Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

That is why I tell you that you should not worry about the G - it would have it´s explanation. Leander never singled it out as being especially strange or anything along those lines, and I concur totally with Sam that progression AS WELL AS regression may occur in the style elements.
Fisherman

No,
and this hasn't been proven so far.

Who comes back to a flourished G, as he shaped it when a child, 10 years after having already forgotten it ?

No-bo-dy, as far as I know.

And this has little to do with document examination. Our own experience tells us so.

And Toppy, as a low class man who surely didn't write daily, would be a very unlikely exception.

This said, once more, I don't consider this problem the ultimate proof, but...

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

No,
and this hasn't been proven so far.

Who comes back to a flourished G, as he shaped it when a child, 10 years after having already forgotten it ?

No-bo-dy, as far as I know.

That's like writing off a splendid performance of Bach's B-Minor Mass because the trumpet-player cracked a single note in the Sanctus.

And this has little to do with document examination. Our own experience tells us so.

Mine doesn't.

[DVV]

Hi Sam,

you're just the one that can't say so.
At least, on the basis of your own "g", far from a "school-like" one.
Are you telling me that the "G" is an evidence "for" Toppy ?
My unexpert eyes don't tell me so. But that's just me.
And, though I was a good pupil, I can't remember how to shape that good old flourished capital.
Is that just me ?
I don't think so.
Hutt seems with me on this.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

I'm saying I don't see why a missing flourish in one's "G" means that one's handwriting has regressed, Dave. It's just changing, and not very much, as I see it.

[DVV]

I'm saying I don't see why a missing flourish in one's "G" means that one's handwriting has regressed, Dave.

The "regression", if any, lies in the flourished G, Sam (ie, marriage certificate signature, 1898).
Perhaps some people (very few, imo) flourish their letters all their lives.
But most of us forget this, and once it is forgotten, it's rather hard to come back to them. Personally, I can't.
That's my point, and once more, not the ultimate proof of anything.

Amitiés,
David

ps: I'd like to forget Toppy and listen to Bach on the verandah... But I've work at 11.

[Observer]

Hi David

Perhaps some people (very few, imo) flourish their letters all their lives.
But most of us forget this, and once it is forgotten, it's rather hard to come back to them. Personally, I can't.
That's my point, and once more, not the ultimate proof of anything.

Amitiés,
David

.

Thats a good point, I am sure I could not return to my former stlye of writing, a style of writing that exibited flourishes, not with any conviction anyway, not in a way that would mirror my former style.

all the best

Observer

[The Good Michael]

She is not "pretending" to do anything; i've spoken to her several times in the chatroom and she is lovely.

Infant Avian,

Chat isn't real and people can deceive in that medium. Things aren't always what they seem, and people aren't always what they pretend to be. Never give a stranger your complete trust. Not even someone who uses "good" in front of their name.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Thats a good point, I am sure I could not return to my former stlye of writing, a style of writing that exibited flourishes, not with any conviction anyway, not in a way that would mirror my former style.

I posted, ages ago it seems, a scan of an order-book from an 1880s London tailor, whose "D"s and "H"s changed (plain/flourished, flourished/plain) in the space of a few days.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Folks,
This thread must be well on its way to being the longest ever on Casebook, and who would believe that Regs father[ not disputed] was still being discussed, i am sure Reg would have found this so amusing, and would have revelled in the fact, that the majority of us find it such a mystery, when the truth is so straight-foreward.
I would suggest common sense prevails, and one looks at all the evidence, oral, and factual, and make a decision, and not waste pages of Casebook space, disputing opinions of so called experts in the field, whose knowledge of Ripper related facts, proberly is extremely limited.
I am of course extremely biased, being the first on Casebook years ago , to support Regs recollections of his father, however i would agree 'The Ripper and the Royals' did no favours to Reg.
My recollection of the radio broadcast[ sorry] simply mentioned a person higher up the scale as 'Astracan' not naming names.
I must say the signatures alined wth the [albeit], oral history, leave little doubt in my mind.
Regards Richard.

[truebluedub]

Careful Richard you might give people the idea of suggesting that Reg's father was not in fact Reg's father.

Chris Lowe

[babybird67]

hello Mike

I know chat "isn't real" on some levels; in the same way these boards aren't real...if you mean people can deceive over the internet, with which i agree.

When you are chatting real time with someone however you can get a better handle on who they are than just exchanging messages on the boards. Crystal has been welcoming, friendly, open, charming to me since i joined. I very much doubt on the several occasions that i have spoken with her, that any of these facets of her character are feigned in some way.

I don't think that you have any real reason to be mean about her other than that she is perceived to be in the opposing camp on this thread (which she's not anyway...she's independent and is going to look at the originals to give us the benefit of her opinion in a field in which she is an expert).

I don't know you that well, being new here, but perhaps if you had come into chat the other day when you popped your head around the door and saw me and Crystal in there, i might know you a little better by now.

I don't want to fall out with you, especially as you gave me such a sweet nickname, but i may have to make up one for you (The Bad Michael ) if you don't behave like a gentleman and perhaps consider apologising to Crystal for those baseless and mean remarks.

Remember, NOBODY knows the truth; why fight to the death to defend a "truth" which is just a "belief" and why think it more important (not just you) to cling on to that "belief" than to remain courteous and civil to those who do not share your belief?

I do hope you will think about it...and please come into chat next time, i'd love to "speak" to you real time as i am sure you have a lot of interesting things to say that would help me as a newbie.

tc

[Sam Flynn]

she's independent and is going to look at the originals to give us the benefit of her opinion in a field in which she is an expert.

The word "expert" is being overused and some folks' expectations of what experts can do might be a tad misplaced, I'd suggest. Bear in mind that some fields don't have "experts" at all, only practitioners.

I mean no disrespect to anyone, by the way.

[Ben]

which she's not anyway...she's independent and is going to look at the originals to give us the benefit of her opinion in a field in which she is an expert

Indeed, Babybird.

And I anxiously await the result of her findings, for that reason. Leander also stressed the necessity for examining the originals in order for a "full expert opinion" to be complied, and I welcome the opportinity for that to happen.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

And I anxiously await the result of her findings, for that reason.

Wouldn't it be more prudent to read up about what "experts" in this field might or might not be able to achieve first, Ben, before assessing their findings? Indeed, ought one not consider the research that may have been done into whatever frameworks they might use, and the contexts in which they might be applicable?

Not to do so would seem, on the surface, to resemble an act of faith.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

The field of forsensic document examination has been around for a fairly long time now, and since every experienced professional in that field has stressed the importance of accessing the originals in preference to copies, it is only reasonable, in my view, to accept that they have compelling reason to think so. Crystal is one such experienced professional, and so is Leander, and both have stressed that a proper examination is not possible in the absence of the originals. I just see no reason to suspect that document examiners the world over all fell for some collectively dreamed-up misconception. If that was the case, it's impossible to accept that they wouldn't have been exposed by now.

We're going back over old territory again here!

Best regards,
Ben