The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Ben]

Let's put this baby to bed. With the relative dearth of George Hutchinsons that we're dealing with, why on Earth did this murderous swine pick that name? Why not Smith, Johnson, or O'reilly?

Why did Herman Webster Mudgett use the alias Henry Howard Holmes and not John Smith or Ed Jones?

You've once again come up with an extremely vacuous and idiotic "objection" that was easily destroyed. "Duh, it wasn't an alias! Cuz if it was, he would have picked a more ordinary name!" decides Mike, with his usual brand of unthinking Homer Simpsonesque stupidity. All that is required to flush that crass observation down the toilet is a basic knowledge of history; an example such as the one above; an awareness of the fact that not all alias-users resort to "ordinary" pseudonyms, not that "George Hutchinson" is remotely obscure.

There. I've taught you something. Something that you were clearly clueless about beforehand. I've disabused you of a fallacy, and according to you that should constitute progress, unless of course your "friggin agenda" has interfered with your digestion of this new knowledge?

The police certainly checked out this man, grilled him, and had him escort them around town.

We have no evidence of how thorough their "checking out" was, or even the extent of their "checking" ability, which, considering that we're dealing with a lodger in the year 1888, would have been markedly reduced in contrast to today. He did not "escort" anyone around town, but rather was requested by the police to accompany them in search of the man he described.

and it starts with saying that this idea of an alias is crap

But the reasons you came up with for refuting the suggestion were indicative of chronic cluelessness on your part, as I've just demonstrated, so if that's the sort of "reality" you want to bring to Hutchville, I'm having none of it.

Keep picking these little fights with me though if you want to kick start the whole thing again.

I'm playing.

[The Good Michael]

Although as Chris Scott astutely observed in reference to Mary Kelly, if we're dealing with a false name, that seemingly "simple" task is rendered nigh on impossible.

Let's put this baby to bed. With the relative dearth of George Hutchinsons that we're dealing with, why on Earth did this murderous swine pick that name? Why not Smith, Johnson, or O'reilly? The police certainly checked out this man, grilled him, and had him escort them around town.
Not only is the idea of his using an alias surmise, but it is yet another effort to put a blanket over a real possibility of learning something about the case, which some don't seem to want to do because of their friggin' agendas. I have just decided on an agenda. It is to bring the reality back to the world of George Hutchinson, and it starts with saying that this idea of an alias is crap. Anyone with a brain can see that it is another of those little niggling pissant musings where someone says, "This is what I think. Prove me wrong." That argument, though perhaps fun as a parlor game, is completely false and makes Ripperology look like horse droppings. How do we know Henry VIII was a Tudor? We have no photos. How do we know Jesus' name wasn't Schlemiel. but he kind of like 'The Annointed One' better? B as in b, and S as in s.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

I wouldn't necessarily write off such a tactic, Ben - indeed, it's hard to think of any other means by which one might do this, apart from using various civil registers

The tactic isn't disastrous in and of itself, Gareth, except inasmuch as it lends itself to abuse by anyone who fancies giving a false response, hence my good-natured piss-taking on a recent podcast of the method presumably employed by Fairclough who - in my suggested scenario - contacted Reg with the question "Are you descended from the George Hutchinson who claimed to have seen Mary Kelly?", only to receive an "Umm....yes!" from Reg who could have been talking nonsense, as I suspect he probably was.

That isn't to say there's any question that Reg was the son of Toppy, nor do I doubt that "JD Hutchinson" was who she claimed she was (i.e. not Reg's younger brother), but I'm afraid it doesn't make the claim to witness fame anymore plausible.

A task made easier, in this instance, by the demonstrable dearth of George Hutchinsons with connections to East London.

Although as Chris Scott astutely observed in reference to Mary Kelly, if we're dealing with a false name, that seemingly "simple" task is rendered nigh on impossible.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. Oh, and have a "kick", by the way.

[Fisherman]

...and, of course, the fact that Reg´s younger brother on these very boards seemingly has confirmed Reg´s wiew of what Toppy had told them about his role in the Kelly affair (apparently without any economical favours for doing so), does in no way weaken the argument that Reg was Toppys son - and told a truthful story on the particular subject of what Toppy had said about his role as the Dorset Street witness.

It would be nice if we could compare the police report signature and Toppys ditto to have this all borne out and confirmed!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

There's no evidence that Reginald "presented" himself, incidentally. More likely, Melvyn Fairclough and/or Joseph Gorman Sickert contacted anyone with the surname Hutchinson living in the East and received a "positive" response from Reginald.

