The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

“There's that "on both sides of the argument" thing, again. As I said yesterday, Jane, the two aren't on an equal footing - not by a country mile.”

Again Gareth, no offense, but nobody’s going to swallow your insistence that they’re not on an equal footing purely on your say so, and using lots of inappropriate exaggerated rhetoric similar to “not by a country mile” doesn’t make a flawed observation any more persuasive. I could just as easily claim “Oh, the sides of the argument aren’t equal. My side wins by millions of South Pacific sea miles because, damn it, I say it does”, but I don't want to run the risk of patronizing the readership, whether intentionally or not, purely because I got carried away with rhetoric.

“Consider this - the pro-Toppy theory has signature and census information that tends to support the identification of Topping with Hutchinson”

Again, you’re just making ex cathedra pronouncements and hoping that repeating them on a regular basis will increase the likelihood of them being correct. That's not argumentation. But if that's the latest debating strategy, let's consider the opposite: that the anti-Toppy theory has signature and census information that tends to detract from the identification of Topping with Hutchinson. I think I'll have to counter every sweeping generalization with an antithetical one of my own in future.

“We don't know who he is, but he's not Toppy, and he must have been living somewhere else". In the name of all that's sane, what kind of an argument is that?”

It’s not an argument that I’ve every heard made by anyone here. There is certainly nothing wrong with the argument that we don’t know who the witness was, but the evidence suggests it wasn’t Toppy.

“Precisely one - and, even then, I still haven't had an answer as to whether she was looking at the original marriage certificate, or an authorised copy of the same in some clerk's handwriting, like I bought by mistake from the NA.”

That’s like saying you “still haven’t had an answer” as to whether the centre of the moon is made of Cheshire cheese. I realize that some people are prepared to entertain even the most ludicrous and border-line impossible positions if it means trying to bolster a position they rashly jumped to before seeing any signatures, but that one is just criminally insane even by those standards. What is being suggested here is that 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!

Obviously if you’ve convinced yourself beyond any rationality that the signatures are “remarkably similar”, despite an expert saying otherwise, you’ll come up with any excuses for dismissing that expert, however implausible, but that particular dismissal is outlandish by anyone’s standards. So’s this:

Apropos Ms Iremonger - and with sincere respect - she belongs to a somewhat earlier generation of document examiners, a factor which needs to be borne in mind if we are to talk sensibly about this matter.

Just when I thought the excuses for chucking out any evidence that contradicted a pre-determined conclusion couldn't get any more desperate, we're now being told that Iremonger belonged to an "earlier generation" of document examiners - an age when they got things wrong (we're told with nothing like any real evidence), like, y'know, back in the dark ages of 1992?

The field of document examination has moved on in recent years - to the point where, for example, it has been shown that photocopies are perfectly usable for the purpose of signature comparison.

Although, Leander comes to the recuse once again when he assures us that a full expert opinion isn't even possible for the purposes of a signature comparison, wholly contradicting the above statement. And yes, that's signature comparison, which despite being a "subset of a wider field" still necessitates the presence of original documents in order for a "full expert opinion" to be arrived at. If you're arguing that we should ignore this statement of his, then it would be in the interests of fair-play and consistency to throw everything he says out of the window, rather than cherry-picking the bits you think are Toppy-endorsing.

It would be a different matter if he said anything similiar to what you're claiming, which is that photocopies are just as good for boring old signature comparisons that don't involve fraud (etc etc), but the documented reality of Leander's exact words paint a very different picture. He stated that he could only offer a "spontaneous" comment in the absence of the original documents, and he said so in the full knowledge that he wasn't dealing with a case of fraud.

Sorry Gareth, you're a hell of a nice guy and thoroughly knowledgable to boot, but lately I've been wondering who's tied you up and stolen your PC.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Thanks for the interesting census information on George Sr, Mike (which comes from the website you referenced earlier, and where I also obtained my information about Emily Jane Hutchinson), but I can assure you that there's not the remotest "wow"" issue when it comes to his having been a labourer in 1841 when he would have been 14 years old. Not only would it have been impossible for him to have been a plumber at such an early age, we know from other sources that plumbing apprenticeships were issued at age 14 at the very earliest.

In George Sr. we discover what normal people did when they became plumbers - odd-jobbed until they were of a suitable age to embark upon an apprenticeship, which is not what's being alleged for Toppy, who some are insisting became a plumber well after the age at which it was possible to undertake an apprenticeship.

though you can't place Topping in Whitechapel, we can place him in Bethnal Green where his son Reg was born in 1916. We can also place him in 1896 in Mile End where he married Florence Jervais

But that was only after he met his wife who was from the East End, and there is no evidence of a personal connection to the East End until that meeting occured. Florence Jervis, instead, appears to have been Toppy's introduction to the East End.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

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.

