The Statement of George Hutchinson

[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

[DVV]

Hi Sam,

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

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]

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

[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.

[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]

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.

[Ally]

Fact: Crystal created a sock puppet.
Fact: Crystal is now doing nothing but disrupting the threads troll style. Claims with no evidence, the definition of troll behavior. Hit and run posts, the method of a troll.
Fact: Crystal is nothing but a troll.

I am not putting her on ignore, I am reporting her. It's fairly clear it's been a windup from the start and she is now and has always been nothing but a troll.

[halomanuk]

I don't want to put you on ignore Crystal,how will i see your post showing the proof ?
It's not personal,i just want to see the result either way.

Oh Yes It Is!

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. Barry, it will be done. 'It', not 'My'. As to the thread, whilst many things may well be within my power, ending the 'misery' of the thread is not. Ask Admin to close it, it has nowhere to run anyhow. You know, chaps, you can always put me on 'ignore'. Adios for now.

[babybird67]

proof?

i do not see how it can ever be proven that two similar, yet also differing, signatures were written by the same man, at this distance in time, based upon document examination.

As i said three trillion times in the original 1911 thread, we are chasing the chimera of resolution, if we think it can be decided either way to everyone's satisfaction, since document examination, even when practised by the best in the profession, is not an exact science, as has been acknowledged by "expert" and layperson alike.

All we have at the end of the day on either side is faith and opinion. If that is sufficient "proof" to some minds, so be it.

[halomanuk]

Toppy wasn't Hutch. I can prove it.

Then prove it and put this thread out of its misery...

[Fisherman]

Bob Hinton writes:

"I do apologise. I only dip in and out of threads nowadays and didn't see your post 199. I've got half a day off tomorrow and will answer your points then."

No need to apologise! I am just happy to get response from you on the matter, since I am trying to piece things together, and this particular piece is of great interest to me.

Thanking you in advance,

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Speculation. By all means, speculate. Invest your mental prowess in Toppy. It won't change a thing. Nope. Sorry. Toppy wasn't Hutch. I can prove it. I will do so. Defenders of the Ludicrous Order of Toppy, however, will have trouble doing likewise. All that is left is to talk about it, apparently ad infinitum-but faith is not logic, after all. Enjoy your micro arguments. Oh and Toppy isn't Hutch. NOW this the 1911 thread..

Go away. Really, just go away. You are no one and you mean nothing. You are a bit of undigested pork and nothing more.

Mike

[Bob Hinton]

Post 199

Bob Hinton writes:

"So anyway, who started this Hutchinson nonsense anyway? It was that bastard Bob Hinton - lets get him!!!!"

Well, sort of ... but not really. But I WOULD like some sort of answer to my post 199 on this thread if you feel up to it...?

The best,
Fisherman

I do apologise. I only dip in and out of threads nowadays and didn't see your post 199. I've got half a day off tomorrow and will answer your points then.