The Leander Analysis

[Jane Welland]

Sorry Sam..

I could have phrased that rather better than I did. I'll leave the argument to those who know best from now on. Best regards, Jane x

[Ben]

OK, so your saying Toppy's signature was consistent 98-11, so that suggests that you can extrapolate backwards beyond the limit of the available data and 88-98 should be consistent too, which is a valid point

Thanks Vic, and yes, that's precisely what I was getting at. It wouldn't entitle us to discount the possibility that Toppy didn't register anything like a similar degree of consistency prior to 1898, I'd consider it fairly unlikely. I'd agree that he wasn't likely to have signed his name on a regular basis when he was 22, but even back then, I'd imagine that the majority of people would have signed their names often enough by their early twenties to have at least decided on a style and cemented a few idiosyncracies.

Firstly, I wouldn't classify any of the changes as "radical", and secondly, 10 years is a long time for any one of Leander's factors to come into play.

Radical may be the wrong word, but they would be more than sufficient to render the proposal that the signatures were written by the same hand rather unlikely, in my view. It's also significant that while 10 years would have been sufficient for one of Leander's explanations to come into play, it is clear that they didn't over an even longer time period (1898 to 1911), or if they did, they certainly didn't impact upon the signatures.

It should also be noted that one of your changes concerns the "n" which is truncated in one of the signatures and therefore that weakens it's significance.

Rob Clack was kind enough to provide a copy of the original un-truncated scan of the first page signature. I will provide a link to the post in question tomorrow, but as I recall, the n-tail curled off downwards in marked contrast to any of Toppy's efforts.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Why haven't we had a simple, direct answer to the question, then? Did she, or did she not, have a copy of the original marriage certificate in front of her, or an extract from an official duplicate, in a clerk's handwriting? It's easy enough to answer.

We have, Gareth.

We have had reputable sources attesting to the fact that Iremonger compared the three statement signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature, not photocopies thereof, and certainly not a modern piece of paper with the details filled in by a modern registrar. Even if we didn't have an answer to the question of whether ot not the last option came into play, we can still reject it as an unbelievably outlandish suggestion. I jokingly compared it to "needing an answer" to the question of whether the moon was made out of cheese, but the serious point remains - that suggestion can be utterly dismissed. There is simply no way that a professional document examiner could have made such a mistake. They are fully appraised of the FRC's copying practice, and can certainly tell the difference between a modern piece of copier-fresh paper and a turn-of-the century historical document.

I don't find it partcularly surprising that Iremonger should have been so emphatic about her dismissal of the 1888pg1 signature as a match with the Toppy signature, since a professional in the field would undoubtedly know what to look for. The dismissal doesn't appear to have been solely on the basis of mismatching H's either.

I recall you helpfully providing your signatures, but it is my honest opinion that they didn't reveal much difference at all. At least, there were far less differences apparent from your signatures than there were between Toppy and the witness over a similar time frame. Toppy evolved very little over time, with his distinctive closed G-loops and northwards-pointing n-mails remaining in place over 13 years.

Would any of those good people be qualified to register any scepticism when attending a lecture on subatomic physics, or whether a ju-ju practitioner was going about his business in the proper way?

As I mentioned previously, their value lies in recounting what Iremonger did, not how well they thought she did it.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

OK, so your saying Toppy's signature was consistent 98-11, so that suggests that you can extrapolate backwards beyond the limit of the available data and 88-98 should be consistent too, which is a valid point

My signature at 18 was rather different to what it was at age 22, and that was different to what my signature became in later years, Vic.

[Sam Flynn]

Except that does rather rest on the assumption that the witness and Hutchinson Toppy were one and the same, eh?

I'm not sure what you mean, Jane.

If the witness and Toppy were separate individuals - yes, I know it's not very fashionable around here to suggest such a thing - but if they were, for the sake of argument, then we don't need to find a reason for the changes between 88 and 98, yet apparently no change at all between 98 and 11, do we?

