Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"Thanks for that post. Leander answered about as I thought he would. He is using that scientific understatement again because he just can't commit. We know what he meant, however. That's the main thing. He wouldn't be what he is if he came out and said what we wished he would have said. The meaning is still there if somewhat obfuscated by words."

Yep, Mike, he gave the same answer that I thought he would too. He is going about things in a very consequent manner, and I really feel that we are dealing with a conscientious, thorough and consistent man.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Thanks for that post. Leander answered about as I thought he would. He is using that scientific understatement again because he just can't commit. We know what he meant, however. That's the main thing. He wouldn't be what he is if he came out and said what we wished he would have said. The meaning is still there if somewhat obfuscated by words.

Cheers,

Mike

[babybird67]

but Sam,

how do you then explain dissent, other than people seeing what they want to see? How do you explain someone who cannot agree with a match on current evidence? I have stated i do not see Hutch in any particular light...i have therefore no reason to support a stance of either match or mismatch and i still do not agree with your conclusions.

If your eyes are as good as Iremonger's, then it logically follows that my eyes are as good as yours...yet i dissent.

How do you explain this?

[Sam Flynn]

If you maintain that seeing is "an objective experience as putting a round peg into a round hole", you must (?) think people who cannot put such a peg into such an obvious hole are lacking in intelligence in some way? Is this what you mean?

Not at all, BB. What I meant was that, in "round peg" problems, one uses one's eyes to gauge whether the edges of the peg aligns with the edges of the hole. By doing so, one can tell whether or not the peg "fits" snugly into the hole.

Ostensibly the same visual edge-alignments may be employed to judge how snugly the "pegs" of the 1888 signatures "fit the holes" of the 1898 and 1911 signatures. No more complex - and no more overtly subjective - perceptual judgments are required to compare these signatures than one might employ to "put a round peg into a round hole". (In actual fact it's simpler, because we don't have to deal with three dimensions.)

Hope that clarifies matters.

Edit: Simultaneously, I rather hope that answers Crystal's earlier question about why "my" perception should be any more objective than anyone else's in this regard.

[babybird67]

hi Sam (waves from overcast Pontardawe)

Categorically. What I see here is as objective an experience as putting a round peg into a round hole, or aligning the edges of a smashed plate before supergluing them back together.It's neither flawed nor of poor quality - this is quintessentially an exercise of comparing two-dimensional images, of which we have access to perfectly good scans.You may well do apropos the ultimate identity of Hutchinson, Crystal. However, and with the utmost respect, I sense that your impartiality does not extend to the questions being raised about the expertise (or otherwise) needed to compare two signatures.

I really find it odd that you continue to assert this line of argument. I can't break up your quote as i dont know how to, so i will have to just take it a bit at a time. Everything i say Sam comes from a basis of respect for you, and when i use conjecture as to your opinion i am seeking clarification from you in those matters (God i hope that makes sense!).

If you maintain that seeing is "an objective experience as putting a round peg into a round hole", you must (?) think people who cannot put such a peg into such an obvious hole are lacking in intelligence in some way? Is this what you mean? I'm sure you wouldn't agree with this, but this is a natural conclusion from maintaining, what is the essence of your argument, is that those who are not comfortable with equating Toppy = Hutch based on the sigs (among other things) are not seeing correctly.

This argument could very easily be turned around by people who cannot see an obvious match, who could accuse you of not seeing correctly. Who is to say which of us is seeing correctly? Actually, there is no such thing as seeing correctly or objectively, which is why i am not convinced that Toppy = Hutch and is why i cannot concur that the case is closed and a match is 100% certain.

Surely the fact that there are dissenting views on this very issue is demonstration enough that seeing is NOT an objective experience. I could quite easily post and say that those who can't see the differences are wrong...why are they wrong? Because it's obvious the differences are there and, and this is the funny bit, they are wrong because i say so! That is not a logical argument or an argument based on evidence. It's very much a tautological argument, and is meaningless when it comes to discussing evidence with a view to proving what your argument is.

Do you see any differences in the sigs? From your earlier postings, yes you do. You, however, choose to give these differences a value meaning which is lower than the value you place on the similarities...hence you are convinced.

