Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Garry Wroe]

Hello All.

It's an obvious point, I know, but one that appears to be getting lost in the present discussion. Whilst there are clear similarities between the Hutchinson and Toppy handwriting samples, their signatures are entirely different, courtesy of the inclusion of William in the Toppy specimen.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

I anxiously await your findings, Crystal!

My appreciative thanks for this.

Edit to the above post:

He mentioned that the similarities weighed "against" the similarities

Should be: "He mentioned that the differences weighed against the similarities."

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Vieux motard que j'aimais...

Amitiés all,
David

Hi All

Just when you thought it was safe to come out...

Tomorrow morning, I'm going to Kew to view Hutchinson's statement. Yes, tomorrow.

Watch this space....

[Ben]

Just when I was ready to let this thread drift quietly away…

Of course, it is only fair to note that the translation provided by Crystal's Swedish friend differs in some respects from the translation Fisherman provided:

"Hello again!

I strongly want to underline your opinion that comparative examinations of signatures has to be done with original material and I/we would have no possibility to write an expert opinion/report on the attached material. Under the circumstances present I would however want to express myself as follows:

It is hardly possible to exclude that it is the same person that is involved – there is a number of correspondences of general characteristic (style characteristic, the level of writing skill, the extension of the writing, some proportions) and as far as can be judged from the copy also some form correspondences regarding individual letters. These similarities must however be put against the differences concerning some penn-liftings (?), the proportions in the tch-group and the perhaps most prominent differences in some letter-forms; G (basic form), r and n at the end of the signature. The differences could/could possibly be explained with H. being relatively young at the first time of writing, the circumstances when writing, such as limited space for writing, the function of the pen or similar. The upper most signature is however most in contrast the rest, definitely.

To sum up, you will have to see the above written as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a professional handwriting statement/report/opinion, because that can never come into consideration/question when the material looks like it does!

Good look with the investigation/search"

But then the various problems arose. It was illustrated, by quoting the above (and Fisherman's) translation verbatim, that Leander conveyed no impression that he thought the match to be a "probable" one. He mentioned that the similarities weighed "against" the similarities, but that the latter were insufficient to "rule out" or "exclude" Toppy as the witness. If you argue that something cannot be ruled out, you're not declaring it to be "probable". If he secretly thought the match was probable, he certainly didn't convey any such thinking in his initial post.

Clearly dissatisfied with this, Fisherman started to put words in Leander's mouth that didn't appear in his first letter. For example, Fisherman referred to there being "numerous" or "many" explanations for the differences between the statement signatures and those of Toppy. After reminding anyone who needed reminding that the explanations for the differences were only “possible” ones (and not necessarily explanations that he felt actually DID come into play in this case), I was quick to draw attention to the fact that Leander used no such adjective. Nothing about "many", and nothing about "numerous". Back he went to Leander, who "clarified" with the following:

"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".

How odd that the very word that Fisherman wrongly claimed appeared in Leander's first post suddenly appeared in Leander's rather timely "second" post? But that wasn't the only example of this unsettling phenomenon. Shortly after publishing Leander's first letter, Fisherman argued that the letter spoke of an "overall likeness". I quickly pointed out that, as with the words "numerous and "many", Leander had said no such thing in his initial letter, so Fisherman re-established contact with Leander for a THIRD time, with the following result:

”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness, and it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".

By some fishy coincidence, "Leander" had now elaborated on his initial comments using the very expression, "overall likeness", that Fisherman erroneously attributed to him in his first letter.

Now, by post #4, one forms the very distinct impression that Leander is starting to tire of being asked to "clarify" continually by Fisherman, hence the observation: "I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail". If people are incapable of detecting a certain "Please leave me alone, I've already told you what I think a billion times already" subtext into Leander's words, I'm incredibly surprised. True to form, Fisherman was not deterred, and so he allegedly asked Leander to "clarify" again. Unfortunately, the gist of his purported observations in post #5 (yes, that's how many times Fisherman asked Leander to clarify a message that was abundantly clear the first time) were radically different to anything he said in his initial post, effectively cancelling out any worth in any of his posts.

By bombarding the poor man incessantly, and with demonstrably misleading and erroneous information, Fisherman has succeeded in eradicating the value of Leader's first letter, which everyone will agree was the very picture of circumspection when it first appeared. If he was truly responsible for all the posts Fisherman claims Leander was responsible for, we are obliged to take a dim view of an "expert" who succumbs to pressure and bias, of an "expert" who becomes progressively more Toppy-endorsing with each bombardment.

