Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

Maybe, Babybird, we should not get too entangled in who has called whom what, and instead try and focus on the issue itself.

Sorry, are we back on this thread now? I am not entangled in anything Fisherman. I am now, as i was then, annoyed that you called me a liar when i had quoted you verbatim, and, worse,that you could not see that a gentleman would have apologised for doing such a thing. I don't hold grudges and am prepared to forgive and forget most anything...apart from unrepented injustices.

And on that issue, it is of relevance to realize that what Leander said was that he could not provide a full expert opinion, this owing to the fact that he only saw the material twodimensionally and that he would have liked to have more samples to compare with.
That does not mean, however, that his resulting opinion in any fashion lacked in professionalism.

He specifically told you that he could not offer a professional opinion based on the materials he had been supplied. He specifically told you that the opinion he was offering was a "personal" one, in a personal capacity, not a professional capacity. In those circumstances, to claim that we have a professional opinion which concurs with your own view that Toppy/Hutchinson are probably/possibly/whateverly one and the same, is misleading to say the least. Therefore i disagree with this:

I propose that Leanders examination is by far the best one we have on the issue.

No. It is not.

I fully concur with Garrys suggestion that we need to know for sure which samples have been compared, the levels of concordance, probability values, and so forth when it comes to an examination. In Leanders case, we have that knowledge to a significant extent, whereas when it comes to Iremonger, we have nothing like it. And, to go on quoting Garry: "These are the nuts and bolts of empirical evaluation, and in their absence any ‘scientific’ claims in either direction are entirely pointless."

That is what I have been saying all along, and that is what a number of posters have had all sorts of trouble swallowing down.

No Fisherman it is not what you have been saying all along. It is the position that I adopted all along. You, however, prevaricated between these positions: Toppy and Hutch could match, Toppy and Hutch probably match, Toppy and Hutch most probably match, and, la piece de resistance (apologies to French speakers), Toppy IS Hutch. But don't let's go there again...it was tedious enough the first time round...but don't try to rewrite history.

I feel pretty sure, Babybird, that Garry is able to pick up on what has been going on on the 1911 thread, just as I think he will be able to come up with a verdict of his own about who has been calling whom what, and why. I feel no personal need to point out what I was subjected to myself, since it is totally unrelated to the core issue.

On the contrary...Garry probably has more productive things to do than trawl through this thread and it's interminable arguments. Garry seemed to me to be under the impression that we were waiting for a full report from Leander on the issue. I felt it right to disabuse him of this misconception, as there is no professional report due from Leander. All he did was give a personal opinion based on the imperfect samples, electronic copies, that he had to work with. I doubt he would even consider publishing any such report which could be linked to his professional capacity based on such unsatisfactory materials.

Anyway, enough...i have more important things to do.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"I am now, as i was then, annoyed that you called me a liar when i had quoted you verbatim"

You know very well that we have differing opinions on that "verbatim" quotation, Babybird. I can only assure you that if I had been of the opinion that I was in any fashoin misrepresenting you, I would have had no trouble to apologize. But I firmly believe standing by a conviction is something that also belongs to a gentleman´s behaviour!

"He specifically told you that he could not offer a professional opinion based on the materials he had been supplied."

Well, we can chew on this one for years, I expect. The only thing I will say is that he chose to word it that he could not offer "A FULL EXPERT OPINION" - to me, that suggests that he offered an experets opinion that would have been full if he had been provided with the originals and more samples of both writers signatures. And in that respect, we BOTH know that the only signatures attributed to "George Hutchisnon the witness" are the three on the report. Therefore, Leander will NEVER be able to offer a "full expert opinion" as long as this stands. And we will be going round in circles if Toppy was the man, since more samples of the witness are not possible to surface under such circumstances!

So Leanders contribution is to be considered an experts opinion and nothing else, and it is as full as it can be using the material he had. We know that he tells us that any forthcoming evidence to his mind would probably confirm his suggestion that Toppy was Hutch, and therefore we can deduct that he does not see it as probable that an examination of the originals would cause any alteration of his mindset.
The fact that he told me that he offered his "personal" opinion was not - once again! - meant to point to any disagreement on his behalf to have the material published on Casebook - it was merely a pointing out that no business agreement lay behind his contribution, only personal reflections of what he saw and could read into it - and what a capacity like him sees and reads into things are the best hope we have of getting things right.

