Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[lynn cates]

costs

Hello Dorian. Right. These chaps are quite expensive and hence a rather large pool would be required to help defray expenses.

I also fear that, whichever side were vindicated, the other would disagree.

In the meantime, happy hunting to both sides.

The best.
LC

[Dorian Gray]

Hello Dorian. I was unaware of the distinction and hence used the term loosely. I regret the error.

I looked at some sites a few months back (in a very different aspect of this case) and noted that some seemed rather exorbitant. Perhaps some others would be willing to contribute and perhaps a choice could be unanimous? (Too optimistic?)

The best.
LC

Lynn,

I have no idea what a forensic handwriting examiner would charge, but I imagine it would be expensive--specialists usually charge an arm and a leg for their expertise.

Too optimistic? Possibly. It would take a great deal of momentum to undertake such an experiment, and so far we don't have a line-up.

Regards,

Dorian

[Dorian Gray]

Dorian,

Scientific analysis, in the way you want it to be used, can never be used in a situation like this. Attempts at some sort of logical conclusions are the only things possible. There are no sciences at work here. Things like handwriting analysis are always flawed and experts have been shown to be no better than laymen at times. What you expect is an impossibility. With that in mind, what you have been presented with is quite possibly as much evidence as anyone will ever have. In this method, unscientific though it might be, it should be enough for anyone. If it isn't, then nothing can change certain minds. It is for that reason that I am of the opinion that there has been far too much frontloading of Hutchinson guilt- theorizing, for certain people to come back to the same place of logic that I am. To be sure, I wish Hutchinson were guilty. I wish there was even any small thing that showed him to be guilty of murder. There isn't and so I can't be done with this. I can only use utterly sound logic to try to get the message through.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike,

Thank you for your reply.

If evidence can not meet a scientific standard (I set a reasonable standard in post #536, second paragraph) then it is no longer evidence but speculation, opinion, and belief. If one can not meet that standard of evidence, it's time to reformulate the hypothesis.

What other measure would one responsibly use to formally confirm their hypothesis, and have it withstand the scrutiny of their peers?

Although it might take years of hard work, and the ability to reject disconfirmed hypotheses and start anew, I firmly believe that one can discover scientific evidence or conclude that the scientific evidence does not exist--the latter's value is as important as the former. Look at the mountains evidence that has been uncovered in the last twenty years for inspiration: the Dutfield's Yard photograph is an excellent, recent example of what can be discovered.

"To be sure, I wish Hutchinson were guilty. I wish there was even any small thing that showed him to be guilty of murder. There isn't and so I can't be done with this. I can only use utterly sound logic to try to get the message through."

Given these statements, I am wary of the confirmation bias at work, though this second hypothesis should, in fairness, be labelled, "Hutchinson is guilty of murder." I am not arguing that you are helping to facilitate what you call the, "frontloading of Hutchinson guilt-theorizing," but that your wishes, stated above, indicate a predisposition concerning Hutchinson and, in turn, influence the weight of the evidence you have presented.

You have resorted to logic to, "get your message through," however the evidence provided is, at this point, far below the scientific standard to confirm the hypothesis, "Hutchinson is Toppy."

Mike, I sincerely hope you find the scientific evidence to prove your hypothesis.

Regards,

Dorian

[The Good Michael]

As an aside, has anyone submitted a ground-breaking article or book anywhere stating that Hutchinson has been conclusively identified as being George William Topping Hutchinson? No? Why not, if the case has been proven?

Perhaps because there have only been fabulous books that regarded Hutchinson as an evil-doer which many people have read, agreed with, and now refuse to excise like the cancerous growth this pretend knowledge has become. All this about Toppy being Hutch is very new and has evolved right here on this stage and everyone should be thankful that it has. Yet, some remain in denial. There really is no need for a book because we don't know so much about Topping's life, and the way so many have disparaged the family name through nothing more than BS conjecture, it's doubtful that any family members will want to play in our reindeer games.

By the way, Raleigh wasn't a good guy. I wouldn't quote the man.

