Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

That's not the way to go about it, Ben, with respect. Responsibility to the truth is one of the first casualties of any belief system.

My perception of the truth is dicatated by the evidence, Gareth. That's all I meant. It certainly isn't dicated by any desire on my part for a particular individual to be a Victorian serial killer, since the identity issue is pretty much divorced from that question, as we discussed earlier.

We do know that Iremonger examined the original documents. We have it on the authority of reputable sources, and since that's what forensic document examiners do - examine original documents, as opposed to computer images - any doubt that she did precisely that should really be eradicated. Let's not go there again.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

My perception of the truth is dicatated by the evidence, Gareth. That's all I meant. It certainly isn't dicated by any desire on my part for a particular individual to be a Victorian serial killer.

That's OK, Ben - but what you said originally came across as the opposite of that.

We do know that Iremonger examined the original documents.

I'm still not sure that anyone's said the originals of both documents were physically compared at the same time. Wouldn't that entail removing them from their respective archives and conveying them by secure courier to Ms Iremonger for her to examine? If so, such dedication to the cause is commendable, but I doubt that this happened somehow. I'm willing to be educated on that point, however.

We have it on the authority of reputable sources, and since that's what forensic document examiners do - examine original documents, as opposed to computer images

The only benefit I can imagine of examining the "originals" is to look for the pressure of the pen and any other such physical attributes as might indicate forgery. Since forgery is not in question here, the "value-add" of actually having the papers in one's hands, as opposed to images of those papers, is negligible.

Besides, it remains the case that she only had the Marriage Certificate to go by - we have 13 more samples than she ever had at her disposal.

[richardnunweek]

Hello all,
And still the debate goes on.
Sorry, but if all of you had heard that Radio Broadcast many moons ago, when it appeared very obvious that the son of the witness known as George Hutchinson, was speaking, then you would be of the same opinion as me, that Reg, son of GWTH, was that man, the reason why is obvious, the comments made on radio in the early 70s, were exactly the same as in 'The Ripper and the Royals' some 18years later.
Unfortunately Reg cannot comment , as he died a few years ago, the interviews he gave to Ripperologists, have said to be non convincing, however I have been told his knowledge of the actual case was poor, and he could only reflect on his fathers words, he liked the limelight, but the fact that his father knew a victim, and he saw possibly her killer, was not that life changing for him.
We also have Toppings grandson alive, and JD , married to the latter, and although i can not be certain possibly Toppings youngest son born `1920, who has often said his father saw 'Jack the Ripper'.
Unfortunately that family have made it obvious, that they will not comment any further, JDs short [ and only post] was simply a effort to confirm that it was known in the family by others, not just Reg.
So why do the majority still doubt that Topping was the witness, we have the signatures, and one oral, and one written conformation from Reg, also in writing from living relatives.
I would state most clearly that Topping was the witness, i cannot say that all his statement was honest, but he was certainly not a killer, and i believe we should strike him from any suspect list.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Dear Richard,

Please let's stick to the signatures, eh? The wider story of Fairclough, Reg, astrakhan coats and radio programmes belong on other threads.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sam,
Fair play.
Signatures are the same , at least to the laymans eye, but only a panel of experts with no biased views can determine that, and thats all that can be said really, without covering old ground.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I'm still not sure that anyone's said the originals of both documents were physically compared at the same time. Wouldn't that entail removing them from their respective archives and conveying them by secure courier to Ms Iremonger for her to examine?

I anxiously await Crystal's return, as she'll be able to educate us more fully on the topic, but Ms. Iremonger would certainly have examined the original documents themselves, whether she compared them at the same time or not. I don't see anything too outlandish about the proposal, myself.

The only benefit I can imagine of examining the "originals" is to look for the pressure of the pen and any other such physical attributes as might indicate forgery.

Forensic document examination is concerned with other aspects of handwriting comparison besides those involving forgery. The fact that we're not dealing with a forgery here doesn't decrease the importance of having the original signatures examined, and since document examiners stress the importance of analyising originals despite the absence of a forgery, I'm strongly inclined to heed their advice and expertise.

Besides, it remains the case that she only had the Marriage Certificate to go by - we have 13 more samples than she ever had at her disposal

And it's entirely possible that if she did have those additional samples at her disposal, she'd be even more inclined to the opinion that the signatures didn't match, since the differences between the statement three and Toppy's efforts are reinforced.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

the comments made on radio in the early 70s, were exactly the same as in 'The Ripper and the Royals' some 18years later

That wouldn't lend support to the story, though, Richard.

It would only mean that Reg offered up the same implausible tale twice.

So why do the majority still doubt that Topping was the witness, we have the signatures, and one oral, and one written conformation from Reg, also in writing from living relatives

Because mismatching signatures and dubious stories don't add up to a very viable candidate for the "witness" in question.

I would state most clearly that Topping was the witness, i cannot say that all his statement was honest, but he was certainly not a killer, and i believe we should strike him from any suspect list

Who - Toppy? Yes, I agree, and that's chiefly on the grounds that he had nothing to do with the investigation, not because he played the violin and liked ice-skating!

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Aaargh!!!!! Not AGAIN!

Hello

Ben, Sam Flynn, and everyone else stupid or dogmatic enough to still appear on this thread after 150 pages of circular arguments, How are we all today?

Now,

Everything is in place and I will see the originals next week. Sam Flynn, if you have the piece number for the Toppy 1911 signatures, that would save me looking for it?

