The Statement of George Hutchinson

[richardnunweek]

Hi
Just look at those three signatures, how can it be disputed they were not written by the same man, and if that is the case, and the 1888 signature belongs to Hutchinson the witness, then it is a certainty that Topping was being honest all along , so was his son Reg, and his youngest son Arthur, and recently JD Hutchinson married to Toppings grandson.
It surely is indisputable, at least to my eyes , and i am sure many others seing those comparisons.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Bob,

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


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

Mike

[Bob Hinton]

Comparisons

Bob Hinton writes:





No matter, though, in which direction we choose to travel, you still have not commented on my question as to whether you regard the signature from page three in the police protocol as alike or unalike those from the wedding papers and the 1911 census listings, and you still have not commented on whether you published any such comparison in your book. It would be very useful to know where you stand on these issues. If you feel that the signatures make a mismatch, then the argument about the police asking for all names when signing a protocol becomes somewhat superfluous, I think, whereas if we have something that may quite possibly be a match, then the statistical factors involved - such as the number of George Hutchinsons around at the time and space - must urge us to overweigh a positive identification very seriously.

All the best,
Fisherman

First of all I keep asking someone to post the 1911 signature that needs comparing. I'm sure it's on the boards somewhere but I can't seem to find it.
No I did not publish comparisons between the various statement signatures and the wedding certificate as I relied on Sue Iremongers statement that they were different. If anyone has that signature I would love to see that as well.

[Fisherman]

Bob Hinton writes:

"I think it most unlikely that GWTH signed the statement form as the police ask that you sign it with your full name to aid identification of the witness."

Just throwing in a quick reaction here, before I´m off to Barcelona (should be fun, considering the Champions League outcome!):

If the police was in the habit of requesting the full name, it would seem that Toppy was not the one who signed the protocol.
But surely, if we find that we have a very strong resemblance inbetween Toppys signature and the one on the protocol, that would be a much better indicator than to rely on what was standard police procedures?

In the end, it all boils down to the likeness inbetween the witness signature and that of Toppy. If we have a resemblance that is very strong, and if we say that all police protocols were always signed using all names, then we are faced with the fact that is seems that a man signed that protocol who was NOT Toppy - but who was ALSO called George Hutchinson (or chose to call himself thusly) had a signature that was a very good match with that of Toppys.

That scenario would - I feel - stretch things far too much too be a credible one.

No matter, though, in which direction we choose to travel, you still have not commented on my question as to whether you regard the signature from page three in the police protocol as alike or unalike those from the wedding papers and the 1911 census listings, and you still have not commented on whether you published any such comparison in your book. It would be very useful to know where you stand on these issues. If you feel that the signatures make a mismatch, then the argument about the police asking for all names when signing a protocol becomes somewhat superfluous, I think, whereas if we have something that may quite possibly be a match, then the statistical factors involved - such as the number of George Hutchinsons around at the time and space - must urge us to overweigh a positive identification very seriously.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Observer.

Firstly, the PRO, Kew, can be found by running a Google search under 'National Archives'.

As far as publishing 'Crown Copyright' documents, there never used to be a problem so long as one submitted a written request for the relevant permissions. And, theoretically, at any rate, the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act ought to make things easier rather than more difficult.

I'm not sure if this is still the case, but, for a small fee, the PRO used to undertake research and then forward copies of documents on to the client. Usually, one could make such arrangements over the phone.

Hope this was of help.

Garry Wroe.

[babybird67]

He may still be viewed as an enigma irrespective of his identity, BB, which is a very important point to bear in mind. I can understand why the merest hint of "normality" about Hutchinson might threaten any aspiration of finding him a thoroughly bad egg, but - again - if he were a serial offender, he would not have been the first nor the last to have come across as a "regular guy", so I don't see any problem there either.

Just to be clear, Sam, I have no aspirations of doing anything with Hutch. It's not my pet theory that he was the killer. I'm willing to consider him as a suspect, i'm willing to consider him as regular guy who was ashamed to be seen hanging around waiting for a prostitute to finish with a client...i'm willing to consider all these things. In fact it's because i am considering all these things that i can't accept anything yet proves to me one way or the other exactly what Hutch was, why/if he was there, why/if/and what he lied about etc.

