Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Innocent, By George!

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

  • “Like the theory that Venturney's Joe equals Joe Flemming. Maybe he was maybe he wasn't. Maybe Hutchinson gave a statement because of Lewis's testimony, maybe he didn't.”
    Exactly, and this is where we assess the evidence to determine which of these “maybes” make the most sense. Lewis and Hutchinson I’ve already dealt with – short of astonishing coincidence, Hutchinson was the wideawake man she described. The same may be said of Joseph Fleming and the “Joe” referred to by Julia Venturney. It is very obvious that they were the same person, as accepted by most people.

    Incidentally, the things you describe as “coincidences” are nothing of the sort, for the simple reason that they don’t coincide with any evidence from the period. Dubious discredited sources “coinciding” with each other are worth less than nothing. There was no general "rumour" that Hutchinson was paid a penny for his information. There was “gossip” that appeared in one single American newspaper to that effect, but the same newspaper also included gossip about Barnett’s behaviour at the inquest that was contradicted by all other reputable sources, which should tell us all we need to know about the nature of their particular brand of "gossip". Of course, this doesn’t stop you from using it to support Reginald’s suggestion that his father was paid hush money to cover up his alleged sighting of Lord Randolph Churchill with Mary Kelly.

    “As is the fact that his signature looks the same as Hutchinson's to mere idiots like me.”
    If this is only according to your non-expect perspective, it cannot be a “fact”, can it? A professional document examiner has dismissed Toppy as the 1888 witness based on mismatching signatures.

    Comment


    • “Flemming is just one mentioned from her past, and he certainly wasn't Hutchinson”
      I think most people have learned to take your “certainties” with a very large pinch of salt, Mike.

      “I prefer the latter because it is closer to 'lemming' and anyone who follows him as a suspect will be headed for the same cliffs.”
      What a rude thing to say about Fisherman’s theory! I can’t imagine he would take too kindly to being compared to a lemming destined for the cliffs.

      “Sorry, but if folks can't accept Hutch as Toppy, given the huge amounts of coincidences plus familial corroboration, we can't accept Flem(m)ing as having been discovered.”
      It is ludicrous in the unacceptable extreme for anyone to dispute that Joseph Fleming, the mason’s plasterer from Bethnal Green who knew Kelly was anyone other than Joseph Fleming, the mason’s plasterer from Bethnal Green who was later committed to Stone asylum under the alias of James Evans. This had been deduced from a combination of inquest evidence, police reports, and meticulous research into census records and asylum notes. The Toppy-as-witness theory, by stark contrast, has a professional document examiner stating that Toppy was not the witness because of mismatching signatures, a brief note in the appendices of a discredited royal conspiracy book, and a small handful of hobbyists creating a minor nuisance on a message board.

      No contest, really.

      Comment


      • hear hear Benz

        excellent post!

        Beebs x
        babybird

        There is only one happiness in lifeóto love and be loved.

        George Sand

        Comment


        • Originally posted by DVV View Post
          As for Astrakhan Man, nobody ever saw him, but Hutch saw him twice. And did not bother too much until Monday evening.
          Don't you smell more than one rat ?
          And no one saw Hutchinson/Toppy that we know of. No one IDed him. So, it's all one big lie?

          Hutch saw Astrakhan Man - Lie
          Hutch was outside Miller's Court - True
          Hutch just got back from Romford - Lie
          Hutch went to the police on Sunday - Lie

          This is odd. We have 4 concepts and Hutchinsonians choose to call 3 of them lies and 1 of them truth. Why? I feel sorry for them. I really do. Some day they will walk in the light with Toppy their lord.

          Mike
          huh?

          Comment


          • Thanks, Beebs!

            Mike:

            This is odd. We have 4 concepts and Hutchinsonians choose to call 3 of them lies and 1 of them truth. Why?
            Because the second one on your list in the only one of the four that finds support from an independent witness. As Garry Wroe pointed out in his book, however:

            "Yet in making this connection* theorists have consistently fallen into the trap of assuming that it corroborates his entire version of events. It doesn’t. It merely establishes his whereabouts at one fleeting moment on the night under scrutiny"

            *Between Hutchinson and the man described by Lewis.

            Comment


            • So Mr Ben it isnít a coincidence that they found someone called George Hutchinson whose son claimed his father was involved in the case? Is there Ďany evidence from the periodí that there was someone called George Hutchinson involved in the Ripper case. Well I seem to think there may have been.