I will have the results of this forthcoming examination in under a week. Then nobody will be able to say the originals haven't been seen, will they. Anybody wanting my credentials for this work can have them via PM, I'm not prepared to put them out in the public forum. OK?

At the end of this exercise I hope to have ascertained the following:

From the statement: Did Badham sign for Hutch on page 1 of the statement? I can see no superficial reason to suggest that this was the case, but neither do I expect that Miss Iremonger reached that conclusion without good reason.

From the comparison between the statement and the census material: Based on handwriting comparison alone, does the balance of probablility sustain the view that Toppy is a tenable candidate for the Dorset Street Witness?

I will be looking at stylistic elements, as we have all had a go at doing; pressure, size of script and letter formation, both individually and in groups. I will also examine both documents for other signs of similarity or difference.

The examination will be in terms of the document as an artefact (or object if that makes it easier to understand), and not just a stylistic interpretation of the script. It is important to understand this.

I'm doing this in my own time, for you. Appreciate it. If you had to pay somebody to do this, it would be expensive.

And if I publish the results, as I very well may, I will dedicate it to you, Sam Flynn.

I also thought I might take a look at the Lusk letter, while I'm at it - if I have time.

Until then, I'm done with this silly, repetitive thread. I only come here to see Ben anyway, as everyone knows.

Crystal.

[Crystal]

That's OK, Ben - but what you said originally came across as the opposite of that.I'm still not sure that anyone's said the originals of both documents were physically compared at the same time. Wouldn't that entail removing them from their respective archives and conveying them by secure courier to Ms Iremonger for her to examine? If so, such dedication to the cause is commendable, but I doubt that this happened somehow. I'm willing to be educated on that point, however.The only benefit I can imagine of examining the "originals" is to look for the pressure of the pen and any other such physical attributes as might indicate forgery. Since forgery is not in question here, the "value-add" of actually having the papers in one's hands, as opposed to images of those papers, is negligible.

Besides, it remains the case that she only had the Marriage Certificate to go by - we have 13 more samples than she ever had at her disposal.

Yes Sam Flynn, but you see, the statement is at Kew, and so is the Census. I mean the actual Census, not a copy. Kew is its house, where it lives. So you see, all Miss Iremonger would have needed to do was get permission and go and see them - Easy! Just one visit! At lovely Kew! She could have gone to the gardens at the same time! In fact, maybe that's what I'll do. Either that or throw myself in the river - I haven't decided yet.

Damn it all, man, I just had to come back into this hideous thread and put you straight!

[DVV]

Dear Richard,
Please let's stick to the signatures, eh? The wider story of Fairclough, Reg, astrakhan coats and radio programmes belong on other threads.

Hi Sam,

...almost true...
But just "almost", since I've read more than one post by Sam Flynn to the effect that the "family tradition", when added to the signatures, makes Toppy the witness - beyong doubt.

Now back to the signatures.
Ben and I have been accused to be dishonest, but sincerely we are not.
Not a big problem, of course, but our opinion being backed by the only expert who had examined the signatures, that's a bit rich, no ?

Note that I'm not hiding myself behind one expert. I know an expert can be mistaken. I know different experts can draw different conclusions.

I also know you're completely unbiased and have read all your posts here carefully (as I have read Fish's and Mike's).
But your arguments, at best, open room for doubt, but fail to convince me that Toppy was the witness and that the case is closed.
And I find my position just reasonable.
Because of Sue Iremonger.
Because of Reg's dodgy story.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hello

Ben, Sam Flynn, and everyone else stupid or dogmatic enough to still appear on this thread after 150 pages of circular arguments, How are we all today?
Now,
Everything is in place and I will see the originals next week. Crystal.

Thanks for the greetings, Crystal !

And more thanks for what you're doing.
I'll bring you the finest rosé on earth when I'll go to London.
Or Corsican cooked meats, if you prefer.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Yes Sam Flynn, but you see, the statement is at Kew, and so is the Census. I mean the actual Census, not a copy. Kew is its house, where it lives. So you see, all Miss Iremonger would have needed to do was get permission and go and see them - Easy! Just one visit! At lovely Kew!

Damn it all, man, I just had to come back into this hideous thread and put you straight!

Well, you haven't - unless you know that Iremonger went to Kew to handle the originals. She might have looked at a couple of photocopies or faxes, for all we know. In other words, you're only speculating.

Besides, we know that it was only the Marriage Certificate and police statement that were compared by Iremonger, and NOT the 1911 Census, in the context of Bob Hinton's book. So you're speculating on the one hand, whilst being quite incorrect on the other. Seen in that light, your triumphant tone seems a little premature.

[Sam Flynn]

And if I publish the results, as I very well may, I will dedicate it to you, Sam Flynn.

... thanks, but I suspect you may end up dedicating it to St Jude instead.

[Ben]

Hi all,

I'd respectfully submit that speculating that a professional document examiner analysed the original documents in the Toppy/Hutch case is akin to speculating that the Pope might be Catholic.

Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi all,

I'd respectfully submit that speculating that a professional document examiner analysed the original documents in the Toppy/Hutch case is akin to speculating that the Pope might be Catholic.

It is by no means certain that Iremonger asked for, or had access to the original papers, Ben - anymore than Dr Leander requested to handle the originals. (Not that I believe one would need to, but that's another matter.)

Apropos which materials Iremonger went to Kew to compare the originals side by side, or whether she had photocopies/faxes/whatever, one would have thought that it would be easy enough to confirm one way or another. As things stand, it's just speculation, I'm afraid.