Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[The Good Michael]

Your argument is that you/Sam/me/uncle tom cobbley and all, are equally good at examing documents, by virtue of having eyes.

Why do people insist on telling me my argument? My argument is that there are people equally capable of detecting signatures as proven by Trublu's stats. Are all, no, but then neither are all document examiners.

[babybird67]

Fisherman

you do yourself no favours.

Earlier i asked what was so controversial about a stance which at this point in time maintains the case has not been proven that Hutch = Toppy.

Your response to me included this line: Finally, I concur with the wiew that we cannot close the case on the material we DO have.

Now you are posting "Toppy IS Hutch."


This latter stance seems pretty unequivocal to me, and completely contradicts what you said to me in post 1983 (ahh that was a good year!).

How can you be sure, 100% that Toppy is Hutch. And will this position change again in the near future to concurring with my view that the case cannot be settled 100%?

[babybird67]

Why do people insist on telling me my argument? My argument is that there are people equally capable of detecting signatures as proven by Trublu's stats. Are all, no, but then neither are all document examiners.

I apologise if i have misrepresented your argument Mike; i would never deliberately do such a thing.

What you have said above just confirms what i have been saying though.

We are back at square one. Case not proven, especially when relying on subjective perusal of copied documents.

[The Good Michael]

Case proven by objective perusers, however.

Mike

[babybird67]

hahaha

you made me laugh!

objective perusers are a myth

[babybird67]

and fisherman, you also said in reply to me,

"If I am that "other side", BB, I am not saying 100 %. I am saying a very probable match, whereas Leander seem to be saying only a probale one. My reason for adding the "very" is the context."

when did you change your mind? What is your position now? Is Toppy Hutch or is Toppy probably Hutch or is Toppy possibly Hutch? And why do you keep changing your mind?

[DVV]

Why do people insist on telling me my argument? My argument is that there are people equally capable of detecting signatures as proven by Trublu's stats.

But your argument, Mike, doesn't explain why an expert has categorically dismissed Toppy.

Amitiés,
David

[DVV]

David:

"in which case Frank Leander, if expert and knowlegeable (as he surely is), would have written:
"The scanned images I examined are definitely good enough for me to assert that..."
But he said exactly the contrary."

...which tallies with what the investigators from "Science and justice" tell us - that there is an overfaith inbetween the experts when it comes to the originals.
Anyhow, the result of the investigation speaks for itself - 99,1 per cent is not a number you can argue with, is it, David?
Fisherman

So, Fish, email again Frank Leander.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Sam Flynn]

But your argument, Mike, doesn't explain why an expert has categorically dismissed Toppy.

Correction, Dave: it has been said that she "categorically dismissed" Toppy - and that on the basis of having only one signature to compare against the witness statements. I tell you one thing, without prejudice, if she actually did "categorically dismiss" him, then that doesn't reflect too well on her expertise. That's why I rather suspect (hope?) that she said no such thing.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Your response to me included this line: Finally, I concur with the wiew that we cannot close the case on the material we DO have.
Now you are posting "Toppy IS Hutch."
This latter stance seems pretty unequivocal to me, and completely contradicts what you said to me in post 1983 (ahh that was a good year!).
How can you be sure, 100% that Toppy is Hutch."

I think I said "At present, Toppy is Hutch". That means that I concur with Leander - the signatures are so alike that it would surprise me too, if it was NOT a match.
So "at present", Toppy is Hutch. But since we do not have all the material we need - like Leander states - new material MAY surface that tells us another story. After that, I may be saying "Toppy was probably NOT Hutch". Yoy see, I am not adverse to admitting when the evidence goes against something I have formerly thought. I try to stay openminded.

It can, of course, be added that the margin I offer for Toppy not being Hutch is a very small one. In that respect, if I was to say "Toppy is Hutch", I would not be far off the mark anyway. My assessment is that the chance/risk (take your pick) that we have a definitive match lies over the 99 per cent mark. And, Babybird, if you should find that I have formerly said 99 per cent "exactly" - as opposed to "over", then please donīt take that as an indication of me changing my mind and swinging wildly between the extremes. Please?


