Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Maybe we can dispell the notion that Hutch only rarely was out of work? That Reg fellow seems to have been quite a character, more than ready to lie about everything. A regular mythomaniac if you ask me.
He probably only said so to make his old man look better. He would have been out of work most of the time, methinks. Like in 1888, for example.

The best,
Fisherman

[IchabodCrane]

Also, the children were all born much later. How would they know whether their father was a bum when he was 22 and also not disinclined to hire the occasional Whitechapel whore? He probably was in regular employ after he got married.

[Fisherman]

To be honest, Ichabod, I was kind of pulling a leg or two of those who speak for a swift dismissal of Reg Hutchinsons assertion that his father was the Dorset Street witness, whereas they merrily cling on to his statement that his father was rarely out of work.

One of these statements goes very much in favour of those who speak for Hutch as a malevolent Joe Fleming in disguise, whereas the other one goes very much against such a notion.

One really should not think such things about oneīs opponents, but I have a feeling that there is some picking and choosing going on here...

This aside, your suggestion is an eminently wise one. The period of which the kids spoke and which they were old enough to remember, would not have included that of a 22-year old Hutch!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Next little piece in the puzzle:

Ben wrote, back on page three of this thread:

"The distinctive feature of Toppyīs signature is the horizontal middle part of the capital "H" which joins immediately onto the upper part of the small "u" which is quite different to all three statement signatures where the letters are joined from the bottom. Note also that all three statement signatures are characterized by an unusually short "t" and an unusually tall "h". On Toppy's signature, the opposite occurs, with the "t" being taller."

Looking at the census listings Sam provided, in most cases the t:s and the h:s are roughly alike. But in the case of Florence (number five from the top), we have a markedly higher h than the t - just like we have on page three of the police protocol. In Florenceīs case, the bar of the t seems to rest upon the stem of the letter, providing a fair resemblance to the police report signature. Once again, we can see that a perceived consistency relating to elements of style need not hold true.

Moreover, if we take a look at the signature number four from the top, "George Hutchinson", we can see that the H and the u are joined seemingly in the middle, creating a close likeness to the joint made in signature number two of the police protocol. Same thing applies here; elements of style may well change. My take on it is that the connection between the H and the u is a "stronger" style element, and that it would be less lightly to change than the heights of stems in differing letters. But as we can see, it is in no way immune to changes in spite of this.

The best,
Fisherman

[IchabodCrane]

It's difficult to imagine the police would not have confronted both Joseph Barnett and George Hutchinson with Joseph Lawende. If George Hutchinson were GWTH, it would provide an answer why the police dismissed him. He was only 22 and he was not the man Lawende had seen standing with Catherine Eddowes minutes before her murder.

[Ben]

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

Hi Ichabod,

Firstly, I don't believe that the Toppy does offer us the closest match of the signatures garnered to date. I believe Lambeth George is markedly closer, although I still doubt very much that he was the "witness" in question. We certainly haven't accounted for all George Hutchinsons either. Many threads ago, Gareth and a handful of others dredged up a number of viable candidates; candidates who were actually shown to be living in the East End at the time of the murders. I then located a few more at the FRC. To date, we've tracked none of them down, and included among them is one "George Thomas Hutchi(n)son of Cottage Grove, Bow, whose signature was believed by a registrar to match the witneses'.

Bob Hinton did, however, make the observation that police statements were accustomed to taking down full names, or at the very least, middle initials. This would mean, of course, than the absence of any middle names in the witness statement would indicate most strongly that the witness didn't have any.

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?

Very slim, Mike, unless of course the signatures don't "closely resemble" one another, or the family story is highly bogus in content and associated with a discredited royal conspiracy theory. Since both are admitted in this case, in my view, I find those two factos to be mutually supportive of the case against Toppy being the witness. I think the case for calling the match "refutable" is effectively non-existent.

It does represent a counter-clockwise curve, but a much fainter one than the ones spoken of as a typical "Toppyism".

But anti-clockwise and northward-pointing curves are very distinctive features of Toppy's handwriting, Fish, and he repeats it over a decade-plus time-span, in stark contrast to the witness Hutchinson's signature, which tails off far less dramatically.

