Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

Show me where I misrepresented Leander.

Tell me if you agree with me or not that when Leander states that he would be surprised if Toppys signature and that on the police report were not a match, he is in fact saying that at present he believes that Toppy WAS the witness?
If you reply in the negative, I want a motivation.

After that, you can aske me anything YOU would like to - I have nothing to hide and no agenda, so I can promise you a fair answer each and every time.

Can you do the same for me?

Fisherman

Fish,
once again, read your posts and compare them to Leander's words.
And do it yourself, please.
As to Leander "being surprised"... very well... but then why did he say he had to see the original documents first?

As for the agenda, I've never accused you of having one.
Your problem is that you can't bear contradiction, that's all.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Ben! I hear you are a really nice guy!

Oh, good.

Yes, I am a really nice guy, but one who tends to respond with hostility what you accuse me of being completely dishonest, or having incredible bias, and of stepping over dead people "in order not to concede a point that goes against (me)". If you then claim that you have flies on your lavatory that you cherish more than me, I'm probably going to conceal my "nice guy" side, if only temporarily. What else were you expecting when you made those outrageous and slanderous observations?

So nice, in fact, that you are ready to say that I have used my son to portray Mary Kellys remains!

But you did.

That was a statement of fact.

And it was distasteful in the extreme, and you did it out of sheer desperation to score points over me.

I seem to remenber that you´ve made rather a poor figure in every exchange we have had?

Ah, but of course, if Fisherman tells me I've cut a poor figure, who I am to disagree?

[babybird67]

uh oh David

Fish,
once again, read your posts and compare them to Leander's words.
And do it yourself, please.
As to Leander "being surprised"... very well... but then why did he say he has to see the original documents first?

As for the agenda, I've never accused you of having one.
Your problem is that you can't bear contradiction, that's all.

Amitiés,
David

Be careful reminding Fish what he said. You tend to get called a liar even if you quote him verbatim. A sad tactic of someone who has lost the actual argument long ago, but small things please small minds.

[Crystal]

Ok

Prove it. Go on. Let's see it.

Prove that Ben slandered you.
Prove that BB lied about you
Prove that I am biased in my personal regard for the above named.

I'll enjoy watching you try.

Although of course you won't. You'll just spout more poisonous nonsense, I expect.

Or will you prove me wrong?

[Fisherman]

David:

"As to Leander "being surprised"... very well... but then why did he say he has to see the original documents first?"

As for the agenda, I've never accused you of having one.
Your problem is that you can't bear contradiction, that's all.

Why does he say that he wants to see the originals? Because he has made no full examination. He clearly tells us that AS IT STANDS he would be surprised if they were not one and the same. But saying that, he also aadmits that things may change it. More surfacing signatures are one such thing - if they were to deviate in a manner that points away from a match, then Leander will move the hit from the positive side on the scale towards the negative one.
AS IT STANDS, though, Leander is of the meaning that Toppy probably was the Dorset Street witness. And it seems that your "very well" tells us you agree, which is fine.
I think we all need to remember that Leanders wiew does not prove that Toppy and Hutch were the same man. It strengthens the suggestion immensely, yes - but even if we were all to agree that Leander probably is right, it will mean only an agreement and not proof. This distinction seems to have gone lost along the way. And a few people out there (and you know who) seem terribly, terribly afraid to acknowledge the wiews of Leander, even to the degree that they refuse to accept the more outspoken posts, which is a disgrace in my wiew. It slanders Leander in a very unpleasant way.

As for me not being ableto take contradiction, I think and hope that you are being a bit unfair, David. I have conceded many a time that others have made points that have proven my stance not very tenable, and I do hope that I will do so again when this occurs, for occur it will. I have on many occasions stated that there are other posters on these boards that are more knowledgeable than me, and that my main objective is to share and to learn.

On this issue, however, we have a situation that is extremely infected. I honestly believe that the efforts that have been made to discredit Frank Leander have been utterly tasteless. I also believe that the stance that has been taken by some of those who represent the Flemchinson side has been deeply dishonest at times. And although this thread has lept up to over 2300 posts, I have not been busy defending millions and millions of points, and unwilling to give way in any of them. I have actually only fought for one point - tha the signatures are very much alike to my and Frank Leanders eyes, and that Leander has confirmed the strong feeling I, Sam, Mike, Malcolm and some otheres have had - that the signatures may very well be a genuine match.
But this is something that may not be said on the thread without meeting a furious opposition. And furious oppositions are fine by me, as long as they treat an expert like Leander with respect and allow a poster like me to choose my own occasions when I want to post and when I wish not to. But not even this has been allowed.

