Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

Good! Then I take it you agree that there could be many explanations to the changes in style elements, such as the capital G?

He didn't say that there were "many" before.

So either you're completing inventing it now, or you shoddily mistranslated his original words. Either way, the value of his insight is currently being distorted very heavily. As soon as I quote his actual words, as originally quoted by you, we suddenly get "Oh, no, he really said this". Suspicious. Leander doesn't express the opinion that any of the dissmilarities should be accounted for the reasons he eumerates, only that they can, which is a crucial difference. Obviously, he considered the differences to be especially worthy of note, otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned them specifically as militating "against" the similarities.

Naturally, the fact that he retained that consistency over 13 years cements the fact that he had a consistent signature and cements the differences with the statement three. Copies and pastes at the ready if people want to do "battle" with me over this again, rather than agreeing to disagree, as Crystal advocates.

Only another signature from the same time by a man with the same name coming closer to the police report signature signature could change that, Malcolm.

Or someone whose name wasn't even George Hutchinson.

He is not. He is wrong in what he says in general. That is my whole point and reason for arguing against it.

But you do so clumsily. I disagree. I think you're completely wrong it what you say in general.

And to that evidence belongs a number of signatures that are close matches, telling us that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness

Not according to the actual experts on the topic - the people worth listening to - they're not.

[DVV]

nor will I argue with those of faith rather than those who use logic ...
... instrumental in the surge of vitriol.
Mike

Now, Mike, with respect, that's why vitriol came.
It's again the unfair "faith against logic".

Unfortunately, the so-called "anti-Toppy", have never discarded the possibility that Toppy could be Hutch, while you proclaim the case closed.
The former are prudent, open-minded, respectful to some extent of expert opinions, ready to change their minds when something definitive will come. That's a logical position.
The latter have (a blind or exclusive) faith in their own eyes and their own "expertise" in the field of "(scanned) documents" examination and LVP handwriting.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'm not the one making ridiculously cocky and overconfident claims that can't possible be backed up"

But it IS backed up by Leander, Ben! He agrees that the circumstances speaks very much for a match - he agreed with me on that point and my wording was that it would be odd in the extreme if there was a George Hutchinson about whose signature was a possible match, and who turned out NOT to be the witness. So I have got lots of expert ammunition to fire away.
What do you have, by the way...? A bad temper, yes, but factually...?
And you need not worry about my providing Leander or anyone else with bogus information here - you are the bogeyman of this thread yourself, Ben.

"How can you possibly know?"

It´s referred to as common sense and logic, Ben. But then, you´re not an expert in that field either, are you?

"Did he use the word "microscopical", or are you just inventing your own terminology"

He agreed that it would be "extremely odd".

"This appeared out of the blue.

Why was this not in the original translation of his post that you originally shared with us? Suddenly he's saying precisely that you wanted him to have said. Very odd"

...and once again you are implying that I am lying - your normal tactics, the tactics of a shameless coward. It was posted on the 16:th of April, and you can find it in post 1329. You did not like that post then, and implied that I lied about it already at that stage, speaking about a "timely" post on Leanders behalf. I posted my mailbox log and offered for you to access my computer to check it out. I also warned you that I would report you to the administrators of the board if you kept implying that I was not honest, whereupon you (the man with the balls...! Ha!) immediately crept back in under that slimy stone again, and denied that you had been making any such allegations.

So, Ben, please read the post 1329 once again, and then you are welcome back with an apology whenever you feel like it. Do take your time, so there are no further misunderstandings involved! By the way, it will also take care of your latest misconception: "He didn't say that there were "many" before."

He did - in the post I quoted earlier today (post 1610, quoting post 1284). Read and learn, Ben - there´s a world of information and opportunities out there!

