great article by Stephen Sinise on the Hutch sigs. I always thought they were probably different, but this nails the deal for me. Toppy wasn't the witness hutch.
When you generally compare them they just look different. Specifically though the G seals the deal for me. They are totally different. and the fact that its the first letter of the first name is significant because that usually dosnt change (or as much) as other letters in the name. My sig has changed over the years but the capital first letter of my first name (as well as the first letter of my last) has remained the same for 40 years.
No question in my mind these are two very different sigs and different men.
great work again Stephen!!
__________________ "Is all that we see or seem
but a dream within a dream?"
-Edgar Allan Poe
"...the man and the peaked cap he is said to have worn
quite tallies with the descriptions I got of him."
-Frederick G. Abberline
Thanks Abby, I'm glad you enjoyed it and I take on board those aspects of the piece which particularly spoke to you and dovetail with your own suspicions.
From my perspective, the issue which really hit home was that the two Toppy signatures (1898 and 1911) remained remarkably constant over 13 years. We might say that they are near replicas of each other. But when they are compared to the witness samples from 1888 there's something fundamentally not right - for all that the time elapsed at their nearest comparison is down to 10 years.
Which brings up another tangential consideration. If we accept Iremonger's basic contention, then how damn good was she, encircling the Toppy salient with a single pincer: she was going off only one example of his signature !
BTW, thanks to Gareth and Adam for going with the article, and the very nice presentation of another edition.
And happy posting to you, Abby. Always good to know you're on the case.