Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[richardnunweek]

Sorry Mike,
Then that is four of us.
Taking all the facts into consideration, and allowing common sense to filter through, how on earth are so many members still being negative?
[ 1] The signature comparisons.
[2] The fact that only one Hutchinson has ever introduced himself
[3] The fact is that person Was GWTH
[4] The fact that one of his proven sons Reg, made it known on two occassions in the media[ although only one can be proved]
[5] The fact that the woman married to Toppings nephew has stated on Casebook, that her father-in-law also knew of that encounter back in 1888
If one takes[1] and allies that with the others, my opinion is. why are we not all in agreement?
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Hi again Richard,
I guess we can list 5 objections against Toppy as well.
Just ask Ben, or check his previous posts.

Amitiés,
David

[richardnunweek]

Hello David,
The problem with Toppings relatives is obvious... they [ like most of us would be] are reluctant to involve themselves into being used as cannon fodder, for the many gunslingers on Casebook.
I have made it absolutely clear to JD, that i genuinely belief her husbands uncle was being honest, and i am sure she understands that, however JD/Nunners, versus the legions of Casebook, would result in a one sided argument, would it not?.
Richard.

[richardnunweek]

Hi David,
I am fully aware of all of Bens posts, and his reasons for his beliefs.
The fact is, if all of us could be transported back in time to the early hours of 9th November 1888, we would be able to watch for ourselves the sequence of events, and i bet you a pound to a penny, we would be amazed how wrong we all were.
Richard.

[Crystal]

Hi Fisherman

I think your'e barking up the wrong tree here. What you suggest with regard to Toppy is possible, but we have no evidence that it was the case. The evidence we do have suggests the contrary. I take your point about one time period not proving the other, but what you are doing here is to take a possibility and present it as a probability. There is no foundation for that belief.

Since you ask, I would say, in this period, in this social milieu, that a persons' hand had often crystallised (there - the opportunity for lots more lame jokes!) by the age that Toppy was when the witness made his statement (without prejudice as to identity). However, there are many and varying physical factors that can affect a person's hand - I will not be drawn into a lengthy debate concerning this area I don't think - it is all too complicated as it is.

I would say that I have not drawn any firm, final or definitive conclusions on the identity of the witness as yet. Please do not imply that I have.

Another thing that occurs to me - Toppy would is unlikely to have been listed as a plumber in 1881, since he was 14 at the time. Thus the fact that this reference appears later is irrelevant. He could have been trained as a plumber from the beginning of his adult life, and never done anything else for a trade - and we would be none the wiser.

Trying to make the evidence fit your theory is poor practice. Equating routine cynicism with intelligence is erroneous, and shouting longest and loudest doesn't confer any victory in debate. It's known elsewhere as Alpha Baboon Syndrome.

Those are just general observations, of course, I don't mean to imply anybody in particular. I do feel, however, that this debate has descended into digital street fighting, and I think its time we all took a step back and had a good look at where this is going.

You may have come here for a slanging match, Fisherman. I didn't.

[DVV]

Hi David,
I am fully aware of all of Bens posts, and his reasons for his beliefs.
The fact is, if all of us could be transported back in time to the early hours of 9th November 1888, we would be able to watch for ourselves the sequence of events, and i bet you a pound to a penny, we would be amazed how wrong we all were.
Richard.

Maybe so Richard,
but I doubt I'd see Astrakhan Man, sincerely.
I can understand the feelings of Toppy's relatives, but they have to understand in turn, if they have some interest in the case, that their so-called "family tradition" (ie: R. Churchill) is completely ridiculous and has nothing to do with the real Hutchinson.
Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"I take your point about one time period not proving the other, but what you are doing here is to take a possibility and present it as a probability."

With all due respect, Crystal, it is the other way around totally. I have not said that Toppys handwriting must have loooked like this or like that back in 1888. My whole argument is based on the simple fact that we cannot know how it looked! We cannot say if it would have displayed altered elements of style, and to what degree these alterations would be there. We can know effectively nothing about it.
And that, Crystal, is NOT to present a possibility as a probability. It is to acknowledge that we are at a loss when it comes to our chances of coming up with any sort of functioning suggestion about changing elements of style involved in his signature in 1888.

In accordance with this, it is of course absolutely unviable to say - as you seem to do - that there is any measurable probability for the elements of style having been consistent throughout that decade. When and if you do so, then THAT is what amounts to building a probability out of a possibility!
Maybe it was a good possibility. Maybe it was never there at all. We cannot know.

So please, Crystal, let´s be honest about this and admit that you are the one who is trying to inject probability into an untenable suggestion here - not me. I keep saying that we don´t know, and that is not to suggest anything at all.

"I would say, in this period, in this social milieu, that a persons' hand had often crystallised (there - the opportunity for lots more lame jokes!) by the age that Toppy was when the witness made his statement"

I asked a little more than that, Crystal - I asked not for any given exact time after which no changes were to be expected - for that will change from individual to individual - but for a comparison of the twenties in relation to the thirties and the forties; if there were changes, in which of these three periods were they more likely to appear? It is another question than the one you answered, as you will surely appreciate!

