Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[IchabodCrane]

To highlight the futility of what is being attempted here, I have taken the liberty of copying the signature samples posted so far underneath each other. The 1911 George William Hutchinson of 41 Russell Gardens Lambeth resembles very much the signature on Page 1 of the Witness Statement, while the signature of George William Topping Hutchinson resembles very much the signature on Page 3. Since the Surrey and Lambeth GH are clearly not one and the same person, we also cannot deduce the identity of the witness GH from later signatures. It could always have been a different person.

[Malcolm X]

To highlight the futility of what is being attempted here, I have taken the liberty of copying the signature samples posted so far underneath each other. The 1911 George William Hutchinson of 41 Russell Gardens Lambeth resembles very much the signature on Page 1 of the Witness Statement, while the signature of George William Topping Hutchinson resembles very much the signature on Page 3. Since the Surrey and Lambeth GH are clearly not one and the same person, we also cannot deduce the identity of the witness GH from later signatures. It could always have been a different person.

hang around, these 3 Hutch statement signatures dont match at all, unless HUTCH signed page 3 only and a policeman signed the first 2 pages... the page 2 signature looks a right mess, the ``r, g, e`` are missing from the word george, did he forget to sign the first 2 pages?...because i say definitely yes

and Hutch's page 3 signature is not a perfect match for Topping either

[Crystal]

Thank you IchabodCrane, for that little slice of common sense (hmm...does common sense come in slices - pieces? May ponder...).

There are similarities, yes, which I have noted myself. And that is because very many handwriting samples by very many disparate persons at this time would have had quite a lot in common - you could call them generalities. And that is because when children were taught to write, they were taught from copy books - thus, they all learned to write their letters in the same way.

Oh Dear! So how can we tell today whether two apparently similar signatures are by the same hand? Well, we look for differences amongst other things. And if that sounds like the bleedin' obvious, its because it is.

Sam Flynn, As I have said already, your steadfastness of opinion is commendable, one less generous of spirit than I might even say, dogmatic. At the end of the day, though, it is ONLY your opinion. It is not a fact. I am not trying to invalidate opinion, or that of anybody else by that statement. The same applies to everybody, including me. Opnion is not fact.

And whilst you may believe that anyone can do the same job of comparing signatures because we all have functioning eyes and brains to interpret what we see (assuming both of those are present) that is only your perspective.

The eye can be trained, you know. Or didn't you know? And that is why a person accustomed to viewing and analysing this stuff on a daily basis will pick up things that with respect, you, or any other Joe in the street, will most probably not.

And in case anyone is remotely interested, I have sent the Toppy signatures and the three witness signatures to a number of experts (er....six, I think..) just to see what their views are. Before anyone shouts at me, I don't expect any forthcoming opinions from them to be considered as evidence on these boards - they're only professionals, at the end of the day. Its just for interest.

First expert has got back to me and thinks that it is unclear whether the Toppy signatures and the witness statement signatures are the same - she would need to see more examples to be sure. She also said that she doesn't think the first two witness signatures are the same as the third, and that the third is the closest match to the Toppy signatures.

I'm sure comments will be forthcoming.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes, to Sam Flynn:

"At the end of the day, though, it is ONLY your opinion."

Uhm, no, Crystal; It is my opinion too. And it would seem that Malcolm, Richard and Mike and God knows how many others are of the exact same opinion. So itīs not just a case of Sams twisted mind and apprehension abilities playing dirty tricks on him - it is effectively a case of the signatures being extremely similar.
Whoops, Ben - I said it again!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Page 1 was signed by a policeman. Pages 2 and 3 match with the 1911 signature. Granted, page 2 uses Geo instead of George, and perhaps Toppy was told after that to sign his full name, yet the similarities in the signatures are much closer than any three of mine. Must be Toppy.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

No, Fisherman, I didn't mean that it was Sam's opinion and his alone, hence the emphasis where it is. I meant that it was his opinion, not a fact.

Lets not have another of pantomime shouting. This is all beginning to resemble the digital equivalent of ranting on a street corner.

[Malcolm X]

Crystal writes, to Sam Flynn:

"At the end of the day, though, it is ONLY your opinion."

Uhm, no, Crystal; It is my opinion too. And it would seem that Malcolm, Richard and Mike and God knows how many others are of the exact same opinion. So itīs not just a case of Sams twisted mind and apprehension abilities playing dirty tricks on him - it is effectively a case of the signatures being extremely similar.
Whoops, Ben - I said it again!

