The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

Gareth,

With the greatest respect, it takes more than insisting that you feel the signatures are similar and underlining certain words to actually make a persuasive argument for Toppy's candidacy. For others, who do not believe that the signatures match, there is only further reinforcement for the notion that he wasn't the witness. There is absolutely no evidence that Toppy had any personal connection to the East End until he met his wife in 1895, and the fact that he was living in Warren Street in lodgings that were obviously superior to the Victoria Home offers no interesting "coincidence" here.

The family story is not only patently bogus, it contains biographical details that aren't remotely compatible with what little we know of the real Hutchinson. It only serves to detract from his candidacy, along with the signatures. Jane makes the crucial point that Hutchinson may have been an alias, and that remains a valid possility, except of course for those who have already decided that Toppy was the witness.

I don't see that Hutchinson has been condemned any more than most legitimately suspicious suspects in the Whitechapel murders, but even he was was, nothing would change since a hypothetical Toppy-as-Hutch wouldn't lessen those realistic suspicions, as you've pointed out before. So what you think you're "wrong" about isn't clear, nor do I know what preconceptions I'm supposed to have harboured that a hypothetical Toppy identification might cast doudt upon. Bottom line, don't insist upon what the evidence tells us when you know full well that others believe that the evidence tells us the precise opposite, especially when Sue Iremonger is on record as having stated that the signatures don't match. That's rather inflammatory.

What is clear is that on the basis of current repetition of previously refuted arguments, this board is destined to become utterly dominated by Hutchinson threads.

[Sam Flynn]

Richard, I'd be happy to accept Toppy as Hutchinson if I thought there were more certainty involved

I can't see how more certain one could get, Jane, given what I pointed out earlier (that sentence with all those "ands" in it, a couple of posts back). Faced with that, even the most stubborn Toppy-denier would have to concede (even if only to themselves) that we have significantly more evidence in favour of Hutchinson being Toppy than of Hutchinson being "somebody else".

[Jane Welland]

Yes, Sam..

I can't see how more certain one could get, Jane, given what I pointed out earlier (that sentence with all those "ands" in it, a couple of posts back).

I can see that.

I guess I'm not so easily satisfied?

Seriously, though, I haven't reached to point yet at which I'm convinced - one way or the other. That means I'm not certain - that you are is splendid.

Time may tell if you're right, I guess.

Best regards

Jane x

[richardnunweek]

Hi Ben,
I must agree that the boards are dominated by Hutch Threads, simply because at long last, what should have been accepted years ago, has a chance to be proven.
Being. Topping was Hutch.
I find it so frustrating that dispite honourable intentions ,all requests by private E-mail to JD, have failed to land a reply.
I find it so unexceptable, that the wife of Toppings grandson,After one initial post to Casebook, should refuse to continue, what is a very important debate on the witness Hutchinsons authenticity.
I have the good ladies address[ unless moved] but i am reluctant to write, as i do respect individuals right to privacy.
I am currently on the hunt [ yes more research] for that elusive radio times, and am currently exploring other avenues, to obtain more knowledge of what has become of a family as elusive as that bloody broadcast.. back when we were all young[ if indeed born].
Regards Richard.

[Jane Welland]

Ok, Look...

People adhere to a belief, or a set of beliefs - in the present case - that either Toppy=Hutch, or Toppy does not = Hutch.

As it presently stands, on present evidence - however you want it:

It is unproven either way.

This means that the above positions - both of them - are what we call THEORIES.

Now, when there is enough Proof (y'know, that little thing) to exclude all reasonable doubt by general consensus, then the theory becomes generally
accepted as FACT.

I can't see that this debate is anywhere NEAR that point yet.

It may become so - yes, I accept that - indeed, I would be happy to see that - at least here we can see that there is the potential for further evidence to arise.

However - as much as we all are quite entitled to hold and enjoy our own views on this and any other matter, it is not a done deal, and there is not, imo, the evidence one should require to suggest that it is.

That's all

A pleasant evening to all

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

People adhere to a belief, or a set of beliefs - in the present case - that either Toppy=Hutch, or Toppy does not = Hutch.

As it presently stands, on present evidence - however you want it:

It is unproven either way.

This means that the above positions - both of them - are what we call THEORIES.

You put the two theories on an even footing, Jane - perhaps out of the goodness of your heart - however, they are not on an even footing. Not in the least. You see, the "Toppy does not = Hutch" belief is precisely that - a belief. There is no evidence, no matter how small, that supports the idea that Hutch was not Toppy - only beliefs, opinions and speculation.

