Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

You're a wise guy, Mike,

for as pointed out above, Hutt doesn't suffer from any Benjamin Button's syndrome.

Your French seems perfect, btw.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

for as pointed out above, Hutt doesn't suffer from any Benjamin Button's syndrome.

Only Brad Pitt does. My French is only what I glean from literature. It means, I can figure it out when I read it, but I don't really have any.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

We do, Ben - because 1888p1-3 (or let's take 1888p2-3, just in case Badham "back-filled" page 1) demonstrates that Hutchinson's signature changed very little over the 10 years before his marriage

If Toppy was Hutchinson, which I doubt very much, that would constitute a most implausible change, to my mind. There's remarkably little change between Toppy's 1898 and 1911 signatures, but that's because they're indisputably written by the same person, and that same person therefore demonstrated a remarkable consistency of signature.

So, the "G" fluctuated between "open-loop" and "closed-loop"... but then, so did Hutt's

Which wasn't the case with Toppy, who retained his closed G-loop over a 13-year period. Unfortunately, we have no evidence (at least I don't) to suggest that George Hutt had a similar propensity towards consistency.

Note, also, that Hutt's lower-case "t" changes between the two samples, whereas Hutchinson remains faithful to his "top-launched t"

Not terribly faithful. The "t" is conspicuously shorter that the "h" in all three statement signatures, with the cross bar commencing from the right of the stem, as opposed to actually crossing it - which is what we see in all of Toppy's efforts.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Aside from the G, which I didn't find to be a great difference as the mode of construction was the same, there weren't any big differences between Hutch and Toppy signatures

It depends how we're quantifying "big", Mike. Certainly, I believe there are siginicant differences - differences that led an expert who actually examined the original documents to believe that Toppy was not the witness. For the record, there were never any objections that nobody would ever go from open-looping their G's to close-looping them. The objection was that Toppy registered a remarkable consistency over a 13-year period, during which time he retained his closed G-loop, along with many other elements of great consistency that only served to reinforce the differences with the statement three. That objection still stands.

Let's go round again.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

That Does It....

ok

OK!

I've had it!

I'm going. Now. To the bloody NRA.

Right Now.

I don't care if they're on their lunch.

I don't care if they don't want to.

I DON'T CARE

I'm getting the bloody Census material, and that bloody statement.

TODAY

They wouldn't dare deny me. It's more than their lives are worth.

And I will examine the wretched things, and I will draw my own conclusions from the examination of the ORIGINALS - and not a few GRUBBY LITTLE DIGITAL SMUDGES because I, apparently unlike any of you (ok, maybe Ben - and no, that has nothing to do with ANYTHING other than his ability to cut through this CRAP ) understand that THERE IS A DIFFERENCE.

And WHEN I have done this, I will share all of my insights with all of YOU.

OK?

And one more thing - I don't care if they match, if they don't match, if Hutch is Toppy, or even if he was really some dodgy looking geezer in a terrible '70's cop show - I just WILL NOT come back to this CURSED THREAD day after day and find the same utter, unqualified NONSENSE endlessly reiterated ANY LONGER.

RIGHT.

I'm going now.

Perhaps we could all just CHILL in the meantime?

Hmmm?

Cross Crystal.

[halomanuk]

This thread is like 'Groundhog Day' or 'The Twighlight Zone'....

[The Good Michael]

unqualified NONSENSE endlessly reiterated ANY LONGER.

My nonsense is qualified by hawk-like vision.

Mike

[DVV]

My nonsense is qualified by hawk-like vision.

Mike

There's a Jamaican DJ called Hawkeye, Mike.
He is one-eyed.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

I hate Jamaica, and I'm only one-eyed when I'm hungover.


Mike

[DVV]

Ah, you see, Mike,
you don't see that much clearly...
My eyes, on the contrary, are perfect.
And when I'm "angober" (current "Amharic" for "hungover", btw), they even see more things.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

I can see clearly now. The rain is gone.

Mike

[Stephen Thomas]

I can see all ob-stickles in my way

[Malcolm X]

my signatures vary much more than HUTCH's, especially when going to sign a checque at the bank (after cyling on a very cold day)...i'm surprised they accept it.....mind you they know me well; even so, it's still worth mentioning.

those Hutch signatures are very close indeed.... it's almost not worth sending them off.

people will disagree for the sheer hell of it around here, anything to get Hutch off the hook.

[Malcolm X]

my signatures vary much more than HUTCH's, especially when going to sign a checque at the bank (after cyling on a very cold day)...i'm surprised they accept it.....mind you they know me well; even so, it's still worth mentioning.

those Hutch signatures are very close indeed.... it's almost not worth sending them off.

people will disagree for the sheer hell of it around here, anything to get Hutch off the hook.

I've even whilst feeling ill, actually spelt my name wrong!
i've even forgotten my name at tough job interviews, sometimes one's mind simply goes blank!........these things happen!

[Observer]

Hi Crystal

There can be no doubt that a man purporting to be George Hutchinson turned up at Commercial street police station on 12th November 1888. He signed his name on a statement he had given, can I be so bold as to ask whether you believe this man to be an impostor? I’m being a bit unfair in truth, as all you’ve ever argued against in this thread is whether George the witness and Toppy’s signatures match, but it would be interesting to know whether you believe that Hutchinson the witness was at least telling the truth when he gave his name.

In my mind there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that George Hutchinson the witness was anyone other then who he purported to be that is George Hutchinson. We are born our names are recorded, we marry our names are recorded, we die our names are recorded, once every ten years on a specific day our names are recorded in a census, apart from these brief moments in time as far as the public record is concerned the vast majority of us remain anonymous. The difficulty in pinning a person down during the short span of time encompasssed by the Whitechapel murders is obvious, considering the dearth of documentation but in my mind George Hutchinson the witness is recorded in some or all of the above records, it is only a matter of time before he is discovered.

All the best

Observer