Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

Hi Sam,

there are significant matches, and unsignificant ones...
For example, if a letter matches also dear Lambeth George's handwriting, the match hardly proves anything.

The reason for the match would be then the LVP education system.

Amitiés,
David

[Crystal]

Morning all. I never learn you know - but it was a good party, nonetheless. And even if I did pop in here once or twice, at least I didn't actually leave to pursue the fight...

Sam, it isn't that I can't , or don 't see how you come up with percentages. I do. It is, however, invalid in this context, and here we come back to what has always been the fundamental bone of contention here: that of perception.

You see a match. You take it at face value and you accept the conclusion that Toppy = Witness.

I see see broad similarities, some more specific, and marked differences. I do not take that at face value. I do not accept the conclusion that Toppy = Witness. I say 'Insufficient Evidence'.

Now why is this? I bet that there isn't much difference in the functioning capacity of our eyes - so it can't just be that.

It must, therefore, be perception that leads us in different directions, since I don't care either way if Toppy is the witness or not.

Perception equates to how we understand what we see. That is dependent, not only on what we see, but what we think about what we see: which in turn depends on our contextual state of knowledge.

Simple as.

Claiming that your percentages are empirical evidence is thus clearly erroneous, and I would have thought, somewhat beneath your obvious intellect.

Now, I'm going to bed, with the full intention of forgetting about this thread until at least this afternoon..

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, it isn't that I can't , or don 't see how you come up with percentages. I do. It is, however, invalid in this context.

... but why is it invalid, Crystal?

[Sam Flynn]

there are significant matches, and unsignificant ones...
For example, if a letter matches also dear Lambeth George's handwriting, the match hardly proves anything.

Lambeth George's writing shows more differences, Dave. He doesn't have those "top-launched t's", nor the widely-displaced dotted "i"s, the transitions between letters aren't the same, and he favours the "flourished H", which only appears (anomalously) on 1888p1. Apart from that "flourished H", Toppy's writing has far more consistent matches with 1888p1-3, period.

These matches prove everything - even on their own. When you factor in the family story, Toppy's connection with the East End (Lambeth George stays rooted in Lambeth), AND the fact that there were likely less than five George Hutchinsons of the right age-group in the whole of London in 1888 (and possibly only one living in the East End), I really don't see that there's any case left to answer.

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

Your percentages are valid for what they are, but as they are not the originals and depth of pen stroke and other things cannot be detected, the suggestion is that they are invalid overall. I believe this is what is meant by them being invalid. For what they are, an examination of two-dimensional signatures, they are quite valid.

Just to reiterate: Those who do not see what we see, i.e., strong similarities, still see what they say they see. Reality is otherwise, but I have no doubt they believe what they say. I suggest their minds cannot be changed. Too much foreshadowing has gone into the formulation of their ideas. I suggest that even proof positive won't change some minds, because to them it will not be proof positive.

Cheers,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

I suggest that even proof positive won't change some minds, because to them it will not be proof positive.

Thanks, Mike. If true, and I sadly suspect that it is (and not just in this context), then it begs serious questions about any pretensions "Ripperology" may have of being a field of serious study.

[DVV]

Lambeth George's writing shows more differences, Dave. He doesn't have those "top-launched t's", nor the widely-displaced dotted "i"s, the transitions between letters aren't the same, and he favours the "flourished H", which only appears (anomalously) on 1888p1. Apart from that "flourished H", Toppy's writing has far more consistent matches with 1888p1-3, period.

Hi Sam,

Agreed without reservation. And it doesn' t contradict my post(s).

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

He doesn't have those "top-launched t's", nor the widely-displaced dotted "i"s, the transitions between letters aren't the same, and he favours the "flourished H", which only appears (anomalously) on 1888p1

But then Toppy's top-launched "t"s look nothing like any of the signatures appended to the statement. Toppy's "t"s are of a similar height - usually taller - to his lower case "h"s, but they cross the actual letter itself, rather than being "lanched" from the right of the vertical "t" stem as they are in the statement, where they are also conspicuously shorter than the "h"s. The majority of expert opinion to date has opined that the signatures do not match, and when taken in tandem with the filthy nonsense that appeared in the Ripper and the Royals (in which Reg was a willing participant - "realising" that his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill with Mary Jane Kelly), the case for Toppy as the witness is weakened even further.

