Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

Thanks for getting back to us regarding the other experts' opinions, Crystal!

No problem, Ben! I hope I shall hear from a few more in the next week or so. It will be interesting to compare the impressions of a sample of people who work in the field, I think. I will respond to the doubtless forthcoming objections to the validity of their views when I hear them.

Lunch!

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"First expert has got back to me and thinks that it is unclear whether the Toppy signatures and the witness statement signatures are the same - she would need to see more examples to be sure. She also said that she doesn't think the first two witness signatures are the same as the third, and that the third is the closest match to the Toppy signatures."

As I have already pointed out, Crystal, an expert in the field is going to need around ten signature samples to reach a conclusion on what style elements are specific for a writer. Therefore it stands to reason that this reservation will be a common one whenever an expert assesses this matter.

Could you elaborate on three issues:

1. What kind of expert/s are we dealing with here? What are their respective qualifications?
2. When expert number one says that signature 3 is the one coming closest to Toppys signature, it tells us very little. It could be a lousy match, but better than the two others, and it could be a very close match - even better that the two others. The one thing we need to know is if she/he would regard it as a fair possibility that the signatures in question could have been written by the same hand, or if she rules it out - and, whichever way he/she chooses; WHY the verdict is chosen.
3. What question/s did you ask, and how?

I think it would be useful if to be provided with a little more flesh on the bones.

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Hi Fisherman. This is an informal request which I have put to several professionals in the field with whom I am acquainted – mainly out of curiosity for myself. Since I do not have their permission to start broadcasting their identities or professional qualifications on a public forum, I think it would be rude of me to do so until (if) I do have such permission. I can tell you that they are all professionals - i.e. they earn their living at this - working in the field of document examination and analysis, and that none of them are freelance workers (so let's do away with the money for old rope arguments before they even start). Hopefully that answers your first point.

And I know that ideally we would want more than the examples we have - I've been saying as much for some time.

The first expert (so far the only one to respond) said that based on what she could see (from a digital impression) the third witness signature was the closest match to the Toppy signatures. She did not think that the three witness signatures were all by the same hand. She thought that the first two were probably by the same hand (as each other), and that the third was by a different hand. She considered that the Toppy signatures and the third witness signature may be a match, based on sufficient commonality, but that she would need to see more examples to be more sure than that. I suppose you could say that in her opinion, that was a fair possibility of a match with Toppy, yes.

You already know that I don't agree, of course.

[Fisherman]

Yeah, Crystal, I´m fully aware of that...!

An interesting factor is that she has the first TWO signatures from the protocol down as being made by the same hand, whereas Iremonger settled for only the first one probably being made by Badham...

Thanks for elaborating, Crystal!

The best,
Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

I´ll put it in a milder fashion, Malcolm: To my eyes, the page 3 signature is the one that is abolutely closest to Toppys. Since they are decades apart, some sort of deviance must be expected, I think, but the overall picture leaves me in no doubt on two issues:
1. The signatures and the circumstances surrounding them tell us that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness.
2. It would be useful, as you say, with an expert´s opinion.

The best,
Fisherman

sorry but my signature looks the same as it did 20 years ago... even after cycling to the bank on a cold rainy day; with frozen fingers.

we need a really good expert here....that's for sure

[Fisherman]

Crystal, can I ask one more thing? To what degree are the experts you employ aware of the context of the case? Do they know that it is about Ripperology? The role of the Dorset Street witness? ...and such things?

Malcolm!

You write:
"sorry but my signature looks the same as it did 20 years ago..."

It will do so, Malcolm, at least to some extent. That is how an expert can pinpoint you though years and decades have passed.
Some people, though, change their signatures to a larger or lesser degree, sometimes depending on physical factors, and sometimes on psychological ditto. But a number of style elements will be there, although changes are made. And those style elements crave about ten samples of a signature to enable an expert to point them out.

That is, I think, why Crystals expert could never say "it was the same man who signed them two signatures". She will not be able to stretch any further than "there is sufficient commonality to point to a possible match". That´s as far as we are going to be able to go, using the material we have signaturewise.

The best,
Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

hi happy campers!

this is my take on it.... the reds dont match, but strangely enough the greens seem to, most odd

[Crystal]

Crytal, can I ask one more thing? To what degree are the experts you employ aware of the context of the case? Do they know that it is about Ripperology? The role of the Dorset Street witness? ...and such things?

Hi Fisherman - No, I made no mention of context when I sent them the signatures, I only said it was of interest to me and would they mind letting me have their views? Unless any of them are themselves following this debate, which I have no way of knowing (and in fact, do not know) they should be free of any Ripperology bias.

[Malcolm X]

Crystal, can I ask one more thing? To what degree are the experts you employ aware of the context of the case? Do they know that it is about Ripperology? The role of the Dorset Street witness? ...and such things?

Malcolm!

You write:
"sorry but my signature looks the same as it did 20 years ago..."

It will do so, Malcolm, at least to some extent. That is how an expert can pinpoint you though years and decades have passed.
Some people, though, change their signatures to a larger or lesser degree, sometimes depending on physical factors, and sometimes on psychological ditto. But a number of style elements will be there, although changes are made. And those style elements crave about ten samples of a signature to enable an expert to point them out.

That is, I think, why Crystals expert could never say "it was the same man who signed them two signatures". She will not be able to stretch any further than "there is sufficient commonality to point to a possible match". That´s as far as we are going to be able to go, using the material we have signaturewise.

The best,
Fisherman

yes, maybe nobody can get close due to a lack of enough handwriting to compare

[Malcolm X]

[I] they should be free of any Ripperology bias.

thank God

[Fisherman]

"they should be free of any Ripperology bias"

I wonder how that feels...? Somehow, I can´t seem to remember

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Malcolm writes:

"this is my take on it.... the reds dont match, but strangely enough the greens seem to, most odd"

I cannot agree, I´m afraid. If you take a look at the green areas you compare in the upper two signatures, for example, you will see that though there are curls on the letter H in both cases, the way the H is connected to the u is very dissimilar. Moreover, the u:s are quite different too, the upper one being a very ground one, whereas the lower one is deep. The angle of the H differs too, something that is also very evident when we compare the G:s in George - they have an altogether different leaning. Just as the case was with the H:s, there is the same sort of curl in the G:s, but it is performed in very different manner, the upper one being a clumsier, more tentative one, whereas the lower one is much more boldly drawn.

Just my two pence, Malcolm, but I hope you can see what I´m talking about!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Bear in mind Sue Iremonger's observation that the first signature, the one with the curly H, may have been written by Sgt. Badham in an attempt to emulate the real Hutchinson's handwriting.

[Fisherman]

"the real Hutchinson"

You SAID it, Ben! You did, you did, you did....!

It´s Freud at work, I´m tellin´ya!

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

No, Fisherman, I didn't mean that it was Sam's opinion and his alone, hence the emphasis where it is. I meant that it was his opinion, not a fact.

I think I know when I'm having an "opinion moment", Crystal and I have not had one in this case. In other words, it is a fact that the signatures are remarkably similar. I say that in all objectivity, and anyone who fails to see that remarkable similarity is - in my opinion - deluding themselves.