Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Sam Flynn]

I just posted something similar on 'tother thread... but it's of relevance here too.

It might be better if this discussion around what we think Leander might/might not have said continued in PM-land, because it's swamping this thread. I'm also getting depressed by the increasingly ad hominem nature of the debate.

Yours well-intentionedly,

Sam Flynn x

[babybird67]

I had to go earlier...it is my son's prom tonight and we had to take him to get ready.

So...some other points...

I can only assure you that if I had been of the opinion that I was in any fashoin misrepresenting you, I would have had no trouble to apologize.

You were misrepresenting me. Let me remind you once more, that when accusations were being made about your own veracity, i gave you the benefit of the doubt, and ascribed the inconsistencies in what you were saying to mistake, not to lying.

A gentleman would have afforded me the same courtesy i believe. End of story.

The fact that he told me that he offered his "personal" opinion was not - once again! - meant to point to any disagreement on his behalf to have the material published on Casebook - it was merely a pointing out that no business agreement lay behind his contribution, only personal reflections of what he saw and could read into it - and what a capacity like him sees and reads into things are the best hope we have of getting things right.

Leander was making a distinction, Fisherman, between offering a professional opinion as opposed to a personal opinion. He was not prepared to offer one which he would be happy to call professional, since he did not have the correct materials to make such a professional assessment possible. Everyone other than you appears to be able to accept and understand this distinction. I wonder why you cannot.

"No Fisherman it is not what you have been saying all along."

I was referring to the relevance of the Iremonger "material" as oppsoed to the Leander ditto - I have all along said that Leander is to be preferred since we know what he saw and what he said about it in pretty much detail, naming all the elements that had been relevant to him in the investigation. That, emphatically, makes him the best bet we have. Evaluating sources can sometimes be difficult - given my profession, I should know! - but this time over it is a piece of cake. Until we find documentation of Iremongers work, she does not equal Leanders importance in any way. You are perfectly welcome to disagree, of course, but you will be very hard pressed to find substantiation for such a disagreement.

On the contrary. We have one expert who has professionally examined the documents themselves, and offered up a professional opinion which they are happy to have published in a book. Then we have another who only had electronic images to compare, and stated quite clearly that with such materials, he was unable to offer up a professional opinion on the matter, and was tendering a "spontaneous" and "personal" opinion. We have, therefore, only one professional opinion on the signatures, and that is Iremonger's. It is you who have no substantiation to your argument.

And since Leander confirms what I think, I see no much reason to hesitate at all. As usual, you are welcome to disagree - but you are not welcome to tell me that I was much of a doubter at any stage.

No he doesn't. He says a match cannot be ruled out. You aren't that circumspect. I did not say you were a doubter. I pointed out that you have variously espoused these different opinions throughout the thread...possibly/probably/very probably/is = a match. Which you have. One only needs to re-read your postings...and i cannot be bothered with going back and dragging all that out again, but it's there if people want to see it.

There has never been any suggestion on Leanders behalf to publish any report at all in this business. Why would he? He graciously accepted a question to take a look at the signatures and he, just as graciously, gave his wiew on the matter, concluding that he believed the signatures to be a match, and that he would be surprised to learn if they were not.

My emphasis. No, Fish, he did NOT conclude that he believed the signatures to be a match. He said a match could not be ruled out. Those have completely different meanings. Even if he HAD said there was a match, we all know he was offering a personal opinion, not a professional one anyway!

They remain the only fully documented investigation into these signatures from a renowned forensic document examiner we have.

No, they are not. Leander himself said so. How can someone stand on their reputation as a document examiner when they have come nowhere near the relevant documents???? You are crazy if you actually believe what you post here, Fisherman, there is no other explanation for such illogical and nonsensical statements.

Anyway, that's it. I'm not arguing with you anymore. I posted to Garry, not you, to explain to him that if he was waiting for an expert professional opinion from Leander he would be waiting a long time. I have no wish to re-enter these idiotic arguments with you, about a matter which really should have been laid to rest many months ago.

