The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Ben]

Hi Crystal,

Many thanks for the additional clarification with regard to Badham's handwriting and Hutchinson signature #1.

Hi Bob,

I feel your "dummy" suggestion has a great deal of merit. According to an article I posted on the pre-crash Hutchinson forum, shop window mannequins were introduced in the 1880s, thus increasing their novelty value at that time:

http://www.streetdirectory.com/travel_guide/61523/jewelry/evolution_of_mannequins_from_dressmaker_to_shop_displays.html

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Crystal,
Fair play, time will reveal all, will my hopes fade into dimness, or will a halo appear round my rather large head?
I am asking for trouble saying the latter......
Regards Richard.

Replies

Hi David - in response to your questions, the prints are to the upper right of the second page signature. Pages 1, 2 and 3 are on separate sheets. The endorsement (which means lit. on the back, as you will doubtless know) is on the reverse of page 3. If you would care to send me your email details via PM, David, I will send you some images - I am allowed to do that under copyright legislation and would be happy to do so.


Sam Flynn - Yes, in agreement, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough, sadly.

Caz - As I said, I will elaborate on the 1911 thread once I have written the signature comparative analysis. However, I would say the following: Badham didn't sign for George Hutchinson. George Hutchinson signed for George Hutchinson, on all three pages. Unless, of course, Badham was either a: a Master Forger; or b: George Hutchinson himself. The level of concurrence between the signatures, and the obvious differences in Badham's own hand is much too high for the page 1 signature to have been signed by Badham. I don't know exactly what Iremonger saw. I know what I saw, however. I saw the statement, at length, earlier this week.

And with all due respect, I think we are somewhat better off for it.


Richard - yes, I do know now whether Toppy was Hutch or not. I have no doubt, because there is no doubt. The statement has been extremely forthcoming - more than I anticipated. However, it is not my task to give my view. When I publish the report, it will be in the nature of my findings. People can then make their own minds up as to whether it was Toppy, or no.

That, however, must wait a while. I am on my way to Devon today to look at some 17th Century material, and must then find time to visit Kew next week, in between going to Lincoln for 2 days, before I can think about completing the report on the signatures. Sorry, I have a demanding life! I hope that what you can see so far is useful and interesting.

In general, I will try to get permission to publish images. The NRO are preparing high resolution images for me, but I still need copyright to get them out here. I do appreciate that a picture tells a thousand words, and I will do my best.

Cx

[Bob Hinton]

Description given by Hutchinson

When I was researching my book, From Hell, I spent some time down in Romford to see if I could pick up any links there.

Whilst ploughing through the local papers I came across an interesting advert. It was for ‘Stones Millinery and Mantle Emporium’ and was situated at 60 Market Place Romford. The advert showed a gentleman dressed to the nines. The interesting thing was that the picture bore a remarkable resemblance to the description Hutchinson gave, even down to the spats. (Which as I am sure we all know are morning wear only to be worn between breakfast and luncheon)

I often wonder if Hutchinson saw a dummy in a shop window and took his description from that. It would explain why the description is so theatrical and why a gentlemen wearing a warm astrakhan coat would leave it wide open on a cold, wet miserable night. A dummy feels no cold but needs to show off the waistcoat and watch chain.

[richardnunweek]

Hello Crystal,
Excellent work, worthy of any great detective, and it is indeed intresting to have a professional opinion on the actual statement.
Of course bias me, anxiously awaits your verdict on 'Toppy' ie, was he the Hutchinson we are looking for, or was he simply a man relaying a story , for a pint or two[ a suggestion i cannot accept as yet].
I have a feeling that your initial feeling that he was not , will be endorsed, and that will lead us back to square one, but i would of course love to be wrong upon that score , and if you suggested that he was, you would be on my xmas card list.
Well done..... in anticipation
Richard.

[DVV]

So while I have my own doubts about Sam's verdict that Hutch and Toppy were one and the same...
Caz

Hi Caz,

welcome to the club.
Who said the members were exclusively Hutchers ?
And I don't forget Babybird.
Cheers, Good Mike!

Amitiés Caz,
David

[Ben]

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?

Well, you suggested a solution to this yourself if you cast your mind back to the 1911 thread:

"But if I were coming fresh to this, with no knowledge and no preconceptions, I might be forgiven for wondering if (Sue Iremonger) had been given the information beforehand that the witness had only signed pages two and three."

[caz]

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

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[DVV]

[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

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!

[Jon Guy]

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..

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..

[Ben]

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!

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

See, Sam Flynn???