Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"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."

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

The best, Mike!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I don't see why this should signify very much."

I know. And you may be right. And you may be wrong. And the closer to his younger years we move, the chances the latter will apply increases.

"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."

Itīs a process, I think. I believe that traits from his childhood efforts of writing would have followed him through the years, just as I think that his school years will have had an impact. After that, the period where he grew into a finished, more rigid if you like, adult will have had an impact too.

What I donīt think is that there was a day on which he said: Today is the day I decide on style of signature. It kind of takes care of that itself, with the occasional intrusion on our behalfs when we want to have a sudden change of "haircut" or the new, fashionable "jeans".
So even if it would be very convenient to read his 1888 signature into his 1898 ditto, we should take great care not to. That is my honest meaning.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Fish,
Mike writes : "the signatures would be insufficient to prove of anything", he writes: "nothing is conclusive at this point"... and you say: "Yes".

Let me say: "YEAH!!!!"

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

I don't disagree in principle, Fish, I just feel that 22 is a little old for Toppy to have still been at the moulding/changing/deciding stage of his handwriting career.

Cheers,
Ben

[Crystal]

You haven't seen it, but I have....

More will be forthcoming on that. And Fisherman, I have not obscured facts, etc. etc. - you just dont' like what I am saying. You have you're view, as I said. Fine. Since there is no basis for it that I can see other than 'Because I say so' in the final analysis, you are welcome to it.

I repeat, since repetition seems to be the order of the day - if some new and conclusive evidence arrives that makes it clear that Toppy was the witness, then fine. All I've seen so far is some dubious hearsay, some mismatching signatures and a lot of gesticulating, using inappropriate comparisions and reasoning.

Who said a person is born with their signature fully formed? I didn't. That's ludicrous, clearly. I said that we have no evidence that Toppy's hand altered between 1888 and 1898. That is a fact.

I said that since that is a fact, we have no way of knowing and thus speculation - which is what you are engaged in - can only be that. It is not likely that Toppy's hand changed signifcantly over the 10 year period. It is possible. You can make comparisons with your own changes over your own lifetime if you like, but please dont' think that makes any difference. It's speculation, Fisherman, nothing more or less.

Trying to push that view is redundant. It gets us nowhere.

In fact, this whole thing is ridiculous. It has been pointed out before, earlier on, when this thread was still young, and not the rabid old harridan that it is now, that the whole premise for all of this is very limited and dubious.

There are several possible pitfalls in the thing which you, and others, just refuse to acknowledge.

1. How do you know that Hutch was alive in 1911? You don't.

2. How do you know that Hutch was living in London in 1911? You don't.

3. How do you know that Hutch was born in London? You don't.

I think it's assuming rather a lot, therefore to expect to find Hutch the witness just by having a quick trawl through the Census. Is is not a case of 'Oh look! A nice new shiny Toy! Lets play with it!'?

There is nowhere even approaching enough evidence to make definite statements about the witness. Even if you believe with all your heart that Toppy and he were the same, even if you believe you can prove it, it will not stand up without considering the other evidence first.

As Ben has pointed out, there are other candidates, and no, we havent' seen all of their signatures, have we? How do you, or I, come to that, know that one of them doesn't have the best match ever for the witness hand?

That should have been number 4 because, once again, we don't.

If you really want to settle this, you have a good deal more work to do, and not on the internet, either. Otherwise, accept that you are an armchair phillosopher and hold your view in peace, with the full acceptance that it is a matter of FAITH, not LOGIC.

[Fisherman]

ben writes:

"I don't disagree in principle, Fish, I just feel that 22 is a little old for Toppy to have still been at the moulding/changing/deciding stage of his handwriting career."

I know that you feel so, Ben. But I am trying to look at it in a more flexible manner. Thing is, your argument is that you think we may conclude something of which we are not sure. You try to force a decision that we are not at liberty to make.
The only thing we know is that he was either
A/ a finished, ready-moulded, mature man
or
B/ a man still in the process of finding his identity

We can look away from all the arguments to and fro; you can say that he had a military appearance, I can say that he may not have chosen his occupation and was still fraternising with prostitutes, but letīs not go there. Letīs just accept the simple fact that we have a question, and we have two possible answers. We can either choose to say that we may conclude that one alternative is right, or we can admit that we have no way to reach any certainty.
I move wholeheartedly for the latter alternative: As long as you donīt know, you donīt know, and therefore we must leave the question open.
If you want to move for the other alternative and say that we DO know, that we HAVE full certainty, then I will do nothing to stop you but offer my advice to take care.

The best,
Fisherman

who will sink his teeth into Crystals post later this evening - if everything works out. If not, it will have to wait. But answer it I will! Iīm off the boards for now.

[Ben]

Excellent points well made, Crystal.