[babybird67]

Babybird:

"I am now, as i was then, annoyed that you called me a liar when i had quoted you verbatim"

You know very well that we have differing opinions on that "verbatim" quotation, Babybird. I can only assure you that if I had been of the opinion that I was in any fashoin misrepresenting you, I would have had no trouble to apologize. But I firmly believe standing by a conviction is something that also belongs to a gentleman´s behaviour!

Yes we do have differing opinions. You called me a liar: i had quoted you verbatim. It's there for all to see, so let's not relive the experience. Only one of us has learnt something from it, and that something is that one of us is not above the basest motives to bring to a discussion where such accusations say more about the accuser than the accused.

The only thing I will say is that he chose to word it that he could not offer "A FULL EXPERT OPINION" - to me, that suggests that he offered an experets opinion that would have been full if he had been provided with the originals and more samples of both writers signatures.

Fisherman...what is a half-expert opinion? Or a quarter-part expert opinion? Leander told you straight that the opinion he was giving was NOT a professional opinion as he had defective materials to work with which would make tendering such an opinion idiotic on his part. He qualified this by also using the words "personal" and "spontaneous"...he was basically doing you a favour. Both those words underline and emphasise the fact that Leander himself COULD NOT GIVE you a PROFESSIONAL opinion given the materials you provided him with. Why you keep denying this i do not know. It makes you look idiotic, to be honest.

So Leanders contribution is to be considered an experts opinion and nothing else, and it is as full as it can be using the material he had. We know that he tells us that any forthcoming evidence to his mind would probably confirm his suggestion that Toppy was Hutch, and therefore we can deduct that he does not see it as probable that an examination of the originals would cause any alteration of his mindset.

No it is not. Leander himself told you it was not a professional opinion, but one which was "personal" and "spontaneous". We cannot "deduct" anything from the fact that he has not seen the originals. If he had seen them, there might be any number of differences due to pen pressure, size of characters etc that would make him change his opinion. In any case, in the circumstances, his personal opinion is as valid as anyone else's on the signature issue...but no more valid.

have to go will respond to the rest later

[Ben]

I think you nailed it, Beebs.

Leander was adamant that his comments should not be miscontrued as a "full expert opinion" since, according to the gentleman himself, it wasn't even possible given the nature of the material. You might encounter a few somewhat desperate semantic protestations that it's still an expert opinion, just not a "full" one (Oh yes!), but all you have to do in that eventuality is ask them what the blazes a "half expert opinion" or a "semi expert-opinion" is supposed to look like for those protestations to collapse like a house of cards.

Leander told us himself what his comments represented; a "spontaneous comment". Not an expert opinion, because such a thing could not be facillitated by the material available. So as you correctly point out, anyone claiming they have an expert professional opinion fighting their corner in the form of Leander is hopelessly incorrect.

But then Fisherman writes:

We know, though, that he tells us that any forthcoming evidence to his mind would probably confirm his suggestion that Toppy was Hutch, and therefore we can deduct that he does not see it as probable that an examination of the originals would cause any alteration of his mindset

Which is just repetition. I've already responded to that by pointing out that the above is in incredibly stark contrast to anything he claimed in his first post, as can be seen from the translation recently provided. He most emphatically never said anything that could be even vaguely construed as synonymous with "I'd be surprised if we did not have a match at hand". There is no convergence of the twain here at all. If he said one, but meant the other, I'm afraid he has a serious problem with conveying his true meaning.

So Leanders contribution is to be considered an experts opinion and nothng else

Not by me it isn't.

Because Leander cautioned us that it shouldn't be construed as such. It is to be considered a "spontaneous comment", because that is what Leander himself said it was...and nothing else.

I was referring to the relevance of the Iremonger "material" as oppsoed to the Leander ditto - I have all along said that Leander is to be preferred since we know what he saw and what he said about it in pretty much detail

With sincere respect, I'm forced to be a little robust in my terminology here in dismissing that as infuriating, ghastly nonsense, because the Leander material only consisted of a few computerized images, thus rendering a full expert opinion impossible. No such caveat was applied to Sue Iremonger's analysis, as discussed by Messrs. Begg, Fido, Hinton and others, almost certainly because she examined the original documents: the statement signatures and Toppy's marriage certificate signature. Since Iremonger is an experienced professional in her field, it would be useless for laymen to attempt to pass critical comment on her assessment. We don't have the experience. We can only settle for the overwhelmingly probable explanation that she applied her abilities to arrive at an informed conclusion.

