Proof of identity

[richardnunweek]

Hello Miss Marple,
Yes indeed there were several Hutchinsons around during that period, there was even a couple of Mary kellys, but how many Ghs have been put foreward by their proven son as the original?
Lets not forget that Reg did not suddenly appear in a section of 'The Ripper and the Royals in 1992, he was very much relaying the same in the mid 1970s on air...
Reg had the picture of his father on the wall of his London residence when Ivor Edwards interviewed him just a few years before he died , that picture was portrayed in Faircloughs book, so are we doubting the authenticity of that picture.
I find this thread [ why did i start it] as so frustrating , as what appears obvious to me , lacks conviction to many others.
Still never mind ,
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Like it or lump it, common sense taking everything into consideration points to a man called George Hutchinson witnessing a event around 2am on the morning of the 9thj November1888, and reporting it to the police albeit not until the 12th.
Like it or not taking many factors into consideration, it would appear that the man in question was George William Topping Hutchinson father of the late Reg .
Of course Bob could be correct in his assumption that GWTH, was simply cashing in a a name that happened to be the same as himself, but does common sense point to that?
Taking into consideration that his father relayed to his son all the details that the witness interviewed by Abberline stated, including a figure of a sum of money that has since been found in a rare newspaper of 1888, which surely only the person who received that money would have known.
One of the most frustrating aspects in being intrested in this case is no matter how obvious a clue is to some people , it is pushed aside by others who reject it suggesting Hitchcock scenerios.
Still i honestly would not have it any other way , for it makes great debate, which is why we all tune in to our great site after all.
Regards Richard.

[miss marple]

Regarding the Shroud. There is other evidence that places it as a piece of Ist century Roman cloth. the weave , the distinctive stitching, as examined by a texile expert. And middle eastern insect evidence. Pieces were replaced an stitched by the nuns who repaired it in the 15th century, different from the original cloth and stitching. It certainly needs re examination, as with dna, carbon dating does not tell the whole story.
What we have with Hutchinson is just another myth, but with no hard evidence either way to support Reg's story. The names are the same, that is all. As there were two Mary Kelly's working as prostitutes in whitechapel in the 1880s, the coincidence is not surprising. There were several Hutchinson's. The Kelly George was an unemployed groom. Reg's Dad was not. Miss Marple

[Sam Flynn]

And you are to believe that an occurance took place that only George Hutchinson can say he saw, and Police disbelieved...that was Mary out of her room after midnight.

...don't even THINK of turning this into yet another "Mary stayed in" fest, Mike

The carbon dating testing, if I remember correctly, occurred in the 70's and was rather rushed. it didn't take into account that the shroud was exposed to a fire that would have thrown off the results of such a test.

The Shroud is either really the death shroud of Jesus Christ with His image manifested in it, or it's an example of photography many centuries before the invention of photography. Either way, it's an amazing item.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

No question there, I agree fully...it is fascinating. But theres hardly proof that it was wrapped around Jesus Christ anytime, theres just a fascinating tale of a shroud that appeared around 1200 AD that people claimed was Christs shroud. A shroud that has been tested to date from around the same time as the story's first appearance.

Like a finger bone in a glass reliquary bottle, its John the Baptists if you believe it is I suppose, but you can forget any provenance to assure you of that.

My point of course being, that you are most welcome to construct a version of November 9th in Millers Court that includes GH's statements and suspect. What you would be doing however is extending belief to a man investigators believed to have been untruthful, not more than 3 days after he came forward. And you are to believe that an occurance took place that only George Hutchinson can say he saw, and Police disbelieved...that was Mary out of her room after midnight.

Best regards.

[Tom_Wescott]

The carbon dating testing, if I remember correctly, occurred in the 70's and was rather rushed. it didn't take into account that the shroud was exposed to a fire that would have thrown off the results of such a test.

The Shroud is either really the death shroud of Jesus Christ with His image manifested in it, or it's an example of photography many centuries before the invention of photography. Either way, it's an amazing item.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[c.d.]

Hi all,

Wasn't the Shroud of Turin found to carbon date miraculously to the time the story of the shroud first was circulated? Roughly 1200 years after Christs death.

