Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I completely disregard what you assert to be "not true", since you're allowing your opinion to mutate into fact"

That is a strange attitude - especially since the left leg of the "n" in the "son" in "Hutchinson" HAS a totally different leaning than the one in Toppys signature, where the leg is in accordance with the police report signature.

"The left leg of Toppy's "n" doesn't lean at all in the 1911 signature, so I've no idea where you're going with that observation."

You wanna bet? Have another check, Ben, and THEN tell me that Lambeth mans "n" corresponds well with the police report. It does not. This is further born out by the text "Russell Gardens" where Lambeth man treats the "n" in Gardens in the exact same fashion - it leans almost backwards, and that is something that Toppy OR the police report signatures donīt come close to in any instance.

"yes, I became frustrated and went overboard in stating they aren't remotely "alike". I'd retract that, of course"

Good man!

"it's certainly no more acceptable to assert as "fact" that they are "remarkably similiar."

Well, Ben, as I utterly refute that the matter is one that lends itself to opinions, feelings and hunches, I actually wiew it as a fact and nothing else. Then again, the question could be raised what "remarkably" stands for, and that would of course be hard to establish in an exact fashion. Disregarding that, I still say that Sams verdict that Toppys handwriting is markedly closer to the police report signatures than Lambeth mansīis merely establishing a definitive fact. The clearest example of it is offered by a comparison between signature number three in the police protocol and Toppys 1911 signature. Lambeth manīs differently leaning "n":s, his low-cup "u":s, his leaving out the stem of the "t", just to exemplify, puts it all beyond question.

Once again - I am not being disrespectful when stating this. This is one of those rare moments when the saying "the writing is on the wall" applies extremely well. I would be disrespectful towards the evidence not to acknowledge it.

The best, Ben!

Fisherman

[Crystal]

Yep, Mike!

I'm in preparation for the role of an angry and exasperated contributor to Jack the Ripper message boards. I've been in character for about four years, so the shoot had better be damn good!

Thanks, Crystal. I rather hope I did read Gareth's post incorrectly!

All the best,
Ben

PLEASE Ben! Its far too early in the day! So if you're in preparation for this role of an angry and exasperated contributer to the boards, then are all these other people just extras??

[Crystal]

Fisherman writes: Once again - I am not being disrespectful when stating this. This is one of those rare moments when the saying "the writing is on the wall" applies extremely well. I would be disrespectful towards the evidence not to acknowledge it.

Yes, we know the writing is on the wall, Fisherman - well, allegedly it was, anyway. And as I'm quite sure Hutchinson wrote the Goulston Street Graffito.. Oh, if only those pesky coppers hadn't rubbed out the chalk, we could have proved we had a match!!!!

Life is full of these little disappointments, I find.

[Fisherman]

Im telling you, Crystal - I really DO have a soft spot for that sense of humour of yours!!

Fisherman

[Crystal]

And once again, Fisherman, Thank You (Crystal takes a bow...). I have been growing it for years now, and I believe that it's beginning to look almost fashionable!

[Ben]

That is a strange attitude - especially since the left leg of the "n" in the "son" in "Hutchinson" HAS a totally different leaning than the one in Toppys signature, where the leg is in accordance with the police report signature.

I don't agree. Look at Toppy's 1911 signature. The left leg of the "n" doesn't lean anywhere. It's completely upright. Yes, I do want to bet that this is true, all my wordly possessions - because it is. You have, I'm afraid, come up with an extremely implausible excuse for claiming a difference between Lambeth and the witnesses, despite it being pretty obvious that the general appearance of the "son" is much closer than anything Toppy came up with. You also ignore the upwards slanting, Northerly-pointing tail on the end of both Toppy signatures, in contrast to Lambeth and the witness three.

Well, Ben, as I utterly refute that the matter is one that lends itself to opinions, feelings and hunches, I actually wiew it as a fact and nothing else

Well, no offence, but I don't take that seriously at all. I don't even need to get exasperated over this one, since it's so obviously outlandish. You're essentially saying that Sue Iremonger was factually in error to arrive at the opinion that Toppy was not the witness who signed the statement?

Wow.

Disregarding that, I still say that Sams verdict that Toppys handwriting is markedly closer to the police report signatures than Lambeth mans

And I still say that...where was it again?

Ah yes, here's what I still say:

The Lambeth "utchinson", in particular, evinces a much closer similarity with the witness signatures than the two Toppys do. All three witness statements AND the Lambeth man include a double stemmed lower-case "h" with a short base, which are conspicuously absent from both the Toppy signatures. Lambeth George simply forgot to cross his "t", which was obviously an oversight, unless he really believed his surname was "Hulchinson"! Long crossbars were a late Victorianism, as can be seen from numerous other writing samples from the period.

Notice also that in the Lambeth and witness signatures, the "t" is shorter than the "h" in "Hutchinson", whereas the complete reverse is apparent in both Toppy signatures, suggesting very strongly that the latter was a Toppyism that he was unlikely to revise. The look of both signatures generally evinces far more similarity with eachother than Toppy's efforts. The former two both create an obvious diffentation from tall and short letters which is not as immediately apparent in the Toppy two. The "son" in the Lambeth and witness signatures show an interesting similarity which is absent from both Toppy signatures, which both reveal a very different "son".

[The Good Michael]

Im telling you, Crystal - I really DO have a soft spot for that sense of humour of yours!!

That was humor? I thought it might be gas.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

I'm telling you, we have yet to see a match with the witness statements. Toppy isn't your man. There, I put my cards on the table. I must be feeling very brave today!

[Crystal]

2nd expert says....

I have just had a second response to my request for opinions. This lady says on balance she doesn't think Toppy is a match for the witness signatures. Her main reasons are the devloped capital G, and the 'th' in 'Hutchinson'. She adds that time is limited, so this is only a surface examination.

So far, one for, and one against.

[The Good Michael]

I Her main reasons are..., and the 'th' in 'Hutchinson'.

So, that was Huthinson and not Hutchinson. No wonder there's confusion.

Mike

[Ben]

Vundaba!

Errr, I mean, thankyou very much for the feedbkack, Crystal. Your sleuthing efforts are greatly appreciated.

All the best,
Ben

[Crystal]

Is there some confusion over this? (or is is confuthion?). It seems perfectly clear to me, and everyone else, it would seem I mean of course, the 'tch'. I just missed a letter.

[Crystal]

You know, the population of Whitechapel in 1911 was only 33,765. I don't know what all the fuss is about. We surely ought to be able to nail that George Hutchinson...shouldn't we?? I mean, How hard can it be to find him out of such a small number of people??

I say, back to the census we go!

[Ben]

Hi Crystal,

It has been suggested that an individual who was capable of giving a bogus statement is equally capable of giving a bogus name, which may mean having to cast our investigative net even wider.

All the best,
Ben

[Crystal]

Oh I know, Ben! I was just being facetious. I'm not convinced he did give his real name, either.