The best,
Fisherman

sorry but i was maybe too quick to dismiss Ben, Hutch's page 3 signature does not match the TOPPING signature well enough.

the G is different, the O AND R are different and the T of hutchinson is different too

this isn't good enough, we need expert opinion

[The Good Michael]

Better get those eyes checked.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Iīll put it in a milder fashion, Malcolm: To my eyes, the page 3 signature is the one that is abolutely closest to Toppys. Since they are decades apart, some sort of deviance must be expected, I think, but the overall picture leaves me in no doubt on two issues:
1. The signatures and the circumstances surrounding them tell us that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness.
2. It would be useful, as you say, with an expertīs opinion.

The best,
Fisherman

[IchabodCrane]

The point of my earlier post was that if signatures on pages 1 and 3 of the witness statement are written by the same person, then even expert advise will not help us on the 1911 signatures.

[Crystal]

I give up. So now we're saying that nobody can tell anything? I think we've been here before. Backtrack, everybody - there isn't sufficient evidence to tell for sure. Until (if) any such further evidence is presented, I really do think we've gone as far as we can go. Unless we want to go round in a circle. Again.

Has anyone considered the following - Maybe we haven't even got to the 'real' GH yet? do we know that he was in London in 1911? No, we don't. I think, since it isn't a clear match beyond reasonable doubt in my view, we might just try and look a bit further afield before we claim beyond dispute that Toppy is our man.

Here's a clue - what Toppy's son said is neither here nor there in this matter. It should be put aside, because it is third hand evidence at best and is likely to be unduly influential - I'm sure, in fact, it has already been so. If we are comparing Toppy's signature with the witness signatures our conclusions should be based on that analysis alone.

In short, the sample given here is not large enough. Sam! Off you go and find some more, and then we'll see if we still agree (or disagree...).

[Fisherman]

Ichabod Crane writes:

"The point of my earlier post was that if signatures on pages 1 and 3 of the witness statement are written by the same person, then even expert advise will not help us on the 1911 signatures."

Apparently, Sue Iremonger found the two signatures so unalike that she opted for a scenario where Sgt Badham (who wrote the police protocol) stepped in and filled in the signature on page one on his own - since Hutch had forgotten to do so. Or so Iremonger guessed, at least.
I have offered the opinion that Hutch himself may have tried his best to make a nice and stylish signature on page one, only to realize that he would be asked for a number of signatures, whereupon he simply skipped the fancy curls on the H, and produced a more casual handwriting on the following signatures. But for the curlied H, the page 1 signature is very much alike the other two, and it would in fact seem that Iremongers suggestion was that Badham tried to copy Hutchīs signatures, and if this was the case, itīs all very much up to just how good a forger Badham was.
No matter what, we still have the page 3 signature that is a mirror image of the Toppy signature, and that is quite enough.

...which is why I think that Crystals suggestion that more material is needed is completely unneccessary. Of course it would not do the case any harm if such material was found - but it is in no way needed, since we already have as perfect a match as we can ask for. I say supply an unbiased expert with the page 3 signature and Toppys ditto, and the whole matter will be cleared in very short time. That is my bet, and I have taken on much worse ones that I have regarded as very safe.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Thanks for getting back to us regarding the other experts' opinions, Crystal!

Hi Fish,

No matter what, we still have the page 3 signature that is a mirror image of the Toppy signature, and that is quite enough.

I don't think it's a mirror image at all.

Not remotely.

I think they're very obviously not written by the same individual. Whenever you feel the need to reinforce, for the trillionth time, your opinion that they match, it'll conduce precisely the same reaction from me, who'll be staight back to reiterate the opinion that they don't match. Sorry to sound petty, but it irks me that much.

unbiased expert

Sue Iremonger wasn't biased, and the overwhelmingly probable explanation is that she did precisely as several indendent reputable sources stated she did, which was to compare the witness signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature and arrive at the conclusion that they were penned by different hands.

1. The signatures and the circumstances surrounding them tell us that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness.

No, both of those things militate very heavily against Toppy being the witness. In fact, I'd say they're mutually supportive of the view that he was not the witness.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

...and...

whenever you feel the need to reinforce, for the trillionth time, your opinion that they donīt match, it'll conduce precisely the same reaction from me, who'll be straight back to reiterate the opinion that they do match. Sorry to sound petty, but it irks me that much.

"Sue Iremonger wasn't biased"

There is no need to believe so, no. Nor did I throw something in that fashion forward. But I think we agree by now that a NEW examination would be extremely helpful.

Your faithful follower,
Fisherman

[Ben]

whenever you feel the need to reinforce, for the trillionth time, your opinion that they donīt match, it'll conduce precisely the same reaction from me, who'll be straight back to reiterate the opinion that they do match.

Ah, but I never set the ball rolling in that regard. I'm just the reactor.

But I think we agree by now that a NEW examination would be extremely helpful.

Absolutely!

All the best,
Ben