The Leander Analysis

[Victor]

Hi Ben,

All I can understand from your post is that you're a master of spin and have manoevered yourself into an undefeatable position. It just leaves me with the one question...What would you accept as clarification from Leander? Every time Fisherman tries you come back with "I'm not surprised he told YOU that."

KR,
Vic.

[Fisherman]

...aaand as could be foreseen, Ben, there is nothing in your post I need to answer, for the simple reason that you are once again moving around in circles.
Myself, I have nothing more to add at this moment in time either; I set out to give Leander the chance of clearing his name of very malicious allegations made by you, and that is done by now.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Well, this wasn’t predictable at all, was it?

Fisherman has contacted Leander for the 7th time. I mean, for crying out loud, this is getting to the point of resembling a hideous self-parody, since this was the very criticism that was levelled in Fisherman's direction from the outset. The question remains, though; how exactly was Fisherman seriously expecting Leander to respond when he bombarded him at length with the Magna Carta explaining, in detail, what a bastard I supposedly am? Were you seriously expecting him to respond with something like; “Oh, I just remembered. I did fob you off with a more Toppy-endorsing stance that the neutral one I first provided because you were getting on my nerves?”…?

Clearly, that’s ridiculous. Obviously you’re guaranteed to elicit the sort of response you received from Leander if you’ve spent an interminable post telling him what a bastard I am, and obviously, if he spent an entire fob-off post giving you the Toppy-endorsing stance you bombarded him into giving, he can’t back-track from it now. He’ll know full well that if he does, you’ll just re-establish contact with him again and demand to know why he radically changed his stance back to the initial neutrality. Here’s your clue, once again from his latest contribution:

“Hoping that the debate will come to an end!”

Which, when translated by Captain Subtext, equates to:

“Here’s hoping that you’ll finally leave me alone”.

How many more polite hints can a man drop? He’s a pestered man, Fisherman, and like all pestered men, the ultimate goal is to avoid a situation where he is likely to pestered again. Not everyone is like me, and has the stamina to engage with your nonsense on a nightmarishly regular basis. If I shared that aversion to being bombarded, I’d be the one saying, “Yes, Fish, Toppy is the witness – whatever you say. Leave me alone to die in peace”, but I’m not like that. Unfortunately, a person who had already fobbed you off can’t exactly backtrack on that fob-off, and if you’ve decided to paint me as the villain of the piece, you are once again influencing Leander in a negative way.

“So, Ben, Leander identifies you antics as exactly the same thing as I do, and dubs your efforts ”malicious interpretations”.”

Well, duh!

What else could you possibly have expected after you told him what a nasty man I am, and that I’ve accused him of lying? “Yes, he’s right, I fobbed you off”. Had he said anything along those lines, you would have bombarded him into eternity. I mean, can’t you have the self-scrutiny to envisage his reaction after seeing those frightening and familiar words:

“Hello again!

As you can see, I am once again asking you to help out in the question of the George Hutchinson signature”

Talk about the man’s heart sinking, and that’s weeks after he informed you that he didn't wish to elaborate any further. The fact of the matter is that Leander has been shown to have made statements that are impossible to reconcile with each other – in his first neutral post, he listed several differences between the signatures which have nothing to do with “amplitude”, but after being Fisherman’d into submission, he then declared that there were no differences other than those which involve amplitude. Now, I’m sorry, but that’s an irrefutable contradiction – fact. Thanks to your blitzkreiging, we now know for certain that he contradicted himself, and no amount of blathering about departments altering dictionary definitions is going to change that. To go from a neutral stance where non-amplitude related differences are specifically referred to, to an assertion that he’d be surprised if there wasn’t a match is irreconcilable, however much you want to fiddle with English definitions in an effort to argue otherwise.

He even sent you his manual which proves conclusively that his department use “cannot be ruled out” to convey a neutral stance, or when dealing with cases where there are "tendencies in one direction or the other".

“you give two judgements; one based on the quality and number of the investigated material, where you cannot stretch any further than to ”cannot be excluded”, and another judgement, where you tell us that the inherent likenesses in the lacking material you have been provided with, actually gives at hand that the signatures are still similar enough for you to say that a match is actually probable.”

