Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

since the overall impression remains one of consistency.

That's a matter for interpretation, Fish.

Personally, I see no consistency whatsoever, with the closest possible "match" being the first capital "G", which was a common way of writing that letter in that era. The problem is that the Toppy signature contains elements that are not just "totally consistent" - they're absolute polar opposites.

and to be compared to the ones above, with no anti-clockwise turn - would that have ruled it out as not being by the same hand as the others?

Almost certainly, because the differences would be as marked as they would have been irrespective of the lower case "n", which the comparison does not hinge upon. The anticlockwise "n" is the Toppy signature is very pronounced indeed. It's a distinguishing feature, and it's conspicuously absent from all three witness signatures. In fact, the first witness signature actually includes a clockwise tail on the "n", which is another could example of complete antithesis.

I don't think we can really chalk up inconsistencies in writing to the type of paper used.

I totally agree that it would be useful to compare it with the marriage signature. It was this one that Sue Iremonger used as a basis to rule out Toppy as the witness, and it's noteworthy than another researcher has noticed a great similarity between the census and marriage signatures.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"That's a matter for interpretation, Fish."

Absolutely. Which is why offer my variant.

”The anticlockwise "n" is the Toppy signature is very pronounced indeed. It's a distinguishing feature, and it's conspicuously absent from all three witness signatures.”

Nope, Ben – not if you are speaking of the finishing ”tail” of that ”n” - signature number three also ends in a distinct, anti-clockwise bend. The only difference is that Toppys tail points more to the ceiling.

”I don't think we can really chalk up inconsistencies in writing to the type of paper used.”

Not when it comes to how the writer moves the pen over the surface, no – but minimal differences in texture will probably cause minimal changes in outcome, just as different paper types will absorb different amounts of ink and different pens will supply different amounts of ink.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Nope, Ben – not if you are speaking of the finishing ”tail” of that ”n” - signature number three also ends in a distinct, anti-clockwise bend.

Are we looking at the same signature, Fish?

The "n" on the third witness "Hutchinson" simply slopes off in a horizontal line. Quite different to the dramatic upward anti-clockwise slant we see in Toppy.

Not when it comes to how the writer moves the pen over the surface, no – but minimal differences in texture will probably cause minimal changes in outcome

Indeed. Same paper batches will be more absorbant than others, but as you note, this would have little to no effect on the actual direction of the pen in the writer's hand.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:

"Are we looking at the same signature, Fish?"

Check which way the tail bends, and you will know, Ben. The curve is there. Like you say, Toppyīs "n" points to the ceiling, but the "tail" of the number three signature is ALSO bent anti-clockwise, whereas the upper two signatures do not display that trait.

"Same paper batches will be more absorbant than others, but as you note, this would have little to no effect on the actual direction of the pen in the writer's hand."

Exactly so, Ben - the handwriting stays the same and will be detectable, but in cases where there is doubt, the distribution of ink and the texture of the paper may contribute to a little uncertainty OR certainty where it actually does not belong. Small thing, normally, but when we have four samples and when three of them were written with the same type of pen on the same type of paper, that discrepancy may be good to keep track of.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Check which way the tail bends, and you will know, Ben

I see no bend to speak off, but rather a simple tapers off in a horizontal line. That's in the third witness signature. In the first two, as you've noted, the bend actually points downwards! The third just tapers off Due-East so to speak, not anti-clockwise or anything-wise.

Page 3 of this thread for reference, incidentally, folks!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Since I am no technical wizzard, I think I will just call on Sam, who published the signatures. If you take a look on the overall leaning of the "son" in case three and case four, you will notice that the text leans more to the right in case three. That will explain a lot about why the tail of the "n" does not point to the ceiling. Sam, could you please come up with an overlap of the two passages, perhaps using different coulours and laying the samples on top of each other, eliminating the respective tilts? I think that will show a remarkable likeness, both in general appearance and in the curves of the tails!

