Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Statement of George Hutchinson

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Statement of George Hutchinson

    Statement of George Hutchinson to Seargant Badham.doc

    Hi All

    As some will know, I have recently seen and examined at length the statement of George Hutchinson to Badham made on 12th November 1888 at Commercial Street Station. I cannot yet post any images of the statement, as I do not have copyright permission. I am trying to get permission for internet publishing, but am aware that this is unlikely to be forthcoming. I may get permission to publish in another format, however - I will try.

    I have transcribed the statement as it appears and attach it here.

    I have made several observations. They are as follows:

    Regarding the hand of Badham - Badham displays certain idiosyncratic traits in his hand. He seldom capitalises new sentences, and seldom employs a 't' bar for lower case 't'. The angle of his script to the baseline is typically 38-40 degrees.

    I will say this now, although I will elaborate on the 1911 thread: In my view, Badham did not sign for Hutchinson on page one of the statement. He did fill in the paperwork, amend the statement as it was in progress, and complete the top portion of the endorsement.

    The statement contains 2 instances of Badham writing 'Hutchinson'. In one case, this is 'George Hutchinson'. Neither remotely resembles the witness signature on page one.

    Badham's hand is of average size. His script tends to fall between 0.4 and 0.6cm in height from the baseline.

    Abberline has also written on the statement of George Hutchinson. He signs for submission on page three of the statement, and also completes the endorsement on the back of page three of the statement.

    Several points have emerged from detailed examination of the statement, which are these:

    Badham is writing the statement as Hutchinson is telling it. This is obvious because of the frequent stops and pauses made by Badham, and the slight corrections. In general, the slowest part of the statement is the description of Mr Astracan; the most fluid being the account of the movements of Astracan and Kelly as told by the witness.

    The statement has, having been signed by Hutchinson and Badham, then been altered by Abberline. This is at the point where the original statement text in Badham's hand 'Ten Bell' has been struck through and altered to 'Queen's Head'.

    The implication of this is obvious, in that Abberline went through Hutchinson's statement, with Hutchinson, after Badham - and it was altered during the course of this interrogation. It seems likely that this is the interrogation referred to by Abberline in his comtemporary report.

    Finally, marks on page 2 of the statement to the right of the witness signature show under magnification to be fingerprints. It appears that the witness has leant on the statement with his right hand during the course of signing, which strongly implies that he was writing with his left hand.

    I await your comments!

    Cx
    Last edited by Crystal; 05-15-2009, 03:12 PM.

  • #2
    Revelations aplenty there, Crystal!

    I certainly welcome the clarification with regard to Badham's hand and Hutchinsion signature #1. As we've already discussed, the major bombshell for me was the observation that Badham wrote the description incrementally, as Hutchinson supplied the details, as opposed to the previous scenario I had envisaged wherein Badham simply filled in the details after having made earlier notes. Then there's the interesting observation that Abberline, not Badham, was responsible for the latter additions, such as the replacement of "Ten Bells" with "Queen's Head".

    My appreciative thanks for your indefatigable efforts. Very illuminating indeed.

    Best regards,
    Ben x
    Last edited by Ben; 05-15-2009, 03:31 PM.

    Comment


    • #3
      Crystal

      i hope i will be joined by everyone who has an interest in this matter in offering sincere and heartfelt thanks for taking your own time to go to Kew and look at this with your professional expertise for us...items like the fingerprint could never and would never be picked up in a perusal of photocopied documents, or documents views only onlined, and i am very excited and grateful to you for furthering our knowledge and the Hutch discussion in this way. I am sure everyone, whatever they believe, will have the manners to thank you for what you have done.



      What you have established and the scientific method of your profession where you speak of measurements, angles etc etc, should put to rest the contention that everyone with a pair of eyes can make an equally informed opinion on the documents we have.

      Hope so much you can get permission to reproduce them! Looking forward to ensuing discussion and hope it stays on track on the statement's physical characteristics and what these suggest rather than personals.

      well done C...well done indeed! xxxx
      (was worth missing a wrestling session for, but we need to catch up now )
      babybird

      There is only one happiness in life—to love and be loved.

      George Sand

      Comment


      • #4
        thanks Ben and Jen!

        It was an interesting experience - I had to view the files in Conservation, as they're not allowed out. I saw a lot of other stuff as well, and have more to say about that, but not here!

        I will get to the formal analysis of the signatures of GWT Hutchinson and Hutchinson the witness. I have been refused permission to see the original Census document until 2012, and since we don't want to wait that long, I have made interim arrangements with the NRO, and will return there shortly to complete this exercise.