Ah, interesting. So, it’s not as if you didn’t pick up on the whole “two judgement” thing yourself, only you’re just making it worse for Leander now by highlighting the very contradictions that were evident from his later posts. Basically, you’ve made him aware of his conflicting judgements, and are now encouraging him to go with the judgement that makes me look bad. A sort of “Go with Ben’s view if you want to, but just remember that he’s the one that’s been horrible about you, whereas I’m your friend”.

Slightly insipid tactic?

You cannot hope to elicit a non-biased conclusion from an expert if you raise their heckles with the following cack:

“The answer is that he means that you are lying in these later statements of yours”

You’ve poisoned the perpetually hassled man, and the hassled man now feels he has to defend himself against a perceived attack. What are you expecting from an ostensibly decent individual: “Yes, I did lie! He’s right! Now sod off!”. Sending people private emails about my perceived bad character and "dishonest" intentions is a biased answer waiting to happen, and if you employ the same tactic in your professional career as a journalist, then I’m afraid you’re in the wrong profession.

So the latest clarification also belongs in the reject bin, because my suspicions are only strengthened on the basis of the above – that you appeal to emotions to elicit the response you’ve already decided upon, and if you think that means me dropping the issue, I’m afraid you’re severely mistaken. The bottom line is that Leander’s comments, as quoted by you, contain statements that inescapably contradict each other. It is an indisputed fact that the words you claimed were implicit in his initial post mysterious appeared in later "clarifications" exactly the way you phrased them. Call me a bastard if you want, but any reasonable person is entitled to find that odd. His latest post even looks like one of your contributions, laden with a distressing rhetoric and bombast that was wholly absent from his initially circupsect post (but which characterize practically all of your posts), but that’s what happens if you paint your opponents in a negative light and expect a non-biased conclusion.

All this continues to demonstrate is that any worth in Leander's initial contribution (and those of his alleged later "clarifications") has effectively been eradicated.

[The Good Michael]

You know. You got the information regarding probability rather than possibility. I have to hand it to you.

Mike

[Fisherman]

I´m not speaking to you, Mike. Pushover!

Fisherman
disappointed

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Damn it! I have just gone over to the other side and now you give us this! I can't go back to the Toppy=Hutch side or I will be castigated. You have given me a dilemma.

It can't be an elephant, can it?

Mike

[Fisherman]

Okey, everybody, here we go – this is what I wrote to Leander to give him an opportunity to clear his name after having been pointed out as a liar with no working ethics by Ben.

I cannot refrain from adding that the very same Ben that means that he is at liberty to point a renowned expert out as totally untrustworthy and a liar, is the very same Ben that a few posts back wrote this to Sam:
”I don't want to run the risk of patronizing the readership”. That will take a large glass of water before I can swallow it - or, more likey, a bucket. Or a tub.

Anyways:


"Hello again!

As you can see, I am once again asking you to help out in the question of the George Hutchinson signature. Actualy, the very fact that I am once again asking you for a statement is the very core of this mail. In a fashion, it can be said that my question is a meta-question.

Let me explain:

There has been a very hard and unforgiving battle on the website that handles this issue. The battle is mainly about whether your stance on this issue is one of total neutrality or if you think the match good enough to lean towards a verdict of a genuine match.

One may think that it should be obvious that the latter applies, considering that you have written that the grade you chose (cannot be excluded) is the most careful grade of the positive side of the old scale you were friendly enough to send over to me, that you have written that this phrasing is used when no other differences are at hand than differences in amplitude of the expressions, and that you have written that you would be surprised to learn that it was not a genuine match and that you mean that any new evidence coming forth will probably confirm your suggestion.

In spite of this, one of the so called Ripperologists that have read your information does not accept the suggestion that you are more positive than negative to a match. This man means that you – by using the term ”cannot be excluded” have tied yourself to a position of total neutrality. I have pointed out to him that this term was something you used since it was part of a number of terms that were represented in your ”old” manual, and that manual, to my mind, is very clear in showing that you could be no more positive than this, since you were faced with lacking material and had only seen photocopies.

