Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"All you care about is being right. With Respect.

Unfortunate, then, that in so many instances, you are demonstrably wrong."

Point it out, Crystal! You see, saying that somebody is stupid and wrong does not bite in the same manner as a clear and concise pointing pout does. So by all means, bolster this and let all the posters who have not gone to sleep see what you are reaching for! Point out just ONE instance where I am demonstrably wrong. Please?

I am waiting in awe...!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"What the blazes are you going on about now?"

That Iremonger may have seen the wrong material. And it´s not "now" - I have said this for ages.

"But your mate Leander says the originals are so much better, and that it would be impossible for him to arrive at a full expert opinion without them. Or are you asserting that your expert is wrong now?"

My "mate" Leander - nice, Ben! (He is in fact my uncle and ows me money - use it, Ben, use it!)

There are subtleties built in here, Ben, and that may be the reason for your misunderstanding.

A full investigation requires originals too. And there is a possibility that they may bridge at least some part of the huge 0,9 per cent gap left by the investigation in "Science and justice" - that was an irony, by the way.
"Science and justice" also teaches us - well, me at least, perhaps not you - that experts traditionally attach great weight to the originals, and they really should not, since photocopies have proven to be quite effective too. Do I need to remind you of the numbers involved once again? Yes? No? Just drop me a line and I will do so.
Now, please note that Leander at no stage says that the originals are so much better, as you will have us believe - he simply says that a full investigation includes the originals. How much they add, he does not say.

Since you castigate me for being sloppy with details in the language, I thought you may need to acknowledge that remark. Then again, perhaps you are free to do more sloppy reading than I am?

Fisherman

No.

I'm not 'desperately' trying to do anything. I'm neither desperate, obsessed, nor really have to 'try' to put your feeble 'arguments' in perspective.

All you care about is being right. With Respect.

Unfortunate, then, that in so many instances, you are demonstrably wrong.

You're out of your league. Go and play with the other children.

[Ben]

That is an easy one, Crystal: because you are desperately trying to stop it from gaining the recognition it deserves.

But if the material really spoke for itself, people would be able to recognise it without being influenced by any protestations to the contrary. The fact that you stick around and frantically post whenever your "opponents" do reassures me that you're not all that confident in the validity of your "material" at all.

Think on it.

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"If the material speaks for itself, how is it that you feel the need to constantly and repetitively speak for it?
Not to mention, for other posters on this thread as well?
Hmm?"

That is an easy one, Crystal: because you are desperately trying to stop it from gaining the recognition it deserves. In short, am am trying to supply information to weigh up the desinformation.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

Babybird:

"i think it has been pointed out that Leander's meanings have had slightly different emphases"

Exactly - the same meaning but more emphasis! I´m glad you caught on.

not what i meant...i was trying to say as kindly as i could that meaning had been subtly changed, eg from "cannot be ruled out", to "probably match"...those two statements are mutually exclusive in terms of meaning; as has been pointed out many times, they do not mean the same thing, even if someone says they do. If someone says they mean the same, they are mistaken.

I am saying that she may even have looked at signatures that were never even written by Toppy! When Sam filed for the signatures and payed a healthy amount of money, he got a transscription; somebody else had filled the names in. If that was what Iremonger held in her hands, she could have been way off the mark!

are you seriously suggesting that Sam would be able to tell a copy document, but a professional document examiner presented with the same document would somehow be fooled and therefore come to an erroneous conclusion? Seriously, that is a very odd position to hold.

So there are MANY possibilities involved here, and I am saying something quite different from what you suppose, I´m afraid!

i think you will find that those of us unconvinced of a match are the ones entertaining alternative possibilities. Arguments being made on the other side of the road appear to KNOW for a FACT there is a match, 100 % sure in a field which can never be 100% sure of anything, even from experts!

Also, I believe that we have to take the "Science and justice" investigation into account. If photocopies can be used to gain a 99,1 per cent accuracy, then that heavily militates against the notion that the originals are so much better. There is only a gap of 0,9 per cent left to enhance the picture!

hmmmm...i find it strange that you did not pick up what was quite clear from many of those postings by Chris, which was that professionals consistently did better (and by a significant amount) at matching the correct documents than lay-persons. In this regard, will we see a casting aside of the "a pair of eyes will do" approach which dominated the "match 100%" arguments before Leander appeared to agree there was a "probable" match (which he did not imo)

[Ben]

I am saying that she may even have looked at signatures that were never even written by Toppy!

What the blazes are you going on about now?

Sue Iremonger is a professional document examiner. She examined the three statement signatures against the marriage certificate signature of George William Topping Hutchinson. The notion that a professional document examiner accidentally compared the signatures appended to the statement with a piece of paper filled out by a modern registrar is an outrageously insulting piece of desperate nonsense. That can safely be dismissed as impossible, since document examiners know full well where to obtain the original documents.

Also, I believe that we have to take the "Science and justice" investigation into account. If photocopies can be used to gain a 99,1 per cent accuracy, then that heavily militates against the notion that the originals are so much better

But your mate Leander says the originals are so much better, and that it would be impossible for him to arrive at a full expert opinion without them. Or are you asserting that your expert is wrong now?

If the material speaks for itself, how is it that you feel the need to constantly and repetitively speak for it?

Not to mention, for other posters on this thread as well?

Hmm?

[Fisherman]

Are we going to enter on a "No, they didn´t" - "Yes, they did" trail here, Crystal?

I think not. The material speaks for itself, and I have every faith that anybody with an unbiased mind will see that.

Fisherman

Denial? Surely Not....

i completely deny knowledge of you.

I will deny that i know you three times before the **** crows!

now i need to get this mud washed off me somehow, before it incriminates me...

Go on then. You're in the right place for it!

Kisses! xx

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"i think it has been pointed out that Leander's meanings have had slightly different emphases"

Exactly - the same meaning but more emphasis! I´m glad you caught on.

"You are missing the point of my posting, which is to point out to you that whereas you dismiss Iremonger because she may not have looked at the originals, you are quite happy to rely on someone who we KNOW for a FACT has NOT looked at the originals.
If you do not find such a position contradictory, there is no more i can say."

I am saying that she may even have looked at signatures that were never even written by Toppy! When Sam filed for the signatures and payed a healthy amount of money, he got a transscription; somebody else had filled the names in. If that was what Iremonger held in her hands, she could have been way off the mark!
So there are MANY possibilities involved here, and I am saying something quite different from what you suppose, I´m afraid!
Also, I believe that we have to take the "Science and justice" investigation into account. If photocopies can be used to gain a 99,1 per cent accuracy, then that heavily militates against the notion that the originals are so much better. There is only a gap of 0,9 per cent left to enhance the picture!

And when (if) you compare the wrong signatures altogether, well ...

Fisherman

[babybird67]

i completely deny knowledge of you.

I will deny that i know you three times before the **** crows!

now i need to get this mud washed off me somehow, before it incriminates me...

No. They didn't.

Too late for that, Baby...

You know how it goes!

[babybird67]

Hey Jen!

Where are my spurious arguments then? Oh, please don't leave them out for the sake of friendship my dear!

Kisses!

C

Shhhhhhh you thought-corrupting minx, or i shall be thought as under your spell!