Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

The problem is this: Toppy's biography at it's barest level, without any of the "Royal Conspiracy", but including his age, social class, and even general vicinity do fit with George.

But that tells us nothing when we know that other "George Hutchinsons" fit the social class and general vicinity a great deal better, plus they have the added advantage of their potential "claims" to witness notoriety not being hindered by any Royal Conspiracy guff. As to age, we have next to no idea how old the real George Hutchinson was. Bob Hinton mentioned finding some newspaper articles which gave his age as 28, as did the late Brian Marriner who first wrote about Hutchinson as a suspect in, I believe, 1996. The objections to Toppy being the witness have nothing whatsoever to do with the premise that Hutchinson might well have lied or murdered prostitutes.

I'd agree with your observation about the Astrakhan man possibly becoming "enlarged" in the re-telling, but as far as Reg's claims are concerned, the Royal Conspiracy angle can just as easily be explained away by Reg having nothing to do with the witness, and simply feeding Fairclough what he wanted to hear.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Taking all the facts into consideration, and allowing common sense to filter through, how on earth are so many members still being negative?

Well, let's assess the worth of the points you raise in favour of Toppy.

[ 1] The signature comparisons.

With all due respect to the opposing viewpoint, I have no reason to believe that Toppy's signature match those of any of the statement signatures. The preponderance of expert opinion to date has also opined that the two are a mismatch. Crystal has offered an example of the name "George", written in an incredibly similiar fashion to Toppy. The writer was not Toppy, however, nor was he witness. Go figure..

[2] The fact that only one Hutchinson has ever introduced himself

We don't have any evidence that Toppy introduced himself. His "introduction" is second hand hearsay at best, and the nature of the source(s) is highly dubious, in my opinion.

[4] The fact that one of his proven sons Reg, made it known on two occassions in the media[ although only one can be proved]
[5] The fact that the woman married to Toppings nephew has stated on Casebook, that her father-in-law also knew of that encounter back in 1888

The "fact" alone that they made these claims doesn't add weight to Toppy's candidacy. First you have to assess the nature of the claims. See above.

If one takes[1] and allies that with the others, my opinion is. why are we not all in agreement?

I don't know, Richard. My particular view of this "alliance" can be summed up best by the following equation: Signature mismatch + dodgy story = NOT the witness.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But periods two and three, if registering extreme consistency with eachother despite their being so far apart, inevitably impacts upon period one."

That is a VERY reasonable suggestion, Ben, and one that I have never quibbled with. If it was not like that, there would be no certain way to identify peoples signatures inbetween different periods of time. It is most reasonable to suggest that most of the personal traits will be there, and that the general appearance of the signature will be much the same.
But my point is that we cannot say what would have happened to the different elements of style included during that lost period of ten years. We must allow for the possibility that he changed some of them!
Which of them - we can´t tell.
How many of them - we can´t tell.
HOW he changed them - we can´t tell.
...and, of course...
If he stayed consistent in all of the style elements throughout the period - we can´t tell.

I am not saying that we should not look for a writer whose signature was radically or totally different ten years earlier. I am saying that some of the elements of style may have altered. And that is why my meaning is that the 1888 police report signature is extremely striking - for if we change just a few of the style elements, we get an ever closer likeness to the 1898 and 1911 signatures than we already have. And, as you know, what we already have is quite enough to leave me in no doubt.

" It is not your ability to search for sources that I quibble with"

Then please, Ben - refrain from trying to make me out as some sort of nitwit, unfamiliar with how to do the homework. I would have hoped that such things were below you.

”I think you'll find that wasn't the case at all. The actual observation was that he may not have been apprenticed in the plumbing trade by his father.”

David Knott worded it: ”There are more than reasonable grounds to believe that he was not a plumber in 1888, and there are links with the East End. I just haven't posted them.”

”Nope, I'm afraid that wasn't how the Regmeister worded it. I'll dig up the exact quote later. ”

No – it was how YOU worded it. You spoke of Reg ”realizing” things.

”if I was to nitpick”

But you´re not, are you?

”your whole argument singularly fails to take into account Toppy's obvious consistency over a lengthy 13-year period.”

No – and you will realize that when you read the top of my post. The problem is that you are trying to prove too much about the 1880:s by knowing something about the 1890:s.

”Why on earth you would expect her to "admit" to being wrong when she's clearly been offered no good reason to think so probably beyond most of us here.”

...and she wrote ”What you suggest with regard to Toppy is possible” and ”I take your point about one time period not proving the other”, so I believe that she has reached a better understanding of my case than you may have.

”I think Crystal answered your question very concisely; observing that an individual's handwriting and signature are very likely to have been moulded by the time a person reaches 22, when he or she has already become a functioning adult.”

