| Author |
Message |
    
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1344
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:48 pm: |       |
Hi Natalie,
"I just cant see how with all the publicity and Abberline seeming to believe him that he could have made it all up.Someone would have cottoned on and told either the police[that he was actually a pimp,a known liar,a violent or odd scoundrel]as it is the press seem as credulous as the police etc and nobody around at the time seems to have thought to dispute it!"
That is actually a very good point.
That is one of the reasons why I think some sort of pimping activity on his part would be out of the question. As your post indicate in a way, those male central figures were in general quite well-known characters in areas like this, and I believe as well someone would have come forward to set the record straight regarding Hutchinson if that was the case.
Therefore I believe he was just another unsignificant crook or one of those many poor unemployed characters loafing around East End trying to make a quick buck. Apparently he doesne't seem to have been that well known, since none of the other witnesses refer to him.
What his business really were in Miller's Court that night we may never know. Furthermore, we may never know what parts or how much of his testimonies are made-up and which are the truth. But as Frank implies, some parts of it smells really bad, regardless of the reason why. I must say I am surprised as well that the police so uncritically accepted him as a credible witness, since he made statements that were quite obviously contradictory. I have no answer to that. Maybe he delivered just what the police wanted to hear in a very crucial and pressed stage of the investigation... who knows?
I think your theory on Abberline is interesting. I think there indeed are signs of some kind of competition on the police officials' part. On one hand we have Anderson and Swanson (who both seems to have been "convinced" about Kosminski), who both stuck together, then we have Macnaghten who had his beliefs and apparently preferred Druitt, and then we have Abberline stuck somewhere in the periphery and who first after Chapman's capture and execution is betting on him as the Ripper.
It is all a great big mess, and it all smells quite a bit of personal prestige. I personally think the real truth was that none of them had a clue whatsoever of the Ripper's real identity, but wanted to show off and outdo each other in the eyes of the public.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1345
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 22, 2004 - 6:51 pm: | |
Hej Frank,
A good post and I agree with most of it.
We can only speculate on why GH described such a person, and I don't really have a smart answer to that one.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Frank van Oploo
Inspector
Username: Franko
Post Number: 246
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 2:50 am: | |
Hi CB,
“I believe that people who think that Hutchinson or Barnett were the ripper tend to want to center the case around Kelly.”
Regarding Barnett I think you’re right, because to me the case against Barnett involves a bit too much working from the inside out, but not regarding Hutchinson, because he only becomes a suspect looking from the outside in. Furthermore, as Kelly’s case simply seems to provide more information than the others it’s logical that many people are ‘attracted’ to it.
First of all, like you said, no more mutilated victims turned up after Kelly. Second, Kelly was killed after a much longer period than the other victims. Third, she was killed indoors. Then, her room was in a tiny court, which could only be reached through a interconnecting passage of about 20 feet long. And she obviously was much more mutilated than the others, including her face, which was cut up beyond recognition. There were the cuts in the sheet and arms and a possible cry. She was almost naked when murdered. Her clothes were neatly folded. There was the question of the locked door and the broken window. There had been a fire in Mary’s room, which had contained clothing. All of these things might mean something.
Another reason why the Ripper might have stopped is that he was debilitated in some way (he got blind, deaf, cripple, he lost one of his hands, etc.).
“The fact that Hutchinson comming forward with his describtion and Tumblety's arrest were so close together is interesting.”
At least the fact that Tumblety was significantly older than the man described by Hutchinson makes me doubt if the man described by Hutchinson and Tumblety were one and the same. And wasn’t Tumblety much taller than the 5 foot 6 Hutchinson produced?
All the best,
Frank
|
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 520
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 10:57 am: | |
Dan OK so maybe thats true but at the time we are talking about not only were two police forces,a vigilante committee, the whole of the East End of London as well as the World"s press focused and active on this part of London and therefore also focused on anyone who hit the headlines or was thought to be a suspect but people were also congregating around the police station ready to lynch anyone who was taken for questioning or who was suspected by the locals of being the ripper.
