Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

You're Hutch teasing, Crystal...it's time to show us what you've got!!!

When I'm certain,I will-it wouldn't do to go off half cocked, now would it?

[Marlowe]

Why not, that usually doesn't stop me.

You could give half now -- and the rest, later. ;-)

[Fisherman]

Right! Since it is often said that I pick up my knowledge at Google, and since I happily admit that this often is the case, for the simple reason that I have made a living out of it and know how to handle it, I will add a few more bits from my “et-fishing”.
This time I have tried to verify what I am saying: that peoples signatures change as they grow up and grow older.
So far, I have not found the one source that tallies exactly with what we are debating, but I will offer a few interesting snippets anyway:

The first comes from the abstract of a scientific work, concerning itself with the problems of using high-tech to establish peoples identity. The name of the work is "Modification of Intersession Variability in On-Line Signature Verifier," from “International Conference on Audio- and Video-based Biometric Person Authentication, July 2005, Rye Brook, NY, pp. 455-463.

It tells us that: "for Pen-input on-line signature verification algorithms, the influence of intersession variability is a considerable problem because hand-written signatures change with time, causing performance degradation. In our previous work, we proposed a user-generic model using AdaBoost. However, this model did not allow for the fact that features of signatures change over time."

So, they ended up with a problem, caused by the fact that signatures change over time.

Next example is from a company that works with the exact same type of high-tech solutions for personal identifications. They write: "Being the least intrusive of all biometrics techniques, signature is socially acceptable. Nobody gets offended if asked to pick up a pen and sign his name to get access approval. It takes little time and effort for somebody to initial to gain access or to sign their name on an electronic document. Also, it costs little for signatures to be captured electronically.
Verification of signature is fast and reliable. For signing document electronically, a simple pen-based input device and a computer are needed. For access control applications, an extra smart card reader will be sufficient. One of the biggest concern in signature verification is that our signature changes as we grow, however, our proposed verification technique is adapted to gradual changes in the signature."

So, our signature changes as we grow. Therefore, maybe we should look at the consistency offered by Toppys signatures from 1898 and 1911 as an exception to the rule that signatures DO change, and they do so following our growing.

Last example (for now), comes from another supplier of solutions to the signature problem: "Another important property for a biometric characteristic is permanence. The characteristic must be a permanent part of the individual and the individual must not be able to remove or alter the characteristic without causing grave personal harm or danger. This permanence property also applies over time. The characteristic must not change significantly over time or it will make any pattern making inaccurate. This aspect has several interesting ramifications./ … / Finally, handwritten signature patterns change over time as people age …”

So, we seem to be dealing with the fact that signatures are subject to change, and that change is brought about by the time factor. This, then, is something we must weigh in when discussing whether Toppys signature would have been subject to any changes or not in the ten year period between 1888 and 1898: Our signatures change as we grow, and as we age.

I will keep digging for more sources that deal with this issue, and hopefully we can reach a better understanding of the matter as we go along. Of course, the rules laid down by these snippets are general, and there is no telling to what degree they would have applied in Toppy´s case - but they do paint a generally useful background.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Ben]

So, our signature changes as we grow. Therefore, maybe we should look at the consistency offered by Toppys signatures from 1898 and 1911 as an exception to the rule that signatures DO change, and they do so following our growing.

Absolutely, Fisherman. Toppy was certainly "ageing" between 1898 and 1911, and yet despite this, his signatures retained a remarkable rigidity and consistency.

But the fact of the matter is that I really, really would caution against any "extreme confidence" at all.

Point taken. I'll stick with "inferential likelihood, in my opinion" then.

Why quibble over something like this - the fact of the matter is that neither one of us can know how much physical labour he put in in that period of time.

Indeed. I'd imagine that such labour was likely to strengthen rather than enfeeble the hands and wrists in the long term, but we're a long way from proof or "extreme confidence" there too!

Happy Easter.

Ben

[DVV]

When I'm certain,I will-it wouldn't do to go off half cocked, now would it?

Crystal,
I'm afraid we'll never be certain.
We just can deal with the "more likely".
Years ago, people tried to find Hutch.
Toppy aside, if memory serves, the most likely Hutch was one "glass fitter" or "cabinet maker".
Now, all in all, looking at the signatures, at Toppy's biography, at Reg's story, well, I'm personally quite confident that no Hutchinson fit the bill.
Conclusion ?
The man who incredibly gave his statement on Monday 12 November 1888, 6 pm, did it under an alias.
Ironically enough, the man who provided the solution (imho) years ago, now believes in Toppy.
That's wonderful (sincerely, no irony here at all). That's why ripperology does exist.

