Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Fisherman]

Monty writes:

"Interesting albeit misleading.
A Billycock was not a soft felted hat, it was a hard felted hat. Nor did it have a wide brim, as a Wideawake. The clue is in the name.
People of the period would have known the difference. A Billycock is not a wideawake."

I think the safer bet is that people of our time would know the difference, Monty. The dictionary together with the article Ben referred to made it clear that there was an obvious interchangeability inbetween the two types of hats around the time we are dealing with. And if both the editor of the Webster´s dictionary and the ditto of the Te Aroha got it wrong, I fail to see why this could not have been the case with Lewis too.
At any rate, since Lewis set out by not remembering anything when asked by the police, and since she seemingly did not get much of a look at the loiterer, I think it would be a very hasty conclusion to make that he could not have worn a billycock OR a wideawake - or some other type of headgear altogether ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fleetwood Mac]

'Stout' we can deduce -also with certainty- is 'muscle bound ' rather than 'fat' or even 'flabby'. You would not describe someone as being 'of military appearance' if they were fat or flabby, just for starters.

Incorrect.

Military appearance could quite easily apply to someone's demeanour.

Next he was working as a labourer, and had apparently humped barrels, and his story about walking back from Romford was accepted -so he must have looked fit and strong.

Again....this is unconvincing.

My Grandma used to walk 8 miles a day to get to school......she was a young lass.....hardly "strong".....if you watch documentaries etc you'll see tribes of Africans and Arabs wandering the plains for days on end.....but they ain't "strong" in the sense that you mean it.

So now we have a short muscular chunky young man of approx 28 or 29 (Hutch's given age somewhere).

No we don't Ruby. We have you putting a few ingredients in the pot and coming up with a recipe of sorts.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Why do you think that Hutch is surely the 'favourite suspect' of modern times concerning JtR -and the one about whom the most suspect based books have been written ?

If there was "nothing" to connect him to the murders, it makes you wonder why intelligent people would waste time on him..

Assuming this board is a representative sample of suspects and their proponents.....then I'd say Hutchinson is not 'the favourite suspect'.

You have misrepresented my post Ruby.

I said: "beyond claiming to be loitering outside of the court there is nothing to connect him to the murders". And there isn't.....you could speculate about all sorts such as anti-seminism and red neckerchiefs....but it doesn't change the fact that Hutchinson merely claimed to be loitering outside of the court.

No one ID'd him there......no one else saw the man supposedly with Mary.

I've noticed you have a habit of a stretching the evidence in an attempt to lend weight to Hutchinson......such as your comment about watching the room...when in fact he was looking up the court.....and I suppose that in of itself tells a story about just how credible Hutchinson is.

Garry listed all the points adding to a 'profile' of the killer, and demonstrated ably that Hutch matched all the points.

Which are?

[Monty]

Webster's dictionary from 1913 defines a "billycock" thusly:

A round, low-crowned felt hat; a wideawake.

Interesting albeit misleading.

A Billycock was not a soft felted hat, it was a hard felted hat. Nor did it have a wide brim, as a Wideawake. The clue is in the name.

People of the period would have known the difference. A Billycock is not a wideawake.

http://www.hatshapers.com/Hat%20Dictionary.htm

Monty

[Fisherman]

You´re welcome, Monty!

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Cheers Fish,

Monty

[Fisherman]

Hi Monty!

Scroll up a little bit, and you will find the post (38), written by Ben, that I refer to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Monty]

Fish,

Will you kindly show me where, on these boards, it was established Billycocks and Wideawakes were referred to as the same?

Many thanks

Monty

[Fisherman]

Have some faith, Mike ...! I am the pacifist around here, remember?

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Remain calm!!!! Don't let IT begin! I beg you!

A Paragon of Peace and Tranquility

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"All this has led me to the conclusion that Toppy and the witness were not one and the same, but it would be reckless and irresponsible of me to then declare a non-match as “fact”."

Think of it this way, Ben: Would you say that it is a fact that the signatures do not resemble each other beyond the point where nothing but a match would be the logical conclusion? Or would you say that it is merely an opinion of yours, and that I may well be correct in stating that this is the case?

