Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Dorian Gray]

Dorian writes:

"As for the haze of gun smoke, without a peer reviewed article on the issue I must, at this point in time, relegate his analysis to an informal opinion."

That was exactly what it was, Dorian! An informal opinion - from a man who is a renowned expert in the field, nevertheless. And what it mainly did was to confirm what I had already seen by myself and felt sure of. But my own handwriting insights count for nothing out here to a number of people, whenever challenging the wiew that Toppy could not have been the witness. That´s why it was useful to get a second opinion from a man of Leanders stature and experience.

The best,
Fisherman

Fisherman,

Thank you for your reply.

I should clarify my sentence you quoted above: Without Leander's formal opinion, his expertise is reduced to laymens' speculation.
Despite Leander's stature and experience, this type of analysis is insufficient for proper scientific review. Moreover, without Leander's formal analysis, it is unfair and reckless to utilize his informal opinion, either for or against the signatures authenticity, as factual. To this end, I must disregard Leander's informal analysis of the signatures. I hope, in time, this issue can be rectified.

My apologies to all for taking this thread off topic.

Regards,

Dorian

[harry]

Mike,
A person is called home because his mother is dangerously ill.At the top of the street he hears a person say that a woman of her name,about the same age,and living in that street had died that morning.Coincidence,they were different women.True the christian name was not mentioned,but you get my meaning.The signature apart,two persons about the same age, living in the same locality,would not have been a rareity.In villages all over Britain the same thing would be happening.Sometime,if you have a minute to spare,study the deaths of soldiers in the first world war.Other posters have shown that although some similarity may show in the writing of the signatures,it is by no means conclusive that they have been scientifically proven to be exact.

[The Good Michael]

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

[Fisherman]

Dorian writes:

"As for the haze of gun smoke, without a peer reviewed article on the issue I must, at this point in time, relegate his analysis to an informal opinion."

That was exactly what it was, Dorian! An informal opinion - from a man who is a renowned expert in the field, nevertheless. And what it mainly did was to confirm what I had already seen by myself and felt sure of. But my own handwriting insights count for nothing out here to a number of people, whenever challenging the wiew that Toppy could not have been the witness. That´s why it was useful to get a second opinion from a man of Leanders stature and experience.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe asks:

"Then why, Sam, if the evidence is so utterly compelling, have neither of the two handwriting experts who have examined the signatures echoed your certainty over the issue?"

If one of these examiners, Garry, is Leander, I think a few words have to be added:
Let´s to begin with not try and instigate any myth about Leander at any stage being unenthusiastic about the match. He gave his wiew, guided by his professional tools, as a match on the lower positive end of the scale. Now - and I have said this a hundred times before - that fact that Leander used this exact verdict was guided by TWO things; the likeness inbetween the signatures AND the surrounding information around the signatures!!

It is only too easy, if one wants to see Leander as "unenthusiastic" to look away from the fact that BOTH these parametres governed his wiew, and instead try and paint things out as if his verdict was something that ONLY was guided by the likeness - or lack of it - between the signatures. For that would seem to imply that he thought "Well, it may well be a match, but I have certainly seen many better matches in my time!".

Let´s just understand that this may not be the case at all - in fact, EVEN IF THE SIGNATURES HAD BEEN MIRROR IMAGES, the verdict would have been the EXACT same; A hit on the lower end on the positive scale. This owes to factor two; the surrounding details. A comparison with fewer than ten samples of each signature, and made from photo copies, CAN NOT be placed higher on the scale than Leander employed!!

So what do we know about what he thought of factor one - the likenesses inbetween the signatures? Well, reserving myself against an inexact wording, we know that he listed all elements that are important to assess, and said that the overall likess was there throughout! Style elements, degree of writing skills, placing of the text - everything bore that likeness! After having stated this he added that against these likenesses, the differences must be posed - but none of the differences involved was of a character that would be hard to explain, according to Leander!

He said that he expected all fortcoming evidence to confirm his wiew that we had a match, and he said that if this would not be the case, he would be surprised.

And how, Garry, you can say that this points to a verdict where Sams enthusiasm is not shared, is beyond me. It is simply not true. We may of course speak levels of enthusiasm here, but let´s not try and turn things into what they are not and have never been.

