The Statement of George Hutchinson

[richardnunweek]

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

[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!

[Crystal]

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.

[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.

[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

[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...

[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

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Certain FACTS are apparent to me"

Well, Crystal, believe it or not, but certain facts are quite apparent to me too. But we are not discussing appearances here, we are discussing proof. And since you claim that you have that proof, that is why I said that proof puts things beyond the discussion stage.

If and when you provide that proof, I will immediately accept it - if proof it is - and we can henceforth work from the established fact that Toppy was not Hutch. But that is for later, I feel, and I am pretty certain that I will spend the period up to the revelation in question as a firm believer in the connection between Toppy and Hutch.

Enjoy your holiday.

Fisherman

[Bob Hinton]

Reply to Fisherman

Ok Fisherman, lets see if I can answer your points. First off I last went into this in depth about 12 years ago when I was writing my book, so if I am a little rusty with the details you will have to forgive me.

The reason I didn’t immediately recognise the third signature was that somehow the last page of GH statement had become detached and left me with just the first two, after so long I had forgotten there was a third. I found it a few days ago and am up to speed on this now.

As for Iremonger I didn’t contact her directly but if memory serves me correctly I spoke to Paul Begg about this and he gave me the information.

Now let us look at the three signatures. See picture.

The first is George Hutchinson with a florid capital H
The second is Geo Hutchinson with a straightforward H
The third is George Hutchinson with a straightforward H

In my opinion the same person did all three signatures.

The statement was written out, presumably by Badham and then given to GH to sign. Either Hutchinson read the statement or it was read to him, either way after reading the sheets were passed to GH for signing. He is not comfortable with a pen and ink so in his first signature he tries to emulate the capital H he sees at the top of the sheet next to Division. The result is a hesitant; you can see where he hesitates at the bottom of the first part of the letter before going left, unformed letter. Because it is not his style of writing you can see that when he finishes the letter H he doesn’t know what to do next. His pen starts to go up, and then he thinks better of it and it loops around anticlockwise before forming the U. The result is a squiggle that looks like the letter ‘e’.

For his second attempt he forgoes trying to produce a fancy, unnatural H and just writes it in his own handwriting. The result is a straightforward H with a natural flow to the letter U. This signature is practically identical to the third signature, only because he dipped his pen in the ink (this signature is much darker than the last) he splurged a bit on the H.

Now this is all very well but what do I have to back this theory up?

Look again at the signatures and this time take away everything but the letter G. See picture. In each case the letter G is practically identical to the others.

Now to the same exercise again but this time take away the letter H. See picture. In each case the ‘utchinson’ is practically identical to the others.

[Ally]

The fact is that if Crystal were at all genuine, there were several questions regarding what she's already posted that she could have easily answered. Instead she ducks, dodges, avoids and in general, does nothing but come on with even more: I'll answer later. With all the snarky, "I'll tell you later" posts she's managed to put up here, she'd have had time to answer all the points 3 times over.

Fraud. Fake. Liar. Phony. Set agenda, and keeping to it. Troll.

[The Good Michael]

Bob,

That makes sense what you are telling us. Re: utchinson, I see (and others) the same utchinson in Toppy's census signatures.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mr Hinton!

Taking it from the start, I would like to thank you for your reply!

There is a number of questions left unanswered, though, and a point I would like to comment on when it comes to your analysis of the signatures. Letīs begin with the latter issue!

You write that you think that the signer of the first signature tried to emulate the H in H division from the top of the page. Of course, that is not easily proven - but an interesting thought.
There are, though, a number of differences between the H:s that make me wonder. I specifically note that the curl commencing the letter, forming the "flag" on top of the left leg, is a lot more elaborate in the witnessīversion than it is in the "H division" H.
Somehow, I would have preferred that the other way around.

What the witness does (if he was the one who signed) is to put the pen to the paper, make a nicely curved, clockwise half circle, only to throw the tip of the pen into a sharper ANTI-clockwise circle, leading onto the left hand leg of the H.
The "H division" H has very little of that refinery to itīs "flag" - but, then again, the "H division" H we are looking at in your pic is the one on the THIRD side of the statement. Perhaps the one on page 1 was different in this respect?

My own stance is that I agree with you that the three signatures could well have been made by the same man. There are commonalities that are rather convincing in the parts you mention. The curlied H in signature number one could - to my mind - perhaps be explained by a wish on the witnessī behalf to do his very best when supplying the authorities with his signature, something that he gave up when he realized that there were a number of pages to sign. At any rate, such a suggestion would be related to your own theory: If he tried to emulate the H on top of the paper, he would probably have done so to try and please!
But we are left with guesswork here, and so we will have to go with our respective convictions of which none can be said to be superior to the other!

The questions I would like to get some sort of answers to were the ones about Iremonger: Do you have any knowledge of any of the details she took an interest in, reaching her verdict? - and the one about your own stance, comparing the signature from page three of the police protocol to the one from the wedding document and the ones on the census listings from 1911: Did you in your book express any conviction about the viability of the suggestion that these signatures may have been by the same man? And what is your stance today, looking at this material?

The best,
Fisherman

PS. I am pressed for time right now, and leaving for Barcelona soon. Thus any answer on your behalf may well go unanswered for a couple of days - but I will tend to it on my return!

[Bob Hinton]

Signatures

I think it most unlikely that GWTH signed the statement form as the police ask that you sign it with your full name to aid identification of the witness.

[Garry Wroe]

Observer.

The Hutchinson statement is housed at the Public Records Office, Kew, and remains the property of the Crown. Although the one-hundred year rule does apply, Steven Knight was given access to the 'Ripper File' in the Seventies and reproduced part of the Hutchinson statement in his book. Anyone can visit the PRO and, even if access to the paper records isn't possible, one can certainly examine the same files on microfilm.

Mike.

Sorry it's taken so long to address the points you made a few days ago. For some reason, my connection keeps getting broken and I lose the reply I intended to submit.

I do, of course, take on board the point that your signature has changed significantly over the decades. But, as I think I've pointed out previously, for an overwhelming majority of people, signatures remain fairly constant over extended periods of time. Were this not the case, the signature could not be used as a primary source of identification for banks, passports, social security and so forth. The only way in which this issue is likely to be resolved, I suspect, would be through the production of a Toppy signature from the 1888 (or thereabouts) period.

I must also confess to being somewhat surprised by your faith in Abberline and his colleagues. Have you forgotten that the Goulston Street message was sponged away rather than being preserved as a potentially important piece of evidence? Or that Mary Kelly's eyes were photographed in the hope that the killer's image had been retained on her retinae?

In reality, the late-Victorian Met was in its nascency as a detective body. It not only lacked sophistication in a forensic context (even fingerprinting wasn't in use at the time of the Ripper murders), but it had no experience of the sadosexual serial killer. As such, I do not share your confidence that Hutchinson was thoroughly interrogated either at the time he made his police statement or when, a few days later, official doubts were cast on his stated version of events. In all probability, he came to be regarded as a time-waster and was promptly discarded. Of course, if anyone has evidence to the contrary ...

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[Observer]

Hi Gary

Thank for that, much obliged. Any ideas on the right to copy and publish documents that are 100 years or older?

all the best

Observer