Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[The Good Michael]

The onus to confirm the hypothesis, "Hutchinson is Toppy" falls squarely on the proponents of that hypothesis, not the other way around.

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

[Dorian Gray]

Dorian,

You mention a layman's analysis. It is reasonable to suggest that anyone can look at signatures and say there are differences and similarities. In two completely different signatures, one may say they are wildly different. In this case, they are remarkably similar though some see small differences. Are the similarities, accompanied by all the coincidences of time, place, name, occupation, age and anecdotal evidence, regardless of any misleading data presented by the author of 'The Ripper and the Royals' enough to say that this simply must be our man? I have no doubt. Those who do certainly must have the onus of proving it at this point, and they absolutely cannot. Hutch is without doubt Toppy.

Cheers,

Mike

Mike,

I prefer the careful academic examination of primary sources to resolve and argue matters. In assessing the, 'Hutchinson is Toppy" or "Toppy is Hutchinson" debate I am only interested in scientific evidence.

If we are testing the hypothesis that, 'Hutchinson is Toppy" then at this point the hypothesis is disconfirmed. Similarities, coincidence, and hand-on-heart belief do not equal scientific fact. I view anecdotal evidence with a great deal of skepticism--evidence for the desperate, and an indicator of the dreaded confirmation bias--though it has, on the rarest of occasions, uncovered scientific evidence.

Though I have a great deal of doubt that Hutchinson is Toppy, there is still a lot of historical evidence to be gathered, tested, and scrutinized.

The onus to confirm the hypothesis, "Hutchinson is Toppy" falls squarely on the proponents of that hypothesis, not the other way around.

Regards,

Dorian

[The Good Michael]

Dorian,

You mention a layman's analysis. It is reasonable to suggest that anyone can look at signatures and say there are differences and similarities. In two completely different signatures, one may say they are wildly different. In this case, they are remarkably similar though some see small differences. Are the similarities, accompanied by all the coincidences of time, place, name, occupation, age and anecdotal evidence, regardless of any misleading data presented by the author of 'The Ripper and the Royals' enough to say that this simply must be our man? I have no doubt. Those who do certainly must have the onus of proving it at this point, and they absolutely cannot. Hutch is without doubt Toppy.

Cheers,

Mike

[Dorian Gray]

Dorian writes:

"Without Leander's formal opinion, his expertise is reduced to laymens' speculation. "

...and Leander reduced to a layman, you mean? So that his trained eye, his years of experience his methodic way of breaking a signature into the correct elelements, his insights into what matters and what can be discarded - that counts for nothing more than, say, my long dead grandmothers wiew?

I am sorry, Dorian, but I do not agree for a minute with this. Informal as the evaluation was, it was nevertheless an informal examination made by a top authority and a man who knows these things like the inside of his own pocket. That amounts to a lot, whichever way we look upon things.

The chances that he would have been of another mindset altogether if he had published his wiew are non-existing, Dorian. Much as there are posters who dislike it, it still stands that he was of the meaning that the signatures were very close and a probable hit.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman,

Thank you for your reply.

If you would like to debate the scientific method and the rigours of formal scholarship we can discuss it elsewhere. However, I will offer two points to sum up my position.

First, my statements were not an indictment of Leander's professional standing or his capabilities, but concerned his informal analysis as presented in this forum.

Second, I can not utilize Leander's informal analysis because it would be irresponsible. Indeed, insisting Leander's informal analysis, buoyed by his professional credentials, is anything more than an opinion is misleading: it gives the impression that a detailed formal analysis has been rigorously carried out and those findings are factual. You agree it's an informal analysis yet argue that we should treat Leander's findings with the same weight as a published, formal analysis. That is a line I will not cross. It is bad scholarship.

An example: if I were to write an article, I could not cite, attribute, or reference Leander's informal analysis. If I tried to present Leader's informal analysis as factual I would be academically crucified, and I would fully expect Leander, his academic peers, my audience and publisher, and, possibly, his lawyer to pound me to dust.

Given these restrictions, Leander's informal analysis is relegated to the realm of a layman's speculation. Without a formal analysis, subjected to peer review, Leander's speculation remains speculation.

Again Fisherman, this is not an indictment of Leander, but a brief assessment of scientific, professional, and academic standards which have not been satisfied. In this light, I must, at this time, disregard Leander's informal analysis of the signatures.

Once again, my apologies to all for hijacking the thread.

Regards,

Dorian

[lynn cates]

behaviour change

Hello Garry. Nor would I care to have one. I am merely pointing out that Hutchinson, should he turn out to be Topping, cannot, on that account, be ruled out as the ripper. And this, even though Topping turned out to be a solid citizen.

My point is (and I feel you'll agree) that behaviour can change over time. So a ripper--whether Hutchinson or Kosminski--need not be locked into that behavior for life.

