Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Malcolm X]

I don't think we do, Malcolm. If we had 10 or more, nobody would take any notice of what they said..

yea' i stay well clear of these ``intense`` arguements, it's more hastle than its worth to join in; especially being tired after work...........you wont win, nobody will..

it looks like all 3 signatures are Hutchinson's, but he's still a top suspect; so there you go... doesn't mean much, because i expect the ripper was a local anyway....Blotchy face looks like a local too, but i suppose he could be a sailor from overseas, who nows.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"That should eradicate all but the most preposterous "doubts", I should think"

There you go again, calling me preposterous without without being able to substantiate it. I already told you that you can do so a thousand times; as long as you cannot point to what parts of the signatures Iremonger deemed uncomparable, you cannot know what is preposterous or not, Ben.

So when you write "I'd say that's pretty disrespectful to the contributors who took the time to investigate the claim and find independent endorsement of it", you are barking up the wrong tree once more. I have not evaluated Iremongers efforts, since they are not there to evaluate. Nor have I seen the endorsements you speak of, or heard anything on which they are grounded in their respective turn.

That leaves us with one disrespectful poster only, one who calls legitimate demands "preposterous".

"They've told you plenty, if you'd only listen, rather than clinging to the forlorn hope that Iremonger compared a different (???) signature."

You are the one clinging to hopes, Ben. I am the one asking to see what relevance there is to attach to any wiew that we may hold. It´s called keeping an open mind, in case you forgot.

Did you ever watch one of them Hollywood movies where the villain pinches the all-important piece of evidence? After that, the gun, the finger-printed glass, the knife, the contract that was supposed to get the accused into jail has lost it´s importance. Any suggestion that it should be used anyway, because hearsay had it that it had existed, would be thrown out of court, and rightly so.
That is the value of the Iremonger examination, as it stands: I keep hearing about it, but the prosecutor cannot lay his fingers on it, and until he does, it must be ruled useless.

"For no good reason at all."

I have no problems admitting that I do not know if this is true. You have, though - to you, you MUST be right, and Iremonger MUST have been the real deal. But you have nothing to show for it.

It much reminds me of a poster out here who claims that he once heard a radio program containing vital information in the Ripper case. Other posters laughed him off the boards, and implied that he was just imagining things. And every time he tried to present his point, he was met by a "Oh no, not AGAIN!"

That predicament must have been a tough one for a man who, at least to my mind, seems patently honest. But the thing is, he readily accepts that as he cannot produce the goods, he cannot use it as evidence.
Your predicament, Ben, is very much aquainted; you keep telling me about the ingenuous examination made by Sue Iremonger, that puts it beyond doubt that Hutch the Dorset Street witness and Hutch the violinist were not one and the same. But no matter how you try, you cannot come up with any details about HOW Iremonger reached her conclusion, or what parameters that were involved. You just know that you have heard it, and you ask me to accept it as evidence.
There are, of course, differences. You won´t admit that your unability to produce the examination in it´s whole renders it useless until you do so. Furthermore, you were not even there at the illustruous evening with Miss Iremonger, were you?

A slightly more humble attitude would do your cause no harm at all, Ben. You´ve preached the necessity of such an attitude yourself out here concerning that radio programme, have you not?

Regards,
Fisherman

[Ben]

as long as you cannot point to what parts of the signatures Iremonger deemed uncomparable, you cannot know what is preposterous or not

But if I were able to pinpoint exactly which aspects of the signatures Iremonger found to be incomparable, what good would it do to your cause? Nothing whatsoever, since you lack the experience to pass critical comment on her methods. Instead, it would be circumspect to acknowledge that it was as a direct result of applying her expertise that she came to the conclusion that the signatures didn't match.

Nor have I seen the endorsements you speak of, or heard anything on which they are grounded in their respective turn.

Sounds like you didn't read Jonathan's posts or Bob Hinton's book, then.

That is the value of the Iremonger examination, as it stands: I keep hearing about it, but the prosecutor cannot lay his fingers on it, and until he does, it must be ruled useless.

Iremonger's views can only be "ruled useless", if it wasn't overwhelmingly probable that she did precisely as several reputable sources claim she did, which was to compare the signatures and conclude that they didn't match. Such is the independent support for this occurance, and so feeble are the alternatives being bandied around to suggest she was wrong, that any alternative to the most probable one - that Iremonger did exactly as stated - must be considered laughably remote.

