Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Sam Flynn]

Ben,

I don't have any problems with the closely-matched signatures, which they are, or with Toppy being the Miller's Court witness. If he was that witness (as I now strongly believe), it does not mean that I am obliged to believe what his son, or Melvyn Fairclough, may have said about him.

[Fisherman]

For my part, Ben, the crusade is over, and I feel no need to try and sway anybody.
My interest in the Iremonger material remains, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Honestly, I admit that GWTH's signature matches more than I would have expected one of the 1888's witness signature, but that doesn't make Topping "our man" (IMHO).
When I compare the 2 signatures, I see a general similarity, but differences seem more significant (look at the first and second "e" in "George", look at Hutch's "t", look at the "i"...).
In any event, Topping doesn't clear Hutch.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

If he was that witness (as I now strongly believe), it does not mean that I am obliged to believe what his son, or Melvyn Fairclough, may have said about him.

...or the actual content of the statement, I would hope, Gareth.

In the same vein, my rejection of Toppy as the witness (chiefly, if by no means exclusively, because of what I perceive to be a handwriting mismatch) is not based on any Hutchinson-related suspicions I might hold.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Salut David,

Those signatures span some 23 years. The differences are so negligible to my eyes, that they could almost have been written 23 hours apart.

Why, only today I had to sign time-sheets for several of my staff, and my signature varied from one to the next - not significantly, but only to the moderate degree of difference that I see in the Hutchinson scrawls.

[DVV]

Understood Sam, but that's one of the problems.
How many times did you sign today?
Let's say 3 times.
Can you imagine yourself penning the same signature as one of those 3 after 23 years?
That's why I'd rather see the similarities between Hutch 1888 and Topping 1911 as an example of a quite common handwriting at the time (and btw, thanks for having posted different Hutchinson's signatures).

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Understood Sam, but that's one of the problems.
How many times did you sign today?
Let's say 3 times.
Can you imagine yourself penning the same signature as one of those 3 after 23 years?

Not exactly the same, Dave, but rather similar. The core of my signature has remained pretty constant for that length of time, although the way I form the first and final letters has changed a little.

[Sam Flynn]

Those signatures

Sorry - wrong link. Corrected in (self)quote above.

[DVV]

Sam,
can't you compare Duncan, Stephen, Adam, Ryan and Alun-Wyn Jones' signatures?
Thanks in advance,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Sam, can't you compare Duncan, Stephen, Adam, Ryan and Alun-Wyn Jones' signatures?

...after what the French did to us the other week? Not very likely!

Mais, demain nous gagnerons contre l'Italie, j'espère

[DVV]

...after what the French did to us the other week? Not very likely!

Mais, demain nous gagnerons contre l'Italie, j'espère

Sam, IMHO, the Jones did their best, as did the Williams (Martyn and Sean).
But where the hell were the Davies?

ps: still, the most delicious name is Halfpenny.

[caz]

Hi Caz,

That would be true if I were trying to prove that Hutchinson was a serial killer, but that's not my objective. I believe him to be a legitimately suspicious character in this series of crimes, and certainly one of the most plausible suspects to have emerged from the case. In that respect, my "stick" has been quite effective since the evidence speaks for itself. It hasn't been "one doubter after another", incidentally, but the same very few individuals returning periodically.

You could have fooled me, Ben. For evidence that ‘speaks for itself’ you seem to have to do an awful lot of the talking yourself.

But if the first witness signature was complete, there couldn't have been room for an "o" and and an "n". There can only have been room for both letters if the signature was incomplete, which is what transpired to be the case, but I don't believe either of us enterained that possibility before Jonathan chimed in.

How hard can this be, Ben? The reality is that there was room for the o because it’s bloody well there and I could see it the first time round because I said so, and it’s still there now.

That leaves the n, and I could hardly have seen the last bit that was cut off when the document was scanned. I could see it wasn’t a properly formed n and said so, but didn’t claim to know why. For me, it’s not a matter of ‘entertaining’ one possibility and not another, but being open to all possible explanations until someone like Jonathan chimes in with the definitive one. I realise that may be an alien concept to you, since you only entertained the one possibility originally, that the signature was as complete as the witness could make it but he spelled his name wrong.

