Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Sam Flynn]

A graphologist looks for similarities, and we see some in those examples.

I see many of them, Jon.

It's the details in his story that I am not comfortable with.

Exactly, but the story - which may have been "helped" by Melvyn Fairclough - is an entirely separate matter. At base level, we have a young working-class man named George Hutchinson with connections to East/South-East London, who went on to court and marry a girl who lived in the shadow of Stepney Gasworks. A George Hutchinson whose signatures matched those on the 1888 witness statement, and who furthermore claimed to have been the Dorset Street witness.

Now, that claim might have become embellished over the years - either by George, Reg, Fairclough or all three - but that would be in the future, and what happened in the future cannot alter what happened in Commercial Street Police Station on 12th November 1888. Namely, that George William Topping Hutchinson made, and signed, that statement to Sgt Badham.

[Wickerman]

Didn't Toppy spend his final years & die in Hornchurch, about a half-mile from Romford?
His parents also lived in Hornchurch in the 1860's.
Too much of a coincidence to dismiss out of hand.

[Varqm]

I don't think we'll ever know what gave Abberline confidence in Hutchinson. However, according to Hutch's press statement, at least, it wasn't misplaced;

"I went down to the Shoreditch mortuary today and recognised the body as being that of the woman Kelly, whom I saw at two o'clock on Friday morning."

What did Abberline think of Hutchinson? Fortunately we know this from the covering report of the same date -

" An important statement has been made by a man named George Hutchinson which I forward herewith. I have interrogated him
this evening and I am of opinion his statement is true. He informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings,
and that he had known her about 3 years. Also that he was surprised to see a man so well dressed in her company which caused him to
watch them. He can identify the man and arrangement was at once made for two officers to accompany him round the district for a few
hours tonight with a view of finding the man if possible.

Hutchinson is at present in no regular employment, and he has promised to go with an officer tomorrow morning at 11.30 a.m.
to the Shoreditch mortuary to identify the deceased."


Let me repeat.

Hutchinson was talking straight,not acting weird,tentative or guessing.so it's more believable that he was telling the truth.But the point of the letter is
act immediately,start,what if the the witness's statemnet is true,while it's hot,they had no real/good suspect/leads from the series of murders.This letter was an update,to his fellow officers/superiors what was going on so far and the decision he took.
But he had reservations as to the the truthfulness of the witness, a) what if the woman/Kelly this witness is talking about is not the victim/Kelly.He did not know this during the interview on Monday,promising to do/answer it the next day in Shoreditch mortuary.So it's clear at the time of the letter's writing he was not confident still,lacking more information..
But he also needs to answer and was missing in the letter, b)what if is it was a different day? -ask Hutch detailed questions even tricky questions and compare it to Lewis's testimony,re-interview her if possible and if a significant answers does not match this witness is guessing.And c) what if the witness had a history of lying? - ask the people from his previous workplaces,lodging house residents or some,deputy what Hutchinson was like.check prison\court\conviction records.As you can see he was still a long way from being sure.

So this letter,at the time it was written,is bogus to use as a basis that Hutch was telling the truth.

---

[Wickerman]

It was the result of the interrogation which influenced Abberline to write what he did to his superiors at Scotland Yard.
We have no record of what was said in the interrogation, so there is no point to this line of reasoning.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

“Graphology” is an entirely separate discipline from document examination, typically involving the analysis of handwriting in order to discern supposed personality traits, and is widely dismissed as a pseudoscience. If you have been diligently studying the graphologists’ code of conduct, as your post alleges, I would urge extreme caution with regard to their conclusions.

Sue Iremonger is not a graphologist. She is a professional document examiner, and the only member of her profession to have conducted an analysis of the three original statement signatures in comparison to a Hutchinson “candidate”, in this case Toppy. She did so personally, and without relying on a “low level clerk” who accidentally confused a genuine marriage certificate signature with that of a modern registrar.

She came to the conclusion that they were not the same man.

It’s entirely your call to make, but I can understand why you might be sceptical of his story, considering that it only appeared in a royal conspiracy book so dreadful it was ultimately disowned by its own author. Reginald Hutchinson was shown Hutchinson’s statement before he had a chance to tell his “story”, and concluded that his father had seen Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper.

Toppy had no known connection to the East End until he met his wife, who happened to hail from the east, at a music hall (no location disclosed) in 1895.