I note with disdain that Fisherman is still trying to mutate “cannot be ruled out” or “hardly possible to exclude” into synonyms of “probable”, and he does so on the unacceptable basis that some institutions bizarrely misinterpret and misuse such basic phrases, and that Leader must belong to one such institution. Unfortunately for this argument, you cannot change written communication and dictionary definitions. If anyone uses either of those phrases to mean "probable", they are misappropriating a phrase to a drastic extent, ill-becoming of an expert. He or she is simply not saying what s/he means. “Cannot be ruled out” means the same thing to the man on the street as it does to the expert analyst or any other functioning human being with a basic understanding of written communication.

Both phrases could be classed as “positive” observations, and indeed, I agree with Leander that it would constitute the lowest form of positive commentary, but neither could be used for conveying a belief that a given hypothesis is “probable”.

I certainly never claimed that Leander felt the match to be a poor one, but neither did his initial letter insinuate, even vaguely that he came down in favour of there being a match. It was inconclusive. He couldn’t rule it out. He couldn’t exclude the possibility. That’s it. If he later came down in favour of a match, then I’m afraid he wouldn’t have been “clarifying” a stance. He would have been contradicting it.

I think it would have been better if Fisherman had simply left Leander’s initial observations stand.

Fisherman -

Did it really take you the best part of two days to think all that up?

Oh Dear!

Once Again - with feeling - I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.

And if you persist in insisting that Leander changed his initial neutral and non-committal stance to you in a personal, spontaneous response, which was never intended to be published on this bloody awful thread and fought over, and picked over, and torn to shreds by the rabid posting dogs that have frequented the neighbourhood of late; then I WILL phone him up and ask him.

Yes. I will. Please don't think I won't. Come clean or suffer the consequences. This has gone far enough.

And ONCE AGAIN - If it transpires that Leander HAS altered his view to the extent which you suggest - one presumes - under relentless pressure by you, then I'm afraid that, as Ben so rightly and justly points out, his credibility as an impartial commentator will be somewhat tarnished.

AND, IF he has said what you suggest - namely that he thinks there's a match between the statement and Toppy signatures - based on such poor grade material, AFTER having initially said CATEGORICALLY that any such conclusions were IMPOSSIBLE without seeing the originals - why then, Fisherman:

HE'S NO EXPERT.

Enjoy your fishing. I will.

And just when I thought it was safe to come out of the pub....

But highly amusing, none the less!

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

”Go fishing. Please. You know what you know ... Take some time off. Maybe 2 weeks or so. Gareth will be here to see that things don't get slanted too far in the other direction.”

What a splendid suggestion, Mike! I will take you up on it. I AM going fishing in Norway next week, and it would be a good preparation for the tour to drop this weird thread.
Just like you say, there is need for somebody to see to it that the issue is not slanted too far, and I know full well that there are people around who can take care of it. Sensible, unbiased, logically thinking people.

So why not?

Of course, I will not leave the thread without making my stance perfectly clear once again. And I thought that this would be best made by presenting Leanders posts together and subjecting them to a few questions.
Here they all are:

”Post 1:
”I wish to strongly underline your wiew that comparing research into signatures must be done using the original material and I/we would not have the possibility to write a full expert´s opinion on the material supplied. Under the circumstances, however, I would like to express myself thusly:
It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person - there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters.
Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature.
The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things. The signature at the top (the police report signature from page three of the protocol – my remark) is unquestionably the one that differs most at any rate.
In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!
Good luck with the hunt!
Frank Leander”

Post 2, which answered my query about whether he could see the age in the signature of the man who signed the police report is:

"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences (I had no idea of the persons age and you can normally not make any too certain assessments of age from a persons handwriting)!"

Post 3:
”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness, and it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".

Post 4:
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

Post 5, in response to my question:
”My wiew is that you in your latest mail write that you think that the likeness between the signatures means that you place the match on the positive end of the scale, but that you would need the original documents and more signatures to be a bit more sure about it.
Is that a correct wiew?”

And here´s Frank Leanders answer:

”Yes, that´s about it, or put differently: In an investigation or a search for a wanted person, it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by).
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."

Now, these are a few questions that needs to be answered once again:

A: Does Leander change his mins about the quality of the match at any stage? The question came up as a result of Leander saying that a match ”could not be ruled out” in post 1.

To answer this question, we need to look at post 5. In that post, Leander states that ”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.”

This means that those who believe that ”cannot be ruled out” points to a very unenthusiastic judging of the quality of the match are wrong. ”Cannot be ruled out” is an expression that is professionally used at the SKL to describe a hit on the positive side of the scales.
Now, does a hit on the positive side of the scale mean that it is a probable one? Leander tells us that the expression ”cannot be ruled out” stands for ”the lowest, most careful expression” on that positive side, and so one may reason that such a hit may not be a good one.
Luckily, we can see from the rest of Leanders post that he thinks that the hit is quite a good one, for he writes in the same post that ”In an investigation or a search for a wanted person, it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by).”

