Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"according to you, it wouldn't matter to you what points they make, and however persuasively, because you've made up your mind on the Toppy issue. Your only concern seems to be: Now, how do I get round this issue in order that Toppy stills ends up being the witness?"

That, Ben, is NOT according to me - it is according to YOU and the faulty picture you are painting.
Whenever evidence comes along that proves me wrong on the issue, I will accept it immediately. Such proof would involve TWO "George Hutchinsons" being present in East End London in the autumn of 1888, who both wrote their names in more or less the exact same fashion, though, and therefore I am extremely inclined to believe that I will never be faced with the task.
So it is not about "getting around" things, it is about confirming. Myself, I am not very familiar with the "getting around things" strategy, Ben - at least not from any use of it on my own behalf.

"In other words, you're looking for ways to make the evidence fit your prior conclusion.
That's precisely what you've just admitted to.
You've even used expressions such as "the case is closed".

Ben, your mind works in a different fashion than mine - these are suggestions that may well feel very familiar to you, but to me they make up nothing but a personal insult. Not that I have not gotten used to it by now.

You speak about "admitting" things, as if I were a crook, Ben. I have not "admitted" that I think Toppy was Hutch - I have STATED it, since I feel the evidence is quite strong enough to support me in this instance. Therefore, to me, the case IS closed until any evidence emerges that may change my wiew. Of course, I do not think that evidence will EVER surface - if I had thought so, then I would not have regarded the identification as a safe one to make.

"I don't think many reputable ripper sources have claimed that Hutchinson reported the absolute unembellished truth - only that the barebones of his statement may be accurate, which I dispute for reasons discussed ad nauseam. Magistrate Bob Hinton doesn't consider it possible, and nor do I, but if further evidence emerges to suggest it is, I'll gladly reconsider my stance. I haven't done a "case closed" on it."

What you have done, though, is to assure me that the chances of it being true equals the chance that an alien is living in your basement, Ben. And since that is about as a remote chance as we can speak of, I´d suggest that you are at the same level as I am with Toppy/Hutch: You can see no possible reason to change your mind, and you expect that no such reason will ever come along in a thousand years. Correct?
If it SHOULD, however, you are willing to reevaluate your stance. Also correct?

I see only one thing that tell us apart in our approaches to these phenomenons: I have a much better case. Yours is much more etherical and one that can always be questioned, whereas mine is comprised of comparable units.
No need for you to agree this time either. Still remains true, though.

"The witness signature is the only one in which the differences are as appreciable as I outlined. The others are obviously very similar to eachother indeed. It sticks out like a store them."

A sore ... them?? Thumb, is it? Any which way, Ben, when we counted in Jane Wellands wiew of it, it seems she could not tell a them/thumb from a signature. To her, they were all clearly alike. And so are your posts - one after one, they go on telling me that I am treating the evidence in a faulty manner, and that I will try to "fit" the evidence and "get around" it. So I will take it one more time, and reeeeaaaal slow this time, so that we have an understanding afterwards:

-Whenever evidence emerges that disproves my contention that Toppy was Hutch, I will accept that evidence.

Got that?

-What that evidence will prove - if it should ever turn up - is that we had two "George Hutchinsons" around in the East End in November 1888, who wrote signatures that were so alike that the perhaps foremost expert of my country when it comes to forensic document examination tells us that he would be surprised if they were NOT written by the same man.

Got that too?

-Just as you let your own very strong belief colour your assessment of anybodys suggestion that Hutchinson could have taken in all the details he took in, my conviction that Toppy was Hutch will colour my way of assessing any evidence that seem to point away from an identification - but it does not mean that I will "fit" things or try to "get around" them. It only means that I believe that a positive signature identification must always have an impact on any evidence claiming things that swear against that identification.

Has that sunk in too, Ben? I hope so, for the next time over you accuse me of "fitting" evidence, I will be a lot less lean. I will immediately report you to the administrators and crave a fair treatment, and I will try and find a vocabulary that is befitting for such an illustruos occasion.

Putting it in other words, Ben, I think it is VERY high time that you back off and start polishing on your own behaviour.

The very best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Out of work, unemployment men did not gain regular lodgings at The Victoria home', it was much more vetted then say, the average lodging house.

Exactly, Richard.

Which is why I doubt Hutchinson's "out of work" claim.

