Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[The Good Michael]

But you somehow seem to see a heap of unsurmountable obstacles..?

Fish,

The truth is, they force themselves to see obstacles because the truth would set their agendas free. Being free from agenda myself, I easily grasp the truth. And that is my final word on this, for they sicken me.

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

… what I see - and what I need to see, given that I have decided that there is virtually no chance of the signatures by the witness and Toppy not being by the same hand - is opportunities.
But you somehow seem to see a heap of unsurmountable obstacles..?

And that is precisely the problem, Fish. You have decided that Toppy must have been Hutch and therefore endeavour to make the facts fit your theory. With such an approach, it is possible to ‘prove’ that the Earth is flat or the Moon is made from green cheese. My approach is one of objectivity. My conclusions are based upon the weight of evidence – nothing more, nothing less. Based upon the evidence, I see little to suggest that the signatures of Toppy and Hutch were authored by a common hand; little to suggest that the biographical details of Hutchinson are commensurate with those of Toppy; nothing to suggest that Toppy lived in the East End during the Ripper’s operational timeframe. On top of this, I cannot accept the proposition of Randolph Churchill trawling the East End in search of drink-sodden whores.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

The truth is, they force themselves to see obstacles because the truth would set their agendas free. Being free from agenda myself, I easily grasp the truth. And that is my final word on this, for they sicken me.

I’d have been quite insulted by such a slur had it not emanated from an intellectual lightweight.

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

I’d have been quite insulted by such a slur had it not emanated from an intellectual lightweight.

Garry Wroe.

The truth stings, doesn't it?

Mike

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"that is precisely the problem, Fish. You have decided that Toppy must have been Hutch and therefore endeavour to make the facts fit your theory."

No, Garry. The original decision that makes me realize that all evidence must fit with Toppy being the witness, was the decision made by Toppy to comply with sergeant Badhams advice to sign the police protocol. When doing so, he produced evidence telling us that no matter how many and how strange turns his later life and carreer would take, there could never be anything to disprove his role as the witness in the future. This truth will always be present, and it will show itself in the quality of the evidence chosen by those who will not see Toppys role, in useless efforts to enhance their claims. Right now it is the badly leaking assertions that Toppys way to the plumbership MUST have followed the middle of the road. Tomorrow it will be something else, I´m sure.

So what I have done is not to "decide" anything, mostly since I am far too modest to make decisions of that order. I am instead recognizing a fact that was laid down 121 years ago.

There was a time, Garry, when Galileo was brought to trial for having claimed that the earth was not the centre of the world. The line followed by the court was that he had come up with a theory that was as mad as it was heretic, and that Galileo was doing all he could to force the "facts" on the theory he had "decided" was correct on no proof at all.
Of course, who am I to compare myself to Galileo? None at all, I should think - but since I do not wish to be added to the tally of "intellectual lightweights", I thought I may just as well team up with somebody who could help me explain the recognition I am making.

I have not decided between two things that can be said to represent equally good choices. We have signatures that tally, and they tally well enough for the foremost authority of my country in forensic documentation to recognize a probable match (although he did not use the word "probable" but instead "surprised" - he said that he would be surprised to learn that they were not by the same man). And that was even before I told him that a very possible perpective involved a possible group of potential signers (named George Hutchinson) that amassed to a dozen people or two at the most. He concurred with me that such a thing would strengthen the case for an identification enormously.

When a black car passes me in the street, and I tell my friends "That was a black car", I have not made a decision. I have recognized a fact.

When I go to the zoo and have a look at an elephant, it is not any decision of mine that makes the elephant an elephant. It is so from the outset. The only decision involved in my seeing an elephant, was an amorous one, made by the elephant father and the elephant mother that produced the elephant. What I do, when speaking of the elephant, is to recognize what the beast in front of me is - nothing else.

The fact that George Hutchinson the witness´ signature and George Hutchinson the later-in-life plumber´s signature tally does nevertheless call for a decision - the decision to climb out of the trenches and realize that the we have just been handed an elephant.

Eppur si muove, Garry!

