Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

David writes, in a response to Sam:

"Sam, none of these "G" come from the school.
You certainly understand what I mean."

I think, David, that what Sam was doing was to reinforce my suggestion that teh capital letters you write in the begi´nning of your twenties need not be very like the ones you write in your thirties.
Thanks for that, Sam, by the way! A nice example of what I am trying to say. Though I would not venture to use it to prove that you were an immature 21-year old...!

The best, David, Sam!
Fisherman

Hi Fish,
I'm not contesting that handwriting changes over years. You very well know that it's not my point.
What we can observe with the capital G from 1888 to 1898 is an unlikely (impossible ?) regression.
When you write like an adult in 1888, you don't write like a schoolboy ten years later.
You know the song "Answer my question" by Dillinger ?
Here's the chorus, at least a part of it:
"Answer my question, answer my question,
Answer my question, answer my question,
Answer my question, answer my question..."

Seems a boring song, but it's actually a very good one!

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Crystal]

Fisherman, you write repetitively that I have 'refused' to tell you in detail what I think. No I haven't. As I pointed out yesterday, my initial impression is on page 10 of this thread, and I haven't seen any cause to radically alter that view.

This started out as a discussion based on the simple premise that we could all trust our eyes - fine, but what we perceive is not objective. Perception does not just involve the eyes, you see. It is the product of your state of knowledge as well.

As I pointed out ages ago, people see things differently. Very broadly speaking they have a tendency when making comparisons of this sort to emphasise either the similarities or the differences. Assuming you have no bias, and no agenda, you will still, like everyone else in the world, have one tendency or the other. You probably know which, if you consider it.


Since then, this discussion has developed into one which is now concerned with social influences, and that is a much bigger affair. As far as I can see, you are interested in this because you wish to negate the differences in order to strengthen the case for Toppy=witness. If you say otherwise, then fine.

Now why do you think I a) haven't explained what I think and b) haven't said what I should?

I have explained what I think. And what should I have been saying, exactly?

To reiterate again, and hopefully, for the final time, I have said the following:

The witness signature is not an exact match for the Toppy signatures.
The witness signature is not entirely different from the Toppy signature
There are differences between the two that I consider significant. I have explained what these are, but just for you - the capital 'G', the looped 'h' and the formation of the letter group 'tch', the overall slant and shape of the hand, and the proportion of letters to one another. All that can be found on page 10 of this thread.
I would want to see a better match than this before I was confident that Toppy = witness.
Further examples of Toppy's hand have shown a consistency with the earlier example, and thus do not increase the probability of a match, since the difference are still there, and still the same.

As to whether the hand is likely to have changed to this extent over the ten year period between 1888 and 1898 - As I have said repeatedly, Fisherman, it is possible, I do not consider it particularly likely. This is what I have always said.

I haven't said 'Toppy is not the witness'. I do not know, and neither do you, and neither does anyone else posting on this thread. That is a fact. Furthermore, whilst discussion regarding the age at which a person's hand is formed has been entertaining, it can have no bearing on this case.

As you will doubtless argue with that, I will elaborate for you. Even if you went out and found people who would say - Yes, Fisherman, it is very likely that everyone's hand changes throughout their life, it wouldn't demonstrate that Toppy was the witness.

Sadly, we do not have an example of his hand in the interim period 1888-98. We cannot see what it looked like in that time. So what we are left with is a hand which bears some resemblance, but is not a good enough match with the witness hand to be certain.

And a story about him being the witness.

I think that insufficient to make any firm conclusions.

There, Fisherman, I have, just like you, repeated myself again. I haven't said anything that I havent' said already, and it all seems pretty clear to me - I'm not sure why it doesn't to you.

And also, there is a limit to what you can tell from surface analysis. Any further evidence based on the handwriting will only come (unless new evidence is found) from an examination of the original documents.

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Well, not really, Ben. All I am saying is that when we see one thing and then another and find that our eyesight in combination with our brains tell us that the two things are closely related, then it is not FAITH that rules the deduction - it is logic, and nothing else.

