A theory on GH for JtR

[Rubyretro]

Rubyretro;152418]I certainly agree that it's worth considering whether Hutch had a benign motive for dressing up his description of A Man or not. It's just that I see the
very strong Jewish angle to his description -because I think that he stressed the point almost too much (adding that detail in about Petticoat Lane). It COULD be 'innocent' in that the public and Police were biased towards a Jewish culprit for JtR, granted.[/QUOTE]Still, if you then look at the larger picture of the murder sites at Berner street and Mitre square and the apron piece in the building in Goulston Street, then
Hutch's description doesn't seem so innocent. That's not even taking into account Buck's Row and Hanbury street, and the anti-jewish fever suceeding
those events( We're going back to abby's original Post now).

Then if you look at the sites of the murders in relation to where Hutch lived,
modern 'profiles' of serial killers, and witnesses -he fits the bill.

Of course that could still all be innocent coincidences -which abound and confuse this case; Maybe the murderer was a complete unkown afterall. But how to explain why the murders suddenly stopped ?

As soon as you think that Hutch was the murderer then there is a logical explanation as to why the murders stopped (detailed earlier on in the Thread).

When you start thinking that Hutch may have been JtR, and then looking at his placing himself at the last murder site, in the right time frame, and Mrs Lewis's Statement appearing to corroborate it...it adds up.

I admit that it might be false deduction (2 +2 =5), but none of the other candidates such as Druitt or Tumblety or Chapman add up in this way for Me.
It just brings me back to Hutch or 'unknown'.

These were my first thoughts on reading the facts on Casebook, before I even knew that Garry, Bob, Ben etc existed.

I agree wholeheartedly with Joel Hall that it is great fun debating with people who disagree with your arguments, since it will either harden them or force you to reconsider them; I've had to change my mind or drop (for the moment !) alot of details -but no one has (yet !) convinced me of the fallacy of the basic premise.

(I can see that someone who had a book to defend might find it very important not to be proved wrong -but I don't actually care).

[The Good Michael]

-but no one has (yet !) convinced me of the fallacy of the basic premise.

The fallacy is that Hutchinson is a suspect without one jot of evidence against him, yet we, the sane are asked to convince you otherwise. That is a backwards approach at investigation, and it isn't just you and it isn't just Hutchinson. It's the way suspect stuff goes. Folks make claims and then try and prove their claims and then write a book or an article. When evidence arises that is contrary to a belief in a suspect, it is typically dismissed because the eyes that are looking intently, are not seeking logic, but are instead looking for minutiae with which to base a refutation upon. Hutchinson may be guilty, but the evidence is non-existent. I know only one thing with certainty: Hutch and Topping are the same man. Of that there can be no sane doubt.

Cheers,

Mike

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Hello Ruby. I agree about the notion of testimony being "designed."

Hutchinson's testimony has the feel of being"designed" and then "planted"--much as John Kelly's testimony about Kate and Schwartz's about Liz and BS.

Cheers.
LC

[

Lynn -when I say 'designed', I mean't designed by Hutch alone to deflect suspicion from himself and to direct the investigation towards a Jewish suspect, and to fit in with prevailing public ideas of the 'profile' of Jtr.

I am fascinated by Ben's Post (there is notihng 'cliquey' in that, since I do not know the guy). It rings true.

I don't think that there is any 'conspiracy' behind the murders. I think that, given the huge reward, if someone had known who JtR was, they would have 'shopped' him.

I don't think that neither Schwartz nor Kelly were anything other than honest.

On the otherhand, I thnk that -somewhere- Hutch might tie in with your
research, Lynn. As he might be somewhere in Rob House's arson cases -lurking in the background.

I personally think that Liz was 'one of his', and BSM doesn't fit his MO as the killer. Yet, the 'timeline' is so short that he couldn't have been far away. I don't think that he wrote the GSG after killing Kate -yet, he probably knew it was there. Polly was killed on the same night as a (2 ?) dock fires.

I feel that Hutch was acting alone as a secret 'serial killer' but he might well have been on the perifery of something bigger -aimed at Jewish organisations.

I don't think that we'll ever know -because I don't think that he'd have gone to the Police offering A Man as a suspect, if he was 'known' as an anti-semite to them...

...unless that is why they discounted 'A Man' as a 'suspect' of course !...but I'm thinking (speculating) out loud (once again !!).

[Abby Normal]

The fallacy is that Hutchinson is a suspect without one jot of evidence against him, yet we, the sane are asked to convince you otherwise. That is a backwards approach at investigation, and it isn't just you and it isn't just Hutchinson. It's the way suspect stuff goes. Folks make claims and then try and prove their claims and then write a book or an article. When evidence arises that is contrary to a belief in a suspect, it is typically dismissed because the eyes that are looking intently, are not seeking logic, but are instead looking for minutiae with which to base a refutation upon. Hutchinson may be guilty, but the evidence is non-existent. I know only one thing with certainty: Hutch and Topping are the same man. Of that there can be no sane doubt.