From the manual, however, it was also clear that it is possible to add nuances to the chosen grade by making personal additions, and the way I see things, this is exactly what you did by pointing to the inherent likenesses being enough for you to accept a match as the reasonable bid, even though – like I said – the quality of the material and the insufficiency in the number of signatures, means that you cannot grade the match any higher from a professional point of wiew.

Put differently, one may – if my version is correct – say that you give two judgements; one based on the quality and number of the investigated material, where you cannot stretch any further than to ”cannot be excluded”, and another judgement, where you tell us that the inherent likenesses in the lacking material you have been provided with, actually gives at hand that the signatures are still similar enough for you to say that a match is actually probable.
Yet another manner to describe the picture I have had by reading your mails, would be that one can say that you are positive at present, but that you also point out that added evidence may change that picture – but you don´t think it will do so.

But, like I said, the other Ripperologist involved in this discussion means that you, buy using the term ”cannot be excluded” in your first mail, have sworn to a strictly neutral stance. The interesting part in this is of course how he handles your later additions, where you say that you would be surprised if it was not a match, and that you expect forthcoming evidence to point in that same direction.
The answer is that he means that you are lying in these later statements of yours – since you had already claimed to be strictly neutral, you are not free to say that a match is more probable than not afterwards, he claims.
And why would you lie? Well, this is where the meta-question enters the discussion; he claims that you simply got tired of my questions to you, and simply decided to try and get rid of me as fast as possible by telling me what I wanted to hear instead of upholding your original stance!

A few quotes /my signature is Fisherman whereas my opponents´ is Ben):

”Fisherman is basically coming up with the worst excuses conceivable for dismissing experts who go against his view, whilst bombrding other experts until they do "agree" with him, which speaks very poorly for both Fisherman and Leander.”

”What I find galling in the extreme is that whenever Leander's observations are made known in all their circumspect, non-Toppy-endorsing glory, those arguing for Toppy go straight back to Leander.
Not quite Toppy-favouring enough, Frank!
Bit more?
Better. Bit more?
Nearly there.
Bit more?
There! That'll do!
...With Leander's views mutating over time as he is bombarded”

”That sounds distressingly as though you intend to bombard Leander with more pursuit of clarification, despite the fact that it was this bombardment that created all the problems before. I entertained grave suspicions that you were pestering Leander into giving a progressively more Toppy-sympathetic stance, since there was no other means of accounting to so stark a contrast with his earlier musings.
If you contact him, and he confirms his neutral stance, I don't believe for one moment that you'll drop the issue, and if he claims that he meant "probable" from the outset, I'll just remind people of his initial, unambiguously neutral stance and reinforce my earlier suspicions.”

It may be added that the only reason I have had for troubling you more than once with this question, is that this very poster has refused to accept that you would be more positive than negative to a match. Time and time again, he has tried to read you in the fashion that he wants to read you, and when that possibility disappeared, he resorted to claiming that you had abandoned your working ethics in order to keep me pleased.

I myself find this incredibly unbecoming and deeply regrettable. My own stance is that the poster in question has never had honest intentions in the issue, but has instead all along tried to distort what you have been telling us. I light of the generosity you have shown, I am of the meaning that you must be given the possibility to react to the allegations you are subjected to, and I therefore hope that you may settle this curious matter.

Greetings!"

...and here is the answer from Frank Leander, received today:

”Hej!

Suck! Tråkigt med illvilliga tolkningar men jag har ju en viss vana att brottas med advokater som gör allt för att slå ner på utlåtanden som skrivits....

