Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

Fish

i cannot even read your posts any longer. It's like talking to either a very small child who hasn't the remotest idea what you are on about, or to a very rebellious teenager who, no matter how much advice you give, will still insist on going on their very determined way headlong into an utterly immovable and irrational position of intransigence, from which they really wish they could be rescued and brought back into line with logic and normality but is simply too stubborn to admit they both need and want to be.

I wish you all the best in your delusion of victory, but i too, like Crystal, have a life.

I "KNOW" i am right and you are wrong; nothing has been proven regarding the Hutch/Toppy saga; there is no irrefutable identification of Toppy with Hutch, end of story. Anyone who seriously thinks there is such a proven identification is sadly and almost irretrievably lost to the rest of thinking humankind.

There really is no hope for some.

all good wishes, no hard feelings etc etc

[babybird67]

what?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Fish,

I think this is a completely fair and unbiased assessment of what has been going on.

Mike

Mike!

Yikes!

I can go off people you know.

[babybird67]

Crystal's credentials

Crystal, was going to say you could show me your credentials anytime, but i'd be sorely off topic, and i dont want to get into trouble again, so i will refrain from saying it and just stay on topic and say, "we can't say Toppy is Hutch right now but it surely cannot be ruled out"!

Have a good day off but don't forget to pop into the Muddy Crevice for a quickie when you get time (drink, people, drink! some of you guys have minds like sewers out there! )

xx

[Crystal]

Hi BB

I'll show you my credentials any time. As for the drinking, I should think I'll be doing plenty of that later..although sadly, I have a feeling the thread will never be far away.

And yes, you're right. Toppy IS Hutch...er..that was what you said, right?

[richardnunweek]

Hello all.
Well thats the end of this thread, at least it should be, even biased me, will conclude that Topping may be the man, or may not, which is only slightly better then the old days , when he was considered certainly not.
So the case is unproven....
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Hello all.
Well thats the end of this thread, at least it should be, even biased me, will conclude that Topping may be the man, or may not, which is only slightly better then the old days , when he was considered certainly not.
So the case is unproven....

Emphatically not as far as some of us are concerned, Rich - which, in the scheme of things, must count as "significant progress"

[The Good Michael]

I wish you all the best in your delusion of victory, but i too, like Crystal, have a life.

I don't believe that. Let me see your credentials.

Mike

[babybird67]

ok...

but you need to show me your etchings first.

[DVV]

Emphatically not as far as some of us are concerned, Rich - which, in the scheme of things, must count as "significant progress"

Hi Sam,

I admit it is a "significant development".
Toppy's sensational come back was unexpected.
But the last step belongs to the experts.
Wish I could read Sue Iremonger's complete works (full leather bound).
Wish I could read other experts.
Wish I could know for sure whether Jane E Hutchinson was, or not, living in Romford in 1888.

Amitiés,
David

[Crystal]

In Post no. 1255, Fisherman wrote the following:


Okay, everybody!

As you will know, I wrote to SKL to get some general information on signatures, and I posted the resulting answer from Frank Leander a few pages back.

This response from the SKL was something I had not counted on - I did not know to what degree they would help nosy citizens prying into other countries criminal history. And so, I was happy to receive such a generous answer.
In fact, I was so encouraged as to copy Sams board of signatures from page 57 on this thread and forward it to Frank Leander, humbly asking if he could possibly ponder to ...??

And he did! Therefore, I can now publish the wiews of one of the most renowned Swedish forensic document examiners. The translation from Swedish to English is something I have taken care of myself, and to verify it all, I also post the Swedish version in the end of my post.

Here it is:

"Hello again!

I wish to strongly underline your wiew that comparing research into signatures must be done using the original material and I/we would not have the possibility to write a full expert´s opinion on the material supplied. Under the circumstances, however, I would like to express myself thusly:

It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person - there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters.
Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature.
The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things. The signature at the top is unquestionably the one that differs most at any rate.
In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!

Good luck with the hunt!

Frank Leander"

What is very interesting here is that Leander tells me that the fact that Hutch was a young man may have played a role - for I never told Leander his age! I have written back since, and asked if this was something Leander could conclude from the text, and I am much intrigued to find out.

