Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

Hi both,

Yes, I'm on to that. I will take the opportunity of looking at that too, when I get the chance to get over to Kew.

[Ben]

Hutch as JTR seems to be quite broken at this point, but the "programmers" can't let him go

Perhaps in your imagination, but in reality, there was nothing that would permit us to arrive at such a conclusion. Hutchinson is no more or less suspicious than he was when the public first heard about him 120 years ago. Your entire basis from pronouncing weightily to the above effect is your opinion that Toppy was the witness. If I have good reason to accept the identification, then I'll say so. Thus far, I haven't been presented with such a reason, because I don't think the signatures match, and nor does the preponderance of expert opinion. You're clearly accusing me of wanting Hutchinson to be the ripper, and I'm just trying to puzzle out how that would make sense:

"I really, really want Jack the Ripper to be a local, boring non-entity. How glamorous!"

No, that doesn't work quite so well.

"Wow, just think of all the money I'd make if Hutchinson was the ripper!"

Nope, doesn't work from that angle either.

So you might reasonably conclude instead that I'm trying to make sense of the extant evidence as best I can. If evidence emerges to cast doubt on Hutchinson being the killer, I'll take in on board. It wouldn't be any skin off my nose. If he's not the killer, it wouldn't negate the reality that his actions and movements would give a modern investigator good reason to think he may have been.

"Toppy" doesn't quite cut the mustard on that score, so I'd thank you not to cast aspersions in my direction simply for holding a different view to yours.

[Crystal]

Hi Ben

My take on this is that even if Toppy were identified as the witness, which we are some way off being able to state with any confidence - it doesn't have a bearing on whether or not he was JTR.

That, in my view, is another question entirely. What some of us believe about Toppy's character may be untrue, for example - a deception at any point in the chain of evidence from him to us - and there are many other variables.

I'm quite sure it is quite possible for a serial killer to lead an unremarkable domestic life. I think that ability comes from a psychology that compartmentalises things - as we all do to an extent - except to a much greater degree.

To get back on topic - Gosh, I'm straying today! - I certainly don't believe for an instant that a few dodgy-looking signatures discount
Hutch from the suspect list.

That's spurious reasoning for you!

A) We consider that Toppy and the Witness may the same because they have similar handwriting.

B) We then assume that our earlier consideration was correct because of a story we heard about Toppy being the witness. This dubious, third hand (at best) account is the clincher.

C) We then make a mental leap worthy of Olympic prowess and conclude that since we know that Toppy had lots of kids, was married and worked as a plumber and was too young and....Well, anyway, you get the picture - that this means he's not the Ripper.

D) Our work is done. Hutch was not the Ripper.

Hmmmmm.......

[Ben]

Excellent observations there, Crystal, you breath of fresh air, you...!

I have the distressing sensation that some people are embracing precisely the sort of reasoning you outline (A to D), which would make them as guilty of entrenchment in their own dogma as they delight to accuse me of being.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

You don't seem to be particularly entrenched to me, Ben. I expect that's just because I'm equally entrenched in mine and I only think you're entirely reasonable because you agree with me...

Maybe.

Oh and then there's the 'I knows what I sees, and I sees what I knows' approach. The trouble with that is that it becomes a circular argument - Ah! So that's why we're still here, going round and round and round.

I feel quite dizzy!

[DVV]

My take on this is that even if Toppy were identified as the witness, which we are some way off being able to state with any confidence - it doesn't have a bearing on whether or not he was JTR.

Hi Crystal and Ben,
Hutch has become one of the most popular suspects these last years, in fact since Bob Hinton's book.
Just look at how hot and long are most of the Hutchinson's threads for years (the great 2006 war, Ben, as you put it!).
Certainly, a serial killer can stop and lead a normal life.
And maybe JtR was younger than we expect from Lawende or Schwartz' descriptions.
But that's not the more likely.
You should at least accept that if we had known for years that the Dorset Street witness was 22, and became a married plumber, he would not have become the popular suspect he is.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hey Dave,

Bob Hinton's candidate was a licensed victualler (if memory serves) who was born at King David's Lane, Shadwell, and who also ended up getting married. If the biographical background of that candidate didn't militate against Hutchinson being considered a suspect, I personally don't see why Toppy should be any different. Being married and employed really isn't a factor against suspect merit, as we learn from Ridgway, Rader and others.

All the best!

Ben

[DVV]

Hi Ben,
I was refering to Bob's book because it has launched Hutch's fame as a suspect.
Don't want to appear stubborn, but I maintain that Hutch would have hardly become the top suspect he is, had he been identified with Toppy for years. Though I concede he would have been a suspect, though, no doubt.
Some of the reasons why Fleming is one of our favourite suspects:
-his age (29 in 1888)
-his madness and delusions of persecution

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Ben]

but I maintain that Hutch would have hardly become the top suspect he is, had he been identified with Toppy for years.

