Innocent, By George!

[Ben]

Why is it that whenever someone insists on reviving a Hutchinson thread and repeating a previously thrashed-out issue, Mikey pops up to make an embarrassing shabby nuisance of himself with his insults and character assassinations? I don't know what you naively believe constitutes "proof" here, but you're clearly mistaken. Try to become the previous Mike that we all took more seriously before you adopted an entrenched position on the Hutchinson question. Have a look at the Swanson marginalia, discuss the recent documentary, debate whether or not Stride was a ripper victim, ANYTHING but persist in your non-contributions here.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I think there can be no argument as to which is the more ridiculous, if not impossible, of the two descriptions."

I donīt. To begin with, things like "dents" is obviously plural. And if we speak of, say, three dents and three rust patches, then we may be looking at a dozen or so details, and that was taken in in perhaps ten secondīs time. That would - if this is correct - mean a capacity of registering, mathematically, 72 items per minute, or, mathematically, 360 items per five minutes, or, mathematically, 1080 items in the time Hutch took in his 30-40 items.
looking at it that way, itīs a different story.

But you donīt like different stories, do you, Ben - you prefer the same: What Hutch did was impossible. Itīs something to do with that alien.

"Spotting so minute an accessory as a horseshoe tiepin in the conditions that existed on the 9th November is nigh on impossible, doubly so when we’re expected to believe that he recorded other aspects of his appearance at the same time."

Youīre something of a drama queen, are you not? How much is "nigh on impossible" x 2?
At any rate, we donīt know the conditions and the timelines very well, so no call can be made here. Somehow, you treat it like the ever ongoing, semicriminal noise in Dorset Street: You are so sure, so sure that it was there - and with no substantiation at all. Itīs all "almost certainly" and "nigh on impossible" and such. I donīt buy it for a minute.

"All that needs to be taken on board that it was very dark at the time, punctuated at intervals by the occasional poor gas lamp. This constitutes more than adequate grounds to rule the idea that he saw exactly what he claimed to have seen"

Exactly so. I rule the same.

"It’s common sense. "

I keep telling you that common sense is not so very common, Ben ...

"Who, honestly, is still taken in by a dark tightly-clutched parcel of unsubtly knife-shaped dimensions?"

Perhaps the same people who find nothing strange in the parcel PC Smith saw in the hands of a man in Berner Street?

"Not even the tests for photographic memory demand anything like as much superhuman powers of observation and memorization."

And which are these tests??? Please elaborate!

"He also thought that Klosowski the ripper went on an organ-harvesting mission on behalf of an American doctor in pursuit of specimens, and that he then went to America for more innards once he realised he hadn’t collected enough in London for his boss."

... the obvious difference being that he did not change his mind on that five hours after he got the idea.

"I’ve suggested that the more time that elapsed between the initial interview and the 15th November, the more Hutchinson’s statement came to be “reduced” in terms of importance. "

The time span is too short, simple as that. Abberline would not give a clear green light the fewest of hours before having it dawn on him that he was probably totally wrong to do so. If you thin Hutchinsonīs testimony was odd, this tops it!

"Either way, we know that by the 13th the statement had suffered a reduced importance only"

Aha. And an inspector like Abberline would not wait until he was sure that he was wrong. No, he would run to the press instantly, saying: "Guys, I may be wrong on this one! Not that Iīm sure, I may also be right. But just so you know...!"
Totally incredible, Iīm afraid. Donīt hang on to that one, thatīs my advice - itīs silly.

"Clearly his suspicion was never “checked out and confirmed”, or else Dew would have stated as much"

Thatīs right! But checked out it would have been, unless the dismissal was a given one before they even got around to it. And what they found at that stage may have been enough for the police to make their call, whereas it may not have been sufficient to convince Hutch. Iīd say the failure to spot Lewis is a good bid. Even if Huch firmly stated that he had not seen her, the police must have recognized the odd chance that he simply had missed her was there, small but still. And if Hutch was very sure that he only stoodon the north side of the street, and claimed he never saw Lewis, we may have gotten the kind of scenario I am speaking of. There may have been other things - he may, for example, have gotten the wrong kind of dress on Kelly. It would strongly implicate being a day out, but it would not prove it - pepla change clothes from time to time.
All it taks, Ben, is the exact ting you ordered a few days ago: a little imagination. But in that case, the imagination was ordered to realize that there must have been noise on Dorset Street at all times, loud enough to ... well, you know. Same ****, different story.

