Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[caz]

Indeed, Crystal and Debs. There does seem to have been a basic communication problem in Sam's case. If he had simply asked for 'a copy of a document' he could hardly blame the NA for what he got. But then he'd have instantly realised his mistake in not refining the request to 'a copy of the original document, with original signatures'. And they would have said sorry, no can do.

I must admit, I thought it was common knowledge that requesting a 'certified true copy' was not the same as asking for the original signature.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Goodo, Ben. But it also remains just a pet theory that you have yet to support successfully

That would be true if I were trying to prove that Hutchinson was a serial killer, but that's not my objective. I believe him to be a legitimately suspicious character in this series of crimes, and certainly one of the most plausible suspects to have emerged from the case. In that respect, my "stick" has been quite effective since the evidence speaks for itself. It hasn't been "one doubter after another", incidentally, but the same very few individuals returning periodically.

so very obviously I could see there was ‘room’ for it, and enough room left over for what I very obviously saw of the final n.

But if the first witness signature was complete, there couldn't have been room for an "o" and and an "n". There can only have been room for both letters if the signature was incomplete, which is what transpired to be the case, but I don't believe either of us enterained that possibility before Jonathan chimed in.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

I think, Ben, that what Sam is saying here is not that all of us are equipped with the knowledge to assess what feelings and emotions that lie behind a signature - and that is an important part of graphology.
What we CAN do however, and we can do it just as well as any graphologist, is to compare the visual part of the signatures.
Putting it differently, if we were to provide two exactly similar signatures and one with some small deviation, you, me and Sam would be just as well equipped as Sue Iremonger to see which of the signatures that was the deviating one. We would not, however, be able to tell whether they had been written in a state of anger, anxiety etc.

So Sam and I are not saying that we recognize the same sort of mood between the three signatures - just that we can see that they are very much alike in handwriting.

I don´t think that is trespassing into graphologist territory. It is just comparing handwriting, plain and simple, and we all are able to do that.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Just an important clarification here, but a "graphologist" and document examiner refer to two very different professions, with Sue Iremonger falling into the latter category. It is not the task of professionals such as Sue Iremonger to assess the writer's personality when comparing signatures. That is a different field of "expertise" altogether; graphology, which some are inclined to dismiss as a pseudo-scienece.

Signature comparison of the order that Iremonger and others have background and expertise in is not immediately involved in character assessments. We're talking about comparisons based entirely on the writing itself, and no, I'm afraid I don't accept for a moment that we're all as skilled as eachother in that respect. Iremonger's experience and background gives her a distinct edge in that regard, which is why they are recruited in the first place.

Best regards,
Ben

[jmenges]

I don't believe Iremonger was 'recruited', rather she stepped forward on her own initiative by contacting Shirley Harrison in mid-late 1992. Volunteering her services. She examined the Diary and other materials related to the case, and I would be guessing when I say that the Hutchinson signatures were included in the batch of documents she examined at this time. I say this since she gave her presentation at the World Association of Document Examiners conference the following year, and it was never really implied that the GH signatures were a seperate event from the Diary materials and other documents.

That's about all I know on the matter.

JM

[Sam Flynn]

I strongly disagree.

That's essentially akin to an argument for the invalidation of the entire field of document examination

No it isn't, Ben. It's a celebration of the wonders of nature as manifested in the animal eye. I repeat - all we're doing is comparing some rather straightforward visual stimuli, something we're geared up to do from infancy. No experience required.

[Sam Flynn]

And thanks for doing that triple signature comparison, Sam, and all your efforts here.

Cheers, Debs... and all. I reckon it was well worth that £20 in hindsight

[Sam Flynn]

On the topic of handwriting analysis:

There's no special "skill" to this - on the contrary, it's innate.

All you do by saying this is reveal how little you understand.

Yours truly, Sam Flynn, BSc (Hons) Psychology... with a subsidiary in neurophysiology.

Your insistence that the witness signature of George Hutchinson is the same as the examples by Toppy seems prejudiced to me.

With respect, if there is prejudice, it's not coming from me.

Edit to add: I was firmly of the school of thought that doubted Toppy's identification with the witness Hutchinson (ask anyone here). I'm more than happy, on the evidence of my eyes, to reject my former stance on the matter.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"We're talking about comparisons based entirely on the writing itself, and no, I'm afraid I don't accept for a moment that we're all as skilled as eachother in that respect."

