Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

Hi Mike,

For what it's worth, I reckon Gareth's first signature comparison (see page #1 of this thread) offers us the closest match so far.

Hope all's well,

Ben

[Crystal]

The assumption that document analysis is akin to graphology is like saying that astronomy and astrology are the same. I think it would be safe to suggest that anyone could claim to be a graphologist just by having a good look round the Internet. Similarly, you can learn astrology from books. I have nothing against either astrologers or graphologists, incidentally, but the fact remains that a skilled document examiner - most don't actually refer to themselves by that name - will have acquired those skills via years of experience. So whilst we can all certainly look at signatures and hazard our opinion on their similarity or otherwise, we aren't all similarly equipped to analyse a signature. I'm not sure I see where this discussion can go from here. Without categorical proof, which may or may not exist, but hasn't come to light so far, it'll just go round in circles.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Mike, For what it's worth, I reckon Gareth's first signature comparison (see page #1 of this thread) offers us the closest match so far.

It is close, Ben - otherwise I wouldn't have got so excited in the first place! - but not the closest. Here's "Lambeth George's" full signature again:



Here are the signatures of what I'll call the "Three Tops" (or the 3Ts), with "Lambeth George" added for direct comparison:



Note the differently-formed "H" (similar I grant you, but not identical, to police statement page 1). and the "t" is uncrossed. This is unlike all three samples of the "Tops", which all have in common a very long crossbar on the "t" which consistently crosses the "h" that follows. The "u" is much, much shallower in the Lambeth signature, but the 3Ts have a deeply-cupped "u". The "s" is more "tucked in" with the 3Ts than in the Lambeth signature, which has a more open "s". Finally, the transition in the last two letters goes from the top of the "o" to the top of the "n" in the 3Ts, but from the top of the "o" to the bottom of the "n" in Lambeth George's.

As to the forename - the "Georges" are rather similar throughout, although the "Three Tops" formed their "r" slightly differently, and the transition from the "g" to the "e" at the end flows more easily in the 3Ts than the "ge" in the Lambeth signature.

There is much less variation within the 3Ts than there is between Lambeth George's and any single one of the 3Ts. So, although Lambeth George is similar, it's nowhere near as similar as the Three Tops are to one another.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"nowhere near as similar "

...and I think that it is nothing short of ludicrous that the question is on the table. The differences Sam point out are very easy for everyone to spot, and there is more, as for example the secong g in George, where Lambeth George travels into the top circle clockwise and completes half the circle, only to change direction, and back counter-clockwise the whole lap around. And as he finishes the counter-clokwise movement, he fires of a small spear pointing straight up. There is no such thing, and nothing even remotely implying it about in the other signatures.

To suggest the Lambeth signature being closer than Toppys signatures just does not work, as effectively shown by Sams efforts. It´s nice to see more posters, like Mike, chiming in to confirm what Sam says.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Okay, time to throw a few more sticks into the fire - and ask another question.

From the Decatur Daily Republican, 15 Nov. 1888:

"The witness that testified Monday to having seen the woman enter the house with a man with a blotched face was evidently mistaken as to the night, as his (sic) description of her companion is totally unlike that of Hutchinson´s in every particular".

Although it is said that a man was the witness that saw Blotchy, the article must of course be referring to Cox. And it says that Hutch and Blotchy were totally unlike "in every particular".

We know that Blotchy was short, stout and shabby. That would make Hutch tall, lean and respectable. As we recall, it was said that he was of a military appearance.

The question is of course what we know about how Toppy looked? Are there any photos, descriptions and such about?

The best,
Fisherman

[Debra A]

Hi fisherman,
I may be missing something here, but isn't that piece just saying that Cox's description of blotchy, the last man previously believed to have seen Kelly while she was alive, was totally different from Hutchinson's description of the man he claimed to have last been seen with MJK?


However, there is a pic of toppy about somewhere on the casebook.

[Sam Flynn]

Hi fisherman,
I may be missing something here, but isn't that piece just saying that Cox's description of blotchy, the last man previously believed to have seen Kelly while she was alive, was totally different from Hutchinson's description of the man he claimed to have last been seen with MJK?

Yes, it is, Debs. Fish - I think you misread that one, old bean. As consolation, here's a picture of Toppy in much later years:



... and here he is in 1888:


Only kidding!

[Fisherman]

Blimey!

That´s what comes from not catching up on the English lessons...!

Thanks for straightening that out, Debra! And for providing the pic(s), Sam.

As a side note: Do we know how tall Toppy was? While you are looking for that particular piece, I´ll go and brush up on my English...

a slightly embarrased
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Note the differently-formed "H" (similar I grant you, but not identical, to police statement page 1). and the "t" is uncrossed.

