Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[Rubyretro]

OMG Fish -you've done a few flips, slimely slipped through my hands ..and splashed back into the water before I even got my hook back !

My rod will be ready.. tomorrow night !!

'till then !

XX

[Fisherman]

Ruby writes:

"To confuse a Bowler and a Billycock over arguments on the 'crown ' height -ok.
But a 'wide awake ' is a totally different hat ! (a Quaker Hat for you Americans ??)."

I am not confusing anything, Ruby. And I wish that you would check things out before jumping to such conclusions. This is a post by our much esteemed Ben, from another thread:

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

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

The following is from an 1887 article entitled "The Billycock or Wideawake hat".

http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi...en--1----0-all

It may be a case that all billycocks are wideawakes but not all wideawakes are billycocks, but the overall inference is that the two are interchangable. The quaker hat is apparently a type of wideawake, but such headgear would be decidedly out-of-place in the East End.

Ada Wilson's attacker wore a wideawake, and here's how it was depicted in a contemporary sketch:

http://photos.casebook.org/displayim...387&fullsize=1

Best regards,
Ben"

As for your other inference, "you just can't state as a 'Fact' that the signatures are the same when both of you can provide valid 'proof' to the contrary", I think you may need to read my answer to Ben. Putting it otherwise, I once again urge that you would check things out before jumping to conclusions.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Very interesting and true Monty -also the forerunner of riding hats.

Yet the 'Wideawake' was a soft hat -the forerunner of Fedoras.

[Monty]

Im at an end so will interject with useless knowledge I have obtained....

....the Billycock was created by a chap called William Coke. It was designed for horse riding as it was sturdy due to the construction techniques used (something to do with boiling and shaping numerous swatches of felt.

Now the Billycock became the favoured choice of hat amongst the building and labouring trade. This due to the fact it gave some degree of protection. It was, in a way, the forerunner of todays safety hat.

Some may note that Lusk, the well known vigilante, is wearing one in the photo of him. And Lusks trade was?

Suffice to say, if you happen to come across one in a victorian photo, chances are the wearer worked in a trade which held a degree of danger to the old noggin.

The bowler on the other hand, and Im not certain here so bear with me, evolved from the Billycock. As William Coke was a well to do person, his friends and peers adopted a 'fashionable' smaller version.

Like I said...I am at a loose end.

Monty

[Rubyretro]

FISHY ! -you're just getting silly now..and I have so enjoyed Debating with you..really, it is fun for me !

I have never suggested that the signatures are identical nor vice versa -they are similar is as far as I will go. I repeat that they are similar, but 'Expert' opinion is divided : like Ben says, you just can't state as a 'Fact' that the signatures are the same when both of you can provide valid 'proof' to the contrary -there is NO agreement.
(And you can't state as 'Fact' that a 'Wideawake' and a 'Billycock ' are identical either !).

I look forward love to carry on sparring with you -but not on the grounds that Black=White.

[Rubyretro]

It has been earlier established on these boards that a wideawake and a billycock hat were more or less synonymous in 1888.

Fish, FISH ! Have pity ! you're not going to make me trawl the internet to download all those pictures and descriptions to prove me right NOW, are you ?
I'm tired (it's an hour later in France and I'm supposed to be doing written work).

I can't imagine who could have contended that these hats were the same thing in 1888 ? They must have been mad ! This happens to be something that I know something about -even the name 'wide awake' is to suggest a wide brim.

To confuse a Bowler and a Billycock over arguments on the 'crown ' height -ok.
But a 'wide awake ' is a totally different hat ! (a Quaker Hat for you Americans ??).

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"On a separate note, can I make the humblest of requests to those who believe Toppy and the witness to be the same person that they might avoid referring to this opinion as fact?"

