A closer look at George Hutchinson

[Abby Normal]

My memory might not be 100% accurate, but I seem to recall that I opened up that particular can of worms. I had been publicly supportive of the "JTR=Hutch" theory, until I found that the document I'd previously used to dismiss Toppy was only a copy of his marriage certificate, not the original. It was only when I saw the real certificate, with Toppy's actual signature, that I was hit by the striking similarities between it and those on the witness statement, and produced a series of comparative montages to support my point.

why would toppy being hutch have any bearing on a jtr=hutch theory?

[Fiver]

Sorry, but it is extremely strong evidence. it would easily hold up in any court of law.

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Leander said that they had not had an opportunity directly examine the signatures and that there was not enough evidence to come to a proper conclusion.

The expert clearly told you there was insufficient data.

[Fisherman]

My memory might not be 100% accurate, but I seem to recall that I opened up that particular can of worms. I had been publicly supportive of the "JTR=Hutch" theory, until I found that the document I'd previously used to dismiss Toppy was only a copy of his marriage certificate, not the original. It was only when I saw the real certificate, with Toppy's actual signature, that I was hit by the striking similarities between it and those on the witness statement, and produced a series of comparative montages to support my point.

You most certainly did! And I am not trying to steal your thunder, Sam. It is nevertheless also the suggestion I make, and that was what I was trying to convey. Many apologies if you felt bereft. Honour where it belongs!

[Fisherman]

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:
(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;
(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;
(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and
(d) the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

Leander said that they had not had an opportunity directly examine the signatures and that there was not enough evidence to come to a proper conclusion.

The expert clearly told you there was insufficient data.

This has been gone over many times now. We ALL know that there was not enough data to produce a legally binding verdict.

Then again, it was not as if Leander was only handed the ”G” in George. He got the two signatures, and he said that they were likely to be a match, GOING ON WHAT HE HAD. He compared what there was to compare.

And that is perfectly enough for me, because when a renowned forensic document examiner says that yes, the signatures are similar enough to suggest a common originator (suggest, not conclude), what we have is two signatures that are similar in handwriting style AND name. And that is extremely powerful evidence of a common originator.

Surely, that cannot be hard to follow?

[Fisherman]

why would toppy being hutch have any bearing on a jtr=hutch theory?

Well, it would boil down the assortment of possible witnesses to just the one (1) candidate, and so it would facilitate a lot to look in the correct places for information afterwards.

On the other hand, it would not mean that Hutchinson could not have been Jack the Ripper.

But once we have the identity, we can try and see if we can rule Topping out as the killer.

So that is about it, I think.

[Fiver]

PS. In telling us that Leander pointed out that there were differences, it seems you forgot to tell us that he also pointed out that the two signatures were similar enough to produce a hit on the scale of similarities. He also added that the fact that he only had one signature from the witness, meant that he was unable to grade it any higher.

Maybe you should mention that too, so as not to get things very wrong?

That is an inaccurate summary of what I said, as anyone who reads Post #88 can see.

"Summing up, Leander repeatedly says that they do not have enough material to determine if the two men are the same. Some aspects of the signatures match, enough that the same man could have written all of them, but there are also significant differences."

[Fisherman]

That is an inaccurate summary of what I said, as anyone who reads Post #88 can see.

"Summing up, Leander repeatedly says that they do not have enough material to determine if the two men are the same. Some aspects of the signatures match, enough that the same man could have written all of them, but there are also significant differences."

Then maybe it is a case of me not putting much confidence in what you say, Fiver?

As a matter of fact, my take on things is that you seem unable to take on board what this is all about.

[Sam Flynn]

why would toppy being hutch have any bearing on a jtr=hutch theory?

(a) Toppy was probably too young to have been JTR; and (b) he married a long-term sweetheart and had a happy family life. Neither precludes the possibility that he was a raving psychopath in Autumn 1888, but the idea that Toppy might have been Hutch certainly diluted the appeal of Hutch to those who saw him as a scheming evil genius who injected himself into the police investigation etc etc.

[Abby Normal]

(a) Toppy was probably too young to have been JTR; and (b) he married a long-term sweetheart and had a happy family life. Neither precludes the possibility that he was a raving psychopath in Autumn 1888, but the idea that Toppy might have been Hutch certainly diluted the appeal of Hutch to those who saw him as a scheming evil genius who injected himself into the police investigation etc etc.

ok got it thanks sam

[Fisherman]

(a) Toppy was probably too young to have been JTR; and (b) he married a long-term sweetheart and had a happy family life. Neither precludes the possibility that he was a raving psychopath in Autumn 1888, but the idea that Toppy might have been Hutch certainly diluted the appeal of Hutch to those who saw him as a scheming evil genius who injected himself into the police investigation etc etc.

Ouch! That ”he lived a happy family life” factor really, really is not any sign of how he could not have been a serial killer, Sam. I know that you are aware of this too, but I fear that many of those who became less keen on Hutchinson as the killer actually weighed the matter in as a surefire sign of innocence. Somewehere in all of this, a great irony lurks.

[Sam Flynn]

Ouch! That ”he lived a happy family life” factor really, really is not any sign of how he could not have been a serial killer, Sam. I know that you are aware of this too

Agreed, and said as much in that selfsame post ("Neither precludes the possibility [that he was a serial killer]"), but let's not get into that much wider topic here.

[Fiver]

Ouch! That ”he lived a happy family life” factor really, really is not any sign of how he could not have been a serial killer, Sam. I know that you are aware of this too, but I fear that many of those who became less keen on Hutchinson as the killer actually weighed the matter in as a surefire sign of innocence. Somewehere in all of this, a great irony lurks.

Sam did not say that living a happy family life meant that Toppy Hutchinson could not have been the Ripper.

[Michael W Richards]

(a) Toppy was probably too young to have been JTR; and (b) he married a long-term sweetheart and had a happy family life. Neither precludes the possibility that he was a raving psychopath in Autumn 1888, but the idea that Toppy might have been Hutch certainly diluted the appeal of Hutch to those who saw him as a scheming evil genius who injected himself into the police investigation etc etc.

Hi Sam,....or someone who for a few bucks was willing to come in and claim the identity of Wideawake Hat man to re-categorize him as a friend of Mary's just looking out for her...rather than the suspicious loitering man watching the courtyard who was probably the catalyst for the first time offer of a Pardon for Accomplices.

The kicker for me on Hutch is the, considering his claim that he was on friendly terms with Mary, the unexplained 4 day delay in reporting his "experience". The delay, the Romford story which is sketchy. The fact we have no proof he knew Mary at all. Too many red flags. But he did have impact on the investigation, Blotchy might have been seen a few days later but police were at that point disinclined to look beyond the toff sighting. That is until they were disinclined to use Hutchinsons story any longer.

[Scott Nelson]

why would toppy being hutch have any bearing on a jtr=hutch theory?

And what about Toppy=Hutch=Schwartz???

[Abby Normal]

And what about Toppy=Hutch=Schwartz???

uh ..no