Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[The Good Michael]

Hello mIKE Mate! Yeah, tell us more1 And yeah, between you an me, I know who your on about...

You let the cat out of the bag. We're doomed!

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Rose,

Chat?

Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"That's better, Fish. More clarity."

Why, thanks Ben! Join in!

”But then he mentioned the various differences that militated "against" the similarities, ultimately concluding that the differences weren't sufficient to rule Toppy out as the witness.”

Well, Ben, letīsbring him in again, to avoid all mistakes:

”It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person - there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters.
Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature.
The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things.”

So what does he tell us? He tells us that we may have a match, since there are similarities in style, skill, spreading of the text and certain proportions and a number of letters.
He the proceeds to tell us that there are things that point the other way – certain liftings of the pen (with a ? added – he apparently is not sure of this but sees it as feasible), the tch-group, the capital G, the r and the n at the end of the signature. Having pointed this out, he tells us that a number of explanations could be at hand to explain the differences.

When I read this, I thought that Leander told us that yes, we may have our match, since there was an overall likeness and since each of the the differences involved could be explained by a number of circumstances.

When you read it, you told us that it was very inconclusive.

And that is fair enough – such an interpretation is possible to make, although I thought that we were dealing with a verdict that was very much allowing for regarding Toppy as a good candidate.

Now, ”inconclusive” would mean that you recognize that Leander saw that we could have a match – but that he had not been conclusive in telling us whether it was a POSSIBLE match or a PROBABLE match.
I can sympathize with this – he does not say any such thing.

But not having been informed of whether he thought it probable or possible does not equal us being able to say that he thought it a bad match, though a possible one, just as it does not mean that we can say that he thought it a probable match.
It leaves us, effectively, on the fence with that matter.

That is why I say that we can never speak of a turnaround in Leanders case when he added more information later on. He would have been of that wiew from the outset – and, like I say, that was always my impression.

This said, it is important to stress the fact that – even if we take the second post into account – Leander has never, based on his investigation, said that it was a probable match. He has added that the likeness is an obvious one and that there is far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to rule it out. After that, he has agreed that if we reason that one of Londons George Hutchinsons ws the man who wrote the police report signature, it would be odd in the extreme if Toppy had a handstyle that tallied to such a degree with that signature without being the same man.

All in all, I find it a bit strange that his wording from post two should evoke such aggressive reactions – he makes the judgement that the signatures have an abvious likeness and he is far from the first one to say so. It is exactly what Sam, Mike, Malcolm and I are saying, and he rests his case on the exact same material: Copies of the signatures and our bare eyes. And that amounts to nu full investigation – meaning that he could never say anything more than what he has already said until he had seen the originals. Up to that time, he can only concur with us that the signatures are obviously alike.

Bolied down, there is nothing even remotely challenging or controversial in what he says. Nor will it serve to do more than point in the direction of Toppy being a quite possible contender for the witness title.
In light of all this, I think that it is totally irrational to even suggest that we should regard Leander as unreliable in any sense. No such implications are around, and they never were.

There are numerous (many) other points in your post to respond to, but I will refrain from that. No serious discussion benefits from a continued brawl, and the facts involved speak for themselves.

Fisherman

[Crystal]

Fisherman writes: Bolied down, there is nothing even remotely challenging or controversial in what he says. Nor will it serve to do more than point in the direction of Toppy being a quite possible contender for the witness title.

Which is what I said, I think you'll find. So what are you arguing about, exactly?

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"The possibility that she looked at photocopies, scans, or even faxes is hardly "remote", Ben."

In this context I think it is of vital interest to mention that Iremongers examination was one of the two things that served as a lock and key under which a possibly very faulty "truth" has rested for many a year. The other leg was Bob Hintons assertion that he had seen the signatures and that they were not alike.
I find this very odd, to say the least. If Hinton had told us that there were differences involved, I could have bought it, but it seems to me that he simply dismissed the case as a result of his deeming the signatures incomparable. Having seen these self same signatures, I am of the opinion that Hintons statement could not possibly be grounded on a comparison between the police report signature on page three and Toppys wedding certificate - for these are so alike that even Ben recognizes that there are similarities (hope that is not stretching you too far, Ben!)

So theorizing that Hinton saw the accurate signatures - why would he dismiss a similarity that is very obviously there?
I will add that I have not seen the exact wording Hinton used, but my impression has been that he has been pretty adamant about the non-match.

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

I will add that I have not seen the exact wording Hinton used, but my impression has been that he has been pretty adamant about the non-match.

Fish,

You shouldn't have posted anything until you were sure what he said. That is the kind of unfair stuff that you say you're against. It throws an idea out there, for others to read, that may be false. It is disrespectful of Bob as well. Please, man, don't do this kind of thing. You can PM someone who has the book. This kind of thing hurts the Toppy as Hutch argument. Keep it strong.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Crystal!

