Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

Graphology is a pseudo-science for fun. For example, when one is depressed, he tends to write a line which, at the end, will go downwards. But since we are comparing handwritings, we are observing the shape of the letters, and that's also what a graphologist would do, no? We are not comparing and dating the papers on which Toppy and Hutch have written, are we? We are not working on an "internal critics" of the texts, are we? As you wisely put it in a previous post, Crystal, I repeat: we are comparing handwritings. It would be very pompous to call it: "document analysis". Amitiés, David

Yes, David, you are right of course, you are comparing signatures. I was pointing out the difference, thats all. Graphology aims to read a person via their writing-fun,I guess? Document analysis treats the document as an artefact. Its not just about 'style'.

[Crystal]

Crystal, For you to say Ben's right, you must have another Hutchinson in mind. Who would that be? Cheers, Mike

Mike, I couldn't possibly say...

[The Good Michael]

Mike, I couldn't possibly say...

I hate you!

Mike

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"You see you prove my point, which is that you will argue with whatever I say!"

Not really, Crystal. Once you say that the signatures are graphically very much alike, and that, taken together with the context of the case, this shows us that there is a very good reason to acknowledge that Toppy probably was the Dorset Street witness all along, I will have no objections at all.

"Based on handwriting comparison, if Toppy is the witness, then I'm a Monkey's Uncle"

Don´t say that, Crystal; I never cared much for monkeys...!

" if I had the time (I don't) to locate a page full of signatures, all by George Hutchinsons who were contemporaries of Toppy, and post them on this thread, you would see that they all bore a common resemblance to each other. If I was clever enough to locate them all from the same social strata, then that resemblance would be all the more noticeable."

It has been done already. It is on one of the first pages of this thread, supplied by Sam. And none of the other George Hutchinsons come even close to the resemblance Toppy offers. They are very differing signatures, moreover, and I would have no trouble telling them apart at any stage. They are all quite distinct in their own fashions, and nobody would mix them up.
So this time, I simply must say that there is no way that I can concur with you - what you say is simply wrong.

"What your, or my signatures did or didn't do in our lifetimes has no bearing on that at all. We are living in the 21st Century, not the 19th. It would be just as inappropriate to compare a hand of, say, the 16th Century with the 19th Century and say that the same rules applied. "

The one and only "rule" that I say would have applied is that nobody has EVER been born with a finished signature, Crystal. Signatures are shaped as we go along. The processes inbetween the centuries may have differed to some degree, but the principle will not have. If you disagree with this, you are going to have a tough time proving the opposite!

"When I say that this is complicated, academic stuff, I am really not trying to obscure the truth with fancy words or learning - I am stating the fact - and that is why I can't be bothered to get into it here. It is the stuff of an in depth conversation, not a public barney."

Oh, I think that there are a few people out here who could give it a fair try, Crystal. Moreover, if we are all at a total loss, we may contact other experts and check with them and have them explain to us. The thing is, if you won´t explain what it is that tells you that I am wrong, you are doing an Iremonger - telling me that you know that you are right, but you cannot be asked to explain why. And I am growing increasingly tired of that, Crystal, believe me!

"I know, much as it galls you not to be considered an expert after a couple of weeks on the Google Train - nonetheless, the fact of the matter."

I only just dealt with Ben on that topic, Crystal. What DOES gall me is not that I am not an expert; I consider that something very obvious and a logical thing, since I have not studied the issue in depth. No, what galls me is that you try to point me out as a very shallow person with few insights other than what little that I can find on the net. That is not so, Crystal, for I am an expert (!) RESEARCHER, with fourteen years of experience as a newspaper researcher, having provided the material on which scores of articles and books are built. I know the net AND the bookly sources and the films - all of it, to a very healthy level. I can tell a good source from a bad one faster than 99,9 per cent of the population, and I can find it in a mere fraction of the time it takes the man on the street to do so - if he EVER finds it, that is.
We once had a discussion about how strong gas lamps were in 1888, on another thread. There was total confusion - and lots of assertions in spite of it. It took me a few minutes to locate the producers of the stronger gas lamps of the day, including exact measurings of the strength of the light they emitted, and that was that - after that there was no further need for fumbling in the dark, if you take my meaning.
So, just as I think you should refrain from hinting at me dabbling with graphology, I think you should also try and stay away from criticizing the way I find and treat sources - I have made my living from it for many a year, and I have never been treated with anything but respect for my way of handling it. You see, you cannot tell me that you are totally superior in YOUR field, unless you are ready to accept that I exceed you by miles in MY field. Fair is fair.

