No announcement yet.

George William Topping Hutchinson Records

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Garry Wroe View Post
    What I'm expecting, FM, is that at some point someone will notice the similitude of the Toppy signatures and then compare this to the lack of consistency in the three Hutchinson signatures - one of which is even signed 'Geo Hutchinson'.

    That would be a start, at least.
    there is something seriously wrong with the statement signatures for sure, all 3 of them could indeed have been signed by the police.

    JTR has no reason not to sign them, because for me it's dead easy to alter my sig too, i write sloping steeply, but i can easily change this to vertical, but if i do so; all 3 sigs will still look the same.
    these dont, reasons for variations could be due to writing on unevan surface, nervs, freezing cold fingers, or creased paper.

    all the rest of this GH stuff is of little use to us, unless of course you did up something really dodgy about him


    • I tracked down the baptismal records for two of Toppy’s children (I have already reproduced the baptismal record for his eldest son George).

      His second child was called Albert Thomas Hutchinson.
      He was baptised on 31st January 1900 in St Paul’s Church, Southwark – which was in Newington, a mile or so south of Barbel Street, which seems slightly strange as it was a different parish and different Registration District to where they lived.
      They were living at 10 Barbel Street, the same address that they were listed at in April 1898 when their firstborn George was baptised.
      Barbel Street it will be remembered was the worst street in that area of inner south London.
      Click image for larger version

Name:	toppy son albert baptism a.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	29.2 KB
ID:	663012
      His third child was called Florence Clara Jane Hutchinson.
      She was baptised on 22nd September 1903, but had been born on 28th August 1903.
      Now they were living at 44 Grove Road and the baptism took place at the ‘family’ church – Holy Trinity on Morgan Street.
      This document allowed me to find Toppy in the electoral register at 44 Grove Road. The slightly odd thing being that he doesn’t appear on the electoral register for that address until 1905.
      Click image for larger version

Name:	toppy daughter florence baptism.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	28.7 KB
ID:	663013


      • I have checked the electoral register for Mile End Old Town and Toppy only appears under 44 Grove Road in 1905 and 1906. After this he either moved or neglected to put himself down.

        In the 1911 census his children are listed as being born as follows:

        George William in 1898, Westminster. It would seem that they were living at Barbel Street which is in Southwark, but just off Westminster Bridge Road. Most people don’t know the intricacies of local government nor of ecclesiastical parish boundaries so perhaps he assumed it was in Westminster.

        Albert Thomas in 1900, Westminster. Again they were actually living in Barbel Street in Southwark.

        Florence Clara Jane in 1903, Mile End. This tallies.

        Leonard in 1906, Bethnal Green. Where in Bethnal Green I have no idea, but this explains why they aren’t listed at Grove Road any more.

        William in 1907, Stratford. This can be taken to imply that they weren’t at Tuscan Street in 1906, but had merely neglected to go onto the electoral register until 1910 They seem to have gone to Bethnal Green in 1906, then Stratford in 1907 and then back to Bethnal Green by 1910. I think this may be William Percy Hutchinson who was born on 15th November 1907 and who was the father of two children killed in the Bethnal Green Tube Disaster, and who himself died in December 1991 in Hackney.

        Clara Adelaide in 1909, Bethnal Green. I suspect she was born soon after they moved into Tuscan Street. She appeared on the electoral register at Tuscan Street in 1931, soon after her 21st birthday.

        Two and possibly three children followed the 1911 census.
        Mary – born before 1915. I base this on her appearance on the electoral register in 1936.
        Reginald Ernest – born 20th March 1916 and died January 1997. The familiar ‘Reg’.
        David Knott has said there was another younger son born after Reg, who may still be alive.


        • I have checked the electoral registers for Southwark West for every year between 1895 and 1904.
          In 1905 Toppy is on the electoral register at 44 Grove Road, Mile End Old Town.
          Both 10 Barbel Street and 80 Tower Street (where Toppy was listed in the 1901 census) are in Southwark West.

          It is clear that he was living at either address at least from 1898 to 1901. This confirms my suspicion about Toppy having a casual attitude towards form filling.
          There is nothing at all for Toppy... except this one entry...
          Click image for larger version

Name:	toppy electoral register 1902.JPG
Views:	1
Size:	224.8 KB
ID:	663014
          It is for 1902.
          He was living as a lodger at 80 Tower Street.
          His rent was 6s 6d. per week which is just over 11d. per day.
          The Toppy family was living in two unfurnished rooms on the first floor (they would have provided their own furniture).
          The landlord, Charles Turner, lived in the remainder of the dwelling and was also on the electoral register.
          This wasn’t a common lodging house. The Toppy family were lodgers in someone else’s house.


          • Acting on a suggestion by RJ Palmer, I looked up Toppy on the 1921 census.

            Here’s his signature. I’ll transcribe the census details and post them here and on the forums later.
            Attached Files


            • Many thanks, Gary. That was quick work.

              Here are the signatures from George Hutchinson's witness statement, as gathered together by Gary Wroe on another thread.

              For those that might not recall, a document examiner suggested that "Toppy" wasn't the same George Hutchinson, but others were convinced that she had been given a document that was actually signed by a registrar and not by George William Topping himself.

              Click image for larger version  Name:	Gary Wroe.JPG Views:	0 Size:	17.6 KB ID:	782066

              Post #161 on this same thread.

              Last edited by rjpalmer; 02-21-2022, 05:17 PM.


              • A more detailed examination of his various signatures can be found here by Sam Flynn, Post #38, and Paddy's follow-up, #40.

                Identifying Hutchinson - Casebook: Jack the Ripper Forums


                • I’ve created a thread on JTRForums for the census details. You get longer to amend posts over there. If no glaring errors are pointed out, I’ll put the details on a suitable thread on here too.

                  In the meantime…



                  • Originally posted by Lechmere View Post

                    I am piecing together records relating to Toppy to see how plausible it is that he could have been a groom-come-labourer in the Victoria
                    The signatures alone suggest to me that GWTH was not the George Hutchinson who signed the witness statement.

                    Back in the day, people wrote beautifully. Reading, writing and arithmetic were the order of the day. And so, writing was of far more importance and they wrote according to a broad standard. These days, our writing isn't deemed important and so we just scrawl as we see fit.

                    There are similarities but you would expect that in an age when writing was of more importance and written according to a broad standard.

                    But, the clue is in the G. The comparison shows a distinct departure. Look at your own signatures and how often is that first letter so clearly different.


                    • Originally posted by Fleetwood Mac View Post
                      Back in the day, people wrote beautifully. Reading, writing and arithmetic were the order of the day. And so, writing was of far more importance and they wrote according to a broad standard.
                      I don't know. Quite a bit of the 1891 census is virtually unreadable.


                      • Originally posted by Scott Nelson View Post

                        I don't know. Quite a bit of the 1891 census is virtually unreadable.
                        Maybe so. The signatures being compared aren't bad though.

                        That G is a problem I reckon.