The Statement of George Hutchinson

[Christine]

Hi Ben.

The s at the end of "Queens" does not look like the s at the end of "Constables." All of Abberline's s are round, and could be mistaken for the letter o (although like most people, Abberline wrote his o counterclockwise and his s clockwise). The s at the end of Queens is a zig-zag s with a leading stroke--it looks sort of like an ampersand, written backwards.

I don't claim to know how significant this is, but these are the sorts of markers that do not usually change, even if a person switches pens, or gets older. I'm certainly not a document examiner, just someone who has more than a passing interest in handwriting. I haven't seen the other statement, though, so I can't comment on that. Anyhow, I doubt if you can get much out of ten letters, but it really doesn't look like Abberline to me.

[Ben]

The u is different. The Abberline u has left arm higher. Queen's Head u has both arms the same height.

If you ever get an opportunity to consult Abberline's original endorsement appended to the back of the statement, Christine, you'll notice that his "u"s varied considerably with regard to the height of his left and right stems. For example, when he wrote the word "Hutchinson" the right stem was higher than the left.

Abberline n has matched vertical downstroke and upstroke that curves away exactly halfway up

This is an interesting one. Abberline's "n" tails are skyward-pointing, just like Toppy's. When Abberline wrote the words "Hutchinson" and "Description", the final n-tails both had a conspicuously northerly inclination. Whenever an "n" was included in mid-sentence, however, they tended to have the appearance of a "w missing the last stroke" as you describe it. The first lower-case n of Abberline's "Hutchinson" provides a good example of this.

As for Abberline's "s", check out Bob Hinton's attachment. Compare the "s" at the end of "Queens" with the "s" at the end of the word "constables" in Abberline's report.

You make the observation that the "a" of "Queen's Head" is open at the top, which is a sound one, but then Abberline's "a"s were very much open-topped when he wrote the sentence "Description of a man seen with Marie Jeanette Kelly...". In both cases, the bold-highlighted "a"s were open-topped and strongly resembled "u"s.

All the best,
Ben

[Christine]

The u is different. The Abberline u has left arm higher. Queen's Head u has both arms the same height.

Queen's Head n has an open downstroke--it looks like a v with an extra stroke, or a w missing the last stroke. Abberline n has matched vertical downstroke and upstroke that curves away exactly halfway up.

Aberline s is convex on the right side. Queen's Head s is shaped like an s on the right. (This sort of cursive s was originally a regular zig-zag s with a connecting stroke from the left, but many people were taught to write it so it looks almost like an o.)

Abberline a is entered from the top and is an almond shaped loop. Queen's Head a is open at the top, resembling u.

Abberline d is very distinctive. It's upstroke to a midpoint, small almost closed loop to the same midpoint, upstroke to make the ascender, then trace upstroke back to the midpoint. It looks like a five way intersection. Queen's head d is also distinctive, but not at all the same.

[Ally]

Well then Crystal, then what precisely does it have to do with. I mean I am sure we are all just dying to hear what your so-called EXPERT opinion is? Or do you have nothing further to add and are just hanging around to say nothing whatsoever? You did indicate you were leaving forever right? If you aren't going to actually add anything productive, why don't you stick to that?

You're right Ben. It has nothing to do with the 'H'. For once. Another round of speculation, anyone? Er.. This IS the 1911 thread...isn't it?

[Fisherman]

Itīs the darndest thing, Ben - but no options can be excluded. Therefore, Abberline MAY have been in the habit of switching from clockwise to anti-ditto when minimizing his letters. But I think it would be a lot more logical option to chance that he did not do so. The smaller space afforded to him was not the result of a retraction of the space to the right of his letters only, and so the more reasonable thing to do would be to write smaller letters with the same general leaning and the same clockwise turning of them.

The reverse, though (in a doubled meaning) can not be excluded. Only very strongly questioned.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

I'm not expressing any personal opinion as to the likelihood of Abberline being responsible for the ammendment. It just occured to be that the inward-bending H's that were evident in his handwriting may have been a by-product of style ornamentation of the type that needed to be "downgraded" or dispensed with altogether if the writing had to be particularly small. I could be way off, however, and the observation concerning the Queen's Head could have nothing to do with the "H".

Hope your fishing trip was an enjoyable one.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes, to Ally:

"I'm not sure what you mean by the "wrong" direction. "

I am, Ben - Ally would refer to the fact that the left leg of the capital H in Abberlines handwriting normally bends clockwise in a very apparent fashion, whereas the left leg of the capital H in "Head" bends anticlockwise, in a less apparent, but still quite prominent way.

And that is something that must carry relevance when establishing who wrote. It is, in a way, related to the "Toppyism" you spoke about on the 1911 thread, when you pointed out that the last n in "Hutchinson" curved markedly anti-clockwise in the 1898 and 1911 examples. If we are to imagine the writer of such a "n" writing the signature in smaller letters, it would be hard to imagine that he would change the bend to a clockwise one, would it not?

...and that is what I believe Ally (and I) are pointing to.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Does that make him any kind of a suspect in even the most generous use of the word?

Yes it does, Mike.

It makes him a suspect in the sense that those who are familiar with this case and others from history (and true crime in general) are likely to use the word.

