Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

argghhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

when will this madness end?!?!

Sam/Mike...hi...considering you appear to think that people who cannot see the similarities, or rather who can see similarities but who cannot accept that they are conclusive since they can also see differences, are defending a trenchant position which is based on preconceptions of Hutch being the Ripper etc and therefore if they admit that Toppy = Hutch this somehow undermines that position...what is the reason for me not being convinced by the similarities?

I have no position on Hutch other than he was a witness. I don't think he was the Ripper. To me he was either a married man who had to make up some excuse for loitering outside the room of a known prostitute or he was never there and just wanted a ride on the Ripper-train for a bit.

To me, it is the wise thing to acknowledge certain things about myself which make reserving judgement on whether there is a match/mismatch the only possible position: such as:

a/ i don't have experience of the commonalities of the time; someone with experience in this field and who knows what to look for would obviously do a better job of evaluating whether there is a match/mismatch

b/ On trusting my own eyes, i would have happily concluded that both the Georges Crystal posted were an almost perfect match; that she then told us these were known to be by different hands was enough to demonstrate to me, that eyesight alone is NOT a qualification for judging whether sigs match even where forgery is not concerned

c/ this whole thread is a perfect example of "perception" and how it varies from person to person; how can something be held self-evident if half the people on this very thread cannot see it, but half the people can? That alone should testify to the fact that just looking at something and trying to make sense of it is NOT enough in this field to make an authoritative conclusion.
Saying, "Well i can see it so it must be true" is the sort of circular logic that gets us nowhere, since the same sentence could be used by both the "matching" camp and the "mismatching" camp. Personally i think it is sad that the matching camp are resorting to such a statement, whereas the non-matching camp are merely saying, not that it rules Toppy out, but merely that the case has not yet been proven, and that we need further evidence before something so definite is asserted. Circumspection i think they call it.

The worst thing about the "it must be true because i can see it" position, is that it is designed to quash all further argument; how can you argue with that? You cannot mount a logical argument to deal with an illogical statement. You can only point out how illogical it is and hope that people "see" why. It's like a witch hunt..."she's a witch because i say she is". Can you see that at all in your arguments?

Best and wisest course of action is to wait for further "expert"/experienced in the field opinion such as Crystal's. I am sure that when she does look at the documents and evaluate them, she will tell us "why" she comes to the conclusions she arrives at, as well as "how".

tc everyone

[The Good Michael]

Infant Avian,

You admit that you do see the similarities, yet you question what you see. That is healthy. Others only see differences.

I do not think that it is only possible that Hutch is Toppy, only that it is highly probable. The only reasons I have are based upon signatures that are nearly impossibly close and Reg's story (not fairclough's), and the relative dearth of Hutchinsons. It isn't ALL about the signatures. It is about putting together a puzzle of which the signatures are the most striking piece. It would be completely astounding if all these components, when put together, amounted to nothing. I completely believe that Ben and others see different things. I also believe that the judgement is clouded and those truths are not reality.

I'm not so sure that Crystal is going to give us anything more. Indeed, I'm not placing any trust in what she has to tell us because I'm not there to see it. I would trust Leander's point of view which has already shown the signatures to be probable. Unfortunately, he is not in London and can only give us what many of us already see.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

Jen - you speak wisely. You ask - 'when will this madness end?'

To which I would respond: 'when I pretend to go to Kew', or failing that, 'when this thread culminates in a killing spree the like of which would put any plumber to shame'.

I don't think I have anything further to add to your articulate and perceptive post.

Except: Sam, are you really, seriously, denying the reality of perception bias? It's untenable, for all the reasons given above. You say you have no bias - why then, do you insist upon the certainty of flawed and poor quality evidence?

Make as many allusions to witchcraft as you like. I , at least, have an open mind about the outcome of this debate.

[babybird67]

Infant Avian,

You admit that you do see the similarities, yet you question what you see. That is healthy. Others only see differences.

I do not think that it is only possible that Hutch is Toppy, only that it is highly probable. The only reasons I have are based upon signatures that are nearly impossibly close and Reg's story (not fairclough's), and the relative dearth of Hutchinsons. It isn't ALL about the signatures. It is about putting together a puzzle of which the signatures are the most striking piece. It would be completely astounding if all these components, when put together, amounted to nothing. I completely believe that Ben and others see different things. I also believe that the judgement is clouded and those truths are not reality.