"When you have seen thousands of the wretched things, then you can tell me that I'm wrong."

No. When I have seen thousands of samples, I STILL cannot tell you that you are wrong. I can only say that the possibility that you are so has increased or decreased, depending on the material.
But I need no more than we already have to tell you right now that there is an extremely obvious chance that you are in fact wrong. And if want to refute that, you need to publish the exact reasons, Crystal - in detail. Then we shall see!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

Crystal writes:


We once had a discussion about how strong gas lamps were in 1888, on another thread. There was total confusion - and lots of assertions in spite of it. It took me a few minutes to locate the producers of the stronger gas lamps of the day, including exact measurings of the strength of the light they emitted, and that was that - after that there was no further need for fumbling in the dark, if you take my meaning.

The very best,
Fisherman

well if you know about gas lamps why didn't you post in on the ``red handkercief`` thread recently; it's in the HUTCH section, can you please do so, this is the trouble with this thread; it's dominating the forum too much and not giving us a chance for our threads to be seen.

[Crystal]

Oh Fisherman! You do make me laugh!

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Oh Fisherman! You do make me laugh!"

...and nothing more.

You see, Crystal, the reason I told you that I am not very fond of being pointed out as somebody who resorts to vain efforts on Google when it comes to arguing a case, is a very simple one:

I think that what we are looking at is an effort to diminish those who oppose you on this subject. The means used are speaking about me as somebody who gets on "the Google train" when I need to know things, as somebody who is desperate, who needs to calm down - and as somebody who makes you laugh.

My suggestion is that this is all gunsmoke, and the thing the smoke is supposed to cover is the total emptyness of your argumentation. You hint at things, but you do not substantiate them, you make grave errors by trying to establish how an 1888 signature would have looked by comparing signatures from 1989 and 1911, and you tell us that we may only look to physically caused alterations of the signature if we need to theorize what possible things may have happened to Toppys signature in the decade between 1888 and 1898.

What all this leaves behind is a very clear and very unbecoming pattern - one of evasion and of resorting to taking cheap shots at your opponent instead of useful ones at the real topic of the signatures.

So, Crystal, if I may offer a suggestion, it would be for you to come clean and tell us what it is that may allow you to tell us that the signatures are uncomparable. Exactly WHY would the differences be hard to bridge - since we are not dealing with graphology, but instead a very exact science, it should be a piece of cake for you to put an end to the ongoing criticism, should it not?

Now, please don´t try the "I´m hurt and insulted and I am not going to speak to you anymore" approach, Crystal. It would be a lot sounder to provide what you say you can provide. We´ve been waiting long enough and we´ve played quite enough of your little "spot the difference" games by now. It´s showtime or go time, Crystal. And keep in mind that it is NOT me we are discussing.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Good morning all,
...
I wish I could see - like Sam, Fish and the Good Mike - a sufficient match between the relevant signatures and say: "Toppy is Hutch."
I can't. 'Cause I see mismatching letters as well, including the first and important "G". And also because the so-called family tradition is what it is.
This said, before this thread, I wouldn't have bet a single penny on Toppy.
Now, I must admit I cannot be as square as I was about Toppy. There is, indeed, a vague possibility that Toppy was Hutch.
But still, I'm far from convinced, handwriting comparison being such a fragile basis, especially since we are no experts, and Reg's story being so dodgy.

So, can't we find experts, from Sweden (but not Fish), England (but not Ben), Korea (but not Mike), Wales (but not Sam) to have a look at these handwritings ?
If they all reach to the same conclusion, we would have to accept it.
If they don't, we'll have to accept that handwriting comparison is useless.
And then we would be left with Reg's story.
In which case, IMHO, we'd have to say "farewell" to good ol' Toppy.