Quite possibly, David.

What I mean is that none of the other suggested identities for Hutchinson have been any more or less biographically innocuous-seeming than Toppy, with the exception of Fleming of course!

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Fully agreed, Ben, as you've already guessed.

[Fisherman]

Right - Iīm back!

Iīm sorry that I have not been able too answer the posts pouring in, but other things have been pouring out of me lately. Over here, we call it winter-vomiting-disease...

So I have not been able to stand on my legs for the last two days. It made me all the more happy to return and find Benīs long-awaited post, saying:

"You're right (I meant).

All the best,
Ben"

It warms my heart, Ben, and Iīm glad you finally see it!
There were a few point raised though, that tally poorly with this admittance of yours. But since two full days have elapsed, I will settle by answering just a few of them (including Crystals posts).

"Well, no he didn't. They curled consistently in an anti-clockwise direction, in contrast to the witness signatures, which simply trailed off. Just consider that column of signatures Gareth provided, and you'll notice that the signature's tail off, not just anti-clockwise, but with a disntinctly skyward pointing tail."

But those signatures were not what I referred to, were they? I specifically mentioned the text "Bethnal Green" in the census listings, since this name is written twice, once with a curled n, and once without it.
Or are you perhaps saying that only the n at the end of "Hutchinson" counts? In the same fashion that a looped "l" - according to you - tells us nothing about whther he would loop any other stems; it would have been l-specific, sort of. Eh? This in spite of the fact that we know that all the other l:s we have by Toppys hand are singlestemmed?

"A few posts back you were telling us that "elements of style" are not susceptible to change, but when I highlighted a few crucial differences between Toppy and the witness, you assure me that they are just "elements of style" and thus easily susceptible to change!"

I cant believe I have not succeeded to make this clear for you yet, Ben! Itīs beyond comprehension.
But whoīs sorry? I can do it again, trying to be even more pedagogic, and weīll se if it catches on this time!
1. Handstyle experts deal with differing elements. For example there are the elements of
A/ The leaning of the text
B/ The number of times a writer lifts his pen when he writes
and
C/ Elements of style

Seen as a whole, the elements of style are much more prone to change than the other two elements mentioned.
BUT - and this is where you seem to have difficulties understanding me - not ALL elements of style are EQUALLY prone to change! If you attach the "u" following the "H" at the top of the "u" - then that is an element of style that will be more consistent than if you write a tall-stemmed "t".

I cannot explain this in any more comprehensive way, so if you donīt understand it this time over, somebody else will have to step in and give it a try. To me, it is all very easy and logical.

"That's because at least some support for the contention can be found in the census records. Whenever we encounter Toppy in the census records, he is listed as a plumber"

But does it say thet he was a plumber with a job? I donīt think so. And the listings are all taken down AFTER 1888, and like I said before, he would not have been born a plumber. So plumber - yes. Rarely out of work - we donīt know, for THAT is not listed, is it? That belongs to Regīs "garble" that we should not take seriously. Letīs not pick and choose here!

After this, you keep saying that we need not worry about the occasional looped stem, the occasional differing joint, the occasional flat n, since they were merely exceptions to the rule. And you urge me not to bring it up again! Well, very good luck with that, Ben!!!
Of course I will bring it up - have you not realized that it is extremely important evidence? What do you think it is - peripheral mishaps that we can wawe goodbye to? If so, itīs time to think again!
Not to bring it up would be comparable to a prosecutor not mentioning that a suspect had access to a gun during two days - since he did not have so the other nine. Ergo, he could not be the killer - a case of realizing the more obvious option - Bravo!

As for Crystal, she tells me that I canīt compare Elvis signatures to 19:th century signatures. Right. Everybody who thinks that all elements of style remained unchanged for all writers,throughout the 19:th century, hands up!
Really, Crystal...! Do I have to find 19:th century examples to satisfy you? Do I?

The most clever thing that has been said out here - in my opinion, I know, Ben, thank you very much! - is that it is and remains a question of looking at it and saying yes or no.
Oh, and one more interesting thing - Iremonger, Iremonger; it seems we have now arrived at a conclusion where the ONLY detail we have been provided with from her examination has been ruled out by everybody, more or less - the first signature in the police report was probably NOT written by anybody else than Hutch! But still, although we have said "no thanks" to the suggestion that is was written by Badham, we are being asked to believe in Iremongers overall conclusions, of which we know not one single detail. Iīm with Ichabod Crane here - letīs drop Iremonger. It ought to have been done ages ago.
By the bye - IF the first signature WAS written by Hutch, then that means he wrote the curlied H too. Anybody given it any athought what THAT would say about changing elements of style. Hm? Like loops and such?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Right - Iīm back!

