Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Either way, I don't think the identity issue impacts particularly on Hutchinson's potential culpability in these crimes."

That is absolutely correct. We can´t tell, and we are left to make our choices with the gut. And my gut tells me that George William Topping Hutchinson did not kill Mary Kelly. But that is for another thread!

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Well! This has come on somewhat since I last visited! Most of it appears to be unqualified, opinionated twaddle.

Sam Flynn and Fisherman - you appear to have acquired rather a lot of salt over the weekend. It might be an idea to hold on to that - just in case you need to preserve your dignity should you ever be proven wrong about this in the future.

You both seem to be utterly convinced that your viewpoint is right - I wish I could say the same, really, but given the evidence as it stands, I wouldn't feel confident in asserting my view as fact. Still, as you treat the matter with such conviction, I expect you intend to publish your findings? I eagerly await the results.

Oh Come On! If you want to use this forum to pontificate about how much you think you know about something about which you actually know very little, then, yes, that's your perogative. There's a word for it, which I needn't repeat here, I don't think.

Sam Flynn, all this talk of a 'scientific' approach and 'objectivity' is all very well - I don't disagree with what you say, as far as it goes. It is, however, woefully limited, and, I find, rather immature. You sound like a first year undergraduate repeating verbatim something you read in a book or heard in a lecture. Your assertion that nature is always dominant over perception is utter nonsense. Perception is not objective in the slightest, and we are all subject to it, including you. Oh yes, you may contend that your view is wholly objective, but it really isn't, is it? Possibly you actually believe it to be the case, possibly it is just a pretence to obscure the fact that you don't know what you're talking about - I couldn't say. Have you never learned to challenge your own perceptions? What, not even as a 'scientist'? I am amazed.

As for the 'soft' sciences being woolly - the wooliest person posting here appears to be you. You consistently pick out selective elements of this contentious handwriting in order to support your case, and pay no attention to others that may undermine it. You present a number of signature by GWT Hutchinson from the 1911 Census with one witness signature at the top - which is the one you feel supports your case the best - and do not include the other two. Worse, you support your case with evidence which is third hand at best. I think I have a case of my own in asserting that none of the above is remotely objective or scientific.

Fisherman - you seem to believe that visiting a few websites makes you an expert in handwriting analysis. Lots of people hold a similar view, but it doesn't make them correct.

Both of your appear to have left the realms of logic and rational thought in this instance and become immersed in belief - so now it becomes a matter of faith for you that the Dorset Street witness was GWT Hutchinson - otherwise you would consider the views of others, even though they may differ from your own - and there is no arguing with faith.

Incidentally - what are your views on Maybrick?

Not that expect to be heard, but you do realise how little you have to go on here, do you?

I do not say that the signatures are not superficially similar, and, to an untrained eye, they may indeed look convincing. But, with respect, you don't know what you're looking for, because you don't have a trained eye, do you? There are, on present evidence - stronger now since Sam Flynn kindly posted more examples of Toppy's handwriting and effectively shot himself in the foot - positive discrepancies between the witness hand and Toppy's hand. I would want to see a much closer match before I felt confident in assigning them to the same man.

At least, however, the handwriting is primary evidence, not tertiary at best. Anybody who wants to be taken seriously in this matter should try not to include hearsay in the same class of evidence.

And, whitewash over it all you like - we have a problem in that the witness George Hutchinson stated that he was formerly a groom and was currently out of work, which as Ben has pointed out, does not present a particularly good match with a man who was a trained plumber and rarely out of work. Yes, there may be reasons for the discrepancy, and you may both be right, but you have no evidence for any of the suggestions you have made so far, so that is merely speculation as far as I can see.

And, of course, we seem to be forgetting the other problems here - we have not, as Ben points out (Ben,again) seen the signatures of other potential candidates. We have not taken into account the possibility that this man may have had Essex connections and have been living there in 1911, or that he came from elsewhere in the country and had returned there. He may have even - gosh, here's a thought - been dead by 1911. The life of a semi-itinerant labourer wasn't easy you know - he didn't have the luxury of pontificating at his desktop whenever he felt like it...

I find that all things considered (not just my own little pet theory, for example - not that I personally have one) a little more caution might be advisable before pronouncing with such certainty the identification of the Dorset Street witness with GWT Hutchinson.

[IchabodCrane]

"...a man who was a trained plumber and rarely out of work."

The real perversion here is that after getting his kicks from sifting through open bowels our man decided to become a plumber....

[DVV]

I find that all things considered (not just my own little pet theory, for example - not that I personally have one) a little more caution might be advisable before pronouncing with such certainty the identification of the Dorset Street witness with GWT Hutchinson.

True Crystal,
and let's not forget that this thread was first about "Lambeth George", whose handwriting was said to be remarkably similar to that of the witness.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Welcome back, Crystal!

I trust you are now ready to tell me the exact details involved in your assesment of the signatures we are discussing? There were a couple of elements that you found particularly damning for those of us who feel Toppy was our man, and it would be nice to see it up on the boards.

You write:

"Fisherman - you seem to believe that visiting a few websites makes you an expert in handwriting analysis. Lots of people hold a similar view, but it doesn't make them correct."

...and I can´t understand why, as I have on several occasions stated that I am not an expert. The reason I have searched for the tools and working methods of those who are, is closely connected to this fact - I would not need to do so if I WAS an expert.
Also, we are not speaking of a lot of websites here; we are speaking of the material provided by SKL and Rolf Berzell who is the foremost expert on forensic determination on handwriting in Sweden. He boasts 35 years of heading the handwriting group of SKL, and the methodology of his that I posted before was hailed by you as a sound listing of how to treat handwritten material. So I am having difficulties trying to see what you would have preferred me to do:
1. Not try and find relevant material, and offer my wiew with no substantiation, or
2. Stay out of the discussion.

