Hutch in the 1911 Census?

Yes! Me! Let's go!

Anyone else?

[Ben]

Yes, a very perceptive post there, BB!

Hi Mike,

You're more than welcome, of course, to believe that Toppy WAs "probably" the witness. I profoundly disagree, for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam, but the fact that the majority of experts to date subscribe to the opinion that Toppy was NOT the witness has done a great deal to restore confidence in what was already a strong opinion. I'd be completely astounded if mismatching sigantures plus a fantastically bogus story involving a Royal Conspiracy meant that Toppy was the witness, but I can't "rule it out" completely.

The only thing I would object to, in very emphatic terms, is the suggestion that Leander declared the signatures to be "probable". This he never did, as even Fisherman was prudent enough to acknowledge.

Who's up for going round in circles?

Me!

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

Infant Avian,

You admit that you do see the similarities, yet you question what you see. That is healthy. Others only see differences.

I do not think that it is only possible that Hutch is Toppy, only that it is highly probable. The only reasons I have are based upon signatures that are nearly impossibly close and Reg's story (not fairclough's), and the relative dearth of Hutchinsons. It isn't ALL about the signatures. It is about putting together a puzzle of which the signatures are the most striking piece. It would be completely astounding if all these components, when put together, amounted to nothing. I completely believe that Ben and others see different things. I also believe that the judgement is clouded and those truths are not reality.

I'm not so sure that Crystal is going to give us anything more. Indeed, I'm not placing any trust in what she has to tell us because I'm not there to see it. I would trust Leander's point of view which has already shown the signatures to be probable. Unfortunately, he is not in London and can only give us what many of us already see.

Cheers,

Mike

[can someone please send me a pm explaining how to break this quote up into sections?]

I admit i see similarities and it's not that i question what i "see"; it's that i question the relevance and significance of what i see; i also see differences. I am not happy to conclude on the basis of some surface similarities that exist along surface differences that the sigs ARE a definite match. I haven't said i believe, based on the differences, that they are a mismatch either (note i DID say they were a mismatch originally, until i realised that i do not have enough experience to decide either way).

I do not believe that Leander said that a match was "probable". I believe he said that a match "cannot be ruled out" which is a completely different thing.

Even if one accepts (which i don't) that Leander thought they matched, you still have a situation where we have one expert saying there is a match and one (Iremonger) saying there is not. Again, totally reflective of this thread with half saying there is a match and half saying hang on a minute, we dont accept that they match conclusively.

Sig matching is not an exact science...in such a field, NOBODY can claim their perception is faultless or that they have the truth and it's just faulty vision or preconceptions on the part of those whose views do not accord with their own.

Jen - you speak wisely. You ask - 'when will this madness end?'

To which I would respond: 'when I pretend to go to Kew', or failing that, 'when this thread culminates in a killing spree the like of which would put any plumber to shame'.

I don't think I have anything further to add to your articulate and perceptive post.

Except: Sam, are you really, seriously, denying the reality of perception bias? It's untenable, for all the reasons given above. You say you have no bias - why then, do you insist upon the certainty of flawed and poor quality evidence?

Make as many allusions to witchcraft as you like. I , at least, have an open mind about the outcome of this debate.

[The Good Michael]

Infant Avian,

You admit that you do see the similarities, yet you question what you see. That is healthy. Others only see differences.

I do not think that it is only possible that Hutch is Toppy, only that it is highly probable. The only reasons I have are based upon signatures that are nearly impossibly close and Reg's story (not fairclough's), and the relative dearth of Hutchinsons. It isn't ALL about the signatures. It is about putting together a puzzle of which the signatures are the most striking piece. It would be completely astounding if all these components, when put together, amounted to nothing. I completely believe that Ben and others see different things. I also believe that the judgement is clouded and those truths are not reality.

I'm not so sure that Crystal is going to give us anything more. Indeed, I'm not placing any trust in what she has to tell us because I'm not there to see it. I would trust Leander's point of view which has already shown the signatures to be probable. Unfortunately, he is not in London and can only give us what many of us already see.

Cheers,

Mike

[babybird67]

argghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

when will this madness end?!?!

Sam/Mike...hi...considering you appear to think that people who cannot see the similarities, or rather who can see similarities but who cannot accept that they are conclusive since they can also see differences, are defending a trenchant position which is based on preconceptions of Hutch being the Ripper etc and therefore if they admit that Toppy = Hutch this somehow undermines that position...what is the reason for me not being convinced by the similarities?

I have no position on Hutch other than he was a witness. I don't think he was the Ripper. To me he was either a married man who had to make up some excuse for loitering outside the room of a known prostitute or he was never there and just wanted a ride on the Ripper-train for a bit.

To me, it is the wise thing to acknowledge certain things about myself which make reserving judgement on whether there is a match/mismatch the only possible position: such as:

a/ i don't have experience of the commonalities of the time; someone with experience in this field and who knows what to look for would obviously do a better job of evaluating whether there is a match/mismatch

b/ On trusting my own eyes, i would have happily concluded that both the Georges Crystal posted were an almost perfect match; that she then told us these were known to be by different hands was enough to demonstrate to me, that eyesight alone is NOT a qualification for judging whether sigs match even where forgery is not concerned

c/ this whole thread is a perfect example of "perception" and how it varies from person to person; how can something be held self-evident if half the people on this very thread cannot see it, but half the people can? That alone should testify to the fact that just looking at something and trying to make sense of it is NOT enough in this field to make an authoritative conclusion.
Saying, "Well i can see it so it must be true" is the sort of circular logic that gets us nowhere, since the same sentence could be used by both the "matching" camp and the "mismatching" camp. Personally i think it is sad that the matching camp are resorting to such a statement, whereas the non-matching camp are merely saying, not that it rules Toppy out, but merely that the case has not yet been proven, and that we need further evidence before something so definite is asserted. Circumspection i think they call it.

