Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Sam Flynn]

I don't agree, as it militates heavily against the opinion of two document examiners

Why should militating against the opinions of anybody be a defining criterion, when our own senses tell us different, Ben?

who subscribed to the view that the differences outweighed the similarities in Toppy's case, and came to the conclusion that he was not the witness.

I didn't think there was any "conclusion" to that effect - and quite right too. Any document examiner worth their salt will admit that there's always an element of subjectivity to such exercises a these. What baffles me is that, in this instance, they could be so objectively off target... but that's a matter for their introspection, rather than my dissection, at the end of the day.

[Ben]

If one doesn't see similarities between signatures, regardless if one thinks Lambeth George's signature is even more similar, it is astounding to me.

It's not so much a question of seeing "no silimarities", Mike, but rather detecting that the differences outweigh the similarities.

would have had to have been noticed by Reginald and possibly Fairclough for them to have concocted such a scheme

But there's no evidence that either Reg or Fairclough ever set eyes on Toppy's signature, so that does away with that aspect of the "conspiracy" I'm afraid.

In order for these men not to be the same men, we have to completely throw out Reginald, calling him a conspirator and forger as he is booted out the door, as well as census takers and maybe sergeant Badham.

Well, no, we don't really need to do any of that. The census takers didn't do anything wrong and nor did Badham except provide the sources for evidence of handwriting; handwriting that has led experts in the field to the conclusion that Toppy wasn't the witness, and as for Reg, he could easily have been sold a pup by his father, and Reg could easily have picked up the phone to an enthusiastic Fairclough and simply answered a bogus "yes" to the question "Do you have ancestral connections to the George Hutchinson of ripper fame?" Before I'm criticised for casting aspertions in Reg's direction, I know that a handful of ripper experts interviewed Reg around the same time as Fairclough and came away distinctly unimpressed. Doubts over Toppy and Reg didn't originate with me, I'm afraid.

These signatures are surely in the realm of the similar at the very least. Combine that with Toppy's story, believed or not, plus the severe lack of other Georger Hutchinson's, plus appearances in the census that are very reasonable, and seemingly accurate, this is our man.

But that's your opinion. Mine is that the differences outweight the similarities, and that the Reg Hutchinson "My dad saw Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper and it all had to do with the royal family" is decidedly bogus. There aren't a "severe lack" of George Hutchinsons. Indeed, we know for certain that there are a handful of East End George Hutchinsons whose signatures we haven't seen. These factors combine to cement the premise that Toppy was NOT the witness, in my view.

It is also a good thing, as we may be able to remove him from our list of Ripper suspects, though for some, that must be the fear

Can't say there's a great deal of justification for thinking so, Mike.

It would be tremendous progress if we could remove a suspect from the list, and I'd be the first to welcome it as such. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened here - far from it.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Why should militating against the opinions of anybody be a defining criterion, when our own senses tell us different, Ben?

It doesn't qualify as proof, Gareth, of course, but when expert insight goes against my "own senses", I'd like to think I'd be circumspect enough to maybe re-think those senses.

What baffles me is that, in this instance, they could be so objectively wrong... but that's a matter for their introspection, rather than my dissection, at the end of the day.

What baffles me is that you can even consider saying such things. No offense intended, but I can only read on with mouth agape in mute protest when you insist with such strong language that the experts must be wrong.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Well no, let's not just say that, since we've no expert opinion that would permit us to arrive at such a conclusion"

Nor do we need it - it goes without saying that the height of a stem is more probable to change it´s height than a type of bar to a t is to morph into a differnt kind of bar.

But quibbling over such things is of inferior interest here - the only thing I wanted to point out was that it has been said that Hutch would not change his respective ways to join the capital H to the u and to write a taller h than the t in "Hutchinson". We have now seen that he did just that, and such a thing means that any stating of the opposite is and remains wrong.

The best,
Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

It's difficult to imagine the police would not have confronted both Joseph Barnett and George Hutchinson with Joseph Lawende. If George Hutchinson were GWTH, it would provide an answer why the police dismissed him. He was only 22 and he was not the man Lawende had seen standing with Catherine Eddowes minutes before her murder.

Toppy was only 22?......... i didn't realise that

this doesn't help.......oh dear!

[Ben]

Nor do we need it - it goes without saying that the height of a stem is more probable to change it´s height than a type of bar to a t is.

I'n unaware of any evidence that would support such a confident conclusion, but I fully agree that squabbling over such things is of inferior interest, so I'm done with that aspect of the discussion. Unless...!

