Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

I agree, Dave - that said, I'm almost certain that Reg didn't volunteer that information himself, rather that Fairclough suggested it to him. In its bare essentials, Reg (and family) affirm that their ancestor was the Dorset Street witness, and there's nothing inherently crazy - or unlikely - about that.

So Sam,
It's just about Reg being the witness'son, not at all about Sir Randolph etc...?
In this case, why do you use this family tradition (or simply this "family statement") as an argument which, when added to the supposed matching signatures, proves categorically that Toppy is the witness?

And even if the story had been "suggested" by Fairclough, I can't see why a genuine witness, or a son of a genuine witness, wouldn't have been able to give us some "genuine" insight, I mean, some unexpected detail that would prompt us to think: "Oh yeah, it sounds true!" - especially since the press reports about Hutch, as well as Abberline's report, are so elusive and frustrating.

The only "new" thing we have is that Hutch-Toppy got some money for his collaboration (is that only a French word? Oups! just joking!) with the Met.

But in fact there is nothing new. Money made Packer a liar, money is the reason why Diemshutz said there were grapes near to Stride's corpse.


Unfortunately, neither Reg nor any of his relatives have given the slightest clue for us to opined and think: "Yes, that was him, this detail is significant."
Instead, we have some (expected) shillings, and we have Hutch's suspect, Jewish in Nov 1888, who has become Churchill senior.
Quite astonishing;: a genuine "family tradition", but nothing new.

If I were a Reg's relative, I would have simply told the truth and earned more than him.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

In "Leonard Hutchinson", we see the same consistency with both Toppy signatures, and the same inconistency with the witness signatures. Remember:

"George" - 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.

[Ben]

I do - but it is surely also extremely significant that there were few George Hutchinsons around, and none of the others' signatures resemble 1888p3

Ah, but I think at least one of them matches the signature better than Toppy, besdies which, we haven't had word from our elusive ticker-nicker yet. Recall that at least one registrart believed the signatures matched.

It is also extremely significant that Toppy ends up marrying an East End girl, settles in Bethnal Green

Not until 1895, Gareth. Prior to that, he had no connections to the East End, unlike numerous other George Hutchinsons whose names we discussed in the good old days, and whose signatures we still don't have.

and has a family tradition that he was the Kelly witness.

Hardly. One bloke feeding nonsense to two researchers who, at the time, were propounding even worse nonsense is far from a "family tradition"!

As I say - it all fits the big picture, and it all adds up.

...To Toppy not being the witness, with the signatures offering us the final piece in the "Toppy wasn't the witness" puzzle.

a) Lambeth George's signature is not as close a match as Toppy's is to that of the witness George Hutchinson

No, I disagree. I believe that Lambeth George's signature is a much better match than Toppy for the witness.

e) We've found no other "George Hutchinsons" whose writing comes close.

No, I disagree. I believe that Lambeth George's signature is a much better match than Toppy for the witness.

[Sam Flynn]

e) We've found no other "George Hutchinsons" whose writing comes close.

No, I disagree. I believe that Lambeth George's signature is a much better match than Toppy for the witness.

His signature might match Sgt Badham's, for all I know, but it's not as close as Toppy's are to the 1888 signatures.

You might like to look at this drawing wot I did, and which I posted on the "Works of Art Please!" thread:



The signature on the right is what mine used to look like when I was at college, contemporary with the drawing itself. A few years back, I printed a label to cover it, which has since been displaced in the frame, and which appears on the left with my signature from that time. There are roughly 15 years between those two signatures. Based on your logic, and comparing those two very different signatures, I can't possibly have done the drawing - but I most assuredly did!

[Ben]

... analyst - singular! - who didn't have the benefit of the 1911 signatures.

No, we now have two document examiners who subscribe to the opinion that Toppy wasn't the witness. I agree that it's a great pity she didn't see the 1911 signature, since the very strong similairity with the 1898 signature would crystallise the obvious reality that Toppy was clearly a person who didn't radically his signature style very much. This ought to tell us that the "different" elements in Toppys signature (i.e. the ones that seperate him the witness) were unlikely to have been susceptible to change. If he wrote a closed loop G in 1898 and again in 1911, I think we can be pretty confident that he was writing closed-loop G's in 1888.

Etc etc.

[Ben]

Excellent drawing, Gareth, and somewhat W.T.Stead-esque!

As above, though, I think it's fairly clear that your signatures revealed a greater susceptibility to change over time than the Toppster.

but it's not as close as Toppy's are to the 1888 signatures.

No, that's completely wrong as far as I'm concerned. I believe there is sufficient evidnce to deduce that the Lambeth George fits the bill better, albeit still falling short of being a wholly convincing match for the witness.

