Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

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.

I wasn't showing an "unability (sic) to understand" so much as an unwillingness to agree with what I believed to be a flawed and erroneous observation. There's a difference. You didn't need to expand, because you explained it all in rather verbose detail first time around. I disagreed then as I do so now, so the sensible and prudent course of action might have been to resign yourself to the fact that we disagree and move on.

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).

What the hell's a "type unit" when it's at home?

A crossbar is measured in width and a stem is measured in height. It's as simple as that. Your argument seemed to be that height is susceptible to change, but width isn't, which is obviously nonsense - unless I misread you, in which case I naturally apologise. Height and width are equally susceptible change, and it matters little if you try to make the latter sound more meaningful and steadfast by calling it a "type unit".

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.

But they also revealed that, overall, Presley was not as consistent in his style of signature as Toppy was. We have next to no idea of the time span that elapsed between the penning of Presley's signatures, but we know that Toppy revealed his tremendous consistency over the course of 13 years. This consistency can only accentuate the differences with the witness signatures, especially when the witness showed those distinct differences with Toppy in three successive signatures.

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?

What do you mean "hasting to obey the police"?

Do you honestly believe that the police were badgering Hutchinson that incessently to sign the statement as quickly as he possibly could? "Sign it! Sign it! Sign it! Don't even THINK about prolonging that crossbar! The tea's breweing and we haven't the time! One more millimetre, sunshine, and so help me, I'll...!"

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.

We have no actual examples from the period, if that's what you mean, but we certainly don't lack circumstantial support from his slightly later writings, from which we have more than enough data to arrive at the conclusion that he most probably signed his name in a fashion very similar to the 1898 and 1911 signatures, with closed G-loop, distinctive tail and un-witness-like "tch" all in place.

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,

I didn't say I didn't allow any "presumptions". I said I wouldn't allow any "assertions". You can presume all you like, and your presumptions may have merit, just as long as you don't mutate them in facts.

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.

Too bad the actual experts in the field of document examination don't agree, with one of them specifically citing the "tch" as a major difference between Toppy and the witness. I hope you won't take it amiss if I accept their judgement on the matter. It's not a millimetre's difference. The witness "t" is half the size of the h, with a crossbar that doesn't even touch the "t" stem itself. Then there's the double-stemmed tall "h" with a tiny base and a double stem, which looks nothing remotely like any of the Toppy "h"s. In fact, the "tch" is almost virtual antithesis with Toppy's signature.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

"Sloppy" Toppy?

Nah.

Toppy's signatures reveal too much consistency with eachother over too long a time period to be thus classified. You might observe that the same signatures are indicative of little education, but then we know he was a working class plumber. As for Toppy's age - that of a 22-year-old adult - I really don't think we can infantilize him to the point of accepting that he deliberately fancified his signature to "satisfy" the police. That's a step away from the three-year old who wanted to impress his mother by doing a really big poo on the grown-up lavatory. Doesn't quite work for me. More likely, the witness wrote his signature in that fashion because that is how he usually wrote.

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",

Again, Fish, you're falling into the trap of trying to nullify the significance of the more striking dissimilarities whilst at the same time trying to bolster the significance of the similarities. Of course the looped "h" is important. The witness wrote his h's like that on two and possibly three successive occasions. Most plausible deduction? The witness was usually in the habit of witing double stemmed or "looped" h's. Toppy's "h"'s, of course, have a very different appearance, and he repeats them over a lengthy time span. At no point to they resemble the witness'.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Some may be better at it than others, but they're largely stuck with the kit with which they were born

Although it is possible to hone and improve upon that kit - to perfect a natural predisposition through observation practice - and that is why the argument that experience counts for a great deal has obvious merit. If it were true that we were all as good as eachother because we're all humans and endowed with innate abilities, a great many professions would be invalidated.

Best regards,
Ben

[IchabodCrane]

As for Toppy's age - that of a 22-year-old adult - I really don't think we can infantilize him to the point of accepting that he deliberately fancified his signature to "satisfy" the police.