Cheers,

Mike

Hi Mike

Hutch and Topping are the same man. Of that there can be no sane doubt.

How so? I am all ears. seriously, I have a totally open mind on this and would like to hear your reasoning.

[lynn cates]

Kelly

Hello Ruby. Speculation is a good thing. That's where paradigms are born.

As to John Kelly--look over his testimony (especially as to Kate's early release from a casual ward).

Cheers.
LC

[Rubyretro]

Hello Ruby. Speculation is a good thing. That's where paradigms are born.

As to John Kelly--look over his testimony (especially as to Kate's early release from a casual ward).

Cheers.
LC

I agree with you about 'speculation'.

Maybe you meant to be ironic and I didn't get it ? but since you speculate yourself, I'll take it seriously ; obviously through speculation it is possible to arrive at a viable theory.

I know john Kelly's Statement -and the only thing that I think that he wasn't entirely honest about, was turning a blind eye to the fact that they never saw her daughter (because Kate didn't know her daughter's new address), and that when Kate came home saying that she'd borrowed money from her daughter, she had infact resorted to prostitution.

So I think that he 'lied' that Kate wasn't a sometime prostitute by kindness/guilt - but for the rest, I think that he told the truth.

[The Good Michael]

Abby,

Signatures of Hutchinson from his testimony are a match for signatures of George WT Hutchinson. There is a little variance due to time passing, but they are the same if you look at the thread regarding this. They are the only two George Hutchinsons living in the same area at the same time and these signatures were compared years after Knights book and Reginald's (George Topping Hutchinson's son) discussion about his father being a witness to one of the murders. On top of this, we are able to understand why Topping was inserted into his name. It was from his mother's side (if I'm not mistaken). Also, Hutchinson's father was a plumber as so was Topping, though he was listed as laborer and groom during the time of the murders. The big argument against (little, really) is the idea of Hutchinson calling himself a plumber later in life when he was a laborer earlier. The argument has to do with apprenticeship periods beginning at 14 years of age. This argument supposes that no one could become a plumber without apprenticeship. Of course a box of tools and desire says a lot about what a person can become. The apprenticeship process was seriously on the wane by that time as well in is just a bit of loose tar on the road.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Abby - With all due respect to Mike, the above is littered with a mixture of highly contentious opinions dressed up as fact, statements which he cannot possibly know to be true, and outright falsehoods.

In the first category, we have the claim that:

"Signatures of Hutchinson from his testimony are a match for signatures of Hutchinson."

In Mike's controversial opinion.

But according to an expert document examiner who compared the original signatures, the signatures do not match.

I'm with the professional document examiner.

Then there's this:

They are the only two George Hutchinsons living in the same area at the same time

This is just wrong.

Unless Mike has some sort of equivalent of an 1888 census, he cannot possibly have any idea how many George Hutchinsons were living in that area at that time, and to compound the gaffe, there's no evidence that Toppy was anywhere near the East End in 1888.

these signatures were compared years after Knights book and Reginald's (George Topping Hutchinson's son) discussion about his father being a witness to one of the murders.

Absolutely wrong.

The discussion with Reginald was outlined in the Ripper and the Royals by Melvyn Fairclough - a very bad version of the Royal Conspiracy theory published in the early 1990s. Document examiner Sue Iremonger compared the Hutchinson signatures (and Maybrick's handwriting versus the "diarist") around the same time - 1993 if I'm not mistaken. So they weren't compared "years after" at all.

Also, Hutchinson's father was a plumber as so was Topping, though he was listed as laborer and groom during the time of the murders.

Toppy's father was a plumber.

We have no data on the father of the Hutchinson who made the statement.

As for Toppy himself, he was described by his son as a plumber who was "rarely, if ever, out of work", which neatly coincides with the 1891 census entry placing him in Warren Street in the West End, working as a plumber. If he was a 25-year-old plumber in 1891, he was very unlikely to have been a 22-year-old labouring former groom in 1888. Plumbing apprenticeships don't start at 22 and don't last a mere three years. The rules for entry into the plumbing trade had become stricter at that time, according to an article provided by Sam Flynn, in stark contrast to Mike's claim that the process was on the "wane".

Mike - I don't mean to get unduly stroppy about all this again, and I know you were only responding to Abby's question, but is it really too much to ask that we confine the Toppy-talk to the relevant threads, rather than doing this all over again? I've no problem with anyone who wants to defend Hutchinson's innocence, truthfulness, star witness status, whatever, as long as the defence consists of something rather more compelling than "But it was Toppy!".

Please?

