The Leander Analysis

[Jane Welland]

Hi Mike

You really believe in this 'blindness' don't you? What you say is interesting, and certainly, people can be led by preconceived ideas - this is why interpretations of the past change and shift - because they are interpretations. There was a time when European archaeologists (though in those days they called themselves antiquarians) viewed the past exactly as you describe in Korea - as biblically informed. Most of what they thought is viewed as incorrect today - as is the idea of the age of the various fossilised dinosaur remains found on the south - east coast, which at one time were aged according to Biblical chronology. I thnk all that has to be viewed in it's socio-historic context, it being a time of religious revival, particularly in England.

What you say concerning the self-creation myths of the Koreans is common across time - the newly created Germans did it in the 19th Century, to name but one example - but there are many others. It seems to the usual behaviour of identity seeking societies.

I can also see what you're getting at when you refer to the pre-supposed guilt of suspects in this case - of which Hutchinson is one. But I don't think there is a 'camp' of people here discarding the evidence which allegedly supports the Toppy=Hutch theory because of a pre-supposed belief - I can't see them, and I'm not blind.

Regarding the signatures, which is the crux of the matter, which this thread has addressed in terms of Leander's interpretation - I don't think that the fact that others do not see a match (necessarily) between the Toppy signatures and the witness signatures, whereas you, Sam and Fisherman do, indicates blindness on their part.

It's a difference of opinion, isn't it? One which apparently the experts to date also share. I don't see any difficulty with that, or really any 'agenda'. What agenda?

What difference would it actually make, even if one held the theory that Hutch was a killer, to this identification of Toppy with Hutch? None as far as I can tell.

You are convinced, Mike, of the match between the signatures, and so are some others - but as has been pointed out ad nausem - not everyone is, including Sue Iremonger, and if the match was as good as is posited, she surely would have agreed?

Once again, it isn't a done deal, and disagreement doesn't necessarily imply either blindness or agenda.

I'll leave you to it.

Best wishes

Jane x

[The Good Michael]

Maybe not the place for it, but perhaps a lesson can be learned.

In Korea over the past 30 years, anthropologist and archaeologists have studied Korea's artifact trail. There interpretations have been based on nationalist concepts of Koreans being a group of isolated, pure-blooded people who have, though beset upon by all sides, kept to themselves and fended off the evil outsiders. All the things they do, such as a sport called Gumdo or Kumdo, which is absolutely identical to Japan's kendo, they attribute to self-creation with the outsiders taking their ideas from them and claiming ownership. Do searches on the web and you will see this. You will also see that the authors are almost always Koreans who are pushing forward this nationalist idea of their being a superior group of people to all others. So, archaeological finds are interpreted to represent extant myths.

Biblical archaeology, similarly is based upon the idea that the Bible is word for word true (for the most part), so these 'archaeologists' use the Bible as a blue print and when they find something they say, it must be such and such a place. Of course this isn't because it is that place, but simply because it's in the general vicinity and the Bible says so. We all know that the Bible is not exactly a piece of historical writing, so this is the same style of archaeology as the Korean example.

Similarly, we have the Hutchinson-as-suspect theory which predates all this HUtchinson information we are accumulating. Because Hutchinson is guilty, any data that is accrued can only be interpreted by these people if it doesn't negate Hutchinson. This means it has to be discarded or warped to fit preconceptions. This is how all suspect theories are, Kosminski, Druitt, Chapman, all. The suspect is guilty, so all data that may not point to his guilt, must be refuted.

This is what is going on with Hutchinson. It's right to question things, of course, but there is a blindness going on here which is completely detrimental to the JTR case. It can be looked upon as sabotage, because it technically is. There comes a time when things must be accepted as probable because they are. In Hutchinson's case, this is true. Coudl he have been the Ripper? Sure. Does honest interpretation of date hinder this theory? Possibly. So what? Accept this and continue questioning, but then move on. This kind of thing should be unacceptable after a point as it is completely anathema to seeking solutions. It is sabotage of solution.