I have in the past posted examples of my own signature which changed significantly in a similar period of time, for no good reason as far as I can recall. I could post them again together with my current signature which bears very little resemblance my earlier signatures. Again, this difference came about for no apparent reason, other than that my signature (like those of many others) tended to evolve over time. What's remarkable about the Toppy/Hutch signatures is how little they change over time.

As to the three witness signatures being signed by the same individual - well duh.

No - emphatically not "well duh", thank you very much. The much-vaunted Sue Iremonger suggested that the witness statement signatures could have been written by different hands.

[Jane Welland]

uhuh..

Except that does rather rest on the assumption that the witness and Hutchinson Toppy were one and the same, eh?

Course, if not, then we haven't got an issue at all, have we? We just have no change between 98 and 11 - remarkably little, when one hears so much about the day to day hour to hour alterations that depend on minute factors. I guess that it must be so that Toppy was feeling particularly consistent on both occasions.

If the witness and Toppy were separate individuals - yes, I know it's not very fashionable around here to suggest such a thing - but if they were, for the sake of argument, then we don't need to find a reason for the changes between 88 and 98, yet apparently no change at all between 98 and 11, do we?

As to the three witness signatures being signed by the same individual - well duh.

As so often with the wrong answer, you need special pleading to get there. Unless the police were utterly moronic and incompetent, you'd think they might have ensured that their new star witness signed his name on the signature, wouldn't you? Or what - after Hutchinson had left the building - gone for a bit of fried kidney at the Victoria no doubt - Badham found to his dullardish amazement that Hutchinson hadn't signed on the first page - the first page, mind you, not the second or third - and thought 'Oh Bugger, best do it myself, 'an't I?' -(insert Victorian expletives here) and painstakingly reconstructed the witness signature so that he could forge it? But managed to insert a lovely floriated 'H' as he went - I guess he was proud of his handwriting after all...

So, apart from a different 'H' (ignoring the 'n', hardly significant) we conclude that there really is no difference in the three witness signatures. Astonishing!

There are still discernible differences between the known Toppy signatures and the witness signatures though - which Leander himself mentioned in the first instance, by the way - and so the question of a match must remain.

I think the only way forward would be if further examples of Toppy's signature were available - preferably from earlier than 98 - this is not my suggestion, I think it was Garry who mentioned it first, but I agree.

Best to All

Jane x

[Victor]

My point was that the consistency exhibited over a 13-year time frame should permit us to conclude that Toppy was likely to have been equally consistent over a similar number years before and after 1898 and 1911, as opposed to deciding when he changed radically and when he retained consistency in order for lobby for Toppy as the statement-signer, which isn't an accusation I'm levelling in your direction, for the record.

Hi Ben,

OK, so your saying Toppy's signature was consistent 98-11, so that suggests that you can extrapolate backwards beyond the limit of the available data and 88-98 should be consistent too, which is a valid point, however, at least there is only 1 change and not a flip-flop. Also the change is earlier in his life when he probably didn't have to sign much at all, and the consistent part later when it'd be more likely for his style to have settled.

It should also be noted that the 88-98 period is a significant proportion of the relevent timeframe and is hardly pinpointing the change to the extent of "deciding when he changed radically and when he retained consistency". Firstly, I wouldn't classify any of the changes as "radical", and secondly, 10 years is a long time for any one of Leander's factors to come into play.

It should also be noted that one of your changes concerns the "n" which is truncated in one of the signatures and therefore that weakens it's significance.

My personal refejection as Toppy as the witness doesn't impact even remotely on the issue of Hutchinson's potential culpability, nor should it, and I deearly hope this will hold just a true for those who are inclined to view Toppy as a probable Hutch candidate.

Absolutely.

KR,
Vic.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello Ben,

Come on, Gareth.

Not again.

You’re so much better than this.

It cannot ever be reasonably suggested that Sue Iremonger, a forensic document examiner, mistook a modern piece of official FRC paper, filled in by a modern registrar, and compared it with the statement signatures, believing it to be an authentic document from 1898. Such an idea is beyond even the faintest ridicule

Why haven't we had a simple, direct answer to the question, then? Did she, or did she not, have a copy of the original marriage certificate in front of her, or an extract from an official duplicate, in a clerk's handwriting? It's easy enough to answer.

