Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Marlowe]

Hi,

What about the George Hutchinson who was listed as being on the TS Exmouth in 1881?

He was from Mile End and would have been 22 years old in 1888. Who is going to go to Essex and check out his signature? ;-0

Marlowe

[Ben]

Not very much, no - but when you add the roughly correct age and the name George Hutchinson, things will start to happen

And "roughly the correct age" in this instance, would be...?

Does not Iremonger come close to it? Oh, wait a minute - we donīt know just what she said, do we?

We know that she expressed the opinion that the signatures didn't match, but there's no evidence that she dismissed it as impossible, which is obviously a crucial difference.

And the "potential" factor is quite dependant on whether they could produce a better signature match, and the chance for that is freakishly small.

That's according to you.

And you are...?

Some clueless hobbyist whose expertise and experience in the field is essentially nil. You're not an expert. You're about as far away from an expert as can possibly be envisaged. So your infuriatingly gauche and baseless assertion as to the number of potentially better matches is not worth taking seriously in the slightest.

The signature likeness means that we have no other contender in sight at all - let alone any "large amount of men".

But the majority of expert opinion tells us that the signatures don't match, and that that Toppy probably wasn't the witness, which naturally increases the likelihood of several of the many hoards of potential candidates fitting the statement signature better than Toppy.

Letīs face it, chum - you would not. Not in a million years.

Which means you're accusing me of dishonesty, which makes you a shoddy disgrace of a human being, albeit someone whose prose is so inarticulate, ponderous and belaboured, and so lacking in clarity than he's certainly not worth taking seriously.

Much as we desperately lack proof of other things on this thread, I think that particular issue is proven beyond all doubt.

I don't care what you think.

What you think is valueless, as far as I'm concerned. Most of the people worth listening to say the exact opposite of the mind-numbing nonsense that you shamelessly espouse.

You see, the evidence DOES point in Toppys direction

Horse$hit. It points in the opposite direction.

[Ben]

There were only fourteen George Hutchinsons, aged between 18 and 38 years in 1888, who lived in London at the time of the nearest Census (1891). Of these, only five lived in East London.

Thanks, Gareth.

Very interesting. Trouble is:

1) We don't know how many people named "George Hutchinson" left London between the 12th Novemner 1888 and the taking of the 1891 census.

2) We cannot possibly know how many people were living in London in the year 1888, when no census was taken.

3) We have no idea if "George Hutchinson" was the real name of the individual who introduced himself as such to police on 12th November 1888.

The number of potential candidates for the witness in question must therefore be regarded as extremely high.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:

"And "roughly the correct age" in this instance, would be...?"

If you donīt know, Ben, you really should brush up on it.

My words:

"And the "potential" factor is quite dependant on whether they could produce a better signature match, and the chance for that is freakishly small."

Your words:

"That's according to you.

And you are...?

Some clueless hobbyist whose expertise and experience in the field is essentially nil. You're not an expert. You're about as far away from an expert as can possibly be envisaged. So your infuriatingly gauche and baseless assertion as to the number of potentially better matches is not worth taking seriously in the slightest."

To begin with, Ben, since you are just as much of an expert and a clueless hobbyist as I am, you hardly get to judge this, do you? Why should anyone value YOUR amateur opinion??

Actually, though, neither of us NEEDS to be an expert to realize that - given Sams excellent work on the numbers of George Hutchinsons about in that age - the chance that two of the handful of men who could come into play here would have signatures that tallied with the police report signature IS freakishly small - which is exactly what I said, and which any document examiner will agree with. As did Frank Leander, remember.

Then again, who is Frank Leander? Oh, right, now I remember - he is the guy that IS an expert and who surpasses you, Bennie boy, by miles and eons when it comes to knowledge of these things. And it is a good thing we have his judgement on this matter, because you would NOT listen to sense otherwise, would you? This although it is very simple, down-to-earth, goes-without-saying knowledge that you do not find "a large group of men" that has signatures that are potential matches with the police signature if you are digging for them in a group of 88 men. And that is allowing for ALL of Englands George Hutchinsons of the reasonably correct age! If you go down on London level, you need to find two matches or more in a group of 14! The chance of this happening is microscopical - according to Leander, that is.

