Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[IchabodCrane]

Ben to Fisherman:

I think anyone with any common sense or respect will know better than to do any such thing, recognising that people who wish to drop Iremonger are only interested in championing their evidently spurious opinion. You can drop her if you like. I'm learned long ago not to lose any sleep over that!

If feel I need to again clarify my stance on this subject: If Iremonger said that Badham tried to emulate Hutchinson's signature on page 1, she is in all probability mistaken, and people on this board have acknowledged this (i.a. Crystal, DVV, Mike). And once again, this is not my opinion or pet theory, but is a pure matter of logic. A is not equal to B. We are not comparing styles, loops etc. here. If you want to copy another person's signature, you do not embellish the letters to make the resemblance go away.

Nota bene:
Which is, however, not to say that Badham didn't perform the signature on page 1. He could still have performed it, without intending to copy Hutchinson's style. How likely that is everybody can make up their own minds.

Again, in the interest of getting to the bottom of the matter, it would be highly desirable to have more expert opinions available. Because given Iremonger's opinion on Badham, all the while NOT discounting her as an expert in her field, she should definitely not be the only expert that we base our beliefs on. Ben, I am sure that you will agree with me on this one.

Best wishes,
IchabodCrane

[The Good Michael]

Ichabod,

Just to clarify my stance: I don't like that all we have is "Sue Iremonger thinks this or that". I want to know detailed reasons for what she does or doesn't say. A second-hand account probably does no justice to what she really thinks. It may even be possible that she just glanced at some signatures and gave an answer in passing. I don't know what she did or didn't do. Until I know, her ideas, as told to us from a second-hand source, are dismissable at this point. What we are left with is our own vision. I'm sure you'd agree on this.

Cheers,

Mike

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Mike,
I agree we would need both the full details of Iremonger's report, as well as other expert opinions if we hope to come to a common understanding on this thread,
IchabodCrane

[DVV]

So, where is that "Iremonger's file", at last ?
And don't tell me it has been destroyed during the Blitz...
I'd be half in agreement with Fish, here: let's drop her...until we can read her.

Amitiés all,
David

[Crystal]

Good Afternoon All!

Fisherman! I am not telling you, or anyone else, that a signature cannot change in its elements over time. You can see, however, that in this case – specifically the case of GWT Hutchinson – this particular signature appears to change very little over more than a decade. I cannot immediately see that it follows that in this instance, we can assume the contrary regarding his signature from 1888 – 1898. I think I might refer to that as ‘special pleading’ - Please don’t start telling me that Maybrick did it!!

As for Elvis – what I am referring to here is cultural milieu. Elvis, I think even you must agree, came from a very different one to any of the individuals involved in this case. It counts. You can compare Elvis with Toppy if you like – you can compare whoever you like – but it won’t necessarily have any meaning to anyone but you.

I think that’s the sort of thing that I’m trying to get at when I tell you that whilst you may be able to see for yourself, you won’t necessarily understand in the way that a person trained to look at such thing will - with respect, Fisherman, it really isn’t so simple as you imagine it to be.

I think I have a word for Sam Flynn here, too, who I think stated some posts back that there wasn’t a degree course in this country for handwriting analysis. Sam, I’m afraid you were aiming too low there – you are only correct in that there isn’t a bachelor degree available.

It’s just as well I’m not easily offended isn’t it? Otherwise I might take all this routine, ill-informed cynicism to heart. As it is, the criticism I have so far received is so far off any reasonable understanding of the issues involved here that it’s actually quite funny.

[Ben]

Hutchinson's signature on page 1, she is in all probability mistaken, and people on this board have acknowledged this (i.a. Crystal, DVV, Mike).

Ah no, Ichabod, the fact that a handful of us here belive she may be mistaken doesn't increase the probability that she was. That really isn't the way it works. She may be mistaken, or she may be correct. Badham could easily have been in such haste to forward the report, just as he could have easily have been so accustomed to his style of "H"s that ne forgot to copy that aspect. Not saying it's what I believe, necessarily, but there's no "probability" that she was wrong.

Because given Iremonger's opinion on Badham, all the while NOT discounting her as an expert in her field, she should definitely not be the only expert that we base our beliefs on. Ben, I am sure that you will agree with me on this one.

Agreed entirely!

Hi Mike,

We only have occasion to "dismiss" Iremonger if we didn't have an overwhelmingly strong probability that she did precisely as several independent reputable sources (Hinton, Begg, Fido) claimed she did, which was to compare the signatures and come to the conclusion that the signatures did not match. It would be incredibly interesting to see her reasoning, yes, but ill-equipped as the majority of us non-experts are to critique or argue against it, I doubt it would make much difference. What we can reasonably assume is that the "reasons" she used were based on extensive experience and training.