[babybird67]

hahaha

absolutely fabulous Sam! Love it!


Co-incidence that they are from Korea? Hmmmmm...Michael? Explanation please!

[Sam Flynn]

Just saw this on the BBC News website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8158097.stm

... that's three other Toppys we need to worry about

[Sam Flynn]

But I do wonder, along with babybird, whether time-related commonalities aren't something to consider. When we examine handwriting these days, we tend to use our experience that has been gained contemporaneously. That is, we are used to seeing very varied handwriting amongst the population (for lots of obvious reasons, not least that handwriting is rarely taught these days). I often wonder whether this is the case, and whether signatures were so varied in the LVP.

Interesting points, Claire, but I've looked at the handwriting of every potential "George Hutchinson" in London from the 1911 Census - most, if not all of whom, if memory serves, were long-term London residents and hence stand a high chance of also having been there in 1888. None of their signatures came close to matching either Toppy's 1898 marriage certificate or those on the 1888 police statement - apart, of course, from the 1911 signature of Toppy himself, which was remarkably similar.

There was only one exception - a man I dubbed "Lambeth George". However, this man transpired to be a long-term resident of Lambeth, and his signature varied in key aspects - e.g., he did not use the "top-launched" letter "t"'s seen on the police statements; the self-same "top-launched t's" consistently used by Toppy on the marriage certificate and the 1911 Census (amongst other differences).

Toppy, we know, moved around quite a bit - which is more than can be said of his handwriting. I find it extremely improbable that a man with such an unusual name, almost as rare as hens' teeth in Late Victorian London, should coincidentally have acquired the same writing habits as our witness of 1888. That improbability gains significantly more weight when one considers Topping's proven connections with the East End, his social status, the type of job he held, his family story identifying himself as the Dorset Street witness, etc.

Here and elsewhere, we sometimes see a tendency to focus on minor points, or single issues, whilst neglecting the bigger picture. The current debate embodies this tendency to a top-launched "t".

[Fisherman]

Claire asks:

"I do wonder ... whether time-related commonalities aren't something to consider."

Hi Claire!
What I wonder is whether there are any good grounds for the assumption that the Victorian lower class was subjected to a form of education that made them all write very much alike? That suggestion has been thrown forward, but I donīt think I have seen any substantiation for it.
Do you - or anybody else - know if there is such a thing around? Does any handstyle expert or -historian ever mention this, or is it just a suggestion?

In post 18 of the "Hutch in the 1911 census" thread, Sam posted a number of signatures made by working class George Hutchinsons, and to my eye, they differ just as much as do my signature from my former classmates - and we were ALSO taught to write in a certain fashion.

So, once again, the question we need to ask ourselves is: Is there any substantiation for the belief that the East-enders developed handstyles that differed less inbetween them than is the case in other eras of time?

The best, Claire!
Fisherman

[claire]

Such an interesting debate...

I agree with you, Sam, that the angle at which people form letters will change over time (and even within time, as anyone who has bashed their hand or suffered from arthritis will testify).

But I do wonder, along with babybird, whether time-related commonalities aren't something to consider. When we examine handwriting these days, we tend to use our experience that has been gained contemporaneously. That is, we are used to seeing very varied handwriting amongst the population (for lots of obvious reasons, not least that handwriting is rarely taught these days). I often wonder whether this is the case, and whether signatures were so varied in the LVP. The only ones I have seen have been those of writers, who would naturally have developed their own 'signature' (ie. style of writing) due to increased usage. The average Joe on the street (no pun intended) might not have developed such a signature.

[Jane Welland]

Afternoon...

and Hello All.

Well, then, originals and copies - argument with this is futile - I give you fair warning!

An original - what is that? Why, that is primary evidence. It is the evidence for the thing that predated any other version of itself. It is the originator, the origin, of all subsequent derivatives.

So, I'm afraid it must be a fact that all subsequent copies are derivative.

Nope, there's no getting away from it.

To take your Mona Lisa example, Jen - we could not seriously suggest that there was no difference between the original and a reproduction - not a chance. They look different in many respects - because indeed they are different - one is a portrait created in 16th Century Italy, whereas the other(s) may have been made pretty much anywhere these days, and are not portraits painted in 16th Century Italy by any stretch of the imagination.