[Dorian Gray]

Fisherman,

Having left the Leander Analysis thread at some point in late July or or early August of 2009, I would like some clarification or an update, if you will.

You state:

I have not decided between two things that can be said to represent equally good choices. We have signatures that tally, and they tally well enough for the foremost authority of my country in forensic documentation to recognize a probable match (although he did not use the word "probable" but instead "surprised" - he said that he would be surprised to learn that they were not by the same man). And that was even before I told him that a very possible perpective involved a possible group of potential signers (named George Hutchinson) that amassed to a dozen people or two at the most. He concurred with me that such a thing would strengthen the case for an identification enormously.

Given the 'tallies' and the other information noted above could you please tell me:

A) Has the expert examined the original documents containing the signatures?

B) Where I can read the expert's published analysis of the signatures in question?

Regards,

Dorian

[Observer]

Hi Gary

My conclusions are based upon the weight of evidence – nothing more, nothing less. Based upon the evidence, I see little to suggest that the signatures of Toppy and Hutch were authored by a common hand

So are you dismissing out of hand those who do see a match?

all the best

Observer

[harry]

When Hutchinson faced Aberline,he'd had three days to prepare his story,three days in which to decide who and what he was.No one has ever said that every thing he uttered was a lie,so we can expect him to start with some truths.He could reasonably expect to be asked who he was,where he resided,and what he did for a living.That,together with age and date of birth,is generally the first things asked,whether its a witness interview or suspect interogation.It would have been so in 1888.None is self incriminating.Most is checkable.It would have been folly to have lied about those details,they could easily be verified.So when he declared his occupation as labourer,I accept that is what he was,and what he had been.
Now Reg had grown up with a father he describes as a plumber.This knowledge had been gained by many years of living with his father,and most children under those circumstances gain intimite details of their fathers occupation.(I know all my father did and was as pertains to his work).So when Reg says his father was a plumber,then I accept that is what he was and had been,and if so had been at some time an apprenticed plumber,and would have been,when questioned by Aberline,only a year or so out of apprenticeship.Why then hide that information and declare himself a labourer?
I believe the father of Reg and the Hutchinson who gave evidence to Aberline to be two different people.

[Fisherman]

Dorian Gray asks:

"A) Has the expert examined the original documents containing the signatures?"

No.

"B) Where I can read the expert's published analysis of the signatures in question?"

Frank Leander was not hired as such to do an analysis. I asked if he would volunteer a wiew, and he offered to do so in a very informal way. All he said, more or less, was published on the thread, both in Swedish (his and my native tongue) and in my translation. It can be added that there were efforts made to point me out as purposefully trying to change Leanders wording in my translations, just as there were those who were of the meaning that I fed wrongful and/or incomplete material and information to him in order to try and influence him in an unfair manner, something that was not a very nice thing to be subjected to - but something that tallies very well with the overall hostile tone that came to dominate the thread on the whole. All I can say is that I had the best of intentions and that Frank Leander proved to be a very discerning and thoroughly amiable and helpful man.

I hope that you are able to see through the gunsmoke and identify the important pieces of information that are there!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Dorian Gray asks:

"A) Has the expert examined the original documents containing the signatures?"

No.

"B) Where I can read the expert's published analysis of the signatures in question?"

Frank Leander was not hired as such to do an analysis. I asked if he would volunteer a wiew, and he offered to do so in a very informal way. All he said, more or less, was published on the thread, both in Swedish (his and my native tongue) and in my translation. It can be added that there were efforts made to point me out as purposefully trying to change Leanders wording in my translations, just as there were those who were of the meaning that I fed wrongful and/or incomplete material and information to him in order to try and influence him in an unfair manner, something that was not a very nice thing to be subjected to - but something that tallies very well with the overall hostile tone that came to dominate the thread on the whole. All I can say is that I had the best of intentions and that Frank Leander proved to be a very discerning and thoroughly amiable and helpful man.

I hope that you are able to see through the gunsmoke and identify the important pieces of information that are there!

The best,
Fisherman

A) Has the expert examined the original documents containing the signatures?

