Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
The reason why it is so vital we establish the true identity of Hutch is, if for instance,it is proved beyond doubt that Topping was the witness, then we could apply some common sense.
Lets face it, if it was not for Reg, going along with Fairclough by describing his fathers description as 'someone like Churchill [ senior] we would have no reason to doubt his recollections.
But that was what his father described him as similar to... that is not to say the ludricous suggestion that he was.
With respect to the late Reg,a source leaves me to understand , that the reason he told his story to Fairclough, was the assurance that if the book 'did well' he would receive a chunk of money.
That i should add, does not imply any invented material, and I still have every faith that young Gwth, aged 22years was the man, who spoke to kelly that morning, and who witnessed the event, which we all still discuss to this day, and its just a question [ at least to me] .
Did hutchinsons man kill Mary Kelly?
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

That i should add, does not imply any invented material, and I still have every faith that young Gwth, aged 22years was the man, who spoke to kelly that morning, and who witnessed the event.

Hi Richard,
I'm afraid I have to disagree.
Maybe one day, experts will convince me that Toppy has signed the 12 Nov deposition, but still, Hutch's account will be suspicious in the extreme, and I wouldn't be sure that Toppy-Hutch had spoken to Kelly, nor had witnessed any event involving any jewish or 'churchillian' Astrakan Man.
I will simply think, thanks to Sarah Lewis, that Toppy was the loiterer.

Amitiés Richard,
David

[Ben]

Hi Dave,

Yes, I accept your point about the age. I'd be very surprised if Jack the Ripper was as young as 22.

Fortunately, the preponderance of expert opinion to date subscribes to the view that Toppy was not the witness, so without disrespecting or disregarding alternative views, I'd say we're in pretty good company!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Fortunately, the preponderance of expert opinion to date subscribes to the view that Toppy was not the witness

Note: to date, we have only ONE expert opinion, and - with sincere respect - that of an old person with a BSc in something-other-than forensic document examination (for which no such BSc exists), who compared only two signatures. I gave you 11 earlier - judge for yourselves. NEON! *


* No Expert Opinion Necessary

[DVV]

Hi Sam,
No expert opinion necessary?
I'm not sure.
I see some letters match, some don't.
And what am I to conclude?
An expert can say: "these two handwritings are close enough to conclude that they are from the same hand."
Whether: "they are somehow similar, but not enough to be sure of anything."
I personally can't draw such conclusions with certainty.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Sue Iremonger is irrefutably and unquestionably a professional expert in document examination, Gareth, and while I've no doubt that your respect was sincere, her age has nothing to do with it, except perhaps to highlight the extent of his experience. She didn't compre "only two" signatures. She compared the Toppy marriage certificate signature with all three witness signatures.

I gave you 11 earlier - judge for yourselves.

Not a match, according to my judgement for what it's worth.

Expert Opinion Essential.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam,
No expert opinion necessary?
I'm not sure.
I see some letters match, some don't.
And what am I to conclude?

Whether they look sufficiently alike to have been from the same person.

An expert can say: "these two handwritings are close enough to conclude that they are from the same hand."

An expert cannot conclude that, any more than you or I, Dave - they can ultimately only offer a subjective opinion.

[Sam Flynn]

Not a match, according to my judgement for what it's worth.

You're allowing your deep-seated desire to damn Toppy at every turn to cloud your judgement, Ben.

Expert Opinion Essential.

Wrong. The sort of "expert" you're looking for doesn't exist. Or, rather, it exists 6 billion times over on this planet. 12 billion times, if you count both eyes.

[Ben]

My observations were correct and correct respectively, as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not trying to damn Toppy; I'm just calling 'em as I sees 'em, and as should be patently obvious, I'm not the only one who recognises the value in expert insight, just as I'm not the only one who recognises that there are professional experts whose insight would impact directly on this comparison.

[DVV]

An expert cannot conclude that, any more than you or I, Dave - they can ultimately only offer a subjective opinion.

I see what you mean, Sam, and if you prefer, I can replace "conclude" by "think" or "guess" (I will never call graphology a "science exacte", of course).
Whatever, if an expert can't "conclude", how can you? (since you categorically identify Toppy as the witness)

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

David,

I would respectfully suggest that we all sign our names on 20 separate pieces of paper and then compare them. It is my belief that our signatures, if given to an impartial audience, would be at least as different as Toppy's and Hutch's, and quite probably more different. What would that prove? It would prove that the similarities greatly outweigh the differences, and that's all. A secondary connection might be that Toppy and George are the same man, or are most likely to be the same man. It boggles the mind how we cannot see eye to eye on this. I would also suggest that many of us have no blinders on with regards to whether or not George was some nefarious character. We really don't care. We just have reasoned out that of all the signatures we have seen, and given dates that more or less work out, and even given some anecdotal evidence from Reginald, Toppy seems to be the man. Without anything but the signatures, Toppy still seems to be the man. Believe me, I would love it if we found out that Hutch was the Ripper and the case could be closed. The reality seems to be something much less nefarious than that.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

A secondary connection might be that Toppy and George are the same man, or are most likely to be the same man. It boggles the mind how we cannot see eye to eye on this.

Hi Mike,

The professional handwriting analysts who examined the signatures and came to the conslusion that Toppy was NOT the witness certainly didn't have any blinders or biases when they made their comparison and arrived at their conclusion. They certainly wouldn't have subscribed to the view that Hutchinson was a nefarious character.

Toppy's signatures reveal remarkably consistency over a ten year-plus period, and theu include elements that are effectively polar opposites to what we see in the witness signatures. The "evidence" is an additonal factor against Toppy being the witness, as far as I'm concerned.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I'm not the only one who recognises the value in expert insight.

The trick is knowing when that expert insight should be applied.

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

You use the term 'polar opposite' quite gratuitously here. I see similarities between all the signatures, including the Lambeth one. I do not see polar opposites, and neither did these document examiners. They said, or at least one said, they were of the opinion that... That is hardly polar opposite, is it? That is not even close to saying "I can say without reservation that these signatures were not done by the same person." That would be polar opposite. In my mind, the inability to say for sure, or to be reluctant to say with assuredness anything about the signatures, tells me that they aren't sure. I am sure and you are sure. THAT is polar opposite. The difference is, I have no stake in it. Can you say the same thing about yourself? Please don't take that rhetorical question as an insult. It is my viewpoint and I am seriously looking for reasons that would place us so far apart on this issue.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

I would respectfully suggest that we all sign our names on 20 separate pieces of paper and then compare them. It is my belief that our signatures, if given to an impartial audience, would be at least as different as Toppy's and Hutch's, and quite probably more different. What would that prove? It would prove that the similarities greatly outweigh the differences, and that's all.

Agreed Mike,
but I wouldn't be surprized either if 2 Londoners from the same social class, who had learned how to write in the same kind of schools, with the same method, and are not used to write daily when adults, have more or less the same handwriting.

Amitiés,
David