Joran Van der Hutchinson?

[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

[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]

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]

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 ??).

[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.

[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]

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

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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

Fisherman,

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

A Paragon of Peace and Tranquility