Alltså, jag har tagit ställning till ditt knappa material i kopieform där underlaget i flera avseende måste kompletteras för att kunna användas för ett sakkunnigutlåtande.
Sedan har jag framfört att jag tycker ditt material är sådant att jag*inte skulle släppa detta spår utan gå vidare med det. Enligt min bedömning och den erfarenhet jag har av att undersöka handstilar/namnteckningar är det nämligen inte särskilt troligt att de likheter som finns uppkommit genom slumpen. Naturligtvis kan det finnas för mig okända faktorer i ärendet som gör att jag "övervärderar" materialet om du förstår vad jag menar,*exempelvis att George Hutchinson nr 1 och 2 gått i samma skola, lärt sig skriva av samma lärare eller liknande.....? Men hur troligt låter det!
I hopp om att debatten lägger sig!
Frank Leander”

”In translation:

Sigh! It is sad to see malicious interpretations, but I am used to wrestling with solicitors who will stop at nothing to attack written statements....

Moving on, I have judged your meagre material in copy-form, where the material in many respects must be added to before it can be used for a full expert opinion.
After that, I have stated that I am of the meaning that your material is of such a character that I would not let go of it, but instead move along with it. In my judgement and according to the experience I have examining handstyles/signatures, it is not very credible that the likenesses involved are coincidental. There may of course be unknown factors in the errand that makes me ”overvalue” the material if you take my meaning, for example if George Hutchinson number one and number two went to the same school and learnt writing from the same teacher or something along those lines ....? But just how credible does that sound!
Hoping that the debate will come to an end!
Frank Leander”

So, Ben, Leander identifies your antics as exactly the same thing as I do, and dubs your efforts ”malicious interpretations”. After that, he moves on to say exactly what I have been saying all along – that the material is insufficient to come up with a full expert´s opinion (and THAT is where you should have concentrated you efforts if you needed to criticize), but using the material he DID get, he tells us that the likenesses are not very credible to be coincidental, and he recommends us not to let go of it.

Ben, you have manouvred yourself into a position that is apallingly unbecoming for anybody who needs to lay claim to any credibility at all whan you call Leander a liar (and from a total layman´s perspective!!!), and it´s time to realize that such things will do your cause no good at all.

Let´s stop the idiocy, and let´s stop it here and now!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Hmmm...

Ah, but you see, Mike, I put the parts of this argument together and I don’t necessarily come up with Toppy. Your analogy – entertaining as it is – presupposes that those who do not agree with your stance (i.e. that Toppy=Hutch) only see one element of the argument – again, how do you know that this is the case?

It’s a sweeping generalisation – isn’t it?

To assume that people are blind or have a dubious agenda simply because they disagree with you does not strike me as very plausible.

Maybe it is rather the case that some are not so convinced as you are by the conclusion that Toppy= Hutch – I don’t really see why that should be offensive to you, or indeed, to anybody.

Again, it is quite clearly unproven, and not only that, there is no consensus at all, by any means, on the one piece of empirical evidence available to us. All of the rest is speculative – and I include the account of Reg there, since for reasons outlined above by myself, and elsewhere by others, it amounts to little more than hearsay.

It’s all to the good to suggest that it must have credence because it is the only such story on the market – but sorry, that doesn’t necessarily follow – at all. There is no corroborative evidence for the story – as yet – and it includes the extremely dubious (to almost everyone, I should think) element of Randolph Churchill, which at the very least should mean that we treat it with caution. And furthermore, if it was prompted in the first place, as some have said, then it’s even more dubious.

I see that the identification of Toppy with Hutch is possible, yes, but I really don’t think it can be framed in terms stronger than that at present.

All the best

Jane x

[Ben]

Now, Mike.

I've realised you've changed allegiences, but it's a bit naughty to compare your former allies to a group of blind elephant-fondlers.

[The Good Michael]

I
Surely everyone comes to their conclusions by different means? We're all different, after all!

Jane you are correct. Here's proof:

Six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body.

The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

A wise man explains to them:

" Individually all things can be believed or refuted. Put all your parts together, and you have Toppy. Keep them separate, and you remain blind."

He then told them to walk north where they came to a cliff, and being unable to see, they dropped to their doom.

The wise man spoke as they were falling:

"Screw 'em."

[Ben]

Good man, Mike!

I knew you'd come round eventually. Just a few clarifications, though, to help you complete the leap:

1. Though George's witness statement signatures match Toppy's in many ways, Leander couldn't or wouldn't come to a decision. That makes this whole thing arguable.