Thats why I think he WAS protected by someone.
Everyone was watching everyone else,looking for clues,gossiping,you name it.
Even if Hutchinson "fooled" Abberline and all the combined police forces I doubt if someone from the vigilante committee wouldnt have read all about his statements and checked him out and the news that a local man had seen Mary Kelly with possibly her killer would have spread like wildfire.The East end would have checked him out you bet they would.
I would bet too that if it had been discovered that Hutchinson had been "pimping "off Mary or
was a small time crook who "mugged" people now and then they would have known that too and told the police &/or the press.
Natalie |
Glenn L Andersson
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Glenna
Post Number: 1352
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 12:43 pm: | |
" I would bet too that if it had been discovered that Hutchinson had been "pimping "off Mary or
was a small time crook who "mugged" people now and then they would have known that too and told the police &/or the press. "
Regarding the "mugged" part... I can't see why, Natalie. I would expect there to be hundreds, maybe even thousands of such individuals in Whitechapel and Spitalfields. I am not saying that East Enders only contained of thieves and shady characters in the 19th century, but for most people it was just a matter of survival, like the occasional prostitution thing.
Regardless of which, Hutchinson's testimony doesen't hang together and there must be some reason for it. That guy wasn't telling the truth. But find it doubtful that he was a murderer.
All the best
Glenn Gustaf Lauritz Andersson
Crime historian, Sweden |
Caroline Anne Morris
Chief Inspector
Username: Caz
Post Number: 909
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 12:54 pm: | |
Hi All,
I'm not so sure anyone would necessarily know if GH and MJK had recently begun something of a working relationship, either mutual or controlled by GH, after Barnett moved out and was no longer a constant presence.
I still think it's also possible that GH had something to do with that 'missing' key. It could have been GH and MJK's little secret - let Barnett think the key had gone missing when in reality GH was taking over control and finding good paying customers he thought Mary could trust during this scary time - normal looking punters who would appreciate having a willing young prostitute with her own room found for them, when such luxuries might be particularly thin on the ground and hard to find for oneself.
The police would have taken GH's statement seriously if there was just one bit of it that was confirmed by their own information, say from the crime scene itself. Imagine if a red hankie had been found in the room, and not made public, for example. This would certainly have made the police sit up and take notice! GH couldn't have failed to put himself under suspicion in such circumstances, except that it would clearly have been a suicidal admission to even mention a red hankie if he were the killer, and the police would then have done everything possible to eliminate him from their enquiries.
I just think it's possible that GH hung around waiting for a customer he had handpicked for MJK to leave the premises, so he could collect the takings, or a share of them, and perhaps retrieve his red hankie for future customers he hoped to tempt. After 45 minutes he assumed it was going to be an all-nighter and planned to return first thing in the morning.
Love,
Caz |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 527
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
Hi Caz,well what you say is possible and would account for him hanging around waiting.It would also explain why he was wary of going to the police since it would show him as having a close tie to Mary as well as being engaged in petty crime.
Best Natalie |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 4:15 am: | |
Rosey,
What I said was that if the police were making suggestions to Hutchinson about the wearing apparel of the man Hutchinson claims to have seen,it would have been wise for Hutchinson if he were the killer of Kelly,to adopt those suggestions.His agenda ,if he was in fact the killer,would be to throw suspicion on some one else.If you mean what was his agenda for being at Millers Court,well a woman was found dead there,and that seems to be the the only thing of note that happened there that night,and Hutchinson associates himself with that happening.
There is a fourth reason why a killer might stop,and that is that he has come to the attention of the police,and could not again chance being associated with another killing. |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 6:44 am: | |
Hi Frank,
I left something out in my last post I guess because I just woke up. Good point on the ripper may have been debilitated in some way. I guess you gave me reason number 4
Take care,CB |
Peter J. Tabord
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 6:57 am: | |
Hi folks
I don't necessarily think GH is JtR. Just that his statement, actions etc are interesting and might, if we can understand them, shed light on who is.