I see now that you are telling Sam that although we know that there were 88 George Hutchinsons in England in 1891, we "cannot possibly" know how many people were living in London in 1888. Just out of interest, do you mean that this may imply that there were thousands of George Hutchinsons in London in that particular year? Do you think it renders Sams numbers useless?
What an honest poster you are, Ben! I can see now that you really meant that nobody would be happier than you if we could make the connection between Toppy and the Dorset Street witness - you are doing all you can to help out, arenīt you? Wow, sort of...

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

One more thing that can be cleared up, Ben! Itīs that tedious issue of whether Leander thought that there could be numerous explanations to the differences in elements of style.
We all know your stance here:
"No, he never used the word "numerous" (post 1567)
"He didn't, or any synonyms thereof." (post 1569)

I got tired of this nonsense of yours, and searched for his wording on the matter. I found it in post 1264:

”Moving on quickly here; Frank Leanders answer to my query about whether he could see the age in the signature of the man who signed the police report is:
"Det var bara en av flera tänkbara förklaringar till att det finns olikheter (jag hade ingen om aning om personens ålder och det går normalt inte att dra alltför stora växlar om någons ålder utifrån handstilen)!"
Should I translate? Oh, well!
"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences (I had no idea of the persons age and you can normally not make any too certain assessments of age from a persons handwriting)!"
So, once again, Leander presses the fact that there could be many possible explanations to the differences.”

So, Ben, there were ”many possible explanations to the differences”. Can I ask you, would you consider ”many” a functioning synonym for ”numerous”? And can I ask you not to once again misrepresent Leander in the future by stating that he spoke of a ”small number” of possible explanations? They were MANY, Ben - many!

Things like these tend to catch up with you, you know.

Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;83006As for the rest, being present in the East end and professing a near aquaintance with Mary Kelly makes a guess that he was a Londoner with East end connections rather a safe bet.

Fisherman[/QUOTE]


i'm just picking up on this point, there is no evidence that he even knew M.Kelly, he could've found that out from going to the inquest only, Toppy yes; but that's all

[Fisherman]

You are only right, Malcolm, if you say that there is no PROOF that he knew Kelly, just as there is no proof that he had been to Romford, that he had been a groom, that he was named George Hutchinson, that he was staying at the Victoria Home, that he had been in Dorset Street, that he had been walking round all night, that he saw Astrakhan man etcetera, etcetera.

Evidence, though, there is plenty of. And to that evidence belongs a number of signatures that are close matches, telling us that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness. That is the point from which we need to work from now on.

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Boys! Relax, please!

Maybe it's time you two took it outside: you're disturbing the peace.

Ben, Fisherman - this is futile. If I may attempt to mediate?.

Ben - you are correct in what you say in general. The parameters of this debate encompass certain assumptions. Amongst these, as you say, are those that the Dorset Street witness was alive to sign the Census in 1911, that he was born in London, was living there in 1911, or even that his name was really George Hutchinson. These are all valid and important observations, but they do not impact on a straight analysis of the samples we are discussing. Indeed, that is rather the point.

Fisherman, I do not see that Leander has said anything earth-shattering or conclusive here. In fact, he has said what I would expect in the circumstances, and it is in no way at odds with my view.

Once again, so that perhaps we might restore a little calm to these proceeding: There are similarities in the signatures. Like it or not, there are also differences. In general, as far as can be determined from the images here, the significance of the differences appears to outweigh that of the similarities. Of course my view may alter - will cerrtainly alter in one direction or another - after examination of the originals, but as it stands, I would want to see a better match before assigning to Toppy the identity of the witness.

The futility of your ongoing squabble with each other lies in the simple fact that this debate cannot move on without an ex amination of the documents.

Now behave like gentleman and shake hands - please?

Exasperated Crystal

[Malcolm X]

You are only right, Malcolm, if you say that there is no PROOF that he knew Kelly, just as there is no proof that he had been to Romford, that he had been a groom, that he was named George Hutchinson, that he was staying at the Victoria Home, that he had been in Dorset Street, that he had been walking round all night, that he saw Astrakhan man etcetera, etcetera.

Evidence, though, there is plenty of. And to that evidence belongs a number of signatures that are close matches, telling us that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness. That is the point from which we need to work from now on.

