Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[lynn cates]

bow

Hello Maggy. On the other hand, did you notice the uncanny bow at the end of "George" and the beginning of "Hutchinson"? It presents an effect similar to a hill--rising to the end of the first; falling slightly thereafter.

In my feeble mind, the major difference is between the upstroke "n" and the downstroke "n."

Taken altogether, though, my own signature varies a good deal more than that--and even more so after 23 years.

Perhaps it's time to head over to the other thread?

The best.
LC

[Fisherman]

I hear you, Maggyann. May I just add that there are other samples of Toppys writing around where the tail of the finishing letter does not curve upwards, just as there are examples where the tch-contruction tallies better. In fact, if you look at the signature Albert Hutchinson, also written by Toppy, of course, you will see a better likeness. For some reason you discarded this?
The capital G is the discrepancy that is most obvious.
Weighed together, Frank Leander came to the conclusion that the signatures were of the same hand, and I concur very much.

One thing to keep in mind is this: Take a piece of paper and write your own signature two times. Then have a look and see if there are any discrepancies. You will find that there are, to a smaller or larger extent; no two signatures are exactly alike. After that, ponder that the signatures you just compared in the Toppy case spanned a stretch of 23 years. Signature comparison is not only about looking for differences that will and must be there - it is also very much about finding similarities, and they are about in abundance here.

If, after making your own signature test, you are still of the meaning that they are too unalike to have been written by the same man, then that is your prerogative!

The best, Maggyann!
Fisherman

[Maggyann]

I have looked closer at the signatures and the most striking for me after the Capital 'G' and the final sweep on the last 'n' is the 'h' in Hutchinson

In the top signature it is looped in all the others it is a straight up and down stroke.

PS could Man Hou St be Mansion House Street - ref George Hutchinson newpaper journalist. Is that anywhere near the murder site?

[Ben]

And while we're on the subject of downstroked "n"s, here's another of Hutchinson's signatures from the police statement:

http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=83925&postcount=1909

Not a great deal of similarity with any of Toppy's efforts there either. All of Toppy's n-nails veer upwards, albeit to verying degrees. Not so with the Hutchinson who signed the statement. The trouble with the experiment you're encouraging Maggyann to embark upon, Fisherman, is that Toppy himself has a proven record of consistency when writing the same name several times within a short space of time. We know this from the signature column you just directed us to. Moreover, he remained consistent over a 13-year period that encompassed the signing of his marriage certificate and the sighting of the census entries. His upward-slanting "n"s remained upwards slanting, the capital G's remained close-looped, and the differences with the statement remained different despite the passage of time.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Been over that before, Ben. Sam listed a whole host of striking similarities regardless of which signatures we used, and that remains the bottom line for me. I´m quite, quite content about it all, and I have very good faith that all findings along the signature line will - in companionship with all material that surfaces about Toppy´s whereabouts and professions in the crucial years - form a book of revelations that will move the match onto dry land even for the doubters. In fact, it will end up in the middle of the Gobi desert; that´s how dry we are speaking.

I can wait. Never mind.

The best
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

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

I don’t dismiss anyone, Observer. I do, however, evaluate the evidence with an objectivity commensurate with my scientific training and arrive at a conclusion accordingly. And should you buy into the accusation that those conclusions are agenda-driven, I would suggest that you examine my posting history. If you do, you’ll discover that I have disagreed with Ben and other ‘anti-Toppyites’ on a number of occasions when I believed their arguments to be flawed.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

I have to confess, Fish, to being somewhat bewildered by your logic, particularly since there is not an atom of evidence to suggest that Toppy and Badham ever came into direct contact. Here, I’m reminded of an aphorism said to represent the archetype of hypo-inductive reasoning. ‘John is a boy; John wears trousers. Susan, too, wears trousers, so must also be a boy.’

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.

Modesty aside, Fish, you have ‘decided’, as witness:-

Furthermore, 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.

As I stated in a previous post, Fish, the problem to my mind is that you have decided that Toppy and Hutchinson the witness were one and the same. As a consequence, this position requires that you question the nature of the National Census and the statutory legislation governing Victorian apprenticeships. That is, of course, entirely your prerogative, but it isn’t especially conducive to meaningful debate.

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.

In actuality, Fish, Galileo was threatened with excommunication for questioning the Catholic doctrine relating to the geocentric universe. Interestingly, the Catholic Church had ‘decided’ on the truth of Creationism and sought to silence anyone who dared to challenge its orthodoxy. Therein lies a lesson for all of us, I would suggest.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Sam listed a whole host of striking similarities regardless of which signatures we used, and that remains the bottom line for me.

