The signatures..a reason?

[Phil Carter]

Hello all,

I have decided to go down THIS rocky road, as it bothers me..
I have read through some, not all of the previous threads about "Hutch" and see just (possibly) one simple solution to his signature..

His real name isn't George Hutchinson. And he is not used to writing it.

If that is a false name, and remember it isn't like today where you have to give proof of your identity, it would explain any differences in the way he wrote his name. IF he wrote his name on more than one occasion that is.

I suspect, given the problems trying to even trace him, before and after 1888, that George Hutchinson, friend of MJK didn't actually exist. His statement is questionable as he himself only says that he knew Kelly over a long period of time. No one, not one person in this case, has said they know this man. And he says he wanders around Whitchapel at night, in and out of pubs? He would have be known..by Mary's friends. She would have talked about him to them. Women talk about men. Period.

So I invite you all to comment on the above.

best wishes and a Happy New Year to you all!!

Phil

[DVV]

His real name isn't George Hutchinson. And he is not used to writing it.

Phil

Hi Phil,

You may well be right...
In fact, I think you are.
Despite all that has been said on the Big Thead, I still consider Hutch an assumed name.
Some may be reluctant to post again on the signatures issue, I don't know...
I'm personally always glad with Hutch.
But this thread could also end in a Fleming's discussion.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

I now have little doubt that Hutchinson was whom he claimed to be - at least in respect of name!

[Phil Carter]

Gareth,

I am probably going to regret this, but

why, re names you are positive?and

why re something else, do you doubt?

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

I now have little doubt that Hutchinson was whom he claimed to be - at least in respect of name!

Why does Hutch's acquaintance with Mary fits so perfectly the little we know about her and Fleming ?
You're welcome to note similarities between the signatures.
But the points that could identify Hutch with Fleming are equally striking, if not more.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

why, re names you are positive?

Because I have no doubt - whatsoever - that Hutchinson's and Topping's signatures are those of the same person.

why re something else, do you doubt?

Everything in the stories he told the police and newspapers, apart from his name and address.

[Phil Carter]

Because I have no doubt - whatsoever - that Hutchinson's and Topping's signatures are those of the same person.Everything in the stories he told the police and newspapers, apart from his name and address.

Gareth,

Fair do's. The Topping signature is compelling, I admit.

The question about Topping being in Whitechapel, and why, is a little different though. If Topping was our George, is there any corrobrative proof we can back up his son's story with?

best wishes

Phil

[DVV]

Everything in the stories he told the police and newspapers, apart from his name and address.

One has to admit that Toppy, if Hutch, would be an absolute and sinister mystery.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

Phil,

We have the son as the only person coming forward and making the claim about his father. We also have the signatures and the dearth of other Hutchinson possibilities. At this point we are down to the extreme possibility that these were two different people, with one creating the alias of George Hutchinson and with a matching signature, making it a cunning plan, or another George Hutchinson who got while the getting was good, never to appear on English shores (or censuses) again. You choose which one is the most likely for you. I'll take the son and everything else, corroboration or not.

Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I believe, and have always believed Topping to have been the witness, and I also believe he was paid for his service, the only point I do not understand is what this service consisted of.
It had to have been more then just a walkabout, or two.
He apparently never came clean on this.
Why?
Regards Richard.

[DVV]

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is about "Hutchinson" as an assumed name, and Phil's postulate necessarily excludes Toppy from the discussion - if it is still possible.

Hoping so, let's come back to Monday 12 Nov 1888.

Inquest, Barnett: "She told me that in Pennington Street she lived at one time with a Morganstone, and with Joseph Fleming, she was very fond of him. (...) Fleming used to visit her."

Abberline's report, same day: "He [Hutch] had known her about 3 years".

Inquest, Julia Venturney: "Deceased said she was very fond of another man named Joe [Fleming] who used to come and see her and give her money..."

Abberline's report: "He [Hutch] informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings..."

Now we have 2 men who knew Mary for about 3 years...
And from another district.
Quite extraordinary : both men were still in touch with Mary in Whitechapel, 1888.

More extraordinay still, George Hutchinson and Joe Fleming were both residents of the Victoria Home, at the time of the murders.


And we can add, as Phil did, that after Hutch had come forward, none of Mary's friends confirmed that she had known a nice and generous guy called Hutchinson, though I have no doubt that the subject of money/men was often discussed between fellow prostitutes.
As to Fleming, he was to use an alias in 1892, and ended his days at Claybury Mental Hospital.