"No Fisherman it is not what you have been saying all along."

I was referring to the relevance of the Iremonger "material" as oppsoed to the Leander ditto - I have all along said that Leander is to be preferred since we know what he saw and what he said about it in pretty much detail, naming all the elements that had been relevant to him in the investigation. That, emphatically, makes him the best bet we have. Evaluating sources can sometimes be difficult - given my profession, I should know! - but this time over it is a piece of cake. Until we find documentation of Iremongers work, she does not equal Leanders importance in any way. You are perfectly welcome to disagree, of course, but you will be very hard pressed to find substantiation for such a disagreement.

As for your insinuations that I have been reeling between perhaps and absolutely, I will provide you with my first post on the 1911 thread:

"The likeness inbetween the four samples provided by Sam is baffling to me. Like most of us out here, I am no specialist in graphology, but my money is on these signatures quite possibly belonging to the same man.
As has been pointed out, the Topping signature offers a few elements that are not totally consistent with all of the other three signatures, but that is of very little importance to me, since the overall impression remains one of consistency.
Points to consider: Ben mentions that Toppy finishes his "son" off with an anti-clockwise loop. But have a look at the signature number three: it ALSO finishes in an anti-clockwise turn, albeit not fully as pronounced. Now, if that number three signature had been thrown forward as being Toppys, and to be compared to the ones above, with no anti-clockwise turn - would that have ruled it out as not being by the same hand as the others?
Moreover - the three signatures at the top were probably signed with the same pen and on the same type of paper. The fourth signature was not, and some of the discrepancies involved will owe to that fact.
Also: These are signatures written by two of the few George Hutchinsons of the same age and extraction. Chances are that they would be totally dissimilar, but instead they are - at least to my eye - much of carbon copies.
It would be very useful to see the full signatures, just as it would be interesting to see the marriage certificate. But from what Sam published, to me it seems we have a very good match."

And so you can see that I spoke of carbon copies from the outset, just as I said that it was a very good match, quite possibly belonging to the same man. And that was BEFORE I saw the marriage license! There has been very little doubt on the matter from the outset on my behalf. And since Leander confirms what I think, I see no much reason to hesitate at all. As usual, you are welcome to disagree - but you are not welcome to tell me that I was much of a doubter at any stage.

"All he did was give a personal opinion based on the imperfect samples, electronic copies, that he had to work with. I doubt he would even consider publishing any such report which could be linked to his professional capacity based on such unsatisfactory materials."

There has never been any suggestion on Leanders behalf to publish any report at all in this business. Why would he? He graciously accepted a question to take a look at the signatures and he, just as graciously, gave his wiew on the matter, concluding that he believed the signatures to be a match, and that he would be surprised to learn if they were not.
He is in all probability totally unaware of the commotion going on out here, and that´s good on him as far as I´m concerned.
But I think you need to realize that he is a professional, and if he had been awarded the task to work from electronic copies to decide a case, he would have no problem compiling a very competent report, pointing to the style elements involved, the differences and the similarities, adding, though, that the material was insufficient to give a full experts opinion.
Which, by the way, was exactly what he did in the Toppy/Hutch case. And since we found that academic report telling us that signature researchers were very able to work from photocopies of signatures, as well as from originals, there is no way anybody is going to be able to dismiss Leanders words on the matter. They remain the only fully documented investigation into these signatures from a renowned forensic document examiner we have. But I would very happily welcome more such investigations of the same level!

All the best, Babybird!
Fisherman

[Ben]

I think you nailed it, Beebs.

Leander was adamant that his comments should not be miscontrued as a "full expert opinion" since, according to the gentleman himself, it wasn't even possible given the nature of the material. You might encounter a few somewhat desperate semantic protestations that it's still an expert opinion, just not a "full" one (Oh yes!), but all you have to do in that eventuality is ask them what the blazes a "half expert opinion" or a "semi expert-opinion" is supposed to look like for those protestations to collapse like a house of cards.