Best regards,
Ben

[Nothing to see]

Good Afternoon All!

Fisherman! I am not telling you, or anyone else, that a signature cannot change in its elements over time. You can see, however, that in this case – specifically the case of GWT Hutchinson – this particular signature appears to change very little over more than a decade. I cannot immediately see that it follows that in this instance, we can assume the contrary regarding his signature from 1888 – 1898. I think I might refer to that as ‘special pleading’ - Please don’t start telling me that Maybrick did it!!

As for Elvis – what I am referring to here is cultural milieu. Elvis, I think even you must agree, came from a very different one to any of the individuals involved in this case. It counts. You can compare Elvis with Toppy if you like – you can compare whoever you like – but it won’t necessarily have any meaning to anyone but you.

I think that’s the sort of thing that I’m trying to get at when I tell you that whilst you may be able to see for yourself, you won’t necessarily understand in the way that a person trained to look at such thing will - with respect, Fisherman, it really isn’t so simple as you imagine it to be.

I think I have a word for Sam Flynn here, too, who I think stated some posts back that there wasn’t a degree course in this country for handwriting analysis. Sam, I’m afraid you were aiming too low there – you are only correct in that there isn’t a bachelor degree available.

It’s just as well I’m not easily offended isn’t it? Otherwise I might take all this routine, ill-informed cynicism to heart. As it is, the criticism I have so far received is so far off any reasonable understanding of the issues involved here that it’s actually quite funny.

And what about London cabbies?

[Crystal]

I wasn't serious! Any Cabbies out there - I didn't mean it!

[Sam Flynn]

but ill-equipped as the majority of us non-experts are to critique or argue against it

We are far from "ill-equipped". We have precisely the same equipment as Sue Iremonger had in order to undertake this task. What's more, we have 11 more samples of GWTH's handwriting to compare than she did.

[The Good Michael]

We only have occasion to "dismiss" Iremonger if we didn't have an overwhelmingly strong probability that she did precisely as several independent reputable sources (Hinton, Begg, Fido) claimed she did, which was to compare the signatures and come to the conclusion that the signatures did not match.

I didn't hear any of these sources talk about the methods she used, and how much time she spent using them. Did you? Until we know something precise, it's hearsay and dismissable for that reason, much as in court.

but ill-equipped as the majority of us non-experts are to critique or argue against it, I doubt it would make much difference.

You'll have to speak for yourself and not the majority on this one. You still know absolutely nothing of her work in this instance or any other. I am quite nicely equipped to examine signatures and come to a reasonable conclusion. I have, actually.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

" which tells us that in the vast majority of cases, he single-stemmed his "l"s, which in turn tells us that he was incredibly unlikely to break convention and offer up three successive exceptions to that rule. In the case of the "h"s, not one of Toppy's "h"s were double-stemmed, in contrast to all three double-stemmed witness "h"s."

Correct, Ben! But for two things:
1. We seem to have a man that puts a real good effort into writing neatly when signing the police report - so neatly, in fact, that he tries a curled capital H, for instance, something that does probably not belong to his everyday repertoire. Therefore, we may also ask ourselves the question of how many OTHER letters he wrote with more effort than usually. And loops and such - as in the capital H - is something that may occur in such instances.
2. We do not know if he wrote more open loops back in 1888; ten years have passed when we make his aquaintance again, as a writer. That is a looong time.

"So, you're saying that if the style is radically different (hypothetically speaking) it doesn't matter providing the angle is the same?"

No. I am saying that each and every element is of importance, but some of them are more prone to change. And yes, an element of style is more probable to change than the leaning of the text.

"I can only only continue to caution - albeit very wearily this time - against trivialising the differences and exaggerating the importantce of the similarities. It gives the impression of a strong bias."

I can well see that you want it to look like that, but you are wrong. If the leaning is consistent and the number of times a writer lifts his pen stays the same inbetween signatures, then that is far more important when weighing the pros and cons than are elements of style. And so far, noboy who says that the signatures differ have come up with ANYTHING but elements of style. Therefore the points you use to argue are in fact weak points, whereas the points I use to argue are strong ones: The overall consistency of the text, the leaning and the likeness in how the pen was lifted easily outweighs the elements of style.
That has nothing to do with a bias, Iīm afraid - nothing at all. It is what you can deduct if you follow the guidelines used by the SKL - and every other criminal forensic handwriting expertise in the world, no doubt. You should like it, in fact, an acknowledge it - itīs expertise! Not youīre taste, though...

