Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

Observer - you have a point! Now I see it! Hutch WAS JTR after all - and Toppy too - he was a criminal master of disguise to whom a bit of cross-dressing was clearly very easy. That is exactly how he managed to evade capture! Very Sherlock Holmes...

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

And no matter how we choose to look upon it, Toppy was at his closest to them years in 1888, and not in 1898 and 1911.

Yes, but by 22 he was a fully functioning adult. Not a pimply adolescent. We stray heavily into graphology territory when we start assuming that the handwriting was different just because he was younger at that stage. He was younger in 1898 than he was in 1911, and his handwriting barely changed at all.

And from my own experience (and letīs face it, we all know that it applies to millions of people), I know that the younger years are the ones where the signature is shaped to itīs more rigid and final form.

If that was your experience, fair enough. It certainly wasn't mine, and we really shouldn't assume it occured with Toppy either. The teens are more commonly associated with one's formative years. I also doubt very much that an individual who hasn't "found" himself will necessarily communicate that uncertainty with his signature. I've heard no suggestion that a cosed G-loop is any more suggestive of maturity and confidence than an open one, and any suggestion belongs to the very sort of pseudo-science we're keen to avoid.

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.

Except the Lambeth one which is a closer match than Toppy, as far as I'm concerned. Not that I believe either of them are a good enough match for the witness.

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!

But Fisherman, this is where it's often prudent to acknowledge greater experience. If someone with more experience that me tells me, for example, that the propensity towards change in the 19th Century can not be compared to the propensity towards change in the 21st century, I'm inclined to be very receptive to that advice. Not trying to be antagonistic here, but you an I don't really have the background and experience to challenge that view.

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

You found it on Youtube.

Of course, it was never in contention that bright lights existed back then, since you can create a bright light by starting a huge bonfire. What was disputed was the suggestion that bright powerful lights were avaialble on the streets of the East End in 1888. Clearly they weren't.

But we're not having this discussion again (well, we can, but I''ll just copy and paste, and...ah, y'know the rest!)

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

There is no more onus upon Crystal to "refute" your point then there is upon you to "refute" hers.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi David

Regarding the G in the two signatures i.e. the statement signature and Toppy's I can not see a resemblance.

all the best

Observer

[Crystal]

Well, that would be because there isn't one. You at least, Observer, seem to have functioning eyes...

[Observer]

Hi Crystal

Good job those lanes and alleys were poorly lit in 1888 womens dress and a mustache dont exactly go well when one is trying to merge into the background.

all the best

Observer

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"The central image above, by the way, is by neither Toppy, or the witness.

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

It is not quite similar - but a better likeness than Lambeth George to my eyes. Could you tell us who it belongs to?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

And now you're just repeating yourself for no good reason at all, Fisherman, and you know that'll always conduce the same reaction in me:

The capital G is the one component that is left of all the features that were originally pointed out as a deviation:

Nope, we've still got all of these to contend with:

"George" - All three witness "o"s have a join coming out of the middle of the letter before connecting to "r" whereas in Toppy's, the join commences from the top. The "r" is completely different. The "g" and "e" aren't as problematic, but there are only so many ways of connecting the two letters anyway.

Capital "H" - Only so many many ways of writing a capital "H"'s. The best that can be said is that they're not markedly dissimilar.

"u" - Very conspicuous in its dissimilarity from all three witness signatues which are connected to the H from beneath, rather than the top in Toppy's.

"t" - Unusually small and short in all three witness signatures, in direct contrast to Toppy's, and conected to the preceding letter from beneath, rather than the join from the "u" striking the "t" in the middle (blimey, noticing these things isn't half the bother of describing them ). I see what you mean about the cross occuring at the top of the stem, but not so much in Toppy's.

"chin" - Little to no similarity here, and some crucial differences. The witness "h"s are unusually tall, double-stemmed affair with a small base, whereas Toppy's are the opposite on all three counts: a short "h", with a single stem and a large base.

Lowercase "i" - Dot appears over the s in two witness sigs, and over the n in the other. Toppy's over the n.

"son" - Again I'm seeing no obvious congruity, but some clear differences. The anti-clockwise "n" is quite distinctive in Toppy's, and conspicuously absent from all witness signatures.

These observations remain intact, and are only reinforced by additional examples from 1911 which cement Toppy's remarkable consistencies. Whatever may be said of the differences between the 1911 signatures, none of them are anywhere near as radical as they'd need to be in order for them to resemble any of the statement three.

If we were to compare with a number of 1888 signatures by Toppy, we do not know what would surface.

Oh, but we have an incredibly good idea, based on his astonishing consistency over a 13-year period, where the differences between Toppy and and the witness are essentially crystallised even further.

