Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[caz]

What have you got, Ben, aside from blind faith, that drives you to see only deception and murder behind even the smallest detail?

It comes as no surprise to anyone, I'm sure, that you are insisting there is no similarity whatsoever between the statement signatures and the 1911 one. Only you could see a simple Geo as confirmation of the man being dodgy enough to be the ripper using a false name. You might think it 'odd', but how exactly does that translate into suspicious?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

What have you got, Ben, aside from blind faith, that drives you to see only deception and murder behind even the smallest detail?

I never said anything about deception. I haven't argued here that Hutchinson must have been using an alias, chiefly because this isn't the thread for it. All I've done is disagree with your conclusions with regard to what the "Geo" versus "George" business is most likely to demonstrate.

It comes as no surprise to anyone, I'm sure, that you are insisting there is no similarity whatsoever between the statement signatures and the 1911 one.

Which is tantamount to an accusation that I'm lying, which I find highly objectionable. Even if the census record was a match with the signatures, I'd still consider it suspicious that he only came forward with what many accept to be a highly dubious account as soon as it became public knowledge that a witness had seen someone loitering near the crime scene.

We're discussing Hutch in the 1911 census, and I'd appreciate it if you stuck with the topic.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"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"

A sound suggestion, Ben - but my feeling is that a lot more will be said on this subject, and I would not miss it for the world. I really think this is a very sigificant issue, and - of course - one that may clarify things to a very substantial degree! It stands to reason that we will both be following the development closely, and that we both will share our wiews with the other posters around. I´d say that we have a mutual interest to to it in style.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Just a thought - the main difference inbetween the three signatures provided by George back in 1888, is that the curls of the capital H on the first page go lost on the two others.
To begin with, my surname begins with an H, and the curly one George wrote on page one is very reminiscent of how I used to write my own H. I took it over from my mother´s handwriting, thinking it was kind of posh.
It does, however, involve a few twists and turns when writing it, and maybe George simply did his best at page one, the way one does when trying to please authorities, only to realize that the police officials perhaps did not appreciate him taking too long time with each signature.
I know I´ve abandoned the curls long ago, writing a simpler form of the H.

The best,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
Believe me I do comprehend that my suggestion GH being a honest witness to an event, is my own opinion based on my personal beliefs , and futhermore I do comprehend that suggesting that opinion, in no way alters the equal possibility of sinister motives.
The fact is we could argue his motives till doomsday, until we have concrete proof one way or the other.
The handwriting is intresting however , and if one could validate the authenticity of one time poster[ as yet] JD, and further checkable information becomes avaliable, then the for /against poll would become more balanced, but I fear that will not happen , and this thread will end up on the shelf with all the others.
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

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?

Nothing too elaborate for you, Fish... apart from different colours/layering Here's the respective bits from each document, tilt removed, with Toppy's 1911 "son" at the top and the "sons" from the statement below it:

[Ben]

and maybe George simply did his best at page one, the way one does when trying to please authorities

An intriguing suggestion, Fish, but I dunno...

If anything, a more no-nonsense "H" would have done the trick for "pleasing the authorities". The coppers aren't renowned for being attracted to ponciness!

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

Hello Ben,

The fact is we could argue his motives till doomsday, until we have concrete proof one way or the other.

Regards Richard.

yes, this forum is exactly the same as it was 2 years ago.. we know nothing more now than we did then, will we be argueing till Doomsday? of course we will, over and over again.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for that, Sam! Yes, especially Toppys signature and the one right beneath it are spookily alike. If we follow the tails of the "n"s backwards, to the point where they take a sharp left turn, they are both bent anti-clockwise, although it is more pronounced in Toppys signature. The bend is more dramatic and slightly longer - but the main character does not deviate. Follow them through and we will end up circles in both cases, although of different size.

