Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

Well, Ben, the fact that one of Swedens foremost document examiners has just said that Toppys writing tallies with the police report to such an extent that he can hardly be ruled out as the writer, actually makes him an EXTREMELY likely candidate.

How does that work?

"Can hardly be ruled out" = "extremely likely candidate"...?!?

There must be some language barrier/issue here, because in English, an assertion that something cannot be ruled out bears not the slightest resemblance to "extremely likely candidate". "Cannot be ruled out" is more akin to "not impossible", and is a long way from the ringing endorsement you've come away from.

With sincere respect, that's a significant misinterpretation.

No, Ben, but then again, you read Leander in much the same fashion as the devil reads the Bible, don´t you?

Whatever do you mean?

I quoted directly from his letter.

He said that there could be numerous explanations to the deviances.

No, he didn't say that at all. Not in the translation you provided. Nothing about the explanations being "numerous" at all. He mentioned that the similarities were offset by the differences, which he enumerated.

who is in fact so close a match that there is nothing that rules him out as the possible writer

Again, you're making a huge leap here. If a match "cannot be ruled out" that does not mean that the match is "so close", which is why he said nothing of that nature in the letter you provided. Observing that the differences could be explained by reason X or reason Y doesn't mean that they ARE explained by them, a reality that the gentleman appears to appreciate.

And what did I say? I said that Leander may have reasoned

I'm not interested in what he "may have reasoned". I'm interested in what he actually said, and from having perused his actual words, I see no major conflict with my own views on the subject. If he didn't actually use such words as "overall likeness", it's probably not the best idea to wrap that phrase in quotation marks.

Don´t you think that Leander is sure that it could have been the same man?

He said it can't be ruled out.

Did or did not Leander identify a whole number of possible explanations to the deviances?

1 is a "whole number", isn't it? He certainly didn't provide "numerous" possible explanations. It just seems as though your picking expressions of your own that would make Leander's views appear more Toppy-endorsing than they actually are.

Leander did not say "It may have been him, but it probably was not", the way you need things to be.

I don't "need" that at all.

I'll stick with what he said, which was "cannot rule him out".

[DVV]

If you're referring to the conscious imitation, then yes, but what we are told by Martin Fido via Jmenges, is that she was definitely sure it was Badham's handwriting, although the H is nothing like the two Hs he used when he wrote the word 'Hutchinson' twice in the body of the statement.

Conscious imitation only.
She said "pehaps". Or "maybe". Or something like that.
For sure.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"As to the "style" and "level of handwriting", this can be explained by the fact that Hutch and Toppy belonged to the same social class, generation, etc, and have certainly learnt to write in the same kind of school, with the same method."

It can´t, I´m afraid - we were two thousand children in my old school, and each and everybody of them developed personal traits and styles. Of course, the school days affected us all and ruled the general guidelines of our writing abilities, but the manner of writing is a very personal thing. If it was not so, then it would put people like Frank Leander out of work in a jiffy.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:

"How does that work?"

We have a handful of candidates. The possibility that any of these would have a signature that offered a possible match is EXTREMELY small. And that is how it works.

"Whatever do you mean?"

I´d be a lot more inclined to explain that if you were a little less inclined not to believe anything that goes against that theory of yours.

My writing:
"who is in fact so close a match that there is nothing that rules him out as the possible writer

Yours:
Again, you're making a huge leap here. If a match "cannot be ruled out" that does not mean that the match is "so close", which is why he said nothing of that nature in the letter you provided"

Frank Leander sees nothing that rules him out as a possibility. The differences can all be explained. It is dead simple - once you want to understand. When you need not to, it´s another story. You are just being obstructive here, Ben, and for no good reason.

Mine:
"Don´t you think that Leander is sure that it could have been the same man?"

Yours:
"He said it can't be ruled out."

Does that, Ben, or does it not mean that Leander is sure that it COULD have been the same man? Stupid, unworthy semantic chit-chat again!

"He certainly didn't provide "numerous" possible explanations."

He NAMED THREE, and he added that there were other, similar possibilities. meaning that we are speaking of ANY number over four - and THAT is numerous. In fact, he left the door open for much more than that.

