Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

Just to clarify, Gareth, I wasn't referring to a lack of consistency in the style of writing necessarily, but more the idiosyncracies that he includes and rejects within the witness three. There is a 13 year gap between the 1898 and 1911 signatures, and yet we see a remarkable consistency between the two. Our "witness", however, decided upon embroidered H's and non-embroidered H's, "George" and then "Geo" within the space of a few minutes (presumably). I don't see them as distractions. I see it as an indication that the witness showed a remarkable lack of consistency with his signatures that contrasts markedly with Toppy's uniformity over a much longer time-frame.

I've no doubt whatsoever that all threee witness signatures were penned by the same individual, as your column comparison bears out, but when we stray into Toppy terriroty, we can see once again some telling discrepencies with the witness three. I won't bother listing them all again, or else we really will be going round in circles, but suffice to say I don't see a resemblence, let alone an extraordinarily high one.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi all,
The witness first "e" (in "George") looks like Toppy's second one, while Toppy's first "e" looks like the witness second one.

Amitiés

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"I'd respectfully request that you refrain from dismissing it as "ludicrous". I think we all need to be very wary of assuming that our opinion must be the right one just because we think we've seen something "very easy to spot"."

I am not looking to do anything else but point to my conviction that Lambeth Hutch´s signature does not come anywhere near the sort of likeness as does Topys, when it comes to a comparison between these signatures and the police report signatures.
It is not just a question of what I think I am seeing. Sam sees the very same thing, and so does obviously Mike. Add to this that a number of people I have asked about it back home where I live are of the exact same opinion (and the question was put to them in a totally unbiased manner: Is there a signature that does not belong here? I used the third police report signature, Toppys 1898 and 1911 signatures and the Lambeth one), and I think I have all I need on hand to stick to my conviction that Mr Lambeth IS the odd one out here.

It is not a question of showing any poster out here disrespect. It´s just that the four signatures consist of three triplets and a distant cousin. It is very obvious, not only to me but also to a number of other people. To me, it´s like sitting in a car together with half a dozen people at a crossing and getting a green light, but when you step on the gas one of them yells "Stop it, the light is red!"
And as the remainder of the travellers all say "What are you talking about, it is green and you know that perfectly well", they are countered by a "That´s just your wiew, and when somebody sees it differently, you should respect that wiew".
In such cases, I drive. Most people do, and it helps cut the accident rates on our roads.
In the end, it´s a case of moving with my own conviction, and has nothing to do with trying to embarass anyone.

In this case I am absolutely dead certain that the Lambeth signature is not by any means as good a comparison to the police report signatures as is Toppys. And all the Sue Iremongers in the world cannot sway me, I´m afraid. Nor does it do any good to tell me that I am not an expert - I don´t have to be to see such an obvious thing. It is a no-go, useless, unviable suggestion to favour Lambeth Hutch over Toppy AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED.
Don´t take it as a personal insult or a slight, Ben. If, as you say, the Lambeth signature is the better comparison, you have nothing to fear - you can bask in the sunshine provided by my jumping to untenable conclusions, and you can spend the rest of your Casebook days pointing out to me how foolish I was to make such an assertion.
I am willing to take that risk any day in the week, Ben.

Regards,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Just to clarify, Gareth, I wasn't referring to a lack of consistency in the style of writing necessarily, but more the idiosyncracies that he includes and rejects within the witness three.

There is in actual fact only the curly "H" that's inconsistent between the three 1888 signatures, Ben.

I've no doubt whatsoever that all threee witness signatures were penned by the same individual, as your column comparison bears out

Progress - of a kind!

but when we stray into Toppy terriroty, we can see once again some telling discrepencies with the witness three.

We don't, I'm afraid, as my last pair of montages demonstrates beyond any serious doubt - at least as far as my eyes (and apparently some others' eyes) are concerned.

GWT Hutchinson's confirmed signatures match the 1888 signatures in most respects - with the only major differences being in the way one capital "H" was written; how the lower-case "h"s in 1888 had a looped stem; and a downward, rather than upward, tail on the final lower-case "n" in 1888. Given that the name "George Hutchinson" contains 14 letters, a mismatch in a mere 3 amounts to a match of some 79%. It's highly unlikely that a different person would have "evolved" their signature to such an extent that it would have matched another's signature to that extent, especially after a period of 23 years.

