Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Crystal!

Here is a very own Elvis Presley link for you - it says on the site that these autographs are autenticated and good to compare with if you are looking for fraud.

Have a look at the finishing "y": He stops short, and travels upwards, leavin an open loop. But for the one case, that is, where there is NO short stop, but instead a perfect loop.

Add to this that I have taken a look at my OWN handwriting in a number of examples. My christian name is Christer, and I normally write the capital C as a combination of two loops (but NOT always - I have used a half-circle at many occasions too) - you will know what type I am talking about. The upper loop, I end by closing it in most occasions. But I have examples where it remains unclosed, and markedly so. On my driverīs license, I hit somewhere inbetween; the loop is completed, but there is no tail protruding on the left side of the C - the line simply connects with the "stem" of the C and stops there.
I donīt know what you make of this all, but I DO know what I make of it. Either I am a very uncommon writer of Capital C:s, or this is something that will happen with many writers, since elements of style change - and they sometimes change a lot.

Oh, and heeeeeerīs....ELVIS!!! (click the pic in the upper left corner)

http://images.google.se/imgres?imgurl=http://elvistoday.co.uk/memorabilia/img/autographs_used_for_merchandise.jpg&imgrefurl=http://elvistoday.co.uk/memorabilia/memorabilia.html&usg=__IqmmYTcmIDeHRwCfOrML5n-Smt8=&h=823&w=500&sz=138&hl=sv&start=141&um=1&tbnid=C-Q_mlBLZgsDPM:&tbnh=144&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dautograph*%2Bpresley%26ndsp%3D20%26hl%3Dsv%26sa%3DN%26start%3D140%26um%3D1

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"My opinion is that Reg's story argues strongly against Toppy-the-witness."

Thanks for that, David. Ben actually goes as far as to say that Regīs words in the book makes it MORE credible that Toppy was not the witness than the other way around. That is what I mean is "reasoning by the absurd" as you eloquently put it. Can I take it that you donīt share his wiew?

To me, I would say that it is the only indication of a provenance we have, and therefore it should not be taken lightly. I will add, though, that the remainder of Regīs story about the event means that the value we can ascribe to his saying that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness is diminished to some unestablishable degree.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Thanks for that, David. Ben actually goes as far as to say that Regīs words in the book makes it MORE credible that Toppy was not the witness than the other way around. That is what I mean is "reasoning by the absurd" as you eloquently put it. Can I take it that you donīt share his wiew?
Fisherman

Hi again, Fish,
I'm afraid I don't understand you, here. It may be because the police didn't offer me a single coffee.
Ben, as far as I know, thinks that, Reg's story, being dubious in the extreme, could hardly come from a genuine witness. And that's also my view.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

David writes:
"Ben, as far as I know, thinks that, Reg's story, being dubious in the extreme, could hardly come from a genuine witness. And that's also my view."

You should have that coffee, David - wonīt do without it. The question you donīt see to fathom was whether you actually think that Regīs story means that it becomes LESS credible that Toppy was the witness - in other words, is there a negative effect involved, meaning that it would have been more credible to believe in Toppys as Hutch if Regīs "testimony" never existed?
I agree that we are dealing with a dubious witness in at least some respects. But I donīt think that we can rely on Regīs statement about how often his father was out of work, while at the same time dismissing the part about him being the Dorset Street witness. Somebody surely was, and we therefore know that it all refers to actual events and not to the possible realms of Phantasy as offered with the Churchill bit.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[DVV]

You should have that coffee, David - wonīt do without it. The question you donīt see to fathom was whether you actually think that Regīs story means that it becomes LESS credible that Toppy was the witness - in other words, is there a negative effect involved, meaning that it would have been more credible to believe in Toppys as Hutch if Regīs "testimony" never existed?

Fisherman

Yes Fish,
If I have to choose between LESS or MORE, I'll go for LESS. Simply because I think that a genuine witness is likely to have told a genuine story to his family.
In any event, as I've already expressed, if I were convinced, like you, that the signatures make Toppy our witness beyond doubt, I would not mention Reg's story as a supplementary argument.

Matching signatures + Reg's story = Toppy-the-witness
...seems to me weakest than:
Matching signatures = Toppy-the-witness.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

Good to know your wiew, David, and thanks for it. I canīt say I agree, though, since I think Regīs mentioning of his fathers status as the witness carries very significant weight. I look at it chronologically, and as Reg preceeds the signatures, I would start out by listening intently and adding the occasional barrel of salt, only to say "Blimey - he WAS right!" when confronted with the signatures. That is how I feel it should be treated, but I am not telling anybody else to share this wiew.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Here is a very own Elvis Presley link for you - it says on the site that these autographs are autenticated and good to compare with if you are looking for fraud.

