The Statement of George Hutchinson

[babybird67]

I agree, Jen, you don't see how it can be proven. That, I'm afraid, has no bearing on the fact of the matter.

It cannot be proven Crystal. Proof requires factual evidence, diametrically opposed to speculative opinion.

I would have thought in your profession you would be well aware of that.

[Brenda]

Crystal, the best advice I could give you would be to chill out. If you have some kind of proof, then fine, present it. If you need more time, then you would be wise to back off until you do have your proof. If you keep arrogantly posting like we're all some kind of imbeciles compared with YOU, you're going to get kicked off these boards permanently. Then how will you EVER get the attention you crave?

[babybird67]

and just to be clear...

my comments about speculation and opinion apply equally to the Toppy is definitely Hutch camp and the Toppy is definitely not Hutch camp.

Neither premise can be established to be proven by a long chalk.

[DVV]

It cannot be proven Crystal. Proof requires factual evidence

Hi BB,

Agreed. "Proof" seems too bold a word, for what we are dealing with.
But I still want to read Crystal's conclusions.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Hi BB,

my comments about speculation and opinion apply equally to the Toppy is definitely Hutch camp and the Toppy is definitely not Hutch camp. Neither premise can be established to be proven by a long chalk.

Given that we now have in excess of ten samples of the way in which he wrote his name, we need a much shorter chalk than one might suppose. Because of that, when I (and perhaps some of the others) say that Toppy's signature bears a significant resemblance to that of Hutch, I'm stating not so much an speculative opinion, but a conclusion arrived at from a considered analysis.

That conclusion is given independent support by the fact that there were so few eligible people of that name in the whole of London, let alone the East End, around that time. It is given further support by Topping's eventual known connections with the East End (coincidentally, his future wife lived not far from Stepney Gas Works, where Mary Kelly herself hung out), his lowly status, and - yes - the Topping family story (and it's not only Reg, apparently).

The above are all facts, by the way, and - this is crucially important - they ALL point in one direction, and are consistent with only one reasonable conclusion. As far as things go in Ripperology, this is as good, if not better, as it ever gets.

[DVV]

Hi Sam,

At least one expert has dismissed Toppy.
That's another fact, isn't it ?

Amitiés,
David

[babybird67]

Hi BB,Given that we now have in excess of ten samples of the way in which he wrote his name, we need a much shorter chalk than one might suppose. Because of that, when I (and perhaps some of the others) say that Toppy's signature bears a significant resemblance to that of Hutch, I'm stating not so much an speculative opinion, but a conclusion arrived at from a considered analysis.

Hi Sam

I understand your point. To be honest i give your "considered analysis" a great deal of respect: it still does not lead me to conclude that anybody's considered analysis is good enough to prove anything one way or another.

We've been through all this on the 1911 thread. I accept and respect the similarities are enough for you to conclude in good conscience that there is a (would you say proven?) match; unfortunately the differences are still there, and i am no further on in my own mind in concluding that these can be safely overlooked in concluding a match.

That conclusion is given independent support by the fact that there were so few eligible people of that name in the whole of London, let alone the East End, around that time.

How far would this independent support carry us if we acknowledge that "George Hutchinson" of statement fame could have actually been somebody else? If his story has been discredited, are we on safe gound picking and choosing which elements of what he told the Police were reliable and which were not? If he could lie about Astrakhan, is it not dangerous to accept anything else he said at face value?

It is given further support by Topping's eventual known connections with the East End

But no known links at the time.

(coincidentally, his future wife lived not far from Stepney Gas Works, where Mary Kelly herself hung out)

Thank you; i did not know that. Interesting.

The above are all facts, by the way, and - this is crucially important - they ALL point in one direction, and are consistent with only one reasonable conclusion. As far as things go in Ripperology, this is as good, if not better, as it ever gets.

I understand it is good enough for you, Sam. Unfortunately, the opposing "Toppy is not Hutch" camp also think there is enough evidence to rule out a match. My contention is merely that neither possibility has yet been proven, as there is no evidence which irrefutably proves it either way. And yes, that might be impossible in Ripperology ever to have something proven to 100%. I dont think the answer is to drop the standards of proof down to possibilities or most likelies...that, for me, is even more unsatisfactory than having to say, "I don't know." Saying "I don't know" at least leaves my mind open enough to accept other possibilities should further evidence emerge.

