Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Malcolm X]

No Malcolm,
this thread is about Toppy's signatures as to be compared to Hutch's. And like any other thread, it can be ruined by too-many off-topic posts.

Amitiés,
David

uum, this thread is about Egoes and trading insults, it's ruined already.
but i understand what you're saying

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"why did he change his tune between those posts? Anyone interested in this discussion is entitled to ponder that question."

The salient point here, Ben, is that he did NOT change his tune - he simply was clearer in his later post. He elaborated on what he had already said. I have told you three or four times that when he from the outset said "it can hardly be ruled out", that means that he just as well could have said "itīs pretty damn obvious that they are much alike". But it will take a Swede to realize this, so maybe Crystal can work it out by listening to her Swedish friends.
You are very welcome to take an active interest in what YOU perceive as a major change in tune (it is not), as long as you donīt forget that Leander actually DID say these things. And that is what counts! There is NO contradiction at all involved in the posts, there is only a reinforcement:

1.It can hardly be ruled out that it was the same writer. Why? Because the general impression is that of an obvious likeness.
What is it that makes this so troublesome? The man explains what made him come to his conclusion, that is all.

2.It can hardly be ruled out that it was the same writer. Why? Because there is far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to rule it out. Where do you see any contradiction in this? I donīt, thatīs for sure – if you are of an impression and elaborate on how you came to your conclusions, it should all be OK as far as I understand.

3.There could be ”many” reasons for the changes in style elements. And what did he say in his first post? ”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.” Now, what is it that makes you think that Leander is saying ”X” in the first post and ”Y” in the other? To me, these things are quite alike – a listing of three things, adding that there would be be other, similar things to add, or simply saying that ”many things” could have explained the differences.

So, Ben, will you please tell me where the large discrepancies you are speaking of lie here?
Perhaps you are of the impression that Leander SHOULD have said that it could hardly be ruled out that it was the same writer – but in fact we must understand that the match was a very poor one, and probably not worth much. And maybe he should have said that the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things could have explained the differences – but they probably would not do so, since the differences were so very obvious.

But Leander said no such thing – he instead showed us that he was of the impression that we have an obvious likeness before our eyes when looking at the signatures, and that the discrepancies could have many an explanation.

Now, Ben, you have stated that you would be very happy if we could identify Hutch as Toppy – why is it that you donīt take this excellent opportunity to admit that one of the foremost experts in Scandinavia has offered a wiew that goes quite some way to reinforce that suggestion? If you are sooo very keen to make the match, why do you reject this opportunity instead of embracing it? Why do you cling to Iremonger, of whom we know next to nothing, instead of embarking on the Leander train?
Or could it be that you have not been totally honest with us? Hmmm?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Pack it in, the pair of you, or I shall be obliged to come and sort you out."

Would you consider butting out instead of sorting out, Crystal? Unless you have something valuable to add to the discussion?
I am currently trying to find out how Ben can see two widely disparate answers from Leander, when there is nothing more to it than a simple clarification and an elaboration of what led him to his decisions. I am much more interested in the answer to that, than I would be interested in packing things in.

Fisherman

[Crystal]

With respect, you're not. All you are doing is arguing, and in case you hadn't realised, just about everybody else is sick to death of it. Take it outside if you must persist, but for goodness sake, stop using this thread for your personal vendettas.

Its the sort of thing that's liable to get you into trouble.

NOW I'll butt out - with pleasure.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I think you'll find you've accused me of pretty much all of those things in the past."

Let me assure you, Ben - you have nothing to complain about, comparisonwise. I am more than willing to look up your invectives, and you are free to look for mine if you wish?

"You returned, offering no commentry whatsoever on the issue of whether originals are preferable to copies, and decided to launch into a repetitive "last man standing" debate about Leander's other remarks, despite the fact that they'd been discussed already."

Easily taken care of, my friend: Originals are preferable to copies. Always. But the circumstances dictate to what extent they are superior. And in a case like this, decent copies will go a long enough way to enable anybody to recognize the obvious resemblance. I think the perhaps best way to show this is by pointing out that Frank Leander did not find it beyond him to come up with the verdict of it hardly being reccomendable to rule out that the signatures were by the same hand.
That said, an examination by an unbiased, skilled document expert of the originals will result in material that cannot be gained by the copies only. And it will either strengthen or weaken things for each of us.

