When does many become many?

[Victor]

[ATTACH]6207[/ATTACH]

It's rather clear to me that the same bloke wrote all three.

Me too, especially the strange "w" like appearance of the "u", and the "tch" construction.

[Sam Flynn]

Me too, especially the strange "w" like appearance of the "u", and the "tch" construction.

Actually, Vic, the leftmost "arm" of the "w" is actually the upstroke from the curly "H". The "u"s themselves are deeply cup-shaped, as is clear when you see them in isolation, as below:

[perrymason]

But they are, Ben! Consider these facts about the three sigs on the 1888 witness statement:

1. We know that one of the terminating "n"s is chopped off in the scan of the 1888 witness statement;

2. We know that the second page is signed "Geo" instead of "George";

3. We know that two of the capital "H"s are similar, but that on the first page is curlicued...

Therefore, in the interests of getting a level playing field, let's

a. Chop off all the terminating "n"s;

b. Turn the two "Georges" into "Geos";

c. Put the fancy "H" on all three pages.

Bearing in mind that all I've done is a-c above, with no other changes at all, this is what 1888p1-3 end up looking like:

[ATTACH]6207[/ATTACH]

It's rather clear to me that the same bloke wrote all three.

Thats a great comparative Sam, and I would think Ben or whomever would agree with your conclusion.

All the best

[richardnunweek]

Ben,
I cannot agree with you on the payment issue, and I find your reluctance to accept certain points incredible.
Lets for one accept that the Wheeling is pure gossip... I will go along with that, and the suggestion of a payment was local talk which found its way, along with Barnett being drunk at the inquest, to the editor.
I will accept that.
That being the case Topping must have been aware of that local gossip, or read that particular article to have been able to incooperate it into his tale, some forty years later, and not only that, mention a sum of money which would infact equal the amount published.
Tha above has nothing to do with that irritating comment , mentioned several times' five weeks wages =nothing.
I am not refering to any amount Hutchinson may , or may not, have been capable of earning, just a figure estimated by the 'gossip' paper., which as a average would be One pound x five= Five pounds, the amount Topping recalled.
I am sorry my stance on this irritates you so, but in order for Regs father to have been able to recall the statement given , and also realise that he had the same name as that witness, would have been rather remarkable, one wonders for instance, where would have he got that infomation from , I dont recall the A-Z being out then.
Just because something is headlined 'Gossip' , does not mean it is sheer bunkum, and to be honest i do not consider my thoughts on this unworthy.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Richard,

The payment to Hutch is one of the most logical arguments on these threads, regardless if Toppy and Hutch are one and the same. A guy coming forward to claim that he knows something, but he wants to make a buck off it, is absolute reality. In fact, a young man living in a boarding house, in the toughest neighborhood in London (maybe) would probably not come forward out of the goodness of his heart. Why should he? Why would he really care about how he earns a dollar?

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

“That was all discussed months ago, Fisherman, but you decided for some strange reason to dredge the issue up again by copying and pasting a post you made from yonks ago. It does rather give the game away that you enjoy these long-winded semantic debates.”

The fact that this discussion is still an ongoing one, and the fact that it to a large extent is due to my still “dredging it up”, has an explanation.
It has been suggested more than once that the best thing to do is to agree to disagree, and that is more often than not a wise suggestion. I do so on a regular basis; I have agreed to disagree with Don on the subject of whether Tabram was Jack´s victim or not, I have agreed to disagree with Sam on the subject of whether Bond was right in suggesting that Kellys face was covered as it was cut or not, I have agreed to disagree with CD on the subject of whether Stride was a domestic affair or not, and so on.
What tells these affairs apart from my dealings with Ben, is that neither of these posters (and many, many others with whom I have agreed to disagree) have even come close to implying that I manipulate, feed bogus material, put words in expert´s mouths and so on. None of them would – as far as I can tell – resort to suggesting that any expert with whom I had spoken, would have chosen to “fob me off” instead of remaining steadfast at the stance his or her expert knowledge had led to. If my conviction is a sound one, they would refer from such a thing at any given moment out of sheer decency – the shame involved in such a thing would make such a step completely impossible for them to take. The thought would not even occur to them in the first place.