That would depend, Ben.
It is not an overall established fact that the signatures are a true match, and there is in fact not enough material to make such a call.
It is, however, an established fact that a top authority (and you know who) has given his wiew that they are a probable match.
As for myself, I will say without hesitation that it is a fact that the signatures resemble each other very much.
I will also press the point that although two handstyles may resemble each other to a very high degree, it is extremely improbable that the owners of two such handstyles will go by the same name, and live at the same time in the same general vicinity.

Weighing these things together, my conclusion is that there is only a very, very small possibility that the signatures did not belong to the same man, and that man was Toppy.

But all of this you have heard before, Ben. What is (slightly) new here is that you ask those who are of my conviction not to speak of it in whatever terms we choose to on the boards. I think that it could be equally requested from my side that you do not deny the obvious likeness inbetween the signatures, Ben, since we are speaking of a completely static phenomenon, and since we have had corroboration of the wiew that the signatures match from a very good authority.
I will not, however, demand any such thing from you or anybody else, and I think it would be fair to ask the same effort from you. I am not saying that it is an on all parts established fact that the signatures match - but I am saying that it is a fact that they are close enough for a top class document examiner to say that he would be very surprised if they were NOT a match, something I believe both you and I know. And just as humbly as you made your request, I will counter with MY request to allow for anybody who chooses to, to refer to these facts.

That is all I have to say, and I trust you have said yours, so ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

I would be reluctant to conclude, though, that the apparent dropping of Hutchinson so soon after his account first appeared on the scene has anything to do with him receiving some sort of alibi for the period of Kelly’s death that placed him elsewhere other than Dorset Street.

I hope that you don't think it was me who thought that Hutch would invent an alibi for Kelly's murder ?

I DID refer to replying to Chava's good Post, which mooted that the killer
had a 'comfort zone', where he killed on his Whitechapel territory, but often travelled elsewhere outside of the murders.

This made me speculate that had Hutch not been spotted by Lewis and decided to come forward to place himself at the Miller's Court crime scene, presumably everybody in the Victoria Home that knew him would have simply
taken it as 'fact' that he was in Romford.

I imagine that he must have been in Romford at the very start of the previous day looking for work ? and so he must have started off the evening before-or during the night. No one could know that he hadn't, infact, found the work that he'd gone to look for, and had Kelly been found dead, and Lewis not come into the court -no one could have suspected Hutch, since he was ostensibly out of London at the time.

I wondered if this scenario hadn't been used as an 'alibi' for SOME of the other murders ? If the Police checked the dates of the other murders, and Hutch was vouched for as being out of Town at the time..that would be a great 'let off the hook' for him..whilst allowing him to roam the streets between locations.

[Fisherman]

Ruby:

"The Wideawake has a distinctive wide brim (as the name suggests);

The Billycock is like a Bowler, but with a higher crown."

It has been earlier established on these boards that a wideawake and a billycock hat were more or less synonymous in 1888. Both types could have been described by either name, Ruby. Today, we tell them apart. Back then, they didn´t.

"I have read all the Posts concerning the signatures..they are similar, but there is no unanimous verdict as to whether they are identical."

I am not speaking of the witness signatures and Toppys ditto here, Ruby - I am speaking of all the OTHER George Hutchinson signatures. And they are NOT similar at all, as you will find out if you take a look at the post I directed you to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi all,

I find the observations regarding der Sloot – who was ostensibly a sociopath and liar, as Michael has indicated - a fascinating one, and the comparison with Hutchinson may well be very apt. I would be reluctant to conclude, though, that the apparent dropping of Hutchinson so soon after his account first appeared on the scene has anything to do with him receiving some sort of alibi for the period of Kelly’s death that placed him elsewhere other than Dorset Street. Firstly, it would have been an unnecessarily suicidal move to claim to be “walking about all night” when he had the opportunity to provide his genuine whereabouts for the generally accepted time of death (3:30am-4.00am) was clearly there, and secondly, the opportunities for actually procuring an alibi for such an ungodly hour were very slim anyway. (Is it likely, after all, that a solitary doss-house resident would have had company at that hour?) I think it rather more likely that Hutchinson dropped from the police radar as a result of glaring inconsistencies between his police and press accounts. There was nothing of a concrete nature to prove that Packer lied in his account, but he was also ditched, so we needn’t expect anything more with regard to Hutchinson and his “ditching”.

