Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[The Good Michael]

Malcolm,

How do you call this thread stupid when you were responsible for the ouija board thread? That was the height of stupidity.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"You can't form a t just by drawing a bendy line."

That is correct - you can´t. And Lambeth man failed to make a correct t in "Hutchinson". Not that it resembles his l - the angle at the bottom is sharp as opposed to the l:s he makes - but you are correct if you point out that the t did not come out fulla a t. It is a sloppy t.

This aside, I find that you wrote, to Sam:
"The "Lambeth" t suggests that this individual may not have been in the habit of making long crosses, but in most other respects, Lambeth is an otherwise better bet for the witness three as far as I'm concerned."

And therefore the matter is closed; you no longer press the idea that Lambeth man forgot to make crossbars. Instead he wrote - as I have been saying all along - his t:s in a radically different fashion than Toppy/Hutch.

The evidence for this has been thee all along. I pointed it out many, many insults ago. I think it is a very sad thing that it had to take dozens of vitriol-laden posts to agree on it. But I hail the fact that none of us any longer holds the wiew that Lambeth man could/would have written the same type of t: s as Toppy, i he had not forgotten to add crossbars to his t:s!

I still think, however, that you are wrong when you say that Lambeth mans signature is a closer match to the police report ones than Toppys. And I will point out why.

To begin with, let´s decide on which three signatures to compare. I suggest that we use the signature from page three in the protocol for comparison. The mostdeviationg one, the one from page one, may, if we are to believe Iremonger, not even have been written by Hutch.

Now, let´stake a look at the three first letters.
The capital H - Lambeth man makes a curlied H, which is totally different from Toppys and the police report.
The u - Lambeth man makesa cup that is very shallow, and the other two signatures have deep cups, making them distinctly different.
The t - Lambeth man writes his t:s with a smallish crossbar way down on the stem, added without lifting the pen, whereas the other two are written like l:s, after which a long crossbar is added high up. The pen must be lifted to achieve this.

So far, out of three letters, we have only deviances and discrepancies on behalf of Lambeth man. There is nothing in the first three letters of his signature that even remotely resembles the manner in which Toppy and Hutch write. These two signatures, however, display the exact same choice of writing when it comes to the types of letters chosen.

This is enough - quite enough - to dismiss Lambeth man as a viable contender. But so far, we have mostly spoken of elements of style, and elements of style may change. For example, if we have only one example that a man writes his u:s with a shallow cup, we should not be surprised to find him doing it with a deep cup the next time over. This is wha Rolf Berzell from the SKL teaches us - elements of style cannot be firmly established until we have seen about ten signatures by the same hand.
In Lambeth mans case, we luckily have the u in Russell Gardens that tends to confirm that he uses shallow cups, but in accordance with the above, we only have two indications, and that is not enough. It is a pointer but by and large, it is not fully confirmed.

So, if we cannot use the style elements, then what CAN we use? Well, Berzell tells us that too. We can use leanings, for example AND - we can have a look at whether the writer lifts his pen or not, and how my times he does so. And THIS is where we should concentrate our efforts instead of pointing to the stem of a letter being short - such things may change, as I said.
But if we look at Lambeth Georges signature once again, we immediately realize that he could perform it without lifting his pen. The only time he added elements after lifting the pen was when he dotted his i in Hutchinson. Butfor that, the signature flows all the way through, including that ingenuous capital H.
Look at Toppy and Hutch. We KNOW that they both lifted the pen to add the crossbar over the t. But we can ALSO see that they must have lifted in when writing the capital H. In all probability the left leg was done first, then the second leg - lifting the pen - and then the crossbar was added - lifting the pen. Furthermore, we can see that in the police report signature number three, the u following the H starts in thin air - once again the pen has been lifted!
So, if we think that Lambeth mans signature resembles the police report signature - and I think it does in a fashion, although not nearly as close as Toppys does - this belief is to a large extent grounded on the style elements. These elements are what is offered to the eye on first impression.
When we turn back and take a look at exactly how the signatures were performed, however, a picture emerges that speaks volumes. Toppy and Hutch were pen-lifters. Moreover, they lifted their pens at the exact same places in the signature.
Lambeth man, though, was NOT a pen-lifter.
This speaks for itself; Lambeth man is not a viable candidate for the police report signatures. Toppy, though, is so in an overwhelming degree.

Actually, the t business alone takes care of the issue. Writing your t:s with small, low crossbars like Lambeth man does, is totally uncomparable to doing it in the Toppy/Hutch fashion. It is, of course, an element of style, but it is not a question that compares to things like long or short stems. These things can change all the time. But you don´t go from the type of crossbar Lambeth man writes to the type Hutch and Toppy performs inbetween posts. That is also why I say that you will reasonably find the same type of crossbars in all of Lambeth mans texts - it is a chosen element of style that will be there all the time. The only change we can expect here is that he may come up with sloppy variants - as he did in the first line of our signature example.