I think he copied the stylized 'H' from Badham right above. The point being he didn't remember how to write a stylized H. It's a very difficult letter to write if you forgot how to. Then when he needed to do more signatures he just dropped it in favor of the simple H. That's my theory.

[IchabodCrane]

I think he signed the pages in the order 1-3-2.

[Ben]

Hi Ichabod,

Sue Iremonger believed that the first signature wasn't written by Hutchinson at all, but by Sgt. Badham, after realizing that he had neglected to have the witness sign all three pages as protocol dictated.

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Ben,
I know, but it gives me another reason to mistrust the judgement of Ms. Iremonger. Apart from the H and the 'r' in George, there are no differences between the signatures. Admittedly I'm not an expert, but from what I see I feel the witness might have signed all three pages himself. Notice also the H is different between Badham's H and the H in the signature (my above post).

[Ben]

Hi Ichabod,

I should clarify that Iremonger's view was that Badham attempted to emulate Hutchinson's signature after realizing his oversight, thus accounting for the similarities and differences with the other two. You mention that the above is "another" reason to mistrust the judgement of Ms. Iremonger, and I have to wonder what the first reason was?

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Ben,
the first reason is that she opined the signature on the third page and GWTH's later signatures don't match. I think they do, although I admit there is a very small possibility that they were not written by the same person. Ms. Iremonger obviously thought the possibility greater that they were written by different persons, and I disagree with that.
IchabodCrane

[Ben]

Hi Ichabod,

the first reason is that she opined the signature on the first page and GWTH's later signatures don't match.

I'm not quite sure how that would qualify as a reason to "mistrust" her views, though. She's a professional and expert in her particular field, so her opinion carries great weight. You can disagree with her, of course, but I'd respectfully caution against "mistrusting" her views just because they don't conform to yours. If anything, the fact that at least two experts believed they don't match should prompt us to pause, ponder, and perhaps reassess.

Best regards,
Ben

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Ben,
I know they are the experts, and we are not. Hutchinson was my favorite suspect before I saw Topping's signature. But looking at the signatures it's just so improbable that there should be a more than 50% chance these two signatures were of different persons with the same name. We can't establish any 100% facts here anyway, and I acknowledge the experts' judgements and my opinion is of course partly influenced by theirs. And yet despite all this I still feel there is a plus 50% chance they were written by the same person. Without expert opinions I would feel almost 100%.
Best wishes,
IchabodCrane

[Ben]

Hi Ichabod,

Fair enough. Personally, the more I look at the signatures, the more I recognise the merit in Iremonger's view that the signatures were not penned by the same individual, but your mileage may vary, of course. Either way, I don't think the identity issue impacts particularly on Hutchinson's potential culpability in these crimes.

All the best,

Ben

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

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

Bingo, Sam! It was just a matter of time, the way I see things, before we found that "n". Still, itīs relief to rest my eyes on it now!
Good job, Sam!
And speaking of "Bethnal Greens", I trust you see the same thing as I do; in one of the two "Bethnals", the l shows a closed, stem, but in the other...! Heureka!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"unless I misread you, in which case I naturally apologise"

Then thanks for the apology - you DID misread me. The crossbar represents the "type unit", and it is not something you measure. It is not about width at all. It is about in what fashion you write the bar; as a long line on top of the t, as a smallish Lmabeth bar on the middle, as a curl to the t, etcetera. And once a writer has chosen the type he wants to use, he will normally stick with it. Therefore, once again, it represents an element of style that is less likely to change than the lenght of a stem.

"But they also revealed that, overall, Presley was not as consistent in his style of signature as Toppy was."
That is loosing itīs relevance by the minute, Ben - we are finding looped stems now, just as we are finding differing heights and differing connections inbetween letters. And we are still at a total loss when it comes to knowing how Toppys handwriting differed in the periods 1889-1897 and 1899-1910.

"What do you mean "hasting to obey the police"?"

