Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

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...?

Yes, Fish.

This is due to Reg's claims with regard to his father, which are both dubious and biographically at odds with what scant details can be gleaned about the witness. This, combined with what Iremonger, myself, Crystal, Bob and others believe to be a mismatch with the signatures militates very heavily against Toppy being the witness.

If you think a second-hand claim to have been the witness automatically puts him highest on the list of probable candidates, I'd have to disagree very strongly. That logic would propell Maybrick to the top of the suspects list.

I know she is. But it would seem that she may be an authority that has left us with no written or pictorial evidence.

Absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence, besides which we know she gave a lecture in 1993 (with a nod to Jon and Mike for that reminder). The details of the comparison may well have been discussed therein. Either way, the chances are very slim that you'd be able to assess her comparison notes if she made any, which she probably did.

But if she has left us without substantiation, then her assertion becomes close to useless.

Absolutely not.

We'd only need the sort of substantiation you require if any serious doubts were entertained as to what Iremonger compared, and what she concluded from that comparison. There can be no reasonable doubt that any of the parties conspired to invent the whole thing for the hell of it, just as there can be no reasonable doubt that she compared the signatures mentioned by Bob and Jonathan.

So it isn't useless at all. Pretty much everyone here would concede the overwhelming probability that Iremonger DID compare the signatures, and DID come to arrive at the opinion that they didn't match. Your demands for additional "substatiation" don't detract in the least from that overwhelming probability.

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.

So you're saying that Jonathan's obviously illuminating and helpful contribution had no value at all?

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"If you think a second-hand claim to have been the witness automatically puts him highest on the list of probable candidates, I'd have to disagree very strongly. That logic would propell Maybrick to the top of the suspects list."

Can´t remember Maybrick claiming any Ripper fame, Ben. Can you?

"Absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of absence, besides which we know she gave a lecture in 1993 (with a nod to Jon and Mike for that reminder). The details of the comparison may well have been discussed therein."

Ben, I keep hearing about this examination. But no lion-tamer has ever made much of a success by merley speaking about his lions.
It´s been five weeks and more than threehundred posts since I first heard that a famed examiner had put the case to rest. But I see no coffin, no shovel and no priest.
We may be looking at a genuine ressurrection here, to keep up the Biblical connotations.

"Pretty much everyone here would concede the overwhelming probability that Iremonger DID compare the signatures, and DID come to arrive at the opinion that they didn't match"

The ... "probability", was it, Ben? Good - you are on the only reasonable track!

"So you're saying that Jonathan's obviously illuminating and helpful contribution had no value at all."

I am saying that I have no clue as to why Iremonger would have ruled out the possibility that two signatures that are twinlike to my eyes, could have been written by the same man.

Last time over, you tried to make me look as I smudged Iremonger, and now it is Jon. You really need to get a grip, Ben. You are aiming way too low right now, and chances are that people will notice.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Can´t remember Maybrick claiming any Ripper fame, Ben. Can you?

No, but I can't remember Toppy claiming any ripper fame either. That was based on by a dubious second party(ies), as it was in Maybrick's case

But no lion-tamer has ever made much of a sucess speaking about his lions.

Wait a minute. You demanded to hear an explanation behind her conclusion that the signatures didn't match, and I've suggested that such an explanation may well have appeared in her 1993 lecture. The above analogy suggests that such an explanation is of no interest to you, after all. Not that I believe you're qualified to assess her assessment.

I am saying that I have no clue as to why Iremonger would have ruled out the possibility that two signatures that are twinlike to my eyes, could have been written by the same man.

So what you're really doing is expressing your incredulity that an expert could come to a different conclusion to one that you feel tremendously confident about? That ought really to be a cue for you to be less tremendously confident about your conclusion, but we're all different I guess.

Last time over, you tried to make me look as I smudged Iremonger, and now it is Jon

I'm very serious, Fish. People are making useful contributions, but all you're doing is coming up with bad excuses for claiming that it had proved your case and vindicated your doubt, whereas in fact, it has done the opposite.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

This is due to Reg's claims with regard to his father.

Let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater, Ben. At its simplest, all Reg claimed was that his dad was the Miller's court witness - the rest of his tale might well be puff and bluster, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a nucleus of truth there.

This, combined with what Iremonger, myself, Crystal, Bob and others believe to be a mismatch with the signatures militates very heavily against Toppy being the witness.

On the contrary, what we have here is another instance of the "quacking duck" phenomenon - except inasmuch as we substitute "if it looks, flies, walks, swims and quacks" with:

1. GWTH's son said his father was the witness known as GH;

2. There weren't many GH's in London at the time;

3. At least 2 out of 3 of the GH witness statement signatures match, to a remarkable extent, the 1898 and 1911 GWTH signatures;

4. Excluding Toppy's own, all but one of the GH signatures from 1911 don't come close to matching either the witness statement or the 1898 signatures;

5. The 1911 signature that comes closest - that of "Lambeth George" - doesn't match the 1888/1898 signatures quite as well as the 1911 GWTH.

