Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Sam Flynn]

Particularly reassuring to hear Martin Fido underscore the value and repsect with which Ireminger's views should be treated.

Ire-minger? Surely not, Ben!

[Ben]

Haha!

I'm sure she's very pretty, Gareth.

My "oops", of course.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Do Calm down, Fisherman!"

Ben, like I already have told Crystal, I am very calm. You should not read to much into my using capital letters, really; that is just an element of style, and such things change. Ask Toppy!

"Well obviously it does. Common sense readily dictates as much. We have examples of his extremely consistent handwriting from 1898 and 1911 - plenty of the latter, as we learn from Gareth's helpful research efforts - and he shows amazing consistency, if not rigidity, despite the lengthy time period. If he's capable of being consistent over a 13-year time span, he's perfectly capable of being just as consistent elsehwere, and probably was."

We cannot know. Period two excerts no influence over period one. What you are using is called voodoo in the southern hemisphere. It´s distinctly irrational and carries no logical or scientific weight.

"In Toppy's case, we only have evidence that his handwriting was remarkably consistent."

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

"Exactly, so stop casting aspertions on individuals with demonstrably more experience and insight than you"

I was more kind of implying that it is the other way around.

"You're just somebody who surfed the internet and now thinks he knows more than the experts."

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.
Speaking of that, how much experience and how much of an education do you have when it comes to this kind of work? You are perhaps a happy, aspiring amateur? Or?
Oh, and when it comes to understanding two-dimensional works, I should maybe add that I have spent one and a half year at Lund University (the most renowned in Sweden) dealing with pictorial analysis.
But since you keep telling me how insignificant I am and how little my opinion counts, no matter what I say, I now realize that you must exceed me by far in these disciplines. And to think, Ben: all you have to do to show me and the world how superior you are is to list your own education and experience in these fields, and then you can go on calling me a ridiculous interenet scrounger! Should put you firmly in the driving seat, Ben!

"when you actually examine David's post following yours, it becomes clear that you've misinterpreted things rather drastically."

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 and that things point to him not having been a plumber back in 1888.
Exactly what part of this is it you think I am misinterpreting?

"Not nearly those as detailed as Hutchinson's."

Oh, yes, Ben. But you will not admit it, of course.

"Then your ears can't have been functioning very well, since you haven't heard Toppy say anything. All your knowledge of what Toppy allegedly says comes from Reg who - yep! - realised that his father really did see Lord Randolph Churchill all along."

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"...

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

Oh, and how a man writes today does not tell us much about how he wrote ten years ago, did I mention that? Did I?

Fisherman

[Mr.Hyde]

Some of this gets pathetic.I'm not taking sides.
Moderator!

[Crystal]

Some of this gets pathetic.I'm not taking sides. Moderator!

Wise, Mr Hyde. A very sensible approach. The only side I'm on is the side of reason..

[The Good Michael]

Wise, Mr Hyde. A very sensible approach. The only side I'm on is the side of reason..

Who's reason? In their madness, they are all reasonable.

Mike

[Mr.Hyde]

Seems I'm on the side of madness and treason.
Really,thanks for both your comments,
Dave.

[Crystal]

Who's reason? In their madness, they are all reasonable. Mike

Reasonable? Or Right? As I've said before Mike, there's no arguing with faith.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"The only side I'm on is the side of reason.."

I think that can be questioned, Crystal, since you seem to support the notion that if two signatures by the same man that look very much alike in 1898 and 1911, then it somehow supports the suggestion that there would have been no changes in stylistic elements in the same mans signature ten years earlier.
I have put this - plus another one on the same issue - question to you numerous times by now, but for some reason you prefer not to answer it.

Do you think that you could bring yourself to do so now, Crystal? Can we deduct from the 1898 and 1911 signatures that the style elements represented in them would have been the very same in 1888? And is it true or is it not true that a man in his twenties is more likely to change those elements of style than a man in his thirties and forties?

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Reasonable? Or Right? As I've said before Mike, there's no arguing with faith.

Amen, sister!

Mike

[Mr.Hyde]

Or sheer ignorance and arrogance!Think that is almost a tautology.
A Tautologist-a person who repeats themself.............twice!
Um.....I'm on your side Crystal.

[richardnunweek]

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., and none of us can offer proof one way or the other, the signature comparisons surely point to a positive , at least to three of us, but i would say, without a doubt we are in the minority.
I have contacted JD Hutchinson, but it is apparent now, that the family do not wish to involve themselves, apart from the one post some weeks back.
I am sure that if they believed that it was just a question of confirming that Topping was the witness, they would have done so, but obviously have been horrified at the many labels placed upon George William, in the last few years on Casebook,ranging from the notion that he was a possible mugger, pimp, stalker, using of east end prostitutes, even the damming suggestion that he was the killer of Mjk, even JTR himself...not to mention a habitual liar.
So thats it folks we stand alone, to venture on .
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

I believe so as well. I have little doubt, actually, and it has nothing to do with the mythical radio broadcast, and everything to do with what makes sense to me via the evidence.

Cheers,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

I have contacted JD Hutchinson, but it is apparent now, that the family do not wish to involve themselves, apart from the one post some weeks back.

There is a possibility that they just don't know much about that time. I know very little about my grandparents coming to the US in about 1912, as they are long dead. I just know a bit of anecdotal stuff. These people could be the same.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Hi Richard,
Many, you're right, think that Hutch could be the ripper and / or a liar.
That's my take, and I don't think (yet, at least) Toppy was Hutch.
So where's the problem with Toppy's relatives?

Amitiés Richard,
David