I say Iīm right since the signatures match.

Well you can say that as often as you like, but unfortunately it carries no weight. Two expert document examiners say they don't match, so the question begging is why should I accept your assertion that they match when it contrasts so markedly with expert opinion?

So, Ben, letīs see once more if you can manage to keep things civil, shall we?

Sure thing. You might want to kick-start the civilities by avoiding antagonistic suggestions that I'm clinging to a "lost cause". I'm not going to spit venom on those grounds, since I know that to be so hopelessly incorrect, but I'd appreciate it if you didn't goad so. Thanks in advance.

Then again, I canīt 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.

My observation that Lambeth man neglected to cross his "t" in the word Hutchinson seems the most reasonable explanation to me, judging by the appearance of the signature. It still stands.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hello again, Fisherman,

Looking at the census listings Sam provided, in most cases the t:s and the h:s are roughly alike. But in the case of Florence (number five from the top), we have a markedly higher h than the t - just like we have on page three of the police protocol.

The crucial observation here is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, spanning a decade-plus period, Toppy's t was conspicuously taller than any of his lower case "h"s. This suggests to me very strongly that he was in the habit of doing so, and was unlikely to deviate repeatedly from that habit. Since the witness's "t"s were conspicuously shorter, and didn't conntect to the crossbar (in stark contrast to what we see in Toppy), I'd say that's a point against Toppy being the witness, especially if the witness "h"s were consistently double-stemmed (again, in contrast to single-stem Toppy). Bear in mind that the expert Crystal contacted also felt that the "tch" in Toppy was very different to the witness three.

It isn't just a "perceived consistency". If he does something 9 times out of 10, he's still consistent, especially if it's spanning a decade!

Moreover, if we take a look at the signature number four from the top, "George Hutchinson", we can see that the H and the u are joined seemingly in the middle, creating a close likeness to the joint made in signature number two of the police protocol.

But in the vast majority of Toppy cases, the H is connected to the u at the top, which considering the time passage, reveals to us again that this was more than likely a habitually ingrained pattern. Contrast that with the witness three, where none of the H's join the u at the top(py)! I feel that another case in point is the closed loop on the capital "G". This never changes with every example of Toppy's handwriting I've seen, again spanning a decade, in sharp contrast to the open G-loops with the witness.

How would they know whether their father was a bum when he was 22 and also not disinclined to hire the occasional Whitechapel whore?

The problem here, Ichabod, is that if people wish to use Reg's story to lend credence to the Toppy-as-witness theory, they can't pick and choose which elements they wish to believe and discard the elements which go against that theory. Reg stated that his father was "rarely, if ever, out of work", and if he was lying about that, he could easily have been lying about the entire thing. There is no evidence of any connection between Toppy and the East End until he met his East End wife in 1895, and yet the witness - whoever he was - claimed to have known Kelly for three years, i.e. when he was 19 and she was living way down south in Pennington Street. Doesn't particularly ring true.

He probably was in regular employ after he got married.

The 1891 Census shows him living in Warren Street in the West End and working as a plumber, which is the only profession we've ever been given for Toppy, and which tallies with Reg's recollections. Since his father was also a plumber, I'd be very surprised if he spurned the opportunities offered by parental connections in favour of bumming around the East End, grooming and labouring. If anything, it paints a picture of a young man following in his father's footsteps.

It's difficult to imagine the police would not have confronted both Joseph Barnett and George Hutchinson with Joseph Lawende. If George Hutchinson were GWTH, it would provide an answer why the police dismissed him.

We only have evidence that he was dismissed as a witness. No evidence that he was ever considered a suspect. Barnett wasn't paraded before Lawende; he recounted the extent of police suspicion against him at the inquest, and no witness ID attempts were mentioned. Besides which, we have no evidence that Lawende was used in identity attempts until after the murders, and when they did, they generally were made public.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

"the question begging is why should I accept your assertion that they match when it contrasts so markedly with expert opinion?"

Well, Ben long as the signatures do not contrast inbetween themselves, I think that quibbling over which expert is right (we DO have differing opinions inbetween them, and even if you should end up with a four-to-three expert overweight, I fail to see that it would prove you right.)

