Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[richardnunweek]

Hi Fisherman,
We will never satisfy the majority of Casebook, even when the answer is simple, look at the signatures ask one question to yourself, 'Are these signed by the same person'?
If a Yes, then Topping was the witness.
If a No, then back to the drawing board.
If a undecided, then keep a open mind.
We are non the wiser, as even if Topping was the witness, we still cannot be assured of his state of mind, or character, as son Reg has been critized much on Casebook, and it appears very few if any, except myself, actually believe his account.
We could have had further assurance from one time poster JD, but she has declined to follow up, dispite sincere mails from myself, i guess she decided she cannot win a war with one soldier.
Regards Richard.

[Fisherman]

Richard writes:

"We will never satisfy the majority of Casebook, even when the answer is simple"

Nope, Richard - nor should we try to achieve it, since there are so many investments made that will be formidable obstacles in the way of such a venture.
The only thing we can do is to present a reasonable case, and then try and keep an open mind about the wiews of those who disagree, take in all information accessible and then see if we - all things considered - can satisfy ourselves that a good enough material has been presented to pass a verdict that allows us to stay true to ourselves.
I have done just that, and I see no reason to doubt that Topping was the Dorset Street witness.

Just like you say, even if we do accept that this is the truth, it tells us precious little about Toppings motives and prehistory. Of course, it would eliminate the suggestion that the witness was somebody else, masquerading in front of the police, and in accordance with my conviction about the signatures, I accept this - well knowing that others wonīt.
I choose to stay perfectly happy about what I regard as a major breakthrough, and since happy men are generous men, I donīt mind others holding a different wiew.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Ah yes, but I do not say I refer to myself"

As you will realize, Crystal, I was just pulling your leg ever so mildly...! No offense meant!

The best,
Fisherman
(quite used to murky waters himself - the murkier the water, the bigger the chance the fish wonīt be able to call your bluff)

[Crystal]

Crystal writes:

"Ah yes, but I do not say I refer to myself"

As you will realize, Crystal, I was just pulling your leg ever so mildly...! No offense meant!

The best,
Fisherman
(quite used to murky waters himself - the murkier the water, the bigger the chance the fish wonīt be able to call your bluff)

Oh, I knew that, Fisherman! And of course, no offence taken.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

And as it stands, I believe that the signatures are quite enough to allow us to deduct that the possibility that ANOTHER George Hutchinson was around at that time and place, who wrote his name in a fashion that equalled or came even closer to the ones on the police reports, is a ridiculously slender one.

Don't keep saying it!

There's no need!

Right, my turn:

And as it stands, I remain supremely confident that the witness signatues do not compare to the Toppy signature, and that the purpose served by this unnecessarily long-winded debate is to renforce my fervent belief that Toppy was not the witness who introduced himself to police as George Hutchinson.

All done. No need to keep forcing over and over and over again what your opinion is. Very very annoying.

we do not know next to nothing of her incentives, of the details involved and - once again - of which signatures she compared to each other

Incentives?

Not sure if this is supposed to imply that Iremonger had an agenda prior to embarking on the comparison, but I dearly hope not. Gosh, it's little wonder that I didn't mention this discussion when I contacted Iremonger.

of which signatures she compared to each other.

The witness signatures and the marriage certificate signature of GWTH. What are the basis for the doubts that she compared the signatures she was reported to have compared? I don't get this.

"She deemed the signatures incomparable SINCE..."

...too bad you wouldn't have the experience and background to pass critical comment on her methods, regardless of what answer she gave.

In fact, it represents all that lack of substantiation is about: a claim that is left with no support whatsoever.

Despite the fact that numerous authorities in the field, such as Paul Begg and Martin Fido, can attest to it having occured exactly as stated. Regardless of what you believe to be a lack of substatiation, there have been no remotely realistic doubts that Iremonger compared the signatures, as stated by reputable independent sources, and that she came to the conclusion that Toppy was not the witness.

