Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"You also ignore the upwards slanting, Northerly-pointing tail on the end of both Toppy signatures, in contrast to Lambeth and the witness three."

Nope. Instead I point out that we cannot see one of the three tails from the police reports, but we CAN see that there is a counter-clockwise turn in the tail of sinature number three. The fact that it does not point to the sky does not mean very much, I think - there will be as many different levels of pointing upwards as there are Toppy signatures. The salient point is that the counter-clokwise turn is there. Itīs not like, for example, the stem of the T that is NOT there in Lambeth mans signature. THAT is an almighty difference, as opposed to the much more insignificant difference of the endings of the "n":s.

"You're essentially saying that Sue Iremonger was factually in error to arrive at the opinion that Toppy was not the witness who signed the statement?"

No. To begin with, what I say is a fact is that the police report signature number three and Toppys signature from 1911 is the best example we have of a likeness inbetween the signatures made by, on the one hand the man who signed the police report, and on the other hand, Toppy. I am also saying that it is a fact that these signatures are so very much alike that a suggestion that they belong to the same man is an apparently very reasonable one.
I am not saying that it is a fact that the same man wrote them both, though, since we have not enough evidence to reach full certainty. I will however happily state as a fact that it would be something quite out of the ordinary if they did NOT belong to the same man.
Weighed together, it is at any rate quite enough for me to deduct that it would be a grave mistake not to work from the suggestion that Hutchinson has been found at long last, and that he was - just as his son claimed all along - Toppy.
There, so much for facts!

You end by reiterating your wiew of the comparison between Lambeth manīs signature and those of Toppy, but I wonīt go into it. It would be to grace a suggestion with a discussion it in no way deserves.

Thebest,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Posted twice by mistake - since I edited post two, it can be found over this one!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"I have just had a second response to my request for opinions. This lady says on balance she doesn't think Toppy is a match for the witness signatures. Her main reasons are the devloped capital G, and the 'th' in 'Hutchinson'. She adds that time is limited, so this is only a surface examination.
So far, one for, and one against."

...and which of the three signatures does she think matches Toppys signature best? Did she say, or was her verdict a weighed together effort...?

And one more thing; do your experts know of the time span involved?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Ooh! Sam Flynn has an 'opinion moment'.

I thought it would be better for me to point out when I was voicing an opinion - to distinguish between my reporting the objective (and hence factual) similarity of a certain set of stimuli that happened to fall on my retina. The same objective fact is available to anyone who cares to view those same stimuli and to trust their perception.

[The Good Michael]

Gareth,

Sometimes it is enough to just know that we KNOW, and that others, for diverse reasons, such as preconceptions, will never know. It's kind of a powerful feeling really.

Mike

[Ben]

The salient point is that the counter-clokwise turn is there.

No.

That is not the salient point.

The salient point is that both Toppy signatures feature a conspicuously upwards slanting tail on the end that are completely absent from all three witness signatures as well as the Lambeth signature. 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. It's rather tiresome, and indicative of your obvious deep-seated bias, that you're prepared to dismiss these obvious and crucial differences as not meaning "very much".

Itīs not like, for example, the stem of the T that is NOT there in Lambeth mans signature.

So you're seriously suggesting that the Lambeth Hutchinson was usually in the habit of failing to cross his "t"s? That is testicle-crushingly preposterous, Fish, and I strongly suspect you know it. That particular objection would only carry weight if Lambeth George was seriously deluded into believing that his surname had an "l" in it. Since that suggestion is clearly ludicrous, it's probably better to settle for the more realistic option; that Lambeth George made an oversight.

To begin with, what I say is a fact is that the police report signature number three and Toppys signature from 1911 is the best example we have of a likeness inbetween the signatures made by, on the one hand the man who signed the police report, and on the other hand, Toppy. I am also saying that it is a fact that these signatures are so very much alike that a suggestion that they belong to the same man is an apparently very reasonable one.

No, the above are opinions and opinions only.

Anyone can see that.

Please don't ruin a sensible discussion by trying to mutate opinions into fact. It simply won't work. Express an opinion that the signatures are "remarkably similar", and express an opinion that they offer us the best match so far (if you really think so), but please don't expect to be taken seriously by claiming that those opinions are facts.

They're not facts - fact!

I will however happily state as a fact that it would be something quite out of the ordinary if they did NOT belong to the same man.

And I will quite happily reject that as utter nonsense. I think there must be some language barrier issue here, because the it's impossible for the above to be based on anything other than opinion. You can express an opinion in that regard, fine, but trying to claim it as a fact just makes you look ridiculous. I certainly wouldn't claim as fact that it would be unusual in the extreme for Toppy to be the witness based on the signatures, but that doesn't stop me from having an opinion in that regard.

