Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

Mike

Sorry all. Just pissed that this guy comes on and makes such a blanket statement after all the bitterness that has passed here, and then Ben gives him a glowing endorsement. Ben knows it's bs. I don't care if someone comes on and says, "this is what I believe," but after these lengthy battles and hard feelings that was EXACTLY what we didn't need.

Cheers,

Mike

Glad you said sorry. Maybe you're only 99% incorrigible after all.

[babybird67]

i had to post this...

on reading the Martha Tabram, is she a victim, thread, i came across this wonderfully reasonable, rational, well-argued, exemplary posting and had to transpose it here for everyone's edification (apart from Mike's, as i've already established he's incorrigible, and he apparently doesn't notice what i tweet about him anyway )...

I think your advice to agree to disagree on it is by far the best way to end this discussion
The interesting thing here is that though we may be viewed as being very far from each other, I do not think that we are. Small changes in the evidence material could probably have swayed both of us to some significant degree, I think.
But as it stands, I will opt for your closing sentence as being a wise one; who knows, indeed?

who could possibly have posted this erudite passage, acknowledging that the closing sentence of any discussion of two mutually exclusive views ought to be "who knows?"

Must be someone on the side of the debate that holds the same circumspect views on Toppy. Must be. Nobody else has shown such reason, such dignity, such sobriety, such applomb.

We cannot agree, let's agree to disagree...who would have said that?

[babybird67]

while you are there Crystal can you ask them about the Klosowski/Chapman file...totally unrelated but soooo interesting!


happy reading !

[The Good Michael]

Sorry all. Just pissed that this guy comes on and makes such a blanket statement after all the bitterness that has passed here, and then Ben gives him a glowing endorsement. Ben knows it's bs. I don't care if someone comes on and says, "this is what I believe," but after these lengthy battles and hard feelings that was EXACTLY what we didn't need.

Cheers,

Mike

Morning all

Just having a coffee while the folder comes out of the abyss. Any requests while I'm here? The case notes are all together, so I have access to it all today. Quick though - got work to do!

C

[babybird67]

bonjour David

merci mon ami! (that's sadly the limit of my French!)

And i agree...mind fully open to possibilities here.

[DVV]

Hi BB,

mes hommages du matin, ma chère.

Can't understand why we are depicted as flat and fanatic, though our uncertain opinion is backed by experts.
As far as I know, only the pro-Toppy think the case closed.
Eyes wide shut...

Amitiés,
David

[babybird67]

exactly David...

we cross-posted there!



but "great minds..." etc etc

[DVV]

and is nothing short of posturing arrogance, when it is known that, for 200 odd pages, we have been battling it out over those astounding similarities that some, unconsciously, refuse to see.

Hi Mike,

and no, nobody refuses to see the similarities.
But who am I, and who are you, to be sure that these similarities are enough to make Toppy the Dorset Street witness ?
What do I know about common low-class people handwriting in LVP (that could well explain the similarities) ?
I do consciously know I must be cautious rather than flat.
I could say that there are people who refuse to see the astounding differences (G, tch...), refuse to value experts opinion... but I won't.

Amitiés,
David

[babybird67]

hello Mike



i can see the similarities.

But i can also still see the differences.

The point is, i am not being teased from my position of uncertainty without further information of what similarities/differences matter and should carry some importance, since i am not au fait with handwriting of the LVP.

I'm hoping Crystal will be able to enlighten us when she comes back from Kew (thanks Crystal!)

Unlike some, i don't think it unreasonable to ask for help from someone more knowledgeable than myself when it comes to areas where i clearly have no experience.

Can i remind anyone interested that i changed my position from "they do not match" to "I'm not sure whether they match or not", after Crystal posted two near-identical "Georges" (and an elephant!), since to my untrained eyes, these were a near-perfect match; she later revealed that they were known to be by different hands. I therefore concluded that if i could get it so wrong about that example, i could get it just as wrong with the Toppy/Hutch signature comparison, and accordingly revised my opinion from "no match" to "could either match or not...need further evidence."

Gary you make a good point about the inclusion of all names in the Topping signature. If it was the done thing at that time to sign all names, or at least first and surname with middle initials, that factor could very well be a matter of important evidence against a match, and is precisely the sort of detail, being overlooked over this whole debate until you arrived, that we have been missing perhaps because not many of us know that such a practice was standard...precisely the reason to wait until experts/those more knowledgeable than some of us (ok, i mean me!) are able to give us some guidance. Thank you for pointing this out, and elaborating on its significance. Very useful. And welcome.

[The Good Michael]

Just to point out to anyone reading this thread, Garry is sold on Hutchinson much like Ben is based upon his MINDHUNTER comparisons. Of course it is impossible from that point of view to look objectively at these signatures. Psychologists will bear this out of course. To come out and make a blanket statement that the signatures don't match is to be clinging to that old baggage, and is nothing short of posturing arrogance, when it is known that, for 200 odd pages, we have been battling it out over those astounding similarities that some, unconsciously, refuse to see.

Let me read that again....er, yeah that sums it up.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Another example of bringing foreknowledge into an argument when it should just be about signatures. It must happen I suppose. No one lives in a vacuum.

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

Mike.

The enlightenment was free. Hope you're not charging for the sarcasm.

Ben.

Many thanks for the glowing endorsement. And since you are familiar with Person or Persons, you may care to check the 'cover', where you'll find an illustration of Hutchinson that conforms precisely to the description furnished by Sarah Lewis - even down to the fact that Hutchinson was leaning against Crossingham's wall. Contrary to the argument postulated elsewhere on this thread, therefore, Hutchinson was on Dorset Street rather than in or at Miller's Court, and was almost certainly the man seen by Sarah as she made her way to the Keylers.

'Night all.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

It's a genuine pleasure to welcome you to the message board. Your book, Jack the Ripper...Person or Persons Unknown was a thoroughly enjoyable read, and one which combined a detailed knowledge of the Victorian East End and a close familiarity with serial crime and its more recent perpetrators.

Your "obvious" point was also a very astute one, and one that finds endorsement from Bob Hinton, who referred to the police propensity towards taking full names in witness statements, or at the very least, the forename and surname with any attendant initials included. Since the statement included no other names or initials, this ought to be taken as a reasonable indicator that the "real" George Hutchinson didn't have any, if indeed that was his real name.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Garry,

Of course they are different. No two things are ever exactly alike. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Mike