Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

Fisherman -

Did it really take you the best part of two days to think all that up?

Oh Dear!

Once Again - with feeling - I DON'T BELIEVE YOU.

And if you persist in insisting that Leander changed his initial neutral and non-committal stance to you in a personal, spontaneous response, which was never intended to be published on this bloody awful thread and fought over, and picked over, and torn to shreds by the rabid posting dogs that have frequented the neighbourhood of late; then I WILL phone him up and ask him.

Yes. I will. Please don't think I won't. Come clean or suffer the consequences. This has gone far enough.

And ONCE AGAIN - If it transpires that Leander HAS altered his view to the extent which you suggest - one presumes - under relentless pressure by you, then I'm afraid that, as Ben so rightly and justly points out, his credibility as an impartial commentator will be somewhat tarnished.

AND, IF he has said what you suggest - namely that he thinks there's a match between the statement and Toppy signatures - based on such poor grade material, AFTER having initially said CATEGORICALLY that any such conclusions were IMPOSSIBLE without seeing the originals - why then, Fisherman:

HE'S NO EXPERT.

Enjoy your fishing. I will.

[Ben]

Just when I was ready to let this thread drift quietly away…

Of course, it is only fair to note that the translation provided by Crystal's Swedish friend differs in some respects from the translation Fisherman provided:

"Hello again!

I strongly want to underline your opinion that comparative examinations of signatures has to be done with original material and I/we would have no possibility to write an expert opinion/report on the attached material. Under the circumstances present I would however want to express myself as follows:

It is hardly possible to exclude that it is the same person that is involved – there is a number of correspondences of general characteristic (style characteristic, the level of writing skill, the extension of the writing, some proportions) and as far as can be judged from the copy also some form correspondences regarding individual letters. These similarities must however be put against the differences concerning some penn-liftings (?), the proportions in the tch-group and the perhaps most prominent differences in some letter-forms; G (basic form), r and n at the end of the signature. The differences could/could possibly be explained with H. being relatively young at the first time of writing, the circumstances when writing, such as limited space for writing, the function of the pen or similar. The upper most signature is however most in contrast the rest, definitely.

To sum up, you will have to see the above written as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a professional handwriting statement/report/opinion, because that can never come into consideration/question when the material looks like it does!

Good look with the investigation/search"

But then the various problems arose. It was illustrated, by quoting the above (and Fisherman's) translation verbatim, that Leander conveyed no impression that he thought the match to be a "probable" one. He mentioned that the similarities weighed "against" the similarities, but that the latter were insufficient to "rule out" or "exclude" Toppy as the witness. If you argue that something cannot be ruled out, you're not declaring it to be "probable". If he secretly thought the match was probable, he certainly didn't convey any such thinking in his initial post.

Clearly dissatisfied with this, Fisherman started to put words in Leander's mouth that didn't appear in his first letter. For example, Fisherman referred to there being "numerous" or "many" explanations for the differences between the statement signatures and those of Toppy. After reminding anyone who needed reminding that the explanations for the differences were only “possible” ones (and not necessarily explanations that he felt actually DID come into play in this case), I was quick to draw attention to the fact that Leander used no such adjective. Nothing about "many", and nothing about "numerous". Back he went to Leander, who "clarified" with the following:

"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".

How odd that the very word that Fisherman wrongly claimed appeared in Leander's first post suddenly appeared in Leander's rather timely "second" post? But that wasn't the only example of this unsettling phenomenon. Shortly after publishing Leander's first letter, Fisherman argued that the letter spoke of an "overall likeness". I quickly pointed out that, as with the words "numerous and "many", Leander had said no such thing in his initial letter, so Fisherman re-established contact with Leander for a THIRD time, with the following result:

”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".

By some fishy coincidence, "Leander" had now elaborated on his initial comments using the very expression, "overall likeness", that Fisherman erroneously attributed to him in his first letter.

Now, by post #4, one forms the very distinct impression that Leander is starting to tire of being asked to "clarify" continually by Fisherman, hence the observation: "I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail". If people are incapable of detecting a certain "Please leave me alone, I've already told you what I think a billion times already" subtext into Leander's words, I'm incredibly surprised. True to form, Fisherman was not deterred, and so he allegedly asked Leander to "clarify" again. Unfortunately, the gist of his purported observations in post #5 (yes, that's how many times Fisherman asked Leander to clarify a message that was abundantly clear the first time) were radically different to anything he said in his initial post, effectively cancelling out any worth in any of his posts.

By bombarding the poor man incessantly, and with demonstrably misleading and erroneous information, Fisherman has succeeded in eradicating the value of Leader's first letter, which everyone will agree was the very picture of circumspection when it first appeared. If he was truly responsible for all the posts Fisherman claims Leander was responsible for, we are obliged to take a dim view of an "expert" who succumbs to pressure and bias, of an "expert" who becomes progressively more Toppy-endorsing with each bombardment.

I note with disdain that Fisherman is still trying to mutate “cannot be ruled out” or “hardly possible to exclude” into synonyms of “probable”, and he does so on the unacceptable basis that some institutions bizarrely misinterpret and misuse such basic phrases, and that Leader must belong to one such institution. Unfortunately for this argument, you cannot change written communication and dictionary definitions. If anyone uses either of those phrases to mean "probable", they are misappropriating a phrase to a drastic extent, ill-becoming of an expert. He or she is simply not saying what s/he means. “Cannot be ruled out” means the same thing to the man on the street as it does to the expert analyst or any other functioning human being with a basic understanding of written communication.