We now know that Leander's findings cannot satisfy everyone. That's as it should be, but Leander is small potatoes when compared to the many pairs of eyes and unagendized (new word) thought processes who see what is probable. Others, give up and move on and help the cause. Don't be Korean archaeologists.

Cheers,

Mike

[Victor]

Not really, since we know full that that Toppy's signature registered a remakable consistency over a 13-year period, i.e. between 1898 and 1911, and the differences with the statement signature remained different over that time frame.

That's a strange way of saying that the differences emerged sometime over a 10 year period, and then stayed consistant for the following 13 years.

There's no reason to think that Geo is any more or less likely to go out of fashion that closed-looped G's or skyward pointing n's, but both remained a constant feature of Toppy's handwriting over the aforementioned time frame.

Or one of those three features changed and the other 2 didn't which is far more consistant than if all 3 changed.

[Ben]

Mitigated by the big gap between the statement and the known signatures for Toppy, during which time the Geo abbreviation could have gone out of fashion, or he changed his mind.

Not really, since we know full that that Toppy's signature registered a remakable consistency over a 13-year period, i.e. between 1898 and 1911, and the differences with the statement signature remained different over that time frame. There's no reason to think that Geo is any more or less likely to go out of fashion that closed-looped G's or skyward pointing n's, but both remained a constant feature of Toppy's handwriting over the aforementioned time frame.

[Victor]

Of course, if - and it's a big if - the man's "usual" signature consisted of the abbreviation "Geo" followed by the surname, that would pose potential problems with any Toppy identification since there's no evidence that Toppy used any such abbreviation. It wouldn't surprise me if the police insisted on full names, and it would tally with Bob Hinton's observation that it was police proceedure to include full names (including middle names or initials where applicable) in witness statements.

Mitigated by the big gap between the statement and the known signatures for Toppy, during which time the Geo abbreviation could have gone out of fashion, or he changed his mind. In 1888 how often would someone sign something anyway?

[Ben]

Seems reasonable to me, Jane.

Of course, if - and it's a big if - the man's "usual" signature consisted of the abbreviation "Geo" followed by the surname, that would pose potential problems with any Toppy identification since there's no evidence that Toppy used any such abbreviation. It wouldn't surprise me if the police insisted on full names, and it would tally with Bob Hinton's observation that it was police proceedure to include full names (including middle names or initials where applicable) in witness statements.

All the best,
Ben

[Victor]

He signed his name on the first page, signed 'Geo' on the second page - pretty common - and maybe he used it commonly, maybe not - and was then told by Badham ' Sign your full name please, Mr Hutchinson' and so on the third signature, he did.

Easy and logical

I don't think it has to be any more complicated than that.

Jane x

Thank you Jane, that was what I was getting at.

1st - done with a flourish on the "H" and full "George" to impress
(delay where maybe the 2nd page is written or read to him)
2nd - usual "Geo" signature
(another unquantifiable delay)
3rd - "Please sign your full name" etc.

Or maybe he got more and more nervous about being in the police station, or tired, or the opposite he got concerned and more alert.

KR,
Vic.

[Jane Welland]

What if...

He signed his name on the first page, signed 'Geo' on the second page - pretty common - and maybe he used it commonly, maybe not - and was then told by Badham ' Sign your full name please, Mr Hutchinson' and so on the third signature, he did.

Easy and logical

I don't think it has to be any more complicated than that.

Jane x

[Ben]

Hi Vic,

Well that would depend upon them being written within minutes of eachother which is by no means certain unless you are stretching the definition of minutes to include tens of minutes

Well, even in that event, it would be unusual for someone to change their signature in so short a space of time. While Geo is a well-known and traditional abbreviation of George, it's generally the case that anyone with the first name George will continue to use either the full name, the abbreviation, or just an initial when writing their signature. There isn't a lot of chopping and changing, especially on the same document. My signature has always included my first thee initials, never a full name.

the observation that he signed one "Geo" as per his usual custom and then was asked to sign the complete "George" for the final page is a valid explanation.

