Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

1. We seem to have a man that puts a real good effort into writing neatly when signing the police report

I really don't think so, Fish.

None of the witness signatures strike me as particularly "neat" at all. They seem like largely spidery scrawls to me.

so neatly, in fact, that he tries a curled capital H

We don't know that he did. That may have been in Sgt. Badham's handwriting.

We do not know if he wrote more open loops back in 1888; ten years have passed when we make his aquaintance again, as a writer.

But we have evidence of his signatures over a 10 year-period. 13 years, in fact, from which we know full well that he was remarkably consistent with his signature, and didn't alter the look of his "h"s, for example. Despite the 13-year gap, they still retained their conspicuous non-looped appearance, in contrast to all three statement signatures. To me, this only cements and crystallises the differences between Toppy and the witness.

And yes, an element of style is more probable to change than the leaning of the text.

So, just to clarify, if a hypothetical signature is radically different in style to another hypothetical signature, but the angles are similar, would you say that the similarities outweigh the differences in that hypothetical case? I think somebody must have given you the wrong idea.

If the leaning is consistent and the number of times a writer lifts his pen stays the same inbetween signatures, then that is far more important when weighing the pros and cons than are elements of style.

That's according to you.

And you are...?

That's not meant to be offensive, but you've gone from a sensible concession that you're not an expert to making ironclad proncouncements about a field in which you have admittedly no experience. No, you cannot assert that angles and pen-lifting are more important that the actual style of the signature. The "style" refers, after all, to the general look of the signautre, so it must logically regarded as the most obvious aspect for comparison. Fundamentally, I do not take your attempts to trivilase the differences whilst exaggerating the similarities remotely seriously, and I find them to be at odds with the findings of actual experts on this topic, not least because the majority of them to date have opined that Toppy was not the witness.

It seems, Ben, that David Knott on another thread has stated that Toppy had East end connections and that he was probably NOT a plumber in 1888, this after having spoken to his relatives. So maybe you´re the one hawking rotten fish here...?

But according to your assessment criteria, I'm not supposed to invest any stock in that because it is not thus far supported by demonstrable evidence, am I? I'm supposed to "drop" or "dismiss" it according to your logic.

Is there something hidden in his specific manner of writing that tells us that he would never change an element of style.

Use the expression "element of style" once more, Fish, and I might just be forced to throw a wobbly fit. You're becoming far to entrenched in that particular jargon, and it's really starting to show. No, of course there isn't anything telling us that he would "never" change his style. The fact that we have signatures - very constent ones - from 1898 and 1911 should tell us that he was very unlikely to alter his style to an appreciable - or witness-esque - extent.

Just because we know that Toppys signature looked very much the same in 1898 and 1911, it does not mean that it must have done so ten years earlier, does it?

Oh but come on, it's a pretty realistic and logic conclusion, isn't it? The guy shows an astonishing consistency over a 13-year period. Sensible deduction? He was likely to reveal similar consistency over a different ten year period. Nobody's saying that he must have written in "exactly" the same manner in 1888, but his long-time consistency exhibited elsewhere tells us that he was unlikely to alter to a radical (unlooped-G, looped "h", horizontal tail end etc etc etc) at that time.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

not least because the majority of [experts] to date have opined that Toppy was not the witness.

The majority of experts here - i.e. those with functioning retinas - seem to have drawn the opposite conclusion, Ben.

[Ben]

I'm afraid I don't regard them as "experts" any more than I accept that the "majority" of people here believe Toppy was the witness.

[Sam Flynn]

I'm afraid I don't regard them as "experts" any more than I accept that the "majority" of people here believe Toppy was the witness.

Your - and their - loss, then.

[Ben]

In is

It is.

she her opinion

Her opinion.

soung.

Sound.

[IchabodCrane]

Badham [...] could easily have been so accustomed to his style of "H"s that ne forgot to copy that aspect. Not saying it's what I believe, necessarily, but there's no "probability" that she was wrong.

Ben,
below is how Badham styled his capital 'H's in the same document (even in the same word). Most of us have noticed a slight difference to the signature.

Besides, I made no statement at all about the probability she was wrong that Badham signed on page 1. We have insufficient information to do that.
All I stated is that he didn't intentionally try to copy the signature.

[jmenges]

All I stated is that he didn't intentionally try to copy the signature.

Regarding this, Martin Fido reported Iremonger's phone message to him as stating the following:

"The Hutchinson signature on the first sheet is definitely written by Badham, probably in conscious imitation of the two on the following sheets, which are definitely written by someone else (i.e. not by Badham. Presumably Hutchinson, Badham just filling in the signature on sheet one, which he’d forgotten to have GH sign."

