Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

George William Topping Hutchinson Records

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Ha! Well no I don't think so - I don't think the curate's handwriting is anything like Toppy's. I agree with Sue Iremonger on that one.

    Comment


    • Forgive me, Lechmere, but did you not imply that Sam and others had mistakenly believed the curate's rendering to have been that of Toppy?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Rubyretro View Post
        Lechmere -the George Hutchinson that I wish that you could find out more about is Bob Hinton's favourite : George Hutchinson "born 10th of December 1859 at 43 King David Lane Shadwell ". Making him aged 28 at the time of the murders.

        This one suddenly interests me alot because according to Bob, George's father Joseph was a 'licensed victualler'. A term that could no doubt cover
        anything from a one room 'beer shop' to a coaching inn...

        One of the latter, that I've read about, had stalls for 22 horses. There MIGHT -possibly- be a link there with our 'Groom'...(very logical for a child whose Father had stalls for visiting horses, to be put to work in the Stables...).

        Otherwise, Bob has this George Hutchinson working as a barman at the 'John of Jerusalem' pub in Rosaman Street, Clerkenwell in 1881.

        I'm sure that I have read that amongst the jobs that Hutchinson -the witness- had done, one was 'humping beer barrels'...(not suggesting that is a 'barman'...there is a tentative connection though).

        Bob might have found all there is to be found.....but maybe it's worth another crack ????
        yea this is the guy to look at.

        i dont think Toppy is our GH, he's too young plus the signatures are still very dodgy.... JTR is more mature and has a fixated grudge, that has built up over a period of time, this is not a young 22 year old nipper !

        JTR is cynical, sarcastic, hateful and this maybe reflects a tough life, Toppy is maybe too young to be feeling like this.

        none of the suspects seen are as young as Toppy, i would put JTR between 27 and 40.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post
          My view is not nearly so complicated, Lechmere. Hutchinson dictated a police statement that extended to three pages, each one of which was individually signed by Hutchinson.


          [ATTACH]12861[/ATTACH]

          Curiously, neither one of these signatures was especially similar to the other two. Indeed, from a stylistic perspective, they could have been penned by three different men.

          Although I have only ever seen copies of Toppy’s signatures, they appear to me to evidence consistency over time. Remarkable consistency, in point of fact. So how is it that in purportedly detailing a police statement Toppy managed to generate three significantly differing signatures in a single sitting?

          And why do those who would have Toppy as Abberline’s witness concentrate solely on just one of these three signatures – the specimen, as it happens, that bears the strongest resemblance to the Toppy examples?

          Worse still, I have even seen it argued that the Hutchinson and Toppy signatures are a perfect match if those elements that do not correspond are disregarded!

          The fact is that the signatures do not match. Look at the distinctive second ‘h’ in Hutchinson’s surname. Look at the opening ‘G’ in George. Look at the direction of the tail in the final ‘n’ in Hutchinson. These elements remain consistent in Hutchinson’s signatures but are nowhere to be found in the Toppy examples.

          They do not match.

          Except, of course, if you disregard those elements that do not correspond.

          Then they do.

          And if that seems ridiculous, welcome to my world.
          these signatures dont match at all, if H signed all 3 then they should look the same, or much closer.. my guess is one of these belongs to H and the other 2 are done by the police.

          but which is H depends on who is H

          but it's most likely that H signed the first or last page.

          Comment


          • I believe that Sam Flynn proved (quite brilliantly I should add) that all 3 were from the same hand.

            Before Sam's great analysis, I don't think anyone knew for sure (other than Rosey O'Ryan) whether those 3 signatures were from the same person or not. But in my opinion, Sam proved they were.

            Whether they were from Toppy's hand, or not, is still up for debate.

            Marlowe

            Comment


            • Err no Garry not at all. I said this:

              “The one reproduced on the ‘Hutch in the 1911 Census’ thread by Sam Flynn (on page 16, post 167) would be the version held by Tower Hamlets Registry Office (and which can obtained via the National Archives). It clearly does not include an authentic Toppy signature – it was completed in full (including the ‘signatures’) by the curate. It wasn’t a modern reproduction as erroneously claimed by one or two people in that thread.
              It seems likely that this is the version obtained by Sue Iremonger back in 1992.
              I don’t believe the parish record version would have been easily available back in 1992. Without any other records to compare – eg the 1911 census – it is understandable why she may have not smelt a rat when looking at the marriage certificate ‘signature’.”


              The argument that was most loudly put forward in the ‘Hutch in the 1911 Census’ thread – and not by Sam Flynn – was that the wedding certificate he acquired was a modern reproduction and that Sue Iremonger wouldn’t have been fooled by such a document, and that therefore she must have seen a different version.
              In fact it clearly wasn’t a modern reproduction but merely had been completed in full, including the ‘signature’ sections, by the curate at the time. Without having any other genuine ‘Toppy’ signature as a basis for comparison, it is easy to see how Sue Iremonger may well have thought the curate’s ‘forgery’ was the real thing and hence her finding that it didn’t match the Hutchinson signatures from 1888.
              I am not absolutely saying that is what happened as she may conceivably have obtained the copy which I put up on this thread which does have a genuine Toppy signature. However I tend to think it is more likely that she obtained the same version as Sam Flynn as that one would have been more readily available in 1992 I think.

