Innocent, By George!

[lynn cates]

whence?

Hello David. Rubbish. You have an excellent command of English.

I do not have Fairclough either. I hardly know which theories he espouses. I am trying merely to account for the name in the ledgers.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

I tend to doubt that anything certain will be established from this as it would mean matching a reasonable quantity genuine Toppy writing with one signature inscribed some 23 years earlier.

Hi Lechmere, this my opinion too.

[DVV]

Lynn, I don't have Fairclough book, but I guess Reg's words do fit the theory, unless Fairclough was mentally disturbed at the time of publishing.

And I guess Fairclough is amused to follow our Toppy-threads, he who knows how he caught Reginald ! (J'essaie de vitupérer mais pas facile avec mes trois mots d'anglais.)

Dvvv

[lynn cates]

challenges

Hello David.

"I'm sure Hutch never saw Churchill in Petticoat Lane."

I would use a slightly lower level of epistemic involvement; yet, I tend to agree here too.

The real challenge seems to be:

1. To ascertain the origin of Lord Randolph's name as a subject of investigation.

2. Determine why Toppy picked that name--if indeed he did.

Cheers.
LC

[Debra A]

Debra – I think you’ll find that the copy of the certificate that was forwarded to the GRO was also complied at the time of the wedding.
They were then forwarded quarterly which is why the national lists are always alphabetical and quarterly.
I have reproduced on here copies of GRO certificates which are clearly signed by the participants – not the curate or church clerk.
It would in any case not make sense for the church clerk to write out all the marriage certificates again annually. For a busy church that would be a very onerous task.
The most sensible practice would have been to do it as each marriage happened and it is beyond doubt that this was the practice.

Gary is quite correct to say that the neither of the Toppy-Hutchinson handwriting examinations stand up to proper scrutiny.
One problem is that for Hutchinson we have three signatures, and it is quite possible that only one is actually Hutchinson’s. We have rather more examples of Toppy’s writing – more signatures and the 1911 census form.
I tend to doubt that anything certain will be established from this as it would mean matching a reasonable quantity genuine Toppy writing with one signature inscribed some 23 years earlier.

Lechmere, just quickly-As far as I am aware there is only one certificate filled out at a marriage ceremony, and this is given to the bride andgroom as legal proof of the marriage. Details of the marriage are also entered into actual registers, either of the church or the register office the marriage took place. I think the copy registers where handed in when they were full actually and not annually as I said earlier. You are right about quarterly returns ,but I don't think it was what you called 'unusual' for the curate to fill in these returns himself , including signatures, not according to a number of genealogy websites anyhow.

I would like to think that a professional document examiner would go to the original source, either the marriage register held by the church or the microfilm of that register.

[DVV]

Hi Lynn

But I'm not sure why that would falsify Reg's story?
LC

I'm sure Hutch never saw Churchill in Petticoat Lane. Sir Randolph was busy dismembering a torso that Sunday.

[lynn cates]

name

Hello David. I tend to agree with your estimate that the Lord Randolph involvement may constitute a crazy story. But I'm not sure why that would falsify Reg's story?

Is it possible that, if Toppy were Hutch, something were stated in his interview--though mistaken it were--and that led SB into the MJK investigation along with the Toppy accusation?

I am trying, in this, to account for Lord Randolph's name in the ledgers.

Cheers.
LC

[Lechmere]

Debra – I think you’ll find that the copy of the certificate that was forwarded to the GRO was also complied at the time of the wedding.
They were then forwarded quarterly which is why the national lists are always alphabetical and quarterly.
I have reproduced on here copies of GRO certificates which are clearly signed by the participants – not the curate or church clerk.
It would in any case not make sense for the church clerk to write out all the marriage certificates again annually. For a busy church that would be a very onerous task.
The most sensible practice would have been to do it as each marriage happened and it is beyond doubt that this was the practice.

Gary is quite correct to say that the neither of the Toppy-Hutchinson handwriting examinations stand up to proper scrutiny.
One problem is that for Hutchinson we have three signatures, and it is quite possible that only one is actually Hutchinson’s. We have rather more examples of Toppy’s writing – more signatures and the 1911 census form.
I tend to doubt that anything certain will be established from this as it would mean matching a reasonable quantity genuine Toppy writing with one signature inscribed some 23 years earlier.

[DVV]

Hi Lynn, that's another thing and still only a false Hutch could support this crazy theory.

Dvvvv

[lynn cates]

SB ledgers

Hello David. I know what you mean. But please recall that it has been pointed out that Lord Randolph was mentioned in the Special Branch ledgers.

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Sorry Ruby, but the way "they" got involved in the ripper story can be most telling, and biographical details could prove Toppy wasn't the witness (if for example we could ascertain his whereabouts for 1888), whereas the signatures will be discussed and discussed to no end.

The simple fact that Reg's story (Churchill) fits so well Fairclough's theory tells me that all comes from Fairclough, not Toppy.

[Rubyretro]

Still, my opinion is that we should dig Toppy's biography instead, and investigate how his family got involved in the ripper case, via Fairclough or anybody else.

That's the way to prove Toppy wasn't the witness - if indeed he was not.

Bonne année mon cher Garry.[/QUOTE]

It wouldn't prove anything. Toppy might have told Reg that he was the witness, and it still not have been true. It would be interesting to contact Fairclough (via his publisher). I've hesitated to do it myself, because I think that it should be somebody more neutral.

[DVV]

That's true, Garry, and that's why I think experts won't solve the case. Many have already stated they didn't care : having done their own examination, they're sure it was Toppy, while some Hutchinsonians do trust a report they haven't read, as you've recalled.

Still, my opinion is that we should dig Toppy's biography instead, and investigate how his family got involved in the ripper case, via Fairclough or anybody else.

That's the way to prove Toppy wasn't the witness - if indeed he was not.

Bonne année mon cher Garry.

[Garry Wroe]

In any case, we should first comment extensively on SI report.

That's the point, though, Dave. Sue Iremonger has never published her work. Until she does and it can be subjected to a thorough critical analysis, her opinions carry no more legitimacy than Frank Leander's informal evaluation of those signatures provided by Fisherman.

[lynn cates]

trick

Hello Debs. Thanks. If this succeeds, hopefully it will clear the air.

If it works, the other trick will be to get everyone to agree with the results.

Cheers.
LC