Since we have no documentation of what Iremonger did, said, thought or argued, we cannot take your assertions of "overwhelming probabilities" for anything but desperation - find the goods, and letīs have a mutual look on it. Then we can conduct a serious discussion.
When I speak of overwhelming probabilities, what I'm really highlighting is A) The likelihood that Sue Iremoner did precisely what several reputable sources informed us that she did, and B) the total absence of any vaguely compelling or noteworthy reason to doubt that she examined the signatures mentioned by said reputable sources. You can demand for "definitive documentation" as often as you you like, but in the absence of same, I'm afraid you'd still be struggling for any decent or vaguely compelling reason to doubt Iremonger's findings.
Did he now? Whenever I read him, he says that he cannot present a full expert report with only electronic material. Nowhere can I see that he tells us that forensic document experts will be UNABLE to do their work using photocopies.
Leander was supplied with "electronic material". If he printed that material, it would be photocopied electronic material, and you're not seriously arguing that electronic material is improved in terms of quality when it is printed? Or by "photocopies", do you mean direct copies of the original material? In which case, I find no evidence that Leander was supplied with these.
Think again, and think right this time. By offering his wiew, he shows us that he was perfectly able to make an estimation relying on the twodimensional copies, but added that he would need the originals to reach a full understanding
Oh, but it WAS Ben - Leander was "Toppy-endorsing" from the outset, and the frustration was to be found in your camp, not mine.
N-o-o-o-o-o-o wasn't.
His initial letter was neutral.
He didn't come down in favour of either side of the debate.
And that frustration took very strange shapes, since you repeatedly refused to realize that Leanders verdict could go against you
I know it didn't because I quoted him verbatim, so as to eradicate any semblance of doubt that I was putting my own spin on his words. Your frustration stemmed from the fact that his initial observations weren't Toppy-endorsing enough, so you attempted to bombard the poor man into submission.
Thanks Leander, but it's not quite Toppyish enough!
Bit more?
Ok, that's a little better.
Bit more?
Getting there.
One more try?
Thar she blows!
Whew! Finally! I'll leave you alone now!
Let me go on record that I have no doubt whatsoever concerning the honesty and professionalism of Leander, but all human beings have a limit, and I'm afraid your relentless zealotry - of the order than you display here - may have prompted him to fob you off. That's my take on matters. If you don't like that interpretation - fight me, and I'm see you in perdition's flames. There's no other explanation for Leander's radically contrasting stance on this issue. His initial post was circumspect. It was neutral. I agreed with it, and in agreeing with his observations, I sought to eradicate any possible doubt on my interpretitive abilities by quoting the man verbatim. This you refused to do, which is why you bombarded him five times thereafter.
It of course does not alter the fact that Leander clearly opted for a match
I swear to you on everything I hold dear that he DID NOT "clearly opt for a match" in his initial post. If he upgraded to declaring the signatures a match later, it means that he either changed his mind, didn't convey his true meaning, or, most likely, he became sick of being perpetually bombarded and elected, quite understandably, to fob the irritant off. I would!
I go for the third option.
That wouldn't make him a gullible idiot in the slightest. Remember that there really isn't much at stake here, considering that Leander was only offering his "spontaneous comment" and not a full expert opinion. Under these conditions, what does he have to lose by appeasing a nuisance? It certainly wouldn't detract from his expertise, but it might reveal his all too human distaste for bombardment and beleaguerment.
Leave a comment: