Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

The signature mismatch, as far as I'm concerned.

That is my opinion, and I'm not claiming to have "proved" anything.

[Fisherman]

But Ben, when you write "could not" you are positively stating that the possibility that the signatures were written by the same hand is not there. The chance is effectively zero per cent. And if there is no such possibility whatsoever, it is the same as saying that it is proven, believe it or not.

I would have recommended "was in all probability not" or "would not have been" or something a little, well more forgiving. "Could not" has a tendency of taking proof and getting people into trouble.

A little twisting, some turning...? Perhaps?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Nah, Fish. All I need to do is remind people that I'm simply offering my opinion, as that utterly clarifies that I'm not claiming to have proof either way.

Let's not play a pointless game of semantics here.

[Malcolm X]

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.

yes Toppy gave the statement etc etc...........but was lieing, he was not there outside Millers court..

we have always been highly suspicious of his statement... it's full of bullshit, we all know that......... but this isn't the statement of the Ripper, but of a tabloid attention seeker.

you need some serious arguement Ben to turn this around, SAM FLYNN is correct.

[Fisherman]

Iīll happily stay away from such things, Ben. It is only when people claim the unclaimable that I take the occasional interest in it.

Incidentally, if you refrain from the very type of semantics we are discussing, you wonīt have to tell people afterwards that you were only offering an opinion. And we wonīt run the risk of anybody catching up on untenable suggestions.

NOW letīs move away from the semantics bit!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

you need some serious arguement Ben to turn this around, SAM FLYNN is correct.

But I don't think he is, Mal.

And an expert in document examination agrees with me.

I don't personally see the need for any more "serious argument" than that, although I agree with Fish that it would be interesting to know the full analysis. Nor do I see the need to "turn around" something that I consider to be facing the right way already.

[Sam Flynn]

And an expert in document examination agrees with me.

Sam Flynn bites his lip, takes a deep breath, and slinks silently away. Screaming inwardly, he tears up his degree certificate before lobotomising himself with a knitting needle.

[Fisherman]

Sounds like the only reasonable thing to do, Sam; can I join in?

Fisherman

[caz]

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

Hi All,

Now this is the interesting bit in a sea of repetitive posts getting us nowhere.

It would be good to know if Sue Iremonger would class herself as a Lumper or a Splitter or a totally objective Splumper.

Oddly enough I was too cowardly to say, when JM posted the page one scan, that I thought the witness sig (with its curly H and its skinny o) remarkably similar to the writing above it (particularly the H’s). I thought I would be shot down in flames and called all the dumb blondes under the sun. One possibility I entertained at the time was that Hutch was rather endearingly trying to imitate the curly H’s he saw above, for his first example, but now I can see exactly how Sue Iremonger concluded it was Badham imitating (or effectively forging ) Hutch’s sig, from the examples on the other pages.

So much for the very emphatic assertions by Ben the Splitter and one or two Lumpers that all three witness sigs were undoubtedly in the same hand.

It’s refreshing that Iremonger said it was ‘merely’ her opinion (as a BSc) that the witness sigs two and three were not written by the same person who signed the marriage certificate, and could not put it any stronger than that due to the time gap. The best way I know of recognising a person who is likely to know what they are talking about is if they do not express absolute certainty on matters that require personal judgement and interpretation, and which can’t be verified as fact (such as producing photos of the two men signing their respective documents). I detest and distrust self-professed experts who claim their unverifiable opinions are untouchable. How on earth is anyone supposed to know if they are talking from their expertise or their arse, when coughing up good money for their conclusions? I’m reluctant to judge expertise by how good a living someone makes flogging opinions, where the customers are all, by definition, buying a product on trust alone, not being ‘expert’ enough themselves to judge the quality.

So I like this woman’s style. But her ‘mere opinion’ leaves it wide open as far as I’m concerned, and I’m wavering on my fence now and might even be leaning towards the Lumpers and another vote for Toppy.

One other thing we are always being told is that any reputable document examiner will want, wherever possible, to compare only the original documents in question, not copies of originals. If the original witness statement was not held in the same place as Toppy’s original marriage certificate when Sue Iremonger wanted to compare the two, she would need to have been supplied with one of them, and given permission to take it physically to the other, in order to do the best job possible. It would be interesting to know more about the procedure involved.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"It would be interesting to know more about the procedure involved."

Absolutely, Caz - which is why I have found out. I have been checking with SKL, which reads "Statens Kriminaltekniska Laboratorium", translating into, roughly, "The Governmental Laboratory of Forensic Techniques" here in Sweden. They represent the cream of this kind of research. And it emerges that there are a few things to keep in mind.

To begin with, Rolf Berzell, who heads the handwriting department of the lab, says in an interwiew that when he needs to tell whether a signature comes from a person or not, it will take about ten examples to compare with, since we do not write in the same manner each time we sign. To make sure that you catch up on all the personal elements of style, it actually takes ten or more signatures.
This does not preclude us from realizing that two signatures are very much alike, and if they are it of course points to them being by the same hand. And we can assess whether it seems likely that two signatures have the same origin. But to get a full and complete understanding of the style elements attached to the writer, two or three signatures is not enough.

