Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

Was it 6'7"?

Mike

Yes.
And the weight was 250 grammes.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Well, Ben, he was obviously of the opinion that the signatures could have been by the same hand.

Well, he doesn't "rule out" that possibility.

But then nor do I.

Judging from the rest of your post, it looks like you've misunderstood my point pretty spectacularly. Of course I'm not suggesting that somebody else changed Toppy's handwriting. I haven't once opined that he did change it, and nor has Leander. I'll try one more time:

There's no evidence that Leander considered any of those "reasons" for the differences (youth etc etc) any more likely than the explanation that they're different because they were written by different people.

Please tell me you got it this time.

[Fisherman]

David asks:

"Where has "Gentleman Fish" gone ?
I miss him sincerely."

David, how can I be more gentlemanlike answering something like this?? Please advice me, if you have any good answers.
Ben actually tells me that Leander never said that Toppy changed his elements of style...??
This we must reconcile with Leanders assertion that the signatures could have been written by the same man. And he offered his wiew that the differences involved could be explained by a number of circumstances.

I think, David, that this urges us to seriously consider the possibility that the signatures had the same writer. And if they did, then what mattars it that Leander did not specifically say that Toppy could have changed his elements of style, when it goes without saying that if Toppy WAS the Dorset Street witness, he MUST have changed these elements.

I promise, David, after having read that post from Ben, I had to dry my eyes. And I was not crying from sorrow, mind you!

Anyways, David, being a gentleman is always a good thing. But it takes two to tango, does it not?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben begs:

"Please tell me you got it this time."

Here, Ben, once again, in glowing stagelight, is EXACTLY what you wrote:

"Leander didn't even express the view that Toppy ever changed his "elements of style""

There is NO way that it can be misunderstood, I´m afraid. It is the very wording you used, and I am very relieved if it is not your sincere opinion.

But I want you to ponder this, Ben:

When you wrote it, I did not put it beyond you that it was exactly what you meant. I am not joking - I have never been more earnest and serious in my whole life (now that I´ve stopped laughing). It was an argument that spoke against my suggestion of Toppy being the probable witness and Leander bolstering it - and by now, I am not surprised by the quality of any of your counterarguments. It was something you would not be too ashamed to mention, as far as I was concerned.

...and I think that this very much belongs to the discussion; that is where your arguments have brought me.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Ben actually tells me that Leander never said that Toppy changed his elements of style...??

Yep, I do.

Because it's true.

He never says that.

He doesn't express the opinion that Toppy was the witness. He says that it can't be ruled out, which it can't. He's certainly not asserting that Toppy changed his style. He said he might have done if he was the witness, which is a major difference.

If you think it's gentlemanly behaviour to "laugh" at people who are trying to have a sensible discussion, I'm afraid you've been given an erroneous idea. The only laughable thing, as far as I'm concerned, is an "I'm leaving this thread" swansong followed hot on the heels with a blitz of posts.

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"Yes.
And the weight was 250 grammes."

No, David - that´s garfish!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben speaks about "a sensible discussion", but I´m afraid that what you are carrying on now is quite beyond all sense, Ben!
You have to - HAVE TO - think in more than one step here.

1. Leander thinks that the signatures may have been written by the same man.
2. There are changes in style elements inbetween the signatures.
3. Leander does not think that any of the differences would be impossible to explain.
4. Therefore he opens up for the possibility that Toppy - who he thinks may be the man that signed the police report - also may be the one who made those changes in style elements.

Oh, so simple, once you get the hang of it, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Yes, all fine and dandy, Fish.

And nowhere does he express the opinion that Toppy probably changed his style and that he was probably the witness.

"Cannot be ruled out".

[Fisherman]

...which is another thing altogether!
He did, however, say that given the small amount of George Hutchinsons in that time and space, he agreed with me that it pointed very much in the Toppy-being-the-Dorset-Street-witness direction.

Fisherman

[Ben]

He did, however, say that given the small amount of George Hutchinsons in that time and space, he agreed with me that it pointed very much in the Toppy-being-the-Dorset-Street-witness direction.

Which, with respect, is completely misleading, since there was never any suggestion that the number of potential candidates was "small". I'm not sure where people got that impression from.

We don't know if he was really called "George Hutchinson".

We don't know if he lived in London in 1911.

We don't know if he was born in London.

We don't know if he was alive by 1911.

[Fisherman]

"I'm not sure where people got that impression from."

That would be a combination of censuses and mathematics, Ben.

As for the rest, being present in the East end and professing a near aquaintance with Mary Kelly makes a guess that he was a Londoner with East end connections rather a safe bet.
And the fact that he had a signature that tallies with Toppys much enough for Leander to speak of a possible match doesn´t retract from a hunch that he was alive and kicking - and writing signatures - all the way up to the thirties.

