Tweet
Hi Sam.
Although I wanted to avoid any further involvement with this thread, you have made a number of points that I feel need to be addressed in order to provide a degree of balance.
In context of the signatures, I genuinely cannot share your view concerning perceived levels of concordance. Agreed, there is a certain similarity in the writing styles between one Hutchinson signature and those of Toppy, but nothing like sufficient to convince me that they were authored by a common hand. And what of the other two Hutchinson signatures? Given your empirical background, you more than most are aware that a model that fails to account for every variable is no model at all. Yet the other two Hutchinson signatures have been all but ignored by those who would have Toppy as Hutchinson. The reality, however, is that those signatures incorporate architectural components which serve only to highlight the clearly discernible stylistic differences between the Toppy and Hutchinson samples. Without due consideration of these differences, I would suggest, any meaningful debate is rendered impossible.
I am, of course, aware that you have formulated your opinion based predominantly upon the evaluation of textual hot-spots – the utchinso portions, as it were. But I simply cannot accept that the employment of a clipped sample in which selected graphemes are treated as statistical outliers is an approach appropriate to the task of handwriting analysis. To my mind, it must be an all or nothing approach. Anything less and we are straying into the realm of hypo-inductive reasoning.
Another issue relates to a point made by Jane in which she suggested that Hutchinson could have been operating under an alias. In response, you wrote, 'In which case, why does his writing match that of a man with the same name, who wrote down the evidence for all to see fully 23 years later?' Some, of course, would hold that the writing doesn't match, but that is a largely subjective argument that could go on forever. For my part, I spent more than ten years on the trail of Hutchinson and must have examined thousands of Victorian documents in the process. What struck me time and again was the similarity of handwriting styles across what was a fairly broad spectrum of sources. At the time, I attributed it to a combination of the relatively rigid process of copybook training imposed on Victorian schoolchildren and the somewhat stylistically restrictive nature of the steel pen. Whatever the merits of this conjecture, however, I remain not the least bit surprised to see a degree of concordance between the Hutchinson and Toppy signatures. Frankly, on the basis of past experience, I'd perhaps be more surprised if there weren't stylistic similarities.
As for the notion that Hutchinson might have adopted an assumed name, it is a matter of record that many Victorian recidivists provided police with a false name in order that they be tried as first-time offenders and thereby incur a more lenient sentence. And what of the Ripper victims? Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols, Annie Chapman (Sivvey) and Kate (Mary Ann Kelly) Eddowes. Mary Jane Kelly even adopted a French affectation in the form of Marie Jeanette. Given this near-epidemic of identity misrepresentation, why should the notion that Hutchinson, too, may have adopted an assumed name be so unthinkable?
One factor that, in my view, ought to be accorded greater consideration relates to the signatures on Hutchinson's police statement. Three signatures in three entirely different forms. The second was even signed Geo Hutchinson. (Remember here, Sam, your assertion that Toppy's signature remained remarkably constant over a twenty-three year period.) This qualitative inconsistency is troublesome. Signatures provided so closely in time and space shouldn't evidence such pronounced variability. Yet they do. It might be argued that this was a mere consequence of Hutchinson's unfamiliarity with the pen. But when one considers some of the artistic, copperplate flourishes which are to be found in the first signature, this is an unlikely proposition. What makes more sense to me is that Hutchinson was relatively at home with the pen, but less comfortable with the name he was signing. And this, I would suggest, is a possible indication that Hutchinson had assumed an alias.
But for you, I know, such a possibility is problematic: 'I could imagine someone coming up with "John Smith" as an alias ... but not "George Hutchinson".' I'm sorry, Sam, but I don't understand the internal logic of such a statement. Purely for the sake of argument, let's turn the tables and assume that Hutchinson's real name was John Smith. Let us further assume that he wished to adopt an alias. What, then, would be so fantastical about him using his grandfather's forename (George) along with his mother's maiden name (Hutchinson)? Equally, he could have achieved an identical result in a much more utilitarian fashion by way of place names. As such, if you'd care to check the maps relative to the period under scrutiny, you'll find that there existed but a stone's throw from Commercial Street thoroughfares named George Street and Hutchinson Street.
Please understand that I'm not trying to posit a theory here. I am merely advancing a couple of examples of how human cognitive processes can be influenced by the most random and prosaic of factors. Given this psychodynamic reality, therefore, I have to disagree with your contention that, as a prospective alias, the name George Hutchinson represents an unlikely selection. Whether it was an assumed name is, of course, an entirely different matter.
Regards.
Garry Wroe.
