The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Observer]

Hi

What exactly are the laws regarding ones access to old police documents? And do we need permission to reproduce such police documents? I have just done a google search to no avail regarding such matters. I was led to believe that a 100 year embargo existed on viewing the documents, is this correct?

all the best

Observer

[halomanuk]

That Troll sort of looks like one of the erasers I used to stick on the end of my pencil.

Whatever turns you on Brad...

[celee]

No this is a troll!

Crystal, have nice holiday. That Troll sort of looks like one of the erasers I used to stick on the end of my pencil.

Your friend, Brad

[richardnunweek]

Hi Crystal,
Well all that there is to say is 'Happy Hols' back in july, not November as you stated in chat then? [ going away for 6 months].
It is all the confusing tit bits that turn up in your conversations, that do nothing for your credibilty.
With respect Crystal your actions remind me of a favourite expression , by a late aunt 'if you want to be a good liar, you have to have a good memory'.
I hate to be so negative with you, but i find it hard to accept that famous line' you will all have to wait' then add 'farewell for now'.
Regards Richard.

Thanks Fisherman. I think I know what constitutes 'proof'. Now then. It is not my remit to tell people what to think. My own personal view has nothing to do with anything. Certain FACTS are apparent to me, as a consequence of my work on these documents to date. To clarify, that is what a report does - it sets out the facts. The facts will not alter, no matter what you, I, or anyone else thinks personally about the issue. I will present the facts. They will speak for themselves - that's the thing, see, you don't have to take my word for it at all - you'll be able to see for yourselves. Then, you can decide what you think for yourselves. I hope you understand. Were it the case that things were not crystal clear in some respects here, the debate could go on forever. That is emphatically not so, however, and so the state of knowledge is bound to move on. Now, I have no doubt this impending publication will give rise to a whole lot of new arguments - and that's as it should be. I hope you will all be enlightened. I don't think further debate until that time would be productive. I'm going on holiday now.

[Bob Hinton]

With apologies to Crocodile Dundee!

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.

No this is a troll!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
I agree nothing is 'CRYSTAL' clear
Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Don't take the bait, guys. Don't believe the experts, for there are none.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hello Crystal,
I quess then its a question of waiting, using that old adage 'Time reveals all',refering to your much discussed visit to kew, i for one cannot see how that visit can have led you to the conclusion that Topping was not the witness we all occassionaly [ ha] discuss on Casebook.
I for one would be totally shocked if it was proven he was not. and i would then love to know the answers to the following questions.
1] from private information, i have reason to believe that Reg[ proven son of Topping] had absolutely no knowledge of the Ripper case until not so many years ago, infact he was lent a book to read about it by a relative, that being the case, how would he known in the early 1970s, of such a tale, involving the meeting with kelly on commercial street if he was not informed by someone in the know ie.his father? i heard this on the radio in the 1970s.
2] If Topping was a hoaxer, and he made the whole story up , he would have to been well versed on the case to have, [1] realized that he had the same name as a famous witness.[2] to have had the insight to have read up on that mans involvement.
3]what either father/son hoped to achieve by such a hoax, the old man , a pint or two pehaps?, and Reg, instant fame[ what fame].
We should also remember that Toppings youngest son [ to the best of my knowledge still alive aged 89] confirms his fathers story.
So if Crystal you can prove that GWTH, was not Hutchinson, i for one would eat the entire humble pie....
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"I will happily say when it is due to appear, at which point, people can make whatever they wish of it."

No, Crystal, people cannot make whatever they wish of it, since you have stated that you can actually PROVE that Toppy was not the Dorset Street witness. Once that is proven, there can be no further doubts, and you can lean back and point out that I, Sam and Mike were wrong all along, and there will be nothing we can do about it.
THAT is how proof functions - you can NOT make whatever you wish of it.

Fisherman

Ok, some clarification: I haven't called anybody an 'imbecile', people are entitled to their view, including me, and I couldn't care less whether I have your 'attention', or not. Now, as to what is actually important, so far as it goes-the result of work done earlier this month on the eponymous statement and infamous signatures. Yes, I will publish. No, it won't be immediate. I'm away now until July, at which time I'll try to get to it and write the report. Of course, how quickly it appears in the public domain depends on my getting permission to publish images-if we can agree on anything, surely it would be that a report of this nature would be pretty pointless without visuals. I will get it. I won't get it to publish here, I can tell you now. For this reason only, it must go elsewhere. I will happily say when it is due to appear, at which point, people can make whatever they wish of it. My personal view has no bearing on what the facts tell me. I have no emotional investment in who the Dorset Street witness was. I have a duty to knowledge however, and so I will see it through. No more. No less. I don't know when it will be, but before the end of the summer with luck.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"(and perhaps some of the others)"

Well, one canīt fault you for being overoptimistic or drawing too much on things, Sam!

Fisherman
one of the others - definitely

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam, At least one expert has dismissed Toppy.
That's another fact, isn't it ?

I've not seen precisely what the expert may have written, Dave - so, strictly-speaking, I can't take it as a fact. Neither do I know what the same expert might think if they had access to more samples, which is the happy position in which we find ourselves today. Given the remarkable similarity of those signatures, I'd be very surprised if any expert - or layman, for that matter - categorically ruled out Toppy as Hutch.

[Sam Flynn]

Hutch is still as much a confusion and enigma to me as he was when i first arrived...

He may still be viewed as an enigma irrespective of his identity, BB, which is a very important point to bear in mind. I can understand why the merest hint of "normality" about Hutchinson might threaten any aspiration of finding him a thoroughly bad egg, but - again - if he were a serial offender, he would not have been the first nor the last to have come across as a "regular guy", so I don't see any problem there either.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi BB,

How far would this independent support carry us if we acknowledge that "George Hutchinson" of statement fame could have actually been somebody else?

It's highly unlikely that he'd have signed his made up name to match so closely a real "George Hutchinson", who lived in London, married an East End girl, etc. etc.

I understand it is good enough for you, Sam. Unfortunately, the opposing "Toppy is not Hutch" camp also think there is enough evidence to rule out a match.

But that conclusion is entirely based on opinion - whereas mine is based on a number of independent, but fully consistent and factual threads. Like I said earlier, the "pro-Toppy" argument needs a much shorter chalk.