Romford

[Rubyretro]

I am not fighting about GWTH. I know he is teh same George Hutchinson that stands accused.

But this is the exact same closed -mind attitude that you accuse
'Hutchinsonians' of having ! Infact, you interpret any evidence pertaining to Hutchinson from the perspective that he was irrefutably 'Toppy'. You claim to " 'know' that he is the same George Hutchinson that stands accused". But of course you can't 'know' anything of the sort. I bet you any sum that you want that Mr Leander would not claim to 'know' that
Hutch and Toppy were one and the same person.

I have almost no doubt

.
So there is hope then.

As far as signature comparisons, despite the nonsense that Ben has fed you, there was only one handwriting expert who made the comparisons and he suggested that they were similar enough to be investigated further. Sue Iremonger did not compare all signatures and only looked at those from the statement, so what she had to say is invalid for the argument. Of course this is something that Hutchers fail to comprehend or to admit

.

Ben didn't feed me any nonsense at all. I was an utterly conviced Toppy-ite and found myself arguing my corner -so , believe me, I know all the arguments- and I lost because, globally, the Toppy argument doesn't hold up.

Nevermind, Leander and Iremonger -take them out of the equation. What are we left with ?

Nothing that stands up -really stands up- on the Toppy side.

Of course someone that wants to argue for Toppy -someone like Fish that will wrap you up in bits and bobs -can win an individual point. But it's like winning Little Big Horn -a bummer if you're Custer, but it makes no difference to The Big Picture: nothing logical allows you to shoehorn Toppy into the role of Hutch the witness.

In point of fact, we laypeople can do just as good a job in most cases comparing such unforged and innocuous signatures

.
I'm not so arrogant. There are superficial similarities but we know that there were fashions for certain styles of writing, and they were learned by rote. We don't even have 100% proof which, if any, signatures were really written by Hutchinson;

Those without agenda are pretty certain of GWTH being GH

.
However , you have an agenda. It's just a different agenda.

Those with agenda look for small details to try and prove they are not the provenance of the same person, a disingenuous thing to do when there is no reason to believe there was deceit on anyone's part to distort the record

.
And those with the opposite agenda look for different details to prove that they were by the same person. I prefer to admit that I'm not an expert, and I can't possibly 'choose' between Leander and Iremonger, and so I will say that their opinions cancel each other out and judge on the rest of the facts.

Tell you what, if you can prove that there was another George Hutchinson with similar signatures of the same age living in the east End and spending his whole life in that area, I will stop using GWTH or Toppy. Until then, I shal and it isn't an argument. It is just the bare facts, jack.

Mike

?
If of course, Hutchinson was his real name, he actually came from the area, and he had family or anything that we can get a handle on, and he didn't leave 6 months later etc etc

[The Good Michael]

?
If of course, Hutchinson was his real name, he actually came from the area, and he had family or anything that we can get a handle on, and he didn't leave 6 months later etc etc

Exactly! This is the BS argument that always comes up. "We can't find him because er, uh, it was an alias." Absolute crap, really. We have one guy who fits, and that is not an agenda. That is putting all pieces together and coming up with the only possibility we have so far. Oh wait, aside from a guy who chose the alias George Hutchinson because no one would have believed Smith or O'Reilly.

What you Hutchers fail to see is that I and Fisherman don't say GWTH wasn't the Ripper. The likelihood is lsight that he was. That's all. Whereas you nutcases have everything riding on him, like a 20-1 horse at Preakness, only he's an also-ran as of now.

Mike

[Lechmere]

The area of the East End where the Ripper murders took place was heavily populated by Jews. The chances of an event taking place near an establishment that was frequented by Jews would have been high, just by the law of averages. It is a bit like those silly, ‘near a school’ links that are made.

Anyway Hutchinson didn’t mention the J-word did he?
You can interpret his statements as suggesting a Jew and you can read into it that he was being anti-Semitic, but it is all very conjectural.

The Toppy connection isn’t proof that he didn’t do it but added to all the other improbabilities it is extra counter evidence which is why the Hutchinsonites are so desperate to believe it ain’t him. For Toppy not to be the one, then Reg must be a total liar. Unlikely in my opinion.

[The Good Michael]

Lechmere,

and once the suspect has been decided, there is no possible way for them to look objectively at the inofrmation, In this case, it makes me just as big a nutcase arguing with people who can't possibly release their hold. And this is why I choose to joke rather than debate about it because it is something that needs to be laughed at in my opinion.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I would bet money on it...Reg was not a liar.not everyone is obsessed with the Jack the Ripper murders, and to Reg it was great being in the limelight, but a pain in the butt towards the latter of his life.
All he relayed was his fathers tale, that he knew one of the witnesses , and gave a statement to the police, and assisted them to no avail.
Its that simple., no big deal, it is Casebook that has made it so.
Was his statement relevant in the death of Kelly we can not be sure, I will keep a open mind on that.
Regards Richard.

[Wickerman]

Anyway Hutchinson didn’t mention the J-word did he?

Well actually, yes he did.

You can interpret his statements as suggesting a Jew and you can read into it that he was being anti-Semitic, but it is all very conjectural.