Ben, for goodness sake's, you can't "claim" to be an Able Seaman, the position has well defined responsibilities.

You must research these matters properly before you post. The Ormuz and other transcontinental steamers were proven to have employed untrained labour to fill rolls officially designated for trained seamen. Again, I encourage you to read Stephen Senise’s “False Flag” if you have any doubts on the issue.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Sue Iremonger is not a graphologist. She is a professional document examiner, and the only member of her profession to have conducted an analysis of the three original statement signatures in comparison to a Hutchinson “candidate”, in this case Toppy.

But did she have the "registrar's copy", which I initially ordered from the PRO, on which basis I wrongly pronounced that "Hutchinson's" signature didn't match the 1888 witness statement, OR did she have the original copy which carried Topping's actual signature?

If the latter, then Iremonger's expertise clearly isn't worth a dime, because the signature on the original marriage certificate emphatically does match those on the 1888 witness statement in many aspects. Assuming Iremonger is not incompetent at comparing signatures, then I can only assume that she was given the WRONG marriage certificate in the mistaken belief that it was signed in Hutchinson's hand - a mistake I once made to the detriment of my bank account. A mistake I made because the WRONG certificate is the one which is by far the most easily obtainable.

I don't want fudge as an answer, just a "yes" or "no", and the question is straightforward: was Iremonger given the correct marriage certificate?

[Ben]

But did she have the "registrar's copy", which I initially ordered from the PRO, on which basis I wrongly pronounced that "Hutchinson's" signature didn't match the 1888 witness statement, OR did she have the original copy which carried Topping's actual signature?

The latter, without any doubt whatsoever, because she is a professional document examiner who would instinctively, and as a result of decades of experience, know the difference between an original document and a facsimile with all the entries added by a registrar for genealogical purposes. When you approached the PRO, the registrar may not have known that you sought the original document for the purpose of a signature comparison; s/he probably assumed that you were only interested in the biographical content.

It is quite ridiculous to conclude that Iremonger must have been given the “wrong” document because it ill-accords with your own conviction that the signatures match. I could just as easily argue that by far the most likely explanation - that she was given the right document (or rather sought it ought herself) - is in accordance with my conviction, and that of others, that the signatures don’t match.

In that regard I am no less “emphatic” in my opinion than you are to the contrary, except I have a professional comparison of the original documents in my corner.

[Sam Flynn]

The latter, without any doubt whatsoever, because she is a professional document examiner who would instinctively, and as a result of decades of experience, know the difference between an original document and a facsimile with all the entries added by a registrar for genealogical purposes. When you approached the PRO, the registrar may not have known that you sought the original document for the purpose of a signature comparison; s/he probably assumed that you were only interested in the biographical content.

Fudge. I want a "yes" or a "no" - not "what Ben thinks".

Was she given the correct marriage certificate? If you don't know for sure, then stop quoting Iremonger's opinion.

[Varqm]

It was the result of the interrogation which influenced Abberline to write what he did to his superiors at Scotland Yard.
We have no record of what was said in the interrogation, so there is no point to this line of reasoning.

Nonsense.It's clear he did not even know if the woman/Kelly the witness/stranger was talking about was the same as the victim/Kelly at the time he wrote the letter, promising to check it the next day - if Abberline did not know this how confident can he be? He has yet to do a) b) c) in post #1533.The basis for his " I am of opinion his statement is true" was flimsy but it had more to do with taking action immediately,since this witness was talking straight and was able to identify the possible "suspect" as opposed to Long and Lawende,both could not,and even Schwartz.His sighting was 15 minutes, 2:00 -2:15 AM, compared to 10-30 sec from the previous witnesses.He was going to be the most significant witness.
It is sort of implied though that the 1888 Met police did not have a "handbook",automatic procedures to do a) b) c).


---

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

“Graphology” is an entirely separate discipline from document examination,...

No worries, what I described about comparing letter strokes was not Graphology. I realized that after I'd posted it.
I'm not particularly interested in Hutchinson's state of mind
The argument remains the same Ben, the similarities are the clue. It's like snowflakes & finger prints, the assumption is no two are the same.

Sue Iremonger is not a graphologist. She is a professional document examiner, and the only member of her profession to have conducted an analysis of the three original statement signatures in comparison to a Hutchinson “candidate”, in this case Toppy.

