Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Stephen Thomas]

Oooooh

I wonder what an overlong t-cross means in Graphology.

[DVV]

A morbid desire to run after the nod of the i, seen like the black hole of Gordon Pym, Stephen.

[Stephen Thomas]

David

You speak in riddles, mon ami.

[DVV]

Not that much my friend.
Just the comic way ultra-freudian Marie Bonaparte reads Gordon Pym: Southern pole = anus.
That troubled me, since Gordon Pym is one of the books I read and re-read!

[Ben]

Better still - look at the big picture, Ben... or at least look at where he launches his crossbars.

On indeed I am, Gareth. Look at the conspicuosuly short "t"s in your above montage, the ones that enable you to pick out the witness signatures in an instant.

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Ichabod,

Sue Iremonger believed that the first signature wasn't written by Hutchinson at all, but by Sgt. Badham, after realizing that he had neglected to have the witness sign all three pages as protocol dictated.

Hi Ben,

if Badham had tried to emulate Hutchinson's signature, then why the elaborate 'H' on page 1? Pages 2 and 3 both have plain Hs. Below are two samples of Badham's own rendering of the word 'Hutchinson' from the text of the statement. I'm just curious what would have been Ms. Iremonger's reasoning on this.

[Fisherman]

I have only just understood that we are going about this the wrong way.

As Debra presented the 1911 Toppy signature, and Sam and I both accepted it as a very good match to the police report signatures, a number of points were raised in criticism of this, and details were pointed out that differed inbetween the signatures.

The bulk of this criticism concerned itself with the upward-pointing curled ending of the last n in Hutchinson in Toppys writing as opposed to the much less curled, almost flat ditto in Hutchs ditto, the Looped capital G in "George" in Toppys writing as opposed to the open G in Hutchs, the fact that all three witness signatures had higher h:s than t:s in Hutchinson whereas Toppy displayed signatures where the opposite occured and that Hutch used looped stems in his h in Hutchinson, where Hutch did not do so. It was also pointed out that Toppys capital H always joined onto the very top of the following u in Hutchinson.

After this, more material has surfaced, telling us that:

1. Toppy sometimes did write uncurled flat n:s in the endings of words (as in "Green" in Bethnal Green in the census listings)

2. Toppy sometimes used open loops in his stems (as in the l in "Bethnal" in Bethnal Green in the same listings)

3. Toppy sometimes wrote his t:s lower than his h:s (in the same census listings)

4. Toppy did not always join onto the u in Hutchinson from the capital H at the top of the u (This, too, provided by the census listings)

One would think that this would be quite enough to silence the criticism on these points. Interestingly, it is not. It is, for example, now stated that just because we now know that Toppy sometimes looped the stem of his l:s, that does not neccesaarily meant that he did so with any OTHER stem. And it is said that although the t may be lower than the h in Toppys writing, this is only the case in two out of nine signatures, and therefore it must not be awarded any decisive weight.

There has also been the question of the context. Here we know that evidence exists, where Reg Hutchinson pins his father as the Dorset Street witness. Alledgedly, he had heard it from Toppy himself.
This, however, is by those who criticize the wiew of Toppy as the Dorset Street witness, taken as evidence for the exact opposite thing: If Reg said it, it will not be true; he served a pack of lies, and therefore his evidence is attached to a negative factor, telling us that it was the other way around. Interestingly, this does NOT apply to Regīs telling us that his father was rarely unemployed - here, the negative factor does not come into play.

Anyhow and anyway, as I said, it has become blatantly obvious that we who see Toppy as the witness have worked along the wrong lines. We should - of course - have asked from the outset what it would take to convince the ones who criticize our respective wiews. Well, it is never too late to do a good thing, and so I would like to ask David and Ben a few questions before we carry on. Here goes!

David! You write: "And Reg's story doesn't make Toppy a more credible witness. Understatement."
Realizing that there is this negative factor attached to Reg Hutchinson and what he states, would you say that if we can find evidence for Reg ever having stated that Toppy was NOT the Dorset Street witness, then such a thing would beyond doubt prove that he actually was?

Ben! If more samples of Toppys handwriting emerges, then what should we look for? Take, for example, the looped stem of the "h" in the police report signatures. Now, if we were to find an example of such a looped h stem on Toppys behalf, would that ne enough for you to see this detail as pointing to us being right? Or would you need to have a sample with MANY looped stems of the h:s, equalling or exceeding seven out of nine h:s?
Come to think of it, would you accept such evidence if it was derived from any other period in time than the one surrounding 1888? Maybe it could be argued that his looped stems (if we could find them) were unsignificant if they came from another period of time?