So what elements do the researchers use? It is all in the different details, and The Governmental Laboratory of Forensic Techniques list them thusly:

1. The angling of the letters - how much, and if there is a consistency over the whole signature.
2. Pen pressure and pen lifting - how many times this occurs and where in the signatures.
3. The proportion of the letters - how big they are and the distances inbetween letters and words.
4. The placing of the text - where it is written in relation to supportive lines and such.
5. The general appearance of the text - the structure and the impression on the whole.

So this is what is involved, and nothing more - it is all a question of recognizable graphical elements. I will draw your attention to the fact that, just as Sam has been saying all along, there are no other elements involved that makes anybody with normal eyesight unable to come up with an assessment.
Taking, for example, the bit with the angles, anybody can establish them. I checked the angles of the two "H":s involved in "Hutchinson", and found out that the 1888 and the 1911 signatures are in exact agreement with each other on these points, whereas the capital H of the 1898 signature is a bit off the mark. The small h though, leans in exactly the same fashion in ALL three examples.
If anybody wishes to go further using these tools, you are welcome. If I can find the time, I may have a go myself.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Fisherman,

Thanks for that. I think in one of my first posts on the topic I remarked upon the general similarity in angle and shape between the witness sigs and Toppy's 1911 example. And yes, it makes absolute sense to have as many authenticated signatures as possible to aid the comparison process.

Another thing that any reputable document examiner would want to avoid is the slightest clue about which way people are expecting - or perhaps hoping - any conclusion to go. It's not so much the danger of unconscious bias creeping in and providing the desired result, but more the absolute certainty that the other 'side' will presume that the 'expert' was influenced in some way whenever the result goes against the grain.

Emotional attachments to a certain outcome must be kept a million miles away from the professional giving his/her opinion, or that professional will be tainted by association, regardless of how unbiased and objective their assessment may actually be.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"Another thing that any reputable document examiner would want to avoid is the slightest clue about which way people are expecting - or perhaps hoping - any conclusion to go."

You can say that again, Caz! Is is related to the outcomes of polls, that more often than not are coloured not only by peoples true meanings, but also of which questions are asked - and how.

This is why I remain at my stance that the Iremonger verdict cannot be regarded as much of a guideline, as long as we do not know very much of the surrounding circumstances.

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

I thought there were no absolute certainties? Sadly, no Splumpers either, since total objectivity is not possible.

That aside, I concur with Fisherman's list, and with Caz's observations about bias. I think what we're getting at here is not a question of objectivity but of impartiality. Any expert opinion worth its salt must be clearly impartial. That means that those with a vested interest in the outcome are not the best equipped to judge, doesn't it? So then, why, since we know that Miss Iremonger is a renowned expert in the field, and we assume she has no vested interest in the outcome of this particular signature analysis, can we not believe that she is impartial and trust her verdict? Or do we all think we know better?

And yes, anyone can claim to be anything they like, but unless there is a wider consensus that supports their claim, nobody will take them seriously. Thus, those experts making a living out of their opinions (known also as 'Professionals') are able to do so because their opinion is trusted and carries significant weight - something that they will have had to work hard, over a length of time, to achieve. That's what's known as a professional reputation. It is achieved by the appraisal of others, not by the expert themselves. If professionals, or experts, if you prefer, who rely on their reputation for their living, were to routinely pronounce that their opinions were a fact, then they wouldn't last very long. Then again, most of them wouldn't be that stupid.

[Fisherman]

Crystal asks:

"why, since we know that Miss Iremonger is a renowned expert in the field, and we assume she has no vested interest in the outcome of this particular signature analysis, can we not believe that she is impartial and trust her verdict?"

Think youīve had the answer to that one already: Since we have no absolute certainty about WHAT she compared, and since we donīt know in any detail at all what she said about it.

And (yawn...!) I am NOT calling her professionality into doubt. I am in fact not assessing her work in any respect - I have not yet seen it, remember. Itīs the abscense of knowledge about itīs contents I question.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

So I like this woman’s style. But her ‘mere opinion’ leaves it wide open as far as I’m concerned

I have no idea what you're getting "mere" from. Yes, she expressed her opinion that the signatures didn't match, and for that reason I like her style too. But far from being a "mere" opinion, it carries tremendous weight, having been imparted by an expert document examiner rather than a hobbyist who may have an agenda. Far from leaving the field wide open, it adds considerable weight to the premise that Toppy was not the witness in question.

Hi Fisherman,

Those are the guidelines employed by that particular body of expertise in Sweden. That does not permit us to conclude that Iremonger and other document examiners would conform ridigly to that set of criteria and no other, and it certainly doesn't permit us to conclude that "So this is what is involved, and nothing more". If that were truly the case, all anyone needs to do is read your list of assessment criteria and have a go themselves, expecting any conclusions drawn from it to carry equal weight to that of a document examiner, which is just nonsense. Document examiners exist because that is most emphatically not the case.

As it happens, I find that Toppy fails considerably on most of that criteria, especially "The proportion of the letters - how big they are and the distances inbetween letters and words" and The general appearance of the text - the structure and the impression on the whole. I don't find the angles to be in allignment, incidentally, which the witness signature being much more upright that the Toppy efforts.

Best regards,
Ben