This one sentence sums up what i think: "I don't know."

This can safely be added to all the other things i don't know...i now have quite a collection!

with respect

[Ben]

It's highly unlikely that he'd have signed his made up name to match so closely a real "George Hutchinson", who lived in London, married an East End girl, etc. etc

But with respect, Gareth, that only becomes "highly unlikely" if Toppy's signature "so closely" matched any of the witness three, and since I strongly don't believe this to be the case, there's nothing that interferes with the distinct possibility that George Hutchinson may not have been the real name of the individual we seek. As far as I'm concerned, the differences outweigh the similarities, and when this is compounded with the highly dubious nature of the "my dad saw Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper" story associated with Toppy's second-hand claim to ripper fame, his candidacy is weakened further in my view.

I don't see why inordinate significance should be accorded to eventual East End connections, especially when there are other George Hutchinsons whose signatures we haven't seen, and who don't have royal conspiracy theories attached to their candidacy, who were alomost certainly living in the East End at the time of the murders. Toppy only acquired his East End connection when he met his East End wife in 1895.

I've never heard any expert speak of a "remarkable similarity", but I haven't heard anyone suggesting he should be ruled out "categorically" either. Sue Iremonger merely subscribed to the opinion than Toppy was not the witness, having compared the statement signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature.

Best regards,
Ben

[Observer]

Hi Gary

Thank for that, much obliged. Any ideas on the right to copy and publish documents that are 100 years or older?

all the best

Observer

[Garry Wroe]

Observer.

The Hutchinson statement is housed at the Public Records Office, Kew, and remains the property of the Crown. Although the one-hundred year rule does apply, Steven Knight was given access to the 'Ripper File' in the Seventies and reproduced part of the Hutchinson statement in his book. Anyone can visit the PRO and, even if access to the paper records isn't possible, one can certainly examine the same files on microfilm.

Mike.

Sorry it's taken so long to address the points you made a few days ago. For some reason, my connection keeps getting broken and I lose the reply I intended to submit.

I do, of course, take on board the point that your signature has changed significantly over the decades. But, as I think I've pointed out previously, for an overwhelming majority of people, signatures remain fairly constant over extended periods of time. Were this not the case, the signature could not be used as a primary source of identification for banks, passports, social security and so forth. The only way in which this issue is likely to be resolved, I suspect, would be through the production of a Toppy signature from the 1888 (or thereabouts) period.

I must also confess to being somewhat surprised by your faith in Abberline and his colleagues. Have you forgotten that the Goulston Street message was sponged away rather than being preserved as a potentially important piece of evidence? Or that Mary Kelly's eyes were photographed in the hope that the killer's image had been retained on her retinae?

In reality, the late-Victorian Met was in its nascency as a detective body. It not only lacked sophistication in a forensic context (even fingerprinting wasn't in use at the time of the Ripper murders), but it had no experience of the sadosexual serial killer. As such, I do not share your confidence that Hutchinson was thoroughly interrogated either at the time he made his police statement or when, a few days later, official doubts were cast on his stated version of events. In all probability, he came to be regarded as a time-waster and was promptly discarded. Of course, if anyone has evidence to the contrary ...

Regards,

Garry Wroe.

[Bob Hinton]

Signatures

I think it most unlikely that GWTH signed the statement form as the police ask that you sign it with your full name to aid identification of the witness.

[Fisherman]

Mr Hinton!

Taking it from the start, I would like to thank you for your reply!

There is a number of questions left unanswered, though, and a point I would like to comment on when it comes to your analysis of the signatures. Let´s begin with the latter issue!

You write that you think that the signer of the first signature tried to emulate the H in H division from the top of the page. Of course, that is not easily proven - but an interesting thought.
There are, though, a number of differences between the H:s that make me wonder. I specifically note that the curl commencing the letter, forming the "flag" on top of the left leg, is a lot more elaborate in the witness´version than it is in the "H division" H.
Somehow, I would have preferred that the other way around.

What the witness does (if he was the one who signed) is to put the pen to the paper, make a nicely curved, clockwise half circle, only to throw the tip of the pen into a sharper ANTI-clockwise circle, leading onto the left hand leg of the H.
The "H division" H has very little of that refinery to it´s "flag" - but, then again, the "H division" H we are looking at in your pic is the one on the THIRD side of the statement. Perhaps the one on page 1 was different in this respect?

