Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[The Good Michael]

I don't know whether it has been tried professionally but they don't match on first glance,

If a document examiner can dismiss Toppy, I suppose one could make Hutchinson's signature and the letter text match. Remember, we are not the experts, so what our eyes discern is unimportant. Document examiners and perhaps philatelists are our best bet.

Mike

[IchabodCrane]

Hi Mike,
Sarcasm aside, it is kind of curious that the same expert who tells us the signatures on page 3 and in the census don't match gives the opinion that Badham tried to emulate Hutchinson's signature. Poor Badham admittedly did a rather poor job emulating the signature from page 3. But I do not want to make any judgements, because I don't know the full wording of Ms. Iremonger's dossier on the signatures. And if Hutchinson signed page 1 himself, it would provide a further argument against the witness's signature being in the census. I still think the best way to go about it would be to get other experts' opinions on the matter.
IchabodCrane

[The Good Michael]

Ichabod,

This isn't really the work for document examiners, I believe. They may have a trained eye for things, but this isn't forgery. This is simply eyeballing something and saying yea or nay. It's possible that there are experts who do this work, but I'd like analysis of reasons why or why not something is or isn't. I see a close relationship in these signatures, and a few do not. What detailed analysis can a document examiner give me that will help me change my mind? I'd love that actually. I think the pro-Hutchers won't change their minds, no matter what. That is where the problem begins. It starts with theorists who only look for ways to bolster their ideas and not for ways to dismiss their concepts. In reality, that is what everyone should do. They should try and break their theories, and have others who are impartial try as well. This is how software testing should work. Programmers, because they create the code, are terrible at dissection of their work. Outsiders, whose job it is to break codes through stress, volume, and functionality tests, usually find all the flaws which programmers have to fix and resubmit for more testing. Often, the software is found to be so flawed that the project fails. This should be done with suspect-based ripper studies. This doesn't happen because everyone (or many) wants to be the one who "catches him" in one way or another. It's really BS, you know. Hutch as JTR seems to be quite broken at this point, but the "programmers" can't let him go.

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

Mike

I agree with most of what you say. Just for the record, I am not saying that the signatures are not superficially similar, I am saying that the trained eye does matter here because these signatures do not exist in isolation, they are context specific in several respects and that does make a difference. Still, I've already said this. I do not belong to the 'pro-Hutch' lobby, either. And if, or when, I find corroborative evidence that leads me to alter my view that these signatures are unlikely to be by the same hand, I will say so, right here, in this public arena.

I see no value in an entrenched position, since it does nothing to further enquiry, debate, or knowledge.

Obviously, you are correct - there are those who would like to see their theory validated (well perhaps that applies to everyone to an extent) and it does not seem to me as though evidence has all that much to do with it sometimes.

I'm not interested in that, however, I am employed, in general life, to get at the facts of historical conundrums, and I see no reason to alter my tack in this regard. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty as far as I am concerned.

And now it's coffee time!

[Crystal]

From Hell Letter and Hutch

Pablito writes:Sorry to interupt guys, i'm not very sure about this stuff but has anyone tried to compare Hutchinson's writing to the dear boss or from hell letters?

Not as yet, Pablito, but I had already thought of that, and will have a look when I view the statement, which will, I hope, be in the next couple of weeks - subject to last minute alteration - busy Crystal...

If there was an obvious comparison to be made, however, I would like to think that somebody else would have noticed by now!

[The Good Michael]

I'm not interested in that, however, I am employed, in general life, to get at the facts of historical conundrums...

That sounds very interesting. Really! I didn't know there was employment in being a myth-buster except on TV. I used to do some things like that as a history teacher by comparing textbooks and primary, and other sources and having students look for possible agendas. It was eye-opening for them, and I never told them what I thought was right, as the process was the most important thing for me. Now I teach Koreans how to use articles! Anyway, your job sounds really cool, though this ain't the time nor place...

Cheers,

Mike

[Crystal]

Hi Mike -

I agree again! Gosh! Agreement on this thread! Better watch out we don't get off topic, though, or we might be deleted....

Back on topic again - Exactly! Agendas - most people have them without necessarily being aware that they do, on the other hand, primary historical sources are often agenda-laden, as you clearly know for yourself. I am always surprised at the number of people who take 'the past' as fact - what - people didn't have politics then?

I'm all in favour of joined-up thinking, so to speak, and I try to avoid bias wherever possible by being self-aware. That is why it has taken me this long to conclude that if this discussion is to go forward in any meaningful way, the thing to do is examine the primary evidence, which is what I intend to do. I would rather not stand accused of serving any particular agenda, and have tried to adopt a neutral approach to any possible outcome of this process with that in mind.

And yes, it's a pretty cool job!

[Crystal]

What is Forensic Document Examination?

For everyone who would like some clarification -

http://www.safde.org/whatwedo.htm

[Crystal]

Actually, this is better...

Know%20Your%20Expert.pdf

Published in The Barrister.

[The Good Michael]

Crystal,

Stop agreeing with me! I came here for an argument.

Mike

[DVV]

Taking the context into account, I can't see why Badham should have tried to "emulate" Hutch's signature. Hutch having spent a great deal of time with the police after he made his statement, it was therefore easy to make him sign where he had forgotten to do so (if, of course, that was the case). And this statement wasn't to be sent immediatly to any court, judge, etc, since the inquest was already closed.
Two possibilities, so:
1: Badham signed without trying to emulate Hutch's handwriting.
2: All signatures are Hutch's.
The second possibility is more likely, IMHO.

Amitiés all,
David

[Crystal]

As it stands at the moment, David, I think it looks likely that all three signatures were Hutch's, personally.

[Jon Guy]

Hello

I don`t know whether it would help but as a handwriting example there is a lengthy report by Sgt Badham regarding the McKenzie murder MEPO 3/140, ff.272-3 at the Public Record Office.

[DVV]

Yes Crystal, that's my opinion too, as expressed above.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

Hello

I don`t know whether it would help but as a handwriting example there is a lengthy report by Sgt Badham regarding the McKenzie murder MEPO 3/140, ff.272-3 at the Public Record Office.

Hi Jon,
it would certainly help - if Badham hasn't tried to emulate Hutch's handwriting, of course.
Being of opinion that he did not, I think it would therefore certainly help.

Amitiés,
David