JM

[The Good Michael]

JM,

Thanks for that. It is definite then for Ms. Iremonger on Badham.

Appreciated.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I really don't think so, Fish.
None of the witness signatures strike me as particularly "neat" at all. They seem like largely spidery scrawls to me."

Strange - a few posts back, when I said that Lambeth man wrote much neater than Toppy, you said that you thought Toppy wrote neatly. Am I to take it now that Toppy writes neatly and the police report witness writes spidery and scrawly? Or?

"But we have evidence of his signatures over a 10 year-period. 13 years, in fact, from which we know full well that he was remarkably consistent with his signature, and didn't alter the look of his "h"s, for example. Despite the 13-year gap, they still retained their conspicuous non-looped appearance, in contrast to all three statement signatures. To me, this only cements and crystallises the differences between Toppy and the witness."

Really, Ben? So two signatures, from 1898 and 1911, respectively, cements your notion that a signature by the same man must have looked the same TEN YEARS BEFORE 1898? That is how you work?
In your favour, it can be said that you concur with expert Crystal here - she does the very same mistake. For a mistake it is, as anybody will realize.
How long do you suggest that we can stretch the "1898-1911 influence", Ben? Did Toppy write in the same fashion when he was two years old? Or may we just stretch it only that exact period of ten years that will sort out the problems you don´t realize that you are having?

Once again you ask:

"So, just to clarify, if a hypothetical signature is radically different in style to another hypothetical signature, but the angles are similar, would you say that the similarities outweigh the differences in that hypothetical case?"

Did you miss the answer the last time over? Here it is again:

I am saying that each and every element is of importance, but some of them are more prone to change. And yes, an element of style is more probable to change than the leaning of the text.

My writing:
If the leaning is consistent and the number of times a writer lifts his pen stays the same inbetween signatures, then that is far more important when weighing the pros and cons than are elements of style.

Your writing:
"That's according to you."

No. That is according to the SKL and Rolf Berzell.

"But according to your assessment criteria, I'm not supposed to invest any stock in that because it is not thus far supported by demonstrable evidence, am I? I'm supposed to "drop" or "dismiss" it according to your logic."

Exactly! If David Knott does not produce the goods, then he has just led on that there is reason to believe something that he later on does not prove in detail, and then we dismiss him! I´m with you, Ben!
On the other hand, if he produces and publishes - as he says he will do - we take him into account and admit that there WAS an East End connection and that Toppy WAS NOT a plumber in 1888, leaving him an even more credible Dorset Street witness. Since it is a question of new information, there is every reason to believe that this publishing is a lot more forthcoming than any written, detailed evidence of Ms Iremongers efforts.

"No, of course there isn't anything telling us that he would "never" change his style."

Well, then...?

"The fact that we have signatures - very constent ones - from 1898 and 1911 should tell us that he was very unlikely to alter his style to an appreciable - or witness-esque - extent."

It is a reasonable - though unprovable - suggestion WITHIN THAT STRETCH OF TIME, and ONLY within that.
Put the two things together:
1. He could alter his elements of style.
2. If he did alter them, he did so at some fixed point in time, or it was a more "gliding" alteration, that took weeks, months or years to complete. Any which way, we have NO way of knowing WHEN the alteration took place. The only reasonably clever thing we can say is that it that there seems not to have been any alteration of major importance inbetween 1898 and 1911. So the alterations that may have been there would have occured at other stages of time. And what possible credibility can we couple with a suggestion that it would not have occurred between 1888 and 1898? Why would that decade be taboo in that sense?
It isn´t, of course - there may well have been changes, smaller or bigger, in that particular period. And there is NO WAY we can measure how credible this would have been - no way at all.

"Nobody's saying that he must have written in "exactly" the same manner in 1888, but his long-time consistency exhibited elsewhere tells us that he was unlikely to alter to a radical (unlooped-G, looped "h", horizontal tail end etc etc etc) at that time."

Not at all, Ben. Like I have already said, how on earth can we measure such a credibility? I myself used to write my capital C in my christian name as a large half-circle, and if my guess is correct, I did so somewhere around my twenties. I started to do so after having used a C made up of two loops on top of each other (as learnt in school), and I turned back to that style more than twenty years ago and have used it ever since.
That, somehow, would make the perfect parallel: If somebody found my signatures from my twenties, and then from my, say forties and fifties, they could say exactly what you are saying: Look, it can´t be the same guy, since he is SO consistent between 1999 and 2009. He could not have written a totally different C in 1989, could he?
But I DID write another C then - and I am very sure that very many other people will have been doing the very same thing. In my case,I know it had a little something to do with vanity - the large half circled C allowed for a more "posh" signature. Actually, when I changed it back, it was for the same reason - I was vane, and realized that I did not want to have a signature that made me look like some sort of wannabee.