The best.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

This is the wrong thread for a Kosminski discussion, Lynn. But try reading up on psychoticism and psycopathy.

All the best.

Garry Wroe.

[lynn cates]

clarification

Hello Good. Not my description. I was merely pointing out that he has been described as such. And this description does not preclude his STILL being a suspect.

The best.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Lynn,

The Kosminski description as harmless lunatic is very far from the truth. It reiterate that description does nothing but take us from the reality of Kosminski which is far more complex.

Mike

[lynn cates]

analogy

Hello Garry. Your dictum:

"The problem, though, Lynn, is that Toppy managed to ‘hold it in’ over many decades without betraying a hint that he was any more than a decent, hard-working family man."

is quite true. But, by analogy, similar reasoning does not completely preclude Kosminski as a candidate. Although not a hard working (anything but!) family man, he did manage to get described as a "harmless lunatic." Still, he is a candidate.

The best.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Fish.

Given that tensions are yet again ramping up on a Toppy thread, please accept that what I'm about to say is meant in a friendly rather than adversarial spirit. But if you wish to address a viewpoint to me personally, could you please (a) do it in the form of a post rather than a dissertation; and (b) present it on the appropriate thread.

Thanks in advance.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

Hello Garry. But isn't it also possible that he was able to "hold it in" for extended periods and that such "holding in" is what caused the violent "ripping" episodes?

The problem, though, Lynn, is that Toppy managed to ‘hold it in’ over many decades without betraying a hint that he was any more than a decent, hard-working family man.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

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

So anyone who happens to share forensic document examiner Sue Iremonger's view that the signatures don't much must be evil liars? I suppose Ms. Iremonger fits this description too?

Give me an excuse to take you seriously, Mike.

Dazzle us.

[Ben]

On more than one occsion, I reacted with great frustration as I was of the opinion that Ben was not being honest, but instead using semantically twisted constructions to try and dismiss my wiew.

What the...?!

Did you not receive a certain PM a few days ago?

Fisherman takes the extraordinary decision to provide a wholly unnecessary summary of the previous Leander threads, but since he had decided accuse me of lying yet again, it seems only fair that I defend myself.

It was illustrated, by quoting Fisherman's translation verbatim, that Leander conveyed no impression that he thought the match to be a "probable" one. He mentioned that the similarities weighed "against" the similarities, but that the latter were insufficient to "rule out" or "exclude" Toppy as the witness. If you argue that something cannot be ruled out, you're not declaring it to be "probable". If he secretly thought the match was probable, he certainly didn't convey any such thinking in his initial post.

Clearly dissatisfied with this, in my view, Fisherman started to put words in Leander's mouth that didn't appear in his first letter. For example, Fisherman referred to there being "numerous" or "many" explanations for the differences between the statement signatures and those of Toppy. After reminding anyone who needed reminding that the explanations for the differences were only “possible” ones (and not necessarily explanations that he felt actually DID come into play in this case), I was quick to draw attention to the fact that Leander used no such adjective. Nothing about "many", and nothing about "numerous". Back he went to Leander, who "clarified" with the following:

"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".

How odd that the very word that Fisherman wrongly claimed appeared in Leander's first post suddenly appeared in Leander's rather timely "second" post? That's not an accusation of lying, such as the one Fisherman just levelled at me, but I'm more than entitled to find it odd. It that wasn't the only example of this unsettling phenomenon either. Shortly after publishing Leander's first letter, Fisherman argued that the letter spoke of an "overall likeness". I quickly pointed out that, as with the words "numerous and "many", Leander had said no such thing in his initial letter, so Fisherman re-established contact with Leander for a THIRD time, with the following result:

”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness, and it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".

By some bizarre coincidence, "Leander" had now elaborated on his initial comments using the very expression, "overall likeness", that Fisherman erroneously attributed to him in his first letter.

Now, by post #4, one forms the very distinct impression that Leander is starting to tire of being asked to "clarify" continually by Fisherman, hence the observation: "I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail". If people are incapable of detecting a certain "Please leave me alone, I've already told you what I think a billion times already" subtext into Leander's words, I'm incredibly surprised. True to form, Fisherman was not deterred, and so he allegedly asked Leander to "clarify" again. Unfortunately, the gist of his purported observations in post #5 (yes, that's how many times Fisherman asked Leander to clarify a message that was abundantly clear the first time) were radically different to anything he said in his initial post, effectively cancelling out any worth in any of his posts.

By pestering the poor man incessantly, and with demonstrably misleading and erroneous information, Fisherman has succeeded in eradicating the value of Leader's first letter, which everyone will agree was the very picture of circumspection when it first appeared. If he was truly responsible for all the posts Fisherman claims Leander was responsible for, we are obliged to take a dim view of an "expert" who succumbs to pressure and bias, of an "expert" who becomes progressively more Toppy-endorsing with each bombardment.