Also - and everyone’s mileage may vary on this - I doubt very much that Hutchinson noticed that a witness account had described a potential suspect, pretended that he was the individual described but claimed also to have been just a witness himself. Certainly, I’ve never encountered any comparable example of such behaviour in other criminal investigations. In contrast, there have been cases in which the offenders have recognised themselves in witness accounts, and who subsequently came forward with false excuses for their presence there, whether they were identified by name or not. I have always felt that Hutchinson could easily have been one such individual, and it would render him a decidedly unremarkable serial killer in the annuls of true crime, where this and similar acts of subterfuge aren’t really that odd.

On a separate note, can I make the humblest of requests to those who believe Toppy and the witness to be the same person that they might avoid referring to this opinion as fact? I’d be extremely grateful, as they are quite aware that other contributors to these discussions adhere as strongly to the “Toppy was NOT Hutch” theory as they do to the belief that the signatures match. I’ll say only – and without expecting a counter-argument on a thread largely unconcerned with this issue – that the WADE conference in the early 1990s conducted by an expert in document examination resulted in the conclusion that on the basis of the signatures, Toppy was not the witness in question. The subsequent discussions concerning plumbing apprenticeships etc have only cemented that conclusion, in my view. I’ll reiterate only that a 22-year-old labouring former groom in 1888 was very unlikely to have been a rarely-if-ever-out-of-work plumber by 1891, again, in my view.

But I don’t really want to go over all of this again. The central bullet point of my Toppy-musings today is simply a request to those with a contrary signature-related opinion to my own not to keep insisting on this “match” as something that has been factually established. It creates a misleading impression, when all that really needs to happen is for somebody to provide some links to earlier discussion, like this:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2204

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2113

That way, everyone is free to make up their own minds, old arguments don’t get repeated, and nobody gets annoyed.

Thanks in advance!

All the best,
Ben

[Rubyretro]

I have read all the Posts concerning the signatures..they are similar, but there is no unanimous verdict as to whether they are identical.

Even when I was a Toppyite, I didn't feel able to definitely pronounce upon the matter above quoting other people..because it is too difficult for Me to to come to a solid conclusion for myself : to look at them, the verdict is 'out'.

(x)

[Rubyretro]

On the left is a 'Wideawake' and the right a 'Billycock'..(you forgot my hobby is vintage clothing..)

The Wideawake has a distinctive wide brim (as the name suggests);

The Billycock is like a Bowler, but with a higher crown.

[Fisherman]

Ruby writes:

"you tell me that we have to take what the witnesses say as being what they mean't to say -so going by this, if Lewis said 'stout, then she mean't 'stout'. "

´xcept she did NOT say that to the police - and they would have asked, Ruby, believe you me! Compare to Packer, if you will, and the magically appearing couple ...

"There are quite alot of men in the photo, as well as clothes hanging on hatstands -yet not one 'Wideawake' to be seen."

The "Billycock" and the wideawake was one and the same, Ruby. Look at street photos, and you will see what I mean. Blotchy is one example of a Billycock wearer.

"Speculation based on logical deduction, my dear Watson."

Strange then, that my own logic leads me down a different alley altogether, wouldn´t you say?

"Well first of all, there ARE very big similarities in the signatures of people in a similar age range, from a similar geographical area, and born in the same era."

There will always be similarities, yes, and factors like the ones you name will strenghten them. But it takes us nowhere near any "parroting"! Did you look at the post I told you to? With the different Hutchinsons? If so, what did you see? Could you tell them apart? No? Hmmm?

"5. The signatures of Hutch and Toppy are very similar."

