Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[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]

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

[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]

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

[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

[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,

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]

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

[babybird67]

Mike

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

I am utterly disappointed in seeing such a posting from you.

I have no ‘agenda’ at all, yet I remain unconvinced by the evidence put forward to suggest that Hutch and Toppy were one and the same person. Am I intellectually dishonest? No, I’m not, I just disagree with you, and perhaps have higher standards of proof. If you condemn intellectual disagreement as ‘just this side of evil’, I am beginning to worry about which brand of ethics you believe in. Remember we are posting about a serial killer and mutilator of women...get your idea of evil in perspective!

You and Sam continue to point to a list of alleged co-incidences which shore up your ‘belief’ that an identification has been made. Among these are vicinity, age, name…the problem, as I see it, is that numerous ‘Mary Kellys’ have been found in the same vicinity, of the same age, with obviously the same name…what is preventing these Marys being identified as THE Mary? Because there is no proof. But surely, having the same name, living in the same area and being of the same age must be ‘evidence’ that they were the same person? Nope. In an age when names were almost as fluid as liquid, it seems, even a name cannot be ‘proof’ of anything. Sam…how many Marys have you found both in London and Wales that match a number of details that we believe we know about Mary Jane Kelly? What is preventing us identifying her from these details…conclusively identifying her, as you appear to be doing with Toppy and Hutch?

Don’t bring in the other factors:

Anecdotal evidence: does not withstand intellectual scrutiny, and to claim it does is more intellectually dishonest than what I am doing, which is maintaining a consistent position of being unconvinced on the present evidence. Reg said Toppy made a comparison between Astrakhan and Lord Churchill…even those details don’t match up with what we know. He was allegedly offered money for his story. Does this not mar at all the provenance of what you are claiming supports ‘evidence’ and ‘fact’? It does for me. This is inadmissible.

Occupation: if anything occupation supports my stance. Hutch the witness never referred to himself as a plumber. He said he was a groom/labourer/night watchman. How can you possibly ignore this, and even more alarming, how can you possibly list ‘occupation’ as a factor which gives any credence to your ‘belief’? Absolutely astounding.

Signatures: the most recent professional appraisal of them states that in that professional’s opinion, the signatures do not match. They do not match for me, Garry, Ben, and several other contributors. This is not ‘agenda’ or ‘intellectual dishonesty’; indeed it would be intellectually dishonest just to agree with you for the sake of peace.

Once again, the burden or onus of proving a positive match is upon those who claim there is one, not on those of us who believe the case has not been proven, for the simple logical reason that you cannot prove a negative.

You haven’t proven anything, and dragging the discussion down into insults and sneering doesn’t help your case.

Jen

[Sam Flynn]

You and Sam continue to point to a list of alleged co-incidences

Where, then, is the equivalent list of alleged* coincidences for the "non-Topping" candidate?

* Not that there's anything "alleged" about them. What Mike wrote as facts earlier are precisely that - facts; the sort of things which are conspicuous by their absence from the perspective of "non-Topping's" existence.

which shore up your ‘belief’ that an identification has been made.

In my case, it's most definitely not a "belief" - I shun such quaint constructs - but a reasoned conclusion based on a number of cumulative factors, not least the remarkable similarity of a whole bunch of signatures captured independently over a period of more than two decades.

Like Mike, I am completely and utterly baffled why anyone, in all objectivity, should not come to the same reasoned conclusion.

[Dorian Gray]

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

Mike,

Thank you for your reply. My apologies for not replying quicker, but my server has been acting oddly.

By listing the points above, you have illustrated my point. You are attempting to prove "Hutchinson is Toppy," not me. The onus remains on proponents to prove their hypothesis--not beyond a shadow of a doubt, that standard is too strict for this line of inquiry, but let's say by a preponderance of the scientific evidence.

I have not equated this hypothesis with a hoax, but have stated the scientific standard this hypothesis must meet. That standard has not been met: "coincidental information whose weight is heavily unbalanced in the direction of Hutch being Toppy," is insufficient.

You have listed six points to try and confirm your hypothesis or to, "show [me]:"

Point 1, Vicinity: reviewing the population totals (Septic Blue's post http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=3386 is excellent (his related work has also been illuminating), as is the simple, excellent population density example provided by Sam Flynn ( http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...lation+density ), two names are not overwhelming evidence at this point in time. Babybird67's point in post #534 concerning, "Mary Kellys" is an excellent parallel. This evidence also makes me wary of a confirmation bias.