Im off for now, but I will chime in as soon as I can again!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

While Gareth's imput would be valued as always, I'd respectfully submit that his earlier comparison did the trick already. Just check out the early pages of this thread from page three onwards, and you'll notice the difference. As far as I'm concerned, an "n" tail that veers dramatically and conspicuously upwards is quite different to one that doesn't point upwards at all, but simply tapers off horizontally.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2204&page=3

Check out posts 22 and 26, y'all.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

Since I could not wait for Sam to emerge and fix this one - really hope you can take care of that, Sam! - I just took out a piece of thin paper and held it over the signatures on my computer screen, copying them both. Then I placed them over each other, adjusting them so that the tilt we can see is taken away.
The outcome was almost eerie - they tally extremely well. The fact that Toppys signature had a tail to the "n" that pointed upwards was something that disappeared when the two signatures were given the same tilt, and the only difference that remained was that the tail of the "n" in Toppys case was longer - but the curves of the two tails are very much the same, as is the rest.
The man that wrote the number four signature just lifted his pen from the paper a little later that the man who made signature number three - but the handwriting inbetween the two is carbon-copy stuff.

To my mind - and it IS a question of interpretation - there can be little doubt that these two extracted parts of the signatures could have been written by the very same hand. Therefore Iīd say George Topping Hutchinson was in all probability the man who testified about his meeting with Mary Kelly back in November 1888. To think that two signatures by two different men with the same name (or alias for that matter) could be this alike is to stretch things beyond credibility, if you ask me.

I only hope that the gifted Mr Flynn will emerge to bear this out with one of his famed illustrations...

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I just took out a piece of thin paper and held it over the signatures on my computer screen, copying them both.

That was such a good idea that I decided to try it out myself.

The results were disappointing.

I'm afraid it convinced me more than ever that the signatures are a total mismatch. A very telling indictor was the fact that there was no appreciable difference in the slant of the signature, which effectively eradicated the argument that the last "n" is only pointing upwards because of the steeper angle of the signature. The "n" on the third Hutchinson signature simply does not curve upwards at all. It tapers off and ends up as a horizontal line, quite different to what we see in the Toppy signature.

but the handwriting inbetween the two is carbon-copy stuff.

Absolutely not. I couldn't disagree more strongly.

Well done though for conceding that the matter is a question of interpratation, and kudos in particular for acknowledging that you're no expert on graphology. The professional who is an expert in that field has ruled out Toppy as the witness on the basis of a signature comparison, and her observations simply count for more than ours. We're not experts. We aren't looking at it with a trained eye. Sure Iremonger did, and is, and she ruled Toppy out as the witness.

To think that two signatures by two different men with the same name (or alias for that matter) could be this alike is to stretch things beyond credibility, if you ask me.

But I'm not asking you. That's not a snub or an attempt to invalidate your opinion. It's a cautinary reminder that yours is merely that, an opinion, and one which contrasts markedly with the view of a professional document examiner. For that reason, we can't justify a claim that it "stretches things beyond credibility" to argue that the professional might be right. If we could perhaps make extra-specially clear that opinions are just that, I'd be hugely appreciative.

Best regards, and thanks in advance,

Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hi Sam,and fisherman,
Well thats three of us convinced, [well almost] I would say Ripperology has made a huge mountain out of a molehill, when it has discussed Hutchinson over the years, why could he not have been a 22year old labourer at that time , who was of decent enough character to have been resident at the Victoria home?
No alias, no thoughts of breaking and entering, or of street mugging, or of stalking , or the inventor of lies, or homicidal thoughts, just young George H, arriving back from a long trek from Romford unable to gain entrance to the home without a weekly pass, who happened to witness young Mary Jane being accosted by a man, who may have wanted a room over his head until daybreak along with sexual favours, who may, or may not,have been her killer.
If we accept that Hutchinson was just a guy with an eye for detail, and of honest character, it may not be what good mysteries are made of, but more likely the truth.
Regards Richard.

[caz]

I know, and he spelt Hutchinson wrong with the first attempt.

That's your assumption and you may not be right. I think, like many signatures (including my own), the last letters may just be written less clearly in this example. Ask me to sign five cheques in a row and I can guarantee the i and the s at the end of Morris will vary in clarity, with at least one or two examples where there will be little more than a wavy line. This is perfectly normal and indeed it might have looked more suspicious if the three Hutchinson signatures had been clones of each other, smacking of someone who had been practising beforehand.

...it would be very odd for anyone accustoned to writing "George Hutchinson" to suddenly change to "Geo" when sighting three pages of the same statement.

I couldn't agree less. Only someone accustomed to seeing and writing Geo for George would be likely to do so, the one example suggesting it was done spontaneously without much thought behind it, not on request or by someone posing as the full George.

