Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Proof of identity

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Just wanted to add that GWT Hutchinson had more than one son and a number of daughters as well. My father in law, who is the youngest son has also always told us that his father was the last person to see Mary Kelly alive.

    Comment


    • Hi JD, fantastic to have you on the boards. Your post is very exciting (although slightly at odds with what I managed to find out when I contacted some members of the family last year)
      Is there anything else you can tell us? Independent corroboration of Reg's story would be very valuable.

      Thanks
      David

      Comment


      • Question for JD

        Sorry Iím not quite sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that your effective grandfather (two generations back) was the last person to see MJK? Can you give us the timeline for this?

        If I go back two generations the DOB of my grandfather is 1894 for one and 1892 for the other.

        Comment


        • Reg has a younger brother, contrary to what it says in The Ripper and The Royals. GWTH and Mrs GWTH would have been in their 50s when he was born.

          When I contacted the family last year, I had only been looking for descendents of Reg's older siblings, as I thought Reg was the youngest.

          They did tell me about Reg's younger brother, but were not aware that he had also heard the Ripper story from GWTH. I didn't contact the family of Reg's younger brother so it is great to have 'JD' post here ... I would love to know if there is anything further that can be added to the story.

          Comment


          • Hi JD,
            I also welcome you to this site, you may, or may not know, that I have voiced the opinion for many years that Reg Hutchinson was telling the truth about his fathers recollections, infact I stand alone on Casebook, in believing the whole story.
            I would be forever grateful if you can shed any light on this matter,and lets give your father in laws father a fair deal for once.
            Best Regards
            Richard.

            Comment


            • in defence of richard

              hi all i will say is richard is only trying to contribute to the jtr scene why is it everybody on here attacks people for trying to solve or come up with explanations you should be helping each other not insulting each other nothing changes they say the police departments at time did the same lets start pulling in the same direction it seems everyone is trying to outdo everyone and seem more important then they are. surely truly we should be trying to prove did that interview take place was that reported back in america and was reg related to george then its hope to different individuals to come up with there own ideas as to how it works in there casebooks on jtr yours love and joy

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lovejoy View Post
                hi all i will say is richard is only trying to contribute to the jtr scene why is it everybody on here attacks people for trying to solve or come up with explanations you should be helping each other not insulting each other nothing changes they say the police departments at time did the same lets start pulling in the same direction it seems everyone is trying to outdo everyone and seem more important then they are. surely truly we should be trying to prove did that interview take place was that reported back in america and was reg related to george then its hope to different individuals to come up with there own ideas as to how it works in there casebooks on jtr yours love and joy
                Yes very twee Lovejoy, unfortunately this doesnít apply to Richard. He isnít trying to advance research in any way. He simply demands that everyone accepts his point of view; despite the fact he had shown to be wrong in countless aspects of his theory.

                However instead of researching new information, he just keeps starting new threads regurgitating the same old dross, and quite frankly a lot of people on these boards, including me, are finding it increasingly tedious.

                We keep asking Richard to provide evidence, any sort of evidence that what he says is correct, he refuses to do so.

                To accuse posters on these boards of not helping Richard just displays your chronic ignorance of the situation.

                Richard insists that a certain radio programme was broadcast in the early seventies. In spite of the fact that many people have pointed out that even if this did happen it proves nothing Ė he still keeps banging away about it. Apparently out of everyone who posts on these boards he is the only one who heard the broadcast. Now even though I believe him to be in error, this is what I did.

                1. I contacted the BBC to search their archives to find the programme, drew a blank.
                2. I tracked down a radio script written by a Michel Raper about JTR which was broadcast at about the same time Ė according to Richard it wasnít the right one.
                3. I tracked down a copy of a TV programme that was broadcast at the same time Ė not the right one.

                So I take it rather hard when you accuse people of not helping other people.

                Richard is not interested in carrying out any real research just re-hashing the same old nonsense on different threads.

                Comment


                • Good evening Bob,
                  Giving my opinion on the true identity of George Hutchinson, i do not consider a 'theory' it is based upon my belief that Topping was most likely that person, that is not a theory, it is nothing knew.
                  Neither is it some kind of theory, when i recall that radio broadcast, i am simply relating to Casebook of its existance, back in time, whilst i appreciate i cannot 'prove it', for no records exist anymore, therefore i am poweless to advance further, it should not mean that i should shut up, when i know i am right.
                  I am sorry if this is tiresome to you, and fellow members,
                  Regarding my habit of starting new threads, on what you describe as' Regurgitating the same old dross', i can only add that in the last ten years on Casebook , i have started many threads, and a great deal of them have become very debatable, which i am sure ,you would agree Bob, is the bread and butter of any message board.
                  I am not aware that Ripperology has advanced so much recently that old material need never be used, so until then, one has to continue 'Regurgitating the same old dross' i quess.
                  Regards Richard.

