George William Topping Hutchinson Records

[Sally]

If it is of little concern to you and is a waste of time, then why are you bothering commenting... oh yes I know why.

If my 'mental leapfrogging’ concerns you a tiny bit (and no more) then why don't you offer different explanations to describe the documents? Instead you blunder in with ill-informed and aggressive crass interventions about what is and what isn't a lodging house or what documents from the GRO are like. You merely showcase your ignorance.
It's OK - I know why.

Lechmere. No you don't, obviously. But sure, thanks for your view. I'll bear it in mind.

[Garry Wroe]

Garry ... Are you expecting an exact match? That's too much to ask.

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.

[Lechmere]

If it is of little concern to you and is a waste of time, then why are you bothering commenting... oh yes I know why.

If my 'mental leapfrogging’ concerns you a tiny bit (and no more) then why don't you offer different explanations to describe the documents? Instead you blunder in with ill-informed and aggressive crass interventions about what is and what isn't a lodging house or what documents from the GRO are like. You merely showcase your ignorance.
It's OK - I know why.

[Sally]

Sally – I made it abundantly clear that it is a guess on my part - I didn’t pretend otherwise - if you read what I have said about the copy that Sue Iremonger worked off. I most clearly wasn’t being dogmatic about it.
Nevertheless I would maintain that the most logical conclusion, in the absence of any other information, is that Sue Iremonger did work off the GRO copy as whether you like it or not that would have been the most readily accessible copy in pre-internet days. To deny that it was the most accessible copy is preposterous.

Backtrack. Supposition. Speculation. Baseless. Or as near as dammit is to swearing.

Also, although Brown’s signature is a fair match to the writing on the rest of that form, it is not so close that it is impossible for it to be a different hand.
I think that raising the possibility that Sue Iremonger may have examined the GRO copy is a fair point to make.

Backtrack. And ridiculous to boot. As already pointed out.

So far as 'agendas' go Sally, what happened to your claims about ‘ill-informed nonsense’?
Your ‘agenda’ is clearly seen by the tone of your comments which have all the appearance of someone thoughtlessly lashing out when their position is threatened. At least that’s how it seems to me.

How it seems to you, Lechmere, is of little concern to me. What does concern me a tiny bit (and really, no more than that) is your endless mental leapfrogging in order to present conclusions which you've obviously already decided upon. It shouldn't work like that. If you enjoy this Toppy stamp-collecting then sure, knock yourself out - but so far, you haven't added anything to your argument. I think all you're doing is attempting to create yet more factoids in this matter.

Jeez - I have no idea why you care so much. No, wait, actually I do. How tedious. And how futile. It won't matter how many documents you post without permission on this forum Lechmere - unless you have something which amounts to evidence to further support your case, it's all a waste of time.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Just looked at Sam Flynns's comparison, and the Toppy v Hutch is more of a match than my own three I did within seconds of one another.

To me, there is enough to say Toppy was Hutch.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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

Then they do.

And if that seems ridiculous, welcome to my world.

Garry,

Are you expecting an exact match? That's too much to ask.

I've just written my signature three times, and there are similarities and dissimilarities. Surely that is to be expected?

For a start, I doubt Hutchinson was writing his signature day in day out, so the chances are that he wouldn't have perfected it to the point his signatures always looked the same.

Try doing three of your own and see what they look like.

There are enough similarities in the Utchinson to make them a match for me.

[Lechmere]

Sally – I made it abundantly clear that it is a guess on my part - I didn’t pretend otherwise - if you read what I have said about the copy that Sue Iremonger worked off. I most clearly wasn’t being dogmatic about it.
Nevertheless I would maintain that the most logical conclusion, in the absence of any other information, is that Sue Iremonger did work off the GRO copy as whether you like it or not that would have been the most readily accessible copy in pre-internet days. To deny that it was the most accessible copy is preposterous.

Also, although Brown’s signature is a fair match to the writing on the rest of that form, it is not so close that it is impossible for it to be a different hand.
I think that raising the possibility that Sue Iremonger may have examined the GRO copy is a fair point to make.
That’s all I will say as I don’t want to get involved in a handwriting debate here.

