RichardNunsweeks Remarkable Persistence

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho

I see that RichardNunsweek has presented some information that appears to gel with his oft touted, fondly held, hard to verify Topping-theory.

I for one find it a quite interesting coincidence.

p

[How Brown]

Lars:

Where is that material you just mentioned that Nunners had?

[Mr. Poster]

hi ho How

Its over on casebbok on a thread called suspect identity.

It appears to be in the form of an obscure newspaper report, I am not sure if Nunners discovered it or not or has it, but he is the first person I noticed with it.

Despite it being a remarkable coincidence with Nunners tale from the radio....it is being vehemently contested (or Nunners logic is) by at least two staunch GHers.

p

[How Brown]

Lars:

Thanks my man for this information....I'll check that out a.s.a.p.

[Bob Hinton]

As I've explained on Casebook this appears to be startling new information but is nothing of the sort. What has happened is that Nunners is working backwards from now instead of investigating forwards from then.

He has found a newspaper article, in an obscure American paper, which states that a man has invented a statement about Mary Kelly (this points towards George Hutchinson) and has received £5 from the police for his help.

Nunners has jumped on this saying but that’s what Reg said so this backs his story up. But it doesn’t.

Try this scenario.

At the time a story goes round that someone, GH, has pulled a fast one and managed to trouser a £5 from the police. The papers based in England check this with the police and are met with blank faces – it didn’t happen! Therefore the story does not appear in English papers.

However a little known Redtop in America picks up the story and runs with it, though to give it credit it does point out that the statement was invented.

Regs father also hears the rumour and passes it on to his son. So that is how you can get two stories, one from Reg, and one from the paper that tally. Its not hard if they both originated from the same source!

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho BobHinton

I appreciate your point. But as with so much re: GH that involves a couple of assumptions.

Alternatively I could adopt the equally valid stand point that Nunners version is also the way it is.

Perhaps there was rumour hearing and transmission and so on.

Or perhaps GH was paid the money and that was that?

Unless there is evidence to support one over the other?

p

[Bob Hinton]

Hi ho BobHinton

I appreciate your point. But as with so much re: GH that involves a couple of assumptions.

Alternatively I could adopt the equally valid stand point that Nunners version is also the way it is.

Perhaps there was rumour hearing and transmission and so on.

Or perhaps GH was paid the money and that was that?

Unless there is evidence to support one over the other?

p

That Nunners is very selective. He holds up the newspaper report as being corroboration of his theories, nothing wrong with that. However when it is pointed out to him that the report he is relying on does in fact state that the statement made was 'invented' he completely ignores that.

What he says is 'Part of this account backs my theories and you must believe this. The other part demolishes my theories so therefore you must ignore this". And this is what he calls evidence!!

By all means let's look at all sides but you can't pick and choose which sides you want to look at!

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho BobH

the statement made was 'invented' he completely ignores that.

How is that germane to his overall argument which I have never understood to be that GH was guilty or inncoent. Just that his man and GH were the correct ones.

Why would the mans having invented his witness tale for the police have any effect on an argument that has never relied on it being true or not?

p

[Bob Hinton]

Hi ho BobH



How is that germane to his overall argument which I have never understood to be that GH was guilty or inncoent. Just that his man and GH were the correct ones.

Why would the mans having invented his witness tale for the police have any effect on an argument that has never relied on it being true or not?

p

The argument with Nunweek has never been about whether GH was the Ripper, but whether George William Topping Hutchinson father of Reg Hutchinson as recounted in The Ripper and the Royals, is the same man that made the statement.

Nunweek keeps insisting they are they same people disregarding the clear evidence that they are not the same people. His claim is the GWTH made the statement and that the statement is true and accurate as it reinforces his theory about the Royal connection to the murders.

To back this up he quotes from an article that appeared in an obscure American paper (he wasn’t the discoverer of this article it’s been known about for several years) stating that a man had invented a tale he told the police and the police then paid him £5 for some unspecified reason. Now since Reg also tells the same tale (which is hardly surprising since both accounts have the same source) Nunweek jumps on this as proof that Reg’s father and the real GH were the same person. However the article does make it quite clear that the statement was ‘invented’, and this doesn’t suit Nunweek as his theory is that it is true.