It shuld be added that the signatures from Sams post was all I supplied Leander with, together with the information on when they were written and the fact that the one at the top was the only one where we were not sure if we were dealing with the same writer.
Therefore, Leander did not know, for example, that the finishing n could be written by Toppy without that upward-pointing curl. Nor did he know that there was only a very limited set of George Hutchinson´s about at the right time and place. Or, for that matter, that Toppys own son(s) had witnessed about him being the witness.
I have told him this in my latest letter (the one asking how he concluded that the writer of the police report signature was young), and if he takes the time to answer me again, I will let you all know.

Until that time, we can ponder that a top authority in the field tells us that although there are differences in a few singled-out letters and the tch-group (differences that can be explained and overcome by a number of things, according to Leander!), the overall character of style and the writing skills - and that means nothing but the overall impression! - involved tell us that we may certainly be looking at the same writer!

So, here we have a renowned expert´s opinion on the matter, bolstered with the details that he used to reach his conclusions - the way that it should be. And to me, it all reinforces what I have said all along: The possibility that George William Topping Hutchinson was the Dorset Street witness is and remains a clear and obvious one.
And by now, we have one of Swedens foremost experts in the field telling us that the signatures DO tally in so high a degree that it can be safely said that they may well have been written by the same man!

As promised, I asked a Swedish friend of mine to independently translate Leander's initial response to Fisherman. This is her response, which I received today:

Hello again!




I strongly want to underline your opinion that comparative examinations of signatures has to be done with original material and I/we would have no possibility to write an expert opinion/report on the attached material. Under the circumstances present I would however want to express myself as follows:

It is hardly possible to exclude that it is the same person that is involved – there is a number of correspondences of general characteristic (style characteristic, the level of writing skill, the extension of the writing, some proportions) and as far as can be judged from the copy also some form correspondences regarding individual letters. These similarities must however be put against the differences concerning some penn-liftings (?), the proportions in the tch-group and the perhaps most prominent differences in some letter-forms; G (basic form), r and n at the end of the signature. The differences could/could possibly be explained with H. being relatively young at the first time of writing, the circumstances when writing, such as limited space for writing, the function of the pen or similar. The upper most signature is however most in contrast the rest, definitely.



To sum up, you will have to see the above written as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a professional handwriting statement/report/opinion, because that can never come into consideration/question when the material looks like it does!



Good look with the investigation/search!

It doesn't appear to be quite the same, does it? Out of interest - my friend was emphatic that this was in the nature of a private message to Fisherman, and clearly not intended to be taken in an 'official' capacity. She would know, presumably, since she speaks the language. She, unlike Fisherman, has no agenda here - no interest in the case whatever. I told her nothing about the context, only that I would like her translation. Where there is no EXACT transliterative meaning in English, she has included the best matches.

Now then: Fisherman has clearly put his own spin on Leander's message to him, and has published it - does he have permission from Leander to twist his words to suit, one wonders? - with that spin, to better endorse his own agenda.

I call that poor. Very poor. Misleading, damaging to his case, and hardly worthy of respect.

Almost as bad - it is perfectly clear that Leander and I are entirely in agreement - so I would wonder at Why, exactly, Fisherman has taken it upon himself to imply, suggest, and categorically state that I am taking the opposite stance?

Let's see - Leander says - there are common likenesses. So do I.
Leander says - the 'G' form is different. So do I. Leander says - so is the 'H', which may or may not be signficant - OH! Surprise! So do I. Leander says - 'there are differences in the 'tch' group. And so do I.

Should I go on?

I find it EXTREMELY unlikely that a person putting forward such a measured response as this - QUITE clearly the circumspect view of a professional - would then alter his view to such an extent as has been suggested by Fisherman. No, I go further. I don't believe it.


Shame, Fisherman.

[babybird67]

interesting Crystal

very interesting. Looks like i may not be the only alleged "Fabricator" here!

So much for a "professional" opinion being tendered. Am not accusing Leander of being unprofessional...it is clearly a case of his views being misrepresented as if to present a professional opinion where merely a personal off the record comment was tendered.

[Crystal]

Yes indeed, Jen.