Thus we know that Leander is of the meaning that as things stand and at present, he wuld be surprised to learn that Toppy did not sign the police report.

Now, does this stance represent a change from his initial stance? Is there anything that points us to such a thing?
Obviously, when Leander explains exactly what ”cannot be ruled out” stands for in his professional line of work, we know that this expression cannot be used to point to an unenthusiastic judgement of the match.
But is there anything else that goes to point to any undecided standing on Leanders behalf from the outset, something that would later have changed into a markedly decided stance?
On this issue, it has been thrown forward that Leander started out by saying that the differences involved in the signatures would militate against a match.
But does he ever say that? No, he does not. He does never say that the differences militate against a match. Nor does he ever say that thge differences weigh up the likenesses.
Let´s look at it again. What DID he say? He said:

”Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature. ”

So, ”against these matches one must pose differences”. Is there any weighing involved in that sentence? No, there is not – there is nothing but a clarification of the standard procedure – what he tells us is how he goes about things; When he makes a comparison, he takes a look at BOTH the pros and the cons, before he makes any decision. One must pose the differnces against the likenesses, and THEN one comes up with a decision.

And what was the verdict? Can we see that in post one? Yes, we can, because after having told us how he works, Leander adds that ”The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things.”

That is four suggestions of working explanations to the differences named, and by saying ”and similar things” Leander opens up for more possible explanations. In fact, MANY such explanations, as evinced by what he says in post 2, in response to why he spoke of young age on the writers behalf: ”It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences.”

So, from the outset, he stresses that the differences involved could have many explanations, and from the outset he describes the match with a term that he later explains is a term that the SKL use when they want to point to a match on the positive side of the scale.

These two elements, the expression ”cannot be ruled out” and the phrasing ”against these matches one must pose differences” are the only two elements where an interpretation could be made that may point to an unenthusiastic impression of the match on Leanders behalf. But once he tells us what ”cannot be ruled out stands for”, option number one is gone, and once we realize that ”against these matches one must pose differences” is nothing but a description of the working methods and ethics involved, we do not have any other pointer to any unenthusiasm.

What we DO have, however, are a number of quotations that go very well to prove that Leander thought the match a good one from the outset:

”there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters.”

”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness”

”it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it.”

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

”In an investigation or a search for a wanted person, it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by).”

””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.”

The complete and total turnaround suggested by Ben has never been there, as anybody can see. There was never any hint at all from Leanders side that the match was a bad one, and I do not think that Ben has ever suggested that this was so. What Ben suggests is that there was a complete turnaround from lukewarm indifference to large enthusiasm. But as I have shown, none of the two expression Ben has used trying to prove this are relevant in such a context. Leander emphatically shows us that ”cannot be ruled out” does not mean the same thing for a man from the SKL as it does to the man on the street, and Leander never tells us that the differences upweigh the likenesses at all – he instead tells us that there are many possible explanations to their existense, clearly showing us that those who say that the differences can be overcome have an open-and-shut case.


When having come this far, it is understandable if those who do not see Toppy as the witness would cling on to the expression about the differences involved to try and state that Leander was undecided. The other point, on the ”cannot be ruled out expression” is no longer a viable one after Leander tells us what that expression means to him professionally.

In such a situation, we would have at least some sort of a stalemate. And when we do, we need to see if Leander at any stage gives any further guidance to his stance, that can either strengthen the wiew that he was undecided or the polar opposite wiew- that he thought the match a good one. And when we make that test, we immediately realize that the only value-laden wordings on the match are all very positively laden. There is no doubt whatsoever that Frank Leander thought that it was a probable match – as evinced by the very telling phrasing that he would be surprised if it was NOT.

Mike, Sam and all good powers out there – I´m off to fish! It will be a very welcome change. I will be amongst good friends, eat good food (perhaps even fish!) and drink good wine and beer.
In your able hands, I trust the defence of rationality and logic in this issue. I know, Mike, that you have said that you want the indecency of the thread to end, and now you can have just that, at least for some time to come. I´ll drink to you out on the island of Smøla, to you and good sense!

Fisherman

[DVV]

Is there any surprise that the family of Topping refuse to enter any comment

Hi Richard,

Sorry I don't understand...

Is this thread about "Hutch the Ripper" ?
No.

Any expert in document examination in this family ?
They would be welcome.