There were many a time when I thought that Leander had been very conclusive in his verdicts on different details. But there just as many times when Ben told me that he did not share this sentiment, and then he pointed out that things could perhaps be interpreted in another fashion than the one I used. 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. 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. Bens reaction was to imply that I had pestered Leander so much that he would say anything to get rid of me. This I found very sad, and I thought - and still think - that it was an absolutely disgraceful way to argue, just as it was extremely discourtuous towards Frank Leander.

All of this Ben knows, just as I know it. I am not saying here that I must be right, and I do not wish to wake the dragon again! The door must be fully open to the suggestion that Ben actually felt that he had better arguments than me. But in order to try and give you a better understanding of Leanders sentiments about the signatures, this must sadly enough be reiterated.

I am ready to discuss everything, detail for detail, when it comes to the signatures, Garry. But I am NOT ready to accept any suggestion that Frank Leander was "unenthustiastic" or anything along those lines, for that he was emphatically not!

the best,
Fisherman

[Dorian Gray]

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

Fisherman,

First, please forgive my question where I transposed " Where I can read…." The question should have read: "Where can I read the expert's published analysis of the signatures in question?"

Second, thank you for the clarification. Noting your use of the word tally, I thought there had been further analysis and perhaps a published article.

As for the haze of gun smoke, without a peer reviewed article on the issue I must, at this point in time, relegate his analysis to an informal opinion.

Regards,

Dorian

[Fisherman]

Sam Flynn writes:

"Here we have one of the very, very rare occasions in this case where we might actually have a promising lead - and concrete evidence to boot - only for it to be dismissed at all costs by those for whom a meek, mild, "normal" George Hutchinson jars with their internal image of the Ripper. Well, that's their loss, not mine."

Exactly, Sam, and very well put. The signature comparison must NOT be left out of the equation "since we are never going to agree anyway". 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! We know that a top ranking forensic document examiner is of the opinion that the signatures tally, and that means we are for once not left with guesswork, perhapse´s, maybe´s and but-what-if´s.

This, no matter how much the idea is disliked on some hands IS TANGIBLE, HARD-CORE EVIDENCE!! Furthermore, the argument I know will be raised, that another document examiner (Iremonger) seemingly was of another opinion, is something that would be thrown out of that self-same court of law, for the very obvious reason that it is an unsubstantiated claim to a very large extent! I have e-mailed Iremonger myself, just as I have written a very courteous letter to her - but I get no response whatsoever. There is every chance that others have done the same before me, but no matter how true that is or is not, the fact of the matter remains: Iremonger quite obviously will not respond to any question put to her.
And so we know very little about what prompted her conclusions, we have no full proof for what she examined and it seems this knowledge is forever gone.

But the likeness of the signatures remain there, as does the examination made by Frank Leander, and that prompts us to realize that we for once have extremely good evidence, fully credible to be at least suggested and perhaps even admitted as conclusive proof in a court of law!

Therefore I second Sam - let´s NOT forget about the signatures, as if they never existed. It would be the stupidest thing we could do!

Right, now I will read up on the last two pages, and see if I am only reiterating what has already been said. That won´t matter, if it should be the case. This has to be said!

The best,
Fisherman

[lynn cates]

suggestion

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 best.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

With respect, Ben, when I look at the sheer ferocity of the injuries sustained by the known Ripper victims, I see a psychopathology rooted in sadism. Look at the savagery of the jagged cuts, the way in which entrails were seemingly wrenched from the visceral cavity, the near total destruction of Mary Kelly, the way in which the victims were left in a state of humiliation with legs splayed wide apart and skirts draped about their waists. Everything points towards an alpha male with both a powerful sex drive and an intense hatred of women. Compare this to the way in which Peter Sutcliffe closed his victims’ legs and restored a semblance of ‘decency’ with the repositioning of clothing before he departed his crime scenes. The difference is like night and day.

Whereas Sutcliffe’s relative passivity enabled him to live a noncriminal lifestyle that attracted little in the way of suspicion, the Whitechapel Murderer, I strongly suspect, would have been prone to the kind of explosive outbursts that would have made a Sutcliffe-like family environment all but impossible. As such, I am of the opinion that if Hutchinson was indeed Toppy, he is effectively out of the frame as the Whitechapel Murderer.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[curious]

Ran into this here on the casebook Web site:


LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER

LONDON: SUNDAY, SEPT. 30, 1888.
ONE PENNY.

EXTRA SPECIAL SUNDAY EDITION.
LLOYD'S WEEKLY NEWSPAPER OFFICE.
SUNDAY, NOON.THE CORONER AND WITNESSES' FEES.

