Proof of identity

[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]

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.

[Suzi]

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

[Doctor X]

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

Yours truly,

--J.D.

[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!!!

[Suzi]

Hi Nunners-
Now we all know that Randolph (or even Winston )Churchill wasn't even remotely invoved (a slightly odd character but not THAT odd!),unless we're moving into Masonic/ Somerset/trowel-waving territory -which I sincerely hope we're not!

I am slightly disturbed by your view of Mary turning 'tricks' (nasty line!) with purely the 'lower orders' and therefore GH spotting a suposed 'toff' thought it worthy of mention.

Sorry but Five guineas at the time wasn't OBVIOUSLY 105 shillings...after a bit of rekkie... it was about 95 shillings........call me a pedant but......

Oh and Ben-
I've just re -read that bit too.... ...Hmmmmmmm 'Dear Oh dear ' indeed!

[Doctor X]

BUT the one thing that springs to mind is.....How The **** did we get from The Shroud......via Nunners .. to this?

Suz??i x

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.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Folks,
I must admit that reading that passage, as it is written from Faircloughs book,casts a bad light on Reg Hutchinson, it seems to imply that he is easily led in suggestion from people with financial intentions.
However if one looks at the actual statement made by George Hutchinson, it does imply that the person described as 'Astracan' is a well dressed man which was in contrast with Mjks normal tricks, and if true would have led the witness known as Hutchinson to have described him privately as someone up the ladder. and not of lower classes, and it may have reminded him of Churchill senior.
This obviously suited Faircloughs conspiracy theories, and thus it came across as that.
As mentioned earlier, when I heard that elusive[ so annoying] radio broadcast in the 1970s, I did state that the term Five pounds, may have been referered to as a Hundred shillings, or Five guineas, which is obviously 105 shillings,
One hundred shillings was proberly accurate.
I should state that no one should believe that Randolph Churchill was involved in the east end murders , but GWTH simply just gave a exsample
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Cheers for that, Stephen.

Been a while since I read that piece of ripperological genuis!

Edit: I've found the relevent extract, and Reg is quoted thusly:

"Now I can see that (Hutchinson) knew all along that the man he saw actually was (Lord Randolph) Churchill, but he didn't want to come out straight with it. He said that at the time he was paid a hundred shillings, but he never said why. Perhaps he was paid to keep quiet about what really happened, and say nothing about what he really knew".

Dear oh dear.

[Stephen Thomas]

You say that the American article "gives more strength to Reg's claim", but we don't know that Reg ever made any such claim about a financial reward. Unless it was mentioned it TRATR (anyone?), we've only heard of it from your frequent references to this 70's broadcast that nobody has ever heard of.

Hi Ben

In The Ripper and the Royals the sum quoted by Reg was 100 shillings.

Just a thought,....if the real man who identified himself as George Hutchinson to the police was any real George Hutchinson, just how eager would he be to regale his family about the time when he was thought to have lied to Police about seeing a murder suspect?

If a real George Hutchinson did as we believe the one did Monday the 12th, I would think by the following weekend he would be wishing he never opened his mouth, and would like to distance himself from that moment...not embrace the episode like a tale of the good old days.

Surely it would have been a humiliation for him.

My best regards all.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

You keep using the word "ignore", but there's a difference between "ignoring" something outright and coming to the conclusion that that "something" is probably nonsense. To acheive the latter, one must first address it rather than ignore it, and most of us have done precisely that. Nobody can name the "real" GH with any degree of certainty 119 years on, but I can name you several more fitting candidates than Toppy.

You say that the American article "gives more strength to Reg's claim", but we don't know that Reg ever made any such claim about a financial reward. Unless it was mentioned it TRATR (anyone?), we've only heard of it from your frequent references to this 70's broadcast that nobody has ever heard of, and in all fairness, how do we know that your orginal source wasn't the press all along, and that you didn't - by accident, rather than design - confuse it with a radio broadcast you heard a long time ago? At least one other newspaper besides the Wheeling Register carried the "One clever individual.." story.

I'm not, for a moment, asserting that this is what happened, but at the moment, the "1970s radio claim" is nil provenance, and must responsibly be accepted as such.

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Bob,
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, and that his father gave the police a statement back in 1888, which would obviously make him the original Gh,
We should also ignore the suggestion that Regs father told his son he was paid the sum of five pounds by the police, even though that was recorded in a newspaper on the 18th November 1888, and as that article is a rare one unlikely to have been seen by Reg before that radio broadcast of the early 1970s.
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.
We should also ignore that after Reg saw for the first time a copy of Hutchinsons statement, he has never been recorded as suggesting that his fathers handwriting was not present in signature form.
I therefore ask again Bob,
If GWTH was not the same George Hutchinson that witnessed events on that November morning , can you name the person that was?
I started this thread under the heading 'Proof of identity' in order to suggest that the American arcticle actually gives more strength to Regs claim which I believe it does, I obviously expect doubts, but I certainly do not feel I am talking rubbish just because I always stick to my guns.
Regards Richard.

[Suzi]

Warning!!!!!!!!!! This shroud site has just crashed my pc.......I was mindlessly trawling and looking at the pics etc and everything died......did it again and then it happened again...call me paranoid but......

Thinking back it may be the George Hutchinson Popular Front that are on my case!!!! [ AKA The GHPF to us afficionados!].......DONT let me admit my membership to the MMWR!

[Suzi]

Right having had a trawl back through this....it seems to have started oddly with The Shroud....in some way or another and ended up with Hutch! I personally can't see the likeness.....but there again he does have the look of 'a foreigner' I suppose!
Hmmmmmmmmmmm




A CCTV shot taken at the time!
The truth........well at least a look at the Shroud is at www.shroud.com personally I'm a great believer in the conspiracy theory on this one........ Having had a serious trawl through the above site I think it's even more spurious!! Hmmmmm Have a look for yourselves

Now where were we Nunners?