Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[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.

[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]

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.

[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?

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..