Don't tell me an otherwise competant detective might not be fooled by the killer inserting himself in the case - it has happened time after time, and indeed forms part of the profile - Abberline wouldn't have known that.
The detective story boom started _after_ the Whitechapel murders, and may even have been fuelled by them to a degree.
If GH is JtR. it is possible that the police got sufficiently close to him that he stopped (at least for a while), went elsewhere, or changed his method. There was already an extended break before MJK, assuming she is indeed a Ripper victim. Remember we don't really know who he is or what happened to him after his five minutes of fame.
OTOH, if he isn't and geniunely saw JtR, knowingly or not, that might have had the same effect on Mr. A.N. Other - the real killer.
I don't necessarily think JtR is the sort of person that could have planned to kill a witness later - just because he rips women does not mean he can plan or execute a 'conventional' murder. Of course had he been caught in the act anything would be possible.
I didn't know there were four books 'pointing the finger' at GH - I knew of two, although very sensibly I think they just put him forward as 'most suspicious character'. I'm not sure he even deserves that, but surely he interests me a heck of a lot more than all the 'famous' suspects put together. (Except maybe Francis Thompson)
Regards
Pete |
CB
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 6:34 am: | |
Hey Frank,
Thanks for takeing the time to answer my post. I dont think Hutchinson was the ripper because the killings stoped and I doubt that he would have introduced himself to the police if he were the killer.
You are right about Tumblety. He has been described as 5'11 and dumpy as well as 6'4 and broad shoulderd. I just mentiond Tumblety's arrest because I think it happend on the same day as Hutchinson comming forward. I am not sure witch happend first tho. My only responce to your points about Tumblety are.
1.whitch describtion do you believe? Was Tumblety 5'11 or 6'4
2.Tumblety was into facial creams wrinkle removers maybe he did not look as old as he was. Plus it was dark and everyone looks softer under moonlight.
3.The police knew how tall he was and how old but they still had great interest in him.
I dont want to turn this into a Tumblety thread and I am not saying the man Hutchinson described was Dr.T. I just think it is interesting. I have posted more on the subject on the 3 best suspect thread. I believe it has been archived March 15
I think it comes down to this If you believe george's story then he may be the most Important person in the ripper case. If you dont then I believe he is of know real importance. I should add that inspector Abberline stated in the Pall Mall Gazzett that no one ever got a good look at the ripper. So I am not sure if he put to much faith in George.
Your Friend, CB |
RosemaryO'Ryan
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 8:28 am: | |
Dear Harry,
You come across as a pretty shrewd reader of police statements, Harry. Why? I don't rightly know :-)Am I allowed to suggest that you have a candidate for our mysterious "Mr Hutchinson", that makes eminent sense of the overall evidence so far produced within the developing critique?
Rosey :-) |
Natalie Severn
Chief Inspector
Username: Severn
Post Number: 529
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 23, 2004 - 5:14 pm: | |
Hi Glenn,I see your point.I think there would have been but the only difference for me is that
with all the attention he got I think it would have come out somehow---lots of people were hauled in for questioning but I dont think he was apart from the initial interview
Best Wishes Natalie |
Harry Mann
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 24, 2004 - 4:59 am: | |
Rosey,
In my occupation I had to interview people on a daily basis.All kinds of people,with all kinds of stories.A large proportion lied.
There have been times when I strongly believed I was being lied to but could not prove it,and there have been times when the lies have been so smooth that for a long time I did not know that lies had been told.It all revolved around ordinary people,leading ordinary though different lives.
The inhabitants of Whitechapel would have been no different.The murders there,and the events surrounding them are not unique.They have been duplicated many times since,and surely many times before.There are of course differencies,but they do not detract from the central theme.We are dealing with a multiple murderer,who would lie to save his neck.
As Hutchinson is a person known by name to have claimed to have been at the scene of one of the killings,he is of course of importance to the police.His story must be proved, as far as possible,and he must be eliminated as a suspect.
If there is a present day belief that he told the truth,then his story,element by element,must be shown to have a real basis for truth.This has not been done.He cannot therefor be dismissed easily.