I note with disdain that Fisherman is still trying to mutate “cannot be ruled out” or “hardly possible to exclude” into synonyms of “probable”, and he does so on the unacceptable basis that some institutions bizarrely misinterpret and misuse such basic phrases, and that Leader must belong to one such institution. Unfortunately for this argument, you cannot change written communication and dictionary definitions. If anyone uses either of those phrases to mean "probable", they are misappropriating a phrase to a drastic extent, ill-becoming of an expert. He or she is simply not saying what s/he means. “Cannot be ruled out” means the same thing to the man on the street as it does to the expert analyst or any other functioning human being with a basic understanding of written communication.

Both phrases could be classed as “positive” observations, and indeed, I agree with Leander that it would constitute the lowest form of positive commentary, but neither could be used for conveying a belief that a given hypothesis is “probable”.

I certainly never claimed that Leander felt the match to be a poor one, but neither did his initial letter insinuate, even vaguely that he came down in favour of there being a match. It was inconclusive. He couldn’t rule it out. He couldn’t exclude the possibility. That’s it. If he later came down in favour of a match, then I’m afraid he wouldn’t have been “clarifying” a stance. He would have been contradicting it.

I think it would have been better if Fisherman had simply left Leander’s initial observations stand.

At one such occasion, I asked Leander whether my wiew or Bens wiew was the correct one, and he answered by stating that Bens interpretation of the issue was a malicious one.

That was because you portrayed me in the worst possible light. You can't expect anything different when you contacted him with "Hey, Leander, Ben thinks you're a liar. What do you think of him?". He wasn't exactly about to give me a cup of tea.

Here's how it's going to work in future. If people dredge up acrimonious debates from the past, I'm just going to repeat the very same objections that I raised before. That's always what I've done, and I consider this latest attempt at Leandering to be the very worst sort of cyber-goading.

But I am NOT ready to accept any suggestion that Frank Leander was "unenthustiastic" or anything along those lines

Tough. You're forced to accept that this is what other people think. You can do nothing about it, except perhaps dredge up the topic on unrelated threads, and even then I'd still go on thinking it. Forever.

[Ben]

“Instead it must be realized, just like Sam says, that what we have here is something quite rare - we have a signature comparison that would quite likely hold up as proof in a court of law!”

No.

There is nothing that could even vaguely lend weight to such a conclusion. The only expert to have analyzed the original signatures was Sue Iremonger, and she was of the opinion that the handwriting did not match. Leander was supplied with fiddled with emailed statement signatures that conveyed the erroneous and misleading impression that they were of the same size and angle to the Toppy entries, and worse, only one signature was provided despite their being ample opportunity to provide all three statement signatures as they had been provided to Sue Iremonger in the early 1990s when she carried out her irrefutably more professional analysis. Even Leander was eager to remind us, on several occasions, that the material was insufficient for him to offer a full expert opinion, so I’m baffled how you can possibly argue – or even suppose for one moment – that if would stand up in a court of law.

It really isn’t surprising that posters like Dorian are compelled to reject the “Leander analysis” as a factual analysis since Leander himself was the very first to caution against considering his views a “full expert opnion. You can consider it “tangible hard-core” evidence and repeat it as often as you like. It is utterly trumped by a far more thorough analysis, conducting in the early 1990s by a British document examiner, as recounted by more than one leading authority on the Whitechapel murders. I would respectfully submit that your ideas as to what would and wouldn’t be accepted by a “court of law” has very little basis in reality.

There are several reasons why Iremonger may not have responded. The fact that you contacted her immediately after I did might have daunted her somewhat, and considering that she is now of an advanced age, I’m certainly not about to take a dim view of her for it. As Jonathan Menges suggested some months back, it is more than possible that she outlined her Hutchinson findings in a lecture, during which she discussed other aspects of the case, such as the Maybrick diary, which she also analyzed.

[Fisherman]

Dorian writes:

"Without Leander's formal opinion, his expertise is reduced to laymens' speculation. "

...and Leander reduced to a layman, you mean? So that his trained eye, his years of experience his methodic way of breaking a signature into the correct elelements, his insights into what matters and what can be discarded - that counts for nothing more than, say, my long dead grandmothers wiew?

I am sorry, Dorian, but I do not agree for a minute with this. Informal as the evaluation was, it was nevertheless an informal examination made by a top authority and a man who knows these things like the inside of his own pocket. That amounts to a lot, whichever way we look upon things.

The chances that he would have been of another mindset altogether if he had published his wiew are non-existing, Dorian. Much as there are posters who dislike it, it still stands that he was of the meaning that the signatures were very close and a probable hit.

The best,
Fisherman