I have not evaluated Iremongers efforts, since they are not there to evaluate.

And if they were, you still wouldn't be able to evaulate them.

You have, though - to you, you MUST be right, and Iremonger MUST have been the real deal. But you have nothing to show for it

Except independent support from several reputable sources.

But the thing is, he readily accepts that as he cannot produce the goods, he cannot use it as evidence.

But with the radio show claim, there wasn't the overwhelming support for it having happened as there is in this case, just as there were not several reputable authorities all claiming independently that it happened. There's nobody other than Richard claiming to have heard that radio show from the 70s.

So that analogy is not apt.

But no matter how you try, you cannot come up with any details about HOW Iremonger reached her conclusion, or what parameters that were involved.

Don't need to, not in light of the obvious reality that she applied her professionalism and expertise to the task in hand. I thought I'd go mad for a moment and assume she did precisely that, rather than coming up with the most fanciful scenarios imaginable to accomodate the ridiculous view that she made some huge oversight.

You won´t admit that your unability to produce the examination in it´s whole renders it useless until you do so

Of course I don't admit that.

I'd be completely forsaking my reason if I did.

A slightly more humble attitude would do your cause no harm at all, Ben.

Well, if you think you're a picture of humility, Fish...

[Fisherman]

Oh, for God´s sake, Ben! Is it really THAT difficult??

Right, then; I´ll do it for you! Here you go!

Fisherman has raised the question of the validity of the Sue Iremonger investigation into the signatures of the Dorset Street witness and George Topping Hutchinson.
I myself remain convinced that there is no reason to believe that Iremongers assertions are NOT valid and related to the relevant material.
I find, however, that Iremongers work seems not to have gone into print, which of course seriously diminishes the value of her efforts. It is a pity, since it disenables us to follow the processes that led Iremonger to her conclusions. Furthermore, much as there seems to be little reason to doubt that the George Topping Hutchinson marriage license from 1898 that Iremonger used was the genuine thing, we of course are no longer in a position where this can be put beyond doubt, and as it has emerged that at least one handwritten copy of the license exists, Fishermans objections cannot be overlooked altogether.
I feel sure that Fisherman realizes that the overall picture points towards Iremonger having made an examination of the correct material (Fisherman nods), but just like him, I also feel that it will be hard to reach any real agreement on the validity of an investigation that we can no longer access in any detail - we are left with the memories the Iremonger lecture imprinted on those who attended some sixteen years ago, and sadly, so far no detailed information about how Miss Iremonger reached her conclusion has surfaced.
Therefore, I believe that an unbiased investigation into the matter, headed by an authority on handwriting, such as a forensic expert, would shed new and possibly very valuable light on this matter (Fisherman once again nods in agreement).
I thank Fisherman for having brought this matter into focus, disclosing the fact that we obviously lack written evidence and pictures relating to the Iremonger investigation. I would also take the opportunity to point out that none of us wishes to express any form of low esteem of Miss Iremongers efforts. (Fisherman thanks Ben for his appopriate summing up of the errand. Ben and Fisherman shakes hands, and goes out to have a pint of Newcastle Brown Ale at the nearest pub. Incidentally, it is called "The cunning Fisherman".)

Best regards,
Ben

There, Ben - copy and paste!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Dear all,

Just for clarification's sake; I obviously never wrote that passage Fisherman attributed to me. He wrote it himself. However, I don't disagree with the bulk of its contents. I'd only quibble with the notion that it "seriously diminishes the value of her efforts". I also attach no signficance whatsoever to "at least one handwritten copy of the license", since Ms. Iremonger would not have compared three 1888 signatures to the handwriting of a modern registrar.

I feel sure that Fisherman realizes that the overall picture points towards Iremonger having made an examination of the correct material (Fisherman nods)

Thank feck for that!

First round's on you, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Absolutely, Ben!

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

First round's on you, Fish.

Second round's on me... and the next is on Debs - appropriate, really, because she was kind enough to post the third (1911) signature, which is one more than Sue Iremonger had. We might none of us be "experts" nor independent in any of this (certainly not impartial!), but at least we have more visual data at our disposal than she had - viz., a signature written 13 years after the marriage certificate, and 23 years after the witness statement.

