Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

Thanks for the clarification, Gareth, and I know full well that you're not biased. Apologies if I arrived too hastily at the conclusion that you subscribed to the Toppy theory. The more I learn about Toppy, the less I'm convinced that he was the witness, but that's my view only.

I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you've become Darth Vadar to my Obi Wan, so no need for light sabres.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

Malcolm,

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

Mike

i'm not calling the thread stupid, i'm saying it's dragging on far too long; without a profesional opinion on the signatures.

[Sam Flynn]

i'm not calling the thread stupid, i'm saying it's dragging on far too long; without a profesional opinion on the signatures.

We already have a "professional opinion", Mal, which is being - quite justifiably - challenged in this context, so another is not going to help. Besides - and I stand by this - we don't need one, because our eyes are just as good as any forensic document examiner's for most visual comparison purposes. FDE's may have techniques that help them arbitrate in cases where there are contested wills or forged diaries, but this is not what we are confronted with here.

[Ben]

I'd have to stand by the opposite opinion, Gareth; that professional insight is invaluable in this context, irrespective of the apparent simplicity of the task. It in recognition of the fact that experience counts for a great deal that Sue Iremonger became involved in the first place, and it was why Bob Hinton saw fit to include a mention of her comparison in his case againt Toppy.

But - whoops! - we've been here before methinks!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

The more I learn about Toppy, the less I'm convinced that he was the witness, but that's my view only.

But that's precisely the issue as I see it, Ben. Toppy the plumber, who was extremely observant, honest as the day is long (etc., etc.) may well be a person anathema to the thesis that he was Jack the Ripper - fair enough. However, put that aside and just look at the signatures. Consider also the other non-controversial bits - his living in London, his marrying a Poplar girl, his settling in the East End. They all point in the same direction - and not necessarily Romford, Tattooine or the Death Star.

Even the fact that his family said he was the witness has to count for something in its own right, even if Reg's version of the story is tainted by association with Fairclough's book. I bet you a pound to a penny that, if Fairclough's theory didn't require Reg's alleged "confirmation" of Randolph Churchill's involvement, you wouldn't be arguing about signatures at all. Instead, you'd be arguing with non-believers that it's quite possible for a theatre-going, ice-skating violinist to be a serial killer... and I might be fighting on your side

[Sam Flynn]

I'd have to stand by the opposite opinion, Gareth; that professional insight is invaluable in this context, irrespective of the apparent simplicity of the task.

Forensic document examination self-admittedly contains an element of subjectivity, Ben - it is not a "science" in that sense. Neuroanatomy, neurophysiology and cognition are, however, and I have at least some "insight" into those areas.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Even if Toppy proved to be the witness, which I don't think is likely to happen, the dodgy and suspicious elements in his testimony remain dodgy and suspicious irrespective of his identity, as you note, and for what it's worth, I have challenged the preception that Toppy the violin-playing, ice-skating plumber cannot have been a serial killer. You might recall my comparison with violin-playing, music-loving Reinhard Heydrich - not that I believe Toppy orchestrated any mass extermination programs!

For me - and this is the honest-to-goodness truth - the signatures count as one more factor against Toppy's (or rather Reg's) claim to witness notoriety. They serve to add the last piece in the "Toppy wasn't our man" jigsaw. A hypothetical Toppy as Hutch would still be a liar, at the very least, in my opinion, and your fighting my side would be most valued!

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Even if Toppy proved to be the witness, which I don't think is likely to happen

I rather think it now has happened, Ben. There's not even the merest scintilla of doubt about it in my mind.

the dodgy and suspicious elements in his testimony remain dodgy

Indeed, and I still agree that they are.

[Fisherman]

Well, Ben, for a man that often takes the liberty to call my posts long-winded, you certainly can expand a bit too...!

Nevertheless, I´ll bite into things once again.

Let me first begin by saying that I really think we are discussion the wrong matter here. We are comparing Lambeth Georges and Toppys hadwriting, and we really should not lead anybody into thinking that they are both approxiamately at the same distance from the police report when it comes to likenesses - they are not. Lambeth Georges signature carries a distant resemblance to the report, whereas Toppys signature is a very close match. Therefore this discussion is by and large misleading in itself. I much admire Sams elegant dismissal of the discussion: "it is objectively not the case that Lambeth George's signature resembled Toppy's more than the 1888p1-3 witness signatures ". I second that thoroughly.