"I would say that I have not drawn any firm, final or definitive conclusions on the identity of the witness as yet. Please do not imply that I have."

Point taken.

"Another thing that occurs to me - Toppy would is unlikely to have been listed as a plumber in 1881, since he was 14 at the time. Thus the fact that this reference appears later is irrelevant."

If you change the "is" to a "may be" you will be correct. As it stands, you are not - for we cannot tell if it was irrelevant, can we? If we do so, we do exactly what you warn against - we turn a possibility into a probability.

"Trying to make the evidence fit your theory is poor practice. Equating routine cynicism with intelligence is erroneous, and shouting longest and loudest doesn't confer any victory in debate."

Exactly. So those who state that they have the stamina to outlast anybody, are in fact going about things in the wrong way altogether. It never WAS about "stamina" - it was about getting it correct. And having all the stamina in the world does not make you correct.
This should be read in connection with the sentence: "You may have come here for a slanging match, Fisherman."
I have not - I detest such things. But I also detest keeping quiet in the face of misinformation, and I loathe the idea of being bullied into giving up a my right to argue a case that I think is very fair.

I have been painted out as a liar, I have been called desperate and it has been implied that I have no own knowledge, and that I turn to wild goosechases on the internet whenever I need to argue a case.
Well, it just so hapens that I am no liar.
And it just so happens that I am in no way desperate.
And it just so happens that I have studied the Ripper case for decades.
And it just so happens that I have an education - and decades of experience - that makes me a very accomplished researcher into any case I wish to look at. I have done it for a living at one of the largest Swedish newspapers since the beginning of the 1980's.

And what does this do for me? Well, among other things, it makes me able to pinpoint the most important detail in your post, Crystal. It is where you say "What you suggest with regard to Toppy is possible".

That is the exact point on which all speculation about how Toppys 1888 signature would have looked must rest - what I suggest is perfectly possible: there may have been changes, small or big, indecisive or radical to the elements of style. We-do-not-know! Do we, Crystal? And in accordance with this, there is no possible way in which the alterations of style we see between the police report signature and Toppys signatures, written 10-23 years later, can be said to preclude that the signatures were written by the same hand.
After that, other examinations of details that are not apparent to the bare eye - such as for example pen pressure - may have information to add that can in some fashion change all of this. But that is another story.

The best, Crystal!

Fisherman

[DVV]

Please all, this thread is important, don't kill it with personal attacks.
We don't care if X or Y is desperate, we don't care if X or Y is angry.
What we care about is that: have we found Hutch ?
We've all read very long posts about handwritings. Some think the signatures make a perfect match, some don't, some hesitate.
Isn't that enough?
Now I want to ask:
How can a genuine witness provide an incredible story?
Do Toppy's biography, age, etc, fit - with the little we know, or can guess about Hutch ?

Amitiés all,
David

ps: Fish, sorry about my misunderstanding. I've dreamt I was David Knott. Just like Toppy has dreamt he was Hutch...?

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"I've dreamt I was David Knott. Just like Toppy has dreamt he was Hutch...?"

So YOU´RE David Knott!!?? Who would have thought it?

...and he asks:

"Do Toppy's biography, age, etc, fit - with the little we know, or can guess about Hutch ?"

Nothing precludes the possibility that Toppy was Hutch when it comes to his biography and age, David. So what little we KNOW opens up for the possibility.
What we can GUESS however ... Nope, I won´t even go there!

The best!
Fisherman

[Crystal]

You've missed the point Fisherman. Maybe Ben can explain it to you next time he posts. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than trade insults on a public forum.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"You've missed the point Fisherman. Maybe Ben can explain it to you next time he posts. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have better things to do than trade insults on a public forum."

I do hope you are not referring to my post to you, Crystal, for in contained no such thing. If you feel it did, I would very much like you to point it out to me, and I will try to set things straight.

There were, however, a few bits you have left unanswered, and I hope you will answer them for me.
So please let me know if any misunderstanding connected with my last post lies in the way for your continued participation. I will clear it up immediately, and if you feel you are entitled to an excuse you shall have one - if you will only point out to me what the excuse should relate to.

I am sure that Ben will have things to say, but as we all know, it would seem that you are the one who has a superior status when it comes to questions of signature comprehension.

The best,
Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

Hi,
The fact is only three Sam, Fisherman, and yours truely believe Topping was Hutchinson of Ripper fame, and everyone else rejects.
Its however sad, that only a handful or so posters, take part in this thread.,

none of us want to get involved that's why, look at the state of this thread, it's more hassle than it's worth

[The Good Michael]

Now I want to ask:
How can a genuine witness provide an incredible story?
Do Toppy's biography, age, etc, fit - with the little we know, or can guess about Hutch ?

David,

The problem is this: Toppy's biography at it's barest level, without any of the "Royal Conspiracy", but including his age, social class, and even general vicinity do fit with George. Everything can be objected to, but at minimum, these things fit. It's perfectly fine to look for flies in the ointment, but the basic facts as can be perceived on a surface level, point to Hutch and Toppy quite possibly being the same man. I say, "Quite possibly." There is always room for doubt. If one has the idea that Hutch is at least a killer, and at most a serial murderer, everything becomes refutable.

