Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Sam Flynn]

I still don't agree, Gareth. We might think we are, but that may be based on our - possibly quite erroneous - belief in the simplicity of the task.

I have been privileged to have learned from Profs Michael Morgan and Richard L. Gregory (renowned authorities in the fields of visual perception and cognition), and Prof Peter Mobbs, an expert in the neurophysiology of the eye. In all humility, Ben, my judgment is unlikely to be all that erroneous in this particular context.

If there were a hint that one or more of these documents were forged we might have cause to consult a specialist in such things, but that is not the case here. We have before us the images of five official signatures, made in entirely different circumstances, spanning a period of 23 years. If ever a problem sat largely within the ambit of basic visual perception, this is it.

[claire]

That said, I can only repeat that neither I, nor Ben, should be awarded the donkeys role for digging deep in search of the truth. That role is reserved for those who meekly accept things without going through the bother of checking them out first.

The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fisherman...it was really a joke I'm yet to be convinced of the signatures myself; although I can certainly see some basic similarities, I also see some key differences. So I'm interested to see what an expert has to verify re. the signatures compared, since my lay abilities, the sorts that Gareth is talking about, see differences and similarities. And then analytical approaches kick in and I settle on the differences...so for me, it's a two stage approach: the visual apprehension, and the analytical one.

[Fisherman]

I KNOW it was a joke, Claire, and I did smile - promise! I just took the chance to regroup my defence, since I feel that I want to urge the participators on this issue not to gloat, whatever outcome we will see. The debate has been an infected one, and I can sense the risk, and I don´t like it. That´s why I wrote what I wrote.

As for the suggestion on your behalf that there are likenesses and discrepancies involved in the signatures, I can only say that there must be; no two signatures are exactly alike. But just like Sam, the likeness involved here leaves me in no doubt. Still, it will be interesting if Miss Iremonger takes the time to complete the picture.

I think that what is sometimes forgotten here is the almightily important question of context. If you take the -88, the -98 and the -11 signatures that Sam uses in his award-expecting movie, I think that the handwriting is so similar that it would be easily detectable even if the three samples had NOT been signatures. If number one had said "Let´s see if you can spot the similarity here", number two had said "It really should not be all that hard" and number three had said "There you are - you managed it in the end", I am totally - totally! - confident that it would be quite enough for us to state that the three strains could have been written by the same man.

But that is not what they say, is it? No, they say "George Hutchinson", "George Hutchinson" and "George Hutchinson", respectively. And we KNOW that the group of possible George Hutchinsons is a very, very limited one, just as we KNOW that the particular George Hutchinson we take an active interest in here was a man who was stated by his own son to have said that he in fact WAS the Dorset Street witness! Of the other George Hutchinsons that we have come across there is not a hint of such a thing.

Therefore we must ask ourselves just how large the chance is that one out of the handful of George Hutchinsons available would have a signature that tallied extremely well with those on the police report – unless, of course, he was the witness himself.
I would say that chance is ridiculously slim.
And when it just so happens that the one George Hutchinson who HAS that similar signature, is in fact the very same G H that purportedly claimed that he WAS the Dorset Street witness, then the possibility that we have not found the right man fades beyond reasonable doubt.

So it is not just a question of comparing the handwriting in itself - it is also a question of the circumstances involved. Taken on it´s own, the similarity in handwriting is overwhelming. Taken together with the obvious fact that both signatures say "George Hutchinson", thereby cutting the material to a mere handful of possibilities, we can make a case that in itself seems pretty watertight. And when we add what we know about Toppys claims, we are on as firm ground as we could possibly hope to reach.

If I should have one of my unsecure days, all I have to do is to take a look at Sams post number 281 to this thread. On it, the -88 signature from page three of the police protocol is on top of the -98 signature. The -88 variant is softer and less dark in appearance. To me, that makes it look as if the sun is shining on the -98 signature, producing a shadow in the form of the -88 signature over and underneath it. It is as spot on as any document examiner could ask for.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

In all humility, Ben, my judgment is unlikely to be all that erroneous in this particular context.

But in so saying, you're essentially acknowledging that experience counts for a great deal, which of course it does, otherwise you wouldn't be highlighting any training you may have undertaken. Sue Iremonger obviously has more training and expertise in this particular field that anyone contributing to this discussion, and as such, her views carry tremendous weight, which is why we're interested in ascertaining her view, and why Bob Hinton saw fit to include a mentioned of Iremonger's view in his book.

