Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[The Good Michael]

Lynn,

Not a graphologist. They look for personality quirks and that sort of thing. They are kind of like palm readers and other frauds.

Cheers,

Mike

[Dorian Gray]

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

Lynn,

An interesting notion, and one I have considered. I would be more than willing to contribute.

Not to nitpick, but we would need an independent forensic handwriting examiner not a graphologist. The examiner should* be familiar with Victorian era hand writing, subjected to peer review for verification, and examine the original documents.

A wonderful straightforward solution, though the logistics could prove difficult.

Thank you, Lynn.

Regards,

Dorian

*edit: I removed the word 'preferably.'

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Dorian. I was unaware of the distinction and hence used the term loosely. I regret the error.

I looked at some sites a few months back (in a very different aspect of this case) and noted that some seemed rather exorbitant. Perhaps some others would be willing to contribute and perhaps a choice could be unanimous? (Too optimistic?)

The best.
LC

[babybird67]

Sam

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

Which non-Topping candidate are you referring to? Are you suggesting once more the onus should be on us to prove a negative? If you want a non-Topping candidate, you can have Sarah Lewis for a start, I propose she wasn’t Hutchinson, or Topping, for that matter. Does that help?

You know very well we don’t have a ‘non- Topping candidate’, Sam, we just have your own offered candidate as Topping for Hutch which is based on your ‘belief’ (you can shun what you like, until something is proven it remains a belief) that the evidence put forward to support his candidacy is sufficient to convince you. That’s your prerogative of course, as it is mine to remain unconvinced, without being accused of being either intellectually dishonest or evil, accusations which are patently ridiculous when discussing a disagreement such as this one.

* 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.

They are alleged, Sam, in the sense that you are taking them as proof of the identity of an entirely separate person from the one to whom they refer. They are only factual when pertaining to the individual concerned...they become 'alleged' facts when lifted from that individual and applied elsewhere. By the way, what is a non-Topping existence? Nobody disputes Topping existed! We are disputing your identification of Topping with Hutchinson, which, to our minds, is made on the basis of insufficient evidence! I don't dispute that Christ existed either, but i thoroughly refute his identification as the Son of God!

Mike even lists occupation as one of these 'evidential' co-incidences…where, pray, is the original Hutchinson EVER referred to, in any contemporary document, anywhere, as a plumber? As far as I can remember, and I stand to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than myself, he was not. This, then, is not a co-incidence, is it; it is a factor which weighs heavily against the identification, yet is dismissed by you and Mike in favour of other ‘evidence’ such as the Reg/Toppy story, utterly anecdotal, unproven, and unfit to be cited as ‘evidence’, especially when the details of the story are subject to any kind of detailed scrutiny. Please, if accusations of intellectual dishonesty are being bandied around, apply them fairly, to the Topping family story ‘belief’ and the absolutely crazy idea that there is any co relational factor between Hutchinson’s occupation and Toppy's, neither of which is borne out by facts.

I note you failed to address my points that you have identified many women with co-incidences of name, locality and age, in your search for Mary Kelly; if these said co-incidences between Hutchinson and Topping are sufficient to convince you that you have found Hutchinson, why have you dismissed all these Marys from being THE Mary we seek? You are arguing they are enough in one case, but not in the other?

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

You are entitled to be baffled Sam. Mike is entitled to be baffled. However, bafflement does not appear to be his problem. He is not baffled, rather confidently sure that anyone who disagrees with the Topping/Hutchinson ’identification’ is doing so not because they honestly believe something different to you, but because they are evil and being intellectually dishonest and deliberately obtuse. I can assure you this is not the case, nor do I appreciate being accused of it. I thoroughly respect yours, and Mike’s, right to come to different conclusions to myself when evaluating the evidence we have at our disposal without feeling the need to be abusive to either of you. It is a shame such respect cannot be reciprocated. Arguments which stand on their own merits do not require recourse to slurs or slanders.