Looking forward to going round in more circles,

Ben

[The Good Michael]

I think we all see the difference in the capital G. I would suggest that it was begun and ended in the same fashion regardless of end result. We do see strong similarities in the capital H, however. What we most assuredly see is that the similarities between Toppy's and George's sigs are greater than what we see between Lambeth George and Hutch. I also believe that the signatures, as a stand-alone measurement, would be insufficient for proof of anything, and that it is the greater record that we need to look at. Of course, nothing is conclusive at this point, but I will stand on my statement that Toppy is the best we have when all is taken into consideration. The "others" may suggest that the best is none too good, and I'll take no issue with that.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

You know, Observer,you're right. I wonder that the police didn't notice that when he gave his statement? Dumb Coppers!

[DVV]

To begin with: I meant no disrespect whatsoever with my reply

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.

Fisherman

Fish,
I've no problem with you, I'm pretty sure I'll never have, and pretty sure it works also the other way round.

Now, to the G.
You think it isn't decisive? Maybe. And if so, no letter is decisive.

And I'm a bit sorry to repeat:
a man is able in 1888 to write his capital G with a good, firm and fast "adult" hand.
And all these G are VERY VERY similar.

10 years later, Toppy shapes different kinds of G.
None of them matches Hutch's.
NONE.

But all Toppy's G bear a strong similarity: they seem to have been written by someone who writes like he has learnt in school.
You can't explain this, Fish, because he was a labourer etc.
It doesn't work. Since he was writing his G like an adult in 1888, how could he penned them like a child / schoolboy ten years after?

So forgive me, Fish, if I believe this capital G to be important, and to hardly suggest that Toppy was the witness.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Crystal]

Not quite similar to what, Fisherman? Not quite similar to the witness, I'll grant you, but more similar to Toppy, wouldn't you say? Hmm? In fact, if I had found that one in the catacombs and posted it as a Toppy signature, who would have argued? Wouldnt' we just have said - Oh look - its the missing link!

That is the signature of a George E Hutchinson, a contemporary of both Toppy and the witness. Is that clear enough for you?

[Crystal]

I hate you!

Mike

Tell it to the Salmon, Mike...

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:
"Yes, but by 22 he was a fully functioning adult. Not a pimply adolescent. We stray heavily into graphology territory when we start assuming that the handwriting was different just because he was younger at that stage. He was younger in 1898 than he was in 1911, and his handwriting barely changed at all."

I donīt think we come even NEAR graphology, Ben, and I have explained why. And 1898 he was in his thirties, whereas he wsa in his twenties in 1888. And I can find no evidence of how much of a "fully functioning" adult he was - but I do knowe that "fully functioning" adults also can change their signatures.

"If that was your experience, fair enough. It certainly wasn't mine, and we really shouldn't assume it occured with Toppy either."

We should assume nothing at all about the maturity of Toppy, Ben - we should simply keep an open mind, and realize that it could be either way.

"I also doubt very much that an individual who hasn't "found" himself will necessarily communicate that uncertainty with his signature. I've heard no suggestion that a cosed G-loop is any more suggestive of maturity and confidence than an open one"

Then compare to clothes and such things - we adjust to the fashion very much when we are younger, and we try different haircuts and such. All of this we do as we are looking for our identities. We are borne unmoulded and time and environment moulds us. I see no reason to believe that signatures should be an exception in this issue - on the contrary, I think it is something that most of us experiment with at one stage or another I did, my schoolmates did, my brother did ... it is all very commonplace.

"this is where it's often prudent to acknowledge greater experience"

But, Ben, the question we are dealing with here is my statement that nobody is born with a ready, finished and neverchanging signature. Do we need greater experience to acknowledge that? Do you know any person who signed his first signature in life the exact way he or she signs it today? I donīt.

"You found it on Youtube."

No, Ben. That was the film with the Bray lamp that you said shone very weakly, The information that a Bray lamp produced 700 watts plus came from another source altogether.

"There is no more onus upon Crystal to "refute" your point then there is upon you to "refute" hers."

No. But there is great virtue in bolstering your suggestions with detailed facts.

The best, Ben
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Nope, we've still got all of these to contend with"

Well, Ben, that is where you say that the signatures deviate and I and a number of other posters keep saying that they donīt, and discussing that has so far not produced a sensible debate, so I wonīt go there once more.

"Oh, but we have an incredibly good idea"

Ehrm, Ben...psst....YOU, Ben, THINK you have an incredibly good idea. I remain at my stance that it is very hard to describe what you have never seen. Think you may agree on that point?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I donīt think we come even NEAR graphology, Ben, and I have explained why. And 1898 he was in his thirties, whereas he wsa in his twenties in 1888

Indeed, Fisherman, but I don't see why this should signify very much.

I'm not suggesting that people are born with rigid and fixed signatures. He must have settled on a style of signature at some point, but on the basis on Toppy's age at the time, it would seem more likely that he had already alighted on his preferred style by that stage. If we were dealing with a 15-year-old, I might be more inclined to agree with you.

All the best,
Ben