Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

She hadn't the materials to look at that Leander did. Can you get that?

The complete reverse, actually.

Sue Iremonger examined the original documents. Leander didn't. Leander's views were significantly compromised for that reason, as he acknowledged. She was therefore in a far better position to assess the likelihood of a match than Leander was, as even Leander would acknowledge!

You put forth, by omission, the idea that she examined all signatures that we are privy to.

That's because the alternatives are too nauseatingly preposterous to contemplate, for the same reason that the suggestion that Iremonger studied anything other than the original documents is also nauseatingly preposterous. "World renowned" was an observation made by Bob Hinton. If it troubles, you, I'm sure you can take it up with him.

You stand as the guardian of the Hutch the killer theory and nary a whit of common sense can shake you from it.

Show me a "whit of common sense" and I'll consider revising my stance.

Haven't seen much of that so far.

But then this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether of not Hutchinson killed anyone.

[Sam Flynn]

So if somebody disagrees with you they're wrong? And if somebody else agrees with the dissenters they do so for personal reasons?

If someone denies an obvious similarity, then there's clearly something that needs explaining - and it's NOT my view on the matter.

your stance is ever-shifting to accommodate your undoubtedly factual bias.

What "ever-shifting stance"? I have been perfectly consistent in everything I've said - something I try to achieve wherever possible.

The only "inconsistency" those with long enough memories might have detected is that, whereas once I was vehemently against GWTH's candidacy as the Dorset Street witness (I spent hours if not days trying to pin his tail on Ticker-Nicker George), I am now certain that the opposite is true. But then, that's not really "inconsistency", is it, but evidence-based learning.

[Fisherman]

Babybird writes:

"But Leander argues against trusting his informal view. He also says he would need to see original documents.

Once again, taking both expert views into consideration, there is not enough evidence to conclude that Toppy = Hutch; judgement reserved.

Why is this position so controversial?"

It is not controversial at all, Babybird - it is a perfectly legal position to take. I for one would very much like to have exact information about what Iremonger saw and what - EXACTLY - she said about it all. My own guess is that her suggestion is based on faulty material, but that is only a guess, and I would not press it any further. But when an expert of Leanders caliber tells us that he would be surprised if it was NOT the same writer, and when a number of us out here agree that it is a VERY good match, then one MUST take an active interest in what could possibly have prompted Iremonger to come up with a totally contradictory judgement. It would NOT have had it´s reason in the visual comparison, I guess, and so one wonders if there is something hidden in the originals. But I would find that every bit as surprising as Leander would.

The fact of the matter is that we do have differing expert opinions, and therefore your stance is a reasonable one. Finally, I concur with the wiew that we cannot close the case on the material we DO have. But I think we can come really, really close.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

If someone denies an obvious similarity, then there's clearly something that needs explaining - and it's NOT my view on the matter.

hi again Sam

i'm not denying obvious similarities...i am questioning the relevance and significance of obvious similarities when taken as existing alongside obvious differences.

I dont think anyone here has denied there are both surface/obvious similarities and differences...it is subjective as to which of these one gives priority to.

[Ben]

My own guess is that her suggestion is based on faulty material

And this, of course, is beyond ridicule.

Fisherman is so utterly entrenched in his own dogma, and so irrationally and undeservedly convinced of his rightness that he is prepared to accept that an expert who examined the documents personally must have been looking at "faulty" material. The sheer crassness of this suggestion is difficult to engage with, but it gets to the heart of people's obsessions. He tries to reduce the absurdity of the suggestion by reasuring us that it is just a "guess". Fair enough. It's an outrageous and outlandish guess.

Fisherman is basically coming up with the worst excuses conceivable for dismissing experts who go against his view, whilst bombrding other experts until they do "agree" with him, which speaks very poorly for both Fisherman and Leander.

But when an expert of Leanders caliber tells us that he would be surprised if it was NOT the same

Which was in stark and embarrassing contrast to what he claimed before his views were corrupted, which was that the possibility of a match cannot be ruled out.

The logical explanation behind Iremonger arriving at the opinion she did is that she is an expert in her field who examined the original documents. Leander urged caution that his views should not be construed as a "full expert opinion" because he was only looking at computer images.

[Crystal]

Most of what is being said here is the wrong side of ludicrous.

Exactly why would Miss Iremonger NOT have seen the original statement, since it survives and is available?

Grow up, for goodness sake. The only reason for arguing against this is to try to undermine and discredit her view. Yes, good luck with that, since she's a practitioner in a respectable field relevant to this 'debate' and none of you are.

But wait: I almost forgot - all eyes are equal. EXCEPT that according to some, some eyes are more equal than others?
Orwell would be proud.