Yes, but then I countered that by listing a whole host of striking differences, Fish.

But you're right, we have been over this before many times, and on duplicate threads to boot. Your prediction is that future revelations will stengthen your hypothesis, and you're entitled to that prediction. Of course, there will be no major prizes for guessing that I predict the precise opposite.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
We really do need to find a solution, to the Topping v Unknown Hutchinson puzzle, it is so frustrating for the posters on both sides of the fence, to end in stalemate.
Ben insists that either GWTH, or his son Reg were being less then honest, when claiming that the former was the witness in question, I religiously disagree, maintaining that it would have been most unlikely that Topping educated himself on the case, with the intention of deceiving his friends and family, not to mention being aware of the mention of a payment found only in a rare publication, unseen by any of us until recent.
I have argued many times, that is it not strange, that the only man that has ever come foreward claiming to be the Witness Hutchinson, did so with a mention of a payment, which would be approx five weeks manual wages in 1888.
This Ben has nothing to do with Hutchinson being out of work , infact pray tell me how he could be a resident of the Victoria home, if he was not in work?
Now what about Reg, you say that anyone could have prompted him about the witness Hutchinson, showing him the police statement, and filling him in all the facts that would be required, that said the informant who was not alive in 1888, and therefore not priviliged to the gossip at the time would have had to read the Wheeling edition to get the payment details to inform Reg, which did not even come to the knowledge of Casebook until. a couple of years ago.
And last but not least, who heard Reg on Radio in the early -mid 1970s, some 18 years before the 'Ripper and the Royals', mentioning the very payment, and story that was published.
Who informed Reg then.... about the payment details, which was only available in the wheeling report, it was not Fairclough, lets hazard a educated guess and suggest that the whole tale came from his long dead dad.
I know that I shall receive some more 'Ah buts' however I at least, believe I am making a realistic case.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

“maintaining that it would have been most unlikely that Topping educated himself on the case, with the intention of deceiving his friends and family”

I find that very unlikely too, Richard, which is why I never suggested it. What I have suggested is that Reg could have learned all the ingredients for a fabrication from Joseph Sickert and Melvyn Fairclough who we know provided him with Hutchinson’s statement and “Abberline’s diaries”. This illustrates, for a start, what a terrible research technique the interviewers resorted to. Here are the Abberline diaries – genuine, honest! – and here is your father’s statement. Wouldn’t it have been better to interview Reg first, assess his claims in the context of the statement and then provide the goods? All Reg was doing was basically nodding in obedient acquiescence to everything thrown at him.

Oh, is this the statement? Oh yes, that’s what dad said alright (looking at the statement). What’s your theory, Mr. Fairclough? That royalty was involved? Yes, dad mentioned that too. Churchill? Yep, he’s in their too. Now, you mentioned a cheque...

“which would be approx five weeks manual wages in 1888. This Ben has nothing to do with Hutchinson being out of work”

Yes, it does.

Whether Hutchinson fibbed about his employment status or not, is another matter. The police were under the impression that he was currently out of regular work. If he was out of regular work, he couldn’t have taken home a weekly wage, and if he wasn’t taking home a weekly wage, the police wouldn’t have paid him five times that weekly amount, i.e. five times a sum that he wasn’t earning. There is, most emphatically, no “interesting coincidence” between an obscure American newspaper article headed “Gossip”, and a claim in a royal conspiracy ripper book that someone’s dad saw Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper. I’ve explained this to you a rather depressing amount of times now, Richard.

Two wrongs don't make a right, and two bogus sources don't combine to create good provenance.

“I at least, believe I am making a realistic case.”

With sincere respect, Richard, you’re just not.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe:

"there is not an atom of evidence to suggest that Toppy and Badham ever came into direct contact."

Well, Garry, I think I´d opt for the desription "there is not an atom of PROOF" - since the written and signed police protocol actually represents evidence as such. One must assume that Hutch spoke and somebody listened and took down the story, and as evidence has it, Badham is not a bad suggestion.
But is this not rather a silly remark from the outset, since this was not what the argument as such was about?

