Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Robert]

Hi Crystal

Just checking here. The main free online BMD searchable database I know of is Free BMD. Is this the one you meant, or am I missing something?

[Debra A]

And now I've seen the variation in the signatures of Swanson, all done in the same year and ftaken from police files, kindly posted by Mark Ripper on the 'There's Something Wrong with the Swanson Marginalia' thread , I'm even more inclined to believe that Toppy's signature matches the police witness signature.

[Ben]

I think they were written in the same decade rather than the same year, Debs.

I note with great interest that most Victorians from the period seem to have included either middle initials or full names in their signature. Swanson retrans this consistency throughout, including his first two initials before the surname. This reminded me of Bob's observation that middle initials or middle names were included for the purposes of correct identification. If Toppy was the witness, we should have expected at least middle initials if not names on the police statement - as indeed he did on his marriage cert - according to Bob's info.

Best regards,
Ben

[Debra A]

Hi Ben,
I think Mark posts further down the thread that the signatures were all done in 1903.
From what I read and posted earlier in the thread, the inclusion of middle names on a marriage entry signature seems to have been something insisted upon by the church and not necessarily a 'natural' signature. I'd still like to know exactly what the police protocol was for signatures on statements. In 1911 Toppy's signature did not include his middle names or initials.

[Fisherman]

Just chiming in again to see if there is anybody out there who can provide the circumstances involved in Sue Iremongers "reality check".

-Do we know for sure which two signatures she compared? Or were there more signatures than two involved?
-On whose inititative did she act?
-At what time was the comparison made?
-Did she supply the signatures herself, or were they handed to her by somebody else?
-What was her exact verdict and how was it worded?
-Is she the only graphologist that has made a comparison of Hutch´s and Toppings signatures?

To be able to make a correct assesment of the value of Sue Iremongers efforts, these are questions begging to be answered.

Anybody out there got them answers?

Regards,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

So, even though I as an amateur think the signatures are similar enough to be the same man, I am aware that it's just my personal opinion at the end of the day and have no idea what significance the differences in the signatures have when analysing them professionally.

Don't be so modest, Debs! Your eyes are as good as mine or Sue Iremonger's, I'm sure. Lest anyone be swayed by any arguments on "expertise" - let's just be clear that we aren't forensically authenticating a document here. We are merely comparing straightforward visual stimuli, which is something that the eye and brain have been doing rather well for hundreds of millions of years. There's no special "skill" to this - on the contrary, it's innate.

[Sam Flynn]

They have a disclaimer on their website in fact which states the following:

Please note that The National Archives does not hold original records of births, marriages and deaths. We do not issue copies of certificates.

Not holding the originals doesn't mean they don't have images of the originals, Crystal. I read that as "we don't hold original [paper] records". I can't imagine that every single document they've imaged (hundreds of millions of them, I'd have thought) would have had to have been transcribed before going through the scanner.

Just thought I'd point that out

[Sam Flynn]

A comparison of all three signatures...

As requested, here's a montage of the 1888, 1898 and 1911 "George Hutchinson" signatures, scaled to approximately the same size for easier comparison:



If you click on this link, I've created a small Quicktime movie that loops around and superimposes the signatures.

Oscars, here I come!

[Ben]

Many thanks for the comparison, Gareth. It is as appreciated as it is illuminating!

There's no special "skill" to this - on the contrary, it's innate.

I strongly disagree.

That's essentially akin to an argument for the invalidation of the entire field of document examination, and I'm afraid I consider that argument to be unnaccaptable in the extreme. There obviously is a special skill to handwriting analysis, and it involves the application of extensive experience - the like of which most of us cannot claim to possess. They are simply better equppied to make sense of the "staightforward visual stimuli" they are presented with.

I think Debs should be congratulated for her honesty rather than modesty, and that goes for anyone else - including me! - who has been circumspect enough to ackowledge that professional experience and training in any particular field at least counts for something.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Not holding the originals doesn't mean they don't have images of the originals, Crystal. I read that as "we don't hold original [paper] records". I can't imagine that every single document they've imaged (hundreds of millions of them, I'd have thought) would have had to have been transcribed before going through the scanner.

Oh. Well, thanks for letting me know...What on earth are you talking about, Sam Flynn? Its a disclaimer, it says they don't have the records and they don't issue copies. Look -

Please note that The National Archives does not hold original records of births, marriages and deaths. We do not issue copies of certificates.

You could spend your time reading hidden meanings into it, but it seems pretty straightforward to me. You are right in that nobody would bother to transcribe any of the documents before scanning them - that's the point of scanning them, you get a digital image so you don't need to use the original any more. Its called document preservation. But, if they did have scanned images, they would have got them from the originals, which they say they don't hold. I should think the reason for this is that they don't have the space for the many millions of documents they would need to find storage for if they did. Scoff if you like. The National Archive says they don't have them, professionally, I wouldn't expect them to, and personally, I see no reason to doubt what they say on their website. This seems like arguing for the sake of it to me, and I can't see the point. And while we're at it, if The National Archive hold digital copies of the originals, why didn't they send you one?

On the topic of handwriting analysis:

There's no special "skill" to this - on the contrary, it's innate.

