When does many become many?

[Ben]

I think that's taking semantic pedantry to the limit. "Similar things" would include similar to any of those previously mentioned.

But the "previously mentioned" explanations were not similar to eachother, Victor, so it wouldn't make much sense to state that there may be other unnamed "similar" explanations without specifying what they're supposed to be similar to. Unless of course, he meant "similar" to the last mentioned, which was the "function of the pen", in which case the sentence would start to make sense. Unfortunately, there's no way you can conjur up the existence of "many" explanations for the differences that belong in the already very limited sub-category of "function of the pen".

The storage capacity of a pen is very unlikely to have any impact upon the style of the signature, and "the way it is held, particularly the angle" is a obvious difference in the writer's penmanship, not an explanation for one.

Didn't she conclude that the 3 signatures on the statement didn't match eachother too.

She said the first one was different. She believed sigs 2 and 3 were written by the same hand.

[Victor]

But the "previously mentioned" explanations were not similar to eachother, Victor, so it wouldn't make much sense to state that there may be other unnamed "similar" explanations without specifying what they're supposed to be similar to. Unless of course, he meant "similar" to the function of the pen, in which case the sentence would start to make sense. Unfortunately, there's no way you can conjur up the existence of "many" explanations for the differences that belong in the already very limited sub-category of "function of the pen".

It's irrelevent how similar the previously mentioned explanations are to eachotehr, the "many others" are similar to any of those. And that makes your last sentence redundant.

She said the first one was different. She believed sigs 2 and 3 were written by the same hand.

Thank you for that.

[Ben]

It really doesn't make sense to claim that A is "similar to" B, C, and D when it's obvious that B, C and D don't have any similarity with eachother.

[Victor]

It really doesn't make sense to claim that A is "similar to" B, C, and D when it's obvious that B, C and D don't have any similarity with eachother.

Reasons for X are A, B, C or D and similar.

To me that means the reasons for X could be A and\or something similar to A and\or B and\or something similar to B and\or C and\or something similar to C and\or D and\or something similar to D.

A, B, C and D do not have to be similar to eachother.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Ben

I do believe it was a shame that an agreed sample of signatures were not sent. Although I absolutely don`t think there was anything sinister in the choice.

With Mr Leander, we had a document examiner who was kind enough to have a look at the signatures, and charge no fee, and it is a shame that this super bit of networking by Fisherman was tarnished because one camp would not be happy with the samples offered.

As Fisherman is still in contact with Mr Leander perhaps it is not too late for an agreed set of sample signatures to be formulated and presented again?
Out of politeness and respect for Mr Leander, Fisherman should maintain the contact, otherwise we`d be viewed as squabbling kids. As Mr Leander is Swedish, it is only appropriate we approach him in his native language.

Through my own experiences of signatures, and digging around Victorian Census material, the images presented by Sam had very strong similarities.
Of course, as you note, I must always leave room in my judgement for the originals.

[Ben]

That's even worse, Victor.

In that scenario, he would effectively have been expecting us to guess which of the three named explanations are similar to the supposedly "many" unnamed ones. If A,B,C, and D are not similar to eachother, it's very important to specify which one(s) of the four share a similarity with the great unnamed.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

There may not have been any deliberately nefarious or dishonest intentions behind the nature of the material supplied to Leander, but I hardly think any "camp" can be blamed for being unhappy with the material supplied. It wasn't even the case that it may have been deficient - it most assuredly was, and particularly frustrating in this case since an opportunity to provide him with a fuller picture was there from the outset.

The "tarnishing" occured as a result of the material supplied, not because people correctly highlighted the "tarnished" nature of the material. It's also the case that montages convey the erroneous impression that all signatures are of the same size and angle, not that I'm suggesting this was done to confuse on purpose.

Best regards,
Ben

[Victor]

In that scenario, he would effectively have been expecting us to guess which of the three named explanations are similar to the supposedly "many" unnamed ones. If A,B,C, and D are not similar to eachother, it's very important to specify which one(s) of the four share a similarity with the great unnamed.

Why? The many unnamed are similar to any of those mentioned and all he was doing was suggesting possible reasons for the discrepancies, unless you expect him to itemise each and every one which is unnecessarily restrictive possibly to the point of making the task impossible.

Let's see...we have...
Age and infirmity of the writer considering they were done decades apart, which could affect how he holds the pen. Maybe arthritis too.
Any injuries to his hands in those intervening years, especially relevent for a manual worker\labourer.

Oh and let's include remote possibilities like he loses his hand\fingers in an accident.
Mental infirmities which affect his memory of how he signs his name.