I believe that an unbiased examination of the signatures made by a forensic handstyle expert would render a verdict of them very probably being written by the same man.

Why on earth would you expect that, when Sue Iremonger, with more than enough credentials, has compared the sigantures and came to the conclusion that they were not penned by the same individual. Your opinion that a "handstyle expert" would claim a match is based solely upon the misplaced, irrational, and inexperienced faith with you rashly invest in your view that they must match. You're saying, in essennce, that the experts must agree with you because you think a match is so obvious, and that isn't going to wash.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Right! That does it! I'm going off to ask some experts! Right Now!

[Fisherman]

Ben, getting it all wrong as usual on this matter, writes:

"Why on earth would you expect that, when Sue Iremonger, with more than enough credentials, has compared the sigantures and came to the conclusion that they were not penned by the same individual. Your opinion that a "handstyle expert" would claim a match is based solely upon the misplaced, irrational, and inexperienced faith with you rashly invest in your view that they must match. You're saying, in essennce, that the experts must agree with you because you think a match is so obvious, and that isn't going to wash."

I am NOT saying that experts must agree with me.
I am NOT saying that experts must agree with me.
I am NOT saying that experts must agree with me.
I am NOT saying that experts must agree with me.
I am NOT saying that experts must agree with me.
I am NOT saying that experts must agree with me.
I am NOT saying that experts must agree with me.
I am NOT saying that experts must agree with me.

There, did it sink in THIS TIME OVER? Or do you feel a further need to misrepresent what I have said over and over again? We need to see the details!!! I am NOT dissing an examination, Ben - I have in fact not seen that sodding examination, and THATīS where the problem lies.

If I cant make heads or tails of the details of Iremongers assessment, then somebody else can. Please understand that, for it is important, Ben!
If what Iremonger said is of so divine a character and so etherical that she, and ONLY she can understand it, THEN-IT-IS-USELESS!!
Donīt try to paint it out as being above me, Ben, at least not until YOU understand that there are very few problems involved. It is mathematichs, basically, as I have already pointed out - you assess the angles, you measure the distances, you count the number of times the pen leaves the paper and so on. If you canīt understand such things, then I most certainly can!

In short: We do NOT have access to what Sue Iremonger said, just as we have no proof telling us which (and how many) signatures she compared. Lacking this, I sincerely believe that another comparison made by a trained examiner could provide us with not only an educated guess, but also the reason WHY he/she made that educated guess. And when I have been presented with such material, I will - as I have firmly stated - take it in. If it tells me that Topping is the probable writer of the police protocol signatures, I will find it a very logical deduction, and I will want to hear what points were of importance reaching this conclusion. If it tells me that Topping is NOT the credible writer, I will be wanting to hear the arguments that go against it. If Iīm told that it could be either way, I will be wanting to know what prompts this stance.
That is the way you evaluate such comparisons - you get the verdict and you get the motivations and you get a full account for what has been compared.
In Iremongers case, we have only the verdict. The motivations for it, and the account of what was used is as far away as it was when she was first mentioned on these boards, bless her.

Now, Ben, try to remember: I am NOT saying that experts must agree with me.

You can do it if you want to.

Regards,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I am NOT dissing an examination, Ben - I have in fact not seen that sodding examination, and THATīS where the problem lies.

I know you're not "dissing an examination", but I have to wonder what prompted your belief that a "handstyle analyst" would come to a different conclusion to Sue Iremonger.

It is mathematichs, basically, as I have already pointed out - you assess the angles, you measure the distances, you count the number of times the pen leaves the paper and so on.

So you're going back to the "anyone can do it" argument? I hope not, because that would clearly be nonsense. If it were so obvious that simple "mathematics" were all that was required, we wouldn't employ document examiners. But we do, because most of us recognise - correctly - that there's more to it than that, and that experience and background count for a great deal.