If these elements, Toppy or not Toppy, aren't worth a discussion, well...I wouldn't know what to think...
Kosminski, who also died in an asylum, would be a far more popular suspect than he is, had he been at a time about to marry Mary...

Amitiés all,
David

[joelhall]

As far as I'm concerned, this thread is about "Hutchinson" as an assumed name, and Phil's postulate necessarily excludes Toppy from the discussion - if it is still possible.

Hoping so, let's come back to Monday 12 Nov 1888.

Inquest, Barnett: "She told me that in Pennington Street she lived at one time with a Morganstone, and with Joseph Fleming, she was very fond of him. (...) Fleming used to visit her."

Abberline's report, same day: "He [Hutch] had known her about 3 years".

Inquest, Julia Venturney: "Deceased said she was very fond of another man named Joe [Fleming] who used to come and see her and give her money..."

Abberline's report: "He [Hutch] informed me that he had occasionally given the deceased a few shillings..."

Now we have 2 men who knew Mary for about 3 years...
And from another district.
Quite extraordinary : both men were still in touch with Mary in Whitechapel, 1888.

More extraordinay still, George Hutchinson and Joe Fleming were both residents of the Victoria Home, at the time of the murders.


And we can add, as Phil did, that after Hutch had come forward, none of Mary's friends confirmed that she had known a nice and generous guy called Hutchinson, though I have no doubt that the subject of money/men was often discussed between fellow prostitutes.
As to Fleming, he was to use an alias in 1892, and ended his days at Claybury Mental Hospital.

If these elements, Toppy or not Toppy, aren't worth a discussion, well...I wouldn't know what to think...
Kosminski, who also died in an asylum, would be a far more popular suspect than he is, had he been at a time about to marry Mary...

Amitiés all,
David

ive suspected this for the last couple of years also.

certain parts of the statement (such as his giving her money, and his shaky grounds for being there at that time of night, and his following her and keeping an eye on her and this gentleman) made me first suspect this link, and indeed i believe that fleming/hutch is a very good candidate for kelly murder, and took his opportunity feeling confident that barnett wasnt likely to return anytime soon. i believe he gave the false name knowing the police would most likely want to question 'fleming'.

just a theory of course. ill explain more at a later date, but i feel fairly confident that he was responsible.

[DVV]

My very thoughts, Joel,

Hutch and Fleming's respective relationships with Kelly seem to me similar enough to deserve a discussion.
Just as Toppy and Hutch signatures looked similar enough to be debated.

Just a theory ? Certainly. But certainly not the worst.

We'll see.

Amitiés,
David

[Phil Carter]

Hello Richard, David, Gareth, Michael, all,

If not already said, Happy New Year to you all!

I started this thread because it bothers me. It bothers me because of the reliance on those signatures to prove/disprove George Hutchinson's true identity. Whether he be George Hutchinson, George Topping Hutchinson, Joseph Fleming or someone else, as yet unnamed and unknown.

Those are the 4 possibilities.

Right. Lets take a look at each of them.

1. George Hutchinson is George Hutchinson.

We have, apparently, his signature. Yet being able to verifiably find and identify him, is not only difficult, it has taken the best minds we have, including the very much respected Chis Scott.
Two important anomilies I feel need to be looked at here.

A) In Abberline's report of Hutchinson and his statement, Abberline notes that Hutchinson is "at present in no regular employment". In the Daily News article, Hutchinson was "a Groom by trade, now working as a labourer".

Hang on. Abberline says at present, meaning as of this precise moment in time.
The Daily News says now working meaning as of this precise moment in time.

Both cannot be correct. Either he is working, or he isn't. Either Abberline has been told the truth, or he hasn't. Either the Daily News have been told the truth, or they haven't. One thing is, at present certain. In the 1891 census, we cannot find any George Hutchinson working as a Groom.

B) George Hutchinson's statements, to the police, and to the press, vary. Alarmingly so. To Abberline the man he saw is of specifically "Jewish appearance". To the press, the man he saw is of just "foreign appearance".
This variation is crucial. Because it would seem from this statement seen on it's own, that Hutchinson is far more specific in his description to the police than to the press. However, other points in both statements reveal the complete opposite. The red stone hanging from the watch chain isn't mentioned in the police report, but IS in the press report, and the discrepancy over dark eyes and eyelashes stated to the police, yet dark eyes and eyebrows to the press.
That red stone observation, together with the watch, is very important indeed. It would certainly give a definitive thing for EVERY person, policeman or not, to be on the lookout for. Yet to the police, it isn't mentioned.
Now why would anyone, with a GENUINE interest in identifying Mary's killer, NOT tell the EXPERTS, the police, this crucial detail? He was supposedly Mary's good friend. His interests therefore must have been centered upon giving the police every possible chance and clue to get this killer.
That, in my mind, raises questions both about his ability, and his motives for supplying detailed information to the police. Which calls into question, whether he is a reliable witness. Did he tell the CORRECT version of himself and what he saw to the police, or to the press? And if his reliability is questioned, then I maintain his identity also can be questioned.