Moreover, Sam has published HIS signatures from two periods - and they differed rather wildly. How on earth are we to say that the changes would not have been able to come about inbetween the ages when he was twenty and thirty? Why would that period of life be in any sense ruled out?
That question, Ben, answers itself.

Furthermore, I think there is very good reason to believe that the period around your twenties is a period where you are more prone to alter your writing than perhaps any other period. It is a period where you form your life and mould your personality, and it stands to good reason that this will make imprints on how you write your signature too - it is a guess, but I think it is a fairly good one.

Elements of style - there, I said it again - WILL change! They provide the means we have to express ourselves via our signatures. It´s much like the differing types of muscles we have - some of them we can use in the manner we want to, whereas others keep working although we put no will into it, like breathing, for example. We change elements of style - but we keep the same angle of writing.
Finally, it must once again be added that the changes to the signatures inbetween Dorset Street and Toppy are very small changes - the signatures remain very much alike anyway.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Jon writes, qouting:

"The Hutchinson signature on the first sheet is definitely written by Badham, probably in conscious imitation of the two on the following sheets"

Thanks, Jon, and this just comfirms what you have earlier stated, though in more detail. What it does not tell us though, is why a man who is consciously imitating another mans writing would miss out totally on that capital "H". It is nowhere even near what is used in the other two signatures!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

The majority of experts here - i.e. those with functioning retinas - seem to have drawn the opposite conclusion, Ben.

Having read Sue's phone message, I agree that "all those with functioning retinas" can be called experts.
Better have my lunch quickly not to miss the kick-off of Toulon/Montauban.

Good day all

[IchabodCrane]

What it does not tell us though, is why a man who is consciously imitating another mans writing would miss out totally on that capital "H". It is nowhere even near what is used in the other two signatures!

Exactly. Poor Badham would have done a terrible job with his conscious imitation. Thanks for posting the wording of Iremonger's call to Fido, JM.

[Ben]

Am I to take it now that Toppy writes neatly and the police report witness writes spidery and scrawly? Or?

I don't think there's anything particularly lacking in neatness about the Toppy signatures. I would not, however, describe the witness three as particularly neat.

Really, Ben? So two signatures, from 1898 and 1911, respectively, cements your notion that a signature by the same man must have looked the same TEN YEARS BEFORE 1898? That is how you work?

But we haven't got only two signatures, have we? Turns out, thanks to Gareth's efforts, that we have several other examples of Toppy's handwriting from 1911, and the impression conveyed in that over a 13-year-period, Toppy reveals remarkable consitency. The differences with the witness signature are very much in place 13 years down the line, thus "cementing" them. It's also pretty ridiculous to accuse Crystal of making "the same mistake". If I'm not going to lose sleep over that rather bizarre characterization of hew views, I imagine she'd lose even less. It's very clear that her expertise on this particular subject trump yours, so you accusing her of having made a mistake obviously needs to be taken with a healthy dose of salt.

How long do you suggest that we can stretch the "1898-1911 influence", Ben? Did Toppy write in the same fashion when he was two years old?

That's a very silly thing to say, and one which doesn't warrant much time addressing, but suffice to say you are a functioning adult by the time you hit 22 years of age, which is obviously very different to a two year old who can't write. If we're fortunate to have evidence for a markedly consistent style from 1898 and 1911 (with several examples from the latter period), I think we can safely say that his particular "elements of style" exhibited a remarkable inflexibility to change, and given that this inflexibility revealed itself over a 13 period, we might reasonably assume he was just as inflexible 10 years earlier.

I am saying that each and every element is of importance, but some of them are more prone to change. And yes, an element of style is more probable to change than the leaning of the text.

Phew, that's that one clarified then.

So as a result of your surfing the web, you've been led to believe that the actual style and appearance of the signature is less important than its angle.

I think you've been led very seriously astray here.

Exactly! If David Knott does not produce the goods, then he has just led on that there is reason to believe something that he later on does not prove in detail, and then we dismiss him! I´m with you, Ben!

But you clearly haven't dismissed it, or else you wouldn't have brought it up, would you? If David has any detail on Toppy from the 1888 period, I'll take my wideawake hat off to him, but I'm willing to place a small bet that we wouldn't be able to ascertain his profession for certain for that year. At present, all we have are Reg's claims and census records from 1891, 1901 and 1911. All of which reather scream "plumber". If any new revelations were to surface, it wouldn't make it Toppy an "even more" credible Dorset Street witness so much as an ever-so-slightly less ridiculous one.