My own stance is that I agree with you that the three signatures could well have been made by the same man. There are commonalities that are rather convincing in the parts you mention. The curlied H in signature number one could - to my mind - perhaps be explained by a wish on the witness´ behalf to do his very best when supplying the authorities with his signature, something that he gave up when he realized that there were a number of pages to sign. At any rate, such a suggestion would be related to your own theory: If he tried to emulate the H on top of the paper, he would probably have done so to try and please!
But we are left with guesswork here, and so we will have to go with our respective convictions of which none can be said to be superior to the other!

The questions I would like to get some sort of answers to were the ones about Iremonger: Do you have any knowledge of any of the details she took an interest in, reaching her verdict? - and the one about your own stance, comparing the signature from page three of the police protocol to the one from the wedding document and the ones on the census listings from 1911: Did you in your book express any conviction about the viability of the suggestion that these signatures may have been by the same man? And what is your stance today, looking at this material?

The best,
Fisherman

PS. I am pressed for time right now, and leaving for Barcelona soon. Thus any answer on your behalf may well go unanswered for a couple of days - but I will tend to it on my return!

[The Good Michael]

Bob,

That makes sense what you are telling us. Re: utchinson, I see (and others) the same utchinson in Toppy's census signatures.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ally]

The fact is that if Crystal were at all genuine, there were several questions regarding what she's already posted that she could have easily answered. Instead she ducks, dodges, avoids and in general, does nothing but come on with even more: I'll answer later. With all the snarky, "I'll tell you later" posts she's managed to put up here, she'd have had time to answer all the points 3 times over.

Fraud. Fake. Liar. Phony. Set agenda, and keeping to it. Troll.

[Bob Hinton]

Reply to Fisherman

Ok Fisherman, lets see if I can answer your points. First off I last went into this in depth about 12 years ago when I was writing my book, so if I am a little rusty with the details you will have to forgive me.

The reason I didn’t immediately recognise the third signature was that somehow the last page of GH statement had become detached and left me with just the first two, after so long I had forgotten there was a third. I found it a few days ago and am up to speed on this now.

As for Iremonger I didn’t contact her directly but if memory serves me correctly I spoke to Paul Begg about this and he gave me the information.

Now let us look at the three signatures. See picture.

The first is George Hutchinson with a florid capital H
The second is Geo Hutchinson with a straightforward H
The third is George Hutchinson with a straightforward H

In my opinion the same person did all three signatures.

The statement was written out, presumably by Badham and then given to GH to sign. Either Hutchinson read the statement or it was read to him, either way after reading the sheets were passed to GH for signing. He is not comfortable with a pen and ink so in his first signature he tries to emulate the capital H he sees at the top of the sheet next to Division. The result is a hesitant; you can see where he hesitates at the bottom of the first part of the letter before going left, unformed letter. Because it is not his style of writing you can see that when he finishes the letter H he doesn’t know what to do next. His pen starts to go up, and then he thinks better of it and it loops around anticlockwise before forming the U. The result is a squiggle that looks like the letter ‘e’.

For his second attempt he forgoes trying to produce a fancy, unnatural H and just writes it in his own handwriting. The result is a straightforward H with a natural flow to the letter U. This signature is practically identical to the third signature, only because he dipped his pen in the ink (this signature is much darker than the last) he splurged a bit on the H.

Now this is all very well but what do I have to back this theory up?

Look again at the signatures and this time take away everything but the letter G. See picture. In each case the letter G is practically identical to the others.

Now to the same exercise again but this time take away the letter H. See picture. In each case the ‘utchinson’ is practically identical to the others.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Certain FACTS are apparent to me"

Well, Crystal, believe it or not, but certain facts are quite apparent to me too. But we are not discussing appearances here, we are discussing proof. And since you claim that you have that proof, that is why I said that proof puts things beyond the discussion stage.

If and when you provide that proof, I will immediately accept it - if proof it is - and we can henceforth work from the established fact that Toppy was not Hutch. But that is for later, I feel, and I am pretty certain that I will spend the period up to the revelation in question as a firm believer in the connection between Toppy and Hutch.

Enjoy your holiday.

Fisherman