But quibbling over such things is of inferior interest here - the only thing I wanted to point out was that it has been said that Hutch would not change his respective ways

I never said that. While I've no doubt that Toppy was capable of deviating to an extent, I've little doubt that he remained largely very consistent over a considerable period of time, and that he was unlikely to have repeated a major deviation on successive occasions.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

It doesn't qualify as proof, Gareth, of course, but when expert insight goes against my "own senses", I'd like to think I'd be circumspect enough to maybe re-think those senses.

I'd much prefer it if you were confident enough to go with your retinal cells, and trust the signals they're sending your remarkable brain.

No offense intended, but I can only read on with mouth agape in mute protest when you insist with such strong language that the experts must be wrong.

No offence taken, Ben... although I should point out that you'd dislocate your jaw, Jacob Marley-style, if I employed the language I'd like to use. Y'see, given my background I'm painfully aware of the woolly thinking that goes on in some of the "soft" sciences, and I do not take at face value what their proponents might say. On a more general note, I'm disinclined to fall down and worship at the feet of any "expert", but to take their pronouncements on merit - which is the only proper thing to do. That's why I take the opinions of (e.g.) Bagster Phillips and Sir Robert Anderson with a shovel-full of salt.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'n unaware of any evidence that would support such a confident conclusion, but I fully agree that squabbling over such things is of inferior interest, so I'm done with that aspect of the discussion. Unless...!

...unless I wish to clarify and exemplify. And I of course do!

We are comparing height with type here, and height will INEVITABLY change each time, although along varying scales individually. Type won´t do that.
Example: If you write the capital H in your surname in the curlied Lambeth fashion one time, it is reasonable to believe you will do so next time. It is not a certainty - you could change to the Toppy type. But once you done that, it is not very credible that you will change to a third, different type of H next time over, a fourth on the following occasion, a fifth ...
The height of your stems in the l in your surmane WILL vary, though. Maybe it will not be much, but vary it will to at least some extent.
Ergo, one of these elements must and will change inbetween signatures, whereas it is very unprobable that the other one will change at all.

We really don´t need an expert to establish this, Ben, do we?


"While I've no doubt that Toppy was capable of deviating to an extent, I've little doubt that he remained largely very consistent over a considerable period of time, and that he was unlikely to have repeated a major deviation on successive occasions."

NOW we arrive at the thing where we do not have any evidence in support, Ben. For this is something where you don´t have any material to use in support of your supposition. We KNOW he deviated. But we don´t know how often and how much. That remains veiled to us. To find any tendencies in things like these we need a vast statistical material from the period we need to examine, and we have nothing at all - not a scrap.
Besides, I would not describe for example the fact that the t is lower than the h in the Florence signature as any "major deviation". It is a perfectly normal and not very dramatic one, since it is just a question of heights of the stems, and they WILL vary, Ben, each time they will do so to some extent.
The H not joining the u at the top is a more drastic deviation - but it is perfectly obvious that this in no way hindered it´s appearance, not even in the quite small material of a mere handful of signatures. There is no mathematical reason to expect that it could only happen once a decade or so - unless we mean ten signatures when we speak of decades.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I'd much prefer it if you were confident enough to go with your retinal cells, and trust the signals they're sending your remarkable brain.

But I can do all of that whilst still acknowledging that there are people who have been training for years at a particular discipline. We all have remarkable legs, arms, brains and remarkable voice boxes, but that doesn't mean we're all great actors.

That's why I take the opinions of (e.g.) Bagster Phillips and Sir Robert Anderson with a shovel-full of salt.

I find that commendable, and I agree, but then again Robert Anderson was never an expert in serial crime. What I find less commendable - and you're free to glaze over here, since I don't believe for a moment that you fall into this particular category - is the propensity of some ripperologists to reject any expert insight and then try to substitute themselves as the "replacement" experts.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Ben]

...unless I wish to clarify and exemplify. And I of course do!

Look, please don't say that you don't wish to pursue a particular tangent any longer when you really mean that you just want to have the last word on the matter. I'm asking nicely.

We are comparing height with type here, and height will INEVITABLY change each time, although along varying scales individually. Type won´t do that.

First let us clarify where you're getting these definitions from; "type" versus height, since height plays an important part in the "type" of letter as far as I'm concerned. What you're actually comparing, if you think about it, is height versus width, or more specifically; the height of the stem versus the width of the crossbar. Now let's be reasonable here, there is no justification in the world for arguing that height is more susceptible to change than width?

But once you done that, it is not very credible that you will change to a third, different type of H next time over, a fourth on the following occasion, a fifth ...

A little bit like the consistenty closed G-loop in Toppy, as opposed to the consistently open-loop of the witnesses. I think that would qualify very well as an example of your "type" construct, since it doesn't relate to height or width.