All that aside, I still find it bizarre that anyone - whether a document examiner or not - should decide that 1888p1-3 definitely did not match the (original) marriage certificate signature of 1898... unless, of course, they were looking at a clerkly copy like the one wot I bought.

just as long as you’re not claiming that your recent montage comparison somehow casts doubt on her judgement.

If a document examiner allowed their judgment to be swayed on the basis of a single "H" (as would seem to be the case here), then I can't see how it can fail to do so.

I don’t accept for one moment that any caution should be entertained as far the Iremonger analysis goes (Messrs. Begg, Fido and Menges didn’t appear to register any scepticism when they recounted her findings)

Would any of those good people be qualified to register any scepticism when attending a lecture on subatomic physics, or whether a ju-ju practitioner was going about his business in the proper way?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I don’t accept for one moment that any caution should be entertained as far the Iremonger analysis goes"

...and this is what he feels about an investigation he has not even seen. The Leander analysis, on the other hand, would have been made by a man that lied in order to get rid of me. In HIS case, caution really needs to be applied, although we know EXACTLY what he commented on and although - far from Bens "observations" - he has remained completely logical and steadfast from the outset.

Itīs Bens good old methodology all over again. But this does not mean that all hope is out for him, since he writes, in Samīs direction: "You’re so much better"

...and THAT is as spot on as it can be. Of course, I had to quote out of context here to reach my effect, but it WAS verbatim. And anyway, itīs been a long time since this debate was conducted decently by all parties, so whoīs to quibble about such a small thing?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Iremonger's analysis should be tempered in light of two factors, Vic - firstly, that we still don't know whether she was looking at a copy of the original wedding certificate or an official duplicate, i.e. one completed by a clerk rather than Hutchinson himself

Come on, Gareth.

Not again.

You’re so much better than this.

It cannot ever be reasonably suggested that Sue Iremonger, a forensic document examiner, mistook a modern piece of official FRC paper, filled in by a modern registrar, and compared it with the statement signatures, believing it to be an authentic document from 1898. Such an idea is beyond even the faintest ridicule because she’d know by holding the piece of paper that it was splurged out of a photocopy machine or printer!

As for her recorded suggestion that the author of the first signature was not responsible for writing the other two, I agree; it should give us pause for thought, just as long as you’re not claiming that your recent montage comparison somehow casts doubt on her judgement. As was suggested earlier, the determination that signature #1 was written by Sgt. Badham may have been a "truism" supplied to her from the outset.

“In summary, the Iremonger analysis needs to be treated with a great deal of caution, whilst the "Churchill factor" is a complete red herring.”

I don’t accept for one moment that any caution should be entertained as far the Iremonger analysis goes (Messrs. Begg, Fido and Menges didn’t appear to register any scepticism when they recounted her findings), but you won’t find any argument from me that Toppy’s son’s claim that his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill the Ripper is a complete red herring!

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

That's a strange way of saying that the differences emerged sometime over a 10 year period, and then stayed consistant for the following 13 years.

I wasn't saying anythong of the sort though, Vic. My point was that the consistency exhibited over a 13-year time frame should permit us to conclude that Toppy was likely to have been equally consistent over a similar number years before and after 1898 and 1911, as opposed to deciding when he changed radically and when he retained consistency in order for lobby for Toppy as the statement-signer, which isn't an accusation I'm levelling in your direction, for the record.

Hi Mike,

Oh, wait, you've placed me on "ignore".

I won't recipriocate the discourtesy, but will observe the following:

Similarly, we have the Hutchinson-as-suspect theory which predates all this HUtchinson information we are accumulating.

Indeed it does, but since none of the information "we are accumulating" remotely detracts from that theory, where exactly are you hoping to go with this line or argumentation? It doesn't matter what side of the "Toppy" debate you adhere to, the Hutchinson-as-ripper debate should remain another matter entirely. My personal refejection as Toppy as the witness doesn't impact even remotely on the issue of Hutchinson's potential culpability, nor should it, and I deearly hope this will hold just a true for those who are inclined to view Toppy as a probable Hutch candidate. I have no problem at all with anyone wishing to identify Toppy as Hutch, but as long as any extrapolations from that conclusion aren't completely ludicrous such as "anyone with a family can't be a serial killer" or "serial killers don't stop for long intervels", or any of the other untruisms that usually engender the reaction "Read a book!".