There is great indignation at the East-end over the shabby treatment of witnesses. On their summonses was printed in red letters across the subpoena:

N.B. - Bring this summons with you. All fees and expenses are required by the Act of Vic., cap. 68. sec. 1, to be advanced and paid by the coroner immediately after the termination of the inquest to such witnesses as the coroner may think fit to allow.

Mr. Paul says that after he made his statement to our representative, which appeared in Lloyd's, he was fetched up in the middle of the night by the police, and was obliged to lose a day's work the next day, for which he got nothing. He was then summoned to give evidence at the inquest on two different days, and he had to pay a man 5s. each day to do his work, or he would have lost his place. At the close of the inquest he got two shillings, being a shilling for each day. John Richardson lost four days' work, and he was paid for three days one shilling each day. Cadosh came up from Enfield, and was paid 3s. for his three days' attendance. The coroner for some time demurred to allowing him his railway fares, but eventually did so, but his loss was 1l. 8s. 9d. John Davis, who discovered the body, lost two days, and was paid 2s., Mrs Long lost two days, and she was paid 2s. Other witnesses told the same story of what they naturally consider very unjust treatment.
------
This of course doesn't answer the question about whether Hutchinson would have been paid since he wasn't employed at the time.

[Observer]

Hi Ben

I was about to say as much to Gary, if Toppy H was Hutchinson the witness it wouldn't disqualify him from being JTR. You would have to expalin why he decided to stop killing of course.

all the best

Observer

[lynn cates]

perverts and stuff

Hello Ben. I have often thought the same thing. Why would it be devastating to the non-Toppy side if Hutch WERE Toppy?

I am reminded here of a line from the old detective series, Barney Miller:

College professor: "That young lady thought I was a pervert. Why, I'm no pervert. I'm a scholar."

Officer Dietrich: "No reason you can't be both."

The best.
LC

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I agree entirely with your observation that an over-enthusiastic adherence to a particular theory can easily lead to the clouding of one's judgement, and being one of these thespy, paranoid, self-scrutinizing types myself, I'm perhaps more inclined to play devil's advocate with my conclusions than most. But if we assume for a moment that I really was the obsessive, entrenched Hutch-hassler than some here have decided I must be (not you, of course), I don't see how or why a putative Toppy-as-Hutch would lower the immunity of my painstakingly-shepherded Hutchinson theory to criticism. In many respects, it's an inconvenience to me that Toppy can't be identified, in my view, with the real Hutchinson, as an outwardly "normal" individual very much corresponds to the type of individual I believe Jack to have been.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

That’s an extremely unfair and illogical accusation, Gareth.

It's neither, Ben - think of it as the opinion of a lapsed psychologist, which it is. I'm not the "accusing" kind. Anyhow...

My dismissal of Toppy as the witness has nothing whatsoever to do with the identity of Jack the Ripper.

If I might generalise across all ripperology, because (a) I like you immensely and have no wish to be personal; and (b) I by no means exclude myself from what follows:

Because ripperologists often expend significant energy in convincing themselves, and others, that "X" was the Ripper, they come to perceive any doubt cast upon their beliefs as a threat on their own credibility. This compels them to reflexively stamp out any potential threats to their beliefs by finding flaws in any counter-arguments, even where no such flaws exist. In addition, often minor flaws in counter-arguments are magnified into major issues, which are then deployed in a defensive manner, to deflect the focus away from what is causing one so much pain.

The tendency to "deflect" extends to an outright denial of logical arguments and objective evidence, and a reliance on selected sources of comfort and support - provided their arguments are in alignment with ones' own, and irrespective of the quality of their arguments in turn. In short, anything goes, provided the threatened belief remains intact. To compound the situation, there is frequently a genuine inability to realise the degree of self-delusion that's going on.

If all the above sounds like a description of religious zealotry, then I wouldn't be at all surprised. There are times when ripperology and religion are very hard to tell apart.

More tea, Canon?

[Ben]

lets put it another way, a payment equivulent to five manual weeks wages was paid., which would be approx five pounds, which was the sum mentioned .

Yes, Richard, and since the police were under the impression that Hutchinson was not taking home a "manual week's wage", they were hardly about to reimburse him to the tune of five times a wage he wasn't even earning. I wish you the very best of luck locating that elusive broadcast, but since we have only your word for its existence, it cannot be considered as having evidential value. It's really no reflection on you.

All the best,
Ben