The height of your stems in the l in your surmane WILL vary, though. Maybe it will not be much, but vary it will to at least some extent.

And rather obviously not the extent of reducing the height of the "t" to basically half the height of the h, seperating the crossbar from the stem in the process. I'd say that's a very drastic alteration.

NOW we arrive at the thing where we do not have any evidence in support, Ben. For this is something where you don´t have any material to use in support of your supposition. We KNOW he deviated. But we don´t know how often and how much

Well, if we're reasonable and circumspect about this, it's only fair to acknowledge that Toppy deviated very little in the manner in which he signed his name. The 1911 signatures evince a remarkable similarity with eachother, just as they evinced a remarkable similarity with a signature he penned 13 years earlier. All in all, a compelling case for a consistent signature on Toppy's part, and one that was unlikely to have been susceptible to serious alteration. To say that there's "not a scrap" of supportining evidence is most baffling to me, which is why I sometimes wish you'd apply the brakes just a little before you use such strong terminology.

Besides, I would not describe for example the fact that the t is lower than the h in the Florence signature as any "major deviation". It is a perfectly normal and not very dramatic one

Absolutely, but in order for it to look like witness Hutchinson's "tch" a "major deviation" would be required.

I'm off now, and I anxiously await the proliferation of posts that will await my return!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

But I can do all of that whilst still acknowledging that there are people who have been training for years at a particular discipline.

It doesn't change the physiology or anatomy of their eyes, though, Ben.

What I find less commendable is the propensity of some ripperologists to reject any expert insight and then try to substitute themselves as the "replacement" experts.

Firstly, I do not believe that there can be "expertise" in this context, only the innate ability to distinguish lines and corners - that's a fact of nature. Some may be better at it than others, but they're largely stuck with the kit with which they were born. Speaking personally, I have very acute eyesight (well, over short distances at least )

Secondly, nobody's pretending to be a "replacement expert" - they're merely trusting the judgement of their eyes.

Given that we're all looking at the same collection of lines and corners, and that we have the same innate apparatus with which to do so, the only logical conclusion is that opinion is affecting our judgement one way or another.

The fact is that I once had (very!) strong opinions against GWTH being the Dorset Street witness, but I find here - in the visual evidence alone - more than adequate grounds to unequivocally reverse my former stance on the matter.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Look, please don't say that you don't wish to pursue a particular tangent any longer when you really mean that you just want to have the last word on the matter. I'm asking nicely."

You were showing a remarkable unability to understand an important element in my analysis, Ben, and in such cases I will expand on the matter. The fact that I bfore stated that I wished not to quibble over smaller matters did not take into account that you would even question the obviously unshakable fact I had presented you with. I never saw it coming. And that´s about as nicely as I can put it.

"What you're actually comparing, if you think about it, is height versus width, or more specifically; the height of the stem versus the width of the crossbar. "

Not in a million years, Ben. I am not even comparing since there can be no comparison inbetween apples and bananas. I am speaking of one measurable unit (height) and one type unit (crossbar at the top, with lifted pen, as opposed to, for example, crossbar at the middle, without lifting pen). And the REASON I am doing this is because three posts back, you presented a lengthy argument telling me that I could not say that certain elements of style are more probable to change than others.


"And rather obviously not the extent of reducing the height of the "t" to basically half the height of the h, seperating the crossbar from the stem in the process. I'd say that's a very drastic alteration."

It IS a big alteration. But, returning to the Elvis Presley signatures I posted earlier, they showed that the "l" in Presley sometimes reached all the way up to the top of the large, round loop in P he used, and other times tey only reached halfway up. Putting it otherwise, the discrepancy we KNOW we have to allow for in Presleys case with that "l" is fifty per cent. And it is very reasonable to expect that the few examples I provided did NOT include the most extreme variants he wrote. So, in fact, this is not much ofa problem in that light - or, actually, it is no problem at all.
Moreover, if we return to our discussion on Lambeth George, you said that it would be "testicle-crushingly preposterous" to believe that he did not cross his t:s with a bar. That argument could easily be used in this instance too. Don´t you think it would be equallytesticle-crushingly preposterous to believe that he never intended to cross the stem of his t with the bar? Why on earth would he cross the "h" with it?? Maybe, Ben, he intended to make a longer "t"but hasting to obey the police he simply forgot to get the real length in?
Or, perhaps simpler, he wrote a shorter t this time over, as people - Presley included - may do.