That is the only point that needs to be made. The rest is all very, very secondary, beacuse we always end up with "Yeah, the signatures are a match, but..." and such a "but" is totally redundant. The signatures match, and that is all you need to know. After that, if you know that Toppy was in India on the autumn of 1888, you ALSO know that he made his way home in November.

The best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

Yes, Fish -it's Me - back for another skirmish ! (and Hello Claire !)

This is what the police had to go by from the outset - a man Lewis could not describe. Therefore, the Met must have reacted with surprise to the fact that Lewis was able to provide the man with a wideawake (not very much of a pointer) and a "not tall" description , hardly laying down much of a rule, and a "stout" addition - which could all be due to a roomy coat,

.
I hardly think that the Police would be surprised at all if Mrs Lewis added 3 details at the inquest -infact she probably added them in direct response to close questioning by the Police themselves !

As to whether those elements offer any clues at all, although they may appear vague at first, here are a few constatations :

I went and read a whole load of descriptions of various men involved with the Ripper case, and that description couldn't apply to most of them. That is only to say that whilst you can't pin the Kelly 'loiterer' on anyone from that description, you can exclude truck loads.

You are a bit of a slippery Fishy because you tell me that we have to take what the witnesses say as being what they mean't to say -so going by this, if Lewis said 'stout, then she mean't 'stout'.
Lots of modern teenagers wear very 'roomy' clothes, but they don't look 'stout' any more than Charlie Chaplin looked 'stout' in his roomy clothes, or I look 'stout' if I slip on my husband's overcoat; Clothes hang off you when they're too big.You can't 'turn' her description to suggest that she said 'stout' but the' loiterer' just had roomy clothes !

Still , I must say that looking at the photo of the men in the Victoria Home, they seemed a short and stocky lot ! -( probably because they all did physical labour and were muscle bound and drank beer). Conversely in ordinary street scenes, there are some very 'peaky' weedy looking men.

Which neatly brings me to my last point -in that photo, the men in the Victoria home have mostly peaked caps, with a sprinkling of Billycocks. There are quite alot of men in the photo, as well as clothes hanging on hatstands -yet not one 'Wideawake' to be seen. Unless those men weren't wearing nearly everything they owned, and had suitcases filled with 'Wideawakes' under the table,I would deduce that casual labourers, dockers, market porters etc, lodging in Doss Houses, were not the best market for this style of headgear.

So let's turn to the moment when Hutch walks into the Police Station and identifies himself as the 'loiterer' seen by Lewis. I take it that you would agree that since he slept in a Doss House, he didn't have a fixed room with a wardrobe with it, but had his meagre possessions with him ? The Police had only 3 elements to go on from Lewis, and one must deduce that if they accepted Hutch's story, he must have been 'short', 'stout 'and wearing a 'Wideawake' on his head...or else could produce one squashed up in a pocket or his bag. Infact that hat, and the unusualness of it on the head of a dosser, might have been one element that Hutch feared would identify him if he didn't pre-empt any finger pointing

Your own assessment of George Hutchinson is a good read, but it remains pure speculation, just as you say yourself.

Speculation based on logical deduction, my dear Watson.

"obviously he had seen Lewis"

If we are speaking of the loiterer, then yes, he would have seen Lewis in all probability. But to accept that these two men were one and the same is something we cannot allow ourselves to do, however.

I'm still convinced they were the same man though..and that hat is a pretty nice clue.

(not digressing to talk about BS and Long here -but I would be pleased to do so on the appropriate threads).

