Tweet
First off, Crystal, I have heard before that I have not a clue what I am talking about. It kind of takes us into Iremonger territory again, with hints at the grave difficulties that lie in recognizing a handstyle; though we may think we are looking at mirror images, we are in fact wrong. What we perceive seeing may not be there.
I donīt buy this for a split second, Crystal, as you will know. I have been reading up quite a lot these past few days, and I know that there are fine points of discerning discrepancies that may not be obvious to the layman. But I have also seen where this knowledge applies - mainly in clearing up frauds and forgery. In there, it can be of use to see exactly how the pen pressure was applied and such things. And that is where the knowledge of experts come into play.
If we buy an autograph by a celebrity for a heap of money, we do so because we recognize that the signature matches other signatures by the same celebrity - if it did not, we would be fools and in all probability throwing our money away.
But even if the match looks perfect, it can be a cleverly forged signature. That is why we may need to consult expertise before investing.
But we are not dealing with any forgery here - we are dealing with a very good match that we know is not about forgery. And we need to explain how the likenss came about. We are trying to explain why it is that a man called George Hutchinson had a handstyle and a signature that pretty much made it the twin of ANOTHER signature that was written by ANOTHER George Hutchinson back in the late 19:th century. Only minor differences in the style elements differ, as far as we can see. I think you will agree on this - hte only diernable differences we can see from the material as it is presented on the net lies in style elements - correct?
The only reasonable explanation is an remains that the signatures were written by the same man.
Regardless of all this, you, Crystal, are going to need a good explanation as to why you suggested that a consistency of two signatures written in 1898 and 1911, respectively, would somehow imply that the consistency was there ten years earlier too. If you are going to hit me over the head with your superiority, that was a very bad way to aim for the blow. For both you and I know that such an assertion - if that I may call it - holds no water at all.
As for your saying "there will still be other details to clear up, right? Like the fact that the statement of the witness and what we actually know of GWT's life do not appear a very good match?"
...you are right in the sense that there will ALWAYS be other things left to clear up in all Ripper-related stuff. But we know from another thread that David Knott has stated that he has spoken to Toppys relatives and found that Toppy did indeed have East end connections and that he would in all probability NOT have been a plumber at the time. David tells us that he is awaiting publishing, and I think it may be wise to consider the implications of his statement before investing to heavily in the belief that Toppys family history - what little we know of it - prevents him from being the Dorset Street witness.
All the best, Crystal!
Fisherman
I donīt buy this for a split second, Crystal, as you will know. I have been reading up quite a lot these past few days, and I know that there are fine points of discerning discrepancies that may not be obvious to the layman. But I have also seen where this knowledge applies - mainly in clearing up frauds and forgery. In there, it can be of use to see exactly how the pen pressure was applied and such things. And that is where the knowledge of experts come into play.
If we buy an autograph by a celebrity for a heap of money, we do so because we recognize that the signature matches other signatures by the same celebrity - if it did not, we would be fools and in all probability throwing our money away.
But even if the match looks perfect, it can be a cleverly forged signature. That is why we may need to consult expertise before investing.
But we are not dealing with any forgery here - we are dealing with a very good match that we know is not about forgery. And we need to explain how the likenss came about. We are trying to explain why it is that a man called George Hutchinson had a handstyle and a signature that pretty much made it the twin of ANOTHER signature that was written by ANOTHER George Hutchinson back in the late 19:th century. Only minor differences in the style elements differ, as far as we can see. I think you will agree on this - hte only diernable differences we can see from the material as it is presented on the net lies in style elements - correct?
The only reasonable explanation is an remains that the signatures were written by the same man.
Regardless of all this, you, Crystal, are going to need a good explanation as to why you suggested that a consistency of two signatures written in 1898 and 1911, respectively, would somehow imply that the consistency was there ten years earlier too. If you are going to hit me over the head with your superiority, that was a very bad way to aim for the blow. For both you and I know that such an assertion - if that I may call it - holds no water at all.
As for your saying "there will still be other details to clear up, right? Like the fact that the statement of the witness and what we actually know of GWT's life do not appear a very good match?"
...you are right in the sense that there will ALWAYS be other things left to clear up in all Ripper-related stuff. But we know from another thread that David Knott has stated that he has spoken to Toppys relatives and found that Toppy did indeed have East end connections and that he would in all probability NOT have been a plumber at the time. David tells us that he is awaiting publishing, and I think it may be wise to consider the implications of his statement before investing to heavily in the belief that Toppys family history - what little we know of it - prevents him from being the Dorset Street witness.
All the best, Crystal!
Fisherman
Comment