Maybe you could advice me on the issue?

On the topic of GWTH rarely being out of work and being a plumber, that knowledge was handed down to us by his children. But their memories were not derived from the time when Toppy was merely 22, were they? And people are not BORN plumbers - they become plumbers.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

A real difficulty for me is understanding a document examiner's expertise in this particular matter. Signature comparisons are made in order to detect forgery. Is the writer disguising his signature? Will his everyday traits show through? This is a completely different area in which we have to detect, with regards to many, many naturally-occurring anomalies, and given nothing but a few signatures, if one man is the same man who signed a police statement many years earlier. Things that must be taken into consideration are age, possible duress or discomfort, importance of the document and many others. Toppy, if he is George of Miller's Court, has held up remarkably well with regards to similarities; much more so than my own signature and its changes over the years.

The real question is if signatures are, as Crystal suggests, much more than a tertiary source of evidence. I think they are not, but that the combination of several coincidences, as Gareth too agrees, weigh things heavily in Toppy's favor. Barring conspiracy (please don't go there), if we can't agree on the above, we are really a mess, aren't we?

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"let's not forget that this thread was first about "Lambeth George", whose handwriting was said to be remarkably similar to that of the witness."

Actually, David, I don´t think it was said that it was "remarkably similar" - and it is not - but instead Sam worded it:

"I couldn't help noticing at least some similarity to the signature on the front page of "our" George's police statement"

The best, David!
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi.
Although I am the one that associated 'Topping' as our man at the very beginning of becoming a member of Casebook, some ten years ago, I have made a point of staying out of this thread, as all the crossbars, and analyse from members tends to make me dizzy.
Although i appreciate that opinions will vary throughout every aspect of JTR, i would suggest, that it is perfectly clear that the samples of Toppings signatures corresponde almost perfectly with the 1888 statement, and that would be on par with the familys tradition, that GWT, was the witness.
No other relative has ever come foreward stating that they were a desendant of Hutchinson except Reg, no other person has had it written in a book that he was the son of the man, except Reg, no other man has allowed a picture of the man to be shown, except Reg, and last but not least, no other man has made comments on his father live, except Reg[ Elusive radio].
From a source[ not revealed] i have reasons to believe that Reg Hutchinson knew nothing about the Whitechapel murders, and did not see the actual statement until Fairclough showed him, although he was aware that his father made one.
The very suggestion that he knew nothing about these murders, suggests to me that it would be impossible for him to even know of a man called Hutchinson being a witness, and a payment being paid.
The payment issue , has to be conformation of Regs integriety, no mention has ever been made of it apart from Wheelers, which was only discovered a couple of years back.
I am tempted to add more information that would give more credence to Reg , not knowing anything about JTR, but i will not, as i said enough allready.
I should add, that i am saddened that JD Hutchinson has not relented in another post, for that source could reveal much more.
This thread strengthens my belief , that even if 'Jack' was almost positively identified, there would be many that say 'No way'
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

David writes:

"let's not forget that this thread was first about "Lambeth George", whose handwriting was said to be remarkably similar to that of the witness."

Actually, David, I don´t think it was said that it was "remarkably similar" - and it is not - but instead Sam worded it:

"I couldn't help noticing at least some similarity to the signature on the front page of "our" George's police statement"

The best, David!
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
thanks for the correction.
Still, this thread does exist because of the "similarity" noticed by Sam. That's something!

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[DVV]

This thread strengthens my belief , that even if 'Jack' was almost positively identified, there would be many that say 'No way'

Hi Richard,
sorry, but that's not fair.
Because of expert opinion, because Reg's story is dubious, as is the book in which it appears, etc etc, objections posted here are not dishonest.

Amitiés,
David

ps: ...and I've just opened a thread called "If Topping is our witness...", in which, for first time (!), I'm in slight disagreement with Ben.

[The Good Michael]

David,

Even if Reg's story seems dubious to you, its basics fits the signatures and the timing. Because the book was nonsense, doesn't mean Reg didn't tell what he knew. There are too many pieces of the puzzle in place to simply dismiss everything as garbage. This is the perfect example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Absolutely right, Mike,
I can't dismiss everything as garbage, but I just can make objections here and there.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[richardnunweek]

Hi David,
I was not intending to be unfair.
Fact is Reg Hutchinson did not write ;The Ripper and the Royals' Fairclough did, and it is also a fact [ orally] that would suggest that he was promised a sum of money should the book do well.
We must not forget that , and not assume any of Regs[ small] contributions were invented, infact he just repeated what his radio broadcast said some eighteen years previous, and included a photo of his father as well.
No big deal, infact i feel sorry for the whole Hutchinson family, they have had a bad deal, we should remember[ to the best of my knowledge] that a son of Topping is still alive, and a grandson, and its not pleasant to have the casebook vultures pick at the dead mans character, without knowing anything about him.
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

Hi again Richard,
being far from convinced that Toppy was the witness, I can't call myself a casebook vulture in this respect.
And anyway, if Toppy is Hutch, then I have no problem to blame him for his delay, for his inaction on Sunday, etc etc.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"Still, this thread does exist because of the "similarity" noticed by Sam. That's something!"

It is, David - but the true significance of it lies elsewhere.

The best,
Fisherman