Amitiés all,
David

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"I see mismatching letters as well, including the first and important "G"

We can all see the mismatching letters, David! But what makes you think that the G is so important? I have already told you that I used to write two radically different capital "C":s in the beginning of my christian name, and I know I can dig up lots and lots of signatures and autographs where other persons have changed the appartition of a capital letter to very significant extents.
So what is it with the "G" that makes you hesitate, David? If the signature had been dated inbetween 1898 and 1911, I would have awarded this more significance, but not even then would I have thought it much more than an anomaly that was quite inferior to the fact that the overall impression was there to an overwhelming extent. To my mind, at least. And Mikes. And Sams. And to everybody that I have asked so far.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Fish,
I've tried my best so far to avoid these micro-discussions. But since you put pressure on me...
Yes, the capital G is important.
The fact that you've changed your C can't be compared.
You're used to write, Fish, as you're a journalist, researcher, etc.
Toppy was a plumber, and was quite clumsy when writing (remember "Lenoard"). He's therefore far less likely than you to have changed his handwriting, especially the capital letters he would have learnt to shape when at school.
Once more: shouldn't we send the signatures to several new experts ?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

But David, I learnt to write my capital C in school too - and I was not a journalist or a researcher when I changed it!
Moreover, if you take a look at post 567 again, where Sam lists the Hutchinson household, as written by Toppy, you will see that the capital G:s there differ quite a lot inbetween them, even though we actually KNOW that most of them were written at the same occasion. So no, I don´t see any real reason to discard the possibility that he changed his G at some time - on the contrary, I think it would have been quite normal to do so, keeping in mind that we are dealing with letters that would have been written back in his youth.

Should we send the signatures to several new experts? Well, why not. I would not be opposed to such a thing. But I would want to know who the experts were and what their credentials were. And they must be highly acclaimed experts.
To begin with, though, I really don´t think that it could be too hard to go looking for unbiased expert opinion on a number of smaller, more general issues, such as the two questions I posted to Ben earlier. I may have a go at it, but not for some time.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Moreover, if you take a look at post 567 again, where Sam lists the Hutchinson household, as written by Toppy, you will see that the capital G:s there differ quite a lot inbetween them
Fisherman

Thanks for the advice, Fish,
I'm just back from post #567... Not only they "differ quite a lot inbetween them", but none of them looks like any of the witness' "G".

Amitiés mon cher,
David

edit: the witness seems to have a firm and fast hand when shaping his G. All Toppy's G, on the contrary, are laborious, and seem almost to have been penned by a child. If the witness G was to be found in 1898 or 1911, no problem: you could be right. I'm afraid you're not, my friend. Unless Toppy was already senile in 1898, and somehow back to infancy.

[Fisherman]

I think, David, that you will have to take a few things into account here. To begin with, if you look at signature number three, there is nothing labourious about the capital G in it - it is a nice and swift G.
Moreover, since there are a number of "blurry" parts to the 1911 text, we may have to open up for the possibility that the pen he used 1911 was of inferior quality. It would seem it leaked at times.
We should also not remember that these were days of hard manual labour. There is nothing to say that he did not suffer from worn down wrists and fingers at the age of 45 - but if so, I really don´t think that it is something that is evinced to any significant degree in the signatures.

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Fisherman, I have responded to all your questions. It is just that you won't accept my answers. You are biased in this, I am not. I have said before-if Toppy turned out to be the witness, well and good. I don't see it on present evidence, and I have said why. You believe in Toppy-fine. It's your perogative.

[DVV]

I think, David, that you will have to take a few things into account here. To begin with, if you look at signature number three, there is nothing labourious about the capital G in it - it is a nice and swift G.
Fisherman

Nice and swift, Fish, yes,
and very childish (or what was the expression about the GSG ? "schoolboy"...).
I have therefore to maintain: the capital G argues clearly against Toppy-the-witness.
You should accept some points, at times, Fish.
I'm neither biased (having Fleming in my pocket, in case Flemtchinson vanishes!), nor agressive, as you certainly know.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

editing and hammering: from the 1888's G to the others, we have an impossible and unviable regression.