Hutch is still as much a confusion and enigma to me as he was when i first arrived...i still have no discernible position on him other than to admit "I do not know."

with respect

[Sam Flynn]

Hi BB,

How far would this independent support carry us if we acknowledge that "George Hutchinson" of statement fame could have actually been somebody else?

It's highly unlikely that he'd have signed his made up name to match so closely a real "George Hutchinson", who lived in London, married an East End girl, etc. etc.

I understand it is good enough for you, Sam. Unfortunately, the opposing "Toppy is not Hutch" camp also think there is enough evidence to rule out a match.

But that conclusion is entirely based on opinion - whereas mine is based on a number of independent, but fully consistent and factual threads. Like I said earlier, the "pro-Toppy" argument needs a much shorter chalk.

[Sam Flynn]

Hutch is still as much a confusion and enigma to me as he was when i first arrived...

He may still be viewed as an enigma irrespective of his identity, BB, which is a very important point to bear in mind. I can understand why the merest hint of "normality" about Hutchinson might threaten any aspiration of finding him a thoroughly bad egg, but - again - if he were a serial offender, he would not have been the first nor the last to have come across as a "regular guy", so I don't see any problem there either.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Sam, At least one expert has dismissed Toppy.
That's another fact, isn't it ?

I've not seen precisely what the expert may have written, Dave - so, strictly-speaking, I can't take it as a fact. Neither do I know what the same expert might think if they had access to more samples, which is the happy position in which we find ourselves today. Given the remarkable similarity of those signatures, I'd be very surprised if any expert - or layman, for that matter - categorically ruled out Toppy as Hutch.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"(and perhaps some of the others)"

Well, one canīt fault you for being overoptimistic or drawing too much on things, Sam!

Fisherman
one of the others - definitely

[Crystal]

Ok, some clarification: I haven't called anybody an 'imbecile', people are entitled to their view, including me, and I couldn't care less whether I have your 'attention', or not. Now, as to what is actually important, so far as it goes-the result of work done earlier this month on the eponymous statement and infamous signatures. Yes, I will publish. No, it won't be immediate. I'm away now until July, at which time I'll try to get to it and write the report. Of course, how quickly it appears in the public domain depends on my getting permission to publish images-if we can agree on anything, surely it would be that a report of this nature would be pretty pointless without visuals. I will get it. I won't get it to publish here, I can tell you now. For this reason only, it must go elsewhere. I will happily say when it is due to appear, at which point, people can make whatever they wish of it. My personal view has no bearing on what the facts tell me. I have no emotional investment in who the Dorset Street witness was. I have a duty to knowledge however, and so I will see it through. No more. No less. I don't know when it will be, but before the end of the summer with luck.

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"I will happily say when it is due to appear, at which point, people can make whatever they wish of it."

No, Crystal, people cannot make whatever they wish of it, since you have stated that you can actually PROVE that Toppy was not the Dorset Street witness. Once that is proven, there can be no further doubts, and you can lean back and point out that I, Sam and Mike were wrong all along, and there will be nothing we can do about it.
THAT is how proof functions - you can NOT make whatever you wish of it.

Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Crystal,
I quess then its a question of waiting, using that old adage 'Time reveals all',refering to your much discussed visit to kew, i for one cannot see how that visit can have led you to the conclusion that Topping was not the witness we all occassionaly [ ha] discuss on Casebook.
I for one would be totally shocked if it was proven he was not. and i would then love to know the answers to the following questions.
1] from private information, i have reason to believe that Reg[ proven son of Topping] had absolutely no knowledge of the Ripper case until not so many years ago, infact he was lent a book to read about it by a relative, that being the case, how would he known in the early 1970s, of such a tale, involving the meeting with kelly on commercial street if he was not informed by someone in the know ie.his father? i heard this on the radio in the 1970s.
2] If Topping was a hoaxer, and he made the whole story up , he would have to been well versed on the case to have, [1] realized that he had the same name as a famous witness.[2] to have had the insight to have read up on that mans involvement.
3]what either father/son hoped to achieve by such a hoax, the old man , a pint or two pehaps?, and Reg, instant fame[ what fame].
We should also remember that Toppings youngest son [ to the best of my knowledge still alive aged 89] confirms his fathers story.
So if Crystal you can prove that GWTH, was not Hutchinson, i for one would eat the entire humble pie....
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Don't take the bait, guys. Don't believe the experts, for there are none.

Mike