Fisherman

[Ben]

But it IS backed up by Leander, Ben! He agrees that the circumstances speaks very much for a match

Nope, I'm sorry, he didn't. Not in the original translation you provided. He said that the possibility of a match could not be ruled out, which is akin to saying that it's not impossible, which - fair enough - it isn't. So full marks for an astute observation there. Unfortunately, it's not a particularly ringing endorsement for Toppy as the witness, so it is only fair that we don't misconstrue it as such.

he agreed with me on that point and my wording was that it would be odd in the extreme if there was a George Hutchinson about whose signature was a possible match, and who turned out NOT to be the witness.

But lots of people are possible matches in the sense that they "cannot be ruled out", which naturally decreases the impact of Toppy's claim to witness fame. As Crystal observes, you will often find commonality between aspects of many signatures, and possible matches cannot be "ruled out" for this reason. As for your threatening to bombard me with "expert ammunition" like I'm supposed to be scared, the first thing to note is that, while Leander is undoubtedly an expert in his field, he was also at pains to point out that his comments should not be construed as a "full expert opinion" in the absence of the original documents!

...and once again you are implying that I am lying - your normal tactics, the tactics of a shameless coward. It was posted on the 16:th of April, and you can find it in post 1329

So why wasn't it in the original letter that you shared with us in post #1255? You have to admit that it all comes across as incredibly odd. Firstly you put words in Leander's mouth that weren't in the original letter that you shared with us, and when this is pointed out, the words which weren't in the original letter magically appear! If that isn't unusual to say the very least, I don't know what is. It doesn't mean you're lying, but if the alternative is that Leander keeps altering his terminology then I'm afraid the worth in his "spontaneous" reaction to the material is markedly reduced, which is a pity, since his original comments made great sense.

Oh, and besides a bad temper, I have expert opinion in the form of Sue Ireminger that has actually examined the original documents on my side.

Oh, and if you report me to the administrators for accusing you of dishonesty, I'll just refer them to your recent accusation that I was lying about wanting "closure" on the issue, Toppy or not.

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:
"So why wasn't it in the original letter that you shared with us in post #1255? You have to admit that it all comes across as incredibly odd."

Because, Ben, when post 1255 was published, post 1284 was not yet written. I was under the impression that this would be fairly obvious?

And I note that you keep implying that I am not being fair and honest, and this is so typical of you - you avoid dealing with the real issues, and instead launch a campaing designed to paint your opposition out as ignorant, dishonest, lying and everything you can possibly think of coming up with. You rant, quite simply, and you rave and you try to shift the focus from the core issues to some sort of picture of me coming straight from the looney bin.
Well, Ben, I don´t. I have a very good reputation as a journalist, I am a first-class researcher, I deal every day with sensitive errands where it is of the outmost importance not to misrepresent the things and people we mirror in my newspaper.
During the years I have spent in this trade, I have also developed an alarm bell that rings loud and clear when I´m being fed bullshit, and that alarm bell has been ringing from the outset when exchanging with you.

Now, for your information, I will tell you - once again - that Leander has never come across as anything but genuinely feeling that we may have a match. His saying that it could hardly be ruled out was another way of saying that it was pretty damn obvious that we should not do such a thing. This was further strengthened when he in post 1329 said that the general impression of the signatures was that of an obvious likeness (which is of course also why he said that it could hardly be ruled out that they had the same writer) and that there was "far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to rule it out".
You, Ben, did NOT like this, since it made it further clear that Leander was anything but on your side, and so what do you do? You think it should be discarded since it did not arrive together with the first post. You only want to recognize the value of that first post, and understandably so since that was easier for you to distort and misread. The second post clinched it, and we can´t have that, can we? Go away, foul post - this must be the result of Fisherman lying or deceiving Frank Leander. Those are the ONLY possible explanations, are they not?
Too bad, Ben, but it does not work that way. What Leander said was what Leander felt, and that is the reality you need to adjust to:
-He said that there was an obvious likeness.
-He said that there was far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to rule out that the signatures were written by the same man.
-He said that there were MANY possible explanations to the differences involved.
...and the one criticism you can offer is that he did not say all of this in his first post. But I´m afraid that I´m not going to let you pull that stunt - you are stuck with what Leander said, and it is quite contradictory to your beliefs. Rotten, sodding luck, Ben, but such is life.