So, no offense, but being "emphatic" that Leander is the best we have is completely worthless, since it's so obviously wrong.

concluding that he believed the signatures to be a match, and that he would be surprised to learn if they were not

He didn't say anything even vaguely resembling that in his intial commentary, though, so if he changed his tune to declaring them a match subsequently, it naturally followes that he didn't say what he meant in his first post. Of course, he never once claimed that "he believed the signatures to be a match".

And since we found that academic report telling us that signature researchers were very able to work from photocopies of signatures, as well as from originals, there is no way anybody is going to be able to dismiss Leanders words on the matter

Until we actually listen to what Leander said, which was that only a "spontaneous comment" was possible from the material, which is virtually the polar opposite of arguing that "signature researchers were very able to work from photocopies of signatures". If you want to accept him at his word, listen to his word.

They remain the only fully documented investigation

But it wasn't anything like a fully documented investigation, remember?

You can't have a "fully documented investigation" in the absence of the "full documents"!

I mean, really, think about it.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"I am now, as i was then, annoyed that you called me a liar when i had quoted you verbatim"

You know very well that we have differing opinions on that "verbatim" quotation, Babybird. I can only assure you that if I had been of the opinion that I was in any fashoin misrepresenting you, I would have had no trouble to apologize. But I firmly believe standing by a conviction is something that also belongs to a gentleman´s behaviour!

"He specifically told you that he could not offer a professional opinion based on the materials he had been supplied."

Well, we can chew on this one for years, I expect. The only thing I will say is that he chose to word it that he could not offer "A FULL EXPERT OPINION" - to me, that suggests that he offered an experets opinion that would have been full if he had been provided with the originals and more samples of both writers signatures. And in that respect, we BOTH know that the only signatures attributed to "George Hutchisnon the witness" are the three on the report. Therefore, Leander will NEVER be able to offer a "full expert opinion" as long as this stands. And we will be going round in circles if Toppy was the man, since more samples of the witness are not possible to surface under such circumstances!

So Leanders contribution is to be considered an experts opinion and nothing else, and it is as full as it can be using the material he had. We know that he tells us that any forthcoming evidence to his mind would probably confirm his suggestion that Toppy was Hutch, and therefore we can deduct that he does not see it as probable that an examination of the originals would cause any alteration of his mindset.
The fact that he told me that he offered his "personal" opinion was not - once again! - meant to point to any disagreement on his behalf to have the material published on Casebook - it was merely a pointing out that no business agreement lay behind his contribution, only personal reflections of what he saw and could read into it - and what a capacity like him sees and reads into things are the best hope we have of getting things right.

"No Fisherman it is not what you have been saying all along."

I was referring to the relevance of the Iremonger "material" as oppsoed to the Leander ditto - I have all along said that Leander is to be preferred since we know what he saw and what he said about it in pretty much detail, naming all the elements that had been relevant to him in the investigation. That, emphatically, makes him the best bet we have. Evaluating sources can sometimes be difficult - given my profession, I should know! - but this time over it is a piece of cake. Until we find documentation of Iremongers work, she does not equal Leanders importance in any way. You are perfectly welcome to disagree, of course, but you will be very hard pressed to find substantiation for such a disagreement.

As for your insinuations that I have been reeling between perhaps and absolutely, I will provide you with my first post on the 1911 thread:

"The likeness inbetween the four samples provided by Sam is baffling to me. Like most of us out here, I am no specialist in graphology, but my money is on these signatures quite possibly belonging to the same man.
As has been pointed out, the Topping signature offers a few elements that are not totally consistent with all of the other three signatures, but that is of very little importance to me, since the overall impression remains one of consistency.
Points to consider: Ben mentions that Toppy finishes his "son" off with an anti-clockwise loop. But have a look at the signature number three: it ALSO finishes in an anti-clockwise turn, albeit not fully as pronounced. Now, if that number three signature had been thrown forward as being Toppys, and to be compared to the ones above, with no anti-clockwise turn - would that have ruled it out as not being by the same hand as the others?
Moreover - the three signatures at the top were probably signed with the same pen and on the same type of paper. The fourth signature was not, and some of the discrepancies involved will owe to that fact.
Also: These are signatures written by two of the few George Hutchinsons of the same age and extraction. Chances are that they would be totally dissimilar, but instead they are - at least to my eye - much of carbon copies.
It would be very useful to see the full signatures, just as it would be interesting to see the marriage certificate. But from what Sam published, to me it seems we have a very good match."