Yes Lechmere, thats what was meant by "highly speculative", we need to take into account all the evidence, not just opt for the most dramatic, nor the one that best suits our own theories.

Regards, Jon S.

[Rubyretro]

[QUOTE]

Exactly! This is the BS argument that always comes up. "We can't find him because er, uh, it was an alias." Absolute crap, really. We have one guy who fits, and that is not an agenda. That is putting all pieces together and coming up with the only possibility we have so far. Oh wait, aside from a guy who chose the alias George Hutchinson because no one would have believed Smith or O'Reilly.

When this idea of 'an alias' was first brought up, I thought that it was a BS
argument as well, but now I'm really not so sure. Despite your belief in Toppy
as the suspect, there is no proof whatsoever that that this is the case since we know so little about the witness (and what we do know doesn't match with Toppy).

There is a possibility that George Hutchinson had been in the army. Only a possibility mind you, based on his 'military' description -yet London held many ex-soldiers without a trade and looking for casual work, and it would explain why Hutchinson had been a groom but was now a labourer. I thought that
I would try to get into some 'research' and try to find George Hutchinson in the army...but I gave up almost straight away. Infact, it was extremely common for men to take an alias when joining the army at the time (like the Foreign Legion today) -nothing sinister about it, it was a custom (so unless you already know the regiment, and have some precise information as to names and dates, then it is nigh on impossible to conclusively find someone).
In short, had Hutchinson been in the army, he could have picked up a name which he wasn't born with.

Next is the fact that when we read about people who touch on the Ripper case, it is astounding how many of them did use aliases in this milieu. It appears to have been very common -so why not Hutch as well ? Who knows ?

Another thing depends on whether you think that Hutch was the Ripper, and if so, whether the Ripper just suddenly went out murdering one day -or began with lesser crimes, for which he may never have been caught but may have been suspected. Hutch could have come from almost anywhere in the Country (although with no mention of a regional accent, he probably came from the Home Counties), and simply changed his name and disappeared into the lodging houses of London, had he wanted to escape his past. And equally have drifted away from London in the years following Kelly's death, and settled elsewhere.

Anyway, to deduce that, because we haven't found a suitable candidate for
'George Hutchinson' in the London area then he must have been Toppy, is plainly codswallop.

We have one guy who fits, and that is not an agenda. That is putting all pieces together

But there are a distinct lack of pieces to put together -there is only 'George Hutchinson' as a name, and 'Because Reg said so'.
He doesn't 'fit' at all.

[Rubyretro]

The chances of an event taking place near an establishment that was frequented by Jews would have been high, just by the law of averages.

Granted, but the night of the Double Event the killer chose to murder close to
busy 'club nights', where Jewish men were coming to and from the meetings.
I don't think that this was the case every night of the week, nor every day of the month. It looks as if (from the map), he made a choice to go to Mitre Square from Berner Street and then to Goulston street. Furthermore, he could have chucked the apron piece away in any doorway along the way, or
hid it along the street...I would have thought that he would have wanted to get rid of it as quickly as possible...yet he held on to it until he threw it into a building inhabited by Jews (never mind under the graffiti), with no attempt to hide it.

Anyway Hutchinson didn’t mention the J-word did he?

As Jon pointed out -yes, he did.

For Toppy not to be the one, then Reg must be a total liar

.
Not necessarily, there could be several explanations.

[Rubyretro]

Just mulling over the idea of aliases (when I was at work !) and their feasibility when applied to 'Hutchinson' and came up with two more 'possibles'

-a perfectly innocent reason like the Lechmere/Cross situation...that was probably quite a common occurrence since people died earlier.

-(only if you think that Hutchinson could have been the Ripper)
"B. Conning for pleasure or profit, repeated lying, or the use of aliases"
(from definition of a sociopath DSM-1V)

I reiterate -not finding a viable alternative to Toppy for George Hutchinson, in no way makes Toppy 'a contender'. If only one 'dud' put himself forward for 'X-Factor' would that make him a Star ??

[Lechmere]

Anyway Hutchinson didn’t mention the J-word did he?
Well actually, yes he did.
As Jon pointed out -yes, he did.

A school boy error. That will teach me to not check before I type.

Rubyretro
On Toppy it isn’t just the name is it?
There is the bit about getting paid. Hutchinson went out with the police at least twice and the police did pay people for exactly this sort of thing. Also the Wheeling register, however unreliable it might be, also mentioned it.
There is the posh suspect aspect – matching to some degree the Hutchinson description.
His parents got married in Shoreditch Church if my memory serves me correctly. Possibly another schoolboy error, although I am certain there was a pre-existing East End connection and I think to Shoreditch church.
The signatures do seem to match, but I know people were taught to write the same way and that one ‘expert’ was less than convinced.
The plumbing thing is a red herring as we now know that it was perfectly feasible for him to become a plumber by 1891.

[The Good Michael]

The signatures do seem to match, but I know people were taught to write the same way and that one ‘expert’ was less than convinced.
The plumbing thing is a red herring as we now know that it was perfectly feasible for him to become a plumber by 1891.

