Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[jmenges]

Then why would the PRO catalog number be referring to an obvious facsimile? I have seen (and once I get my computer delivered, can provide) what appears to be the original cover folder for the statement, but it's interesting that the only image of the first page seems to be this reproduction, and the PRO holds this reproduction as its official record number.

JM

[The Good Michael]

Ben,

I don't cling to a belief. I change my opinion as I gain more information. That's where we differ. You have a faith-based system, God bless you.
It's impossible to reason with and I'm done with it for good. I suspect your Sunday school studies have prepared you well for your arguments. "Because others who know more than me say so." "Because it says so in the Bible." Similar litanies from those who don't need to think for themselves. I wish sometimes that I could be like you; that I could blindly accept what "they" say. Alas, I am a free thinker. Yet, you might be happier for not being one. Who knows.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Jonathan, I think the crucial point is that the original statement is still very much available, hence the NA's statement that the document was an "original" and a "rare survival". I'm afraid I don't have any more particulars than that, but I'm sure we can all await confirmation from Crystal.

It's impossible to reason with and I'm done with it for good.

Oh good.

I'll hold you to that.

In the meantime, don't use Hutchinson debates as an opportunity to make insulting remarks about other people's religious beliefs. It's tacky and offensive.

[Roy Corduroy]

...the antithesis of reason.

would best describe your repeated attempts to interject the argument of atheism vs Christianity in any and all discussions pertaining to this historical crime series.

Such an argument could have a qualified place in the discussion of the social conditions of that time and place, such as "did a lessening of Christian values lead to the murders," and in fact commentators and clergymen of the time did publish such opinions. Or, conversely, "did the murders cause a lessening of religious belief in future generations."

But not here.

Roy

[Crystal]

Good morning all. Just to clarify, the NRO holds both the original statement and a facsimile. The latter is the version usually produced on request, and further copied for distribution in response to private request. The same is true of the Lusk letter, incidentally. What has been seen on this thread is thus a copy of a copy. To be clear, if I could not view the original documents in this case, I wouldn't waste my time. To reiterate what I have already said, my only agenda here is the cessation of idiocy and ill-informed nonsense on this thread. Whatever I may think personally about the identity of the Dorset Steet witness, I can assure you it will have no place in my analysis. I do this all the time. I always ensure that I am aware of my view prior to conducting the work in order to be aware of potential bias. I go in with my eyes open, so to speak. I will record what I see. I will measure what I see. In each case. Then I will evaluate points and areas of similarity and difference and draw conclusions. I will look at the whole document: not everything will be about the script. When it is done, you can see for yourselves.

[Fisherman]

I have so far refrained from rejoining this thread for obvious reasons. But I think it is now time to make a short reappearance. The reason is that Ben - to my mind - is misrepresenting Frank Leanders words on the matter.
Ben tells us that Leander stresses the fact that the material provided disenabled him to make a full comparison. But that was not the truly important message handed down to us by Leander. That, instead, was that it could hardly be ruled out that the signatures were written by the same man.

Now, it stands to reason that Leander could tell nothing about the particulars that are only revealed to you when you make a physical comparison using the originals. When you do so, you can for example establish pen pressure.
And if you cannot access the originals, you can never say that it is extremely probable that two signatures are by the same hand - for if a comparison of pen pressure pointed in another direction alltogether, you would be on thin ice.
The only thing you can do with copies is to establish whether the signatures you are examining have the same general style and level of writing skills, and if the singled-out elements tally. Putting it simply, you look at it and ask yourself "are these two signatures so much alike that they may be by the same man", or are there style differences, skill differences or individual differences inbetween the letters and isolated elements that enables us to deduct that the signatures were probably not written by the same man?

This was what Leander did, and it led him to the conclusion that there was nothing involved in the signatures that would rule out that they were by the same man. The differences that were about, were all differences to which numerous explanations could be offered. So doing what Crystal did a number of pages back, speaking about the totally uncomparable and very different G:s, was something that apparently never even crossed Leanders mind. If that had happened, he would of course had said that "element X" or "element Y" were hard to bridge. But he did not - he simply said that there could be a number of explanations for these differences. To me, this raises interesting questions about the validity of Crystals judgement, whatever it may be - for either she is totally wrong on the importance of the letters she speaks of, or Leander is. And I think that he may prove a hard nut to crack experience- and skillwise, given his role as the perhaps best renowned forensic document examiner in Sweden. In that context, I will take the opportunity to ask Crystal to send me her credentials, to create a better understanding on my behalf of what Leander is up against.