Amitiés,
David

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
I sense that this mammoth thread is about to be axed, which is not surprising.
We are all individuals , and we all tend to see ,what we want to see, and we are the most reluctant to change any opinions we hold, even if it is staring us straight in the face.
Is there any surprise that the family of Topping refuse to enter any comment , which could be beneficial to Casebook, can you imagine JD, trying to get a honest word in?
I believe strongly that Topping was Hutch, for various reasons, but that is a opinion, but at least it is now firmly on record.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

David,

Honestly, I don't know. I only go by what the current knowledge base is and how I interpret it. I have no doubt about what Leander's intent is, but others interpret it differently. I will say that in order to move some people an inch in either direction may take more than is possible. Not me, however. I can change sides with the best of politicians... or professional rugby players.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Fisherman,
Go fishing. Please. You know what you know. Ben knows what he knows. Neither of you is changing his opinion. Ben will not change his opinion.
Mike

Mike,
I agree, it would be stupid to exchange the same arguments 200 pages more.
But, with respect, I must point out that there is some difference between the two parties, when it comes about "knowing".

Fish, Sam and you think you've found the truth. Toppy was Hutch.
Ben and I think it's not proven. Or let's say not proven yet.
And so does Leander.
And so does Sue Iremonger.

Honestly, I wouldn't be that much surprised if Toppy was Hutch (and that'll be also a great relief).
But to the present day, I still have doubts. Serious doubts. For reasons which have little to do with Hutch's candidacy.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Go fishing. Please. You know what you know. Ben knows what he knows. Neither of you is changing his opinion. Ben will not change his opinion. You can't force him to. The credibility of your case is at stake here. Take some time off. Maybe 2 weeks or so. Gareth will be here to see that things don't get slanted too far in the other direction. Take time off. It's for your own good. If I have to read one more interminable, mind-numbing post of point/counterpoint from either of you, which is worse than ineffectual in this argument as they are so boring and unreadable by any sane person, I will also ask the administrators to close this thread. I will go so far as to see if we can ban all Hutchinson threads and make the name itself a curse word. Go. Just go.

Mike

[DVV]

Oh, and if you're looking for "reasonably courteous debate", I'm afraid comparing me to Adolf Hitler just isn't the ticket.

Maybe not, Ben,

now that we know that "Johnny Upright" means in fact "Johnny Rotten", I bet you've been compared to Gandhi or Mandela.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

He clearly tells us that AS IT STANDS he would be surprised if they were not one and the same

But that's not what he said in his initial letter.

He didn't say anything vaguely resembling that in his original letter.

So the fact that he makes such radically contrasting observations on two seperate occasions effectively eradicates the value of both observations, since he failed to be even remotely consistent. If you had the sense not to keep bombarding Leander until he said something vaguely resembling what you wanted him to say, there would have been no doubts as to his credibility/honesty or yours, but these second, third and fourth "clarifications" are dubious in the extreme, and have done immeasurable damage to both of you, in my view.

AS IT STANDS, though, Leander is of the meaning that Toppy probably was the Dorset Street witness

No, Leander is most emphatically not of that meaning, if we have the sense to accept his original letter, as helpfully translated by Crystal's Swedish friend, and allow it to stand as as a testament to his genuine "spontaneous comment". It betrays not the vaguest trace of an insinuation that Toppy "probably was" the Dorset Street witness. Even you acknowledged that he said no such thing when you were addressing his initial contribution. You know full well that his first latter said nothing about Toppy "probably" being the witness, or anything that could be construed as "meaning" that, and I demonstrated as much by quoting directly from your posts.

It strengthens the suggestion immensely, yes - but even if we were all to agree that Leander probably is right, it will mean only an agreement and not proof.

No. It doesn't strengthen the suggestion, "immensely" or otherwise. What it does is present an entirely neutral stance; one that asserts that, while the similarities are offset by the differences, the latter are insufficient to rule him out as impossible. None of that can ever be construed as meaning that Toppy was "probably" the witness.

And a few people out there (and you know who) seem terribly, terribly afraid to acknowledge the wiews of Leander, even to the degree that they refuse to accept the more outspoken posts

But then I've been quoting him verbatim for the most part, as opposed to putting nonsensical words in his mouth and then bombarding the expert in question until he gives in and says what you desperately wanted him to have said from the outset. Honestly, you accuse the "furious opposition" of not treating Leander with respect, but just how respectful to do think it is to continually bombard the poor man in a transparent attempt to procure a more Toppy-endorsing stance from him than he originally offered, despite his strongly urged caution that a proper expert comparison cannot be made from material of this nature, and despite his rather fervent wish not to be asked to elaborate further.

Oh, and if you're looking for "reasonably courteous debate", I'm afraid comparing me to Adolf Hitler just isn't the ticket.