Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[claire]

Hi Sam,

Thanks for that...but whilst I agree that there are similarities, I wouldn't find this surprising. Certainly, the same person penned the name, but I still suggest that the consistent components in a signature (usually the first letters [and I do agree that the 'G' is similar in all three witness sigs, but not the Toppy one]) differ from specimen to specimen. The points of similarity you highlight also happen to be fairly common ways to form letters, and fairly common letter combinations. Looking at them in the way you have done is very useful when trying to ascertain whether the same person penned them, and it seems very clear that the first three share the same author. But in looking at a signature, I think it's more common to look at elements like a) whether the whole name is signed and not just initialised anywhere; b) how the entire signature is formed (and whilst this can be constrained according to the space permitted, it's reasonable to expect this space would be similar on pages 2 and 3 of the statement). These are not consistent specimens when you look at their entire execution.

The Toppy signature is clearly different to my eyes. Again, there may be some generic similarities in the letter group formations, but the entire signature differs. That said, my signature has changed significantly in the past 20 years. I don't put hearts over the 'i's, for starters...

Hi Ben,

Yes, these were my thoughts. I can't comprehend how, regardless of how unaccustomed an individual was to signing his name, it would differ so much in the execution of the first name and the first letter of his surname.

As to the observational powers thing, I know this has been debated extensively on other threads, and you know that I share your view that Hutch's description was absurdly elaborate well into the territory of fantasy. But I did have in mind a younger opportunist thief who was accustomed to checking out all that was on offer...but, of course, this doesn't have to be age specific.

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
The observation point has been overcooked, we all know that accuracy can vary from person to person, some people are extemey observant, to the point of rudeness, whilst others are to busy in living there own lifes to notice anything.
We have Reg explaining that his father had a professional eye for detail, so that does hint towards being observant does it not?
So we therefore would have a young man with a eye for detail giving a description of the man he saw with Kelly, and we should not forget it was not a fleeting glance , the couple not only passed him right under a street lamp, but he followed them en-route to Dorset street , and watched them there.
So not only did he witness the man, before kelly appeared, but whilst they were walking towards him[ the front appearance],he also followed on behind them[ the rear sighting], he also saw them standing together in Dorset street, and therefore crossing the road into millers court[ the side appearance].
I would therefore suggest that this amount of time would have been sufficant for a inquisitive Hutchinson, to have gained a good look at this unusual client... and although the colour of the hankerchief may be questionable, the rest seems highly likely.
Regarding the signature comparisons, [which is what this thread is about] there are significant details which point to the witness being GWT, that along with what Reg maintained since day one, would have me believing that we have been thrashing around, accusing father and son, of all kinds of misadventure , instead of just going with, what I would suggest[ always have] the simple truth, ie he witnessed Astracan complete with outfit, and there is no sinister mystery involved.
Regards Richard.

[Neal Shelden]

One point of warning on the 1911 census, Jen pointed out that one of her relations did not sign the census schedule but it must have been his wife as it matches accurately her style of writing.
So therefore we cannot be 100 per cent certain that all the signatures on the 1911 census are of the people it is claiming to be!!

[Debra A]

Well I think we all realise that can happen, Neal and Jen, that's why marriage entries have been mentioned as a further way to research these sigs if anyone wanted to go in that direction.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I am completely biased, so I dont count, Sam is being swayed, but does not believe the statement of Hutchinson one bit, so whats left?
It is obviously that members will look at the signatures and notice decrepancies, a different i here, a wrong r there, and agree that although similar, case not proven.
That along with all the other puzzles of Jack The Ripper, will assure that very little progression will happen, simply because no one ever agrees with any one point, making it, although throughly enjoyable debate, .........stalemate.
Regards Richard

[Ben]

So therefore we cannot be 100 per cent certain that all the signatures on the 1911 census are of the people it is claiming to be!!

Compliments to Jen on a very good point there, Neal!

Hi Richard,

I did express my fervent hope that we wouldn't get too sidetracked by another debate about the detail in Hutchinson's statement, but you seem to be going for it anyway. We certainly need to distinguish between being "observent", and the amount of information we can realistically notice and memorize as a result of being observent. Not the same thing.

We have Reg explaining that his father had a professional eye for detail, so that does hint towards being observant does it not?

Professional being the crucial, operative word. Did you also remember the nature of the profession that enabled him to be so observent? Plumbing, and yet the witness who signed the statement was not a plumber in 1888 but an unemployed labourer and former groom.

and we should not forget it was not a fleeting glance , the couple not only passed him right under a street lamp, but he followed them en-route to Dorset street , and watched them there.

But there was certainly no opportunity to notice any "detail" at any other time during the alleged sighting beyond that fleeting moment when he claimed to have noticed all manner of goodies. The gas lamp offered him that single window of opportunity to record the more specific particulars of his appearance before he passed into darkness, after which time "Mr. Astrakhan" would have been ensconced in comparative darkness; a figure in a dark hat and coat. That's yer lot, especially if he was following him from behind. Forget the idea of any alleged details (Horseshoe tie-pins, white buttons over button boots, dark eyelashes etc) being noticed in darkness over some considerable distance, such as the area spanning the corner of Dorset Street to the entrance to Miller's Court.

