Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"So, you really don't "award" differing opinions that much if they disagree with your own view, even if they're being voiced by those with demonstrably more expertise than you?"

...and I canīt say Iīm surprised. This is the kind of thing you normally resort to.
To begin with, the only named authority that has provided a detailed wiew together with a verdict of a possible match is Leander. Iremonger - you know what I think of the value of unsubstantiated goods. Crystal et al? Canīt say that I know much about their credentials either. Leander is a different story, since we KNOW that he is a top authority.
So much for that bit!
When it comes to my awarding little interest to those who say it was not Toppy, it is the only reasonable thing to do - when I look at the signatures, I see a very good match, and it has never occurred to me that I may be better off saying "Well, then, lads, since you tell me that I am wrong, I am probably not seeing what I think I am seeing."
Thereīs a good number of us out here saying that they see the same thing, so I donīt think we are dealing with bad eyesight on my behalf either. It is a good match, simple as that - and supported by Leander, who thinks it is even good enough to tell us that we may be dealing with the same writer. Those who say it is not a good match are not telling the truth, and that can only have itīs origin in one out of two parametres:
1. They are lying.
2. They are deluded by their own preconceptions, and therefore they genuinely believe that they are right in saying that the signatures are a bad match.

There is no other way of saying this. And, mind you, it is not saying that the signatures MUST have been written by the same man (although I do believe they are). There is a microscopical possibility that they were not, but even if this is so, it does not make the ones who say that the signatures are a poor match correct. For even if they WERE written by different men, they STILL are a close match!

"Are you saying that any comparison that isn't judged impossible must be regarded as a "very close match"?"

I am saying that when a man of Leanders caliber tell us that two signatures may well have been written by the same man, then that in itself tells us that the signatures have heaps of things in common. Moreover, there will not be one single deviance present that tells us that the signatures could NOT have been written by the same man. The deviances that may be there in such cases, are deviances to which there will be possible explanations.
For Leander to arrive at the conclusion that two signatures may have been written by the same man, ALL the bad comparisons will have been sorted away already. Only comparisons that lie quite close remain, and therefore most people will realize that when Frank Leander answers the question "Could these signatures have been written by the same man" with a "Yes, they could" then this is due to the fact that he is looking at signatures with a very significant degree of a match.

"I reject that as an opposition, since the propensity to give a false name is entirely dependant on individual circumstances."

Then tell me, Ben, if Hutch WAS an imposter - then why is it that Toppy wrote in such a similar fashion? How did that come about? How could he be so close, close enough for Frank Leander to say it was a possible match? Just how do you explain this?

Mine:

"Yes - and taken together with the surrounding circumstances, Leanders words easily add up to a very, very probable one."

Yours:

"That wasn't what he said. At no point did he assert that there was a "probable" match here."

No, Ben. But I did. And do. And if you read once again, you will see that this is what is hidden in that sentence of mine: I add Leanders words to the surrounding circumstances, and draw MY OWN conclusion that we are faced with something that is probable. "Probable", though is way too weak a word - "bordering on absolute certainty" captures the true meaning better. And it was me saying that too.

"Not impossible does not equal very close match. I'll pay you all my worldly goods if you can just understand that distinction."

The reason that Leander is speaking of a possible match lies in the fact that the signatures match closely. And I donīt need your worldly goods, Ben, Iīm quite fine as I am, thanks!

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

What? I'm left handed (sinistra if you prefer) and I don't bend backwards. Is this a general observation, Fisherman?

[Fisherman]

Crystal wants to know:

"Is this a general observation, Fisherman?"

No, it is not. It is a specific one - my older brother is left-handed, and he writes with a backwards leaning. I had a quick look at the net before answering you, and I found that there was a Swedish site where the coupling was made too - but I have no further information to offer on the subject.