One might quibble over a claimed similarity/disparity between two records... but three, over a longer time-span?

[Malcolm X]

Dear all,

Just for clarification's sake; I obviously never wrote that passage Fisherman attributed to me. He wrote it himself. However, I don't disagree with the bulk of its contents. I'd only quibble with the notion that it "seriously diminishes the value of her efforts". I also attach no signficance whatsoever to "at least one handwritten copy of the license", since Ms. Iremonger would not have compared three 1888 signatures to the handwriting of a modern registrar.



Thank feck for that!

First round's on you, Fish.

yea' man, this forum is great

[The Good Michael]

Document examination and the analysis of signatures that often goes with it is, to my mind, not a science in that it is not a course of education one might find at a university. It is rather, on the job training. Of course OJT is invaluable, but I think we've all had some of that OJT on this particular thread. I've decided that I have seen these signatures enough to qualify myself as a document examiner. I daresay I've looked at these signatures much longer than Ms. Ironmonger, and so, I am more of an expert than she is.
In conclusion, Toppy and Hutch are the same man. Argument over.

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

Thank you, Mike. Altogether now:



"Om, Toppy Toppy..."

[Ben]

We might none of us be "experts" nor independent in any of this (certainly not impartial!), but at least we have more visual data at our disposal than she had

And if she did have the 1911 census record available to her, the chances are very strong indeed that she'd be even more confident in her rejection of Toppy as the witness, since the 1898 and 1911 signatures resemble eachother very closely. It would stengthen her conclusion that Toppy was consistent in the manner in which he penned his signature, and thus even less likely to be the 1888 witness. It would, in effect, eradicate the validity of the argument that the differences can be explained away by the passage of time.

Hi Mike,

I've decided that I have seen these signatures enough to qualify myself as a document examiner.

Most emphatically not a chance in Hades, Mike.

We employ document examiners because they have the background and expertise to arrive at an informed conclusion on the subject. You and I don't, so it doesn't matter how many times you and I examine the signatures. You and I are ill-equipped to compare to her professional background on the subject. That isn't a criticism, far from it, but you don't gain experience and training in a particular discipline by looking at something for a period of time, and deciding that's enough to qualify you as an expert. If that were true, the field of document examination would be invalidated, and we know that isn't the case.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

And if she did have the 1911 census record available to her, the chances are very strong indeed that she'd be even more confident in her rejection of Toppy as the witness

That does not necessarily follow, Ben.

since the 1898 and 1911 signatures resemble eachother very closely.

And they don't resemble, collectively, the 1888 ones?

It would, in effect, eradicate the validity of the argument that the differences can be explained away by the passage of time.

There are hardly any differences, though - that's the point.

Please don't force me to unleash my ultimate weapon - namely, a Conrad Poohs-style animation of the Toppy photograph, with the words "It was me, Guv" set to the tune of the Unter dem Doppeladler march.

[Sam Flynn]

That isn't a criticism, far from it, but you don't gain experience and training in a particular discipline by looking at something for a period of time, and deciding that's enough to qualify you as an expert. If that were true, the field of document examination would be invalidated, and we know that isn't the case.

Good news, Ben. The "field of document validation" remains unscathed - we are talking about each other's "field of vision". So, let us rejoice in our rods and cones - mainly the rods - and their ability to process vertical and horizontal lines with such remarkable precision.

[Ben]

And they don't resemble, collectively, the 1888 ones?

Nah, mate.

Honestly, I'd have said so many moons ago if I thought they did.

There are hardly any differences, though - that's the point.

Ah, but that's just your opinion, though. In my opinion, and those of several others, including a document examiner, the signatures offer us enough visual evidence to arrive at the conclusion that Toppy was, in all probability, not the witness of Kelly notoriety.

The "field of document validation" remains unscathed - we are talking about each other's "field of vision".

I can do little more than reiterate my belief - reassuingly endorsed by the majority, it appears! - that professional experience counts for a good deal, and that document examination (even when applied to the seemingly "simple" jobs) such as signature comparison, counts for a good deal.

Best regards,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

you lot dont give up, i give you 10/10 that's for sure