Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Malcolm X]

Don't worry, Malcolm,
dear Joe passed away on 28 Aug 1920.
Anyway, if the witness signatures turn out to be Toppy's, does it mean that Fleming would be less suspicious to you?
I thought you did not believe at all in Flemtchinson...

Amitiés,
David

i'm happy that they match...(in my opinion), plus yes, i dont believe in Flemtvhinson any more, but i did to an extent when i posted that in (friday i think)

right now something else related to Kelly is bothering me

[Crystal]

Reply to BB..

Hey BB-been missing you in the Chat!
Thanks for posting.. One second-
Look, Sam Flynn! Somebody with functioning eyes!
Where was I? Yes, I am impressed at your stamina-this thread takes no prisoners!
Be assured (possibly not quite the right word..) That whatever the case actually is, it will become apparent once the actual documents have been examined.
Oh No, it ain't over yet...
Just I had other things to do for a while...;-)

[Ben]

Welcome, BB.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with your Toppy musings.

I don't think he was there to mug the Astrakhan man, though. If that was his intention, I doubt he would have drawn attention to the expensive-looking accessories.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Just thought I'd stop by and say "Hello", simultaneously introducing a modicum of even-handedness to the dying embers of this thread.

Hey BB-been missing you in the Chat!
Thanks for posting.. One second-
Look, Sam Flynn! Somebody with functioning eyes!

Apparently not entirely functional - for Lambeth George's writing demonstrates rather more deviations than 1888p1-3, when compared to the 13+ samples of GWTH's handwriting we've seen.

For reasons already given, and for reasons still true.

[Malcolm X]

Welcome, BB.

I'd agree wholeheartedly with your Toppy musings.


Best regards,
Ben

yea' you would .... i still might send those signatures off

[caz]

Hi All,

Just popped in to see how the inmates are doing. I notice that there are another dozen or so pages since my last visit, which I may or may not bother to plough through. But I suppose it would be courteous of me to address the following for now:

Be silent, you silly woman.

If you really had any genuine concern for the direction of this thread, you'd stop piddling and moaning about the same thing over and over again, and if you think the thread's a waste of space, leave it alone, as opposed to reinforcing your tiresome unreciprocated fixation with me.

I am not sure if that crossed over into genuine irony but it was hysterical nonetheless.

LOL Ally.

I suspect Ben's post broke one or two casebook rules (along with the one about me being a 'sad, bored old woman' and the other one likening me to a 'saggy piece of mutton') but he needn't worry, I'm not going to report him for having so little imagination in the gender-based insult department.

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

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

Well yes, Ben, you have read me wrong - entirely wrong - and put a very nasty insinuation in there too, that was never mine. Was your wink an acknowledgement that you knew that, or did you genuinely misunderstand my own words on the subject? Another casebook rule is not to wilfully alter other people's words and quotes. And I specifically advised you to stick to direct quotes in future (for your own good, if not for anyone else's) since here you are, proving yet again, that despite the vastly superior writing abilities and command of English that you claim for yourself, you can't seem to 'read' people right for reading them wrong. One just can't help some people.

I'm not going to bother to explain this one again to you (I suggest you look up what I actually wrote and brush up on your 'spot the difference' abilities), except to state for the record that:

I - for one - trust that Sue had a very good reason for concluding, after examining the originals, that the witness only signed pages two and three, and that Badham definitely signed page one. And I don't believe her judgement was in any way, shape or form influenced by anyone else.

If you are desperate to bring up my views on this matter again, and care a jot about saving your intellectual integrity, I suggest you cut and paste the above.

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.

I'm listening, Crystal. And I've agreed with you on this from day one.

Any progress, in between reading and posting to this thread?

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

It was so quiet and innocuous the last several days. Please don't get THEM going again. I need my beauty sleep.

Mike

[babybird67]

Just thought I'd stop by and say "Hello", simultaneously introducing a modicum of even-handedness to the dying embers of this thread.Apparently not entirely functional - for Lambeth George's writing demonstrates rather more deviations than 1888p1-3, when compared to the 13+ samples of GWTH's handwriting we've seen.

For reasons already given, and for reasons still true.

Hello Sam

when i said about Lambeth George having in more in common with the witness sigs, i didn't mean that was my view; i just meant that you cannot rely on just eyesight verification since others have said that - to their eyes at least - the Lambeth George has a greater match with the witness.

Thus an argument based on, we all have eyes therefore we all can judge, isn't based on great foundations, since the dissent by many different people all using the same method, i.e., just looking with an untrained eye, has already thrown up dissenting opinions.

If eyesight alone were enough, we would all agree wouldn't we?

Personally i don't think Lambeth George matches either.

thanks for your welcome though

bb x

[The Good Michael]

Infant Avian,

The problem with many on the opposite side is that they take into consideration first their own opinions about a suspect, and then, when attempting to understand, in second-hand fashion, the words of an expert in forgery, the results become skewed in favor of their already formed opinion. The rest of us, who have no agenda, have used our eyes in a more judicial manner. If eyesight were the sole factor, I believe all of us with 20/20 vision (though mine is better) would have to come to the same conclusion, or at least the vast, unbiased majority.

Mike

[Crystal]

Sam Flynn! Hah! Another one for my side of the playground! Yeah, BB, you tell 'im!

Mike - As for getting THEM started again - Too Late, as you see..

Caz - Progress - In making arrangements to kick the archive team at the NRA off their comfy chairs and down into the abyss to extract the relevant Census material - yes. In actually seeing the bloody things, no. I might get a chance in a couple of weeks, if my endless work doesn't overtake me yet again.

Love you all!

Crystal

[The Good Michael]

Crystal,

Maybe if you got your lazy kiester off the message boards you could do something useful. That's just a thought of course.

Yours,

Mike

[Crystal]

Mike -

If you paid attention to the importance of this debate, instead of allowing your various animal friends to distract you, maybe you'd say something worth listening to.

Just a thought of course.

The Salmon sends kisses.

[The Good Michael]

If you paid attention to the importance of this debate, instead of allowing your various animal friends to distract you, maybe you'd say something worth listening to.

How bloody well dare you! Ben is not an animal! A bit sheepish, yes, but that's all.

Mike

[Crystal]

How bloody well dare you! Ben is not an animal! A bit sheepish, yes, but that's all.

Mike

Are you certain of that, Mike?

[Ben]

I - for one - trust that Sue had a very good reason for concluding, after examining the originals, that the witness only signed pages two and three, and that Badham definitely signed page one

Atta girl, Caz!

"Very good reason" - I liked that.

I agree. I trust she had good reason too, especially when we consider that she studied the actual documents, the importance of which has been highlighted by Crystal and others elsewhere in this thread.

All the best,
Ben