Proof of identity

[Suzi]

AND MASONS!11!!!1Eleventy!!11

IT IS ALL CONNECTED!!! LIKE BEING UNABLE TO DISENGAGE A CAPSLOCK!!11!



Yours truly,

--J.D.

P.S. Nevertheless, the shroud serves as a good example of myth developing around error and fraud.

Careful!!!! You'll be self-publishing next with theories like that!!!

[Doctor X]

Many people do not know that Jack's chalked message was in allcaps!

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[Suzi]

Explains it all then............

[Bob Hinton]

Not again

Nunners,

First of all just because you stick to your guns doesn’t add weight to your argument – they are rubbish guns!

Once again you are ignoring all the questions asked of you and just inventing things. For an example of this you say:

So what you are saying is we should discount the late Regs version of events that he was the son of George William Topping Hutchinson

When have I ever said that he wasn’t? I am more than happy to put this in big letters for you if you wish. I AM QUITE HAPPY TO STATE THAT REG IS THE SON OF GWT HUTCHINSON – SO WHAT?

I was going to go through the whole nonsense of trying to get you answering questions again but as you just keep ignoring them I won’t bother. Instead I will just publish the facts and let other people make their own minds up.

[Bob Hinton]

The Facts, Just The Facts Maam!

The time has come (the Walrus said) to lay this nonsense out for all to see.


NUNNERISM: In the 1970’s a radio programme, featuring Reg, was broadcast in which he gave all the details about his father’s involvement in the Ripper case.

FACT: Despite extensive research into this claim, including contacting the BBC, no trace of this broadcast can be found. To date the only person who claims to have heard this broadcast is Nunners.

Even if there was a broadcast it couldn’t have featured Reg as he stated in May 1992 “I’ve never seen his actual statement until today”. If he hadn’t seen the statement then the broadcast must have been a very short one as Reg states “he (my father) mentioned several times that he knew one of the girls and was interviewed by the police”. The same could be said of 30,000 other men in the East End.

CONCLUSION: It is 98% certain the broadcast never happened.

NUNNERISM: Reg knew all the details of the case from his father.

FACT: Reg knew virtually none of the details of the case, as he admitted he didn’t even know the existence of one of the most important pieces of evidence in the whole case – George Hutchinson’s witness statement.

CONCLUSION: Reg knew no more about the case than thousands of other people whose parents; grandparents lived in the East End at the time.

NUNNERISM: Reg’s father George William Topping Hutchinson is the same person as George Hutchinson who made the statement.

FACT: The statement was signed as Geo or George Hutchinson. Nowhere is it signed GWT Hutchinson. The signature on the statement was compared to GWT Hutchinson’s signature by an expert on handwriting, Sue Iremonger, who declared the handwriting was not the same.

CONCLUSION: GWT Hutchinson did not make the statement.


NUNNERISM: Since Reg states that his father told him he was paid £5 and the same story appears in an obscure American newspaper, this confirms Regs story.

FACT: No it doesn’t. If the source for both versions was the same, a rumour, circulating at the time, it is not surprising that the two versions are the same.

CONCLUSION: Useless as confirmation of anything.

NUNNERISM: “We should also ignore the fact that the same photo that featured in the Ripper and the Royals hung in Regs London flat, which would indicate that it was his father GWTH.”

FACT: This is classic Nunners. The reason the photos are the same is that Melvyn Fairclough borrowed the picture to make a copy for the second edition of his book.

CONCLUSION: Again two items having a common source are going to be the same.

NUNNERISM: There was an oral tradition in Regs family that GWT played an important part in the Ripper case.

FACT: No there wasn’t. In May 1992 all Reg knew about the case was his father said he had known one of the girls and had been interviewed by the police. Reg obviously didn’t think anything of it, as he didn’t even know of the existence of the Hutchinson statement until shown it by Fairclough and Sickert.

CONCLUSION: This is an example of poor research methods. When researching anything of this nature you have to start at the beginning, 1888, and work towards the present day. Fairclough and Sickert didn’t do this. They went to see Reg and instead of asking him what he was told by his father and matching those recollections with what was known, they presented him with the statement and told Reg his father had made it. Reg believed them.