I am glad that you see the sense in recognizing that a man who says that he would be surprised if he did not have a match, quite obviously believes that he HAS that match. I would, of course, also like to know where it is you think I have misrepresented Leander or drawn too much on what he has said - but It can wait til tomorrow, as far as I´m concerned.

Can I also add that it is refreshing to have at least some opposed poster to deal with that can still conduct a reasonably courteous debate? I will try and take care not to let too much of the animosity from the posts inbetween Ben and me spill over to my answers to you. If that has already happened, you have my apologies.

Fisherman

[Crystal]

I doubt it Fish. Really.

I don't think Leander said Toppy was 'probably' the Dorset Street witness at all. I choose to believe instead that either you made it up, or that you're so utterly deranged that you actually believe it.

I really don't care which. Because, as anyone with a shred of rationality can see, your claims are entirely untenable.

If this thread is 'infected', then you're the one I blame.

[Ben]

He clearly tells us that AS IT STANDS he would be surprised if they were not one and the same

But that's not what he said in his initial letter.

He didn't say anything vaguely resembling that in his original letter.

So the fact that he makes such radically contrasting observations on two seperate occasions effectively eradicates the value of both observations, since he failed to be even remotely consistent. If you had the sense not to keep bombarding Leander until he said something vaguely resembling what you wanted him to say, there would have been no doubts as to his credibility/honesty or yours, but these second, third and fourth "clarifications" are dubious in the extreme, and have done immeasurable damage to both of you, in my view.

AS IT STANDS, though, Leander is of the meaning that Toppy probably was the Dorset Street witness

No, Leander is most emphatically not of that meaning, if we have the sense to accept his original letter, as helpfully translated by Crystal's Swedish friend, and allow it to stand as as a testament to his genuine "spontaneous comment". It betrays not the vaguest trace of an insinuation that Toppy "probably was" the Dorset Street witness. Even you acknowledged that he said no such thing when you were addressing his initial contribution. You know full well that his first latter said nothing about Toppy "probably" being the witness, or anything that could be construed as "meaning" that, and I demonstrated as much by quoting directly from your posts.

It strengthens the suggestion immensely, yes - but even if we were all to agree that Leander probably is right, it will mean only an agreement and not proof.

No. It doesn't strengthen the suggestion, "immensely" or otherwise. What it does is present an entirely neutral stance; one that asserts that, while the similarities are offset by the differences, the latter are insufficient to rule him out as impossible. None of that can ever be construed as meaning that Toppy was "probably" the witness.

And a few people out there (and you know who) seem terribly, terribly afraid to acknowledge the wiews of Leander, even to the degree that they refuse to accept the more outspoken posts

But then I've been quoting him verbatim for the most part, as opposed to putting nonsensical words in his mouth and then bombarding the expert in question until he gives in and says what you desperately wanted him to have said from the outset. Honestly, you accuse the "furious opposition" of not treating Leander with respect, but just how respectful to do think it is to continually bombard the poor man in a transparent attempt to procure a more Toppy-endorsing stance from him than he originally offered, despite his strongly urged caution that a proper expert comparison cannot be made from material of this nature, and despite his rather fervent wish not to be asked to elaborate further.

Oh, and if you're looking for "reasonably courteous debate", I'm afraid comparing me to Adolf Hitler just isn't the ticket.

[DVV]

Oh, and if you're looking for "reasonably courteous debate", I'm afraid comparing me to Adolf Hitler just isn't the ticket.

Maybe not, Ben,

now that we know that "Johnny Upright" means in fact "Johnny Rotten", I bet you've been compared to Gandhi or Mandela.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Go fishing. Please. You know what you know. Ben knows what he knows. Neither of you is changing his opinion. Ben will not change his opinion. You can't force him to. The credibility of your case is at stake here. Take some time off. Maybe 2 weeks or so. Gareth will be here to see that things don't get slanted too far in the other direction. Take time off. It's for your own good. If I have to read one more interminable, mind-numbing post of point/counterpoint from either of you, which is worse than ineffectual in this argument as they are so boring and unreadable by any sane person, I will also ask the administrators to close this thread. I will go so far as to see if we can ban all Hutchinson threads and make the name itself a curse word. Go. Just go.

