The Statement of George Hutchinson

[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."

[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

[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.

[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.

[Crystal]

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

[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.

[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

[gary]

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 !!!

I'm probably having one of my derrr moments, but how can you tell that
there were pauses in a written document?

Gary

[DVV]

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.
Cx

So many thanks Crystal,
just pm you.

Amitiés,
David

[m_w_r]

Corrections and Clarifications

Crystal -

Terrific work, but just to clarify:

1. The statement reads: "I met the Murdered woman", not "I saw the Murdered woman". (p.1)

2. The statement reads: "he then placed his right hand around her shoulders", not "he then placed his right hand on her shoulders". (p.1)

3. The statement reads: "with a kind of a strap round it", not "with a kind of strap round it". (p.1)

4. The signature you could not read on p.3 is that of Inspector Ernest Ellisdon.

5. The signature below that is that of Superintendent Thomas Arnold.

Regards,

Mark

[perrymason]

I'm probably having one of my derrr moments, but how can you tell that
there were pauses in a written document?

Gary

Hi Gary,

I have no training as a graphologist, so this is just my educated guess, but I would imagine that the pressure applied judged by the ink left behind is one way, the continuity of the pressure and consistency of character shape and size and spacing, smudging, character angle changes, irregular character or word spacing...those kinds of criteria.

I hope that Crystals fine analysis answers some questions people have about what is assuredly the most disappointing witness interaction of the Ripper cases for the Police. a Suspect with details so precise and so detailed......and yet apparently, so fictional....

Cheers all.

[Sam Flynn]

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

See, Sam Flynn???

Your triumphalism seems rather premature, Crystal. The discovery of faded fingerprints that weren't picked up by a scanner doesn't mean that originals are essential in all contexts. Handling an original might allow us to detect some etiolated smudges that bypassed the scanning process, and find similar such physical quirks on the paper, but it hardly "increases our view somewhat" in terms of examining the writing itself. Research posted on the 1911 thread demonstrated that, in terms of comparing signatures, 2nd generation photocopies were good enough to allow correct assessments to be made to a very high degree of accuracy.

I'm genuinely pleased that you've discovered something of which we weren't aware (how can we tell if they were the signatory's fingerprints, by the way?). However, that discovery should by no means be used to imply that my previous arguments about originals versus scans were incorrect, when I was arguing in the specific context of a signature-comparison exercise. That's a different ball-game entirely.

[Crystal]

Triumphalist? Moi? Surely you jest, Sam Flynn? A couple of tiny points-the prints aren't faded, and I know what your point is. You're still wrong.

[Sam Flynn]

A couple of tiny points-the prints aren't faded

Faded enough to have evaded the scanning process, evidently - which was what I said.

and I know what your point is. You're still wrong.

No, I'm not - and research backs me up.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Crystal.

Back in either 1991 or 1992, a document examiner, acting on my behalf, conducted an analysis of the signature appended to the first page of Hutchinson's police statement. Her conclusion, based upon pressure points and the angle of the nib on the paper, was that Hutchinson was right-handed. If I understand you correctly, however, a fingerprint on the second page has led you to infer that Hutchinson was left-handed.

Given your stated view that Hutchinson authored all three of his signatures on this document, there must, by implication, be a conflict of opinion regarding the signature on page one. It occurs to me, therefore, that this element of your analysis hinges on the provenance of the page two fingerprint. But what if the fingerprint emanated from Badham, who certainly handled the document during and after Hutchinson's interview? A similar criterion would also apply to Abberline, of course, to say nothing of any number of pen-pushers at Commercial Street Police Station or indeed the Home Office.

Should anyone assume that I am merely being mischievious in this context, I would point out that an implication of profound importance appears to have been overlooked. Whoever he was, the Whitechapel Murderer was, beyond any reasonable doubt, right-handed. Hence, if it can be established that Hutchinson was left-handed, there exists no realistic possibility that he could have been Jack the Ripper.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.