What you claim to be fact is nothing of the kind - fact!

Weighed together, it is at any rate quite enough for me to deduct that it would be a grave mistake not to work from the suggestion that Hutchinson has been found at long last

For "me" to "deduct".

Now that's more like it. At least we're back into the realms of acceptable and appropriate terminology now. I disagree, and most profoundly at that, but at least you've stopped with the "facts" that are nothing of the sort.

There, so much for facts!

Yeah...I wouldn't go on records with comments like that.

...and which of the three signatures does she think matches Toppys signature best? Did she say, or was her verdict a weighed together effort...?

Crystal mentioned that the expert compared the signatures, and came to the conclusion that they didn't match, just as Iremonger believed they didn't match.

Sometimes it is enough to just know that we KNOW, and that others, for diverse reasons, such as preconceptions, will never know. It's kind of a powerful feeling really.

Yep, that's pretty much how I feel right now, Mike, and yes; it's a great feeling.

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

I'm glad you feel that. Delusion is quite similar. And you know I'm only having you on, eh?

Mike

[Ben]

But of course, Mike

Hope all's well,

Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"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"


How desperate can you get Ben? Follow the tail backwards to its highest point on the n, and you will see that it represents a counter-clockwise bend. If it had been prolonged, following the intentions it shows, it would have started turning upwards. It is not as obvious as it is in Toppys other signatures (for this one is a Toppy signature too), but it is very evident. And, like I say, a missing stem on a "t" - well, thatīs comparing mosquitos to elephants.

"...your obvious deep-seated bias..."

"Ouch, Ben! Ouch, ouch and double ouch! You sure you shouldnīt tend to your own shortcomings in this field first?"

"So you're seriously suggesting that the Lambeth Hutchinson was usually in the habit of failing to cross his "t"s? That is testicle-crushingly preposterous, Fish"

In fact, Ben, I am. And I ground this preposterously stupid suggestion on the fact that he writes the t in Lambeth in exactly the same fashion on the line under his name.
May I suggest, Ben, that you check things like these BEFORE you speak of having your balls damaged?

"Please don't ruin a sensible discussion by trying to mutate opinions into fact."

Is this not what YOU just did, Ben, by offering the OPINION that Lambeth man MUST have used stems on his t:s? Whereas I supported my wiew with the fact that BOTH t:s were made in the same fashion? Yes? No?

There are other points here where you rave on about what can be regarded as facts and what can not. I think your little exhibition in combination with the stems on Lambeth manīs t:s will take excellent care of showing people how you create you very own facts, calling those who are against you...testicle-crushingly preposterous, was it...???

Erhmm....
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

By the way, Ben, the difference evinced in the different ways of writing the t:s when it comes to Toppy/Hutch and Lambeth man is a very important one, handwritingwise. It was one of the points that Rolf Berzell from SKL pressed in the interwiew I referred to earlier on this thread.

Lambeth man never lifts the pen from the paper as he produces his "t".

Toppy/Hutch does.

This is a major difference, and one that firmly establishes that these signatures were not written by the same man, unless he varied his way of writing his t:s in a very striking fashion. Both Lambeth mans signature and Toppys census ditto were written in the same year, remember.

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Good Morning, Fisherman - you write:

Crystal writes:

"I have just had a second response to my request for opinions. This lady says on balance she doesn't think Toppy is a match for the witness signatures. Her main reasons are the devloped capital G, and the 'th' in 'Hutchinson'. She adds that time is limited, so this is only a surface examination.
So far, one for, and one against."

...and which of the three signatures does she think matches Toppys signature best? Did she say, or was her verdict a weighed together effort...?

And one more thing; do your experts know of the time span involved

To answer your questions (nothing to hide here!) she looked at the signatures overall and did not consider them a probable match for the reasons specified above.

The answer to your second question is yes, they all know of the time period involved, so they are able to take that into account. In fact they know the following:

1)the dates for the signatures, so that they can consider the time span involved.

2) the contexts for the signatures - by this I mean that they have information about the general context of the signatures - so they know that one is from a marriage certificate, one from the 1911 Census, and three from a witness statement. In terms of the witness statement, they can, for example, factor the potential stress of the situation into their analysis.

They do not have (as far as I have told them):

1) Information regarding either George Hutchinson the witness, or George Hutchinson the plumber (whether one and the same, or not)

2)Background knowledge of the case

3)Any information regarding this current debate

I have thus given them every chance of coming up with an unbiased view. if I receive any further feedback, I will post it for all to see, regardless of whether it coincides with my own view or not.