Fundamentally, I reject the premise that "this job's so simple that we're all as good as eachother!".

Hi Fisherman,

Gosh, what a long post.

If you take the -88, the -98 and the -11 signatures that Sam uses in his award-expecting movie, I think that the handwriting is so similar that it would be easily detectable even if the three samples had NOT been signatures.

Ah, but I think they're not so similar at all, the marriage signature in particular, so I disagree that the similarity would be easily detectable if the samples weren't signatures.

I am totally - totally! - confident that it would be quite enough for us to state that the three strains could have been written by the same man.

And I am totally - totally!!!! - confident of the complete opposite. If the two parties were writing anything other than "George Hutchinson", the differences would be even more marked and there would be no possibility entertained that they were written by the same person. Friendly tip here; there's really no need for any of us here to keep endlessly reinforcing whether we think they match of not. We've stated our views, and we're now just engaging in pointless repetition.

And we KNOW that the group of possible George Hutchinsons is a very, very limited one

And within that group, there are known better handwriting matches than Toppy, as far as I'm concerned.

just as we KNOW that the particular George Hutchinson we take an active interest in here was a man who was stated by his own son to have said that he in fact WAS the Dorset Street witness!

And the biographical information he includes doesn't tally remotely with what we know to be true of the witness who introduced himself as George Hutchinson. Besides which, the son made a claim in widely discredited royal conspiracy book purporting to be non-fiction, to the point of conceding that his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill! The other potential George Hutchinson's, including the much larger number of individuals who could have introduced themselves to police with a false name, are all the more viable given the fact that no such nonsensical baggage is attached to their potential "claim".

Therefore we must ask ourselves just how large the chance is that one out of the handful of George Hutchinsons available would have a signature that tallied extremely well with those on the police report – unless, of course, he was the witness himself.

But if we don't believe for a moment that the signatures tally at all, let alone "extremely well", there's obviously no point in asking ourselves that question, is it? For those who already accept that Reg's account contains numerous bogus elements, and who also subscribe to the view that Toppy's signature doesn't match the witnesses, it's a relatively simple argument for dismissing Toppy as the witness. In fact, if Toppy seems unlikely as the witness before, he seems even more so now that the signatures have been made public.

So it is not just a question of comparing the handwriting in itself - it is also a question of the circumstances involved.

And if mis-matched handwriting tallies nicely with an implausible story, there is considerable justification for casting Toppy aside as the witness. You're arguing that a combination of factors increase the likelihood of Toppy being the witness, whereas I subscribe to the reverse view, satisfying myself that the sum of all parts points even more conclusively to his not having been the witness.

Taken on it´s own, the similarity in handwriting is overwhelming.

I don't think it is, remotely.

If I should have one of my unsecure days, all I have to do is to take a look at Sams post number 281 to this thread.

Me too. Please everyone keep consulting that. It's what I do.

But please, we've heard countless times which people think they match and which people reject the idea. We don't need continued reminders.

It is as spot on as any document examiner could ask for.

And yet a document examiner believed they didn't match.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Fundamentally, I reject the premise that "this job's so simple that we're all as good as eachother!".

The job involves the complex interplay of cells in the eye and brain, so I'm not arguing that it's simple - just highly evolved and inbuilt. I'd go so far as to say that there's a fair chance that a lab-rat or a pigeon would be able to do it.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"please, we've heard countless times which people think they match and which people reject the idea. We don't need continued reminders"

Since it seemingly has illuded you, Ben: You have provided half of them reminders yourself...!

"the biographical information he includes doesn't tally remotely with what we know to be true of the witness who introduced himself as George Hutchinson. Besides which, the son made a claim in widely discredited royal conspiracy book purporting to be non-fiction, to the point of conceding that his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill! The other potential George Hutchinson's, including the much larger number of individuals who could have introduced themselves to police with a false name, are all the more viable given the fact that no such nonsensical baggage is attached to their potential "claim"."

To some extent, it all boils down to what we think about Hutch, Ben. And I think he was an attention-seeker. I am in no way certain that he actually knew Kelly, let alone that he did so on the night in question.

Now, Ben, ask yourself why some people embellish on stories. Why do they add things like, say, red seal stones, golden chains and Randolph Churchill to stories that reasonably would have been a little - or a lot - less glamorous from the outset?
Here´s my humble suggestion: They do so because they want people´s attention. At least that is the normal reason; there are of course also the exclusive club of serial killers who venture into these realms to save their bacon...ehrm...

