Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

Hi Fish,

Frank Leander didn't comment the signatures letter by letter.
The G is hardly an evidence that Toppy was the witness, in any case.
We can agree on that, can't we ?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Ben]

Never trust Fisherman when he says he's leaving a thread.

That's today's lesson.

Will you stop saying that Leander "thought nothing much about" differences such as the capital G? That's absolutely not the case. He specifically mentioned those very elements on the grounds that they militate "against" what he regarded as similarities. Here, look:

"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."

He wouldn't have mentioned them at all if they didn't qualify as dissimilarities. A small number of reasons could account for them, but he's not expressing the opinion that they DO account for them. Of course, the difference here is that the dissimilarities are in place over a 13-year-period, thus cementing the dissimilarity with the statement three.

Your insinuation that Crystal's observations were "senseless" is, of course, grossly unacceptable, considering that she in an expert in her profession who has offered to dedicate her time, free of charge, to examine the originals.

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"Frank Leander didn't comment the signatures letter by letter.
The G is hardly an evidence that Toppy was the witness, in any case.
We can agree on that, can't we ?"

No much need asking, David - of course we can agree that it is not the G that leads my thoughts to Toppy being the witness.
As for Leanders commentaries, he DID mention the G specifically, together with a few other elements. And he DID say that there could be reasons that explained the differences involved in the details he pointed to.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ouch, Ben: He NEVER used the word "militate". How CAN you lower yourself to trying to lure us into a trap like this? It would be like calling four or more things "numerous" things, and we can´t have THAT, can we?

Besides, my presence on this thread is not the problem. Yours is, though.

And Crystal may have offered to feed the famished world for the next decade for all I care - it does not change the fact that one of her and Leander is very much wrong about the significance of changing style elements.
Actually, I can tell you who of them it is that is wrong. But let´s not spoil the cliffhanger, shall we?

Fisherman

[Crystal]

Fisherman, I said I would communcate via PM. I see no such thing from you. I am quite willing to be upfront in this respect up to a point. I am entitled to some privacy, however, and I am unwilling to put those details out in the public domain. I would add, without prejudice, that if, having divulged those details to you, or anybody else, I see that they have appeared in the public domain, I will take action. As long as we're clear.

[Fisherman]

Ben - amazingly - writes:

"A small number of reasons could account for them, but he's not saying that DO account for them."

Well, how could he possibly do that, Ben? How on God´s green earth would he be able to specifically pin down exactly what made Toppy change his elements of style?
He said that there were differences - and we knew that already - but these differnces could be explained by a number of circumstances. As a matter of fact he gave three examples of such circumstances, but then added that there could have been other, similar things. That does not mean that he spoke of a "small number" of such things - he mentioned three examples, and added that there may be other, similar things, and that means that he never even specified any limit. He left it open, which is a VERY sensible thing to do.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"isherman, I said I would communcate via PM. I see no such thing from you. I am quite willing to be upfront in this respect up to a point. I am entitled to some privacy, however, and I am unwilling to put those details out in the public domain. I would add, without prejudice, that if, having divulged those details to you, or anybody else, I see that they have appeared in the public domain, I will take action. As long as we're clear."

It´s always good to have yourself painted out as a potential criminal and someone who does not respect other peoples wishes to safeguard their privacy! I´m a journalist, Crystal, and I handle these things daily. So far I´ve avoided jail, so you´re in good hands.

...and that PM is off to you in a minute.

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

of course we can agree that it is not the G that leads my thoughts to Toppy being the witness.
Fisherman

Merci !

[The Good Michael]

Fish,

There was that time when you caught a haddock out of season. Didn't they nearly put you behind bars for that?

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

How on God´s green earth would he be able to specifically pin down exactly what made Toppy change his elements of style?

A moot point, Fish, since Leander didn't even express the view that Toppy ever changed his "elements of style" (there's that ghastly buzz-phrase again!), nor is he expressing the view that any one of the potential "reasons" for the changes was the correct one. Included in that number is the most glaring "reason" of them all - that they're different because they were written by different people.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"A moot point, Fish, since Leander didn't even express the view that Toppy ever changed his "elements of style"

Well, Ben, he was obviously of the opinion that the signatures could have been by the same hand. And IF they were, SOMEBODY changed his elements of style along the road. My guess is that it would have been Toppy himself.

There is of course the remote possibility that Leander actually believed that it could have been Toppy who wrote the police report signatures (he says that much, right?), but somebody ELSE than Toppy stepped in and changed his elements of style.

I´m not sure how this would have been done; perhaps the two writers sat side by side, and whenever Toppy felt like a change in style elements, he just left a letter or two out and the other guy filled it in for him.

There is also the possibility that somebody cleverly ERASED Toppys elements of style later in time, by taking away a letter here and a dot there, only to write them in another style.

I´m glad that you brought this very relevant point up, Ben. I would NEVER, EVER have thought of it meself!

...and, to be frank, I have no idea at all what you will offer next. There is an element of unpredictability involved in your posts nowadays that I can´t seem to grasp fully. You seem to be able to offer the most... well, the most ... ORIGINAL ideas, wonderfully unthought of by the rest of us!

Somebody ELSE changed Toppys elements of style if it was he who wrote the police report signatures...Hmmm, why did I not think of that?

Fisherman

Pssst! Was it Fleming who wrote the new style elements? Was it? Ben?

[Fisherman]

Mike asks:

"There was that time when you caught a haddock out of season. Didn't they nearly put you behind bars for that?"

They couldn´t, Mike - the haddock was masquerading as a ling!

The best,
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Was it 6'7"?

Mike

[DVV]

Pssst! Was it Fleming who wrote the new style elements? Was it? Ben?

Where has "Gentleman Fish" gone ?
I miss him sincerely.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Every inch of it, Mike; every inch!

Fisherman