Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

Fair enough Flynn,

But that isn't the point. I see no reason why 'cannot be ruled out' cannot be taken literally - even if that serves nobody else's agenda at all.

'Cannot be ruled out' seems pretty straightforward to me. It means 'not impossible' with which I entirely agree. Why should it mean probable?

Just maybe - this is another case of 'does what it says on the tin' ?

It may not be so black and white as a dictionary definition, ok, I accept. I put those out there because this 'debate' was becoming ludicrous. But neither do I think it follows, necessarily, that 'cannot be ruled out' is synonymous with 'probable' in this context.

Can you explain why you think it is? Other than any personal bias, I mean.

I'm serious - not baiting you for a wonder!

[Sam Flynn]

Fish, please don't put me in one camp or the other. This issue is undecided until the originals are tested.

The originals would be "nice-to-haves", rather than essential, Roy. The scans are good enough for this purpose.

Just like Davies did with the marginalia

There, forgery may or may not be in question, but it doesn't apply here.

Until an expert sees the originals all bets are off.

Experts have pronounced on the scans, and much good it's done us - the same will apply, I guarantee you, if by some miracle the "originals" are used (not that it's necessary). Some will look for the tiniest loophole in any opinion - even that of an expert - if it rattles the bars of their beliefs.

[The Good Michael]

Crystal,

The point is that it could mean probable and we don't know until it is clarified, yet some won't give an inch and understand that it could mean that. Instead we are told that we don't understand the meaning and that we all use it incorrectly if we use it to mean probable. It can be literal, or it can have a greater degree of possibility. What is the author's intention? We don't know, yet some prattle on in order to not give an inch on the Maginot Line. It's absolutely retarded, is what it is.
You contribute to this retardation by supporting what you know is bs, and you DO know it.

Mike

[Crystal]

No, No, NO!

The originals would be "nice-to-haves", rather than essential, Roy. The scans are good enough for this purpose.There, forgery may or may not be in question, but it doesn't apply here.Experts have pronounced on the scans, and much good it's done us - the same will apply, I guarantee you, if by some miracle the "originals" are used (not that it's necessary). Some will look for the tiniest loophole in any opinion - even that of an expert - if it rattles the bars of their beliefs.

Not I, Flynn.

You can depend on it.

I'm fully intending to call it as I see it, no matter what the outcome.

And no prisoners either.

[Crystal]

Mike, it's perfectly simple. See above. Possible doesn't mean Probable.

That's all.

[Sam Flynn]

Fair enough Flynn

Can't you be civil?

'Cannot be ruled out' seems pretty straightforward to me. It means 'not impossible' with which I entirely agree. Why should it mean probable?

It means that this scientifically-inclined Dr Leander is being properly circumspect, because he realises that he's working within a probabilistic field. Perhaps we should reflect on that, and what it implies for those who are happy to believe, and claim, that "experts" have said that the signatures DON'T match.

[The Good Michael]

Crystal,

I don't trust you or your interpretations. I don't even know that you're an expert on anything but deceit. Actually, inexpert, but you do try.

Mike

[Crystal]

Sorry Sam

Sorry - yes, I can be civil. And I shall be from now on.

What you observe is no different from what I have observed concerning Leander - several times by now, in fact.

So there we are. Regardless of how Fisherman tries to paint me as being in opposition to his expert, I am not.

I think now, what I thought on page 10. I haven't changed my view. It is possible that we have a match. I said then, and I say now, and I will continue to say for as long as I am uncertain - I am not satisfied that it is good enough at the moment.

Which is the reason for conducting further work.

I should think, bar those who have gone insane, that everybody would be happy to see a resolution (well, maybe not everybody - and no, I don't refer to you).

Better that - better it go either way than this relentless idiocy.

Do you agree?

[Crystal]

You don't have to trust anybody Mike. You just need a dictionary.

[The Good Michael]

I guarantee my command of the language is at minimum as good as yours. I also understand nuance which you fail to grasp. Now, do me a favor and pretend to go to Kew and pretend to study the signatures. There's a good girl.

Mike

[babybird67]

oh Michael

that is a very unfair post to Crystal.

She is not "pretending" to do anything; i've spoken to her several times in the chatroom and she is lovely.