As an aside, has anyone submitted a ground-breaking article or book anywhere stating that Hutchinson has been conclusively identified as being George William Topping Hutchinson? No? Why not, if the case has been proven? Surely this would be a landmark in Ripperology? Or perhaps it would be classed as ‘intellectually dishonest’ to claim any such thing, on the current evidence available?

Mike...read my signature piece...absolutely apt for the situation we find ourselves in here, i believe.

[The Good Michael]

As an aside, has anyone submitted a ground-breaking article or book anywhere stating that Hutchinson has been conclusively identified as being George William Topping Hutchinson? No? Why not, if the case has been proven?

Perhaps because there have only been fabulous books that regarded Hutchinson as an evil-doer which many people have read, agreed with, and now refuse to excise like the cancerous growth this pretend knowledge has become. All this about Toppy being Hutch is very new and has evolved right here on this stage and everyone should be thankful that it has. Yet, some remain in denial. There really is no need for a book because we don't know so much about Topping's life, and the way so many have disparaged the family name through nothing more than BS conjecture, it's doubtful that any family members will want to play in our reindeer games.

By the way, Raleigh wasn't a good guy. I wouldn't quote the man.

Cheers,

Mike

[Dorian Gray]

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

Mike,

Thank you for your reply.

If evidence can not meet a scientific standard (I set a reasonable standard in post #536, second paragraph) then it is no longer evidence but speculation, opinion, and belief. If one can not meet that standard of evidence, it's time to reformulate the hypothesis.

What other measure would one responsibly use to formally confirm their hypothesis, and have it withstand the scrutiny of their peers?

Although it might take years of hard work, and the ability to reject disconfirmed hypotheses and start anew, I firmly believe that one can discover scientific evidence or conclude that the scientific evidence does not exist--the latter's value is as important as the former. Look at the mountains evidence that has been uncovered in the last twenty years for inspiration: the Dutfield's Yard photograph is an excellent, recent example of what can be discovered.

"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."

Given these statements, I am wary of the confirmation bias at work, though this second hypothesis should, in fairness, be labelled, "Hutchinson is guilty of murder." I am not arguing that you are helping to facilitate what you call the, "frontloading of Hutchinson guilt-theorizing," but that your wishes, stated above, indicate a predisposition concerning Hutchinson and, in turn, influence the weight of the evidence you have presented.

You have resorted to logic to, "get your message through," however the evidence provided is, at this point, far below the scientific standard to confirm the hypothesis, "Hutchinson is Toppy."

Mike, I sincerely hope you find the scientific evidence to prove your hypothesis.

Regards,

Dorian

[Dorian Gray]

Hello Dorian. I was unaware of the distinction and hence used the term loosely. I regret the error.

I looked at some sites a few months back (in a very different aspect of this case) and noted that some seemed rather exorbitant. Perhaps some others would be willing to contribute and perhaps a choice could be unanimous? (Too optimistic?)

The best.
LC

Lynn,

I have no idea what a forensic handwriting examiner would charge, but I imagine it would be expensive--specialists usually charge an arm and a leg for their expertise.

Too optimistic? Possibly. It would take a great deal of momentum to undertake such an experiment, and so far we don't have a line-up.

Regards,

Dorian

[lynn cates]

costs

Hello Dorian. Right. These chaps are quite expensive and hence a rather large pool would be required to help defray expenses.

I also fear that, whichever side were vindicated, the other would disagree.

In the meantime, happy hunting to both sides.

The best.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Here's something from the Straight Dope about handwriting analysis:

No forensic technique has taken more hits than handwriting analysis. In one particularly devastating federal ruling, United States v. Saelee (2001), the court noted that forensic handwriting analysis techniques had seldom been tested, and that what testing had been done "raises serious questions about the reliability of methods currently in use." The experts were frequently wrong--in one test "the true positive accuracy rate of laypersons was the same as that of handwriting examiners; both groups were correct 52 percent of the time." The most basic principles of handwriting analysis--for example, that everyone's handwriting is unique--had never been demonstrated. "The technique of comparing known writings with questioned documents appears to be entirely subjective and entirely lacking in controlling standards," the court wrote. Testimony by the government's handwriting expert was ruled inadmissible.