I'm not so sure that Crystal is going to give us anything more. Indeed, I'm not placing any trust in what she has to tell us because I'm not there to see it. I would trust Leander's point of view which has already shown the signatures to be probable. Unfortunately, he is not in London and can only give us what many of us already see.

Cheers,

Mike

[can someone please send me a pm explaining how to break this quote up into sections?]

I admit i see similarities and it's not that i question what i "see"; it's that i question the relevance and significance of what i see; i also see differences. I am not happy to conclude on the basis of some surface similarities that exist along surface differences that the sigs ARE a definite match. I haven't said i believe, based on the differences, that they are a mismatch either (note i DID say they were a mismatch originally, until i realised that i do not have enough experience to decide either way).

I do not believe that Leander said that a match was "probable". I believe he said that a match "cannot be ruled out" which is a completely different thing.

Even if one accepts (which i don't) that Leander thought they matched, you still have a situation where we have one expert saying there is a match and one (Iremonger) saying there is not. Again, totally reflective of this thread with half saying there is a match and half saying hang on a minute, we dont accept that they match conclusively.

Sig matching is not an exact science...in such a field, NOBODY can claim their perception is faultless or that they have the truth and it's just faulty vision or preconceptions on the part of those whose views do not accord with their own.

[Ben]

Yes, a very perceptive post there, BB!

Hi Mike,

You're more than welcome, of course, to believe that Toppy WAs "probably" the witness. I profoundly disagree, for reasons that have been discussed ad nauseam, but the fact that the majority of experts to date subscribe to the opinion that Toppy was NOT the witness has done a great deal to restore confidence in what was already a strong opinion. I'd be completely astounded if mismatching sigantures plus a fantastically bogus story involving a Royal Conspiracy meant that Toppy was the witness, but I can't "rule it out" completely.

The only thing I would object to, in very emphatic terms, is the suggestion that Leander declared the signatures to be "probable". This he never did, as even Fisherman was prudent enough to acknowledge.

Who's up for going round in circles?

Me!

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Yes! Me! Let's go!

Anyone else?

[DVV]

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.

Hi Sam,

Experts say Toppy isn't Hutch.
And we don't claim "case closed".
You shouldn't be sad, should you ?

Amitiés,
David

[Crystal]

Mike

You say 'others see only differences'.

Who, exactly?

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, are you really, seriously, denying the reality of perception bias?

Categorically. What I see here is as objective an experience as putting a round peg into a round hole, or aligning the edges of a smashed plate before supergluing them back together.

You say you have no bias - why then, do you insist upon the certainty of flawed and poor quality evidence?

It's neither flawed nor of poor quality - this is quintessentially an exercise of comparing two-dimensional images, of which we have access to perfectly good scans.

I , at least, have an open mind about the outcome of this debate.

You may well do apropos the ultimate identity of Hutchinson, Crystal. However, and with the utmost respect, I sense that your impartiality does not extend to the questions being raised about the expertise (or otherwise) needed to compare two signatures.

[DVV]

Hi all,

even if my eyes told me that the 1888, 1898 and 1911 signatures are all from the same hand, I couldn't be absolutely certain that Toppy was Hutch.
It would be my opinion, but I'd eagerly want to read SI's report.

I'd still ask myself : why had expert categorically dismissed Toppy ?

And I'd say: "on balance, I think Toopy was Hutch."

In favour of Toppy, I'd have:

1: similar signatures
2: probable family ties with Essex and Romford

Against:

1: the fact that an expert (at least) has flatly dismissed Toppy
2: the well known dodgy story
3: the fact that Hutch was referred to as groom and a labourer, and never as a plumber, in 1888
4: the fact that Hutch had known Mary since late 1886 or early 1887, ie, before Mary's move to Whitechapel. (Nothing known connects Toppy with the areas Mary was living in.)

Amitiés,
David

[Crystal]

Categorically. What I see here is as objective an experience as putting a round peg into a round hole, or aligning the edges of a smashed plate before supergluing them back together.It's neither flawed nor of poor quality - this is quintessentially an exercise of comparing two-dimensional images, of which we have access to perfectly good scans.You may well do apropos the ultimate identity of Hutchinson, Crystal. However, and with the utmost respect, I sense that your impartiality does not extend to the questions being raised about the expertise (or otherwise) needed to compare two signatures.

