Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"the salient point is that she compared the signature and gave them the thumbs down."

...and another VERY salient point is that if you want to bolster your arguments with Iremongers verdict, you should provide the ones you are debating with the details attached to that verdict! You should not satisfy yourself with a simple acceptance that "Iremonger said so, and thus it must be right", Ben. Such argumentation amounts to nothing. Working as a journalist, I have grown up with the bid "Check your sources!", and that is what I am asking for now. If you expect me to buy it all, after having had no substantiation at all from you, who claim that cast-iron proof exists for dismissing Toppys signature, you will be very disappointed.

I donīt have Bob Hintons book, and I have not read it. You obviously have, and since you, and not Bob Hinton, are the one who are pushing the argument, and claiming the expertise is on your side, I think it is high time that you had something - anything - to show for it.

"I don't know the exact phrasing, or the reasons for her adjudging them a mismatch"

Arenīt you even remotely curious, Ben? There is another saying among us journalists, and that goes "Donīt ever check a good story - it may fall apart". It would seem that you live by that bid in this errand. You donīt even check, but you choose to call me unfair when I hold an opinion that goes against another opinion of which you donīt even know the details and incitaments involved, according to your own statement.

Well, thanks for that, Ben!


The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Here is the relevant extract from Bob's book, Fisherman:

"The world renowm document examiner, Sue Iremonger, has also investigated whether or not this is the correct George Hutchinson. She compared the marriage certificate signature of George W. T. Hutchinson, with the signature on the statement made by George Hutchinson, and has concluded they are not made by the same person."

Fairly unambiguous, I should say. Of course, I could argue that either or both of them invented the entire thing for a giggle, but I thought I'd go completely crazy and assume that neither of them did, and that Iremonger did exactly what Bob Hinton said she did. If people wish to believe otherwise, fair enough, but that's very unlikely to perturb me.

You donīt even check, but you choose to call me unfair when I hold an opinion

I did no such thing. The only attitude that I believe to be unfair is one that asserts that we can all conduct the process of document examination just as well as eachother, and that we don't need document examiners for that reason. That is what I find problematic, not other people's opinions as to whether Toppy was the witness.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

That, Ben, amounts to no more than you have already stated. What it does NOT include, however, is WHY she came to that conclusion, and that is what I am looking for here.
Moreover, where is the proof that she used the real signature from the certificate? Who provided her with the material? It has been said that she would be able to see that all the writing on the copied marriage certificate was by the same hand, but how can we tell that she even saw that whole certificate? What if she was provided with only a copy of the signature from the "phony" certificate, plus a copy of the police report signature?

You think this all is fairly unambiguous. Let me tell you, Ben, that it is nothing of the sort. We are still left with no certain knowledge of which signatures that were compared, and no knowledge at all what detailed considerations made Iremonger suggest that the signatures were not made by the same hand.
Plus, we are still left with your admittance that you donīt have any idea at all which the considerations were. You are just happy to play the parrottīs role, since it kind of suits you, it would seem.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

What it does NOT include, however, is WHY she came to that conclusion, and that is what I am looking for here

What difference would it make to you? She obviously came to that conclusion as a result of applying her professional expertise, which certainly trumps yours and mine. How on earth would any reason offered by Iremonger affect the validity of her opinion? We might reasonably assume that she would list the individual differences, just as we have done, with the added bonus that she is infinitely more qualified to do so.

Moreover, where is the proof that she used the real signature from the certificate?

Look, please not this ridiculous nonsense again...

There is no possibility that Iremonger used a modern registrar's handwriting to compare with an 1888 signature. Accustomed as she would have been to historical documents, she would have known only too well that modern registrars would write out the details in the marriage certificates for distribution to the paying public. Nobody "provided her with the material". As Bob's extract makes perfectly clear and as Jon Menges reinforced in an earlier post, Iremonger conducted her own investigation after proactively volunteering her services. She wasn't "supplied" with anything, let alone a modern piece of a paper with modern handwriting on it.