And if this goes on much longer, I'll go and look at the damn things myself!

[Fisherman]

Morning, Crystal! Good to see you up and about!

Thanks for filling out the blanks here!

My comments, from an amateurs wiew, on the "second" experts wiew you forwarded, are these:

The capital G is different. But it is not different when it comes to the general leaning, for example. The main difference lies in the fact that Toppy produces a full loop on the top, whereas Dorset Street Hutch did not. But the G in itself is produced in the same manner overall: Soft counter-clockwise turn, producing an oblongish loop, stopping short in itīs upward travel, and turning downwards to produce another oblongish loop, clockwise this time.
Myself, I have a Christian name that begins with a C. And that C, I have over the years written in distinctly different manners, one of them as a large, open letter, and the other one with an oblong loop over a rounded circle. In character, these C:s differ a lot more than the G:s we are speaking of here.

Similarly, there is nothing much in the t:s and the h:s that make me suspicious. Same overall leaning, and written in the same fashion. The main differences lie in the heigth of the t (shorter in Dorset Street witnessīversion) and in the fact that Dorset Street winess has an open loop on his h, whereas Toppy does not. This is a more significant difference, but it could well owe to a difference in speed as he wrote them - when you write slowly, loops like these are more easily formed.

Just my two cents, of course, and I appreciate that (although they remain unknown to us) your friends would be more trained than I - but I think that there are much, much more commonalities than deviances. And I would expext at least some deviances, unless Hutch used a stamp.


The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Hi Fisherman,

I take your points, which are all reasonable and measured. I can entirely understand this view, because, from a layman's perspective, it does make sense (no offence meant there!). In my view, and that of this particular colleague, for whom I have a great deal of professional respect, the differences in the capital 'G' are more significant than they may appear, but in the main, from a surface analysis perspective, the formation of the 'tch' in Hutchinson is what clinches it for me - that and the very clear similarity between Toppy's marriage certificate signature and the 1911 Census. There are other points, but from my present view, those are the most significant.

I can see, too, where Sam Flynn is coming from , but honestly, it doesn't make up for having seen hundreds, if not thousands of examples of handwriting from this era. You learn after a time just how much commonality there is between one hand and another at this date. As you probably know, it stems from the way in which people were taught to write - from standard copy books. Although hands do vary - obviously they would have to, as it is not possible to completely submerge individual traits - the aim of good handwriting was to look a certain way and conform to a standard - thus the forward slant, for example, is very common. Good handwriting was something to aspire to - it does make it easier to read, at least! If you really want to have fun, you should try comparing hands of the 16th, or 17th century (I use the term 'fun' the broadest possible sense... ). You get the picture, I'm sure.

I have to say - and in fact have doubtless said already - that although I think it would be great if the George Hutchinson of the witness statement was at last identified, I don't think, on present evidence, that day has come yet. I - as would any other person examining these signatures formally - would have to actually see them in person, as it were, to make any further comments on how similar or not they are.

But then again, he could have used a stamp....

Although not on Goulston Street, I don't think

[Fisherman]

Well, Crystal, as you will know, I stick to my conviction. And I apparently do so in the company of your expert number one, which feels nice!

A comment or two on the "tch" form my perspective. The leaning is the same. In all three cases (third protocol page, 1898 and 1911 signatures) we have a stem to the t that joins the t without protruding any much on the left side of it, whereas it stretches into or past the loop of the h. There is a good possibility that both the stem and the dot over the i was added simultanesously, as the last part of the signature, since the stem of the t points directly to the dot, opening up for the possibility that he made the stem, lifted the pen and let it travel eastwards for a centimetre and then added the dot.
Most importantly, though - the overall impression is not of a very differing character as far as I can see. Much as I am ready to take a bow to expertise, Iīm also quite fond of my own abilities of perception. And they have been screaming loudly all along that the hunt for Hutch is over.

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Only time can tell if you, Sam Flynn, or anyone else who thinks Witness George and Toppy George are one and the same are correct, Fisherman.

It is of course not impossible that other evidence will emerge which either corroborates your view or demolishes it. If Ben and I are correct, then perhaps we might in time find another signature for the real George Hutchinson - assuming, of course, that he did use his true name when he gave his statement.

I think that if he could be identified with Toppy, that would pretty much exclude him from the suspect list - maybe not for certain, but in probability. But since we can't agree, poor old George still has to look a bit suspicious...