Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Sam Flynn]

Exactly, Sam, "perception." Yet everyone perceives differently, don't they?

We perceive in precisely the same way, BB, but how the brain interprets our perceptions is open to variation. Ultimately, we're looking here at the same patterns falling on our retinas, and the same subconscious pattern-recognition routines wired into the backs of our brains, both of which systems have been around for 100s of millions of years. It's the more recent parts of our brains - the cerebral hemispheres - that apply the conscious "twist" to what our senses tell us, and it's these "twists" that are getting in the way here, as they often do in other contexts.

[babybird67]

but Sam....who is to say who has "twists" getting in the way.

We have people who see the similarities, people who see the differences, and meaning attributed by people differently.

Is it not impossible, without resorting to just saying "well they match because i say they match", to establish which of two people are perceiving "the truth"?

How can you be sure there is no "twist" in what you see, in the same way i acknowledge there may be "twists" in what i see?

[Crystal]

Sam,

That doesn't make sense. we're trying to establish whether the authorship of two different sets of signatures is the same. If pen pressure is found to be markedly different in each case, then of course it's relevant. If.

It has nothing to do with forgery. The principle is the same.

[Sam Flynn]

we're trying to establish whether the authorship of two different sets of signatures is the same. If pen pressure is found to be markedly different in each case, then of course it's relevant

Why is it relevant, though, Crystal? With respect, it's no good saying that it just "is".

For example, how does pen-pressure relate to the surface on which the writing was done, or the type of pen or ink used? How does pen-pressure change if one's writing is constrained (e.g. by lines, boxes or other writing) on the page?

More relevantly, how is pen-pressure more significant than the consistency of letters over a long period of time?

[The Good Michael]

We have people who see the similarities, people who see the differences, and meaning attributed by people differently.

We have people who recognize that the similarities are greater than the differences and we have those who don't want to recognize that. In the former, meaning is given by perception alone. In the latter visual perception is added to preconception creating illusion. This means that often people see what they want to see. In the illustration above, the chances of the first group of perceiving things in an illusionary fashion,because they have no preconceptions about an individual, is much less than the group who have preconceived a theory. It is quite simple, really.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

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.

Since it happened "in the space of a few days", Sam, that's rather irrelevant.
Note also that the "flourished" D and H are easier to shape than the G.

Hutch never flourished his G, and out of 3 H, only one is flourished (the "dubious" one, btw).

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

We have people who recognize that the similarities are greater than the differences and we have those who don't want to recognize that

And you'll note that the latter catergory - fascinatingly - includes the majority of experts in the field of document examination who examined the signatures. Or are we now suggesting that Sue Iremonger had some sort of agenda that made her lie about not detecting a match? I don't what "preconceived theory" would need to be in place in order for people to either "want" or "not want" Toppy to be the witness. That strikes me as a pretty illogical accusation.

[babybird67]

with respect, Mike, it's not simple.

I have no preconceived notions about Hutch at all. If anything i disagree with Ben about his candidacy as the Ripper. What, then, is the preconceived notion i have that apparently stops me seeing what you and Sam see? There's nothing, is there. Therefore the perceived differences must be down to human perception, which can be wrong on either side.

What is to stop me saying exactly the same as you have in your post? That what you want to see creates the illusion that they match?

To me, it's not scientific; it's like discrediting someone in a witch hunt. There is no way of establishing which perception (those who prefer the similarities, or those who prefer the differences) is "the truth".

As i have said, i doubt if even those with professional and extensive experience could establish to everyone's satisfaction what "the truth" actually is.

Short of having someone who was there in the 1800s/1900s and personally witnessed the sigs, there will never be a way of establishing 100% the truth.

and by the way...come into the chatroom...i don't bite (until invited to )

[DVV]

We have people who recognize that the similarities are greater than the differences and we have those who don't want to recognize that.
Mike

No, Mike,

even if the similarities are greater, that doesn't make Toppy the witness beyond doubt.
We are dealing with "ordinary" or "common" handwritings, from low-class Londoners.
See the beginning of this thread, when people almost thought that Lambeth GH was Hutch.

Once more, no expert agrees with you, Mike.

So we have people who claim : "case closed" without expertise, and those who think that Toppy could perhaps be Hutch, but that the case is far from closed.
Unfortunately.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Avian,

It is simple. You'll see that whatever the "experts" say becomes in favor of Ben's position because he really believes that's the case. He really believes that the signatures don't match as well. That's because both things are true in his mind. Reality is a different matter however. That's how these things work. What also is very true is that Sam also believed Hutchinson was up to no good (if I may say so, Gareth), yet, as soon as he saw and analysed the signatures deeply, he came to the obvious conclusion that they were quite similar. He was able to separate his doubt about Hutchinson from his perceptions of new data. Some people can't do that, but they don't know they can't, and so their truths are different.

It's as plain as the nose on your face.

Mike

[babybird67]

"bad" mike lol

what is stopping me, who thinks the ripper was probably Klosowski, from seeing what you see?

[The Good Michael]

What, then, is the preconceived notion i have that apparently stops me seeing what you and Sam see?

I suggest that you've read his interminably long posts and have been sucked dry of all reason.

If that's not it, I suggest you really analyse the signatures without reading anything and see what you come up with.

Mike

[DVV]

I have no preconceived notions about Hutch at all.

All fanatic Hutchers say so.
They lie more than Hutch.
More than Toppy.
Worse: they respect some experts, to some extent.

Amitiés, dear BB,
David

ps: I found toppy's anthem. "Can't believe my eyes" by Bounty Killer.

[Ben]

He really believes that the signatures don't match as well. That's because both things are true in his mind. Reality is a different matter however.

But it isn't "reality" at all.

That's your perception of reality. Trying to mutate your opinion into reality, and then arguing that anyone who disagrees with your imagined reality must have a nefarious agenda isn't a particularly laudable or productive thing to do. You also must get it out of your head that that the idea that Hutchinson was up to no good is somehow dependant upon Hutchinson not being Toppy. Gareth certainly knows better than to subscribe to that preposterous mindset, as he made clear in a much earlier post.

Oh, and your playground taunts aren't doing much good for Team Toppy, I'm afraid.

[The Good Michael]

I know Gareth knows that and I know that you believe that you've taken that into consideration.

Mike