We are still left with no certain knowledge of which signatures that were compared

Yes we are.

She compared the "the signature on the statement made by George Hutchinson" with the "marriage certificate signature of George W. T. Hutchinson".

...and stated that they were not written by the same person.

The ambiguity ends there.

No, an experienced professional document examiner would not compare the signature of a modern registrar (I'm actually shaking with rage at how preposterous that suggestion is), and Iremonger's views are by no means weakened by not knowing what "detailed considerations" she made. Being an expert, of course those considerations would have been detailed, whether us hobbyists are able to make sense of them or not.

When I combine this with my knowledge of the surrounding circumstances, I am left with no doubt at all - the Dorset Streeet witness had two middle names, and they were William Topping

And when I compare the above with my "knowledge of the surrounding circumstances", I am left with even less doubt; that GWT Hutchinson was not the "witness" of ripper notoriety.

[Fisherman]

So, no substantiation at all! No details, just a big "Gulp" and we have swallowed it all...?
And you ask me "What difference would it make to you?", implying that even if I actually WAS provided with the material I am asking for, I would not be able to understand it anyhow. And I would not be able to offer criticism, since Iremongers words are equal to Gods.

If, Ben, we were supplied with the details attached to Iremongers alledged assertion, we could for example see for ourselves how she described the different parts of the signatures. And such a thing could provide us with, for exemple, the means to see which two signatures she compared.
THAT is the difference it would mean to me, Ben. It is also the difference it SHOULD mean to you. Simply stating that Iremonger is such a swell authority that she could not make mistakes simply wonīt do - SHOW me effectively that she did not! Surely you can see the relevance in such a demand? Do you yourself always unhesitatingly accept all you are told if it is provided with a sticker on it saying "expertise controlled"? If you DO, you are a nice, obedient guy - but a dumb one, so I do hope your answer to the question is an emphatic no.


And that is why your answer troubles me, Ben. In my line of work, people who conduct their research in this way find themselves sacked faster that you can say "bollocks". And you can say that real fast, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

So, no substantiation at all! No details, just a big "Gulp" and we have swallowed it all...?

I think you know full well that you're just trolling now.

Of course there has been substatiation, unless you believe that Iremonger and Hinton were lying. Do you?

I would not be able to understand it anyhow. And I would not be able to offer criticism, since Iremongers words are equal to Gods.

Nope, they just carry more weight that yours, or mine for that matter.

If, Ben, we were supplied with the details attached to Iremongers alledged assertion, we could for example see for ourselves how she described the different parts of the signatures

However she described it, her experience obviously led her to the conclusion that the signatures didn't match. Her precise methodology is not something we're qualified to assess very successfully, unless we have comparable experience, which we don't. So tracking down her "explanation" would be a futile task for that reason.

SHOW me effectively that she did not!

In this case, there is no rationale to your professed doubt. Iremonger compared a witness signature from the statement with Toppy's marriage certificate signature, and came to the conclusion - after applying her expertise - that they didn't match. It is certainly not encumbant upon me to "prove" that the experts weren't wrong. That has never been the way it works, since you obviously don't have the experience to make any pronouncements as to the RIGHT way about comparing signatures. Instead, your acceptance that Toppy was the witness is dependent upon someone with more expertise than yourself being wrong, and I'm afraid that puts you in a weaker theoretical position.

Question the expert if there is reason for doubt. In this case, I see no such reason.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Right, Ben!
"Of course there has been substatiation, unless you believe that Iremonger and Hinton were lying. Do you?"

I am in no position to decide whether any of them may be lying, be mistaken or be correct. That is what comes from being denied information.

"tracking down her "explanation" would be a futile task"

You most certainly cannot know that until you try, Ben. If she writes about a curled H where there is no curled H around, you know that she has not used the material you think she has. It is quite simple, very effective and perfectly legal. Moreover, it is the only way to go about it if you need to see the whole truth.