"But anti-clockwise and northward-pointing curves are very distinctive features of Toppy's handwriting, Fish, and he repeats it over a decade-plus time-span, in stark contrast to the witness Hutchinson's signature"

So you tell me. And that is why I wonder why the Albert Hutchinson signature differs so much in this respect. There are complete half circles that tell us that you are on the right track, Ben - and then thereīs Albert ...

Regards,
Fisherman

[IchabodCrane]

We only have evidence that he was dismissed as a witness. No evidence that he was ever considered a suspect. Barnett wasn't paraded before Lawende; he recounted the extent of police suspicion against him at the inquest, and no witness ID attempts were mentioned. Besides which, we have no evidence that Lawende was used in identity attempts until after the murders, and when they did, they generally were made public.

Hi Ben,
to me this would amount to gross neglicence on the part of the police. It's a scandal!
All the best,
IchabodCrane

[Ben]

Hi Ichabod,

It might well appear so from a modern perspective, but since policing in general was in its relative infancy in 1888, it doesn't surprise me. Indeed, the only evidence we have of contemporary witness ID attemps derive from the Fiddymont sighting in the wake of the Hanbury Street murder.

Hi Fish

I fail to see that it would prove you right

Abaolutely, but I'm not looking to be proven right. It is only my opinion that the signatures don't match, and it is only the opinion of the two experts referred to that the signatures don't match. I do feel, however, that those expert opinions carry more weright than my own. There is no proof involved here.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The crucial observation here is that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, spanning a decade-plus period, Toppy's t was conspicuously taller than any of his lower case "h"s. This suggests to me very strongly that he was in the habit of doing so, and was unlikely to deviate repeatedly from that habit. "

I do not agree, Ben. Well, to some extent I DO agree; If we have nine out of ten examples telling us that Toppy makes his t:s taller than the h:s, then it stands to reason that the better guess would be that if we find another signature made by him from that period, the t would be taller than the h.

That is simple statistics. Nobody challenges that, and it is what I keep saying - the more examples of a style element pointing us in a certain direction, the stronger the evidence worth.

But there are things to challenge here! To begin with, the t:s are NOT higher than the h:s in the "new" signatures we have been provided in nine cases. In one case the t IS markedly higher, in one case it is markedly LOWER, and in the rest they are more or less of the same height.

But in the end, what I donīt agree with is when you write that "the crucial observation" is that the t:s normally were taller. Not only do we have the issue of the letters being equally high in many cases, but I must also point out that the TRULY crucial point is that the Florence signature tells us EXACTLY why the expertise urges us NEVER to speak of a consistency in style elements until we have ten examples. And the reason for this is of course that they want to warn us so that we donīt claim that a signature lacking a significant style element (like your "Toppyisms") could not have been written by the same author.
THAT is the crucial point! THAT is what getīs people off in courtrooms. THAT is what tells us that the observation Crystal speaks of must be taken with a barrel full of salt.

"But in the vast majority of Toppy cases, the H is connected to the u at the top, which considering the time passage, reveals to us again that this was more than likely a habitually ingrained pattern"

Yes, Ben, that is what it tells us. PLUS it tells us that it was a pattern from which he would deviate about every tenth time, going by the statistics we can form from the material provided.

To this we must of course add what Sam said in connection with his presentation of the Freud portrait and his signatures - signatures may very well change over time, sometimes quite dramatically! And there is a span of 23 years inbetween the police report signatures and the material Sam provided!

So we KNOW that there were exceptions to the "tall h small t-rule" as well as there were exceptions to the "join the H to the u at the top-rule". Therefore these rules must not be allowed to stand in any rigid shape or form! They are reduced from rules to guidelines.

And we KNOW that signatures may change over time. This in combination makes a clear-cut case urging us not to invest too heavily in style elements - and that piece of advice was placed on the table many moons ago. It still stands, by now much reinforced.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Are you sure we're looking at the same signatures; the column Gareth provided which includes other family members written by Toppy? In 7 out of 9 case, the t is taller than the h of "Hutchinson", and in the other two, the "h" has the height edge but only very slightly. That's pretty consistent as far as I'm concerned. Another crucial observation to my hung-over mind is that the witness "t"s were unusually short - half the size of the double stemmed h" - and with the crossbar of the t not touching its stem. I find that to be dramatically, and consistently dissimilar from the Toppyisms shared with us by Gareth, and it is of interest to me that Crystal's useful recruit observed the same thing.

