George William Topping Hutchinson Records

[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

[Malcolm X]

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.

[Malcolm X]

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.

[Garry Wroe]

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?

[Lechmere]

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.

[Garry Wroe]

But I am more interested to find out whether indeed Sue Iremonger’s analysis was based on the marriage certificate which clearly doesn’t bear Toppy’s signature. I suspect we won’t find out at this passage of time but it does call into question the expert analysis which discounted the connection.

Assuming your interpretation to be correct, Lechmere, it means that we can add the curate's signature to that of the census enumerator as examples of how unrelated individuals have rendered the name 'George Hutchinson' in a handstyle that closely approximates that of Toppy. In other words, the similarities between the Hutchinson and Toppy signatures aren't as significant as some would have us believe.

[Lechmere]

There are many reasons why someone’s signature on different occasions may look dissimilar. For example you may not be sitting perpendicular to the piece of paper and so writing at a forced angle. You may be hurried, just getting it out the way.
The marriage certificate signatures are likely to be careful.
The census ones careful but by rote – like doing lines at school.
The police ones, hurried and probably skew-whiff.
Similarly at the age of 22 he may well not have had cause to write anything since leaving school at 14. Whereas by his later life he may have had to regularly write estimates and so forth.
My youthful signature is similar but different to my current one. As you get older changes become less pronounced so one would expect to find less differences between 1898 and 1911 then between 1888 and 1898.
The Toppy signature issue is in the eye of the beholder in many ways.
I think they are all a good match – the least ‘good match’ aspect is the loop in the middle h.
But I am more interested to find out whether indeed Sue Iremonger’s analysis was based on the marriage certificate which clearly doesn’t bear Toppy’s signature. I suspect we won’t find out at this passage of time but it does call into question the expert analysis which discounted the connection.

Rubyretro
I have been a bit busy lately but I will start a separate thread in due course going though rival Hutchinsons – including the Grays one.
However I will caution that there were very few coaching inns in the East End, so the chance that your Joseph Hutchinson’s hostelry was a coaching inn is miniscule. But I will endeavour to find out.
Also I think the ‘humping beer barrels’ reference will not be found in any contemporary record – I think it is piece of modern ‘Romfordian’ speculation.

[Garry Wroe]

I notice that your view is that one of the police signatures is different from the other two – is that the one that may have been forged by Badham? The first on the police form? … Either way I wouldn’t say that any of the three bear ‘no resemblance’ to Toppy’s signatures.

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.




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.