Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"One day, God willing, I'll a sad bored Provençal with a Flemtchinson fixation.
Pray for me."

I do pray for you, David! And I have high hopes that your fixation may be nothing but a dark, evil memory in the future...!

The best, David!
Fisherman

[DVV]

Thanks my dear.
Amen.

[Crystal]

Crystal - even dizzier...

Fisherman,

I don't think I ever suggested that people didn't have a 'best' handwriting for some purposes - in fact, we have seen the very same thing here, from Mr Hyde, if I remember - you know, I'm not sure that I do, now that I'm out of my 20's, and old age is setting in, my memory's not what it was..but anyway - who has told us that he has special handwriting for banks, etc.

I still think - with the caveat that this is only from surface analysis - that 'best' hand may be what we are seeing on page one of the witness statement. Miss Iremonger didn't think so though, considering that Badham signed for Hutchinson, and I think as it stands, that view should still be considered seriously, since she had the actual document to hand.

However, and yes, once again I am drawn into this relentless thread - I'm beginning to imagine that I am in fact, dead, and this is Hell - but anyway -

Where was I? Old age again, you see...

Yes, However, I see none of that in the signatures we have so far seen, with the possible exception of the floriated 'H' on the first page of the witness statement.

Now I must try to find my Zimmer - all this thinking is too much of a strain on my addled mind...

[Ben]

Gosh, I hope I'm not like that when I'm old! What a terrible thought!

Nah, Crytal. To say you're a cut above that sort of crappola would be the understatement of the year.

Caz has an urgent and desperate need for those things to be genuinely reflective of ignorance rather than the sort of two-second absent-mindedness that occasionally result in the sort of accidental errors that occur on message boards, but if it's just her way of conveying her crush on me, that's cute, but I can't reciprocate I'm afraid.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

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

Sigh - another one who has trouble reading.

My point is that 2 'expert' signature examiners who don't agree = at least 1 'expert' whose opinions were not worth listening to = no reason to trust any 'expert' view on current evidence. Well done for directly contributing to bringing this situation about.

You also said earlier in this thread that nobody who states their opinions as definitely ascertained fact in the absence of any proof deserves to be taken seriously, and I'm fairly sure you and Ben both urged us to take an 'expert' like Sue Iremonger seriously. And then it turned out that she stated as fact that Badham 'definitely' signed page 1 while another individual 'definitely' signed pages 2 and 3. However, 'expert' opinion on this one remains divided.

In short, you and Ben have got yourselves in a right old mess with your 'experts always know best' mantra. Ben doesn't know which 'expert' eyes to trust yet re Badham, and you don't know yet whether your expertise will win the day over Sue's conclusion or cause you to fall in line behind it. Either way, your own credibility will be at risk if you start expressing any certainty.

So how did you expect anyone else to have confidence in the work of signature examiners, who have yet to demonstrate their ability to sing a verdict with one voice?

That any clearer than mud now?

Love,

SarCaztic Caz
X

[Ben]

As I have already - scores of pages on this thread ago - pointed out to you that I used to have a mother who was very careful about being neat when she wrote to the authorities (ANY authorities), I can immediately recognize what Frank Leander is talking about here

Absolutely, Fish.

But there's writing more neatly and then there's writing in a different style altogether, and I'd dispute that the statement signatures are any neater than Toppy's efforts. Fundamentally, forensic document examiners are trained to account for precisely the sort of variables you outline, and yet in this case, they still came away with the opinion that Toppy wasn't the witness.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Oh Ben! See above - I beat you to it! Look what a terrible mess we're getting ourselves into!

[Crystal]

I have trouble reading? Which language are we referring to here? English? Which version? Modern, Middle, or Old? You need to be more specific, I'm afraid.

[Ben]

My point is that 2 'expert' signature examiners who don't agree = at least 1 'expert' whose opinions were not worth listening to = no reason to trust any 'expert' view on current evidence.

...And it's a glaringly flawed observation, since the experts in question examined all three signatures and "agreed" than none of them matched Toppy. So even if you do try to argue that the fact that the experts may disagree on other aspects somehow means that they cancel eachother out, it wouldn't nullify the far more crucial observation that they didn't believe Toppy was the witness. As Crystal observed, Iremonger was at least in a position to access the actual document itself, which is preferable to studying a scan on a computer screen.

To argue that expert opinion in any field must only carry weight if all the experts agree is simply fallacious.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But there's writing more neatly and then there's writing in a different style altogether, and I'd dispute that the statement signatures are any neater than Toppy's efforts. "

I would advice against any preconceptions as to what this mechanism would cause in Toppy´s case. Like I said, we don´t know enough about the man to do so. Therefore we should only apply Leanders words in a very general sense, and leave the door open for Toppy to make at least some sort of alteration when he signs papers dealing with authorities of different kinds.

The best,
Fisherman

[caz]

By the way, Crystal, I think Ben's adorable, in a kind of Simple Simon way. When I heard his voice on one of the podcasts I couldn't believe my ears - he comes out with the same set pieces, pretty much word for word (does he practise in front the mirror?) and with the same childlike enthusiasm, but he sounds a hundred times more mature and educated than has ever come across in his posts.

He's still about as intellectually dishonest as they come though, unless anyone has ever found a single solitary opinion coming from him that doesn't obediently follow his precious guilty-as-sin Hutch theory down a blind alley.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Yep, Crystal.

She's smitten alright...

Oh, and intellectually insecure too.

Since she's obviously rather envious of me in that regard, her "cure" consists of following me around wherever she can, trying to pick up on my perceived faults. She used to do a similar thing with a couple of gentleman on the Maybrick threads, but with the diary down the toilet, she's now clinging to my ankles.

Actually, I find the whole "obsessed chick" thing slightly appealing.

[caz]

...And it's a glaringly flawed observation, since the experts in question examined all three signatures and "agreed" than none of them matched Toppy. So even if you do try to argue that the fact that the experts may disagree on other aspects somehow means that they cancel eachother out, it wouldn't nullify the far more crucial observation that they didn't believe Toppy was the witness. As Crystal observed, Iremonger was at least in a position to access the actual document itself, which is preferable to studying a scan on a computer screen.

To argue that expert opinion in any field must only carry weight if all the experts agree is simply fallacious.

Look Ben, this is really simple. I couldn't give two hoots if everyone in the whole world was in agreement that Toppy's signature does not appear on the blinkin' witness statement. But Crystal did say that no 'expert' deserved to be taken seriously if they pronounced themselves certain about it without any proof. And nobody seems to be taking Sue's certainty for granted that she knew what she was talking about re Hutch's signature not appearing on page one.

So which expert would you have me currently trust on the first witness signature?

Love,

Caz
X

[Crystal]

Hmm.

Ok then.

I'm off to talk to Mike. He's suffering withdrawal symptoms from the thread, man....

[Ben]

But Crystal did say that no 'expert' deserved to be taken seriously if they pronounced themselves certain about it without any proof

Ah, but then didn't you recently speculate that Iremonger may have been fed with that information from the outset? In which case, the "definite" statement would have been the result of prior information and not her own analysis. I'm not opining on the subject either way, but your suggestion may have merit, so why discard it now?