Can I please ask you to ponder that you just posted two sentences:

1. "I don't take it personally and neither should you."

2. "I would ask you please, to refrain from asserting my view in a misrepresentative manner. I have repeated it, consistently, several times now, which ought to be sufficient for all but the most limited of understanding."

I think, Crystal, that asking people not to take things personally should not be followed up by implications saying that the ones you are trying to teach these things have a most limited understanding of things.

If you have a certain case where you believe that I have misrepresented you, you are welcome to present this in detail, and I shall either explain to you why I hold a specific wiew or apologize. It is all quite simple.

As for my dealings with Ben, I would appreciate if you let them stay that way: MY dealings with Ben, that is.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David writes.

"perhaps, some day, we'll get the full report of Sue Iremonger"

That would be the day, David!

"it would be sweet if we don't hear "case closed!" everytime - it's clearly not."

Agreed. But I do take the liberty to regard it a being as close to being closed as we could possibly hope for.

The best,
Fisherman


...but it is a day that neither you nor I shall live to see, I believe.

[Fisherman]

"So what are you arguing about, exactly?"

Iīm not arguing this particular point, Crystal. Itīs Ben that thinks it highly controversial that Leander first said that we should not rule a match out, and after that added that he thought so because the likeness between the signatures was an obvious one.

Uncontroversial to me - but not to Ben.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"You shouldn't have posted anything until you were sure what he said. That is the kind of unfair stuff that you say you're against. It throws an idea out there, for others to read, that may be false. It is disrespectful of Bob as well."

Point taken, Mike - I should have phrased myself in a more careful manner. I have no wish to seem disrespectful. I am just intrigued by the fact that Iremongers examination and Hintons wording (whichever it was) has had such an influence over the years. This is a debate that is apparently very long overdue, and much could have been won if it had been taken a decade and a half ago.

Once again, I will add that I cannot offer any disrespect of something I have not seen. That is why I took great care to point out that I only go by what I have heard - that the signatures were somehow deemed no good matches (or whatever) in Bob Hintons book.
Finally, I am in no way criticizing Bob Hinton and his work. I am, however, criticizing the fact that the likeness inbetween the signatures have stayed undetected for all this time! How on earth did that come about?
If anybody can direct me to the exact wording that was used in Hintons book, I would be much interested!

The best,
Fisherman

[Crystal]

Fisherman writes: [I]Just keep on suggesting that he is totally unreliable and sways all over the place - Iīm sure that David and Crystal will catch on! Three pretty parrots in a tree - thatīs a sight for sore eyes![/I]
(my emphasis)

Fisherman, this is a clear attempt to assert that I, and indeed David, are dependent on Ben for our view in this matter - an assertion which I, for one, resent and refute. It also clearly represents my view (and David's) concerning Leander which you can have no way of actually ascertaining. I believe that may be libellous. Please do not do it in future. I can assure you, my view is my own, and as Ben knows perfectly well, if I disagreed with him, I would certainly say so. If I agree with what Ben says, I hardly think that ought to be a problem for you, or for anybody else. Please retract your statement, which is insulting and unprovoked.

Regarding your feud with Ben - go ahead, I have no interest in pursuing your repetitive and tedious assaults on each other. I do object, however, when you bring others into the fray. If this is a personal issue between you, then leave others out of it - and that includes myself, David, any other poster on this thread, or on these boards, Ben's mother and your children.

That sort of low tactic does neither of you any favours.

I have no personal issues here, Fisherman - this is an online forum, it isn't my real life. I didn't say that you had limited understanding, as if you re-read what I said, you will see.

And lastly, I don't, and never have, disagreed with Leander, whose view appears to be rationally circumspect, and a very long way from the sort of hysterical nonsense that has come to characterise this debate.

Please do not state, imply, or otherwise assert that I have done such again.

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

So what does he tell us? He tells us that we may have a match, since there are similarities in style, skill, spreading of the text and certain proportions and a number of letters

...And as you sensibly go on to detail, he then mentions that the similarities are off-set by the differences, which include "differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature." However, he does not feel that the differences are sufficient to "rule out" the possibility of a match. I agree, and have agreed from that outset. You'll never hear me dismissing Toppy as an impossible Hutch, just as unlikely one.

The rest of your post I find alarmingly difficult to disagree with (!) although, again, I'm having trouble with:

After that, he has agreed that if we reason that one of Londons George Hutchinsons ws the man who wrote the police report signature, it would be odd in the extreme if Toppy had a handstyle that tallied to such a degree with that signature without being the same man.

The problem here is that we don't know if the man who introduced himself as George Hutchinson was actually known as such in real life, which increases the number of potential candidates very drastically indeed, thus reducing the "oddity" of any one of those candidates fitting the witness three better than Toppy.

he makes the judgement that the signatures have an abvious likeness

But "obvious likeness" means that he thinks the match is probable, which you've acknowledged he didn't say, and you're right, because he didn't say anything about "probability" in his initial letter.