None of the elements are "wrong" for that suggestion to carry weight, so it needn't be a case of needing to get anything right. All it requires is that a man who gave a false witness statement may also have given a false name, and there's certainly nothing that would intefere with that possibility that can't be countered adequately by the foregoing.

With respect, you miss my point, which is that you require all your arguments, opinions and hunches to be right, not just 'carry weight' in your own mind, meaning that Hutchinson actually has to be the man you need him to be, and the signed witness statement has to be the product of a man with something to hide, or the scales are never going to register above zero in real terms. If all your hunches are correct, you would then require some hard evidence to start putting any real weight on.

In short, you're still as much in 'maybe' land as you were with your first ever post on the subject of this witness, and the scales remain empty.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

why could he not have been a 22year old labourer at that time , who was of decent enough character to have been resident at the Victoria home?

That's not the way we go about assessing the evidence, Richard, as others have tried to explain to you. You don't start out by asking "Why could he not have been...". I could easily try that same tactic and ask "Why could be not have been a lying serial killer?". Instead you ask yourself what evidence exists to suggest that Toppy was a labourer who lived in the Victoria Home? Answer - none, at the moment.

just young George H, arriving back from a long trek from Romford unable to gain entrance to the home without a weekly pass

He didn't need a "weekly pass". He could have secured a daily pass before he even set off for Romford, that way he was assured of a room when he returned. Makes a little more sense that walking well in excess of 10 miles in the certainty that there was no way of gaining entrance to his lodging house.

If we accept that Hutchinson was just a guy with an eye for detail, and of honest character

What's remotely laudable or productive about that? There are lots of things we can "just accept" on blind faith, but that doesn't make them any more likely to reflect the truth.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

That's your assumption and you may not be right.

It's not an assumption. It's based on the obvious and unambiguous absence of a letter. It's not a question of lacking clarity or not. It's simply not there. Whether it means anything significant or not in terms of the identity of the "witness" is a seperate debate, but it's conspicuously different from the other two signatures, just as the embroidered H in the first signatures seems rather odd in light of its absence from the other two signatures. I'm afraid it's obviously nonsense to argue that the more similar the signatures, the more suspicious Hutchinson is.

Only someone accustomed to seeing and writing Geo for George would be likely to do so

Not on an important witness statement when you're writing three signatures effectively all at once. You can argue that someone accustomed to substituting George for "Geo" might do so on a seperate time and date, but it would be odd to deviate so suddently when writing the three at the same time.

With respect, you miss my point, which is that you require all your arguments, opinions and hunches to be right, not just 'carry weight' in your own mind, meaning that Hutchinson actually has to be the man you need him

I have no "need" for Hutchinson to be anything. As I've tried to explain to you before, there's a difference between advancing a case for a particular identity or suspect, and demolishing some of the weaker arguments that purport to militate against that identity or suspect. Of course we're in the land of "Maybe", all of us, and the Jack the Ripper mystery is unlikely to ever be solved. That doesn't mean we can't disagree strongly with imagined "objections" to a specific theory or suspect that fail to cut the mustard. Here, I'm not making the case for any particular identity theory, despite your efforts to rope me into that rather tangential discussion (at least to this one).

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"If we could perhaps make extra-specially clear that opinions are just that, I'd be hugely appreciative."

That, Ben is why I write thing like "if you ask me", only to be met with a "but I didnīt ask you".

"I couldn't disagree more strongly."

No?? What if the signature was written in roman letters???

You disagree, Ben, and there is nothing strange about that. I remain conviced that the two are very, very close, and I think you will see more people than me thinking so.
I have been giving one detail some thought; to how much of a degree could preconceived notions make one interpret it all with a bend, just like in the two tails? I have looked it over again and again, though, and though most people are at risk to do such a thing to at least some extent, this is as clear-cut case as we could hope to find - in my opinion, that is. And you didnīt even have to ask for it!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Ok, Fish, that's your opinion and I don't intend to show it any disrespect.

I'm utterly convinced that that signatures are a very obvious mismatch; a conviction that it bolstered by the fact that a professional in the field who applied her expertise and compared the signatures shares my view. Other peope might agree with you, but they lack Iremonger's expertise. That's not an insult, just a statement of fact.

I think debating our interpretations may prove a futile exercise in the scheme of things. We've all said our piece and we can do no more than that.

Best regards,
Ben