There, Ben, a civil and straightforward post with no personal attacks. Try it, please, and we may be able to impress the ones who read a bit more in the future.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Have a lie-in on Saturday, Fisherman!

but you are correct if you point out that the t did not come out fulla a t. It is a sloppy t

Thanks for that. I'd go a little further and observe that the "t" was so sloppy that it ceased to be a "t" altogether, which leads me to the conclusion that he wasn't usually in the habit of writing his non-existent t's like that.

And therefore the matter is closed; you no longer press the idea that Lambeth man forgot to make crossbars. Instead he wrote - as I have been saying all along - his t:s in a radically different fashion than Toppy/Hutch.

No. A clarifiation is most assuredly in order here. I still believe very strongly that the Lambeth man neglected to cross his central "t" in the word "Hutchinson". He did so in Lambeth, and we know it wasn't a particularly wide affair. In that respect, he differs markedly from the witness three, which is why, on balence, I'm inclined to dismiss him as having been responsible for the statement. On the other hand, I think there are more matches between Lambeth and the witness than there are between Toppy and the witness. A great many Victorians used long cross-bars, possibly the majority, but the actual appearance of the t's are actually very different to Toppy. While the witness was responsible for unusually short and dumpy t's which are shorter than the lower case "h", you'll notice that the reverse was true with Toppy, with his t's being consistently taller. The witnesses crossbars start from the right of the t, after a gap, which is obviously not the case in Toppy. I don't this can be explained away simply on account of the passage of time. Toppy showed a great consistency well over a decade.

I still think, however, that you are wrong when you say that Lambeth mans signature is a closer match to the police report ones than Toppys.

Well, see I think you are wrong when you state that Toppy offers us a closer match with the witnesses than Lambeth man, and I'll tell you why:

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. 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".

To begin with, let´s decide on which three signatures to compare.

I think we should compare all of them, Fisherman. That is only fair, and for that reason, you cannoot assert that "the capital H - Lambeth man makes a curlied H, which is totally different from Toppys and the police report." Totally different from Toppy's yes, but if you include a comparison with the witness's first signature, you'll notice a very similar style of curled H. So it isn't totally different at all, since the witness was potentially responsible for the first signature.

The u - Lambeth man makesa cup that is very shallow, and the other two signatures have deep cups, making them distinctly different.

Off-setting that is that fact that both the witness and the Lambeth individual connect their H to their u in a very similar fashion, i.e. primarily from the bottom, which is in stark contrast to Toppy's 1911 signature where the H joins the u at the top of the latter letter.

The t - Lambeth man writes his t:s with a smallish crossbar way down on the stem, added without lifting the pen, whereas the other two are written like l:s, after which a long crossbar is added high up. The pen must be lifted to achieve this.

Well, I've just dealt with that earlier on in the post.

So far, out of three letters, we have only deviances and discrepancies on behalf of Lambeth man. There is nothing in the first three letters of his signature that even remotely resembles the manner in which Toppy and Hutch write.

I completely reject both opinions, I'm afraid, and to be honest, I'd respect them a little more of they weren't so robustly and inflexbily phrased. I don't find that appropriate. I consider that Lambeth man and the the witnesses evince a good deal of similarity with eachother, more so I'd say than Toppy, although on balence I'd reject both of them as the witness.

This is enough - quite enough - to dismiss Lambeth man as a viable contender.

That's your opinion, and I believe it to be an erroneous one, which is compounded by your earlier concession that you're not an expert in the field of document examination. If you were advising me on suitable fish bait, I'm be more prepared to accept your uncompromising and rhetoric-laden language, but in this case, I'm not.

This is wha Rolf Berzell from the SKL teaches us - elements of style cannot be firmly established until we have seen about ten signatures by the same hand.

...And then you mentioned that Lambeth's two shallow "u" cups offer us a reasonable indicator that he'd stick with that style. Not conclusive, but reasonable, you opine. Fair enough, but I'd argue the same thing with Toppy's Toppyisms which include northward-pointing tails, closed-loops on the capital G's and t's than are taller than h's. By the logic you're applying, it's a reasonable indicator that he wouldn't deviate from that style.

And THIS is where we should concentrate our efforts instead of pointing to the stem of a letter being short - such things may change, as I said

No, I reject that utterly. I can't help but form the impression that you're coming up with less-than-convincing excuses for dismissing the more glaring differences, and even less convincing excuses for exaggerating the signifiance of what you perceive to be similarities. That's just my impression, however. I don't think you should instruct us to the ignore the significance of the stem heights, for example, nor do I believe any expert would encourage you to ignore them.