In which case, it is only fair to say the same of those who don't feel that Toppy and the witness match: "that when we see one thing and then another and find that our eyesight in combination with our brains" tell us that the two things are not closely related, it is also logic that "rules the deduction", as opposed to blind faith.

Personally, I feel Crystal has expressed her views on the subject very eloquently already.

Best wishes,
Ben

[Crystal]

Thank you my dear! So do I!

But Fisherman doesn't....

It's his round, I think!

[The Good Michael]

I see. Everything is now CRYSTAL clear to me.

Mike

[Crystal]

HO HO HO! You spoke to the Salmon then, Mike?

[Sam Flynn]

And the very fact that you've jumped into this "G' topic tells me that this "G" is significant.

Not really, Dave - like Toppy's, it just happens to be my first initial, that's all. My second is "H", oddly enough, but I didn't post that - if I had, you'd have seen that it, too, had changed somewhat from my early 20s to my mid-30s.

[Sam Flynn]

This started out as a discussion based on the simple premise that we could all trust our eyes - fine, but what we perceive is not objective.

But the image falling on the retina is the same for all of us, and we can measure every line, loop and edge in that image quite objectively, and make objective comparisons of them. We can repeat that exercise for other signatures, to determine which constitute "good" or "bad" matches - again, quite objectively.

This is basically how OCR and ICR software works. Neither of these is perfect, but the "read-rates" are getting better all the time, and one can expect modern software to attain in excess of 90% accuracy on a consistent basis - indeed, the accuracy can get close to 100%, when using structured forms. All this simply by comparing lines, loops and edges.

Now, OCR/ICR isn't quite the same as comparing two signatures, but at least it shows that it's possible to make objective comparisons of visual stimuli without involving the brain.

[DVV]

Not really, Dave - like Toppy's, it just happens to be my first initial, that's all. My second is "H", oddly enough, but I didn't post that - if I had, you'd have seen that it, too, had changed somewhat from my early 20s to my mid-30s.

Hi GH,
I'm sincerely amazed to observe that people who are definitely sure that Toppy IS Hutch can't answer the simple question I asked many times.
But tomorrow is Good Friday, and I won't lose patience.
So, once more, part of Dillinger's chorus:
"Answer my question, answer my question,
Answer my question, answer my question,
Answer my question, answer my question,
Answer my question....."

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Which question, Dave?

[DVV]

I said, and I maintain, that the 1898's "G" do suggest a man who still write like he has learnt in school.
But he wrote more like an adult, with a firmer and faster hand, in 1888.
Very hard to explain, if you want my opinion.
David

Once more, any explaination welcome.

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

Once more, any explaination welcome.

I don't think his writing in 1888 looks any more adult than it did in subsequent years, Dave. On the contrary, I don't see it as radically different at all. If I thought otherwise, I might try to palm you off with some waffly explanation, but I don't - so I won't

[DVV]

So you don't answer my question.
It tells me a lot, and I'm not happy to say that.
Fish, who firmly believe in Toppy, has never denied that my question was justified.
And indeed, it is.
Thanks to Sam Flynn's post, page 3.
Thanks to Sam Flynn's post, page 57.

I'd be happy to be corrected, if I had to be corrected, since I'm REALLY willing to find Hutch.
Please Sam, take your time, come back to page 3 and 57, and answer. Agree or disagree, but answer.

Amitiés, et joyeuses Pâques,
David

[DVV]

I don't think his writing in 1888 looks any more adult than it did in subsequent years

Sam,
remember you're the one who talked about "functioning retinas".
I'd be the one who says: "can't believe my eyes".

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

So you don't answer my question.

I did, Dave - it's just that some questions can legitimately have no answer. If I did not perceive any greater "maturity" in Hutch's 1888 signatures compared with the later ones, I couldn't possibly have offered an explanation. Besides, whilst "relative sameness" is something that can be handled by peripheral perceptual processes (or computer programs), the evaluation of "maturity" is fundamentally a value-judgment which definitely requires the involvement of higher functions of the brain. The further away from the retina one goes, the more subjective one's judgments become.

Hawddamor, a Pasg Hapus i chi hefyd!