Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

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 Londons´East End of the 1880:s!!"
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
this is quite strange and irrelevant.
The best thing to do is to examine documents. That's all.

Why trying to involve the expert in the debate ?
Frank Leander already knew that we are dealing with several Hutchinsons from the same period, didn't he ?

It's like I was sending the signatures to a French expert, saying: "take care, the second Hutchinson claims to have seen Churchill in Dorset Street, while the witness refers to whoweknow."
How would you find that ?

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

When we find out what she said, there may be a grain of truth in what you say.

Ah, but when we have several reputable sources attesting to the fact that Iremonger compared the documents and came to the conclusion that they mismatched, where's the room for reasonable doubt? Iremonger compared the original documents, unlike Leander, who was circumspect enough to acknowledge that his observations cannot be construed as a full expert opinion. Crystal has also reiterated the importance of examining the actual documents.

Really fascinated by Leander's latest "observations", which by a stroke of great fortune, arrived so very soon after your initial post, and my attendant objections. Here's what he said initially:

It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person - there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters.
Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature.

That's obviously not a ringing endorsement for Toppy-as-witness.

It's an observation to the effect that, while matches are offset by non-matches, he "cannot be ruled out".

If he's continuing to advocate that we don't "discard" the possibility", I can only continue to agree.

Incidentally, if you told him that you only had a handful of Hutchinsons to chose from, you were certainly feeding him erroneous information, which is a very obvious no-no when recruiting the services of a document examiner.

We don't know if Hutchinson was alive by 1911.

We don't know if he was born in the East End.

We don't know if he was living there in 1911.

So it was completely wrong of you to inform your contact that we only have a handful of candidates to choose from, since we know - in addition - that there are several George Hutchinsons who appear in earlier census records, whose sginatures we have yet to see. Of course, since Leander is not an authority on the number of Hutchinsons at our disposal, there's no reason why he should be listened to on that subject, especially when he know he's been supplied with faulty information.

[Fisherman]

Here´s how it is:

The information Frank Leander got about the low number of Hutchinsons involved, was included in a mail to him after he had given his wiew on the signatures. I thanked him for his efforts and I told him about the two confronting camps in this business.
That means that I provided information that is very essential in any assessment on the issue.
After that, he remains at his original stance that we cannot say that the signatures must have been by the same man. He remains at his stance that the overall likeness and writing ability is an obvious one, and he tells us that the handstyle offers "far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".

I think, Ben, that a man of his experience will easily recognize the fact that people died in the period 1888-1911 in Britain. And he will also realize that not all Eastenders were chained to the East end back in 1888. He is an experienced policeman, who has seen all the strange turns a case can take throughout many, many years in service.

But you keep saying silly things like "Really fascinated by Leander's latest "observations", which by a stroke of great fortune, arrived so very soon after your initial post, and my attendant objections." You really should try and stay away from implying such things, Ben. Only disgustingly dishonest people resort to such things.

Here is the log from my computer:

Från: [email]Frank.Leander
Ämne: Re: Sv: Re: förfrågan Handstilar /Christer Holmgren/
Datum: torsdag 16 apr 2009 09.55.43 GMT+02:00
Till: ordet@sydsvenskan.se

If you need to do further research, you are welcome to access my computer and find out who is doing what here. The log does not lie, and I would be very thankful if you refrained from implying that I do. In fact, I demand that you adapt a gentleman´s attitude in this respect from now on, or I shall report you to the administrators of the boards.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

I told you so...

I hope those who asked for other experts to be brought to bear on this matter aren't too disappointed with the result of their well-intentioned requests - the reaction was entirely predictable. Whilst Leander's analysis is very welcome, it's a symptom of human nature that some will tend to favour whichever expert opinion least disrupts their world view, and afford a lukewarm reception (at best) to any opinions to the contrary.

Personally, I've been happy to rely all along on good old-fashioned eyesight and logic (it's not just about the signatures, remember), and nothing I've read here has altered the conclusions to which they've led me. It's an approach I recommend.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"Personally, I've been happy to rely all along on good old-fashioned eyesight and logic (it's not just about the signatures, remember), and nothing I've read here has altered the conclusions to which they've led me. It's an approach I recommend."

Absolutely, Sam - but it was when we used this approach that you-know-who started to yell about experts!
And of course - when you-know-who succeeds in creating a scenario in which we need to bring experts on the stage, they have also succeeded in telling people that this is a very hard issue to deal with.
It is of course not - it is very easy, just like you say.

But then again, if we provide the nay-sayers with both our own certainty and the concurring wiews of one of the top authorities, we have done all we can do, and that is where we stand now. Bespattered? Of course! Implicated as liars? Oh, yes!

But who cares, in the end? I set out to show, as cleary as possibile, that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness, and by now I think that I have reached as close to that goal as I could possibly hope to do, given the material offered.
Toppy was the Dorset Street witness. Time to move on!