Oh, but here we encounter problems:

I am of the opinion that Hintons statement could not possibly be grounded on a comparison between the police report signature on page three and Toppys wedding certificate - for these are so alike that even Ben recognizes that there are similarities (hope that is not stretching you too far, Ben!)

Welll, it is stretching me very far indeed if you're claiming that I would ever argue that the signatures are "so alike". Here, for the record, are Bob Hinton's exact words: "The world renowned document examiner, Sue Iremonger, has also investigated whether or not this is the correct George Hutchinson. She compared the marriage certificate signature of George W. T. Hutchinson, with the signature on the statement made by George Hutchinson, and has concluded that they are not made by the same person.

Nobody mentioned the word "likeness". It doubtless played a part (or rather its lack thereof) if Iremonger's analysis, but if we're to discuss Bon Hinton's comments, I think it only fair that we look at what he actally said.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Crystal!

I would like to direct you to your post 1373 to begin with.

That was a poem you posted after I had left the thread the former time. You enjoyed yourself thoroughly, I must say. there was also the post where you suggested me for sergeant Badhams role, that did not go down all that well with me.
Add to this all the "kisses" and "smooches" you have shared with Ben, and I think a fair case can be made for you not being all that far from a closely entangled couple. It is not the best way to point oneīs independence out, as you may realize?

If all of this was posted in good faith and with no intent to hurt anybody or fuel bad sentiments, and if it was done mainly to show just how very little you hung on to Benīs wiews, then I can understand your point. And if this is so, then I of course owe you an apology, and you can have it any day in the week.

On no day of that same week, however, will I ever agree that I am the only one stirring up bad sentiments here. I think that we have all done our fair share of it, and I would not mind in the least if it was set aside for a discussion that focused more on the facts. I have always had the impression that the side I am speaking for would benefit from such an order.

Fisherman

[Crystal]

Fisherman, I assure you it was never my intention to upset anybody. I am sorry if I have upset you. The things that you refer to belong to the class of humour known as IRONY, my friend.

As to the song - it was out of exasperation - just a joke, that's all.

As to you as Badham - I apologise if I offended you. It was not meant seriously.

As to Ben and the kisses - neither of us instigated that, if you look closely.

For the record, I often am in concurrence with Ben's view, on this matter and others. However, that has nothing to do whatever with the independence of my own view, just as the fact that you are in concurrence with Flynn and Mike has nothing to do with the independence of yours. I am quite capable of - indeed insistent upon - expressing my own view. If I disagree with Ben, or anybody else, I will say so. You have my word on it.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"The rest of your post I find alarmingly difficult to disagree with"

Good!

"The problem here is that we don't know if the man who introduced himself as George Hutchinson was actually known as such in real life, which increases the number of potential candidates very drastically indeed, thus reducing the "oddity" of any one of those candidates fitting the witness three better than Toppy."

Agreed. If he was NOT a real George Hutchinson, it all changes very dramatically. But it would still leave us with the extremely odd fact that he - in spite of NOT being Toppy - had a signature that was close enough to Toppys to make Leander speak of a probable match and obvious likeness. And that is a seriously awkward problem to get past for the ones who believe in an imposter scenario.

"But "obvious likeness" means that he thinks the match is probable, which you've acknowledged he didn't say, and you're right, because he didn't in his initial letter."

Two things: I would say that "obvious likeness" INCREASES the probability of a match, but I would not go any further than that - it still leaves the field open for the signatures not being by the same man anyhow. This could be so IN SPITE OF the "obvious likeness" in any given case, although the variables and circumstances invlved will have an influence on the degree of how credible such an outcome would be. In "our" case, I think that leanders verdict of an obvious likeness, taken together with the circumstances surrounding Toppys candidacy makes for a case that comes very, very close to being watertight. I know that you donīt agree (or at least have not done so up to now), and that is fine by me. I cannot plead for you, only for me.

Number two is of course to further stress that I donīt think we can disregard what he said in post two!

"Well, it is stretching me very far indeed if you're claiming that I would ever argue that the signatures are "so alike". Here, for the record, are Bob Hinton's exact words: "The world renowned document examiner, Sue Iremonger, has also investigated whether or not this is the correct George Hutchinson. She compared the marriage certificate signature of George W. T. Hutchinson, with the signature on the statement made by George Hutchinson, and has concluded that they are not made by the same person."

I only stretched you to the "there are similarities"-point, Ben, and I hope that is a correct judgement on my behalf.
As for the Hinton quotation, I have seen it before. But the part I need to know is whether Hinton himself says he has seen the signatures, and whether he agrees that they are somehow mismatches. I was under the impression that this was so.

Fisherman