Moreover, if you don´t mind, I also think it slightly silly to write about my use of the word "decided". Is it not nitpicking, Garry? Has the gist of my argument gone lost, somehow?What if I say that I have "decided" that I have "recognized" the resemblance between the signatures as being of a character that allows us to rule out anything but a match? How is that?
Would we not be making fools of ourselves if we entered on such escapades instead of conducting a fair and reasonable debate, focusing on the issue as such - instead of quibbling over how we spell the word "issue"?

"As I stated in a previous post, Fish, the problem to my mind is that you have decided that Toppy and Hutchinson the witness were one and the same. As a consequence, this position requires that you question the nature of the National Census and the statutory legislation governing Victorian apprenticeships. That is, of course, entirely your prerogative, but it isn’t especially conducive to meaningful debate."

To begin with, Garry, since I have not been provided with a scrap of evidence - or proof - showing that "the nature of the National Census" was something that encouraged calling a 364 day plumber a "flower arranger" if he did that work when the census takers came calling, I prefer to remain slightly unwilling to take this on, if you don´t mind too much. The nature of the national censuses (capital letters or not) taken here in Sweden has always been to search for the representative statistical truth, and the authorities over here would not have been happy with census takers who were unable to catch that drift.
Much the same goes for the rules of the Victorian apprenticeships - I hear a lot about it, but I see no much substantiation. I am asserted that a broken-off apprenticeship would not be able to reembark upon three years later, and the substantiation is that this would represent common sense to the asserter...!

As for the benefits of my stance to a useful debate, I have no problems agreeing that my saying "Toppy could have not have followed the normal route to plumbership if his saying that he was a former groom was true" does not leave the door very much ajar for criticism. Also, my certainty that no matter what "your" side may produce evidencewise to try and separate Toppy and the witness, I am sure that there is an explanation that will dispell that evidence out there, does not make for a good debate either.
But that is only reasonable and logic, is it not, Garry? If you are sure that your head is at a higher level than your bottom when you stand up, then surely you would not find a suggested criticism and debate about that thing a very interesting one, would you? Interesting debates arise when there are two sides present that have equally good arguments, or when somebody with a poor argument is a good and skilled debator. When there in truth is nothing to debate, that will make the debate tedious:
-It was A, I am sure of it.
-But I think it could have been B.
-Sorry mate, we have conclusive evidence telling us it was A.
-But don´t you think that ...
-Not really, no.
-But ...
-Nope.

Tedious, I admit. But why would I play along with the idea that the obstacles you are suggesting would, could or may have applied when the signatures tell me clearly and unambiguosly that they don´t? If you think that it kills the debate, then so be it. The matter as such is a closed one to my mind. Some posters find that hard to accept, but there is not much I can do about that.

"In actuality, Fish, Galileo was threatened with excommunication for questioning the Catholic doctrine relating to the geocentric universe."

...which was pretty much what I said, yes.

"Interestingly, the Catholic Church had ‘decided’ on the truth of Creationism and sought to silence anyone who dared to challenge its orthodoxy."

Yes, Garry, WE know that, because in retrospect we can see what was going on. But BEFORE the issue was settled, the church claimed that Galileo - who was pretty sure about things, because he had seen the totally onesided and telling evidence - was the one who needed to correct his wiews.

That is where the lesson lies, Garry.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"you're right, we have been over this before many times, and on duplicate threads to boot. Your prediction is that future revelations will stengthen your hypothesis, and you're entitled to that prediction. Of course, there will be no major prizes for guessing that I predict the precise opposite."

That´s what I call a good and precise post, Ben. Encapsulates all in a very recommendable fashion!

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Ben,
You keep repeating that five times an irregular income does not equal a payment of five weeks wages. 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 .
I am not saying you are wrong in suggesting that Reg went along with Fairclough with the theme of the book, but that does not imply that the whole thing was made up.
You know my conviction on that elusive broadcast, and you have my utmost word that a man calling hinmself the son of the witness Hutchinson, mentioned the story as related by his father one GWTH, which included the payment of five pounds, so it certainly was Fairclough related.
Regards Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Ben,
not have been fairclough related of course

[Sam Flynn]

Yes, but then I countered that by listing a whole host of striking differences, Fish.

Correction, Ben - and with respect - you listed a whole host of differences that you perceived, and which you deemed to be striking; something which was easily countered by examples of real-life signatures (my own included), each of which deviated rather more when compared with...



and...



and...




Topping and Hutch's writing appears in each of the above montages. I challenge anyone of a truly objective disposition to conclude that there can be very little doubt that it was the same hand responsible for all of them.