What I am saying is that the salient point is that Toppy laid claim to the Dorset Street witness title, and that carries tremendeous weight as we assess the evidence. The point that he - and his non-Ripper-interested son - may have made up rambling stories is just as useful to me as it is to you, for it presents us with the picture of an attention-seeker, doing exactly what attention-seekers do; embellish their stories, and spice them up.

After that all we have to do is to ask ourselves whether a man who exhibits this kind of behaviour is statistically more likely to be a poor sod who likes attention or a sly, chancetaking, stealthy serial killer. And that makes a healthy change to the topic of comparing the signatures for here we do i fact have exactly what you are looking for: Two entities that are not remotely alike.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Sue Iremonger obviously has more training and expertise in this particular field

No, she hasn't, Ben. She has more experience of forensic document examination, which is a rather different problem-space than we have here. This is not about forensic document examination - it's about the comparison of a set of non-faked signatures. Something we can all do, provided we have functioning eyes... or possibly beaks and whiskers.

[jmenges]

According to the information I'm aware of, Iremonger compared the three witness statement pages and concluded that Sgt. Badlam definitely signed page one in imitation of GH's signatures on pages two and three since GH forgot to sign the first page. (an 1889 example of Badham's writing might be found in MEPO 3/140 f. 272-273).

She also stated that is was merely her opinion that the Hutchinson signatures on the last two sheets of the statement are not written by the signatory of Reg Hutchinson’s father’s marriage certificate. But in the light of the 10 year gap between the two documents, she was not prepared to go further than stating it as her opinion.

It is not believed that Iremonger issued a written report, tho she could have. If she did, some prominent Ripper researchers involved in those Diary days have not seen it.

JM

[Fisherman]

Hi Jon!

Thanks for sharing!

At any rate, if you are right on this, it would seem that the Iremonger balloon is significantly deflated; it would leave us in the dark regarding what details made her come up with her conclusions, just as it would leave us with no knowledge which wedding certificate signature she actually used - long as we have no certainty, that all-important detail remains a dark cloud hanging over the heads of the pro-Iremongers .

Plus she obviously left it all open at the end of the day, and never stated any real certainty about it all.

I think a controlled examination by an acknowledged authority, documenting things as she/he goes along is what we are looking for. If the Iremonger examination amounts to no more than this, it is by and large useless.

Best regards,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

JM,

Ms. Iremonger wrote an article called: Jack the Ripper Revisited in which, I believe, she discusses the signatures.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Since it seemingly has illuded you, Ben: You have provided half of them reminders yourself...!

Not unprovoked I don't. I only reiterate my belief in their dissimilarity when people insist upon reminding us for the umpteenth time that they discern a match.

To some extent, it all boils down to what we think about Hutch, Ben

Not when contemplating this particular question, Fish. I view them as entirely seperate questions. The prudent course of action is to assess the likelihood of Toppy being the witness in question, and then deciding how that impacts on how we view Hutch. That's the way round we do it. We don't let the emerging evidence be prejudiced by preconceptions as to character.

All this is off-topic in the extreme, and for that reason I hope we're not going to pursue a Hutch-as-ripper tangent, but briefly; I've no doubt that Hutchinson was an attention-seeker, albeit not in this particular guise that you envisage. In this instance, I believe that certain circumstances militate against the pure attention-seeker premise; specifically, that he came forward and admitted to standing outisde, and with an interest in, the crime scene at 2:30am on the morning of Kelly's murder as soon as it transpired that another witness had seen someone doing precisely that at the same time.

To me, this bolsters the bacon-saving premise better than the attention-seeking theory. Yes, serial killers have supplied the police with false information - sometimes elaborately false - out of self-preservation. It would be inappropriate to pursue the tangent here, given that it has been discussed elsewhere, and copying and pasting huge chunks from elsewhere will simply bury the thread.

There are plenty of discussions of Hutchinson's character elsewhere.

What I am saying is that the salient point is that Toppy laid claim to the Dorset Street witness title, and that carries tremendeous weight as we assess the evidence.

Until we contemplate the nature of that claim, and having studied it, I feel that it points away from Toppy having been the witness, just as the signatures do. In fact, I consider that they mutually support the theory that Toppy was not the witness.

After that all we have to do is to ask ourselves whether a man who exhibits this kind of behaviour is statistically more likely to be a poor sod who likes attention or a sly, chancetaking, stealthy serial killer.