Over to a few of the questions were I think you are wrong:

"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."

A discussion of whether it is a t or not is fruitless - the only thing that matters is if it was intended as one, and this is supported by the fact that if you write the t as he dd in Lambeth, but faster and faster each time, you will in the end not be able to keep it together. The line meant for the bar will drift off to the right and the faster you write, the more it will drift.
Makes little difference now, though, since we are agreed that he did NOT write his t:s as Toppy/Hutch; that was what I was after from the beginning and we are agreed on the issue - by now.

"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"

Your first decision here is the only reasonable one - Lambeth man would not have written the signature on the police report - his t:s alone tells us he was not "our" Hutchinson. And no matter what you think of the rest of his signature and it´s likeness to the report, the fact remains that we haveno sucg single element involved in Toppys signature. There are style deviations, but there is nothing on the scale of that t.

"...a double stemmed lower-case "h" with a short base, which are conspicuously absent from both the Toppy signatures"
This is what is referred to as an element of style, and since we have only little material to go on, we cannot conclude that it holds any water. In the Presley signatures I posted, we could easily find two or three where there was a seeming consistency when it came to the height of the l in Presley - it equalled the height of the capital P. But alongside this, there were also examples where it only reached halfway up. If we had concluded things from the first examples, we would make the wrong conclusions.
This is why your meaning:
"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."
...must be challenged. What I said about the low-cup "u"s was that one OR two was NOT enough. Of course, every time we see a similar detail of style, the chances will rise that it is significant, but one, two, three examples are NOT enough to establish style elements. Once again, Ben: It takes TEN samples for an expert on the matter to be able to say something about style with reasonable certainty. That means that the low-cup "u":s are not something that we can rely on, and the same applies to your Toppyisms - we have no way of knowing that they WERE Toppyisms - the material is to small to use as any clear indication.

"I think we should compare all of them, Fisherman. That is only fair"

But what if "fair" becomes "misleading", Ben? I for one thought you regarded Iremonger as almost unfallable? And SHE stated that signature number one was NOT made by the man who wrote signature number two and three. She believed that he had forgotten to sign page one.
My hunch here i that a man who forgets to sign page one in a protocol normally forgets page two also - believing that he should only sign at the end. Therefore, the last signature is the one that is most reliably Hutchs´.
And that is the one I use, unless I say something else. It simplifies matters.

“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”

That does not belong to the discussion, Ben, since we do not know how Hutch/Toppy would have written “William”. The only viable comparison offered here is the one where both writers wrote the same thing – distinctly differently.

“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.”

It is not a matter of opinions, Ben. It never was. If I say that a black door is black, and you say it is white, then my stance is not an “opinion” – it is a fact. When the task to establish a likeness is as easy as it is with these signatures, we are dealing with a black door.

“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!”

That, Ben, is something you can establish in one way only – by providing numerous samples from that decade. The only thing we can say is that the stems he used in 1898 reoccurred in 1911. What happened inbetween those two signatures we have no way of knowing. Once again – we need TEN samples before we can start speaking of consistency in style. Please respect that! It is not my suggestion, it is what the expertise tells us!

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.

You are correct. I cannot KNOW. That is why I said that it would REASONABLY be like that, and THIS I know; for this is an element of style that normally does not change, and it differs dramatically from the height of stems and such when it comes to viability as useful evidence.

Now. Let´s leave the comparison between Lambeth man and Toppy when it comes to viability as comparison with the police report signatures. Lambeth man would not have been Hutch, and you seem to agree with that (“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”). So let´s drop Lambeth George, and stick to the only interesting issue – is there anything that goes beyond style elements status in Toppys signature, that should prevent us from realizing that he was the Dorset Street witness.
There are deviations, and we all know that. But there are also deviations inbetween Toppys OWN signatures from 1898 and 1911. There must be.
Whether any of these deviations are of so formidable a scale so as to hinder any possibility that Toppy was our man, is something experts are better equipped to tell than we are. But until they do so, I remain at my conviction that there cannot be any serious doubt involved – Toppy was our man. Just like Sam thinks and says, I also think that the similarity cannot be explained in any other credible way.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Lambeth Georges signature carries a distant resemblance to the report, whereas Toppys signature is a very close match.