Unfortunately, the police clearly bought into it, albeit initially, and it was the police who were allegedly responsible for the payment. As far as they were concerned, he was out of work.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

As far as I can see...a couple of thoughts

...looking back over this thread, chaps, there are just too many imponderables in the Toppy Tales, whether it be indeed Tall or just small beer.

Here are the little flies in the gleaming jar of Toppy Super-Ointment, otherwise a potentially splendid miracle salve for all those nasty Hutch pestilences:

1. Reg didn't come forward independently, he was the recipient of enquiry

2. There may have been a financial incentive

3. 1 & 2 amount to potential contamination, and should immediately invoke caution

4. Randolph Churchhill? I find that just doesn't fit the known account given by Mr Hutchinson in his statement, as I have already said above - let alone the obvious unlikelihood of his being in Whitechapel for a spot of jolly murder and mutilation - being as he was so rich and powerful, and all, why, if he wished to do such things, would he not have been able to find a way of procuring a victim by other means without risking life and limb down the Chapel? (for example).

The tale told by Reg may have at its heart a foundation of truth - but unfortunately, the circumstances of its delivery and the inclusion of rationally unfeasible nobility don't add to its merit and weaken its credibility.

I'm all in favour of assessing each and every idea on its own merit.

With this one, though, there are some problems - we can argue all we wish in favour of one scenario or the other - but the trouble is, when the 'yes buts' start to pile up, we may find we end up with a situation that just requires too much special pleading to be tenable.

Perhaps the issues can be resolved. If so, then well and good. If not, then, in the way of theories, that generally indicates that something is amiss with the theory.

If I am factually incorrect about the above, then I apologise - I don't know the subject as well as you all clearly do.

Without Prejudice

best wishes, all.

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Those, Jane, are all good and relevant points. And that has ensured that over the years, only the fewest have made the identification Toppy/Hutch.

It was not until the signatures surfaced out here that it all took a 180 degree turn for many of us.

Myself, I also belonged to the ones who saw very little reason to move along the Toppy path up til that point.

That has all changed now...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I have not misinterpreted your position, Fisherman.

I've quoted you directly.

Such proof would involve TWO "George Hutchinsons" being present in East End London in the autumn of 1888, who both wrote their names in more or less the exact same fashion

That's your opinion, of course.

I don't think you'd need two George Hutchinsons who wrote in the same style. As far as I'm concerned, we haven't even identified one yet.

But do you still maintain that unless that proof emerges, you will continue to look for ways to explain away evidence that isn't immediately helpful to the Toppy identification, before it arrives, and irrespective of the nature of the evidence? That's what you told me. How else am I supposed to interpret the following?:

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

Tell me where I went wrong in my interpetation of that unambiguous sentence and then you can report me to the administrators. I'm not accusing you of anything sinister, but fundamentally, I don't think you should plan a strategy for dealing with future evidence before you've even assessed it.

I see only one thing that tell us apart in our approaches to these phenomenons: I have a much better case. Yours is much more etherical and one that can always be questioned, whereas mine is comprised of comparable units.

That's as inelegantly patronizing as it is completely untrue, but believe what you want.

To her, they were all clearly alike.

It's one thing to recognise a superficial similarity, but quite another to declare them the same and decide they were penned by the same individual.

-What that evidence will prove - if it should ever turn up - is that we had two "George Hutchinsons" around in the East End in November 1888, who wrote signatures that were so alike that the perhaps foremost expert of my country when it comes to forensic document examination tells us that he would be surprised if they were NOT written by the same man.

Well, that's your own view of what such evidence will prove if it turns up. As far as I'm concerned, if a George Hutchinson emerges whose handwriting matches that of the witness, it wouldn't resemble Toppy's very closely; a view lent credence by document examiner Sue Iremonger. If such a candidate turned up, it would certainly not "prove" that Toppy was "around in the East End in November of 1888".

It only means that I believe that a positive signature identification must always have an impact on any evidence claiming things that swear against that identification.

In which case, you may as well prepare your answer in advance: "Yes, but the signatures match, so none of that really counts" in readiness for any forthcoming anti-Toppy evidence or arguments.

It was not until the signatures surfaced out here that it all took a 180 degree turn for many of us.

Hardly "many", Fisherman. I think you'll find that some Toppyites were of that persuasion prior to the signatures coming to the fore.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Jane,

An excellent summation of the "problems" there, at least insofar as the tall tale goes. For me, the signatures are just one more "con" amongst precious few "pro's".