Personally, i dont feel qualified to say with 100% certainty that the sigs match or mismatch...this is because i lack the knowledge that others may have about handwriting commonalities at the time and other information such as pen pressure etc which may have a bearing on the situation. I'd like to hear from someone who does have that experience what they think and why they think that. Then i will reappraise my position - i may then decide that they match, mismatch or even that there is still no convincing evidence either way.

Once again i remind you, i have no secret agenda...at this moment in time my Ripper is Klosowski...Hutch has no bearing on this whatsoever so it is insignificant to my Ripper view whether Hutch was Toppy. If anything i would be happy to assert a match since my view of Hutch was that he was a married man loitering outside a prostitute's room and he was very uncomfortable coming forward with this, hence the embellished story.

Also, i find it amusing that those of us who say Iremonger, an expert in the field, stated they did not match, are told, oh dont trust an expert, she is no better looking at it than your own eyes. Yet, we are told, there is a match, why can't you see/believe me? We are told to put our trust in the similarity seers and discount what our eyes tell us about the differences...isn't that just as bad as giving our judgement over to an expert, with the obvious difference that one is an expert and the other not an expert? If the possession of eyes gives as you argue a level playing field, and your eyes are as good as the experts, why aren't my eyes as good as your eyes? If all eyes have equal worth, this makes it even MORE evident that seeing is not objective since we come to different conclusions.

If all eyes are equally good at perceiving what you think is an objective reality, there would not be this thread in the first place! Why should i trust you or Mike for example and accept a match, but not trust Iremonger who said there was not a match? It doesn't make sense and is just part of a tautological argument that leads to complete anarchy and madness!

I hope i have managed to express myself well enough here...my brain is slightly foggy today (not from drink, i dont drink, but from my ME lol).

best wishes to all and vive la difference

[Fisherman]

Bravo, Ben!

...not that I was expecting any less from you!

"Lukewarm", haha! Good one!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Thankyou, Fisherman!

CAN NOT BE RULED OUT belongs to the same parish as THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS

Indeed it does.

And he's a sensible man for acknowledging as much, since there are obvious likenesses "in certain respects", just as there were obvious likenesses between Crystal's "George" (see Confusing Elephant post) and that of Toppy. Trouble is, there are also obvious dissimilarities, which he was prudent enough to highlight in his initial post. It was also very refreshing to hear him underscore the following:

I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail...It is not until you have an original material with a sufficient number of signatures to compare that you can tell what the indications are worth!

but instead tells us that there is enough to recognize that the positive weight makes the scales tip over.

Well, no, he doesn't do that.

He said nothing about the positive weight "tipping over" in this case at all. Interestingly, he stated that the "cannot be ruled out" expression can also be applied to cases where no disrepencies other than "amplitude" can be detected. In this case, however, there were discrepences - and he commented on them specifically in addition to using the decidedly lukewarm phrase "cannot be ruled out".

You may also want to ponder the fact that it is clear by now that the wording "cannot be ruled out" functions eminently when you need to describe obvious likenesses

Well, it becomes a bit more applicable when you're talking about their being a likeness "in certain respects" - yes. You can say something like, "Given that there are obvious likenesses in certain respects, it cannot be ruled out that one man wrote both signatures". He's certainly not saying that the signature match possibility belongs in thre "positive end of the scale", nor does he imply that an analysis of the originals will necessarily "upgrade" that verdict, since's it's obvious that such an analysis could have the opposite effect.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

David asks:

"Obvious likenesses in certain respects means also: "discrepancies in some other respects", no ?"

Well, David, I think you may need to look at the wording telling us that the expression "cannot be ruled out", that Leander elaborates on, traditionally points out that we are dealing with samples of text where no discrepancies can be perceived, other than in the amplitude of the expressions.
You may also want to ponder the fact that it is clear by now that the wording "cannot be ruled out" functions eminently when you need to describe obvious likenesses - something that has not gone down well before.
I also recommend the insight that Leander is speaking of the positive part of the scale in this issue.

Apart from this, we know - just like you say - that there are discrepancies. But up til now it has been suggested that these discrepancies may have meant that the match was a poor one. This can no longer be suggested, I think.

To me, he is VERY consistent throughout - he does not yell "It´s a certain match!", but instead tells us that there is enough to recognize that the positive weight makes the scales tip over. He tells us that he uses the lowest, most careful assession, and that he would have needed the original documents and more samples. The indications are there, but without more and better material, it is hard to know exactly what they are worth.

