Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[The Good Michael]

David,

If childish means 'unpracticed' that would make complete sense for a laborer. Schoolboy indicates a neat practiced hand, I believe.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

Page 10

My initial view on these signatures is on page 10 of this thread. 90 pages later, it still stands.

[Observer]

Hi Mike

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

Thanks for that mate, at great expense to the well being of my eyesight it prompted me to peruse this thread in depth. I must admit that I too can see why some posters speculate that Hutch 1888 might well be Toppy 1898 via comparison of signatures.

The detractors seem to hang on to the coat tails of one expert Sue Iremonger it seems. All I'll say is British criminal history is littered with the broken bones of legal experts. I'll not go into their failings here there is more than enough at hand (writing) in this thread to last a lifetime.

Another handwriting expert is needed methinks.

One thing further, I was very surprised to find that George Hutchinsons of suitable age living in the district in question were so thin on the ground.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

David, when you write:

"You should accept some points, at times, Fish."

, you actually imply that I never do so. That is wrong - I accept ALL points that I find legitimate and well founded. It is when I cannot find the legitimity that I offer another way to look at things.
Furthermore, I never deal in wiews, if you take my meaning. Just because somebody on a side opposing my wiews suddenly accepts one of my wiews as correct, I don´t pay that back by accepting something that I think may be wrong. It may be a courteous way of doing things, but it is deeply unscientific and quite irrational.

What you are saying about these types of G:s, David, if I understand you correctly, is that you read a grown, self-secure man into G number one, and a child into number two.
To begin with, I must tell you that things like these will take us to the much dreaded pits of graphology, and we may need to be careful about such things.
Secondly, if I am to offer my wiew, then I´d say that my own signature when I was in my early twenties involved a posh, boldly drawn, large half-circle of a C, whereas that of today instead carries a much more low-key C with two loops to it. Maybe you would have said the same thing about this as you are saying about Toppy, I don´t know.

By the bye - you tell me you are not aggressive, David, and I know that full well. So there IS a point I accept, after all!

The best, David!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Observer,

Good idea to say that you can see why some of us think there are similarities without actually agreeing with us. Agreement might put you in the firing line. It's not a bad place to be actually.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

David,
If childish means 'unpracticed' that would make complete sense for a laborer. Schoolboy indicates a neat practiced hand, I believe.
Cheers,
Mike

I warned you, Mike, about my English, but you wouldn't believe me...
Anyway, I have little doubt that you saw what I meant.
So when it comes to the capital G, Crystal and I have a significant point.
Though you're welcome to refute.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

David,

If you think the signature is childish, I have no problem with that. It bolsters the suggestion that a somewhat unlettered laborer wrote it.

Cheers,

Mike

PS. But back to rugby...

[DVV]

you actually imply that I never do so. That is wrong - I accept ALL points that I find legitimate and well founded. It is when I cannot find the legitimity that I offer another way to look at things.
Furthermore, I never deal in wiews, if you take my meaning. Just because somebody on a side opposing my wiews suddenly accepts one of my wiews as correct, I don´t pay that back by accepting something that I think may be wrong. It may be a courteous way of doing things, but it is deeply unscientific and quite irrational.
Fisherman

Of course, Fish,
But is it what I meant?
Do I deserve such a reply?
Have a look back at OUR today's posts, about the G.
First, you said that this capital G wasn't important.
...
Then we came back to post # 567.
....
Unfortunately for you, what we see there argue rather in favour of my opinion.
....
And then you told me about the hand of a labourer, etc, and I must say that these arguments really don't work (remember your "fine and swift", Fish).

I hardly see any scientific logic in your recent replies, my friend.
Would you tell us now simply, now, if the capital G argues rather in favour of Toppy-the-witness, or not?
Is it a matching letter, or a mismatching one, at last?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[DVV]

David,
If you think the signature is childish, I have no problem with that. It bolsters the suggestion that a somewhat unlettered laborer wrote it.
Cheers,
Mike

Hi again Mike,
I said, and I maintain, that the 1898's "G" do suggest a man who still write like he has learnt in school.
But he wrote more like an adult, with a firmer and faster hand, in 1888.
Very hard to explain, if you want my opinion.

Amitiés, dear rugby aficionado,
David

[Crystal]

Spot The Difference No.2

Here it is! ~Another game of Spot The Difference! Ready?



Can you identify all the above? Answers most gratefully received. (if you look carefully, there are some clues..)

Many Thanks, All

Crystal

P.S. - The Elephant, like me, is on holiday this week, so couldn't make it. I hope you're not too disappointed!