And so you can see that I spoke of carbon copies from the outset, just as I said that it was a very good match, quite possibly belonging to the same man. And that was BEFORE I saw the marriage license! There has been very little doubt on the matter from the outset on my behalf. And since Leander confirms what I think, I see no much reason to hesitate at all. As usual, you are welcome to disagree - but you are not welcome to tell me that I was much of a doubter at any stage.

"All he did was give a personal opinion based on the imperfect samples, electronic copies, that he had to work with. I doubt he would even consider publishing any such report which could be linked to his professional capacity based on such unsatisfactory materials."

There has never been any suggestion on Leanders behalf to publish any report at all in this business. Why would he? He graciously accepted a question to take a look at the signatures and he, just as graciously, gave his wiew on the matter, concluding that he believed the signatures to be a match, and that he would be surprised to learn if they were not.
He is in all probability totally unaware of the commotion going on out here, and that´s good on him as far as I´m concerned.
But I think you need to realize that he is a professional, and if he had been awarded the task to work from electronic copies to decide a case, he would have no problem compiling a very competent report, pointing to the style elements involved, the differences and the similarities, adding, though, that the material was insufficient to give a full experts opinion.
Which, by the way, was exactly what he did in the Toppy/Hutch case. And since we found that academic report telling us that signature researchers were very able to work from photocopies of signatures, as well as from originals, there is no way anybody is going to be able to dismiss Leanders words on the matter. They remain the only fully documented investigation into these signatures from a renowned forensic document examiner we have. But I would very happily welcome more such investigations of the same level!

All the best, Babybird!
Fisherman

[babybird67]

Maybe, Babybird, we should not get too entangled in who has called whom what, and instead try and focus on the issue itself.

Sorry, are we back on this thread now? I am not entangled in anything Fisherman. I am now, as i was then, annoyed that you called me a liar when i had quoted you verbatim, and, worse,that you could not see that a gentleman would have apologised for doing such a thing. I don't hold grudges and am prepared to forgive and forget most anything...apart from unrepented injustices.

And on that issue, it is of relevance to realize that what Leander said was that he could not provide a full expert opinion, this owing to the fact that he only saw the material twodimensionally and that he would have liked to have more samples to compare with.
That does not mean, however, that his resulting opinion in any fashion lacked in professionalism.

He specifically told you that he could not offer a professional opinion based on the materials he had been supplied. He specifically told you that the opinion he was offering was a "personal" one, in a personal capacity, not a professional capacity. In those circumstances, to claim that we have a professional opinion which concurs with your own view that Toppy/Hutchinson are probably/possibly/whateverly one and the same, is misleading to say the least. Therefore i disagree with this:

I propose that Leanders examination is by far the best one we have on the issue.

No. It is not.

I fully concur with Garrys suggestion that we need to know for sure which samples have been compared, the levels of concordance, probability values, and so forth when it comes to an examination. In Leanders case, we have that knowledge to a significant extent, whereas when it comes to Iremonger, we have nothing like it. And, to go on quoting Garry: "These are the nuts and bolts of empirical evaluation, and in their absence any ‘scientific’ claims in either direction are entirely pointless."

That is what I have been saying all along, and that is what a number of posters have had all sorts of trouble swallowing down.

No Fisherman it is not what you have been saying all along. It is the position that I adopted all along. You, however, prevaricated between these positions: Toppy and Hutch could match, Toppy and Hutch probably match, Toppy and Hutch most probably match, and, la piece de resistance (apologies to French speakers), Toppy IS Hutch. But don't let's go there again...it was tedious enough the first time round...but don't try to rewrite history.

