Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

Fish,
graphology isn't an exact science, and we are even still waiting for expertise.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[DVV]

Sam,
thanks for the reply. It makes sense - though the nucleus seems incredibly empty.
Let's say the foolish part of Reg's story doesn't come from Toppy.
Then remains: where is the "good" part ?
Sam, we have nothing that could come from the real Hutch!

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,
thanks for the reply. It makes sense - though the nucleus seems incredibly empty.

I can't say that I'd be disappointed if it were, Dave - in fact, it'd be a welcome patch of tranquillity in a turbulent sea!

Sam, we have nothing that can come from the real Hutch!

There's always his statement to fall back on

[DVV]

There's always his statement to fall back on

Which means you agree: we have nothing.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Which means you agree: we have nothing.

Pas du tout, David! We have his statement - for what it's worth... but that, of course, is for other threads

[DVV]

So, mon cher, let's keep on this thread.
Is there anything from Reg that can increase, apart from graphology, your belief that he is the witness' son?

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

So, mon cher, let's keep on this thread.
Is there anything from Reg that can increase, apart from graphology*, your belief that he is the witness' son?

Well, there were relatively few young men named "George Hutchinson" around at the time, Dave. That helps narrow down the field. Secondly, whilst we don't know precisely where Toppy was in November 1888 (although I'm pretty sure I do know), he at least lands up in the East End during the 1890s, and marries a girl from Bethnal Green.

A bit of whimsy: I believe Florence Jervis lived not far from Stepney Gasworks, where Morganstone and MJK apparently lived (I'll have to check, or perhaps someone will confirm, but I'm sure I read that somewhere). If so, then it demonstrates how tightly Toppy's life was to coincide with the milieu in which Kelly herself had once moved.

Not that I'm reading any significance into that, I hasten to add, other than "Toppy must have been there or thereabouts" - if not in 1888 then certainly not very long afterwards. This is more than can be said of his current "rival", signature-wise, Lambeth George.

* PS: Not graphology

[Ben]

How likely or unlikely it was that Reg was "fed" some of the stuff from the book must be anybodys guess, I think.

True, Fish, except inasmuch that some remarks were directly attributed to Reg, which is obviously quite different to Fairclough drawing errant conclusions of his own accord. As for the other experts, I know Ivor Edwards was one, but I'll have to doublle-check with my sources to see if I'm at liberty to divugle the names of the others as the information was given to me in confidence.

Hi Gareth,

Interesting points, but bear in mind that Toppy did not meet his futire wife until 1895, according to Reg's information. At least some of the other Hutchinsons that you found in earlier census records can attest to an somewhat closer association to the East End than that. He apprently met her at a music hall at an unspecified location. Since he is down as living in Warren Street in 1891, the music hall may also have been located "Up West".

1895 is the earliest physical East End connection, though when he started living there, I don't know.

All the best,
Ben

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

1895 is the earliest physical East End connection, though when he started living there, I don't know.

Ben, but that IS a connection, and an important one. It helps to put him, along with Reg's recollections which cannot be summarily dismissed, and signatures, and age, and social class, at the very fore of Hutchinson possibilities. There really is no one else. Surely, even with all the refutations you make, you have to admit this. If you can't, I'm afraid you are too far submerged in your own theories to have a discussion that isn't just refutation. That makes discussion involving anything Hutchinson-related, just a lot of nay-saying, and nearly impossible.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

A message for Fisherman

Good Morning Fisherman

As you still want to know - do I think a person's handwriting is likely to change more in their 20's, 30's or 40's, I will endeavour to reply - with the understanding, of course, that nothing I say will make the slightest impact on your belief system regarding this matter.

I would not make such sweeping generalisations as you suggest, as there is no foundation for them. As I tried to communicate to you in my earlier post, many factors - and I speak only of physical factors here- may affect a hand. I have seen handwriting of this particular social and temporal context which exhibits change over time - but it is certainly not always, or even usually the case that these changes are radical. And as I said, I don't want to get into a long and protracted discussion about what those factors are - it really would be too laborious. Should we ever have a face-to-face discussion, Fisherman, and you promise to buy me a few drinks, I'll be happy to bore you to tears with all the tedious details.

I wonder at what basis you think it would be tenable to suggest a common change in handwriting over the decades? I do hope you're not implying that personality changes have anything to do with it?

That sounds suspiciously close to graphology country to me.

I am not a graphologist, and I do not practice graphology. I wouldn't have a clue what a large loop or an exaggerated t-bar meant - except in the latter case possibly - 'prone to graffiti'. I do not consider the idea that a person can be 'read' in terms of character via his/her handwriting.