Points 2 and 3: Both points are based on Reginald Hutchinson's anecdotal evidence, and I reject it. It is bad scholarship--evidence of the desperate, as I called it in my previous post (#532). Moreover, anecdotal evidence often creates and leads to a confirmation bias.

Point 4, the signatures: A new, independent, published examination by a forensic handwriting examiner would serve your purposes far better than the method you suggest.

At this point we have one formal examination by Sue Iremonger, though it has apparently been rejected by the proponents of the, "Hutchinson is Toppy" hypothesis. Until another expert, formally publishes an analysis, I will side with Iremonger's conclusions. Yet, I would like to read the proponents' reasoning for rejecting her analysis. If the reasoning is scientifically sound, I would be more than willing to move the signatures into the undecided category.

Point 5, the census: The arguments presented by Sam Flynn, Garry Wroe, and others concerning how one would list their occupation for the census, and the apprenticeship process, is fascinating reading and has not confirmed the "Hutchinson is Toppy" hypothesis. To be honest, I prefer Garry's stance at this point, but unfortunately the discussion has not been resumed--I hope to read more in the future.

Point 6: If any part of your hypothesis fails due to scientific evidence then the hypothesis must reformulated and retested. If unrealistic arguments are being used, then those arguments can be set aside: opinion cancels out opinion, and speculation is not scientific evidence.

At this time, the hypothesis, "Hutchinson is Toppy' is disconfirmed. Provide solid scientific evidence proving Hutchinson is Toppy, and I'll happily sing your praises and, more importantly, buy the first round.

Regards,

Dorian

[The Good Michael]

Dorian,

I (er... we and evidence (you know what I mean))have proven that there is no one else that we know of that can be him. Now, you prove that there is someone else. Until you can, we have Toppy only. That is as good as it gets right now. You may be able to create all sorts of scenarios about a different Hutchinson such as, it's an alias, or he had no permanent residence, or he didn't stick around after he murdered Kelly, or any such thing, but that would all be absolutely wild and unprovable speculation. We have proven, with extant evidence, that it really can be no one else. Find another George Hutchinson who matches. I double dog dare you.

Mike

[Dorian Gray]

Dorian,

I (er... we and evidence (you know what I mean))have proven that there is no one else that we know of that can be him. Now, you prove that there is someone else. Until you can, we have Toppy only. That is as good as it gets right now. You may be able to create all sorts of scenarios about a different Hutchinson such as, it's an alias, or he had no permanent residence, or he didn't stick around after he murdered Kelly, or any such thing, but that would all be absolutely wild and unprovable speculation. We have proven, with extant evidence, that it really can be no one else. Find another George Hutchinson who matches. I double dog dare you.

Mike

Mike,

Thank you for reply.

I stand by my post above, and my reply to your points.

You write, "you may be able to create all sorts of scenarios about a different Hutchinson such as, it's an alias, or he had no permanent residence, or he didn't stick around after he murdered Kelly, or any such thing, but that would all be absolutely wild and unprovable speculation."

I have not stated, written, or tendered such speculation, and I would ask that you do not, under any circumstances, attributed those notions to me.

I have replied to your questions, and stated my position concerning the evidence offered, nothing more.

You wrote that your evidence is based upon, "coincidental information whose weight is heavily unbalanced in the direction of Hutch being Toppy." That is far below the scientific standard of evidence that is required to prove your hypothesis.

Once again, I will repeat my stance: the onus of scientific proof lies with the proponents of the, "Hutchinson is Toppy" hypothesis, not the other way around.

Regards,

Dorian

[lynn cates]

suggestion

Hello Dorian. Since a good deal turns on the handwriting proffered, permit me to suggest a few interested parties chipping in and retaining a neutral graphologist (by this I am not impugning any previous professional's neutral status--indeed, I accept that neutrality without reservation) and see what probabilities are offered.

That should be interesting whichever way the analysis goes.

The best.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Dorian,

Scientific analysis, in the way you want it to be used, can never be used in a situation like this. Attempts at some sort of logical conclusions are the only things possible. There are no sciences at work here. Things like handwriting analysis are always flawed and experts have been shown to be no better than laymen at times. What you expect is an impossibility. With that in mind, what you have been presented with is quite possibly as much evidence as anyone will ever have. In this method, unscientific though it might be, it should be enough for anyone. If it isn't, then nothing can change certain minds. It is for that reason that I am of the opinion that there has been far too much frontloading of Hutchinson guilt- theorizing, for certain people to come back to the same place of logic that I am. To be sure, I wish Hutchinson were guilty. I wish there was even any small thing that showed him to be guilty of murder. There isn't and so I can't be done with this. I can only use utterly sound logic to try to get the message through.

Cheers,

Mike