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I have not misinterpreted your position, Fisherman.
I've quoted you directly."

Not when you said that I would "fit" evidence and "look for ways to explain away", you did not. And I am warning you not to go there again.

Until you pick up on that, the rest remains of very little interest to me.

Fisherman

[IchabodCrane]

There are good reasons to believe that the man who gave a statement to the police under the name of George Hutchinson was the man known to the world already then as Jack the Ripper.
These reasons, which have been drawn out in many books and on many threads, mainly derive from the fact that this man came forward as a witness with considerable delay, and only after a statement was made public at the inquest that a man was seen standing outside the entrance to Miller's court at 2.30am the night before Lord Mayor's day, on November 9, 1888. He thus deliberately and unnecessarily put himself on the scene of a crime shortly before that crime was committed. 20th century serial killer investigations have shown that it is not uncommon for killers to involve themselves in an ongoing investigation. That the police have never suspected the witness is excusable given their nonexistant experience with serial killers. They were in all probability looking out for a known aggressive person, criminal or 'sexual deviant'. In fact, all of the suspects that have been mentioned in official police records fit this pattern. A 'John Doe' seemingly normal kind of guy would not have warranted their special attention. With the advantage of hindsight, today we know better about typical serial killers.

Recently, signatures of George William Topping Hutchinson from the 1911 census have surfaced that show a degree of similarity with the signatures on the witness statement.

We can arrive at only either of two conclusions when we combine the above assumption that the witness was Jack the Ripper with the similarity in signatures:

1. Jack the Ripper used the false name of George Hutchinson to give a police statement. George William Topping Hutchinson read the reports, of course stumbled over the fact that the witness bore the same name as himself, and remembered the issue. Years later he then told Granddad's stories to his children about the events of the time, putting himself in the shoes of the witness. By chance, his signature bore some similarity to the ones on the witness statement.
or
2. There are good reasons to believe that George William Topping Hutchinson was Jack the Ripper

[Ben]

Some excellent points there, Ichabod, particularly with regard to the likely perception of the killer as a "known aggressive person, criminal or 'sexual deviant'" on the part of police and populace. Hutchinson may well have slipped through the net for that reason. Your observation that none of the major contemporary police were of the "Jon Doe" type is an astute one too, I felt.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

1. Jack the Ripper used the false name of George Hutchinson to give a police statement. George William Topping Hutchinson read the reports, of course stumbled over the fact that the witness bore the same name as himself, and remembered the issue. Years later he then told Granddad's stories to his children about the events of the time, putting himself in the shoes of the witness. By chance, his signature bore some similarity to the ones on the witness statement.

By chance, Ichabod? Hardly likely. For one thing, if you're going to invent a name, it's not very likely to be "George Hutchinson" - and, even if it is, the chances of your "made-up" signature actually matching a man by that name is smaller still.

For another, I've looked at the writing of every likely "George Hutchinson" in the London area in the 1911 Census (of which there were very few candidates to start with) and there's only one reasonable match, and a very strong match at that: namely, George William Topping Hutchinson.

Only one other came close, a George Hutchinson from Lambeth. However, there were more differences between his signature and those on the police statement, than there were between the latter and Toppy's writing. That's the impartial truth - as is the fact that "Lambeth George" seems to have stayed in or around Lambeth for most of his adult life... unlike Toppy, whom we know married an East End girl in 1898, and who at least eventually settled in the East End.

Anyway, back to the thread...

[IchabodCrane]

Sam,
that's why it would be crucial to find out more about police practice at the time, whether identity checks were standard procedure. I know there were no IDs, but it would be crucial to learn about the whole procedure, whether they would check into one's identity, or whether anybody could walk into a police station and give a false name.
IchabodCrane

[Sam Flynn]

I know there were no IDs, but it would be crucial to learn about the whole procedure, whether they would check into one's identity, or whether anybody could walk into a police station and give a false name.

Indeed so, Ichabod. However, as I said, it's unlikely that someone plucking an uncommon false name out of the air in 1888 would have made up a signature that so closely matched that of a person with the same name - whose writing, by lucky chance, is preserved in two independent documents dated 1898 and 1911 respectively. Indeed, it would be a remarkable coincidence if his made-up signature had even remotely matched that of the real man, come to that.

