The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Observer]

For what it's worth, I conducted a little experiment namely I signed my name three times at ten second intervals the results were rather interesting. The G in my Christian name which is the first letter of my christian name produced three different G's. The differences were minimal. I''ll not go into any detail regarding the differences, as I'll more than likely get tongue tied, and we don't want that do we. Thinking that the experiment might have subconciously had an effect on my experiment, and me being a Toppy fan I then asked a freind to repeat the experiment, I did not tell him the purpose of the experiment. The first letter in his christian name is A, and after he had signed three times the A was definately different in signature 1 and 3, in signature 1 the loop was not finished in the A, whereas in signatures 2 and 3, it was completed.

Have a go, it would be interesting to find out if any of you experience similar results.

all the best

Observer

[Sam Flynn]

yes Bob, so incredibly different.

Amitiés,
David

So were my "G"s... and my "H"s, for that matter, over a similar (if not shorter) period of time - as you'll have seen when I posted them on this site. Do you think I'd run the risk of identity theft if I didn't think I had a legitimate point to make? The point being that elements of people's signatures do change, sometimes greatly, over time.

Not that a closed versus an open loop on a capital "G" (or a lower-case "h" or "l"), nor a flourish on an outlying "H" (and that only on page 1 of the 1888 signature) or an upward flick on a terminating "n" constitute that radical a change, when so much else is similar, and consistent, over a period of 23 years.

[Magpie]

Hi

What exactly are the laws regarding ones access to old police documents? And do we need permission to reproduce such police documents? I have just done a google search to no avail regarding such matters. I was led to believe that a 100 year embargo existed on viewing the documents, is this correct?

all the best

Observer

Hi Observer.

According to the Office Of Public Sector Information, people can freely copy, quote, index, transcribe, publish and broadcast the text within the police records. However that freedom does not extend to actual images of the records if those images were created by the Records Office.

From what I've read in the thread so far, the images that are being passed around behind the scenes were taken by Ms Crystal herself (someone please correct me if I've read that wrong), and therefore wouldn't appear to be considered protected

[DVV]

The capital G’s are totally different.

yes Bob, so incredibly different.

Amitiés,
David

[Bob Hinton]

Filling in your own form

Two posters have now referred to the 1911 Toppy signature as having been appended to a census form. If so, would someone be so kind as to enlighten me as to when those being canvassed began signing census returns? In my experience, all information is entered by the census returns officer, with no written input whatever on the part of the informant.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

I believe the 1911 was the first census when you completed your own details.

[Garry Wroe]

Two posters have now referred to the 1911 Toppy signature as having been appended to a census form. If so, would someone be so kind as to enlighten me as to when those being canvassed began signing census returns? In my experience, all information is entered by the census returns officer, with no written input whatever on the part of the informant.

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[Bob Hinton]

Signatures

OK. Here we go. The same man probably did the 1898 and the 1911. A different man did the 1888.

The capital G’s are totally different.

With the three H’s the top H is formed by drawing two verticals, taking the pen from the paper then crossing it with a horizontal from left to right. Even with the blot in the 1888 you can see the horizontal stroke peeking through. It is even more noticeable on the second statement signature.

With the 1898 and the 1911 the H is formed entirely differently. Here the first vertical is drawn. The pen is then taken off to draw the second vertical, but then without taking the pen from the paper the line is drawn upwards to the mid position and then taken to the left to the first vertical, then looped back on itself to lead into the next letter.

On the 1888 signature the letter ‘u’ is not attached to the letter H, neither is it on the second 1888, both are drawn in the same way.

In all three 1888 signatures the horizontal stroke from the letter ‘t’ is only just attached (in fact on the third one it isn’t) but crosses the vertical on the ‘h’.

In all three 1888 signatures the vertical on the ‘h’ is a loop on the other signatures it is a single straight line.

It is for these reasons I give my opinion that the signatures marked 1898 and 1911 were not written by the man who signed the statement in 1888.

[babybird67]

Bob,

We've told you where to find it, but you haven't looked. Here is is again, courtesy of Gareth:
[ATTACH]5653[/ATTACH]

The first is Toppy/George statement. The second is an 1898 signature and the final is Toppy's marriage signature.

Mike

Do you know what...i think i've made up my mind.

I've been thinking about it for a long time, and studying the signatures...and it may be that i still dont know what i am talking about....strike that, not may be, definitely is....because i wish i knew, or could speak to someone who knew, what the commonalities of handwriting were at the time...

but Mike, Sam, i think you have moved me along the spectrum.

I still dont think it is proven by a long way...i'm on the "very possibly match" line at the moment...i will think about it some more, and look at the sigs again this afternoon...but i am beginning to see the significance of the similarities...hallelujah!

[The Good Michael]

Sorry lads. I was posting between classes quickly and forgot to remember to think about recalling.

Thanks,

Mike

[Sam Flynn]

[ATTACH]5653[/ATTACH]

The first is Toppy/George statement. The second is an 1898 signature and the final is Toppy's marriage signature.

Just for clarification, Mike - the second is indeed from 1898, but is actually the one from the marriage certificate. The last image is from the 1911 census.

[Ben]

the other would get pass any bank clerk , or official, as a match.

But it didn't get past a professional document examiner in the form of Sue Iremonger, Richard. For clarification, "just your opinion" was not intended to mean that nobody else shared it; only that you're expressing no more than that - an opinion.

But let's agree to disagree on this one.

The last thing we need is another interminable round of "Yes he is!", "No, he isn't" (and I'm being serious this time )

All the best,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
With respect its not just my opinion, it is shared by several on Casebook.
I would say albeit, to the untrained eye, that just looking at that those three signatures, if only two were from the real Hutchinson, the other would get pass any bank clerk , or official, as a match.
Unless my eyesight has major flaws.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Regardless what page of the statement the first signature is from , it still resembles the marriage , and the census ones, therefore making the Topping argument still valid.

But with respect, that's just your opinion, Richard.

I don't believe they do resemble eachother, and nor did Sue Iremonger who examined the documents. That doesn't mean I consider the opposing argument to be "invalid", but suffice to say I disagree with it.

Best regards,
Ben

[richardnunweek]

Hello Ben,
Regardless what page of the statement the first signature is from , it still resembles the marriage , and the census ones, therefore making the Topping argument still valid.
It does appear to me that Topping had to be present at commercial street station that monday evening, for any likeness to have appeared, whatever page of the statement refered to
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Hi Richard,

Just look at those three signatures, how can it be disputed they were not written by the same man

Answer - not very successfully.

Why? Because the differences outweigh the similarities in my view. Bob's observation that the police were in the habit of taking down full names, or middle initials at the very least, is just another factor against Toppy's candidacy, since none of the statement signatures included any middle names of initials. Relative size is another aspect that montages such as the one above can't really convey. Hutchinson's statement is considerably larger than the the census entry, besides which, there are details that computerized images miss, such as a break in the statement signature between the t and the c.

I think you'll find that Bob did comment on the above montage:

"The 1898 and the 1911 signatures show some similarities, but the one labelled 1888 is different from all the rest"

This was from post #129 on page 13.

And just for clarification:

The signature labelled 1888 was the page #3 signature penned by the George Hutchinson of Kelly notoriety (not "Toppy/Hutch statement" as Mike confusingly terms it), the second, labelled 1898 was Toppy's marriage certificate signature (the one Sue Iremonger used in her comparison, and which included the middle names "William Topping") and the third is from Toppy's entry in the 1911 census.

Best regards,
Ben