Those that believe he lied,have done so in a manner,that considered carefully,leads to a conclusion that he lied consistently.He can therefor be considered a strong suspect in the killing of Kelly.
Hutchinson as far as I know ,was Hutchinson.
Regards,
H.Mann |
Lee McLoughlin
Police Constable
Username: Lee
Post Number: 1
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 10:45 am: | |
Hi all.
I have a few thoughts about George's statement to the police. Firstly, I think it is quite obvious that his discription is a complete lie. But why lie? I have thought about this and have come to following conclusions.
1) George Hutchinson was a regular client of Mary Jane Kelly and had employed her services on the night of her murder. Fearful of being linked to her due to a) being an instant suspect and b) the sense of embareshment he would feel for being announced as a regular user of prostitutes, GH panicked and gave his statement to the Police.
2) Having heard about the vast reward available for the capture of the murderer, GH decided that he would become a key witness and the best as well. So he made up the most complete discription of a suspect and hoped for an arrest, conviction and reward.
Also it is suggested by a few books that Kelly wasn't a Ripper victim. For example "The lodger - The first American serial killer" makes a good case for the theory that only Nicholls, Chapman and Eddowes were Ripper victims, with Kelly and Stride murdred by someone else. Is it not possible therefore that George Hutchinson did murder Mary Jane Kelly but was not Jack The Ripper?
Of course, as suggested by Chris Miles in his book, George Hutchinson was located in an area where he was very central to all the alledged victims and might have known them all, or at least Kelly (something George Hutchinson actully says in his statement). In that case, if Chris Miles is correct with his suspect, George Hutinson lied to distract the police investigation.
(Message edited by lee on April 23, 2004) |
Sarah Long
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Sarah
Post Number: 1038
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 23, 2004 - 11:31 am: | |
Lee,
I think GH is a good suspect but I don't really agree with your option 2 for him lying. What if they track down someone who looks just like what GH said but he has a great alibi. GH would have to identify him and if he said "yes that's him" he would have to live with putting the wrong person away or he will be proved innocent and GH wouldn't get his reward.
Sarah
Smile and the world will wonder what you've been up to. 
Smile too much and the world will guess  |
Dennis
Unregistered guest
| | Posted on Friday, November 26, 2004 - 10:17 pm: | |
I think a study of Hutchinson's life after the Kelly murder will provide the link to solving these murders.
Dennis
Australia |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 241
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 29, 2004 - 5:32 pm: | |
Dennis,
The problem is nobody can find the relevant GH. I've been looking for years without any luck.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1556
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, December 04, 2004 - 6:26 pm: | |
Dennis et al
There were I'm sure MANY going by the name of George Hutchinson...Not probably the most unusual name.....Now if hed been called something like.Hector or Augustus or whatever he may have been a bit more memorable.....again...The invisible man!!!!!
Suzi
|
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1144
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 12:30 pm: | |
Hi,
Surely the real George Hutchinson is known, there is a picture of him freely available.
He had a son named Reg, who stated all he knew about his father, he played the violin. and he had a good eye for detail, he was a hardworking man and a honest sort, that simply came across mary Kelly on her last night and relayed that imformation on to the police.
Reg spoke on the radio in the early seventies[ fact] and relayed that same imformation in print.
I dispute anyone who claims that that was the wrong hutchinson, Reg said that he always said he knew the last victim, and could well have been the last person to have seen her alive. his only regret was that the imformation he gave to the police did not catch the killer.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1562
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 5:01 pm: | |
Richard
I would love to believe the photo of GH and reg et al but where is Reg now???? Disappearing into the ether seems to be a family trait!
As to GH assuming him to have been around 22 at the time of the murders then surely he probably dies in or around the 20's or 30's I realise there is a problem with which George is which etc etc but surely our Reg or if not another 'descendant' must be lurking somewhere...like the rest of....like Hutch......waiting to see if anyone comes out!!!!!!