So, with them, it is easy to disagree, because the two stances involved in any such disagreement would not involve any hideous accusations or deeply tragic allegations of foul play on behalf of any authority or expert used in the discussion on either side. The result of a disagreement would always involve the recognition of the other party´s wiew as a viable and logically legitimate one.
This does not apply in the disagreement between Ben and me – a good deal of what Ben has stated is as unviable as it is logically illegitimate the way I see it. And as long as that stands, I will have no problems to disagree – but it will involve no agreement in any shape or form with Ben.
Any suggestions how the situation can be improved in order for the boards to be able to function without letting this disagreement colour the climate too much are thankfully accepted!


Mike/Perry Mason writes:

"Thats a great comparative Sam"

Fully agreed - a brilliant piece of work, and thoroughly enlightening. And one can´t help but to wonder why Iremonger would have concluded that the three signatures were not by the same man...? Of course, one must bear in mind that if she handled the original police protocol - and the reasonable suggestion is that she did - one cannot exclude the possibility that something was hidden in the third dimension that made her rule the way she did. I would have given a lot to see what reasons she worded!

To all the others who have offered interesting and sound material on this thread so far: thank you!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon Guy writes:

"I am but a simple man and the Meaning of Leander is far too deep for me to be able to answer your question. However, I believe the signatures match, and I applaud your efforts in contacting Leander."

Sorry, but I missed this post of your yesterday, Jon! Can I just say that I am very thankful for the applauds, and very much opposed to the suggestion that you would be a simple man, Jon - at least you are not so in any derogatory meaning of the word!

All the best, as always!
Fisherman

[Casebook Wiki Editor]

It's rather clear to me that the same bloke wrote all three.

Nice piece of analysis, Sam. It's the handwriting of the same fellow as far as I can tell.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I think we may be speaking at cross purposes here. I don't disagree with your observation that "the same bloke wrote all three", and share the opinion expressed by a few here that you have illustrated that point well and to the best of your abilities. My allusion to "A, B, C and D" was in reference to the three suggested explanations for the differences as cited by Frank Leander. Off the top of my head, one explanation was the "function of the pen" and another was his age at the time of writing. Those suggested explanations are not similar to eachother, and yet Leander saw fit to include: "and similar things" after listing the differences. It is my opinion that he could only have meant "similar to" the last mentioned explanation - function of the pen - in order for the sentence to make sense. Unfortunately, there cannot be "many" potential explanations that could be described as "similar to" the "function of the pen" suggestion, since there aren't all that many functions of a pen as far as writing with it is concerned.

Honestly, I really hadn't banked on having to repeat all this again, but some people - not you - seem intent on regurgitating old "battles" from months ago.

I rather wish they wouldn't, and I have a sneaking suspicion that you're with me on that!.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

The fact that this discussion is still an ongoing one, and the fact that it to a large extent is due to my still “dredging it up”, has an explanation

Well, if you consider it an ongoing one, just be frank and say you’re prepared to battle it out to perdition’s flames, and don't obfuscate your intention to ensure that the discussion is as “ongoing” as possible. Don’t keep saying time and time and again that you’re happy to depart the discussion once you’ve acquired X or Y response or closure from Leander. It’s pointless. You know full well that I never initiate these discussions, and you know full well that I’m not the one dredging previous debates up from yester-month with a view to continuing them in the middle of nowhere. You know where I stand on the issue, so it doesn’t make any sense for you to keep encouraging me to reiterate a stance that you insist must be fallacious, unless you were generally interested in prolonging a one-up-manship battle against me. Try to understand how badly the following excuse reads, for example:

“What tells these affairs apart from my dealings with Ben, is that neither of these posters (and many, many others with whom I have agreed to disagree) have even come close to implying that I manipulate”

So, in consequence, you decide to spend as little mental energy as possible on those with chose to disagree with you respectfully, but when it comes to those who, you insist, are making outlandish claims against you, you give them every ounce of your attention, rather than dismissing them with the contempt that any logical person would claim they ought to richly deserve if your claims were true?