Hi Fish,

The only thing we know is that he was either:

A/ a finished, ready-moulded, mature man
or
B/ a man still in the process of finding his identity

Indeed, and my money's on option "A", for reasons I've outlined above. I think 22 is too old for him to have conformed to the "B" model. While I willingly embrace your sensible suggestion to keep all possibilities, I'm personally confident of the more probable explanation. Your mileage may vary, of course.

who will sink his teeth into Crystals post later this evening

Although I'd like to think you'd give full consideration to Crystal's post before you start bearing those mean ol' fangs!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Indeed, and my money's on option "A", for reasons I've outlined above. I think 22 is too old for him to have conformed to the "B" model. While I willingly embrace your sensible suggestion to keep all possibilities, I'm personally confident of the more probable explanation. Your mileage may vary, of course."

If you feel confident of option A, then that is your choice. You are welcome to it. The one and only thing that carries any real importance here is that you recognize the value of keeping all doors open. And once you do, you must also recognize that "B" MAY have applied. The fact that you and me weigh the inherent possibilities of the alternatives in markedly different ways only goes to prove that such a weighing is impossible to do with any certainty.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"you just dont' like what I am saying"

I donīt like that you are not saying what you ought to be saying, to be more precise.

"It is not likely that Toppy's hand changed significantly over the 10 year period. It is possible."

I donīt think we can come up with any exact measure of HOW likely it was, Crystal, since it will have depended on both the individual and the circumstances surrounding him. And we know effectively nothing of them.
What carries relevance here is that you admit that it is possible that Toppys hane changed significantly in the ten-year period we are intersted in - that is fine by me and I think we all needed to hear that.

"You can make comparisons with your own changes over your own lifetime if you like, but please dont' think that makes any difference. It's speculation, Fisherman, nothing more or less."

I am not making a comparison as such, Crystal. I am not saying that Toppys signature may or must have changed in any specific direction. I am, though, saying exactly what you now concur with: The ten year period may have involved significant changes of the signature. And taking myself as an example was something that further elucidated that such processes do take place.

"There are several possible pitfalls in the thing which you, and others, just refuse to acknowledge.
1. How do you know that Hutch was alive in 1911? You don't.
2. How do you know that Hutch was living in London in 1911? You don't.
3. How do you know that Hutch was born in London? You don't."

No, I donīt. Nor have I said that I do. So I donīt fall into that pit, Crystal. I fully know that some things will take a lot to prove.
I do say, however, that if Hutch was dead in 1911, then it is an odd coincidence that there was another man named George Hutchinson alive that had a signature that I think was a very close, nigh on perfect to my mind, match to the disappeared Hutch.

"I think it's assuming rather a lot, therefore to expect to find Hutch the witness just by having a quick trawl through the Census."

The pace at which we trawl through the census is of no interest at all, when we find what we perceive to be an absolute match. There is nothing saying that even if we only have a look at ONE signature, it must be wrong to realize that it is a match. Of course, painstaking efforts ought to be made to establish that there were no other George Hutchinsons that matched, but I must say that I remain as steadfast as ever that such work will be carried out in vain - I truly believe that it will be time wasted. That is not to say it should not be done - it should, and I have a feeling that it WILL. But to hope that it will turn up a better comparison - no, I cannot see that happen.

"Even if you believe with all your heart that Toppy and he were the same, even if you believe you can prove it"

Yes. And no. I DO believe it, and consider it beyond reasonable doubt. But I also realize that I cannot prove it as such. I hope though, that more material combined with forthcoming expert opinion may create more of a universal agreement.

"As Ben has pointed out, there are other candidates, and no, we havent' seen all of their signatures, have we? How do you, or I, come to that, know that one of them doesn't have the best match ever for the witness hand?"

Much the same answer, Crystal: Logic dictates that as we have not seen all signatures, we cannot rule out the possibility that another one equals Toppys likeness. Having seen the signatures we do have from the Geroge Hutchinsons we do know, I still think the possibility is more remote than Cocos Islands. But for sanitys sake, I must keep the door ajar, for if I donīt, it will render me a verdict of being biased and leaping ahead of things. I avoid that.

"If you really want to settle this, you have a good deal more work to do, and not on the internet, either. Otherwise, accept that you are an armchair phillosopher and hold your view in peace, with the full acceptance that it is a matter of FAITH, not LOGIC."

Ooopla, Crystal - that is where we donīt agree. For if we compare two signatures and find that they tally to an overwhelming degree, then it does not take "faith" to realize that they may have been written by the same hand - it takes logic.

But I am thrilled by the outcome of this evening; Ben agrees that we must embrace all possibilities when it comes to the question of whether Toppy was a man that may have been at a stage in life where he made changes to his signature (though he remains firmly at the conviction that it would not have been probable that he changed the signature), and you tell me that there may have been significant changes inbetween Toppys 1888 signature and the 1898 one (though your own take on things is that you believe it unlikely). That is fair enough, and it is perfectly enough for me.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Fish, I just feel that 22 is a little old for Toppy to have still been at the moulding/changing/deciding stage of his handwriting career.