Suzi |
Natalie Severn
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Severn
Post Number: 1257
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2004 - 5:39 pm: | |
Hi Suzi!
I think I read that the Reg Hutchinson ,interviewed for the TV series in the seventies had died-not that long ago.I cant remember where I read it but might do over the next few days.
Nats xxx |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1146
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 4:44 am: | |
Hi ,
Reg died I believe some few years back, just to correct one point Natalie, the programme in the early seventies was aired on Radio 4 i believe.
It is so frustrating that i appear to have been the only person on these boards to have heard it, it was on for about 40 minutes and was subjected 'The man who saw jack'
He [ Reg] clearly was the man that was interviewed for Melvyn Faircloughs book, for he mentioned a lot of the same points on the radio. some 18years previous.
One intresting point is the payment of 100 shillings[ five pounds] by the police to hutchinson.
My dear late grandmother married 11years after the murders, and she once told me that she could get a whole weeks food for her and her husband for five shillings, just a indication of how much that amount of money was in 1888...
Richard.
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 9:12 am: | |
Richard,
You're at it again!
Reg spoke on the radio in the early seventies[ fact]
No its not - its what you believe and that is as far from being a fact as its possible to get. You haven't produced one shred of evidence to back up this 'fact' - like propagandists everywhere you hope that if you repeat something often enough people will believe you.
So sorry you really must stop saying that the real GH is known. He isn't. If he is then what are your sources?
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1147
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 1:50 pm: | |
Bob,
With respect I am no fibber, i distinctly remember spreading out on my aunts sofa, and turning on the transistor radio, and listening to that programme, that such a programme was aired around that time is a fact i can asure you.
As the last five minutes or so was an interview with the son of the man who saw 'Jack' and that very same person was interviewed by Melvyn Fairclough for his 'Ripper and the royals' and repeated much of the detail in that publication as he did some 18 years earlier, i am assuming it was the same gentleman.
We should remember we on these boards are Ripper folk, Reg Hutchinson was not, he simply relayed his fathers recollections as other people found them intresting.
I find that quiet acceptable and do not automaticaly assume a hoax , or a false declaration. I except without question that Hutchinson relayed to the police exactly what he saw, believable or not..
Regards Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1565
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 2:42 pm: | |
Richard
Am on the Radio 4 trail here to try to track a prog with some relevance to JTR...looks like a long haul...but am getting somewhere as I type!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1149
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 2:52 pm: | |
Hi suzi,
I sincerley hope you manage to trace the Radio broadcast, it is beyond my computer skills .
I would say it was 1972-73 time, but i cannot be precise after 30 years.
Even if the programme was proved to have existed, which you have my absolute word it did, there will be some of us that will doubt its credibility. still i would have made my point and upheld my integrity.
Thanks
Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 247
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 2:53 pm: | |
Richard,
You still do not understand what a 'fact ' is do you? I quote the Oxford concise dictionary:
"Fact : a thing that is indisputably the case"
What you are saying is not a fact but simply what you say happened. Saying 'Oh but I remember it' doesn't help your case.
Here are some real facts:
1. No one appears to have heard of this programme but you. Your assurances are worthless.
2. You can find no trace of this programme.
3. You cannot give us any details of this programme.
4. Even if you are right and such a programme was aired it PROVES absolutely nothing. there would be no proof that the person giving the interview was telling the truth, or if he was, if the person who told him the story was telling the truth. Why do think hearsay is not admissable in a court of law?
If you wish to retain any credibility on these boards you really must stick to facts. It is quite acceptable to come up with a theory, don't we all' but to then say 'this is a fact because I say so' is unforgiveable.
Bob |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 2:56 pm: | |
Richard,
Of course some of us will doubt its credibility as there is nothing to back it up.
Only a fool would accept something at face value without any supporting evidence.
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1566
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:00 pm: | |
Richard
I must say that I have spent the last hour trailing through the dusty depths of the BBC with particular relevance to Radio 4 in the 1970's with every possible thing relevant to JTR...Sorry there's NOTHING! (well relevant anyway!)...I have even emailed them and got a reply that there is nothing that they can trace.
