Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Maggyann]

The first 3 signatures all dated 1888

Have the same capital G, a open formed e in Geo, the same not crossing of the t, a looped h and a forward stroke from the bottom of the s

The other two dated 1898 and 1911

Have the same capital G, a tightly close e in Geo, a crossed t, a stright line h, and a high crossover from the s

I don't know which ones which but those are the most obvious differences to me and I think 1/2/3 are by the same person with 4/5 being a different person.

[Observer]

Hi Maggyann

You have a remarkable insight into those signatures for one so unversed in such matters.

all the best

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

The first 3 signatures all dated 1888

That was slightly dumb of me - I meant to post a different image there. Anyhow, at least my mistake serves to prove another point. The first 3 are from the witness statement, albeit with the first and last letters "normalised" to show that it's the "meat" of the signature that's important - not the leading and trailing characters. I also made that montage to show that even handwriting experts can be fooled simply by a leading "H" into believing that someone else might have signed the first page.


Signing off this thread now... I'm getting more and more groundhog-averse as I get older.

[Observer]

Hi Gary

I don’t dismiss anyone, Observer.

Thats the most productive procedure Gary.

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.

There is never going to be any clear cut winner via the signatures, that's for sure, it's time to take them out of the equation for now I believe.

All the best

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

There is never going to be any clear cut winner via the signatures, that's for sure, it's time to take them out of the equation for now I believe.

This is what genuinely saddens me. 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. I'm not one to allow long-cherished beliefs, or bogeymen, to put me off the scent.

[Ben]

That’s an extremely unfair and illogical accusation, Gareth. My dismissal of Toppy as the witness has nothing whatsoever to do with the identity of Jack the Ripper. It has to do with what I believe to be mismatching signatures and equally mismatching biographical data, the extent of which is becoming more and more apparent as we debate as discuss this plumbing/apprenticeships issue. It’s your prerogative if you want to distance yourself, suddenly and dramatically, from any consideration that Hutchinson may have been responsible for the Kelly murder or the others, but if you’re doing so on the basis that Toppy was Hutch and Toppy was too “normal” to have killed anyone, then all I can say is that you’ve embraced a few of the fallacies that “The Good Michael” has been shamelessly espousing of late, such as the revelation that a family man with no history of violence can’t possibly be a serial killer, and that anyone who thinks otherwise must have an "agenda". Just consider Dennis Rader and other "normal" family-guy serial killers. Let me state, for the record, my belief that the real George Hutchinson would have proved perfectly capable of exuding a “meek and mild” exterior, whoever he was.

I realize I was only stating my opinion when I observed that there were a whole host of differences between the signatures provided in your montage, but in the same vein, it’s only your opinion that these were “easily countered by examples of real-life signatures”. As I’ve stated previously, I don’t think they were countered at all, and I certainly didn’t think there was any significant differences between your own handwriting samples.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Sam

Time for another bogus document examiner to toddle off to Kew methinks Any takers?

All the best

Observer

[Garry Wroe]

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. I'm not one to allow long-cherished beliefs, or bogeymen, to put me off the scent.

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?

From a personal perspective, my own reservations are driven by neither preconceptions nor wish fulfillment. They arise as a consequence of the samples under scrutiny. But since this subject is distinctly off-topic, I'll leave it there.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

[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.