Because it naturally and inevitably invites suspicion that he was the wideawake man, and that he came forward with a bogus story and false suspect lead as soon as he realised he'd been seen near the crime scene. That doesn't automatically make him a murderer, since it isn't unreasonable to surmise that he did all those things for other reasons, but since serial killers have resorted to both strategies in the past - loiter fixatedly near crime scenes and inject themselves into investigations - we're obliged to take him seriously as a potential suspect.

Your argument seems to be that we should forget about him because he lied to the police, which I feel would be a disasterous move. The question is why he would do that, and I feel Sarah Lewis' inquest statement answers that question, thus seperating him from the average bobby-botherer seeking money or publicity.

If GH's statement was not relevant in the opinion of the investigators, then it should not be to us

It was not relevant to the police in terms of the suspect description being used as a potential vehicle to capture the ripper, but that may be because he was discredited as a witness (not as a suspect!).

If the contention is that Fleming was Hutchinson, then all we would need to entertain that idea is some form of proof or compelling evidence

I think there are reasonable indications in that regard, but that's a completely different discussion to the one we're having. There is nothing against Hutchinson that wouldn't be turfed out in a court of law, but in terms of circumstantial support for the possibility, he does a hellova lot better than most.

Best regards,
Ben

[Brenda]

Well, I'm no handwriting expert, but I AM left-handed. "Lefties" face certain issues with writing that "righties" don't have to think about. Most lefties curve their wrist inward while writing, often the result being smeared ink/pencil left in their wake. I learned to write holding the pen "correctly" with my wrist held straight, but I tilt my paper at an outrageous angle to achieve this. I've come across a few other lefties in my lifetime that learned the same trick. My handwriting is very good (if I do say so myself). However, when I'm in a situation where I can't tilt the paper to suit my writing style, chaos can sometimes be the result. Give me a situation where I have to write something in a very small space, unable to tilt the paper AND a worry of smeared ink, and anything could result. I've had letters going the other direction from my norm many times, simply trying to compensate for the left-handedness. I'm not saying that's what happened here, but it COULD have. Any sort of writing requirement outside the norm ( like having to cram info into a small writing space) can present special problems for a leftie.

On our site here under Witnesses and George Hutchinson it suggests the following related to 'Toppy"...

"In truth, little is known about George Hutchinson, other than the brief personal details given in 1888. Author Melvyn Fairclough interviewed a Reginald Hutchinson who claimed that his father, George William Topping Hutchinson, was the man who knew Mary Kelly. He claimed he was born on 1st October 1866, employed as a plumber (and apparently rarely, if ever, out of work) and that he knew one of the victims and was interviewed by police at the time. When pressed by his son as to the identity of Jack the Ripper, this George Hutchinson replied that "it was more to do with the Royal Family than ordinary people"[10]. Although a photograph of him also surfaced, this particular identification of Hutchinson has been greeted with a great deal of scepticism."

As I was saying earlier, are we now in the business of selecting just what we think are the believable aspects of claims that are seemingly either lies, inaccurate or incorrect? So that would make the parts of his story related to Astrakan Man and the story that he felt he knew of Royal connections as being unbelievable. Maybe also his later alleged sighting of the man as well. Perhaps also his walk from Romford. Maybe also his prior relationship with Mary.

And maybe also his claim that he was there at all that night. Maybe GH was just a flash in the pan....just like he appears historically.

Sarah Lewis had only hours earlier recited her story to a full room at the Inquest, and it had been published and talked about for 3 days before his appearance at the station...leaving the only aspect of his story that some people are willing to continue to believe despite the discrediting of the source generally by the authorities, is that he was actually there watching the court that night, and using Sarahs description, that he may have been wearing a Wideawake Hat. Does that make him any kind of a suspect in even the most generous use of the word?

Knowing that they thought he fabricated his story, not just parts of it apparently....why then would we care who signed the 1911 census,...whether THE Hutch that made the statement or some other GH.

If GH's statement was not relevant in the opinion of the investigators, then it should not be to us....there is nothing that has come to light in 120 years since that time regarding this man that suggests any kind of involvement in a crime other than his falsifying a statement to Police. If the contention is that Fleming was Hutchinson, then all we would need to entertain that idea is some form of proof or compelling evidence that suggests and supports that supposition...but we dont have that,... and in my opinion, we never will.

Being willing to explore a false claim like the Maybrick Diary is an individuals choice, but it shouldnt be confused with pursuing leads related to the suspects in the Ripper crimes.

Best regards all.

[Ben]

Hi Ally,

I'm not sure what you mean by the "wrong" direction. A left H bar that curves inwards is an ornamental feature designed to make the letter look prettier when capitalized. On a miniscule scale, the need for ornamentation is not only rendered pointless but rather difficult, so it is apt to be rejected in favour of a conventional "H".

[Ally]

Ben.

There is a curve. It is in the WRONG direction. It is not a matter of two simple bars. The curve occurs in the WRONG direction. If he were using limited space and there were a curve, it would still be in the CORRECT direction, just lessened. It is not a straight bar. It is curved. In the WRONG direction.

[Ben]

But as Bob observed, the larger Abberline H was far more "florid" in design, and such detail is more difficult to create on a very small scale. Two vertical bars with a cross bar simply does the job quicker. It is likely that Hutchinson himself altered between ornamental "H"s and conventional ones.

[Ally]

Embroidery yes, basic format, no. There's a curve to the letter in the H. It's in the WRONG direction to his usual. He completely changed the DIRECTION of the curve because of limited space? No. I don't think so. The curve might have been lessened, but the direction changed? There is no need.