Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

signatures + Reg's story = Toppy is Hutch.....= Toppy wasn't there or JTR

No, I disagree, Malcom.

Signatures + Reg's story = Toppy isn't Hutch.....= Toppy wasn't there or JTR, but Hutch could have been both.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I've suggested a number of reasons for the alleged change, and "Fisherman made it up" is genuinely not my favourite among those reasons. I'm not picking and choosing anything. I'm simply registering what I believe to be a fairly glaring discrepency."

Well, thanks for that, Ben. And rest assured that the "Fisherman made it up" never was and never will be an option.
Fair enough if you choose to stay suspicious. It is your choice and nobody else´s, just as I said. I will only comment on your saying:
"...I agreed with him wholeheartedly. If he then allegedly starts talking about an "obvious likeness", then I'm afraid that means he's putting a discernably pro-Toppy slant on a view that wasn't pro-Toppy to begin with"

To begin with, if I am correct in my assessment, then what Leander told us in post one was basically that the style was alike, the skill was alike, the spreading on the paper was alike and a number of the letters were alike - and the things that were NOT alike could all be explained by a number of reasons.
To me, that is a verdict that does not go against Toppy in any fashion at all. And if that is correct, I feel you did not agree wholeheartedly with Leander at all! You seem to lean towards him having said that it was in fact a bad match, only just good enough for us not to be able to exclude Toppy. And I think that was never even hinted at - Leander is a policeman, and so he would proably be quite cautious about pointing people out lightheartedly. But as I have admitted, the post DID leave us with a lot of room for personal interpretation.
Leander does not point anybody out lightheartedly in post two either! He is more outspoken about how close he feels the match is, but it still results in him saying only that we should not rule out that Toppy was the witness, since there is far to much of a style resemblance to offer any reason to rule it out. That tallies quite well with post one, where he ALSO urges us not to rule the signature match out, since there was a number of possible explanations to the differences. Basically, it is much the same: The likeness is there, and the built-in differeces do not offer enough of a problem to rule out a match. It is really not a very big difference, and quite the contrary to a "complete turn-over". Similarly, the "obvious likeness" was about in his first post to, where he said that the style, the spreading of the text and the writing skills looked the same in both samples. When they do, you get an "obvious likeness", urging you not to rule a match out.

So, Ben, in conclusion, I have argued my case as best as I can. And I have not gained any doubt at all that we have a match, just as I thought from the outset. This is usefully reinforced by Leanders words on an obvious likeness, and since it very much belongs to the discussion, it is a phrase that will surface whenever the subject is discussed. It is the stance of a very experienced forensic document examiner, as revealed by him on this thread, and it therefore very much belongs to the discussion.

You are of course welcome to challenge his credibility at any given stage, Ben, and if you feel convinced that it is fair thing to do you should have your say as should anybody else with a conviction on the matter. Fair is fair.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

To begin with, if I am correct in my assessment that what Leander told us in post one was basically that the style was alike, the skill was alike, the sreading on the paper was alike and a number of the letter were alike

But again, with respect, your particular assessment is a little too Toppy-favouring than his actual observations reveal. Fundamentally, his view is a balenced one. He listed the similiarities, then he mentioned the differences which militated "against" those similarities. However, he believes - like I do - that the differences don't permit us to declare a match impossible or "rule him out". While I might agree that his views don't "go against" Toppy, it's equally clear that they don't "go for" him especially either. I didn't once intimate that he said anything about a "bad match", but nor was he ever outspoken about declaring it a "good" or "close" one, unless he significatly deviated from his initial observations.

we should not rule out that Toppy was the witness, since he spoke of far to much of a style resemblance to offer any reason to rule it out

Ah, but there's that confusing phraseology again.

"Far too much resemblance" is a major ringing endorsement, completely absent and in stark contrast to anything he said his first letter. "Cannot be ruled out" is the opposite of a major ringing endorsement, and yet we do find it in his initial letter. It simply tortues English to say the equivalent of "They're so incredibly close that they're...not impossible!". The syntax just doesn't mesh together.