Yes I remember her from the "Diary" debacle.

She came to the conclusion that they were not the same man.

Jmenges posted that she was not prepared to state it as more than just her opinion.

https://forum.casebook.org/showpost.php?p=333058&postcount=5

Toppy had no known connection to the East End until he met his wife, who happened to hail from the east, at a music hall (no location disclosed) in 1895.

What "known" connections would be necessary?
I don't think we are suggesting he had a office in Whitechapel.
Being a lodger in Breezers Hill, or in the Victoria Home did not leave any permanent record.

You must research these matters properly before you post. The Ormuz and other transcontinental steamers were proven to have employed untrained labour to fill rolls officially designated for trained seamen. Again, I encourage you to read Stephen Senise’s “False Flag” if you have any doubts on the issue.

I haven't begun to research anything yet Ben, but Mr Senise apparently has, and the all important connection between Able Seaman Hutchinson, and Hutchinson the Witness, has totally eluded him.
And, as that was the whole point of the book in the first place.......

[Wickerman]

Nonsense.It's clear he did not even know if the woman/Kelly the witness/stranger was talking about was the same as the victim/Kelly at the time he wrote the letter, promising to check it the next day - if Abberline did not know this how confident can he be?

How can it be nonsense?, I just wrote what Abberline himself wrote in the same report you are talking about.
I never said anything about proof.

...He has yet to do a) b) c) in post #1533.The basis for his " I am of opinion his statement is true" was flimsy but it had more to do with taking action immediately,since this witness was talking straight and was able to identify the possible "suspect" as opposed to Long and Lawende,both could not,and even Schwartz.His sighting was 15 minutes, 2:00 -2:15 AM, compared to 10-30 sec from the previous witnesses.He was going to be the most significant witness.
It is sort of implied though that the 1888 Met police did not have a "handbook",automatic procedures to do a) b) c).

I haven't disagreed with the above, have I?
There isn't any point in arguing what convinced Abberline when we have no record of the interrogation, which is the source of his opinion.
That is just a basic fact.

You seem to be saying - how could he be so sure?, because a), b), c) had not been satisfied.
He didn't say he was "sure", he said it was his "opinion" based on what transpired at the interrogation.

[DJA]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Questioned_document_examination#Handwriting_examinations

A couple of people here have no idea what they are talking about ..... again!

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

The argument remains the same Ben, the similarities are the clue.

That’s true, but I haven’t seen any document examiner go on record and state that similarities are more important than differences.

Jmenges posted that she was not prepared to state it as more than just her opinion

That’s also true. It appears that while Iremonger was “definite” about the first statement signature being Badham’s, she was only prepared to state it as her professional “opinion” that the other two did not match the Toppy marriage certificate signature. The latter stance wouldn’t make any sense if she was studying the registrar’s signature, which was so different to “witness” Hutchinson’s as to render it impossible that they were written by the same hand.

I suggest (again) that you reserve judgement on Senise’s book until you’ve actually read it. That way you would know, for instance, that the proposed identification was not “the whole point of the book”.

If there was anything specific that convinced Abberline of Hutchinson’s truthfulness, he would certainly have mentioned it in his report.

In the absence of any verification for Hutchinson’s various claims, Abberline can only have believed him on faith alone.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

It appears that while Iremonger was “definite” about the first statement signature being Badham’s

Bad news - she was wrong about that, too. The only real difference is the flowery "H" (which is not the same as Badham's own "H"), and if Badham wanted to copy the other two signatures, why didn't he opt to use the much more straightforward "H" we see on pp 2 & 3?

I see no reason at all to believe that Badham signed for Hutch on the first page, as - "H" apart - the bulk of the p1 signature matches closely those on subsequent pages. The "H" can be explained by Hutchinson self-consciously beginining to print his surname, then changing his mind before continuing to sign "utchinson" in his usual manner.

[Sam Flynn]

The "H" can be explained by Hutchinson self-consciously beginining to print his surname, then changing his mind before continuing to sign "utchinson" in his usual manner.

And, let's not forget, this first page was almost certainly the most important piece of paper Hutchinson had ever signed up to that point in his life, and arguably the most important he'd ever have to sign. With a police sergeant figuratively looking over his shoulder as he did so, to boot. Small wonder, then, if his first attempt at a signature turned out a bit stilted.