I'd prefer not to get into a protracted argument about who has the more "crucial" or "salient" observations. On that subject, I'll say only that I'm led by expert professional opinion.

Yes, Ben, that is what it tells us. PLUS it tells us that it was a pattern from which he would deviate about every tenth time

Right, but whoever the witness was, he didn't connect his H to the u from the top (in true Toppy style) in any of his statement signatures. Just compare that fact with the number of occasions in the column where Toppy connects his H to the top of his u. There were exceptions to the "taller t shorter h" rule, I don't negate that, but the witness revealed the complete reverse of that on all three occasions. Three successive "exceptions to the rule" is a bit much for me to take on board.

I accept Gareth's observation and Freud comparison, but it's clear from the evidence that Toppy was generally extremely consistent in his signature style, in contrast to Gareth (although I've no doubt that a document examiner would recongise that both his signatures were written by the same hand). If we're not to invest too heavily in the "elements of style" when it comes to the differences, we ought really to apply the same flexibile approach to the perceived similairities. Not singling out anyone in particular (as this is advice we should all embrace), but we must be particularly careful when it comes to arguing the "this stuff's susceptible to change, but this other stuff is not susceptible to change" premise.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

"I'd prefer not to get into a protracted argument about who has the more "crucial" or "salient" observations. On that subject, I'll say only that I'm led by expert professional opinion."

Not on the issue of the differences in style elements, youīre not. For here the only expertise we have heard saying anything on the matter specifically is Rolf Berzell, who tells us to be very careful about ascribing too much value to such things as long as we have too little evidence.

"In 7 out of 9 case, the t is taller than the h of "Hutchinson", and in the other two, the "h" has the height edge but only very slightly."

If you have measured them, Ben, I believe you. Letīs only add that when it comes to the new signatures Sam provided, speaking of very slight height edges is very relevant - they are close calls in ALL instances, more or less, giving no clear impression of a man who writes taller t:s than h:s, but instead showing us a man who writes them very much in the same height!

"Just compare that fact with the number of occasions in the column where Toppy connects his H to the top of his u."

I have already given you recognition for your observation that connecting the u at a high point was the more frequent method IN THE MATERIAL WE HAVE. But it fades into uselessness if you try to use it as a means to prove that he always did so, since we can all clearly see that this was not the case.

"There were exceptions to the "taller t shorter h" rule, I don't negate that, but the witness revealed the complete reverse of that on all three occasions."

TWO occasions, Ben - if we are to lend one of the experts you lean very heavily against an ear. And that means that two thirds of your substantiation is lost, and you may wanna think twice about it before you use the leftovers. It takes us down on another level altogether, plus we are dealing with a level that was set 23 years before the census listings were filled out by Toppy. The room offered for doubt is more spatious than the inside of St Pauls cathedral.

"we must be particularly careful when it comes to arguing the "this stuff's susceptible to change, but this other stuff is not susceptible to change" premise."
It is always a good thing to be cautious, Ben. I donīt challenge that. But I do think that anybody must realize that not all elements of style are exactly as likely or unlikely to change over time. To argue anything else would be very difficult, and I think you realize that.
It is another thing altogether to establish any exact differences inbetween different elements of style, of course, and none of us will be able to come up with any complete manual for how this is done. Letīs just say that if we have a man who writes his t:s with a bar like the type Toppy is using, it would be less credible that he turned to the Lambeth style, and start writing his t:s without lifting the pen, than it would be for the height of a stem in a letter to change. One of these things represents an element where there WILL inevitably be changes - if we were to measure the height of Toppys "t" stems with a very exact measuring method, we would realize that he never wrote two EXACTLY equally high t:s in his life.
The Toppy t crossbar though, written by lifting the pen, stands a very good chance of never having been swopped for another method throughout the writers lifetime. It will - just as the t stems in Toppys writing, have looked slightly different each time he wrote, but the feature IN ITSELF is not going to vary in the way the t stem heights will.
This is what I mean when I say that different elements of style will not be equally susceptible to change. They are different TYPES of elements, and we cannot compare apples to bananas. I hope you agree, since I really donīt think it can be challenged - it would involve a demand on our behalf for Toppy to produce different TYPES of stems each and every time he wrote, and such a demand would have put him out of writing quite soon.

