Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Hutch in the 1911 Census?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • First off, Crystal, I have heard before that I have not a clue what I am talking about. It kind of takes us into Iremonger territory again, with hints at the grave difficulties that lie in recognizing a handstyle; though we may think we are looking at mirror images, we are in fact wrong. What we perceive seeing may not be there.
    I donīt buy this for a split second, Crystal, as you will know. I have been reading up quite a lot these past few days, and I know that there are fine points of discerning discrepancies that may not be obvious to the layman. But I have also seen where this knowledge applies - mainly in clearing up frauds and forgery. In there, it can be of use to see exactly how the pen pressure was applied and such things. And that is where the knowledge of experts come into play.
    If we buy an autograph by a celebrity for a heap of money, we do so because we recognize that the signature matches other signatures by the same celebrity - if it did not, we would be fools and in all probability throwing our money away.
    But even if the match looks perfect, it can be a cleverly forged signature. That is why we may need to consult expertise before investing.
    But we are not dealing with any forgery here - we are dealing with a very good match that we know is not about forgery. And we need to explain how the likenss came about. We are trying to explain why it is that a man called George Hutchinson had a handstyle and a signature that pretty much made it the twin of ANOTHER signature that was written by ANOTHER George Hutchinson back in the late 19:th century. Only minor differences in the style elements differ, as far as we can see. I think you will agree on this - hte only diernable differences we can see from the material as it is presented on the net lies in style elements - correct?
    The only reasonable explanation is an remains that the signatures were written by the same man.
    Regardless of all this, you, Crystal, are going to need a good explanation as to why you suggested that a consistency of two signatures written in 1898 and 1911, respectively, would somehow imply that the consistency was there ten years earlier too. If you are going to hit me over the head with your superiority, that was a very bad way to aim for the blow. For both you and I know that such an assertion - if that I may call it - holds no water at all.

    As for your saying "there will still be other details to clear up, right? Like the fact that the statement of the witness and what we actually know of GWT's life do not appear a very good match?"
    ...you are right in the sense that there will ALWAYS be other things left to clear up in all Ripper-related stuff. But we know from another thread that David Knott has stated that he has spoken to Toppys relatives and found that Toppy did indeed have East end connections and that he would in all probability NOT have been a plumber at the time. David tells us that he is awaiting publishing, and I think it may be wise to consider the implications of his statement before investing to heavily in the belief that Toppys family history - what little we know of it - prevents him from being the Dorset Street witness.

    All the best, Crystal!
    Fisherman

    Comment


    • Ben writes:

      "It gives us a pretty reasonable idea, though, doesn't it?"

      For the love of God, Ben: NOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

      "The fact is that he demonstrated a susceptibility towards great consistency over a 13-year-period, which suggest that his particular "elements" of style weren't really prone to much change at all."

      WILL YOU LAY OFF, BEN! What you see in a period of time relates to that exact period of time and no other time at all!! Just because Hitler survived 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943 and 1944, that remarkable consistency did not guarantee eternal life! Just because a man was patently honest between 1726 and 1749, it does in no way prove that he could not rob a bank in 1768. Just because I wrote my signature in one way in 1999 AND 2009, it does not prove that I did it in the same fashion in 1979. These later signatures can be awarded NO BEARING AT ALL in trying to establish if he would use any other style elements, and how many and how different, in 1888. They are the ground material we have, and if we are to look for his signature from other times, they must be used as a comparison as it is very reasonable to suggest that we should look for likenesses. But to claim that we must look for the EXACT SAME signature before accepting the provenance is ...is ...is...Oh, help me, dear God!...is raving mad! And since I really donīt think you are raving mad yourself, Ben, I do suggest that you stop throwing forward a suggestion that very clearly is beyond the realms of rational thinking.

      "you really just injure your own credibility when you write so hysterically, and adding extra unnecessary emphasis "

      Ben, all I can say is that my emphasis ought to have been unneccessary. But I did the same thing to my kids when they were young: Donīt throw your diapers on Grandma! Dont throw your diapers on Grandma. Dont throw your diap... FOR ****S SAKE, LAY OFF THROWING YOUR DIAPERS ON GRANDMA!!!

