Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"That consistency cannot possibly be construed as an "indicator" that he wrote differently in 1888."

No, it canīt, Ben! You are absolutely correct. We have NO indications to how he wrote other than in 1898 and 1911.
What I meant was that if we were to have Toppy conforming to the general rule that people change their signatures, then he may have done so inbetween 1888 and 1898. It would not be a strange thing at all.

"I'm not convinced that Toppy's work was likely to have an enfeebling effect on his hand, personally, especially as he grew older and was presumably in a better position to delegate while he did the ordering and measuring."

That represents a possibility, Ben, and I will once again say that we cannot know about this - but we DO know that labour that is hard on the joints of your limbs takes itīs toll sooner or later.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

No, it canīt, Ben! You are absolutely correct. We have NO indications to how he wrote other than in 1898 and 1911

Well, no proof, Fisherman.

Personally, if I see remarkable consistency over such a long time period, I think it's more likely than not that he'd retain that consistency elsewhere, rather than assuming he changed in a particular fashion at a particular point in time.

But I think we've done this to death!

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"Logic can't possibly win out here"

I think it CAN and WILL win, Mike - thatīs not saying that everybody will lay down and die, though. If we were to aim for that, we would end up very frustrated. But presenting the logically stronger case is something we owe to the readers of these boards, and I think you have contributed to that end in a very productive manner.
What I fail to see is how all of this has managed to go undetected for so long a time - somehow the Iremonger business and Bob Hintons assertion in his book that the signatures did not tally has obscured the wiew in a manner that has me flabbergasted - the signatures have been there all along, and they have tallied in a very spectacular fashion all along ( I know that some will say that they donīt, but Sam puts it very well; they bloody well do!). I canīt help but to wonder if there are any other hangups, similar to this one, clogging the sewers of this case?

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Ok-so Toppy was a plumber, most, maybe all of his working life. His father was also a plumber, right? So that's usual for the time-I see nothing odd here at all. Was Toppy the eldest son by the way?
What would take more of an explanation is if Toppy had first been a groom. Why? It's entirely unrelated.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But I think we've done this to death!"

We of course have, Ben. But this is a stiff that will be revived over and over again... throwing forward in the future that Hutch probably was Fleming in disguise, just to mention one thing, will kick-start it all again, as you may well imagine. And justly so, if you ask me.

Canīt say I look much forward to it, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

somehow the Iremonger business and Bob Hintons assertion in his book that the signatures did not tally has obscured the wiew in a manner that has me flabbergasted - the signatures have been there all along, and they have tallied in a very spectacular fashion all along

That's in your opinion, Fish.

Those with demonstrable experience and expertise say otherwise, and just asserting that "they bloody well do!" doesn't make a non-expert endorsed opinion any more pursuasive, I'm afraid. You're more than welcome to be "flabbergasted" but as far as I'm concerned, Hinton's and Iremonger's views carry as much weight as they did before the first post on this thread was created.

If we were to aim for that, we would end up very frustrated.

So, the only way to alleviate your frustration is to keep posting and posting, irrespective of the fact that the discussion might just have reached a stalemate? Wow.

Regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

I think Mike's right-logic can't win out here-not as long as this insistence on selective evidence continues, anyway. What? If it doesn't fit our theory we say it isn't real? And we expect to be taken seriously?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"That's in your opinion, Fish."

Yep, Ben - youīd better believe it is!

"So, the only way to alleviate your frustration is to keep posting and posting, irrespective of the fact that the discussion might just have reached a stalemate? Wow."

Iīll just keep searching and searching for new details that may shed further light on things, Ben, and that really is not the same. This topic deserves better than a stalemate.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"I think Mike's right-logic can't win out here-not as long as this insistence on selective evidence continues, anyway. What? If it doesn't fit our theory we say it isn't real? And we expect to be taken seriously?"

So it would seem, Crystal.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

"Defuse". Yes, sorry about that. I was recently researching light rays, particles and such (for another Hutchinson-related topic, incidentally) and the word "diffuse" kept cropping up. You know when I've been studying the Titanic when I accuse people of great "wrecklessness".

Although I'd like to think you'd give full consideration to Crystal's post before you start bearing those mean ol' fangs!

Hi Crystal,

I managed to spot another difference directly above. Did you? I've highlighted it for Ben. That is what this thread is about, isn’t it? Howlers of one sort or another? I kept stumbling over them as I struggled to catch up with the latest posturing and still found precious little of any substance.