It is a reasonable - though unprovable - suggestion WITHIN THAT STRETCH OF TIME, and ONLY within that.

Well, not really.

If we have evidence of remarkable consistency over a 13 year period, it's far more reasonable to assume that he exhibited equal consistency elsewhere rather than hoping that he suddenly disavowed that evident propensity towards consistency and delved off into radical changes.

He could alter his elements of style.

He could, but the evidence from a lengthy time frame suggests very strongly that he didn't.

The only reasonably clever thing we can say is that it that there seems not to have been any alteration of major importance inbetween 1898 and 1911.

No, it would be equally "clever" to make the logical inferential deduction that such consistency over a 13 year period is likely to suggest equal consistency at other times, rather than hoping that he wanted to go all experimental at the time you wanted him to have done.

I myself used to write my capital C in my christian name as a large half-circle, and if my guess is correct, I did so somewhere around my twenties. I started to do so after having used a C made up of two loops on top of each other (as learnt in school), and I turned back to that style more than twenty years ago and have used it ever since.

I don't know if that's true or not. I'm not for a moment suggesting that you're lying, but when we're clearly at opposing ends of this particular handwriting argument, it could appear suspicious if you suddenly use yourself as an example of the phenomenon you're arguing. So no, that doesn't qualify as a "perfect paralell". It's a potentially very tainted paralell, and inadmissable to bolster your point. You're faced with the problem of Toppy's remarkable consistency over a 13 year period, especially given their inconsistency with the statement three. You'd overcome this, you think, but positing a hypothetical "different" style before the first example of his signature and after the second one. Et Voila! Suddenly, out of the blue, you say that you're a perfect example of this phenomenon.

Moreover, Sam has published HIS signatures from two periods - and they differed rather wildly.

No, they don't. Everyone, please, visit Gareth's montage and revisit those signature again. Don't lie to yourselves. Try to exercise some inner circumspection. Is there any justification for saying that Toppy's handwriting differs "rather wildly" in Gareth's column of 1911 Toppy signatures? Of course there isn't. It's difficult to imagine more consistency if a robor was responsible.

How on earth are we to say that the changes would not have been able to come about inbetween the ages when he was twenty and thirty?

Because I'd then be wondering why he doesn't exhibit a similar capacity for change over the next decade or so; from 1898 to 1911.

Furthermore, I think there is very good reason to believe that the period around your twenties is a period where you are more prone to alter your writing than perhaps any other period.

No, can't say that's been my experience at all, and I'd dispute very strong that your personality is moulded in your 20s. That would make the individual in question a somewhat late developer. More commonly I suspect, the "moulding" of one's personality - and by extention, their handwriting - is more likely to take place during the teenage years.

Elements of style - there, I said it again - WILL change!

And yet in Toppy's case, they did not.

They revealed a marked consistency over a decade-plus period.

Finally, it must once again be added that the changes to the signatures inbetween Dorset Street and Toppy are very small changes - the signatures remain very much alike anyway

And ONCE AGAIN it must be reiterated that the changes to the signature are rather revealing ones, and the signatures remain a fairly obvious mismatch. Anyone else fancy reiterating their belief "once again"? I hope so. I love long-winded repetitive debates.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Having read Sue's phone message, I agree that "all those with functioning retinas" can be called experts. Better have my lunch quickly not to miss the kick-off of Toulon/Montauban.

Not true I'm afraid, Dave.

If that was the case, we wouldn't employ document examiners. We all (well, most of us) have functioning brains, legs and arms, but that doesn't mean we're all expert actors or parachutists.

Poor Badham would have done a terrible job with his conscious imitation.

Perhaps, Ichabod, but then there's nothing to suggest that Badham was a expecially good signature emulator.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Not true I'm afraid, Dave.

If that was the case, we wouldn't employ document examiners.

We might employ forensic document examiners to arbitrate in cases of fraud, Ben - and they'd do a whole lot more than just compare signatures, I dare say. That doesn't make them "signature experts", anymore than you or I.

The issue here is not one of fraud in any case - it's the similarity, or otherwise, of two visual stimuli. If someone posted a pair of entirely abstract 2D shapes and asked us if they were similar, would we require the services of an FDE to accomplish the task? Of course we wouldn't.

Well, what are two (or thirteen, in our case) samples of handwriting, if not a collection of abstract 2D shapes?