We also have the opinion of expert document examiner Sue Iremonger that the signatures didn't match, and she almost certainly examined the original documents, unlike Frank Leander who was supplied with material which gave the erroneous impression that all the signatures were the same size. It might also be helpful to take on board Garry's observation that a lot of signatures will register similarity, and that he'd be suprised, given his experience, that two signatures from the period (but from different people) would not register some degree of similarity.

Just because it wasn't a common name, and just because we wouldn't have chosen it, doesn't negate necessarily the scenario of an alias.

George Hutchinson was fairly common, actually. George is a very common first name, and Hutchinson is a fairly common surname. If we're talking obscure aliases, the names Roger Downs and Herbert Webster Mudgett were both selected by criminals from history. You talk about the police being in a position to identify or corroborate an alias, but if this is holding you back from making the full 180 degree turn, please don't let it, because I can assure you that an 1888 police force were in no position to ascertain identities for certain, which is why they never established Kelly's, for one.

Toppy was born and raised on the East side, a spitting distance away from SPITalfields

Umm, no.

I'm afraid somebody must have given you a severely mistaken impression here because Toppy was born and raised in Norwood, in Surrey which is several miles south of London, and nowhere near a "spitting distance from Spitalfields". Nobody would even dream of describing it as the "East side". He met his future wife in 1895. She hailed from the East End, so it's no surprise that his connections to that part of London kicked in from that time onwards. Florence Jervis appears to have been his introduction to the East End.

4. Though Toppy's father was a laborer in 1841 and was listed as a plumber in 1851, doesn't mean his son would have done something similar.

Oh, they probably did do something similar, unless Toppy was the witness of course, which would mean that he acheived a feat that was not only dissimilar to his father's employment history, but flew in the face of the requirements of an apprenticeships which were available from the age of 14 onwards. George Sr. appears to have started his plumbing apprenticeship around this age, prior to which he had been odd-jobbing to earn cash, and I imagine that Toppt did the same thing - gaining that early apprenticeship and working as a plumber for the rest of his life. Seems a more realistic prospect than spurning that apprenticeship, bumming around the East End for at least three years in the worst living conditions available (near enough), before finally deciding to become a plumber in his early 20s when it was no longer possible to embark on an apprenticeship.

So I'm glad you've seen sense here too.

George Hutchinson the witness, most assuredly could not have had a father who was a plumber, part time or full, without following in his footsteps.

Oh you could, providing the son doesn't decide to change his mind and become a bonafide licenced plumber when it wasn't possible to embark on apprenticeships. For the record, I agree that it wouldn't have been particularly easy for Toppy to have passed himself off as a plumber in 1891 in the heart of the West End if he wasn't one. Thank goodness nobody has yet been silly enough to argue the reverse!

Since Hutchinson killed Mary Kelly, it is highly unlikely that he would have fathered a child and had a family. Murderers just don't do such things.

No, that's not true.

It is quite possible for murderers to father children and have families.

Reginald Hutchinson, son of Toppy claimed that his father was the witness. He is the only man to have done so, and no one has come forth from Hutchinson's family to refute this.

Yep, and he claimed that his father was paid a ludicrous sum of hush money to conceal the fact that he had seen Lord Randolph Churchill. If nobody from Toppy's family has come forward to refute this, now might be a good time. Unless of course, they realized that Melvyn Fairclough did the job for them by refuting his own theory.

Delighted to see you've come around to some sense, Mike.

I just hope I was able to iron out a few other misconceptions.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Did I just hear an angelic trumpet of triumph? Yes, I am one of you now.

Smug Refuter of Scientific Method

[babybird67]

Wow Mike

That is well over the mandatory paragraph, but i know you must have agonised over your personal redemption, so i am prepared to accept it this time.

Hallelujah...you have seen the light!

[Jane Welland]

Hi Mike -

It seems to me that you think Toppy was Hutch!

I respect your view - perhaps you are right, I don't know.

I haven't ruled it out, personally, but I think that it is far from proven, because there are issues with the evidence. That's all.