As my friend has also pointed out - Has Leander given his permission for his 'view' to be published thus?

One would rather doubt it.

I consider it a disgrace, frankly. I am particularly, and personally offended by this, because I work in the profession.

As I said. Shame, Fisherman.

[babybird67]

precisely Crystal

Yes indeed, Jen.

As my friend has also pointed out - Has Leander given his permission for his 'view' to be published thus?

One would rather doubt it.

I consider it a disgrace, frankly. I am particularly, and personally offended by this, because I work in the profession.

As I said. Shame, Fisherman.

And, what is truly ironic, is that Leander's original unofficial view was completely and utterly reasonable and logical...that nothing could be ruled out but that the materials being used were insufficient on which to base any more definite a view. Had it been left exactly thus, nobody would have disagreed with him whatsoever...however, as the meanings appeared to gradually become loaded with more and more definite views, going from "possibly", to "probably", then to Fish's "very probably" and then to apparently "Toppy is Hutch" (i.e., identification established), so did Leander's alleged professional opinion become more and more corrupted and essentially could not be taken seriously.

That is an awful thing to do to someone who was essentially doing someone an off the record, personal favour by giving a limited appraisal in far from ideal circumstances. Very disrespectful imo.


Thanks for bringing this to our attention Crystal. Perhaps now the claims that Leander's "professional" (as opposed to personal) appraisal is an expert view to counter Ms Iremonger's can be dropped completely...not to do so would be farcical imo.

I also think you and Leander are owed an apology...but then you two arent the only ones unfortunately to have your views and motives misrepresented, sadly, and that speaks volumes. I dont hold out much hope of one being forthcoming however, as Fish appears to have to be told to apologise by the "HeadMaster" rather than relying on himself to simply do the right thing.

[Crystal]

Fisherman has misrepresented Leander's view by placing his own emphasis where clearly none was ever intended. He has also published a personal off-record communication from Leander, who, I have little doubt, would be unimpressed in the extreme to see what Fisherman has done with his honest response.

The ACTUAL nature of the statements made by Leander make it quite clear that he is unprepared to go further. Thus I entertain grave doubts as to whether he ACTUALLY said any of the things Fisherman later credits him with.

Fisherman's behaviour is not acceptable or decent by any means.

[Fisherman]

This was to be expected, of course, and sadly it forces me to answer.

I will do it as short as possible.

Frank Leander has all along been aware that the material he provided would be published on Casebook. He has had no objections whatsoever to it.

My translation is not in any way twisting any of the things Leander has said. If I wished to twist, I would not publish it in Swedish first and supply my translation afterwards, would I? I did so to be perfectly honest, and let those who wanted to check for themselves. As for the differences between my translation and that of your friends, I believe that most people will be aware that no two translators will come up with the exact same wording. But most would come up with a translation made in good faith, and only the fewest would maliciously try to imlpy otherwise.

Leanders first post could be interpreted as being rather undecided. That it was not, however, since we know that "cannot be ruled out" was an expression professionally used to describe a hit on the positive end of the scale, and as Leander bolstered this by telling us that he would be surprised if time would show that it was not a genuine match.

This has been explained over and over and over and over again, and that has been done against a background where a number of posters have been spreading misinformation and fighting a very apparent fight to minimize the damage done to the notion that Hutch and Toppy could not have been one and the same.

This is the background that has to be taken into consideration before anybody decides what shame is involved in the handling of the issue.

I have never had any doubts that Leanders honesty and judgment as well as mine will be questioned - it is the common tactics of those who need to produce a smokescreen designed to hide the facts. Now that this once again happens, I find it less aggravating than I would have expected.

It is much more of a sad, pathetic business.

For example, if you needed to find out whether Leander had any objections to the publishing on Casebook or not, you could have asked and I would have provided the answer. But that was never any option, was it - it is much funnier to find a wording that can be used to imply foul play on my behalf than to find the truth. That - on the other hand - has never been of any significance or value to you, has it?

I do hope that you will refrain from slanderous misinformation in the future. It further uglifies an already devastatingly deformed thread, and I can assure you that I do not wish to contribute to such a thing.

Fisherman