Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Which is fine, as long as it doesn't result in force-feeding the evidence into the conclusions we've already jumped to. I'm not saying you're doing that. It's just a cautionary reminder."

The people out here have found their way to the boards of their own free will, Ben. I for one am in no way force-feeding anybody anything. I am conviced that Toppy was Hutch, and I say so if asked - and sometimes when not asked, too. I very often add the fact that not all agree on it. I can do no more, unless you are not suggesting that I am not allowed to express my wiew?

"Please let's not go through this again, Fisherman.

All you had to do was direct Jane to the revelant thread."

That, Ben, I have already done. Plus I have directed her there once before. As for relevance, when I discuss whether Toppy could have taken a different path to plumbership that the ordinary one, how could the signatures NOT apply?
I realize that you have a hard time hearing me ( or anybody else) saying that the signatures tally, but it is an element that cannot be avoided in ANY discussion on Hutch´s identity, Ben. And, of course, since I hold my belief, I think it would be incredibly strange to for some reason ban this conviction.

"But there isn't a dearth of George Hutchinson's in the area at the time. You've based that assumption on the contents of the 1911 census, despite the fact that any number of viable George Hutchinsons could have left the area, permanently or temporarily, between 1888 and 1911"

A "relative" dearth was how I worded it, Ben, and I think that applies nicely. Even if we allow for a small herd of GH:s, we will still be left with a smallish group.

"With respect, Fisherman. That doesn't come across very well, since it sounds very much like the mentality I cautioned against; looking for ways to force-feed any emerging evidence into prior conclusions. It's far better to base our conclusions on the emerging evidence."

Yes, Ben, respect! That is something I would very much like to bring into the discussion. But the kind of "respect" that would involve not voicing a conviction of mine because you wrongfully call it force-feeding does not enter the equation here. The respect I need to see is a mutual one: You may stand on your side and say that the signatures are unalike and that you have expertise backing it up, but equally, I am perfectly entitled to stand by my wiew, and I have an expert´s wiew based on many more signatures to base it on - something we are both quite aware of. That means that I am doing EXACTLY what you ask - I base my wiew on evidence.
You will please note that I never said that emerging evidence WILL play a role in confirming Toppy as Hutch - what I said is that I am convinced that they ARE one and the same, and that I therefore welcome any new evidence since it POTENTIALLY can play a role in identifying Toppy as Hutch.

This, Ben, is something you must accept, just as I accept that you hold another belief. And you are obliged to tolerate my right to voice my wiew, just as I am obliged to tolerate the same thing on your behalf.

Just as you have the right to say "Hutch has not yet been identified", I have the right to say "Toppy was the Dorset street witness". It is not as if I am the only one challenging things and making questionable statements; if you are wrong on the issue, Ben, then YOU are the one challenging the correct wiew and making an incorrect statement. I cannot say that it is universally agreed that Hutch has been found, and I would not do so either. And THAT is the only respect I owe anyone out here. The rest is about self-respect, and in my case it would be seriously nagged if I let myself be intimidated and hushed.

I sincerely hope that I can count on a mutual showing of respect on this issue fortwith! Too much effort have gone into brawls and disrespect, and too little time is afforded us to waste our time on such things.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"You say a foremost expert pronounced them similar, whilst I see that Ben pronounces the opposite."

Yes, Jane, that is correct. The two respective examiners are Frank Leander with the SKL of Sweden, and Sue Iremonger, a British document examiner. If you go to the 1911 thread you will find out in detail what has been said in the errand.

The best,
Fisherman

[halomanuk]

Jeez, Jane has taken to the Hutch thread like a duck to water haha.
It's almost like having Crystal back again....

[Jane Welland]

Hi Fisherman

There's rather a lot of it! I'm afraid I may lack the patience!

I am quite content to observe that there are differing opinions on the matter, it was only that I wondered if there might be an answer there - in fact, there undeniably is an answer there - since both opinions cannot be simultaneously correct.

But is there a way in which the correct one can be established?

Jane x

[Ben]

I am conviced that Toppy was Hutch, and I say so if asked - and sometimes when not asked, too.

I realise that, and as such, I'm not sure that further reiteration of your stance is necessary. However, if you're "convinced" of something, I have to wonder why you'd continue to debate the matter. If the issue is completely resolved for you, surely it's onto other things? I wouldn't say I'm "convinced" of anything here. I am of the opinion that Toppy was probably not the witness, for several reasons, including the signatures, but that's as far as I'm prepared to go.

I realize that you have a hard time hearing me ( or anybody else) saying that the signatures tally, but it is an element that cannot be avoided in ANY discussion on Hutch´s identity, Ben.