        In the meantime, I hope everyone will appreciate that a lot of new information has emerged from my analysis of the statement itself - Ah, Sam Flynn - See? You CAN tell more from the originals!

        So yes, let's keep this thread on the physciality of the statement and what it can tell us. I have a lot of imformation, so, questions?

        Oh, and Ben? It's 'Ten Bell'. Learn to read! xx
        Last edited by Crystal; 05-15-2009, 03:41 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          i MUst admit...

          I'm sooooo jealous of you C!

          Not of Mr Melting Chocolate Voice but of being there on that voyage of discovery....history is so fascinating...i can imagine the adrenalin as you lifted those pages and examined them for yourself!
          babybird

          There is only one happiness in life—to love and be loved.

          George Sand

          Comment


          • #6
            It was the prints wot got me, BB - better than chocolate any day!

            Comment


            • #7
              A very very interesting piece of work there Crystal well done !!!

              It's great to have a breakdown of all the pauses and amendments and the right handed fingerprint.
              Well done again - im proud of ya !!!

              Comment


              • #8
                Thanks Baz - I think it fills in a few blanks and increases our view somewhat. Originals will do that...

                See, Sam Flynn???

                Comment


                • #9
                  It was the prints wot got me, BB - better than chocolate any day!
                  But not not as sweet, comforting or addictive, Crystal.

                  Just remember that.

                  But prints are still good!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I actually think the suspect description is very interesting, Ben. It's very hesitant, far more so than Hutch's account of his observations of Kelly and Astracan's movements. I would say either he was having real trouble remembering - somewhat at odds with the detailed description he gave Badham - or he was making it up.

                    Go Figure..

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hello Crystal

                      Thanks for sharing your fascinating information.

                      The pauses in the suspect description may be due to Police coaxing. It reads like a police description, age, height, complexion and dress, respectable appearance, can be identified..

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hi Jon

                        Yes, you could be right. I still think it looks at odds with the detailed description given by Hutchinson, though. Perhaps he just had a very vivid imagination. Either that, or he was really Superman and had X-ray vision!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Crystal View Post
                          [ATTACH]5535[/ATTACH]

                          Finally, marks on page 2 of the statement to the right of the witness signature show under magnification to be fingerprints. It appears that the witness has leant on the statement with his right hand during the course of signing, which strongly implies that he was writing with his left hand.
                          H i Crystal,
                          bravissima ragazza!

                          Could you be a bit more precise on this ?
                          Where is the signature exactly? where are the fingerprints? are pages 1 and 2 on the same sheet or not? etc.

                          Thanks in advance, and thanks for all you've done already,
                          Amitiés,
                          David

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jon Guy View Post
                            The pauses in the suspect description may be due to Police coaxing.
                            Almost certainly, Jon. It's something that we need to be very aware of when reading Court records and press reports, as well.
                            Kind regards, Sam Flynn

                            "Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Crystal View Post
                              I have made several observations. They are as follows:

                              Regarding the hand of Badham - Badham displays certain idiosyncratic traits in his hand. He seldom capitalises new sentences, and seldom employs a 't' bar for lower case 't'. The angle of his script to the baseline is typically 38-40 degrees.

                              I will say this now, although I will elaborate on the 1911 thread: In my view, Badham did not sign for Hutchinson on page one of the statement. He did fill in the paperwork, amend the statement as it was in progress, and complete the top portion of the endorsement.

                              The statement contains 2 instances of Badham writing 'Hutchinson'. In one case, this is 'George Hutchinson'. Neither remotely resembles the witness signature on page one.
                              Bravo Crystal! At last, something vaguely useful on the Hutch front.

                              Now then, I'm afraid I'm only up to page 149 of the 1911 thread because believe it or not I do try to have a life away from the boards.

                              But I can't help but notice that we now have two experts who have done the decent thing and actually examined the original statement, and blow me down we have one reported by Martin Fido as concluding that Badham 'definitely' signed for Hutch on page one, and t'other believing he did not, even to the point of observing that when Badham wrote the name twice during the course of the statement itself there was not the remotest resemblance to the page one signature .

                              So while I have my own doubts about Sam's verdict that Hutch and Toppy were one and the same, in light of Sue Iremonger's opposite verdict, how exactly does all this leave us any better off, if we still have to rely on our own eyesight to help us pick which expert we consider to be the better judge?

                              Just wondering.

                              Can you tell I've been down a terribly similar road before?

                              Love,

                              Caz
                              X
                              "Comedy is simply a funny way of being serious." Peter Ustinov


                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X