I think that's reasonable. I don't buy into the contention that those for Toppy have all the cake and those who express doubt have only a few stale crumbs. I don't think so - that's my personal view.

I found your point 5 interesting - I don't see, even if Toppy turns out to have been Hutchinson all along, why that means he must be excluded from any wrongdoing - yes, even possibly murder. He could have had a family, he could have, for example, changed his MO after Kelly and carried on at intervals throughout his life for all we know. Yes, that's pure speculation, of course, but so are some of the arguments put forward in this debate that would identify Toppy with Huchinson.

As and aside, whilst I have seen the words 'Toppy is Hutch' posted on these boards, I can't think where I've seen the emphatic 'Toppy is not Hutch' anywhere - please point me in the right direction if such exists!

I think facts are established via consensus - no such thing exists here - and saying that those who express doubt over the identification of Toppy with Hutch must have an 'agenda' is simply not true - how can one generalise so?

Surely everyone comes to their conclusions by different means? We're all different, after all!

Best wishes, Mike

Jane x

[The Good Michael]

This a letter of apology to Richard, Fisherman, Sam, Observer and others. I have changed my mind about Hutchinson. The evidence against his being the same man as Toppy is overwhelming in my opinion. I finally see the light. I think it's best if I do a point by point breakdown to show you what I'm talking about.

1. Though George's witness statement signatures match Toppy's in many ways, Leander couldn't or wouldn't come to a decision. That makes this whole thing arguable. The idea that many people wrote similarly is quite possible. When we see the two people's signatures side by side and make a claim for their kinship, we have to admit that other George Hutchinsons have similar signatures, though not as similar. We need to drop this whole argument. Coincidence does happen.

2. Hutchinson could have been an alias used. Just because it wasn't a common name, and just because we wouldn't have chosen it, doesn't negate necessarily the scenario of an alias. I would suspect that the police, though they spent a few days with him taking him around to the murder site and such, must have never sought corroboration of identity in any fashion. How do we know this? It wasn't written down, so it couldn't have happened. We are left with the only solution that Hutchinson was most probably a made up name.

3. Toppy was born and raised on the East side, a spitting distance away from SPITalfields, yet that tells us nothing about his residence at the Victoria Men's Home, so he couldn't have lived there. There is no logical connection between, for example Toppy living in Bethnal Green or Mile End as he got older, because there is no evidence that people move around, within the same area, over their lifetimes. Though I have lived in perhaps 4 different houses and 2 flats in a 10 mile radius, is merely anecdotal and should not be projected upon a Victorian working class man such a George Hutchinson (an alias) and his ability to move around in a two mile radius. That kind of thing just didn't happen.

4. Though Toppy's father was a laborer in 1841 and was listed as a plumber in 1851, doesn't mean his son would have done something similar. I can't even imagine that a man who might have been a plumber at times and a jack of all trades at other times would even list himself as a plumber in the census. No, he would have had to have been a licensed plumber because when the census takers come around, they check licenses and employment records and tax statements to such an extent that it becomes impossible to simply say, "I'm a plumber." Unless that is the only way your bread is buttered. To be sure, all children picked up their father's trades in the LVP... with the exception of a few miscreants who went off into the arts or something, yet we know the kind of people they are, eh? George Hutchinson the witness, most assuredly could not have had a father who was a plumber, part time or full, without following in his footsteps. It wasn't done.

5. Since Hutchinson killed Mary Kelly, it is highly unlikely that he would have fathered a child and had a family. Murderers just don't do such things. Besides, it was an alias anyway (see step 2).

6. Reginald Hutchinson, son of Toppy claimed that his father was the witness. He is the only man to have done so, and no one has come forth from Hutchinson's family to refute this. It must be true, but again, we are dealing with a real Hutchinson and not someone who took the name hoping that these kinds of things would happen in the future to keep him in obscurity. Only a criminal mastermind of the most nefarious type could have planned for something over 100 years in the future. So, we have our answer.

So I have turned to the other side gents. The logic was astoundingly sound in the other camp and I had no alternative.

Cheers

Mike