Cheers,

Mike

[babybird67]

Sam

Where, then, is the equivalent list of alleged* coincidences for the "non-Topping" candidate?

Which non-Topping candidate are you referring to? Are you suggesting once more the onus should be on us to prove a negative? If you want a non-Topping candidate, you can have Sarah Lewis for a start, I propose she wasn’t Hutchinson, or Topping, for that matter. Does that help?

You know very well we don’t have a ‘non- Topping candidate’, Sam, we just have your own offered candidate as Topping for Hutch which is based on your ‘belief’ (you can shun what you like, until something is proven it remains a belief) that the evidence put forward to support his candidacy is sufficient to convince you. That’s your prerogative of course, as it is mine to remain unconvinced, without being accused of being either intellectually dishonest or evil, accusations which are patently ridiculous when discussing a disagreement such as this one.

* Not that there's anything "alleged" about them. What Mike wrote as facts earlier are precisely that - facts; the sort of things which are conspicuous by their absence from the perspective of "non-Topping's" existence.

They are alleged, Sam, in the sense that you are taking them as proof of the identity of an entirely separate person from the one to whom they refer. They are only factual when pertaining to the individual concerned...they become 'alleged' facts when lifted from that individual and applied elsewhere. By the way, what is a non-Topping existence? Nobody disputes Topping existed! We are disputing your identification of Topping with Hutchinson, which, to our minds, is made on the basis of insufficient evidence! I don't dispute that Christ existed either, but i thoroughly refute his identification as the Son of God!

Mike even lists occupation as one of these 'evidential' co-incidences…where, pray, is the original Hutchinson EVER referred to, in any contemporary document, anywhere, as a plumber? As far as I can remember, and I stand to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than myself, he was not. This, then, is not a co-incidence, is it; it is a factor which weighs heavily against the identification, yet is dismissed by you and Mike in favour of other ‘evidence’ such as the Reg/Toppy story, utterly anecdotal, unproven, and unfit to be cited as ‘evidence’, especially when the details of the story are subject to any kind of detailed scrutiny. Please, if accusations of intellectual dishonesty are being bandied around, apply them fairly, to the Topping family story ‘belief’ and the absolutely crazy idea that there is any co relational factor between Hutchinson’s occupation and Toppy's, neither of which is borne out by facts.

I note you failed to address my points that you have identified many women with co-incidences of name, locality and age, in your search for Mary Kelly; if these said co-incidences between Hutchinson and Topping are sufficient to convince you that you have found Hutchinson, why have you dismissed all these Marys from being THE Mary we seek? You are arguing they are enough in one case, but not in the other?

Like Mike, I am completely and utterly baffled why anyone, in all objectivity, should not come to the same reasoned conclusion.

You are entitled to be baffled Sam. Mike is entitled to be baffled. However, bafflement does not appear to be his problem. He is not baffled, rather confidently sure that anyone who disagrees with the Topping/Hutchinson ’identification’ is doing so not because they honestly believe something different to you, but because they are evil and being intellectually dishonest and deliberately obtuse. I can assure you this is not the case, nor do I appreciate being accused of it. I thoroughly respect yours, and Mike’s, right to come to different conclusions to myself when evaluating the evidence we have at our disposal without feeling the need to be abusive to either of you. It is a shame such respect cannot be reciprocated. Arguments which stand on their own merits do not require recourse to slurs or slanders.

As an aside, has anyone submitted a ground-breaking article or book anywhere stating that Hutchinson has been conclusively identified as being George William Topping Hutchinson? No? Why not, if the case has been proven? Surely this would be a landmark in Ripperology? Or perhaps it would be classed as ‘intellectually dishonest’ to claim any such thing, on the current evidence available?

Mike...read my signature piece...absolutely apt for the situation we find ourselves in here, i believe.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Dorian. I was unaware of the distinction and hence used the term loosely. I regret the error.

I looked at some sites a few months back (in a very different aspect of this case) and noted that some seemed rather exorbitant. Perhaps some others would be willing to contribute and perhaps a choice could be unanimous? (Too optimistic?)