      One would have wished that they comprehended a bit earlier - throwing **** on people who donīt deserve it and who have a better understanding of things than yourself is something that you ought not do. Itīs deeply irrational, and it is everybodys loss when the responsible party fails to get that into his/her head.

      "I utterly disregard you as some sort of barometer for sensibe suggestions, and if you think you're kicking anything out, I'm afraid you're painfully deluded"

      You stay on that island of yours, Ben - soon enough, you will find it deserted by anything but rats and cockroaches. I am correct in telling you that you cannot use an 1898 signature in comparison with a 1911 one to establish that the 1888 ditto would have looked more or less exactly the same. So yes, itīs another good helping of that "Iīm right, youīre wrong" that you detest so bitterly. Just keep in mind that you are preparing it yourself.

      "You should really avoid your mouth running cheques your body won't cash. If this was a face-to-face discussion, and you were making slanderous insinuations about how I'd treat my mother, you'd certainly rue the day you did so."

      Sorry - I was under the impression that you treated everybody the way you try and treat me.

      Fisherman
      Last edited by Fisherman; 04-04-2009, 09:19 PM.

      Comment


      • Expert in imitation...?

        Originally posted by Ben View Post
        Not true I'm afraid, Dave.

        Ben
        Hi Ben,
        I was simply criticizing Iremonger's statement (that Badham had "probably" signed the first sheet in "conscious imitation" of Hutch).

        Conscious imitation?
        Nothing more simple to reproduce than the "H" in Hutchinson, as they are penned pages 2 and 3. But just look at the differences, Ben!
        If you call this an imitation, then Badham is the less gifted "imitator" I would have ever seen.

        This said, I'm not (and I can't) dismiss her conclusions about Hutch and Toppy's handwritings, and I'm curious to read her arguments. As much as I've been curious to read yours, and Sam's, and Fish's.

        Amitiés mon cher,
        David

        Comment


        • Goodness Fisherman, do calm down! As for the 'Crystal' quips-how original. I think you may be overstating the case for Toppy, yes. And?

          Comment


          • Just to clarify...

            I haven't spoken to any of Toppy's family, but traced several of them last year and corresponded with four of them by post and e-mail.

            One of them put me in touch with another family member, who she thought could help me. That person gave me most of the information that I managed to get (if I'm honest, I got the impression that he was a bit sceptical about the story, and had therefore carried out his own research).

            As I have said before, he specifically asked me not to post the information on the internet - so I won't!

            However, you can be assured that I am not sat on any earth shattering revelations. Yes, my correspondent was able to point to some family connections with the East End prior to 1888 ... however, they are no more substantial than the connection with Romford, where two of Toppy's siblings were born.

            And yes, I was advised of two family stories, both of which suggested that although Toppy followed in his father's footsteps as a plumber, he was probably not an apprentice to his father. Of course, my correspondent could have no more idea whether the stories were true than I could of a story relating to something that happened in my family over 100 years ago!

            There is nothing conclusive, and there remains room for argument on both sides ... just like with the signatures!

            The one thing that struck me was that none of the family that I contacted knew anything about the connection prior to The Ripper and The Royals, which naturally gave me cause for concern. It was very interesting to me, therefore, when a relative of Toppy's youngest son posted on the boards a while back to say that the youngest son was also aware of the story. (I had not contacted him as the Ripper and the Royals states that Reg was the youngest son. My correspondent alerted me to his existance, but clearly he is a very old man now. I think Richard Nunweek may be pursuing this, but I'm not sure).


            David

            Comment


            • Hi Crystal!

              Why is it that you and Ben seem to think that I am NOT calm?

              I am. I am VERY calm. I do not like being told that I may be a liar and such, but since it is not the first time, it does not upset me all that much.

              So, Iīm fine. And you are most welcome to disagree with me. It wonīt change my mood in the slightest.

              ...but I would like to know how an expert could suggest that concurring samples of a signature from 1898 and 1911 should lead us to believe that the exact same style elements would have been cemented in the same signature ten years earlier! As I have suggested on the thread, I think there is every reason to believe that a signature is a lot more in the process of looking for itīs final form when a person is in the beginning of his twenties than it would be a couple of decades further down the line.

              Can I ask you, Crystal, if you would agree with that? I have a feeling that it is something that I can confirm via different sources, but I think you may save me the trouble; is or is not the earlier years of a persons life a period when a signature is more likely to change than the middle-age years? You would know, I think.