But letīs just say that we miraculously dig up a document from November 1888, where the stems are inaccordance with the ones in the police report, would that satisfy you on this particular point?
And, moving on a bit further, if it DID, and if we also straightened out the other traits listed above, finding mainly looped capital G:s, t:s lower than the h:s and u:s joined from the bottom of the H, but with all of the rest looking as it looks in the census listing papers from 1911 - would you then say that Toppy was the witness, or would you still say that the overall impression was such that it lead you to conclude that it was no match anyway? That Lambeth George still was the nearer match?

Finally, if we succeeded to find a sample from the correct time, with all the traits the way they were in the police report PLUS with a text of a general appearance that you yourself could not tell apart from the police report text - would you listen to your own senses in such a case? There would still be the Iremonger thing, urging you to realize that maybe you were overlooking something, something that SHE had seen and that meant that in the end, Toppy could never have been the Dorset Street witness. How would that knowledge affect your thinking? Iīm asking since I realize that you attach very great importance t Ms Iremonger.

Iīm writing this post to try and save valuable time. Iīm trying to find out what we REALLY should look for, as the both of you surely will appreciate. It would be foolish to spend time looking for insignificant features like the ones that have already been dug up. Would you not agree?

Fisherman
very curious

[Fisherman]

Ichabod Crane asks: "if Badham had tried to emulate Hutchinson's signature, then why the elaborate 'H' on page 1?"

Bravo, Ichabod - that is a VERY good question!

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

One difficulty with Iremonger's idea that perhaps the signatories may not be the same, is that we don't know why she says this. The majority of us see strong similarities, so what does SHE see that refutes our thoughts. While some blindly accept the opinion of a document examiner whose work is very different from comparing unquestioned signatures, as these are, many of us would like to know why she says what she says, and exactly what she says. I don't accept the flood account from Genesis because it says so. Neither can I accept an opinion without corroboration.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"One difficulty with Iremonger's idea that perhaps the signatories may not be the same, is that we don't know why she says this. The majority of us see strong similarities, so what does SHE see that refutes our thoughts. While some blindly accept the opinion of a document examiner whose work is very different from comparing unquestioned signatures, as these are, many of us would like to know why she says what she says, and exactly what she says. I don't accept the flood account from Genesis because it says so. Neither can I accept an opinion without corroboration."

You will know, Mike, that this is my stance too. And since what was said emerged under a lecture or something along those lines, it seems we are not going to be fed with Iremongers reasons for her statements. Of course, Ben has provided that the reason that Iremonger said that the signatures were not by the same writer was that she THOUGHT that they were not, but serving as evidence that makes a meager meal indeed. I want details and I want corroboration, just like, and until I see that Iremonger is ruled out of any serious judgement, as far as Iīm concerned.

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Hi Ichabod Crane - as usual you make sensible points. You ask:

if Badham had tried to emulate Hutchinson's signature, then why the elaborate 'H' on page 1? Pages 2 and 3 both have plain Hs.

It is a good question, and thanks for posting other examples of Badham's hand - it does make this slightly clearer - well, to an extent!

I have read quite often on this thread now that Miss Iremonger didn't think the first signature on the witness statement was that of Hutchinson but that of Badham, and I have wondered at that, personally. I have not the advantage of Miss Iremonger in that I have not seen the actual witness statement as yet, but from surface analysis, I'm not entirely sure what led her to that conclusion.

Now that I can see other examples of Badham's hand, I have to say that I am less inclined to think that Badham did sign for Hutchinson. In brief - the overall angle of the hand is different and the form of the Capital G and H are of a different type. It is also possible - although I would need to see the originals to be certain of this - that Badham has a smaller hand and applies greater pressure.

On present evidence, which as we can see by now, is subject to change, I think the idea that Badham signed for Hutchinson may be a myth.

As you can see, however, they are similar hands in many respects - and that is because neither deviates very far from what may be considered the usual. This is what I would expect in general, given the social class(es) of the people involved. I think, as indeed I think you suggested, Ichabod Crane, that it is more likely that the witness was signing his 'best' signature, complete with formal flourishes.


Good Morning Fisherman!

Up and about as usual, I see! You wanted to know why I thought Toppy and the witness were not one and the same? Well, I will make a few observations concerning elements that I think are significant - I think we must all agree that the hands appear similar - my point is that this is not particularly significant - hence my comments regarding a trained eye.

To begin with, there are things I do not know about these signatures, and which I cannot know without examining the originals - so that is what I have decided to do. Until I have undertaken that process, this is what I have to say regarding surface analysis.

Capital G - although both hands have the same overall form, the shape of the capital G is markedly different. Toppy consistently produces a closed, narrow, looped G. The witness consistently (so far as we are able to tell from our sample) produces a much rounder, open G.

Both Toppy and the witness would have learned to write their capital letters using the same method of instruction. The overall shape of the G is significant. The formation 'tch' also displays a significant difference between hands. I know a lot has been said about the wretched cross-bar - and by the way, Steve - I think an over long cross bar probably means 'This man is likely to be a graffiti artist...