We do NOT have access to what Sue Iremonger said, just as we have no proof telling us which (and how many) signatures she compared

We've been informed by reputable sources that she compared all three witness signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature. What else, within the realms of reality and reasonable doubt, could she possibly have compared?

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

They haven't answered yet. Guess they're on their lunch...

[Fisherman]

"Ben writes:

"I have to wonder what prompted your belief that a "handstyle analyst" would come to a different conclusion to Sue Iremonger"

Firstly, Ben, my perception that the signatures are extremely alike. Secondly, my hunch that Iremongers verdict may not be what you think it is. Moreover, it may not be based on what you think it is based on.

Since you take such a dislike to me repeating things, maybe you should avoid questions that force me to do so...?

"So you're going back to the "anyone can do it" argument? I hope not, because that would clearly be nonsense. If it were so obvious that simple "mathematics" were all that was required, we wouldn't employ document examiners. But we do, because most of us recognise - correctly - that there's more to it than that, and that experience and background count for a great deal."

Going BACK, Ben? Who says I ever left that stance?? Parts of it CAN be done by anyone! Can you establish an angle? Can you measure a distance? Well then, there you are!
Of course, there may be other elements involved that benefit from a trained eye, but the angles and distances involved do not change when Iremonger takes a peak, do they?
It is NOT a very etherical science, Ben. The sooner you realize this, the better for those who read these posts. Basically what you are doing is to tell me that Iremonger MUST have used the right signatures, that she MUST be right since she is an expert, and that is of no use to provide the details, since they are so far above the level of deadly people that we would not understand it if we saw it.
That is mumbo-jumbo, Ben. And it is effectively a no-go.

She must NOT have made the correct comparison, she must NOT be right, and there is every reason to believe that we could easily follow her intentions - if we were provided with them.

That, though, we are not. So away, foul suggestion that we have a functioning judgement on the correct signatures. We have not. What we have is a neverending flow of assertions that we do have what we donīt have.

Have you ever heard of Carl von Linné, Ben? He was the top authority of the 18:th century when it came to taxonomy and knowledge about animals and growths. Nobody could equal him - it is he who arranged the taxonomical system we still use today.
He believed that the swallows stayed in the northern countries during wintertime - he was sure that they spent it sleeping on the bottoms of the lakes, only to reemerge again in the springtime.
He was THE expert on matters like this, and so people bought the thesis. They did not bother to ask him how he had come to his conclusions, nor did they check things out for themselves. If they had craved proof, he would have been at a loss. But they did not - it was a wiew of Carl von Linné, and who were they to question it.

You may be right in the end here; there may have been good reasons for Iremonger to say what she said, and she may have said it about the exact signatures we all hope she said it about.
But if this is so, it will to no extent depend on any effort of yours, will it?

Welcome, Ben, to historyīs long line of uncritical followers. May good fortune be with you. That is all that remains when you fail to do the homework yourself.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Secondly, my hunch that Iremongers verdict may not be what you think it is.

Based on what?

What realistic doubts are you entertaining?

All you're doing, in essence, is casting irrational doubts about Iremonger's findings on the basis of your own perception of a match, and this is why we're continuing to clash over this topic. As far as you're concerned, the match is so obvious to you that something must be "wrong" with Iremonger's methods and findings. Your doubts remain highly irrational. There is no remotely decent or compelling reason to imagine that Iremonger did anything other than what was was reported by independent reputable sources.

Of course, there may be other elements involved that benefit from a trained eye, but the angles and distances involved do not change when Iremonger takes a peak, do they?

No, but the salient observation - and one which you appear to agree with - is that document examiners are more qualified to arrive at an informed opinion on signature comparisons such as these than us hobbyists. There may be elements that might appear to involve simple comparison, but training and experience bestows upon the expert greater facilillities for comparing this sort of visual stimuli than us.

...Which is why we employ document examiners.