              Iīll just sit down and wait for your answer. I wonīt do anything rash, I promise! No banging my head against the walls, no howling at the sky - in fact, no desperation at all! Promise!

              The best,

              your cool, calm and collected
              Fisherman
              Last edited by Fisherman; 04-05-2009, 04:57 PM.

              Comment


              • David, thanks for sharing on the Toopy issue! And good luck with your continued research!

                The best,
                Fisherman

                Comment


                • Thanks Fish,
                  ...
                  I don't know where my "continued research", as you generously put it, will lead me, but graphology aside (I've already said that I cannot draw any firm conclusion on such a basis), I can't - yet- consider toppy as the Dorset Street loiterer.

                  Seriously, if that wonderful plumber was our witness, what kind of man was he?
                  The biggest mythomaniac of the East-End?
                  A dirty bastard such as Violenia, avid to have a look at a butchered corpse ?
                  Btw, I've always found strange that Hutch seems to have identified Mary quite straightforwardly, while poor Barnett had to recognize her by her hair, hands, ears...
                  Well, it's just one more oddity from Hutch.
                  But one day, who knows, I may join you and come to believe in Toppy...
                  And I will wonder, then, how he could have avoided to end his days at Claybury Mental Hospital, playing cards with James Evans.

                  Amitiés mon cher,
                  David

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by DVV View Post
                    Btw, I've always found strange that Hutch seems to have identified Mary quite straightforwardly, while poor Barnett had to recognize her by her hair, hands, ears...
                    She was still moving of her own volition when Hutch saw her - and she spoke to him. Both of those factors might have helped, Dave
                    Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                    "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                    Comment


                    • Hi Fisherman!
                      My handwriting has altered significantly over the years.Pre PC days included.
                      I also use at least 3 variants of my signature-depends on what I'm signing.My "bank signature" has remained the same.I am right handed.
                      Whilst in Government employ,I often came upon an old school mates Child Endowment Reports,he's a doctor.Exactly the same as mine except capital "H'.

                      Comment


                      • Hi David!

                        Well, I do hope that your continued research will lead you somewhere, and I am sure it will - but my post was actually directed to David Knott!

                        That aside, since you ask:
                        "if that wonderful plumber was our witness, what kind of man was he?
                        The biggest mythomaniac of the East-End?"

                        ...I really donīt know how to answer that question. I have always thought that his testimony is a strange one, both in itīs reichness of details but also in placing a rather unexpected character in Dorset Street.
                        Then again, maybe he WAS exceptionally good at picking up details - I for one will not say that what he did was impossible. We have seen examples of other very detailed testimonies that have proven true.
                        Moreover, to preclude that Hutchs man did exist is something we cannot do either - although he is improbability number two. But two improbabilities do not always make up a lie.
                        As for Reg Hutchinsons statings in that ill-famed book, it is actuually HIM that says that it was Randolph Churchill Toppy saw - he somehow concludes that this was wwhat Toppy was implying. But to my ears, the only thing Toppy says is that the man seemingly belonged to the very top of the society.

                        So, if you ask me, I think that we can in no way conclude that Hutch/Toppy cooked it all up - we may of course speculate so, and we will have a viable case - but a viable case that we cannot prove.

                        The best,
                        Fisherman

                        Comment


                        • Mr Hyde writes:

                          "My handwriting has altered significantly over the years.Pre PC days included.
                          I also use at least 3 variants of my signature-depends on what I'm signing.My "bank signature" has remained the same.I am right handed.
                          Whilst in Government employ,I often came upon an old school mates Child Endowment Reports,he's a doctor.Exactly the same as mine except capital "H'."

                          Hi Mr Hyde! Well, a good many people WILL have changed their manner to write signatures a good many times - it goes without saying.
                          Iīm not really sure of what you are saying in your last lines - do you have a mate with exactly the same name as you have - and who writes his signature exactly in the same fashion as you, but for a capital "H"?

                          The best,
                          Fisherman

                          Comment


                          • Schoolmate from 1950/60s.Not same name,however "exactly" the same handwriting as mine decades later.Capital H being only exception.The H is the first letter of his surname.His first name same as my middle name-it is freaky to look at from my perspective.Both taught by same teachers ~50% of the time.
                            Tried squeezing into a quick reply.
                            Last edited by Mr.Hyde; 04-05-2009, 10:54 PM. Reason: Usual.