Sorry..maybe the station wasn't Radio 4 she says kindly......
Sorry but there must be some explanantion for this but have got as far as the Archives with persons appearing or whatever on radio 4 during that period with the name of Reg (or something similar) Hutchinson.....still nothing!!!!
Suzi |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 249
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:04 pm: | |
Surely Radio 4 wasn't around then. Wasn't it called the Light Programme or something?
Anyone know when the beeb started giving their stations numbers instead of names?
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:11 pm: | |
Bob,
I Accept your point about hearsay.
We have to accept the written word.
ie.
Hutchinsons statement.
Maurice lewis account.
mrs Maxwells account.
Schwartz account.
mrs longs account.
Lawandes account.
Packers account.
Barnetts account.
Mrs Hewitts account.
Etc Etc Etc.
These are all recorded statements either to the police or press.
But Bob all these records are all we have to solve this long drawn out case.
If we distrust every single statement made by every single informant
made over the last 116 years, where do we start and how do we finish?.
it is a question of who we believe and who we do not, and that can be interpreted in many ways.
I happen to believe George hutchinsons account it is as simply as that , but i of course could be completly wrong.
Regards Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 250
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:15 pm: | |
Have you heard of a song ( I believe it came from the musical Gigi) 'I remember it well'
Two people are recalling the same event and yet each have an entirely different recollection of what happened. Hermione Gingold has the correct memory and Maurice Chevalier is hopelessly wrong, yet every time he ends by singing 'Ah yes I remember it well'
Its called memory and it can play funny tricks. A much underated TV series was Danger UXB, and I followed it avidly. I recall every episode with remarkable clarity including the one where the Sergeant played by Maurice Roeves was killed by a butterfly bomb. This incident was particularly firm in my mind as on a trip to a stately home in Grantham many years ago I pointed out they had an unexploded butterfly bomb on their sideboard!
However when my son brought me the boxed DVD set a few months ago I was amazed to find it wasn't Roeves who was killed but the character played by Kenneth Cranham.
I would have quite happily put £100 on my being right - but it didn't alter the fact I was wrong!
Bob |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1567
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:20 pm: | |
Bob!
that's what ypu get for watching Danger UXB!!!! hehe! Right when the dreaded Radio ! started ....The Third Programme became Radio 3,The Light Programme became Radio2 and the Home Service became Radio 4 Will check the date and get right back!
Suzi
|
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 251
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:21 pm: | |
Have you heard of a song ( I believe it came from the musical Gigi) 'I remember it well'
Two people are recalling the same event and yet each have an entirely different recollection of what happened. Hermione Gingold has the correct memory and Maurice Chevalier is hopelessly wrong, yet every time he ends by singing 'Ah yes I remember it well'
Its called memory and it can play funny tricks. A much underated TV series was Danger UXB, and I followed it avidly. I recall every episode with remarkable clarity including the one where the Sergeant played by Maurice Roeves was killed by a butterfly bomb. This incident was particularly firm in my mind as on a trip to a stately home in Grantham many years ago I pointed out they had an unexploded butterfly bomb on their sideboard!
However when my son brought me the boxed DVD set a few months ago I was amazed to find it wasn't Roeves who was killed but the character played by Kenneth Cranham.
I would have quite happily put £100 on my being right - but it didn't alter the fact I was wrong!
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:24 pm: | |
Hi Bob,
We met at nine
We met at eight
I Was on time .
No you were late.
Ah Yes 'I remember it well'
Good old fashioned Nostalgia, but Yes I do remember it well.
Richard. |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 252
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Richard,
I don't see what point you are trying to make about written statements. Are you saying you have a written statement from somebody that this programme did exist?
The hearsay I am referring to is that offered by you. You say you heard someone say something that they were told by their father - that is hearsay and useless.
All I am asking is that you refrain from constantly telling us that uch and such is a fact when quite clearly it is nothing of the sort.