I feel pretty sure, Babybird, that Garry is able to pick up on what has been going on on the 1911 thread, just as I think he will be able to come up with a verdict of his own about who has been calling whom what, and why. I feel no personal need to point out what I was subjected to myself, since it is totally unrelated to the core issue.

On the contrary...Garry probably has more productive things to do than trawl through this thread and it's interminable arguments. Garry seemed to me to be under the impression that we were waiting for a full report from Leander on the issue. I felt it right to disabuse him of this misconception, as there is no professional report due from Leander. All he did was give a personal opinion based on the imperfect samples, electronic copies, that he had to work with. I doubt he would even consider publishing any such report which could be linked to his professional capacity based on such unsatisfactory materials.

Anyway, enough...i have more important things to do.

[Ben]

Have it again, if you're desperate to start a repetetive Leander-war again:

He used his training and experience to establish that what could be perceived from his material visually, was that he would be surprised if we did not have a match at hand.

Which was in incredibly stark contrast to anything he claimed in his first post, as you've just quoted above. He most emphatically never said anything that could be even vaguely construed as synonymous with "I'd be surprised if we did not have a match at hand". There is no convergence of the twain here at all. If he said one, but meant the other, I'm afraid he has a serious problem with conveying his true meaning.

I propose that Leanders examination is by far the best one we have on the issue.

And I reject that as utter nonsense, since we know from several highly reputable sources that Sue Iremonger examined the original documents and came to the conclusion that Toppy was not the witness. This was attested to by, amongst others, Paul Begg and Martin Fido, and it wouldn't have been a case of comparing on-screen images which convey no accurate impression of relative size, pen pressure or anything of that nature. To argue that Leander's comparison is "by far the best" when Leander himself observed that a full expert opinion was not "possible" given the material is completely unaccaptable.

I feel pretty sure, Babybird, that Garry is able to pick up on what has been going on on the 1911 thread, just as I think he will be able to come up with a verdict of his own about who has been calling whom what, and why.

If you're looking for adherents to your cause, that one won't work either, since we know Garry does not share your view that Toppy was the witness. He is also of the opinion that Leander's initial observations conveyed neutrality.

I'm so glad we're going through all this again.

[Fisherman]

Maybe, Babybird, we should not get too entangled in who has called whom what, and instead try and focus on the issue itself. And on that issue, it is of relevance to realize that what Leander said was that he could not provide a full expert opinion, this owing to the fact that he only saw the material twodimensionally and that he would have liked to have more samples to compare with.
That does not mean, however, that his resulting opinion in any fashion lacked in professionalism. He used his training and experience to establish that what could be perceived from his material visually, was that he would be surprised if we did not have a match at hand.

A full examination of the originals may or may not provide insights that may or may not have changed his wiew. The same goes for added signatures.

I propose that Leanders examination is by far the best one we have on the issue. I fully concur with Garrys suggestion that we need to know for sure which samples have been compared, the levels of concordance, probability values, and so forth when it comes to an examination. In Leanders case, we have that knowledge to a significant extent, whereas when it comes to Iremonger, we have nothing like it. And, to go on quoting Garry: "These are the nuts and bolts of empirical evaluation, and in their absence any ‘scientific’ claims in either direction are entirely pointless."

That is what I have been saying all along, and that is what a number of posters have had all sorts of trouble swallowing down. Alongside that, all sorts of strange accusations have been thrown forward, one of them being that I misused a personal trust when I published Leanders contribution, something that was quite wrong from beginning to end.
I feel pretty sure, Babybird, that Garry is able to pick up on what has been going on on the 1911 thread, just as I think he will be able to come up with a verdict of his own about who has been calling whom what, and why. I feel no personal need to point out what I was subjected to myself, since it is totally unrelated to the core issue.
So let´s leave him to it, shall we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I'm not sure why you'd want to "get back to this" when it was discussed at length in painful and ill-tempered detail pages back, but I disagree, then as now. If you wish to convey probability, you can say "this is probable" or "this is likely", rather than declaring something "Not impossible" and hoping everyone understands that you secretly mean probable.

I appreciative that others disagree, but I really hoped we'd simply agreed to disagree on this.