How alert or tired he is.

His emotional state, especially as one is a marriage certificate when he could be "overcome with emotion"

And these are factors concerning the writer, then we have those concerning the pens used, then those concerning the environment, such as the marriage certificate being signed whilst standing and his bride seated.

Of course, most of these are not relevent to this situation as far as we know.

[Jon Guy]

Apologies, Ben. I didn`t mean to imply that the result was tarnished because "your camp" were not happy with the samples provided. As you say, the result was tarnished because of the samples sent. Which is why a set of samples, as best as we can do, should be formulated and presented again, with full agreement from the enemy this time

[Ben]

The many unnamed are similar to any of those mentioned and all he was doing was suggesting possible reasons for the discrepancies

That would amount to decidedly odd phraseology, when it could simply have said "other things". It makes very little sense to use the word "similar" where there exists ambiguity as to what X or Y is supposedly similar to, especially when the other things being compared share virtually no similarity with eachother. Injury to the hands doesn't have any similarity to any of the three cited explanations, and since the great unnamed is supposed to encompass only the explanations "similar" to those three, it's clear that Leander cannot have considered this a realistic means of accounting for the differences.

The trouble with the "decades apart" argument is that we have evidence of Toppy's handwriting from 1898 and 1911, and the differences with the statement three remained different (i.e. the very same differences!) over that time span, with the closed G-loop and skyward-pointing n-tail being present on both occasions. The idea that he was emotionally overcome when writing his marriage certificate signature is similarly weaked by the fact that the signature was practically identical to his 1911 census entry, as is the "bride seated, groom standing" hypothesis.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

No worries, Jon.

No offence taken.

[Victor]

That would amount to decidedly odd phraseology, when it could simply have said "other things". It makes very little sense to use the word "similar" where there exists ambiguity as to what X or Y is supposedly similar to, especially when the other things being compared share virtually no similarity with eachother.

That depends upon a number of factors including typical Swedish phraseology, and Fish's translation skills, etc. And I think it's more appropriate to include the similar than exclude it, and that your perceived ambiguity is utterly inconsequential.

Injury to the hands doesn't have any similarity to any of the three cited explanations, and since the great unnamed is supposed to encompass only the explanations "similar" to those three, it's clear that Leander cannot have considered this a realistic means of accounting for the differences.

Injury to hands shares no similarity to hands becoming infirm due to arthritis? Again I completely disagree.

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

And I think it's more appropriate to include the similar than exclude it, and that your perceived ambiguity is utterly inconsequential.

I don't.

I don't see any major problems with Fisherman's intepretation skills, and nor do I think there's any "ambiguity" concerning the "similar" reference, but that's only if we accept that the "similar things" was in reference to the last mentioned explanation for the differences, which concerned the "function of the pen" and that those same "similar things" could not have been "many". Better than assuming that he mean "similar" to things that weren't even similar with eachother.

Injury to hands shares no similarity to hands becoming infirm due to arthritis?

No. I'm saying that injury to hands has obviously no "similarity" to any of the three named explanations for the Toppy/witness differences.

[Sam Flynn]

If A,B,C, and D are not similar to eachother....

But they are, Ben! Consider these facts about the three sigs on the 1888 witness statement:

1. We know that one of the terminating "n"s is chopped off in the scan of the 1888 witness statement;

2. We know that the second page is signed "Geo" instead of "George";

3. We know that two of the capital "H"s are similar, but that on the first page is curlicued...

Therefore, in the interests of getting a level playing field, let's

a. Chop off all the terminating "n"s;

b. Turn the two "Georges" into "Geos";

c. Put the fancy "H" on all three pages.

Bearing in mind that all I've done is a-c above, with no other changes at all, this is what 1888p1-3 end up looking like:



It's rather clear to me that the same bloke wrote all three.

[Victor]

I don't see any major problems with Fisherman's intepretation skills, and nor do I think there's any "ambiguity" concerning the "similar" reference, but that's only if we accept that the "similar things" was in reference to the last mentioned explanation for the differences, which concerned the "function of the pen" and that those same "similar things" could not have been "many". Better than assuming that he mean "similar" to things that weren't even similar with eachother.

But I can see no good reason for accepting that the similar things was restricted only to the last reference, nor can I see why he wasn't refering to "many" things each one similar to a particular but unspecified one of his 3 listed reasons (whatever their dissimilarity to eachother)

No. I'm saying that injury to hands has obviously no "similarity" to any of the three named explanations for the Toppy/witness differences.

Other than that it may affect handwriting.