I have already told you I am a journalist. Do you suggest that journalists should refrain from asking further questions when somebody has hired expertise to make an assessment? An "oh, sorry, I did not realize that you have an experts word that you did not do the shooting" sort of thing?
Excuse me, Ben, but that does not work. Respect is all good and well, but whenever you smell that there is a dog buried, you call the cards of you opponent. If that makes them feel annoyed, so sorry. It does not count in any way. No expertise title buys you an amnesty from answering legitimate questions.

"It is certainly not encumbant upon me to "prove" that the experts weren't wrong."

No. But is flagrantly obvious that if you are going to claim supremacy on your behalf when it comes to judging the signatures, and if you do so by using expertise, it lies on you - and you only! - to show your counterpart what that expertise says IN DETAIL. Not just the conclusion, Ben - but the reason why!

I realize that it is "unfair" to ask you to deliver it pronto, since you already admitted that you havenīt gone through the effort of finding out what it is you actually claim here. But I am prepared to wait the longest time to see the cards on the table, and until they have landed firmly there I see no reason at all to even consider your suggestion.

You finish by writing "Question the expert if there is reason for doubt. In this case, I see no such reason."

If you do not know what prompted Iremonger to state whatever it was she stated, and if you have no knowledge of the details, Ben, Iīd say that you do not know what you have reason to doubt or not. So far, you remain firmly at the "I believe she was right cause she said so!"-stage. Or is it the "She could not have been wrong since she is an expert"-stage? Or the "Good heavens, we cannot possibly humiliate Bob Hinton and Sue Iremonger"-stage?

Never mind...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I am in no position to decide whether any of them may be lying, be mistaken or be correct. That is what comes from being denied information.

I'm not denying you anything. According to Bob Hinton, Sue Iremonger compared a witness signature with Toppy's marriage certificate signature, and came to the conclusion that they weren't the same. The simplest explanation is that the above was all true, in the absence of any decent or remotely compelling reason to suspect otherwise; and those non-decent, non-compelling reasons include both parties lying for the heck of it, or a reputable document examiner confusing a modern registrar's hand.

If she writes about a curled H where there is no curled H around, you know that she has not used the material you think she has.

Curled H for what? Toppy or the witness? If the latter, then no, there's no problem since once of them was curled. There's no chance of the former happening since we know that Toppy did not curl his H on the marriage signature, which was the one used by Iremonger.

Moreover, it is the only way to go about it if you need to see the whole truth

But there's no decent reason on earth to even contemplate the possibility that Hinton's comments with regard to Iremonger's comparisons did not reflect the whole truth.

No expertise title buys you an amnesty from answering legitimate questions.

Yes, but there is asking legitimate questions, and there are bad excuses for demanding that the experts must be "proved" correct purely to support a biased conclusion. That's never been the done thing at all, Fish. If Iremonger was able to provide you with a detailed analysis of how she went about comparing her signatures, it would still be pretty useless to your world view, since you lack the expertise and experience to arrive at any informed conclusions about her methodology. It would take you straight back to square one.

Either way, there is no onus upon me to provide anything. Neither Iremonger nor Hinton had any reason to falsify anything, and the only reasonable conclusion is that Iremonger did precisely as Hinton outlined in unambiguous terminology. What remains are distinctly spurious and baseless suggestions that an error must have been made. If you wish to carry on believing that the experts must be wrong, fill your boots and demand what you like. From where I'm sitting, your professed doubt has no validity.

Contrary to your extremely rude insinuation that I "haven't gone to the effort" of finding out more information, I am in the process of searching, and will keep you posted. Not because I believe it's remotely necessary, but simply to asuage some of the more ridiculous suggestions.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

A fools answer, Ben, no less.

You remain every bit as impossible to reason with as usual once you have decided what foot to stand on. And you call ME biased! Ha!

You keep on garbling about me wanting to paint Bob Hinton and Sue Iremonger out as liars, but anybody with a head on their neck will realize that I of course do no such thing. What it all boils down to is the question whether we are to ask for substantiation when something is claimed or not, and I think we have 999 promille of the posters behind such a demand - and then we have you, Ben, who politely accepts anything that has "expert" written on it.