Lechmere,

There was no other expert who reviewed all the signatures aside from Leander, and the majority of casebookers who have observed them have detected similarities that mere chance seems to unable to account for.

Sue Iremonger had not looked at the signatures that we have had the priviledge of seeing thanks to Deb Arif (I believe), and so, much like some say about Hutchinson's testimony, her opinion doesn't enter into it and must be discredited. I was going to say 'discounted' but Ben tells me they mean the same thing, so It's ok to say she was discredited.

Mike

[Abby Normal]

Granted, but the night of the Double Event the killer chose to murder close to
busy 'club nights', where Jewish men were coming to and from the meetings.
I don't think that this was the case every night of the week, nor every day of the month. It looks as if (from the map), he made a choice to go to Mitre Square from Berner Street and then to Goulston street. Furthermore, he could have chucked the apron piece away in any doorway along the way, or
hid it along the street...I would have thought that he would have wanted to get rid of it as quickly as possible...yet he held on to it until he threw it into a building inhabited by Jews (never mind under the graffiti), with no attempt to hide it.


As Jon pointed out -yes, he did.

.
Not necessarily, there could be several explanations.

Hi Ruby
I think that if Hutch made up A-man-he was based on a jewish man who Hutch worked for/with and was possibly jealous of.
(i beleive it was actually you who I first heard this idea from).

Also, the implication of a Jew in the GSG and in Hutch's story has always stood out to me.

[Sally]

Also, the implication of a Jew in the GSG and in Hutch's story has always stood out to me.

Agreed.

[Lechmere]

Rubyretro
On the Jewish issue:
I take it as most likely that the victim led the Ripper to the murder scene.
If this was the case then it would mean that Stride took him to Duffield’s Yard, rather than the Ripper choosing that spot. Although if the Ripper was a local man he would probably have known that the Berner Street area had a large Jewish population.

It must be the case that the Ripper then chose to go to the vicinity of Mitre Square (presuming that he committed both crimes which I believe was almost certainly the case).

But again the exact location of the murder scene, Mitre Square itself, was most probably chosen by Eddowes rather than the Ripper.

He must have chosen to pass Goulston Street and throw the apron and possibly scrawl the graffiti at the same time. But the route past Goulston Street may have effectively been chosen for him if it was on his route home.
Why drop the apron there? Maybe he used it to wipe his hands and by the time he got that far he had no further need for it. Maybe he saw someone and ditched it. Who knows.

Wentworth Model Dwellings had only been built about a year before. I very much doubt they would have resembled slum dwellings that would likely be frequented by ‘low class Jews’. It would have required very detailed local knowledge to know that most residents were in fact Jewish, although it would be widely known that lots of Jewish people lived in that vicinity.

Having said this... I think that it is probable that the Ripper was a local. That being the case, unless he was Jewish himself, there would have been a good chance that he harboured some sort of anti-Jewish sentiment to one degree or another.
If he was aware that the Berner Street club was Jewish, he may have cursed them for interrupting his work, and this may have given him the incentive to scrawl the graffiti (if he did the graffiti of course).

On aliases – they tended to be used by people who were on the wrong side of the law. Like prostitutes. I don’t think there is any evidence that they were used by the general population. That is of course why Cross is suspicious. (He also spent most of his life near Berner Street, would have known it was a Jewish area, before the summer of 1888 he used to go to work on the route Berner Street to Mitre Square, and at the time of the murders lived on the route from Mitre Square via Goulston Street, - although his mother and one of his daughters still lived near Berner Street - and would have known all the back streets in this area).

Regarding Toppy, what other explanations are there apart from Reg being a liar?

[Rubyretro]

On Toppy it isn’t just the name is it?

It mainly is.

There is the bit about getting paid. Hutchinson went out with the police at least twice and the police did pay people for exactly this sort of thing. Also the Wheeling register, however unreliable it might be, also mentioned it.

For me, this is one of the details that point to the story not being true.
Hutchinson could not logically have been paid the sums that Reg suggested.
The story almost certainly originates with that erroneous newspaper account, proof that either Fairclough, Reg, or George had read it...but more of that later.

There is the posh suspect aspect – matching to some degree the Hutchinson description

.
It also pre-dates Reg/Fairclough's story, and even if it came from George, only repeats the story printed in the Press for anyone to read.

His parents got married in Shoreditch Church if my memory serves me correctly. Possibly another schoolboy error, although I am certain there was a pre-existing East End connection and I think to Shoreditch church

.
As an ex-Toppyite I can give you more East End connections if you wish -they still can't magically turn Toppy into the witness.
[QUOTE]

signatures do seem to match, but I know people were taught to write the same way and that one ‘expert’ was less than convinced.[/QUOTE

yes, true.

The plumbing thing is a red herring as we now know that it was perfectly feasible for him to become a plumber by 1891.

Certainly. I don't know how he fitted in being a Groom before 1888 -after
the time we know that he was in school- though? Nor even why he would have begun a job usually started as an illiterate child -coming from a family with a Father with a trade, his own house, having an education, and the sort of personality that led him to be successfully self employed ?