Pretty much everyone here would concede the overwhelming probability that Iremonger DID compare the signatures

I wouldn't say "overwhelming". Even the Page 1 signature - which Iremonger suggests was written by Badham - still looks rather similar to the (original) Wedding Certificate signature, if one ignores the flowery "H". It is radically different from the official copy of that certificate which I acquired, however. Even I'm prepared to concede that!

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I wouldn't underestimate the significance of the "puff and bluster" when contemplating Reg's tales. In this case, I feel that the bathwater has infected the baby; that the dubious association with the royal conspiracy theory being touted and Reg's apparent eagerness to tow their Churchillian partyline has all but eradicated any kernel of truth.

1. Reg said his father was the witness, but that claim is dubious in the extreme.

2. There weren't that many GH's in London at the time, but there are more plausible GH's in London than Toppy, including men with strong connections to the East End that predate 1895. The "witness", in any case, could have used a false name.

3. I don't think any of the GH signatures match any of the Toppy signatures, not remotely.

4 & 5 - Toppy is perhaps closer to the witness signatures than most of the signatures you provided, but the Lambeth George was a much closer comparison, to my mind and eyes, tho I wouldn't say he's our man either.

It's all heavily opinion-based, especially 3-5, and that tends to reduce the validity of the "quacking duck comparison" in this case. I'd say it's more akin to a giraffe in dark glasses trying to get into a Polar Bears Only golf club (with a nod to Blackadder )

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
" I can't remember Toppy claiming any ripper fame either. That was based on by a dubious second party(ies), as it was in Maybrick's case"

Let me rephrase myself: I can´t remember any Of Maybricks own son´s claiming any parttaking in the Ripper saga on his behalf.

"Wait a minute. You demanded to hear an explanation behind her conclusion that the signatures didn't match, and I've suggested that such an explanation may well have appeared in her 1993 lecture. The above analogy suggests that such an explanation is of no interest to you, after all."

On the contrary, Ben; it is of paramount interest. It´s just that I prefer to SEE lions instead of being TOLD about them.

"Not that I believe you're qualified to assess her assessment."

Let´s find out, shall we?

"So what you're really doing is expressing your incredulity that an expert could come to a different conclusion to one that you feel tremendously confident about? That ought really to be a cue for you to be less tremendously confident about your conclusion, but we're all different I guess."

And here it is again: "I am saying that I have no clue as to why Iremonger would have ruled out the possibility that two signatures that are twinlike to my eyes, could have been written by the same man."

Why that should suggest to you that I feel that experts in any field ought to come to the same conclusions as I do is beyond me. I would, however, very much like to see what prompted Miss Iremonger to reach her conclusion. Until I do that, I cannot possibly say that she is either right or wrong, can I? I can´t say that she has good or bad arguments, and I can´t tell whether she made a clear and good presentation. Cutting things short: It has been five weeks and threehundred posts, and STILL...

"People are making useful contributions, but all you're doing is coming up with bad excuses for claiming that it had proved your case and vindicated your doubt"

You are lying, Ben. Naughty, naughty! Now, you tell me EXACTLY where I have said that my case is proven, or you stop lowering yourself to stupidities like this. How in the blazes can I say that I have proven something where the material involved seems lost? Any good answers?

I have NOT claimed that I have proven anything. The only poster here claiming that anything has been shown to a level that should stop us from further questioning is you, Ben.
What I have said - and will say again - is that if there is no written or pictorial material at hand from Miss Iremongers investigation into Hutch, it of course deflates the value of it all quite seriously. And that is VERY much substantiated by the fact that I am arguing against a poster who knows EXACTLY as little as I do about them details!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Let me rephrase myself: I can´t remember any Of Maybricks own son´s claiming any parttaking in the Ripper saga on his behalf.

It doesn't matter. The germane comparison still stands. Toppy and Maybrick's association with the case were both intoduced by a second party, and not by themselves.

On the contrary, Ben; it is of paramount interest. It´s just that I prefer to SEE lions instead of being TOLD about them.

I'm sure you would, but she gave a lecture in 1993, as referenced earlier, and the details of her signature comparison were probably discussed therein.

I would, however, very much like to say what prompted Miss Iremonger to reach her conclusion.

But we know what prompted her to reach her conclusion; the comparison of the signatures! An explanation of how she went about it might be of interest, but it wouldn't be something that any of us here are qualified to pass critical comment upon.

Now, you tell me EXACTLY where I have said that my case is proven, or you stop lowering yourself to stupiditeis like this.