Leander told us himself what his comments represented; a "spontaneous comment". Not an expert opinion, because such a thing could not be facillitated by the material available. So as you correctly point out, anyone claiming they have an expert professional opinion fighting their corner in the form of Leander is hopelessly incorrect.

But then Fisherman writes:

We know, though, that he tells us that any forthcoming evidence to his mind would probably confirm his suggestion that Toppy was Hutch, and therefore we can deduct that he does not see it as probable that an examination of the originals would cause any alteration of his mindset

Which is just repetition. I've already responded to that by pointing out that the above is in incredibly stark contrast to anything he claimed in his first post, as can be seen from the translation recently provided. He most emphatically never said anything that could be even vaguely construed as synonymous with "I'd be surprised if we did not have a match at hand". There is no convergence of the twain here at all. If he said one, but meant the other, I'm afraid he has a serious problem with conveying his true meaning.

So Leanders contribution is to be considered an experts opinion and nothng else

Not by me it isn't.

Because Leander cautioned us that it shouldn't be construed as such. It is to be considered a "spontaneous comment", because that is what Leander himself said it was...and nothing else.

I was referring to the relevance of the Iremonger "material" as oppsoed to the Leander ditto - I have all along said that Leander is to be preferred since we know what he saw and what he said about it in pretty much detail

With sincere respect, I'm forced to be a little robust in my terminology here in dismissing that as infuriating, ghastly nonsense, because the Leander material only consisted of a few computerized images, thus rendering a full expert opinion impossible. No such caveat was applied to Sue Iremonger's analysis, as discussed by Messrs. Begg, Fido, Hinton and others, almost certainly because she examined the original documents: the statement signatures and Toppy's marriage certificate signature. Since Iremonger is an experienced professional in her field, it would be useless for laymen to attempt to pass critical comment on her assessment. We don't have the experience. We can only settle for the overwhelmingly probable explanation that she applied her abilities to arrive at an informed conclusion.

So, no offense, but being "emphatic" that Leander is the best we have is completely worthless, since it's so obviously wrong.

concluding that he believed the signatures to be a match, and that he would be surprised to learn if they were not

He didn't say anything even vaguely resembling that in his intial commentary, though, so if he changed his tune to declaring them a match subsequently, it naturally followes that he didn't say what he meant in his first post. Of course, he never once claimed that "he believed the signatures to be a match".

And since we found that academic report telling us that signature researchers were very able to work from photocopies of signatures, as well as from originals, there is no way anybody is going to be able to dismiss Leanders words on the matter

Until we actually listen to what Leander said, which was that only a "spontaneous comment" was possible from the material, which is virtually the polar opposite of arguing that "signature researchers were very able to work from photocopies of signatures". If you want to accept him at his word, listen to his word.

They remain the only fully documented investigation

But it wasn't anything like a fully documented investigation, remember?

You can't have a "fully documented investigation" in the absence of the "full documents"!

I mean, really, think about it.

[babybird67]

Babybird:

"I am now, as i was then, annoyed that you called me a liar when i had quoted you verbatim"

You know very well that we have differing opinions on that "verbatim" quotation, Babybird. I can only assure you that if I had been of the opinion that I was in any fashoin misrepresenting you, I would have had no trouble to apologize. But I firmly believe standing by a conviction is something that also belongs to a gentleman´s behaviour!

Yes we do have differing opinions. You called me a liar: i had quoted you verbatim. It's there for all to see, so let's not relive the experience. Only one of us has learnt something from it, and that something is that one of us is not above the basest motives to bring to a discussion where such accusations say more about the accuser than the accused.

The only thing I will say is that he chose to word it that he could not offer "A FULL EXPERT OPINION" - to me, that suggests that he offered an experets opinion that would have been full if he had been provided with the originals and more samples of both writers signatures.

Fisherman...what is a half-expert opinion? Or a quarter-part expert opinion? Leander told you straight that the opinion he was giving was NOT a professional opinion as he had defective materials to work with which would make tendering such an opinion idiotic on his part. He qualified this by also using the words "personal" and "spontaneous"...he was basically doing you a favour. Both those words underline and emphasise the fact that Leander himself COULD NOT GIVE you a PROFESSIONAL opinion given the materials you provided him with. Why you keep denying this i do not know. It makes you look idiotic, to be honest.