Both phrases could be classed as “positive” observations, and indeed, I agree with Leander that it would constitute the lowest form of positive commentary, but neither could be used for conveying a belief that a given hypothesis is “probable”.

I certainly never claimed that Leander felt the match to be a poor one, but neither did his initial letter insinuate, even vaguely that he came down in favour of there being a match. It was inconclusive. He couldn’t rule it out. He couldn’t exclude the possibility. That’s it. If he later came down in favour of a match, then I’m afraid he wouldn’t have been “clarifying” a stance. He would have been contradicting it.

I think it would have been better if Fisherman had simply left Leander’s initial observations stand.

[Crystal]

Hi All

Just when you thought it was safe to come out...

Tomorrow morning, I'm going to Kew to view Hutchinson's statement. Yes, tomorrow.

Watch this space....

[DVV]

Vieux motard que j'aimais...

Amitiés all,
David

[Ben]

I anxiously await your findings, Crystal!

My appreciative thanks for this.

Edit to the above post:

He mentioned that the similarities weighed "against" the similarities

Should be: "He mentioned that the differences weighed against the similarities."

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Hello All.

It's an obvious point, I know, but one that appears to be getting lost in the present discussion. Whilst there are clear similarities between the Hutchinson and Toppy handwriting samples, their signatures are entirely different, courtesy of the inclusion of William in the Toppy specimen.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

Garry,

Of course they are different. No two things are ever exactly alike. Thanks for the enlightenment.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

It's a genuine pleasure to welcome you to the message board. Your book, Jack the Ripper...Person or Persons Unknown was a thoroughly enjoyable read, and one which combined a detailed knowledge of the Victorian East End and a close familiarity with serial crime and its more recent perpetrators.

Your "obvious" point was also a very astute one, and one that finds endorsement from Bob Hinton, who referred to the police propensity towards taking full names in witness statements, or at the very least, the forename and surname with any attendant initials included. Since the statement included no other names or initials, this ought to be taken as a reasonable indicator that the "real" George Hutchinson didn't have any, if indeed that was his real name.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Mike.

The enlightenment was free. Hope you're not charging for the sarcasm.

Ben.

Many thanks for the glowing endorsement. And since you are familiar with Person or Persons, you may care to check the 'cover', where you'll find an illustration of Hutchinson that conforms precisely to the description furnished by Sarah Lewis - even down to the fact that Hutchinson was leaning against Crossingham's wall. Contrary to the argument postulated elsewhere on this thread, therefore, Hutchinson was on Dorset Street rather than in or at Miller's Court, and was almost certainly the man seen by Sarah as she made her way to the Keylers.

'Night all.

Garry Wroe.

[The Good Michael]

Another example of bringing foreknowledge into an argument when it should just be about signatures. It must happen I suppose. No one lives in a vacuum.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Just to point out to anyone reading this thread, Garry is sold on Hutchinson much like Ben is based upon his MINDHUNTER comparisons. Of course it is impossible from that point of view to look objectively at these signatures. Psychologists will bear this out of course. To come out and make a blanket statement that the signatures don't match is to be clinging to that old baggage, and is nothing short of posturing arrogance, when it is known that, for 200 odd pages, we have been battling it out over those astounding similarities that some, unconsciously, refuse to see.

Let me read that again....er, yeah that sums it up.

Mike

[babybird67]

hello Mike



i can see the similarities.

But i can also still see the differences.

The point is, i am not being teased from my position of uncertainty without further information of what similarities/differences matter and should carry some importance, since i am not au fait with handwriting of the LVP.

I'm hoping Crystal will be able to enlighten us when she comes back from Kew (thanks Crystal!)

Unlike some, i don't think it unreasonable to ask for help from someone more knowledgeable than myself when it comes to areas where i clearly have no experience.

Can i remind anyone interested that i changed my position from "they do not match" to "I'm not sure whether they match or not", after Crystal posted two near-identical "Georges" (and an elephant!), since to my untrained eyes, these were a near-perfect match; she later revealed that they were known to be by different hands. I therefore concluded that if i could get it so wrong about that example, i could get it just as wrong with the Toppy/Hutch signature comparison, and accordingly revised my opinion from "no match" to "could either match or not...need further evidence."

Gary you make a good point about the inclusion of all names in the Topping signature. If it was the done thing at that time to sign all names, or at least first and surname with middle initials, that factor could very well be a matter of important evidence against a match, and is precisely the sort of detail, being overlooked over this whole debate until you arrived, that we have been missing perhaps because not many of us know that such a practice was standard...precisely the reason to wait until experts/those more knowledgeable than some of us (ok, i mean me!) are able to give us some guidance. Thank you for pointing this out, and elaborating on its significance. Very useful. And welcome.

[DVV]

and is nothing short of posturing arrogance, when it is known that, for 200 odd pages, we have been battling it out over those astounding similarities that some, unconsciously, refuse to see.

Hi Mike,

and no, nobody refuses to see the similarities.
But who am I, and who are you, to be sure that these similarities are enough to make Toppy the Dorset Street witness ?
What do I know about common low-class people handwriting in LVP (that could well explain the similarities) ?
I do consciously know I must be cautious rather than flat.
I could say that there are people who refuse to see the astounding differences (G, tch...), refuse to value experts opinion... but I won't.

Amitiés,
David

[babybird67]

exactly David...

we cross-posted there!



but "great minds..." etc etc

[DVV]

Hi BB,

mes hommages du matin, ma chère.

Can't understand why we are depicted as flat and fanatic, though our uncertain opinion is backed by experts.
As far as I know, only the pro-Toppy think the case closed.
Eyes wide shut...

Amitiés,
David