I was in a very similar situation with my book, South Wales Murders. In the first case from 1876, I wanted to trace any descendents of the murderer. I followed the line all the way down to the present day and found someone. I then went to see him and before telling him anything detailed, asked him to tell me about his family. He gave me a lot of information (he had been constructing his family tree) but admitted he had come to a stop with his great great grandfather, as he could get no information about him from his family. He then told me that there was an oral tradition in the family that his great great grandmother had been involved in a scandal with the master of the house. I noted all this down and when he had finished, filled in the missing details. That is the way Reg’s interview should have been done.

[Bob Hinton]

Here's a picture of me with the great great grandson of a murderer. This case was also interesting as it produced a genuine letter written by a killer.

[Suzi]

Well said..... and well posted Mr H !

(Great pic!)

I do tend to get a tad confused as to Reggie when thought of in the same brain moment as George H.... At the end of the day our Reggie was probably an 'interesting man' with common memories of/at the time concerning the 'Orrible Murders' in the East End-:-There it begins and ends I think.



I have a disturbing image here now of that 'Picture on the wall!'.... A VERRY worrying image indeed!!

Hmmmmmmmmmmm.......

Sorry Nunners...as to the 1970's programme I have Googled myself silly and spent ages in online/newspaper /TV papers etc etc research but.........oddly............nothing!

[perrymason]

Hi all,

Although most here were duly unimpressed when I mentioned that a story like that wouldnt be one that most families would readily pass down...in this case the tale of a relative that police felt provided false evidence in a murder investigation, ...and when you were addressing your research Bob, you made these comments....."I followed the line all the way down to the present day and found someone. I then went to see him and before telling him anything detailed, asked him to tell me about his family. He gave me a lot of information (he had been constructing his family tree) but admitted he had come to a stop with his great great grandfather, as he could get no information about him from his family."

I think in many instances, families would do just as you suggest...bury scandalous histories, not keep retelling them to future generations.

I cant imagine the relatives of Berkowitz/Son of Sam, or the Dahlmer family gathering around the grandparents at Christmastime listening with glee as they are regaled with stories of their infamous murderous relatives.

My best regards Bob, all.

[Suzi]

Hi PM-
OK I suppose we have to look at the families/how they react/how long ago it was etc etc to have a take on this........it would really depend on that and all sorts of other 'stuff'!

BUT......if people are comfortable with what they know/discover /etc etc and are prepared to make that public knowledge, then where's the problem......Sometimes people find these things out and sing like a bird!!!........sometimes they dont....

Whatever......

....Thankfully people write these things down in whatever way.....either from being lucky enough to interview them or maybe from some sort of press /hearsay.........whatever!! (Hate that phrase!) it's there!!!!

!

[Sam Flynn]

as to the 1970's programme I have Googled myself silly and spent ages in online/newspaper /TV papers etc etc research but.........oddly............nothing!

To be fair, Suzi, I doubt that Reggie's appearance got top billing, so it's hardly surprising if we can't find any mention of it in the archives of the Radio Times, or online. A friend of mine, a cornet/trumpet prodigy, appeared twice or three times on various BBC shows in the late 70s/early 80s (she even duetted with Roy Castle), but having just trawled through Google and the BBC's website, I haven't found a single reference to her.

[Suzi]

Love the 'To be fair' line there!

Yep you're right if he had been in ITV he would have slipped in probably beteween the 'Pepsodent 'and 'Tiger in your tank' ads hehe! (I had one/some of those Tiger tails- at least one!!)

Hmmmmmmm I'm giving up on this one..... I'm sure that like most things....(Like JTR!).........it's out there somewhere.........probably hidden in an old TV Times........or a Titbits!!!!.. Thats the Hutch prog ...not JTR .........although you never know!!!