Believing is all well and good, but not anything near proof. The records are clear that Blotchy Man was the suspect to Marys murder as of the 16th. He wasn't believed, or believable...take your pick.

My best regards all.

Hi Michael,

Interestingly enough, that carbon dating testing has been called into question. msn.com has the story.

c.d.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
when I started this thread I did so with a intention to suggest that GWTH was the original Gh, it was not meant to suggest that he had to have been telling the truth about events of the 9th just that he was the real deal.
Up to that radio broadcast the only mention of a payment appears to have been in the American article which appears in my first post, as Reg relayed that payment of Five pounds over the wavelengths some eighty plus years after that publication, I suggest that he got that figure and story from his father.
To suggest that Gwth was not the real GH I find hard to accept, would it be that strange if he was?.
Regards Richard.

Hi all,

Wasn't the Shroud of Turin found to carbon date miraculously to the time the story of the shroud first was circulated? Roughly 1200 years after Christs death.

Believing is all well and good, but not anything near proof. The records are clear that Blotchy Man was the suspect to Marys murder as of the 16th. He wasn't believed, or believable...take your pick.

My best regards all.

[Ben]

Agreed all round, Bob.

What I find rather disturbing is the fact that those endorsing the untenable notion that GWTH was the 12th November witness (and that he told the unembellished truth etc etc) conveniently ignore the fact that this same article stated, in no ambiguous language, that the account had been "invented".

If one assertion in a dubious article is to be accepted as gospel, why not the other one?

It's extremely unlikely that any witness would be paid for his efforts, let alone a sum on that scale. If the police adopted that strategy, they'd be bombarded with hoards of "witnesses" all claiming to have seen this and that and expecting to be paid off.

[The Good Michael]

I just have to say this about Rob's story. I have had discussions, independent of any newspaper articles or radio broadcasts, of the possibility of Hutchinson coming forward in hopes of something from petty cash. Indeed, I even wrote a bit of a satire on this topic, on this very site 2 years ago. Remember, all this was just surmise on my part, and on the parts of the others involved in conversation, but it rang true to us. Rob's story, though uncorroborated, rings true in that same fashion to me. It isn't a sealed and delivered package, but it is a possibility. How strong, I couldn't say.

Cheers,

Mike

[FrankO]

Hi Bob, Richard,

I’m quite sure every police officer who was in the Met at the time bounced their grandchildren on their knees and regaled them with the tale of the night they almost caught Jack the Ripper.

Just look at what major Smith wrote.

Best,
Frank

[Bob Hinton]

Bob,

Incidently I would state that Reg during his lifetime was unlkely to have read that American report, and his father also.


Regards Richard.

But they wouldn't have too if the origin of that information was a rumour circulating around the East End at the time - can't you grasp that?

[Bob Hinton]

Oh for goodness sake Nunners!

You seem to be trying to put all sorts of sinister reasons why GWTH should tell fibs to his son Reg. There’s nothing sinister, it’s just what people do. They make up things, they embellish, they tell fibs to make themselves appear more important than they really are.

I bet you if you took a survey of all the people in Dallas the day Kennedy was shot, the vast majority of them will claim to be right next to him when the shots were fired.

You seem to be stuck in this track that either GWTH is telling the absolute unvarnished truth or that he’s some kind of master criminal. He’s not he’s just someone who had a similar name to a major player in a big drama and made up some stories about it. I’m quite sure every police officer who was in the Met at the time bounced their grandchildren on their knees and regaled them with the tale of the night they almost caught Jack the Ripper.

[richardnunweek]

Bob,
I am fully aware what you are saying, however answer me one question, Why would Regs Father be intrested in assuming another mans identity?
It certainly did not gain him financial reward.
As i have already mentioned, if Gwt was not the original he seems to have stepped into his shoes rather well , equiped with all sorts of knowledge.
Incidently I would state that Reg during his lifetime was unlkely to have read that American report, and his father also.
If Gwt was a scoundrel then he was a very well read one, and he never had Casebook to obtain knowledge either.
Anyway let others decide, as our opinions obviously differ.
Regards Richard.