Amitiés all,
David (aka Fu "Toppy" Manchu)

[Ben]

Hi all,

Just for the sake of interest here, I've noticed that John Eddleston's "Jack the Ripper: An Encyclopedia" can now be found in its entirety online here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/13916211/Jack-the-Ripper-an-Encyclopedia

Eddleston is another reseacher who appears to have found evidence from contemporary press reports to the effect that Hutchinson claimed to be 28. I haven't seen any myself, but it's interesting to note that the same observation has been made by three seperate authors. Scroll down to page 291 for the relevant chapter on Hutchinson.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Taddyäss, Ben, taddyäss.
Military appearance.
Not squaddy.

edit: if 22, why did Hutch was never given as "young" in press reports ?

[Sam Flynn]

edit: if 22, why did Hutch was never given as "young" in press reports ?

He wasn't described as "late twenties" - still less "28" - either.

[DVV]

Hi Sam,
No wonder a man aged 28 will just be described as "a man" - what else? - young? No. Old? No.
A man aged 22 could be said to be "young".
Of course, that proves nothing.
In 1888, at the age of 22, you would not listen to R'n'B and cry for a Playstation (or Wifi).

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Eddleston is another reseacher who appears to have found evidence from contemporary press reports to the effect that Hutchinson claimed to be 28. I haven't seen any myself, but it's interesting to note that the same observation has been made by three seperate authors.

Not unless the last two authors drew on an erroneous account by the first, Ben. No press report that I know of gives Hutchinson's age, so it looks like this whole "28" thing might be based on a simple error.

It may be significant in this context that Eddlestone proceeds with a "thought experiment" of Hutchinson-as-Ripper, and refers to Bob Hinton's From Hell, in which I believe mention is made that Hutchinson was 28. And this only four pages away from a profile that Eddlestone himself commissioned from a psychologist, which stated that the Ripper was likely 28-31 years old... just fancy that!

It doesn't inspire much confidence when, in the same bit that gives Hutch's age as 28, Eddlestone also says that "[Hutchinson] lived almost on top of the stairwell" where Eddowes' apron and the graffiti were found. Based on these snippets, and despite Eddlestone's declaration of impartiality, he's clearly got the hots for Hutch if you ask me!

Having once belonged to the same church, albeit since excommunicated (or exorcised), I can empathise with him

[Sam Flynn]

A man aged 22 could be said to be "young".

Agreed - but there's nothing in the rule-book that says a journalist must always give a description of a subject's age, Dave. I always formed the impression that Albert Cadoche must have been an old bugger (what with his dodgy waterworks and all that), but it was only when I came to read Chris Scott's book "JTR: A Cast of Thousands" that I discovered Cadoche was only in his mid/late 20s. If only the papers had given some indicator of his age...

[Roy Corduroy]

Having once belonged to the same church, albeit since excommunicated (or exorcised)

Hallelulah !

[Sam Flynn]

Hallelulah !

Hutchy-Krishna, actually

[Ben]

Not unless the last two authors drew on an erroneous account by the first, Ben

Not according to Bob Hinton's version of events though, Gareth, since he mentioned specifically locating an article that gave his age as 28, and having later discussed the matter with Brian Marriner who claimed to have encountered the same reference. Eddleston seems to be another voice to the chorus, and he never mentioned borrowing the account from Hinton or any other author. Not saying I accept that age on current evidence, but absence of evidence is not evidence of absence etc.

And this only four pages away from a profile that Eddlestone himself commissioned from a psychologist, which stated that the Ripper was likely 28-31 years old... just fancy that!

Seems pretty innocuous to me if he learned about the psychologist's commission before "discovering" - whether erroneously or not - that Hutchinson may have been 28. No reason, I'd suggest, to assume that he picked any particular suspect before viewing the psychologist's report. It is an exaggeration on his part, of course, to claim that the GSG was "almost on top of the stairwell", but the Victoria Home was in very close proximity to the location, as we well know.

When you talk about being excommunicated from the same church, do you mean the church of entertaining realistic suspicions against Hutchinson? If so, I must have missed the exorcism, since it was you who raised the important point that a hypothetical Toppy-as-Hutch has little to do with Hutch-as-suspect! *Cough* Judas.

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Mike? I bet you ten pounds of doubtful salmon it isn't Toppy..

I just changed my opinion about you... but in which direction?

Mike