Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Malcolm X]

sorry Ben, but it definitely looks like the same Hutchinson that went to Abberline..

doesn't mean he's not the Ripper though... but it does weaken Hutchinson quite a lot..damn it... no more Ripper murders, plus other things too!

so was he telling the truth to Abberline, well; we all know what a load of twaddle he said......but if he was telling the truth (could be), well then the killer is probably.........................

what a total mess all of this Ripper case is.... it goes back and forth, back and forth

my guess is H wasn't even there...made it all up, lied to his son too.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

On the one hand, reliable people normally produce reliable goods, and on the other hand, Toppys signature and the ones on the police report are extremely similar to my eye

What I mean is that any outcome that is dependant upon Bob's remarks not reflecting the truth would have to mean that something incredibly unusual and unlikely occured. That doesn't mean that any alternative is impossible, but they'd be just as I described; unlikely and unusual.

Imagine, Ben, if I was to tell you that a Swedish renowned expert on psychology totally ruled out the possibility that Hutch could have been Fleming and acted the way he did.

I'd ask for the credentials of the individual in question, and inquire into his experience into serial crime. Then I'd be interested to know what information he was fed in order for him to arrive at that conclusion. If all of that was present and correct, as it is the Toppy-Iremonger case, then I'd cheerfully consider revising my opinion.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hey Malcolm,

I don't think the signatures do match, personally, and as I've mentioned, it has been observed that an expert document examiner compared the signatures and came to the conclusion that they were not the same man.

So I'm supremely confident that Toppy was not the Hutchinson, but I have no beef with anyone who believes otherwise. I view the identification as an entirely different question from Hutchinson's potential cuplability in the Whitechapel murders, though.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Well, there you are, then, Ben; You would want to know the information behind the experts verdict before you bought it. And that is exactly what I want on this issue too.
And once again, I am not calling Bob Hintons or Sue Iremongers efforts and respective judgements into doubt. I have had no dealings with either of the two that would allow me to do such a thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

You would want to know the information behind the experts verdict before you bought it.

I'm satisfied that we have it already, based on Bob Hinton's comments, and the unlikelihood that his comments didn't reflect the truth.

But watch this space, and all being well, further elucidation will be forthcoming!

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

Hey Malcolm,

I don't think the signatures do match, personally, and as I've mentioned, it has been observed that an expert document examiner compared the signatures and came to the conclusion that they were not the same man.

So I'm supremely confident that Toppy was not the Hutchinson, but I have no beef with anyone who believes otherwise. I view the identification as an entirely different question from Hutchinson's potential cuplability in the Whitechapel murders, though.

All the best,
Ben

yes i know my old friend
but you need some convincing arguement now, because my guess is that ``this H`` lied about being there... but the signatures do in fact match very closely...his statement looks like he lied as we've discussed many times in the past

maybe not the same signatures/person? ... well maybe, as i said it's all a total mess... a real and utter mess

[Ben]

Hi Mal,

If Toppy was the witness, I'd be more inclined to dismiss him as a publicity-seeker who invented the whole thing and wasn't even there, as you suggest. That would leave the unsettling coincidence of his coming forward in the wake of Lewis' evidence still hanging awkwardly in the air...

But none of that is a problem for me, since I've no doubt that Toppy wasn't the witness.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Mal,

If Toppy was the witness, I'd be more inclined to dismiss him as a publicity-seeker who invented the whole thing and wasn't even there, as you suggest. That would leave the unsettling coincidence of his coming forward in the wake of Lewis' evidence still hanging awkwardly in the air...

But none of that is a problem for me, since I've no doubt that Toppy wasn't the witness.

yes, but you could be ``blindly`` following your quest; in order to suit your beliefs/strong suspicions... without even realising it ( no insult intended whatsover) because i do this over G.Chapman sometimes too.

it could be that the Military man seen outside MILLERS COURT was the ripper, but this was not the H that went to the police... i.e he never went to the police, or he went to the police but wasn't Toppy... but the ripper

but the signatures look too similar............so he either lied or he told the truth.... if so, it looks like he saw G.Chapman .... BUT BUT

H never said in later years ``Chapman is the bloke i saw`` and i'm damn sure he would have seen pictures of Chapman... he was in the papers for poisoning..........maybe/ maybe not

this is the problem we have, there are so many variables to every arguement, it's impossible to get close...it's all guesswork and gut feelings..

my gut feeling is :- we're screwed, that's the real H and he made it all up!.......Abberline thought so too

who killed Kelly? well, it could've been BLOTCHY FACE; but if so the Ripper was bloody careless.... not sure

[Malcolm X]

i'm not as active around here as i used to be, i just enjoy reading the posts...

but if H was telling the truth ( you never know) well, this changes everything; i'll be back on the Chapman thread with NATALIE.... but i think he lied; never there

[Ben]

yes, but you could be ``blindly`` following your quest; in order to suit your beliefs/strong suspicions... without even realising it ( no insult intended whatsover) .

I sincerely hope not, Malcolm, since anything that gets the Hutch off the hook would qualify as welcomed progress. While it's conceivable that something along those lines may emerge in the future, I'm confident that it will have nothing whatsoever to do with Toppy, since I have every faith that the signatures don't match and he wasn't the "witness" from 12th November 1888.

[Brenda]

Well, the one thing that would settle the whole crazy argument would be A SECOND OPINION by another expert.

[Sam Flynn]

Well, the one thing that would settle the whole crazy argument would be A SECOND OPINION by another expert.

We're all experts here, Brenda - at least in this context - simply due to the fact that we most of us possess fully functional eyes. Comparing ink-strokes on paper is something that might require expertise (when assessing documents for fraud etc.), but here we have three official records, scanned and archived, therefore the same "use-case" does not apply. At least, not in the sense for which a document examiner's expertise might be properly required.

A professor of botany would be better placed than many to identify a particular sub-species of flower, but it would be redundant to hire one to confirm that a pair of flowers in a vase were both daffodils.

[Fisherman]

"A professor of botany would be better placed than many to identify a particular sub-species of flower, but it would be redundant to hire one to confirm that a pair of flowers in a vase were both daffodils"

Touché, Sam!

The best,
Fisherman

[Stephen Thomas]

I've been disposed towards graphology for very many years since I gave a 'graphologist' a sample of my own handwriting and he said whoever wrote this is an intelligent, well adjusted, all round excellent human being .

He also correctly diagnosed my then girlfriend as a bit of a nymphomaniac from how she formed the lower case 'p' (don't ask)

Here's a bit of a primer on the subject......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGFFq9CsaXM

[Brenda]

We're all experts here, Brenda - at least in this context - simply due to the fact that we most of us possess fully functional eyes. Comparing ink-strokes on paper is something that might require expertise (when assessing documents for fraud etc.), but here we have three official records, scanned and archived, therefore the same "use-case" does not apply. At least, not in the sense for which a document examiner's expertise might be properly required.

A professor of botany would be better placed than many to identify a particular sub-species of flower, but it would be redundant to hire one to confirm that a pair of flowers in a vase were both daffodils.

Yeah, but unless another expert is brought into it, there will always be those that will say the signatures are not the same, and that a prior expert discounted them as being the same.