So, Ben, you are basically saying that a lady like Sue Iremonger can see things that I can´t, even if we limit ourselves to the writing itself; she can se a thickness that I can´t, a twist that I can´t, a line that I can´t, a letter that I can´t...?

Then how, Ben, can I trust her to be correct - if I can´t see it myself? Mindboggling, ain´t it?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Thanks, Jonathan. I didn't mean to imply that Iremonger was recruited in this instance; only that document examiners are usually requested, rather than allowed, to participate.

I repeat - all we're doing is comparing some rather straightforward visual stimuli, something we're geared up to do from infancy

Absolutely Gareth, but it really cannot be gainsaid that the more extensive the training and experience you have in a given discipline, the more your value your opinion should be accorded. If that weren't the case, there would be no need to employ document examiners on the grounds that "one set of eyes is as good as another".

Incidentally, I'd formed the impression (erroneous, as it appears!) from earlier threads dealing with Wheeling Registers and assorted goodies that you were sympathetic to the Toppy-as-Hutch theory before this thread was created.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

So, Ben, you are basically saying that a lady like Sue Iremonger can see things that I can´t

Not at all, Fisherman.

I'm saying that, given her background and experience, she is better equppied than most of us to make sense of what we can see.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Incidentally, I'd formed the impression from earlier threads dealing with Wheeling Registers and assorted goodies that you were sympathetic to the Toppy-as-Hutch theory before this thread was created.

Indeed, Ben - but mine is a very recent conversion nonetheless, as I'm sure you'll recall. It was little over a year ago that I was in hot pursuit of other Hutchinsons... anyone but the dreaded Toppy. My opinion may have softened since then - without going soft in the head! - but I wasn't 100% convinced nonetheless. However, we're in a different ballpark now, I feel.

If I'm sympathetic to anything, it's to hard evidence and fair play. God knows, I've given Toppy a hard enough time of it in the past - it's only proper that I should redress the balance if I find that I have sufficient grounds to do so.

Comparison of these signatures, by means of a tried and trusted technology at least half a billion years old, has given me ample grounds to revise my opinion. In fact, I reject my former opinion utterly, and I'm as sure as I can be that GWTH was the Miller's Court witness.

[Fisherman]

Ah, Ben, but that is quite another thing, is it not, because then we enter into the realms of interpretations and such, and that is exactly where I have stated that graphologists (and examiners) have experience that trumps our own.
But my point - that I have every bit as much ability to compare the visual parts of two signatures that has anybody claiming examiner or graphologist expertise - still stands. In that respect, I can make a comparison and come up with a fair judgement, and so can anybody. It does not take us to the depths that the experts reach, but when we have a case like this one, where a man (Topping) is stated by his son to have been the police witness, and where he just so happens to carry the name we are looking for as one of a very limited group of people, we should raise an eyebrow when his signature is a very close match to the ones on the police report. And GRAPHICALLY it is, which is why I hold that very keen interest to find out exactly what Sue Iremonger said - and what she said it about.

The best,
Fisherman

[Stephen Thomas]

when we have a case like this one, where a man (Topping) is stated by his son to have been the police witness, and where he just so happens to carry the name we are looking for as one of a very limited group of people, we should raise an eyebrow when his signature is a very close match to the ones on the police report.

Very nicely put, Fisherman.

[Ben]

we should raise an eyebrow when his signature is a very close match to the ones on the police report.

But that's just it, Fish; I don't raise an eyebrow because I don't think it's a very close match to the ones on the police report, not remotely, which is why I recognise the merit in Iremonger's experience and background-enriched views on the subject. You've been circumspect enough to acknowledge that yours are layman views, and I do the same. The conclusion of the expert naturally carries greater weight on account of their training and experience. That's only to be expected. If anything, it has reinforced my earlier suspicions that the claims made in The Ripper and the Royals are dubious in the extreme.

And GRAPHICALLY it is

I disagree. I really don't think it is.

Hi Gareth,

If I'm sympathetic to anything, it's to hard evidence and fair play

I agree wholeheartedly, which is why I'm forced to arrive at the conclusion that Toppy was almost certainly not the man who introduced himself as George Hutchinson to the police in 1888. In principle, I agree that it is only fair and laudable to "redress the balence", in the weight of compelling evidence, and revise an earlier view. Indeed, I've done so on matters as controversial as the Lusk Letter, but in this particular case, I'd be lying it I claimed I had reason to revise my initial stance.

Best regards,
Ben