"The handwriting similarities could be read either way..since people learned to write in a rigid 'parrot fashion', following fashions of their time, there are big similarities"

Oh, come on, Ruby! The different George Hutchinsons around at that time and stage have been looked at, and they all wrote in wildly different fashions. It is all in the earlier threads on Hutch. The personal traits in handwriting are something that won´t wash off.
You wrote yourself that you were once a convinced Toppyist, more or less. Why was that? Obviously, you once made the decision that the signatures were almost identical.
Then what happened? You came to believe that the circumstances involved would not allow for an identification? But, Ruby, you had already made that identification yourself, had you not? After such a thing, you cannot work "backwards". No matter what you learn, what you think, who influences your thinking und so weiter, the similarities inbetween the signatures will not change one iota

Well first of all, there ARE very big similarities in the signatures of people in a similar age range, from a similar geographical area, and born in the same era. I had a personal demonstration of this very recently : I've had my signature queried a couple of times..by my son's school, who thought that he must have faked my signature as it didn't look 'adult' (!), and when starting a new job. Infact, the French here are taught to sign with a totally illegible scrawl (it's supposed to be harder to falsify),and seeing french signatures all day at work, I can tell you that you usually can't make out one single letter, let alone have the slightest clue as to what the person's initials or name is. I, on the otherhand, have a clearly legible signature, with capital initials followed by my surname beginning with a capital. I showed my husband the signatures written on friend's letters from England, and there are very big similarities -for the prosaic reason that we were taught that way at (not by the same) school.

My handwriting has changed dramatically from childhood..I was taught to write in primary school with a fountain pen and an italic nib, in a typical slanted angular fashion, in North London. However my writing mutated into the rounded and looped writing which resembles those of my friends, after I grew up in an area where rounded and looped writing was the fashion. It is not so 'personal' as you may think.

I would say that Victorian children would write on a slate, ruling lines on it, and meticulously copying from a blackboard letters, with high letters touching the line above, y's and g's etc going to the line below etc, in a style that was fashionable with their teachers at the time. If they didn't write very much, then they would continue to write in the same way.

Anyway, you asked me what convinced me firstly to be a strong Toppy-ite and then 'repent'.
Let's set it out as a balance sheet:

The Reasons that I (used to) Believe that Hutch = Toppy :

1. Richard Nunweek heard a radio programme with Reg Hutchinson recounting what his Father told him about being the witness George Hutchinson, in an entirely simple, honest, and sincere way and using some telling detail (Wheeling Report). There is nothing to explain why the Hutchinsons would lie, and should not be taken at Face Value.

2. A most similar story was repeated in 'The Ripper and the Royals'

3. Reg Hutchinson mentions his Father talking about "Randolph churchill -or someone like him".Photos of Churchill could correspond to A Man's description. At this period, Churchill had virtually left Newmarket to concentrate on Racing, and was very present at Newmarket. Whilst A Man is surely fictitious (and Churchill evidently not the Ripper), there are none the less strong similarities in Toppy's and Hutch's descriptions of their suspect - a 'horse shoe tie pin and Hutch being an ex-Groom, and Newmarket being just over the border from Essex.could be a suggestion that Hutch was imagining Churchill ("or someone like him") when he described A Man.

4. Hutch said that he had just come back from Essex on the night that Kelly was killed, and the Hutchinson's had strong links to Essex -with Toppy's sister dying there (I think Toppys Father was born in Essex ?).

5. The signatures of Hutch and Toppy are very similar.

6.Both Toppy and Hutch were in their 20s

7; Hutch worked on building sites and Toppy was a plumber.

8.According to David Knott on these Posts, Toppy was in the East End at the time, and did do some other jobs (non specified). I have been assured that Knott is a descendant of Toppy's sister.

9. Serial killers CAN stop killing, and they can marry and have children. (Emile Louis -killer of 7 girls, is one example).

Here is why I changed my mind :