But if we look at Lambeth Georges signature once again, we immediately realize that he could perform it without lifting his pen.

I'd have to disagree very strongly here. It's obvious that Lambeth George had no overriding compulsion to keep pen to paper, and it's obvious that he lifted the pen midway through the signature. Notice the name "William" for example. He could easily have joined the W to the i, but instead he leaves a gap - he takes the pen off the paper, when he could have just joined the letters.

But we can ALSO see that they must have lifted in when writing the capital H. In all probability the left leg was done first, then the second leg - lifting the pen - and then the crossbar was added - lifting the pen

Well, you don't have mutch choice if you're drawing a standard non-curly H. You're forced to draw three seperate lines and then join in to the next letter - that really isn't indicative of any great uniformity between Toppy and the witness. Of course, the first witness signature reveals a similar compulsion to keep pen to paper, just as a lambeth did. I'm afraid we really can't just pick which witness signature we want to use and completely ignore the others.

Toppy and Hutch were pen-lifters. Moreover, they lifted their pens at the exact same places in the signature.

Again, it depends which signature you're using. You can't in any event make any too bold assertions as to when the writer lifted his pen.

Lambeth man, though, was NOT a pen-lifter

He was. We even know that he lifted his pen when he had an opportunity to keep it on the paper.

This speaks for itself; Lambeth man is not a viable candidate for the police report signatures. Toppy, though, is so in an overwhelming degree.

Absolutely not. I couldn't disagree more emphatically. That is your opinion, and I'd really appreciate it if you made the distinction between your opinion and fact a little more clear. Asserting something doesn't make it so, unfortunately, and it is my opinion that Lambeth offers us a better match than Toppy.

Actually, the t business alone takes care of the issue.

Actually, it doesn't.

You can't just pick a feature and decide it must be the one that proves your opinion correct. You can no more assert the above that I can assert that the northward pointing tail, closed G-loop, or tall t-stems "take care of the issue".

It is, of course, an element of style, but it is not a question that compares to things like long or short stems. These things can change all the time.

That's obviously fallacious in the extreme. It is clear that the height of the stems didn't "change all the time". They remained the same over the course of a decade plus! The t's were consistently shorter than the h's, unlike all three witness signatures. The G-loop was consistently closed, unlike all three witness signatures. The tail of the signature curled consistently, and dramatically upwards, unlike all three witness signatures.

But you don´t go from the type of crossbar Lambeth man writes to the type Hutch and Toppy performs inbetween posts.

I'm afraid you don't know that to be the case at all.

That is also why I say that you will reasonably find the same type of crossbars in all of Lambeth mans texts - it is a chosen element of style that will be there all the time.

I'm afraid you don't know that to be the case at all.

There, Ben, a civil and straightforward post with no personal attacks.

Thanks. You could do with being a little more succinct, though. It brings out the worst in me!

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I consider that Lambeth man and the the witnesses evince a good deal of similarity with eachother, more so I'd say than Toppy, although on balence I'd reject both of them as the witness.

Firstly, Ben, it is objectively not the case that Lambeth George's signature resembled Toppy's more than the 1888p1-3 witness signatures - particularly not 1888p3, which was countersigned by several police officers who were there at the time.

Secondly, if we reject them both as the witness, and given that no other "George Hutchinson" signature thus found remotely compares, there is only one conclusion... Someone pretending to be George Hutchinson in 1888 somehow succeeded in "forging" three signatures remarkably close in appearance to those of George William Topping Hutchinson 10 and 13 years later.

[DVV]

My humble opinion is that some letters match, some mismatch, and all in all, the various signatures shouldn't allow us to think "Toppy is our witness".

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Firstly, Ben, it is objectively not the case that Lambeth George's signature resembled Toppy's more than the 1888p1-3 witness signatures - particularly not 1888p3

There may be some confusion here, Gareth. I'm not suggesting that Lambeth George's signature resembled Toppy's at all.

there is only one conclusion... Someone pretending to be George Hutchinson in 1888 somehow succeeded in "forging" three signatures remarkably close in appearance to those of George William Topping Hutchinson 10 and 13 years later.

I don't think that's the only one conclusion. I wouldn't even agree with it. It is quite conceivable, however, that someone pretending to be George Hutchinson in 1888 succeeded in forging three signatures that don't compare very well to George William Topping Hutchinson. Your conclusion is based on your opinion as to the "remarkable similarity" whereas mine is based on the view that they're not similar.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

My humble opinion is that some letters match, some mismatch, and all in all, the various signatures shouldn't allow us to think "Toppy is our witness".