"Listed as a plumber and living at a centrally located West End address. I don't think he was picking oakum or hawking mackerel somehow..."

It seems, Ben, that David Knott on another thread has stated that Toppy had East end connections and that he was probably NOT a plumber in 1888, this after having spoken to his relatives. So maybe youīre the one hawking rotten fish here...?


"Yes, I do realize the "extremely important" evidence, particularly because it enables me to arrive at an "extremely different" conclusion to yours"

Then THAT`S where we should start speaking of a bias, Ben.

"It' should be pretty astoundingly obvious by now that Crystal has a good deal more knowledge and experience than you in this particular field, and I'd reiterate her cautionary note against googling the internet into boredom and claiming it empowers you with the necessary knowledge to trump hers."

AAAAHHHH, the "expertise" thing again! Donīt be daft, Ben. It is NOT a question of well hidden mumbo-jumbo. It is a question of showing that people in the Victorian society COULD change their elements of style, and after that, there is no need to prove anything else, whatsoever. That was what the question was about. Or are you saying that Crystal has identified Toppy as the one and only Victorian who would not be prone to do such a thing? Is there something hidden in his specific manner of writing that tells us that he would never change an element of style. Hm?
Youīd wish, Ben, would you not?
Donīt come dragging with any hints about my shortcomings in a business that is very, very simple. We are not discussing psychology or philosophy here - the question was whether an ordinary 19:th century Eastender could have changed elemnts of style, and as such, the question should never have been raised. It is a dumb question, and it answers itself - without expertise!


"It's a great pity that you took it upon yourself to contact her personally, since your obvious contempt for her abilities can only have communicated itself rather glaringly at the time."

Still at it, arenīt you; trying to paint me out as the villain of the piece? No, Ben, no - I wrote a very courteous and polite mail to her, the way I take care always to do - when communicating with nice, sensible people.
Guess what can make me change that? Hmmm?

Still, the best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"I'd be half in agreement with Fish, here: let's drop her...until we can read her"

Well, hooray for that, David! It would be a relief not to have to fight windmills anymore...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"I am not telling you, or anyone else, that a signature cannot change in its elements over time. You can see, however, that in this case – specifically the case of GWT Hutchinson – this particular signature appears to change very little over more than a decade."

But as I have written to Ben, Crystal, that decade is NOT connected to the signatures we are looking at in the Police report. They were written ten years BEFORE we meet Toppy in writing, AND it would seem that the man who signed the three signatures in the report actually experimented with styles in writing his capital "H" - that leads me to think that he may have taken special care when writing, and that in itīs turn may also have had an effect on it all. Itīs TWO parametres that must be weighed in, but you fail to mention them for some reason. Why is that? Just because we know that Toppys signature looked very much the same in 1898 and 1911, it does not mean that it must have done so ten years earlier, does it? Why pretend that lapse was never there?

"You can compare Elvis with Toppy if you like – you can compare whoever you like – but it won’t necessarily have any meaning to anyone but you."

But my argument was not that Toppy would have been Elvis, was it? It was that a 19:th century Victorian ALSO could change elements of style - something you open your post by admitting. And THAT takes no education to realize!

The best, Crystal!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Just a correction:
When I wrote, in my post to Crystal, " Just because we know that Toppys signature looked very much the same in 1898 and 1911, it does not mean that it must have done so ten years earlier, does it?", it was theoretically correct. Practically, though, we of course know that the signatures ARE very much alike - spanning a time of 23 years altogether.
I was simply slightly amazed that an expert on these types of questions would suggest that the likeness inbeteen a 1898 signature and a 1911 signature would somehow implicate that a 1888 signature by the same hand must have looked EXACTLY the same. If it did not change in THAT decade, why would it have done so even in the slightest a full ten years before, sort of. It sounds distinctly un-expertiselike to me. But maybe I donīt understand things like these? What say you, Crystal?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I didn't hear any of these sources talk about the methods she used, and how much time she spent using them. Did you? Until we know something precise, it's hearsay and dismissable for that reason, much as in court.

She's an expert in her particular field; that of document examination, so we might reasonably expect that she applied her professionalism and experience. None of that is dismissable in the slightest. In is, irrefutably, indisputably, end-of-conversation, an overhwelmingly strong probability that she her opinion was a hugely informed one, and that her background-enriched reasoning was soung.

We have precisely the same equipment as Sue Iremonger had in order to undertake this task.

But we don't have the same degree of experience to make sense of - and thus arrive at informed conclusions from - the evidence that we are equipped with, Gareth.