B) Where I can read the expert's published analysis of the signatures in question?

Hi Dorian,

The expert Fisherman refers to did not examine the original documents. Sue Iremonger did, though, in the early 1990s and came to the conclusion that the signatures didn't match, and since her analysis is the best known and the most thorough so far, I'm inclined to defer to her expertise. Sue Iremonger also examined all three signatures in the context of the pages to which they were appended, whereas Leander was only supplied with one signature - the third one - which was sent via email in such a way as to suggest that they were the same size and angle, when in reality they weren't. I'm sure this wasn't done with the intention of deliberately engineering a "positive" conclusion from the expert, but it was misleading nonetheless.

As it happened, the Swedish expert was the first to concede that he could not offer his full expert opinion given the nature of the material supplied. He then expressed his wish not to be asked to "elaborate further", and had this view had been respected by certain parties, I doubt very much that the subsequent hostilities would have occured.

What also threatens to engender hostility is people like Mike, making unwarranted accusations that his perceived opponents are harbouring agendas, especially towards Garry who was been courteous and helpful throughout.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

“I really could not say how unlikely this would be, Ben - I do not have the detailed knowledge. What I DO have, however, is a sneaking suspicion that having a plumber for a father would not do your cause any harm at all in such a situation.”

It would have been a valuable asset, Fish, no doubt about it. What his father couldn’t have done, though, is change the rules that governed the length of apprenticeships which he know had been tightened from 1886 onwards. That is, unless Toppy’s father had some serious clout in the trade, and that’s not very likely.

“Where dos this knowledge come from?”

It’s common sense, really. The idea that you can take a three year pause mid-way through an apprenticeship is obviously a fairly outlandish one, since it goes without saying that such a long interval would necessitate the re-learning of many of the skills acquired prior to the three year gap. If you have any evidence of such a thing occurring, that would change things, of course.

“And still, each and everybody living there lived individual lives. They were not a grey mass, all subjected to the exact same fate, Ben, even if it would facilitate things for us.”

True enough, but generally speaking, the Victorian East End fully deserved its reputation as a place of very limited professional opportunities for the young working class male. The idea of a career-hopping Topping odd-jobbing for three years before gaining a speedy entry in the plumbing trade just fails to convince, for that reason.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"It’s common sense, really."

Common sense, Ben, is not as common as one would hope. I much prefer evidence in written form, preferably from the original sources.

"True enough, but generally speaking..."

I am not generally speaking, Ben. I am instead entertaining the belief that Toppy was a little less general in his professional course.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes, to Dorian Gray:

"Sue Iremonger did, though, in the early 1990s and came to the conclusion that the signatures didn't match, and since her analysis is the best known and the most thorough so far, I'm inclined to defer to her expertise."

The fact of the matter remains, though, that much as Ben suggests that it would be "outlandish" if Iremonger did not use the correct material - and much as he may be right in this, bless him! - there is regretfully no substantiation around proving this.

"He then expressed his wish not to be asked to "elaborate further", and had this view had been respected by certain parties, I doubt very much that the subsequent hostilities would have occured."

Leander never once was opposed to helping out. What he did not wish to elaborate further on was the matter of how certain we could be of a match - he settled for a level, and stayed by that level throughout. Leander, however, was in no way opposed to elaborate on the specific points belonging to the quibble on the thread. I was of the meaning that some of the interpretations that were made, were made in a fashion that was detrimental to the understanding of things, and so I asked Leander at a couple of occasions if he could be more specific in a few specific errands. As Ben will know, these elaborations involved a pointing out of Ben from Leanders side as a poster who interpreted things maliciously.

This all is water under the bridge by now, of course, but since Ben stepped in to fill in his five cents, I felt that I had to do the same. The two of us disagree very much about the issue, and in order not to have to repeat ourselves any more and once again dredge up the bad feelings that muddied the thread, I feel that the best thing is to let anybody who wishes to get updated on the Leander business read the "Toppy in the 1891 census" and "The Leander analysis" by themselves, and draw their own conclusions.