The "Toppy = Hutch" argument, in contrast, has ample evidence, both circumstantial and tangible, to back it up. Furthermore, none of the evidence so far unearthed comes anywhere near to disproving the theory - on the contrary, the evidence supports it. That's usually a good sign that a theory might just be on the right track.

In my case, I look at a dozen or so samples of handwriting and say to myself - "It's great that the rest of the evidence supports the Toppy identification, but - be honest with yourself, Sam - the similarity in the handwriting clinches it beyond reasonable doubt".

Yours pragmatically and parsimoniously,

Sam Flynn x

[Ben]

That's all nonsense, though, and it's depressing to see such glib facility shamelessly espoused by people who used to know better.

It's all very easy for the Toppyite to claim that they have the evidence whereas the alternative is based on speculation, but insisting that we all swallow a controversial position on their say-so only makes them look foolish. There is plenty of evidence that supports the idea that Toppy was not Hutch, from the mismatching signatures, as observed by an expert in document examination, to the hideous incompatility when it comes to biographical and emloyment detail, to the fact that Toppy first came to the fore in a widely discredited Royal Conspiracy book that was even disavowed by its own author in time. I mean, the fact that his son claimed that he saw Lord Randoph Churchill the ripper should give us some sort of a clue here.

It does get very tedious to hear people reinforcing their irrational "proven beyond doubt" mantra over and over again as though it constitues evidence of their being correct, especially when they know full well that their position has been argued against by several people who don't even consider it likely, let alone proven. Insisting upon something doesn't make it so, and only succeeds in irritating people. When the Toppyite claims that nothing has come near to disproving the theory, that means they've rejected the evidence that other people consider to be fairly damning. The whole argument involving the supposed small number of George Hutchinsons in the area is only relevant for people who have already convinced themselves that the signatures are a good match, so continually referring to it is only an exercise in circular reasoning.

The above simply reads as "I'm right because I say I am", which, besides being so obviously wrong and fallacious, suggests to me that you're another one who's spoiling for a long drawn-out Toppy war, which of course I'd cheerfully oblige.

[The Good Michael]

It's at times like these that I cringe at the very thought of this field dignifying itself with the "-ology" suffix.

I really try, Gareth. I really do. There is much indignity here at times.

Mike

[Jane Welland]

Morning..

Well, here we are then.

Sam - thanks for your response to my post. I try to be objective, personally, and to consider all aspects evenly so far as I can - that's just my way, I guess. I put the opposing standpoints on an even footing here, because as regards the evidence, that's honestly how it appears to me.

To take that evidence from the top, so to speak.

The signatures - two people working as professional document examiners have seen them - correct? As I asked Fisherman, and have repeated since - which one looked at them and cried 'Eureka! We have a match!'?

The answer to that is that neither of them did. On the other hand, neither of them ruled it out, either, if you look carefully at what they said. Microagruments aside - what this means, I should think, is that there was sufficient doubt for them that they could not pronounce a clear and certain match - wouldn't things be so much easier now if they had?!

Yes, Leander had copies, and I think we have seen plenty of talk about what difference that makes, so I won't repeat it here - and Yes, Iremonger saw the originals - I reallly do think that must be taken as read, personally - it's both childish and rather churlish to suggest otherwise imo.

Anyhow, the point being that regardless of whether these good people saw copies or originals, I presume they know what they're doing, since both are, by all accounts, highly respected professionals. That leads me to think that their judgement was sound. And their judgement was not certain, either way, in either case. That's it, the facts of the matter. One can argue around it, but one cannot reasonably argue with it.

Finally, as has been pointed out by several posters prior to this one - the general similarities in what Fisherman refers to as 'Handstyle' at this time is well known and accepted. How much of the similarities you see in the signatures are due to that, for example, and how much are not? That seems to be a reasonable question to me.

Since there has been no certain verdict there, then that is how things stand, as far as I can see. You, Sam (amongst others) see a certain match there, but the experts do not. That suggests to me that the situation is far from cut and dried.

Moving on -

Reg's account - This is a difficult piece of evidence to address imo. Unllike the signatures, which are empirical, this is effectively hearsay. There is no proof that the story is true (or that it is not). What does weaken its veracity for some is the whold Randolph Churchill business - I mean, come on! Nothing is impossible, I concede - but I think one has to accept that it is highly improbable.