Of course, but by your own admission, any piece of evidence that is not immediately helpful to the Toppy-as-Hutch theory can be dismissed on the grounds that the signatures match. You've already convinced yourself, so I'm not sure why you'd be interested in new evidence - it wouldn't taint your conviction. You could even write your response "Yes, but the signatures match, so none of that matters" before the evidence arrives, without even examining its content, such is your conviction.

Even if we allow for a small herd of GH:s, we will still be left with a smallish group

But do you have any data on this at all, other than what appeared in the 1911 census?

I am perfectly entitled to stand by my wiew, and I have an expert´s wiew based on many more signatures to base it on - something we are both quite aware of.

Careful, Fisherman. If we're to ensure that the mutual respect continues, I would strongly caution against a "my expert counts for more than yours" approach. It matters little how many signatures he saw, the fact remains that he was only looking at images on a computer screen, not original documents, as Iremonger apparently was.

and that I therefore welcome any new evidence since it POTENTIALLY can play a role in identifying Toppy with Hutch

But how will you treat any new evidence that potentially reduces the likelihood of Toppy being Hutch?

I don't think you should be hushed or intimidated, Fish, but we're in grave danger of going round in circles here.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

I´ll try to be swift here, Ben:

"I realise that, and as such, I'm not sure that further reiteration of your stance is necessary."

Goes for you too - but that does not stop you, does it? Let me be the judge of when it is "necessary" or not to say and think what I want and need to say and think, and I will do the same for you!

"You've already convinced yourself, so I'm not sure why you'd be interested in new evidence"

Because much of the new evidence supplied is presented because it is believed to refute the stance that Toppy was Hutch - for example, the plumber´s education issue. When things like that surface, I very much like to join the debate and try and find a solution to what others see as obstacles - the fact that I do so out of a conviction that Toppy was Hutch does in no way mean that my contributions will be uninteresting, as far as I can see. Instead, they may offer insight that the matter can be seen from different angles.

"You could even write your response "Yes, but the signatures match, so none of that matters" before the evidence arrives, without even examining its content, such is your conviction."

That is not a very nice way to put it, Ben. I would much prefer if you understood that I will gladly listen to all opposing wiews and evaluate their worth - but of course I will be inclined to believe that in the end, any opposing wiew and any perceived obstacle will be either laid to rest or remain unproven. There is no contradiction whatsoever about holding a conviction and being able to evaluate arguments that oppose that conviction - you are trying to do the exact same thing, I hope, from your position that Hutch was Joe Fleming in disguise.

"Careful, Fisherman. If we're to ensure that the mutual respect continues, I would strongly caution against a "my expert counts for more than yours" approach. It matters little how many signatures he saw"

Please don´t advice me to be careful, Ben. I am just as careful as I need to be. And we DO know that Leander saw many more signatures than Iremonger did. You are also perfectly aware of the fact that what Iremonger actually saw is a matter of dispute.

"But how will you treat any new evidence that potentially reduces the likelihood of Toppy being Hutch?"

In exactly the same way that I hope you will treat any fortcoming evidence pointing in the direction of Toppy being Hutch.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Goes for you too - but that does not stop you, does it?

Repetition tends to breed repetition, though, Fisherman, and it's fair to say that I've been more the reactor than the instigator in those situations.

When things like that surface, I very much like to join the debate and try and find a solution to what others see as obstacles - the fact that I do so out of a conviction that Toppy was Hutch does in no way mean that my contributions will be uninteresting

I never said they were uninteresting.

What it does mean, however, is that your conviction is so strong that you've decided, by your own admission, that anything presented as evidence "believed to refute the stance that Toppy was Hutch" can be surmounted by reminding everyone that you think the signatures match. In your opinion, the signatures can explain away anything that might intefere with Toppy being Hutchinson, and with that sense of conviction; do you even need to look at newly emerging evidence, since you know what your ultimate response to it will be before you've even seen it?

I'm not trying to be unpleasant here.

But I'm just not sure why you'd bother if the case is so firmly closed, as far as you're concerned.

There is no contradiction whatsoever about holding a conviction and being able to evaluate arguments that oppose that conviction

But surely if you know what your ultimate response to that argument will be before you've even seen it, some might be justified in questioning the worth of that evaluation?

I hold no "conviction" that George Hutchinson was an alias as Joseph Fleming.

And we DO know that Leander saw many more signatures than Iremonger did. You are also perfectly aware of the fact that what Iremonger actually saw is a matter of dispute.

The "many more signatures" tended to cement the differences between Toppy and the witness for me, and I personally don't see the rationale in disputing that Iremonger analyzed exactly what several reputable sources said she analyzed, which wasn't the computer images seen by Leander.

But we've done that to death many times.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Repetition tends to breed repetition, though, Fisherman, and it's fair to say that I've been more the reactor than the instigator in those situations."