So, in conclusion, what Leander did was to say that the overall impression spoke to him of a possible match, and that he had found no specific detail that spoke against it that could not have an explanation.
And then he said what Ben likes to quote - that it was no full examination. Such a full examination could have given him further support in his belief of a possible match, or it could have moved the signatures further away from being a match. And the only further thing he had to say on the possible outcome of such an investigation was that the circumstances involving not too many George Hutchinsons at the correct stage in time and geography spoke very much in favour of his initial impression of a possible match being the correct one.

I thought that since he offered his help so graciously, we may do him the favour not to isolate a few words of his and try to use them to point in another direction altogether than the one Leander himself favoured: A possible match, no unsurmountable obstacles and circumstances that spoke very much in favour of a genuine match.

As long as these things are presented in a better and more full manner, you may all have this thread to yourself. I sincerely hope to be able to steer clear of it as much as possible.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

The reason is that Ben - to my mind - is misrepresenting Frank Leanders words on the matter. Ben tells us that Leander stresses the fact that the material provided disenabled him to make a full comparison. But that was not the truly important message handed down to us by Leander.

You're accusing me of something that cannot possibly be true.

Misrepresenting Leander's words? No. I quoted him verbatim, so I'd thank you kindly not to make unwarranted accusations in the future. The fact that you think I'm not drawing enough attention to his other remarks certainly does not mean that I'm "misrepresenting" anything.

You need to be a bit more balenced, and less unilateral in your chiding. It keeps the peace. You could have said something like, "I agree with the view that the originals are necessary for a full comparison, but it is important to bear his other comments in mind". Stampeding into "What did Ben did wrong" mode is just divisive, and sets the whole ghastly ball rolling again.

This was what Leander did, and it led him to the conclusion that there was nothing involved in the signatures that would rule out that they were by the same man.

Yes, and what a sensible view, because if you rule something out, you're essentially declaring it to be impossible. I wouldn't go so far as to say Toppy is an impossible match with the witness, so I cannot "rule him out". My opinion isn't at odds with Leander's thus far.

The differences that were about, were all differences to which numerous explanations could be offered.

No, he never used the word "numerous". I think if you're accusing people of misrepresenting his words, you should take care to follow your own advice, especially when I've quoted his words directly.

So doing what Crystal did a number of pages back, speaking about the totally uncomparable and very different G:s, was something that apparently never even crossed Leanders mind.

I think you'll find - again - that Leander referred to these very elements as militating "against" the similarities, so we can be certain they crossed his mind. The fact that a handful of explanations could account the differences doesn't mean that they actually do account for them, or that he thinks they do. The rather more obvious explanation for the differences is that they were written by different people. By all means ask Crystal for her credentials, but the idea that she is "up against" Leander suggests a misreading of the situation here. "Crystal versus Leander" is a obviously a false contruct here, and quite unnecessary, since I see no point of major disagreement between them.

So, in conclusion, what Leander did was to say that the overall impression spoke to him of a possible match

As distinct from an impossible match - yes.

And the only further thing he had to say on the possible outcome of such an investigation was that the circumstances involving not too many George Hutchinsons at the correct stage in time and geography spoke very much in favour of his initial impression of a possible match being the correct one.

But he doesn't know anything about the number of "George Hutchinsons at the correct stage in time and geography", and nor do any of us, since we've never had any comformation that the individual we seek must have been in London at the time of the 1911 census, or even alive at that time. So if that's influencing his opinion, I'm afraid he's been fed misleading information.

A possible match, no unsurmountable obstacles and circumstances that spoke very much in favour of a genuine match.

If you "cannot rule something out", you're really not expressing that much enthusiasm for the idea that the signatures match.

Anyway, there was no need for you to bring this all up again. We're discussed his views on the signatures, and now we're discussing his views on the necessity for the originals to be present in a comparison study. Simple. No misrepresentation involved here at all. We all know you're going to post in response to this, but it's really all just repetition.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"You're accusing me of something that cannot possibly be true.
Misrepresenting Leander's words? No. I quoted him verbatim, so I'd thank you kindly not to make unwarranted accusations in the future."

If, Ben, I should write "Ben is not somebody who would distort messages", and a Mr X chose to use that sentence, with an exception of the "not", I think you will find that Mr X would only have used my written words. What happens, though, when we leave important things - like the "not" and Leanders intentions - out, is that we misrepresent what was originally said.
That is not to say that I would hold that small alteration against Mr X - but that is another matter altogether, and not strictly thread-appropriate.

