George William Topping Hutchinson Records

[The Good Michael]

Oops! Forgot the link, but as Lechmere says, it was done to death and drove good people from the boards and included visitations by lunatics posing as document examiners. No names need to be mentioned.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Good Michael - I wasn't going to say anything! That discussion was done to death before it seems and a little imagination can provide potential answers.
I will however check out the alternative Hutchinson as it will not take long and it will be as well to have it clearly shown that none of the other candidates are runners, as these things keep cropping up again and again.

[Malcolm X]

Yes the last 2 look more similar but the Hs look wrong, this could be due to a irregular writing surface/ creased up paper/ pen semi blocked/ nervousness, who knows.

the area :- ``INSON `` of Hutchinson looks very similar

[The Good Michael]

Sally,

If you go here and look at JMenges post, you'll see what was said about the statement signatures.

To be brief, a handwriting analyst said that the first signature (page 1) was done by Sgt Badham. Why? Probably as an afterthought because he forgot to have it signed.

Unfortunately, there is no answer to why, only surmise. It suffices that the last two signatures are sufficently similar to GWTH's that this combined with the fact that there are no other candidates from the same area (East End) of similar ages who come close to matching signatures, makes this GWTH a shoo-in as the witness until someone can disprove it. That doesn't seem a likely occurence.

Mike

PS. Sorry Lechmere for replying. I hope I said about what you would have.

[Sally]

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?

[Malcolm X]

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.

[Sally]

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.

[Lechmere]

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.

[Sally]

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.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

[Lechmere]

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.

[Garry Wroe]

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.

[Sally]

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...

[Lechmere]

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.

[Marlowe]

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