Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

mike mike mike

I suggest that you've read his interminably long posts and have been sucked dry of all reason.

If that's not it, I suggest you really analyse the signatures without reading anything and see what you come up with.

Mike

the sigs were one of the first things i looked at. I didn't know who Toppy was supposed to be, or who Hutch was supposed to be. I just looked at the sigs and thought they didnt match. As i read more of the thread, and more around the site, and spoke to people, that filled in the details. Really, i have no agenda, and i honestly dont see a match.

[babybird67]

but David

All fanatic Hutchers say so.
They lie more than Hutch.
More than Toppy.
Worse: they respect some experts, to some extent.

Amitiés, dear BB,
David

ps: I found toppy's anthem. "Can't believe my eyes" by Bounty Killer.

seriously i dont have any thoughts of Hutch other than he was a witness.

[DVV]

seriously i dont have any thoughts of Hutch other than he was a witness.

Seriously, BB, Toppy or not, witness or not, there is something rotten in Hutch's account(s) and behaviour (on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday).
But that's for another thread.

I know you're looking at the signatures with perfect honesty.

Amitiés,
David

[Rob Clack]

Here's the rest of Hutchinson's signature from the first page of his Police Statement.
It's from a copy of 'Murder Most Foul' magazine from about 1993.



Rob

[babybird67]

ooooo completely off topic sorry

but i just noticed i've been promoted to Constable babybird!!!!

please excuse the childish joy i am expressing and continue with the argument as you will!

[Ben]

Many thanks for that, Rob. A great help!

That's one distinctive "n" tail there.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

a matter of faith?

came across this story whilst reading the news today:

http://news.uk.msn.com/world/article.aspx?cp-documentid=16490482

some people can see the Virgin Mary on a griddle...i personally can't.

I should think those who can rely on the faith that their eyes are seeing the "real" image, the "true" image, and perhaps those of us who cannot see are just sinning infidels (me excluded obviously!)

different people see different things...nobody can claim that their eyes are seeing the truth, imo.

[DVV]

My own eyes do tell me that Rob has a wonderful scanner.
And that Frank Leander and Crystal are right: impossible to claim "case closed" after having merely looked at some mediocre scanned images.

More than ever, I miss the full report of SI on our damned trio: Hutch / Toppy / Badham.

Thanks Rob, bravo,
Amitiés all.

[Crystal]

Thankyou David. Thankyou Rob. It's a good scan - pretty much confirms what I thought to begin with: and just as I wasn't starting to doubt myself at all...

God, I'm good at this!

I'm at a party right now so you'll have to wait for me to bore you still further.

But I promise I will ....

[Sam Flynn]

Many thanks for that, Rob. A great help!

That's one distinctive "n" tail there.

... and an even more distinctive "eorgeutchinso", if I might point out, Ben. That's still an 81% match, as against 87% for "eorgeHutchinso" without the anomalous "H", or an even higher percentage match for those who don't much care about flourishes on the terminating "G"s and "n"s, in recognition of the fact that terminating letters can, and do, change.

[Ben]

I'm sorry, Gareth.

I realise you've put a lot of thought into those percentages, but I'm afraid there's no way you can talk about an 81% match. That isn't the way experts - practitioners! - in this particular field operate, and with good reason. I'm honestly not trying to antagonise or be disrespectful in any way, but I have to wonder where you're getting these percentages from.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

II realise you've put a lot of thought into those percentages, but I'm afraid there's no way you can talk about an 81% match. I'm honestly not trying to antagonise or be disrespectful in any way, but I have to wonder where you're getting these percentages from.

16 letters in "GeorgeHutchinson". Leaving aside the flourished "H" on 1888p1, the "precocious G" (according to Dave), and the naughty flick on the terminating "n", the remaining characters in "eorgeutchinso" - 13 of them - match rather well across 15 signatures over 23 years. That makes it an 81% match in my book.

That isn't the way experts - practitioners! - in this particular field operate.

If it's not the configuration of the letters, what else would they do with them? Print off the images, tear up the signatures, and burn them in a crucible by the light of the moon? (Whilst reciting "Om, Toppy Toppy" backwards, no doubt )

[Ben]

16 letters in "GeorgeHutchinson". Leaving aside the flourished "H" on 1888p1, the "precocious G" (according to Dave), and the naughty flick on the terminating "n", the remaining characters in "eorgeutchinso" - 13 of them - match rather well across 15 signatures over 23 years.

But I don't think they do, Gareth. I disagree very strongly that most of those letters suggest a match; quite the reverse, and it's significant that our gentle document examining womenfolk - Ms. Iremonger and Crystal - have observed the same thing. They have considerable insight and background in this particular field, as does our chum Leander, and it is noteworthy that none of them deal in terms of percentages. It isn't just the naughty tail, or the flourished H or looped G. There's the "tch" which doesn't tally remotely well with Toppy's signature (any of them).

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

But I don't think they do, Gareth. I disagree very strongly that most of those letters suggest a match; quite the reverse

I fundamentally disagree, Ben.

and it's significant that our gentle document examining womenfolk - Ms. Iremonger and Crystal - have observed the same thing.

... "gentle"? Have you any idea what the words "ire monger" mean?

They have considerable insight and background in this particular field, as does our chum Leander, and it is noteworthy that none of them deal in terms of percentages.

Well, they should. How else can one make sense of matching data, except in terms of absolutes, ratios or percentages?

[Ben]

How else can one make sense of matching data, except in terms of absolutes, ratios or percentages?

I wouldn't know, Gareth. I'm one of those floaty, arty, thespy types, but I'm sure the expert practitioners who have contributed to this discussion have excellent reasons for not using percentages when they conduct their analyses.