[Observer]

Hi again Mike, I hate getting splinters in me harris, so I'll jump off the fence and agree with you regarding being able to see similarities in the George Hutchinson statement signature and the later Toppy signatures.

all the best

Observer

[DVV]

Hi Observer,
we all see matching and mismatching letters.
Remember that people from a same social class have learnt to write with the same method.
Remember that this thread started with "similarities" noted between the witness and one "Lambeth" GH, not Toppy.
Remember Reg's story.
And I'm curious to have your opinion about this capital G.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"Of course, Fish,
But is it what I meant?
Do I deserve such a reply?
Have a look back at OUR today's posts, about the G.
First, you said that this capital G wasn't important.
...
Then we came back to post # 567.
....
Unfortunately for you, what we see there argue rather in favour of my opinion.
....
And then you told me about the hand of a labourer, etc, and I must say that these arguments really don't work (remember your "fine and swift", Fish).
I hardly see any scientific logic in your recent replies, my friend.
Would you tell us now simply, now, if the capital G argues rather in favour of Toppy-the-witness, or not?
Is it a matching letter, or a mismatching one, at last?"

To begin with: I meant no disrespect whatsoever with my reply - it mirrors my exact stance in these questions, and it is not aimed at making you feel hurt. It is a declartion of how I work, and it covers all participators of Casebook. I genuinely feel that we must try and be as unbiased and scientific as we possibly can - that we sometimes fail to do so is not surprising, since we are - most of us - not scientists.
So, David, no disrespect, I can assure you!

"Have a look back at OUR today's posts, about the G.
First, you said that this capital G wasn't important."

The difference in the capital G:s is to my mind not of any decisive importance, no. Of course, it can - and should - be discussed, but to me it does not represent a hinderance that cannot be overcome. Far from it.

"Then we came back to post # 567."

Yes, to show you that Toppy could write G.s that differed a lot inbetween them; long loops, short loops etc.

"And then you told me about the hand of a labourer, etc, and I must say that these arguments really don't work (remember your "fine and swift", Fish)."

...and that fine and swift G is still there, David. I am not saying that he trembled badly or anything like that. Instead I said that he MAY have been affected by hard labour at the age of 45, and that may account for what you think you are seeing as a more uncertain (is that correct?) way of writing. I did, however, add that I myself could NOT see any such thing to any significant degree.
So, David, adding it up, I fail to see where I lack in analysis.

"Would you tell us now simply, now, if the capital G argues rather in favour of Toppy-the-witness, or not?
Is it a matching letter, or a mismatching one, at last?"

I will say what must be said: The capital G is the one component that is left of all the features that were originally pointed out as a deviation. Correction; we still have not found any double stemmed "h" either. And it still is a deviation.
But the "n" that finishes off with a tail curled upwards, the joint beween the H and the u, the fact in spe that Toppy only used singlestemmed letters, the internal relationship where it was said that Toppys t was always lower than his h; these are all things where we have found evidence telling us that it could be the other way around. Each and every one of these traits are things that count as elements of style, and we are told by those who deal with this area at SKL in Sweden that elements of style can easily change. The four examples mentioned are very good proof of this. And when we look on the sum of it all, we know that out of the six originally mentioned details that were mentioned as things that showed us that we were not dealing with the same writer, only two remain questionmarks.
But we must realize that we only have a dozen signatures or so to work with, and since the addition of the census signatures (fewer than ten) we have found out that there never was any absolute consistency for four out of six elements.
I have very little doubt that the addition of more signatures by Toppys hand could well take care of the other two points too. In fact, we have already found an l that tells us that he sometimes wrote looped stems. Admittedly, it is not a h, but I don´t think that means that we are dealing with an unsurmountable problem. Furthermore, the signatures that disspelled the possible consistency of the four elements in question, were 1911 signatures. If we were to compare with a number of 1888 signatures by Toppy, we do not know what would surface.

So there you are, David! To me, this makes a very compelling case, and if you choose to see it differently, it is your very own choice. As long as we follow our convictions and keep an open mind, there is really very little else we can do!

The best!
Fisherman

[Observer]

Hi Crystal the the surname Hutchinson in the first first block of signatures seem to have been written in the same hand, we have George, Florence, and Leonard as christian names though. Cross dresser?

all the best

Observer

[Crystal]

Here's mine, for what it's worth. Witness George's 'G' is a different form altogether. As you will see from the above images, the closed, looped 'G' is more common - indeed, commonplace. It is significant, and does speak against witness=Toppy. The central image above, by the way, is by neither Toppy, or the witness.

But Oh! Look! it appears to be quite similar....