The rest, I feel, is - like I have already said - carbon copy stuff to a large extent. The o´s, the bridges leading over to the n´s, the tilt of the first leg in the n´s and all.
One interesting factor is that if we look at the o´s, they are not written in a floating hand, something that may perhaps owe to the writer not being all that accustomed to using a pen? Instead of rounded circles, they show marked angles, implying that the pen has travelled somewhat slowly and unsecurely, making stops and taking new directions.
This detail, I think, may perhaps somewhat strengthen my suggestion that the first signature he wrote on the witness report was written in a meticulous manner, Hutch taking the time to be as neat as he could, whereas he later on realized that there would be more writing involved, and felt pressurized to get things overwith a bit faster? People who are not very accustomed to writng ill write slowly when they want it to come out neat, but that slowing down of the flow will result in angularities where the pen comes to a halt.

All the best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Yes, thanks for that Gareth.

More than ever, I'm inclined to embrace Sue Iremonger's observations that Toppy and the witness were not the same one the basis of the handwriting comparison. The tail on the end of the Toppy "n" points dramatically upwards, which simply isn't the case with the other three signatures, which are inclined to point either downwards (like the one Fish was talking about) or in a more or less horizontal line. That is, of course, with the exception of the first one which curves in the opposite direction.

The rest, I feel, is - like I have already said - carbon copy stuff to a large extent.

And as I've already said, I disagree entirely, Fish.

I certainly wouldn't read anything signficant into the "o"s or "n"s since there are only so many ways of forming and connecting those latters. For example, I've never head of a o than doesn't connect to the n via the top. The Toppy o, in any case, is conspicuously chunkier than any of the witness efforts. I do agree with you, though, that the writer appeared to show caution and hesitancy in penning his signature.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The tail on the end of the Toppy "n" points dramatically upwards, which simply isn't the case with the other three signatures, which are inclined to point either downwards or in a more or less horizontal line. That is, of course, with the exception of the first one which curves in the opposite direction."

Good on you that you recognize that feature now, Ben. That is, if I am reading you correct and you mean that police report signature number 1 ends with an anti-clockwise bend.
Now, if you take a renewed look at it, you may also recognize that in Sam´s post 141, the tail of the "n" in the third signature from the top, albeit being ALMOST straight, actually has a small bend to it in that anti-clockwise direction. And in number four, it seems the "n" is broken in half, leaving the last stump out. But the only small hint of a tail (and very shortish it is) actually points upwards.

"I certainly wouldn't read anything signficant into the "o"s or "n"s since there are only so many ways of forming and connecting those latters."

Not agreed, I´m afraid - there are innumerable ways of doing it, varying the sizes, shapes and connections. Only to enlighten one of the details involved, I myself do not give the bridge inbetween an "o" and an "n" a hunch; I make it a hanging bridge instead if you take my meaning.
But the men who signed "George Hutchinson" as it is revealed in the upper two signatures supplied by Sam seemed to do their signatures in the very same manner; same tilting of the letters, same hunches on that bridge, same tentative, angle-supported o´s, same distance inbetween the letters, same (anti-clockwise) finish to their n´s.
If we have a genuine George and a fake George, one must say that it is quite a coincidence that these two, who in all probability never met, developed signatures that were twinlike to that extent; If one of them had written his n´s with the legs placed with a narrow distance inbetween them and the other wide a wide gap, but no! If one of them had made big round o´s and the other one small ones, but no - not to be! If one had come up with my "hanging bridge to join his o with the n, and the other had made that hump, aber nein, nein - they simply HAD to come up with signatures that were extremely alike.
That said, since they both bore the same name, lived in the same district and associated with the same prostitute, maybe it is not that strange that they employed the same signature too?

And you disagree "entirely", Ben? To you, there is not a remote likeness? They are as apart as Tut-anc-amons seal and Hitlers signature to you?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hello Fish,

That is, if I am reading you correct and you mean that police report signature number 1 ends with an anti-clockwise bend.

Clockwise, mate.

Sorry for the confusion. I'm talking about the first page signature - the one with the curly-wurly H. The tail of the "n" has a small but perceptible clockwise tail, a less extreme version of the elaborate clockwise tails on the Lusk letter (which, before anyone queries, I'm not trying to pin on Hutch).

albeit being ALMOST straight, actually has a small bend to it in that anti-clockwise direction.

Oh, indeed, but more crucially, it points downwards and opposed to dramatically upwards, which is an appreciable difference if we're trying to discern a similarity here. The dramatic upslant is quite different to what we see in any of the witness signatures.