[Ben]

For one thing, if you're going to invent a name, it's not very likely to be "George Hutchinson"

That's not remotely the case, Gareth.

There's nothing in the slightest bit unlikely about choosing a relatively common alias such as "George Hutchinson". Serial killer Herman Webster Mudgett chose the alias Henry Howard Holmes, which is obviously more obscure. Nor is remotely unlikely that a chosen alias is likely to be the real name of several other people. Let's pick a name at random: Frederick Silvey. More obscure than George Hutchinson, but there are almost guaranteed to be men with that name alive as we speak.

The paucity of "George Hutchinsons" in the 1911 census tells us nothing about the number of George Hutchinsons living in the East End in 1888. Toppy and Lambeth George might have been the best of the limited crop of candidates from 1911, but we've no signatures from the other George Hutchinsons who appeared in 1891 and 1901 but not the 1911 census. Take our ticker-nicker for example. Thanks to the investigative efforts of Debra Arif, it emerged that at least one registrar believed that his signature matched that of the witness.

However, as I said, it's unlikely that someone plucking an uncommon false name out of the air in 1888 would have made up a signature that so closely matched that of a person with the same name

It's not an uncommon name, and it's your opinion that Toppy's handwriting so "closely matches" that of Toppy. For those of us who do not subscribe to the "so closely matches" argument, there is nothing remotely problematic about the possibility of a alias, since the "odd coincidence" simply wouldn't apply. The chances of one type of handwriting having passing similarities to another was greater in the Victorian period than it is today.

I've yet to see that signature, for starters.

But yes, back to the thread!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

That's not remotely the case, Gareth.

What do you suggest would be a sensible name for a made-up-on-the-spot alias, Ben - Yogurt Muleboot, Mowgli Critical-Globes, Dagobert Festjeebuns?

There's nothing in the slightest bit unlikely about choosing a relatively common alias such as "George Hutchinson".

What's "relatively common" about that name? I've demonstrated that there were only a handful of "George Hutchinsons" in London at the time, and fewer still in the East End.

Besides - read the whole argument. It's not just a case of choosing that name, but of coming up with a signature that closely matched (yes, yes, a thousand times yes) that of a real George Hutchinson, who signed two independent documents over a 23-year span after the murders. It's almost inconceivable that this could happen by chance.

The paucity of "George Hutchinsons" in the 1911 census tells us nothing about the number of George Hutchinsons living in the East End in 1888.

What - 95% of the others were wiped out by a mysterious disease, no doubt transmitted in contaminated bottles of ink?

Besides, you may recall that I looked at other censuses to establish a "baseline" for George Hutchinsons in London. Wherever one looks, there were very few of them in London - and fewer in the East End - at any given time.

[Ben]

What do you suggest would be a sensible name for a made-up-on-the-spot alias, Ben - Yogurt Muleboot, Mowgli Critical-Globes, Dagobert Festjeebuns?

I think the salient point is that there's often very little rhyme or reason behind people's choice of alias, Gareth. But it isn't remotely the case that he was "unlikely" to have picked George Hutchinson as an alias on the grounds that it's too obscure. As I've just demonstrated, Henry Howard Holmes rates somewhat higher on the Randometer, and yet it was chosen by a real serial killer wishing to cover his tracks.

What's "relatively common" about that name?

It's a relatively common name, and I'm sure you recall that Chris Scott made the same observation on a related podcast. It's more common than Frederick Silvey, but I can absolutely guarantee you that if I wanted to pick the latter as an alias, there would be REAL people with that name, and that wouldn't be an odd coincidence at all.

It's not just a case of choosing that name, but of coming up with a signature that closely matched (yes, yes, a thousand times yes) that of a real George Hutchinson

Ah, but that isn't a problem for those of us to don't believe that his signature closely matched a real George Hutchinson. That immediately puts paid, in my view, to the "odd coincidence" associated with that line of argument.

Besides, you may recall that I looked at other censuses to establish a "baseline" for George Hutchinsons in London.

Yes, I did, and it was admirable sleuthing on your part is those comparatively enlightened, good old days, but that raises some crucial questions. Where's George Hutchinson the butcher, who lived in Shadwell, in the 1911 census? Where's the glass-cutter "George E. Hutchinson" who you once considered a good candidate? I've seen none of their signatures, and I'd like to rectify that, if possible. Same with ticker-nicker.

All the best,
Ben