Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[richardnunweek]

Hello friends[ are we?]
This thread has progressed from getting bad, to from HELL, it just provides proof that us humans are a argumentive breed.
Let me say one thing[ and no-one is more biased then me] if it could be proven almost beyond doubt, that Topping was not the witness Hutchinson , i like Fisherman would admit openly that i was wrong, and bin any further thought in that direction.
I have never worn blinkers during my years on Casebook , or in fact at any time during my intrest in this case, and i am very adaptable to swing into any direction.
But at the moment the swing is stationary, so i wait in anticipation....
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

Now who could have predicted this?

Fisherman recently made the dramatic announcement that he will be off the boards for a while. Turns out he meant he'd be back in less than 24 hours. There's just no resisting it, is there Fish?

Well, pardon me for being such a party-spoiler, Ben, but I would like to see some proof for what you muse about here.

Proof would be nice, but given the overwhelming probability that she did precisely that - compare the signatures and come to the conclusion that they didn't match - it certainly isn't necessary, especially when we know that the alternatives being bandied around are outlandish in the extreme.

I will also take the opportunity to point out that if Iremonger had been the careful, professional, discerning expert you tell us she is, donīt you think it is at least a tad odd that she never even saw to it that her efforts were correctly documented?

She certainly would have done, but given that it would have been written in the early 1990s, it shouldn't come as any grea surprise that they're not readily available now.

But if this is so, the fact still remains that a reluctance to record the whole thing, the neglectance to document what it was Iremonger worked with and the forgetfullness to even bring a taperecorder to the localities where she spoke renders her evidence useless.

No it doesn't. Her evidence counts for a great deal, since we're blessed with the near certainty that she examined the original documents, and the certainty that she came to the conclusion that they didn't match. All you're doing is coming up with the worst excuses imaginable for dismissing evidence that isn't convenient to your cause.

Of course, this is complete rubbish, as anybody who reads Leanders post will see. Leander tells us that he would be surprised if the future would provide any evidence that went against a match.

Yes, but that was after he changed his mind in a radical, suspicious, and implausible about-turn. The more you refer to this radical change, the more it cancels out his earlier, more circumspect, observations, and vice versa of course.

And that wording is not the wording of a man who does not think it probable that he has a match, is it?

It's the wording of a man who radically altered his mind, most probably as a result of your continued bombardment of his in-box. "Please Leander! Tell me, it's Toppy! It is Toppy isn't it? Please make your comments more Toppy-endorsing". If reflects as poorly on you as it does on him, because the fact that he "delivered" every time his original comments were quoted directly suggests that he was hapless and susceptible to bias and misinformation.

We really need to dismiss something else instead - the whole of the Iremonger examination.

You must be either delusional or dishonest for making such a gauche, immature, and unrealistic suggestion. The former, I sincerely hope.

I do believe that Toppy is Hutch. The evidence for it is overwhelming.

No it isn't. As far as I'm concerned, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a mismatch, as endorsed by the majority of experts to date. Your putting percentages on likelihood is unlikely to be taken remotely seriously, since you're about as far away from being an accurate barometer of "likelihood" as can be imagined. You claim that if anything goes against your Toppy-as-Hutch theory, you'd consider revising your stance. Iremonger is one good example of a piece of evidence that doesn't help your cause. You say Leander endorses Toppy, and he's an expert in his field. But Crystal is also an expert and doesn't endorse Toppy. Go figure.

NO.

I refuse to pander to your desire for endless keyboard combat any longer.

Fish, you typically do not respond to anything that doesn't suit you.

Apologise. As you said you would.

Then I might consider you more seriously.

As to what you make of my refusal to comply with your say-so: whatever.

If you want to go down that road, you'll lose. It's your call.

And BB, yes! You can ignore! Hooray! xx

[babybird67]

Can I just take the blame? I'm good for it.

Mike

shouldnt that be "good for nothing"?

[babybird67]

Only because I'd just had an accident. You turned it into something depraved... again.

Mike

Me? Moi?

i dont think so Mike...you must have me confused with someone else...someone else who's depraved...oh yeah, you!

[babybird67]

Like i said Fish i have only quoted what you said. If you hadn't said it i wouldnt have been able to quote it would i?

If they point me out as a part that has wronged you, I will immediately apologize to you. If not, I will simply make the assumption that they considered your accusation groundless.

With respect, a gentleman shouldn't need someone else to point out to him where he has engaged in ungentlemanly behaviour. Even when it has been clear that you have been changing the meanings of what Leander said to suit you, i respectfully attributed this to a mistake, not to deliberate falsehood. People who resort to slander, and then need it to be pointed out to them either by other posters or admin that they have unfairly slandered, have already lost any argument imo.

Until whichever of this happens, please - PLEASE - letīs not torment the posters any further with what is a personal dealing between you and me.

Fisherman

If i find it necessary to defend my character from baseless assassination, that's what i will do.

[The Good Michael]

and await what the administrators have to say! If they point me out as a part that has wronged you, I will immediately apologize to you.

Can I just take the blame? I'm good for it.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

you brought up underwear first!

Only because I'd just had an accident. You turned it into something depraved... again.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"pray explain how in quoting your own words back to you i could possibly have misrepresented you?"

Well, Babybird, when you stated that I have thrown forward that Leander has said that Toppy was Hutch, you were not exactly quoting me, were you?
When you quoted me, it suddenly emerged that what I said was that "AT PRESENT" Leander is inclined to believe that Toppy was the witness, and I concur with that - as it stands, Toppy holds the role of the Dorset Street witness.

Now that you had your explanation, letīs just refrain from any further quibbling, Babybird, and await what the administrators have to say! If they point me out as a part that has wronged you, I will immediately apologize to you. If not, I will simply make the assumption that they considered your accusation groundless.

Until whichever of this happens, please - PLEASE - letīs not torment the posters any further with what is a personal dealing between you and me.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

yeah yeah

How dare you! Always concentrating on the naughty bits are you? I was just making a mental note, is all.

Mike

pull the other one...and may i remind you, you brought up underwear first!

Corrupter!

[babybird67]

Forget it Fish.

You still haven't apologised to me for misrepresenting my view and making disparaging remarks concerning the independence of my view by your infantile suggestion that I was Ben's 'parrott' (sic.).

I, on the other hand, did apologise to you for any offence you may have felt over the 'poem'

So: who does have the respect, then?

I think and hope everyone can see who argues with respect, Crystal, and who just gets so desperate to win the argument at any cost that they will stoop to any level.

It's a poor way to argue, Fish. It does you no favours and suggests very strongly that you are incapable of anything better.

Agreed.

Learn to be nice. Otherwise, you'll wake up one morning to find that anybody interested in serious debate has put you on ''ignore'.

wow there "is" such a facility?

love and hugs

[The Good Michael]

Are you suggesting Mike that a man's mind is in his underwear????

How dare you! Always concentrating on the naughty bits are you? I was just making a mental note, is all.

Mike

[babybird67]

Reminds me. I have to change my underwear soon, too... maybe Monday.

Mike

Are you suggesting Mike that a man's mind is in his underwear????

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"Forget it Fish."

No.

Letīs see your cards, Crystal. I am interested, and you owe it to the ones who read the thread.

If you do not present it, then I will regard is as an admittance on your behalf that you cannot find anything to bolster your accusations with, and that you have slandered me without any ground.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

I am not against changing ones mind when new evidence comes to light.

Reminds me. I have to change my underwear soon, too... maybe Monday.

Mike