Hi Gareth,

In principle, I agree that it is only fair and laudable to "redress the balence", in the weight of compelling evidence, and revise an earlier view. Indeed, I've done so on matters as controversial as the Lusk Letter...

I thought at first that Sam had made a very uncharacteristic spelling mistake there, but I see you are up to your old tricks again and not bothering to spell check when quoting a fellow poster's words.

I wanted to ask you about the Lusk Letter. Some people think it could be from the killer and others don’t; nothing too controversial there. But why the change of heart? Would it have anything to do with your lodging house suspect being obliged to eat the kidney as soon as poss or give it to the cat?

Love,

Caz
X

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
Everytime I read this thread, i do so with baited breath, how long now will it be, before it will become widely accepted that GWTH was our man?.
Without being at all biased, no matter how many times i gaze at those three signature comparisons, i am totally convinced they are from the hand of the same person..
But that is just my opinion.
I am disapointed that JD Hutchinson , who joined Casebook, only had the compulsion to post once, i consider that a waste, for if anyone could have added more to this thread it proberly would have come from her.
But i do understand such a reluctance, for to be realistic, how many of us with a past connection to this case, would want to enter a discussion involving their husbands father, especially when the majority of the posters remain critical of the mans [Hutchinsons ] motives.
At least the possibility of GWT, being Hutchinson is now being discussed, and those who had major doubts about Regs integreity, may slacken their opinions, and also mayby? the chance of believing old .'Nunners' exclusive 1970s radio broadcast.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

For evidence that ‘speaks for itself’ you seem to have to do an awful lot of the talking yourself.

And you've done an awful lot of pronouncing weightily on matters about which you are grossly ignorant, but that doesn't appeared to have slowed you down.

The reality is that there was room for the o because it’s bloody well there and I could see it the first time round because I said so, and it’s still there now.

That's because we were both enlightened to the fact that the signature had been truncated. Before then, it's pretty obvious that we both believed we were looking at a complete signature. If you thought the "o" was bloody well there in those unenlightened days, where did you think the "n" was?

I realise that may be an alien concept to you, since you only entertained the one possibility originally

Of course I'm open to all possibilities, including ones that I consider to be unlikely. That doesn't mean I'm beyond having an opinion; i.e. subscribing to a particular "possibility" (i.e. mentally prioritizing one opinion over another) pending additional evidence that may or may not prompt me to revise it. If you're seriously claiming that you never do the same - i.e. having an opinion in the absence of concrete proof - then you are certainly lying.

I thought at first that Sam had made a very uncharacteristic spelling mistake there, but I see you are up to your old tricks again and not bothering to spell check when quoting a fellow poster's words.

Oh, for goodness sake...

Following me all over the board like a filthy smell with easily refutable nonsense is bad enough, but your pettiness here is just intolerable. What I was responsible for above was a typo, as any cretin can see, and typos do not mean that the writer doesn't know how to spell the words themselves. That one happens quite regularly to me on account of the proximity of the "a" to the "e" on the keyboard, and I substitute "of" for "or" occasionally for the same reason. Gareth has more than enough nous to appreciate this. I have a better command of the English language than you'll ever hope to possess, so please avoid further embarrassment and take your silly little insecurities elsewhere.

Would it have anything to do with your lodging house suspect being obliged to eat the kidney as soon as poss or give it to the cat?

He wouldn't have had to surrender the organs immediately because the lodging house that particular suspect frequented boasted the availability of private cabins, and as such, my suspicion that the Lusk Letter was not written by the killer has nothing to do with any suspect. If you think I changed my viewpoint to suit my suspect, fill your boots. Let's pretend I value your opinion on such matters.

[The Good Michael]

What do you mean you're not biased? You most certainly are.
However, I agree that those signatures came from the same man. Even if they are somewhat dissimilar, they are not as different as one might suspect coming from two different hands. I think we all should scan our signatures blindly and put them together. My guess is that we'd be hard-pressed to find two that are as similar as these three.

Mike