                  Comment


                  • and whose this JD HUTCHINSON, that's just so happened to suddenly appear on this thread.......YEA' RIGHT

                    come on guys this is a wind up, it's obvious it is

                    Comment


                    • Hello Malcome X.
                      Not a wind up JD, is female , her christian name is the same as a ex First lady, she lives in a place in the Uk, that is frequently discussed on Casebook, her partner is the grandson of Topping, and she is approx 47 years old, like her husband.
                      Not a wind up . but mums the word from J, and i perfectly understand, and respect why.
                      Regards Richard.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
                        Hello Malcome X.
                        Not a wind up JD, is female , her christian name is the same as a ex First lady, she lives in a place in the Uk, that is frequently discussed on Casebook, her partner is the grandson of Topping, and she is approx 47 years old, like her husband.
                        Not a wind up . but mums the word from J, and i perfectly understand, and respect why.
                        Regards Richard.
                        maybe... but without seeing a birth certificate and a direct family link to Toppy then i'll believe nothing ( a scan of both on this forum is good enough for me and i see no reason for not providing this)... and neither should you.

                        finally, we dont know if Toppy was actually HUTCH and it looks almost definitely as if HUTCH was lieing anyway, BEN and i have gone over HUTCH's statement in great detail in the past and it reads like it's fabricated... almost all of it, plus his movements over the next few days are very suspicious indeed/ dismissed by Abberline etc.

                        i have no axe to grind at all, if i thought HUTCH was telling the truth i'd say so, i wish he was; because my fav suspect was G.Chapman.

                        you need facts because the weight of evidence bears very heavily down on your shoulders, it's your responsability, in fact; as time passes HUTCH seems even less honest, becaue this thread and the other one, are seriously damaging his reputation even more....
                        Last edited by Malcolm X; 04-12-2009, 11:36 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Hi MalcolmX,
                          I agree Proof is the issue here, i have none, only plenty of ' Yes Buts' etc , etc, but my friend none of us have, we are either pro/ anti Hutch.
                          The signatures are the nearest i have seen on Casebook, but as yet they do close the case, as you rightly say , even if Topping was the Witness, he still could have told the biggest yarn imaginable.
                          I would dispute that, but only my opinion.
                          Regards Richard.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by richardnunweek View Post
                            Hi MalcolmX,
                            I agree Proof is the issue here, i have none, only plenty of ' Yes Buts' etc , etc, but my friend none of us have, we are either pro/ anti Hutch.
                            The signatures are the nearest i have seen on Casebook, but as yet they do close the case, as you rightly say , even if Topping was the Witness, he still could have told the biggest yarn imaginable.
                            I would dispute that, but only my opinion.
                            Regards Richard.
                            HUTCH might actually have seen the Ripper... because although it reads like twaddle, stranger things in life have happened, but it is not ``churchill`` related.......... it's somebody else and it's not Chapman either, i've noticed something 2 days ago

                            Comment


                            • Yawn Yawn................

                              Richard itís not you using Ďoldí information and well you know it. You have raised your points and they have by and large been dismissed as untenable by, I would guess, the larger part of the casebook posters.

                              However instead of going away and doing what we urge you to do, which is real research to try and find something to back up your theories, you just start another post raising exactly the same posts. That is what I find so tiresome.

                              Why donít you just pack up your ideas and go away until you come up with something new? I hope you do find something and I will be one of the first to congratulate you but until then in Godís name go!

                              Comment


                              • Hi Bob,
                                At least i do comment on Casebook, even if it comes under the heading 'Speculation', which annoys you so much.
                                To be honest, there are very few researchers on Casebook, Chris Scott does a fantastic job, and a few others delve into other avenues, but the vast majority of members, simply discuss issues raised, and go with the flow.
                                What you are suggesting is, until such time, research unravels a new proven point, we should all remain silient, and butt out.
                                If i am honest, the only time i seem to witness a post from you, is when you are in ridicule mood, either content, spelling, punctuation, it would be intresting for you to actually take part in a conversation without spitting venom all over these boards, or do you consider yourself a class above Casebook.?
                                Regards Richard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X