The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Bob Hinton]

Hi Sam,

t
What do we know exactly about Toppy's possible connections to Romford/Essex ?
A press report said he went there to visit his sister. Which report is it ? Do you know? If you do, is this article reliable ? etc.

Amitiés,
David

Oh this is spooky. As some of you will remember I identified the witness GH in my book, only to find out later on that I had the wrong GH. However this wrong GH did have a connection with Romford, his sister was born there.

It was an accumulation of facts like these that made me convinced I was on the right trail.

When I have time I will be writing an article for Rip giving the story of this wrong family Hutchinson.

[DVV]

These Hutchinson threads have been a real eye-opener for me, and the whole experience has been dispiriting and demoralising.

I have had quite enough of this pantomime, and I won't say anything more about it on this site. Kindly kick me if I do.

Hi Sam,

these are words I could say - but I won't.
Consider one minute, please, how painful it is, for Ben and I for example, to discuss with people who are already convinced that Toppy is the witness, and then reply systematically with words such as "pantomime", "agenda", etc.
Once again, I don't know if the signatures match enough to make Toppy the witness. I don't know either whether they mismatch enough to discard him.

Now, since this thread is about Hutch statement, i'd like to discuss about Romford.
What do we know exactly about Toppy's possible connections to Romford/Essex ?
A press report said he went there to visit his sister. Which report is it ? Do you know? If you do, is this article reliable ? etc.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Agenda, agenda, agenda.

Mike

The similarities outweigh the differences, Ben - and they ARE remarkable similarities.

[ATTACH]5717[/ATTACH]

No question about it.

No that Im interested in the larger thread premise at this point, but to my eye, 1898 and 1911 were very probably the same hand, and its in the 1898 sample that the shape of the top loop on the G first changes.

In fact Id be tempted to suggest that all 1888 samples do not match either later ones, but both later ones match.

Best regards all.

[Sam Flynn]

These Hutchinson threads have been a real eye-opener for me, and the whole experience has been dispiriting and demoralising.

I have had quite enough of this pantomime, and I won't say anything more about it on this site. Kindly kick me if I do.

[DVV]

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.

Hi Sam,

the way your G has changed has nothing to do with the striking mismatch between Huch and Toppy's G.
The last pages of this thread belong, in fact, to the biG thread, don't they ?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Bob Hinton]

Signatures again

The differences are fundamental Sam (I can see your images on Casebook but not on forums)

First the letter G is totally different in the 1888 examples to the later samples.

Secondly the ‘utchinsons’.

In all the 1888 samples the ‘u’ is formed as a separate entity. This is because the 1888 ‘H’s are formed by a simple two verticals and a horizontal. The horizontal does not flow into the ‘u’ and therefore the first stroke of the ‘u’ is at the bottom of the letter.

If you look at the 98 an 1911 utchinsons you will see that the way the letter ‘H’ is drawn, with the left vertical drawn first, then the right vertical then back to the mid point, looping over to the left vertical and going straight back to start the letter ‘u’ gives you a start point of the ‘u’ as being the same height as the horizontal in the ‘H’. That is why the first stroke of the ‘u’ is at the top of the letter and not at the bottom.

I have already mentioned that the crossing of the ‘t’ is different. In the 1888 it’s not so much the ‘t’ that is crossed but the ‘h’. In the bottom two it is definitely the ‘t’. The formation of the ‘h’ is also different, with the 1888’s being looped and the 98 and 1911 being straight bars.

I should add that this is important as it shows how the writer holds the pen and uses it. In the 1888 the writer is using the pen in a forward manner which means he forms the front of the vertical loop first and then reverses track to form the back of the loop. In the other two examples the writer is using the pen in backward manner which means he forms the back of the vertical first, from the base line curving up, and then forms the front of the vertical by coming down vertically. It’s not just a matter of loop or not loop it’s the fundamental way the writer uses the pen.

[Ben]

Every question about it, Gareth.

As Bob observes.

As Sue Iremonger attests to.

As your montage above aptly demonstrates.

The differences outweigh the similarities.

[Sam Flynn]

The similarities outweigh the differences, Ben - and they ARE remarkable similarities.



No question about it.

[Ben]

Trouble is, there's no "remarkable similarity" when it comes to the "utchinsons" Mike. Only differences that outweigh the similarities, in my view.

Ben

[The Good Michael]

Brenda,

Of course you may be right. The H being a little different does not detract from the remarkable similarity of the utchinsons.

Mike

[Brenda]

I think it is worth noting that it appears that in 1888 our writer was having a few pen problems. That "H" looks to me like a pen malfunction.

[Ben]

Hi Bob,

The marriage certificate was signed in 1898, but I feel your observation still stands. Toppy's signature retained a remarkable consistency from 1898 to 1911, with the differences with 1888 still in place.

Best regards,
Ben

[Bob Hinton]

Comparison over time

The interesting thing about these signatures is that the wedding signature 1892 doesn't seem to have changed appreciably from the 1911, a period of approximately 2 decades. Yet the 1888 signature is appreciably different from the 1892 a period of only 4 years.

I do wish I could see the pictures Sam is posting. Perhaps he could post the same pictures here.

[Ben]

Do you think I'd run the risk of identity theft if I didn't think I had a legitimate point to make?

Not to invalidate your comparison, Gareth, but personally speaking, I didn't find your "G"s to be appreciably different. If I was looking at those signatures with no knowledge of penmanship, I'd like to think I'd be able to discern correctly that they were written by the same person. As you know, we also disagree on whether or not the bulk of the signatures reveals any great similarity with Toppy. I don't they do, for reasons I outlined in a very early post in the 1911 thread.

Interesting observations there, Bob, particularly with regard to the differing formations of the letter "H".

All the best,
Ben