[Sam Flynn]

As above, though, I think it's fairly clear that your signatures revealed a greater susceptibility to change over time than the Toppster.

Indeed - which makes Hutchinson's "skyward lowercase n" seem a rather trifling difference, no?

In my case, note that the extremities of both my signatures changed the most - the "G" at the start and the "s" at the end being radically different - just as the extremities of 1888p3 and Toppy's 1898 changed, albeit far less radically than mine. In addition, my earlier middle "l"s (that's "L", not "I") were looped, but those loops became tighter over time - the same thing that happened with George's lowercase "h".

[Sam Flynn]

No, we now have two document examiners who subscribe to the opinion that Toppy wasn't the witness.

Who is the other? And to which establishment should they write in order to claim back their tuition fees?

[Ben]

Indeed - which makes Hutchinson's "skyward lowercase n" seem a rather trifling difference, no?

Oh good grief, on the contrary, Gareth!

The skyward lowercase n is very obviously a distinguishing feature that he continues for well over a decade. Given the fact that he stuck with that idioscyncracy, despite the passage of time, suggests very strongly that it was a "Toppyism", and of course we see none of that in the witness signatures. In one of the signatures you included, there is a slightly less skyward-pointing "n", but your colum also revealed "n"'s that point skywards even more than the GWTH 1911 ans 1898.

Same with the loop. No loops in Toppy over a ten year period, but looped stems in all three Toppy signatures.

Who is the other?

The expert Crystal referred to earlier, and she might be miffed at the suggestion that her experience and education counted for nothing, were it not for the fact that we're hobbyists on a message board.

And one from earlier:

Not everyone who does something professionally excels in every aspect of their work in any case

Indeed, but we've no reason whatsoever to doubt that the two experts who don't believe that Toppy was the witness excel in their field.

There may even be a vague hint provided in GWTH's misspelling of his son's name as "Lenoard" - this clearly isn't a particularly well-educated man, and his being a "labourer/groom" in 1888 is congruent with that observation.

But it's also perfectly congruent with what we know Toppy to have been - a plumber who was "rarely, if ever, out of work". Anyone fancy justifying the observation that a "plumber" will always know how to spell "Leonard" correctly?

[Ben]

No loops in Toppy over a ten year period, but looped stems in all three Toppy signatures.

but looped stems in all three witness signatures...

I meant.

[Ben]

Oh, and Fish...

Rather depressing to contemplate the fact that while I’ve been socializing, getting some exercise, and playing some thoroughly enjoyable badbeat-free poker, some of you lot have clearly been internet bound all day. Unfortunately, I find this to be indicative of the fallacy that stamina and tenacity will win a debate. The dogma seems to go something like; post as often as possible, and as relentlessly as possible, and your argument wins the day. Unfortunately, it doesn’t work that way, and if it did, I’d win – easily.

On my conviction that you are unable to let go of your obviously fallacious conception of who Hutch was - and what.

I've told you before that I don't value your opinion. You haven't given me remotely good reason to do so. You seem entrenched in this determination to win some pathetic and unwinnable one-up-manship over me, and you will never achieve that goal in a trillion years, and your continued efforts in that regard utterly sustain me.

So in fact, there never WAS any vote of confidence for you on my behalf when it comes to this particular issue.

And I'm supposed to do what - care? I've already told you, I don't value the opinion of obstinate, internet keyboard warmongering hobbyists either. Instead, I take immeasurable comfort and even more pleasure in the fact that more experts than not - and here I refer to actual experts in the field of document examination - have wholly endorsed the view that Toppy was not the witness in question. Any insistence to the contrary is utterly devoid of worth, as far as I’m concerned.

1. You find two 2009 Lamborghini diablo´s on the street, fresh from the factory. They are both of the same colour, and equipped in the exact same fashion. You say "Those two cars look very much the same".

But that's a gauche and crass comparison. If the witness signatures constitute a 2009 Lamborghini Diablo, then the Toppy signature is an Austin Metro as far as I'm concerned. You've pick your analogies based on your idiotic and erroneous perceptions as to how similar the signatures you are. But if I reject your perception as to the similarity of the signatures, I'm naturally going to reject the analogies you use in a futile attempt to bolster your case.

3. The Presley signatures I posted earlier show dissimilarities, but I think most people would agree that we can easily see that they are very much alike.

And yet Toppy reveals a tremendous amount of uniformity despite the signatures being penned over a decade apart, and my guess is that you know next to nothing about the time that elapsed between the Presley signatures, so that comparison is equally gauche, desperate and non-applicable.

You know my answers to these questions - we are in ALL three cases dealing with clear and simple facts. The similarities inbetween the Lamborghinis.

