth when he gave his name.

Might I kindly suggest that this particular discussion (i.e. about Hutchinson's honesty in general) should definitely take place on a different thread.

This thread's gone on long enough, but has remained remarkably on-topic throughout! Let's not spoil that record

[DVV]

Hi Observer,

I'm not answering for Crystal, but since I believe Hutchinson could also lie about his name...
Imho, GH is undoubtedly a big liar, whether an incredible mythomaniac.
I don't think Astrakhan man has ever existed.
I don't believe Hutch has seen such a man on the murder night, nor on Sunday morning.
I don't think a mere and innocent witness would have waited until Monday evening to go to the police, especially if was a friend of the victim.
In other words, I consider Hutch a very strong suspect.
And if he was the Ripper, I find possible that Hutchinson was an assumed name.

Amitiés,
David

edit: Hi Sam, just read your post...sorry for being off-thread, or Half off-thread (?)...couldn't resist.

[Sam Flynn]

edit: Hi Sam, just read your post...sorry for being off-thread, or Half off-thread (?)...couldn't resist.

Fully off-topic, Dave - but thanks anyway

For future reference, it's easy enough to take a reply onto another more appropriate thread.

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

If the signatures prove that Toppy and Hutch are the same man, which I believe they do at this point, what does that mean exactly, about his candidacy, and should that be a separate thread. It half fits here, but it would become wild speculation after the initial post and FULLY unrelated to the signatures.

Cheers,

Mike

[Roy Corduroy]

That's a good point, GM.

In my mind there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that George Hutchinson the witness was anyone other then who he purported to be that is George Hutchinson.

And if I may digress for just one brief moment, it seems that a breakthrough is at hand here, Observer, the beginning of a thread about George Hutchison, Witness! And quite a feat it would be. First a poster would go to the category Witnesses (here) then, overcome the built-in Casebook bias by ignoring the large, can't-miss banner at the top sais George Hutchinson with an arrow. Because per the arrow - your thread will be re-directed to Suspects.

Go all the way to bottom and start thread there.

Now carry on,

Roy

[Malcolm X]

my guess is that either Hutch or Blotchy is JTR........but Hutch is more likely

but there's one major thing against him...... no more similar murders, including a downgrading of his M.O; while he was still around.

if anyone here is a Hutch fanboy like me, we need to discuss this.... but not here i'll open another thread..

the big problem we have and i bloody hate it, is those signatures match, sod and damn it

so how can he be JTR, we need to think of something.... we need to find more murders or something similar

[The Good Michael]

Malcolm,

We just talked about staying on thread, but this is the only bit that does.

the big problem we have and i bloody hate it, is those signatures match, sod and damn it

Yet, what you say is what the Hutchers have feared to say, and why they don't let it go, why it's all refutation for refutation's sake. So, go on, start that: Toppy and Hutch are the same man, so what does that mean, thread.

Mike

[Malcolm X]

Gareth,

If the signatures prove that Toppy and Hutch are the same man, which I believe they do at this point, what does that mean exactly, about his candidacy, and should that be a separate thread. It half fits here, but it would become wild speculation after the initial post and FULLY unrelated to the signatures.

Cheers,

Mike

we need to find something Mike, JTR was crazed; he wouldn't have quit killing, he'd have taken a break, returned with a switched M.O and probably returned to the ripper after this, a leopard doesn't change its spots

if not, he either died, ended up in a loony bin, or left London....Hutch fits perfectly as the Ripper, but after 1890 weakens him enormously.

[DVV]

Malcolm,

We just talked about staying on thread, but this is the only bit that does.



Yet, what you say is what the Hutchers have feared to say, and why they don't let it go, why it's all refutation for refutation's sake. So, go on, start that: Toppy and Hutch are the same man, so what does that mean, thread.

Mike

Hi Mike,

would you call Sue Iremonger a "Hutcher" ?
Bigre!

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

David,

I'd call Sue Iremonger someone who didn't have the necessary information to make an informed opinion. I'm also not suggesting that Hutchinson isn't a JTR candidate, just that he was Toppy.

Cheers,

Mike

PS. Don't hang on to a suspect because it feels good to have one. Let it go, if it's the right thing to do. Just like a pet hamster, I suppose.

[Malcolm X]

David,

I'd call Sue Iremonger someone who didn't have the necessary information to make an informed opinion. I'm also not suggesting that Hutchinson isn't a JTR candidate, just that he was Toppy.

Cheers,

Mike

PS. Don't hang on to a suspect because it feels good to have one. Let it go, if it's the right thing to do. Just like a pet hamster, I suppose.

do you want me to open a new thread tomorrow?

but not now, i'm going to bed

[DVV]

David,

I'd call Sue Iremonger someone who didn't have the necessary information to make an informed opinion. I'm also not suggesting that Hutchinson isn't a JTR candidate, just that he was Toppy.

Cheers,

Mike

PS. Don't hang on to a suspect because it feels good to have one. Let it go, if it's the right thing to do. Just like a pet hamster, I suppose.

Hi Mike,
I'd simply call SI an expert, and I therefore value her opinion.
Reg's story being what it is, I just can't say: "case closed, Toppy is Hutch".
And I don't know what "necessary information" was needed for SI to examine the signatures.
Now, believe it or not, I'm not married with Hutch, and I'm honest.
Once again, I don't see a perfect match, nor a perfect mismatch, I'm no expert and never got in hands the original documents.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

do you want me to open a new thread tomorrow?

Oh please, we can't wait and won't sleep until this fabulous opening.
Don't be cruel.
To a heart that's true.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Yet, what you say is what the Hutchers have feared to say, and why they don't let it go, why it's all refutation for refutation's sake

Oh, what nonsense.

It isn't refutation for refutation's sake. It's refutation based on a resonsibility towards what I believe to be the truth, which is that Toppy was not the witness. If I believed the reverse was true, I certainly wouldn't "fear" to say it, since it doesn't remotely impact upon the Hutch-as-ripper premise.

I'd call Sue Iremonger someone who didn't have the necessary information to make an informed opinion.

Actually, the complete reverse is true.

To date, she is the only expert who examined the original documents.

If I see a good reason to "let a suspect go", I'll do so. That certainly hasn't happened on this thread.

[Sam Flynn]

OIt isn't refutation for refutation's sake. It's refutation based on a responsibility towards what I believe to be the truth, which is that Toppy was not the witness.

That's not the way to go about it, Ben, with respect. Responsibility to the truth is one of the first casualties of any belief system.

To date, she is the only expert who examined the original documents.

We don't actually know that she did that. That said - if she did, we know that she only had the marriage certificate to go by.