Toppy is the only one who has a family tradition that said he was the witness, though, Dave. He also happened to live in London, ends up marrying an East End (Poplar) girl in 1898, and they settle in Bethnal Green. His signatures match - objectively, categorically - that of the 1888 witness with remarkable closeness, barring one or two nuances. Who else could he be?

[Ben]

Hi Dave,

I agree wholeheartedly. The story surrounding Toppy is one of the very factors that detract from the plausibility of his secondhand-hearsay claim to have been the witness. The clue lies in Reg's appearance in the discredited "Ripper and the Royals", where the son is on record as stating his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill with Mary Jane Kelly. None of the other potentially viable George Hutchinson's have such appallingly nonsensical baggage attached to their names.

Unlike a handful of other George Hutchinsons, there is no connection between Toppy and the East End until AFTER he meets his wife in 1895. He was described by Reg as a plumber who was "rarely if ever" out of work, which corresponds to his 1891 census record as a "plumber" living in Warren Street, and which doesn't correspond to the witness' status as an unemployed labouring former-groom.

Two experts in the field of document examination have studied the signatures, and came to the conclusion that they didn't match.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Your conclusion is based on your opinion as to the "remarkable similarity" whereas mine is based on the view that they're not similar.

I'm sick of this. It's like being tortured by o'Brien in 1984 ("How many fingers am I holding up, Winston...?")

[DVV]

Hi Sam,
you knew this family tradition for quite a long time, but you recently change your mind about Toppy (with good arguments and perfect honesty, I must say).
It remains that this "family tradition" is rather suspicious, as is the picture of Toppy (I don't think this picture is old enough to be that of Toppy).
I'm just not sure that the signatures match enough to be flatly convinced that Toppy is our man.
Shall we wait and see?

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hi Dave,

I agree wholeheartedly. The story surrounding Toppy is one of the very factors that detract from the plausibility of his secondhand-hearsay claim to have been the witness. The clue lies in Reg's appearance in the discredited "Ripper and the Royals", where the son is on record as stating his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill with Mary Jane Kelly. None of the other potentially viable George Hutchinson's have such appallingly nonsensical baggage attached to their names.

Unlike a handful of other George Hutchinsons, there is no connection between Toppy and the East End until AFTER he meets his wife in 1895. He was described by Reg as a plumber who was "rarely if ever" out of work, which corresponds to his 1891 census record as a "plumber" living in Warren Street, and which doesn't correspond to the witness' status as an unemployed labouring former-groom.

Two experts in the field of document examination have studied the signatures, and came to the conclusion that they didn't match.

All the best,
Ben

Hi Ben,
agreed all round. I'd add that Mary's greeting: "Hello mister Hutchinson, could you..." sounds strange, really strange, if this young Toppy was our man.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Dave,

Not wishing to speak for Gareth here, but I believe he was of the opinion that Toppy was the witness before the signatures emerged. At least, that was the impression I formed when discussing the issue of alleged pay-offs in the Wheeling Register. He can put me right, if necessary.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Dave,

Not wishing to speak for Gareth here, but I believe he was of the opinion that Toppy was the witness before the signatures emerged. At least, that was the impression I formed when discussing the issue of alleged pay-offs in the Wheeling Register. He can put me right, if necessary.

Best regards,
Ben

If so, apologies.
I had in mind the old discussions about Hutch, when Sam unearthed various Hutchinsons from censuses - and Hutch-the-cabinet-maker seemed at that time the best Hutch at hand.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Excellent point about the "Mister Hutchinson" detail, Dave.

The claim to have known Kelly for three years doesn't ring particularly true for non-Eastender Toppy either, IMO.

Cheers,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Not wishing to speak for Gareth here, but I believe he was of the opinion that Toppy was the witness before the signatures emerged.

Ben! That translates as "Sam crossed over to the Dark Side ages ago", if I'm not mistaken. Give me some credit, old chap! As you know, I'm not biased - quite the contrary, I approach this matter like I would anything else, with logic and objectivity. From the "ground-up", rather than "toppy-down", if you like.

At least, that was the impression I formed when discussing the issue of alleged pay-offs in the Wheeling Register. He can put me right, if necessary.

I will put you right. I did not do a volte-face on the basis of the payoffs quoted in the Wheeling Register. I merely commented at the time that the amount would have been commensurate with basic weekly earnings multiplied by a factor of "N" (I can't remember the details), which I saw as lending some support to the identification of GWTH with Hutchinson. Clearly, it offered insufficient grounds on which to base a firm identification, but it nonetheless shed interesting circumstantial light onto a story I'd previously dismissed out of hand.

We're in an entirely different ballpark with these signatures, however.