Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

Thanks Sam,
and incidentally, I spent the evening with Welsh friends, and they've just told me how to say "cheers" - something like "yikida" (??).
And no, Sam, you're wrong.
SO WRONG.
First, the three capital G of the witness are all the same. They are penned FIRMLY and FASTLY.
The 1898 various G, are ALL penned without skill, just like a laborious schoolboy would have done.
That's OBVIOUS, for God's sake (forgive me...Easter).
Think about it, Sam, please.
One of the witness signature is on page 57, but please, have a look at all of them on page 3.
You'll see what I mean.
I have no doubt.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Sorry for this new post, Sam.
I'm tired...
Please, take your time, look at these signatures.
Some firmly and fastly penned, some not.
I swear.
This thread is SO important, we've to be honest (I don't mean you're not...but please, take your time).

Amitiés, bonne nuit,
David

[Sam Flynn]

I spent the evening with Welsh friends, and they've just told me how to say "cheers" - something like "yikida" (??).

Indeed, it's "iechyd da" (click link), or "good health" ("health good", actually - but we put the adjective after the noun).

And no, Sam, you're wrong.
SO WRONG.

My writing now is arguably more childish than it was when I was 35, but I'm definitely older.

Anyhow - questions of "maturity" aside, the similarity of the signatures' gestalt over 23 years is remarkably good, and - unless we wish to entertain the absurdity that the Kelly witness "predicted" the signatures of somebody else - they have to have been written by the same person.

[caz]

Hi All,

I'm currently only up to page 76 so I have another 30 pages to read, so please don't shout at me if the following has been dealt with by now. Just put me out of my misery instead, if anyone can shed any new light.

I realise that when Jonathan Menges gave us the info about Sue Iremonger's comparison work he was not quoting her directly and was only reporting what he had been given to understand was her basic position regarding the signatures she compared. At the same time I'm quite disappointed to note how Jonathan's own words have been mangled subsequently, and assumptions made about Sue's findings, with God knows what consequences to the truth of the matter.

In short, how can this 'expert' position be discussed fairly, never mind endorsed or picked to pieces, by posters who can't even accurately reproduce or interpret Jonathan's understanding of it, and therefore haven't a prayer of knowing if they are talking out of their own arses in relation to witness signature number one? This is what I'm talking about:

Bear in mind Sue Iremonger's observation that the first signature, the one with the curly H, may have been written by Sgt. Badham in an attempt to emulate the real Hutchinson's handwriting.

But she doesn't eradicate the possibility of the first signature being written by the same individual who wrote the other two, and it's worth bearing in mind that another handwriting expert believed that the first two signatures were written by a different author than the third signature.

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.

Now read the following again, slowly and carefully this time (the emphasis is Jonathan's own, not mine - nor Sue's until I know otherwise):

According to the information I'm aware of, Iremonger compared the three witness statement pages and concluded that Sgt. Badlam definitely signed page one in imitation of GH's signatures on pages two and three since GH forgot to sign the first page…

Note that there's no 'may' have been written by Badham, and Ben's second quote above starts with something that seems to have come from thin air, making his two 'experts' appear less obviously at odds with one another over their 'odd man out'.

If you take Jonathan's words at face value (in the absence of Sue's) you don't take away: 'that may be Badham's writing therefore GH may have forgotten to sign' (which allows for the 'myth' speculation); you take away: 'it was Badham who signed for the witness on page one because GH forgot - QED'.

I have no idea which would more fairly represent Sue's position. (If anyone has found out, have any direct quotes been posted?) But if I were coming fresh to this, with no knowledge and no preconceptions, I might be forgiven for wondering if she had been given the information beforehand that the witness had only signed pages two and three.

This is why it's so important for us to be armed with as many of the facts as possible before we all try to interpret other people's words and opinions and some of us risk getting in a right mucking fuddle.

Will attempt to catch up with the rest (which will hopefully arm me with a few more facts ) after the Easter break!

Love,

Caz
X

[jmenges]

If you take Jonathan's words at face value (in the absence of Sue's) you don't take away: 'that may be Badham's writing therefore GH may have forgotten to sign' (which allows for the 'myth' speculation); you take away: 'it was Badham who signed for the witness on page one because GH forgot - QED'.

I have no idea which would more fairly represent Sue's position, but if I were coming fresh to this, with no knowledge and no preconceptions, I might be forgiven for wondering if she had been given the information beforehand that the witness had only signed pages two and three.

