Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[perrymason]

I had to pop back in here when I saw the name Romford Rose....my new favourite nomme de plume here. Welcome Rose. My Dads Mom's name was Rose...its a great name.

Anywho....as a sidebar for you....If the George Hutchinson in the 1911 census is the same George Hutchinson that came forward with what has been treated as a questionable story regarding the early morning of November 9th, 1888,...then he is not someone who just used the name to insinuate himself into the investigation. It was no alias.

It doesnt make him more plausible, it doesnt validate his story, it doesnt explain why the story was offered in the first place, but it probably does put a face likely on the man Sarah Lewis described wearing a Wideawake Hat. Also the story following Toppy seems to insist that the man did actually see what he said in his statement, and that he was just a regular joe and a viable, honest witness.

Trouble is, he hasnt been viable for 120 years on the books, because its not modern theorists who suggest he falsified his tale....the men who heard his story first hand did. It was discarded as potential evidence within 72 hours of his coming foward.

Best regards Rose.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Rose,

If George William Topping Hutchinson was the witness, it would prove the following account from the 1970s has a basis in reality:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2113

No, it wouldn't quite prove that, Ben - it would only prove that GWTH was the witness. Whatever his son, Reg, said or didn't say to Melvyn Fairclough is entirely independent of the signature debate, and can have no bearing on it either. The problem is that the loopy theories advanced by Fairlcough are being allowed to taint by association anything to do with Hutchinson himself, whereas they should be treated as entirely separate matters. For such they are.

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

Thanks. Surgery successful.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Trouble is, he hasnt been viable for 120 years on the books, because its not modern theorists who suggest he falsified his tale....the men who heard his story first hand did. It was discarded as potential evidence within 72 hours of his coming foward.

It may have been discarded because they found no one. At the time, no one thought he lied. His suspect status is a very modern concept. Don't be giving the wrong ideas here Mike. Not to a newbie. Facts, cool. Concepts that are not provable, shouldn't be sold as facts to a new kid on the block.

Cheers,

Mike

[Romford Rose]

Cheer Perrymason!

Thanks for the explanation, mate - no more from Ben - guess he has other stuff to do, right?

This is so much of a laugh!

You all take it so seriously!

Gareth - are you Sam Flynn? Wow! A famous person!

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Also the story following Toppy seems to insist that the man did actually see what he said in his statement, and that he was just a regular joe and a viable, honest witness

Which is questionable in the extreme, since the bogus and disredited elements from the original Hutchinson statement remain bogus and disredited irrespective of identity, so anyone arguing that he must have been an honest witness if he was Toppy is already onto a fairly illogical and losing wicket.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

It may have been discarded because they found no one.

Nope, sorry Mike, that's most emphatically not a reason to discard a witness description. They didn't "find" anyone for the Lawende description either, but they still used him for identity efforts in preference to Hutchinson, despite knowing full well that someone like Thomas Sadler, for example, couldn't have fitted Lawende's description of a much younger, unbearded man, and despite the fact that Lawende's sighting was much more fleeting and far less detailed than Hutchinson's allegd encounter. Hutchinson must, therefore, have been "discredited" for other reasons.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Nope, sorry Mike, that's most emphatically not a reason to discard a witness description.

Good one! hahaha.

Mike

[DVV]

No, it wouldn't quite prove that, Ben - it would only prove that GWTH was the witness. Whatever his son, Reg, said or didn't say to Melvyn Fairclough is entirely independent of the signature debate, and can have no bearing on it either. The problem is that the loopy theories advanced by Fairlcough are being allowed to taint by association anything to do with Hutchinson himself, whereas they should be treated as entirely separate matters. For such they are.

Hi Sam,

I'm afraid it's a bit more embarrassing.
The "family tradition" doesn't belong exclusively to Reg, and there are evidences that it existed far before Fairclough came in touch with Reg.
And as far as we know, the "original" version could have been as dodgy as Reg's.
We shouldn't put all the blame on Fairclough.
Hutch, Toppy or not, was unreliable.
Reg is unreliable too (see in the "If Toppy..." thread).
It's lie upon lie with them.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,

I'm afraid it's a bit more embarrassing.
The "family tradition" doesn't belong exclusively to Reg, and there are evidences that it existed far before Fairclough came in touch with Reg.

... the most outlandish stories connected with Hutchinson derive exclusively from the account of Reg's story in Melvyn Fairclough's book. Even if that were not the case, they have nothing at all to do with the signature issue, which is purely one of establishing the identity of a person who signed a certain witness statement in November 1888. The rest is hysteria.

[The Good Michael]

Sort of on thread, but do you think we can get a Reg look-alike for thebeginning of the movie? He'd be just sitting there on the porch telling the young'uns about the battle of the century, maybe get Michael Caine to do the voice.

Mike

[steje73]

My word but did this thread give me a headache.

[DVV]

Even if that were not the case, they have nothing at all to do with the signature issue, which is purely one of establishing the identity of a person who signed a certain witness statement in November 1888. The rest is hysteria.

Indeed Sam,

and that's why I don't think that:

signatures + Reg's story = Toppy is Hutch.

But I've read posts to that effect on that very thread, and they weren't signed DVV.

Amitiés,
David

[Malcolm X]

Hi Mike,



Which is questionable in the extreme, since the bogus and disredited elements from the original Hutchinson statement remain bogus and disredited irrespective of identity, so anyone arguing that he must have been an honest witness if he was Toppy is already onto a fairly illogical and losing wicket.

Best regards,
Ben

yes exactly, Toppy is a dodgy witness period, it is extremely unlikely that he saw Kelly/LA DI DA, because he simply saw and heard far too much

signatures + Reg's story = Toppy is Hutch.....= Toppy wasn't there or JTR

[Malcolm X]

My word but did this thread give me a headache.

YEA' you've sused it right..... one almighty headache but the last 4 pages are still worth a read