"To say that there's "not a scrap" of supportining evidence is most baffling to me, which is why I sometimes wish you'd apply the brakes just a little before you use such strong terminology"

What I mean is that we have not a scrap of evidence how he wrote between 1899 and 1910. That is not strong terminology - it is a fact. And when I before stated that Lambeth George would have written the same type of crossbar throughout time, and that if we found some of his texts that would probably verify this, I seem to remember that you would not allow any such presumptions, so I fail to see why I should allow you to draw any similar conclusions this time over, specifically not since we actually know that Toppy deviated in his writing. Fair is fair, Ben, would you not say?

"Absolutely, but in order for it to look like witness Hutchinson's "tch" a "major deviation" would be required."

Not at all, Ben. If there was even a very small gap between the bar and the stem it would make a very striking comparison. As it stands, there is a millimetre or two lacking, but anybody will realize that it is an easily overcome thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

More "T", Vicar...?

if we return to our discussion on Lambeth George, you said that it would be "testicle-crushingly preposterous" to believe that he did not cross his t:s with a bar.

All of Lambeth George's "t"s for your delectation...



Note the variations:

1. Wherever he writes "Hutchinson" - exhibit A and D - he goes from the very base of the "t" to the "c". In other words, he doesn't use a crossbar, but something almost like a "reversed tick" in each case.

2. When he's not writing "Hutchinson" - as in B ("Porter"), C ("Herts" and "Jarratt"), D ("Lambeth") - he doubles back very tightly up the stem of the "t" to form a crossbar from almost the dead centre of the "t" itself.

3. Note, especially, that whilst he forms the "H" in an elaborate manner whenever he writes "Hutchinson", he doesn't do so elsewhere. His "H"s in example A ("Head") and in exhibit C ("Herts"), are written in a much plainer style.

We therefore have quite some variation within Lambeth George's handwriting at the same point in time - in the "t"s and "H"s significantly so. Equally significant is that he never launches the crossbar on his "t"s from the topmost part of the stem - contrasting markedly with what happens consistently in 1888p1-3 and in the undisputed samples of Toppy's handwriting from 1898 and 1911.

It's worth noting as well that this chap appears to have been a bit more attentive at school than Toppy. His punctuation is impeccable - "George W[period] Hutchinson", "Ironmonger[apostrophe]s Porter", and "Herts[comma] Jarratt". Not that this matters too much - just a small detail to be borne in mind when recalling my "Lenoard" observation yesterday.

[Fisherman]

Thanks for this, Sam - most enlightening! Incidentally, when you say that he was more keen to pick up on things in school, I cannot but agree. I also think that this manifests itself in amuch more neat and rounded style of penmanship. It differs in an unmistakable way from the much more sloppy style in which Toppy wrote, I think.
One of the features that distinguishes him from the Toppy material is -among other things - the small "r". One can see how he lets it travel upwards, come to a halt, form a shallow cup on top of the letter, come to a new stop, and then travel downwards. This interests me much, since the "r":s in Toppys writing are a lot less precise and "blurred". However, if we move to the 1888 signature from the third police report page, we find an "r" that equals Lambeth Georges ditto in style and execution. And since I am convinced that Toppys signatures as well as the Dorset Street witness´ditto were written by the same man, this craves an explanation.
I think one obvious such may be that in the role of the Dorset Street witness, Toppy did his best to satisfy the police. He was a mere 22, and may well have been impressed by the authorities he was facing. And so he wrote SLOWLY, and that gave him the time to shape the r nicely. And if we expand on this thinking, I believe it may very well provide us with the explanation for the looped stem of the "h" too - he was doing his very best and taking his time. Not that the loop is that important; looking at Lambeth geroges two examples of writing Hutchinson, we can see that he awards himself a looped stem in the "h", whereas his wife is left with a closed stem on the same letter.
Finally, I am not all that sure that the curlied H in the first signature owes to the fact that Badham wrote it in Hutchs place. If Hutch forgot to sign any paper, I would find it more credible if he only signed the LAST paper, and not papers two AND three, forgetting the first. The signatures to a document are more often than not provided at the end. But the uncurlied H of the signature on page two seems to point at Hutch as the witer, and therefore I think he may well have signed all three pages, providing the curlied H on page one as an example of his finery when it came to writing his signature. After that, he realized that there were more pages to sign, and thus abandoned or simply forgot to use the nice H.

The best, Sam!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed, Fish - quite plausible. I, for one, don't see much of a discrepancy between everything right of the curly "H" on 1888p1 and the equivalents on 1888p2-3 and the 1898/1911 docs either. My earlier post of "utchinson"s would appear to support that.

Just to round off my previous post, here are the entries from the "Place of Birth" column in Toppy's 1911 Census return. Note, once again, the consistent "top-launched crossbars" on the "t"s:



As a minor point of interest note that there really is no upturned "n", this time, in the second entry for "Bethnal Green".