Anyone up for some fun repetition of earlier debates?

All the best,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

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.

Just to get back to this: Hardly possible to exclude is about what Fisherman was saying. The emphasis is on probability here, just as Fisherman believed and as Caz pointed out (through inference).

Leander sees what many of us see. That's a good thing.

Mike

[DVV]

Ben sings in French for Caz

You are positively fixated with me, aren't you?

Hello both!


"... Je sens comme une ombre sur moi
Un mirage gris
Qui m'enlève les joies que me donne la vie
Pour me laisser seul dans la nuit

Je suis poursuivi par
Ce gros nuage gris
Où que j'aille il me poursuit
Depuis que je suis né je l'ai toujours vu là
Vraiment la chance n'est pas pour moi

Et un de ces jours quand je serai mort
Alors il deviendra plus gris
Il sera là pour juger de mon sort
Et me chasser loin du paradis..."

Johnny Halliday (sorry)

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Sorry, Caz - and well spotted. I meant Melvyn Fairclough, of course.

[Ben]

You are positively fixated with me, aren't you?

From what I have read it does look like there has only been a handful of real George Hutchinsons identified as possibilities.

Well then you haven't been reading very carefully, since there are a great many more than a "handful", including candidates that we know appeared in the 1891/1901 census but whose absence were conspicuous from the 1911 census. As for the possibility of Hutchinson being an alias, there's no "leap" involved there at all. Given the widely accepted belief that the contents of his statement "engenders a feeling of scepticism", there is no leap at all in fathoming that the author of a demonstrably bogus (and contemporaneously discredited) statement could have supplied police with an equally bogus name.

I'm not asserting that it happened that way, necessarily. But you must first exclude that strong possibility before making the unacceptable "leap" of faith that asserts that there are only a handful of possible candidates. That is wrong - factually wrong, and to argue otherwise is to do precisely what you cautioned against: building a "house of cards built on no supporting evidence". To "err on the side of caution" is to avoid excluding possibilities, especially the strong ones, and no, there is nothing that would permit you to conclude that it is "more likely" than he used his real name.

especially if he was expecting his claim that Mary Kelly knew him as "Hutchinson" to be checked out with her known associates

And if they do investigate that claim, and discover that none of Kelly's associates knew of anyone named George Hutchinson, what then? Hutchinson would simply protest that of course Kelly wasn't about to go around divulging the names of her occasional clients willy-nilly, leaving the police powerless to challenge him on that point.

If you want the witness to have given a false name then you can’t then trust him to have told the truth about being resident in the area, when for all you know he could have spent most of his time somewhere like Romford

Oh but I can - easily.

One of them was eminently "checkable" and the other wasn't. It's as simple as that. The coppers could have contacted the Victoria home, presented them with the man known to them (the police) as “George Hutchinson”, and they could have confirmed that the man in question was a regular user of that particular lodging house, even if they didn’t know his name. The question of whether “George Hutchinson” was the man’s real name would have been much harder to verify or contradict for reasons that surely don’t need explaining.

“Thanks for the laugh. Did you momentarily lose your grip on your own vastly superior command of the language, or did you really mean to accuse poor old Martin of being sickeningly obsequious; nauseatingly affectionate, admiring or praiseful; loosely, copious or lavish; or excessive* in praise of Sue’s talents?”

Do you even know how to use a thesaurus or a dictionary?

“Fulsome”, as any idiot will appreciate, can mean “excessively lavish”. It can also mean “comprehensive" or “encompassing all aspects”. I therefore used the word in its correct context when discussing Martin’s views of Iremonger’s contributions. He “encompassed all aspects” of Iremonger’s praiseworthy aspects, and was lavish in his praise of her. When it comes to Fisherman, congratulations for consulting your thesaurus, because it taught you that it can also mean “disgusting; sickening; repulsive”. So in that context, too, it was correctly applied. Back we go to the sentence: “you do care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't keep responding in so venonmous and fulsome a fashion", where you'll see it applies perfectly.

And there we go. The word “fulsome” was used in its correct context both times. If you’re accusing me of misusing the English language, you’re factually incorrect, which only serves to underscore the fact that – and this may sound petty – I’m simply better at this stuff than you, immeasurably so.

