Topping Hutchinson - looking at his son's account

[Ben]

“The fact of the matter remains, though, that much as Ben suggests that it would be "outlandish" if Iremonger did not use the correct material - and much as he may be right in this, bless him! - there is regretfully no substantiation around proving this.”

Apart from Paul Begg and Martin Fido, and the fact that the alternatives are so outlandish and unreasonable. I cannot, of course, prove that one of these unutterably outlandish alternatives is the correct one, but I think common sense should prevail here.

“Leander, however, was in no way opposed to elaborate on the specific points belonging to the quibble on the thread.”

He stated that he did not wish to elaborate further, he didn’t say on which specific points. It was a general request, and I can understand why he should have made it. My interpretation of his initial letter hasn’t changed for the simply reason that it needed no interpretation as far as I’m concerned. I most assuredly did not accuse anyone of malice. I felt that certain parties were a bit misguided and incautious in their obstinacy. But that’s not an insult. We’re all obstinate at times, and you probably thought the same of me.

“Should Ben be of another mindset here, then letīs take it from there. But my suggestion is that we let Dorian and anybody else who needs to read up on the issue do so by his own”

Yes, good idea.

Now let’s drop that issue, and return to the topic at hand.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

“He is the one who makes the calls when the press wants to know something. and he handles the high-profile cases that end up at the SKL desk”

So you’re saying that Leander is THE most famous, THE best document examiner in the whole of Sweden?

Well sorry, but I’ll need a little more convincing than that. At the moment, I’d be extremely surprised if that were truly the proven case. I certainly see no evidence that he is better qualified than Sue Iremonger. Just say he’s a recognized authority in the field in your country next time, I would. It doesn’t make much difference in the scheme of things, no, but in future I’d stick to claims that you know to be true. I have no doubt of his abilities.

I know! Hereīs the differences:

Flamingo: A pink, winged bird with a long neck, a bent beak and an intense pink colour.

Elephant: A very large landliving animal, walking on four legs instead of flying, grey, tough skin, large ears (still not putting it in the flying business) and a trunk.

About as different as the Toppy and statement signatures then?

“We disagree, thatīs all, Ben. And my certainty that the signatures tally means that I think that we are dealing with an absolute fact.”

Disagreement’s fine. As you know, I think it highly improbable that Toppy was the witness, but I don’t feel we have sufficient evidence to talk in terms of “absolute facts”.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Stepping softly, and not wanting to get too close to the TNT, I will just add this:

"I most assuredly did not accuse anyone of malice."

You may have misread me there, Ben - I never said you did. What I pointed to was that Leander pointed YOUR interpretations out as malicious at one stage.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"About as different as the Toppy and statement signatures then?"

No, the signature comparison is ONLY flamingo, and no elephant: It lifts and flies eminently.

Oh, and on Leander: Donīt take my word for things if you donīt want to - but do check!

The best,
Fisherman

[Maggyann]

Isn't it at least a possibility that 'George Hutchinson' was actually an undercover policeman who was watching the area for any suspicious activity? They claimed he had a 'military bearing'.

I remember reading that there were a lot of police officers drafted in and in 'civvies' sitting about in bars and street corners just watching what was going on.

If he was an outside policeman from another area he could be on a census for anywhere in the London area explaining why it is hard to fit the Geo H found etc.

His 'history' made up for the benefit of the statement. It could be an explanation of why he hung about after seeing MJK and the chap go to her room then when all was quiet he moved on to continue his unofficial 'beat'.

His statement could have been held back because the police didn't want it generally known that there were such officers in the area and after the inquest it was decided to add it to the evidence.

I don't know, (none of us do that's the problem) but just a thought.

[Fisherman]

Maggyann asks:

"Isn't it at least a possibility that 'George Hutchinson' was actually an undercover policeman who was watching the area for any suspicious activity? They claimed he had a 'military bearing'."

But why, Maggyann, if that was the case, would he go to the police and claim to be a labourer?? Why not just report at his own station and give what informations he had to his boss? And why wait three days; did he do the deskwork and shape up on his spelling in his report?

And why would his signature tally with that of Toppy? Or are you suggesting that our plumber could perhaps have added "undercover policeman" to the groom, ex-nightwatchman, labourer and plumber?

No, Maggyann, I think we are going to have to let this one go!

The best,
Fisherman

[Maggyann]

Well granted it may be a load of baloney but just things about it made me think he could have been a policeman.
The fact that he bent down to get a good look at the man with Mary. His eye for detail etc.

As to the signatures I haven't seen them to compare are they on here somewhere? Sorry I do try to find things for myself but not always successfully. Back then writing was taught in a fairly regimented manner and many signatures may well have similar characteristics surely?

The wait of three day could be explained by there never having been a wait of three days simply that the statement was not produced immediately because the police were hanging onto the description given by one of their own which would be ten times more valuable than that of the general public.

[Ben]

Hi Maggyann,

Interestings thoughts. If Hutchinson had been an undercover policeman, reference would have been made to this in Abberline's report which accompanied the statement. This was a private, internal document intended for circulation amongst police personell only, and as such, anything they intended to keep back from press and public would have been included therein. Instead we learn that Hutchinson was unknown to Abberline prior to the 12th November, and that he initially accepted both his version of events and his professed identity.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

And why would his signature tally with that of Toppy?

It doesn't tally with that of Toppy, as far as I'm concerned, Fisherman, and there are several others who subscribe to the same view, including forensic document examiner Sue Iremonger. Whatever objections you may have to Maggyann's suggestion, the issue of Toppy signature compatibility (or rather lack thereof) is completely moot.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"It doesn't tally with that of Toppy, as far as I'm concerned, Fisherman, and there are several others who subscribe to the same view, including forensic document examiner Sue Iremonger. Whatever objections you may have to Maggyann's suggestion, the issue of Toppy signature compatibility (or rather lack thereof) is completely moot."

Surely you understand, Ben that the exact opposite applies if you recognize a match...?

The best,
Fisherman

[Maggyann]

Or what about him being a newspaper reporter?

http://www.familysearch.org/eng/sear...rch_census.asp

okay that is 1881 but he could still have been around and trying to get a scoop in 1888...

sorry is that link right? is that my desktop?? God I wish I knew what I was doing sometimes

There I think that is the proper link.

PS Man Hou St I cant find that anywhere though???

[Fisherman]

Maggyann asks:

"As to the signatures I haven't seen them to compare are they on here somewhere?"

The signatures that Frank Leander compared may be found along the line Message Boards - Suspects - George Hutchinson - Hutch in the 1911 census - Page 57 - post number 567.

The top signature in that collection was written by the police witness. The others were written 23 years later by George William Topping Hutchinson. Any comments on the likeness - or lack of it - are welcomed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Maggyann,

I should point out that Hutchinson wrote his signature twice more on the statement, and these other two bear even less resemblence (in my view) to Toppy's signature.

Best regards,
Ben

[Maggyann]

Okay thanks for that Fisherman I have just looked and with a few seconds quite cursory glance I have found these discrepancies

Top signature is the top one from the list you sent me to, middle is signature 3 on that list and bottom is signature 4.

I am sure that better people than me have examined these signatures and I will now go back and read the thread they were in but I would have to say that I would not think they are the same hand.

[Ben]

I agree entirely with your observations there, Maggyan.

Note also that the way in which the capital "H" is joined to the "u" is also discrepant.

Best regards,
Ben