So he focuses on the £5 aspect of the story yet refuses to acknowledge the ‘invented’ aspect of the tale. Or to put it another way he is holding up a newspaper article and saying ‘This part backs up my theory and you must believe it, this part demolishes my theory and you must ignore it’

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho BobH

I see that we at least begin on a point of common misunderstanding. You said:

However when it is pointed out to him that the report he is relying on does in fact state that the statement made was 'invented' he completely ignores that.

I maintain he is entitled to ignore that (I am assuming the statement being mentioned is GH's) as it has nothing to do with his assertion as to GH being any particular person.

Then you continue:

His claim is the GWTH made the statement and that the statement is true and accurate

Again.....this is irrelevant to whether or not GH is sme man Nunners thinks he is. There is no point bringing it up over and over unless you just wasnt to get you other opinions as to Nunners across by pretending they are relevant to the conicnidence of this article and Nunners account.

To back this up he quotes from an article that appeared in an obscure American paper (he wasn’t the discoverer of this article it’s been known about for several years)

Again...how is this relevant? Nunners recognised the apparent similarity in sum and thats all that matters.

Now since Reg also tells the same tale (which is hardly surprising since both accounts have the same source)

Of course since you cannot know the source and therefore are pretending there is a known one......this statement is rather ridiculous. OR have you evidence that the "source" you assert is the right one actually is? Until then NUnners source, that being that both paper and Reg based their tales on the truth has as much chance of being right.

Wanting something to be so does not make it so. That vein of reasoning (Im being optimistic calling it reasoning) underlies all GH is guilty arguments and always has. Its worn out, recognised for what it is and indicative of a weak position to start with.

However the article does make it quite clear that the statement was ‘invented’, and this doesn’t suit Nunweek as his theory is that it is true.


yet again.......nothing at all to do with this thread other than your attempts to draw in what you consider to be weaknesses in Nunners position to defelct attention from the fact that you cannot know the source of the paper article (even though you have asserted you do).

p

[Bob Hinton]

Mr Poster,

I'm sorry I really do not understand what you are trying to say. What I am saying is quite clear and is as I have stated. Nunners wants to use an obscure story in a paper to back up his theory - in other words he is asking us to accept the story as being accurate.

However another part of the article doesn't back up his theory, it describes a statement as invented wheras Nunners believes the statement is accurate.

So what he is asking us to do is to accept that part that suits him and disregard the part that doesn't suit him. What I am saying is unless you can show which parts are true and which are false you must either accept it or reject it. You can't call it a curates egg.

[Bob Hinton]

Hi ho BobH





w position to defelct attention from the fact that you cannot know the source of the paper article (even though you have asserted you do).

p

Well actually just reading the article gives me a fair clue. Its headed

Gossip Concerning the Fiend’s Latest Atrocity

Now I don't know about you but in my dictionary 'Gossip' is defined as 'casual conversation or unsubstantiated reports about other people'. My interpretation of classifying the source as 'rumour' is, I think fairly accurate.

So in answer to your point about me not knowing the source of the paper's article, well actually I got it from the paper itself. Unless of course you think that 'Gossip' actually means a top level briefing from a Senior Scotland Yard source!

Of course when Nunners dropped his bombshell he was, as always, very selective about which parts of the report he posted. I notice he left out the bit about gossip!

[Mr. Poster]

HI ho BobH

You still have some jiggery pokery to do to make your point hold water:

1. You have to prove the gossip was inclusive of the GH info

2. You have to prove (And this is beyond me as to how you will or that it has missed your attention that you must do so) that the "gossip" wasnt true in relation to GH's "reward". Or have you information it wasnt true?

What I am saying is quite clear

It is but clarity doesnt matter a toss if it doesnt address the point at hand.

So that is how you can get two stories, one from Reg, and one from the paper that tally. Its not hard if they both originated from the same source!

That was the point. You said it like it was proven It isnt.

Therefore my original point remains valid:

Iys a remarkable coincidence that Nunners tale and an obscure paper report both mention the same figure give or take a shilling.

Even if they did have the same source, its remarkable that that gossip, reltaed back in an obscure radio programme was also ONLy related back in an obscure newspaper. How bizarre!

Unless people want to call Nunners a bare faced liar. And I doubt ye do.

No doubt the converstaion will now wander off to some other point about Topping not being GH and some evidence for that.

Like handwriting from his statement not matching Topping or something.

Which has always struck me as odd given its hard to figure out which writing in the statement was GH's (there being a couple of GH signatures).