Although I wanted to avoid any further involvement with this thread, you have made a number of points that I feel need to be addressed in order to provide a degree of balance.
In context of the signatures, I genuinely cannot share your view concerning perceived levels of concordance. Agreed, there is a certain similarity in the writing styles between one Hutchinson signature and those of Toppy, but nothing like sufficient to convince me that they were authored by a common hand. And what of the other two Hutchinson signatures? Given your empirical background, you more than most are aware that a model that fails to account for every variable is no model at all. Yet the other two Hutchinson signatures have been all but ignored by those who would have Toppy as Hutchinson. The reality, however, is that those signatures incorporate architectural components which serve only to highlight the clearly discernible stylistic differences between the Toppy and Hutchinson samples. Without due consideration of these differences, I would suggest, any meaningful debate is rendered impossible.
I am, of course, aware that you have formulated your opinion based predominantly upon the evaluation of textual hot-spots – the utchinso portions, as it were. But I simply cannot accept that the employment of a clipped sample in which selected graphemes are treated as statistical outliers is an approach appropriate to the task of handwriting analysis. To my mind, it must be an all or nothing approach. Anything less and we are straying into the realm of hypo-inductive reasoning.
Another issue relates to a point made by Jane in which she suggested that Hutchinson could have been operating under an alias. In response, you wrote, 'In which case, why does his writing match that of a man with the same name, who wrote down the evidence for all to see fully 23 years later?' Some, of course, would hold that the writing doesn't match, but that is a largely subjective argument that could go on forever. For my part, I spent more than ten years on the trail of Hutchinson and must have examined thousands of Victorian documents in the process. What struck me time and again was the similarity of handwriting styles across what was a fairly broad spectrum of sources. At the time, I attributed it to a combination of the relatively rigid process of copybook training imposed on Victorian schoolchildren and the somewhat stylistically restrictive nature of the steel pen. Whatever the merits of this conjecture, however, I remain not the least bit surprised to see a degree of concordance between the Hutchinson and Toppy signatures. Frankly, on the basis of past experience, I'd perhaps be more surprised if there weren't stylistic similarities.
As for the notion that Hutchinson might have adopted an assumed name, it is a matter of record that many Victorian recidivists provided police with a false name in order that they be tried as first-time offenders and thereby incur a more lenient sentence. And what of the Ripper victims? Mary Ann (Polly) Nichols, Annie Chapman (Sivvey) and Kate (Mary Ann Kelly) Eddowes. Mary Jane Kelly even adopted a French affectation in the form of Marie Jeanette. Given this near-epidemic of identity misrepresentation, why should the notion that Hutchinson, too, may have adopted an assumed name be so unthinkable?
One factor that, in my view, ought to be accorded greater consideration relates to the signatures on Hutchinson's police statement. Three signatures in three entirely different forms. The second was even signed Geo Hutchinson. (Remember here, Sam, your assertion that Toppy's signature remained remarkably constant over a twenty-three year period.) This qualitative inconsistency is troublesome. Signatures provided so closely in time and space shouldn't evidence such pronounced variability. Yet they do. It might be argued that this was a mere consequence of Hutchinson's unfamiliarity with the pen. But when one considers some of the artistic, copperplate flourishes which are to be found in the first signature, this is an unlikely proposition. What makes more sense to me is that Hutchinson was relatively at home with the pen, but less comfortable with the name he was signing. And this, I would suggest, is a possible indication that Hutchinson had assumed an alias.
But for you, I know, such a possibility is problematic: 'I could imagine someone coming up with "John Smith" as an alias ... but not "George Hutchinson".' I'm sorry, Sam, but I don't understand the internal logic of such a statement. Purely for the sake of argument, let's turn the tables and assume that Hutchinson's real name was John Smith. Let us further assume that he wished to adopt an alias. What, then, would be so fantastical about him using his grandfather's forename (George) along with his mother's maiden name (Hutchinson)? Equally, he could have achieved an identical result in a much more utilitarian fashion by way of place names. As such, if you'd care to check the maps relative to the period under scrutiny, you'll find that there existed but a stone's throw from Commercial Street thoroughfares named George Street and Hutchinson Street.
Please understand that I'm not trying to posit a theory here. I am merely advancing a couple of examples of how human cognitive processes can be influenced by the most random and prosaic of factors. Given this psychodynamic reality, therefore, I have to disagree with your contention that, as a prospective alias, the name George Hutchinson represents an unlikely selection. Whether it was an assumed name is, of course, an entirely different matter.
Regards.
Garry Wroe.
Comment