So Leanders contribution is to be considered an experts opinion and nothing else, and it is as full as it can be using the material he had. We know that he tells us that any forthcoming evidence to his mind would probably confirm his suggestion that Toppy was Hutch, and therefore we can deduct that he does not see it as probable that an examination of the originals would cause any alteration of his mindset.

No it is not. Leander himself told you it was not a professional opinion, but one which was "personal" and "spontaneous". We cannot "deduct" anything from the fact that he has not seen the originals. If he had seen them, there might be any number of differences due to pen pressure, size of characters etc that would make him change his opinion. In any case, in the circumstances, his personal opinion is as valid as anyone else's on the signature issue...but no more valid.

have to go will respond to the rest later

[babybird67]

I had to go earlier...it is my son's prom tonight and we had to take him to get ready.

So...some other points...

I can only assure you that if I had been of the opinion that I was in any fashoin misrepresenting you, I would have had no trouble to apologize.

You were misrepresenting me. Let me remind you once more, that when accusations were being made about your own veracity, i gave you the benefit of the doubt, and ascribed the inconsistencies in what you were saying to mistake, not to lying.

A gentleman would have afforded me the same courtesy i believe. End of story.

The fact that he told me that he offered his "personal" opinion was not - once again! - meant to point to any disagreement on his behalf to have the material published on Casebook - it was merely a pointing out that no business agreement lay behind his contribution, only personal reflections of what he saw and could read into it - and what a capacity like him sees and reads into things are the best hope we have of getting things right.

Leander was making a distinction, Fisherman, between offering a professional opinion as opposed to a personal opinion. He was not prepared to offer one which he would be happy to call professional, since he did not have the correct materials to make such a professional assessment possible. Everyone other than you appears to be able to accept and understand this distinction. I wonder why you cannot.

"No Fisherman it is not what you have been saying all along."

I was referring to the relevance of the Iremonger "material" as oppsoed to the Leander ditto - I have all along said that Leander is to be preferred since we know what he saw and what he said about it in pretty much detail, naming all the elements that had been relevant to him in the investigation. That, emphatically, makes him the best bet we have. Evaluating sources can sometimes be difficult - given my profession, I should know! - but this time over it is a piece of cake. Until we find documentation of Iremongers work, she does not equal Leanders importance in any way. You are perfectly welcome to disagree, of course, but you will be very hard pressed to find substantiation for such a disagreement.

On the contrary. We have one expert who has professionally examined the documents themselves, and offered up a professional opinion which they are happy to have published in a book. Then we have another who only had electronic images to compare, and stated quite clearly that with such materials, he was unable to offer up a professional opinion on the matter, and was tendering a "spontaneous" and "personal" opinion. We have, therefore, only one professional opinion on the signatures, and that is Iremonger's. It is you who have no substantiation to your argument.

And since Leander confirms what I think, I see no much reason to hesitate at all. As usual, you are welcome to disagree - but you are not welcome to tell me that I was much of a doubter at any stage.

No he doesn't. He says a match cannot be ruled out. You aren't that circumspect. I did not say you were a doubter. I pointed out that you have variously espoused these different opinions throughout the thread...possibly/probably/very probably/is = a match. Which you have. One only needs to re-read your postings...and i cannot be bothered with going back and dragging all that out again, but it's there if people want to see it.

There has never been any suggestion on Leanders behalf to publish any report at all in this business. Why would he? He graciously accepted a question to take a look at the signatures and he, just as graciously, gave his wiew on the matter, concluding that he believed the signatures to be a match, and that he would be surprised to learn if they were not.

My emphasis. No, Fish, he did NOT conclude that he believed the signatures to be a match. He said a match could not be ruled out. Those have completely different meanings. Even if he HAD said there was a match, we all know he was offering a personal opinion, not a professional one anyway!

They remain the only fully documented investigation into these signatures from a renowned forensic document examiner we have.

No, they are not. Leander himself said so. How can someone stand on their reputation as a document examiner when they have come nowhere near the relevant documents???? You are crazy if you actually believe what you post here, Fisherman, there is no other explanation for such illogical and nonsensical statements.