The best.
LC

[Dorian Gray]

Hello Dorian. Since a good deal turns on the handwriting proffered, permit me to suggest a few interested parties chipping in and retaining a neutral graphologist (by this I am not impugning any previous professional's neutral status--indeed, I accept that neutrality without reservation) and see what probabilities are offered.

That should be interesting whichever way the analysis goes.

The best.
LC

Lynn,

An interesting notion, and one I have considered. I would be more than willing to contribute.

Not to nitpick, but we would need an independent forensic handwriting examiner not a graphologist. The examiner should* be familiar with Victorian era hand writing, subjected to peer review for verification, and examine the original documents.

A wonderful straightforward solution, though the logistics could prove difficult.

Thank you, Lynn.

Regards,

Dorian

*edit: I removed the word 'preferably.'

[The Good Michael]

Lynn,

Not a graphologist. They look for personality quirks and that sort of thing. They are kind of like palm readers and other frauds.

Cheers,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Dorian,

Scientific analysis, in the way you want it to be used, can never be used in a situation like this. Attempts at some sort of logical conclusions are the only things possible. There are no sciences at work here. Things like handwriting analysis are always flawed and experts have been shown to be no better than laymen at times. What you expect is an impossibility. With that in mind, what you have been presented with is quite possibly as much evidence as anyone will ever have. In this method, unscientific though it might be, it should be enough for anyone. If it isn't, then nothing can change certain minds. It is for that reason that I am of the opinion that there has been far too much frontloading of Hutchinson guilt- theorizing, for certain people to come back to the same place of logic that I am. To be sure, I wish Hutchinson were guilty. I wish there was even any small thing that showed him to be guilty of murder. There isn't and so I can't be done with this. I can only use utterly sound logic to try to get the message through.

Cheers,

Mike

[lynn cates]

suggestion

Hello Dorian. Since a good deal turns on the handwriting proffered, permit me to suggest a few interested parties chipping in and retaining a neutral graphologist (by this I am not impugning any previous professional's neutral status--indeed, I accept that neutrality without reservation) and see what probabilities are offered.

That should be interesting whichever way the analysis goes.

The best.
LC

[Dorian Gray]

Dorian,

I (er... we and evidence (you know what I mean))have proven that there is no one else that we know of that can be him. Now, you prove that there is someone else. Until you can, we have Toppy only. That is as good as it gets right now. You may be able to create all sorts of scenarios about a different Hutchinson such as, it's an alias, or he had no permanent residence, or he didn't stick around after he murdered Kelly, or any such thing, but that would all be absolutely wild and unprovable speculation. We have proven, with extant evidence, that it really can be no one else. Find another George Hutchinson who matches. I double dog dare you.

Mike

Mike,

Thank you for reply.

I stand by my post above, and my reply to your points.

You write, "you may be able to create all sorts of scenarios about a different Hutchinson such as, it's an alias, or he had no permanent residence, or he didn't stick around after he murdered Kelly, or any such thing, but that would all be absolutely wild and unprovable speculation."

I have not stated, written, or tendered such speculation, and I would ask that you do not, under any circumstances, attributed those notions to me.

I have replied to your questions, and stated my position concerning the evidence offered, nothing more.

You wrote that your evidence is based upon, "coincidental information whose weight is heavily unbalanced in the direction of Hutch being Toppy." That is far below the scientific standard of evidence that is required to prove your hypothesis.

Once again, I will repeat my stance: the onus of scientific proof lies with the proponents of the, "Hutchinson is Toppy" hypothesis, not the other way around.

Regards,

Dorian

[The Good Michael]

Dorian,

I (er... we and evidence (you know what I mean))have proven that there is no one else that we know of that can be him. Now, you prove that there is someone else. Until you can, we have Toppy only. That is as good as it gets right now. You may be able to create all sorts of scenarios about a different Hutchinson such as, it's an alias, or he had no permanent residence, or he didn't stick around after he murdered Kelly, or any such thing, but that would all be absolutely wild and unprovable speculation. We have proven, with extant evidence, that it really can be no one else. Find another George Hutchinson who matches. I double dog dare you.