Yipeeee!

This in spite of the fact that we know that all the other l:s we have by Toppys hand are singlestemmed?

Yes, which tells us that in the vast majority of cases, he single-stemmed his "l"s, which in turn tells us that he was incredibly unlikely to break convention and offer up three successive exceptions to that rule. In the case of the "h"s, not one of Toppy's "h"s were double-stemmed, in contrast to all three double-stemmed witness "h"s.

Seen as a whole, the elements of style are much more prone to change than the other two elements mentioned.

So, you're saying that if the style is radically different (hypothetically speaking) it doesn't matter providing the angle is the same?

Are you really sure about that?

and this is where you seem to have difficulties understanding me - not ALL elements of style are EQUALLY prone to change!

I don't have difficulty understanding you.

I understand you perfectly.

I have difficulty agreeing with you.

The reason for this is that your prioritization of perceived "differences" and "similarities" seems to be decidedly arbitary in nature. You've decided that the differences between Toppy and the witness are susceptible to change, but refuse to make the same allowances for the differences, which is why I can only only continue to caution - albeit very wearily this time - against trivialising the differences and exaggerating the importantce of the similarities. It gives the impression of a strong bias.

But does it say thet he was a plumber with a job? I donīt think so

Well, I think we can arrive at a pretty educated guess. Listed as a plumber and living at a centrally located West End address. I don't think he was picking oakum or hawking mackerel somehow...

That belongs to Regīs "garble" that we should not take seriously. Letīs not pick and choose here!

Exactly, so don't invest in any other aspects of Reg's "garble" if you consider it as such.

Of course I will bring it up - have you not realized that it is extremely important evidence?

You have brought it up, countless times.

And I've disagreed, countless times.

Yes, I do realize the "extremely important" evidence, particularly because it enables me to arrive at an "extremely different" conclusion to yours.

As for Crystal, she tells me that I canīt compare Elvis signatures to 19:th century signatures. Right. Everybody who thinks that all elements of style remained unchanged for all writers,throughout the 19:th century, hands up! Really, Crystal...! Do I have to find 19:th century examples to satisfy you? Do I?

It' should be pretty astoundingly obvious by now that Crystal has a good deal more knowledge and experience than you in this particular field, and I'd reiterate her cautionary note against googling the internet into boredom and claiming it empowers you with the necessary knowledge to trump hers.

Oh, and one more interesting thing - Iremonger, Iremonger; it seems we have now arrived at a conclusion where the ONLY detail we have been provided with from her examination has been ruled out by everybody, more or less

Really? That's a peculiar reading of the situation. I don't see too many people here who could qualified to "rule out" anything Iremonger believed. There might be one or perhaps two here whose opinion to the contrary may carry equal weight to Iremonger, but if it's a case of lots of hobbyists ganging up against the expert, it isn't particularly prudent to side with the mob. It's a great pity that you took it upon yourself to contact her personally, since your obvious contempt for her abilities can only have communicated itself rather glaringly at the time.

Iīm with Ichabod Crane here - letīs drop Iremonger. It ought to have been done ages ago.

I think anyone with any common sense or respect will know better than to do any such thing, recognising that people who wish to drop Iremonger are only interested in championing their evidently spurious opinion. You can drop her if you like. I'm learned long ago not to lose any sleep over that!

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

First, I apologize for casting aspersions (as you put it) upon your conclusions. Sometimes we are far apart on ideas and it becomes difficult for me to understand why is should be so. That's a bit of an explanation. Combine that with occasional exasperation and I say (type) things I shouldn't. Anyway, sorry for that.

On the lighter side... Have you ever thought that yours and fisherman's battles here are very epic and resemble the great comicbook battles of Spiderman and Doctor Octopus, or The Fantastic Four and Doctor Doom?
I imagine that you both become mentally exhausted at times, but it isn't shown on these threads. It goes on and on with dogged determination. Fisherman, seemingly on death's door with vomiting, arise from his bed to continue to do battle. It's epic, I tell you! I only need some superhero/supervillain names...hmm...

How about: The Nordic Nightmare and Kid Britain?

Ah well... the saga continues...

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

First, I apologize for casting aspersions (as you put it) upon your conclusions.

No worries, Mike.

You know I know that you're one of the gooduns!

Yep, these Fisherman battles are strongly reminiscent of my cyberwars with "Mr. Poster".

Don't know what I'd do without Scandinavian ripperologists! (Except perhaps not bang my head repeatedly against a brick wall).

Bring me more of 'em!

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

No worries, Mike.

You know I know that you're one of the gooduns!

Thanks Ben. This cyberworld really does allow us to forget our humanity sometimes. I really hate that, and I suspect that most of us would be 'gooduns' if we had a face to face forum... even Crystal!

Cheers,

Mike