Fine Sam. So what you see is objective (no, but for the sake of this argument).

OK, so how is what Ben (for example ) sees any less so?

Oh, maybe not Ben, then, because you might say he had other bias.

OK, then, BB then? Is she wrong? Is David?

I'm not sure I see why your objective perception should be more valid than theirs.

Maybe you could explain?

[Fisherman]

Hi all!

Well, in the end, I had to do it, although I was of the meaning that it need not be done. I once again contacted Frank Leander to ask him if he could straighten out the semantic questions that have arisen on these boards. In order to dismantle any questions that could surface as a consequence of my not publishing all of my question and the answer, I have translated it all, and I publish it all.

If anybody should have any criticism to offer since they think Leanders answer is ”too timely”, I once again offer anybody to have my computer checked. Anbody who wants to know how my translation tallies with the real word are free to check for themselves – I am not a professional translator, but I have done a lot of translation work in my day.

This is my mail, in Swedish:

”Hej igen!

Vi bytte några mail för tre veckors tid sedan, i ämnet Jack the Ripper, och det har det brutit ut en smärre folkstorm på den website där diskussionen förs som en följd av ett par av de formuleringar du använde i dina kommentarer kring George Hutchinsons namnteckningar.

I ditt utlåtande kring de här namnteckningarna sade du att det knappast kan uteslutas att vi har att göra med samma skribent. Du sade också att det finns en uppenbar likhet mellan namnteckningarna och att de är alldeles för lika handstilsmässigt för att erbjuda någon anledning att utesluta en träff.

Det finns de som menar att det föreligger en oöverbryggbar diskrepans mellan de här formuleringarna - man menar att uttrycket att det knappast går att utesluta att vi har att göra med samma skribent pekar på en låg sannolikhet att en träff föreligger medan uttrycken att det finns en uppenbar likhet mellan namnteckningarna och att de är alldeles för lika handstilsmässigt för att erbjuda någon anledning att utesluta en träff i stället är formuleringar som pekar på en hög sannolikhet för en träff. Sålunda anser en del läsare att du har sagt en sak en gång och en annan sak nästa gång, medan andra gör tolkningen att de uttryck du använt av dig av samtliga är giltiga för att beskriva en generellt god överensstämmelse.

Kan du ge en replik i den här frågan? Kan man tycka att två namnteckningar har en uppenbar likhet och att de är alltför lika handstilmässigt för att erbjuda någon anledning att utesluta en träff – och samtidigt säga att det knappast kan uteslutas att de är av samma hand?”

And this is Frank Leanders answer, in Swedish too:

”Hej igen!
*
Semantiken är svår! Jag vill inte ge mig in på någon ytterligare utveckling i ämnet eftersom jag endast kommenterat några bilder via mail men i "min värld" är uttrycket KAN INTE UTESLUTAS i samma härad som att DET FINNS UPPENBARA LIKHETER I VISSA AVSEENDEN. Men återigen: det är först när man har ett originalmaterial med ett tillfredsställande antal jämförelsenamnteckningar som man vet vad indikationerna är värda!
*
Mvh
*
Frank
*
PS "Kan inte uteslutas" har tidigare använts som det lägsta, försiktigaste uttrycket på den positiva sidan i en tidigare skala som vi använt i handstilsundersökningar vilket väl understryker att vi inte uppfattar någon diskrepans annat än i "amplituden" mellan uttrycken. DS”

And here is what most of you will need – the translation:

”Hello again!

We exchanged some mails some three weeks ago, in the topic of Jack the Ripper, and a minor gale has been blowing since on the website where the discussion is going on, this as a consequence of a couple of the wordings you used in your comments around the George Hutchinson signatures.

In your statement concerning these signatures, you said that it could hardly be ruled out that we were dealing with the same writer. You also said that there is an obvious likeness inbetween the signatures and that they are far too alike handstylewise to offer any reason to rule out a match.

There are those who mean that there lies an unbridgeable discrepancy between these wordings – they think that the expression saying that it hardly could be ruled out that we are dealing with the same writer points to a low likeliness that we have a match, whereas the expressions that there is an obvious likeness inbetween the signatures and that they are far too alike handstylewise to offer any reason to rule a match out, are instead expressions that point to a high likeliness for a match. Thus some readers believe that you have said one thing at one occasion and another at the next, whereas others make the interpretation that the expressions you have used all are useful for describing a generally good match.