All this nonsense about me changing my mind is becoming tedious, you know. As is the samnonsense about Leander not having been consistent. He has, admirably so.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal wrote, yesterday:

"All you care about is being right. With Respect.
Unfortunate, then, that in so many instances, you are demonstrably wrong."

Well, Crystal, I asked you yesterday to provide proof for this allegation of yours, but I can see no such proof...? Where are the examples of all the many instances where I have been wrong?

You will surely agree with me that one does not make allegations like this without being able to point out that they were called for and correct. Therefore I think you owe it to the Casebook readers to produce the goods.

If you should fail to do so, it will be a pretty damning thing for your credibility, as you can undoubtedly understand.

Fisherman
listening

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Ah, but not applicable in this case, since she volunteered her own services, and she would have known precisely where to locate the original records, and she would have known precisely that orders direct from the FRC will give you a piece of paper filled in by a modern registrar."

Well, pardon me for being such a party-spoiler, Ben, but I would like to see some proof for what you muse about here. I have on numerous occasions told you that your own good faith in Iremonger will do nothing for your ability to prove what happened. That still stands. I will also take the opportunity to point out that if Iremonger had been the careful, professional, discerning expert you tell us she is, donīt you think it is at least a tad odd that she never even saw to it that her efforts were correctly documented? Because when you refrain from doing that, you actually undermine the value of these efforts totally.
It can of course be thrown forward that this may not have been something that she would have been obliged to do - perhaps that responsibility lay on the ones who asked for her services. But if this is so, the fact still remains that a reluctance to record the whole thing, the neglectance to document what it was Iremonger worked with and the forgetfullness to even bring a taperecorder to the localities where she spoke renders her evidence useless.

It matters not how knowledgeable she was, Ben, as long as we cannot prove that she put that knowledge to good use. Your asserting that she would have does not do the trick - not by a long way.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

I thought Iīd post today before Ben does on the "did Leander say it was a probable match?"-issue, to point out what strategy Ben has chosen.
Here it is:

Ben will keep telling us that Leander never said that the match was probable, and that his assertion that the hit belonged on the positive side of the scale only points to a very poor hit.
Of course, this is complete rubbish, as anybody who reads Leanders post will see. Leander tells us that he would be surprised if the future would provide any evidence that went against a match. He says that he expects that forthcoming evidence will prove his suspicions right. And that wording is not the wording of a man who does not think it probable that he has a match, is it?

Now, what Ben will keep doing - in spite of the overwhelming evidence about what Leander thinks - is to press the fact that Leander never used the exact wording that the hit is a "probable" one.

After that, he nourishes a hope that I will once again turn to Leander and ask him if he would describe the hit as a probable one, and when Leander answers, telling me that he would of course do that (what else could he possibly say?), Ben will immediately pounce, triumphantly stating: "What did I tell you? Whenever Fisherman asks Leander something, Leander immediately supplies Fisherman with the exact thing he is asking for! This is foul play! This so called expert is utterly unreliable, since we now realize that he has once again made a complete turnover!"

It is a clever strategy: Ben cannot possibly loose anything over it. If Leander says "Yes", Ben will say that he has won the argument because Leander has "changed his mind", and if Leander says "No", that would have made Bens day, big time.
Not that the second alternative ever was a possibility...

As most people will realize, this is not a game I will play. I will just calmly point to the fact that people who, in a choice between two alternatives, A and B, were we know that one is right and one is wrong, say that they will be surprised if the alternative A proved wrong, are also people who think that alternative A is the one that is probably right.

Itīs sometimes nice to take care of problems in advance.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"it has been said that she "categorically dismissed" Toppy"

Does not this, Sam, go to show how much faith we can put in it all? We donīt even know to what degree she dismissed Toppy, since we do not have it in her own wording. The categorical dismissal would be hearsay too, would it not?
We really need to dismiss something else instead - the whole of the Iremonger examination.

The best,
Fisherman

[Malcolm X]

Flipping Heck