So I won't go on about the cross bars today. Suffice to say that Toppy consistently ( there may be a couple in the Census sample where this is arguable, but nevertheless, it is consistent) displays a t and h which are of similar height, and the witness does not. The stem of his t is markedly shorter than his h. Toppy never so far as I have seen, loops his h. The witness does in all three examples. Toppy's 'tch' formation forms in effect a box (I'm sure the graphologists out there would have something to say about this...) with the wretched cross bar over the top and his c sitting nicely in the middle. I am aware that it is not exactly the same ever time! Now, I don't see the same with the witness hand. Looking at his 'box' we see it is flatter - a consequence of the cross bar presenting lower down the stem of his h. In fact, the witness hand is altogether flatter than what we have seen of Toppy's hand.

Those are the points addressed for today. I think there may well be others, but I would rather not elaborate right now given the highly contentious nature of this debate, because without first hand examination, I cannot be absolutely certain. I think I probably said all this and more when I first posted on this thread - I don't think my view has altered significantly since then.

[richardnunweek]

Hello all,
I must stress that i do not consider Ben being offensive to me in the slightest, I respect his views, even if they differ from mine, and therefore would never expect an apology from him, or infact from any poster, expressing their beliefs on a subject we all find challenging.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard writes:

"I must stress that i do not consider Ben being offensive to me in the slightest"

Good on you, Richard - you are a truly patient gentleman!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal finishes:

"Those are the points addressed for today."

...and thank you for that, Crystal! It is interesting to see that you undermine what Iremonger said about the first signature - if you are correct, WE ALL must treat Iremonger with great caution - not only I.
Then again, we do not KNOW that you are correct, do we? And maybe Iremonger has the upper hand on you experiencewise, I donīt know. Add to this that we actually donīt know exactly WHAT Iremonger said about signature one, and everybody will realize that we are on thin ice.

As for what you write on the Capital G and the box formed by the tch, I can only say that I have by now realized that we are dealing with style elements in both cases, and these WILL be prone to change! Moreover, using my ridiculously untrained eye, I do not agree with what you are saying. I took a renewed look at the listing on page 57 of this thread (the full census listings), and in it, you must surely admit that we have for example the name ”Florence Hutchinson” (in itīs first appearance on the page as signature number five), where a nice box is shaped in the same manner as in the police report signatures. There is also signature number three (George Hutchinson), where the lower loop of the G is more or less the same as it is in the police report page three exhibit. And if we take a look at the upper loop, nothing much distinguishes it from the police report loop either, but for the fact that it ends in a closed loop. If it had not done so, but instead had tapered off in the same fashion that the police report G does, there would have been be very little difference inbetween the examples, I think.

Since I am admittedly not an expert, my amateur wiew is what I can offer, and it tells me that what you are challenging is consisting solely of elements of style, elements that we actually know will differ. The overall impression of the text is very close, though, something you seem to agree on, plus the leaning of the letters and the places where their respective writers lifter his pen seem to add up throughout all of these signatures, with the exception of police report number one signature, where the curlied H allowed the writer to saty on paper with his pen. And if I read the expertise right, these elements are far more important to establish – since elements of style will change!
I will add that the George signature number four on the list displays a much taller loop on the top of the G, and a bottom part of the upper loop that sits alongside the stem of the lower loop, making that signature rather different from signature three – but we in fact KNOW that the same man wrote them. How would you comment on that?


I anxiously await what you have to say after a real examination, Crystal. As it stands, thankful though I am that you engage it this question the way you do, I donīt think that anybody so far has offered anything that could seriously question the suggestion that the signatures could have the same origin.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

David! You write: "And Reg's story doesn't make Toppy a more credible witness. Understatement."
Realizing that there is this negative factor attached to Reg Hutchinson and what he states, would you say that if we can find evidence for Reg ever having stated that Toppy was NOT the Dorset Street witness, then such a thing would beyond doubt prove that he actually was?
Fisherman
very curious

G' morning Fish, Richard and all.

Richard, as I told you yesterday, I'm just coming back from the police station, into which, being perfectly innocent, I stepped at a quarter to 9, not 6pm...

Fish, the question you ask is a good example of "reasoning by the absurd", isn't it?
Sam and you are convinced that the signatures make a perfect match. Very well. As I've already said, in my non-expert opinion they match a bit, mismatch a bit, and I simply don't dare to conclude from these handwritings' samples that Toppy was, or wasn't, the Dorset Street witness.
What I contest is this: Signatures + Reg's family tradition = proof of Toppy being the witness.
My opinion is that Reg's story argues strongly against Toppy-the-witness.

Amitiés mon cher,
David