Not agreed, I´m afraid - there are innumerable ways of doing it, varying the sizes, shapes and connections.

And that, I contend, is what we see here.

But the men who signed "George Hutchinson" as it is revealed in the upper two signatures supplied by Sam seemed to do their signatures in the very same manner

I honestly don't agree, Fish.

The entire appearance of the signature is different. The real Hutchinson, you'll notice, makes a great deal of differentation between the tall letters and the small ones, whereas in Toppy, most of the letters are of similar size. You'll notice this particularly with the tall h in the the three witness signatures; very tall, with a double looped stem and a tiny base - antithetical to the short dumpy lower case "h" in Toppy.

That, and the way in which the letters are formed and connected are incredibly different, to my mind.

To you, there is not a remote likeness?

As I mentioned in a very early post, they were not as radically dissimilar as I've first envisioned. That, with utter sincerety, is the best I can say in favour on the alleged comparison.

If you feel differently, that's fine, but as I said before, all we're doing in debating alternative interpretations, and since it's unlikely to result in any of us suddenly "seeing" something previously overlooked, they may prove a futile exercise.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"If you feel differently, that's fine, but as I said before, all we're doing in debating alternative interpretations, and since it's unlikely to result in any of us suddenly "seeing" something previously overlooked, they may prove a futile exercise."

I do. Emphatically.
Correct.
And correct again.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

The first signature is actually missing the "o" in Hutchinson...

Are you sure the first signature is missing the o and doesn't just feature a rather squashed up o and n?

I'd be very surprised if the "o" in the first signature was merely "squashed". Looks pretty absent to me. At least, I can't see any room for one.

...he spelt Hutchinson wrong with the first attempt.

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...

The Toppy o, in any case, is conspicuously chunkier than any of the witness efforts.

Hi Ben,

I notice in the quote directly above that you use the word 'any' (as in three witness efforts) and not 'either' (as in two). Is this a mistake, or can you now see the o that you swore to me was 'simply not there' in one of the signatures, indicating that Hutch had managed to spell his name wrong?

Incidentally, I didn't accuse you of lying about anything. Confirmation bias is very hard to eliminate entirely at the best of times, but anyone who is known for holding an extremely entrenched position has to be especially careful not to appear like they just can't help seeing or not seeing things according to whether it helps or hinders that position.

Your claim that you never said anything about deception, regarding the witness signatures, kind of misses the point if you see the whole statement as nothing but an extremely suspicious character's attempt to deceive the police! All I would say is that if you are going to make a case for your artful dodger being uncomfortable and unfamiliar with writing the name he put to his piece of wilful deception, you can hardly expect it to appear like you are merely suggesting that the poor chap rarely had to sign his own name.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Is this a mistake, or can you now see the o that you swore to me was 'simply not there' in one of the signatures

No mistake. I meant what I said. Toppy's "o" is chunkier than any of the witness "o"s. It's chunkier and of a different appearance to signatures 2 and 3 on the statement, and it's obviously more chunky than a letter that didn't even exist!

but anyone who is known for holding an extremely entrenched position has to be especially careful not to appear like they just can't help seeing or not seeing things according to whether it helps or hinders that position.

The frequency with which you appear incredibly willing to do battle with me on any Hutchinson thread going would suggest to me that my position on the subject is no more entrenched than yours, which is why I somehow guessed where your opinion would fall when I first noticed your name as a contributor to this thread. Not too sure what "hinders" my position in this case. Even in the unlikely event that the witness was Toppy, his account wouldn't be any less suspicious because of it.

you can hardly expect it to appear like you are merely suggesting that the poor chap rarely had to sign his own name.

I just calls 'em as I sees 'em, and I honestly see some baffling inconsistency in the signatures, from the curly-wurly H being replaced with the standard formation of the letter in the second two signatures, from the decision to replace George with "Geo" in the second signature, for no apparent reason. It could be due to the fact that unemployed labourers didn't have occasion to sign their names, or even write, very often, but I'm not going to refrain from any mention of the discrepency out of fear that I might be accused of looking for anything to support my initial stance.

Best regards,
Ben