This is what several of us have been trying to say. We can all do it. Things like aging documents and detecting alterations require some expertise and tools, but all the rest seems to be based upon what the naked eye can tell. Look at the "Diary" for example. No one can conclusively say anything about it that satisfies everyone. In what I see, the similarities are far too great for chance. There really should be no argument against that, but there is. If someone wants to argue fraud, that's a different matter. This debate will never end, but I know the answer and that suffices for me. As a teacher, I know that I can't make everyone learn as hard as I might try. There comes a time where one simply must be satisfied in the knowing. I'm pretty much there.

Cheers,

Mike

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Good. Thanks for that. I'd no idea. Well, perhaps my suggestion should be scuttled?

The best.
LC

[Garry Wroe]

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.

You shall, Dorian. Meantime, I would like to express my gratitude for your objective, eloquent and erudite contributions. Long may they continue.

Perhaps because there have only been fabulous books that regarded Hutchinson as an evil-doer which many people have read, agreed with, and now refuse to excise like the cancerous growth this pretend knowledge has become.

‘Pretend knowledge’? As an author of one of those books and the first person to question Hutchinson’s then accepted status as an honest and relieble witness, I would point out, Michael, that Hutchinson has been demonstrated to have been a liar by virtue of the fact that he gave conflicting versions of events to the police and press. During the course of my researches I also discovered that, contrary to his official version of events, Hutchinson admitted in a press interview to having wandered into Miller’s Court where he stood outside Mary Kelly’s room. This placed him at a crime scene at a time critical to Kelly’s murder. Perhaps you think it likely that he was merely checking the plumbing, but in any competent modern murder investigation, any such revelation would be sufficient to raise considerable investigative suspicion.

There really is no need for a book because we don't know so much about Topping's life, and the way so many have disparaged the family name through nothing more than BS conjecture, it's doubtful that any family members will want to play in our reindeer games.

Given that there are legitimate suspicions attached to George Hutchinson, the people who have really ‘disparaged the family name through nothing more than BS conjecture’ are those who insist that Hutchinson and Toppy were the same man. But for this position, Toppy would be regarded by most sensible people as a decent, hard-working family man who did no more than regale his children with urban folk tales on cold, dark winter nights.

Garry Wroe.

[babybird67]

for Dorian...I echo Garry's sentiments. Your postings are a pleasure to read.

For Mike:

Perhaps because there have only been fabulous books that regarded Hutchinson as an evil-doer which many people have read, agreed with, and now refuse to excise like the cancerous growth this pretend knowledge has become.

Who are these ‘people’ Mike, about whom you know so much, down to their motivations and the workings of their minds? For the umpteenth time, please listen up, and wise up, I have not read any books yet regarding Hutchinson’s candidacy as the Ripper, therefore I don’t ‘agree’ with them, nor have I ever said I regard Hutchinson as the Ripper, nor do I espouse any ‘pretend’ knowledge, which is why I strongly repudiate your contention that there is any factual co-incidence between Toppy’s occupation and Hutchinson’s which is patently FALSE.

Everyone here has the right to evaluate the evidence as it stands and come to their own ‘reasoned’ conclusions; those on the ‘identification not proven’ side of the fence have offered such reasoned conclusions; rebuttals from yourself have included accusations of evil and, still, as evidenced by your reply to my posting above, in which you glibly bypass all the objections to your own beliefs regarding Toppy, accusations of perverted agenda. You may like to remember that when I was compiling my poll to ask people had the extant evidence convinced them an identification had been established, none other than Rob Clack, whom I respect immensely, suggested a category was missing: to wit, the possibility of Toppy being Hutch did not have a cat’s chance in hell of being true. I wondered for a moment which ‘author’ it was you were attempting to malign when you slyly slipped in your rather uncalled for comments of author agenda…perhaps you would care to elaborate on them for us? Either way, whether you meant Garry or Rob, I am happy to be in such good company in my wayward analysis of the data presented.