Then again, are you not one of the posters who claim that just the one weapon may have been used in the Tabram deed? Not sure here, but if you do, does that mean that you think Killeen was a liar? Or are you just legitimately trying to push your own point over an expertsīwiew? Think about it, Ben, cause you canīt have it both ways. You either question ANYBODY until you see substantiation, or you make a decision on what level an expert needs to be to become unquestionable.

"Either way, there is no onus upon me to provide anything."

OOOOH YES, THERE BLOODY WELL IS! And until that substantiation is up on the boards, I will keep laughing your "expert opinion" in the opposite direction - off it! And that has nothing to do with the quality of Iremongers work - it may be superb and extremely clear and very hard to gainsay. In other words, it may hold all the qualities you imply it has.

And you know what, Ben? For a man who champions such an unfallable cause, and who has all to win by publishing the real thing, you seem awful shy...? Once that changes, and you realize that one does not make claims with no real substantiation, I will give the material a thorough read and judge it for what it is worth, taking in all the information that I need to see to make that judgement. It may all prove you completely right and me terribly wrong, and from what you say there is actually no doubt about such an outcome.

So come on, Ben - share! What harm can it possibly do you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

A fools answer, Ben, no less.

Yep, that was a pretty good choice of heading for your post.

What it all boils down to is the question whether we are to ask for substantiation when something is claimed or not

Ask for substantiation for interest and completion's sake, of course, but in this case, where we have no decent reason whatsoever to doubt that what Hinton revealed about Iremonger's findings reflected the complete truth, any substantiation can only provide the icing on the cake. Of course a fuller substantiation is desirable, but when there is so little room for doubt, that need for confirmation is lessened somewhat.

and I think we have 999 promille of the posters behind such a demand

Although I doubt we have "999 promille of the posters" behind some of the more implausible doubts being levelled at Iremonger's conclusions; doubts that don't become any more plausible purely because you feel that substantiation is lacking. Question anything until you see substantation, yes. Come up with totally implausible alternatives pending substatiation - no.

The again, are you not one of the posters who claim that just the one weapon may have been used in the Tabram deed?

Yes, I am one of those posters. One knife "may" have been used. "May" is an appropriately encompassing term, and since Kileen did not state as an ironclad fact that two weapons were used, that "may" is an opinion to which I'm entitled, not that I hold especially strong and unflexible views on that subject.

And until that substantiation is up on the boards, I will keep laughing your "expert opinion" in the opposite direction - off it!

Well that would be rather silly and hysterical, especially since I have already stated the following: Contrary to your extremely rude insinuation that I "haven't gone to the effort" of finding out more information, I am in the process of searching, and will keep you posted. Not because I believe it's remotely necessary, but simply to asuage some of the more ridiculous suggestions.

I'm not making claims without substantiation. I just figured that, y'know, I might just go out on a crazy limb here and speculate that maybe Hinton and Iremonger were telling the truth, and that she did compare the signatures stated, and that she does have the background necessary to make a decent comparison.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"we have no decent reason whatsoever to doubt"

But that is just it, Ben; We DON`T KNOW how much reason we have to doubt! Provide the details, and we shall see.

"Kileen did not state as an ironclad fact that two weapons were used"

He did - he said that the knife that was used on the 38 small wounds COULD NOT have inflicted the stab to the sternum. That is conclusive and it is an experts wiew that you just wawe away, in appalling contrast to your stance on the Iremonger issue.

"I am in the process of searching, and will keep you posted"

Well, thank goodness for that! Finally we are getting somewhere!

"Not because I believe it's remotely necessary"

Once and for all - until we see the material, neither you nor me can possibly know!

"I'm not making claims without substantiation."

Yes, so far you are.

"I just figured that, y'know, I might just go out on a crazy limb here and speculate that maybe Hinton and Iremonger were telling the truth, and that she did compare the signatures stated, and that she does have the background necessary to make a decent comparison."