I know you’re intellectually insecure.

I know that you think it annoys me more than anything, and that you're only doing it to elicit an angry response that may get me penalised or even banned by the moderators.

I know that you use that intellectual insecurity reveals itself when you follow me around in a desperate attempt to score points over me, but I’m afraid it must join the ranks of the unsuccessful debating strategies against me – strategies that only serve to get burped back in your face when they go wrong, which, let's face it, is all the time.

“Ooh lordy. Which signature [singular] on the statement, though?”

All of them, as we learned subsequently from Jonathan’s posts, as reinforced by Messrs. Fido and Begg.

“How do you know that the vast majority of readers, who rarely if ever challenge your opinions, aren’t all thinking “Oh, it’s just that Hutch zealot again, losing himself yet more credibility without my having to lift a finger… etc etc”?”

Good point. What a stroke of misfortune then that the only people who do insist upon engaging me in prolific and relentless battles are the most clumsy and ineffective debaters around? Of course, you’d delight to posit the existence of hoards of other people quieting acknowledging your brilliance in the wings “Go Caz, tell Ben what a horrible bastard he is!”, but the chances of that fantasy reflecting reality are effectively zero.

“Oh and yes please, put your money where your mouth is and pay me a million pounds, and I promise to continue resisting the considerable temptation just to ignore you. I was already doing that for nothing.”

No, you weren’t.

You’ve been following me around relentlessly for years. You can’t even begin to resist the temptation, and why would I pay you to piss off? I don’t want you to go anywhere, and I’m sustained by the inferiority of the most vocal pocket of opposition. By all means, stick around,

[caz]

From #1620 April 28...

And no, the number is not freakishly small, here are the reasons why again:

1) We don't know how many people named "George Hutchinson" left London between the 12th Novemner 1888 and the taking of the 1891 census.

2) We cannot possibly know how many people were living in London in the year 1888, when no census was taken.

3) We have no idea if "George Hutchinson" was the real name of the individual who introduced himself as such to police on 12th November 1888.

The number of potential candidates for the witness in question must therefore be regarded as extremely high.

Hi Ben,

From what I have read it does look like there has only been a handful of real George Hutchinsons identified as possibilities. You can only make the giant leap to include pretty much every male who could have been in the vicinity of Miller's Court on November 9 1888 if you first make the speculative leap that the witness lied from the off by using an alias, because he had something serious to hide when he strode into the cop shop to volunteer his services.

It's a house of cards built on no supporting evidence, and erring on the side of caution would involve acknowledging that the witness was more likely to be using his real name - especially if he was expecting his claim that Mary Kelly knew him as "Hutchinson" to be checked out with her known associates - in which case he would have been among the infinitely smaller group of potential George Hutchinsons.

If you want the witness to have given a false name then you can’t then trust him to have told the truth about being resident in the area, when for all you know he could have spent most of his time somewhere like Romford, where he may have been a familiar face, looking in vain for some kind of regular job, and only coming into Whitechapel on odd occasions, to find a bit of casual work, catch up with an old friend or two, or even murder and mutilate a prossie while he was at it, where few people would even know him by sight, let alone his real name.

What price your 'local' killer theory then, if he lied through his teeth about being a solid and reliable presence in the community, doing his bit for law and order? That would be hilarious.

In post #1652 April 29, you wrote to Fisherman:

If you wish to doubt Iremonger's credentials, you're welcome to do so. I'm not sure what I'm really supposed to do (care, perhaps?), or why you think your doubt should have an impact, but your biggest clue lies in the fact that Messrs Begg, Fido and Hinton were all in communication with her, and Martin Fido in particular was fulsome in praise of her abilities. Of course, if you want to argue that the gentleman in question were duped...?

Seeing you go on in the very next line to accuse Fisherman of using ‘tortured English’ was hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. Did you momentarily lose your grip on your own vastly superior command of the language, or did you really mean to accuse poor old Martin of being sickeningly obsequious; nauseatingly affectionate, admiring or praiseful; loosely, copious or lavish; or excessive* in praise of Sue’s talents?

