The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

I don't know if the observations were intended to be "ground-breaking", but personally I found them interesting. You highlight the fact that Abberline believed Hutchinson in the immediate aftermath of the interview on the evening 12th November, at which point no opportunity had arisen to investigate Hutchinson's claims. Shortly thereafter, it became apparent that his suspect sighting was "discredited", a reality that was borne out by the observations of other senior police officals who were inclined to use a Jewish witness (one who acquired a much weaker sighting than alleged by Hutchinson) in preference.

All the best,
Ben

[celee]

I'm not sure quite what you mean, Brad.

Are you saying that information is only useful if it impacts on someone's suspect status? I find it rather astonishing that anyone can say that Hutchinson's original statement is "of little value", since the reverse is so obviously the case and no elaboration is really required to explain why (I dearly hope?). As others have noted, several of Crystal's observation do impact on Hutchinson's suspect status.



Crystal wasn't attempting to "prove" anything in her original analysis. The likelihood that he did not report the squeaky-clean unblemished truth is self-evident from the actual content. As we've already established, his statement was discredited very shortly after Hutchinson's initial appearance at the police station, with his "Astrakhan" suspect clearly dropping off the map at around the same time. Clearly this rather militates against the suggestion that he was the star witness for very long.

I've never really understand this habit people have of dismissing the subject of a particular conversation as "useless" or "not worthy of discussion/investigation" and then posting just to make that point.

Ben

Hi all,

Happy Memorial Day,

Thanks to all the men and women who served in the armed forces to protect my freedom.

Hi Ben,

What I am saying is Crystal is giving her opinon about Hutchinson's statement that is all she is giving her opinion. Crystal's observations do not impact Hutchinson's suspect status. How does it impact his status. It is a very interesting document that alot of people can give an opinion. What ground breaking observations did Crystal post. Was Hutchinson left handed or not? Abberline was present, What?

Everyone is beating up on eachother over Crystal posting her observations. Why? Even if she did fudge about her credentials it would not be the first time, I am sure, someone has built them self up to be more of an expert then they are. It is not like she is trying to pass off a bogus diary.

Hutchinson had to have given a good interview. We know Abberline believed him after interviewing him. Someone comes along 131 years later, looks at his official statement and claims he was not being truthful. When given a choice, I am going to side with the Detective that looked the suspect in the eye when he was taking the statement. What ever caused Abberline to doubt Hutchinson, and he obiously did not think Hutchinson saw the Ripper, did not happend in the course of the interview.

The document is an interesting piece of paper, enjoy.

Your friend, Brad

[Fisherman]

Bob Hinton writes:

"So anyway, who started this Hutchinson nonsense anyway? It was that bastard Bob Hinton - lets get him!!!!"

Well, sort of ... but not really. But I WOULD like some sort of answer to my post 199 on this thread if you feel up to it...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Bob Hinton]

Hutchinson

So anyway, who started this Hutchinson nonsense anyway? It was that bastard Bob Hinton - lets get him!!!!

[Ally]

If you challenge a point you genuinely believe it is flawed? Are you joking? Like trying to say Crystal didn't claim Hutch was left handed, he just WROTE left-handed?

[Ben]

Yes, but "keeping the battle alive" is not the same as starting the battle, which is something I've never done, not that I view discourse on a messageboard to be comparable to a battleground anyway. You claim that my refutations are unsupported and that I secretly believe certain observations from the opposing camp to be "likely", but argue against them anway. That, with respect, is fantasy, and if I felt inclined, I could level precisely the same accusations in your direction. If I challenge a point it is because I genuinely believe it to be flawed, and if I claim that something is unlikely, it is because I feel it is.

If you want to depict me as an aggressive warrior who'll naysay no matter what, go ahead, but if that truly reflects your characterization of me, there are better antidotes to that kind of mentality than engaging the perceived zealot in fight-to-the-death wars.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

You address them each and every time, over and over again. You keep the battle alive, so that means you are interested, or have a stake in it.
You battle to get the last word in, every time. You are the resistance movement that will fight to its dying breath in order to keep Hutchinson alive. It's as if he were Achilles and you are Homer, and despite his fatal flaws, you are determined to protect his heel by not admitting he has one.

You say, "All I've done is address the points." All you do is refute everything regardless of the unsupportability of the refutation. It is an effort to keep the battle for Hutch's guilt alive, and no matter how completely likely a point might be, you will find a way to put holes in it, imagined or otherwise, so that Hutch remains immortal. It is absolutely unthinkable to me that you continue this war of attrition that you blame others for starting when it conclusively isn't the case.

Mike

[Ben]

Mike,

I'm genuinely not interested in battles, and for the record, I have never started a Hutchinson thread in my life. All I've done is address the points raised, and where the arguments and counter-points have been expecially vocal, I've been tenacious. If there were no contributions to the Hutchinson threads, I can guarantee you I would not have started a fight for no reason. I've reacted, that's all.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

Serious question: What do you lose by not posting on this thread? What compels you to stand in there with Hutch/Toppy in leg-irons, as if by not posting, you will cease to exist? Fisherman took time off and it all stayed right where it was. Why is this a battle you must win?

Mike

[Ben]

Wonderful.

No, I'm not hoping you'll go anywhere. If I'm supposed to be the Hutchinson zealot in this equation, I guess the logic goes that I utterly thrive on the prospect of interminable debates on the topic of Hutchinson. But glad to have hypnotized another one. We're almost on 4000 posts.

Stick around,

Ben

[Ally]

Which is of course your way of hoping people will be scared off and you have a defacto win.

But that's okay, I for one and completely comfortable also sticking around and pointing out how your reason and eyesight tend to fail completely in this matter.

As often as it takes.

[Ben]

Why do you want them to resemble each other when they don't. If it is going to become 1911, it's because you can't let go of Hutch, when he's only hanging on by his baby finger

It makes no difference to me whether they resemble eachother or not. I'm just pointing out that some of the traits being referred to as indicative of "difference" are nothing of the sort when we examine the statement endorsement written by Abberline. If I come across a good reason to "let go of Hutch", I'll do so. So far, nothing on this thread had prompted me to do that, and I'm afraid document examiners behaving badly in serial killer message board chatrooms don't make a character from 1888 any less suspicious.

But if people want to keep endlessly arguing with me about it, bring it on.

Clearly I'm not going anyhere.

If people want another posting war resembling the 1911 thread, by all means join me and I'll see you on page 1,000,000.

[Ally]

I agree with Christine. The "s" in Queens shows a distinct point and a line on the left side, whereas Abberline's "s's" tend to be rounded, without a distinct point at the top.

Not a match.

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

Why do you want them to resemble each other when they don't. If it is going to become 1911, it's because you can't let go of Hutch, when he's only hanging on by his baby finger. Drop him.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Christine,

The s at the end of "Queens" does not look like the s at the end of "Constables."

I'd have to disagree. They resemble eachother pretty strongly, both exhibiting the same rather dumpy circular traits which, as you note, make them difficult to distinguish from "o"s. I don't see anything remotely zig-zagging about the last letter of "Queen's". If you ever get an opportunity to see Abberline's statement endorsement, you'll notice that most of the traits you referred to as being absent or different from the "Queens Head" are present in that report, perhaps most notably the open topped "a"s you referred to earlier.

This thread has a perilous chance of resembling another "1911"!

All the best,
Ben