Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[perrymason]

Forgive me if Im too lazy to read the first 47 pages of posts before posting this, but based on the very opening post that Gareth made, Id agree with him in my laymans opinion that the 2 signatures were probably written by the same person.

The Georges are almost identical, and the unique stylized capital H is very similar. Account for the variance of time, it seems a good guess to me. Im sure that to minutely break each letter down will provide differences, but why wouldnt the same hand show differences based on the years?

I was finally too curious about what this thread was all about.

Best regards Sam, folks.

[Sam Flynn]

Forgive me if Im too lazy to read the first 47 pages of posts before posting this, but based on the very opening post that Gareth made, Id agree with him in my laymans opinion that the 2 signatures were probably written by the same person.

That was my opinion at the time, Mike - but that was until Debs came up with a signature that was an even closer visual match, and Dave posted another from 1898 which supported it still further. Add to this the fact (whether one believes it or not, it is a fact) that it is only Topping's family who are on record as saying their ancestor was "the man", and that no other "GH" signature thus far discovered comes close to the 1888 sigs, I can see no reasonable argument against the conclusion that GWTH was the Dorset Street witness, after all.

AT THE VERY BEST, one might say that it's a coin-toss between Toppy and Lambeth George - but then the latter's signature isn't quite as good a match, especially if we ignore the loopy "H" (which only appears on 1888p1). And there are other differences, far greater than those between the GWTH and Dorset George signatures. Lambeth George didn't cross his "t"s with such panache as GWTH and Dorset George; the dot appears almost directly above his "i", as opposed to being displaced to the right; and the lowercase "u" has a much shallower cup, whereas GWTH and Dorset George had consistently deep "u"s.

[perrymason]

It seems I missed quite a bit, thanks Sam.

That "H" seems to hold the key for me....its very individualized to my eye anyway.

Is Toppys like that....sorry, you answered that already...the answer is no.

Cheers Sam, all the best.

[Sam Flynn]

It seems I missed quite a bit, thanks Sam.

That "H" seems to hold the key for me....its very individualized to my eye anyway.

Is Toppys like that....sorry, you answered that already...the answer is no.

The curly "H" appears only on page 1 of the 1888 statement - or 1888p1, as I abbreviated it in my last post: perhaps I should have been more explicit. The remaining two H's (1888p2/1888p3, by my convention) are similar indeed to the 1898 and 1911 H's. As I also explained in my last post, the dissimilarities between Lambeth George's signature (the closest yet - as in "close, but no cigar") and the Topping signatures are more numerous than those between any one of the 1888 signatures and GWTH's.

Instead of concentrating on one aberrant "H", look at the bigger picture and the similarities vastly outweigh that single difference. If you've missed my little animation, which overlays the 1888p3 and the later Toppy signatures, here it is again:

https://www.btinternet.com/~gareth.h.williams/files/hutch-animation.mov

[Ben]

Crystal and I have not had one in this case. In other words, it is a fact that the signatures are remarkably similar.

Wha-hey there, big felluh!!

Sorry, Gareth, I feel that's going way overboard. I utterly refute that the above is a fact at all. You can no more assert the above than I can assert that it's a "fact" that the signatures (Toppy and witness) were obviously not written by the same hand. In my opinion, those who detect a "remarkable similarity" are most certainly deluding themselves. Clearly Sue Iremonger, an expert in the field of document examination, was not "deluding herself" when she arrived at the opinion that Toppy wasn't the witness. It all boils down to the degree of authority people are willing to invest in their own opinion, and I've detected an unjustifiable degree of "It's so obvious because I say it is!" in this thread, if I'm brutally honest.

Hi Mike,

For what it's worth I agree entirely that the Lambeth George offers us a better match with the witness three than Toppy does. The Lambeth "utchinson", in particular, evinces a much closer similarity with the witness signatures than the two Toppys do. All three witness statements AND the Lambeth man include a double stemmed lower-case "h" with a short base, which are conspicuously absent from both the Toppy signatures. Lambeth George simply forgot to cross his "t", which was obviously an oversight, unless he really believed his surname was "Hulchinson"! Long crossbars were a late Victorianism, as can be seen from numerous other writing samples from the period.

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. 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".