Mike

[Dorian Gray]

I would say that the opposite is true. This isn't a 'diary' or a hoax attempt of any sort. It is merely a large amount of coincidental information whose weight is heavily unbalanced in the direction of Hutch being Toppy. I'll show you:

Fact 1: Two George Hutchinsons existed at the same time in the same area, virtually within saloon-crawling distance from each other.

Fact 2: Reginald Hutchinson claims that his father was the witness of one of the murders and knew the woman, bearing out (in part) GH's story.

Fact 3: Reginald's story contains a toff fitting GH"s testimony. The Churchill stuff was reportedly spoken by Reginald, and not GH who only said it was a lord type. This fits with his description true or not, and that truth is unimportant here.

Fact 4: Signatures, several, of GWTH have been uncovered that have remarkable similarities to each other. I say as identical as a man's can get on separate occasions, but that is unimportant as well. What is important is that I can guarantee all of us arguing about this, in a blind test of writing the same signature, say 'Pocahontas', would come nowhere near as close to matching as these signatures do. Yet, these are two men with the same name! Coincidence? Very nearly impossible.

Fact 5: No one else has been uncovered in any census that can even remotely be considered a possible Hutch match.

Fact 6: People have to use unrealistic arguments to pick apart every fact, and each argument has nothing to do with another. They are only solitary arguments attacking individual aspects of the whole.

Yet the whole, dear friend, remains unshakable.

Mike

Mike,

Thank you for your reply. My apologies for not replying quicker, but my server has been acting oddly.

By listing the points above, you have illustrated my point. You are attempting to prove "Hutchinson is Toppy," not me. The onus remains on proponents to prove their hypothesis--not beyond a shadow of a doubt, that standard is too strict for this line of inquiry, but let's say by a preponderance of the scientific evidence.

I have not equated this hypothesis with a hoax, but have stated the scientific standard this hypothesis must meet. That standard has not been met: "coincidental information whose weight is heavily unbalanced in the direction of Hutch being Toppy," is insufficient.

You have listed six points to try and confirm your hypothesis or to, "show [me]:"

Point 1, Vicinity: reviewing the population totals (Septic Blue's post http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3386 is excellent (his related work has also been illuminating), as is the simple, excellent population density example provided by Sam Flynn ( http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...lation+density ), two names are not overwhelming evidence at this point in time. Babybird67's point in post #534 concerning, "Mary Kellys" is an excellent parallel. This evidence also makes me wary of a confirmation bias.

Points 2 and 3: Both points are based on Reginald Hutchinson's anecdotal evidence, and I reject it. It is bad scholarship--evidence of the desperate, as I called it in my previous post (#532). Moreover, anecdotal evidence often creates and leads to a confirmation bias.

Point 4, the signatures: A new, independent, published examination by a forensic handwriting examiner would serve your purposes far better than the method you suggest.

At this point we have one formal examination by Sue Iremonger, though it has apparently been rejected by the proponents of the, "Hutchinson is Toppy" hypothesis. Until another expert, formally publishes an analysis, I will side with Iremonger's conclusions. Yet, I would like to read the proponents' reasoning for rejecting her analysis. If the reasoning is scientifically sound, I would be more than willing to move the signatures into the undecided category.

Point 5, the census: The arguments presented by Sam Flynn, Garry Wroe, and others concerning how one would list their occupation for the census, and the apprenticeship process, is fascinating reading and has not confirmed the "Hutchinson is Toppy" hypothesis. To be honest, I prefer Garry's stance at this point, but unfortunately the discussion has not been resumed--I hope to read more in the future.

Point 6: If any part of your hypothesis fails due to scientific evidence then the hypothesis must reformulated and retested. If unrealistic arguments are being used, then those arguments can be set aside: opinion cancels out opinion, and speculation is not scientific evidence.