And that is where we end up - you are making useless semantic points, easily disproven. It is as Sam and Mike and I have already said numerous times - you are so biased that you cannot see the simplest fact that does not tally with your dreamt-up scenario. It´s a disgrace, and it´s a gross misuse of the boards - and my patience.
Surely, you must be able to do a little bit better if you try? Or am I following you around again, Ben?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

We have a handful of candidates.

But how do we know this? How do we know that the real witness must belong in that handful?

It is as Sam and Mike and I have already said numerous times - you are so biased that you cannot see the simplest fact that does not tally with your dreamt-up scenario.

What doesn't? There's really no need to get aggressive here. I've simply taken the observations of Mr. Leander as they stand, which was to the effect that Toppy "cannot be ruled out" as the witness. How you can describe that as a "gross misuse of the boards" is beyond me.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But how do we know this? How do we know that the real witness must belong in that handful?"

It is not a question of knowing, Ben. There must always be doubt attached to most parts of the Ripper case, and in some cases people will fuel that doubt in absurdum.
And much as we don´t know that the witness was actually one of the George Hutchinsons around, we DO know that he signed the police report in a fashion that tallied with how a real George Hutchinson did it. That is as close as we are EVER going to get, I feel.
And surely you must agree that if the witness was an imposter, it would be strange in the extreme - or even more strange than so, but I can´t find the words for it - that it just so happened that one of the very few REAL George Hutchinsons wrote his signature in a manner that makes one of Swedens most renowned forensic document examiners state that we may be looking at a match.
How big do you reckon that chance would be for this to happen if we are dealing witn an imposter? Well, that hinges on how often people both have the exact same name AND write their signatures in a way that makes highly experienced document examiners say that we are dealing with a possible match, does it not? And I don´t know the real figure here - but I don´t think guessing that it is a less than one in a million would be a bold thing to do.

When I speak of a gross misuse of the boards, Ben, I refer to the stalling tactics that make you fault me for saying that Leander recognized that there could have been numerous explanations to the deviances. You tell me that he never specifically mentioned the word "numerous" - but we can all see for ourselves that he named three specified explanations and then added that other, similar types of explanations were also around. That means that we are speaking of a lower estimate of four to five explanations, and an upper estimate where Leander fixed no limit.
Don´t you agree that it is below useful discussion standards to question my choice of the word "numerous" here?
When I speak of a misuse, I also refer to your questioning that I wrote that Leander was sure that the signatures could have been written by the same hand. You retorted that he only said that it could not be ruled out. But that, Ben, amounts to the exact same - Leander looked at the signatures and saw that they were so good matches that he could not rule out that they were by the same hand. And when you cannot rule it out, you are sure that they COULD have been written by the same hand.

Now, why in the whole world would you nit-pick about this? It only brings unworthy obstruction to the issue, since I have not misrepresented Leander in any fashion. I would much rather that you presented constructive criticism, but you choose to bend and distort semantically. And that amounts to a misuse of the boards in my eyes. I´m sorry to say it, and I would much further have it the other way around, but there you are.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

And much as we don´t know that the witness was actually one of the George Hutchinsons arund, we DO know that he signed the police report in a fashion that tallied with how a real George Hutchinson did it.

Fair enough, Fisherman, as long as you understand that other people don't agree that the police report tallied with Toppy's signature.

And surely you must agree that if the witness was an impost, it would be strange in the extreme - or even more strange than so, but I can´t find the words for it - that it just so happened that one of the very few REAL George Hutchinsons wrote his signature in a manner that makes one of Swedens most renowned forensic document examiners state that we may have a match.

It would only be strange if I felt they did match. I don't think they do. I don't think the possibility of their being the same should be "ruled out" - with a nod to the circumspect views of Mr. Leander - but at the same time, I don't see the likelihood of a match, and for that reason, I view the possibility of an imposter or "alias" to be a reasonable one.

A possible match is very different to a probable one, and at least two document examiners (possibly three) subscribe to the view that Toppy and the witness are a mismatch. This further reduces the "strangeness" of the alias/imposter premise, in my view.

Don´t you agree that it is below useful discussion standards to question my choice of the word "numerous" here?