So far as 'agendas' go Sally, what happened to your claims about ‘ill-informed nonsense’?
Your ‘agenda’ is clearly seen by the tone of your comments which have all the appearance of someone thoughtlessly lashing out when their position is threatened. At least that’s how it seems to me.

[Sally]

Um...

Lechmere

However I believe Brown completed the fake copy in full.

Yes, Lechmere, the same person does appear to have filled out the whole of the 'fake' certificate, I'll grant you that. So, if you can spot that (and let's face it, it is bleedin obvious) what makes you think that Sue Iremonger couldn't have, eh? Oh dear.

Or do you think perhaps that she might have expected that 'Toppy' himself filled in the entire certificate, hmm? You certainly give the impression that you think nobody knows anything much except yourself.

And then there's this - As this would have been the most easily accessible certificate in 1992 it is a fair assumption that this was the one used by Sue Iremonger. She would have naturally assumed that it bore Toppy’s authentic signature as it was from a reliable source.

No, no, and no. Would it have been the most accessible certificate in 1992? Really? What, you think that in the days before those nice people at the National Archives digitised all those lovely marriage certficates (not 'wedding' certificates btw) and put them up on Ancestry for you to look at nobody could or did access the parish records? 1992 wasn't the Dark Ages y'knnow, and even then, in that dim and distant past, parish records were used routinely. What makes you think it would have been difficult?

So it isn't a 'fair assumption' at all. Assumption, certainly. You have no basis of evidence for your assumption, none whatever. As I guessed, you're guessing.

Careful, Lechmere, you're letting your agenda show.

[Lechmere]

My apologies Malcolm - that interlude was just to show the provenance of wedding certificates not the nature of Toppy's signatures.
I'm not going to discuss the merits or otherwise of Toppy's signatures relative to the Hutchinson witness statement here. In my opinion it would clutter up this thread which is already complicated enough.
When I have finished finding all the relevant documents I can relating to Toppy and his family then I'll start a new thread abvout handwriting, unless someone else does before.

[Malcolm X]

i'm sorry but what is all of this Lechmere uploaded stuff, it's now getting very confusing around here and it's too long winded to understand easily.

i would like to see so i can send off.

COLUMN A....... all of Toppy's known signatures

COULMN B.......Toppy's witness statement

you choose all of toppy's known signatures, because only you know and please upload these for me

[Malcolm X]

malcolm,

You're falling for tha BS that was thrown around last time. A document examiner is useful when detecting forgeries. In the case of looking at normal signatures, Sam was as good an expert as any, as are you and I. If we have reason to believe someone was purposefully disguising signatures so that they could trick us 120 years in the future, by all means bring someone in. Until then, my eyes are as good as any others.

Mike

i dont think the signatures are disguised at all, they simply look different from each other and this applies to Toppys signature too

[Lechmere]

If we look at the full page of the parish record, which shows four marriages, we can see that the same clerk compiled the general information on three out of the four certificates.
The Vicar of Holy Trinity was called James Greaves.
If Sally is interested she might wish to consult the Booth papers held at the London School of Economics Library as it contains an interview with the Reverend Greaves (B182, pp102-115).
Brown only officiated at Toppy’s marriage.
Greaves officiated at two marriages and the fourth was presided over by the curate who was called Green.
Green also seems to have filled out all the general details in the marriage he conducted. However this is perhaps explained by the following which appears after his name: Clerk in Holy Orders, curate.
As a minor point of interest, in the following year Green baptised Toppy’s first born and his wife at the same time.
Green had characteristically spidery handwriting which is quite unlike the neat handwriting used on Toppy’s genuine certificate and the two other certificates that appear on the same page.

This is extra evidence that Brown filled in the bogus certificate. It clearly isn’t in the hand writing of either the usual Holy Trinity Clerk, nor of Green and the Brown signature is a good match for the other writing on the bogus certificate.

As this would have been the most easily accessible certificate in 1992 it is a fair assumption that this was the one used by Sue Iremonger. She would have naturally assumed that it bore Toppy’s authentic signature as it was from a reliable source. However as we have seen reliable sources are not always reliable.

[Lechmere]

Now let’s have a look at Toppy’s marriage certificate from the parish records.