[*fulsome = sickeningly obsequious; nauseatingly affectionate, admiring or praiseful; loosely, copious or lavish; excessive]

Tough titty, Fisherman. Here I am. I disagree with you, and I will cheerfully reiterate that disagreement whevever you feel like engaging in repetition, and yes, you do care what I think, otherwise you wouldn't keep responding in so venonmous and fulsome a fashion.

And I’d love to know how Fisherman managed to be venomous and fulsome towards you at the same time. Wouldn’t one rather cancel out the other?

How would you explain away your simply atrocious misuse of the English language in these two instances, assuming you will not be insulting everyone’s intelligence by trying to pass them off as ‘obvious typos’? If you can’t explain it, what the hell qualifies you as the resident expert on identifying anyone else’s misuse of language?

Here, for the record, are Bob Hinton's exact words: "The world renowned document examiner, Sue Iremonger, has also investigated whether or not this is the correct George Hutchinson. She compared the marriage certificate signature of George W. T. Hutchinson, with the signature on the statement made by George Hutchinson, and has concluded that they are not made by the same person.

Ooh lordy. Which signature [singular] on the statement, though? We have been told that Sue was only 'definite' about the page one sig being by Badham, and therefore not by the same person who signed pages two and three. That would only rule out Badham as Toppy. Anyone coming relatively fresh to this topic, and stumbling upon the odd oasis in this vast desert of non-information, might be forgiven for wondering if the conclusion implied above might be a mirage.

What I'm saying is that the other elements (the patent bollocks in Melvyn Harris's book aside)...

Now I really don't think you wanted to say that, Sam...

And I don’t think young Ben wanted to say this either:

I'm still in awe of my power to hypnotize people into interminable posting battles with me. That's what I find astonishing. In a good way, of course, but no less astonishing for that. There never seems to be any sense that, "Oh, it's just Ben, that Hutchinson zealot who goes on and on, and isn't worth taking seriously." None of that ever happens. I reckon if I paid someone a million pounds to resist the temptation to ignore me, they'd fail miserably.

To be fair, Ben, one could count the number of people who get drawn into truly epic posting battles with you on the fingers of one badly mangled hand.

How do you know that the vast majority of readers, who rarely if ever challenge your opinions, aren’t all thinking “Oh, it’s just that Hutch zealot again, losing himself yet more credibility without my having to lift a finger… etc etc”?

Oh and yes please, put your money where your mouth is and pay me a million pounds, and I promise to continue resisting the considerable temptation just to ignore you. I was already doing that for nothing.

But I’m thinking maybe you ought to check your small print - you could cost yourself an absolute fortune by having it arse about face. That would be some incentive - a million pounds to resist the urge to carry on ignoring you and start doing ‘battle’ with you instead. I’m sure one or two would overcome even the most powerful feelings of revulsion to do it for a much more modest fee.

And of course, the possibility that you had this arse about face can hardly be excluded given your recent posting history.

And right there is the rather crucial difference between something that is 'hardly possible to exclude' on the available evidence, and something that cannot entirely be ruled out despite the available evidence.

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:

[Caz goes snip snip and cuts right to the chase]

...It is hardly possible to exclude that it is the same person that is involved...

Thank you, Crystal, for providing this example. I leave others to interpret it within their own personal grasp of the language, with or without emotional attachments various.

Love,

Caz
X

OH DEAR! Are we still at it? Gosh, patience, people, patience! I can tell you this much - somebody around here can look forward to a very large slice of humble pie - actually, scrap that, an entire pie....

I'm doing my best - will try to get to Kew this week - between the many other demands on my time - Ben, I'm looking at you! - and will try to start the process for requesting copyright permission.

I must warn you, however, that this material is considered by the staff at Kew to be highly controversial, and I may not get permission because of that. An incident a few years ago in which somebody attempted to add documents to the MEPO files - thus falsifying the record, has meant that they are extremely circumspect with the originals. I think they would take some persuading to publish anything further from the files, because of the controvesy surrounding the material. I will attempt to press the point of public consumption - and we will see how I do.

David - apologies for the delay - been in Devon and had I.T. problems - about to send you some images now.

Cx