Similarly, the "obvious likeness" was about in his first post to, where he said that the style, the spreading of the text and the writing skills looked the same in both samples. And when they do, you get an "obvious likeness".

The gist of his argument was more to the effect that, while the similarities are offset by the differences, the latter are not sufficient to rule him out conclusively. By all means re-introduce that expression wherever you see fit, but I'm afraid it may result in me quibbling with the same issues I've raised today, which in turn, may result in us going over some rather tedious old ground.

All the best,
Ben

[Malcolm X]

No, I disagree, Malcom.

Signatures + Reg's story = Toppy isn't Hutch.....= Toppy wasn't there or JTR, but Hutch could have been both.

well uuuuuum you'd better find another HUTCH then and build a case to favour him.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But again, with respect, your particular assessment is a little too Toppy-favouring than his actual observations reveal. Fundamentally, his view is a balenced one. He listed the similiarities, then he mentioned the differences which militated "against" those similarities."

I have given this much thought, Ben, and I think that there is a point involved that explains why I thought from the outset that Leander was pro-Toppy (if we settle for that phraseology...)

Leander listed two sets of things - the details speaking FOR a match, and the details speaking AGAINST a match.
After that, did he treat these two groupings in the same way? Nope.
He made only one value-laden comment on the groups, and that was on the AGAINST group. There he said that the dissimilarities could be explained by a number of different reasons, and he listed three such examples and added that there would be other, similar explanations that were viable too.

When it comes to the FOR group, he never said anything like "but these likenesses may be very coincindental" or "these are likenesses that need not mean very much" or "these likenesses could well have other explanations than a match".

And that is what I picked up on. The FOR group is named first and he offers no reasons to exclude ANY of the positive variables. The AGAINST group is offered as the number two group - not the one that first springs to mind when seeing the signatures, if I interpret this correct - and HERE and only here, he tells us that ALL of these variables may be explained; in other words, they cannot tell us that Toppy was not the writer.

So he makes an active choice of which group to play down and which not to, Ben!
If he had been of a very negative mindset, he would logically have mentioned the differences first, stressing that they were important and should lead us not to look for a match. After that, he would have said that there were likenesses that militated against this verdict, but that there were credible explanations to how these likenesses had come about.

So we DO have a leaning towards Toppy in the first post, Ben. You must make your own assessment of this, but I think it is rather telling. This means that your sentence "The gist of his argument was more to the effect that, while the similarities are offset by the differences, the latter are not sufficient to rule him out conclusively" would point us in the wrong direction, I´m afraid - the gist of his argument would instead have been that the differences should not in any way make us rule out that Toppy was the witness - and that, exactly, is what he reinforces in post number two!
The negative factors had explanations pointing in the opposite direction.
The positive ones had no such things. They were the bulk material.

And that is as close as I can come to explaining what I see in the post - and the reason I see it. Once again, you are perfectly free to disagree, of course. And I won´t mind you stepping in and challenging me whenever I use Leanders post 2 - I will point those who parttake in the discussion to what was said in these posts, and as both of them mirror Leanders sentiments, I am quite satisfied with what we´ve got. He DID say that there was an obvious likeness, and that must and will stand. If you are as happy about your own stance as I am about mine, then so much the better - that makes two contended participators!

The best,
Fisherman

[DVV]

When it comes to the FOR group, he never said anything like "but these likenesses may be very coincindental" or "these are likenesses that need not mean very much" or "these likenesses could well have other explanations than a match".
Fisherman

Hi Fish,

you know why he didn't bother to write so ?
Because it's obvious!
He didn't wrote it, but what the hell could he think ?
We are dealing whether with one individual, whether with two persons with a more or less similar handwriting.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

there he said that the dissimilarities could be explained by a number of different reasons, and he listed three such examples and added that there would be other, similar explanations that were viable too

But at no point does Leander express the view that any of those reasons actually did account for the dissimilarities between Toppy and witness, only that they can, potentially, and there is a fundamental difference between the two. No professional document examiner worthy of that name would ever need to come up with detailed reasons for why some signatures and handwriting samples share superficial similarities, simply because of the well-known fact that many signatures will reveal similar traits with eachother. Crystal recently produced an example of the name "George" written in a manner that resembled Toppy's "George" very closely indeed (more so that the witness George), but the writer was most assuredly NOT Toppy, nor was he the witness.

