Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

Mike writes: The real question is if signatures are, as Crystal suggests, much more than a tertiary source of evidence. I think they are not, but that the combination of several coincidences, as Gareth too agrees, weigh things heavily in Toppy's favor.

Let me be clear, in case there is confusion here. I am saying that these signatures, being part of a primary document in both these cases, are primary evidence. That is the class of evidence to which they belong. It is not my opinion, it is a fact. The story told by Reg Hutchinson is not primary evidence. It is tertiary at best. Consider - Fairclough writes his account of what Reg has told him his father told him. Right, any part of that chain of evidence could be unreliable. What we really must decide whether to take on faith or not (because there is no other option - we do not have any better evidence to hand) is whether we believe that George W.T. Hutchinson told his son what Reg claimed - or even if we believe that to be the case, if we believe GWT Hutchinson to have been telling the truth.

A matter of faith, again.

The fact of the existence of the signature examples we have seen posted on this thread is not in dispute. It is to the facts that we should restrain our attention. And the facts here are that yes, there are similarities between the hand of the Dorset Street witness and GWT Hutchinson, and yes, there are also discrepancies.

And although we may think we know by now everything there is to know about these signatures, we don't. None of us have actually seen them, have we? All we can do is conduct a surface analysis of a digital image. It may be good enough for a jolly good gossip, but it won't do if people are seriously suggesting that their identification of Dorset Street George with GWT Hutchinson is a done deal.

I reiterate - to draw so firm a conclusion at this stage is unsafe. Those who insist upon it do so at their own peril.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"All we can do is conduct a surface analysis of a digital image. It may be good enough for a jolly good gossip, but it won't do if people are seriously suggesting that their identification of Dorset Street George with GWT Hutchinson is a done deal.
I reiterate - to draw so firm a conclusion at this stage is unsafe. Those who insist upon it do so at their own peril."

I have claimed - and I will KEEP claiming - that it is a fact that the signatures of GWTP and the police report signatures, especially the one from page three, are a very good match.
It is, as you will appreciate, not exactly the same as saying that we have a done deal. I have refrained from saying that it is a fact that the GWTH signatures and the police report ones were written by the same hand. If we were to find ANOTHER George Hutchinson from the same time and area, who ALSO wrote in a fashion that made a very good match with the police report signatures, I would be faced with the possibility of having put my money on the wrong horse. So, for sanitys sake, I leave the door open.

That, however, does not mean that I think this possibility is a credible one. I donīt; instead I find it utterly incredible, so incredible in fact that I do not hesitate to say that to my mind, the case is as closed as I could ever reasonably hope for it to be. And of course, Crystal, I do so at my own peril, just as you suggest. I would not have it any other way.

Now, if I may please once again ask you for the details involved in the signatures that you consider unbridgeable? You promised to elaborate on it as you left the boards before the weekend, and I have been waiting eagerly since then.

All the best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Let me be clear, in case there is confusion here. I am saying that these signatures, being part of a primary document in both these cases, are primary evidence.

Yes. These are primary sources. My mistake. I thought you were referring to importance.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

If we were to find ANOTHER George Hutchinson from the same time and area, who ALSO wrote in a fashion that made a very good match with the police report signatures, I would be faced with the possibility of having put my money on the wrong horse.
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
Lambeth George already forgotten?
Not to say he is our witness (Toppy is far more likely than him), but to say that two handwritings making a good match can be from two different persons.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[The Good Michael]

And of course, Crystal, I do so at my own peril, just as you suggest. I would not have it any other way.

Fish,

You've just gone and cursed yourself! Okay evil spirits! It wasn't me being perilous. Remember please. It was Fishman!

Okay. I think I'm safe.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

David asks:

"Lambeth George already forgotten?"

No, David. Lambeth George does not belong to the discussion since his signature is in no way as good a match as is Toppys. It is a BETTER match than the other signatures (but for Toppys) that Sam presented at the beginning of this thread, but it is nowhere close to the likeness to the police report signatures that is displayed by Toppy. And this is a wiew I have held throughout the thread - I have never spoken one word in favour of Lambeth Georges signature being a probable match to the police report signatures, as you will notice if you read my posts.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"Fish,
You've just gone and cursed yourself!"