Mike

[DVV]

Fisherman,
Go fishing. Please. You know what you know. Ben knows what he knows. Neither of you is changing his opinion. Ben will not change his opinion.
Mike

Mike,
I agree, it would be stupid to exchange the same arguments 200 pages more.
But, with respect, I must point out that there is some difference between the two parties, when it comes about "knowing".

Fish, Sam and you think you've found the truth. Toppy was Hutch.
Ben and I think it's not proven. Or let's say not proven yet.
And so does Leander.
And so does Sue Iremonger.

Honestly, I wouldn't be that much surprised if Toppy was Hutch (and that'll be also a great relief).
But to the present day, I still have doubts. Serious doubts. For reasons which have little to do with Hutch's candidacy.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

David,

Honestly, I don't know. I only go by what the current knowledge base is and how I interpret it. I have no doubt about what Leander's intent is, but others interpret it differently. I will say that in order to move some people an inch in either direction may take more than is possible. Not me, however. I can change sides with the best of politicians... or professional rugby players.

Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi Guys,
I sense that this mammoth thread is about to be axed, which is not surprising.
We are all individuals , and we all tend to see ,what we want to see, and we are the most reluctant to change any opinions we hold, even if it is staring us straight in the face.
Is there any surprise that the family of Topping refuse to enter any comment , which could be beneficial to Casebook, can you imagine JD, trying to get a honest word in?
I believe strongly that Topping was Hutch, for various reasons, but that is a opinion, but at least it is now firmly on record.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Is there any surprise that the family of Topping refuse to enter any comment

Hi Richard,

Sorry I don't understand...

Is this thread about "Hutch the Ripper" ?
No.

Any expert in document examination in this family ?
They would be welcome.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

”Go fishing. Please. You know what you know ... Take some time off. Maybe 2 weeks or so. Gareth will be here to see that things don't get slanted too far in the other direction.”

What a splendid suggestion, Mike! I will take you up on it. I AM going fishing in Norway next week, and it would be a good preparation for the tour to drop this weird thread.
Just like you say, there is need for somebody to see to it that the issue is not slanted too far, and I know full well that there are people around who can take care of it. Sensible, unbiased, logically thinking people.

So why not?

Of course, I will not leave the thread without making my stance perfectly clear once again. And I thought that this would be best made by presenting Leanders posts together and subjecting them to a few questions.
Here they all are:

”Post 1:
”I wish to strongly underline your wiew that comparing research into signatures must be done using the original material and I/we would not have the possibility to write a full expert´s opinion on the material supplied. Under the circumstances, however, I would like to express myself thusly:
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.
The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things. The signature at the top (the police report signature from page three of the protocol – my remark) is unquestionably the one that differs most at any rate.
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!
Good luck with the hunt!
Frank Leander”

Post 2, which answered my query about whether he could see the age in the signature of the man who signed the police report is:

"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences (I had no idea of the persons age and you can normally not make any too certain assessments of age from a persons handwriting)!"

Post 3:
”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness, and it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".

Post 4:
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

Post 5, in response to my question:
”My wiew is that you in your latest mail write that you think that the likeness between the signatures means that you place the match on the positive end of the scale, but that you would need the original documents and more signatures to be a bit more sure about it.
Is that a correct wiew?”

And here´s Frank Leanders answer:

”Yes, that´s about it, or put differently: In an investigation or a search for a wanted person, it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by).
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."

Now, these are a few questions that needs to be answered once again:

A: Does Leander change his mins about the quality of the match at any stage? The question came up as a result of Leander saying that a match ”could not be ruled out” in post 1.

To answer this question, we need to look at post 5. In that post, Leander states that ”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.”

This means that those who believe that ”cannot be ruled out” points to a very unenthusiastic judging of the quality of the match are wrong. ”Cannot be ruled out” is an expression that is professionally used at the SKL to describe a hit on the positive side of the scales.
Now, does a hit on the positive side of the scale mean that it is a probable one? Leander tells us that the expression ”cannot be ruled out” stands for ”the lowest, most careful expression” on that positive side, and so one may reason that such a hit may not be a good one.
Luckily, we can see from the rest of Leanders post that he thinks that the hit is quite a good one, for he writes in the same post that ”In an investigation or a search for a wanted person, it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by).”