Could you give an answer to this question? Can one think that two signatures have an obvious likeness and that they are far too alike handstylewise to offer any reason to rule a match out – and at the same time say that it can hardly be ruled out that they are made by the same hand?”

Frank Leanders answer in translation:

”Hello again!

Semantics is a hard thing! I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail, but in ”my world”, the expression CAN NOT BE RULED OUT belongs to the same parish as THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS. But once again: It is not until you have an original material with a sufficient number of signatures to compare that you can tell what the indications are worth!

Friendly greetings,

Frank

PS. ”Can not be ruled out” has earlier been used as the lowest, most careful expression on the positive side in a scale that we have used in investigations of handstyles, and it serves well to underline when we cannot see any discrepancies other than in the ”amplitude” between the expressions. DS."

Alright, everybody – make of this what you want. I am conviced that the interpretations will travel in various directions. But I don´t think we can allow ourselves to fortwith state that Leander saw the signatures as a poor match. Then again, interpretations have been made on this thread before that have had me quite baffled, so it can hardly be ruled out that this will happen agai...

Whoops. Did it again.

Fisherman

[DVV]

the expression CAN NOT BE RULED OUT belongs to the same parish as THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS. Fisherman

Hi Fish,

Thanks for that.
But we know from the beginning that there are obvious likenesses in certain respects.

If not, Sam, Mike and you wouldn't have claimed "case closed !" so fiercely, would have you ?

Obvious likenesses in certain respects means also: "discrepancies in some other respects", no ?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

David asks:

"Obvious likenesses in certain respects means also: "discrepancies in some other respects", no ?"

Well, David, I think you may need to look at the wording telling us that the expression "cannot be ruled out", that Leander elaborates on, traditionally points out that we are dealing with samples of text where no discrepancies can be perceived, other than in the amplitude of the expressions.
You may also want to ponder the fact that it is clear by now that the wording "cannot be ruled out" functions eminently when you need to describe obvious likenesses - something that has not gone down well before.
I also recommend the insight that Leander is speaking of the positive part of the scale in this issue.

Apart from this, we know - just like you say - that there are discrepancies. But up til now it has been suggested that these discrepancies may have meant that the match was a poor one. This can no longer be suggested, I think.

To me, he is VERY consistent throughout - he does not yell "It´s a certain match!", but instead tells us that there is enough to recognize that the positive weight makes the scales tip over. He tells us that he uses the lowest, most careful assession, and that he would have needed the original documents and more samples. The indications are there, but without more and better material, it is hard to know exactly what they are worth.

So no contradiction on Leanders behalf! No "complete turn-around". Just a cool, calm and collected telling us that we need to regard the signature match as one that lies on the positive end of the scale - but we need more to be able to upgrade that verdict.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Thankyou, Fisherman!

CAN NOT BE RULED OUT belongs to the same parish as THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS

Indeed it does.

And he's a sensible man for acknowledging as much, since there are obvious likenesses "in certain respects", just as there were obvious likenesses between Crystal's "George" (see Confusing Elephant post) and that of Toppy. Trouble is, there are also obvious dissimilarities, which he was prudent enough to highlight in his initial post. It was also very refreshing to hear him underscore the following:

I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail...It is not until you have an original material with a sufficient number of signatures to compare that you can tell what the indications are worth!

but instead tells us that there is enough to recognize that the positive weight makes the scales tip over.

Well, no, he doesn't do that.

He said nothing about the positive weight "tipping over" in this case at all. Interestingly, he stated that the "cannot be ruled out" expression can also be applied to cases where no disrepencies other than "amplitude" can be detected. In this case, however, there were discrepences - and he commented on them specifically in addition to using the decidedly lukewarm phrase "cannot be ruled out".

You may also want to ponder the fact that it is clear by now that the wording "cannot be ruled out" functions eminently when you need to describe obvious likenesses

Well, it becomes a bit more applicable when you're talking about their being a likeness "in certain respects" - yes. You can say something like, "Given that there are obvious likenesses in certain respects, it cannot be ruled out that one man wrote both signatures". He's certainly not saying that the signature match possibility belongs in thre "positive end of the scale", nor does he imply that an analysis of the originals will necessarily "upgrade" that verdict, since's it's obvious that such an analysis could have the opposite effect.

All the best,
Ben