Identifying Hutchinson

[Debra A]

Thanks Debra & Sally,

You've given me some great info, which will hopefully save me a lot of time.

I'm going to give it a few weeks of intense research now, will let you know if I find anything significant.
Amanda

Good luck, Amanda.

[Fisherman]

To save you even more time, Amanda, let me point out that the crucial post of the "Hutch in the 1911 census" is post 567, where you can compare the signatures of Toppy and the witness. It can be added that the highly renowned document specialist Frank Leander of the Swedish Criminal Laboratory took a look at these signatures and reached the conclusion that he would be surprised if they were not by the same man. He also said that he expected any forthcoming future information to confirm this.

This is however a VERY unwelcome view amongst those who propose that Hutchinson was in fact an alias and who think that the groom was the killer. He may have been, regardless if he was Toppy or not, of course.

Have a look and decide for yourself whether the signatures match!

All the best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Take it from me, Amanda, no-one has ever found a newspaper reference to Hutchinson's age or place of origin. I'm relatively satisfied that the 'twenty-eight' claim was a canard introduced by Brian Marriner after he'd read some of my Hutchinson research in the early 1990s and later went on to write about Hutchinson himself. At the time I told him that I was interested in a Depwade candidate who was twenty-eight at the time of the murders. Draw your own conclusions.

As for Hutchinson's 'signature', his police statement contains three examples, each of which is radically different in style and structure to the other two. In other words there is no instance of a definitive Hutchinson signature.

This is something you might care to bear in mind should you decide to read the Leander thread that I initiated a few years ago.

[Fisherman]

Amanda!

It is quite correct that there are three signatures on the Hutchinson testimony. It is equally correct that the three signatures differ inbetween them - although they do have common characteristics aplenty too. All of this can be accessed from the threads on the matter.

What we therefore need to ask ourselves is whether Leanders verdict is useless. He saw only the signature from the third page of the testimony, and I sent it over to him because I thought it was a very close match to the signature Toppy wrote numerous times; the one you can see in the post I referred to before.

Frank Leander confirmed that the two signatures were indeed so close matches that he would be surprised if they were not by the same writer - as I stated before. The inherent characteristics of these two signatures governed that call on his behalf - a renowned professional in the field.

To me, that is more than enough. There were a number of posters who saw the likeness, and who were equally absolutely convinced that the witness Hutchinson had been identified.

It deserves mentioning that Toppy Hutchinsons´ own son, Reg Hutchinson, confirmed that his father had claimed to be involved as a witness in the Kelly affair. The ones proposing Hutchinson as the killer, though, will point to how other things Reg said would point to his whole testimony being useless.

This has been quibbled over for years out here, and it has never been a friendly discussion. My own suggestion would be not to get too bogged down in these details. The one and only thing that carries weight here is that Toppy Hutchinsons signature was found, that a number of posters believed that it was a nigh on perfect match with that from the third page of the witness testimony, that it was sent to one of the most well-known document examiners of his time, Frank Leander, and that Leander said that A/ he would need at least ten signatures to make any definitive call, and he only saw one signature from the testimony of the witness Hutchinson (there are only three, so ten cannot be achieved anyway), and B/ from what he saw, he felt that the signatures WERE of the same hand, so much so that he would be surprised if they were not, and that he expected any forthcoming information in the future to confirm his take on things.

I have been attacked for this numerous times, on a factual as well as a personal level, and I have no inclination to go much further into this a second time. It has for example been suggested that Frank Leander said what he said just to get rid of me, even - such was the gentlemanly level of discussion that was employed. I may add that this is in no way unusual when dealing with the small but vociferous clan of people speaking for Hutchinson as the probable killer.

No doubt, accusations will once again be flung around as a result of my mentioning this, and I will be pointed out as the worst culprit of it all. I am used to it, so I don´t care much about that. In the end, all that matters is the evidence before us. We either recognise that the signatures are very close matches and we accept the words of Frank Leander, who spent his entire working life and carreer in the field of document examining, rising to become one of the worlds´ most renowned authorities - or we go with the view that the signatures are not alike at all, and that I either turned Leander into a pathetic liar or that I lied about what he had said.

There is really nothing more to it, which is why I have said what I have to say.

Others, though, will undoubtedly try to deny things once more, and I am not ruling out that it may once more involve the odd attempt at character assassination. If so, keep in mind that once such things are prioritized over a measured discussion about the facts, then there is something to be learned from such a thing.

Now I´m outta here. I just wanted you to see the whole picture before that.

All the best,
Fisherman

[Sally]

Thanks Debra & Sally,

You've given me some great info, which will hopefully save me a lot of time.

I'm going to give it a few weeks of intense research now, will let you know if I find anything significant.
Amanda

Hi Amanda,

Glad to have been of help - good luck with your research

[Sally]

Take it from me, Amanda, no-one has ever found a newspaper reference to Hutchinson's age or place of origin. I'm relatively satisfied that the 'twenty-eight' claim was a canard introduced by Brian Marriner after he'd read some of my Hutchinson research in the early 1990s and later went on to write about Hutchinson himself. At the time I told him that I was interested in a Depwade candidate who was twenty-eight at the time of the murders. Draw your own conclusions.

