Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

At least he knew enough to get the basics right and also knew that Geo was short for George.

Which is dodgy and inconsistent enough for starters. Why suddenly abbreviate to "Geo" when the other two signatures included the full "George"? The first signature is actually missing the "o" in Hutchinson, and included that fancy and elaborate capital "H", conspicuously absent from the other two signatures. Whoever he was, he was certainly someone unaccustomed to writing "George Hutchinson".

For what it's worth, I thought all four signatures looked remarkably similar in their general appearance, angle and shape

I'd have to disagree very strongly, and I note with interest that those with extensive and/or professional experience of document examination endorse my view. There's really nothing that could possibly be construed as similar, in my view, let alone "remarkably" so. The closest match is the capital "G", but that was a common Victorianism, as noted earlier. The rest of the signature is practical antithesis in many respects, and the "Hutchinson" in particular is completely different to the three witness signatures. I don't think the passage of time is really sufficient for explaining away polar opposites, and it's worth noting that the 1895 marriage signature (the one believed by Sue Iremonger to be a mismatch with the statement-maker) was very similar to the census one, as observed by David Knott.

At least, with Gareth's Lambert fella, there are marked similarities in style, with the distinctive lower case "h" resembling the three on appended to the statement. Not that I'm convinced about this one either, but he's a better match by far.

Best regards,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Ooh yes, come to think of it, you're right. Putting Geo is so dodgy and inconsistent, I just can't believe the police didn't arrest him on the spot.

Are you sure the first signature is missing the o and doesn't just feature a rather squashed up o and n?

You can 'disagree' all you like over the appearance of the signatures, but what I thought remains what I thought. I really do see a similarity in general appearance, angle and shape, and I can't help it if you see none. But however much you analyse the individual letter formations, calling upon expert opinion to endorse your view, you can't tell me what I'm not seeing, or disagree that I am in fact seeing it, short of seeing it from inside my head or calling me a liar.

If you see what I mean.

Anyway, calm down because I'm not even arguing for the same individual and for all I know, you might one day prove that the man who signed the police statement did not go on to live a free and healthy non-violent life afterwards.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Putting Geo is so dodgy and inconsistent, I just can't believe the police didn't arrest him on the spot.

I wasn't suggesting it was an arrestable offense. I was reponding your observation that he "got the basics right" by pointing some rather baffling inconsistencies in the signatures that are rather tricky to explain satisfactorily unless the individual was not at all used to signing "George Hutchinson".

I'd be very surprised if the "o" in the first signature was merely "squashed". Looks pretty absent to me. At least, I can't see any room for one.

You can 'disagree' all you like over the appearance of the signatures, but what I thought remains what I thought.

Fair enough. I'm not invalidating your observation. I'm just saying that I had the opposite "thought" and noted with interest that others agree with me, including those with professional experience in the field of document examination.

I'm calmish, thanks.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

well done Sam

that signature looks the same or a very close match..... yes, Hutchinson is my favourite suspect...where have all our post gone from 2 years ago?

Hutchinson is in my opinion, the most likely to have killed Kelly; his statement to the police is fabricated and total rubbish...none it makes sense..

we discussed this years ago but all the posts have been deleted

i will start a new Hutchinson post soon; i've been away from this forum too long.

[c.d.]

Hi Malcom,

If what you say is true, why do you think that Hutchinson made his statement in the first place?

c.d.

[Crystal]

They're not the same. Honest Guv! There will always be people who prefer their own views (however flimsy the evidence...) and if that makes them happy, then that's fine and splendid. But they're still not the same.

I see that nobody so far fancies getting a few more signature samples of George Hutchinsons of the right date for comparison. No? Thought not.

And incidentally, 'Geo' is a very, very, very common contraction of 'George' at this time, perfectly normal and acceptable and routine in written documents. It signifies absolutely nothing.

[Malcolm X]

Hi Malcom,

If what you say is true, why do you think that Hutchinson made his statement in the first place?

c.d.

HI C.D
because he was there that night, luking/stalking outside, but unfortunately for him; he was seen!...so he came forward a few days later to confirm this/ make up his story; because he realised ( due to going to the inquest) that Sarah Lewis had seen him..

i think the one thing that we can conclude as the truth is:- that he was outside Millers Court at the times he states....
he lived close by, so he couldn't afford anybody to recognise him a week later strolling down Dorset street and shouting out `` that's the man i saw outside millers court, that's the ripper``..........whatever the case, i think you'll find that he was outside as he stated...stalking her.

but this is for discussion on another post i'll open soon.

[Ben]

Welcome back, Mal!

[Malcolm X]

hi Ben

thanks my old friend, we had some great times here didn't we... i'll get a new Hutch post up this weekend...

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Crystal,

They're not the same. Honest Guv! There will always be people who prefer their own views (however flimsy the evidence...).

Until quite recently I inclined to disbelieve that George W Topping Hutchinson was the Dorset Street witness. However, I see sufficiently strong similarities in those signatures to warrant a serious rethink on the matter - at least, as far as I'm concerned. In this regard, I am willing to trust my eyes, rather than my erstwhile views.