Thus we know that Leander is of the meaning that as things stand and at present, he wuld be surprised to learn that Toppy did not sign the police report.

Now, does this stance represent a change from his initial stance? Is there anything that points us to such a thing?
Obviously, when Leander explains exactly what ”cannot be ruled out” stands for in his professional line of work, we know that this expression cannot be used to point to an unenthusiastic judgement of the match.
But is there anything else that goes to point to any undecided standing on Leanders behalf from the outset, something that would later have changed into a markedly decided stance?
On this issue, it has been thrown forward that Leander started out by saying that the differences involved in the signatures would militate against a match.
But does he ever say that? No, he does not. He does never say that the differences militate against a match. Nor does he ever say that thge differences weigh up the likenesses.
Let´s look at it again. What DID he say? He said:

”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. ”

So, ”against these matches one must pose differences”. Is there any weighing involved in that sentence? No, there is not – there is nothing but a clarification of the standard procedure – what he tells us is how he goes about things; When he makes a comparison, he takes a look at BOTH the pros and the cons, before he makes any decision. One must pose the differnces against the likenesses, and THEN one comes up with a decision.

And what was the verdict? Can we see that in post one? Yes, we can, because after having told us how he works, Leander adds that ”The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things.”

That is four suggestions of working explanations to the differences named, and by saying ”and similar things” Leander opens up for more possible explanations. In fact, MANY such explanations, as evinced by what he says in post 2, in response to why he spoke of young age on the writers behalf: ”It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences.”

So, from the outset, he stresses that the differences involved could have many explanations, and from the outset he describes the match with a term that he later explains is a term that the SKL use when they want to point to a match on the positive side of the scale.

These two elements, the expression ”cannot be ruled out” and the phrasing ”against these matches one must pose differences” are the only two elements where an interpretation could be made that may point to an unenthusiastic impression of the match on Leanders behalf. But once he tells us what ”cannot be ruled out stands for”, option number one is gone, and once we realize that ”against these matches one must pose differences” is nothing but a description of the working methods and ethics involved, we do not have any other pointer to any unenthusiasm.

What we DO have, however, are a number of quotations that go very well to prove that Leander thought the match a good one from the outset:

”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.”

”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness”

”it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it.”

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

”In an investigation or a search for a wanted person, it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by).”

””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.”

The complete and total turnaround suggested by Ben has never been there, as anybody can see. There was never any hint at all from Leanders side that the match was a bad one, and I do not think that Ben has ever suggested that this was so. What Ben suggests is that there was a complete turnaround from lukewarm indifference to large enthusiasm. But as I have shown, none of the two expression Ben has used trying to prove this are relevant in such a context. Leander emphatically shows us that ”cannot be ruled out” does not mean the same thing for a man from the SKL as it does to the man on the street, and Leander never tells us that the differences upweigh the likenesses at all – he instead tells us that there are many possible explanations to their existense, clearly showing us that those who say that the differences can be overcome have an open-and-shut case.


When having come this far, it is understandable if those who do not see Toppy as the witness would cling on to the expression about the differences involved to try and state that Leander was undecided. The other point, on the ”cannot be ruled out expression” is no longer a viable one after Leander tells us what that expression means to him professionally.

In such a situation, we would have at least some sort of a stalemate. And when we do, we need to see if Leander at any stage gives any further guidance to his stance, that can either strengthen the wiew that he was undecided or the polar opposite wiew- that he thought the match a good one. And when we make that test, we immediately realize that the only value-laden wordings on the match are all very positively laden. There is no doubt whatsoever that Frank Leander thought that it was a probable match – as evinced by the very telling phrasing that he would be surprised if it was NOT.

Mike, Sam and all good powers out there – I´m off to fish! It will be a very welcome change. I will be amongst good friends, eat good food (perhaps even fish!) and drink good wine and beer.
In your able hands, I trust the defence of rationality and logic in this issue. I know, Mike, that you have said that you want the indecency of the thread to end, and now you can have just that, at least for some time to come. I´ll drink to you out on the island of Smøla, to you and good sense!

Fisherman

[Crystal]

And just when I thought it was safe to come out of the pub....

But highly amusing, none the less!