I think it would have been better if you'd just quoted his actual words when addressing the subject of possible explanations for the differences. But that's just my view.

Leander looked at the signatures and saw that they were so good matches that he could not rule out that they were by the same hand

But the fact that he "could not rule it out" doesn't mean that he thought the match was "so good". If you argue that something shouldn't be ruled out, you're essentially saying that it's not impossible. That's not the same as saying it's probable. I would say that the possibility of their being written by the same hand shouldn't be "ruled out", but I certainly don't think they're a "good match".

I'm honestly not trying to battle semantics here, but the distinction here is a crucial one.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Oh No! Still fighting! Frankly, the last earth shattering thing to happen on this thread happened over a hundred pages ago.
I need a drink.

[Sam Flynn]

They do match, as we can read from Leanders verdict.

Leander... what a Hero! (← ← Ancient Greek joke)

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Fair enough, Fisherman, as long as you understand that other people don't agree that the police report tallied with Toppy's signature"

How, Ben, could I POSSIBLY miss that??? But I really don´t award it all that much interest, since I have seen with my own eyes that it is a very good match, plus I have had that wiew concurred with by the perhaps most renowned expert in the field that my country has to offer (and before you tell me that Leander never phrased it a very good match, let me assure you that only very close likeness gets to be treated as a possible match).

"I view the possibility of an imposter or "alias" to be a reasonable one"

I don´t rule it out, in fact. One never should, without total certainty. But I do not regard it as a reasonable possibility any longer, not by any means. Given the opposition it is up against - the general fact that people more often than not give their true identities, the rarity of serial killers in general and specifically that of serialists who are imposters, going to the police, plus the assessment made by Frank Leander - in my book it would stretch credulity to never before seen limits if it was to be that way.

"A possible match is very different to a probable one"

Yes - and taken together with the surrounding circumstances, Leanders words easily add up to a very, very probable one.

"But the fact that he "could not rule it out" doesn't mean that he thought the match was "so good". "

It does, I´m afraid - it means that the compatibility was good enough for him to rule that we may have a match. In other words, it was so good that he deemed it a possible match. Semantics again, Ben. It seems that words like "good", "numerous", "easily" and such are words that you are desperate to keep away from this issue. But they belong there, and they have done so right from the start.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"the last earth shattering thing to happen on this thread happened over a hundred pages ago"

Well, Crystal, if you don´t want to award the wiews of one of the most renowned Swedish forensic document examiners any value, you are of course right.
On the other hand, when you realize that we for the first time have a full and detailed statement by a true expert in the field, telling us that the features involved in the signatures may mean that we are looking at a match, you should perhaps upgrade your level of interest a bit...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Too easy..
Fisherman-I applaud your efforts. I do. I just don't see what this proves? Who said Toppy couldn't be the witness, exactly? Doesn't mean he was.

[Sam Flynn]

Oh, but he almost certainly was, Crystal. There's very little room for doubt - none whatsoever, in my view.

[Fisherman]

Crystal asks:

"Who said Toppy couldn't be the witness, exactly? Doesn't mean he was."

A few people said that Toppy WOULD not be the witness, Crystal. That is why it is useful to have Frank Leander telling us that there is reason to believe that he was. Just like Sam, I am of the wiew that the chance that Toppy was not the witness is so microscopical that it ends up like nothing more than a courteous bow to those who have not yet abandoned the sinking ship of dys-Toppy...(how about that one for a pun, eh?)

The best,
Fisherman

[Stephen Thomas]

Hi Crystal,

Caz is a sad, bored old woman with a Maybrick fixation, and with such emptiness of intellect that she has recently been reduced to following me around wherever she can, trying to pick up on perceived errors because she knows it irritates me. She knows full well that we're all susceptible to the sort of errors that she delights to highlight. She's knows that my writing abilities are vastly superior to her own and her silly daughter's, and she knows I'm aware of the difference between "bearing" and "baring". I substituted one for the other because I was writing in haste. Reasonable people would accept this.

Hi Ben

You no doubt thought you'd got away with that one, didn't you?

Well, you haven't.

The above is just a desperate slur on a very nice person.

Pathetic stuff on your part if I may say so.