The Leander Analysis

[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

[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".

[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.

[Jane Welland]

Thanks Sam..

I take what you say on board.

Still, nobody has yet answered the above question, I note.

Richard, I'd be happy to accept Toppy as Hutchinson if I thought there were more certainty involved - it seems to me to be a difficult question, and even if it turned out that the two were not one, I'm sure there'd be no humble pie involved! Even with Topping!

Best wishes, both

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

With the greatest of respect, Sam, that's what you think.

On the contrary, that's what the evidence supports, Jane. That's how I like to work - and that's how it should be. Too often in ripperology, however, one's preconceptions cloud one's judgment - a state of affairs exacerbated when one realises that many such preconceptions are built on speculation in the first place, rather than fact.

I can see from other posters interested in this debate that some of them are just as certain of their view as you are of yours.

I am certain of my view because it is supported by the evidence as it stands, and not by my interpretation of it.

Making your mind up before you look at all the evidence does not make for a good research method imo.

But that is not what I've done. In contrast, the anti-Toppy lobby (or at least its more vociferous proponents) are allowing their preconceptions to distort their perception of the most straightforward facts imaginable - viz., the appearance of a set of 2-dimensional stimuli, coupled with eminently verifiable demographic and biographical data. Just because "X" doesn't like those data is no reason to disregard the evidence - it is, however, a warning sign that any argument that "X" advances in respect of his/her position should be treated with the utmost caution.

[richardnunweek]

Hi Jane,
Of course we are right... [ only joking] I can only pray, that conclusive information rears its head in the very near future, one way ,or another.
But yours truely, Sam,Mike, Fish, will be extremely perplexed if the result means us all sharing that humble pie.
Not only will the pie be ate , but with it the 'Topping'
Regards Richard.

[Jane Welland]

Yes,, But -

With the greatest of respect, Sam, that's what you think. I can see from other posters interested in this debate that some of them are just as certain of their view as you are of yours.

Who says which of you is right?

Where you see a number of correlations here that indicate most strongly to you that Toppy and the Dorset Street witness are one and the same, others do not recognise in those apparent correlations the same degree of surety as you do. Some, apparently, reject the validity of those apparent correlations entirely.

Who says which of you is right?

I wouldn't like to be that person.

I think if you take what you believe to be a fact - in this case the match in the signatures, and then say - ' oh, and look what else corroborates this 'fact' that I have discovered' then that's the wrong way to go about things - I mean in general terms - I'm not directing any criticism as you personally, or, indeed, at anyone else.

Making your mind up before you look at all the evidence does not make for a good research method imo. And I ask again, since nobody seems to want to respond - if this match is a done deal - then why is it that of the two experts that have looked at them, neither one has endorsed that view in terms of a certainty, a near certainty, or even a highly probable match?

Everybody has their view, and presumably everyone has a certain degree of faith in that view, which is perfectly reasonable and fair. But, ultimately,

Who says who is right?

Why can't people just admit that we don't know the answer? Even if we may believe most strongly that we have found it?

Even if it is then qualified with 'yet'?

Best regards, Sam

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

He may, finally - not have been called George Hutchinson at all.

In which case, why does his writing match that of a man with the same name, who wrote down the evidence for all to see fully 23 years later?

I could imagine someone coming up with "John Smith" as an alias, and a similar match happening by sheer luck, but not "George Hutchinson".

[Sam Flynn]

Now, if somebody had trawled through all the George Hutchinsons in the Country, then I might be more inclined to take it more seriously.

There is such a thing as parsimony and pragmatism in research, Jane. If you find a set of signatures on a Census entry that are remarkably similar - yes, remarkably similar - to those of the 1888 witness report and the 1898 marriage certificate, and that Census entry relates to someone who lived in working-class lodgings in London during 1891, and that person courted an East End girl in the 1890s, and that person has a family story that links him with the Dorset Street witness (whether one chooses to believe the substance of that story or not), and it is established that there were very, very few men shared the same name in Greater London in consecutive Censuses... is there really any reasonable doubt that we're talking about one and the same man? In which case, what's the point in looking any further?

Sorry about the length of my second sentence, but it's as nothing compared to the 121-year-long sentence to which George Hutchinson has been metaphorically condemned by some on these boards. For info, I used to be one of their number - but not any more. You see, I don't have any problem in admitting that I was incorrect, where reasonable evidence comes to light to indicate that I was wrong. In this case, it certainly has.

[Jane Welland]

Uhoh...

The very suggestion that his words required any sort of interpretation is frankly patronising.

(my emphasis)

Was that meant to be funny Ben?!

I don't have much to add (phew!) except that there are too many uncertainties here that seem to me to taken as established realities.

If the starting point for this enquiry is that the Dorset Street Witness was really called George Hutchinson and was still living in the area in 1911 - then I think that's taking rather a lot for granted, personally.

