Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

Believe it or not, Ben, but I do believe that Mike was joking. Unless you noticed, we use the same alphabet...

If you say so. If he was kidding, I'd still say there's a reasonable observation buried midst the mirth.

It is in no way inconclusive - he would never write "It´s the same man", as you may appreciate. He simply settles for pointing out that it may well be the case

He says "it cannot be ruled out"

Hardly a major ringing endorsement, is it?

Plus he adds that the differences we have all spotted could easily be explained and overcome.

No, he doesn't say that either. He stated simply that "The differences could be explained", which is fair enough. He doesn't use the word "easily" at all, does he?

Oh, yes it could!

He said "it cannot be ruled out"

...Which is in stark contrast to the exclamatory, positive slant you're currently placing on his words.

Ben, just as it is only in your world that the signatures do not match.

Errr...and in the world of several other contributors to this discussion, and in the view of the preponderance of expert opinion to date.

They do match, as we can read from Leanders verdict

I have no idea how you could possibly have taken this conclusion away from "Leander's verdict". He said that it "cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person". He mentions some matches, and then he mentions some non-matches.

I can't see any "opposition" to what I'm saying in his observations.

[Crystal]

Much as agreeing with you is getting to be a habit, Ben, I agree - I don't see any opposition either.

[DVV]

On the contrary, David. Leander tells us that there may be a whole number of reasons for this.
The best,
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
For what I've read, he never said so. He was telling us about "changes", in general, but never addressed the specific point I'm talking about, and about which Lambeth GH "G" is also relevant.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"If you say so."

Mmmm - I do, actually.

"He says "it cannot be ruled out"
Hardly a major ringing endorsement, is it?"

What he actually says, as you can read from the Swedish text, is "It can hardly be ruled out".
That is another way of saying that there is no real reason to rule out that the man who wrote the police report signature was Toppy. Leander sees this as a clear possibility.
We should not expect him to say "I am sure that it was the same man". We must settle for his "I am sure that it could have been the same man, judging from the fact that the overall likeness and skills of writing points us in that direction, and also judging from the fact that the deviances that are there could easily be explained by a number of things".

If this does not make you happy, then you may want to join me to see a really happy fellow.

"The differences could be explained", which is fair enough. He doesn't use the word "easily" at all, does he?"

No, nor does he have to. If there had been just the one, peripheral, possible explanation, you could have had a point. But in fact, there could be numerous explanations. And when there is, we can easily find them. But you would resort to empty semantics, would you not?

"I have no idea how you could possibly have taken this conclusion away from "Leander's verdict"."

Never mind, I will help you along, Ben: There are enough matching elements and there is enough of an an overall match in style and writing skill level for Leander to say that the signature on the police report could well have been written by George William Topping Hutchinson.

You know, Ben, I do believe that Leander has had part of his training in Germany - maybe this too puts him at a distinct disadvantage trying to interpret British signatures? But then again, you have a Scandinavian descent yourself, don´t you.Difficult things, these. Soooo difficult...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Hi David.

The G specifically belongs to the group of deviances where Leander tells us that there may be a number of explanations for the deviance.

Generally, there is a lot of nit-picking going on here. I did expect it from some directions, but not from you, David!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

That is another way of saying that there is no real reason to rule out that the man who wrote the police report signature was Toppy. Leander sees this as a clear possibility

Absolutely, Fish, and it was never my agenda to "rule him out".

I just don't think he's a very likely candidate.

"I am sure that it could have been the same man, judging from the fact that the overall likeness and skills of writing points us in that direction, and also judging from the fact that the deviances that are there could easily be explained by a number of things".

Whoah there, Fish. Who said that?

Are you quoting him verbatim here?

I didn't notice any of this in his letter to you. He never mentioned "overall likeness" at all in the letter you quoted. Instead he mentioned that the matches are offset by the differences. Where does he talk about the "differences" being "easily" explained? I'm not seeing this at all. Did he write a seperate letter to you where he wrote all this, or what?

If not, can I ask whose words you're wrapping in quotation marks?

But in fact, there could be numerous explanations.

Nope, he didn't say that either. No mention of the possible explanations being "numerous" at all.

Look, Fish, you've done an admirable job in contacting this gentleman, and I'm genuinely grateful for the opportunity to hear his views. However, we don't want to run the risk of watering down his original message by putting an obviously "optimistic" slant on it.

He observed that we can't "rule out" the possibility of their being written by the same individual.

Great advice.

I'm not ruling it out, but...