But IF such an investigation should result in there being major differences involved, hidden from us by the copies, it would be "odd in the extreme" as Leander and I agreed upon, given the likeness inbetween the samples. Still , such an investigation would be welcome - by an unbiased, skilled expert, that is.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"NOW I'll butt out - with pleasure."

Thanks a bunch, Crystal!

Fisherman

[Ben]

The salient point here, Ben, is that he did NOT change his tune - he simply was clearer in his later post.

Not if he's saying what you're claiming he's saying. It would amount to a complete about-turn, more or less. "Cannot be ruled out" means not impossible, and neither of those things mean "obvious likeness". That would amount to a radical change, and if he made that change, I'm afraid his observations aren't worth taking seriously. "Cannot be ruled out" most emphatically does not mean "itīs pretty damn obvious that they are much alike". That is clearly ridiculous, and you can hardly skirt round the problem by saying "Ah, that's just the way Swedish people phrase things".

You are very welcome to take an active interest in what YOU perceive as a major change in tune (it is not), as long as you donīt forget that Leander actually DID say these things

If he did, there's no longer any decent reason to take him seriously, considering that he changes his tune so startlingly. If he didn't, well...

It can hardly be ruled out that it was the same writer. Why? Because the general impression is that of an obvious likeness

No, that isn't what he said in his intial letter. He stated that the possibility of match "cannot be ruled out", and mentioned that the similarities were off-set by the differences. In other words, pretty inconclusive. "Not impossible" was clearly the gist of his "sponteneously" offered argument. You started using the phrase "overall likeness" and then went on to claimed that Leander said the same thing. I pointed to the original letter and assured you that he said no such thing. Then all of a sudden, up pops another letter where Leander's talking about an "obvious likeness".

That's plain weird, however way you look at it.

2.It can hardly be ruled out that it was the same writer. Why? Because there is far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to rule it out.

Now that's just bizarre phraseology.

Again, if you rule something out, you're declaring it to be impossible. Is there too much resemblance to dismiss the match as impossible? - yes. That's not exactly difficult. Does the handstyle resemblance make it a probable match? - No.

There could be ”many” reasons for the changes in style elements. And what did he say in his first post? ”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

"Many" was another inexplicable later addition.

He didn't say there were "many" explanations in his first place. He mentioned a limited set of reasons for the dissimilarities, and never once offered the personal view that any of those reasons must have come into play in this case. A more glaring and obvious reason for the dissimilarities is that they were written by different people.

And maybe he should have said that the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things could have explained the differences – but they probably would not do so, since the differences were so very obvious.

Because then he'd be coming down more heavily in favour of a mismatch, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that he did that. On the other hand, there's no evidence that he came down heavily in favour of a match either, so the sensible conclusion is that he left the question open but didn't "rule him out".

But Leander said no such thing – he instead showed us that he was of the impression that we have an obvious likeness before our eyes when looking at the signatures

He didn't say there was an "obvious likeness" in his initial post. He said that the possibility of a match "cannot be ruled out", beforre detailing his opinion that the likenesses are offset by the similarities. In short, his first letter wasn't Toppy-endorsing. If he changed his tune thereafter, it would be a radical one, and for that reason he isn't worth listening to, since he could easily change his opinion radically again.

Now, Ben, you have stated that you would be very happy if we could identify Hutch as Toppy – why is it that you donīt take this excellent opportunity to admit that one of the foremost experts in Scandinavia has offered a wiew that goes quite some way to reinforce that suggestion?

Because the evidence suggests that the views of the gentleman in question didn't go any way to reinforce the suggestion that Toppy was the witness, and in any event, he acknowledged that his was not a full expert opinion. Against Toppy as the witness is Iremonger's study of the original documents which led her to the conclusion that the signatures didn't match.

Why do you cling to Iremonger, of whom we know next to nothing, instead of embarking on the Leander train?

Iremonger analysed the originals, and Leander didn't. Besides which, the latter doesn't appear to endorse Toppy as the witness anyway, although, like me, he can't rule him out.

[Ben]

Originals are preferable to copies. Always. But the circumstances dictate to what extent they are superior. And in a case like this, decent copies will go a long enough way to enable anybody to recognize the obvious resemblance

Once again, your friend Leander effectively said the opposite:

I wish to strongly underline your wiew that comparing research into signatures must be done using the original material and I/we would not have the possibility to write a full expertīs opinion on the material supplied...you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!

[DVV]

Hi all,

Should we maintain that Leander never said so ?
Knappast !