As for Hutchinson's 'signature', his police statement contains three examples, each of which is radically different in style and structure to the other two. In other words there is no instance of a definitive Hutchinson signature.

This is something you might care to bear in mind should you decide to read the Leander thread that I initiated a few years ago.

Hi Garry

Thanks for clarifying - useful to know.

[Garry Wroe]

Thanks, Sally. A source who I regard as impeccable told me a couple of years ago that Brian Marriner had been a guest of Her Majesty for a time. Interesting that he then went on to become a true-crime author.

[Natasha]

Was Hutch A Minor?

Hi Amanda,

It just occurred to me that Hutchinson may have been younger than first thought. It could explain why he wasn't present at the inquest.

Does anyone know what the minimum age was that someone could give evidence in the 1880s?

Also having read about how his signature looked like it was written by Badham, and other samples were dissimilar. Makes me wonder weather he was younger.

Also it could explain why Abberline didn't consider him a suspect.

[Amanda]

Hi Amanda,

It just occurred to me that Hutchinson may have been younger than first thought. It could explain why he wasn't present at the inquest.

Does anyone know what the minimum age was that someone could give evidence in the 1880s?

Also having read about how his signature looked like it was written by Badham, and other samples were dissimilar. Makes me wonder weather he was younger.

Also it could explain why Abberline didn't consider him a suspect.

Hi Natasha,
Not my area I'm afraid, although I know that in the early 1800's children as young as 12 have given evidence in court (younger than that during witch trials over a century before). However, the law could have changed drastically by 1888

I have managed to find a man that I think is a 'new' Hutchinson. Interestingly he married in 1887 but was single a year later. I've sent for the marriage certificate anyway.
You might be right about his age, but why would a younger person be hanging around Dorset Street late at night?
Amanda

[Natasha]

Hi Natasha,
Not my area I'm afraid, although I know that in the early 1800's children as young as 12 have given evidence in court (younger than that during witch trials over a century before). However, the law could have changed drastically by 1888

I have managed to find a man that I think is a 'new' Hutchinson. Interestingly he married in 1887 but was single a year later. I've sent for the marriage certificate anyway.
You might be right about his age, but why would a younger person be hanging around Dorset Street late at night?
Amanda

It's apparent he knew Kelly, which makes me think how the papers had got the child situation wrong. Maybe he lived in the area, and stayed at Kelly's because she felt sorry for him. A bit far fetched I know. But not impossible, considering the poverty situation. Otherwise all I can think is that he was just generally hanging around not specifically around Dorset St. Maybe he was pickpocketing, looking for something to eat and ended up there.

Your Hutch's single status is quite interesting as you say. I wouldn't have thought divorce was a popular practice back then. If the wife died then that could explain it.

[Amanda]

It's apparent he knew Kelly, which makes me think how the papers had got the child situation wrong. Maybe he lived in the area, and stayed at Kelly's because she felt sorry for him. A bit far fetched I know. But not impossible, considering the poverty situation. Otherwise all I can think is that he was just generally hanging around not specifically around Dorset St. Maybe he was pickpocketing, looking for something to eat and ended up there.

Your Hutch's single status is quite interesting as you say. I wouldn't have thought divorce was a popular practice back then. If the wife died then that could explain it.

Hi Natasha,
What if it was more complex than that, maybe Hutchinson was a jealous ex-lover. That would explain her sympathy towards him & perhaps it was a usual occurrence to lend each other a few shillings when the other was broke.

I've found no evidence of a divorce (for this Hutchinson) so wondering if they were just estranged and the wife was nearby.
Amanda

[lynn cates]

age

Hello All. Let's not forget Hutch's claim about how long he had known Mary. This needs to be factored into ANY age calculation.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Don't want to make this a Hutch signature thread, but I will clarify some things that have been mis-remembered: Topping Hutchinson claimed to be George Hutchinson. His signatures seem quite close to at least one signature on the statement, or two in many eyes, but yes, one of those two is different in signature structure if not in mechanics. As far as George Hutchinson's signature being categorically dismissed as absolutely not being one of those on the witness statement by an expert, that isn't true as far as I know. Also, we do have another expert who believes that there are enough similarities between at least one of the Hutchinson "signatures" on the statement and Topping Hutchinson's actual signature in the records, that it should be further researched. That has not been done yet, that I know of. It also must be asserted that those few who were so vociferously outspoken against Topping being Hutchinson were people who had the notion that Hutchinson was the killer of Kelly. Those who saw similarities had no stake in anything. Now...yes, that is a fair remembering of what went on. Carry on.

Mike

[Bridewell]

Have done this in haste so not sure how well it'll turn out. These are the three signatures from the Hutchinson statement, followed by that of a George Hutchinson from the 1911 census, although he would have been only 18 or 19 at the time of the Kelly murder.

[Wickerman]

Anyone who doubts that your signature can change over time need only look at their own signature 23 years ago.

That should suffice.