Oh, and on that silly remark of yours about reporting me to the boards, you are more than welcome to do so, since you have obviously not grasped what I am talking about in that instance either. Feel free, Ben, feel free - be my guest!

Fisherman

[Crystal]

This is all very simple. I have Swedish friends. I'll show them your posts, Fisherman, and ask them to translate. Fair enough?

And leave Ben alone - he, like you, is entitled to his view, regardless of whether it concurs with yours, or not.

Crystal.

[Malcolm X]

Malcolm writes:

"i'm 100 % convinced that this man is our Toppy!"

Only another signature from the same time by a man with the same name coming closer to the police report signature signature could change that, Malcolm. Being a generous character, I will settle for only 99,9 per cent plus, though...!

The best, Malcolm!
Fisherman

the trouble with these very close signatures is.............Toppy Hutch is also strongly rumered to be this person anyway...plus we have his his son Reg...now this might not be true, all of this could all be fabricated; but it's still a link that's mentioned, we cannot ignore this.......Hutch always maintained he was this witness and it's probably true, but unlike most of you, this doesn't rule him out as JTR in my mind.

because, and this is important, HUTCH ( if JTR) is defined by serial killer profilers as a thrill/attention seeker, the likes of Hutch; insert themselves into cases.

this makes Hutch an even stronger suspect, because his type are clearly defined....and he fits this scenario perfectly.

but, i need to do that research, because JTR would've kept on killing, but with a downgraded M.O.

i've never researched this period in time (after 1889)...only Sweeney Todd's period of 1765 to 1804....so this is all totally new to me.

i need to do this because if i find no grouping of murders, while he was still alive in S.E ENGLAND, then he aint the Ripper......i'll start looking thursaday..

[Crystal]

Oh Yes we can....!

Malcolm - on the contrary, it is vital that we do ignore the hearsay regarding Toppy as the witness.

Speculation about that belongs on that other thread going on at the moment. It has no place in the comparison and analysis of, signatures - in fact, it cannot be a factor at all if we are to get any further down this road.

Only the documents matter in this regard. Nothing else is relevant.

[Malcolm X]

yes Fisherman

you're hitting Ben too hard, back off a bit, you're making this far too personal, i dont agree with Ben but he does make good sense.

i dont why you lot are rowing all the bloody time.....just get those sigs checked and all will be resolved..... one of you two should've done this weeks ago, after all this thread belongs to you two, we're not silly enough to get too involved...

[Ben]

Because, Ben, when post 1255 was published, post 1284 was not yet written. I was under the impression that this would be fairly obvious?

Oh, it's obvious alright.

And baffling in the extreme.

Since it begs the question; why did he change his tune between those posts? Anyone interested in this discussion is entitled to ponder that question. It's a rather pressing one, from my perspective. If he can alter his message to such an extent, and conveninetly in tandem with what you erroneously claimed he said in his original letter, then any worth in either message in considerably reduced. I exercise the right to find that perplexing in the extreme.

Leander says X. You say Leander says Y. I say, no, he said X, look at the original letter. Suddenly Leander says Y.

Something is deeply wrong with this, and I'm not the only person to notice it. I don't care what a good journalist and researcher you claim to be. You've done a bloody good job of hiding it here.

Now, for your information, I will tell you - once again - that Leander has never come across as anything but genuinely feeling that we may have a match.

His spontaneous reaction, which he was anxious not to be misconstrued as a "full expert opinion" was that Toppy cannot be ruled out as the witness. Since then you'd done your damnest to try to mutate and fiddle with his words in order to make them appear more Toppy-endorsing than they actually are, which is the polar opposite if prudent and honest research methodology. It was good of you to track down the gentleman in question, but you've more or less cancelled it all out now by trying to put your own spin on things.

This was further strengthened when he in post 1329 said that the general impression of the signatures was that of an obvious likeness

So why did he suddenly change his tune to coincide with what you clearly wanted him to say? There was no mention of an "obvious likeness" in post #1255. If he's going from "cannot be ruled out" to "obvious likeness", I'm sorry, but that's a significant deviation which naturally reduced the worth of both descriptions.

