Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Sam Flynn]

Couldn't this case for once be kind and give us "Endeavour George Hutchinson"?

... assuming he showed any re-morse

[Debra A]

I finally found Cottage Grove George Thomas Hutchison, (spelt without the n) ticker nicker.
He was living at Cottage Grove again, with his widowed mother and other family.
Sadly, his mother is listed as head of the household and so the signature on the bottom bears the name Sarah Hutchison.

I think we can definitely rule the watch stealer out as being GH anyway, as his surname appears most often as Hutchison and not Hutchinson.

[Sam Flynn]

1911 Signature for George William topping Hutchinson, plumber [ATTACH]4571[/ATTACH] Transcript of family entry, just to check it's the right guy

HUTCHINSON SEN, GEORGE HEAD MARRIED 13 M 41

That's him alright, Debs. However, he'd only have been 18 at the time of Kelly's murder. Wasn't Toppy meant to have been 22 years old in 1888? This is probably why I missed him in my scan of the 1911 census - I wasn't aiming that low! Whatever, 18 seems a bit young for our star witness, perhaps.

That said, I must admit that I see a closer resemblance between this whippersnapper's signature and those on the police statement - in fact, curly "H" apart, I'd be inclined to say that this was the best match so far. Well done, Debs.

[Ben]

Hi all,

I'd say the Lambeth chap is about the closest so far, but in all honesty, I'd be very surprised if any of them were the real McCoy.

Cheers,
Ben

[Debra A]

That's him alright, Debs. However, he'd only have been 18 at the time of Kelly's murder. Wasn't Toppy meant to have been 22 years old in 1888? This is probably why I missed him in my scan of the 1911 census - I wasn't aiming that low! Whatever, 18 seems a bit young for our star witness, perhaps.

That said, I must admit that I see a closer resemblance between this whippersnapper's signature and those on the police statement - in fact, curly "H" apart, I'd be inclined to say that this was the best match so far. Well done, Debs.

Thanks Sam, I actually found him through his two sons, George and Albert. I never aimed that low either! The marriage date is also out according to what Richard posted. Actually I'd be interested in Richard's comments about these discrepancies as I remember reading some interesting comments from him on a recent thread about when researching people and their ages and other bmd's are out of sync with known facts.
I did check the original again and the age is definitely 41.

Until Ben pointed out the difference in the joining of the H to the u in Hutchinson, I too thought there was a similarity with the slant and overall look of the police signature and this one, especially in the writing of George, but then again your Lambeth GH is extremely similar too.

[Ben]

Hi Debs,

All these signature comparisons have been immensely helpful. It has cleared up a formerly contentious issue for me: I'm now fairly confident that all three witness signatures were written in the same hand. The tall "h"s and short "t"s are a distinctive feature common to all three, and conspicuously absent from the Toppy signature and some of the others Gareth provided. The h also has an odd double stem in the witness signatures.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Here's the "Toppy" sig found by Debs, and the three "George Hutchinsons" from the witness statement, comme montage:



I've topped-and-tailed the three statement signatures with that from the Census, to make comparison easier. Looking at the last two almost clinches it for me.

[Ben]

Thanks for that, Gareth.

If you cover up the first "G" (which to me is the only comparable detail), the dissimilarity is more marked. There's nothing about Toppy's "Hutchinson" that can be compared to any of the the three witness "Hutchinsons". The "George" isn't quite so bad - although Victorians clearly had a fondness for drawing their G's in that fashion - but even there you can discern tell-tale differences.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I have to say that the the points of similarity are startling, in my view, Ben - especially bearing in mind a 23 year gap between the signatures. For example:

"George" - the loop in the capital "G" is open in the 1888 version and closed in 1911, but the rest of the capital "G" is formed in the same way. The other characters ("eorge"), and the transitions between them, are practically identical.

Capital "H" - very similar on page 2 + 3 and 1911; but the flourish on page 1 of the police statement is different.

Lowercase "t" - note how it starts right at the top of the stem, then extends across three or four letters in all samples. The transition from the "t" to the "c" is similar in each sample.

"tchin" - the formation is very similar in each. The lowercase "h" has lost its looped stem by 1911, but that's not surprising after 23 years (my writing has got significantly less loopy over a similar time-span, although some might disagree )

Lowercase "i" - the dot is offset to the right, and appears over the "n" in each case.

"son" - similar in each case, apart from an exaggerated upward flourish on the final "n" in 1911.

I disagree that there's nothing about Toppy's "Hutchinson" that can be compared - on the contrary, I see a very close correspondence indeed.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Taking them individually, as you've done:

"George" - As you point out, the loop is closed on the capital "G", in contrast to all three witness signatures. All three witness "o"s have a join coming out of the middle of the letter before connecting to "r" whereas in Toppy's, the join commences from the top. The "r" is completely different. The "g" and "e" aren't as problematic, but there are only so many ways of connecting the two letters anyway.

Capital "H" - Only so many many ways of writing a capital "H"'s. The best that can be said is that they're not markedly dissimilar.

"u" - Very conspicuous in its dissimilarity from all three witness signatues which are connected to the H from beneath, rather than the top in Toppy's.

"t" - Unusually small and short in all three witness signatures, in direct contrast to Toppy's, and conected to the preceding letter from beneath, rather than the join from the "u" striking the "t" in the middle (blimey, noticing these things isn't half the bother of describing them ). I see what you mean about the cross occuring at the top of the stem, but not so much in Toppy's.

"chin" - Little to no similarity here, and some crucial differences. The witness "h"s are unusually tall, double-stemmed affair with a small base, whereas Toppy's are the opposite on all three counts: a short "h", with a single stem and a large base.

Lowercase "i" - Dot appears over the s in two witness sigs, and over the n in the other. Toppy's over the n.

"son" - Again I'm seeing no obvious congruity, but some clear differences. The anti-clockwise "n" is quite distinctive in Toppy's, and conspicuously absent from all witness signatures.

A more generalized observation would be that the witness makes a much clearer differentation between small letters and tall ones than Toppy does. The H/h's tower above the contrastingly small letters in a manner most dissimilar to Toppy's.

I think your Lambeth fella fares a good deal better. It's important to bear in mind that a professional in the field of document examination, Sue Iremonger, compared the signatures and expressed the opinion that it was a non-match. For us laymen, we can only offer our interpretations. I'd be interested to hear Bob's view.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Of course, I'd rather that my "find" was our man, Ben, but on consideration I can't. Ms Iremonger notwithstanding, Toppy's 1911 sig comes pretty darned close to those on the 1888 statement. That gap of 23 years is enough to account for any small discrepancies in the signatures, at least to my layman's eyes.

[jmenges]

Damn,

And here I was all ready to invite you on a podcast.



JM

[Sam Flynn]

Damn, And here I was all ready to invite you on a podcast.

... entitled "Serial killers who change their signature (but not by very much)"

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

The best I can say for the signature comparison is that they're not as dissimilar as I'd assumed, and that's honestly. I'm not just saying so because I've been thrashing it out with poor ol' Rich for years! But no, I'd have to say that the differences are more significant than the similarities, in my view. I'm also reminded of Bob's observation a while back that it was custimary for witnesses to include middle initials (if they had any) on their signatures for identification purposes in police statements.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Hi Ben,

Well, it appears that he didn't include his initials on the census - to be fair, his name was a bit of a mouthful, what with all those extra toppings!

Good on yer for acknowledging the "lesser dissimilarity", though. We agree on that, even if I honestly see more similarities than discrepancies.