Or even if any of it at all was his. If one signature wasnt his (and thats safe to assume) then there is no reason to think the other is his either. Now is there?

p

[Bob Hinton]

Yes absolutely, although I still have no idea what point you are trying to make!

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho BobH

Yes absolutely, although I still have no idea what point you are trying to make!

Thats easy to reiterate: I for one find it a quite interesting coincidence.

You have tried admirably on a variety of angles to show it isnt but I am not convinced.

Firstly because many of the points you used were, as I pointed out, not pertinent to my start position but served only to try and place Nunners in a weak position and hope that that would suffice.

Secondly, because the one point you did make addressing the coincidence, and here it is: Regs father also hears the rumour and passes it on to his son. So that is how you can get two stories, one from Reg, and one from the paper that tally. Its not hard if they both originated from the same source!


is only your opinion. While it is possible, I feel its less probable as the best explanation and we are left with it being a remarkable coincidence.

But it has served very nicely to demonstrate the problems with GH guilty arguments.

They cannot hold their course and swing wildly around trying to cover every possible angle with the theory.

And it is that trying to answer everything that is the petard on which it is ultimately hoisted.

p

[Bob Hinton]

Mr Poster,

I really can’t believe that you are actually reading what I have written. Once again you come out with:

“But it has served very nicely to demonstrate the problems with GH guilty arguments.”

Didn’t you read my previous post where I made it quite clear that:

“The argument with Nunweek has never been about whether GH was the Ripper, but whether George William Topping Hutchinson father of Reg Hutchinson as recounted in The Ripper and the Royals, is the same man that made the statement.”

Do you understand now? The argument is not about whether GH is guilty or not but rather whether GWTH and GH are the same person?

My belief that the story in the paper and the story told to Reg was a rumour is not as you say:

“is only your opinion.”

It’s a deduction based on the fact that the newspaper account is titled ‘Gossip’, which to all intents and purposes is the same as a rumour.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho BobH

Its a mighty fine two-step youre doing there and you can bluster all you want but the fact, and th epoint of this thread remains:

Its a mighty fine coincidence that Nunners recollections and an obscure newspaper tally quite well on at least one specific detail.

YOu have not shown it isnt. Asserting that gossip was the source for the paper shows nothing.

Gossip is often true. And you do not seem to grasp, that this "gossip" which was apparently raging around Whitechapel so much that Topping managed to hear it as well ........somehow didnt make the English papers which would have printed your shopping list if they thought it was wipper related.

So therefore I am quite happy to rub my chin, look wistfully into space and say in a mystical voice: "Hmmm.........its a mighty fine coincidence".,

And by that I am implying......fully justifiably.....that Nunners is neither 1) the idiot, nor 2) the filthy liar that people (and by people I mean GH'ers) like to hint he is without being so rude (or so honest) as to but their balls on the block and come out and say it.

AS to all the rest of the guff that people like to bring to the fore in th ehope of not having to face the sticky point that Nunners story suddenly appears in an obscure paper........its all guff.

His hand writing doesnt match? So what? There are more than one signature on the paper and that menas that there is no need to assume either were GH's.

AS to Nunners beliefs in the royals.....I couldnt give the aerially deposited turd of a flying monkey-boy. It has nothing to do with th epoint being discussed here.

p

[Bob Hinton]

Whitechapel so much that Topping managed to hear it as well ........somehow didnt make the English papers

That's possibly because the English papers being on the spot checked with the police and found the rumour had no actual merit and therefore didn't see the point in printing just an unfounded rumour.

Still if you wish to:

" rub my chin, look wistfully into space and say in a mystical voice: "Hmmm.........its a mighty fine coincidence".,

fill your boots. I would suggest that the novelty might soon wear off! However if I ever find myself in need of a mystical voice chin rubber you will be at the top of my list.

[Mr. Poster]

Hi ho BObH

Well colour me skeptical but your tale of the-suddenly-not-so-feversih-veracity-checking-when-it-suits-you -oddly-united British press strikes me as a little desperate indeed.

You know......this being the press that we all have agreed tended to be....how should I put it.......unrelaibale......

But now suddenly they are story checking paragons of responsible media?

All together? Just this once? With not one dissenter?

Not taking advantage of this chance to stick it to the coppers?

Let me see.............where was I...........Ah yes.......


Rub rub,.........Oh yes indeed...A miiiiiightyyyyyyy fine coincidence indeeeeedy dooooodly. Yes sireeeeee.. :suspicious:

p