Basically what you are doing is to tell me that Iremonger MUST have used the right signatures

I'm not telling you that. I'm just passing on the observations of Messrs. Hinton, Fido and Begg, as kindly passed on by Jonathan. There can be no reasonable doubt that Iremonger compared the signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature, as stated.

So away, foul suggestion that we have a functioning judgement on the correct signatures.

So good riddance, preposterous and baseless insinuation that Iremonger compared any other signatures than those ones stated by independent, reputable sources.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

You can batter this to death, Ben, and it will not change that we do not have the details we need.
You can call my suggestion that we may be dealing with some sort of error "preposterous" as many times you like - as long as you cannot come up with the goods, neither you or me will be able to tell whether it is truly preposterous or very urgent and very overdue criticism of the fact that we are deprived of the source material.

You tell me that I will not accept experts that do not agree with me, thereby implying in a rather unsubtle way that I am the biased part here. But I think most people can read you like an open book, Ben. For what you yourself choose to do is to agree with an expert, without having the slightest clue how she reached her opinion! In fact, you even accept that you would not be able to understand it at any rate.

So, what we have here is NOT a case of me REFUTING "evidence" (you need to see it before you can refute it) - it is a case of you ACCEPTING "evidence", not because you realize that it was built on good grounds - that you take for granted, no questions asked, no Sir, anīI wouldnīt be able to make īeads or tails of it anyways, Sir! - but instead, seemingly, because it goes along with your own convictions.

And THAT is all you want to approve of an examination. Is it not, Ben?

Regards,
Fisherman

[Ben]

You can call my suggestion that we may be dealing with some sort of error "preposterous" as many times you like - as long as you cannot come up with the goods

The goods have been provided, as far as I'm concerned. We've had independent support from extremely reputable authorities that Iremonger compared the witness signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature and came to the conclusion that they didn't match.

In the absence of any non-ridiculous reason to doubt that Iremonger did precisely that, we're left with the overwhelming probability that she did precisely as stated.

For what you yourself choose to do is to agree with an expert, without having the slightest clue how she reached her opinion!

Well, I thought I'd go out on a crazy limb here and assume that she reached her opinion as a result of applying her professional expertise. Once again, that is the overwhelmingly probable conclusion, in the absence of any decent reason to suspect otherwise.

it is a case of you accepting "evidence", not because you realize that it was built on good grounds - that you take for granted, no questions asked

It's not so much "no questions asked", but rather "no preposterous and unlikely scenarios entertained".

Regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The goods have been provided, as far as I'm concerned"

And about time too! Okay, letīs hear it...? Exactly what details prompted Iremonger to make that suggestion of hears. Iīm all ears, Ben!

"It's not so much "no questions asked"

No? Then what questions HAVE you asked, but for "This must be correct, must it not? Guys?"

I notice that the people you refer to have advanced to "extremely reputable authorities" by now - good on them! So now we have a whole lot of experts and extremely reputable authorities telling us silch, zero, nothing about the details involved. That sure beats having a bunch of amateurs telling us nothing about them details! Weīre advancing! Once we have Barack Obama, David Letterman and the Pope chiming in, it will all become the truth!

Fisherman
ever so slightly sceptical

[Ben]

And about time too! Okay, letīs hear it...? Exactly what details prompted Iremonger to make that suggestion of hears. Iīm all ears, Ben!

The three witness signatures when compared alongside Toppy's marriage certificate signature, as a result of applying her professional expertise, as reported by independent reputable authorities.

That should eradicate all but the most preposterous "doubts", I should think.

So now we have a whole lot of experts and extremely reputable authorities telling us silch, zero, nothing about the details involved

They've told you plenty, if you'd only listen, rather than clinging to the forlorn hope that Iremonger compared a different (???) signature. They've elaborated on Bob Hinton's broad outline of what Iremonger occured and the conclusions she reached. If you think that amounts to "zilch", I'd say that's pretty disrespectful to the contributors who took the time to investigate the claim and find independent endorsement of it.

ever so slightly sceptical

For no good reason at all.