George William Topping Hutchinson Records

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[The Good Michael]

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

Sally,

As far as I can tell, Lechmere has been merely posting George Hutchinson records here for everyone to see with a bit of commentary thrown in. There is no wild speculation about anything and I think that speaks volumes for the information speaking for itself. You seem to have some issues with this and I can't see why. Unless you explain yourself, I have a tendency to think you're just stirring the pot with no objective other than to do so.

Mike

[Lechmere]

Here the basic registration entry for Toppy’s death in the first quarter of 1938.
He died in Edmonton for some reason.
Toppy didn’t appear on the 1938 electoral register which slightly surprises me as I would have expected it to be compiled at the end of 1937. Unless he was in an old people’s home or hospital in Edmonton for a short while before his death perhaps.
The only other point of interest is that he is listed as George W. T. Hutchinson – so this is one of the few instances where the name Topping was applied to him. Although of course he didn’t fill out the form himself.

[Sally]

Sally,

As far as I can tell, Lechmere has been merely posting George Hutchinson records here for everyone to see with a bit of commentary thrown in. There is no wild speculation about anything and I think that speaks volumes for the information speaking for itself. You seem to have some issues with this and I can't see why. Unless you explain yourself, I have a tendency to think you're just stirring the pot with no objective other than to do so.

Mike

Mike, Not at all. I have my reasons, but as those are not directly concerned with Toppy, and who he was or wasn't - which doesn't much interest me to be frank - this is not the place for them. I have no intention either of derailing the thread, or of indulging in childish squabble. There are ways to address my own concerns, which I will pursue. For the time being, I have nothing further to add.