Should Ben be of another mindset here, then let´s take it from there. But my suggestion is that we let Dorian and anybody else who needs to read up on the issue do so by his own, with no further influence on things from our respective sides.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Garry’s observations concerning the difference between a census entry and a police interview make eminent sense. In the former, you’re obliged to list your current occupation, and if you were a plumber by trade now working as a labourer on account of the paucity of plumbing work, you’d put “labourer”. When communicating with the authorities, however, it’s only reasonable to infer that the individual concerned would be more expansive. Had Toppy been the witness, he would therefore have been recorded as a plumber, now working as a labourer, unless he had a particular reason to lie about it (and we’re told that normal family men who like ice-skating a play the violin don’t do that!) Since the real Hutchinson was recorded as “a groom by trade, now working as a labourer”, the natural inference is that either Toppy lied about his employment history, or Toppy wasn’t the witness. I find the latter explanation the most logical, since it also tallies – in my view – with other evidence that militates against the Toppy-as-Hutch hypothesis.

Nobody has suggested that any of this rules Toppy out completely, but it does serve to diminish his candidacy of Dorset Street witness, which was already very weak, in my view. Others are free to think there are viable ways round the various obstacles, and if they’ve already decided that Toppy must be the correct individual on the basis of the signatures, it is only natural for them to attempt to overcome the important objections raised here. I just don’t think that’s been achieved here at all. For those of us who don’t believe the signatures match, the details under scrutiny here provide additional reinforcement of that view.

“We have signatures that tally, and they tally well enough for the foremost authority of my country in forensic documentation to recognize a probable match”

The term “foremost authority” would suggest that Leander is recognized as being the best in the whole of Sweden, and I can’t see how you can possibly know this. You can argue that they tally if you want. I disagree most profoundly, and would observe that a “foremost” authority of my country in forensic document examination was inclined to dismiss the probability of a match. Despite your best efforts, the Leander analysis carries considerably less weight, since he was supplied with limited material, gave proven conflicting statements, wasn’t analyzing a native (to his country) script, wasn’t using conflicting documents, and couldn’t given an expert opinion for that reason.

If you told him that the number of potential candidates amounted to a “dozen at most” then I’m afraid you supplied him with misleading information, since you cannot possibly know how many potential candidates there were in 1888. You might not have realized this was false, but it might have had the unfortunate effect of engendering a biased conclusion.

“When I go to the zoo and have a look at an elephant, it is not any decision of mine that makes the elephant an elephant”

Yes, but that depends if you’re really looking at an elephant. I personally think you’re looking at a flamingo and calling it an elephant, if we’re going with the animal analogies. I suppose you wheeled out the analogy to underscore your confidence that the signatures match, and that’s fair enough, but what you must understand is that the people who disagree with you are equally confident that they don’t. You can no more call it a “fact” that they tally any more than we can call it a fact that they don’t.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The term “foremost authority” would suggest that Leander is recognized as being the best in the whole of Sweden, and I can’t see how you can possibly know this."

Frank Leander heads the department of forensic documentation at the SKL, Ben. He is the one who makes the calls when the press wants to know something, and he handles the high-profile cases that end up at the SKL desk. He is an internationally renowned expert, travelling and lecturing on his topic.

But who knows, maybe there is someone "better" hidden somewhere. Maybe I should just have written that Leanders name is the one that pops up every time a skilled Swedish forensic document examiner is needed.

Does it really make so much difference, by the way? Can you not just accept that he belongs to the absolute top, and that no other name is nearly as known in the trade here in Sweden? Or ask around, or something, if you need further substantiation?

"I personally think you’re looking at a flamingo and calling it an elephant"

I know! Here´s the differences:

Flamingo: A pink, winged bird with a long neck, a bent beak and an intense pink colour.

Elephant: A very large landliving animal, walking on four legs instead of flying, grey, tough skin, large ears (still not putting it in the flying business) and a trunk.

...and that is about as helpful as I can get.

We disagree, that´s all, Ben. And my certainty that the signatures tally means that I accept that we are dealing with an absolute fact - not something you can change by "deciding" in either direction.

The best,
Fisherman