Once again, my question was: In which of the three periods of the twenties, the thirties and the forties, are writers most likely to change their elements of style?
Can you see the answer to THAT question in Crystals wording? I can´t.

”You'll notice that it isn't just me who has recognised your propensity towards the belief that excessive posting and stamina win the debate.”

I never mistake stamina for being correct. And I never WRITE about anybody I post against that they may think that they will outlast me, but my own stamina will show them they are wrong.
I know of another poster who does, though...

”how do you suggest we diffuse the situation?”

Shouldn´t that be ”defuse”? Not joking or being sarcastic here, just trying to find my English footing, so I´m really not sure.

If ”defuse” is what you mean, I think we may have a problem. My immediate answer would be to find out the answers to two questions:

1.How much can we allow ourselves to speculate about how Toppys signature would have looked back in 1888? It is in no way any dumb suggestion to make that it would have looked much the same, and there is nothing telling us that we must regard a wiew that it COULD have looked EXACTLY the same as being dumb either. What is untenable to my mind, though, is the suggestion that it MUST or even WOULD have looked the same in all stylistic elements. For we know these elements can change, and that goes for everybody, Toppy included. Noone is in any way immune to the possibility.

2.Is it more probable that we change our signatures early on in life, than it is that we do so after having reached the middle-age years?

These are questions that I think may yield a lot of healthy answers from the literature in the field, if only we can find the time to look for – and find – them. One of the main problems, though, is that I feel that if I was to perform the search, I would do so at the risk of your dismissing any finds I may make, and that you may question the degree to which I would do an honest search. You have implied that I am not truthful before, and I am not a stranger to the idea that it may happen again. You have also systematically discredited my ability to sift the material and you have said that I am biased.

...but that would be my suggestion as to how and where to start digging for material.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

But that tells us nothing when we know that other "George Hutchinsons" fit the social class and general vicinity a great deal better,

Who are these others? Toppy's imagined social class fits very well without stretching anything. We have no statements about any others that I know of. We have a few census details, but no family members coming forth and saying anything. That means we only have Toppy. That is far more than what we have any other faceless, unwitnessed Hutchinsons.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

"Defuse". Yes, sorry about that. I was recently researching light rays, particles and such (for another Hutchinson-related topic, incidentally) and the word "diffuse" kept cropping up. You know when I've been studying the Titanic when I accuse people of great "wrecklessness".

I think there may be some confusion over our individual understanding of the expression "style". That tends to be a very encompassing term, and would generally refer to the entire appearance of the signature. It is in this regard that Toppy exhibits a great rigidity in style over a 13-year time period, suggesting to me that these particular elements had been established and continued from early adulthood. You were quite right to draw our attention to some alterations in Gareth's 1911 column, and I feel these reflected the likely extent of his susceptibility to change.

Unforutnately, I belive his long-term consistency is unlikely to manifest itself in the more significant alterations we see in the statement three. In my view, it would take some rather radical changes to make his signature resemble the Toppy three; changes that would seem heavily at odds with his signature rigidity spanning some 13 years.

No – it was how YOU worded it. You spoke of Rag ”realizing” things

Which was the gist of his observations concerning Lord Randolph Churchill anf the Astrakhan man.

...and she wrote ”What you suggest with regard to Toppy is possible” and ”I take your point about one time period not proving the other

I take your point there, too. But I never claimed to have established proof, only an inferental likelihood.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Who are these others? Toppy's imagined social class fits very well without stretching anything

But what does that tell us when we know that the vast majority of East Enders (probably the vast majority of human beings, in fact) were working class? There was George the ticker-nicker, (whose statement was said by one registrat to match the witness'), George the glass-cutter, and George the Shadwell butcher are three off the top of my head, all of whom appear in the 1891 census, all of whom had closer East End connections than Toppy, none of whom we have signatures for.

In this case, given the actual content of Reg's claims, the story is a factor against Toppy being the witness, to my mind.

[perrymason]

Hi all,

This is a fascinating thread folks...and its clearly an argument of opinion, cause as everyone can see....what you have in terms of a case for concluding Toppy was the George at 6pm, November 12th, 1888...meeting with police, and the one that births Astrakan man, is inconclusive at best.

Ill suggest this though, anyone that might believe the George Hutchinson that did that also killed Mary and 4 women should reassess their position....I doubt highly that a serial killer of that era would participate in later census taking using the same name and details as in 1888.

I doubt one would do so today either.

Best regards all.