If I find the time, I may search and elucidate it further - but it does not really belong to the topic here.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Here we go, Crystal:

http://www.musanim.com/mam/lefthand.htm

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Never understood this trend of people wondering why they argue with me, but who continue doing so in verbose detail anyway....

Hi Fish,

To begin with, the only named authority that has provided a detailed wiew together with a verdict of a possible match is Leander.

Well, not if you accept the observations of the man who actually made the observation - Leander himself: "In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this"

Circumspect of him to acknowledge that reality, and of course, I don't disagree with his conclusions. Iremonger, by contrast, had the actual documents to work with, which, as any experienced document examiner will tell you, puts her at a significant advantage.

When it comes to my awarding little interest to those who say it was not Toppy, it is the only reasonable thing to do - when I look at the signatures, I see a very good match

Well, firstly, you're not awarding contrasting views "little interest" at all. You're posting prolifically in objection to anyone who doesn't believe Toppy was the witness - that's awarding them tons of interest. But generally speaking, no, it isn't particularly sensible to dismiss alternative views because they're antithetical to your own, purely on the grounds that you think something's so obvious.

It is a good match, simple as that

Absolutely no way - it isn't "as simple as that", not remotely, since the preponderance of expert opinion argues against Toppy being the witness. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with your eyesight, and the same goes for anyone else who shares your view, but to state that your view must "simply" be the correct one is completely erroneous, and likely to rankle a bit.

who thinks it is even good enough to tell us that we may be dealing with the same writer.

"Cannot be ruled" out basically means "not impossible". I think Toppy is "not impossible". I don't believe he can be "ruled out", but I still don't think he's a very likely candidate. If you say a match cannot be ruled out, you are most emphatically not saying that the match is a "good" one.

Those who say it is not a good match are not telling the truth, and that can only have itīs origin in one out of two parametres 1. They are lying.
2. They are deluded by their own preconceptions, and therefore they genuinely believe that they are right in saying that the signatures are a bad match.

So the other document examiners who didn't believe we were dealing with a good match when it came to Toppy and the witness were "lying" or "deluded by their own preconceptions". You know, this is usually the bit when I become so angry and appalled by the startling ineptitude being displayed that I start spitting my dummy out and threatening to bottle people, but the above is so far off the wall it's not even worth me getting upset about.

Your observation - that those who don't perceive a good match must be lying - is contemptible in the extreme.

There is a microscopical possibility that they were not

According to you.

And you are...?

How many experts have gone on record with the observation that there's only a "microscopical possibility" that they were not written by the same hand?

Not one.

So why do you expect to be taken seriously when you use such inappropriately strong language? Leander said that a match "cannot be ruled out", which is worlds away from the strong terminology you're currently misappropriating.

I am saying that when a man of Leanders caliber tell us that two signatures may well have been written by the same man, then that in itself tells us that the signatures have heaps of things in common.

And there's absolutely no basis for this at all. You're actually underestimating the "calibre" of the gentleman in question by claiming that "cannot be ruled out" means "heaps in common". Clearly, that's not the case at all. A man of experience and calibre says what he means, and I've no doubt that Leander did precisely that. If he saw "heaps in common" he'd have said so. I think we should respect him enough to accept that he'd be responsible with his terminology, and conclude that "cannot be ruled out" means precisely that.

For Leander to arrive at the conclusion that two signatures may have been written by the same man, ALL the bad comparisons will have been sorted away already

If you mean that Leander detected nothing in the signatures that would render a hypothetical Toppy-as-witness impossible, then once again, I would agree with him entirely. That doesn't mean he didn't highlight the non-matches. The fact that they could be explained away by reason X or reason Y doesn't mean that the suggested reasons actually DO explain them.

Then tell me, Ben, if Hutch WAS an imposter - then why is it that Toppy wrote in such a similar fashion? How did that come about? How could he be so close, close enough for Frank Leander to say it was a possible match? Just how do you explain this?