The story surrounding Toppy's claim to witness fame is dubious in the extreme, and detracts even more from the likelihood of his having been the witness. None of the other viable "George Hutchinson's" have that sort of undesirable baggage attached to their candidacy.

Best regards,
Ben

[perrymason]

Some great information, thanks chums, I appreciate it.

My best regards

[Malcolm X]

Malcolm writes:

"this is my take on it.... the reds dont match, but strangely enough the greens seem to, most odd"

I cannot agree, I´m afraid. If you take a look at the green areas you compare in the upper two signatures, for example, you will see that though there are curls on the letter H in both cases, the way the H is connected to the u is very dissimilar. Moreover, the u:s are quite different too, the upper one being a very ground one, whereas the lower one is deep. The angle of the H differs too, something that is also very evident when we compare the G:s in George - they have an altogether different leaning. Just as the case was with the H:s, there is the same sort of curl in the G:s, but it is performed in very different manner, the upper one being a clumsier, more tentative one, whereas the lower one is much more boldly drawn.

Just my two pence, Malcolm, but I hope you can see what I´m talking about!

The best,
Fisherman

yes but to me it looks different, but i'm definitely not wanting to rant about it... i think we need that expert advice

[IchabodCrane]

Did anyone ever notice how, when you have to sign a lot of papers in a short period of time, your signature looks more and more sloppy each time?

I think here's what happened after Badham finished taking down Hutchinson's witness statement:
Badham: 'Please sign your name on all three pages, Sir.'
GH signs the first page in his best schoolboy handwriting. The curly H is a difficult letter to write. He copies the elaborate H from Badham's narrative above.
GH: 'Do I really need to sign all three?'
Badham: 'Yes.'
GH is growing impatient. He signs the second one sloppy with only the first half of his first name and without the elaborate H.
Badham: 'Please sign your fully name, Sir.'
GH signs the third page quickly but with his full name.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes, answering Sam:

"I feel that's going way overboard. I utterly refute that the above is a fact at all. You can no more assert the above than I can assert that it's a "fact" that the signatures (Toppy and witness) were obviously not written by the same hand. In my opinion, those who detect a "remarkable similarity" are most certainly deluding themselves."

This is interesting. The discussion has tilted into something that looks like a quibble over the value of a work of art; Is it good? Is it bad? Is this representative art or is it not?

In such a discussion, it is very unpolite to dismiss other peoples perception of a piece of art out of hand. It is something that is rude - everybody has an obvious right to make their own assessments. The same thing goes for things like arcitecture and a glass of wine; a "who are you to tell me that I can´t judge for myself" type of thing.

But the question of the signatures does not belong to this discussion field. It is in no way a matter of tastes and opinions. It is a straightforward errand of judging the resemblance inbetween graphic elements. Putting it differently, it is a question of deciding if drawn circle and a drawn square resemble each other or not. The only real difference lies in the larger amount of graphic elements added. The more elements we add, the more complicated the task of making a comparison will be. But at no stage will the material open up for a discussion of "opinions", since we can for each element establish it´s exact size, leaning degree and shape. We cannot let an "opinion" that a signature is more tilted than another establish any real value. The only value we can find here is by measuring and establishing. After that, we don´t NEED any opinion, since we have something that is totally superior: knowledge. We will KNOW how much a letter tilts when we have measured it, and then we can go on to compare to the other units.
It works for each and every graphic element involved in handwriting, and it does to no extent involve sentiments, hunches, feelings or any disrespect on behalf of the ones who measure for the ones who don´t.

As I said, the more we add to a compilation of graphic elements, the more difficult it will be assess it. The ease with which we can dismiss any suggestion that a circle resembles a square, does not apply to two signatures. That does not mean, however, that we are unable to judge how alike they are. Think of the comic magazines, that often display two pictures at each others side. In them, the same drawing is represented, but the given task is to find five faults. Five small deviations will be there. Children love to do this exercise, and they can always spot the five faults, since they are equipped with the exact same thing that enables us to say if two signatures are alike or not - visual excellence.

You, Ben, have stated, if I don´t misremember, that the signatures are not remotely alike. Such a stance is untenable. Nothing allows for it, and you cannot hold it as an "opinion", the reasons for which I have outlined above. I hope that you also realize that there is no disrespect on my behalf involved here, not for you and not for anybody that may share that stance of yours. You are as welcome to hold that stance as you are wrong.