Finally, I realise that you have a few acutely personal religion-related hang-ups that you've offloaded to a few people in that chatroom, but I might respectfully caution against taking any opportunity to regurgitate those religious hang-ups when not in pub-talk or the chat room, since it isn't always appropriate, and a few people have asked you politely to stop.

[Sam Flynn]

there are mitigating factors, such as Iremonger's analysis, Reg's Churchill comments... which make a definite match a step too far.

Iremonger's analysis should be tempered in light of two factors, Vic - firstly, that we still don't know whether she was looking at a copy of the original wedding certificate or an official duplicate, i.e. one completed by a clerk rather than Hutchinson himself. Secondly, her suggestion that Hutchinson might not have signed all three pages of the witness statement should give us significant pause for thought (compare my recent montage, which you kindly mentioned earlier).

On the other point, and as I've observed, whatever Reg Hutchinson is alleged to have said about Randolph Churchill does not change the probability of his father's being the Dorset Street witness. Toppy had been dead more than 50 years before Reg's story appeared in Melvyn Fairclough's book, and more than a century had passed since the events of November 1888.

In summary, the Iremonger analysis needs to be treated with a great deal of caution, whilst the "Churchill factor" is a complete red herring.

[The Good Michael]

Vic,

I used different words from "probable", but they are all qualified. Using "probable" all the time would garner no literary awards. For example: "Must be with current evidence" isn't much differnt from probable. Please allow an 'artiste' his ideosyncracies.

Mike

[Victor]

I know it is quite probable that they are the same man.
....
There is no other realistic conclusion about these guys.
....
There are always shades of gray, and so my door is open to anything new, but there has been nothing from Hutch is a Killer camp, and only much more from Maybe he was just a witness who embellished camps.
....
He ain't off the hook, but he simply must be Toppy with the current evidence. Anything else is sabotage.

Hi Mike,
I've isolated 4 statements from your post above which seem to flip-flop between "probable", "no other realistic conclusion", "maybe" and back to "must be".

I think the 3rd "maybe" one is the most accurate, Leander strongly suggests Toppy=Hutch, Iremonger strongly disagrees although that is tempered by the strange (to me) conclusion that the 3 witness signatures don't match - see Sam's latest comparison http://forum.casebook.org/showpost.p...2&postcount=44 - nad Leander gives some possible explanations for the discrepancies, but Iremonger had greater and fuller access to the available data which should give her conclusions greater weight.

Therefore I strongly and completely disagree with your "anything else is sabotage" comment.

My personal feeling is that Iremonger should be given an opportunity to comment further on her earlier conclusions or if someone could provide a full copy of those earlier conclusions then we would be able to move forward.

Until then I'm sticking with Toppy is the best candidate for being Hutch from an extensive search by Sam and Debs of "George Hutchinson"s, although there are mitigating factors, such as Iremonger's analysis, Reg's Churchill comments and similar things ( @Ben), which make a definite match a step too far.

KR,
Vic.

[The Good Michael]

Jane,

No one admits they are discarding the evidence, or no one knows they are discarding the evidence. Either way it is discarded. the end result is the same. I am not convinced of anything. I know it is quite probable that they are the same man.

The signatures are the only ones we have of either man. No other signatures of George Hutchinsons come close, with the exception of Lambeth George who has a few similarities. Regardless, there is nothing of remote interest in Lambeth George with regards to some sort of composite comparison. That leaves Toppy. Is it all coincidence, everything? If you think so, we are from different worlds. It is about disregard for evidence because a theory is so deep-seeded. Sit back and look at. There is no other realistic conclusion about these guys.
There are always shades of gray, and so my door is open to anything new, but there has been nothing from Hutch is a Killer camp, and only much more from Maybe he was just a witness who embellished camps.

He ain't off the hook, but he simply must be Toppy with the current evidence. Anything else is sabotage.

Mike