The F-word, Ben, applies in many a respect in this discussion, and as I said before, that owes to the fact (!) that we are dealing with a completely static phenomenon. That is a rare thing, since we mostly spend our time on these threads judging what people meant when they said something, trying to establish how close a wideawake and a billycock are, or settling the issue of when Stride took out her cachous, all topics with infinite interpretation possibilities.
The signatures - that is another thing altogether. We cannot say that a letter leans to the left unless it does so. We cannot state that a letter ends with an upward stroke unless it truly does.
We are dealing with a totally static thing, and therefore we do not interpret when we compare - we simply recognize. It is not my "meaning" that for example the initial H:s of the signatures look very much alike - they ARE in fact (!) very much alike.
This similarity was something that was recognized immediately (and it could be no other way - such things do not sink in after a while...) by a number of posters as you well know. You refuted it, along with other posters, which was why I asked for help from a top authority. His verdict was one of a probable match. But since a worded verdict CAN be subjected to "interpretations" about what was meant, such a process was started. And you know how the document examiner in question valued your interpretation, Ben, since he gave his wiew on it.

I do not wish to go into this discussion again with you any more than necessary. We have both given our respective wiews on the earlier threads. I suggest that we let future finds decide who was right and who was wrong. But as we wait for that, I think that we must allow each other to speak our minds in whatever terms we find appropriate. And the only fact I will refrain from stating being establised, is a consensus on a match inbetween the signatures. Such a consensus does not exist, which should be blatantly obvious. No final word has been said on the matter. But that must not mean that it cannot be said that the similarity inbetween Toppys signature and the signatures in the police report is a fact.

As for your statement about Victorians writing in a very similar fashion, I would very much like to see any scientific material proving that point. So far it has been suggested exactly as many times as it has been left unsubstantiated. And there is always the post in which Sam provided a significant number of relevant George Hutchinsons together with their signatures to prove the point that at the very least this particular little group of Victorians did NOT adjust to such a bid.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

Wanted to rephrase that: Once you choose a suspect, it becomes easy to refute anything because your mind is set. It isn't just a Hutchinson thing.
I'm talking about having a solid belief that someone is the killer.

Mike

[Ben]

You've decided upon Hutchinson as your suspect. Once a decision like that is made, everything becomes refutable. Logic would suggest that 2 George Hutchinsons in the exact same area and with so spectacularly similar signatures and with the anecdotal evidence of Reginald

I dearly hope that enough people can already see what is so wrong with this condemnation.

Hutchinson is Ruby's suspect of preference based on her interpretation of the evidence.

Toppy is Mike's candidate of preference for the identity of Hutchinson based on his interpretation of the evidence.

But Mike claims to have the monopoly on "logic" in spite of it being perfectly obvious that Ruby could easily, and with equal justification, accuse Mike of harbouring the pre-decided conclusion that there are some "spectacularly similar signatures" and that the "anecdotal evidence of Reginald" somehow lends weight to the Toppy-as-Hutch hypothesis, rather than detracts from it, as most seasoned commentators on the subject accept that it does.

And I'm sorry, but "no other George Hutchinsons on record"...? Where does this come from? Not remotely the case, I'm afraid.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

“As for myself, I will say without hesitation that it is a fact that the signatures resemble each other very much.”

We’ve discussed this issue enough times now to establish that you feel they match, and I respect your opinion (and Mike’s) a great deal, but to mutate that opinion into fact is no more laudable or productive than for me to declare it as fact that the signatures don’t resemble eachother. I don’t believe they share any significant likeness beyond the fact that they were both scribbled by Victorians whose penmanship was influenced by the era in which they both lived; in addition to which an expert in the field who outlined her findings to a conference doesn’t believe they match, and, frankly, mainstream thinking on the subject since the early 1990s has been to the effect that Toppy was not the witness. I don’t believe this will ever change. All this has led me to the conclusion that Toppy and the witness were not one and the same, but it would be reckless and irresponsible of me to then declare a non-match as “fact”.

I respect and appreciate the observations offered by your contact, but continue to regret that the nature of the material supplied to him was, by his own admission, insufficient to allow for a full expect analysis of the type that was apparently embarked upon by a qualified examiner in the early 1990s. I’m consequently swayed by the latter analysis, for reasons discussed ad nauseam. Once again, I’m not here to deny you a right to your opinion on the subject, but I would ask that you exercise some degree of caution with that naughty F-word.

I agree entirely with your thoughts concerning the wideawake/billycock, incidentally!

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ruby,

I'm afraid you've done the obvious. You've decided upon Hutchinson as your suspect. Once a decision like that is made, everything becomes refutable. Logic would suggest that 2 George Hutchinsons in the exact same area and with so spectacularly similar signatures and with the anecdotal evidence of Reginald, and with no other George Hutchinsons on record... logic would suggest that these are the same men. If one has already condemned Hutchinson, of course that kind of logic vanishes.

Cheers,

Mike