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[DVV]

But then again, if we provide the nay-sayers with both our own certainty and the concurring wiews of one of the top authorities, we have done all we can do, and that is where we stand now. The best, Sam!
Fisherman

Hi again Fish,
call me a "nay sayer", or the most stupid poster on boards (I'll not call the administrator, I swear), but what does it mean ?

I'm not certain of anything, but let's say I am - certain that Toppy wasn't the witness.

Then I would post, right in your manner :

"My certainty + Iremonger concurring views = I'm right and can't bring anything else."

And once more :
FL hasn't seen the original documents.
His first opinion, according to your translation, doesn't make you right.
SI, having examined the original documents, has dismissed Toppy.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

I'm not accusing you of anything sinister, Fisherman.

I'm only saying it would be odd if the gentleman in question changed his tune from a rather cautious and lukewarm "cannot be ruled out" to something altogether more Toppy-endorsing in the interval elapsing between your first post to me this morning and my post querying it. That's the beginning and the end of my observation. I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm not being ungentlemanly. But I exercise my right to find it odd.

I'm afraid I've seen nothing that would qualify Leander as an expert in East End living in the late Victorian period, and even if he was, I'm afraid there's nothing to justify the conclusion that Toppy was only a handful of viable Hutchinsons, and that the witness we seek must belong in that handful.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Ben writes - I'm not accusing you of anything sinister, Fisherman.

Fisherman is left handed as well? Why didn't you say so? IT ALL MAKES SENSE AT LAST. It's the backwards leaning thing, you know..

[Sam Flynn]

I can fully understand the emotions bestirred in situations like these, because I've been there myself. As a young lad, I had been impressed by Erich von Däniken's arguments that the lines in the Peruvian desert had been landing-grounds for ancient astronauts. Why - there was even an illustration in one of his books showing a modern aircraft parking-bay alongside a remarkably-similar feature on the Nazca Plateau.

Then, some time in the early 1980s, the BBC Horizon programme reproduced this very illustration on screen... and then overlaid it with filmed footage of the same Nazca "parking-bay". A pair of boots then appeared on the "runway" and proceeded to walk, heel-to-toe fashion, crunching across the "landing bays" in a few seconds. The camera panned out to show the presenter standing in an area a little under a metre square, with the "parking-bays" revealed as the claws of a humming-bird. The bottom fell out of my world (and almost vice versa) when I saw this, and I went into denial straight away - it must be some trick of the camera! But my eyes clearly were not deceiving me, and denial rapidly turned to frustration and anger - with the author, primarily, but also with myself, for having been so gullible in the first place.

I was most upset by this realisation, and threw my von Däniken, and similar, books into the bin - but it taught me a valuable lesson nonetheless.

[Ben]

Toppy was the Dorset Street witness. Time to move on!

Haha!

No.

Seriously, it tends to be somewhat indicative of desperation when people resort to triumphalist rhetoric during discourse of this nature. "Ha! I've won the argument because I say I have, and Ha! I've proved my case because I say I have!" You're welcome to "move on" if you want, of course, but I doubt very much that you'll do any such thing. I won't be moving on, and I've no doubt that you'll be sticking around with me, essentially enabling me to dicatate your internet movements.

I think that I have reached as close to that goal as I could possibly hope to do, given the material offered.

Uhuh.

"Cannot be ruled out".

What a colossal, ringing endorsement that is.

[Crystal]

Never trust a man with 'Von' in his name?

[Sam Flynn]

Never trust a man with 'Von' in his name?

No - the lesson is always to trust your own eyes above the words of somebody with a favourite theory.

[Crystal]

I wasn't serious. But seriously, a lot of people believed him at the time, I believe. You as well. Photographs can mislead, and so can digital images of handwriting samples.

[Ben]

when I saw this, and I went into denial straight away - it must be some trick of the camera! But my eyes clearly were not deceiving me, and denial rapidly turned to frustration and anger - with the author, primarily, but also with myself, for having been so gullible in the first place.

So don't make the same mistake twice, Gareth.

All the best,

Ben (Who would love nothing more than for the witness to be Toppy, so we can all go home, chill out, and drink Larkins Porter. Unfortunately, however...)

[Ally]

Seriously, it tends to be somewhat indicative of desperation when people resort to triumphalist rhetoric during discourse of this nature. "Ha! I've won the argument because I say I have, and Ha! I've proved my case because I say I have!" You're welcome to "move on" if you want, of course, but I doubt very much that you'll do any such thing. I won't be moving on, and I've no doubt that you'll be sticking around with me, essentially enabling me to dicatate your internet movements.

It also tends to be indicative of desperation when someone ends their paragraph with a challenge like: "I own you and I knew you were going to do this therefore, I control you", in a transparent and desperate bid for the other person to stop posting in reaction.

What this proves is that you lack the internal control to quit posting on your own and need your "nemesis" to do it for you so you can feel like you've won.

You are both pathetic and desperate and don't know when to quit. Neither one of you rules the other. You are both ruled by your own individual lameness.