I have no idea what information Iremonger would have been given before hand (see: SPE-Skinner-Swanson-Davis ) that would poison her judgment. All I know is what Paul Begg and Martin Fido have told me, and I've passed along the emails to Ben and Gareth to read for themselves, or (in the case of Fido) have reposted here. I've no doubt that there was a difference between Iremonger's definitive ruling on the first page signature and the slight doubt she showed when reviewing the comparison with the witness signatures and the marriage certificates. I am more than willing to submit anyones questions on this matter to Paul Begg or Martin Fido.

Thanks.

JM

As a PS-

Jean Overton Fuller has died. RIP.

JM

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

I think most of us took that message away from Jon's post, that Badham DID sign the first page. It is after that point that many of us start our signatures comparisons. I think, to be fair to Ben and Crystal, that they would agree on that.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

Thanks Mike-as to Badham, none of us have actually seen the statement (unless you have Caz?). Miss Iremonger has. Just a thought. And if I have reservations, that's my right, I think.

[DVV]

My writing now is arguably more childish than it was when I was 35, but I'm definitely older.

That's irrelevant, Sam.
Especially once we've seen your "g"- post #1030.
There's definitely more "personality" in the witness "G" than in Toppy's.
And one have to point out the remarkable similarity between Toppy's 1898 "G" and that of Lambeth GH. Both shape it as they've learnt in school.

Happy Easter Sam, all,
David

[DVV]

Impossible evolution

Eurêka!
We've found Toppy "Benjamin Button" Hutchinson.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Bonjour Dave,

There's definitely more "personality" in the witness "G" than in Toppy's.

The assessment of how much "personality" might be in a signature is subjective, and belongs firmly at the "graphology" end of the spectrum.

[DVV]

Bonjour Dave,The assessment of how much "personality" might be in a signature is subjective, and belongs firmly at the "graphology" end of the spectrum.

Absolutely not, my dear,
that's just my clumsy way (hence the brackets) of expressing the difference between the firmly and rather quickly penned "G" (1888),
and the laborious "schoolboy" style we observe in the case of Toppy's "G" (1898). Which is proved by the similarity (understatement) of the latter with Lambeth GH's "G".

Amitiés,
David

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
This thread is endless, it appears it will never be proven to everyones satisfaction , that Toppings signatures are comparable.
We have the recollections of a man called George William Topping Hutchinson, who passed away in 1938, who claimed he gave the police a statement, as he knew one of the victims.
We have that knowledge passed to his two sons. Reg[ deseased] and Arthur?] one of them [Reg] appeared on a elusive radio broadcast many moons ago, but unfortunately heard by only one Ripperologist...yours truely.
We have had one post from JD Hutchinson , who is married to Arthurs son, who is not prepeared to illuminate any further.
We have Regs quotes featured in The Ripper and the Royals [ which are frowned upon].
We have so much negativity, although a lot more members are changing there minds about Topping, but even those still see him as a liar/timewaster.
One important point is very much in favour of Topping being the witness, and that is the account of money paid to him for his efforts.
It must be stressed that no account of any money was ever made in English based newspapers at the time , or since, the only source mentioning that the witness who saw a man with kelly, was paid a sum of money, came from a rare publication, that i would say with confidence would not have been seen by GWTH, or known of, by either of his sons.
It has come to my attention [ privately] that Reg himself knew nothing about Jack The Ripper except in name only, and infact was lent a book by a relation, therefore how on earth could he have come across any mention of a payment, if it did not derive from his father.
Summing up the only person that knew that he received a sum [ equivelent to five weeks salary] was the witness in question , a man named George Hutchinson, and that man therefore has to be Topping......Case closed,
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Richard - I hope that, after your mentioning all that non-signature-related stuff, others don't pick up on the minutiae and fragment the thread into a thousand pieces.

Heartfelt plea: if this thread is to remain endless, let's at least keep it focused on the topic of the census signatures.

[The Good Michael]

David,

Correct me if I'm wrong. You are saying you have reservations about Iremonger saying that Badham signed the first page. yes? It doesn't make sense to me to refute the first page, but then use her idea that perhaps George and Toppy have different signatures. Very selective use of an "expert" opinion, don't you think?

Richard,

Sorry, but your private information is hearsay. One cannot say they know something without revealing the source(s) and then expect that information to be well-received. I'm afraid that your information weakens the Toppy-as-Hutch argument more than it bolsters it.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

equivelent to five weeks salary

Good enough, for a witness who's been discredited after one week.

Amitiés,
David