Fisherman,

Are you out of your mind? How can those all be Elvis' signatures. The Ps and the Es are all somewhat different. The writing slants at different angle degrees with each signature as well. Are you trying to tell me that there are differences from signature to signature? Well, I just don't buy it! Now, I shall go and remove my tongue from my cheek and have nothing to do with your nonsense again!


A document examiner

[Fisherman]

I donīt think Iīm out of my mind yet, Mike. But Iīll get there in the end, no doubt about it!

The best,
Fisherman
headed for the looney bin - but not alone...

[Debra A]

Hi Ben,

if Badham had tried to emulate Hutchinson's signature, then why the elaborate 'H' on page 1? Pages 2 and 3 both have plain Hs. Below are two samples of Badham's own rendering of the word 'Hutchinson' from the text of the statement. I'm just curious what would have been Ms. Iremonger's reasoning on this.

Hi all,
Just for comparison,here are some portions from Badham's 1911 census entry. The 'H' in Hackney (his wife's place of birth) is very similar to the page 1 'H' of the Hutchinson signature. Perhaps Sue Iremonger compared more than one example of Badham's handwriting before reaching her conclusion, which, if I understand Jonathon's earlier post on the Badham issue correctly, was a definite one?



page 1 Hutchinson signature



Also, here's another very different looking example of a an 'H' from the same 1911 document, Badham's daughter's name Helena.

[DVV]

Hello Debra,
frankly spoken (and I've never uttered a single word against Sue Ironmonger), the two "H" look rather dissimilar to me.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

You raise some interesting questions in the latter part of your post, but a lot of the first chunk is just repetition from yesterday:

1. Toppy sometimes did write uncurled flat n:s in the endings of words (as in "Green" in Bethnal Green in the census listings)

Well, no he didn't. They curled consistently in an anti-clockwise direction, in contrast to the witness signatures, which simply trailed off. Just consider that column of signatures Gareth provided, and you'll notice that the signature's tail off, not just anti-clockwise, but with a disntinctly skyward pointing tail. They all do this to varying degrees, but all signature tails look incredibly different to anything offered by Toppy.

2. Toppy sometimes used open loops in his stems (as in the l in "Bethnal" in Bethnal Green in the same listings)

Again, this is an observation you made yesterday. Why the compulsion to mention it again? The observation concerns the looped "h". Nobody mentioned anything about "l"s, since we don't have any examples of that letter from the period to make for a fair comparison. All three witness signatures had double-looped h's, which contrast with all Toppy H's garnered to date.

3. Toppy sometimes wrote his t:s lower than his h:s (in the same census listings)

That was on 2 out of 9 occasions, and yet even those two look radically different to the "t"'s written in the statement. In fact the "tch" doesn't resemble any of Toppy's efforts in the slightest.

Toppy did not always join onto the u in Hutchinson from the capital H at the top of the u (This, too, provided by the census listings)

You're write, he didn't, but in the vast majority of instances, he did. That means it's an obvious consistency, and if he altered that's consistency, it would be an exception to the rule. One exception is buyable. Three successive exceptions - and radical ones at that - are markedly less so.

This was all discussued yesterday, remember?

Interestingly, this does NOT apply to Regīs telling us that his father was rarely unemployed - here, the negative factor does not come into play

That's because at least some support for the contention can be found in the census records. Whenever we encounter Toppy in the census records, he is listed as a plumber, and prior to meeting his East End missus, those listing place him in such locations as Warren Street in the West End. A far cry from dossing down in the skankiest area in London working as an labouring former groom. It would also strike me as incredibly churlish for him not to have taken full advantage of parental connections; specifically the fact that his father was a plumber who could easily have apprenticed him and/or found him work. I'd say that's precisely what happened.

If more samples of Toppys handwriting emerges, then what should we look for?

We should look for a susceptibility to drastic change, to consistently open "G"s, to consistently looped "h"s and to consistently non-skyward pointing tails. Unfortunately, I doubt that will happen, but I'm willing to be dazzled with evidence to the contrary.

And, moving on a bit further, if it DID, and if we also straightened out the other traits listed above, finding mainly looped capital G:s, t:s lower than the h:s and u:s joined from the bottom of the H, but with all of the rest looking as it looks in the census listing papers from 1911 - would you then say that Toppy was the witness, or would you still say that the overall impression was such that it lead you to conclude that it was no match anyway?

In that scenario, it would probably prompt me to conclude that the similarities outweighed the differences. If Iremonger saw similar evidence along those lines, I'd hazard a guess that she'd revise her opinion too.

But that's if that happened.

And I don't think it's gonna!

I wish it would though.

