Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

David,
Correct me if I'm wrong. You are saying you have reservations about Iremonger saying that Badham signed the first page. yes? It doesn't make sense to me to refute the first page, but then use her idea that perhaps George and Toppy have different signatures. Very selective use of an "expert" opinion, don't you think?
Mike

Hi Mike,
no, I've never dared to say so. I have reservation about the "conscious imitation".
A conscious imitation, IMO, would have included the witness capital "H", which was in no way difficult to imitate.

Amitiés,
David

edit: I've recently posted that other experts opinions were needed.

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I am sorry my post swayed from the thread somewhat, it was not intended, a case of frustration.
I will start a thread [ yes another one] so that the monitary aspect, can be discussed, and where i can reply on topic.
Richard.

[The Good Michael]

Sorry David, but again I feel the need to clarify: Badham signed the page, but it wasn't an attempt to imitate Hutchinson. It was just the way he signed it. Any similarities one may think they see, are coincidental.

Is that what you're thoughts are?

Mike

[DVV]

Well, two things here, Mike.
1- you asked me about Sue I, so I admitted my reservations about HER suggestion that Badham signed in "conscious imitation"; etc
2- Though I have to respect her as an expert, I'm definitely far from sure that the signature on page 1 is from Badham. The sample we have of his handwriting argues strongly in favour of my view. And as posted somewhere above, there is another expert who said that pages 1 and 2 are from the same hand.

Finally, I don't want to dismiss the experts views, nor I don't want to hide myself behind experts, even when they bolster my (uncertain) opinion.

My turn, now:
Your opinion, Mike, about this capital G and Toppy "Benjamin Button" Hutchinson ?

Amitiés,
David

edit: note that these 3 capital G, absolutely penned in the same style and shape, do strongly suggest a same hand. Especially when we dismiss the "conscious imitation" theory.

[Sam Flynn]

2- Though I have to respect her as an expert

I find it advisable to respect experts only where they have some special knowledge or ability beyond our reach. Comparing patterns in order to assess their similarity does not require special knowledge - it's something we can all do. Indeed, it's something which "lower" animals or software programs can do for that matter.

On the other hand, discerning nuances that might reveal a forgery may well require special knowledge. However, forgery is not in question here. Ergo, a document examiner's expertise is entirely misplaced in this context.

[DVV]

Sam,
my whole post shows I don't disagree with you in this matter.
You surprise me!

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Sam,
my whole post shows I don't disagree with you in this matter.
You surprise me!

I was just making a general point about the "must respect her expertise" bit, David. I'm just being my usual, boringly rational, self

[DVV]

Iechyd da, my dear.
Though I'm fasting until 15.00.

[DVV]

I'm just being my usual, boringly rational, self

Rationality is seldom boring, Sam.
At least at day-time.
I know you can extend your rationality to the capital (really capital...) G.
...J'allais dire le point G...Oooops! Not today!

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Though I have to respect her as an expert

Me too, David.

Since document examination is concerned with a good deal more than forgery, I'd say that expert opinion is invaluable for this particular comparison; a view that is underscored by the fact that some of the leading authorities on the subject of the Whitechapel murders also felt inclined to listen to her. Doesn't mean we're not capable of assessing the vidual stimuli ourselves, only that the views we arrive at as a consequence might be less informed.

A plea! If this thread is becoming endless it's because I see the same points being raised that I feel compelled to provide precisely the same objections to!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

A plea! If this thread is becoming endless it's because I see the same points being raised that I feel compelled to provide precisely the same objections to!

We have an expression in Welsh, Ben - "Dyfal donc a dyrr y garreg" ("Frequent taps will eventually break the rock")

[DVV]

A nice saying Sam, and true enough.
But is Toppy solid as a rock ?

Amitiés,
David

[caz]

I have no idea what information Iremonger would have been given before hand (see: SPE-Skinner-Swanson-Davis ) that would poison her judgment. All I know is what Paul Begg and Martin Fido have told me, and I've passed along the emails to Ben and Gareth to read for themselves, or (in the case of Fido) have reposted here. I've no doubt that there was a difference between Iremonger's definitive ruling on the first page signature and the slight doubt she showed when reviewing the comparison with the witness signatures and the marriage certificates. I am more than willing to submit anyones questions on this matter to Paul Begg or Martin Fido.

Thanks.

JM

As a PS-

Jean Overton Fuller has died. RIP.

JM

Hi JM,

Very many thanks for this - very helpful.

May I just clarify that I was in no way, shape or form suggesting that Sue's judgement may have been 'poisoned' by information given her beforehand. It was more a comment related to this whole opinion v fact argument, and the way 'definitely... since GH forgot' comes across as a statement of fact rather than speculation informed by long experience with similar documents.

If it had already been established by independent evidence, for instance, that GH had not signed the first page himself, eg from a contemporary police memo to that effect, then I wouldn't call it poisoning Sue's judgement to have allowed her sight of that.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Thanks Mike-as to Badham, none of us have actually seen the statement (unless you have Caz?). Miss Iremonger has. Just a thought. And if I have reservations, that's my right, I think.

No Crystal, not in the flesh. But then I was simply asking what Sue Iremonger actually said and meant, before assuming it was more "may be" than "no doubt about it". I already said what my own first impressions had been when I saw JM's scan - that it had looked to me, before reading that "Badham dunnit", like Hutch was rather endearingly trying to imitate a Badham curly H from just above. The signature, to me you see, looked remarkably like the rest of the statement. (Not bad if Badham did write it, eh? ) But I didn't offer it as my considered opinion then and I'm not offering one now. So don't fret pet.

It's entirely your right to have whatever reservations you like. But if it turns out that Hutch was imitating Badham's H, my first impressions were still not bad, were they?

Love,

Caz
X

[Crystal]

Oh I'm so happy that I'm allowed to have my own views! I was really starting to worry for a while there.