Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I can argue precisely the same thing about the consistently closed G-loop in Toppy. Nothing to do with width, nothing to do with height, and yet it's an "element of style" and therefore unlikely to be susceptible to change according to you."

You canīt, actually. It ends up somewhere inbetween the height of stems and the bridging inbetween the "H" and the "u". Reason? Because it is a letter that is only connected to another letter on the one side. Therefore, it would be more probable to change than the bridging of the H and the u, and less probable than the height of the stem. The line that makes up the loop starts fresh from nowhere, and since no previous letter "guides" itīs start, it may reasonably end up in various places.

"Well, given the consistency that he reveals over a decade-plus period, we can be reasonably confident that he'd reveal equal consistency elsewhere."

And how "reasonable" would that be, Ben? Is it a 99 per cent chance? Or a 60? The one thing that matters, Ben, is that we KNOW that changes occured in Toppys writing, and that means that we can never "free" him the way you wish to.

"I'm talking about the letter "h", Fisherman. I have no idea how the witness would form his "l"s, since there are no "l"s in the name "George Hutchinson"."

No. But there is in "Bethnal". And since Toppy wrote a single stemmed l in one case when he wrote Bethnal, and a double stemmed one in the other case, I donīt consider it a huge leap to realize that he could do so in other cases too.

"I'm not asserting that it wouldn't happen. I'm saying it's unlikely to manifest itself as you suggest, by trying to impress them with a poncier-than-usual H's and longer cross bars"

It is by no means so, Ben. It is anybodys guess, as you will appreciate. And heaps of people with a respectful attitude towards authorities will be straightforward.

"I am not, incidentally, suggesting that he wouldn't have written more "neatly" on account of the unusual situation. I'm just saying that we can't use that as an excuse for the differences between Toppy and the witness."

We canīt prove such a thing, but IF he wrote neatly it may well explain for example the looped stem of the h, since it is easier to form such things when you take your time and try to be neat. Not that it is an explanation called for, since we have the l:s in Bethnal telling us that Toppy looped his stems every once in a while.

"the overall impression from having garnered his signatures from 1898 and 1911 (several of them) is one of remarkably consistency."

Iīm not arguing that the consistenct is not there. I am saying that by and large it crumbles into significantly less evidance value with every exception to the consistency rule we find. And we find lots! Moreover, to my mind, it is idiotic, more or less, to demand a millimetre to a stem here and an extra angle to a tail there since they are all elements that we KNOW are susceptible to change.

"They haven't been shown to leak considerably at all. 7 out of 9 taller t's than h's is still very consistenct, and by no means indicative of a "considerable" propensity towards leakage."

Sorry, Ben (well...), but it does not work that way. Seven out of nine leaves us with a 22 per cent plus chance that the next set of t:s and h:s would end up the way you dislike. The elements you have pushed have been shot down to a significant extent, and it seems the more Toppy texts we bring into the discussion, the more obvious it becomes that the armour you are trying to use is more full of holes than a Swiss cheese.

"Don't listen to Fisherman, David"

David is a grown-up guy, Ben. I think that we should allow him the right to decide for himself he wants to listen to.

""Seriously, why would you want to "keep claiming" something?
What's that going to acheive?"

You should know, Ben, since you keep claiming the opposite to what I claim! And I choose the language I want to use myself, Ben. Itīs not as if you walk softly when trying to refute the things I believe are perfectly obvious, is it?
I am perfectly satisfied that the Dorset Street witness is found, and that he was Toppy. But when I say so - and I have good faith that I am perfectly entitled to do so on these boards - I am met by a senseless barrage of what I consider to be totally delusional thinking. What do you expect me to do - try a softer tone?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Crystal,

That's certainly a match. Note how the curly G corresponds nicely with the elephant's curly tale, and you'll notice they both have two "e"s - George and Elephant. The so-called "experts" might disagree, but they're all a bunch of numpties anyway. It's suffificent that we - the initiated - can SEE it. We just know.

And by golly, I'll keep saying it's a match as many times as possible until my opponents give in!