I meant prove your case that Iremonger's conclusions are "deflated in value", not prove your case that she was wrong. But they're not deflated in value, seriously or otherwise. That would only hold true is there were reasonable doubts to be entertained that she did as reported, which was compare the witness signatures with the Toppy's marriage entry. There is no reasonable doubt in that regard. It's overwhelmingly probable that it occured just as reported, so I'm afraid nothing's been deflated.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

New level: If an examination is made by Sue Iremonger, it holds EXACTLY the same value if it is passed on as hearsay as if it is accessible in print.
If we can check sources and such is of no interest whatsoever.
If we can check what material she compared and how is of no interest whatsoever.
If we can see for ourselves carries absolutely no weight.

I would love to be Miss Iremonger.

Or God.

But that part, I think, is taken already.

A baffled
Fisherman

[Ben]

Oh by all means, assess sources, inquire further, garner additional details and all the rest of it, but none of that invalidates the premise that Iremonger almost certainly did precisely as reported, and that no reasonable doubts have been broached in that regard.

Cheers,
Ben

[Crystal]

Zzzzz...Are we still here?

Oh Sam Flynn, I don't know - first of all you say that forgery is 'tricky', and then you go and imply that any old clerk can spot it a mile away. How very confusing!

The logical conclusion of your 'natural ability' argument seems to be that nobody is any more able to reach a valid conclusion on signature comparison than anyone else. Hmm. Just waiting for the battalion of tanks to drive through the holes in that one...

Ok, though, I agree. Yes, we all have an innate ability to make judgements for ourselves on whether things are different or the same and to what extent they differ. Ah, but did you know that we don't all see things in the same way?

You, Sam, are a Lumper - Wait! I'm not being rude! Ben is a Splitter - so, for that matter, am I. Those rather mundane terms are used rather more technically in the field of artefact analysis - and yes, that includes documents too. Lumpers are people who tend to focus on commonality first and foremost, Splitters are those who pick out the differences first. So you see the similarities between the Hutchinson signatures and see the same thing, or as near as damn it, and I look at them and see glaring inconsistencies.

It's well known to be true. Honest! And it means that any two people looking at a pair of artefacts (or signatures in this case) are just as likely to view them differently as they are to view them as being the same.

So we'll never agree, will we? What to do, then?


Well, other than going round in circles, we might acknowledge that even as we all have that innate ability you speak of, it, like any other, can be subject to training, fine tuning, and overall improvement. Or are you suggesting that we can never improve on our innate abilities. Hopefully not, as I think all can see that that isn't true. People who have chosen to do this are called experts.

And its just as well that the experts have managed to fool everyone else with their pesky 'expertise' for so long, isn't it, or I for one would be out of a job!

Cheerio!

[Sam Flynn]

Oh Sam Flynn, I don't know - first of all you say that forgery is 'tricky', and then you go and imply that any old clerk can spot it a mile away.

Not implying - I'm stating quite categorically any old clerk, cashier, or lay-person for that matter, can spot two discrepant signatures. Of course, a forged document, which has been deliberately engineered to mimic as closely as possible the original handwriting, is a different proposition. It is then where one might need the services of an FDE such as Ms Iremonger. In the case of the Hutchinson signatures, however, there is no implication of forgery. We have a handful of signatures made independently, and for different purposes, that span more than two decades.

Or are you suggesting that we can never improve on our innate abilities.

Not at all, but there are limits, especially when one comes to complex tasks. Thankfully, what we have before us here is not one of those. The 1888, 1898 and 1911 signatures match very closely indeed - remarkably so, given the time-span that separates them. Furthermore, the other factors ("quacking ducks") I listed earlier add considerable weight to the conclusion that they were all produced by the same person, he being George William Topping Hutchinson.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Document examination isn't solely concerned with the detection of forgeries, and document examiners are employed to apply their expertise to cases that don't involve the detection of a forgery. A document examiner is still the logical choice of opinion to be sought out when contemplating signature comparisons, irrespective of the absence of deliberate forgery. Given the interest attached to Sue Iremonger's views, it appears that most here would acknowledge this. An expert opinion doesn't become any less necessary or desriable given the apparent simplicity of the task.

I dispute that the 1888 signatures match the other two closely, just as I dispute that the other factors serve any purpose other than to reduce the likeilihood of Toppy being the witness. The only "quacking duck" I detect in this equation is the deduction that GWT Hutchinson was not, and could not have been, the witness of Kelly notoriety, IMO.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

"GWT Hutchinson was not, and could not have been, the witness of Kelly notoriety"

How very, ehm ...scientific?

Would you care to elaborate, proving this thesis of yours? Or would you prefer to retract it, showing those who argue a little more sensibly some respect?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

What do you mean?

I'm doing precisely what Gareth did.

Expressing an opinion. Gareth thinks the evidence lends weight to the conclusion that Toppy was the witness. I think it lends weight to the opposite deduction. I'll show you some respect if you extend me the same, and that includes not quoting me out of context.

[Fisherman]

I would much rather know why Toppy "could not have been" the Dorset Street witness, Ben! What hinderance is there?

The best,
Fisherman