How unfortunate for the "observant" Hutchinson it was, then, that he spent his only window of opportunity for noticing a few details (not the silly amount alleged) paying particular attention to the man's face. If you're doing that, you can't also be paying attention to the minute particulars of his lower bodies - well, unless you were a bluebottle fly with photographic memories. How anyone can claim that "the rest is highly likely" is utterly beyond me.

Regarding the signature comparisons, [which is what this thread is about] there are significant details which point to the witness being GWT

Not as far as I and many others (including an expert in the field) are concerned, there aren't. From my layman observations, the dissimlarities disqualify Toppy as a match for the witness, with the "Hutchinson" in particular displaying some very serious differences.

that along with what Reg maintained since day one

"Day one" being when?

ie he witnessed Astracan complete with outfit, and there is no sinister mystery involved.

Uhuh, just the interesting convenience of the stereotypical sinister Jewish outsider with a surly countenance and a tightly-grasped black parcel being wheeled on just when a legimitely suspicious individual seen loitering near a murder seen needed a distraction.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

legimitely

legitimately.

lower bodies

lower body.

photographic memories

photographic memory.

[Crystal]

The lower case 'h' in all three witness signatures is looped, which is quite a distinctive feature - as it is informal, and therefore personal. It is something I would look for if I was comparing signatures.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Crystal,

The lower case 'h' in all three witness signatures is looped, which is quite a distinctive feature - as it is informal, and therefore personal.

My lowercase "f", "g", "h", "k", and "l" were all distinctly looped in my youth, but the loops gradually closed - and some disappeared completely - from my mid-twenties onwards (note that "h" and "l" feature in my full name - in which sense they're rather "personal" to me). Bear in mind that the gap between the police statement and the 1911 census was more than 22 years.

[Ben]

Good point there, Crystal.

Note also the unusual height of the lower-case "h" in contrast to the much smaller "t". Equally distinctive and personal I would have thought, and yet we see almost the reverse in the "Toppy" signature where the "h" is short and rather stumpy, and the "t" is taller. Rather difficult to attribute that to a mere changes over a passage of time.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

GNote also the unusual height of the lower-case "h" in contrast to the much smaller "t". Equally distinctive and personal I would have thought, and yet we see almost the reverse in the "Toppy" signature where the "h" is short and rather stumpy, and the "t" is taller. Rather difficult to attribute that to a mere changes over a passage of time.

I disagree, Ben - if anything, what's striking is the similarity between so many of the characters over a span of 22+ years. I'm now 42, and my handwriting at 20 was distinctly different in many more ways than we see here.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Without repeating my lengthy analysis of the individual letters, I'm still struggling to see any obvious similarity in the signatures besides the capital G and H, and even the latter I'm decidedly iffy about. If a 22-year passage of time is one way of explaining away that dissimilarity, I'd argue that two different writers is a better one.

It all boils down to personal interpretation, and mine is that Ms. Iremonger had it right IMHO..

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

I'm really not interpreting - I'm just "seeing what I see", with no squinting or intervention of any higher cerebral structures involved.

What I see, quite honestly, is a huge similarity - the only exception being the curlicued capital "H" in the first of the police statement signatures. The rest of the characters are practically identical to my eyes, with any subtle differences - and I genuinely mean "subtle" - easily explicable by the natural evolution of the handwriting over time.

With due respect to Ms Iremonger (who was looking at another signature in any case) I don't see that any rocket-science is necessary to be able to see these features.

Instant visual comparison repeated below, for ease of reference:

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I'm really not interpreting - I'm just "seeing what I see", with no squinting or intervention of any higher cerebral structures involved.

That's what I mean. I'm just seeing what I'm seeing, too, and I'm certainly not seeing any telling congruity between the three witness signatures and Toppy's. The "Hutchinson" in particular is totally different to the three witness signatures, as I strongly believe your examples bear out. A lofty "h" with a looped stem is quite different to what we're seeing in the Toppy signature, which is effectively antithesis in its short and stumpy form. The "h" towers above the unusually short "t" on the witness statement, but not so with Toppy. No similairity with "son" either, which Toppy's eccentric and distinctive anti-clockwise loop being conspicuously absent from the real Hutchinson's signature.

Even the "G" has a closed loop, unlike in the three witness signatures.

As you aptly observed a couple of posts back, ours are laymen's observations in contrast to those of Sue Iremonger, whose profession it is to examine documents such as these and assess signature compatibility. It is very telling to my mind that she discounted Hutch the witness and Toppy as being the same individual.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

I haven't seen the marriage certificate signature, so I can't comment on Sue Iremonger's view on that particular comparison - all I can go on is the 1911 signature that Debs found and kindly shared, where I see a great similarity with the 1888 signatures.

I wouldn't mind having a butcher's at the marriage certificate signature, though, if you - or anyone else - has a scan of it?