If he thought that the similarites couldn't be explained by any other explanation than a match, he'd have said so. In that scenario, he would have said that we "cannot rule out" the possibility of a mismatch, and that would alter the essence of his conclusion very dramatically indeed. He's not saying that the similarities are insufficient to prove the match conclusively. He's saying that the differences aren't sufficient to rule him out completely. The difference here is that the former is obvious more pro-Toppy than the latter, but he said the latter.

You simply don't use expressions such as "cannot be ruled out" if the perceived superficial similarities were difficult to explain away on any other grounds than a match. It's an intrinsically unethusiastic piece of terminology as far as the possibility of a match goes. It means, effectively, "not impossible".

he tells us that these variables may be explained; in other words, they cannot tell us that Toppy was not the writer.

Well, it tells us that the differences cannot rule him out as the writer.

He makes an active choice of which group to play down and which not to, Ben

No, I'm afraid you don't know that at all, and you certainly can't use that assumption to decide that he mentioned the similarities first because they outweighed the differences, anymore than I can argue that he served the more salient elements - the differences - to last. There's certainly no reason to suppose that his personal preference was dictated by the order in which the results were recorded.

So your sentence "The gist of his argument was more to the effect that, while the similarities are offset by the differences, the latter are not sufficient to rule him out conclusively" would point us in the wrong direction, I´m afraid

No, that would point us in the correct direction, since it reflects what he said very closely indeed, and uses terminology that Leander actually used. It's common knowledge that people write in similar fashions, so whether he drew attention to that reason or not, it's certainly a crucial one.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"at no point does Leander express the view that any of those reasons actually did account for the dissimilarities between Toppy and witness, only that they can, potentially, and there is a fundamental difference between the two"

Ben, you have to realize that Leander acknowledged a possible match. He could not have done that if he thought ANY of the differences unsurmountable. In accordance with this he MUST also have acknowledged that there were reasons about that could explain the differences. If no such reasons were there, the the samples would have been a clear mismatch - that would have told us that Toppy was NOT the writer.

So we know that Leander was of the opinion that the differences involved could be explained by different things. Then what does it matter what these things were, exactly, in each case? And how could anyone possibly deduct if a changed G was the result of a botched writing job or your wife´s wish that the letter was changed? And, most importantly - what impact does it have on our evaluation of the issue if it was factor X or factor Y that played a role when he changed his capital G - or a combination of them?
I totally fail to see the significance of this, Ben. Totally.

As for the rest, I have presented a perfectly logical case for why I think Leander favoured Toppy from the outset. The whole tone of the letter, the choice of wordings, and the fact that he only downplayed the importance of the factors that spoke against Toppy are all very telling. Admittedly, since I am the only Swede around here, the language issue is something I cannot prove, only underline (unless Crystals Swedish friends can help me out), but the rest is and remains of importance. He rated things, and he did so quite obviously.
If you fail to see it, it remains OK - it is your loss, not mine, and I would rather have it that way.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

David asks:
"you know why he didn't bother to write so ?"

Yes, David, I really think I do know. It was not a question of not bothering. And Leanders post number two bears it out perfectly, mind you - in that post he strengthens his work from the first post by supplying further insights into his mindset on it all.
If I had been wrong about Leander favouring Toppy as a nice match from the outset, Leander himself could have defused my stance by saying that the likeness was a bad one. But he did not - he instead said that there was an obvious likeness, and that cannot be interpreted in any other fashion than my original stance being the correct one. I´m intrigued that you even find it worth the time to argue, when you KNOW what Leander thought. If we had not had post two, it would have made half a viable case, but after that post the doubts are cleared away when it comes to Leanders stance!