I tend to disagree, since it would mean that he was asked, for some reason, to sign the second page before any others, which would be very unusual. Either he signed the end page first, and then was asked to do the same for the first two, or he signed pages 1, 2 and 3 in numerical order.

All the best,
Ben

[Victor]

"Geo" is an abbreviation as we know, but signatures generally don't alter between George and Geo for no good reason, especially when they're being written by the same person within minutes if not seconds of eachother. They generally stick to one or the other. The fact that it occured here may imply that the writer wasn't accustomed to writing that signature, which in turn might imply that he was using an alias. I'm tickled by the counter-suggestion that he was in a "hurry" to sign, so he decided not to bother with the time consuming "rge". A frivolous affectation anyway.

Hi Ben,
Well that would depend upon them being written within minutes of eachother which is by no means certain unless you are stretching the definition of minutes to include tens of minutes, and the observation that he signed one "Geo" as per his usual custom and then was asked to sign the complete "George" for the final page is a valid explanation. You could even include the first "George" with the flourish on the "H" as a trying to impress opening gambit, then the second "Geo" as per normal custom, and third requested to sign full name.

The very inclusion of "Geo" suggests to me that George would be his real name and that Geo was his usual form of signature, although the time consuming argument is weak when taken without apathy and\or laziness, conciseness, familiarity\routine.

KR,
Vic.

[Roy Corduroy]

My suspicion is that he was doing a Violenia

Could be, Jon.

Roy

[Ben]

Fisherman,

You must realise that's a circular argument.

"But donīt you think that the question why a man who was NOT named George Hutchinson but still signed that name, coincidentally stumbled on a handstyle that according to Leander is very much alike one of the very few, ACTUAL George Hutchinsons that were about"

That's only an interesting coincidence for those who have already decided that the handwriting matches very well. For those who listen to the only full expert opinion on the comparison, which is to the effect that the handwriting doesn't match, and are inclined to treat Leander's radically contrasting "spontaneous comment" with caution at the very least, the dismissal of a match increases the likelihood that one of the other George Hutchinson's in the area at the time had better-matching handwriting, and I can guarantee that you haven't seen most of those.

I hope you didn't use that post as another opportunity to repeat your perpetually challenged "Leander thinks we have a match" assertion?

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

"Geo" is an abbreviation as we know, but signatures generally don't alter between George and Geo for no good reason, especially when they're being written by the same person within minutes if not seconds of eachother. They generally stick to one or the other. The fact that it occured here may imply that the writer wasn't accustomed to writing that signature, which in turn might imply that he was using an alias. I'm tickled by the counter-suggestion that he was in a "hurry" to sign, so he decided not to bother with the time consuming "rge". A frivolous affectation anyway. But then that observation was made by Mike who, let us face it, has been responsible for some absolute howlers of later. Take this one for example:

Mind-numbingly stupid if you are a murderer. It's happened before, or since, but very, very seldom with regards to the numbers of murders committed throughout history, so the odds are way against it happening.

The first sentence is just provably false, since many of the offenders who have resorted to an alias have come from the more intelligent end of the criminal spectrum. Secondly, if you seriously believe that murderers resorting to aliases happens "very, very seldom", then you're only reinforcing everyone else of your lack of knowledge, since in reality, alias-use crops up fairly often amongst serial killers.

This would mean that he was using the alias prior to killing Kelly (and the others?), so he must have planned something nefarious or why else use an alias? Of course this means it is all very unlikely.

What exactly are you describing as "very unlikely" here?

That some degree of pre-crime planning may have occured, which can easily include the use of an alias? I think if you ask any expert on criminal psychopathology whether they'd consider that "unlikely", they'd quickly disabuse you of that obvious fallacy.

[The Good Michael]

I wonder what name he was using at the Victoria Home.

The police must have checked him out, and he must have been living under that name. Anything else is incredibly improbable.

This would mean that he was using the alias prior to killing Kelly (and the others?), so he must have planned something nefarious or why else use an alias?

Of course this means it is all very unlikely.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jon Guy]

Hi Harry

I wonder what name he was using at the Victoria Home.