Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Absolutely, Sam! Have you noticed that the part that joins the capital H with the u in Hutchinson finds itīs middle of the road version here? That was one of the parts I found a bit challenging before, and itīs almost comical to see this contribution.

Yes, I agree from my laymanīs point of wiew; this addition does in no way retract from the impression that we are dealing with the same man throughout.

What luck the police report had three pages to it, by the way. It is not until on that third page that Hutch provides us with that sloppy capital H that he repeats in such a close manner ten and twenty-three years later, respectively...!


Thank you once again, David!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Thanks very much indeed, David.

That was the signature compared by Sue Iremonger, and that was the one she adjudged to be a mismatch with the witness three, and as with the 1911 census signature, I don't find it difficult to see why. If anything, the marriage signature is even less like any of the witness signatures than the 1911 effort. I agree entirely that the marriage and census signatures are very similar, as one would expect. The characteristic closed loop of the capital G is present in both signatures, as is the single looped stem of the lower case h, which is shorter than the "t"...as is the well-spaced-out lower case o. The polar opposite is true in all three witness signatures.

This has certainly reinforced my belief that Toppy and the witness could not have been the same individual.

Just as an aside, there is absolutely no way that Iremonger compared the witness signatures with the registrar fill-ins provided by Gareth. In this respect, I'm very much in agreement with Debs. As an expert in document examination, she would have noticed that the entire form was written by the same person, and that newlyweds would certainly have signed the statement themselves. Others can to believe that Toppy was the witness if they wish to, but if it means endorsing the implausible "Iremonger/Bob Hinton got duped" school of thought, I'm afraid that's much less acceptable.

Of course none of the above would mean that Gareth wasted his money. On the contrary, it's wonderful to see confirmation of the various names and dates involved. Unfortunately, many of these archival institutions seem ill-equipped to understand that researchers might just be interested in procuring marriage certificates for reasons other tham biographical information.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

That was the signature compared by Sue Iremonger, and that was the one she adjudged to be a mismatch with the witness three, and as with the 1911 census signature, I don't find it difficult to see why.

I'm sorry, Ben, but I find it very difficult to see why. If that was indeed the considered opinion of an experienced document examiner... well, so much for her experience, I say.

[Ben]

Don't be sorry, Gareth. We're just of different opinions, 'tis all!

If you could do a direct one-beneath-the-other comparison with the three witness sigs, as you did with the 1911 census, that would be most helpful.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

I find it strange in the extreme that a professional examiner would have ruled out the possibility that the wedding signature was written by the same man as the police report signatures. In any two signatures, you will be able to find deviations, no matter if they were written by the same person with only seconds inbetween them. In that respect, there is nothing strange about the fact that this can be done here too.
What remains, though, is the overall impression that these signatures are very, very similar indeed.
Therefore, it would of course be of great value if we could establish with certainty which two signatures Iremonger compared, just as it would be interesting - to say the least - to read just what it was she said (could have been written by someone else, would have been written by someone else) and which details she used to state her meaning.

Until I see any such substantiation, I see no reason whatsoever not to stand by my belief that George William Topping Hutchinson was the man who approached the police.

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

I think the 1898 and 1911 signatures are very similar, having minor as well as major similarities. It is quite clear that they were written by the same person. In fact, they are so similar that they could have been written at the same time. Yet in fact they were written 13 years apart - over more than a decade this man's signature changed hardly at all. Why then do we expect it to change significantly over an earlier decade? You can't have it both ways!

I still see significant differences between these signatures and the witness signatures which I don't think can be explained by deviations, variations, or changes over time. The fact that Toppy's signature clearly didn't change over time only makes me more convinced that he was not the George Hutchinson involved in the Ripper Case. I would like to see him identified, but I can't see it on the basis of these signatures, sadly.

[claire]

Good point, Crystal...of course, some may argue that his youth made his signature more unstable, settling down in later years. But I see lots of key differences between 88 and 98, very, very few differences between 98 and 11. I'm still waiting for the lightning to strike me!

[Debra A]

I sympathise, Debs - however the TNA image I bought clearly is a scan of an old document (as is apparent by the writing) rather than a freshly-minted transcript. Given that this document is filed under "Blahblah-Stepney-Quarter-Year" in the National Archives - which is how I was able to order it - it still strikes me as possible that a version of the same official copy may have been the one seen by Sue Iremonger.

Hi Sam,
When I was looking for advice on gaining a copy of an original marriage entry the NA were never mentioned as a source. It was Bob Hinton who pointed me in the right direction of where the original register would be kept.
So, I'm still with Ben in that I believe a document examiner would know where and how to source an original document for signature comparison/examination, and that Iremonger most likely sourced the same signature that David has.
So, even though I as an amateur think the signatures are similar enough to be the same man, I am aware that it's just my personal opinion at the end of the day and have no idea what significance the differences in the signatures have when analysing them professionally.


Thanks to David for posting the marriage signature.

[Crystal]

The National Archive does what it says on the tin, it usually comes up with the goods if all else fails. The Guildhall Library holds the records of the City of London, so is good for local stuff.

I'm quite sure a professional document examiner would have known where to go to find the original document, presumably having spent a lot of time in Record Offices before and thus being quite familiar with their holdings.

[Debra A]

The National Archive does what it says on the tin, it usually comes up with the goods if all else fails. The Guildhall Library holds the records of the City of London, so is good for local stuff.

But yet they sent Sam a copy of a certificate filled in in one hand and not the original?...odd then.

Sam,
I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time trouble and going to the expense of backing up your ideas on the signature similarity (including the other 1911 census examples you posted right at the start).
At least you put your money where your mouth is

[Ben]

What remains, though, is the overall impression that these signatures are very, very similar indeed.

But that's precisely what I'd dispute, Fish. The dissimilarity goes well above and beyond individual "deviations", to my mind.

Best,

Ben

[Crystal]

Perhaps I could have phrased that better - what I meant was, the NA usually has the records, if they come from a National Collection - to state the obvious. I certainly wouldn't claim or suggest that they, or any other particular RO, were above sending out copies, badly made photocopies, illegible scans, digitial files that didn't work, etc...Its not odd at all, in fact, it's a common occurrence.

[Debra A]

Crystal,
I think most of us are aware what records are available generally at the NA, the specific question is whether they hold either the original marriage registers or microfiche copies ? Either would be source for a signature. It would be good to know for future reference.

[Crystal]

I'm sure you do know, Debra, I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. The answer to your question is no, they don't. They have a disclaimer on their website in fact which states the following:

Please note that The National Archives does not hold original records of births, marriages and deaths. We do not issue copies of certificates.

There are copies in local repositories, but the central repository for the National Indices is the General Register Office. Link below.

http://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/research/groindexes/holders_of_the_gro_indexes.asp

They have a link to a free searchable online version of the bmd index. I hope that's of help.

[Debra A]

Thanks very much for that, Crystal!
Now I'm even more certain that Sue Iremonger as an expert would not have gone to the NA to source an original signature.