And what about Ben's ‘upmost’ for ‘utmost’? The p is quite a way from the t on my keyboard. My daughter read that one over my shoulder the other day and winced at the schoolboy error.

Bang on topic, how about Ben's initial reading of Sue Iremonger’s ‘definitely’ (as first posted by Jonathan) as ‘may be’ and, unforgivably, on an inventive level that would leave Hutch himself speechless with admiration: ‘she doesn’t eradicate the possibility of the first signature being written by the same individual who wrote the other two’. This total misreading of Sue’s position came from her most loyal supporter here! Who needs opponents with supporters like Ben, eh?

Now I’ve finally caught up with pages 77 onwards, I can see it was made clear on page 84 that this was the one possibility Sue did feel qualified to ‘eradicate’:

…Martin Fido reported Iremonger's phone message to him as stating the following:

"The Hutchinson signature on the first sheet is definitely written by Badham, probably in conscious imitation of the two on the following sheets, which are definitely written by someone else (i.e. not by Badham. Presumably Hutchinson, Badham just filling in the signature on sheet one, which he’d forgotten to have GH sign."

The irony is that following Martin’s further thoughts, posted by Jonathan on page 86, Ben wrote:

Particularly reassuring to hear Martin Fido underscore the value and repsect with which Ireminger's views should be treated.

Indeed. So can Sue now expect Ben to treat her expert views with enough respect in future not to turn them completely on their head when attempting to report them?

All Together Now-
'Oh No They Don't!'
'Oh Yes They Do!'
...Just a minute-I'm sure I've been here before..
Oh Well-
OH NO THEY DON'T!

Indeed so, Crystal.

And I give you:

‘Oh Yes, the three witness sigs are unquestionably by the same person!'
'Oh No, the sigs on page one and two don’t appear to match the one on page three!’
'Oh No, the sigs on page two and three match but definitely don't match the sig on page one!'

So the problem I have at present is working out how I'm meant to put my FAITH in the ‘expert’ view, when LOGIC dictates that one of any two opposing ‘expert’ views (as in the current Badham situation) is going to be wrong, and therefore as useless as anyone else's guesswork.

Love,

Caz
X

PS Please note that I'm not offering an opinion about anyone's signatures - I'm happy to leave others to keep thrashing that out between them until the original documents have finally been seen by fresh eyes. But I'm now wondering if the freshness - along with one's objectivity - may be compromised by seeing the material first online and forming preliminary impressions from it. Is there an expert in the house who knows?

[Crystal]

I'm not sure what your point is Caz-unless it's that you don't like Ben?

[Malcolm X]

how many times have i told you lot to get expert advice on these signatures, search the web find experts.....send them these bloody signatures...........send them to about 6 experts.

for GOD sake end this now, you are not arguing about these signatures; you haven't since page 10, you're bitching at each other and trying to out do each other, to be honest this thread needs locking.....

enough said, rant over...get those signatures checked by experts

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I agree MalcolmX, that process will however be expensive, and who is prepeared to foot the bill, the ones that support Topping would not like it if the experts said 'Definately not', and the ones that are anti Topping would not wish to contribute towards any cost if the 'He definately is' verdict came back.
There is one better way, that would be one straight post, from JD[ just the one] with an assurance that her father in law was [ if still alive] certain that he could identify his father [Topping] as the signature on the police statement.
It would then be pretty obvious, that a 89 year old gentleman, would hardly be after five minutes of fame, and his word combined with one can be seen by our own eyes, should go a long way in reaching a majority decision.
If only it were that simple....
Regards Richard.

[Crystal]

Hi Malcolm
I think to be fair most of us have drawn the conclusion that we're at an imparse here. Fisherman seems to be happy to continue, but after 120 pages, most have had enough!

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Fisherman seems to be happy to continue"

I would not have minded to stop a few pages into this thread, Crystal - if only people had been able to agree on the very obvious thing that the signatures we are discussing are good matches.

But that did not happen, did it?

And that is why I post here - for the simple reason that YOU and a number of other posters have done the exact same thing for 120 pages! I think that should be pretty obvious. But then I am of course forgetting that I am supposed to be the weird guy out here - or so you would have it.

Not gonna work, though, Crystal.

Furthermore, since I have received an answer from Frank Leander at the SKL, I shall KEEP posting. But that will take a translation from my side, and so it will have to wait a while.

The best,
Fisherman