Of course, some have tried to argue around that in various ways - but the fact remains - that is what Reg said, and as such, it unfortunately throws his entire story into doubt. This is a product of rational reasoning, being that if he could invent a tale about Randolph Churchill, the rest may also be bogus.

Actually, that doesn't follow, imo - one pretty clear fabrication doesn't mean necessarily that the entire thing is bogus - human beings are incosistent at times. Besides, this is exactly how myths come into being - very often there is a core of truth at the heart of them which has, Chinese Whisper-like, 'evolved', shall we say, over the course of time.

At the same time, we have no idea of the source of the story that Toppy was the witness. Maybe, yes, we are on to something there, but sadly, we cannot discount the possibility that Reg, or even Toppy, made it all up in the first place.

Hearsay, you see - fairly low down on the evidence scale, as I'm sure you would agree, being of scientific bent yourself.

Circumstantial evidence - Finally, this does not seem overwhelmingly convincing to me - possible, yes, but that is as far as I would go, personally.

Toppy in Whitechapel - no evidence for this - it's supposition.

Number of George Hutchinsons - all the points I raised in my earlier post apply - it is not particularly strong imo.

I have to say also, against the premise of a identification of Toppy with the Dorset Street Witness are the following:

Toppy as Plumber - which we know he was, and his father was. The very simplest solution to this is, and remains, that he followed in his father's footsteps - yet the theory of Toppy= Hutch requires us to believe - on no evidence whatever - that he first worked as a labourer and groom. That's speculation, that's all. And also, when you find that you need to invent and excuse for a mismatch then generally speaking, your theory needs attention, in my experience.

Toppy's Age - which was 22 at the time. Hutchinson clearly said that he had known Kelly for approximately 3 years, which would mean that Toppy was 19 when he first met her. I find this a little improbable, personally - a bit stretchy - if you'll pardon the rather girly phrase! It's possible, of course, but perhaps unlikely.

So, what are we left with?

Empirically - it seems in the balance to me.

Supportive - as in Reg's account - interesting, but of little worth for reasons stated.

Circumstantial - valid arguments on both sides.

And that is why I put the opposing views on an even footing - because as it stands, neither is conclusive.

I'm sure others have different views, and I look forward to hearing them.

Best to all

Jane x

[The Good Michael]

Let's look at Topping's father:

Noted events in his life were:

• Census, 1841, High Street, Chelmsford, Essex.

• Occupation: Labourer, 1841.

• Census, 1851, Marble Lane, Chelmsford, Essex.

• Occupation: Plumber, 1851.

• Census, 1861, High Street, Hornchurch, Essex.

• Occupation: Plumber, 1861.

• Census, 1871, 5 Champness Terrace, Lambeth, Surrey.

• Occupation: Plumber, 1871.

• Census, 1881, 4 Roper Street, Elham, Kent.

• Occupation: Plumber, 1881.

• Census, 1891, 4 Lenham Road, Lee, London.

• Occupation: Plumber, 1891.

Wow! He was a laborer in 1841 and then in 1851 he was a plumber. Sound familiar.

Jane, though you can't place Topping in Whitechapel, we can place him in Bethnal Green where his son Reg was born in 1916. We can also place him in 1896 in Mile End where he married Florence Jervais. Looking at the way his father hopped around every 10 years or so, I should think these two places sufficiently close enough to the East End to show by 1896 that he was moving away from the squalor a bit. Isn't that what people do throughout the history of immigration? They move into the cheapest places that they can afford, and then when they have sufficient funds, move outward, hoping to reach suburbia one day.
It is precisely how the western world works and has worked. Mile End and Bethnal Green are neighbors of Spitalfields, and especially Bethnal Green which is breathing down its neck. If you or anyone else wants to quibble and say, "But that's not the East End." Then all it is is quibbling.

Mike

[Jane Welland]

Hi Mike

Thanks,

I take on board your point about location - which is interesting.

I don't see that the actions of the father here necessarily have any impact on how we might view the purportive actions of the son - it doesn't follow, in my view.

Human agency is difficult to predict on an individual basis - perhaps unknowable in many instances - because people are unpredictable at some levels.

Of course, it is possible that Toppy once worked as a labourer and then a groom and then a plumber, but equally, people are entitled to ask why he didn't just follow in his father's profession?

Like it or not, it appears, at the moment, that this is a sticking point - as does Reg's assertion that his father was rarely if ever out of work - unlike the Dorset Street Witness, who was unemployed at the time.

