Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

Like I say, if there were NO possible explanations, we could not have a possible match!
Fisherman

But Fish,

why would there be no possible explanations ?
That's absurd.
Leander couldn't draw any firm conclusion.
So, if the signatures are from 2 distinct men, there is an explanation for the matching letters.
And if they're from the same hand, there must be explanations for the mismatch.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

David, you know as well as I do that Leander said that the signatures were a possible match. When he added that the differnences involved could have a number of explanations, he said so to tell us that these changes could be present ALTHOUGH the writer was one and the same.
What Ben tells me is that Leander did not specifically say that the exact explanations he offered must have been responsible for the differences.
And what I am saying is that since Leander has said that the signatures were a possible match, logically we must assume that he felt (and he said so too...) that there were things that could explain how and why the differences came about. If there had not been such things around, then we would have a certain mismatch, and that was never Leanders wiew, was it?

So, there were possible explanations to Leanders mind to these differences. And thus my question: What does it matter WHICH explanations that came into play? If it was not any of the ones Leander listed, it must have been others - but what difference does it make what exact reasons they were???

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Indeed Sam,

and that's why I don't think that:

signatures + Reg's story = Toppy is Hutch.

Correct, because Reg's story has nothing to do with it. Algebraically:

Let A represent "The evidence of the signatures", B "Reg's story", and C "Toppy is Hutch"

You say that "A + B = C" is wrong, and I agree, because B has nothing to do with it.

So, taking B out of the equation, that leaves "A = C"

Substituting the values:

"The evidence of the signatures = Toppy is Hutch".

QED.

[DVV]

David, you know as well as I do that Leander said that the signatures were a possible match.
Fisherman

Yes Fish,
I know he said so.
And it clearly doesn't mean: obvious likeness.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

David, could you - and Ben - answer the question, please?

I will ask you it all in a few stages:

Leander saw a possible match. Agreed?

He said that there could be a number of explanations for the differences involved, and offered a list to exemplify. Agreed?

If he had thought that there were NO possible explanations to these differences, he would not have been able to call it a possible match. Agreed?

So, if none of the listed explanations to the differences were responsible for the changes, OTHER explantions, not mentioned in Leanders list must have been responsible for the changes. Agreed?

If, David, we are agreed so far: What possible difference does it make WHICH reasons were responsible for the changes? Ben is the one who seem to think this is of relevance somehow - but I don´t think so. What is your opinion?

Fisherman

[DVV]

Correct, because Reg's story has nothing to do with it. Algebraically:

Let A represent "The evidence of the signatures", B "Reg's story", and C "Toppy is Hutch"

You say that "A + B = C" is wrong, and I agree, because B has nothing to do with it.

So, taking B out of the equation, that leaves "A = C"

Substituting the values:

"The evidence of the signatures = Toppy is Hutch".

QED.

Very well and good, Sam,

but I'll wait a bit, until an expert tells me that the signatures are undoubtedly from the same hand.

Amitiés,
David

ps: Reg's story has nothing to do here, but once more, YOU have said on this thread that: the signatures + a Hutchinson with a family tradition = Toppy is the witness.

[Fisherman]

QED, Sam! Absolutely!

Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Reg's story has nothing to do here, but once more, YOU have said on this thread that: the signatures + a Hutchinson with a family tradition = Toppy is the witness.

What I'm saying is that the other elements (the patent bollocks in Melvyn Harris's book aside) add weight to that conclusion. The bottom line is, however, that the evidence of the signatures is sufficient in itself to identify Hutchinson as the witness.

[DVV]

If he had thought that there were NO possible explanations to these differences, he would not have been able to call it a possible match. Agreed?

Fisherman

But once again, Fish,

why would have he thought that there were no possible explanations ?

One of these is necessarily : the signatures could also have been written by two different guys.

If not, FL wouldn't have said: possible match, but :
"Since the differences I've observed can't be attibuted to another hand, we are undoubtedly dealing with the same individual."

Amitiés,
David

[Malcolm X]

What I'm saying is that the other elements (the patent bollocks in Melvyn Harris's book aside) add weight to that conclusion. The bottom line is, however, that the evidence of the signatures is sufficient in itself to identify Hutchinson as the witness.

hay SAM

i thought you weren't getting involved in this thread anymore

[DVV]

What I'm saying is that the other elements (the patent bollocks in Melvyn Harris's book aside) add weight to that conclusion. The bottom line is, however, that the evidence of the signatures is sufficient in itself to identify Hutchinson as the witness.

Yes, Sam,

and that's why I never said: "Sam, leave this story alone, it has nothing to do here..."
In turn, I'd have expected the same from you. For in my opinion, Reg's dodgy story can hardly come from the real Hutch.

As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, you only recently came to the conclusion that Toppy was Hutch.
But you've known Reg's story, or let's say the existence of a "family tradition", for years.
Yet you didn't believe in Toppy.
How is it that this story/tradition has suddenly become a "pro-Toppy" evidence ?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

Well, David, since you have now succesfully avoided answering my question for three consecutive posts, I shall torment you no longer. Sleep well.

Fisherman

[DVV]

Well, David, since you have now succesfully avoided answering my question for three consecutive posts, I shall torment you no longer. Sleep well.

Fisherman

This is simply dishonest, Fish.
Or you should read my posts more carefully.
# 1726, for example, shows that I don't care about WHICH possible explanations, etc.
I said: there must be explanations for matching and mismatching letters, and that's enough for me.

And my post #1734 shows that I didn't accept your maieutics, hence what I have quoted, hence my answer.

A simple question before you go to bed:

Why did you say "obvious likeness" some posts ago (from today), and "possible match" now ?
Is that OBVIOUS contradiction from Leander ?

Amitiés,
David

[Sam Flynn]

How is it that this story/tradition has suddenly become a "pro-Toppy" evidence ?

I've already explained - quite clearly - what I meant, and my opinion is perfectly consistent with what I've said before. If you don't believe me, read what I said again.

[Fisherman]

I am not being dishonest in the slightest, David. Never was, never will be.

Infuriated at times, yes. Dissapointed at others, big time.

But not dishonest. You have NOT answered my question of what importance it could have which explanation came into play when Toppys style was changed. And I have grown tired of waiting, and Ben has left the thread, I believe. So I will wait for his answer.

"Why did you say "obvious likeness" some posts ago (from today), and "possible match" now ?
Is that OBVIOUS contradiction from Leander ?"

Don´t you read the contributions to the thread, David? I have answered this numerous times. As for "contradiction" I may offer what I told Ben earlier: It was a possible match because it showed an obvious likeness.

Now, just how contradictory do you find this? And why MUST we demand from Leander that he never rephrases anything?
If I say that we cannot rule out a man as a possible killer, because a knife was found in his possesion, have I said contradictory things then?
I think not.
If I say that we cannot rule out that the bathtub is leaking since there is a small amount of water on the floor, am I contradicting myself then? Have I in fact stated that the bathtub probably is NOT leaking by only saying that we could not rule out that it was the source of the leak?
I think not.
If I say that I cannot rule out that you are trying to stall the debate and shift the focus from the real issues, since you avoid answering my question, am I then contradicting myself or am I bolstering a thesis with logical grounds for thinking the way I do?
I think so.

I am not a pushover semantically, David. I can stand my ground in that respect at any given time. There is NO contradiction involved in Leanders words - there is only a different degree of pressure on your neck, and you much prefer the lighter one.
Well, you can´t have it.

Fisherman