-He said that there was an obvious likeness

Not in his original post, which wasn't Toppy-endorsing at all. If he changed his mind to "obvious likeness" as a result of your feeding him erroneous information about the number of likely candidates, that his views are tarnished by your unwarranted interference.

and the one criticism you can offer is that he did not say all of this in his first post. But I´m afraid that I´m not going to let you pull that stunt

Oh, I intend to bring that up very often, and you're not in a position to do anything about it, since I believe it wholly responsible to observe that his original letter contrasting markedly with what you claim are his later musings.

[Fisherman]

Crystal, I will give you two answers:

Yes, you are perfectly free to contact your Swedish friends and have them translate.

But what do you mean by saying "leave Ben alone"? I can´t see that HE leaves ME alone. Can you?
If you catch up on your reading, you will find how he tells me that I am as far from an expert that anybody than come, that there is noreason whatsoever to listen to what I have to say, that it is "odd" that Leander expanded on things in a manner that did not suit Ben, thereby slyly implicating that I am in some way dishonest.

Are you suggesting that I should silently abide with this? Should I not defend my honour, when I´m being painted out as a completley unreliable, ignorant and dishonest poster?

And first and foremost: Ben is speaking for a line in this issue that I believe is completely misleading. Although I retracted from the thread, he did not take the oppotunity to do so himself. Oh no, he only saw that as an excellent opportunity to keep spreading his wiew, and in doing so, he was being extremely selective in his way of offering Frank Leanders wiews.
Now, I was the one who had the contact with Leander, and I am the one who feels - and will continually feel - that I have an obligation to see to it that what is published on this thread is not more or less completely in contradiction to the picture he gave me. And the only way to do that is to NOT be selective, but instead see to it that what Frank Leander said is presented fully and honestly.

When Ben starts to live by these rules, I will merrily consider to once again leave this sodding thread, as my intentions have been all the time - but that was before Ben started calling my contacts with Leander odd, and painting me out as the crook of the thread.

In short, Crystal: You reap what you sow.

Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

Malcolm - on the contrary, it is vital that we do ignore the hearsay regarding Toppy as the witness.

Speculation about that belongs on that other thread going on at the moment. It has no place in the comparison and analysis of, signatures - in fact, it cannot be a factor at all if we are to get any further down this road.

Only the documents matter in this regard. Nothing else is relevant.

no no..... this thread is all over the shop, it should be locked! this isn't a normal thread at all, it's a slagging match and totally ruined already.

and what happens if i open another thread.... i did the other day and you lot ignored it...so there you go!

[Ben]

Should I not defend my honour, when I´m being painted out as a completley unreliable, ignorant and dishonest poster?

I think you'll find you've accused me of pretty much all of those things in the past.

No, I wasn't selective in addressing Leander's words. I quoted him directly on the subject of the originals versus copies discussion, because they were of immediate relevance, and because we just happened to be discussing that particular aspect of the debate. That's not being selective at all. That's quoting him directly. Your bizarre criticism seemed to be that I should have been continually reminding everyone what else he said, despite the fact that none of that had any bearing on the issue under contention at the time.

You returned, offering no commentry whatsoever on the issue of whether originals are preferable to copies, and decided to launch into a repetitive "last man standing" debate about Leander's other remarks, despite the fact that they'd been discussed already.

[DVV]

no no..... this thread is all over the shop, it should be locked! this isn't a normal thread at all, it's a slagging match and totally ruined already.

No Malcolm,
this thread is about Toppy's signatures as to be compared to Hutch's. And like any other thread, it can be ruined by too-many off-topic posts.

Amitiés,
David

[Crystal]

Fisherman, you're both as bad as each other when you get embroiled in a bout of fighting - but you attack first on the whole - you see, I am up to date with my reading.

Pack it in, the pair of you, or I shall be obliged to come and sort you out.

Crystal.