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Ben tries again:


" It would amount to a complete about-turn, more or less. "Cannot be ruled out" means not impossible, and neither of those things mean "obvious likeness". That would amount to a radical change, and if he made that change, I'm afraid his observations aren't worth taking seriously."

What you need to ask yourself is this: When Leander said that it could hardly be ruled out that they were matches - did he give his reason for this stance? No, he did not. Therefore, there is no way he could have made a complete turn here. It is a ridiculous and desperate suggestion, and a ridiculous effort to undermine him.
He said they could be a match - and then he explained why he thought so. At no stage did he leave his position that the signatures could be a match.

But I can of course see what you are trying to do this time over, Ben! But I think you first need to find a discrepancy before trying to use your admitted amateurism to throw Leander out!

What I did find that was of REAL value in one of your former posts, though, was that you actually said that you thought it "odd" that Leander "suddenly" concurred with my thinking on the subject. It of course was not sudden at all, but the REAL benefit here is that you at least realize that Leander thinks that the signatures are of obvious likeness! Since you have all along been trying to convince us that Leander did NOT think that, I am thankful that you now come to a more sensible conclusion!
And if you had read the first post of Leander more thoroughly, you would have seen that he already there spoke of a good correspondance in general style and writing skills - and when style and writing skills are the same, signatures are nice matches when it comes to the overall impression. That is how it works.

""Many" was another inexplicable later addition.
He didn't say there were "many" explanations in his first place. He mentioned a limited set of reasons for the dissimilarities, and never once offered the personal view that any of those reasons must have come into play in this case."

Inexplicable, Ben? INEXPLICABLE?? When the man gives three examples of possible examples and states that there would be other, similar examples, you find it "inexplicable" that he speaks of "many" explanations the next time over?
Yes, hmmm, you may be onto something here, Ben; That DOES seem to rule Leander out completely, does it not? Calling 4, 5 or more (we donīt know just how many more) "many" explanations makes Leander an obvious liar, more or less.
Itīs a good thing that he made such complete turnover, since it exposes him for what he is! Wow! Thanks for pointing it out, Ben - had it been me, I would never have spotted that GLARING discrepancy...!


"Because then he'd be coming down more heavily in favour of a mismatch, and I'm not necessarily suggesting that he did that. On the other hand, there's no evidence that he came down heavily in favour of a match either"

Well, not until his next post, that is - where you agree with me that Leander comes down very firmly on the match side, remember? So firmly, in fact, that you think it should rule him out for thinking so, just like in the case with him calling many things "many". Ehrm, well...okay, where were we....?

"In short, his first letter wasn't Toppy-endorsing."

Not to your ears and your interpretation, no. So it was a good thing that he elaborated on it in the NEXT post, GIVING HIS REASONS for why he said that it could hardly be ruled out that they were one and the same. And since when do we call people who bolster their claims with functioning and logical arguments unreliable, Ben?
Leander gave us his expert wiew that we could be looking at a match. That alone tells us that there are very major likenesses inbetween the signatures. He also told us that none of the discrepancies were unexplicable - instead there could be many explanations to them. And efter that he told us WHY we should not rule the signature match out - because the overall likeness was too obvious for that, something he had already pointed to in his first post.

We canīt rule out that Leander is right. Why? Because he is the best renowned expert that has had a look at the signatures, and he has seen more of them than any otherexpert involved.

Why did I write this? I did it to show how reasoning functions: We get a statement: We canīt rule out that Leander is correct. But we donīt get a reason why we should not.
It is a parallel to Leanders telling us that a match could be at hand.
After that we need to know WHY we should not rule Leander out: Because he is an expert and has seen more of these signatures than any other expert involved.
Now, Ben, since that is a more orless exact parallel to the issue at hand, both factually and verbally, do you see any big contradiction in the two sentences? Have I, when saying that we ought not rule Leander out, said something that is in opposition to the following phrase - because he is a top expert with lots of material studied in the case. Have I been unreliable?
Of course not - you are just being foolish again.

"Iremonger analysed the originals, and Leander didn't. Besides which, the latter doesn't appear to endorse Toppy as the witness anyway, although, like me, he can't rule him out."

But that only deals with his post number one, remember? When he gave his reasons you admitted that he concurred with me! How did you phrase it...it was "odd" that as I seemed to want the opinion Y, that Leander "suddenly" proved to be of that exact Y opinion!
So, Ben, you have already told me that you now realize what Leanders true opinion on the matter is. We are agreed on that, remember?