[The Good Michael]

But what does that tell us when we know that the vast majority of East Enders (probably the vast majority of human beings, in fact) were working class? There was George the ticker-nicker, (whose statement was said by one registrat to match the witness'), George the glass-cutter, and George the Shadwell butcher are three off the top of my head, all of whom appear in the 1891 census, all of whom had closer East End connections than Toppy, none of whom we have signatures for.

In this case, given the actual content of Reg's claims, the story is a factor against Toppy being the witness, to my mind.

The content of his claim can be just as easily supported via use of reason as you can, using your own reasoning, refute the story. Yet, it is a story and that is more than we have for anyone else. Again, this is the best we have and when comparing similarity of signatures and adding that, we have no one else.

Cheers,

Mike

[The Good Michael]

I doubt highly that a serial killer of that era would participate in later census taking using the same name and details as in 1888.

I doubt one would do so today either.

Michael,

Good point. Someone who gave testimony that the police believed and that he could use as bragging rights to his mates, wouldn't hesitate to use his own name. Indeed, it may have been a point of pride for the young scalawag.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

Ill suggest this though, anyone that might believe the George Hutchinson that did that also killed Mary and 4 women should reassess their position....I doubt highly that a serial killer of that era would participate in later census taking using the same name and details as in 1888

I'm not sure why that would pose a problem. If he wasn't suspected back in 1888, what major obstacle presented itself by giving his name in later censsu-takings. Having said that, I'm not suggesting that any of the other George Hutchinsons I mentioned must have been the "right" on either, and yes, it's quite possible that he didn't use his own name.

Yet, it is a story and that is more than we have for anyone else

Hi Mike (The Good one),

I'd disagree that simply having a story bestows upon him any greater likelihood of being the witness, though. It is the content that must be considered important, and makes the difference between a "pro" or a "con" when it comes to arguing for the subject of the "story" being the real McCoy.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"You were quite right to draw our attention to some alterations in Gareth's 1911 column, and I feel these reflected the likely extent of his susceptibility to change.
Unforutnately, I belive his long-term consistency is unlikely to manifest itself in the more significant alterations we see in the statement three. In my view, it would take some rather radical changes to make his signature resemble the Toppy three; changes that would seem heavily at odds with his signature rigidity spanning some 13 years."

Then we are back at level that is a lot easier to handle. You acknowledge that there may be alterations involved inbetween 1888 and 1898, and thank you for that!
It is now a question of just how big these alterations may have been, and there we differ in wiew, but not in expertise; none of us can state with any certainty that we have the insights to cement our respective wiews. Therefore I think that the two questions I brought up in my last post have become that much more important to answer. And I don´t think they will be hard to answer if we go to the sources.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

I] Bob Hinton mentioned finding some newspaper articles which gave his age as 28, as did the late Brian Marriner who first wrote about Hutchinson as a suspect in, I believe, 1996.
Ben

Hi Ben,
Could you find the exact references and wordings of these articles, Ben?
I've never came across any Nov 1888's report providing such detail. Had it been the case, believe me, I wouldn't have forgotten it.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi David,

I'm afraid I haven't seen them either. Bob mentioned locating an article that gave witness George's age as 28, which he made reference to in his book. He later expanded on the message board that he had discussed the matter with Brian Marriner, who had seen the same article.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Bob mentioned locating an article that gave witness George's age as 28, which he made reference to in his book. He later expanded on the message board that he had discussed the matter with Brian Marriner, who had seen the same article.

This is hearsay then and shouldn't be used in consideration of Toppy as Hutch theories. One newspaper article, if actually discovered, means nothing as well, in my opinion.

Cheers,

Mike

[perrymason]

Hi Mike, Ben, all,..

Ben the point I was getting at is that the census to my mind had to be the most obvious way to disappear. I mean what kind of proof had to be provided as verification of the details they give? None were required by law to carry identification. Likely few had any such document.

If we are talking about the real killer at some date beyond the unsolved crimes being asked who he was and where he was from, why would he leave a bread trail to where he was now..and a tangible link to the area where 5 unsolved murders had occurred.

If the Ripper killer was this Toppy, and is the George that police met with and took statements from at that time, why would he link his real name yet again with the specific area concerned at that time in later census data.

Census taker notes the address and dates..."so.. you lived there during the Ripper crimes didya? You say you were the Georgie boy that saw that poor woman with Jacky in Dorset?" Or..."Were you the same George H that was in the papers back then with all that Ripper madness about?" Or...."your name seems oddly familiar when I look at your details here...hmm...".

Instead of to the census man, "My name is William Mountbatten from Bradford, lived there from - to - before moving here. Here are my birth registry details....".

Its not like any of these things were checked and verified. He could have said just said Robin Hood and never thought about the matter again.

Best regards gents.