Added to that, we have the Topping family story to consider (fine details notwithstanding), plus the fact that GWTH was one of the few "George Hutchinsons" alive in London at the time of Kelly's murder. The 1911 signatures of the others I have already supplied on page one of this thread, only one of which bears any resemblance to GWTH's. Even that signature differs in greater degree than any of the five I've ascribed to GWTH, and he was an ironmonger/dealer, who seems to have hovered around Lambeth for much of his life.

Taking all this into account, the only objective conclusion I can draw - and an easy one, given the evidence - is that GWTH was indeed the Dorset Street witness of 1888.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

There is in actual fact only the curly "H" that's inconsistent between the three 1888 signatures, Ben.

Well no, there's the "Geo" in the second signature that is substituted for "George". Fairly significant alternations in terms of the overall look of the signature, as opposed to the two Toppy signatures, which are far more consistent with eachother.

We don't, I'm afraid, as my last pair of montages demonstrates beyond any serious doubt

Ah, but what I think your montages demonstrate beyond any serious doubt is that the Toppy and witness signatures were most assuredly not penned by the same individual, as expert opinion can attest.

GWT Hutchinson's confirmed signatures match the 1888 signatures in most respects

No. I completely disagree. I think they're incredibly dissimilar in most respects. I really wanted to avoid copying and pasting, but seeing as we really are going round in circles here (), I analysed the two signatures thusly:

"George" - As you point out, the loop is closed on the capital "G", in contrast to all three witness signatures. All three witness "o"s have a join coming out of the middle of the letter before connecting to "r" whereas in Toppy's, the join commences from the top. The "r" is completely different. The "g" and "e" aren't as problematic, but there are only so many ways of connecting the two letters anyway.

Capital "H" - Only so many many ways of writing a capital "H"'s. The best that can be said is that they're not markedly dissimilar.

"u" - Very conspicuous in its dissimilarity from all three witness signatues which are connected to the H from beneath, rather than the top in Toppy's.

"t" - Unusually small and short in all three witness signatures, in direct contrast to Toppy's, and conected to the preceding letter from beneath, rather than the join from the "u" striking the "t" in the middle (blimey, noticing these things isn't half the bother of describing them ). I see what you mean about the cross occuring at the top of the stem, but not so much in Toppy's.

"chin" - Little to no similarity here, and some crucial differences. The witness "h"s are unusually tall, double-stemmed affair with a small base, whereas Toppy's are the opposite on all three counts: a short "h", with a single stem and a large base.

Lowercase "i" - Dot appears over the s in two witness sigs, and over the n in the other. Toppy's over the n.

"son" - Again I'm seeing no obvious congruity, but some clear differences. The anti-clockwise "n" is quite distinctive in Toppy's, and conspicuously absent from all witness signatures.

A more generalized observation would be that the witness makes a much clearer differentation between small letters and tall ones than Toppy does. The H/h's tower above the contrastingly small letters in a manner most dissimilar to Toppy's.

It's highly unlikely that a different person would have "evolved" their signature to such an extent that it would have matched another's signature to that extent, especially after a period of 23 years.

But that only becomes a problem if the signatures do match to the extent you suggest. As far as others are concerned, including an expert in document examiantion, they're a mismatch.

The Toppy family story detracts from, rather than bolsters the likelihood of Toppy being the witness, given its highly dubious associatioin with a widely discredited royal conspiracy book. I realise that Toppy was one of only a few George Hutchinsons living in the vicinity, but that counts for very little if we have others by that name whose signature offers a better match.

The revelations from this thread have only reinforced my belief that Toppy was not - could not have been - the "witness" in question.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

It is not just a question of what I think I am seeing.

I'm sure Sue Iremonger would tell you the same thing, and she happens to be an expert in this particular field. When she applied her professional expertise to the Toppy/witness comparison, she came away with the belief that Toppy was not the same individual who signed the witness statement. There who others who are also accustomed to examining old documents who subscribe to the same view as Iremonger and myself.

Add to this that a number of people I have asked about it back home where I live are of the exact same opinion

Fascinating. Unfortunately for the validity of that particular school of thought, I asked a load of people here, and they subscribed to my view, expressing some astonishment that anyone could endorse the reverse opinion.