There has also been questions raised as to the authenticity og the signatures of this George Hutchinson. Were they both written by the man himself?

2) George Hutchinson is George Topping Hutchinson.

Here, we have a named person, "Topping's" son, come forward and positively identify the George Hutchinson we have looked for for 100 years, and indeed coming forward and declaring his father's true identity.
When considering this, the FIRST thing I would look at is the way the information came forward. And here, I maintain, there is room for great worry, right from the start.
In his excellent book, Chris Scott writes..
"....One allegedly firm indentification of Hutchinson was made by Melvyn Fairclough in his book "The Ripper and the Royals". This was first published in 1991.
It doesn't need to be spelt out, but that very source must surely give us great reason to be extremely wary of this identification. The book, pilloried from many a direction, with it's basis lying heavily in Joseph Gorman's/Sickert'stale previously put into print by Stephen Knight, is a book that the author HIMSELF has now since shied away from. I maintain that anything new at all coming from those directions should warrant extreme caution. Like Netley in Stephen Knight's book, and Joseph Gorman's/Sickert's tale, Topping DID exist. The resemblance between the these two presentations, as further truth to compliment, or to confirm the veracity of the tale, is to my mind, worryingly striking.
However, census results tell us more. This George Hutchinson is neither a Groom nor a labourer. He is a plumber. In census after census. Occupation: plumber. On the positive side, there is a connection I can see of strength. Romford, Essex. In his statement, George Hutchinsom claimed to have walked back from Romford, and in some press reports, from visiting his sister in Romford. Topping does have the family ties with towns in Essex, Hornchurch and Chelmsford.
And then we have the signature. Some experts, Ripperologists and historians and researchers, maintain that the signature of George Toping Hutchinson clearly resembles CLOSELY the given signature of George Hutchinson from 1888. Some do not, infact some see decided differences.
The point I have about these signatures is that IF George Hutchinson from 1888 is NOT to be regarded with 100% reliability, then his signature cannot be regarded as 100% reliable either. Therefore I question his identity. Therefore, I cannot accept at present that the George Topping Hutchinson IS George Hutchinson from 1888.. whatever these signatures look like.

3) George Hutchinson is Joseph Fleming/James Evans
Do we have a comparison of Flemings/Evans signature to that of BOTH George Hutchinson AND George Topping Hutchinson? This is surely crucial, if we are going to see any reliable connection, by written hand, of this possibility. Having said that, there are other factors, such as both Fleming and Hutchinson stating that they both lived at the Victoria Home. That alone, is quite a co-incidence indeed! Together with that, BOTH these names have been linked CLOSELY to the victim, on a friendly/personal level. Also, Fleming did later use an alias, James Evans.
There are questions against this (Hutchinson = Fleming/Evans) claim resting in the archives from Fleming/Evans time inside an asylum, where it is stated that he is 6ft 5". This entry is followed by the written word (sic). And the question as to why this addition is put in is also questioned. Obviously, a 6ft 5" man could NOT be George Hutchinson from 1888

4) George Hutchinson is an unnamed or unknown person.

The possibilty of Hutchinson being an unknown man, who is the killer, or even an undercover source working for the police has been aired. In relation to the signature however, if the answer is either, then the signature of George Hutchinson MUST be in question to start with. That is where this thread comes in.
I question George Hutchinson's varying witness statements.
I question his varying job descriptions
I therefore question his reliability
I therefore question the signature given
I therefore question his identity.
I therefore believe he is NOT George Hutchinson.
I question whether he is or isn't the killer of the Miller's Court victim.
I question his role in the Dorset Street scenario.
Why?
Because of his unreliability in his statements and descrepancies given to the police and the press in the first place. And the known fact that both killers and undercover police informants both invariably use aliases.

That is why this thread has been started. Discrepancies in signatures make me suspicious.

best wishes, and thank you for reading this.

Phil

[DVV]

Hi Phil,

as I said, your postulate does exclude Toppy from the discussion.
Not to say that we don't keep in mind that Hutch could be Toppy.
But your point is precisely about other possibilities.

I don't think neither we should question here the reliability of Hutch as a witness. It has been done so many times... and it would make us loose the point.

Amitiés,
David