Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Bravo, Ben!

...not that I was expecting any less from you!

"Lukewarm", haha! Good one!

Fisherman

[babybird67]

hi Sam (waves from overcast Pontardawe)

Categorically. What I see here is as objective an experience as putting a round peg into a round hole, or aligning the edges of a smashed plate before supergluing them back together.It's neither flawed nor of poor quality - this is quintessentially an exercise of comparing two-dimensional images, of which we have access to perfectly good scans.You may well do apropos the ultimate identity of Hutchinson, Crystal. However, and with the utmost respect, I sense that your impartiality does not extend to the questions being raised about the expertise (or otherwise) needed to compare two signatures.

I really find it odd that you continue to assert this line of argument. I can't break up your quote as i dont know how to, so i will have to just take it a bit at a time. Everything i say Sam comes from a basis of respect for you, and when i use conjecture as to your opinion i am seeking clarification from you in those matters (God i hope that makes sense!).

If you maintain that seeing is "an objective experience as putting a round peg into a round hole", you must (?) think people who cannot put such a peg into such an obvious hole are lacking in intelligence in some way? Is this what you mean? I'm sure you wouldn't agree with this, but this is a natural conclusion from maintaining, what is the essence of your argument, is that those who are not comfortable with equating Toppy = Hutch based on the sigs (among other things) are not seeing correctly.

This argument could very easily be turned around by people who cannot see an obvious match, who could accuse you of not seeing correctly. Who is to say which of us is seeing correctly? Actually, there is no such thing as seeing correctly or objectively, which is why i am not convinced that Toppy = Hutch and is why i cannot concur that the case is closed and a match is 100% certain.

Surely the fact that there are dissenting views on this very issue is demonstration enough that seeing is NOT an objective experience. I could quite easily post and say that those who can't see the differences are wrong...why are they wrong? Because it's obvious the differences are there and, and this is the funny bit, they are wrong because i say so! That is not a logical argument or an argument based on evidence. It's very much a tautological argument, and is meaningless when it comes to discussing evidence with a view to proving what your argument is.

Do you see any differences in the sigs? From your earlier postings, yes you do. You, however, choose to give these differences a value meaning which is lower than the value you place on the similarities...hence you are convinced.

Personally, i dont feel qualified to say with 100% certainty that the sigs match or mismatch...this is because i lack the knowledge that others may have about handwriting commonalities at the time and other information such as pen pressure etc which may have a bearing on the situation. I'd like to hear from someone who does have that experience what they think and why they think that. Then i will reappraise my position - i may then decide that they match, mismatch or even that there is still no convincing evidence either way.

Once again i remind you, i have no secret agenda...at this moment in time my Ripper is Klosowski...Hutch has no bearing on this whatsoever so it is insignificant to my Ripper view whether Hutch was Toppy. If anything i would be happy to assert a match since my view of Hutch was that he was a married man loitering outside a prostitute's room and he was very uncomfortable coming forward with this, hence the embellished story.

Also, i find it amusing that those of us who say Iremonger, an expert in the field, stated they did not match, are told, oh dont trust an expert, she is no better looking at it than your own eyes. Yet, we are told, there is a match, why can't you see/believe me? We are told to put our trust in the similarity seers and discount what our eyes tell us about the differences...isn't that just as bad as giving our judgement over to an expert, with the obvious difference that one is an expert and the other not an expert? If the possession of eyes gives as you argue a level playing field, and your eyes are as good as the experts, why aren't my eyes as good as your eyes? If all eyes have equal worth, this makes it even MORE evident that seeing is not objective since we come to different conclusions.

If all eyes are equally good at perceiving what you think is an objective reality, there would not be this thread in the first place! Why should i trust you or Mike for example and accept a match, but not trust Iremonger who said there was not a match? It doesn't make sense and is just part of a tautological argument that leads to complete anarchy and madness!

I hope i have managed to express myself well enough here...my brain is slightly foggy today (not from drink, i dont drink, but from my ME lol).

best wishes to all and vive la difference

[Sam Flynn]

If you maintain that seeing is "an objective experience as putting a round peg into a round hole", you must (?) think people who cannot put such a peg into such an obvious hole are lacking in intelligence in some way? Is this what you mean?