Statistics are irrelevent in the absence of the individual case-specifics, and as I've mentioned before, in this case, I feel the attention-seeker premise fails to account for the coincidence of Hutchinson coming forward as soon as Lewis' evidence entered into the public domain.

Back on topic, please. Or else.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

No, she hasn't, Ben. She has more experience of forensic document examination, which is a rather different problem-space than we have here. This is not about forensic document examination - it's about the comparison of a set of non-faked signatures.

No, Gareth.

Document examination is her field of expertise, and signature comparison falls into that catergory. Since she is professsionally trained and inexperienced in examining presumably hundreds of signatures, she's still a better candidate for the job than a bloke off the street, irrespective of the apparent simplicity of the task.

Thanks very much for that info, Jonathan! Very interesting detail about the first signature.

At any rate, if you are right on this, it would seem that the Iremonger balloon is significantly deflated

Oh, for fcuk's sake..

You know full way that you'd say that whatever information Jonathan provided. It doesn't deflate the Iremonger balloon at all. It lends addition support for the observations made in Bob Hinton's book; that Iremonger compared the signatures and believed them to be a mismatch. It most emphatically does not leave us in the dark when it comes to assessing which signature she used; she used Toppy's marriage certificate signature, and David was kind enough to provide a copy of that. THE marriage certificate signature; there aren't more than one!

She expressed her opinion; which carries great weight considering her professional background and expertise. There was never any suggestion that she expressed "certainty", in fact I'd be less inclined to respect her views if she used the sort of silly over-robust terminology favoured by internet hobbyist keyboard warriors. To argue that this deflates the Iremonger "balloon" reveals a palpably biased and desperate attempt to force-feed any emerging evidence into your conclusions.

I think a controlled examination by an acknowledged authority, documenting things as she/he goes along is what we are looking for. If the Iremonger examination amounts to no more than this, it is by and large useless.

Utter filth. Iremonger IS an acknowledged authority.

[jmenges]

JM,

Ms. Iremonger wrote an article called: Jack the Ripper Revisited in which, I believe, she discusses the signatures.

Mike

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that was the title of her 1993 presentation at the World Assn. of Document Examiners conference. I was unaware that it was also the title of a published article.

JM

[The Good Michael]

JM,

I wasn't there. I assumed it was published, but perhaps it was merely a Powerpoint presentation or something.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I only reiterate my belief"

...and I only reiterate MY belief. Why is it that this makes only me guilty of repeating myself?

"I view them as entirely seperate questions."

Yes. But no more so than allowing yourself to bring them into discussion, as you did when you brought up the Churchill thing.

"Until we contemplate the nature of that claim, and having studied it, I feel that it points away from Toppy having been the witness"

So, Ben, if I understand this correctly, you think that based on the material you feel we should not discuss here since it does not belong to the thread, the most reliable conclusion we can come up with is that when we have a George Hutchinson of whom it was said that he stated that he was the Dorset Street witness, is that this points very much in a direction AWAY from him...?

It does not do anything of the sort, I´m afraid - it urges us to put him at the top of the list when we pursue the question, and nothing else. It actually ought to go without saying, but very few things do on this thread, so I can´t say I´m surprised.

"Utter filth. Iremonger IS an acknowledged authority."

I know she is. But it would seem that she may be an authority that has left us with no written or pictorial evidence. And if that is the case, then a close comparison can be made with God´s ten commandments. We all know Moses is said to have had them in his possession, but we will be hard pressed to find evidence for it.
So it is not - as usual, as ever - a question of the valiant Ben having to defend Miss Iremongers reputation from being stained by the Fishmonster. That is the way you would like it to look is it not? Smokescreens, Ben, nothing else. I am sure Miss Iremonger is a quality researcher and probably a very nice lady at that. But if she has left us without substantiation, then her assertion becomes close to useless. Surely you can see that, Ben?

"she used Toppy's marriage certificate signature, and David was kind enough to provide a copy of that. THE marriage certificate signature; there aren't more than one!"

There is not more than one REAL such, Ben. But there was the one Sam was provided with, looking for the REAL one. And where there is no proof, there must be doubt. It may be a tough pill to swallow, but there you are.

And at the end of the day, we still have not been presented with one scrap of details from the Iremonger investigation, not one picture, not one quotation - nothing. What you treat as cast-iron, Ben, is air so far. Thin air.

The best,
Fisherman