Being the "reactor", Ben, more often than not seems to consist of you turning up every time I say something about Hutch that displeases you. More often than not, you step in and tell me not to repeat myself - thereby of course doing the exact same thing.
I think, Ben, that if we take a statistical look at the Hutchinson threads, you will be the one who have contributed the most posts by far. And there is nothing strange about that - you take a very active interest in Hutch, and when you feel you have something to offer, you do so.

The problem arises when somebody else - in this case me - acts along the same line. I also take an active interest in Hutch, mostly because I believe that the biggest find in Ripperology over the last few years belongs to that area. And so I often want to participate, offer my wiew and share other peoples wiews. And that is when you pop up, telling me not to repeat myself, proposing that I am force-feeding other posters, etcetera.

That won´t do, Ben.

How many times have you told people that you believe that Hutchs´story was made up?

How many times have you told them that it was impossible to record what Hutch said he recorded?

How many times have you told them that he may well have been an imposter, and a killer?

And why does it not amount to gross repetition in your case - when it does so in mine?

I really, really, really don´t want to get antagonistic with you again, Ben. Please accept that the boards are here for everybody´s use, and accept that you have no business telling me how to make my contributions. It is the only way open to us if we are not to turn each and every thread we both join into a fistfight, and I think we owe it to the rest of the posters not to allow such a thing.

Over to other things:

"your conviction is so strong that you've decided, by your own admission, that anything presented as evidence "believed to refute the stance that Toppy was Hutch" can be surmounted by reminding everyone that you think the signatures match. In your opinion, the signatures can explain away anything that might intefere with Toppy being Hutchinson, and with that sense of conviction; do you even need to look at newly emerging evidence, since you know what your ultimate response to it will be before you've even seen it?"

It is not exactly as if I put my hands over my ears and shut my eyes, mumbling "I can´t be wrong, I can´t be wrong, I can´t ...", is it?
I have examined the signatures, and found that I think it is beyond sound judgement not to believe that they were written by the same man. I have had that feeling confirmed by Frank Leander, meaning that I need not worry about any amateur decision on my behalf. Now, if I was to look away from this conviction of mine, that WOULD be to put my hands over my ears, shut my eyes and mumble "I did not see that, I did not see that, I did not see ..."

The fact of the matter is that I DID see the resemblance, and it DID lead me to the conclusion that Toppy was the witness. Therefore, I am obliged to work from that angle - no other angles are left for me to work from. It does not mean, however, that I should avoid any discussion on the topic since clearly not all people have "seen the light". Some - mainly you - claim that the signatures are NOT alike, and you also claim that evidence (the East End business, the plumbing education) supports your wiew.

In such a situation, I have work to do. The stance I have taken is controversial to many people, and to some extent I of course owe these people answers to the points that may (and will) be presented with the purpose to cast doubt on the identification.
Also, that identification is just a part of a much larger jigsaw puzzle, where most of the pieces are still missing, their shapes hidden from us. I am as interested in those pieces as anybody else, and they will be the subject of many an interesting debate, in which I aim to participate!
When I say that the issue of identifying Hutch has been taken care of to the best of my knowledge, I am not saying that I have the whole picture clear. It is much like reading a crime story from the end of the book - I know the identities of the killed and the killer, but I can´t tell why, how and where things happened the way they did. In Hutch´s/Toppys case, I intend to find out all I can.
Does that answer the question why I bother? I hope so.

In consequence:

"surely if you know what your ultimate response to that argument will be before you've even seen it, some might be justified in questioning the worth of that evaluation?"

My response will vary, depending on the questions asked. But as long as no certain proof can be presented that shows me that Toppy could not have been Hutch, I will enter every discussion from a position of being convinced that we have the answer to the main question. There is little else I CAN do, is there?
I wish, though, that you would not suggest that I would look away from all other arguments, parroting that I have to be correct - like I say, I have an obligation to find as plausible explanations as I possibly can to anything that may point away from the Hutch/Toppy connection. What I am NOT obliged to do, however, is to apologize for having reached this conclusion of mine or refrain from participating in debates on the issue until you decide I am no longer contageous, Ben. Won´t happen.

"I hold no "conviction" that George Hutchinson was an alias as Joseph Fleming."

... which means I may have used too strong a language. Would it be correct to say that you believe that is the best suggestion made so far to solve the Hutchinson riddle?

"I personally don't see the rationale in disputing that Iremonger analyzed exactly what several reputable sources said she analyzed, which wasn't the computer images seen by Leander.
But we've done that to death many times."

We have. And if I have to do it again, I will.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I'd say it's a near-certainty that the Knott family were living in Lee at the time of the murders, though, what with the 1886 marriage (registered in nearby Lewisham), the 1887 birth of Emily Jane's first child, and the 1889 birth of her second child.

True enough, Ben - although we can't rule out temporary residences, and/or staying with relatives for some reason or another.

oddly enough, Toppy himself died in Hornchurch in 1938.

And his father lived there, once. Perhaps there were friends of the family in the mix somewhere?

