The Statement of George Hutchinson

[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.

[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

[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.

[perrymason]

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.

[The Good Michael]

Agenda, agenda, agenda.

Mike

[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

[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.

[babybird67]

oh Sam

don't be demoralised and dispirited. Please don't. And please don't stop posting to Hutch threads because of it. You and Mike made inroads with me at least, that should give you some hope that your arguments aren't falling on completely deaf ears!

It's the nature of discussions where there is no objective proof for there to be argument and counter-argument...and it's in the symbiosis of these contentions that details and ideas emerge which can persuade one person one way or the other...


don't lose heart, please.

best wishes

[Mr Chumley]

well said BB, all avenues of exploration are valid and a blinkered view, how ever logical is still that, all these threads are hypothetical explorations based on various supported or unsupported theories. The interaction of enquiring minds is what makes for much enjoyable reading.."all work and no play make's JACK a dull boy"

[Fisherman]

Back from Barcelona! Quite a town! And some hallabaloo after that Champions league win!
I would just like to take the opportunity to thank Bob Hinton for his answers on the questions I put to him; most enlightening!

The best,
Fisherman

[Bob Hinton]

No worries!

[DVV]

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.

Bob,
so there perhaps would be 2 Hutch with a sister born in Romford...?

Toppy's sister is said to be born in Hornchuch in the 1871 census, but, from Chris Scott's "Will the real MK":

"The birth of his sister, listed in the census as born in Hornchurch, is probably referred to in the listing in the second quarter of 1861, that of a Jane Emily Hutchinson born in Romford." (p 88)

Hutch makes me mad.
It's official.

Amitiés,
David

[richardnunweek]

Hello David,
Yes Hutch also makes me 'mad', its all down to opinions, those for /those against.
I have said many times in the past, that the only name we have been given, in identification, has been Topping, there has been no other descendant of Abberlines Hutchinson, that has presented themselves.
That along with a post[ only one] from JD Hutchinson, would indicate that it was not only Reg that was familiar with that account, but his younger brother also.
The signature comparisons, are extremely similar, although one could argue, the wedding signature of Topping , and the 1911 census are a closer match, then the 1888 statement , when compared to the other two.
I feel a explanation for this is avaliable.
The police statement would have been made whilst the witness Hutchinson was high on stress levels, not only would he have been looked at suspiciously, but the whole bloodbath in Millers court, that involved a woman he had known, would have distressed him.
I believe that is a fair assumption to make, so taking that into account its more likely that this signature penned on Nov 12th 88, would be not so relaxed as a wedding signature, and a straightforeward signing on, a census return.
I am extremely biased, but if it could be proven that Topping was not the witness, i would eat that slice of humble pie[ as Crystal put it]gladly, and the name of Topping would cease to exist for me, along with everyone else.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

I believe that is a fair assumption to make, so taking that into account its more likely that this signature penned on Nov 12th 88, would be not so relaxed as a wedding signature, and a straightforeward signing on, a census return.

But there's nothing in Hutchinson's signature that really hints at any great anxiety, Richard, unless we want to argue that stressed people open-loop their G's while non-stressed people close loop them. The occasional smudge might be indicative of "stress", but I don't see anything in the style of the signatures themselves that would indicate any particular anxiety. But this takes us perilously close to graphological terriroty, which is an iffy avenue to pursue for reasons already discussed.

The signature comparisons, are extremely similar

I disagree.

There's no evidence that Reginald "presented" himself, incidentally. More likely, Melvyn Fairclough and/or Joseph Gorman Sickert contacted anyone with the surname Hutchinson living in the East and received a "positive" response from Reginald. There's no compelling reason to believe that the real witness even had any descendants.

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

Hello David,
Yes Hutch also makes me 'mad', its all down to opinions, those for /those against.
Regards Richard.

Hi Richard,

In my opinion, it's not "all down to opinions", and sincerely, I'm not for or against any Hutch.
I simply want to find the guy - and I haven't found him yet.
I still believe (no certainty of course) that Fleming is the more likely Hutch at the present day.
I cannot vote Toppy at the present day, but believe me, I wish I had already found my Hutch - like you and others.

Amitiés mon cher,
David