Now I must return to work for a bit - I am online, awaiting your response, which, I'm sure, will be as charming as ever.

In the meantime, Fisherman, I wouldn't place too much faith in the signatures you have seen - it really is a very small sample - and you never know when another game of 'Spot the Difference' might come along.

Speaking of which....

[Observer]

For what it's worth, my signature has changed dramatically over a span of twenty years, my hand is as strong and supple now as it was twenty years ago, no injuries. I have examples of my signature at various periods over that time span to prove this fact. Am I an exeption to the rule? Anyone else out there who have access to their signatures ove r a period of time. It would be interesting to know.

all the best

Observer

[Crystal]

Hi Observer

I'm sure your hand has changed, yes. So has mine, so, in fact, has Sam Flynn's. Without meaning to be rude here, in the context of this discussion, it doesnt' mean much. Whether or not Toppy's hand changed radically from 1888 to 1898 we don't know at present, although I'm aware some say we do, because he was the witness. This is unproven, and actually no more likely than any other candidate based on signature analysis. Might just as well say Lambeth George changed his hand radically and he's the witness. It's speculation, and that is all it is.

[Observer]

Hi Crystal

No problem, I am only a casual observer of this thread, and have in all probability got the wrong end of the thread so to speak. Am I right in assuming though that because the Hutchinson signature from the Nov 1888 police statement does not tally with the later Toppy signatures there there are posters to this thread who maintain that Hutch 1888 can not be Toppy 1898? Bit drastic that, if that indeed is the state of play.However please correct me if I am misled.

This is a huge thread, so it would be helpfull if someone like your good self, could provide the casual observer including myself with a brief description of the problem at hand regarding the various signatures.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

And a very good day to you, Crystal!

I am pleased to hear from you again. But I think you leave me with more questions than before!
You also say a couple of things that I need to straighten out. So here goes:

"I wonder at what basis you think it would be tenable to suggest a common change in handwriting over the decades? I do hope you're not implying that personality changes have anything to do with it?
That sounds suspiciously close to graphology country to me."

What I am saying, Crystal, is that I think it would be reasonable to argue that a person that is seeking for his identity - and I would say that most uf us are at some stage in life - is more likely to live a kind of less static life than the ones who have matured and found their respective roles.

I would also say that this search for an identity is something that is most often coupled to younger years. I know that I, when I was in my early twenties - had not found my role in life. Professionally, socially and emotionally I was a lot more mouldable than I am today.

This was also a period when my signature did not look the way it does now. I used another capital C in the beginning of my Christian name, and I used a rather posh way to write the capital H in my surname. I was, in other words, experimenting with my signature, and I was very much aware that I was doing this.

As the years rolled by, this was something that I no longer did - I did not feel the same need to look for myself, since I had already met myself - I had begun my carreer as a journalist and found that I liked it, I had met my future wife, moved in with her, and I had married her and formed a family. Since those years, my signature remains the same, more or less.

Hearing this, you may understand what I am trying to say about Toppys handwriting; we have it from his thirties and forties, and then he would have been a plumber and a family man. But we don´t have it from his early twenties, when he was still looking for his role in life, unmarried and quite possibly looking for a suitable profession. I fail to see why what applied to me - and, I would suspect, to millions of people - could not have applied to him.

You now write that physical factors are what rule how we write, and you make a clear hint that you would regard any other suggestion as something that belonged to "graphology country" - and you leave little doubt as to what you think of that.

Interestingly, Observer steps in and tells us that he has never experienced any physical reasons to change his handwriting, but you say that in the context of this discussion it means nothing much. Is that another way to say that although Observer has failed to notice it, his many changes to his signature were really due to physical factors? And does the same apply to me? When I changed the shapes of the capital letters in my name, it was a conscious decision to write a more "attractive" signature, make it look a bit more "flashy" if you like. Are you now telling me that the true reason was a physical change?

"Might just as well say Lambeth George changed his hand radically and he's the witness. It's speculation, and that is all it is."

But we don´t HAVE any other signature by Lambeth George, and we don´t HAVE any other certified Toppy signature. And to say that they would not have changed would ALSO be to speculate, would it not? It would be to try and imagine what we cannot see.
The only things we KNOW is that signatures do change over time, and that these changes will vary from individual to individual. They may be small enough to be quite insignificant and they may be of a very obvious nature. And unless we accept that the police report signatures were written by Toppy, we are at a complete loss to say what changes may have been there in Toppys and Lambeth mans signatures.

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Observer,

Actually, many of us do see that Toppy's and Hutch's signatures, though separated by several years, do indeed match. Others don't see a match. I can't understand that, really, unless it has something to do with selective vision on someone's part. (not mine, to be sure).

Cheers,

Mike