The best,
Fisherman

yes, returning from Romford is an odd one, more like stalking around Whitechapel searching for a victim, when all of a sudden he heard a young woman singing

...or he made it all up, but he's still Toppy.....i have yet to search for similar murders in the S.E of England after 1889, so i cant really comment much further until after then.

but i'm 100 % convinced that this man is our Toppy!

[Fisherman]

Crystal claims:

"Ben - you are correct in what you say in general."

Ehrm...no. He is not. He is wrong in what he says in general. That is my whole point and reason for arguing against it.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Malcolm writes:

"i'm 100 % convinced that this man is our Toppy!"

Only another signature from the same time by a man with the same name coming closer to the police report signature signature could change that, Malcolm. Being a generous character, I will settle for only 99,9 per cent plus, though...!

The best, Malcolm!
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Can you not agree to disagree? Your vitriolic exchanges achieve little but to further infuriate one another.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes, about Frank Leander:

"In fact, he has said what I would expect in the circumstances, and it is in no way at odds with my view."

Good! Then I take it you agree that there could be many explanations to the changes in style elements, such as the capital G? You concur with Leander that the details you have formerly described as very uncomparable, are in fact not that at all - they could be explained by a number of circumstances and should not stop us from accepting that the signatures may have been written by the same man?
Strange; I have a feeling that I have asked you this before...? And that you neglected to answer?

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Can you not agree to disagree? Your vitriolic exchanges achieve little but to further infuriate one another.

I won't argue about Hutch anymore, nor will I argue with those of faith rather than those who use logic, but I will say that you, Crystal, have been as divisive as anyone on this thread. You are the one who needs to take a step back and look at how you contributed to the animosity. If you are honest, you will see that your role was instrumental in the surge of vitriol.

Mike

[Ben]

Gosh, just don't you just hate bored people who express an intention to leave a thread, but don't have the balls to follow through with their "I'm leaving" swan-song?

To begin with, Ben, since you are just as much of an expert and a clueless hobbyist as I am, you hardly get to judge this, do you? Why should anyone value YOUR amateur opinion??

I'm not saying they should, but then again, I'm not the one making ridiculously cocky and overconfident claims that can't possible be backed up, and are in direct conflict with the views of the people worth listening to.

Actually, though, neither of us NEEDS to be an expert to realize that - given Sams excellent work on the numbers of George Hutchinsons about in that age - the chance that two of the handful of men who could come into play here would have signatures that tallied with the police report signature IS freakishly small

Again, I'd be interested to know what infromation has led you to talk about the right age, as distinct from the wrong one? And no, the number is not freakishly small, here are the reasons why again:

1) We don't know how many people named "George Hutchinson" left London between the 12th Novemner 1888 and the taking of the 1891 census.

2) We cannot possibly know how many people were living in London in the year 1888, when no census was taken.

3) We have no idea if "George Hutchinson" was the real name of the individual who introduced himself as such to police on 12th November 1888.

The number of potential candidates for the witness in question must therefore be regarded as extremely high.

And a million more times if it didn't sink in the first and second times. If you've told Leander that the number of potential candidates is "freakishly small", then you have supplied him with patently bogus and misleading information which cannot help but tarnish his original view, not that Leander ever purported to be an expert on the number of potential candidates for a witness in an 1888 investigation.

This although it is very simple, down-to-earth, goes-without-saying knowledge that you do not find "a large group of men" that has signatures that are potential matches with the police signature if you are digging for them in a group of 88 men.

How can you possibly know? If one suggests the possibility of a match ("cannot be ruled out"), it's only reasonable to surmise that there may be a great many potentially better matches out there, especially if we take on board Crystal's timely reminder than a great deal of commonalities will also be "common" to many other people.

If you go down on London level, you need to find two matches or more in a group of 14! The chance of this happening is microscopical - according to Leander, that is

Did he use the word "microscopical", or are you just inventing your own terminology and pretending that someone else used the very same expression? Again, Leander is not an expert on the number of potential candidates for the witness in question, so there is no reason to defer to him on that particular aspect, other than to acknowledge that you've supplied him with false information.

"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences (I had no idea of the persons age and you can normally not make any too certain assessments of age from a persons handwriting)!"

This appeared out of the blue.

Why was this not in the original translation of his post that you originally shared with us? Suddenly he's saying precisely that you wanted him to have said. Very odd