As for the Iremonger examination, I will just say that I read Sams posts on the matter, and they sum it all up nicely. We are not even sure what the good lady saw.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Next try:

"Once again, your friend Leander effectively said the opposite"

He did not say the opposite - he said exactly what I do: originals are to be preferred over copies.
...and then he used the copies he had been sent to make an assesment - apparently the copies were good enough for him to give his opinion. And he added that a full examination would not be possible without the originals.

Which is exactly what I am saying - and not the opposite.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David says:

"Should we maintain that Leander never said so ?
Knappast !"

Not sure what you are getting at, but it seems somewhat unconnected to the core issues. Pardon my French.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman, you must learn to be more succinct and less ponderous when you post.

When Leander said that it could hardly be ruled out that they were matches - did he give his reason for this stance? No, he did not.

Of course he did. He listed the similarities, then he listed the differences, ultimately concluding that a combination of the two prevented him from "ruling out" the possibility of a match. This is only reasonable, and to be expected, since I never ruled out the possibility of a match myself. Fundamentally, the "could be" factor was never a bone of contention. I was interested in the probability of a match, and Leander is far from enthusiastic in that regard.

It of course was not sudden at all, but the REAL benefit here is that you at least realize that leander thinks that the signatures are of obvious likeness!

No, not really.

There are a handful of explanations that may account for the oddity, and I'll leave you guess which explanation I favour. 1. You made it up (don't panic, I'm accounting for all possibilities here, 'tis all), 2. You made serious errors in translation. 3. You failed to disguise your obvious Toppy bias, and this, in combination with the erroneous information you supplied him with concerning the number of potential candidates, led him to succumb to that bias. 4. He changed his mind rather drastically (in which case, he could do so again).

And if you had read the first post of Leander more thoroughly, you would have seen that he already there spoke of a good correspondance in general style and writing skills - and when style and writing skills are the same, signatures are nice matches when it comes to the overall impression.

He mentioned the similarities, then he mentioned the differences that militate against those similarities. Overall conclusion: "cannot be ruled out". Not a ringing endorsement for the match theory, however you slice it, and it's only fair to Leander to accept as much.

Inexplicable, Ben? INEXPLICABLE?? When the man gives three examples of possible examples and states that there would be other, similar examples, you find it "inexplicable" that he speaks of "many" explanations the next time over?

Yep, they weren't "many". He listed a handful of reasons without offering his own opinion as to the likelihood of any one of those reasons coming into play in this particular case. You mentioned that he used the word "numerous" in his original letter. I point out that he used no such word, and then hot on the heels of my pointing this out, out comes Leander again to appropriate your own preferred terminology just when it's convenient. I exercise the right to find that inexplicable. Sorry, but I do.

Well, not until his next post, that is, where you agree with me that Leander comes down very firmly on the match side.

Oh indeed, Fish.

It all becomes clear in his next post. If the first post didn't say quite what you wanted him to have said, there's always that "next post" where he delivers the goods right on cue. Hmmm...

So it was a good thing that he elaborated on it in the NEXT post, GIVING HIS REASONS for why he said that it could hardly be ruled out that they were one and the same

That wouldn't be an elaboration though, if Leander wrote a second post. If he was responsible for sending a "next post" where he conveniently says all those things that you were disappointed to learn that he didn't say in that first post, it would be a significant about-turn; change of mind, since "cannot be ruled out" and "obvious likeness" cannot be reconciled with one another.

Leander gave us his expert wiew that we culd be looking at a match. That alone tells us that there are very major likenesses inbetween the signatures

No it doesn't.

How can you say that?

There could be blue aliens with green testes in another galaxy, but that does mean there's a "very major" likelihood that this is truly the case. Please look up "could" in an English dictionary, because there's clearly some vast confusion here.

He also told us that none of the discrepancies were unexplicable - instead there could be many explanations to them

Yep, and that mysterious "many" crept into that even more mysterious "next post".

And efter that he told us WHY we should not rule the signature match out - bacause the overall likeness was too obvious for that, something he had already pointed to in his first post.

Again, you're fiddling with phraseology again, and you're doing so without success. If you cannot rule the possibility of a match out, you're not saying that the overall likeness is obvious. If anything, he was arguing that the dissimilarities aren't sufficient for any us to a rule a match out as impossible.

And indeed we don't.

We canīt rule out that Leander is right. Why? Because he is the best renowned expert that has had a look at the signatures, and he has seen more of them than any otherexpert involved

What nauseating filth that is.

