Innocent, By George!

[DVV]

That's it, Caz : Ferdinand Fleming passed himself as Reginald Hutchinson, no need to tell you why.
Now I'm sure Iremonger is a corrupted she-monkey.

[caz]

Iremonger believed that Badham had signed for GH the witness on one of the statement pages. That wouldn't make her corrupt, but it seems that in many amateur eyes here (not mine, because I simply don't know) it makes her wrong.

If she could be wrong about one of those signatures not matching the others...

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

This is where Amateur versus Expert becomes risible, Caz.

The police statements were supposedly signed by the same person at the same moment, then if Iremonger said one has been signed by someone else, she has excellent and scientific reasons for it.
No expert can be mistaken on this.

[Garry Wroe]

You might care to familiarize yourself with Sir Roy Meadows, Dave. Sir Cyril Burt too. Scientific history is littered with those who were thought to be infallible and who were later proven to have been anything but. The reservations I have with regard to Sue Iremonger concern the fact that her Hutchinson-related conclusions remain unpublished and thus not open to the level of scrutiny to which all scientific findings are normally subjected. This is meant not as a criticism of Ms Iremonger, rather a cautionary note to those who cite her conclusions as scientific fact. They aren't. And neither can they be considered as such until they have undergone at least some degree of peer review.

[GregBaron]

Polish English 101...

sorry i didn't notice this, 80% of our migrant workers from Europe speak English well, it's only the uneducated few from the villages/ the remote areas etc, that dont.

G.Chapman had quite a lot of education before coming over here and was quite a hard worker once he was over here too, he was definitely not your average migrant, he would have spoken English well, probably as well as GH, I meet immigrants all the time in my job at the hotel......unfortunately, far too many and this is where we're going wrong.

Hi Malcolm X,

I don't believe comparing immigrants of today is apples and apples. Remember, Chapman couldn't check the BBC on cable or jump on Youtube for English language classes.

He may have been able to speak a bit of English and perhaps that was enough to pick up a streetwalker but remember GH said nothing about an accent. You would think, with his attention to detail, he would mention such a thing. Foreign appearance yes, foreign accent no. Hmmm....

Also, I know he was a clever psychopath but to acquire those duds as a recent 22 year old arrival is pretty impressive. Now if he was donning a disguise and in fact Jtr donned disguises.............then we have a whole new ballgame.............

Shabby genteel, clerk, sailor and showy Jew. Now that's a clever killer with much time on his hands and probably a bit of cash.........make for a good novel but strains credulity here I think...........

Anyway, I don't support Chapman as the ripper but I appreciate the discussion and know that other impressive people do in fact support the poisoner Klosowski....


Greg

[Malcolm X]

i'm not saying he's JTR, i'm just trying to break down sterotypes..

these migrants are nothing like us, the ones we employ are well mannered, good English and very good at saving money !

saving money and working overtime is their middle names... they work such long hours.

G.Chapman looks as if he always had money, this is part of the Con, he's a trickster, clothes like this are available in a market, after all, they look cheap and nasty dont they, gold chain red stone.... FAKE, just like Dell boy...

this is Nov, so by now he's been over here working for at least 6 months, so you think what he could have saved, plus anything that he might have stolen/ Pawned etc etc.... in this time, due to all his customers; his understanding of English would have been far better. Finally, this isn't Kosminski searching through rubbish bins, this is more like Crippin, he's crafty, Dandy and intelligent, he came over here with money already.

but we have Stride/ Eddowes and the many suspects seen, this is really bad for G.Chapman, he does not fit here at all, but to be honest i haven't given this much thought lately, but it wont be easy to slot him in. but unlike Crippin, G.Chapman had no reason (money related) to poison and no reason to suddenly start, after never killing before...... i see no motive for killing, other than he liked it and a ``leopard can never change its spots``.

the Victorian era was most infamous for women poisoners, but here also like Crippin; they all had a motive, but i dont think that G.Chapman was able to inherit anything. ...... no profit from his crimes.

[Malcolm X]

no, the case for Iremonger right now is fairly weak, because this is one persons view only

to be really sure about the signatures, you need to get them checked at least 6 more times, by top professionals only.

i'm surprised that Ben hasn't done this, because we were mentioning this to him years ago, this tells me one thing only, ``he isn't confident enough about GH to do so``.

this really is crucial, you can not win over anyone until you do so, because this missing research is simply too obvious, having a go at me wont work, you need to get those signatures re-checked

and when you do i'll leave you alone..... DEAL or no DEAL, that's a DEAL

[IchabodCrane]

It is all boiling down to the fact that the three signatures on the three pages are so dissimilar that it would be futile (and I chance even for an expert) to try to match them to any of the G.H.'s from 1911.
At the risk of repeating my point, for reasons of clarity I am posting again the original signatures, with comparison to the two most likely 1911 candidates, and Badham's Hutchinson from the body of the statemtent.

[Malcolm X]

I noticed the other day on TV, every signature from this era looks the same, they all have this curved looking G, and the H as well.

it's the style of writing back then that looks the same, it's sloping and curvy/ wavy, i.e the G, H and W, i'm seeing all the time on tv, it's so common.

especially from churches, birth cirtificates and councils etc

[DVV]

no, the case for Iremonger right now is fairly weak, because this is one persons view only

Hi Malcolm, please explain why her case would be weak ? I haven't seen Mexico but still Mexico does exist...well I suspect it does.
Toppy's case, only supported by Fairclough/Reg, IS weak.
As for Iremonger, did she prove to be mad ? did she accuse Churchill ? did she appear in one stupid book ?

[DVV]

It is all boiling down to the fact that the three signatures on the three pages are so dissimilar that it would be futile (and I chance even for an expert) to try to match them to any of the G.H.'s from 1911.
At the risk of repeating my point, for reasons of clarity I am posting again the original signatures, with comparison to the two most likely 1911 candidates, and Badham's Hutchinson from the body of the statemtent.

Ah, nostalgy....summer 2009.....Fish used to wake up at 5 in the morning to deliver his endless posts.....Ben and Sam divorced....Mike opened the funniest thread ever in the pub talk....
Blaaaaaaaazzzzze

[The Good Michael]

Ah, nostalgy....summer 2009.......Mike opened the funniest thread ever in the pub talk....

It must have been unintentional

Mike

[Fisherman]

For Sally to answer:

Do you regard the Hutchinson-was-the-killer-theory a crackpot theory the same way you regard Cross-was-the-killer a crackpot theory, since none of them live up to the demands you specified on the "Who was the first clothes-puller" thread?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Answer

For Sally to answer:

Do you regard the Hutchinson-was-the-killer-theory a crackpot theory the same way you regard Cross-was-the-killer a crackpot theory, since none of them live up to the demands you specified on the "Who was the first clothes-puller" thread?

The best,
Fisherman

Fish.

This is what I said.

If evidence for any of this exists and is worth considering, fair enough. If it doesn't, and is more the product of wannabe Ripper catching wishful thinking, then I reserve the right to chuck it in the crackpot bin, thanks.

Note that I did not say that Cross was a crackpot theory.

As far as I'm concerned, that's the end of it.

As for Hutchinson - sorry, not interested. It wouldn't be worth my time to play 'compare the suspect' with you. In fact, off you go and start as many Hutchinson threads as you like - they seem to be popular. I won't be there though.

I have other, more interesting things to do

Now, I think we're done here. I consider the matter closed.

[Sally]

But then again...

Actually, Fish, on consideration, perhaps a thread to compare Cross and Toppy would be useful. I think I'll start one.