The Statement of George Hutchinson

[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

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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]

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,
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]

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

[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.

[The Good Michael]

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

Thanks,

Mike

[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!