Not at all, BB. What I meant was that, in "round peg" problems, one uses one's eyes to gauge whether the edges of the peg aligns with the edges of the hole. By doing so, one can tell whether or not the peg "fits" snugly into the hole.

Ostensibly the same visual edge-alignments may be employed to judge how snugly the "pegs" of the 1888 signatures "fit the holes" of the 1898 and 1911 signatures. No more complex - and no more overtly subjective - perceptual judgments are required to compare these signatures than one might employ to "put a round peg into a round hole". (In actual fact it's simpler, because we don't have to deal with three dimensions.)

Hope that clarifies matters.

Edit: Simultaneously, I rather hope that answers Crystal's earlier question about why "my" perception should be any more objective than anyone else's in this regard.

[babybird67]

but Sam,

how do you then explain dissent, other than people seeing what they want to see? How do you explain someone who cannot agree with a match on current evidence? I have stated i do not see Hutch in any particular light...i have therefore no reason to support a stance of either match or mismatch and i still do not agree with your conclusions.

If your eyes are as good as Iremonger's, then it logically follows that my eyes are as good as yours...yet i dissent.

How do you explain this?

[The Good Michael]

Fisherman,

Thanks for that post. Leander answered about as I thought he would. He is using that scientific understatement again because he just can't commit. We know what he meant, however. That's the main thing. He wouldn't be what he is if he came out and said what we wished he would have said. The meaning is still there if somewhat obfuscated by words.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"Thanks for that post. Leander answered about as I thought he would. He is using that scientific understatement again because he just can't commit. We know what he meant, however. That's the main thing. He wouldn't be what he is if he came out and said what we wished he would have said. The meaning is still there if somewhat obfuscated by words."

Yep, Mike, he gave the same answer that I thought he would too. He is going about things in a very consequent manner, and I really feel that we are dealing with a conscientious, thorough and consistent man.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

did he say that?

i thought he said once again, inconclusive.

[Sam Flynn]

If your eyes are as good as Iremonger's, then it logically follows that my eyes are as good as yours...yet i dissent.

How do you explain this?

I can't explain it, BB. To be honest, I am completely baffled when others say they don't see a strong resemblance when, to me, the resemblance is as immediate as it is overwhelming.

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"To be honest, I am completely baffled when others say they don't see a strong resemblance when, to me, the resemblance is as immediate as it is overwhelming."

Maybe this can help you out a bit, Sam. Not that I am having any trouble to see the likeness, but this post may go some way to reinforce what you are saying.

Okay, all, here we go again! Since the question (astonishingly) came up about what side of the scale Leander is situated at with the signatures, I simply asked him.
This was how I did it:

”Min uppfattning är att du i ditt senaste mail skriver att du tycker att likheten mellan signaturerna medför att du placerar träffen på den positiva änden av skalan, men att du skulle behöva originaldokumenten och fler namnteckningar för att kunna vara säkrare på din sak.
Är det korrekt uppfattat?”

Translated:

”My wiew is that you in your latest mail write that you think that the likeness between the signatures means that you place the match on the positive end of the scale, but that you would need the original documents and more signatures to be a bit more sure about it.
Is that a correct wiew?”

And here´s Frank Leanders answer:

”Ja, ungefär så, eller annorlunda uttryckt: I ett spaningsärende är det värt att gå vidare med den här personen för att - som jag i nuläget lutar åt - få misstankarna bekräftade* -*eller för att inse att likheterna* var tillfälligheter (vilket jag således i nuläget skulle bli förvånad över).
*Mvh
*Frank”

...which translates into:

”Yes, that´s about it, or put differently: In an investigation or a search for a wanted person, it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by).
Greetings,
Frank”

Now, I don´t know if this will make Ben tell us that this confirmation of my suggestion that Leander DOES place the match at the positive end of the scale, in reality is nothing else but a glaring 180 degree turn from his earlier posts. Nor can I free myself from the suspicion that I will be accused of having asked a leading question.
Not that I realize fully how anybody could reach any of these conclusions. I never have and I never will. But NOTHING surprises me anymore, so who can tell?