They are copies of the origianal image - they are images of the original image. They are by the fact of their existence - derivitave.

Now, just imagine fora moment that another Mona Lisa appeared on the market, having emerged from a private collection perhaps. It purports to be the work of Leonardo - but obviously, checks will need to be made. How will the experts in 16th Century Italian portraiture go about this? Will they, perhaps, consult a postcard from the local market? Will they, perhaps, consult a photocopy from a book on the subject they happen to have on the shelf at home? Do they take a fax (say) of the purported second version and use it for comparision, even?

I think not. No, I'm pretty sure that what they would do would be to take the potential match and consult the original for comparison - for all the features of Leonardo's work at that point in his career that may either confirm or exclude the possibility that this is another version of the famous masterwork in the Louvre.

They would do this because a copy loses in translation those details that make the difference - yes, perhaps there are good copies, etc, but they will not do the job, ultimately. The only way to know for sure - if such a thing is possible, is to consult the points of origin - the original paintings in this instance, the original signatures in this current debate.

It is because - and really, this is quite simple and obvious - copies are derivative - there is a constant risk of alteration. We can see this clearly here - the examples posted on these boards take no accound of differences in size, which are apparently a feature of the originals. It makes a difference, it must, because it is a change.

You cannot hope for a fair or accurate comparison if you don't have accurate information in the first place. Stands to reason.

You will be hindered by potential inaccuracies, and if you reach any conclusions at all based on inaccurate and potentially misrepresentative material, you should do so very tentatively indeed.

Finally, Sam, I'm sure you're a very clever man, but I have to say the idea that Iremonger mistook a modern copy by a registrar for the real thing seems to me to be quite ridiculous! Whatever makes you think so?

Best to all

Jane x

[babybird67]

right Mike...

so you are happy being completely 100% certain of identification between one man and three signatures, any one of which might not actually be his?

Don't you see the only rational position is to be circumspect and to say, it is possible, but not proven?

I still find it hard to understand how contentious my position appears to be...

[The Good Michael]

b/ considering the three signatures are similar, why this doesnt constitute a valid point that similarities between signatures could be attributed to commonalities at the time

Could be. That's one refutation. If I said that this is an equally weighted argument (though I don't think so), that would be one 50/50 and then you'd have to refute everything else. You see, it doesn't really work. Nothing substantial, merely refutation of the substantial from the other side.

Mike

[babybird67]

those were just examples Sam...

but there are things in originals that get lost in transforming them into copies, in every sphere.

Nobody has answered the fact that regarding the witness statement:

a/ of the three signatures, which are genuinely the witnesses and which are Badhams?

b/ considering the three signatures are similar, why this doesnt constitute a valid point that similarities between signatures could be attributed to commonalities at the time

[Sam Flynn]

Yes but it is two dimensional to look at...it wasn't to write. Things like pen pressure and angle the writer uses are relevant and you cannot assess them from a copy.

Pressure is only truly relevant, Jen, if (a) you're dealing with a case of fraud (fraudsters, because they're copying, may not "attack" the paper in the same way that the true writer would); or (b) if you're dealing with a writing implement that requires the writer to exert enough pressure on the paper to make indentations in it. Neither of those conditions applies here - we're dealing with a non-fraud situation, and with signatures wrought with free-flowing inkpens.

In other words, 2D is plenty good enough for this exercise. In point of fact, research shows that even Nth-generation photocopies (never mind colour scans in decent resolution) are good enough to make remarkably accurate judgments in respects of signature comparisons.

In terms of angle - the way one constructs one's letters can change significantly over time. The remarkable thing about the set of signatures we're looking at here is the consistency (yes, consistency) exhibited in the lettering over a period of 23 years.

[babybird67]

BB,

Brass tacks

If they are brass tacks, please address them. You are convinced of the truth...convince me.

[The Good Michael]

BB,

Brass tacks: There is an absolute abundance of circumstances that can be assembled to create an argument for Toppy as Hutch, a veritable bounty. On the other side there is absolutely nothing but refutation of that bounty. There isn't an iota of extant knowledge that we can sift through that says Toppy wasn't Hutch. There is absolutely only dubious surmise. That is where the Toppy Ain't Hutch camp sits, on nothing concrete, only conjecture and surmise. In a sane world, a collection of little things that actually exist, would seem to outweigh: I don't think so.

Tell me how I can be possibly wrong on that stance, that concrete items would be by preponderance more acceptable than even rational thought(though that is another argument) founded on nothing but refutation.

Cheers,

Mike