Really, Ben, you can´t get very much more home and dry, like it or not. I think you may do an admirable job of looking for things that may urge us to discount Toppy on this issue, since I am convinced that you rather have the skin flogged of your back that go along with the suggestion. And as such, it would not be a bad thing if you kept watch over it all, since it would establish an alibi for us saying that the case was very nearly closed - but for securitys sake we have a man who tries to tie up the loose ends.
That is all there is to it, really.

Fisherman

[Ben]

That would be a combination of censuses and mathematics, Ben

And I'm afraid you've misappropriated both of those things to arrive at an errant conclusion that you've then fed to Leander.

As for the rest, being present in the East end and professing a near aquaintance with Mary Kelly makes a guess that he was a Londoner with East end connections rather a safe bet

Fairly safe, if inconclusive, but that would still leave the field wide open to include a great many potential candidates. I mean, come on, a Londoner with East End connections hardly narrows the field down.

And the fact that he had a signature that tallies with Toppys much enough for Leander to speak of a possible match

Nobody's said it's an impossible match, but that fact that Toppy-as-Hutch isn't impossible doesn't lessen the candidacy of the large number of men who who could potentially match the witness somewhat better than "cannot be ruled out".

since I am convinced that you rather have the skin flogged of your back that go along with the suggestion.

If the evidence pointed in the direction of Toppy, I'd cheerfully go along with the suggestion, since it would spare us all a headache. I'd be chuffed if he was the witness. Unfortunately, I don't believe the evidence does point in that direction. Of course, I was always happy to agree to disagree and move on, but people are hell-bent on keeping the thread going, and me, I'm just too weak to resist the temptation to respond.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"And I'm afraid you've misappropriated both of those things to arrive at an errant conclusion that you've then fed to Leander"

Yes, you would be, would you not? Just like you suspect that I was very rude to Mrs Iremonger.
Then again, Ben, maybe people who disagree with you need not be rotten to the bone at all - maybe they present things in a very unbiased way and maybe they contact the Mrs Iremongers of this world in a very courteous manner.
You should aquaint yourself with that possibility at some stage of your life, Ben - it opens up a lot of interesting perspectives that one really should not go through life without.

"Fairly safe, if inconclusive, but that would still leave the field wide open to include a great many potential candidates. I mean, come on, a Londoner with East End connections hardly narrows the field down."

Not very much, no - but when you add the roughly correct age and the name George Hutchinson, things will start to happen!

"Nobody's said it's an impossible match"

Does not Iremonger come close to it? Oh, wait a minute - we don´t know just what she said, do we?
Anyways, Ben, if somebody did say it, it would be just about the stupidest thing they ever said.

"... that fact that Toppy-as-Hutch isn't impossible doesn't lessen the candidacy of the large number of men who who could potentially match the witness somewhat better than "cannot be ruled out"."

Oh, fishing, are we? Trying to tell us that there is a "large number of men" that "potentially" fits the bill better than Toppy?
Of course there is no such "large amount" of men. And the "potential" factor is quite dependant on whether they could produce a better signature match, and the chance for that is freakishly small. So no, Toppy is the only credible choice at this stage. The signature likeness means that we have no other contender in sight at all - let alone any "large amount of men".

"If the evidence pointed in the direction of Toppy, I'd cheerfully go along with the suggestion"

Let´s face it, chum - you would not. Not in a million years. Much as we desperately lack proof of other things on this thread, I think that particular issue is proven beyond all doubt. You see, the evidence DOES point in Toppys direction - and you look the other way. ANY other way, in fact.

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Which, with respect, is completely misleading, since there was never any suggestion that the number of potential candidates was "small". I'm not sure where people got that impression from.

I told 'em, Ben - having searched the census.

There were only fourteen George Hutchinsons, aged between 18 and 38 years in 1888, who lived in London at the time of the nearest Census (1891). Of these, only five lived in East London.

Between the (1888) ages of 20 and 30, the total number of George Hutchinsons in the whole of London drops to a mere four, of whom none lived in the East End, albeit one of them was born in Mile End.

That's not to say that "our" George was living in the East End by 1891, of course - indeed, no George Hutchinsons of "groomable age" lived there at all - but at least these figures give an idea of roughly how many "George Hutchinsons" within those two age-ranges might have been found in the East End at any given time.

Just for reference, and going by the 1891 census again, there would have been only around eighty-eight "George Hutchinsons" aged between 20 and 30 in the whole of England in 1888, the overwhelming majority of whom lived well outside London, thus:

38 in Yorkshire
17 in Durham
8 in Lancashire
5 in Derbyshire
3 in Northumberland

... with the odd singleton in Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Hampshire. Where 'urricanes 'ardly hhhhever 'appen.

[Malcolm X]

but only one in the whole of the U.K that those signatures match......