All the best,
Ben

[DVV]

I'm sorry to disappoint you, Fish,
and even more sorry to note that you've constantly ignored the reasons why (reasons that I've posted more than several times) I find this particuliar deviance so relevant.
But I still try to find Hutch, while you're certain that you've already found him...
If the signatures make a so perfect and obvious match, why do experts think otherwise ?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[IchabodCrane]

Hi all,
there is one truth on this thread, and that is that the first page was definitely not signed by Badham in conscious imitation of the other pages' signatures. So just how Sue Iremonger arrived at the conclusion that the first page was 'definitely Badham' is beyond me.
Cheers,
IchabodCrane

[Ben]

No, I'm afraid we can't be anything like as confident as that, Ichabod. The importance of viewing the actual documents have been highlighted by others - invariably those with experience in this particular field - and it assumes an obvious resonance when we consider that Iremonger herself examined the originals.

Then, of course, we have Caz's suggestion that Iremonger may have been supplied with that "definite" assertion before she even conducted her analysis, unless I've read her wrong...

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"it was never my agenda to "rule him out".

I just don't think he's a very likely candidate."

Well, Ben, the fact that one of Swedens foremost document examiners has just said that Toppys writing tallies with the police report to such an extent that he can hardly be ruled out as the writer, actually makes him an EXTREMELY likely candidate.
The fact that Frank Leander did not at the time of his ruling know that we area dealing with a very small fraction of possible George Hutchinsons only reinforces this.

"I didn't notice any of this in his letter to you"

No, Ben, but then again, you read Leander in much the same fashion as the devil reads the Bible, don´t you?

Let´s go over it again.

Leander said that we could hardly rule out that Toppy WAS the writer.
He said that the character of style and the level of writing skill tallied inbetween the signatures.
He said that there could be numerous explanations to the deviances.

So, what do we have? We have a man who writes in the same style, who has reaced the same writing skill, who is in fact so close a match that there is nothing that rules him out as the possible writer - the deviances that are there certainly do not have to do so, since there may be a number of different things explaining them.

And what did I say? I said that Leander may have reasoned "I am sure that it could have been the same man, judging from the fact that the overall likeness and skills of writing points us in that direction, and also judging from the fact that the deviances that are there could easily be explained by a number of things""

Don´t you think that Leander is sure that it could have been the same man?
Did or did not Leander find an overall likeness in style and skill when it came to the signatures?
Did or did not Leander identify a whole number of possible explanations to the deviances?

Whatever problem you are having here, Ben, wherever the shoe won´t fit your foot, I feel sure that we can help you out.

"No mention of the possible explanations being "numerous" at all."

No, Ben, he worded it otherwise. He said that the youth of the writer, the writing space afforded, the function of the pen and similar things. I simply added, Ben! And what happens? You come up with numerous reasons. Pretty nifty, once you get the hang of it. One, two, three, four... numerous.

"However, we don't want to run the risk of watering down his original message by putting an obviously "optimistic" slant on it."

Nor do we HAVE to, Ben, For Leander tells us that yes, we may have found our man. That´s as optimistic as we can hope for. Let´s not try to do what YOU are doing, though, Ben. Leander did not say "It may have been him, but it probably was not", the way you need things to be.

But why am I arguing with you - you never had an honest intention from the outset, did you?

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

Hi IchabodCrane,
to be fair, she didn't "arrived" at this conclusion, but was merely making this suggestion, in a "perhaps" mode.
This said, I agree: the "conscious imitation" is beyond me.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

David asks:

"If the signatures make a so perfect and obvious match, why do experts think otherwise ?"

Perfect - no.
Obvious - YES!

The best,
Fisherman

[IchabodCrane]

Hi IchabodCrane,
to be fair, she didn't "arrived" at this conclusion, but was merely making this suggestion, in a "perhaps" mode.

If you're referring to the conscious imitation, then yes, but what we are told by Martin Fido via Jmenges, is that she was definitely sure it was Badham's handwriting, although the H is nothing like the two Hs he used when he wrote the word 'Hutchinson' twice in the body of the statement.

[DVV]

Leander said that we could hardly rule out that Toppy WAS the writer.
He said that the character of style and the level of writing skill tallied inbetween the signatures.

Fisherman

Fish,
according to your OWN translation, FL said: "It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person."

Very, very different from what is quoted above.

I can easily interpret "It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person" by:
"We are perhaps not dealing with the same person, however the possibility is not to be discarded too quickly."
Why do you change your OWN translation ?

As to the "style" and "level of handwriting", this can be explained by the fact that Hutch and Toppy belonged to the same social class, generation, etc, and have certainly learnt to write in the same kind of school, with the same method.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Crystal]

Rinse-and repeat

Now, listen very carefully.
There is a limit to what can be ascertained by surface analysis alone.
I will look at the originals as soon as I can.
Now, however, I must go and attend to the wellbeing of a national archive. Later.