The Statement of George Hutchinson

[DVV]

Hi Mike,

you may like it or not, but Maxwell, Packer and Schwartz won't ever be seriously suspected.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

It would seem that some members like my compadres Ben and David would like to selectively accept some portions of Crystals statements.....and I humbly submit that both of you fine gentlemen do the very same thing with Hutchinsons statements...knowing full well that he didnt see any Astrakan Man that night, but allowing him credibility anyway by suggesting the part of his story about merely being there is acceptable and accepted...because its possible that is corroborated by another witnesses statement.

But the contemporary authorities dont qualify what they thought he lied about and what he didnt....they discarded the whole story. They thought he was delusional or a liar...I think thats clear in the records as of November 16th. As well they should have, proving or even just believing that any portion of his tale was a fabrication. If they were right, he wasnt likely there at all, and didnt know Mary personally.

I know there is desire to place something other than Discredited Witness on his rap sheet, but that is all he was...and is, based on whats available. Just like Caroline Maxwell....she was not believed. And Mathew Packer....he was not believed. And one must assume by the absence of his story at Inquest or any mention of it or him, that Israel Schwartz was not believed either.

The point being that we know some witnesses made up stories or believed them in their own heads, but none were trusted or believed relevant for any portion of their tale once they fell from investigative graces.

This is a topic as relevant to the investigation of Jack the Ripper murders as The Maybrick Diary is. And Case Closed by Pat Cornwell. And Uncle Jack, by Tony Williams.

Its merely beating a dead horse my friends. Ive read a lot of suggestion about Hutchinson in the last year or two here....and have only learned that he roomed at the Victoria Home. There is no case against this man, ....and like all of the suspects in these cases, no evidence suggesting their involvement in Ripper murders at all.

I know, negativity....but you know I am summarizing the situation accurately. Even if Hutch signed a 1911 census form, so what? That just means if he was the one that made the statement he was not worried about it or attempting to hide from it 23 years later, and it would suggest that George Hutchinson of 1888 was no alias.

In effect.....even further distancing himself from anything remotely suspicious,... like a fake name would be.

Best regards all.

[Ben]

Agreed wholeheartedly, David.

Good to see you here.

All the best,
Ben

Richard, I offered. And the offer still stands.

[DVV]

Hi Richard, Ben and all,

I've already thanked her by email, but I perhaps should publicly thank Crystal for what she has done, re Hutch's statement and signatures.

She sent to me the images of the statement, and i'm thankful (and happy) for that.

Her posts, in the big thread and elsewhere as well, have always been sensible, well written and humoristic. I'm always pleased to read her thoughts, and certainly she's an expert in her field.

We all must know what she thinks about the signatures. It would be so stupid to ignore her work.

So again, thanks Crystal.

I'll work so hard till October... I'll have no time to come back here again, I'm afraid... Maybe one time or two, God willing...

To all, the sweetest summer.
Let's do rocksteady...
Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

S'okay, Richard.

I was just under the impression you had seen the same images from Crystal's visit to Kew that I had, and would therefore know that, despite her other sins, she had not "wasted her time" in terms of being proactive in her approach to the Hutchinson debates, which would otherwise consist of endless repetetive circles and stamina wars of the order that I - guilty! - find myself getting embroiled in with some regularity.

It was my understanding that you had received and digested the proverbial "carrot" in this case. That's all.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Ben,
I hate that term 'Waste of time' but i am sure that you are fully aware that the good lady has hardly expressed herself to members that were sympathetic towards her, when she has had a chance to, infact the only reply i had was, via you, speaking on her behalf [ PM]
I respect everyone on Casebook , that comes across as valid, but i am nobodys fool, and i will not give out too many chances to' carrot dangling 'posters.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Just to clarify, Richard, you're dismissing Crystal as a "waste of time" because you didn't think she was very forthcoming in terms of conversation in the chatroom?

Thanks in advance,

Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
I wish to make it clear that i bear no malice towards the poster known as Crystal, now or at any time in the past, infact i have made it clear that i supported her via PM, but this nonsense has gone on long enough, all this old hat 'I shall take leave of you all' is not worthy of a person that claims to have acted out on behalf of the vast majority of 'Casebook' by visiting Kew in her own time.
I have attempted many times in the chatroom, to make conversation with Crystal, but i cannot get a sensible answer, so therefore i find myself reluctantly joining the majority who vote this person as a 'waste of time' but i truely wish things were not that way.
Regards Richard

[Stephen Thomas]

Thank you and goodnight.

It's easier to publish fiction under a pseudonym than it is factual information. It may be published, but not by me. It's out of my hands. I'm leaving the country next week, ought to be far enough away for you, I should think. So long, and thanks for all the fish...(Exits stage left, pursued by a bear)

[Ben]

Hi Brad,

A lot of it was very interesting to me, at least. I don't think it had ever been observed before that Abberline had apparently ammended the statement after Badham's initial write-up. Having seen the images, I recongise the merit in that observation. I don't think her analysis was intended to prove or demonstrate that Hutchinson was lying, but rather to recount her findings and leave it to the readership to assess their potential significance.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

hi Brad

well, it could have been important.

The fingerprint is still interesting to me.

If as was originally claimed this showed conclusively that Hutch was signing the statement with his left hand, it would have allowed us to eliminate him from the suspect list.

However other experts have said the signatures were signed with the right hand, so we cant rule him out on this evidence.

[celee]

Hi,

I am missing something. What did she tell us that was all that important any way. I dont think anything she claimed was earth shattering. She feels in her "expert" opinion that Hutchinson was lieing. Let her publish her findings. People are either going to believe her or not. It is not that important

Your friend, Brad

[Brenda]

If she publishes her findings, will she use her real name so her credentials as a document examiner can be verified, or will she publish under a pseudonym?