Not that I want to make excuses for him - for the record, I still think he was telling major porkies.

[Sam Flynn]

There's rather a lot of it! I'm afraid I may lack the patience!

All you need to do is look at this montage of "Hutchinsons", Jane...



...ask yourself if they look like they were written by the same person, and reserve your comments for the 1911 thread, please.

I now return you to this one

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"I still think he was telling major porkies"

So do I, Sam. I have suggested to Jane Welland that the very brief manner in which Hutchinson was dispatched in the Star, combined with the lack of mentioning in the other papers, suggests to me that we may be dealing with something like a prank. In such cases, papers will often be very reluctant to elaborate much on the issue, since they have been made out to look foolish.

To my mind, such an explanation is a lot more credible than one in which the police cracked Hutch´s story - such things make for interesting reading, and papers are always eager to feed people what they desire. When they feel that they have been used for the amusement of pranksters, though, they will normally just publish a very short refutation/correction, inviting as few laughs at their expense as possible.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

If indeed Hutch was selling his story to the press, giving a statement to the police would add weight to both his tale and it`s price.

[IchabodCrane]

Sam
you're right, this picture says more than a thousand posts or a hundred threads.
Cheers,
IchabodCrane

[Jane Welland]

Thanks Sam

For posting the picture-clearly they are all alike. As to the Star and its sudden U Turn regarding the account given by Mr Hutchinson, maybe a 'prank' is what accounts for it. I'm not sure I'm clear on the likely motive though? Fame? Money? Those are usually contenders? Jane x

[Ben]

Try to condense your posts a bit, Fisherman. That one was interminable!

Being the "reactor", Ben, more often than not seems to consist of you turning up every time I say something about Hutch that displeases you

Yes, but as soon as one Hutchinson thread dies, you seem hell-bent on dredging up another one. You give me the "whatever" treatment on one Hutchinson thread, but then decide to instigate another battle on another one. It doesn't bother me, but I have to wonder why you'd chose to go round in endless circles with no prompting from me. By all means contribute to Hutchinson threads if you find them interesting, but why deliberately re-ignite argumens that you know will result in repetition? You know what my stance is on the handwriting issue, so why repeat your arguments when there are already 300 posts on the subject in the 1911 thread?

I don't start arguments. Ever. I only respond.

I wouldn't dream of kickstarting another "Why I don't think Toppy was the witness" debate when I know the topic has been agonized over already for hundreds of pages, but I will respond when the same arguments are repeated.

It is the only way open to us if we are not to turn each and every thread we both join into a fistfight, and I think we owe it to the rest of the posters not to allow such a thing.

That's precisely my point, Fisherman. I don't want a fist-fight, and I don't want to alienate posters. When I make comments akin to "We're going round in circles here", or "we've done this to death", that's my special code language for: please don't start the ball rolling again when we've agonized over this very topic in painful detail on the longest thread on Casebook. Fist-fights are bad, and I don't want one, but if you're honest with yourself, I think you know full well what causes and prevents them.

So in future, may I propose that we direct interested parties to older threads by providing URLs, rather than just repeating ourselves? That would help me enormously.

I have examined the signatures, and found that I think it is beyond sound judgement not to believe that they were written by the same man.

And I disagree with that most profoundly.

But the important point is that your mind is made up. You've admitted to it. Whatever evidence emerges, it will not affect your prior conclusion. I'm not criticising you here. This is what you've already admitted to. So whatever the nature of any emerging evidence that might cause some of us to doubt that Toppy is the witness, it cannot possibly change your mind. You're entering the thread with the mentality that, whatever the nature of the evidence that might point away from Toppy, there must always be an explanation, however implausible, since there's no way that he cannot be the witness on the basis of the signatures.

If that's truly your outlook, you needn't examine the evidence at all. You can prepare your generic response: "Whatever it is, it can't surmount the signatures", whenever anyone casts doubt on the already heavily disputed identification with Toppy as the witness.

What alarms me most of all is that you don't appear to see anything wrong in this. You've just admitted, with extreme verbosity, that your goal is to use any emerging evidence to bolster the conclusion you already jumped to. Please try to understand why people might have a problem with that. This is precisely what you said:

"I have an obligation to find as plausible explanations as I possibly can to anything that may point away from the Hutch/Toppy connection."

That reads very badly, Fisherman.

It means: here's my conclusion, and I will try my best to demolish any argument that might go against that conclusion.

Why not let your conclusions be dicatated by the evidence as it emerges?

Have an opinion, fine, and by all means continue to suscribe to that opinion if you're not persuaded by the objections, but please don't tell us how you intend to treat the evidence - irrespective of its content - before it even arrives!

We have. And if I have to do it again, I will.

Under what possible conditions would you "have to" repeat your earlier arguments on the Leander/Iremonger issue?

Best regards,
Ben