If you really thought I belonged in the latter category, you’d make good your oft-repeated intention to deal with me as little as possible. I’m Ben the bastard with a nefarious agenda who will never change his mind about anything, remember, so why pay me so much more attention than Don or CD or all those other people who disagree with you amicably? Unless of course, you were anxious that some would find me incredibly persuasive, and felt you had to mitigate any dire consequences that may result from this by alerting the unwary. In which case, you’re basically claiming that that nobody is able to make his or her own mind up. I’m sure there may be a few here who are ill-equipped to perceive that some otherwise reputable experts are perfectly capable of unwittingly upgrading their stance when they – the experts - sense a bias on the part of the contact, and that a non-kosher response is likely to elicit more communication, but those who subscribe to that view have already identified themselves by now.

That really isn’t such a nefarious accusation against either of the Swedes in this occasion, since no deliberate trickery was ever implied here, certainly not by me.

Me, I’m not going to blitz-post them or otherwise demand that they think otherwise, unless or course anyone fancies the “let’s see if my repetition is going to be more repetitive than your repetition” brand of argumentation.

“Any suggestions how the situation can be improved in order for the boards to be able to function without letting this disagreement colour the climate too much are thankfully accepted!”

You know the answer to that one, Fisherman.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

“That being the case Topping must have been aware of that local gossip, or read that particular article to have been able to incooperate it into his tale”

No he didn’t, Richard.

All he had to do was come up with a patently bogus tale that tallied very nicely with the Royal Conspiracy theory that he knew full well that Fairclough was touting, and that there was a promise of a payment if all went well, and what could be more obvious that a tall tale involving a pay-off? Why didn’t the whole Churchill the Ripper exposure come to the fore at the time of the murders? Oh, because my dad Toppy saw Churchill with Kelly and was paid a ludicrous sum of hush money to conceal this whopping great conspiratorial secret, that’s why. That's practically textbook. You’re not seriously suggesting that Reg needed an obscure and incongruous American press account to come up with such an idea, are you? Because I can assure you he didn’t.

"...a sum of money which would infact equal the amount published”

But it doesn’t equal any such amount (certainly not "in fact"), and it’s deeply unfortunate that you haven’t been listening to the explanation I carefully provided where I demonstrated conclusively that the “amount(s)” provided couldn’t possibly have “equalled” each other. Please listen very carefully this time: The "Gossip"-headed article from Nowheresville Virginia (which contained false details about Barnett’s habit and character) spoke of a sum that purportedly corresponded to five times Hutchinson’s weekly salary. However, according to the police (who would have been directly responsible for any pay-offs), that sum would have been zero, since they were under the impression - correct or otherwise - that Hutchinson was without regular employment. Five times zero = zero, and that’s five pounds less that the five pounds specified by Reg as hush money for the Toppy saw Churchill hypothesis.

Your assertion that Reg must have obtained the “information” from somewhere is symptomatic of your already mistaken impression that he couldn’t possibly have made it up, but when people make things up (which happens all the time), they often get their information from their imagination, at least as a the main contributory source.

“A guy coming forward to claim that he knows something, but he wants to make a buck off it, is absolute reality”

Of course it can be, Mike, just as long as the buck-seeker isn’t deluded into believing that he’ll obtain that buck simply by claiming he saw something, with not independent corroboration whatsoever,

[Jane Welland]

Hi All

I just have one question here:

If Hutchinson regularly earned 20 shillings a week, why did he need to live in a doss-house?

I know of course, (because he said so) that he was unemployed at time, but we don't know for how long, of course, and he used to be a groom, (becuase he said so)

Would he have earned such a sum as a groom? Does anyone know?

I'd like to know.

That was two questions, sorry.

I rather think that £5 paid to Hutchinson for his services is a bit unlikely - sorry Richard. I fail to see what for - not for accompanying the police, surely? I shouldn't have thought so: word would have got about pretty fast that the police were pying witnessess and they'd have been inundated!