It´s just that the four signatures consist of three triplets and a distant cousin. It is very obvious, not only to me but also to a number of other people.

No, that would be your opinion. Your entitled to it, but I would disagree very strongly. Similarly, the authority with which you invest your own opinion with has led you to create the "red light" versus "green light" analogy. But in my view, mine would be the green light, and you would be the one insisting I stop for it based on a conflicting opinion. I'd still "drive", and I would be the one avoiding trying to embarrass anyone in that scenario.

It's simply a question of the authority people are willing to invest in their own opinion, but any objection akin to:

They must be similar, it's so obvious!..

Can be so easily countered by:

They must be different, it's so obvious!..

If it weren't for the fact that I can seemingly hypnotise people into engaging in long post battles with me, they would have long since resgined themselves to a stalemate for obvious reasons. Others agree with me, including a document examiner and as such, I have every confidence that my view is the right one.

It is very obvious, not only to me but also to a number of other people.

But to others, it is equally obvious that the signatures don't match, and one of those others just happens to be a document examiner, as distinct from a hobbyist. That's the problem with insisting that certain things are "obvious". The opposition can simply claim that the reverse opinion is equally so, and it will inevitably result in stalemate. I realise that you intend to offence or antagonism, but cultivate a "stalemate awareness", would be my well-intended suggestion

If, as you say, the Lambeth signature is the better comparison, you have nothing to fear - you can bask in the sunshine provided by my jumping to untenable conclusions, and you can spend the rest of your Casebook days pointing out to me how foolish I was to make such an assertion.

I don't need to believe you're foolish to recognise the validity in the suggestion that the Lambeth signature is more of a match to the witness signatures that Toppy.

Best regards,
Ben

Edit: Just to clarify what I meant by Toppy being one of a handful of "George Hutchinsons" living in the "vicinity", I of course refer to Greater London.

[Sam Flynn]

I don't need to believe you're foolish to recognise the validity in the suggestion that the Lambeth signature is more of a match to the witness signatures that Toppy.

Then I'm a fool too. The Toppy signatures are a closer match to the witness signatures than is that of Lambeth George.

[Sam Flynn]

As far as others are concerned, including an expert in document examiantion

That expert's "expertise" doesn't wash with me in this context, Ben. As a trained, albeit lapsed, scientist I base my conclusions on the evidence before my eyes - and, here, it speaks volumes.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I don't believe either you or the Fishmonster are "foolish" to believe that Toppy and the witness were the same person. I surprises me somewhat that Iremonger's views can be dismissed so hastily, but I have no objection whatsoever to conflicting opinions. After all, it would be a dull world if...y'know the rest.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

There who others

There were others...

terriroty

Territory.

resemblence

Resemblance.

Damn it. Damn it. Damn it.

[Sam Flynn]

It surprises me somewhat that Iremonger's views can be dismissed so hastily

Not hastily at all, Ben... but after due consideration and - indeed - comparison of the following:



I say again - there's no great science involved in comparing unambiguous visual stimuli. The various apparatus for doing so were "invented" many hundreds of millions of years before Australopithecus afarensis roamed the Earth, and I reject - utterly - the premise that any paper qualification makes one human being any better than the next at doing so. Blind or partially-sighted people excepted.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I say again - there's no great science involved in comparing unambiguous visual stimuli.

But it would be fallacious to suggest that we all have the same abilities when it comes to document examination and handwriting analysis. Experience and professional training in any given discipline is virtually guaranteed to bestow the expert with greater knowledge than the layman. That's only reasonable.

I don't think that experts in any particular field are accorded much respect by "ripperologists" in general, and I find that unfortunate. Not singling anyone out in particular, but it strikes me that whenever the expert opinion is not in alignment with that of the message-board contributor - be it handrwiting analysis or criminology or whatever - the expert opinion is all too often cast aside on the often spurious grounds that "anyone can do it". I find that a cop-out, personally, and not particularly fair. I doubt many contributors here would take too kindly to the suggestion that anyone can do their job on the grounds that innate ability is all that is required (etc etc).