And compare it to the bits we can stick together from the version Sam Flynn obtained.

They are quite different.
It is clear from the parish record that H H Brown (the Vicar, Rector, Curate or whatever he was) did not fill out the main body of the parish record. That is in a neat precise script.
However I believe Brown completed the fake copy in full.

[Lechmere]

To hammer home the point here are another two marriage certificates relating to the same marriage.
One is from Parish records and the other from the General Register Office
Again it is abundantly clear that both were compiled at the same time and both were signed by the bride and groom and the Rector and the two witnesses – all of whom are literate this time.
Again I am certain that the Rector, John Draper, did not complete the general parts of the certificates. One of his clerks would have filled the form in ready for the wedding party and the Rector to sign after the exchange of vows.
This time the example is for the wedding of one of Charles Allen Lechmere’s sons – Thomas Allen Lechmere.
This Thomas Allen Lechmere died in the Bethnal Green Tube disaster in 1943, alongside two young Hutchinson infants who I have a hunch were Toppy’s grandchildren.
Here is the parish record.

And here is the version from the GRO.

You might notice that Charles Allen Lechmere (as a witness) signed his middle name differently on each certificate.
Also I am not certain that the Rector signed both – the signatures seem too different although the rest of the writing and the other signatures do match on each document.

This categorically shows us that the GRO copies are originals, signed by the participants - not office copies compiled later by clerks as Sally seemed to think for some reason.

[Lechmere]

Sally raised a couple of issues relating to the difference between copies of marriage certificates.
There are basically three sources for obtaining old marriage certificates.
1). From local parish records (now available on-line via Ancestry)
2). From the local register office (e.g. Tower Hamlets Register Office).
3). From the General Register Office.

The copy that Sam Flynn obtained was said to be from the National Archives, by which I presume he means from the General Registry Office. This would also be the ‘normal’ manner in which someone would obtain a copy of a marriage certificate in the pre-internet era.

What is the difference between the various copies?
None really.
They were all written out and signed at the time of the ceremony.
It was never the case that just one copy was written out – for example the parish register copy, and then clerks copied from that – as Sally seems to imagine.

At least one other copy was produced which was forwarded to the relevant local authority – which varied depending on what year the event happened, as local government developed.

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets, as the successor body for the various parishes and boroughs that made up the East End actually holds the physical certificates and copies can be obtained from them.

If you compare one of these certificates with a parish record version of the same certificate then it can instantly be seen that both were compiled at the same time yet were subsequently held at two different locations.

I am unsure whether the copy held at the General Register Office is a copy of the one held by the local authority or whether it is a third copy that was compiled at the time. Tower Hamlets has told me that the General Register Office holds a facsimile of the original that they hold, but I am not 100% convinced that this is the case.
In any event, the copy held by the General Register Office most certainly is not a copy that was re-written by someone else. At the very least it is an exact facsimile of the copy held by the local authority.

With record keeping sometimes people make mistakes or take short cuts. To cover up the error they may make things up, they might bend the rules or cheat a little.
Hence if an error was made during the signing at the actual wedding, then I am sure from time to time that someone else altogether will have written one of the copies of the certificate out in full.
Just as if a policeman neglected to get his witness to sign every sheet of paper, then sometimes it will happen that the policeman will ‘provide’ the missing signature.
These naughty things happen in the real world.

To prove my point – hopefully to Sally’s satisfaction - I will reproduce some certificates I have from various sources to illustrate how the process was conducted:

Firstly here are two versions of Charles Allen Lechmere’s marriage certificate - which I happen to have about my person.
The first pink version is from the Parish records.

The second version is from Tower Hamlets Register Office

The two are very clearly not the same document but are also both very clearly original and both are signed by Charles Allen Lechmere and signed by the vicar (everyone else was illiterate).
The general information was completed by the same person on both documents although if you look closely there are differences in the composition of certain words or letters.

Look at Lower Gun Alley and the middle name of Allen in Charles Allen Lechmere’s father’s name or the B of Batchelor. These differences naturally occur in most people’s handwriting.

However I doubt that the vicar compiled it – he will almost certainly have had a clerk who did this sort of donkey work.
The vicar was James Maconechy of Balliol College, Oxford.