              It isnít a coincidence that the George Hutchinson that they found had multiple East End connections?

              Is it a coincidence that this George Hutchinson claimed to have been paid money due to his involvement in that case, and that a contemporary newspaper reported as gossip that he was - and we know the police did pay for such services and the George Hutchinson involved in the case rendered that type of service.
              Can you say there wasnít Ďany evidence from the periodí for this?

              And there are rival claims for Flemming.

              Comment


              • So Mr Ben it isn’t a coincidence that they found someone called George Hutchinson whose son claimed his father was involved in the case?
                No, not if the claim wasn't true, Lechmere.

                Not if Fairclough just blitz-phoned everyone living in the right area with the surname Hutchinson to see if any of them were related to the real George Hutchinson from 1888, only to receive an affirmative response from Reg. It would only be a "coincidence" if the claim was true, as opposed to a lie told either by Toppy during his lifetime or by Reg.

                It isn’t a coincidence that the George Hutchinson that they found had multiple East End connections?
                He didn't have any personal East End connections until he met his wife, who just happened to come from the East End, in 1895. There are other George Hutchinsons who can be placed in the East End in both the 1881 and 1891 censuses, and whose signatures have not been dismissed by an expert document examiner.

                "Is it a coincidence that this George Hutchinson claimed to have been paid money due to his involvement in that case, and that a contemporary newspaper reported as gossip that he was"
                Only inasmuch as one dubious discredited source "coincides" with another dubious discredited source, both of which are essentially worthless. Two zero provenance sources don't combine to create good provenance, unfortunately. It shouldn't be considered remotely unusual for two invented "payment" stories to find themselves falsely attached to the Hutchinson saga, since pay-offs are commonly associated with witnesses and informers. In any case, the "stories" are completely different. One claimed that he "invented" his description and was paid to accompany the police around the district, and the other was alleged hush money to conceal Toppy's knowledge of Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper.

                And there are rival claims for Flemming.
                Not credible ones, though.

                Comment


                • Mr Ben
                  At least you have now progressed to accept that "pay-offs are commonly associated with witnesses and informers."
                  Previously you have denied the possibility that the police in the Ripper case would have paid anyone.
                  I have re-newed faith that you will also soon abandon some of your other untenable positions.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                    At least you have now progressed to accept that "pay-offs are commonly associated with witnesses and informers."
                    Of course. And that's exactly why this detail does not prove anything.

                    Comment


                    • At least you have now progressed to accept that "pay-offs are commonly associated with witnesses and informers."
                      I think you'll find I made this observation last year on the "...Van der Hutchinson" thread:

                      "Either he or Reg could have made it up, without NEEDING to have any knowledge about the Wheeling Register. They just needed to know that stories of pay-offs are quite commonly allied to stories involving the police and their informers".

                      This doesn't increase the likelihood that it happened in Hutchinson's case.

                      Comment


                      • Hi,
                        Radio broadcast mid 1970s.... One hundred shillings.
                        Faircloughs book 1992...one hundred shillings.
                        Wheeling Register 1888... five weeks wages[ average] which was approx equivilent to ...one hundred shillings.
                        One could suggest that Reg, or Topping made a rather good guess, dont you think.? considering that no sum was mentioned in any british newspaper.
                        Reg was not born when the wheeling report was circulated, and although Topping was, unless he invented a devious plan to adopt an identity, which is to far fetched to consider, IMHO, then it is not unreasonable to suggest that as Toppings surname was Hutchinson....He is our witness.
                        Its a case of ABC.
                        Regards Richard.

                        Comment


                        • Richard - do I take it that you don't think Reg was a bare faced liar?

                          Comment


                          • "My down-to-earth Daddy saw Churchill in Miller's Court."

                            Comment


                            • Blimey Ė you just found the last piece of the jig-saw.
                              Snap.

                              Comment


                              • Hi Letchmere.
                                No Reg had a beard.......
                                Seriously... No, I can only repeat myself in defence, in saying that unlike anyone else on Casebook, hearing about Regs tale in ''The Ripper and the Royals'' was not the first time that I was aware of it, thus it was not invented to assist the book, it was simply a repeat of what was aired in that [ dare I say it?] radio broadcast.
                                Regards Richard.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X