"More likely, the catalyst for Hutchinson’s discrediting arrived in the form of the press variations"

Aha. And the initial suspicion, echoed in the Echo, was due to the fact that Abberline had a feeling that Hutch would surely say something strange whe speaking to the press, and thus discredit himself...?
Sorry - silly.

"the appropriate time of year, such as the Christmas ales at 8.4%"

Iīm normally not awake that late.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"Why is it that whenever someone insists on reviving a Hutchinson thread and repeating a previously thrashed-out issue, Mikey pops up to make an embarrassing shabby nuisance of himself with his insults and character assassinations?"

... whereas Garry arrive with gentle words of reconciliation, you mean?

Mike is as sensible as ever. Heīs just dead tired of the Hutchinsonian debate technique. Iīm sure I will end up in the same situation too, not giving a damn about anything.

But Iīm not there yet!

The best,
Fisherman

[Abby Normal]

"Why is it that whenever someone insists on reviving a Hutchinson thread and repeating a previously thrashed-out issue, Mikey pops up to make an embarrassing shabby nuisance of himself with his insults and character assassinations?"

... whereas Garry arrive with gentle words of reconciliation, you mean?

Mike is as sensible as ever. He's just dead tired of the Hutchinsonian debate technique. . Iīm sure I will end up in the same situation too, not giving a damn about anything.

But Iīm not there yet!

The best,
Fisherman

Mike is as sensible as ever. Heīs just dead tired of the Hutchinsonian debate technique.

Fish
We've agreed in the past, disagreed,-heck you have even changed my mind on a couple of things-but your losing your credability with statements above. I have not been on these boards very long but everything I have ever seen Mike post is what some on the internet call a "troll".

...tired of the Hutchinsonian debate technique.

What is this supposed to mean? You don't like the way people debate you on Hutch? All people who argue in the plausability of Hutch as a suspect are "Hutchinsonions" and thus somehow employing the dasterdly "Hutchinsonian debate technique"? Hutch is not worth even discussing as a possible suspect?

Sorry Fish but Hutch is a suspect weather you like it or not. So continue your debate against (which honestly in my view point you have sometimes done a great job) but please lets keep the whole "Hutchinsonian/debate technique" nonsense out of it.

[Garry Wroe]

... whereas Garry arrive with gentle words of reconciliation, you mean?

That comment, Fisherman, was just this side of evil.

Mike is as sensible as ever.

Agreed. His latest outburst was no more or less sensible than his usual kindergarten histrionics.

Heīs just dead tired of the Hutchinsonian debate technique.

Or indeed any technique that involves another poster expressing an opinion that differs from his own.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Gary,

My thoughts on the Hutchinson situation vis a vis Topping are quite simple.

Topping was introduced to us in a book written by Melvin Fairclough, involving, heavily, a man who previously told us a story written by Stephen Knight. That man was Joseph Gorman Sickert and when pressed about the first book, retracted it calling it a whopping fib.
He then teams up with a new writer (Fairclough), presents us with a new story, with a new person nobody had ever heard of (Topping), and that new writer,(Fairclough) after publication, also retracts his work with this same gentleman (Joseph Gorman Sickert).

Now, call me stupid, but once bitten, twice shy. I cannot, not even with the best will in the world, believe anything presented to me to do with Joseph Gorman Sickert. The man burned his bridges with that first retraction (after having had a best-selling book out of it) and then re-invented the story with someone else, with the so-called Abberline diaries that we have never seen, generally thought to be a hoax anyway, and yet we are still supposed to believe this part(Topping) of his ever changing, retracted, partly retracted story?

Up and down like a yo-yo, pops in and out of the spotlight like a Jack-in-the-box, and then, on top of it all, had given the world proof that his (supposed) father painted things into his paintings, leading to Patricia Cornwell to spend millions on checking the whole thing, who in turn is roundly admonished for her proposing of the same man as being Jack the Ripper. A theory with as much tangible evidence and proof as a mad gorilla once had going for it. And boy did THAT book sell! And then the tv spin-offs etc etc etc.

The first story written by Stephen Knight was a great story..and had us intruiged. And it made money. Lots of it. And it fooled the world.

Joseph Gorman Sickert, sadly, nice man that he was, played the game with us... twice.

Once bitten, twice shy here. Maybe I'm old and cynical.

best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Garry:

"That comment, Fisherman, was just this side of evil."

If so, Garry, in what category of comments do we place "Anencephalic - 'Characterized by partial or total absence of a brain.'"?