No.

Toppy's signature carries a very vague distant resemblance to the report, and Lambeth George's signature is a much closer match, in my opinion, and speaking of opinion - and feel free to reject this - you'd be a much more effective debator if you tried to avoid mutating opinion into fact as you're doing far too often here.

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

You're quoting Gareth there, of course, but it was never my contention that Lambeth resembled Toppy. It is my contention that Lambeth matches the witness signatures better than Toppy matches the witness signatures.

A discussion of whether it is a t or not is fruitless - the only thing that matters is if it was intended as one

The chances are that it wasn't intended as one. I've never heard of a "t" that commences its cross bar from the bottom of the letter. So the chances are very strong, in my opinion, that he simply neglected to cross his "t" after writing the signature.

Makes little difference now, though, since we are agreed that he did NOT write his t:s as Toppy/Hutch

I don't think Toppy wrote his "t"s like Hutch either, so I'd respectfully submit that "Toppy/Hutch" is a somewhat misleading construct.

his t:s alone tells us he was not "our" Hutchinson.

And a much larger accumulation of detail tell us that Toppy wasn't "our" Hutchinson, according to that far-too-overconfident logic.

And no matter what you think of the rest of his signature and it´s likeness to the report, the fact remains that we haveno sucg single element involved in Toppys signature. There are style deviations, but there is nothing on the scale of that t.

I utterly reject your so-called "fact", and so should everyone else. All you're doing is unfairly prioritizing the importance of the perceived "differences" with the Lambeth man over the "differences" with Toppy. In reality, you're completely unqualified to assess which elements were the more distinguishable, and I distrust your personal "prioritization" immensely. Here you go again:

This is what is referred to as an element of style, and since we have only little material to go on, we cannot conclude that it holds any water.

No offense, but you're not an expert, so I'm disinclined to invest any significance in your overly robust dismissal of what appears to be a very major difference with the witness signatures, especially when that particular element of style of present in both Toppy signatures, and despite a passage of a time over over a decade elapsing between the two. It is beyond me how you can claim that this is only an element of style, while the "t"s are something more significant. Sounds to me like you're just coming up with unconvincing excuses for dismissing the differences with Toppy and the witness, whilst highlighting the differences between Lambeth and the witness.

In the Presley signatures I posted, we could easily find two or three where there was a seeming consistency when it came to the height of the l in Presley - it equalled the height of the capital P

But those signatures revealed a general susceptibility to change, which is in stark contrast to Toppy's overwhelmiongly obvious consistency over the course of a decade. My guess is that you know next to nothing about the number of years that elapsed between the Presley signatures.

What I said about the low-cup "u"s was that one OR two was NOT enough. Of course, every time we see a similar detail of style, the chances will rise that it is significant

Yes, and that significance is markedly increased when we observe that the two signatures were penned over ten years apart, with the consistent elements still in place. That lends tremendous weight to the premise that the writer in question consistently wrote those things, from the closed G-loops to the t's being taller than the h's, to the northwards-pointing tail on the end of the signature.

And SHE stated that signature number one was NOT made by the man who wrote signature number two and three. She believed that he had forgotten to sign page one.

But she doesn't eradicate the possibility of the first signature being written by the same individual who wrote the other two, and it's worth bearing in mind that another handwriting expert believed that the first two signatures were written by a different author than the third signature.

My hunch here i that a man who forgets to sign page one in a protocol normally forgets page two also - believing that he should only sign at the end. Therefore, the last signature is the one that is most reliably Hutchs´.And that is the one I use, unless I say something else. It simplifies matters.

And you're more than welcome to "simplify" matters on the basis of a "hunch", as long as you recognise that it weakens any value in any opinion you arrive at because of it. You're simplifying hunch could well be wrong.

That does not belong to the discussion, Ben, since we do not know how Hutch/Toppy would have written “William”.

That's irrelevant to the observation I made, which was that Lambeth George clearly did take his pen off the paper, despite the fact that he had the opportunuty to simply join the W to the i.

