Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

Ok Sam,

I believe you - no problem. And sorry if I've missed the relevant post.
In my view, nothing known in this tradition is consistent with Hutch's account.
That's all.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[DVV]

You have NOT answered my question of what importance it could have which explanation came into play when Toppys style was changed.
Fisherman

I have, Fish,
even before you asked me.
Shall I repeat ?

"What importance ?"
No importance, imo, especially since FL didn't provide us with a definitive conclusion.
Since he went for a possible match, which logically doesn't discard a possible mismatch, for the time being, the explanations for both possibilities can't be discarded, even when they contradict themselves.

Hope it answers your question.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

It does, David - but I think you must realize that he never discussed the possible explanations in any other context than that of a possible match.

And I agree that it would not matter in the least what explanation it was that came into play when the changes occurred.

Fisherman
who is off to bed

[Stephen Thomas]

Fisherman

You don't seem to appreciate that our good friend Ben has cracked the Jack the Ripper case when no-one else has ever even come close.

The man is a genius.

Any criticism of his views is futile, so why bother?

I can't think why he hasn't written a book by now.

"Jack the Ripper, the Truth" would be a nice title.

World wide newspaper syndication should be worth a couple of million.

[Sam Flynn]

I believe you - no problem. And sorry if I've missed the relevant post.
In my view, nothing known in this tradition is consistent with Hutch's account.
That's all.

The family story (not just Reg's) is that George William Topping Hutchinson was the Dorset Street witness. That - as far as it goes - is the only relevant part, Dave. It's not necessary to the signature comparison, but it adds independent corroboration, at least.

[DVV]

The family story (not just Reg's) is that George William Topping Hutchinson was the Dorset Street witness. That - as far as it goes - is the only relevant part, Dave. It's not necessary to the signature comparison, but it adds independent corroboration, at least.

Understood, Sam,

but I'd call it an independent corroboration when experts will tell me that the signatures match enough to say: Toppy was Hutch.
But if they judge otherwise, I'll rather say: this story, dodgy as it is, finally corroborates Toppy/Reg's trickery.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

but I'd call it an independent corroboration when experts will tell me that the signatures match enough to say: Toppy was Hutch.

The beauty of independent corroboration is that it would be independent of the experts' opinion.

But if they judge otherwise, I'll rather say: this story, dodgy as it is, finally corroborates Toppy/Reg's trickery.

You really shouldn't, Dave, because even the "experts" can ultimately only give a subjective view. Signature comparison - professional or otherwise - is not an exact science, not by a long chalk.

[DVV]

The beauty of independent corroboration is that it would be independent of the experts' opinion.You really shouldn't, Dave, because even the "experts" can ultimately only give a subjective view. Signature comparison - professional or otherwise - is not an exact science, not by a long chalk.

Sam,
a man like you couldn't have missed my point (or: knappast).
Reg's story can corroborate Toppy's honesty. And it can also corroborate Toppy's possible trickery.

Now, about the experts. You're right, signature comparison isn't an exact science.
But people who spend their lives working on document examination, etc, are more reliable than me.
My own eyes see matching letters, mismatching ones... What am I to do, Sam ?
I'll wait for Crystal, I'll wait for Godot.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,
a man like you couldn't have missed my point (or: knappast).
Reg's story can corroborate Toppy's honesty. And it can also corroborate Toppy's possible trickery.

I see what you mean, Dave, but that's a topic for another thread.

In terms of this thread, the bottom line of Reg's story is that GWTH was the bloke who signed the 1888 witness statement. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Sam Flynn]

Now, about the experts. You're right, signature comparison isn't an exact science.
But people who spend their lives working on document examination, etc, are more reliable than me.

Possibly, Dave, but not necessarily. I'll bet you a pound to a penny that there are people out there equally capable of making good decisions when comparing signatures as any document examiner. They might lack the vocabulary and "official" technique to explain why, but they can just "do" it nonetheless.

[DVV]

Possibly, Dave, but not necessarily. I'll bet you a pound to a penny that there are people out there equally capable of making good decisions when comparing signatures as any document examiner. They might lack the vocabulary and "official" technique to explain why, but they can just "do" it nonetheless.

Maybe true, Sam,
but unfortunately (for me) I'm unable to come to any decision myself.
Believe it or not, I'd prefer to see this case closed, even in favour of Toppy.
I had so much hope, at the third page of this thread...
Now, once again, what am I to do ?
If you knew how much time I've spent looking at the signatures on my screen... and I really can't decide... And I can hardly imagine that the 1898 G has been shaped by the 1888 witness...
So, even if experts are not always reliable (I know this as a historian, and I don't buy Badham's "conscious imitation", for example), I just can hope that more experts will work on these documents in the future. Or that something else about Hutch will be discovered.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

I can hardly imagine that the 1898 G has been shaped by the 1888 witness.

You don't have to imagine anything, Dave, because the precedent has been demonstrated with actual examples - Hutt's G's changed in a similar vein over a comparable period of time; so did mine. I dare say one could find several million more real-life instances where just such a change took place.

[DVV]

You don't have to imagine anything, Dave, because the precedent has been demonstrated with actual examples - Hutt's G's changed in a similar vein over a comparable period of time; so did mine. I dare say one could find several million more real-life instances where just such a change took place.

No Sam,

the first Hutt's G is "school-like" (sorry if this is not English!).
The other one is not.
It's the reverse with Toppy.
Hence my problem.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Evolution can progress and regress, Dave. There have been periods in my life when my handwriting has been far more "advanced" in appearance than it is now.

Besides - and for pity's sake! - whilst many of Hutt's characters changed over the years, it's largely only at the extremities that Toppy's signature changed. The "meat" of it (with the offset dot above the "i", and those characteristic top-launched "t"s) remained constant over a period of 23 years.

I'm not going over all that again, by the way, because it's been done to death elsewhere on this thread. Volume 14, if I'm not mistaken

[DVV]

I'm not going over all that again, by the way, because it's been done to death elsewhere on this thread. Volume 14, if I'm not mistaken

In fact, Sam, it has not been done to death, but no matter...
While I accept that it isn't the ultimate proof that Toppy wasn't Hutch, I'd have been glad to see the "pro-Toppy" squad accepting my point.
Which is: a grown-up guy who shapes his G...hmmm, let's say "like a man" in 1888, hardly comes back to his flourished and quite ridiculous "school-like" G 10 years later.
I even can't remember how to shape the capital letters as I've learnt when I was a child. And G isn't the easiest to remember.

Amitiés,
David