Once upon a time, a serious, polite debate based on useful stances in different topics could be had out here. But that is something that just does not apply when the word "Hutchinson" is uttered.
Other topics, yes - the useful debate is still around. But in Hutchinson country this is not so.
Out here, you may be called arse-numbingly stupid for suggesting that a street may (MAY!) have been sufficiently quiet for conversation to be overheard and made out, although NOTHING is brought to the table evidencewise to bolster it. You may be told that it is "preposterous" to suggest that a young man, who probably lived a vagabonding life and who occasionally lost out on a nights sleep, may have muddled up the days. "Preposterous"!!!

This may, if my guess is correct, lie behind Mikeīs current approach to the Hutchinson-dominated threads. Mike is as sharp and as compassionate a poster as you are going to meet out here, if you ask me. He is well read up on most of the Ripper material, and more than willing to take other suggestions than his own onboard when this is called for. He reasonably accepts no less from his fellow posters.
Of course, Mike has no need for me speaking for him - he manages that very well on his own. Apologies, Mike, if you think I am barging in on your territory!

At the end of the day, topics like these are not what we should use the boards for. Anybody stating that will have my full support! A FAIR debate, with respect for the opponentīs view when this is called for is of urgent need here. Sadly, the arguments presented on this thread have not always demanded respect. And when this is so, I see no problems to criticize - indeed, I think we MUST criticize such arguments. After that, it is how fair criticism is taken on board that sets the tone for the discussion. The bottom line is that we are all grownups, and we CAN conduct a decent discussion if we really put or hearts and minds to it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Phil Carter:

"The man burned his bridges with that first retraction (after having had a best-selling book out of it) and then re-invented the story with someone else, with the so-called Abberline diaries that we have never seen, generally thought to be a hoax anyway, and yet we are still supposed to believe this part(Topping) of his ever changing, retracted, partly retracted story?"

What is it you find hard to believe, Phil? Is it ANYTHING connected to Sickert? Does your dismay mean that we can rule out that Reg honestly related that his father had claimed to be the witness? If it does, why is it that the signatures tally very closely?

I am not opposed to being very wary of Sickert and Fairclough. But surely, taking all they say to be the polar opposite of the truth may be detrimental to our efforts? Even if they accidentally stumbled on Reg, only to find out that he was the real thing, why would we suppose that they would have misrepresented him in extenso just for the sake of misrepresenting?

To me, there can be no doubt that Toppy WAS the witness. Others disagree as you know, but the signature likeness is a clincher to my eyes.
And if Toppy WAS the witness, then Fairclough spoke to that witnessīson. To suggest that Fairclough had this contact, and that he only used him as an alibi for a number of elaborate lies, sounds pretty strange to me. And when we take a look at what was REALLY said, we find that it is completely compatible with the evidence involved. No firm stance that Hutch ever said that he met Churchill is made - it is Reg himself that SPECULATES that his father would have been of this meaning. Likewise, it is not said that the royal family was involved - only that it was something "like" it. And all that IS said has been filtered over a long stretch of years, remember. And, of course, add to it that Fairclough would arguably be very happy to stress anything that even breathed the word "royal", if ever so faintly.

I am just glad that it was not stated that Hutch had said that he HAD seen Churchill, and that it was not firmly established that he had expressed that there WAS a connection to the royals. Such a thing could well have come about, considering the dangerous combination of elements involved. And if that had been the case, I think we would have a much more difficult task on our hands trying to untangle the threads involved.

The best,
Fisherman

[harry]

Well Mike,if it's Fisherman stating something,who else should we ask for proof.I asked a doctor if weather would affect the memory.He replied it could if a person was hit by a bolt of lightning.Whats the weather to do with it?Ask Fisherman.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Fish,

Good morning!

Yes, I read you clearly, and yes, it does sound logical. You asked whether it was anything to do with Sickert. Basically, yes.

Joseph Gorman Sickert's past "fibs" mean only one thing to me. Any involvement in a new story that involves Sickert, makes me not only wary, but almost dismissive.
Maybe it's an individual thing as I said. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I'm too old and cynical to embrace any idea involving him.

It's a chance thing I suppose. Do I take the chance on believing a man who fooled the world then retracted it, then re-embraced it? The simple answer is no.

Melvin Fairclough's reaction after the book was clear. He wanted to distance himself from it all. Now if an author does that, fair do's. Stephen Knight never did. If you can trace Mr. Fairclough and ask him today about his book, I'd bet he'd answer the same way.

As you know, I have masses of respect for you and your thoughts. I consider them I believe fairly. But on this occasion, the weight falls on the truthfulness or not of Joseph Gorman Sickert. And his track record weighs too heavily.

Once bitten, twice shy in this viewers eyes.