Donīt have to, mate - there are others tending to that particular detail!


The best, Mike!

Fisherman

[Crystal]

Mike - all very well being facetious, but the distinction you draw is meaningless - primary sources are primary in the sense that they are the first evidence, and as such, generally considered to be of greater value than a secondary or tertiary opinion which has arisen subsequent study (of the primary artefact).

Fisherman - I haven't forgotten you! I haven't actually said, either, that you have personally said it was a 'done deal'. My point is that I think we are a way off being able to say that with any certainty at this point. Be assured, if such evidence does materialise which further supports your contention that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness, I shall be very interested to see it - my opinion is not fixed in concrete, closed to further analysis, or really in any way preferential. Unlike some, who would have it the other way around, I prefer to be led by the evidence when constructing my theories. And if it does turn out beyond reasonable doubt - yes, yes, I know some will claim it already has, but not if they want to be taken seriously, surely? - I will be the first to recognise that my current view was erroneous.

As to my own reasons for caution, yes, I will happily let you have them - I'm sure you aren't really eagerly waiting! I think you're pulling my leg, Fisherman!

But yet again, time has caught up with me - I'm on a lunch break at the moment and sorry - don't have time for a serious post! Tomorrow, I hope! Apologies - I have plenty more to say, I assure you!

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"I'm sure you aren't really eagerly waiting!"

Donīt bet on it, Crystal. Have a nice evening!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Crystal,

I am a history teacher (but not in Korea). I know full well how poor primary sources can be. In general, they are the most important, yet I am referring to historical accounts and not mere signatures. One has only to look at the varied accounts at Lexington Green to see how confusing they can be. I was not being facetious. I was stating that these sources are not necessarily of primary importance as they are merely signatures and not complete pieces of writing that we can really analyse. Instead, it is the whole of the evidence with which I am concerned, and which paints the better picture, as ragged as it is.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

Mike

In terms of the present discussion, the signatures are the primary evidence, since that is what we are comparing. If we wish to compare the entire witness statement with the 1911 Census, then that is another matter. Hey! there's an idea! Well, that's my weekend taken care of....

[Ben]

Excellent points as usual, Crystal. You've been greatly missed these past few days.

Oh Hello Fisherman,

The crossbar represents the "type unit", and it is not something you measure. It is not about width at all.

So in other words, I didn't misread you at all. You're saying exactly what I disagreed with first time around. You were drawing our attention several pages back to the width of the crossbar, and width is just as susceptible to change as height is. If you want to argue that it has more to do with an "element of style" - careful about getting too entrenched in jargon here Fish - I can argue precisely the same thing about the consistently closed G-loop in Toppy. Nothing to do with width, nothing to do with height, and yet it's an "element of style" and therefore unlikely to be susceptible to change according to you.

And we are still at a total loss when it comes to knowing how Toppys handwriting differed in the periods 1889-1897 and 1899-1910.

Well, given the consistency that he reveals over a decade-plus period, we can be reasonably confident that he'd reveal equal consistency elsewhere.

Too bad, Ben? Surely you donīt feel all that sorry for me, do you?

No, I feel sorry to all of us. I'm as eager as anyone for "closure" on this issue, and if Toppy offers us that chance of closure, so be it. Unfortunately, one gets the distinct and increasing impression that it hasn't happened here, hence my "too bad" comment.

As for the double-stemmed h, I think that you may want to take a look at how Toppy wrote "Bethnal" in the census papers; one of the l:s was singlestemmed and the other was double-stemmed

I'm talking about the letter "h", Fisherman. I have no idea how the witness would form his "l"s, since there are no "l"s in the name "George Hutchinson".

Aha! So for a man from the lower classes of society to feel a little awe when facing top authorities in a big police house - that just would not happen?

I'm not asserting that it wouldn't happen. I'm saying it's unlikely to manifest itself as you suggest, by trying to impress them with a poncier-than-usual H's and longer cross bars, or by trying to appease them by rushing it. I don't think a 22-year-old is likely to succumb to such base sensations, and the image of a somewhat intimidated and coy Hutch may be at odds with at least one journalistic observation that Hutchinson's assertions were "straightforward".

mostly elderly citizens, who are very humble in their approach to me, and who take great care about how they speak and act. They donīt feel totally at ease (and no, itīs not me) in the situation.