We have only seen a tiny fraction of the viable candidates for the witness out there - a tiny, miniscule not-to-be-invested-with-any-more-significance-than-it-merits fraction - because we know it can also include people who weren't living in London in 1888, and people whose name was not George Hutchinson.

Hi Mike,

Those who do not see what we see, i.e., strong similarities, still see what they say they see. Reality is otherwise

So, you see what you see, and what you see must reflect reality because you say it must? That is no less insipid than the reverse: "Those who do not see what we see, i.e., differences, still see what they say they see. Reality is otherwise, but I have no doubt they believe what they say."

I suggest their minds cannot be changed.

But if people were truly of that opinion, it makes fundamentally no sense to continue an aggressive, fight-to-the-death, last-man-standing posting battle of the type that I seemingly hyptonise people into conducting on a regular basis. It is is illogical to keep arguing with a person who you believe will not ever change his mind, but people do so anyway. It must, therefore, be an ego thing.

Oh, and copy and pastes at the ready if people want to get bogged down in crossed t's and curly H's.

[Crystal]

Sam, as the product of your personal perception, it isn't invalid. As empirical evidence, it is.

I have said why.

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, as the product of your personal perception, it isn't invalid. As empirical evidence, it is.

Crystal, my personal perception (or the products thereof) has little to do with this at all, nor have any "personal" factors, I can fully assure you. I've superimposed the images in a time-lapse film, and not too many bits "stuck out" as anomalous. On the contrary, the signatures overlaid one another with remarkable consistency. Now, there's not much in-depth perception involved in that - it's basic pattern-recognition, and as "objective" as one could get.

[Sam Flynn]

We have only seen a tiny fraction of the viable candidates for the witness out there

Only 80-odd to go, Ben, and that would eliminate all the George Hutchinsons in England. I suspect, however, that when that turned up a blank, you'd insist that he'd emigrated or changed his name.

and people whose name was not George Hutchinson.

... who just happened to chance on a writing style which matched to a high degree (in a "2D-scan" sense) that of a real George Hutchinson with known links to the East End, and more than one family account which identified him as the Dorset Street witness? Seriously - what odds would you get on that?

a tiny, miniscule not-to-be-invested-with-any-more-significance-than-it-merits fraction

Methinks thou protesteth too much, Ben.

[Sam Flynn]

Methinks thou protesteth too much, Ben.

... and I really don't understand why - because we've more than likely found your Ripper. You should, by rights, be c0ck-a-hoop.

[Ben]

I suspect, however, that if that turned up a blank, you'd insist that we cast the net overseas

Or more likely, Gareth, I'd reiterate the important observation that an individual who was capable of giving the police a demonstrably bogus witness account is equally capable of supplying the police with a false name, which would mean casting the net evern wide, m'afraid!

... who chanced on the writing style which matched (in a "2D-scan" sense) to a high degree that of a real George Hutchinson with known links to the East End

But as you know, I genuinely don't believe the writing style does match, let alone to a high degree, so there's no question of an "interesting coincidence" here. My feeling on the subject is that a mismatching signature plus a dodgy claim to witness fame argues against Toppy's candidacy, obliging us to look elsewhere.

because we've more than likely found your Ripper. You should, by rights, be c0ck-a-hoop.

I would be c0ck-a-hoop if I felt the signatures matched. The fact that they don't, to my mind, it a tremendous inconvenience more than anything!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

My feeling on the subject is that a mismatching signature plus a dodgy claim to witness fame argues against Toppy's candidacy.

Oh, my giddy aunt! The signatures do NOT mis-match. For the sake of your own sanity, Ben, please exorcise yourself of this desperate delusion.

We've caught your Ripper. Rejoice!

[Ben]

The signatures do NOT mis-match.

Ah, but I think they do mis-match.

And two experienced professionals the field of document analysis are also of the opinion that Toppy was not the witness on the basis of a signature comparison. The delusion that Toppy-as-Hutch is proven is far more painful to behold.