                            Comment


                            • Do Calm down, Fisherman!

                              And do try to be more succinct when you post. Brevity is the form of wit, and if you're a journalist that ought to be one of the crowning mottos of every man in your profession.

                              What you see in a period of time relates to that exact period of time and no other time at all!!
                              Well obviously it does. Common sense readily dictates as much. We have examples of his extremely consistent handwriting from 1898 and 1911 - plenty of the latter, as we learn from Gareth's helpful research efforts - and he shows amazing consistency, if not rigidity, despite the lengthy time period. If he's capable of being consistent over a 13-year time span, he's perfectly capable of being just as consistent elsehwere, and probably was. The evidence announces his consistency.

                              Just because a man was patently honest between 1726 and 1749, it does in no way prove that he could not rob a bank in 1768
                              But emotions and actions of that nature are obviously susceptible to change depending on circumstances. Handrwriting isn't quite the same ballgame. In Toppy's case, we only have evidence that his handwriting was remarkably consistent. And Crystal, whose experience in this paricular field fairly obviously surpasses yours by a wide margin, appears to agree with that view. I'm not suggesting we've established proof here; just an inferential probability based on the extant evidence. The longer the period of time that Toppy evinces a propensity towards inflexibility in signature, the less susceptible to change he appears to be.

                              throwing **** on people who donīt deserve it and who have a better understanding of things than yourself is something that you ought not do
                              Exactly, so stop casting aspertions on individuals with demonstrably more experience and insight than you, and that includes making bizarre and crass references to hurling nappies at people's grandmothers.

                              So yes, itīs another good helping of that "Iīm right, youīre wrong" that you detest so bitterly
                              I would only "detest in bitterly" if I have reason to take it seriously, which I don't. Vaguely annoying, perhaps, because you come out with it whenever you follow me onto a thread, but certainly not worthy of my ire.

                              But we are not dealing with any forgery here - we are dealing with a very good match that we know is not about forgery.
                              That's according you, and other people with more experience and insight than you on the subject disagree. Document examiners aren't employed purely for the purposes of detecting forgery, as has been made clear elsewhere.

                              We are trying to explain why it is that a man called George Hutchinson had a handstyle and a signature that pretty much made it the twin of ANOTHER signature that was written by ANOTHER George Hutchinson back in the late 19:th century.
                              You might be trying to explain that. Other people are trying to "explain" why the signatures aren't a particularly good match, and that's rather easy to do on the basis of the two handwriting examples not having been written by the same individual.

                              Only minor differences in the style elements differ, as far as we can see.
                              As you can see, maybe. We know that some actual experts believe that the differences aren't minor at all, but they're major enough to outweigh the similarities.

                              The only reasonable explanation is an remains that the signatures were written by the same man.
                              Well, no, the experts say otherwise. You are not an expert. You're just somebody who surfed the internet and now thinks he knows more than the experts. Worse, you're someone who claims to have looked up the opinions of the experts in an effrot to contradict the experts! That weakens the value of your opinion, let alone your impossible-to-justify assertions regarding Toppy.

                              But we know from another thread that David Knott has stated that he has spoken to Toppys relatives and found that Toppy did indeed have East end connections and that he would in all probability NOT have been a plumber at the time.
                              But when you actually examine David's post following yours, it becomes clear that you've misinterpreted things rather drastically.

                              We have seen examples of other very detailed testimonies that have proven true.
                              Not nearly those as detailed as Hutchinson's. I wonder how one goes about "proving" an eyewitness account "true" these days...?

                              But to my ears, the only thing Toppy says is that the man seemingly belonged to the very top of the society.
                              Then your ears can't have been functioning very well, since you haven't heard Toppy say anything. All your knowledge of what Toppy allegedly says comes from Reg who - yep! - realised that his father really did see Lord Randolph Churchill all along.
                              Last edited by Ben; 04-06-2009, 12:06 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Thankyou for the useful information, Jonathan and David K!

                                Particularly reassuring to hear Martin Fido underscore the value and repsect with which Ireminger's views should be treated.

                                Best regards,
                                Ben

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X