1. Nobody but Richard can vouch or prove that this radio interview ever existed (although I believe entirely that Richard is sincere). Indeed, D. Knott says that the older members of the family feel sure that they would remember if he HAD been on the radio, since this would be something out of the ordinary. In one of my 'fetish' books ('Reincarnation ? : The claims Investigated. by Ian wilson), the author establishes that the most believable 'reincarnation' recovered memories can all be demolished when he traces the source material. The people with the recovered memories are all sincere, and have no knowledge of where they learned the info, but the clinchers are when they repeat the mistakes or 'artistic license' in the original source -they usually begin their 'fantasy' by finding something that makes them feel 'involved' with the subject (in Toppy's case, a name in common).The people are usually artistic (the fact that Toppy married an actress might be a clue). Toppy was educated, and it would have been normal at the time to read up on the case particulrly, not just because of the Dramatic Event -but also the shared name. It was proved to me in these forums that the Wheeler report got the facts wrong and that, unwittingly was one of Toppy's sources
(You can experiment yourself with these' false memories' by using the 'creative section' of hypnotherapy.dot.com.-well worth the money, just to learn the deep relaxation techniques, and then using them for your own creative scenarios, or just for de-stressing).

2. ? Maybe that was the first interview ? Who knows..

3. Well, like the first Post, Toppy probably visualised Churchill -rather than the comic book Jew- when he read the decription of A Man in the papers..or he made the link later. Anyway, I think that was the subconcious image in his mind.

4. Actually, JaneKnott was living in London at the time of the killings. She never lived in Romford anyway. Bob Hinton pointed out that there was major building work going on in Romford at the time when Hutch went looking for work as a labourer.

5. There are heated debates on whether the signatures agree or not -and experts are far from 'unanimous'..basically you can argue either way and always find people to support or dispute your views: The verdict is 'out'.

6. Toppy was only 22 at the time
of the killings. We know for sure when he was a 'scholar', and that he followed an apprenticeship taking some years (and money), into the Family 'Trade'. Hutch said that he'd known Mary (5 ? 3?) years..and I think that's most likely true (surely the Victoria Home, and friends, acquaintances would give a rough clue as to how long they'd known Hutch ? How little work can we assume the Police did on such a major case ?). Toppy simply didn't have 'time' to be Hutch.

7. I've already gone into the Plumber v Groom argument. I can find no logical argument why Toppy would work for 3 years as a casual labourer, living in a Doss House (especially since Toppy couldn't actually have been there), if he was an educated qualified plumber? Why would he give his trade as a Groom (what bearing would that have ? -except to very rapidly expose himself as a liar ?
I mean WHY ?????

8; True -but Knott also went on to say that, although the Family asked him not to Post any details on the internet, after seeing said information on Toppy in the East End, he was 99.99% certain that Toppy could not have been Hutch.

9. Already discussed -if Toppy-as -Hutch worked on building sites as a casual labourer , he would be well placed to know about any plumbing jobs. Since plumbing jobs would have less competition, be better paid, be less gruelling, and give him more 'respect' -just why wouldn't he take them ? IF he had taken them, why did he lodge in the Victoria Home.. and why was he described as an ex-Groom ?

10. Yes, Serial Killers CAN go on to marry, and stop killing, but (taking Emile Louis as an example again), they are very 'dodgy' characters still -example: Louis was 'done' for beating up his first wife and raping his daughter. Toppy, as far as we can tell, appears to have lived an admirable and blameless life -including taking lodgings with 4 Policeman at one point ! Now, I'll add to Toppy:

11; There is a picture of an 'old' Toppy, and physically there appears to be nothing in common AT ALL with the Lewis description of Hutch...nor with my deducted (ok ! speculated!) description of Hutch. I see Hutch as being a nearing-thirty thuggish, racsist trouble maker I've already gone into the various meanings of 'Military Appearance'..and I cannot reconcile this description with 22 year old Toppy, who'd lived a rather privileged life.

12. I cannot reconcile Toppy's 'early life' (what we know of it), with the 'profile' of animal torture/arson/petty crime. Toppy does not fit what we know of the 'signs' for future Serial Killers.

I think that I've replied to you at enough length (!) now, Poisson , I think that you must get the picture on why I changed my mind.. In short, I wore myself out sledgehammering the 'round' Toppy into the 'square' Hutch hole (as I already said). It was a lot less tiring to admit that I was wrong.

[claire]

I know, I know...but I haven't been sleeping well lately, so am indulging my wildest imaginings here!