Regards,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

I've been thinking (dangerous, I know). For Toppy not to be Hutchinson,there almost has to be a conspiracy between Reginald, Lambeth Hutchinson, and officer Badham. If one doesn't see similarities between signatures, regardless if one thinks Lambeth George's signature is even more similar, it is astounding to me. These similarities, in order for Toppy not to be Hutch, would have had to have been noticed by Reginald and possibly Fairclough for them to have concocted such a scheme. To not see similarities that would put these signatures well into the probable, and nowhere near the improbable, is mind-boggling. In order for these men not to be the same men, we have to completely throw out Reginald, calling him a conspirator and forger as he is booted out the door, as well as census takers and maybe sergeant Badham. To believe that all of this is coincidence, must be based on agenda, the inferences of document examiners notwithstanding. These signatures are surely in the realm of the similar at the very least. Combine that with Toppy's story, believed or not, plus the severe lack of other Georger Hutchinson's, plus appearances in the census that are very reasonable, and seemingly accurate, this is our man. It is also a good thing, as we may be able to remove him from our list of Ripper suspects, though for some, that must be the fear.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

For here the only expertise we have heard saying anything on the matter specifically is Rolf Berzell, who tells us to be very careful about ascribing too much value to such things as long as we have too little evidence.

A cautionary, if generalized, observation, and one that I feel has merit. However, that same logic can be directly applied to comparisons which we believe to be indicative of a match. We wouldn't want to end up in a position where we argue that the similarities are important but the differences are trivial, because that would be incorrect. Two expert document examiners came to the conclusion that Toppy wasn't the witness on the basis of the reverse being more likely to be true; that the differences either outweigh, or are more significant than, the similarities.

they are close calls in ALL instances, more or less, giving no clear impression of a man who writes taller t:s than h:s, but instead showing us a man who writes them very much in the same height!

But in 7 out of 9 signatures, the t is taller than the h; not appreciably so, I'll grant you, but what is significant is the fact that the witness' t's - all three of them - are all appreciably shorter than Toppy's, almost half the size in fact, and with the crossbar consistently unattached to the stem.

But it fades into uselessness if you try to use it as a means to prove that he always did so, since we can all clearly see that this was not the case.

Absolutely, Fisherman, and you're quite right to acknowledge that such robust terminology as "proven" an "always" is not applicable here. I do believe, however, that Toppy was very likely indeed to include those characteristics for the overwhelming majority of the time.

It takes us down on another level altogether, plus we are dealing with a level that was set 23 years before the census listings were filled out by Toppy

Ah, but only ten years prior to the marriage signature, where Toppy reveals a great consistency with the signatures that he then pens 13 years later. Even if the witness was only responsible for signatures two and three, that would still be a considerable deviation from his otherwise consistent pattern, and two successive exceptions to the rule would still strike me as most improbable.

Letīs just say that if we have a man who writes his t:s with a bar like the type Toppy is using, it would be less credible that he turned to the Lambeth style, and start writing his t:s without lifting the pen, than it would be for the height of a stem in a letter to change.

Well no, let's not just say that, since we've no expert opinion that would permit us to arrive at such a conclusion. For all you know, double-looping a stem and drastically altering the appearance of the "tch" part of Hutchinson is just as significant as writing different t's, just as close-looping your capital G's and then open-looping them (or vice versa) may be considered an equally radical alteration. With respect, you're doing precisely what I cautioned against, which was to bolster the significances of the differences between Lambeth and witness, whilst attempting to trivialise the significance of the differences between Toppy and the witness.

I don't agree, as it militates heavily against the opinion of two document examiners who subscribed to the view that the differences outweighed the similarities in Toppy's case, and came to the conclusion that he was not the witness.

Best regards,
Ben