Like this:

I don't believe Toppy and the witness were the same person. I wouldn't rule it out - and nor would our discerning friend Mr. Leander - but I believe the likelihood is slim, thus leaving room aplenty for the possibility that Hutchinson was not the real name of the man who introduced himself as such to police on 12th November 1888.

"Probable", though is way too weak a word - "bordering on absolute certainty" captures the true meaning better.

You're entitled to your opinion of course. I personally don't think you've seen anything that would come anywhere near to justifying that "certainty", however.

The reason that Leander is speaking of a possible match lies in the fact that the signatures match closely

No, Fisherman. Absolutely not. That does not follow in conventional English. If you say that a match "cannot be ruled out", you are not saying that the match is "close".

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

How tiresome, we're here again.

Let's try to do this in simple terms, shall we? I appreciate that this isn't going to get me anywhere at all, but you know, part of me just can't stand by and watch this idiocy continue without intervening - please believe that that little part of me is annoying in the extreme to the rest of me, which would much rather be in bed right now, or in the pub, or - well, anywhere but on this interminable, repetitive thread. It truly has become the stuff of nightmares.

I digress.

Fisherman, Jolly Good, you went and sought expert opinion. Great. And he said what? Nothing more or less than I have said all along. Unless your translation is seriously amiss, he has not endorsed Toppy as the witness.

He has, quite rightly, referred to the FACT that there is a LIMIT to what you can tell from SURFACE analysis.

The ONLY way forward is to look at the bloody originals - which may add strength to your view, make no difference at all, or blow it out of the water. Right now, I don't know, and if this goes on for much longer, I won't care, either.

[DVV]

No, David - we all went our separate ways, and with our separate handstyles. Fisherman

Hi Fish,
cerainly so, but that simply tells me that things were very different in England LVP. Handwriting, in the past, was far more important in school than it is now. Who cares, for example, about "downstrokes and upstrokes", nowadays ?
Would any teacher forbid a pupil to write with his left-hand?

Hence, Sam Flynn, post #1 of this thread, about Toppy and Lambeth GH's signatures:
"some similarity..."
"remarkably similar"

Then The Grave Maurice, #9:
"remarkably similar"

And Robert, #10:
"definitely look similar".

Why that ?
Because of style, method, common social class, same area, same period, etc etc.

Now, back to Frank Leander.
Who says: "It cannot be ruled out" that we are dealing with the same person.
There is a gap of 10 years between the witness statement and Toppy's mariage certificate. 23 years when it comes to the census.
Which clearly means: Frank Leander thinks that the signatures mismatch more than they match, but due to the gap of time and other considerations, he cannot completely exclude the vague possibility that it could be the same person.
He's just prudent, especially since he hadn't the original documents in hand.

So what have we learnt from the experts ?
One, Sue Iremonger, flatly dismissed Toppy.
And Frank Leander merely considers Toppy as a remote possibility - at least for the time being.

Amitiés,
David

[Crystal]

Exactly, David. Excuse me that I've lost the will to reiterate everything I've already said endlessly already on this thread.

But how about this - if the signatures had been the probable, indeed - almost certain match that some on this thread believe them to be, how is it that Leander hasn't said so? Hmmm?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Iremonger, by contrast, had the actual documents to work with, which, as any experienced document examiner will tell you, puts her at a significant advantage."

When we find out what she said, there may be a grain of truth in what you say. Leander, however, had much more signatures to work from, and that would have put him at a significant advantage versus Iremonger. But the best thing of it all is that he was able to put US at a significant advantage, since he actually told us about the bits and pieces involved, whereas Iremonger has put us at a distinct DISADVANTAGE by not doing so.

The rest of your post is best answered by quoting Frank Leander from his new post to me, received this morning! Leander agrees with what I have already told you: there is no way that he or any other professional document examiner would ever go as far as to say that the signatures must have been written by the same man, but he says that the overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness (uppenbar likhet in Swedish), and that it offers "far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".

