The Leander Analysis

[harry]

As far as I am able to establish,Hutchinson does not say how long he had resided in the area.He says he had known Kelly for some time,but Kelly was dead,so if Hutchinson was an alias,and not known as such by anyone else local in Whitechapel,why change the name?

[Jane Welland]

Hi Richard, Fisherman

It's possible that Reg didn't know who Jack the Ripper was, of course, but personally I find that unlikely. How many people living and working in London, with family connections to the same are unaware of Jack the Ripper? Not many, I bet. He's pretty famous, isn't he?

And besides, how is it he hadn't heard of Jack the Ripper but he knew who Randolph Churchill was? I would think myself that more people know of Jack than know of Randolph Churchill, wouldn't you?

Fisherman, I wasn't commenting on whether Toppy=Hutch directly, I was responding to Victor's post regarding the inconsistencies in the witness signatures. Not every comment made by other posters is by way of reference to the Toppy/Hutch question.

But since you ask - you are taking disparate factors which arise from evidence of variable quality and reliability and presenting them de facto.
This does not necessarily follow. It may, but not necessarily. Imagine, for a moment, that all you had was Reg's account? How would that affect your view? Imagine if you only had the signatures, and no account by Reg or anyone else? How would that affect your view?

You will doubtless respond with - 'Ah, but we have both!' Yes, but whereas the signatures are undeniably a fact of existence, the veracity of Reg's story is not, is it? I would be wary of using it to bolster the argument myself.

And then, there is that question again - if the match in signatures is so clear, convincing and obvious as you, and others, have suggested - then explain to me how it is that neither of the experts who have seen this material (whether originals or copies) have exclaimed the same?

I note that nobody has yet responded to that - perhaps because no answer is available. I don't ask to be confrontational, but to point out that observance should be made of the fact that at the very least, the experts to date have not expressed their verdict in such positive terms.

Anyway, personally, I don't have the inclination to go round in circles ad infinitum - the question is still open in my view, there are too many issues that I refuse to take at face value without further query - whether others choose to accept without question what they perceive as good evidence is of course, their perogative.

Best to all

Jane x

[richardnunweek]

Hello,
The evidence is almost conclusive, that Topping was Hutch, we are reluctant to admit that [ well some are].
A lot of the doubts arise from 'The Ripper and the Royals', and the Randolph Churchill suggestion.
But we must realise, that Reg knew nothing about the whitechapel murders then , he had to borrow a book from a younger relative to understand a bit.
He was also promised a wedge of cash from Fairclough , should the book do well, and understandably went along with the upper class suspect, which after all would go well with his father 'Topping ' used to relate anyway.
Lets stick to what Topping said, 'The man resembled someone up the social ladder, and not rip the Hutchinson name about, because of a authors vision of Royalties.
Regards Richard.

[Jon Guy]

Indeed, Mike. Although I still believe he should be viewed with great caution, as he`s a better shot at being the Ripper than 99.9% of the folks on the Suspect list.

My suspicion is that he was doing a Violenia, and I would not be surprised if he`d spent most of Sunday and Monday hanging around with the masses outside Millers Court or Shoreditch mortuary, parting periodically to let a select few inside.

[The Good Michael]

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that a man who tells the police that he has known a murder victim for a number of years, and lives in the area, will use an alias.

Jon,

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.

Mike

[Jon Guy]

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that a man who tells the police that he has known a murder victim for a number of years, and lives in the area, would use an alias.

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"maybe, as I think Garry suggested, the witness was unused to sigining that name - it being an alias - and so he wavered
I'm speculating, of course, but it's an interesting question."

It is, Jane! It is a very, very interesting question! 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, and who, interestingly, also had as son who claimed that his father was the man who signed the protocol - donīt you think that question is even more interesting?

How on earth did that come about, Jane? Coincidence?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Vic,

There was some speculation that Badham signed the first page and Hutch signed the second page and then he was told to write out George on the third. Yet, no one really knows if they were signed one at a time, or all at once. I don't think it can be proven one way or another. I do agree with the Geo. thing. After many hours of questioning, he simply may have been in a hurry to sign, but was told to make the last one proper.