[Crystal]

Hi Debra

Useful examples of Badham's hand for comparison - gosh! what a lot seems to be coming out of the woodwork today! Badham is employing more than one capital 'H' form, by the look of it. The H in Helena seems to be an attempt at this form -



I haven't seen an example of his use of a fully flourished H yet, and overall, I think his hand shows other differences with the witness hand - from what I have so far seen. But since I expect to see a lot more of Badham's hand in the near future, I shall reserve any final judgement for the moment.

Fisherman! Thanks for the Elvis link! I, of course, already know what you think about this, and I'm not convinced you would change your view in the light of any evidence at all!

But a couple of very small points - neither you, nor indeed Elvis, are living/lived in the latter half of the 19th Century. Elvis, and indeed you, were taught to write from different traditions from the ones used to educate Toppy, the witness (whether one and the same, or not) and indeed, Badham.

Does this mean a hand cannot change over time, I hear you cry? Well, no, but it is quite common to find remarkable consistency over decades in this period, as indeed, we see in the hand of Toppy (I am talking here of the examples we know to be his). A 20th century hand in general, rarely resembles a 19th century hand, or and 18th, 17th, etc....

I think its important to take into account the deformalisation, of both the taught hand and of handwriting styles from that period to this when making comparisons.

Ah! I can see this one running for a good while yet!

[Ben]

I must stress that i do not consider Ben being offensive to me in the slightest

Thankyou for saying so, Richard. Your reassurance is greatly appreciated. Means a great deal!

As for what you write on the Capital G and the box formed by the tch, I can only say that I have by now realized that we are dealing with style elements in both cases, and these WILL be prone to change!

Please not this again, Fish.

I don't wish to speak for Crystal, but I'd hazard a tentative guess that her experience in this particular field outweighs yours or mine. A few posts back you were telling us that "elements of style" are not susceptible to change, but when I highlighted a few crucial differences between Toppy and the witness, you assure me that they are just "elements of style" and thus easily susceptible to change! That's why I'd caution very strongly against trying to trivialise the differences whilst elevating the importance of the similarities. That might give the impression that your biased, which I'm sure you're not.

The clues are in the signatures themselves, and in Toppy's case, we're extremely fortunate to have evidence of his handwriting over a 13-year period. Not once does he open-loop the G, and not once do the heights of his "t"s look anything remotely like the witness'.

There is also signature number three (George Hutchinson), where the lower loop of the G is more or less the same as it is in the police report page three exhibit

The lower loop of the "G" will seldom vary from signature to signature. Remember the other "George" signature Crystal provided in her "Confusing Elephant" post? It resembled Toppy's George very closely indeed, and yet it wasn't written by Toppy, nor was it written by the witness.

And if we take a look at the upper loop, nothing much distinguishes it from the police report loop either, but for the fact that it ends in a closed loop

Ah, C'mon Fish, that's like saying nothing distinguishes a rhinocerous from a trombone other than the fact that's one's shiny and inanimate.

Since I am admittedly not an expert, my amateur wiew is what I can offer, and it tells me that what you are challenging is consisting solely of elements of style, elements that we actually know will differ.

But they're elements that we know - courtesy of a 13-year time span - didn't alter very much at all, and when they did change, they still didn't look anything more like the witness three.

I donīt think that anybody so far has offered anything that could seriously question the suggestion that the signatures could have the same origin

Although you might heed the preponderance of expert opinion to date which opines that Toppy wasn't the witness on the basis of signature dissimilarity, and the irony is that you said "if I read the expertise right"! Whether they ruled out the possibility that they "could" have the same origin is another matter, but it's certainly significant that they didn't think they did.

Slightly disappointed that you decided that "Iremonger is ruled out of any serious judgement, as far as Iīm concerned." If we didn't have the overwhelming probability that Sue Iremonger compared the details precisely as several independent and reputable sources stated she did, as a result of applying her undoubted expertise, we'd have justfication for "ruling her out". As it happens, we do have that overwhelming probability, thus eradicating any decent reason for ignoring her. You're graciously admitted to being an amateur in this particular field, so even if we were presented with Iremonger's analysis, we really wouldn't be qualified to critique it.

You're write

You're right (I meant).

All the best,
Ben

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Ben,

if Badham tried to emulate Hutchinson's signature, as stated by Sue Iremonger, why did he use the fanciful H when on page 2 and 3 there are plain Hs?
If Iremonger should be mistaken on this part, we have reason to hope for confirmation from other experts that the signatures on page 3 and in the census don't match,

Best wishes
IchabodCrane

[Ben]

Hi Ichabod,

I'm not personally convinced that Badham tried to emulate Hutchinson's signature. Since expert opinion is clearly divided on the matter, the jury is out. With the Toppy-as-witness contention, however, the weight of expert is top heavy in favour of a mismatch.

Best regards,
Ben