[The Good Michael]

Reg Hutchinson is a point against Toppy being the witness, by virtue of his dubious claims. It doesn't bolster the case, it detracts from it. Reg's account (and no, I don't mean Fairclough's conspiracy, I mean Reg's reported words) are not only dubious in nature, but biographically at odds with a labouring former groom who had known Kelly for three years. The story and the signatures don't point to Toppy even in isolation from eachother, but when you had them together, the case against him is made even stronger.

The payment issue is as dubious as any other.

Ben

That's complete rubbish and you know it. Claims being dubious are your arguments. That doesn't make you right. The payment is a logical answer. Reg, though fairclough is a dolt, doesn't give necessarily false claims. It is your opinion. Stop throwing the word 'dubious' about, unless you say it is your opinion. A 22 year-old becoming a tradesman is hardly dubious. In fact, it is completely logical for a young man of military appearance to make something of himself. You may have issues with the whole radio broadcast idea, but that isn't what we're dealing with here. You need to come to grips with the possibility, and maybe probability that Hutchinson was an average Joe and was not Flemming and was not a killer. THAT is the likelihood. Your disbelief in everything doesn't make you correct except in your mind. None of us may be correct, but calling everything doubtful because you don't want to believe it, doesn't make it doubtful, but to you.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

As always Ben, you are the voice of reason. Aha! But did you spot the trick? I'll let you in on a little secret - are you ready? This is the secret - only one of the Georges is by Toppy....

But of course, I expect that was obvious. After all, they are very different.... HO HO1 Funny Crystal!

[DVV]

Mike,
my English is very poor, that maybe the reason why the adjective "dubious", and no other, springs to my mind whenever I'm thinking of:
- Hutch's statement
- Hutch's suspect
-Hutch behaviour
- Reg's story
- Toppy's picture

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

David,

How about: In my opinion, it is debatable? Or, in my opinion it is doubtful, or dubious. It isn't the word, but the lack of qualification that I don't like. Also, you know your English is excellent, So don't play the country bumpkin.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

You canīt, actually. It ends up somewhere inbetween the height of stems and the bridging inbetween the "H" and the "u". Reason?

No, it isn't. What do you mean? I was talking about the consistently closed G-loop which looks nothing like any of the open-loop witness G's. It's nowhere near the H and the u of "Hutchinson". I must admit that it's becoming increasingly difficult to make sense of your criteria for prioritizing some "differences" over others. It all seems decidedly arbitary to me.

The one thing that matters, Ben, is that we KNOW that changes occured in Toppys writing

And we also know that none of the noted changes are anywhere near as radical as they would need to be in order for them to look like any of the witness signatures.

No. But there is in "Bethnal". And since Toppy wrote a single stemmed l in one case when he wrote Bethnal, and a double stemmed one in the other case, I donīt consider it a huge leap to realize that he could do so in other cases too.

But I never said he wouldn't have looped his "l"s. We can't even say that the witness would have looped them either. What we can say is that none of the extant Toppy examples include a double looped "h", in contrast to all witness signatures.

We canīt prove such a thing, but IF he wrote neatly it may well explain for example the looped stem of the h, since it is easier to form such things when you take your time and try to be neat

But a looped "h" stem isn't any more "neat" than a single-looped one. It's just different, and for what it's worth, I'd strongly dispute that any of the three statement signatures are any neater than Toppy's efforts.

to demand a millimetre to a stem here and an extra angle to a tail there since they are all elements that we KNOW are susceptible to change.

But as I've said, none of Toppy's observed susceptibility to change is anywhere near as radical as they'd need to be in order from them to look like the witness'. It isn't just a question of heights and millimetres. The "tch" of all Toppy's look nothing like any of the witness' as far as I'm concerned. It would take more than the addition or subtraction of a few millimetres to make them look alike.

The elements you have pushed have been shot down to a significant extent

Again with the aggressive, military terminology.

I've told you before, this is not a fecking battle zone, so please lose the silly one-upmanship agenda. If you think you've shot anything down, I'm afraid you've been firing blanks.

and it seems the more Toppy texts we bring into the discussion, the more obvious it becomes that the armour you are trying to use is more full of holes than a Swiss cheese.