It would be a very reasonable thing to believe. And up to the moment I saw Toppys signature, I would have had significantly less trouble with such a suggestion. After that, however, I really think a very thorough investigation into what was said and done in connection with Iremongers work is called for. In fact, I urge that no stone is left unturned on the matter.
If possible, I would want to see the entire statement made by Iremonger, just as I would like to take part of the other experts involved who seconded her opinion. I realize that it may mean a lot of work on your behalf, and I welcome whatever piece of it you may provide.

The best,
Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

Here are the signatures of the other possible GH's I've found, starting with the police statement for comparison...

1. Statement
[ATTACH]4561[/ATTACH]

2. Cabinet maker, born Shoreditch 1855
[ATTACH]4562[/ATTACH]

3. GPO telegraph overseer, born New Romney (Kent) 1863
[ATTACH]4565[/ATTACH]

4. Manager, waterproof clothing factory, born Gravesend 1865
[ATTACH]4563[/ATTACH]

5. Insurance clerk, born Islington 1860
[ATTACH]4566[/ATTACH]

6. Our man in Lambeth, as at the top of the thread
[ATTACH]4567[/ATTACH]

7. George HutchISon [NB: not "Hutchinson"] Boot maker, born London 1865
[ATTACH]4564[/ATTACH]

...this latter is arguably pretty close too, were it not for the definite "Hutchison" spelling compared to the clear "HutchINson" spelling in the police statement signature.

For info, I haven't yet found "Toppy" anywhere, as far as I can tell.

yes very hard to tell, it's either 6 or 7

[Malcolm X]

As requested, here's a montage of the 1888, 1898 and 1911 "George Hutchinson" signatures, scaled to approximately the same size for easier comparison:

[ATTACH]4908[/ATTACH]

If you click on this link, I've created a small Quicktime movie that loops around and superimposes the signatures.

Oscars, here I come!

yes they're the same Sam

[Ben]

But that is just it, Ben; We DON`T KNOW how much reason we have to doubt! Provide the details, and we shall see.

But based on the outline Bob provided with regard to Iremonger's findings, what outcome could you reasonably expect other than complete vindication of that brief outline?

He did - he said that the knife that was used on the 38 small wounds COULD NOT have inflicted the stab to the sternum.

I don't dispute that, nor do I wave it away. I do, however, consider it possible that the large knife which penetrated the sternum may also have been responsible for the other wounds. But this isn't a Tabram thread, so ssshhhh...

Well, thank goodness for that! Finally we are getting somewhere!

Just for completion's sake. The chances of the material not wholly vindicating Bob's remarks is practically zero, but it would certainly be interesting to read the precise details.

But yes, I will happily keep you informed.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:

"But based on the outline Bob provided with regard to Iremonger's findings, what outcome could you reasonably expect other than complete vindication of that brief outline?"

I choose to expect nothing, Ben. How could I? On the one hand, reliable people normally produce reliable goods, and on the other hand, Toppys signature and the ones on the police report are extremely similar to my eye. If I choose to go on the Iremonger line, I deny my own eyes, and if I go on the other line, it must involve questioning the veracity in your assertions. I see no good reason to make that choice beforehand.

"Just for completion's sake. The chances of the material not wholly vindicating Bob's remarks is practically zero, but it would certainly be interesting to read the precise details."

That, Ben, is no exaggeration. It WILL be interesting, and I hope that the complete material is accessible and rich in itīs nature.

Imagine, Ben, if I was to tell you that a Swedish renowned expert on psychology totally ruled out the possibility that Hutch could have been Fleming and acted the way he did. And imagine that I would not go any deeper into the issue, and not disclose the reasons as to WHY the expert had come up with his certainty. And that I would hint that any interest on your part to find out the details would equal your pointing the expert out as a liar.

Would such a thing make you drop your conviction? I think not.

Maybe such a comparison may help to show you why I am so keen on laying my hands on Iremongers work on the signatures.

The best,
Fisherman