There are issues, Mike, and whilst it may be tedious in the extreme for people to go through them ad nauseum, I'm afraid I think it must go on, because it is so often that very way that new information does come to light.

If we let it go, because we're all sick of talking about it, then it will soon be forgotten, and then, most likely, we'll never know the answers we seek.

I don't think that's quibbling.

All of this is speculative, which is useful in it's own right, but since we have no corroboration at present, it remains speculative - on both sides of the argument.

Best wishes

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

All of this is speculative, which is useful in it's own right, but since we have no corroboration at present, it remains speculative - on both sides of the argument.

There's that "on both sides of the argument" thing, again. As I said yesterday, Jane, the two aren't on an equal footing - not by a country mile.

Consider this - the pro-Toppy theory has signature and census information that tends to support the identification of Topping with Hutchinson; in contrast, the anti-Toppy argument goes: "We don't know who he is, but he's not Toppy, and he must have been living somewhere else". In the name of all that's sane, what kind of an argument is that? It boils down to little more than, "Nyaah, nyaah! Don't believe you!".*


* Edit: Actually, it boils down to "Nyaah, nyaah! I'm not listening!". Such behaviour isn't confined to the Hutchinson debate - ripperology is full to the rafters with examples of otherwise serious students of the case sticking their metaphorical fingers in their ears, or covering their eyes, merely to blot out anything that might blaspheme against their own personal gods.

[babybird67]

grrrr Sam

It boils down to little more than, "Nyaah, nyaah! Don't believe you!".

That has never been my argument, and although i have always been able to see similarities i can also see considerable differences.

I place more weight on the differences in the capital letters simply because that is where variation seems to me to be more likely to occur between individuals, and since there was a generic writing style being taught at the time that could easily account for the similarities in the tch parts. There are many more ways to write a capital G than there are to write tch linked together in the middle of a signature.

That Sue Iremonger said in her view there was no match is significant, as Jane has already pointed out. I won't reference Leander's opinion since it was not a professional one but if i were to, he would also have come down on the side of negativity in pronouncing, albeit spontaneously and personally, that a match could not be ruled out.

It may be logical to surmise George Hutchinson was resident in or around the East End at the time of the murders but that doesn't make it evidence based to state that he definitely was.

The biggest worry for me is the content of his statement and the doubt this throws upon any information we have from him, down to whether he did give a genuine name. The commonalities of the day could easily account for the similarities you see...maybe this is why Iremonger thought there was no match? There is also the unhelpful information that Badham may or may not have signed one or more of the names on the statement itself for Hutchinson.

There are just too many variables here for me to be comfortable with any other verdict other than considering a match as a possibility and hope for more evidence.

I dont do this to annoy or frustrate you (although i quite enjoy annoying and frustrating Mike ) but because i genuinely believe it to be the only sustainable position at the moment. I have no position still on Hutchinson other than that he is an annoying bugger that i dont know what to do with!

bore da (one d or two?)

[Sam Flynn]

That has never been my argument

I wasn't suggesting it was, Jen.

That Sue Iremonger said in her view there was no match is significant

How many samples, apart from the witness statement, did she see? Precisely one - and, even then, I still haven't had an answer as to whether she was looking at the original marriage certificate, or an authorised copy of the same in some clerk's handwriting, like I bought by mistake from the NA. Working from that copy, I'm not surprised that any similarities in the handwriting were rejected outright - something which, frankly, baffles me when considering the actual signatures, which are remarkably similar irrespective of whether you, Sue Iremonger or anybody else disagrees.

Apropos Ms Iremonger - and with sincere respect - she belongs to a somewhat earlier generation of document examiners, a factor which needs to be borne in mind if we are to talk sensibly about this matter. Failure to do so is a bit like citing Lamarck in an argument about evolutionary biology, or Freud in a discussion on psychiatry. The field of document examination has moved on in recent years - to the point where, for example, it has been shown that photocopies are perfectly usable for the purpose of signature comparison.

With that in mind, it might be said (and probably will be!) that Leander might appear be lagging behind the curve - although I'm not so sure. His comments about original copies might have everything to do with document examination as a broad topic, but what we're discussing here is signature comparison, which is a mere subset of a wider field; indeed, comparing signatures is not confined to the field of forensics - it happens in daily life, every time a cheque is cashed. Furthermore, we're discussing signature comparison where there is no feasible possibility of fraud - a situation quite unlike the scenarios in which most document examiners are routinely required to work.

[Sam Flynn]

bore da (one d or two?)

Right first time - only one "d", Jen. Diolch yn fawr