Here are my "G"s from when I was (about) 35 and 21 respectively:



The 21-year-old "G" had much more open squiggles - I was "loopier" in general then! - than the 35-year-old equivalent; it was also more "upright". Also (although you can't see it here), the upstroke of the earlier "G" went straight to the top of the next letter in my name, whereas the later "G" connected to the bottom of the next letter.

[DVV]

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.

Any explaination welcome.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Here are my "G"s from when I was (about) 35 and 21 respectively:

[ATTACH]5257[/ATTACH]

The 21-year-old "G" had much more open squiggles - I was "loopier" in general then! - than the 35-year-old equivalent; it was also more "upright". Also (although you can't see it here), the upstroke of the earlier "G" went straight to the top of the next letter in my name, whereas the later "G" connected to the bottom of the next letter.

Sam, none of these "G" come from the school.
You certainly understand what I mean.
And the very fact that you've jumped into this "G' topic tells me that this "G" is significant.

Many thanks, Sam,
and amitiés, of course.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I don't think anyone was ever attempting to prove that Toppy couldn't have changed his signature to a drastic, witness-esque extent between 1888 and 1898 - only that he was rather unlikely to have done so. None of that negates the fact that all possibilities must be embraced.

then it is an odd coincidence that there was another man named George Hutchinson alive that had a signature that I think was a very close, nigh on perfect to my mind, match to the disappeared Hutch.

That's your opinion, to which you're more than entitled. However, for those of us who don't believe that Toppy's signature matches those of the statement three, there is no "odd coincidence" here at all. The same may be said of your view that further research into the census records is "time wasted". That's fine for those who strongly adhere to the belief that they've found the correct Hutchinson in Toppy. For the rest of us, further research is both welcomed and strongly encouraged.

Yes. And no. I DO believe it, and consider it beyond reasonable doubt.

Which I find astonishing, but fair enough...

Ooopla, Crystal - that is where we donīt agree. For if we compare two signatures and find that they tally to an overwhelming degree, then it does not take "faith" to realize that they may have been written by the same hand - it takes logic.

Ah, no! Lose a point here, Fish! If there's one minor twinge of criticism to be made against your otherwise circumspect post to Crystal, it's that you've spent a little too much of it reiterating how much you think Toppy and the witness match. We get it. We respect your differing view. We don't need any more superfluous narration of how emphatically you hold that view. Here you go overboard by suggesting that those who "realise" that the signatues match do so on the basis of "logic", implying that the preponderance of expert opinion is "illogical" to believe otherwise.

I'm honestly very pleased to hear that you're pleased with the outcome of the evening's discussion, but we get it when it comes to where you side on the issue. Don't keep saying it!

Hi Gareth,

You have incredibly distinctive and, if I may say so, aesthetically reassuring G's. I can't imagine many other G's would resemble them!

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

David writes, in a response to Sam:

"Sam, none of these "G" come from the school.
You certainly understand what I mean."

I think, David, that what Sam was doing was to reinforce my suggestion that teh capital letters you write in the begiīnning of your twenties need not be very like the ones you write in your thirties.
Thanks for that, Sam, by the way! A nice example of what I am trying to say. Though I would not venture to use it to prove that you were an immature 21-year old...!

The best, David, Sam!
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I don't think anyone was ever attempting to prove that Toppy couldn't have changed his signature to a drastic, witness-esque extent between 1888 and 1898 - only that he was rather unlikely to have done so. None of that negates the fact that all possibilities must be embraced"

And that is all I am asking for, Ben. Anybody realizes that when it comes to trying to weigh just how big the chance that he would alter his signature was, we will all be coming up with different estimates. But that is of inferior significance.

"The same may be said of your view that further research into the census records is "time wasted". That's fine for those who strongly adhere to the belief that they've found the correct Hutchinson in Toppy. For the rest of us, further research is both welcomed and strongly encouraged."

And I donīt quibble with that either, which you will see if you once again look at what I wrote: I stated that I BELIEVE that it is time wasted (since I feel certain that Toppy was the writer), but I think that all measures must be taken to look into each and every possibility - just like you do.

"Here you go overboard by suggesting that those who "realise" that the signatues match do so on the basis of "logic", implying that the preponderance of expert opinion is "illogical" to believe otherwise."

Well, not really, Ben. All I am saying is that when we see one thing and then another and find that our eyesight in combination with our brains tell us that the two things are closely related, then it is not FAITH that rules the deduction - it is logic, and nothing else. If, however, we were to see two things that did NOT look alike, but still said that they were closely related in spite of this, since we WANTED them to be, THEN we would be dealing in faith.
Reversely, the same thing applies: If we see two things that are very much alike, but dotīt want them to be, then we will be dealing with faith if we say that they donīt look alike, and with logic if we admit the likeness.
What expert Crystal thinks about it all in detail, is something she has so far rejected to post in spite of my urging her to do so numerous times. But when - or if - she does, it will open up for a discussion on the differences inbetween her expert wiew and my non-expert ditto.

The best,
Fisherman