Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Romford Rose]

Hello Boys!

Hello Boys!

Which of you lovly gents is gonna give me the lowdown on all this hoo ha then?

You entertain me, anyhow - and where did CT go? Just when we were starting to have fun!


Serious though - let's hear it!

Rose x

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"The things that you refer to belong to the class of humour known as IRONY, my friend."

I am not unfamiliar with it, Crystal - in fact I have a feeling that my own ironies and sarcasms have been what has made Ben blow his top at times, just as he has had a try at it from time to time, aiming at me.

My main point in this case would be that as long as we are ALL guilty of tearing at each others nerve ends, we should perhaps not speak of libellous actions and hint at law processes? Just a suggestion, mind you, and not any effort to sway you from such a decision. You are as free to call that card as anybody else out here.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Agreed. If he was NOT a real George Hutchinson, it all changes very dramatically. But it would still leave us with the extremely odd fact that he - in spite of NOT being Toppy - had a signature that was close enough to Toppys to make Leander speak of a probable match and obvious likeness

Whoah! Rewind, Fisherman He doesn't speak of a "probable match" as you've just acknowledged in a previous post. That was the bit I was finding alarmingly difficult to disagree with. The likenesses are offset by the differences, according to Leander, but they aren't sufficient to "rule out" Toppy, i.e. as impossible. That echos my position on the subject very closely, and I'm just a hobbyist. Since a great many other people are likely to encompass that "not impossible" criteria, I don't see how any problem is posed for those who would argue for the imposter scenario.

Two things: I would say that "obvious likeness" INCREASES the probability of a match

I'd respectfully submit that we steer clear of the phrase "obvious likeness", since it didn't appear in Leander's original letter, which is what we're interested in. I genuinely wish to avoid a slanging match here, but "obvious likeness" is a significant deviation from anything he said in the original latter, the gist of which was that Toppy cannot be ruled out (which he can't). His original letter also mentions that the differences mitigate against the similarities, but argues that those differences are insufficient to discount him entirely. I don't want to get embroiled in a debate as to why Leander should alter his views in so timely a fashion, but suffice to say that "obvious likeness" crept in later.

I think that leanders verdict of an obvious likeness, taken together with the circumstances surrounding Toppys candidacy makes for a case that comes very, very close to being watertight

I'd have to disagree, Fisherman. As far as I'm concerned, the mismatching signatures (as judged by the majority of expert opinion to date) militate against Toppy being the witness, and the dubious circumstances surrounding his by-proxy claim to ripper fame weaken his candidacy even further.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Rewind, Fisherman He doesn't speak of a "probable match" as you've just acknowledged in a previous post."

Of course he does not! Sorry - I have written these confounded words too many times. A POSSIBLE match was what I meant - thanks for straightening it out!
...but the point that this would mean that it would be VERY odd if the imposters signature matched Toppys still stands.

"I'd respectfully submit that we steer clear of the phrase "obvious likeness", since it didn't appear in Leander's original letter, which is what we're interested in"

Oh no, Ben - I am every bit as interested in his second letter. The first is the "what" and the second is the "why". If Leander thinks that "obvious likeness" belongs to the discussion, then so it does. We cannot use half the evidence, can we? It would be biased in the extreme.

"I'd have to disagree, Fisherman."

And I´m fine with that. Perfectly fine!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

All I'm saying is that if we invest equal stock in both observations, they effectively cancel eachother out, since they say such contrasting things. His first missive was hardly deficient on explanations. He detailed the "what" and the "why". There was nothing about an obvious likenesses, but rather, here are the similarities, here are the differences, here's my conclusion.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Hey Rose,

To be honest, you had the right idea from your introductory post. We're debating signatures, although if you start from page 1, you'll pick up on the specifics a few pags in!

Welcome to Casebook.

Best regards,
Ben

[Romford Rose]

Cheers ben!

Ben mate!

Cheers for the welcome! Yeah I get that - but what the point of it all, see thats what I don't get specially.

But you'd know, man, right?

Yeah, I get that your clever and evertyhing, but can you explain why it makes a difference who signed what? What does it prove? That's what I'm, after mate.

And no offence or anything, but do you reckon your girlfriend's gonna come up with the goods here - or iis it just another load of - whatever she called it - posturing? Posing and bragging more like. ?

Don't mind me - I'm just here for the ride!

Rose x

[The Good Michael]

- but what the point of it all,

Rose,

The point is to be right. You must know that.

Mike

[Romford Rose]

Its Mike! How was the class, man? Have you dropped in for a laugh?

[Fisherman]

As I have already stated several times, Ben, there are no discrepancies hidden anywhere in Leanders post, unless we look at the magnitude with which he tells us that the likeness is a clear and obvious one. He is more outspoken on that point in post two.

That means that you are left with a few choices:

-you can believe that I distorted, manipulated or lied in connection with this all - which I did not.
-you can keep claiming that Leander said diametrically different things in his posts - which he did not.
-you can accept that Leanders wiew is that the signatures display an obvious likeness (which is a conclusion that a good deal of us arrived at before Leander entered the stage) and was so from the outset.

If you for some reason choose to call me a liar, distorter or manipulator, there is little I can do about it but to assert that this is NOT true. If you choose to believe that bolstering his assertions makes Leander a source that should be ruled out, I can do nothing about that either.
Thing is, if you deem him totally unreliable, why would you trust him in his first post???

In the end, if you opt for this stance, you are of course very much exposed to the risk of looking like somebody who picks and chooses only the bits and pieces of evidence that suits you better, while you disregard the fact that Frank Leander has stated that Toppys signature and that of the police report display an obvious likeness.

It´syour very own choice, Ben.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

It isn't so funny really. A bit pathetic. I want it to end.

Mike

[Ben]

Hi Rose,

If George William Topping Hutchinson was the witness, it would prove that the following account from the 1970s has a basis in reality:

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2113

I don't think the signatures match, and I don't think the account does have any basis in reality, so as far as I'm concerned, this particular Hutchinson is the wrong bloke.

And don't worry - my baby will deliver the goods. I can guarantee you that.

Enjoy the ride!

Best regards,
Ben

[Romford Rose]

Mike - no Man! it's great! Love and War, both at the same time!

Keep the faith!

[Romford Rose]

Yeah, good boy, Ben, I'll have a look!

Love is a wonderful thing - treasure it!

[Ben]

Thing is, if you deem him totally unreliable, why would you trust him in his first post???

That's just it, isn't it?

I did trust his first post, and I agreed with him wholeheartedly. If he then allegedly starts talking about an "obvious likeness", then I'm afraid that means he's putting a discernably pro-Toppy slant on a view that wasn't pro-Toppy to begin with, and that gives me a reason to distrust, all of a sudden. I really didn't want to get embroiled in this all over again, but you do have this habit of latching onto particular buzz-phrases and then peppering your posts with them a bit too much. First it was "elements of style" and now "obvious likeness".

"Obvious likeness" doesn't mean "cannot be ruled out".

I've suggested a number of reasons for the alleged change, and "Fisherman made it up" is genuinely not my favourite among those reasons. I'm not picking and choosing anything. I'm simply registering what I believe to be a fairly glaring discrepency.

Best regards,
Ben