The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Ben]

If you read my post I did use the word "wondering", so you see I am still very much in two minds (pardon the pun) regarding triple identity

I don't blame you, Observer.

I'm secretly John Eddleston and Chris Miles.

Best regards,

Hornchurch Harry

[babybird67]

Hi babybird

If you read my post I did use the word "wondering", so you see I am still very much in two minds (pardon the pun) regarding triple identity. However, I don't think there's much doubt that we do have a case of double identity.



Your vociferous defense of Crystal might have had a bearing on my conclusions, but If you are who you say you are then fair enough, please accept my apologies.

all the best

Observer

Hi Observer,

I am who i say i am. I did not know there was anything duplicitous going on. If i did, i certainly would not have been a party to it. I had no reason to believe there was anything dishonest going on.

I told you, stupid i may be, duplicitous, never.

I appreciate your apology.

catch you around sometime

[Observer]

Hi babybird

If you read my post I did use the word "wondering", so you see I am still very much in two minds (pardon the pun) regarding triple identity. However, I don't think there's much doubt that we do have a case of double identity.



Your vociferous defense of Crystal might have had a bearing on my conclusions, but If you are who you say you are then fair enough, please accept my apologies.

all the best

Observer

[babybird67]

gee thanks guys

Observer,

You are thinking as I am. That is a bit frightening.

Mike

Mike, i am surprised at you, unpleasantly surprised, sadly. I now understand the context of all your little digs at not knowing who someone is. Believe me, if you can, that I am me, always have been, always will be. I've used the name babybird67 online now for about eight years. I'm not a figment of anyone's imagination, except maybe God's, if he exists.

I've said many times in chat, if you want to know anything about me, just ask. I'm an open book and perhaps to my own detriment i do not wear masks or make-up of any kind, either online or off. Whether that's good enough for you, who knows. And whether an apology is good enough for me, who knows either.

Observer, i dont know you. If i had met you in chat you would have by now got an understanding of who i am, and that i am most definitely and certainly NOT an incarnation of anyone else. I am a regular in chat. I speak to everyone without prejudice; i have friends (or at least thought i had) on both sides of the Hutch debate. I don't believe in gang warfare...that much should be clear also from my posts.

Anyone who doubts who i am or has one of these weird double computer arguments (the same people who would poo poo the theories of double identity in the Ripper world i would imagine) is quite welcome to check with Stephen Ryder whether there is any connection whatsoever in IP address with Crystal's...but i will save you the trouble, there won't be.

FYI, and anyone else interested, when i joined this forum, i posted in the pub, with PERSONAL details of who and where i am. My real name, Jen, my marital status, my location etc etc...i've been warned several times since not to be so open about myself, but i can't help it, it's who i am.

At that time, i started to come into chat; both Ben and Crystal were often there, probably because we all live in the same country, so same time zone etc, and we all got on and they made me very welcome.

I was immediately attracted to the Hutch thread, BEFORE discussing this with Ben and Crystal, because it was a popular thread, so started reading it. I've been completely consistent in not agreeing with either Ben or Crystal that Hutch is the Ripper...in fact my view is there on the thread for the record that i revised my opinion to be less in line with Ben's...eg i began by stating there was no match, when Crystal posted up two apparently matching signatures that she later revealed were not matches, i decided i did not have experience enough to decide either way, and that has been my consistent position since.

I am so naive...i had absolutely no idea any of this was going on. It makes me sad to think my own credibility has been and is being questioned merely because i was kept out of the loop and had NO idea what was going on whatsoever.

Conversations that i have had in chat are coming back to my recollection with new significance...for example. Ally was posing a question about lying and forgiveness etc...Ally can be mean at the best of times (sorry A but you know it's true ) and she was quite aggressive with her questioning...it was late over here, time zone difference, and i didnt understand what she was trying to get at or why she was being so belligerent about it, so i declined to get involved, although now i can see that might have made it look even MORE like i wasnt a genuine person. Multiple comments from Mike, despite my being very open with my fondness for him and his sense of humour, about things not being what they seem...how stupid i must be.

I might be stupid but i'm not duplicitous.

For the record, i do not condone dishonesty. I do not condone creating multiple user accounts for the purpose of stirring trouble or deceiving others. I do believe if someone has done something wrong then they ought to apologise for that wrong. I try to apologise myself when i've done something wrong. I try to be honest in all my dealings with other people. I have no alternative names or user accounts. Check with admin if you have any doubt.

Mike, and Ally, can give accurate accounts of my utter bafflement at some of the things that have been said to me. I see now that those things were designed to establish whether i myself was a sock puppet. I hope by now both of them are satisfied that i am not.

Anyone with any other questions regarding my identity is quite welcome to walk into chat and ask me, or PM me.

I'm me, Jen, babybird, nobody else.

[Ben]

Just to clarify, that's statement signature #3 again at top of the list. The rest are Toppy, of course.

[The Good Michael]

Here's the other comparison:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=77240&postcount=567

Mike

[Observer]

Hi Bob

The three signatures from the police statement of George Hutchinson can be found on the George Hutchinson in 1911 census thread, they are on page three ans were supplied by the able Mr Sam Flynn

It is a bit disconcerting Mike

all the best

Observer

[The Good Michael]

Hi Mike

As you said earlier it was pretty obvious really, just wonderling if our feathered freind is involved also.

Observer,

You are thinking as I am. That is a bit frightening.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Bob,

Gareth posted another list of signatures that were done by plumber George Hutchinson. He was listing family names, I believe. It is sometime after the post you looked at, but it is enlightening.
Mike

[Bob Hinton]

Hi Bob

That's the witnesses statement from page three if i'm not mistaken

all the best

Observer

For some reason I don't seem to have that one. If that is the case then it was written by a different person to the the first two.

[Observer]

Hi Mike

As you said earlier it was pretty obvious really, just wonderling if our feathered freind is involved also.

all the best

Observer

[Ben]

Very interesting, Bob.

One thing that Crystal observed from her analysis last Saturday was that the signatures appended to the original statement were very large in contrast to the signatures of GWTH (Toppy), a fact which often gets lost in montages such as the one above. I've seen some images from that recent analysis, and they're quite enlightenining in this regard. But yes, 1898 and 1911 were written by the same hand.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Bob

That's the witnesses statement from page three if i'm not mistaken

all the best

Observer

[Bob Hinton]

Signatures

OK. Well I think it’s fairly obvious that the Lambeth signature is completely different from the other three, it is also fairly obvious that it was written by someone who is not at home with a pen and ink. The signature is very slow and deliberate, in much the same way a young child writes for the first time. The 1898 and the 1911 signatures show some similarities, but the one labelled 1888 is different from all the rest.

None of these signatures were done by the person who signed the first page of the statement. That signature was done by someone again unfamiliar with the use of the pen and is slow and hesitating. The signature on the second page of the statement, which incidentally reads ‘Geo’ not ‘George’ was done by the same person who signed the first page.

I’m not sure where the signature above labelled 1888 came from. Can anyone enlighten me?

[The Good Michael]

Observer,

Well, the personality stayed kind of the same in both entities, but yeah, I see what you mean.

Mike