The worst thing about the "it must be true because i can see it" position, is that it is designed to quash all further argument; how can you argue with that? You cannot mount a logical argument to deal with an illogical statement. You can only point out how illogical it is and hope that people "see" why. It's like a witch hunt..."she's a witch because i say she is". Can you see that at all in your arguments?

Best and wisest course of action is to wait for further "expert"/experienced in the field opinion such as Crystal's. I am sure that when she does look at the documents and evaluate them, she will tell us "why" she comes to the conclusions she arrives at, as well as "how".

tc everyone

[Ben]

The signatures do NOT mis-match.

Ah, but I think they do mis-match.

And two experienced professionals the field of document analysis are also of the opinion that Toppy was not the witness on the basis of a signature comparison. The delusion that Toppy-as-Hutch is proven is far more painful to behold.

[Sam Flynn]

My feeling on the subject is that a mismatching signature plus a dodgy claim to witness fame argues against Toppy's candidacy.

Oh, my giddy aunt! The signatures do NOT mis-match. For the sake of your own sanity, Ben, please exorcise yourself of this desperate delusion.

We've caught your Ripper. Rejoice!

[Ben]

I suspect, however, that if that turned up a blank, you'd insist that we cast the net overseas

Or more likely, Gareth, I'd reiterate the important observation that an individual who was capable of giving the police a demonstrably bogus witness account is equally capable of supplying the police with a false name, which would mean casting the net evern wide, m'afraid!

... who chanced on the writing style which matched (in a "2D-scan" sense) to a high degree that of a real George Hutchinson with known links to the East End

But as you know, I genuinely don't believe the writing style does match, let alone to a high degree, so there's no question of an "interesting coincidence" here. My feeling on the subject is that a mismatching signature plus a dodgy claim to witness fame argues against Toppy's candidacy, obliging us to look elsewhere.

because we've more than likely found your Ripper. You should, by rights, be c0ck-a-hoop.

I would be c0ck-a-hoop if I felt the signatures matched. The fact that they don't, to my mind, it a tremendous inconvenience more than anything!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Methinks thou protesteth too much, Ben.

... and I really don't understand why - because we've more than likely found your Ripper. You should, by rights, be c0ck-a-hoop.

[Sam Flynn]

We have only seen a tiny fraction of the viable candidates for the witness out there

Only 80-odd to go, Ben, and that would eliminate all the George Hutchinsons in England. I suspect, however, that when that turned up a blank, you'd insist that he'd emigrated or changed his name.

and people whose name was not George Hutchinson.

... who just happened to chance on a writing style which matched to a high degree (in a "2D-scan" sense) that of a real George Hutchinson with known links to the East End, and more than one family account which identified him as the Dorset Street witness? Seriously - what odds would you get on that?

a tiny, miniscule not-to-be-invested-with-any-more-significance-than-it-merits fraction

Methinks thou protesteth too much, Ben.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, as the product of your personal perception, it isn't invalid. As empirical evidence, it is.

Crystal, my personal perception (or the products thereof) has little to do with this at all, nor have any "personal" factors, I can fully assure you. I've superimposed the images in a time-lapse film, and not too many bits "stuck out" as anomalous. On the contrary, the signatures overlaid one another with remarkable consistency. Now, there's not much in-depth perception involved in that - it's basic pattern-recognition, and as "objective" as one could get.

Sam, as the product of your personal perception, it isn't invalid. As empirical evidence, it is.

I have said why.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

He doesn't have those "top-launched t's", nor the widely-displaced dotted "i"s, the transitions between letters aren't the same, and he favours the "flourished H", which only appears (anomalously) on 1888p1

But then Toppy's top-launched "t"s look nothing like any of the signatures appended to the statement. Toppy's "t"s are of a similar height - usually taller - to his lower case "h"s, but they cross the actual letter itself, rather than being "lanched" from the right of the vertical "t" stem as they are in the statement, where they are also conspicuously shorter than the "h"s. The majority of expert opinion to date has opined that the signatures do not match, and when taken in tandem with the filthy nonsense that appeared in the Ripper and the Royals (in which Reg was a willing participant - "realising" that his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill with Mary Jane Kelly), the case for Toppy as the witness is weakened even further.

We have only seen a tiny fraction of the viable candidates for the witness out there - a tiny, miniscule not-to-be-invested-with-any-more-significance-than-it-merits fraction - because we know it can also include people who weren't living in London in 1888, and people whose name was not George Hutchinson.

Hi Mike,

Those who do not see what we see, i.e., strong similarities, still see what they say they see. Reality is otherwise

So, you see what you see, and what you see must reflect reality because you say it must? That is no less insipid than the reverse: "Those who do not see what we see, i.e., differences, still see what they say they see. Reality is otherwise, but I have no doubt they believe what they say."

I suggest their minds cannot be changed.

But if people were truly of that opinion, it makes fundamentally no sense to continue an aggressive, fight-to-the-death, last-man-standing posting battle of the type that I seemingly hyptonise people into conducting on a regular basis. It is is illogical to keep arguing with a person who you believe will not ever change his mind, but people do so anyway. It must, therefore, be an ego thing.

Oh, and copy and pastes at the ready if people want to get bogged down in crossed t's and curly H's.

[DVV]

Lambeth George's writing shows more differences, Dave. He doesn't have those "top-launched t's", nor the widely-displaced dotted "i"s, the transitions between letters aren't the same, and he favours the "flourished H", which only appears (anomalously) on 1888p1. Apart from that "flourished H", Toppy's writing has far more consistent matches with 1888p1-3, period.

Hi Sam,

Agreed without reservation. And it doesn' t contradict my post(s).

Amitiés,
David