Not identical, but much more similar to the witness signatures than Toppy, in my view, as I feel your comparisons illustrate very successfully. I'm not convinced that your Lambeth fella is the witness either, but he's a better bet than Toppy by a long sea mile as far as I'm concerned. Note the looped "h" in all three witness signatures which correspond to the Lambeth signature, as does the unusually small and short base of the "h". With Toppy we see the complete polar opposite; a single stemmed "h" with a rather conspicuous base.

Notice also that in the Lambeth and witness signatures, the "t" is shorter than the "h" in "Hutchinson", whereas the complete reverse is apparent in both Toppy signatures, suggesting very strongly that the latter was a Toppyism that he was unlikely to revise. Don't read anything significant into the uncrossed nature of Lambeth man's "t". This was clearly an oversight, unless he was deluded into believing that his name was "Hulchinson"! Long crossbars were a late Victorianism, as can be seen from numerous other writing samples from the period.

The "H" in the Lambeth man's signature and in witness sig #1 are obviously very similarly formed.

The look of both signatures generally evinces far more similarity with eachother than Toppy's efforts. The former two both create an obvious diffentation from tall and short letters which is not as immediately apparent in the Toppy two. The "son" in the Lambeth and witness signatures show an interesting similarity which is absent from both Toppy signatures, which both reveal a very different "son".

There is much less variation within the 3Ts than there is between Lambeth George's and any single one of the 3Ts. So, although Lambeth George is similar, it's nowhere near as similar as the Three Tops are to one another.

Oh no, based on the above, I can only disagree. I feel that the Lambeth signature is much closer to the witness signatures, and I feel once again that your comparisons bear this out. In fact, I would heartily encourage everyone to srcutinise your comparison very carefully for that reason.

Hi Fish,

...and I think that it is nothing short of ludicrous that the question is on the table

Bit disappointed here.

Feel free to disagree with my opinion, but I'd respectfully request that you refrain from dismissing it as "ludicrous". I think we all need to be very wary of assuming that our opinion must be the right one just because we think we've seen something "very easy to spot". For my part, I think it's incredibly "easy to spot" the better comparison between Lambeth and witness signatures, but I'm careful not to disparage other opinions, even if I can boast an expert opinion on my side who also dismisses Toppy as the witness.

We know that Blotchy was short, stout and shabby. That would make Hutch tall, lean and respectable. As we recall, it was said that he was of a military appearance.

Slight confusion here, Fish.

Just check out that newspaper extract you quoted again:

The witness that testified Monday to having seen the woman enter the house with a man with a blotched face was evidently mistaken as to the night, as his (sic) description of her companion is totally unlike that of Hutchinson´s in every particular".

What this means is that Cox's description was totally unlike Hutchinson's. In other words, Blotchy is totally unlike Astrakhan in appearance. The press are not commenting on Hutchinson's appearance. But I see this has been pointed out already (edit).

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Ben, recite after me:

"Om, Toppy Toppy! Om, Toppy Toppy! ..."

[The Good Michael]

Just an opinion: The Lambeth H looks as if the writer began at the top left with a curl, came straight down and then looped around the bottom of the left leg of the H and cut back across the middle to the other side of the H. As this is the first letter of the man's name, I'd say that it should be fashioned in the same way in all signatures. The end results may vary, but the approach must be the same. I don't see that here when compared with the others. The approach to the G in his first name seem to be the same to me with varied results.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

As this is the first letter of the man's name, I'd say that it should be fashioned in the same way in all signatures

The interesting thing here though, Mike, is that the "witness", whoever he was, was capable of varying the look of his "H"s to a considerable degree. The first witness signature includes an elaborate curly H, similar to the Lambeth man's, but the other two lack any curls or embroidery. Quite different to Toppy, whose signatures remain consistent within the space of 13 years, let alone a few minutes!

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

I agree that the first page signature contains a different H at the onset, but it does do the curling back across the middle. All the others, however, match Toppy's quite closely. I have no agenda here. It's what I see. If I wrote out Hutch's name and you did as well, my guess is that there would be much greater differences. There aren't such differences here. Therefore, I have to conclude that they are from the same man.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

We'll have to agree to disagree, Mike.

Perhaps the most salient observation to be made about Toppy's signatures is that they resemble eachother very closely, despite a decade-plus passage of time. We see the opposite with the witness signature; a remarkable lack of consistency within the space of a few minutes!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

We see the opposite with the witness signature; a remarkable lack of consistency within the space of a few minutes!

Not so remarkable, Ben, if we remove the florid (and admittedly, different) capital "H" from the first page and concentrate on the rest:



Indeed, given that the final "n" is apparently differently-formed, and page 2 of the 1888 signature only says "Geo", rather than "George", let's take those distractions out of the way, and focus on the common elements. Here are all five signatures, with the "non-common" bits removed for more direct comparison:



Far from a lack of consistency, the resemblance between each is extraordinarily high.