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

Speaking of Australopithecus Afarenis, I got to see Lucy's bones in Ethiopia, as well as Ramapithicus, A. Africanus, Homo Habilis, and many others, and all for about 1 dollar. None of them looked like Adam to me, so the Bible may be wrong as an aside.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"the expert opinion is all too often cast aside on the often spurious grounds that "anyone can do it". I find that a cop-out, personally, and not particularly fair."

Since I obviously belong to those you are after here, Ben, let me begin by agreeing with you that experts are experts because they can offer more than the man in the street in their particular fields. That is why I don´t fix my car myself, or make my own New Years Day fireworks. Others do it better.

But when I need to change a light bulb on my car, I don´t employ expertise; it is expensive and I can do the job myself, since there are no difficulties involved. And if I want to save the fireworks cost, I can make a campfire myself to substitute one source of illumination with another one that involves no difficulties for me to create.

If two signatures are made by the same man, many years apart and under very differing circumstances, a document examiner can come in handy, since the signatures may - ON THE SURFACE - look very unalike each other. The examiner steps in, and finds the telling likeness that is hidden there anyway. Good on us, and good on the examiner. THAT is when I need an examiner, and when I need to cough up the money it takes.

The signatures we are dealing with, though, are quite simply bulb changing jobs, which is why I again will press the point that any expert telling me that the police report signature, Toppys marriage license and the 1911 census could not have been written by the same man, and that they differ dramatically, is an expert that I will not listen to, since I can very easily see for myself that the likeness is there, and it is absolutely overwhelming.
When I combine this with my knowledge of the surrounding circumstances, I am left with no doubt at all - the Dorset Streeet witness had two middle names, and they were William Topping.

As for your suggestion that it is not fair to hold this wiew, I think we need to see all the surrounding circumstances attached to Iremongers work before we start dealing in such terms. And so far, I have seen nothing like it.

Do you, Ben, have the wording to present on these boards? Or are you just taking for granted which signatures were compared, and telling me that I am wrong without knowing the exact phrasing Iremonger used? These are questions that you need to answer, Ben!

When you show me that up til now quite invisible ghost we can start speaking about being fair. And since you speak of other experts chiming in on Iremongers and your behalf, you may just as well add them and their work on the matter too. If there is such a wealth of information able to point me out as the ignorant amateur you are telling me that I am, it would do your own cause a world of good to get the blasted thing up on the boards as quickly as possible, would it not?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

The signatures we are dealing with, though, are quite simply bulb changing jobs

Ah, but they're not, Fisherman.

You may think they must be the same and that by golly, how can anyone not see it (etc), but there are others who subscribe to the absolute reverse view, and are equally astonished that anyone can claim a match. As it happens, Iremonger compared the signatures, and came to the experience-informed view that the signatures were a mismatch, and it takes more application of professional skill to arrive at an informed view than it would take to change a light bulb.

Handwriting analysis does not remotely compare to your lightbulb-changing analagy, and I can only reiterate last night's observation that most message board contributors would be rather aghast at the suggestion that their area of expertise is on a similar scale to changing a light bulb. Of course it isn't. Document examination is a skilled task requiring expertise, which is why we employ document examiners in the first place. It also explains why there is no such profession as a Lightbulb Changer. Handwriting analysis is more in allignment with the person who fixes your car or manufactures your fireworks, as per your other job examples.

is an expert that I will not listen to, since I can very easily see for myself that the likeness is there, and it is absolutely overwhelming.

That's because you're placing so much faith in your own powers of observation and comparison that you feel an expert's opinion can be invalidated simply because you think it's so obvious that you must be right. I find that to be at odds with your earlier concession that you are not an expert.

Or are you just taking for granted which signatures were compared, and telling me that I am wrong without knowing the exact phrasing Iremonger used?

The signatures compared were the witness signature(s) and Toppy's marriage certificate signature, both of which we have seen. I don't know the exact phrasing, or the reasons for her adjudging them a mismatch, but the salient point is that she compared the signature and gave them the thumbs down. This was detailed in Bob Hinton's book "From Hell", and you may wish to contact him for further details. I am not, incidentally, telling you that you're an ignorant amateur, nor am I implying that I have better powers of observation that you. I AM saying that expert opinion is bound to carry more weight.

Best regards,
Ben