Never mind the professional brain surgeon. Hand ME the scalpel!
I’m afraid we’re straying into fantasy - as well as unusual hostility, for some reason - if we’re now claiming that the entirely impartial and objective Sue Iremonger was being “dishonest” in her assessment that Toppy’s signature did not match those on the witness statement.
If you’re seriously in need of a “straight answer” to the question of whether or not an expert of such standing and experience accidentally compared Hutchinson’s signatures to that of a modern-day registrar, you may rest assured that it is emphatically and very obviously NO.
To suggest an expert document examiner goofed to such an impossibly catastrophic extent is to scrape the barrel very seriously, in my view.
What he say about the original three sigs..did he think they matched with each other too?
Abby, when I said I do not want to get embroiled in all of this again, I meant it. But I´ll make an exception for you. Of course!
Back in the day, what I did was to take a look at the two signatures Gareth posted earlier, and I thought: "But they are the same - they must have been written by the same hand, and consequently, Toppy must be the witness!"
And then I thought: "Wait a minute! Whenever I say something out here about things, I am always met by the same kneejerk reaction, asking who I am to comment on things medical, psychological, motorical, biological...whatever I say, no matter how much value it potentially has, there is always somebody who points out to me that I am not an expert in these fields and so my view needs to be rated somewhere between laughable and worthless."
Therefore, I came up with the idea to ask somebody who WAS an authority and expert - Frank Leander. And all I wanted to hear was whether he also thought that the two signatures were very much alike. Little did I know - naive old me - that I would be raked over the coals for not showing Leander all three signatures. But I was. Forwards and backwards. And sideways.
Today, I have the exact same stance as I did then: If two signatures are a match, and Frank Leander thought they were, then I fail to see how two OTHER signatures will take away from that impression. As far as I am concerned, the salient matter is that Leander, a man who has lectured on these things, who has spent a professional lifelong carreer working with them and who has a very good reputation around the world said that as far as he could tell, the two signatures were very much alike, and he added that he would be surprised if they had different originators plus he expected any forthcoming evidence to confirm his view.
That was what I asked about, that was what he answered and that was the outcome of my question about the two signatures I thought were very close - he agreed.
And that is all I have to say about it, Abby, believe me. If you have forgotten what went down back in the day, I advise you to look it up and see for yourself.
Last edited by Fisherman : 08-28-2018 at 09:35 AM.
When I asked - a few times - whether Iremonger had been given the correct wedding certificate to examine, I never, ever, ever, ever, ever got a straight answer. Funny that.
An interesting observation, Sam; thanks for posting it. These sorts of inadvertent screw-ups happen more often then one might imagine. I remember my old company doing something similar in regards to a highly important technical test. It later transpired that a low level clerk had mailed in the wrong sample and the results were disastrous and it took a very long time to sort it all out.
I have no pony in the race, but I certainly sympathize with your logic, and that of Fisherman. If one were to randomly take two guys named, say, "Horace Bleekerman," and then compared their handwriting, there would be utterly no reason to suppose their signatures would look even remotely similar. Certainly not as similar as the two samples you posted. In fact, they would probably be so obviously different that there could be no room for doubt or debate.
One of the reasons given why Hutch [as a witness] didn't come forward at the time is that he may implicate himself. But the one person who could give veracity to his account, Lewis, when he did come forward, he doesn't mention. It just doesn't make sense.
Hutch was only reporting an incident, he wasn't defending himself.
It just goes to show if one has a suspicious mind, and incorporates that with acute imagination, anything is possible
I am referring to the witness Hutchinson, who has been accused of all kinds of skulduggery , from Murder , possible Mugger, pimp, and if not those. a liar.
Topping is the only man with the name Hutchinson, who has ever presented himself as the witness,
Both of his sons were aware of this , also family members.
Yet we persist in looking for other Hutchinson's throughout the universal, who may fit the profile more.
No wonder we are no nearer solving this case, everything has been turned on its head, facts have been twisted to assist theories., figures in history have been named as possible culprits , as authors look for an audience.
Maybe we should try and be more realistic in our approaches.
You've certainly got your eye on the ball Richard.
The thing about handwriting analysis, as any Graphologist should confirm, it's the similarities that are important. Differences can be explained as due to a variety of causes, but similarities are rarely due to a coincidence.
A graphologist looks for similarities, and we see some in those examples.
It's the details in his story that I am not comfortable with.
Because these places were either major established ports already or had access to much closer ones than London. An able seaman (or a labourer faking the credentials of same) living in Plymouth would obviously have embarked from that port city.
All the best,
Ah, so now Able Seaman Hutchinson is also a liar.....