Well, you did scare off the elderly Ms. Iremonger, so perhaps we can detect a pattern. Just kidding.

I am not, incidentally, suggesting that he wouldn't have written more "neatly" on account of the unusual situation. I'm just saying that we can't use that as an excuse for the differences between Toppy and the witness.

On the contrary - we have amassed information about Toppy telling us that he was quite prone to change even elements that reasonably would seem very telling.

But the overall impression from having garnered his signatures from 1898 and 1911 (several of them) is one of remarkably consistency.

The only trap that has been at work here, is the one telling us that the elements of style involved in the police report signatures are enough to rule out Toppy; the joining between the H and the u, the h being taller than the t, the looped stems, the-you-name-it, are all things that have been shown to leak considerably

They haven't been shown to leak considerably at all. 7 out of 9 taller t's than h's is still very consistenct, and by no means indicative of a "considerable" propensity towards leakage. I'm not trying to rule Toppy out, but I'm anxious that you avoid falling into the trap of trying to reduce the significance of the differences whilst bolstering the significance of the perceived similarities. Trying to reduce the importance of the closed G-loop (which contrasts markedly with the witness and which, according to your logic, is an "element of style unconnected with height or width) is a distressing case in point. Describing it as the "last fortress to fall" is very silly thing to say, and such military terminology suggests a confrontational dogma. As it happens, all the other "fortresses" remain strong and erect. Unfortunately, the majority of experts to date subscribe to a very different view; that the differences either outweigh, or are more significant than, the similarities - which is why they don't believe Toppy was the witness.

No, David. Lambeth George does not belong to the discussion since his signature is in no way as good a match as is Toppys.

Don't listen to Fisherman, David, as he is not the final arbiter of what does and what doesn't belong in the discussion. You're more than welcome to discuss Lambeth George, who, as far as I'm concerned, is a much better match than Toppy for the witness. Not a great match in isolation, perhaps, but still better than Toppy.

[Ben]

I have claimed - and I will KEEP claiming - that it is a fact that the signatures of GWTP and the police report signatures, especially the one from page three, are a very good match.

And I will KEEP CLAIMING with much greater tenacity and resilience than Fisherman is capable of, that the above is complete nonsense. I don't think that's a particularly productive way to engage in debate, but Fisherman must understand that he just gets people's backs up when he tries to suggest that simply repeating something will make his opinion more persuasive.

Seriously, why would you want to "keep claiming" something?

What's that going to acheive?

Why is that approach anymore laudable and productive that simply resigning yourself to a disagreement?

That, however, does not mean that I think this possibility is a credible one. I donīt; instead I find it utterly incredible, so incredible in fact that I do not hesitate to say that to my mind, the case is as closed as I could ever reasonably hope for it to be

But your strong, uncompromising language is in stark contrast to the view of the majority of experts to date who arrived at the "opinion" - notice the appropriate, rational terminology - that on the basis of the signature comparison, Toppy was not the witness.

Gosh, I wonder who to go with...

[Ben]

Although i appreciate that opinions will vary throughout every aspect of JTR, i would suggest, that it is perfectly clear that the samples of Toppings signatures corresponde almost perfectly with the 1888 statement, and that would be on par with the familys tradition, that GWT, was the witness

And you're welcome to suggest that, Richard.

Unfortunately, your opinion in that regard is regrettably countered with the opposing opinion of actual experts in the field of document examination.

Reg Hutchinson is a point against Toppy being the witness, by virtue of his dubious claims. It doesn't bolster the case, it detracts from it. Reg's account (and no, I don't mean Fairclough's conspiracy, I mean Reg's reported words) are not only dubious in nature, but biographically at odds with a labouring former groom who had known Kelly for three years. The story and the signatures don't point to Toppy even in isolation from eachother, but when you had them together, the case against him is made even stronger.

The payment issue is as dubious as any other.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Hello Ben - voice of moderation amongst the madness. Let's play a game of 'Spot the Difference'....



George 1

George 2

A very confusing Elephant.

Can you see what it is yet?