Um, well, no, I think we're discovering that the reverse is true; as Crystal observes, the more examples we encounter, the more consistent and un-witness-like, Toppy reveals himself to be.

David is a grown-up guy, Ben. I think that we should allow him the right to decide for himself he wants to listen to.

Exactly, so don't instruct him on what does and doesn't belong in this discussion.

I am met by a senseless barrage of what I consider to be totally delusional thinking.

And yet I think precisely the same thing about the opposing views I'm met with here. So what are we, as mature adults, supposed to do about that? Just keep repetetively posting over and over again, pretending that we're battling stamina rather than individual points? Or might it be a sensible course of action to agree to disagree?

Think it over.

[DVV]

Also, you know your English is excellent, So don't play the country bumpkin.

Thanks Mike,
though "country bumpkin" is new to me. I guess it translates by "Farra" in Addis-Abeba's slang.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Claims being dubious are your arguments. That doesn't make you right

You don't think that accepting that his father really saw Randolph Churchill might just qualify as "dubious"? Or "It was more to do with the Royal family than ordinary people"? It may prove correct (!!), but the content is more than sufficient for me to arrive at the informed opinion that Reg's claims are dubious. It cannot responsibly be observed that Fairclough was feeding him filth and hapless Reg just went along with it. That clearly wasn't the case, and there are compelling indications that Reg was more than willing to milk the proverbial cow.

I'm not saying it's "dubious" that Toppy became a plumber. That much is borne out by census records. Since his father was employed in a similar capacity, and since he was plumbing by 1891 in the West End, I'd say that's rather at odds with a labouring former groom dossing down in the worst pocket of the East End.

The payment is a logical answer.

Hardly. If the police paid off all witnesses, they'd be swamped with new "witnesses" with false stories all waiting to be paid off, totally impractical.

Stop throwing the word 'dubious' about, unless you say it is your opinion.

But then you say this:

You need to come to grips with the possibility, and maybe probability that Hutchinson was an average Joe and was not Flemming and was not a killer. THAT is the likelihood

So how about you stop throwing the word "likelihood" about unless you say it's your opinion?

Sounds like a fair trade to me.

[Crystal]

Ben writes: So what are we, as mature adults, supposed to do about that? Just keep repetetively posting over and over again, pretending that we're battling stamina rather than individual points. Or might it be a sensible course of action to agree to disagree?

You know, I said the same thing to Sam Flynn, Oh, ages ago it seems now... But would he listen? Hmm?

We can agree to disagree. And then I'll tell you all what I think when I've had a chance to actually look at the witness statement. Of course by then, my opinon will have morphed into fact. I give you fair warning....

[Crystal]

And anyway, what about that George Hutchinson wot lived next to a man wot worked wiv 'orses? 'E couldve been a groom, wot? (I forget which Census that comes from - note to self - try to recall by end of week...)

[Ben]

But did you spot the trick?

Wait a minute!

No, I didn't!

Fascinating stuff, Crystal. So Georges #1 and #2 were penned by different authors?

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

It is more likely that a person is average than a deranged killer.
Hutchinson was a person
Therefore it is more likely he was average

Simple logic, in my book. I can even see young George teaching Sunday school a few years down the road. Especially when his plumbing business is doing well.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

AH! NOW you see it!

Told you there was a trick to it....

Indeed, yes, Ben, they were penned by different authors. Ha! And to think, I could have illustrated that point at any moment in time....HO HO!

Funny Crystal.

One is indeed by Toppy, and the other, I can assure you, is not. And you didn't spot it. Well.

Next?

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

It is more likely that a person is average than a deranged killer.
Hutchinson was a person Therefore it is more likely he was average

But that logic can be levelled against any named suspect who haven't already been exposed as murderers. As much as it would be convenient to propell Klsosowski and a handful of others to the top of the suspects list on that basis, I really don't think we can do that.

Hi Crystal,

Excellent find! "Funny" you certainly seem to be, along with many other positive attributes. Of course, the implications of this interesting revelation are rather obvious.

Best regards,
Ben