So no contradiction on Leanders behalf! No "complete turn-around". Just a cool, calm and collected telling us that we need to regard the signature match as one that lies on the positive end of the scale - but we need more to be able to upgrade that verdict.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

the expression CAN NOT BE RULED OUT belongs to the same parish as THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS. Fisherman

Hi Fish,

Thanks for that.
But we know from the beginning that there are obvious likenesses in certain respects.

If not, Sam, Mike and you wouldn't have claimed "case closed !" so fiercely, would have you ?

Obvious likenesses in certain respects means also: "discrepancies in some other respects", no ?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

Well, in the end, I had to do it, although I was of the meaning that it need not be done. I once again contacted Frank Leander to ask him if he could straighten out the semantic questions that have arisen on these boards. In order to dismantle any questions that could surface as a consequence of my not publishing all of my question and the answer, I have translated it all, and I publish it all.

If anybody should have any criticism to offer since they think Leanders answer is ”too timely”, I once again offer anybody to have my computer checked. Anbody who wants to know how my translation tallies with the real word are free to check for themselves – I am not a professional translator, but I have done a lot of translation work in my day.

This is my mail, in Swedish:

”Hej igen!

Vi bytte några mail för tre veckors tid sedan, i ämnet Jack the Ripper, och det har det brutit ut en smärre folkstorm på den website där diskussionen förs som en följd av ett par av de formuleringar du använde i dina kommentarer kring George Hutchinsons namnteckningar.

I ditt utlåtande kring de här namnteckningarna sade du att det knappast kan uteslutas att vi har att göra med samma skribent. Du sade också att det finns en uppenbar likhet mellan namnteckningarna och att de är alldeles för lika handstilsmässigt för att erbjuda någon anledning att utesluta en träff.

Det finns de som menar att det föreligger en oöverbryggbar diskrepans mellan de här formuleringarna - man menar att uttrycket att det knappast går att utesluta att vi har att göra med samma skribent pekar på en låg sannolikhet att en träff föreligger medan uttrycken att det finns en uppenbar likhet mellan namnteckningarna och att de är alldeles för lika handstilsmässigt för att erbjuda någon anledning att utesluta en träff i stället är formuleringar som pekar på en hög sannolikhet för en träff. Sålunda anser en del läsare att du har sagt en sak en gång och en annan sak nästa gång, medan andra gör tolkningen att de uttryck du använt av dig av samtliga är giltiga för att beskriva en generellt god överensstämmelse.

Kan du ge en replik i den här frågan? Kan man tycka att två namnteckningar har en uppenbar likhet och att de är alltför lika handstilmässigt för att erbjuda någon anledning att utesluta en träff – och samtidigt säga att det knappast kan uteslutas att de är av samma hand?”

And this is Frank Leanders answer, in Swedish too:

”Hej igen!
*
Semantiken är svår! Jag vill inte ge mig in på någon ytterligare utveckling i ämnet eftersom jag endast kommenterat några bilder via mail men i "min värld" är uttrycket KAN INTE UTESLUTAS i samma härad som att DET FINNS UPPENBARA LIKHETER I VISSA AVSEENDEN. Men återigen: det är först när man har ett originalmaterial med ett tillfredsställande antal jämförelsenamnteckningar som man vet vad indikationerna är värda!
*
Mvh
*
Frank
*
PS "Kan inte uteslutas" har tidigare använts som det lägsta, försiktigaste uttrycket på den positiva sidan i en tidigare skala som vi använt i handstilsundersökningar vilket väl understryker att vi inte uppfattar någon diskrepans annat än i "amplituden" mellan uttrycken. DS”

And here is what most of you will need – the translation:

”Hello again!

We exchanged some mails some three weeks ago, in the topic of Jack the Ripper, and a minor gale has been blowing since on the website where the discussion is going on, this as a consequence of a couple of the wordings you used in your comments around the George Hutchinson signatures.

In your statement concerning these signatures, you said that it could hardly be ruled out that we were dealing with the same writer. You also said that there is an obvious likeness inbetween the signatures and that they are far too alike handstylewise to offer any reason to rule out a match.