That he was eager to show a mind of cooperation, and not that he wrote his signature fast - instead, his willingnes to comply may have led him to write meticulously.

"We have no actual examples from the period, if that's what you mean"

That, Ben, is exactly what I mean.

"I didn't say I didn't allow any "presumptions". I said I wouldn't allow any "assertions".

Fair enough, Ben! So, no assertions about Toppy either is what applies.

"Too bad the actual experts in the field of document examination don't agree, with one of them specifically citing the "tch" as a major difference between Toppy and the witness. I hope you won't take it amiss if I accept their judgement on the matter. It's not a millimetre's difference. The witness "t" is half the size of the h, with a crossbar that doesn't even touch the "t" stem itself. Then there's the double-stemmed tall "h" with a tiny base and a double stem, which looks nothing remotely like any of the Toppy "h"s."

Too bad, Ben? Surely you donīt feel all that sorry for me, do you? And I donīt think that the experts will DEMAND the exact same height of that "t" before they recognize that the writer may have been the same, Ben. If you have material from the experts claiming this, then I would like to see it - itīsjust that I think it is and will remain non-existant. And if it should surface, then it is time to tell the experts to get a long needed rest.
As for the double-stemmed h, I think that you may want to take a look at how Toppy wrote "Bethnal" in the census papers; one of the l:s was singlestemmed and the other was double-stemmed.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Toppy's signatures reveal too much consistency with eachother over too long a time period to be thus classified. You might observe that the same signatures are indicative of little education, but then we know he was a working class plumber. As for Toppy's age - that of a 22-year-old adult - I really don't think we can infantilize him to the point of accepting that he deliberately fancified his signature to "satisfy" the police. That's a step away from the three-year old who wanted to impress his mother by doing a really big poo on the grown-up lavatory. "

Aha! So for a man from the lower classes of society to feel a little awe when facing top authorities in a big police house - that just would not happen? It would make him resemble a three-year old?
Ben, I work as a journalist. It is a trade that should not be regarded as anything fancy or awe-inspiring. Still, I often receive visits from people, mostly elderly citizens, who are very humble in their approach to me, and who take great care about how they speak and act. They donīt feel totally at ease (and no, itīs not me) in the situation.
And I do not have to move back very long in time to remember my parents approach to, for example medical doctors and such when I was a kid; they were very much aware of the doctorīs status in society. And all her life, when my mother wrote a note or letter to somebody with whom she was not really aquainted, for example the teachers at my school, she took great care to write neatly (and she was not even in contact physically with these people, as was Hutch), something she did not do writing a letter to relatives and friends. It is an attitude towards authorities that is no longer present in the same way it was fifty years ago, and back in 1888, it would have been very relevant. So I donīt think that you should dismiss a perfectly reasonable suggestion as lightheartedly as you do.

"Again, Fish, you're falling into the trap of trying to nullify the significance of the more striking dissimilarities whilst at the same time trying to bolster the significance of the similarities. Of course the looped "h" is important."

Ah, Ben, but I never fall into that "trap". I can count, you know, and I would not challenge the wiew that statistics apply here too. But they do not do so in absurdum - there is no way that we can rely on Hutch being a machine, unable to write his letters differently than he did in the police report. On the contrary - we have amassed information about Toppy telling us that he was quite prone to change even elements that reasonably would seem very telling. And therefore, I am in no way trapped. The only trap that has been at work here, is the one telling us that the elements of style involved in the police report signatures are enough to rule out Toppy; the joining between the H and the u, the h being taller than the t, the looped stems, the-you-name-it, are all things that have been shown to leak considerably, and in accordance with this, we must realize that what you seemed to regard as unbridgeable difficulties were quite easily bridged. The only thing that remains is the difference inbetween the capital G:s, and that is, just like the case the lenght of the t-stem, an issue where we are dealing with a line that WILL vary in length EACH TIME you see it. There will be closed loops, and there will very probably be open loops too. Itīs the last fortress to fall when it falls, and if we are only provided with enough material I have very little doubt that it WILL fall.

The best,
Fisherman