Yes, in that instance, we are dealing with aspects that are factually alike, and two identical Lamborghini Diablos don't compare in any way, shape, or form to the Toppy signatures, which two qualified document examiners believed did not match the witness signatures. Mention cars all you like - fill your silly boots - they do not compare in the slightest to a comparison between signatures. Insist that they do as often as you like, and I'll repeat this paragraph 100 times if necessary. Test me. See if your zealotry will win out.

Consequentially, we have no problem at all to see that they are similar.

In consequence of what...?

Experts in the field of document examination say they're not similar. Experts in document examination say that Toppy was unlikely to have been the witness on the basis of the dissimilarity between the two. On what possible grounds am I supposed to prioritize your opinion over theirs? I don't. I can't. The very idea is beneath ridicule, let alone derision or contempt. These experts believe that the dissimilarities outweighed the similarities, and the fact that you say otherwise is utterly meaningless. Your opinion carries no weight because you are as far away from an expert on the topic as can be envisaged.

We hire the experts to try and find THE DISCREPANCIES most of the time

Exactly, and the experts searched for the discrepancies, found them, and then...!

Wait for it....

Wait for it...

Wait for it!!..

They came to the conclusion that the signatures didn't match.

Boo-hoo for people who wanted Toppy to be the witness. What a distressing shame, but no, unfortunately, actual expert opinion on the topic sides with me, not you. By all means stick with your opinion if it keeps you going in life, and you've got nothing else to occupy your time, but it's just crazy to assert that your nonsense carries more weight that the experts. You're also incredibly clueless if you seriously believe that "we employ them only when our own sight and perception cannot take care of it ourselves." That's obviously nonsense. Of course we have a good idea of the outcome when we contact document examiners. It was fairly obvious that the Maybrick diary wasn't in Maybrick's hand, and we employed document examiners on that occasion too. Because we valued their opinion.

And there you are Ben - don´t morph FACT into (your) opinion - we are many out here who say that the signatures we are dealing with are very good matches

Don't make me chunder.

You're not "many" at all.

There are an equal number of people who believe that the signatures don't match. They're not as thrusting and verbose, I’ll grant you, but at least they can boast more actual experts among their number.

We wiew the signatures as very good matches because they ARE very good matches.

Which essentially translates to "I say I'm right, because I am right".

That’s just one less reason to take you seriously, I’m afraid.

A huge pity.

Huge.

[IchabodCrane]

Facts

It all boils down to the fact that there are no facts to be established on grounds of signature comparisons. There are only opinions. Even if signatures appear to have similarities, there is always a possibility, even if it's only 1% or less, that the signature is that of another person who goes by or is using that same name.

But I still think it is a strange coincidence that the person who is claimed to have been the witness by his own son, happens to have the signature which bears the closest resemblance to at least one of the witness signatures (3rd page) compared to all other George Hutchinsons that were in the census.

[The Good Michael]

IC,

Exactly! What are the chances that coincidently, a signature closely resembling George Hutchinson's (though it has been argued otherwise) is that of a family member who is claimed to be George Hutchinson?

The preponderance of evidence for George and Toppy being the same man would seem to be, quite logically, and without bias, irrefutable at this time.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"It does begin to trail upwards, Fish, and it does carry on, faintly, to curve upwards and indeed back on itself slightly. But this is a minor issue - I'm satisfied that Hutchinson wrote his "n" differently in 1888, and I'm perfectly comfortable with that, as signatures are not immutable."

It does represent a counter-clockwise curve, but a much fainter one than the ones spoken of as a typical "Toppyism". This is why I pointed it out, and it of course goes hand in hand with your statement that signatures are not immutable!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Which essentially translates to "I say I'm right, because I am right"."

Ehrm, you got that slightly wrong, Ben. I say I´m right since the signatures match. That is a different story altogether.

Once again you pride yourself of being the centre of my universe, but that is just as wrong. I do not post my opinion in this errand because I like to quibble with you. Doing so mostly earns me a lot of abusive language, and I am no masochist, so no - that is not my incentive. Instead I am trying to dismiss what I genuinely believe is a heap of misleadings and misconceptions that easily equals all the Ionesco plays I´ve ever seen.

So, Ben, let´s see once more if you can manage to keep things civil, shall we? It won´t do to say that ”Your opinion carries no weight because you are as far away from an expert on the topic as can be envisaged”, while at the same time you try to sell us your own conviction of what is ”Toppyisms” and what is not. If ”amateurs” are so totally useless in this field, I suggest you refrain from trying to push your own thinking in it.

Then again, I can´t be THAT useless, can I – it took me a split second to recognize how Lambeth George wrote his t:s while it took you a dozen vitriol-laden posts to observe it. So maybe I´m not as far as can be envisaged from insights in this errands, hmmm? Perhaps that place would be better awarded somebody else?

Once again, Ben – keep things civil, and I will grant you the same treatment!

The best,
Fisherman