You have no idea if that's true of not. You cannot possibly assert that he's seen the signatures for longer that Iremonger. He didn't even examine the originals, which Ms. Iremonger most assuredly did. He was circumspect enough to acknolwedge that his "spontaneous comment" was not a full expert opinion, which Iremongr's certainly was.

No, I do not rule Leander out, for the record. However, if he really was responsible for those highly dubious additional posts, then his observations are seriously weakened, since it means he changes his mind too readily, or he's too susceptible to obvious bias.

We are not even sure what the good lady saw.

The original documents.

If you're hell-bent on responding and pursuing another battle of stamina with me, condense next time.

[Fisherman]

Ben again!

"Of course he did."

No, not fully, Ben. He spoke of the details, and he said that the general traits of style and skill matched, toghether with a number of letters and not together with some others. But he was not as outspoken as he was in post two.

"There are a handful of explanations that may account for the oddity, and I'll leave you guess which explanation I favour."

You are raving again, Ben! He never changed his wiew drastically - he never changed it at all. He remains steadfast at the two points:
1. The signatures may be a match
2. That is because they are obviously alike

There is nothing even remotely strange about it, and others will see that. You are quite welcome to keep trying to discredit Leander (you really should, since he is not of your wiew at all - it makes good sense and is excellent tactics. Never mind the ethical side of it, Ben, just go for it). 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!
But why stop at that? Have you pondered the possibility that Leander may not even exist? He may be a figment of my imagination, you know! Check it, by all means!

"No, not really."

OOOOhhh, YES! You said exactly that: Leander suddenly seemed to give my preferred wiew of the issue. Bloody annoying, is it not?
Was it not one of your poets that once said about a friend that he had "missed a great opportunity to keep his mouth shut?" You could relate to that now, could you not? You think that Leander concurs with my wiews in his second post, Ben - you said so yourself!

"You mentioned that he used the word "numerous" in his original letter."

No, Ben - I did not say that Leander used it - I did. I thought that since he had offered a number of explanations and left the field open for more, it was not all that contentious. But Iīm fine with "many" too - though he really should be spanked officially for changing his mind so drastically - itīs like comparing a hedghog to a...well, a hedgehog.

"Oh indeed, Fish.
It all becomes clear in his next post. If the first post didn't say quite what you wanted him to have said, there's always that "next post" where he delivers the goods right on cue."

Exactly, Ben! Maybe you should pick up on my tip and have his existence checked. I can give you his credentials, of course, but if I were you, I would never trust me to do so in a fair manner. Go to the source!
By the bye, Ben - could you giver me Iremongers creds? Where she worked, which were her more known cases, what education does she have and so on - since you lean heavily on her, you would know, yes? No?

""cannot be ruled out" and "obvious likeness" cannot be reconciled with one another."

Try this way:
Cannot be ruled out SINCE THERE IS AN obvious likeness. Ingenious, huh?

"No it doesn't.
How can you say that?"

Aaahhh - now I see your problem! Hereīs how it works: Two signatures that are not alike, are probably not by the same man. Two signatures that show very major likenesses may well be.

"If you cannot rule the possibility of a match out, you're not saying that the overall likeness is obvious."

See the above answer.

"You have no idea if that's true of not. You cannot possibly assert that he's seen the signatures for longer that Iremonger."

That is ... CORRECT! Pity, though, that I never said so - what I said was that he had access to more material than Iremonger did. Otherwise it was the best point from your side so far!

"I do not rule Leander out, for the record. However, if he really was responsible for those highly dubious additional posts, then his observations are seriously weakened, since it means he changes his mind too readily"

No. He elaborated and explained further how he had come to his stance. Itīslike Iremong... no, wait a minute, it is not.

"If you're hell-bent on responding and pursuing another battle of stamina with me, condense next time"

Iīm not, Ben. You are the one that always speak of how you can outlast anybody and who sign off with "looking for a fight". Iīm the one who signs off with "looking for the truth". If anything, Iīm hellbent on doing that.
You can have the fight to yourself. And Iīll throw in the stamina part to - they donīt interest me.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I could of course contact Leander again and get further information.

But what if he does not say the exact same things in the exact same manner again? Would that not further convince you that he was a senile, mouth-frothing, totally unreliable source? I mean, a man who suddenly gets it in his head to call an unlimited number of things "many" things would not to be trusted, would he?

Many wishes, Ben - four of them!
Fisherman