This was what I was getting at, and nothing else. The rest of your post is much the same; distortions and misinterpretations en masse, anything that goes to ridicule the thread further. For example, although you KNOW that Leander exemplified a number of explanations that could exist when it comes to the differences and left the field open for similar explanations, you still keep saying that Leander never used the particular word "numerous".
It is way below any decent standard of debating, and - of course! - it is therefore exactly what could be expected from you.

Iīm not around to trade verbal punches with you, Ben, and so I will once again leave the thread until further notice. But you may rest assured that this does not mean that I am leaving the field open for you to read the Bible backwards to those who take an active interest in the thread. They deserve a fair chance to hear for example ALL the things an expert have said, instead of being led to believe that Leander is a witness for your side in this debate.
The manīs got a reputation to think of, mind you.

Fisherman

[Ben]

I'm not sure how I can possibly be misinterpreting or misrepresenting him if I'm quoting his exact words, but never mind.

If you think that distracts from the other stuff he said, then by all means remind people if you're hell bent on it. Just create a link to the original post. I'll do it if you want. But I'm guilty of nothing here. We were discussing one particular aspect of this ongoing debate in which one sentence from Leander's commentry assumed a resonance.

you still keep saying that Leander never used the particular word "numerous".

He didn't, or any synonyms thereof.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

You are sometimes hilarious, Ben, one has to admit that!

You are the guy who keeps telling us that we cannot say too much about the signature match in this particular case, since an expert whose work nobody can access apparently said something pointing in another direction.
At the same time, you are the guy who tells us that it was impossible for Hutch to pick up all the details he said he did on that night. You simply know this - no need to verify, prove or bolster.

One has to say that you do apply a strictly scientific approach in every case, Ben! Thereīs no taking THAT away from you.

Thanks for all the laughs,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Well, the latter's about as susceptible to proof as the contention that there isn't an alien from outer space in my attic. I can't prove it's impossible, but...

Hey, let's pursue that tangent!

[Fisherman]

No, Ben - letīs stay on topic. And letīs stay true to the idea of what the boards are for; exchanging information in a fair manner for the benefit of the purpose of moving the mutual cause forwards.
By the way, judging from your wiew of how this is best done, there may well BE an alien from outer space in your attic.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

come here: http://forum.casebook.org/showthread...2932#post82932

It's a nicer place... or was a nicer place.

Mike

[Crystal]

Fisherman, I agree, Ben is funny - although not as you would have it. In fact, Ben is one of the very few posters on this thread who appears capable of maintaining a rational, balanced view amidst the hysteria which has, and continues to, characterise(d) this debate. You, I find, display a tendency to take words and mutate them over time. The longer you consider them, the more you confuse and twist them. Asserting that I have taken an oppossite view to that of Mr Leander is a total falsehood. I have done no such thing. Pitifully attempting to discredit me resonates with desperation. I can only assume that it is your ego that you find at stake here: it certainly doesn't appear to be any concern for the facts. And to those who prefer low tactics in place of honest debate - Yes! I did just defend Ben! Ain't love grand? Irony. Look it up.

[Fisherman]

Crystal, I will only just say that I have a distinct feeling that you appeared on this thread some pages ago telling us all that the capital G:s - among other things - were so very, very, very uncomparable ... whereas Leander thought nothing much about them. They differed, but that could owe to one of many explanations.

So in that respect, Iīd hold my breath if I were you before you tell me that you have not taken an opposite wiew to that of Leander. Or can I take it that you now freely admit that all the remarks you have made about differing style elements were slightly senseless, since you all the time concurred with Leander - these things may have changed for very natural reasons over that period of time.
If so, just tell me about it!

I noticed earlier that you generously offered to PM any poster here and give your credentials. I donīt know if you have noticed yet, but I have asked for them credentials now, in order to establish what level of knowledge I am dealing with discussing with you. If you remain at your stance about the very, very, very differing capital G:s somehow urging us to rule Toppy out, you will clearly be at odds with what Frank Leander tells us, and like I said before, one of you will be wrong if that is the case. Since you ask for honesty on my behalf, Crystal, I will honestly tell you that you will have to come up with very good credentials to trumph Leander.
Iīll just wait and see what weīve got to work from in this respect, and then we may return to the discussion again afterwards.

The best,
Fisherman