He may have moved - people did, you know. Maybe he, for example, met a young lady, got married, and they moved away together - just one scenario.

He may have died - we don't know how old exactly the Dorset Street Witness was - life expectancy for his class of people is short, even today. Incidentally, if Tippy, wouldn't that make him 22? He had known Kelly since he was 19? Hmmm. Not sure I think that's very likely, as an aside.

He may, finally - not have been called George Hutchinson at all.

I don't know if any of these apply - and, frankly (no pun intended) neither does anyone else.

Now, if somebody had trawled through all the George Hutchinsons in the Country, then I might be more inclined to take it more seriously.

Best to all

Jane x

n.b. Toppy, obviously

[Ben]

You overlook the fact that it's where he was in November 1888 that counts, and that most Londoners in the 1881 and 1891 census (et seq.) would also have lived in London betimes.

I didn't overlook that at all. I've highlighted the fact that we can't use the dearth of George Hutchinsons in the East End in the 1881 and 1891 census records to argue that the same would be true in 1888, since the very "George Hutchinson" you want to have been in the East End in 1888 wasn't there in either 1881 or 1891.

My independant research is a work in progress, thanks, but that doesn't mean I can't provide reasonable counter-arguments to what strike me as less than reasonable attemps to lobby for Toppy as the witness. If people were more willing to agree to disagree, we might see less stomping and counter-stomping, but nobody seems willing to do that around here.

[Sam Flynn]

And of course, none of that number included Toppy, because we know he wasn't living in the East End in either 1881 or 1891.

You overlook the fact that it's where he was in November 1888 that counts, and that most Londoners in the 1881 and 1891 census (et seq.) would also have lived in London betimes. They would also have occupied similar socio-economic strata, and held down similar occupations, over the same period. Not many of them would have had matching handwriting however.

So if we're to make allowances for the possibility that Toppy lived in the East End between those census takings, we ought really to make the same allowances for other George Hutchinsons who can't be placed in the East End in either 1881 or 1891.

Why don't you spend some dosh in trawling every single George Hutchinson in the entire 1911 census? Far better to do that, than constantly stamping on every reasonable - yes, reasonable - argument that identifies Toppy as the most - yes, most - probable candidate for the Dorset Street witness?

[Ben]

And here you are, Ben, a total layman, telling us that Leander has lied to get rid of me, and that your interpretation isthe only correct one

I don't have many other options for such a radically altering stance, Fisherman, since all the other explanations only paint Leander in an even more negative light, and I don't think he deserves it, personally. What he does deserve is to be left alone (having clarified his stance to the point of giving you his grading system) although that should have happened after he provided that first post, which was the very picture of circumspection and neutrality. I would only claim that my intepretation was correct if I had something to interpret at all. If I see the word spade written down, I need no interpretative abilities to discern that the writer meant "spade". I just need a knowledge of English, and a dictionary, if necessary, and the same is true of Leander's words.

And, far from having led on that Iremonger was a lier with no ethics at all

But Iremonger was never projected as having given simultaneous radically contrasting viewpoints.

The very suggestion that his words required any sort of interpretation is frankly patronising.

And therefore, I am of the meaning that he MUST be awarded the right to free himself of any accusations of not having worked ethically, and instead actually lied.

So, in other words, you're going to re-establish contact with Leander and tell him what a horrible bastard I am and what horrible things I've said. Of course, if the man has any circumspection at all, which I know he does, he'll avoid falling taking that particular bait.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Then look at the even smaller number of "George Hutchinsons" (less than a handful) who lived in East London at the same time

And of course, none of that number included Toppy, because we know he wasn't living in the East End in either 1881 or 1891. So if we're to make allowances for the possibility that Toppy lived in the East End between those census takings, we ought really to make the same allowances for other George Hutchinsons who can't be placed in the East End in either 1881 or 1891.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If you contact him, and he confirms his neutral stance, I don't believe for one moment that you'll drop the issue, and it 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."

The interesting thing about your stance here is that you have spent so much time telling me and a lot of other posters how uninteresting their wiews and judgement was, when Iremonger was questioned. She was an expert, end of story, and none of us worldly creatures could possibly put that in doubt with any relevance at all.

And here you are, Ben, a total layman, telling us that Leander has lied to get rid of me, and that your interpretation isthe only correct one.

I find that a bit hard to digest, Ben. Don´t you think that what applies to people in the iremonger question, should apply even to you - that you may not understand the expert´s game full well? And, far from having led on that Iremonger was a lier with no ethics at all, the only thing that was suggested before was that she had either come up with a bad judgement or she had been using the wrong material.
That, I should say, is a far cry from what you have been up to in Leanders case! And therefore, I am of the meaning that he MUST be awarded the right to free himself of any accusations of not having worked ethically, and instead actually lied. And that right he will be given. Until that time comes, I have nothing to add.

The best,
Fisherman