There are those who mean that there lies an unbridgeable discrepancy between these wordings – they think that the expression saying that it hardly could be ruled out that we are dealing with the same writer points to a low likeliness that we have a match, whereas the expressions that there is an obvious likeness inbetween the signatures and that they are far too alike handstylewise to offer any reason to rule a match out, are instead expressions that point to a high likeliness for a match. Thus some readers believe that you have said one thing at one occasion and another at the next, whereas others make the interpretation that the expressions you have used all are useful for describing a generally good match.

Could you give an answer to this question? Can one think that two signatures have an obvious likeness and that they are far too alike handstylewise to offer any reason to rule a match out – and at the same time say that it can hardly be ruled out that they are made by the same hand?”

Frank Leanders answer in translation:

”Hello again!

Semantics is a hard thing! I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail, but in ”my world”, the expression CAN NOT BE RULED OUT belongs to the same parish as THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS. But once again: It is not until you have an original material with a sufficient number of signatures to compare that you can tell what the indications are worth!

Friendly greetings,

Frank

PS. ”Can not be ruled out” has earlier been used as the lowest, most careful expression on the positive side in a scale that we have used in investigations of handstyles, and it serves well to underline when we cannot see any discrepancies other than in the ”amplitude” between the expressions. DS."

Alright, everybody – make of this what you want. I am conviced that the interpretations will travel in various directions. But I don´t think we can allow ourselves to fortwith state that Leander saw the signatures as a poor match. Then again, interpretations have been made on this thread before that have had me quite baffled, so it can hardly be ruled out that this will happen agai...

Whoops. Did it again.

Fisherman

Categorically. What I see here is as objective an experience as putting a round peg into a round hole, or aligning the edges of a smashed plate before supergluing them back together.It's neither flawed nor of poor quality - this is quintessentially an exercise of comparing two-dimensional images, of which we have access to perfectly good scans.You may well do apropos the ultimate identity of Hutchinson, Crystal. However, and with the utmost respect, I sense that your impartiality does not extend to the questions being raised about the expertise (or otherwise) needed to compare two signatures.

Fine Sam. So what you see is objective (no, but for the sake of this argument).

OK, so how is what Ben (for example ) sees any less so?

Oh, maybe not Ben, then, because you might say he had other bias.

OK, then, BB then? Is she wrong? Is David?

I'm not sure I see why your objective perception should be more valid than theirs.

Maybe you could explain?

[DVV]

Hi all,

even if my eyes told me that the 1888, 1898 and 1911 signatures are all from the same hand, I couldn't be absolutely certain that Toppy was Hutch.
It would be my opinion, but I'd eagerly want to read SI's report.

I'd still ask myself : why had expert categorically dismissed Toppy ?

And I'd say: "on balance, I think Toopy was Hutch."

In favour of Toppy, I'd have:

1: similar signatures
2: probable family ties with Essex and Romford

Against:

1: the fact that an expert (at least) has flatly dismissed Toppy
2: the well known dodgy story
3: the fact that Hutch was referred to as groom and a labourer, and never as a plumber, in 1888
4: the fact that Hutch had known Mary since late 1886 or early 1887, ie, before Mary's move to Whitechapel. (Nothing known connects Toppy with the areas Mary was living in.)

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, are you really, seriously, denying the reality of perception bias?

Categorically. What I see here is as objective an experience as putting a round peg into a round hole, or aligning the edges of a smashed plate before supergluing them back together.

You say you have no bias - why then, do you insist upon the certainty of flawed and poor quality evidence?

It's neither flawed nor of poor quality - this is quintessentially an exercise of comparing two-dimensional images, of which we have access to perfectly good scans.

I , at least, have an open mind about the outcome of this debate.

You may well do apropos the ultimate identity of Hutchinson, Crystal. However, and with the utmost respect, I sense that your impartiality does not extend to the questions being raised about the expertise (or otherwise) needed to compare two signatures.

Mike

You say 'others see only differences'.

Who, exactly?

[DVV]

Thanks, Mike. If true, and I sadly suspect that it is (and not just in this context), then it begs serious questions about any pretensions "Ripperology" may have of being a field of serious study.

Hi Sam,

Experts say Toppy isn't Hutch.
And we don't claim "case closed".
You shouldn't be sad, should you ?

Amitiés,
David