              Sue Iremonger believed that the first of the three 1888 signatures was by another hand but I tend to agree with Sam Flynn on this issue.

              Comment


              • Curiouser and Curiouser..

                Moving on.

                Ruby

                As I understand it, Bob's Hutchinson demonstrates an insufficiently convincing signature match. In other words, it ain't him.

                Or so I'm told.

                Carry on...

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Lechmere View Post
                  Sue Iremonger believed that the first of the three 1888 signatures was by another hand but I tend to agree with Sam Flynn on this issue.
                  As do I, Lechmere. Which only reinforces my point that whereas the three statement signatures are stylistically divergent, Toppy's exhibit consistency over many years.

                  Comment


                  • Well we only have one Toppy signature from 1898 to compare with his census return of 1911 so far as I am aware, which isn't much to base a long term trend on.
                    But I'm not going to get into that until I've completed looking at Toppy through the records and there is a lot more to go through yet.
                    Once I have all the samples of handwriting I will probably start a new thread to discuss that as it is a slightly different topic.

                    Comment


                    • Then I'm confused, Lechmere. As far as I'm aware Fish sent a whole bunch of Toppy signatures to Frank Leander. These are the examples to which I refer when mentioning consistency over time.

                      Comment


                      • Uhuh.

                        Right then. First off, this ill-informed nonsense regarding bmd copies. Lechmere, you surely must understand that the 'copy' of Mr Hutchinson's wedding certificate is in fact a copy of the bmd register entry for the event made subsequent to the event (required by law from 1837)? No?

                        This in distinction from the original marriage certificate, which was written into the parish register at the time of the event - it's a parish record. Different things. So no, evidently (and dare I say, obviously) the two would not be the same, and no, nobody would expect to find 'Toppy' writing his name on the former. The idea that a professional working with historic documents would be unaware of the difference is on the wrong side of ludicrous mate. Sorry, but there it is. Nice try though

                        You speak of the parish registers being "unavailable" in 1992. To whom? Please explain. And your evidence for this please. Or is it another guess?

                        Moving on. This idea floating about that one of the witness signatures on the statement was written by somebody else (other than the witness) is intriguing. All I want to ask is what the rationale for this contention is? Why, in other words? If we accept that the witness signed for himself - which is obviously the case - then why not on every page? There is no obvious reason to think that a police officer would have signed for him on one occasion - and in fact wouldn't that make his statement null and void? It makes no sense that I can see.

                        So? For what reason? I'm curious.

                        Comment


                        • Garry - Fisherman no doubt sent copies of Toppy's signature from 1911 - you were saying that his signature didn't change over time , so if Fisherman sent varieties of the 1911 signature and maybe a single 1898 example then that isn't much of a selection to illustrate change over time - is it ?
                          This is rather laboured or am I the only one to think so?

                          Sally I will go through your rather typically ill
                          Tempered response next week with examples.
                          Last edited by Lechmere; 10-15-2011, 01:23 PM.

                          Comment


                          • Sally I will go through your rather typically I'll tempered response next week with examples.
                            It's Saturday morning Lechmere, what do you expect? Sunshine and roses?

                            But sure. Give yourself plenty of time. There's no rush from this end.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Marlowe View Post
                              I believe that Sam Flynn proved (quite brilliantly I should add) that all 3 were from the same hand.

                              Before Sam's great analysis, I don't think anyone knew for sure (other than Rosey O'Ryan) whether those 3 signatures were from the same person or not. But in my opinion, Sam proved they were.

                              Whether they were from Toppy's hand, or not, is still up for debate.

                              Marlowe
                              maybe, but i cant imagine why, those signatures are totally different.

                              2 of them look like they're spelt wrong and the third looks like an N corrected to an H, they only look similar because the writing is sloping in the same direction and the first G looks similar.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Malcolm X View Post
                                maybe, but i cant imagine why, those signatures are totally different.

                                2 of them look like they're spelt wrong and the third looks like an N corrected to an H, they only look similar because the writing is sloping in the same direction and the first G looks similar.

                                Hi Malcolm X

                                Ok - so if the three are 'totally different' - are we thinking they could all be written by different people?

                                And if so, why?

                                I would have thought it might have been usual for a witness to sign his own witness statement - if he couldn't write, then at least to have made a mark - as is the case with other legal documents.

                                Seriously, I am curious - for what reason would another person - in this case I presume a police officer - sign a witness statement on behalf of the witness, either on one or all occasions - wouldn't it invalidate the statement?

                                Perhaps somebody who knows more about such things than I do can help here - any ideas anyone?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X