I had also told him about the surrounding circumstances with only a handful of George Hutchinsons at our disposal, and I had told him that some Ripperologists hold the wiew that Hutch was an imposter, and that my own feeling is that if this was the case, it would be odd in the extreme if Toppy had a signature that came so very close to the one of the imposter. Having taken part of this information, Leander says that "I share your reasoning about possible coincidental matches etc in LondonsīEast End of the 1880:s!!"
Please note that I quote two exclamation signs here, and not just the one. They go to show that Leander, just like me, thinks that the chances of such a match are virtually none - he shares my reasoning, and what I said when I contacted him was that I found it beyond credibility that such a match could have occurred; same name, same handstyle and different writers. It just does not happen, and Leander and I are agreed on that point.

On Lambeth Georges signature - that I sent over yesterday - Leander says that it is not a bad likeness, but Toppys writing is "closer handstylewise". And I think you will have heard that before, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Oh Crystal,
You were shrewd from the beginning - don't disappear!
And, thanks to Fish, we are now provided with another expert's opinion.
Sincerely, and with respect to all, Toppy's supporters should now be a bit less flat. It would only be fair and logical.

And more than ever, Ben could very well be right, saying:

Mismatching signatures + dodgy story = most probably, Toppy isn't Hutch.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Crystal asks:

"if the signatures had been the probable, indeed - almost certain match that some on this thread believe them to be, how is it that Leander hasn't said so? Hmmm?"

...and if you are an expert yourself, Crystal, how is it that you did not know of the connection between being left handed and writing with a backward leaning? Hmmmm?

I have posted Frank Leanders new post. You need to read that, I think. And that goes for David too, who claims that leander is only seeing a "remote possibility" - and to think that Ben hunts ME down for not quoting only the exact words Leander said...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

You just don't get irony, do you, Fisherman? Maybe it's lost in translation.

[DVV]

Leander, however, had much more signatures to work from, and that would have put him at a significant advantage versus Iremonger. But the best thing of it all is that he was able to put US at a significant advantage, since he actually told us about the bits and pieces involved, whereas Iremonger has put us at a distinct DISADVANTAGE by not doing so.
The rest of your post is best answered by quoting Frank Leander from his new post to me, received this morning! Leander agrees with what I have already told you: there is no way that he or any other professional document examiner would ever go as far as to say that the signatures must have been written by the same man, but he says that the overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness (uppenbar likhet in Swedish), and that it offers "far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".

I had also told him about the surrounding circumstances with only a handful of George Hutchinsons at our disposal, and I had told him that some Ripperologists hold the wiew that Hutch was an imposter, and that my own feeling is that if this was the case, it would be odd in the extreme if Toppy had a signature that came so very close to the one of the imposter. Having taken part of this information, Leander says that "I share your reasoning about possible coincidental matches etc in LondonsīEast End of the 1880:s!!"
Please note that I quote two exclamation signs here, and not just the one. They go to show that Leander, just like me, thinks that the chances of such a match are virtually none - he shares my reasoning, and what I said when I contacted him was that I found it beyond credibility that such a match could have occurred; same name, same handstyle and different writers. It just does not happen, and Leander and I are agreed on that point.
On Lambeth Georges signature - that I sent over yesterday - Leander says that it is not a bad likeness, but Toppys writing is "closer handstylewise". And I think you will have heard that before, Ben.
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
I'm a bit embarrased to say so, but...
Leander's apparent volteface, when added to your attempt to change your OWN translation, definitely puzzles me.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

Ah, so you were just being ironic, Crystal? Yeah, you are probably right - Iīm just an ignorant Swede, struggling with the language, not being able to pinpoint the subtleties you offer. That would be it.

Good thing, though, that Leander and I speak the same language, is it not?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"I'm a bit embarrased to say so, but...
Leander's apparent volteface, when added to your attempt to change your OWN translation, definitely puzzles me."

A bit clearer, please, David, and you shall have an answer.

The best,
Fisherman