...a similar technique with which Neal Shelden might have traced many of the victims' families, or by which investigation bureaux track down the nearest kin of those who die intestate. I wouldn't necessarily write off such a tactic, Ben - indeed, it's hard to think of any other means by which one might do this, apart from using various civil registers. A task made easier, in this instance, by the demonstrable dearth of George Hutchinsons with connections to East London.

[The Good Michael]

There's no compelling reason to believe that the real witness even had any descendants.

Because so often, family lines just end with the last young male.

Mike

[DVV]

There's no compelling reason to believe that the real witness even had any descendants.

All the best,
Ben

He had, Ben, don't be so sure!

They all live happily in the cellar of Claybury.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hello David,
Yes Hutch also makes me 'mad', its all down to opinions, those for /those against.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

In my opinion, it's not "all down to opinions", and sincerely, I'm not for or against any Hutch.
I simply want to find the guy - and I haven't found him yet.
I still believe (no certainty of course) that Fleming is the more likely Hutch at the present day.
I cannot vote Toppy at the present day, but believe me, I wish I had already found my Hutch - like you and others.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Ben]

I believe that is a fair assumption to make, so taking that into account its more likely that this signature penned on Nov 12th 88, would be not so relaxed as a wedding signature, and a straightforeward signing on, a census return.

But there's nothing in Hutchinson's signature that really hints at any great anxiety, Richard, unless we want to argue that stressed people open-loop their G's while non-stressed people close loop them. The occasional smudge might be indicative of "stress", but I don't see anything in the style of the signatures themselves that would indicate any particular anxiety. But this takes us perilously close to graphological terriroty, which is an iffy avenue to pursue for reasons already discussed.

The signature comparisons, are extremely similar

I disagree.

There's no evidence that Reginald "presented" himself, incidentally. More likely, Melvyn Fairclough and/or Joseph Gorman Sickert contacted anyone with the surname Hutchinson living in the East and received a "positive" response from Reginald. There's no compelling reason to believe that the real witness even had any descendants.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello David,
Yes Hutch also makes me 'mad', its all down to opinions, those for /those against.
I have said many times in the past, that the only name we have been given, in identification, has been Topping, there has been no other descendant of Abberlines Hutchinson, that has presented themselves.
That along with a post[ only one] from JD Hutchinson, would indicate that it was not only Reg that was familiar with that account, but his younger brother also.
The signature comparisons, are extremely similar, although one could argue, the wedding signature of Topping , and the 1911 census are a closer match, then the 1888 statement , when compared to the other two.
I feel a explanation for this is avaliable.
The police statement would have been made whilst the witness Hutchinson was high on stress levels, not only would he have been looked at suspiciously, but the whole bloodbath in Millers court, that involved a woman he had known, would have distressed him.
I believe that is a fair assumption to make, so taking that into account its more likely that this signature penned on Nov 12th 88, would be not so relaxed as a wedding signature, and a straightforeward signing on, a census return.
I am extremely biased, but if it could be proven that Topping was not the witness, i would eat that slice of humble pie[ as Crystal put it]gladly, and the name of Topping would cease to exist for me, along with everyone else.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Oh this is spooky. As some of you will remember I identified the witness GH in my book, only to find out later on that I had the wrong GH. However this wrong GH did have a connection with Romford, his sister was born there.

It was an accumulation of facts like these that made me convinced I was on the right trail.

When I have time I will be writing an article for Rip giving the story of this wrong family Hutchinson.

Bob,
so there perhaps would be 2 Hutch with a sister born in Romford...?

Toppy's sister is said to be born in Hornchuch in the 1871 census, but, from Chris Scott's "Will the real MK":

"The birth of his sister, listed in the census as born in Hornchurch, is probably referred to in the listing in the second quarter of 1861, that of a Jane Emily Hutchinson born in Romford." (p 88)

Hutch makes me mad.
It's official.

Amitiés,
David

[Bob Hinton]

No worries!

[Fisherman]

Back from Barcelona! Quite a town! And some hallabaloo after that Champions league win!
I would just like to take the opportunity to thank Bob Hinton for his answers on the questions I put to him; most enlightening!

The best,
Fisherman

[Mr Chumley]

well said BB, all avenues of exploration are valid and a blinkered view, how ever logical is still that, all these threads are hypothetical explorations based on various supported or unsupported theories. The interaction of enquiring minds is what makes for much enjoyable reading.."all work and no play make's JACK a dull boy"

[babybird67]

oh Sam

don't be demoralised and dispirited. Please don't. And please don't stop posting to Hutch threads because of it. You and Mike made inroads with me at least, that should give you some hope that your arguments aren't falling on completely deaf ears!

It's the nature of discussions where there is no objective proof for there to be argument and counter-argument...and it's in the symbiosis of these contentions that details and ideas emerge which can persuade one person one way or the other...


don't lose heart, please.

best wishes