Unless you think that he really did see Lord Randolph Churchill - in which case I wouldn't have thought £5 would have covered it, frankly - it's a good sum, but hardly 'ludicrous' in terms of wealth. Just over a month's salary - put it in those terms - yes, quite nice, jolly useful, but hardly life-changing.

The other point of course is that had Hutchinson actually seen Churchill and divulged that very fact, he'd soon have been silenced - you know, like 'From Hell' but with witnesses?

Actually, since nobody has yet found any trace of the man in the Census (unless he actually was Toppy of course) maybe that is what happened to him!

Imagine - ''Scuse me mate...'
'What?'

'You're 'Utchinson, ain't yer? - George 'Utchinson...'

'What if I am?'

'Well, Georgie Boy, we got a little present for yer...'

Sigh... I'll never make it as a script writer...

Jollity aside, there are some valid questions here, it seems to me.

Best to all

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Ben suggests:

"My allusion to "A, B, C and D" was in reference to the three suggested explanations for the differences as cited by Frank Leander. Off the top of my head, one explanation was the "function of the pen" and another was his age at the time of writing. Those suggested explanations are not similar to eachother, and yet Leander saw fit to include: "and similar things" after listing the differences. It is my opinion that he could only have meant "similar to" the last mentioned explanation - function of the pen - in order for the sentence to make sense. Unfortunately, there cannot be "many" potential explanations that could be described as "similar to" the "function of the pen" suggestion, since there aren't all that many functions of a pen as far as writing with it is concerned."

Let´s be honest here, and recognize that this goes beyond what is usually called daft. Victor has already pointed out to you that this is just semantic quibbling, and I don´t mind doing so myself.
The suggestion is dishonest, stupid, illogical, ridiculous AND SIMILAR THINGS.
And that does not mean that I am excluding ANYTHING similar to either dishonest, stupid and illogical!

What would you have him say? That the dissimilarities could have been caused by cause A and similar things, cause B and similar things, cause C and similar things, and things similar to things that A, B and C are similar to?

For the love of God, Ben, what Leander is speaking about are things that may have had an impact on the writing - any EXTERNAL influence that could have caused a change in the handstyle counts as "similar things"! Your "interpretation" - and let´s keep in mind that we have already had a disappointed Leander telling us that malicious interpretations on your behalf is a very sad thing - does not count. It does not belong to any rational methodology this side of planet Jupiter.

Geez, man, give it a rest. Show some self-respect! Or do I have to create a new thread everytime you "interpret" things? What should we name it this time: "Running, hiding, putting your hands over your ears - and similar things?"

Fisherman
fed up

[richardnunweek]

Ben,
You are not on the same wavelength here.
I am refering to Topping not Reg,when speaking of mentioning a man of well doing, and the payment issue, this would have happened some sixty years before Fairclough
You are not using it in the right context,it was my suggestion that it would be unlikely that a man that happened to have the same name as a witness during the murders, would also take over an identity, complete with full knowledge of his statement, and also remember the local gossip at the time, and reference it to that very man.
The latter[ gossip] being the payment issue.
You are stating[ without proof] that Reg fabricated the whole story, implying that his late father NEVER told him it when he was a lad.
However in reality the form book takes issue with that, Regs wife believed him , so did his immediate family[ according to JD].
I am not ignorant so there is no need to ABC, the payment.
Fact is Ben.. Hutchinson had to have a regular income as he would never have passed the vetting required to be a permanent resident of the Victoria home, infact if i remember correctly, i believe the police had a hand in the vetting.
The wheeling report stated 'Five weeks wages'... [the average man approx one pound per week] would would indeed fit the five pound pattern.
I wish we had a audio of that bloody radio programme. for Regs tale was included[ you have my word] and that was twenty years before Fairclough, so i quess it was not invented for the book.
And so it goes on.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

What was said apropos rewards in the Wheeling Register applies to "George Hutchinson", whoever he was. What was written in that newspaper can have no bearing on the "Toppy/Hutch" problem-space, anymore than the Churchill story in Melvyn Fairclough's book. Both belong to a different argument entirely, namely: "can we trust what we read in the papers/books?".