All you do by saying this is reveal how little you understand. I'm not suggesting that people cannot see similarities and differences by looking, to state the obvious (and before anyone accuses me of anything), but analysis is a skilled job, and no, not everyone can do it - because not everyone has undergone the years of experience it requires to do it. Is it just that you want to be right about everything, and you can't tolerate the idea that anybody else might know more about something than you do? If its just about ego, what's the point? Isn't the point in fact the pursuit of knowledge? There's no room for ego there. Your insistence that the witness signature of George Hutchinson is the same as the examples by Toppy seems prejudiced to me. There are clear differences to my eye, and I'm not sure how you can logically sustain the view that these can just be explained away, particularly in light of the fact that the two known examples ot Toppy's handwriting are virtually indistinguishable. Personally, as I've said, I think it would be great if there were sufficient similarities to warrant that conclusion, but I don't see that there are. But we can agree to differ, right? Is that allowed?

[Debra A]

- who has been circumspect enough to ackowledge that professional experience and training in any particular field at least counts for something.

Best regards,
Ben

Absolutely Ben, although it would be nice to see answers to Fisherman's very valid list of questions on the subject of Sue Iremonger's particular examination, from anyone in the know.

For me personally, and especially in light of seeing the variance in Swanson's signatures for one particular year, which seem to have the same sort of differences pointed out as problematic in the Hutchinson signatures, I have to say that I cannot now dismiss the idea that Toppy was the witness.... as I once used to.

And thanks for doing that triple signature comparison, Sam, and all your efforts here.

[Ben]

particularly in light of the fact that the two known examples ot Toppy's handwriting are virtually indistinguishable.

Indeed, Crystal. This is one of the most distinguishing features for me. If 1911 and 1898 showed greater dissimilarity, I'd be a little more inclined to consider Toppy a vague possibility. As it stands, the two signatures show great consistency (and many differences with the witness sig), which tends to reduce the validity of the "handwriting naturally changing over time" argument and makes me even less inclined to consider Toppy the witness.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

...I haven't cut off "each an every innocent avenue", just as I haven't "concluded" that Hutchinson murdered anyone. It simply remains a strong possibility that has yet to be successfully argued against, to my mind.

Goodo, Ben. But it also remains just a pet theory that you have yet to support successfully. It would hardly be anyone else's fault if you spent more time than all other theorists put together trying to beat off one doubter after another with a stick that was ineffective the first time.

Sorry, I don't believe you entertained any more consideration that the scan may not have been complete than I did. I don't believe you were looking at anything other than what you believed to be a complete signature, or else you'd have said so at the time. If that was a complete signature, there'd be no room for an "o".

You are more than welcome to believe what you like, but your last sentence tells it like it really is, because I did say, right from the start, that I could see the blasted o, so very obviously I could see there was ‘room’ for it, and enough room left over for what I very obviously saw of the final n.

That much was ‘immediately apparent’ to me before the scan explained why I was not seeing a completely formed n, and why you had been seeing a completely formed n but no o at all, which prompted your dogmatic, incorrect and rather impudently worded assertions that Hutchinson had misspelled his name and I presumably needed a trip to Specsavers.

Having got that off my incredibly well-preserved chest, my rotten eyesight is actually now telling me that I see what you and Crystal mean about the differences between Hutch's 1888 job and the two later Toppy jobs.

I am on the fence with this one right now, but as long as it can be confirmed (before I develop piles) that Sue Iremonger was indeed supplied with the original marriage signature, I'd say it's a done deal and Toppy wasn't our elusive witness.

Hi Crystal,

Help me out here. If the NA do not scan the original document, but only transcribed copies of originals, why did they not simply explain that to Sam before they took his money for a service they knew they could not provide? It doesn't inspire much confidence in expertise, does it?

Have a good weekend all.

Love,

Caz
X

[Crystal]

Hi Caz

I agree, it doesn't inspire much confidence - but it isn't unusual, sadly. I won't say 'hopeless, the lot of them' because it wouldn't be entirely fair. Mostly fair, but not entirely. I have been told today that they have microfiche of the GRO Indices, not original transcripts. That explains Sam's copy. It seems likely to be a transcribed document done in house from the fiche information - thus the single hand. What the point is of this, one does wonder. It's a bit of a snare for the unsuspecting public who just want a copy of a document, isn't it?

[Debra A]

Hi Caz

I agree, it doesn't inspire much confidence - but it isn't unusual, sadly. I won't say 'hopeless, the lot of them' because it wouldn't be entirely fair. Mostly fair, but not entirely. I have been told today that they have microfiche of the GRO Indices, not original transcripts. That explains Sam's copy. It seems likely to be a transcribed document done in house from the fiche information - thus the single hand. What the point is of this, one does wonder. It's a bit of a snare for the unsuspecting public who just want a copy of a document, isn't it?

Hi Crystal,
There is also a lot of confusion on the part of people researching these types of documents because of the language used to describe them ,to be fair to the NA.
A registrar written certificate, taking details from the original register (usually kept at County Level) is a certified true copy of that document although none of the original signatures will appear on it.