Anyway, that's it. I'm not arguing with you anymore. I posted to Garry, not you, to explain to him that if he was waiting for an expert professional opinion from Leander he would be waiting a long time. I have no wish to re-enter these idiotic arguments with you, about a matter which really should have been laid to rest many months ago.

[Sam Flynn]

I just posted something similar on 'tother thread... but it's of relevance here too.

It might be better if this discussion around what we think Leander might/might not have said continued in PM-land, because it's swamping this thread. I'm also getting depressed by the increasingly ad hominem nature of the debate.

Yours well-intentionedly,

Sam Flynn x

[Fisherman]

Let´s just say that I am taking Sams advice and leaving the discussion, Babybird. Do join me, by all means!

Since I am a sucker for semantics, I will take my leave by quoting Ben:

"You can't have a "fully documented investigation" in the absence of the "full documents"!

If I document everything I do when I examine a tiny bit of a full selection of documents, I have performed a fully documented investigation on that bit, Ben. No need to see all the documents to reach such a level. And we do have a full documentation of Leanders work, in spite of the fact that he did not examine the full documentation. Same ****, different story, kind of.
It is a very simple distinction once you get the hang of it.

The very best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

yes of course it is simple

document examiners have no need to actually examine documents...of course they don't...and even when they themselves say that they DO, they really don't, because we know better.



Sam, i am happy to leave this discussion...i posted to Garry to put him in the picture regarding the non-existent professional report that he appeared to be waiting for from Leander, that's all. It was not my intention for any of this ridiculous argument to resurface.

[Sam Flynn]

I know it wasn't, BB. I just thought that a ceasefire on all fronts was long overdue!

[babybird67]

well Sam...

Peace Envoy Extraordinaire, i am happy to leave my trench (not tench) and play footy (or is that footsie?) with the enemy!

[Debra A]

I am not wanting to resurect this thread, but I discovered yesterday that a microfiche version of the original marriage entry of George William Topping Hutchinson exists at the London Metropolitan Archives, of which I now have a copy.
I thought it would be useful to have the reference on the thread, for anyone who might want to undertake research in the future.

The reference is:
London Metropolitan Archives, Holy Trinity, Mile End Old Town, Register of marriages, P93/TRI, Item 020

Debs

[Roy Corduroy]

Thanks Debs.

Not knowing any better, I'll ask a question. Since Holy Trinity is right there, does this have anythiing to do with the individual from Cottage Grove?

Roy

[Sam Flynn]

Not knowing any better, I'll ask a question. Since Holy Trinity is right there, does this have anythiing to do with the individual from Cottage Grove?

It doesn't, Roy. George J Hutchinson (or "Ticker-Nicker George") is listed as a Widower in the 1891 Census, living with his parents in Cottage Grove, Bow. He's still living there, and still listed as a Widower, in 1901 - albeit living with his widowed mother by that time. In both censuses his occupation is given as a "Stationer" and, what's more, his family name is consistently spelled "HutchISon", not "HutchINSon".

"Ticker-Nicker George" was therefore not the man who married Florence Jervis.

[Debra A]

Hi Roy, Sam.
No, it has nothing to do with George Thomas Hutchison of Cottage Grove.

I must say though that Toppy's full signature on his marriage entry, including middle names (David Knott only posted the George and Hutchinson section) does look slightly different when viewed as a whole signature. The inclusion of the middle names kind of alters the angle of the slant of the handwriting, not by much, but it does look different to what's been posted on the thread.

[Sam Flynn]

The inclusion of the middle names kind of alters the angle of the slant of the handwriting, not by much, but it does look different to what's been posted on the thread.

I shouldn't be surprised if it did, Debs. After all, "W-I-L-L-I-A-M--T-O-P-P-I-N-G" takes up a bit of space, so it's not surprising if the angle of the writing either side of it got a bit wonky compared to plain "George Hutchinson" on its own. I have little doubt that, if I were to write out my full names, the end result would look a little different than my usual signature, which omits all those extra letters. Another reason to exercise caution when considering Iremonger's apparent verdict on the marriage cert signature versus those on the witness statement.