One point about the "Royal Conspiracy" or the idea as Toppy was supposed to have suggested that the Whitechapel murders were the work of someone(s) of the highest level. This smacks to me of residue left over from Astrakhan Man, as a tale that grew in it's telling over time. Much like I have suggested that Hutch's story after 3 days of mulling it over and talking to his mates, must have grown. This idea does not negate the plausibility of Reginald being Hutch's son, though some would have it so.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

You should not read to much into my using capital letters, really; that is just an element of style, and such things change.

Not in your case they, don't!

We cannot know. Period two excerts no influence over period one

But periods two and three, if registering extreme consistency with eachother despite their being so far apart, inevitably impacts upon period one. Toppy's consistency over a 13-year period tells is immediately is extremely informative in that regard. If he was capable of consistency then, he could was likely to be equally consistent elsehwere. So far, we only have evidence of Toppy's consistency over an extended period. Speculate all you want, but arguing that he must have changed precisely what you wanted him to have changed, when you wanted him to have changed is a long way from being the simplest explanation.

And we ONLY have that evidence from 1898 and 1911. Try and expand that, and you end up in voodoo-land.

Nope, actually we end up in Logical Inference Land.

I can teach you to use the internet if you are that envious, Ben - it is not all that hard. I have spent fourteen years doing it in my line of business, which has made me a renowned researcher in the game. I have supplied material to hundreds and thousands of newspaper articles and books and I have never met anything but respect from the colleagues who have used that material. Nor have I ever been accused for providing faulty material. In the field of searching sources, Ben, I am an expert

As honoured and unworthy as I feel to be in the presence of an "expert" Googler, Fisherman, I still feel you miss the point. It is not your ability to search for sources that I quibble with, it's the nature of the conclusions that you often draw from them. I think you latch onto errant conclusions which occasionally lean you up the garden path, and here's a case in point. Your views are clearly at odds with expert opinion here; I imagine most have realized by now that your contention that the entire style and appearance of the signature is of less importance than the leaning has no basis in reality, for example.

Oh, it does, does it? I think I have said that David Knott has stated that he has uncovered that there were East end connections in Toppys case

But he also was circumspect enough to mention the nature of these connections; one or more of his siblings were born in Essex. My father was born in Wigan; that's the top and bottom of my "connection" to Wigan.

and that things point to him not having been a plumber back in 1888.

I think you'll find that wasn't the case at all. The actual observation was that he may not have been apprenticed in the plumbing trade by his father.

Reg THOUGHT so, Ben - and that is what carries relevance here. He was not in the position to "realize" it, though. I mean, look at how much you "realize"...

Nope, I'm afraid that wasn't how the Regmeister worded it. I'll dig up the exact quote later.

There, Ben! Was that short and succinct enough for you? Or do you have any further instructions on how I should go about it?

It's getting better, but if I was to nitpick I'd avoid rhetoric such as "Did I mention it? Did I?" No need for that little echo on the end there, since you've already raised the question.

[Ben]

Hey Big Posta!

My whole argument is based on the simple fact that we cannot know how it looked!

And your whole argument singularly fails to take into account Toppy's obvious consistency over a lengthy 13-year period. The more consistent he reveals himself to be, and the longer the time-span, the stronger the argument for suggesting that radically altered his consistent signature at another point in time. You've been using the expression "element of style" for, well, far too long, but here we've evidence of someone whose "elements of style" remained intact for a considerable time period, thus increasing the probability that he was equally consistent elsewhere.

In accordance with this, it is of course absolutely unviable to say - as you seem to do - that there is any measurable probability for the elements of style having been consistent throughout that decade

But there are strong indications that Crystal knows better than invest too much signficance in what you decry as "unviable". She undoubtedly knows better from experience than to make the connections that you are making. Why on earth you would expect her to "admit" to being wrong when she's clearly been offered no good reason to think so probably beyond most of us here.

I asked not for any given exact time after which no changes were to be expected - for that will change from individual to individual - but for a comparison of the twenties in relation to the thirties and the forties

I think Crystal answered your question very concisely; observing that an individual's handwriting and signature are very likely to have been moulded by the time a person reaches 22, when he or she has already become a functioning adult.

If you change the "is" to a "may be" you will be correct. As it stands, you are not

That's according to you, and Crystal is very unlikely to listen to a self-confessed amateur instructing her that she is "not correct". "IS" reflects the situation very well, I thought.

Exactly. So those who state that they have the stamina to outlast anybody, are in fact going about things in the wrong way altogether. It never WAS about "stamina" - it was about getting it correct

You'll notice that it isn't just me who has recognised your propensity towards the belief that excessive posting and stamina win the debate. No offence, but it is something that characterizes your posts pretty well. You never once heed any well-intended olive branches to agree to disagree. Instead, you'd prefer to hammer on regardless doing "battle" with people, and that's simply irritating. We've been going round in interminable circules over this "Did Toppy's handwriting change?" argument for far too long. I don't agree with you, so what would be the mature course of action. Me? I'm just a crazy menace, but you've spent the above post extolling your own virtues and experience, so how do you suggest we diffuse the situation?