It is not a matter of opinions, Ben. It never was. If I say that a black door is black, and you say it is white, then my stance is not an “opinion” – it is a fact.

I regard that as a patently bogus and misleading analogy that doesn't apply here in the slightest. Your opinion that Toppy is closer to the witnesses than Lambeth man is irrefutably just that - an opinion (and that's a fact!). Try to pretend it's more than that if you wish, but I'm certainly not about to take it seriously.

Once again – we need TEN samples before we can start speaking of consistency in style. Please respect that!

I'd observe that we need a good deal less than that, especially if the passage of time is over a decade, to arrive at an informed opinion that the writer was very unlikely to alter his style considerably. If he's sticking to certain obvious quirks over a long passage of time, the logical conclusion is that he stuck with them in between, rather than positing the existence of some radically different phase in between.

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.

Which is also why you can reasonably expect to find the same type of closed G-loop, tail on the signature, and tall t's - it is a chosen "element of style" that will be there all the time in Toppy's case, and we have a much better case for saying so in Toppy's case than in Lambeth, where we don't have examples of his signatures over a period spanning over a decade.

for this is an element of style that normally does not change, and it differs dramatically from the height of stems and such when it comes to viability as useful evidence.

I reject that as nonsense, I'm afraid. First you were saying the "stems and such" were an "element of style", and thus not important and suspectible to change. Now you're arguing that the "elements of style" "normally do not change". With respect, you're all over the place, and if I didn't know you better, I'd say it's becoming increasingly obvious that you're just inventing your own formula for deciding which details are important and which are unimportant in order to lend weight to your opinion. But thank goodness I do know you a little better than that. I've highlighted both instances where you speak of an "element of style" to illustrate my point.

Now. Let´s leave the comparison between Lambeth man and Toppy when it comes to viability as comparison with the police report signatures

Yes, good idea. Now let's leave the comparison between Lambeth man and Toppy. On balence, I don't believe he was the witness, but I don't rule him out conclusively as you do, and I fully believe that he's a closer match than Toppy.

But there are also deviations inbetween Toppys OWN signatures from 1898 and 1911. There must be

Hardly any to be honest, Fish. They show a remarkable consistency over such a long period of time.

But until they do so, I remain at my conviction that there cannot be any serious doubt involved – Toppy was our man

And I remain more convinced than ever before that Toppy was NOT our man.

But I welcome your suggested change of tack.

Onto other things!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"you'd be a much more effective debator if you tried to avoid mutating opinion into fact"

I don´t, Ben - it IS a fact that Toppys signature is a close match. You don´t recognize it and you are perfectly free not to. But there is no mutating of opinions on my behalf here.

"it was never my contention that Lambeth resembled Toppy. It is my contention that Lambeth matches the witness signatures better than Toppy matches the witness signatures"

If it matches the report, it matches Toppy - they are very close.

"The chances are that it wasn't intended as one" (t)

Yes - but that chance is very, very remote. The chance that it WAS a sloppy t is very, very obvious. And I prefer to move with that.

"No offense, but you're not an expert"

Exactly - that is why I found out how experts do, and employ it. Elements of style are not readily traceable with less than ten signatures. End of story.

"In reality, you're completely unqualified to assess which elements were the more distinguishable, and I distrust your personal "prioritization" immensely."

See the above answer. It is not my prioritization. Expertise tells us that style elements are not as useful as are for example the number of times you lift your pen.

"I regard that as a patently bogus and misleading analogy that doesn't apply here in the slightest"

It is not. It is an example of a very easyly made assesment (black or white). It would be harder t distinguis between light grey and dark grey, but anybody can do it. When we move over to graphical elements, the same thing applies - we recognize such things. That is why we find the right door on the house we live in, kiss the correct wife (in most instances) and choose our own blue Ford escort although there are twenty Ford Escorts parked on the same parking - we recognize it´s features. There is no bogus about here, I´m afraid - we can ALL see if a signature resembles another signature closely. It has been a feature of many peoples everyday work for centuries, just as passport police will see if there is a resemblance or not. And believe me, if Toppy had travelled as Hutch, a hundred passport policemen out of a hundred would have let him cross the border.