At this time, the hypothesis, "Hutchinson is Toppy' is disconfirmed. Provide solid scientific evidence proving Hutchinson is Toppy, and I'll happily sing your praises and, more importantly, buy the first round.

Regards,

Dorian

[Sam Flynn]

You and Sam continue to point to a list of alleged co-incidences

Where, then, is the equivalent list of alleged* coincidences for the "non-Topping" candidate?

* Not that there's anything "alleged" about them. What Mike wrote as facts earlier are precisely that - facts; the sort of things which are conspicuous by their absence from the perspective of "non-Topping's" existence.

which shore up your ‘belief’ that an identification has been made.

In my case, it's most definitely not a "belief" - I shun such quaint constructs - but a reasoned conclusion based on a number of cumulative factors, not least the remarkable similarity of a whole bunch of signatures captured independently over a period of more than two decades.

Like Mike, I am completely and utterly baffled why anyone, in all objectivity, should not come to the same reasoned conclusion.

[babybird67]

Mike

What gets lost in the BS of agenda, and is absolutely irrefutable, is that there are two signatures of the same period and of the same name, in the same vicinity, with a similar birth date being involved, with family anecdotal evidence, and being similar enough that there is a war over them being waged, and a few folks believe they belong to two different people. It is intellectual dishonesty of the worst kind. The thing that really killed me was when a published author, who should try and be objective, couldn't even see the forest for a couple of stunted trees.

Dishonesty is what it is. Really tiresome and just this side of evil.

Mike

I am utterly disappointed in seeing such a posting from you.

I have no ‘agenda’ at all, yet I remain unconvinced by the evidence put forward to suggest that Hutch and Toppy were one and the same person. Am I intellectually dishonest? No, I’m not, I just disagree with you, and perhaps have higher standards of proof. If you condemn intellectual disagreement as ‘just this side of evil’, I am beginning to worry about which brand of ethics you believe in. Remember we are posting about a serial killer and mutilator of women...get your idea of evil in perspective!

You and Sam continue to point to a list of alleged co-incidences which shore up your ‘belief’ that an identification has been made. Among these are vicinity, age, name…the problem, as I see it, is that numerous ‘Mary Kellys’ have been found in the same vicinity, of the same age, with obviously the same name…what is preventing these Marys being identified as THE Mary? Because there is no proof. But surely, having the same name, living in the same area and being of the same age must be ‘evidence’ that they were the same person? Nope. In an age when names were almost as fluid as liquid, it seems, even a name cannot be ‘proof’ of anything. Sam…how many Marys have you found both in London and Wales that match a number of details that we believe we know about Mary Jane Kelly? What is preventing us identifying her from these details…conclusively identifying her, as you appear to be doing with Toppy and Hutch?

Don’t bring in the other factors:

Anecdotal evidence: does not withstand intellectual scrutiny, and to claim it does is more intellectually dishonest than what I am doing, which is maintaining a consistent position of being unconvinced on the present evidence. Reg said Toppy made a comparison between Astrakhan and Lord Churchill…even those details don’t match up with what we know. He was allegedly offered money for his story. Does this not mar at all the provenance of what you are claiming supports ‘evidence’ and ‘fact’? It does for me. This is inadmissible.

Occupation: if anything occupation supports my stance. Hutch the witness never referred to himself as a plumber. He said he was a groom/labourer/night watchman. How can you possibly ignore this, and even more alarming, how can you possibly list ‘occupation’ as a factor which gives any credence to your ‘belief’? Absolutely astounding.

Signatures: the most recent professional appraisal of them states that in that professional’s opinion, the signatures do not match. They do not match for me, Garry, Ben, and several other contributors. This is not ‘agenda’ or ‘intellectual dishonesty’; indeed it would be intellectually dishonest just to agree with you for the sake of peace.

Once again, the burden or onus of proving a positive match is upon those who claim there is one, not on those of us who believe the case has not been proven, for the simple logical reason that you cannot prove a negative.

You haven’t proven anything, and dragging the discussion down into insults and sneering doesn’t help your case.

Jen