Don´t you realize, David, that if Leander had been of the opinion that the match was a poor one, he would have phrased himself differently in post 2?
Unless you wish to say that he really was saying something else in that post?

Sometimes I have a lot of trouble understanding how your mind works when you argue counter-logically like this, David - It is not that I am asking you to do it otherwise, but I think that you may need to ponder what it is you are saying here, my friend. It resembles "Alice in Wonderland".

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Ben, you have to realize that Leander acknowledged a possible match.

Yes!

As for the rest, I have presented a perfectly logical case for why I think Leander favoured Toppy from the outset.

No!

The conclusion that he somehow "favoured" Toppy is simply not borne out by his "spontaneous" reaction. If you favour something, it just isn't logical to use expressions such as "cannot be ruled out", since that expression carries a certain meaning which we know isn't especially positive. He didn't "downplay" the importance of the differences, either. He simply observed that they didn't render a potential match impossible.

He DID say that there was an obvious likeness, and that must and will stand.

Only as a testement to a radically altering perspective, if he did say that. If he did, I'm unimpressed, for aforementioned reasons. If he's suddenly speaking about an "obvious likeness" when his first post said no such thing, he'd clearly changing his mind, which makes me less inclined to take his views seriously, since they cancel eachother out, to my mind. The fact that you approached him with a "stance" that he was in a position to "defuse" was a very bad idea indeed, since you're nailing your colours to a particular mast, and therefore influencing his mindset. You did this before, when you supplied him with erroneous information about the number of viable candidates around. He's not qualified to comment on that angle, and nor are you.

The longer you go on about post #2, the longer I'll reinforce my suspicions and concerns over it, and then we'll end up repeating ourselves, with me getting so exasperated eventually that I start copying and pasting. If that's the direction you wish to take the discussion, I'll happily come along.

If you want to see this as my "loss", you're more than welcome, but we can only argue over this for so long before we start repeating ourselves. Let's agree to disagree.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Oh, we disagree alright, Ben! And I have already told you that I am perfectly fine with that! I am a follower of Voltaire in that respect.

I would, though, like an answer to my question what possible difference it would make if it was factor A or B that accounted for the differences in style. I have never understood why this should be an issue, and you have pressed dozens of times That Leander did not say that the explanations he offered would have been the ones that made the impact.
What are you getting at here? Since Leander acknowledged a possible match, he MUST also have acknowledged that there would be useful explanations to the changes. Then what, oh what, does it matter WHICH of the explanations it was that played these roles???

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Leander never once expressed the view that any of the suggested reasons actually did account for the differences, Fisherman, only that they could.

[Fisherman]

But that, Ben, only tells us that OTHER explanations may have caused the differences! Like I say, if there were NO possible explanations, we could not have a possible match!

So once again, what does it matter which explanations it was that would have come into play?

Fisherman

[DVV]

Sometimes, I have a lot of trouble understanding how your mind works when you argue counter-logically like this, David - It is not that I am asking you to do it otherwise, but I think that you may need to ponder what it is you are saying here, my friend. It resembles "Alice in Wonderland".
The best,
Fisherman

Thanks, Fish.

Although insults, at this stage, are off-topic.

So let's keep on Leander.
I'm impressed by the fact that you constantly distort and "interpret" his words. It tells a lot, trust me.

That must be the way your mind works.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

I don´t HAVE to "distort and interpret", David - you have got his posts translated, one by one, on the thread. You have his own, exact Swedish wording accompanying them. You are free to hire yourself any language-talented Swede or Frenchman to help you out with the translation.

No matter how you read Leander, backwards or forwards, you will find that he says the same thing: The likeness is an obvious one.

You are free to look away from all of my posts if you think I only distort and disrepresent, David. I don ´t take kindly to such allegations, of course, but they are of minor importance on the whole. The one thing that matters in all of this pityful **** is the sheer, simple, undistorted quotation of Leander: The likeness is an obvious one.

Fisherman