Innocent, By George!

[DVV]

Now have a look at this and tell me it has been taken in the 20's or early 30's.

Or rather : don't, remembering Toppy was born in 1866 and died in 1938.

Looks like all is fake with Toppy.

[DVV]

Whilst that is certainly a possibility, Lechmere, I consider it extremely unlikely. The utchinson in all three signatures is virtually identical, with the similarity between the aitches being especially striking. Since this couldn't have occurred by accident, the signatures must have been written either by Hutchinson himself or someone who deliberately attempted to replicate his handstyle. If the latter, why was not the H accorded the same forger's attention as the utchinson? And why was there no attempt whatever to emulate the original rendering of George?

Thus I'm relatively confident that these were indeed Hutchinson's signatures, and am more than a little bewildered by the suggestion that Sue Iremonger believes one of them to have been written by Badham. All the more reason why I'd like to examine Ms Iremonger's conclusions and methodology in a formal report.

Hi Garry, did Leander say something regarding a possible (or not) Badham signature ?

[GregBaron]

Pushing 100...

Speaking of age, did you realise Reg Hutchinson seems still to be alive? Found a genealogy online. He is listed as born in 1916.

If only he could be interviewed about his father.

That's astonishing Lynn. If only we could be so lucky. Must have been the good Whitechapel food that kept him going..........



Greg

[Garry Wroe]

Gary is quite correct to say that the neither of the Toppy-Hutchinson handwriting examinations stand up to proper scrutiny. One problem is that for Hutchinson we have three signatures, and it is quite possible that only one is actually Hutchinson’s.

Whilst that is certainly a possibility, Lechmere, I consider it extremely unlikely. The utchinson in all three signatures is virtually identical, with the similarity between the aitches being especially striking. Since this couldn't have occurred by accident, the signatures must have been written either by Hutchinson himself or someone who deliberately attempted to replicate his handstyle. If the latter, why was not the H accorded the same forger's attention as the utchinson? And why was there no attempt whatever to emulate the original rendering of George?

Thus I'm relatively confident that these were indeed Hutchinson's signatures, and am more than a little bewildered by the suggestion that Sue Iremonger believes one of them to have been written by Badham. All the more reason why I'd like to examine Ms Iremonger's conclusions and methodology in a formal report.

[lynn cates]

Reg H

Hello Greg. Speaking of age, did you realise Reg Hutchinson seems still to be alive? Found a genealogy online. He is listed as born in 1916.

If only he could be interviewed about his father.

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

Elders...

But for chaps like me, the greatest intrigue of the day happens upon waking up in the morning and finding that, inexplicably, we did not die the night before.

You must be older than Methuselah Lynn. While not ancient, I'm no multi-tasking, digitally obsessed youngster. Why they call moving into the last third of one's life middle aged I haven't quite figured out.

I think we should all post a photograph of ourselves and date of birth so others can show the proper respect due age or more likely, to see who they are bludgeoning.......


Greg

[lynn cates]

intrigue

Hello Simon. Thanks.

But for chaps like me, the greatest intrigue of the day happens upon waking up in the morning and finding that, inexplicably, we did not die the night before.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Lynn,

Not at all. I disagree with what Congreve said about University education.

I was merely set to be intrigued.

Regards,

Simon

[lynn cates]

Latin

Hello Simon. If I recall properly, the Greek characters translated the Latin phrase explaining his true birth name.

And you thought I was pedantic. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi All,

Wow! How this thread got from George Hutchinson to the marriage of Roslyn D'Onston Stephenson is a true feat of Ripperological gymnastics.

I'd just like to know what the strange Greek writing says.

Thanks.

Happy New Year,

Simon

[Debra A]

Donston's marriage certificate as another example:

Top one is the original entry from the parish register, complete with signatures and strange Greek writing under the signature, written by D'Onston himself and later deciphered with the help of Lynn Cates and Mark Ripper amongst others.

Bottom one (courtesy of How Brown) is a 'Certified copy of an entry of marriage given at the General Register Office, London. All made out in the same handwriting, the writer obviously being unable to decipher the Greek scrawl and just doing the best copy of it they could.

[Debra A]

Lechmere,
I just looked at one I ordered a couple of months back from the GRO and had forgotten about. It's a marriage from 1907 and the certificate is all made out in the same handwriting.

[Lechmere]

Debra – to an extent this is a semantic argument. Several forms were filled out and signatures applied. One was given to the couple, one kept at the church and one forward to the GRO – actually I think to the local registration office. Every copy I have (which is quite a lot) is a facsimile of the original document, with original individual signatures.

The copies that can be obtained from the GRO (or from a local office) are marked up:
CERTIFIED COPY OF AN ENTRY OF MARRIAGE
and
CERTIFIED to be a true copy of an entry in the certified copy of a register of Marriages in the Registration District of Whitechapel (or wherever).
And
WARNING: A CERTIFICATE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF IDENTITY
and
CAUTION: There are offences relating to falsifying or altering a certificate and using or possessing a false certificate.

If you lose your marriage certificate this is what you get.
There can be no doubt that the items obtained via the GRO or from a local office, are copies of the marriage certificate. That is why they are signed. They are also quite specifically called certificates – not a register.
The church copy is a register entry – an entry in the parish records – but it is to all intends and purposes the same as the certificate forwarded and retained by the GRO on a quarterly basis.

The GRO kept up quarterly alphabetic registers from the various certificates that were forwarded to them.

It would be quite understandable for Sue Iremonger to go to the GRO for a copy certificate – as that is exactly one of the services they provide. The copy certificates they provide are not documents cobbled together at a later date and signed routinely by other people – as that defeats the object of the marriage certificate exercise.

Death certificates are the only ones that I have seen that are not facsimiles – they tend to be re-typed.

[DVV]

Mary lives on and so does Elvis.

Lynn, you're too kind. Have a single malt.

[Bridewell]

The Last One?

Hey Scorpio,

Unfortunately for Hutchinson, he placed himself not only in the position of being the last one to see Mary alive, but by his own admission, also knew her personally

Cheers,
Adam.

Hi Adam,

He only placed himself in this position if you accept that Kelly was killed during the night, and that both Caroline Maxwell and Maurice Lewis were either lying or mistaken in their evidence. If we look only at their own evidence it is Maxwell, not Hutchinson, who is the individual placing themselves in the position of being the last one to see Mary alive.

Yours aye, Bridewell.