Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"I'm not getting involved. I'm not getting involved. I'm not (Toppy is Hutch) getting involved."

You KNOW you should not say that, Mike. You just should´nt, you really ought not, you (yeah, I know, he sure is!) must shape up and stay away from such things. Really, Mike!

The best
Fisherman

[DVV]

Please Fish,
ask him specifically, and you could add Lambeth GH's "G" to the material as well.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

Once again, David, he HAS seen both the G.s, and it has not evoked any reaction from him whatsoever, other than his pointing out that the G:s are dissimilar.

I am currently waiting for him to respond to my question about the age of the writer, and after that I have a feeling that more questions may surface. And I really don´t know how much we can draw on his generosity. Richard Nunweek pointed out that it would be very costly to get a good experts opinion, and we have had the opinion of a top authority for free here, so we may want to apply a combination of thankfulness and easing off the pressure on mr Leander here, at least for the time being. He has been very helpful already.

But if/when I do contact him again, I will bear your request in mind. But don´t forget that your question has been answered already to some extent - Leander did not wink two times when he saw the differing G:s.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Moving on quickly here; Frank Leanders answer to my query about whether he could see the age in the signature of the man who signed the police report is:

"Det var bara en av flera tänkbara förklaringar till att det finns olikheter (jag hade ingen om aning om personens ålder och det går normalt inte att dra alltför stora växlar om någons ålder utifrån handstilen)!"

Should I translate? Oh, well!

"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences (I had no idea of the persons age and you can normally not make any too certain assessments of age from a persons handwriting)!"

So, once again, Leander presses the fact that there could be many possible explanations to the differences.

All the best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

the G:s are dissimilar
Fisherman

Hi again Fish,
dissimilar they are, indeed.
And if penned by the same individual, the 1898's G has to be the oldest.
But it's not.

Amitiés,
David

[caz]

Caz, you can't expect me to be "good".

Not when Crystal brings out my naughty side so well.

Well I for one, am very relieved to come here this morning and not find you being naughty with Crystal. That would have been enough to put the strongest stomachs off their breakfast.

Anyway, keep up the "good" work and eventually people might forget that this thread was ever dominated, for page after sodding page, by you minding everyone's business but your own, and being so busy demanding for the thousandth time that Sam and Fisherman et al pay attention to what your 'expert' said and treat her views with due respect, that you had no time left to heed your own advice, but just made up out of whole cloth what you hoped she may have believed about the witness signatures, when she struggled to get her small informed voice heard above your own incessant din.

Whoops, I just reminded everyone. I hope you didn't forget that I have a naughty side too, albeit not played at anywhere near the same volume or frequency as your own record on this total waste of space of a thread.

Stay good and I'll show my own good side by not reminding anyone ever again that you were once a very naughty boy.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi David!

If you are correct, it is something that passed by one of our most renowned experts totally unnoticed. That is all I can say.

Well, there is some more, actually: I think that we are all at risk to do our own interpretations of isolated bits and pieces of the signatures involved. Sometimes they will be good interpretations, and other times they may be less spot on.
But when we have a detailed listing of things made by a man like Frank Leander, with many years experience at the SKL, without any mentioning of the G:s representing an unbridgeable difference in any manner, then we may have to accept that he has made a fair judgement.

I just wrote a few finishing lines to him, saying that I may be back in the future, but also that I understood that he had already been more than generous. I also gave him my phone numbers and said that whenever he visits Helsingborg (my home town), I will happily treat him to a night on the town. Plus, en passant, I treated him to Lambeth Georges signature, telling him that there was one school of Ripperologists that claim that this signature is closer to the police report than is Toppys. We shall see if it evokes any reaction - come to think of it, he only has the signature from page three of the protocol, but if there is an answer, it may be useful anyway ...

So, for now, I have decided that I have already drawn far too much from an account in which I have never invested. In a few days time, it may be convenient to ask any relevant question that may arise, but til then I will sit VERY tight.

The best, David!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Thankyou for that, Fisherman.

I'd have to agree with Mike here that a Swede is unlikely to have a close familiarity with British signatures, but it is interesting to hear his inconclusive response to the evidence. He clearly wasn't coming down in favour of Toppy as witness, but he concedes that "it cannot be ruled out". He certainly didn't say that they "do tally to a high degree". I find this to be most informative and reassuring, despite his concession that "you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion".

Interesting also that he recognised the same dissimilarities than many of us here did: "Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature."

Far from "not winking two times" when he saw the G's, he made specific reference to them as a dissimilarity.

While they could be explained anyway for X or Y reason, they differences could also be accounted for by Toppy not being the witness.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Anyway, keep up the "good" work and eventually people might forget that this thread was ever dominated, for page after sodding page, by you minding everyone's business but your own, and being so busy demanding for the thousandth time that Sam and Fisherman et al pay attention to what your 'expert' said and treat her views with due respect

Be silent, you silly woman.

If you really had any genuine concern for the direction of this thread, you'd stop piddling and moaning about the same thing over and over again, and if you think the thread's a waste of space, leave it alone, as opposed to reinforcing your tiresome unreciprocated fixation with me.

[Ally]

If you really had any genuine concern for the direction of this thread, you'd stop piddling and moaning about the same thing over and over again,

I am not sure if that crossed over into genuine irony but it was hysterical nonetheless.

[DVV]

Plus, en passant, I treated him to Lambeth Georges signature, telling him that there was one school of Ripperologists that claim that this signature is closer to the police report than is Toppys. Fisherman

Hi Fish,
I know nothing of this school. If it exists, I'm not in it.
What is relevant with Lambeth GH "G", is the fact that it is shaped like Toppy's.
Which means: these low class people, not very well educated, have learnt how to shape their capital letters in the same way.
Now Toppy was still writing his capital G like that in 1898.
There is no reason to think that he had a superior (or let's say different) ability 10 years earlier.
Hutch was a labourer, formerly a groom, so no reason either to think that he was used in writing after he left the school, and before he signed his statement - in which case we could suppose that he would have developped a "G" of his own.
We simply cannot suppose such.

Amitiés mon cher, and my thanks to FL,
David

[Crystal]

Hey Ben....

[Ben]

Hey babe!

Smooches

Ben xxx

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'd have to agree with Mike here that a Swede is unlikely to have a close familiarity with British signatures"

Believe it or not, Ben, but I do believe that Mike was joking. Unless you noticed, we use the same alphabet...

"it is interesting to hear his inconclusive response"

It is in no way inconclusive - he would never write "It´s the same man", as you may appreciate. He simply settles for pointing out that it may well be the case. Plus he adds that the differences we have all spotted could easily be explained and overcome.
You should also weigh in the fact that I did not ask him "Were these signatures written by the same man?" What I asked him was "We KNOW that all of these signatures but the one on the top were penned by the same man. Now, what about the first one - could it also have been written by the same man?" And his answer was very CONCLUSIVE: Oh, yes it could! The differences could all be explained by a number of things.

...and that is as conclusive as we are going to get, I´m afraid. It is only in your world that this is "inconclusive", Ben, just as it is only in your world that the signatures do not match. They do match, as we can read from Leanders verdict. The general appearance and the degree of writing skills tell us that we may be dealing with the same writer, which is very much in opposition to what you are saying.

But then, you´re no expert, are you...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"I know nothing of this school. If it exists, I'm not in it."

Oh, it exists alright. But it is very small. And shrinking, I hope.

"There is no reason to think that he had a superior (or let's say different) ability 10 years earlier"

On the contrary, David. Leander tells us that there may be a whole number of reasons for this.

The best,
Fisherman