You tell us for instance that the prgramme was on Radio 4 in the early seventies - Radio 4 didn't exist before 1977 ( so I am reliably informed) so you were wrong about that weren't you?
Bob |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1152
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:29 pm: | |
Hi suzi.
I accept the possibility it may not have been Radio 4, i am going back to the days of transistor radios, the only assumption i made as it was a documentary type airing it was on a serious wavelength not radio 1 /2.
Richard. |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1568
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:34 pm: | |
Hi Richard
Have spent way too long than is good for a girl trawling the BBC sites and believe(hopefully a fact) that radio4 was the last of the 'proper' staions to take up numbers!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1569
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:42 pm: | |
I believe this to be 1977 c/o of Google ,there were of course many other stations lurking about in those dark days...local radio maybe ?
We have to have facts or failing that someone who can actually say....I recorded that....or even better...That was me/my Dad or something......now there's a thought! Hutchinson Jnr!!!
Suzi |
Richard Brian Nunweek
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Richardn
Post Number: 1153
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Hi Guys,
Thanks for trying i guess it must have been one of those nights when my memory was impaired by alcohol.
But I was stone cold sober that night.for in those days i did not drink in the house.
All i can say it was broadcasted by a national station, the light programme , the home service or whatever, not some dark local radio.
Richard.
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1570
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 4:09 pm: | |
Richard
I'm sure you have a memory of this programme so will continue to trawl about to find something!
Whatever I come up with had better be good tho..
Back to trawling
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1571
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 4:10 pm: | |
Richard
I'm sure you have a memory of this programme so will continue to trawl about to find something!
Whatever I come up with had better be good tho..
Back to trawling
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1572
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 5:06 pm: | |
Right! having given up with trawling and not being convinced that 1977 was correct..have now called the BBC re the date of Radio 4 and they say that it was in 1 9 6 7 !!!!!!!!!! that the Home Service gave up the mantle!!!!!! They now know that they have given me a tad of grief and have corrected their page!!! Anyway Richard???? any help?? The website address is enormous but here goes...
www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/aboutradio4/history/history_chap2.shtml
Suzi
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1573
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 5:23 pm: | |
OK
30th September 1967!!!!!! radio 4 kicked off and rather wonderfully still continued to announce This is the Home Service from radio4 for the next 2 yrs!!!!
Suzi |
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 6:12 pm: | |
Sorry Bob!
I hate to say it but this time you were 'unreliably' informed c/o Google!!!!!
Don't you LOVE it when you have to go directly to the Beeb ON THE PHONE and be put through God knows what to talk to a person to get these facts!!!!! ( Anyway you know all this...but the rest dont! )
Round Two tomorrow 'eh?
Suzi |
Robert Charles Linford
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Robert
Post Number: 3607
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 06, 2004 - 6:16 pm: | |
Hi Suzi
First song played on R1 was "Flowers in the Rain" by the Move.
If such a programme did go out, presumably the BBC paid the participants? Would their accounts dept have something?
Robert
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1577
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 3:51 am: | |
Hi Robert
I knew about 'The Move'..who can forget the lovely (!!!!!) Mr Blackburn spinning that one!!
Anyway we know about The Home Service metamorphising into R4 now tho so .............Where were we??
Suzi |
Bob Hinton
Inspector
Username: Bobhinton
Post Number: 253
Registered: 2-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 4:34 am: | |
Hey no problem, if I'm wrong I'm wrong - however I think the point is made that Richards memory on this issue isn't as he would have us believe.
He can't positively identify what station broadcast the item:
"All i can say it was broadcasted by a national station, the light programme , the home service or whatever, not some dark local radio."
But then of course can we really rely on memory alone after so long?
|
Suzi Hanney
Assistant Commissioner
Username: Suzi
Post Number: 1579
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 07, 2004 - 5:23 am: | |
Certainly can't!!......as time passes the need for hard facts to jog what passes for 'memory' becomes more and more of a necessity!
Am dredging the archives still..........oddly fruitless quest so far tho...........Still 'the game's afoot' eh?
|