Best regards,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"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"."

Not true, I´m afraid. If you, for example, take a look at the left leg in the n of "son", you may notice that the Lambeth signature has a leg that leans, taking it from the legs top, from left to right. Toppys signature has a leg that markedly leans from right to left - as does the leg in the police report signature number three. It reveals a marked difference in how it was performed, and tells us exactly the same thing as does the extremely low "cup" in Lambeth mans "u" in "Hutchinson" - it belongs to a signature that does not resemble the police report signature as close as does Toppys ditto.

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Sam Flynn writes: I think I know when I'm having an "opinion moment", Crystal and I have not had one in this case. In other words, it is a fact that the signatures are remarkably similar. I say that in all objectivity, and anyone who fails to see that remarkable similarity is - in my opinion - deluding themselves

Ooh! Sam Flynn has an 'opinion moment'........

Ben writes: Crystal and I have not had one in this case. In other words, it is a fact that the signatures are remarkably similar.

Wha-hey there, big felluh!!

BEN!!! NAUGHTY! Don't you know its wrong to take people out of context? Although, I think it could catch on....

I did not say that the Toppy signatures and the witness signatures were entirely dissimilar. I think most people would concede there are several points of commonality (including my colleaugue, apparently ). However, from where I stand, which is inside the field, I consider that I have a more practiced view than most people standing outside the field, even if they think they can see really well over the gate. So I see those commonalities as very common indeed and not as evidence that the signatures match. I am looking for fine points of commonality, not generalities, and I think on balance I remain unconvinced - on present evidence - that the Toppy signatures and the witness statement signatures are by the same hand. That is my view, my opinion, if you like. I cannot say it is a fact, any more than anyone else can say their view is a fact - well, they can, but they shouldn't expect to be taken seriously if they do.

Finally, Ichabod Crane - I agree with you, another slice (or piece) of common sense - soon you'll have presented us with an entire pie (or cake, I'm not really sure...). Yes, I think it likely that the first witness statement was Hutch's 'best' handwriting, which is the main reason that it does differ in some respects from 2 and 3.

[Ben]

Not true, I´m afraid. If you, for example, take a look at the left leg in the n of "son", you may notice that the Lambeth signature has a leg that leans

I completely disregard what you assert to be "not true", since you're allowing your opinion to mutate into fact, presumably in your obsessive haste to post, even to comments that weren't addressed to you. Yes, I notice the left leg of the "n", and I observe that it corresponds neatly with the witness signatures, partiucularly the third one, in general appearance. The left leg of Toppy's "n" doesn't lean at all in the 1911 signature, so I've no idea where you're going with that observation.

The general appearance of the Lambeth's "son" is much more in allignment with the witness three than Toppy's, where the most disntiinguishing feature is the elaborate northwards-bending tail on the "u"; very different to what we see in Lambeth and the other three.

The bulk of your post preceding the extract quoted above was a bit too ponderous and belaboured to be fully comprehensible, but yes, I became frustrated and went overboard in stating they aren't remotely "alike". I'd retract that, of course, but it's certainly no more acceptable to assert as "fact" that they are "remarkably similiar.

Hi Crystal,

Sorry, I wasn't trying to misrepresent your views. I got in late and became more than a little exasperated.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Hi Crystal,

Sorry, I wasn't trying to misrepresent your views. I got in late and became more than a little exasperated.

Hi Ben - not at all. I rather thought you might be misrepresenting Sam Flynn's views That's only my OPINION, by the way, it isn't a FACT

Or maybe it is, because I say so?

I can't help feeling this is all getting out of hand (or should that be 'handwriting'?).

And I can understand ENTIRELY why you were exasperated..

[The Good Michael]

Ben

Were you really exasperated or were you doing a bit of method acting?

Mike

[Ben]

Yep, Mike!

I'm in preparation for the role of an angry and exasperated contributor to Jack the Ripper message boards. I've been in character for about four years, so the shoot had better be damn good!

Thanks, Crystal. I rather hope I did read Gareth's post incorrectly!

All the best,
Ben