Best wishes,
Ben

P.S. These are the Toppiest threads I can find:

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

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

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2891

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"In Mike's controversial opinion.
But according to an expert document examiner who compared the original signatures, the signatures do not match.
I'm with the professional document examiner."

Can I just ask you, Ben: If your wish is to see to it that Abby is informed about all sides of the case, ensuring a circumspect wiew and an unbiased picture ...
... then why is it that you do not write that TWO professional document examiners have looked at the signatures, and that we know that the examination performed only last year by Frank Leander from SKL in Sweden opted for a match?
Why do you not tell Abby that the examination YOU are referring to was performed seventeen years ago, and that we have no absolute proof telling us that Sue Iremonger even used relevant material?

Why did this get lost? What purpose could it possibly serve?
The purpose of an unbiased information, giving Abby a fair chance to assess all the material involved? Or the purpose of painting a picture where all the relevant expert work on the signatures calls for a verdict of non-identity, in spite of the fact that both you and me know that this is not true?

This time over, let´s beware about this, Ben. No good will come from not telling the whole story, as you no doubt realize. You favour Iremonger, and that is fine - we all make our own choices. But before we make them, it is relevant to be presented with all the options, something I hope you agree with.

The very best,
Fisherman

[Rubyretro]

My understanding of Frank Leander's comparison is that he didn't see the original sigatures and said that he would not be able to give a full expert opinion.

when pushed, he said " It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person" but also found a number of differences : "Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature"

I think that his conclusion was at the " Lower end of the positive scale", but he stressed again " In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!".

All in all it's very luke warm, and since we also have an expert opinion to say that it's NOT a match, I never used to cite the signatures as proof of anything -even when I was a Toppyite.

[Rubyretro]

My understanding of Frank Leander's comparison is that he didn't see the original sigatures and said that he would not be able to give a full expert opinion.

when pushed, he said " It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person" but also found a number of differences : "Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature"

I think that his conclusion was at the " Lower end of the positive scale", but he stressed again " In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!".

All in all it's very luke warm, and since we also have an expert opinion to say that it's NOT a match, I never used to cite the signatures as proof of anything -even when I was a Toppyite.

It's pretty unfair to tell Abby that the signatures are a match, when nothing is less sure.

[Fisherman]

Ben!

I have re-read your post, and so I notice that you actually do pinpoint Iremongers examination in time. Thus I should not have written that this information lacked in your post. Sorry about that - my mistake.

My main criticism still stands, though.

If I may, I would like to add a further thing: Since we have now positioned us and pointed Abby to the Hutchinson threads regarding the signatures and signature examinations, I suggest that we leave the trenches before we get too accustomed to them, and let Abby do the reading required without any further involvement on our respective behalfs. We have been over this in extenso, and all the arguments are there to be found in the former threads already - including a number of comments that I sense both you and I wish were not there.

This thread should be primarily about Abbys suggestion from post number one, and although the signature issue will always belong to any discussion of Hutchinson, it would perhaps serve the ongoing discussion better if we could give it a rest.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ruby, my post 87 to Ben will have to do for you too. If you wish to have a further discussion of the signature bits, this is not the thread for it. And as it stands, I will do what I can to avoid that discussion - not because of any dearth of arguments, but because I wish to avoid any bad blood.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

It's pretty unfair to tell Abby that the signatures are a match, when nothing is less sure.

Unfair? What is unfair is to have an agenda and then to disregard anything that doesn't fit into it. We who have examined the signatures as unbiased participants, not caring or having a clue as to who JTR was, and not openly theorizing that JTR was Hutchinson, have come to the conclusion, as has Leander, and as most certainly has not Iremonger because she didn't look at all the signatures, that they are more likely to belong to the same man. The match is obvious to those who really see.

Unfair is besmirching a dead man's reputation based upon less than nothing.

Mike

[sunflower]

hello

Unfair is besmirching a dead man's reputation based upon less than nothing.

Mike

I haven't yet read the thread in question, thanks for the links Ben, but surely the above statement is illogical?

I presume you are annoyed that Topping's reputation is being besmirched? How can his reputation be besmirched by people who are arguing he was NOT synonymous with Hutchinson? Surely those who disagree with you are doing precisely the opposite and exonerating Mr Topping from any involvement with the case, let alone the implication of being a murderer. It is you who are suggesting, or rather insisting, they were one and the same, and if you are happy he was merely an innocent witness, then that's your choice. Others who think he was not Toppy are obviously not accusing Toppy of anything. Their conclusion is that he was not involved at all.

Secondly, you have made a fallacious point regarding Toppy and Hutchinson's fathers having the same profession. Toppy's father can be tracked down. Hutchinson, however, is still an unknown quantity...and if we don't know who he was, how can we possibly know who his father was, or what his father's profession was?