And Fish, I don't want to doubt your word. You have cast that doubt yourself by changing what you say Leander said. As to what I'll do, I'll put it on here, whatever the outcome.

Of course.

[Sam Flynn]

Which was in stark and embarrassing contrast to what he claimed before his views were corrupted, which was that the possibility of a match cannot be ruled out.

Leander was merely expanding on his views at Fisherman's request, Ben - one can hardly call that a "stark and embarrassing contrast".

Besides, since when was "match can't be ruled out" at odds with Leander's being "surprised if the similarities were coincidental"? The earlier statement uses the language of "scientific" pragmatism, as noted. The second reveals more forcefully the reason behind those views - namely, that he doesn't believe that a coincidental resemblance between the signatures is very likely. That is fully consistent with what he said before, which is obvious when you concatenate the two sentences together:

"A match can't be ruled out [because I'd be] surprised if the similarities were coincidental".

The words I've highlighted in red is the conclusion, and those coloured blue show part of the rationale behind that conclusion. They're not separate opinions at all - still less contrasting, "stark and embarrassing", ones.

The logical explanation behind Iremonger arriving at the opinion she did is that she is an expert in her field who examined the original documents.

The parts underlined are assumptions that we don't know to be true.

[Crystal]

Experienced based learning?

But Sam, I thought you had already discounted the validity of that in this context?

Do different rules apply for you, then?

Because the logical conclusion of accepting the validity of such is that expertise does count for something in this regard, isn 't it?

[Ben]

Leander was merely expanding on his views at Fisherman's request, Ben..

He wouldn't have been, Gareth.

"Cannot be ruled out" does not mean and can never mean "I'd be surprised if the signatures were coincidental". The terminology is such that it carries an entirely different meaning, and never the wretched twain shall meet. If you can't rule something out, it means you can't dismiss it as "impossible", and as Leander himself pointed out, such terminology is the "lowest" form of positive commentary.

What I find galling in the extreme is that whenever Leander's observations are made known in all their circumspect, non-Toppy-endorsing glory, those arguing for Toppy go straight back to Leander.

Not quite Toppy-favouring enough, Frank!

Bit more?

Better. Bit more?

Nearly there.

Bit more?

There! That'll do!

...With Leander's views mutating over time as he is bombarded, and as his views are effectively poisoned with misleading information as to the number of viable candidates.

"A match can't be ruled out [and I'd be] surprised if the similarities were coincidental".

But that would be a syntactically disasterous sentence, ill-becoming of any expert, for if you're professing surprise if the similarities were coincidental, you're saying in effect that the match is likely, and if you think a match is likely, you don't say that it "cannot be ruled out".

The parts underlined are assumptions that we don't know to be true

But almost certainly are.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

But almost certainly are.

If assertion without backup is fair game, Ben, here's my contribution:

"Sue Iremonger is just an ordinary, decent document examiner who is 'renowned' within the Ripper community largely because she's one of the few that any of us have ever heard of. When comparing the Hutchinson signatures, she used copies of the 1898 marriage certificate and Hutchinson's 1888 police statement, and did not handle the original paper documents."

I might be wrong, of course.

[Ben]

When comparing the Hutchinson signatures, she used copies of the 1898 marriage certificate and Hutchinson's 1888 police statement, and did not handle the original paper documents."

But the chances of that contribution reflecting the truth, or anything resembling it, are effectively zero, Gareth, whereas the chances of an experienced document examiner volunteering her professional services to compare readily accessible originals (as outlined and required by her profession) must be regarded as a near-certainty.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

Many Happy Returns?

Happy Birthday to the Horror Thread, which is now 200 pages long!

What say we ditch the half-baked nonsense for a while and get the baloons and whistles out?

[Ben]

But have you noticed the even more crucial milestone, Crystal?

We're just one repetetive spat away from the 2000th post!

[Sam Flynn]

But the chances of that contribution reflecting the truth, or anything resembling it, are effectively zero

Well, Bob ought to know what sources she looked at.

the chances of an experienced document examiner volunteering her professional services to compare readily accessible originals (as outlined and required by her profession) must be regarded as a near-certainty.

I disagree. Firstly, because it's easier to send a scan, photocopy or fax, than it is to persuade someone to up-stumps and visit the archives. Secondly - it's possible that one or more of the documents might no longer exist in paper form. Thirdly - it doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned, because I haven't seen a single compelling reason why copies wouldn't be good enough for the scenario we're discussing here.

[Crystal]

Ooh! How exciting, Ben!

Tell you what, I'll fight you for it..

I go first -

BEN, you're nothing but a Hutch-obsessed zealot who wouldn't know a logical argument if he crashed into it at high speed.

Your turn... x