[caz]

I wasn't suggesting it was an arrestable offense. I was reponding your observation that he "got the basics right" by pointing some rather baffling inconsistencies in the signatures that are rather tricky to explain satisfactorily unless the individual was not at all used to signing "George Hutchinson".

Hi Ben,

But my observation about getting the basics right was clearly referring to the spelling, since I'm not claiming to be any kind of expert on whether your perceived 'baffling inconsistencies' indicate that he wasn't used to writing the name, was sipping a cuppa and nibbling on a Gypsy cream at the time, exchanging pleasantries with the coppers, or was trembling like a leaf at the enormity of the situation, fearing that any minute Mrs Long, Mrs Lewis, Schwartz, Pipe Man and the Lawende trio might be invited in to share the chocolate digestives.

I was just remarking that a poor speller using a false name could easily have come a cropper - even with a common name like George Hutchinson. I once knew a D..... Timothy A.... (his real name, but I'm sparing his blushes by not spelling it out) who went to open a bank account and put his middle name down as 'Timofy' on the form. When the cashier said it was spelled with a 'th' he stormed out saying "Whose f***ing name is it anyway?"

So while I know (thanks Crystal) that Geo was a common enough contraction at the time, I'm not totally convinced that your average casual labourer would have been sufficiently au fait with its use on written documents to trot it out comfortably if George was a name he had only adopted recently for the purpose of pulling one over on officialdom and saving his miserable neck.

I may be wrong about all of this. The problem is, an awful lot of different elements have all got to be right and come together before the man who signed that statement can be turned into anything other than George Hutchinson, casual labourer and cameo performer.

But I wish anyone luck trying.

Love,

Caz
X

[Crystal]

Hi Crystal, Until quite recently I inclined to disbelieve that George W Topping Hutchinson was the Dorset Street witness. However, I see sufficiently strong similarities in those signatures to warrant a serious rethink on the matter - at least, as far as I'm concerned. In this regard, I am willing to trust my eyes, rather than my erstwhile views.

Tell you what, I'll have a look and see how many other George Hutchinson's fitting the right date/ location etc I can come up with in say, oh, I don't know, an hour over lunch, maybe - then we can really see whether these two signatures have anything real in common aside from common generalities. I'm not trying to suggest that your view isn't valid - but since I am easily able to do this, I might as well - maybe it will be enlightening.

[caz]

Hi Crystal,

Good idea.

Don't forget the relevant time and age gaps!

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

But my observation about getting the basics right was clearly referring to the spelling

I know, and he spelt Hutchinson wrong with the first attempt. I don't think he was particularly likely to come a cropper, though. Even if he completely goofed with trying to write his name, a police force was infinitely more likely to attibute it to the poor or non-existent opportunities for a proper education in the district for an impoverished labourer than they were to become suspicious and chalk in up to a false name, irrespective of which version was actually true.

In other words, he could easily have found himself in a "Timofy-esque" situation, and simply asked how it was spelt, citing his limited education in so doing. That would account for the rather spidery scrawl and absent letters that appeared in the first signature, and the fact that one of the signatures appeared as Geo, not George. It's quite possibile that the police encouraged him to abbreviate for expediency's sake. Either way, it would be very odd for anyone accustoned to writing "George Hutchinson" to suddenly change to "Geo" when sighting three pages of the same statement.

The problem is, an awful lot of different elements have all got to be right and come together before the man who signed that statement can be turned into anything other than George Hutchinson

None of the elements are "wrong" for that suggestion to carry weight, so it needn't be a case of needing to get anything right. All it requires is that a man who gave a false witness statement may also have given a false name, and there's certainly nothing that would intefere with that possibility that can't be countered adequately by the foregoing.

But I'd respectfully submit that it belongs to a slightly different debate that the one we're having here over Toppy and assorted chums.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

The likeness inbetween the four samples provided by Sam is baffling to me. Like most of us out here, I am no specialist in graphology, but my money is on these signatures quite possibly belonging to the same man.

As has been pointed out, the Topping signature offers a few elements that are not totally consistent with all of the other three signatures, but that is of very little importance to me, since the overall impression remains one of consistency.

Points to consider: Ben mentions that Toppy finishes his "son" off with an anti-clockwise loop. But have a look at the signature number three: it ALSO finishes in an anti-clockwise turn, albeit not fully as pronounced. Now, if that number three signature had been thrown forward as being Toppys, and to be compared to the ones above, with no anti-clockwise turn - would that have ruled it out as not being by the same hand as the others?
Moreover - the three signatures at the top were probably signed with the same pen and on the same type of paper. The fourth signature was not, and some of the discrepancies involved will owe to that fact.
Also: These are signatures written by two of the few George Hutchinsons of the same age and extraction. Chances are that they would be totally dissimilar, but instead they are - at least to my eye - much of carbon copies.

It would be very useful to see the full signatures, just as it would be interesting to see the marriage certificate. But from what Sam published, to me it seems we have a very good match.

the best,
Fisherman