I'd LOVE to believe it..honestly I would. But the Abberline diaries? That little pearl there is a gentle reminder of something. Wary isn't the word. I just don't believe it.

Hope all is well with you my friend

best wishes

Phil

[Fisherman]

Harry:

"Well Mike,if it's Fisherman stating something,who else should we ask for proof."

Good call, Harry! I am the one who should be asked for proof. That is why I provided Erling Nilsson - and was told that I had asked the wrong type of specialist, since accoustics was not the correct field. It is also why contacted Frank Leander - and was told that he was completely unreliable and changed his mind, just as it was said that he probably gave me the answers I wanted only to get rid of me.

So much for providing proof and experts, Harry! If you look for gratitude, look elsewhere.

Oh, and when we need proof from you or Ben, for example - who should we ask then? And will you provide proof and expert views?

"I asked a doctor if weather would affect the memory.He replied it could if a person was hit by a bolt of lightning.Whats the weather to do with it?Ask Fisherman."

Why did you ask that? Has anybody out here suggested that weather would affect the memory? If not, why relate this? If it some sort of joke, do tell me. Irony? Same thing - please enlighten me. As it stands, I have no idea what you are talking about.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi Phil!

"It's a chance thing I suppose. Do I take the chance on believing a man who fooled the world then retracted it, then re-embraced it? The simple answer is no."

Fine by me, Phil. But letīs not forget the old tale of Peter and the wolfe, shall we? It is all good and well to avoid sticking your fingers where you may get them burnt, especially if you know this from bitter experience. But to categorically say that bad sources must be wrong on all things is a dangerous approach. If one decides not to use them at all, that is understandable, but to take it one step further and use them to always opt for B if they say A is another thing altogether and not scientifically useful, if you pardon my French!

That said, once again itīs your call, and I will respect it - though perhaps not agree with it - whichever way you opt for.

"Hope all is well with you my friend"

Itīs no less than brilliant, Phil. Hope the same goes for you!

The best,
Fisherman

[Bob Hinton]

Signatures

I keep hearing about signatures tallying. What signatures? If you are talking about the signatures on the statement and the 1911 census return, forget it. there is nothing to prove that the signature on the 1911 was made by our man.

[Fisherman]

Bob Hinton:

"If you are talking about the signatures on the statement and the 1911 census return, forget it. there is nothing to prove that the signature on the 1911 was made by our man."

It does not matter which signatures I talk about if that is the demand you make. Unless we have two signature writings on record and fully documented, we can never "prove" as such that they are written by the same person. We can visually point out that they resemble each other to a smaller or larger degree, but even if they are perfect copies, that only proves exactly that - that they ARE perfect copies. Of course, they CAN be perfect copies written by two different persons.
This is why we need to speak not of proof, but of likelyhoods. That, by the way, is what document specialists do too, and that is why their verdicts are never quite conclusive. They only say that the likelihood that two signatures are made by the same person is smaller or greater. It is also what courts of law do - they weigh likelihoods.

This too is why I will not take your kind advice and forget the likeness inbetween the police report signature and the census signature - those two signatures ARE very much alike, in fact so alike that a well-known and well-reputed document specialist said that he was of the meaning that he would be very surprised if they were not written by the same man. A number of other posters have expressed the exact same view, among them Gareth Williams who said that he was not of the view that they may have been by the same man, but instead of the conviction that they must have been. He - just like me - had no doubts whatsoever about it.

Thatīs why you keep hearing of this! But to be honest, you should not hear very much about it on this particular thread, since it is devoted to another topic. If you want to discuss the matter further, there is no lack of appropriate threads, though!

I have nothing aginst a further debate on it myself. I believe you were in some capacity involved in the Iremonger investigation, and I would very much like to know ecactly what was documented at that occasion. If NOTHING was documented at all, I would like to know why.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

I keep hearing about signatures tallying. What signatures? If you are talking about the signatures on the statement and the 1911 census return, forget it. there is nothing to prove that the signature on the 1911 was made by our man.

Bob,

If you don't see the signature similarities and combine it with the fact that there are so few known Hutchinsons in the very area, at the very time, and that Reginald Hutchinson, regardless of what you think about Rippers and Royals nonsense, came forward and no one else did, and you see that George and GWTH have the same first names, and that Topping lived, got married, and had children in at least one area abutting the East End, and that Leander would most assuredly move forward in the corroboration of signatures process due to the strong similarities.... and you come up with not a lick of evidence to suggest that Topping and George are quite possibly the same man, then you shouldn't be investigating anything. This should have been put to bed a long time ago, regardless of errant suspect books still available on Amazon.

Mike