...and, of course, this post came every bit as timely as did Frank Leanders post number two, and that may of course be ”fishy” again...?

Unless any of these perspectives are applied, I can´t help but to think that Leander seems to mean that the match IS on the positive side of the scale, and that it would surprise him if it was NOT a match!

Oh, well – when Ben steps in and interprets this for us, we shall know!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

He wouldn't be what he is if he came out and said what we wished he would have said.

Why would you "wish" for him to a say a certain thing, Mike?

I am completely baffled when others say they don't see a strong resemblance when, to me, the resemblance is as immediate as it is overwhelming.

And I' baffled when anyone says there is one, Gareth, thus reinforcing the subjective nature of our individual perceptions.

Cheers,
Ben

[Ben]

Here we go again, with the timely nature of Leander's alteration of opinion.

It's truly astonishing.

Leander says X. Fisherman thinks he says Y. I say no, he said X. Look at what he actually said. Fisherman then supposedly contacts Leander again, et voila! Leander now says Y! Besides the fact that Leander is starting to give the impression that he is tired of being continually bombarded by Fisherman after he has made clear that he can't give a full expert opinion in the absence of the original documents, we find once again that Leander is supposedly altering his stance as soon as objections to Fisherman's errant interpretation are made known.

That's why it's difficult to invest any worth in Leander's views, which I've been trying patiently to invest with significance. If his initial words were left alone rather than having unaccaptable slants foisted upon them, he'd be taken seriously. The more contradictory accounts from "Leander" that are shared with us, the more they cancel eachother out, which is most unfortunate.

If you "can't rule out" the possibility of a match, there is no way you can possibly mean "I'd be surprised if it was not a match". This is not a question of overstatement versus understatement. They mean radically different things. Earlier today he was reinforcing the obvious reality that "cannot be ruled out" is the "lowest" positive observation to be made about something, but as soon as I point this out, Leander is suddenly surprised that the similaritiers could be explained on any other grounds than a match! If that sort of radical alteration looked highly questionable first time around, it looks doubly so now.

[babybird67]

thank you Sam

I can't explain it, BB. To be honest, I am completely baffled when others say they don't see a strong resemblance when, to me, the resemblance is as immediate as it is overwhelming.

that there is no logical reason for this that you can see hopefully demonstrates to you that it is possible that subjectivity of perception is the only logical differential in this case (i have no interest in it being a match or a mismatch).

best wishes

[Sam Flynn]

that there is no logical reason for this that you can see hopefully demonstrates to you that it is possible that subjectivity of perception is the only logical differential in this case (i have no interest in it being a match or a mismatch)

I don't think the differentiator is subjectivity, BB. I can see at least two logical differentiators that might be at work here:

1. That you subconsciously want to show solidarity to Ben and Crystal (NB: I'm not accusing you of side-taking, just of being nice );

2. That you might be attaching too much importance to absolute differences in the signatures which aren't significant.

It is the latter factor which characterises much of this debate.

[Ben]

Excellent points, BB.

World renown document examiner Sue Iremonger volunteered her professional services, and came to the conclusion that the differences were more significant than the similarities, and she almost certainly examined the original documents, which is precisely what Crystal intends to do.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

1. That you subconsciously want to show solidarity to Ben and Crystal (NB: I'm not accusing you of side-taking, just of being nice );

well of course i am nice but i have as much respect for you as i have for Ben and Crystal, so why would my subconscious prioritise one side over another (especially as it hasn't, in that i have said i don't know at this point and remain to be convinced either way)

2. That you might be attaching too much importance to absolute differences in the signatures which aren't significant.

How can i decide if i am attaching too much importance to the differences? It is just as possible that you are attaching too much importance to the similarities (subjectivity again...damn that stuff gets everywhere! )

we seem to be skipping past eachother in this thread and the MJK one lol

(experimented with cutting up the quote here...hope it's right