[richardnunweek]

Bob,
A excellent summing up by the prosecution, so its only fair the defence now reacts.
Despite extensive research into this claim states Bob..
Now its memory time, I would place that programme between 1973-75, it was entitled 'The man that saw Jack' and it was advertised in the Radio times, also the radio channel was not a popular one, but English, it also featured a taped extract from Reg Hutchinson, and although the statement was read on air it was not in the actual slot of the interview.
If memory serves,all Reg mentioned was that his father knew one of the victims and gave a statement to the police, and he described the man he saw as more upper class then lower, he also mentioned his father was paid for his efforts in attempting to find the man the sum of five pounds.
Note that Reg gave a taped interview and therefore the truth is proberly he never saw the statement until 1992.
Surely somebody connected to the BBC, must have some recollection of that programme, it was a forty minute show and was on at 8pm.
I am not disputing that it is a possibility that the American article was based on rumours, but are we seriously suggesting that Regs father was living a lie from 1888 until his death by posing as George Hutchinson of Ripper fame, and not only that, his son Reg decided to keep up that charade right up until his death some five years back.
With reference to Handwriting experts, while I am sure Sue Ironmonger knows her trade it is not exactly a exact science, and as the Hutchinson statement has question marks to answer, I certainly would expect at least a second opinion.
The picture on the wall is clearly Gwth, to suggest otherwise is beyond me.
Summing up I feel Bob , a bit more trust would be appreciated when it comes to that Radio Broadcast, I am not telling lies, or am I suffering from a mental illness, and like Gh I have a very good memory.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "trust", Richard.

If there's no corroboration to your claim that this radio show existed, it cannot be accepted as evidence. That's not an attack on your integrity. It's simply taking the responsible approach to the analysis of evidence. As it stands, it's uncorroborated second-hand hearsay at best, and wholly lacking in any sort of provenance. Until that corroboration is forthcoming - and I'm afraid I'm not at all optimistic - it's completelty worthless as evidence.

And no, the fact that a bloke called Reg Hutchinson turned up in 1992 claiming his dad saw Lord Randoph Churchill the Ripper doesn't mean GWTH was "living a lie" from 1888. Reg could have caught wind of all the JTR interest around the centenary of the murders and found an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon when Fairclough called. GWTH himself may have had nothing to do with any false claims to have been the Kelly "witness".

Best regards,
Ben

[Bob Hinton]

Missing Programme

To be fair, Suzi, I doubt that Reggie's appearance got top billing, so it's hardly surprising if we can't find any mention of it in the archives of the Radio Times, or online. A friend of mine, a cornet/trumpet prodigy, appeared twice or three times on various BBC shows in the late 70s/early 80s (she even duetted with Roy Castle), but having just trawled through Google and the BBC's website, I haven't found a single reference to her.

Very good point Sam, that's why I've only given it a 98% Never Happened rating instead of 100%.

However there are two points which must be taken into account.

One, at about the time the Nunners said the broadcast was made, there was a radio programme about Jack the Ripper in which George Hutchinson appeared. I can't recall the name now, but I did actually have a script which I later sold on Ebay. I offered Nunners a copy of this script to see if this was the programme he thought he remembered, but he just refused, saying I was wrong and he was right.

Two. If Reg had appeared in such a programme what would he have contributed? As he admitted in 1992 he didn't even know about the statement which is the major part of the GH saga. So what would he have said? 'My dad lived in the East End at the time' Hardly makes for riveting listening does it.

And don't you think if he had taken part in such a programme he might have mentioned that to Fairclough and Sickert when the interviewed him?

[Bob Hinton]

Unbelievable!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This man is unbelievable. Still no matter I now know Nunners’s problem – he cannot read and understand simple sentences. Look what he’s come up with now.

The picture on the wall is clearly Gwth, to suggest otherwise is beyond me

Who said that it wasn’t? Read what I said:

NUNNERISM: “We should also ignore the fact that the same photo that featured in the Ripper and the Royals hung in Regs London flat, which would indicate that it was his father GWTH.”

FACT: This is classic Nunners. The reason the photos are the same is that Melvyn Fairclough borrowed the picture to make a copy for the second edition of his book.

CONCLUSION: Again two items having a common source are going to be the same.

I’m going to put this in big letters so you might have a chance of understanding.

THE PHOTO ON REG’S WALL IS OF HIS FATHER GWTH. THE REASON IT IS THE SAME AS IN THE BOOK IS BECAUSE FAIRCLOUGH COPIED IT. TWO ITEMS HAVING A COMMON SOURCE ARE GOING TO BE THE SAME.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?

Honestly you claim to have a good memory yet you act like someone who couldn’t remember his name unless prompted.