All this about Toppy being Hutch is very new and has evolved right here on this stage and everyone should be thankful that it has.

Everyone is thankful, for new information which can be evaluated and discussed. Discussed, Mike; not have the discussion silenced by people’s whose logic stretches only to “I believe it, ergo so must you,” which is not particularly convincing, to be honest.

Yet, some remain in denial.

Denial is the wrong word. We remain unconvinced by the evidence.

There really is no need for a book because we don't know so much about Topping's life

Article? No? Why not? It’s new information as you have already pointed out.

By the way, Raleigh wasn't a good guy. I wouldn't quote the man.

I studied Ralegh for my M.A. I know he did things which were wrong, but he, like many historical figures, was a product of his time, and I happen to agree with his quotation that it is incumbent upon a person to follow the guidance of their conscience, not adapt their behaviour to evade the censure of people flinging around insults and trying to intimidate free speech. That was my point. I had hoped you would grasp it.

[Sam Flynn]

Everyone is thankful, for new information which can be evaluated and discussed. Discussed, Mike; not have the discussion silenced by people’s whose logic stretches only to “I believe it, ergo so must you,” which is not particularly convincing, to be honest.

Well, some of the "Toppy-as-Ripper" believers seem to be doing just that. I don't include you in their number, by the way, Jen, because...

Denial is the wrong word. We remain unconvinced by the evidence.

... you can't speak for everyone so the use of the "we" is misplaced, if typically noble, of you. There are some, however, who certainly give the impression of being in denial. The sometimes hysterical tone, the gainsaying, nitpicking and the harking back to a single [supportive] expert opinion leaves me in no doubt that there's more than a whiff of defensiveness in the air.

I think what we have seen - in some cases - is the Ripperological equivalent of the dawning realisation that Santa Claus might not exist after all.

(Of course, kiddies, he does exist really... )

[harry]

Lets look a little more at the five pound gratuity.Can we believe it was given.First of all it is a well known(or is it?)principle,in England,and was in 1888,and long before then,that a person has a responsibility to help police.In doing so they are performing a public duty,and normally expect nothing in return.

There are persons,called informers,who have to be registered as such,who do receive payment.They are rarely,if ever,identified,and are known as informers to very few people.They are not numerous,and are carefully screened as to their usefulness and knowledge.Most law enforcement agencies use them.Their payment come out of public funds,channeled normally through the agency that use them.There can also be payments,usually of a small nature, that can be paid out of what are called 'Slush'funds.They are paid on results.Rewards are usually proclaimed,are normally of a high value,and are paid on result.

Law enforcement officers can also have informants of a personnel nature,known only to themselves,and paid out of their own pocket.This practice is not encouraged by most forces.

George Hutchinson was an eye witness.There is no evidence he was any kind of a paid informer.He came forward voluntry.He could not bargain his information.He was not entitled to any reward for he produced nothing that led to an arrest and conviction.Five pounds was a large sum in those days,and it would be beyond credibility that Aberline or any other officer would have personnely paid that amount out of their own pocket.

The only sensible assumption,is that the five pounds,like the the man with the Astrakan coat,is a figment of someone's imagination.

[The Good Michael]

The only sensible assumption,is that the five pounds,like the the man with the Astrakan coat,is a figment of someone's imagination.

Why is this the only sensible solution? Why isn't exaggeration a sensible solution for both items you've mentioned? What about one exaggeration and one lie? How about one exaggeration and one assumption? How about one truth and one lie? Why do you decide what is sensible? I'm not arguing about it. I'm only suggesting that you don't have the market cornered on common sense because you say there's one answer. There are many possibilities that can make sense. Paying someone for their times makes complete sense. We know Toppy was led around by the coppers while in their custody. Coming forward in hopes of a reward makes absolute sense and has been done often and is still done every day. 5 shillings maybe? 5 pounds? Who knows?

Cheers,

Mike