The way i see this thread is the same as Crystal...debate is pointless. I think debate will always be pointless because in the end matching signatures is not an exact science and i don't think everyone will ever agree.

Originally i didnt think there was a match between Toppy and Hutch. Crystal then posted two signed "george" names which looked like a match but we were assured they were not. At that point i realised i do not possess the professional expertise to decide such a matter and am happy to wait on what Crystal finds out from her professional examination of the originals.

Even as this case stands, we have one expert (Iremonger) saying they don't match, and (taking one interpretation of it anyway) another, Leander, saying either they could match or a match could not be ruled out. Whatever the experts say, some people will see what they want to see, so there will always be this loggerhead of opinion against opinion and walls being struck by various foreheads ad infinitum, ad nauseum!

Everyone should take a little step back, take a deep breath, and perhaps ponder the probability that WE WILL NEVER KNOW FOR SURE, unless further evidence is found.

Negative capability people!!!!

"I had not a dispute but a disquisition with Dilke, on various subjects; several things dovetailed in my mind, & at once it struck me, what quality went to form a Man of Achievement especially in literature & which Shakespeare possessed so enormously - I mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact & reason. " John Keats

makes much more sense than barricading oneself in a closet of avowed certainty before realising that the door won't lock!

peace all

[Crystal]

Thanks BB, for the defence, but as you say, I have posted other material on this thread which ought to make the point that there is a lot of commonality in handwriting in this period, in this social milieu.

You only need your eyes to see that - not my word or anyone elses. The 'George' that I posted back there was from a legal document of very similar date - I don't recall exactly which year. He wasn't a George Hutchinson, but such is the commonality of the style in which both the disputed signatures were written that it was easy for me in my position to pick one up, not exactly at random, but certainly fairly casually, for comparison.

I didn't spend a lot of time looking, as I don't have the time. I have also posted a signature of a 'George Hutchinson' - again of similar date, which also bears several resemblances to the contested signatures, particularly that of Toppy. I did spend a little more time looking for that one - there are about a dozen or so of the right date and area that I can access currently - that was the best match.

I find it interesting that virtually nobody has seen fit to make any comment about that at all.

I do not say, and could not, that the signatures categorically don't match, as it stands.

And maybe I make it sound like a simple thing to just go off and look at the originals - it actually isn't, it's time-consuming and labour-intensive and involves the co-operation and time of other professionals - it takes some arranging. I do hope to do it soon, but it has to take second place to other commitments.

Send me a PM if you like BB, and I will elucidate further.

C xx

[babybird67]

you're welcome Crystal

i don't mind debate at all, but some of the postings here are getting extremely personal and when you consider we are debating a non-exact science, the defence of what in the end are "opinions" is just getting too much...there's a person behind each message here, i wonder if some people forget that in the heat of the argument sometimes.

Your expertise and experience in the field is what i happily defer to Crystal, since i don't have the same experience to know the commonalities that would be present in the handwriting of the period. I have no expertise to decide one way or the other whether Toppy = witness; and i have a suspicion that whatever conclusion is reached eventually, it will always be a qualified conclusion...i.e., we can be fairly sure this is/isn't a match, but a match/mistmatch "cannot be ruled out."

It will never be an exact one hundred percent conclusion, imo.

I'm eagerly waiting to hear what you think Crystal when you do get round to your examination, and i, for one, appreciate the time and effort you will be putting into this in an effort to resolve this whole thing...so i for one thank you in advance for that.

i will pm you shortly but i have some mud i need to wash out of my hair before it sets

love and hugs wrestling partner xx

[Crystal]

Thanks BB

You may be right, in that we must accept that we may never get further than a qualified conclusion. Nonetheless, there are further insights to be gained from examination of the originals, which will, if nothing else, add to the information we have at present.

Perhaps, as does sometimes happen, that will be enough to swing the argument one way or the other with reasonable certainty, which in my view, we do not have at present.

I look forward to the PM, sweetie! xx

[DVV]

I am not sure what you are saying when you state that it is fortunate that I am not in front of you. If it is a hidden way to threat about physical violence, it is very much below you, David.
Fisherman

Thanks for this, Fish,

but your contemptuous and contemptible recent posts ("glad to help out", "go to sleep") were below you as well, and beyond me.

Amitiés,
David