The Statement of George Hutchinson

[The Good Michael]

am of the belief that Hutchinson was at a crime scene at a time critical to a Ripper murder. On that basis alone, he merits close and careful investigation .

Garry,

I would suggest that he was given a close and careful investigation. He was interrogated by Badham and Abberline. He had to have been fairly thoroughly checked out. These things are much more than we can hope to achieve now that he's dead. Indeed, we have folks coming forward and telling us that Toppy, if he is Hutch, and I have no reason to doubt that any longer, wasn't a bad guy. If Toppy is Hutch, we have the police belief that his story amounted to something and at very least that he wasn't a criminal, and we have family anecodtal evidence. That combination is far more trustworthy than an inkling that something was amiss.

Cheers,

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

I'm sorry, Mike, but nothing I've ever encountered in the police files or elsewhere even remotely suggests that Hutchinson was thoroughly investigated by Badham, Abberline or any other police officer. Let us not forget here that Peter Sutcliffe, who committed his crimes in a far more forensically sophisticated era, was interviewed by police on at least nine occasions and was never suspected of being the Yorkshire Ripper. And this can by no means taken as an isolated example. It need not necessarily be the case that an individual interrogated and cleared by police is innocent. The annals of crime are awash with cases which demonstrate this very point.

Equally, there is nothing about the signatures presently available that convinces me that Hutchinson and Toppy were one and the same. Whilst there is a certain stylistic similarity between the samples, there are sufficient differences to leave me unconvinced of a link of common authorship. Crucially, however, the signatures themselves are entirely different, to the extent that I cannot, for the life of me, comprehend how anyone can percieve concordance between 'George Hutchinson' and 'George William Hutchinson'. And if you can, Mike, please tell me that you don't work in the cheque endorsement department at my bank.

I suppose that, on this one, we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

Garry,

When I was a young man (lo these many years ago), I signed my name without my middle name. Now I use it. Things change, and I don't believe the addition of a middle name in later years means a thing. It is the sum of the parts that I look at. As for the idea that he wasn't investigated, how can you think that a person who was last seen in the area, had a description of a possible killer, and who admitted to being very acquainted with Kelly, was just glossed over by Badham and Abberline who undoubtedly spent many hours grilling him? That seems to me the height of impossibility.

Cheers,

Mike

[Christine]

Well, the obvious reason one would switch from "George Hutchinson" to "George William Hutchinson" would be that there were two George Hutchinsons doing business in your town or at your bank. Obviously this is a "what if" scenario, but there are far less likely scenarios out there.

[The Good Michael]

Well, the obvious reason one would switch from "George Hutchinson" to "George William Hutchinson" would be that there were two George Hutchinsons doing business in your town or at your bank. Obviously this is a "what if" scenario, but there are far less likely scenarios out there.

Also, when he became a plumber, George William sounded more distinguished. As you say, there are some obvious reasons. If He used GWH as a young man, then I don't see him dropping William late on in life. Adding it makes a lot of sense.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Of course, we do know that Toppy signed his 1911 census listing without adding any middle name. Maybe Mike is right here; he may have used the more posh middle name variety at times, when engaging with business associates and customers, whereas he did not do so when signing more trivial documents.

Fisherman

[Crystal]

Speculation. By all means, speculate. Invest your mental prowess in Toppy. It won't change a thing. Nope. Sorry. Toppy wasn't Hutch. I can prove it. I will do so. Defenders of the Ludicrous Order of Toppy, however, will have trouble doing likewise. All that is left is to talk about it, apparently ad infinitum-but faith is not logic, after all. Enjoy your micro arguments. Oh and Toppy isn't Hutch. NOW this the 1911 thread..

[Bob Hinton]

Post 199

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

I do apologise. I only dip in and out of threads nowadays and didn't see your post 199. I've got half a day off tomorrow and will answer your points then.

[The Good Michael]

Speculation. By all means, speculate. Invest your mental prowess in Toppy. It won't change a thing. Nope. Sorry. Toppy wasn't Hutch. I can prove it. I will do so. Defenders of the Ludicrous Order of Toppy, however, will have trouble doing likewise. All that is left is to talk about it, apparently ad infinitum-but faith is not logic, after all. Enjoy your micro arguments. Oh and Toppy isn't Hutch. NOW this the 1911 thread..

Go away. Really, just go away. You are no one and you mean nothing. You are a bit of undigested pork and nothing more.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Bob Hinton writes:

"I do apologise. I only dip in and out of threads nowadays and didn't see your post 199. I've got half a day off tomorrow and will answer your points then."

No need to apologise! I am just happy to get response from you on the matter, since I am trying to piece things together, and this particular piece is of great interest to me.

Thanking you in advance,

Fisherman

[halomanuk]

Toppy wasn't Hutch. I can prove it.

Then prove it and put this thread out of its misery...

[babybird67]

proof?

i do not see how it can ever be proven that two similar, yet also differing, signatures were written by the same man, at this distance in time, based upon document examination.

As i said three trillion times in the original 1911 thread, we are chasing the chimera of resolution, if we think it can be decided either way to everyone's satisfaction, since document examination, even when practised by the best in the profession, is not an exact science, as has been acknowledged by "expert" and layperson alike.

All we have at the end of the day on either side is faith and opinion. If that is sufficient "proof" to some minds, so be it.

[Crystal]

Oh Yes It Is!

I agree, Jen, you don't see how it can be proven. That, I'm afraid, has no bearing on the fact of the matter. Barry, it will be done. 'It', not 'My'. As to the thread, whilst many things may well be within my power, ending the 'misery' of the thread is not. Ask Admin to close it, it has nowhere to run anyhow. You know, chaps, you can always put me on 'ignore'. Adios for now.

[halomanuk]

I don't want to put you on ignore Crystal,how will i see your post showing the proof ?
It's not personal,i just want to see the result either way.

[Ally]

Fact: Crystal created a sock puppet.
Fact: Crystal is now doing nothing but disrupting the threads troll style. Claims with no evidence, the definition of troll behavior. Hit and run posts, the method of a troll.
Fact: Crystal is nothing but a troll.

I am not putting her on ignore, I am reporting her. It's fairly clear it's been a windup from the start and she is now and has always been nothing but a troll.