Cheers,

Mike

[Jane Welland]

Hi Victor

As to how the signatures were signed - I don't know, but I think it's the practice today to sign the pages at the end, the presiding officer having read back the statement to the witness first.

Perhaps the statement was taken, and then Badham read back the first page, Hutchinson signed it, Badham read back the second page - etc.

Maybe that took long enough for there to have been differences - and that explains it? It could do - we have no way of knowing what the time scales were in the processes of giving and taking the statement (well, within sensible parameters)

Or maybe, as I think Garry suggested, the witness was unused to sigining that name - it being an alias - and so he wavered

I'm speculating, of course, but it's an interesting question.

jane x

[Victor]

If people assumed from your posting that you were insinuating i was male, which they obviously did, then they couldn't possibly have got the allusion you were trying to make, which was, apparently, to a female, who was called Dave. So i think we can safely assume they were pretty confused. As was I.

Hi Dave,
So 3 people who might have been confused and posted without looking it up, hardly a significant number, and it says more about their thoroughness than my lack of clarity.

1. your allusion wasnt clear. Make it clear, people can look it up, rather than jumping to hasty conclusions such as those jumped to by Observer and AP.

It was clear, don't try and hide your laziness, incompetence and lack of thoroughness by lashing out.

2. you dont interest me enough to have been bothered to look it up, even if you had expressed yourself clearly enough for me to realise it was an allusion to something else.

OK, so your only interested in your side of the argument, I call that morally bankrupt.

Nope. I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. there's only so many times you can perservere with a monkey before you write it off.

Here we go again, outwitted so you turn to cheap shots. After all the crowing and self-congratulatory twaddle about running rings round me.

Now, can we kindly stop arguing, and return the thread to it's original purpose, which was to discuss the Leander analysis?

Erm...the meaning of the word "verbatim" and your stupidity for using it wrongly is highly relevent to the interpretation of the analysis. The lack of acknowledgement of your complete failure on this point is hardly unexpected though.

Much has been made of the "Geo" on one page and the quirky "H" on another, but I don't see that as in the least bit significant.

I agree, the "Geo" is such a common and traditional contraction (there's a Fishmonger on St James St, Brighton that has "Geo. Watts & Son" on it's sign - see http://www.qype.co.uk/place/307228-G...s-Son-Brighton for a picture and that's not an isolated example) that it's not significant and the embellished H on the first is a flourish entirely consistent with the "embellished" description of Astrakhan Man in the statement, and is a lot less suspicious than if the first was plain and one of the others had the flourish.

Does anyone know if the 3 signatures were done one after another at the end of the statement taking or at the start, middle and end of the session, because the latter could help explain the inconsistencies.

KR,
Vic.

[Sam Flynn]

It is diminished, without question, by the fact that Leander did not have the full number of examples known to exist, particularly in respect of the Dorset Street Witness.

Not irrevocably, Jane. As I've noted elsewhere, the "meat" in all three police statement signatures is the same. Much has been made of the "Geo" on one page and the quirky "H" on another, but I don't see that as in the least bit significant. Sometimes my "G"s (which, as the first letter of my forename, is pretty "standard" from my perspective) come out entirely differently on the same page.

[babybird67]

Hi Dave,
There's no indication that Observer and AP didn't get the reference.


No Dave, you suggested that other posters were confused as well, but haven't yet established that as fact, therefore the foundations of your rickety old shack are unstable and everything you've built on top of it comes crashing down.

L...ets...take....this...real....slow, Dicktor.

If people assumed from your posting that you were insinuating i was male, which they obviously did, then they couldn't possibly have got the allusion you were trying to make, which was, apparently, to a female, who was called Dave. So i think we can safely assume they were pretty confused. As was I.

Here we go again, Dave, how else could those 7 words be interpretted? And 2 of them you didn't know, so what does a sane person do...could it be look them up?