"First you were saying the "stems and such" were an "element of style", and thus not important and suspectible to change. Now you're arguing that the "elements of style" "normally do not change". "

Nice try - but no cigar. If you read it CORRECTLY, you will see that I say that some elements of style are less lightly to change than others. The type of crossbar Lambeth man used is one such, whereas a long stem of a letter will be a lot more credible to become a short one. It´s not as if ALL elements of style are equally credible to change - I think you can appreciate that, Ben.

"Hardly any to be honest, Fish. They show a remarkable consistency over such a long period of time"

Let´s just say that if these signatures had been the police report signature and Toppys signatre, I have a sneaking suspicion that you would not have bagatellized the differences ...

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Once again – we need TEN samples before we can start speaking of consistency in style.

I can go one better, Fish. Note, amongst other things, the top-launched crossbar on the "t" and its elaborate length, as well as the consistently displaced dot over the "i"s ...



The topmost is 1888p3, the second from the 1898 wedding certificate, the other nine are from the 1911 Census. Thank goodness for big Victorian families!

[Ben]

Funny, I thought you said you wanted to move on from the Lambeth issue, or was that suggestion only dependant on you having the last word first?

I don´t, Ben - it IS a fact that Toppys signature is a close match.

I utterly reject that it is any such thing.

If it matches the report, it matches Toppy

Nope, I don't believe that to be the case at all. That might be your opinion, but I disagree with it most profoundly.

Yes - but that chance is very, very remote

Um, well, no, it's not "very remote" at all. It's actually fairly strong as chances go, especially in the absence of any decent alternative explanations behind the unusual formation of Lambeth man's "t".

Elements of style are not readily traceable with less than ten signatures.

But those self-same "elements" certainly enable you to arrive at an extremely reasonable assumption, especially if the writer reveals the same consistent elements over a ten-year period.

There is no bogus about here, I´m afraid - we can ALL see if a signature resembles another signature closely.

But we don't all come to the same opinion in that regard, which is why at least two document examiners have arrived at the opinion that Toppy is a mismatch for the witness.

And believe me, if Toppy had travelled as Hutch, a hundred passport policemen out of a hundred would have let him cross the border.

I don't believe you, so I'd thank you kindly not to instruct me to do so without good reason.

Nice try - but no cigar. If you read it CORRECTLY, you will see that I say that some elements of style are less lightly to change than others.

I read correcty thanks, Fish, and I'm afraid I still sense confusion on your part. You start out by saying that "elements of style" are not particularly important and easily susceptible to change, and then just a few sentences down you claim that the unalterable aspects are the "elements of style"! I just didn't understand or agree with your prioritization of certain "differences" over others, and found your reasoning to be a little muddled, if I'm honest.

Let´s just say that if these signatures had been the police report signature and Toppys signatre, I have a sneaking suspicion that you would not have bagatellized the differences

Thanks for the vote of confidence. Wrong as it happens, but you'd be basing this "sneaking suspicion" on...?

Thanks, Gareth, for those signatures. Most illuminating as usual! The witness signature is the top one, of course. Still think you gotta be kiddin' me if you think the first one corresponds with the others, but...

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

We already have a "professional opinion", Mal, which is being - quite justifiably - challenged in this context, so another is not going to help. Besides - and I stand by this - we don't need one, because our eyes are just as good as any forensic document examiner's for most visual comparison purposes. FDE's may have techniques that help them arbitrate in cases where there are contested wills or forged diaries, but this is not what we are confronted with here.

no i think Ben has a point, i too dont think they're a perfect match... BUT i'm not quite as bothered about it as BEN is

BEN is definitely ``Mr Hutchinson``........good suspect too!

i just cannot believe that you lot are still argueing about it.... it's increadible

[DVV]

Even if Toppy proved to be the witness, which I don't think is likely to happen, the dodgy and suspicious elements in his testimony remain dodgy and suspicious

Hi Ben,
agreed, of course.
Though our perception of Hutch will not remain exactly the same.
First, our suspect will be a bit too young. That will weaken his candidacy, just as Cutbush or Chapman 's age argue "against" them.
Second, if Toppy is our witness, then "George Hutchinson" isn't the alias of you-know-who.
Sniff!

Amitiés,
David