1. your allusion wasnt clear. Make it clear, people can look it up, rather than jumping to hasty conclusions such as those jumped to by Observer and AP.

2. you dont interest me enough to have been bothered to look it up, even if you had expressed yourself clearly enough for me to realise it was an allusion to something else.

I notice that you've avoided admitting that you got the meaning of "verbatim" wrong, twas only to be expected.

Nope. I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. there's only so many times you can perservere with a monkey before you write it off.


Now, can we kindly stop arguing, and return the thread to it's original purpose, which was to discuss the Leander analysis?

[Victor]

Right. Because everyone else got the reference, right? Or are you calling Observer and AP stupid as well? Where there is multiple confusion, that usually lies with the fault of the person allegedly communciating with people. You are too stupid to express yourself clearly. I have managed to understand every other poster here, so that says something about whose "stupidity" it was, doesn't it?

Hi Dave,
There's no indication that Observer and AP didn't get the reference.

I must apologise to the monkeys.

You do that Dave, but make sure they don't confuse you. Oh but then you can always say they expressed themselves badly.

I've pointed out that you confused a number of posters, Dicktor, not just me. Either we three of us are stupid and you expressed yourself perfectly, or you expressed yourself clumsily and had to clear the matter up by explaining what you meant. I think it is clear where the fault lies, Dicktor, and it aint with me.

No Dave, you suggested that other posters were confused as well, but haven't yet established that as fact, therefore the foundations of your rickety old shack are unstable and everything you've built on top of it comes crashing down.

Not just me. Other posters too. Nobody can look up an allusion that they are unaware is being made through the clumsy expression of it, now, can they?

Here we go again, Dave, how else could those 7 words be interpretted? And 2 of them you didn't know, so what does a sane person do...could it be look them up?

Well, i do have a dictionary, but the monkeys are onto basic spelling now, and i don't want to disrupt their progress by sending it to you. I am sure you aren't too stupid to purchase a Dicktionary on ebay, for your personal use.

I have a dictionary Dave, but I wanted one that translates those odd things you say into English.

I notice that you've avoided admitting that you got the meaning of "verbatim" wrong, twas only to be expected. Seeya later Dave.

[babybird67]

Hi again Dave.

Right, because you are too stupid to realise that...

Right. Because everyone else got the reference, right? Or are you calling Observer and AP stupid as well? Where there is multiple confusion, that usually lies with the fault of the person allegedly communciating with people. You are too stupid to express yourself clearly. I have managed to understand every other poster here, so that says something about whose "stupidity" it was, doesn't it?

..alludes to something else, you've decided to insult the way I express myself. Can I just ask how many other ways are there of interpreting that first sentence? What did you think I was implying that you'd turned into?

Haha. The irony. So, you make an obtuse allusion which is actually to insult the way I express myself, then complain when i return the favour? I really really have overestimated your intellect, and by quite a considerable amount. I must apologise to the monkeys.

I've pointed out that you confused a number of posters, Dicktor, not just me. Either we three of us are stupid and you expressed yourself perfectly, or you expressed yourself clumsily and had to clear the matter up by explaining what you meant. I think it is clear where the fault lies, Dicktor, and it aint with me.

Right, you're too stupid to look up a phrase you're not familiar with so you can coherently continue an argument, and that means you've "run rings around me".

Told you already, i'll reiterate once more for you Dicktor. Not just me. Other posters too. Nobody can look up an allusion that they are unaware is being made through the clumsy expression of it, now, can they?

Do you sell a dictionary where I can look up the meaning of phrases like "run rings around" that equates with what you've actually done?

Well, i do have a dictionary, but the monkeys are onto basic spelling now, and i don't want to disrupt their progress by sending it to you. I am sure you aren't too stupid to purchase a Dicktionary on ebay, for your personal use.

[Ben]

If you must, but just ask the simple question and let others respond.

Don't write a 50-line post repeating the previous argument from "1911" and then ask the question.