Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Sam Flynn]

Hello all.
Well thats the end of this thread, at least it should be, even biased me, will conclude that Topping may be the man, or may not, which is only slightly better then the old days , when he was considered certainly not.
So the case is unproven....

Emphatically not as far as some of us are concerned, Rich - which, in the scheme of things, must count as "significant progress"

[richardnunweek]

Hello all.
Well thats the end of this thread, at least it should be, even biased me, will conclude that Topping may be the man, or may not, which is only slightly better then the old days , when he was considered certainly not.
So the case is unproven....
Regards Richard.

Hi BB

I'll show you my credentials any time. As for the drinking, I should think I'll be doing plenty of that later..although sadly, I have a feeling the thread will never be far away.

And yes, you're right. Toppy IS Hutch...er..that was what you said, right?

[babybird67]

Crystal's credentials

Crystal, was going to say you could show me your credentials anytime, but i'd be sorely off topic, and i dont want to get into trouble again, so i will refrain from saying it and just stay on topic and say, "we can't say Toppy is Hutch right now but it surely cannot be ruled out"!

Have a good day off but don't forget to pop into the Muddy Crevice for a quickie when you get time (drink, people, drink! some of you guys have minds like sewers out there! )

xx

[babybird67]

what?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Fish,

I think this is a completely fair and unbiased assessment of what has been going on.

Mike

Mike!

Yikes!

I can go off people you know.

[babybird67]

Fish

i cannot even read your posts any longer. It's like talking to either a very small child who hasn't the remotest idea what you are on about, or to a very rebellious teenager who, no matter how much advice you give, will still insist on going on their very determined way headlong into an utterly immovable and irrational position of intransigence, from which they really wish they could be rescued and brought back into line with logic and normality but is simply too stubborn to admit they both need and want to be.

I wish you all the best in your delusion of victory, but i too, like Crystal, have a life.

I "KNOW" i am right and you are wrong; nothing has been proven regarding the Hutch/Toppy saga; there is no irrefutable identification of Toppy with Hutch, end of story. Anyone who seriously thinks there is such a proven identification is sadly and almost irretrievably lost to the rest of thinking humankind.

There really is no hope for some.

all good wishes, no hard feelings etc etc

[DVV]

Right now, I'm having the day off, and remarkably, I have a life outside this thread.

Me too.

I have to go to Romford with my new Puma to see my grandmother.
If I'm lucky enough, I'll be back too late to get my doss.

Amitiés,
David

Crystal's Credentials:AGAIN

Fisherman

We went through this yesterday. Is there something the matter with your memory, perhaps?

Very well: My credentials are not hidden from 'us'. They're hidden from YOU.

It isn't a secret. Except from you.

I explained it yesterday. Look.

So stop your tiresome inferences.

As for Leander, well, I will post what he said in due course.

Right now, I'm having the day off, and remarkably, I have a life outside this thread.

Later.

[Ben]

Don't announce your intention to leave the thread for "a while" if you intend to return within the next 24 hours. Not necessary.

WE, Ben? I donīt have anything that even remotely resembles any evidence at all - it seems all gone.

We have the overwhelming probability that Iremonger compared the original documents, and we also have a total absence of any compelling reason to think otherwise. The only alternatives are too unutterably outlandish to comtemplate.

What I thought is mainly a question for me to answer, though you sometimes try to do it for me.

And answer it you did, in the extract you quoted. You made it perfectly clear that you felt that Leander had conveyed no impression that he considered the match to be probable. That was a sensible thing for you to say, since you'd have been correct - he conveyed no such impression. Now you're claiming that Leander was saying that felt the match was probable from the outset, which is in stark contrast to your earlier assertion.

So you've acknowledged - like it or not - that he was not conveying the impression that the match was probable earlier, but only conveyed it later, and I'm afraid that diminishes the value of Leander's observations, since his meaning radically altered from one letter to the next, becoming suspiciously more Toppy-favouring every time, very possibly as a result of the misleading information you fed him, coupled by your continuted bombardment of his inbox. That regrettably cancels out the value of Leander's commentary, since an inability to communicate one's intended meaning or be susceptible to bias and misinformation is ill-becoming of an expert in the field.

Of course, Ben, your initial stance was that Leanders wording pointed to rather a bad match.

No, that wasn't my initial stance.

My initial stance was that Leander's view was clearly inconclusive. "Cannot be ruled out" has a clear, unambiguous meaning. It means "can't be dismissed as impossible". If someone uses that phrase to mean anything other than that, they are simply misusing and misinterpreting that clear and unambiguous phrase. It doesn't matter that you're claiming he "meant" by the phrase, since the phrase only has one meaning. Thus, a leap from, "cannot be ruled out" to any synonyn of "probable" would constitute a radical change that "engenders a feeling of scepticism".

We know by now that this was because he never thought so - to him, "cannot be ruled out" is and has always belonged to the positive end of the scale

Do you think I'd ever tire of going round in endless repetetive circles with you?

"Cannot be ruled out" is the lowest form of positive commentary to be made about a given entity. It means it isn't impossible, and "not impossible" is still a positive phrase, providing it isn't miscontrued as meaning "probable".

end where he places matches that he tells us are so good that he would be surprised if they were not genuine

Which is in stark, radical and suspicious contrast to anything he said before.

When it has become apparent that he believes the match is a good one, you have stated that his clarifications have been turn-arounds

That's because they have, and I basically proved that you acknowledged as much in an earlier post. You realised that he never gave the impression of thinking the match to be "probable", but you tell us that he is giving that impression now. If he radically changed his mind, he's not worth taking seriously. If he isn't capable of communicating his intended meaning, he's also not worth taking seriously. If it's a mixture of the two, oh dear.

It would serve good sense admirably if you admitted that you have been wrong all along to describe Leanders wiews as a set of turnarounds

And I'll never do that in a million years.

Because I know it isn't true, and you know it isn't true.

So by all means, try the repetition game again, and see if it proves a successful strategy against me. Try bombarding me and see if I meekly concede that you're right, when I know you're not. I'm sustained by people like you, Fisherman. I'm not sustained by people who ignore me and reconcile themselves to a disagreement. I rely on the people who obsess over my words and follow me all over the place.

And it would make eminent sense to admit that by now that the research into the possibility that Toppy was Hutch, actually has only one named and renowned expert involved

No, it wouldn't.

To "admit" that you be to claim something that can't possibly be true. Sue Iremoner is a professional document examiner, and she doesn't believe Toppy was the witness. Crystal is a professional document examiner, and she doesn't believe Toppy was the witness, and nor does a colleague of hers. A claim that mind-altering Leander somehow trumps them all is a somewhat forlorm hope.

But we donīt know WHY she thought so.
We do not have her work to study

But not being a document examiner, you wouldn't be in a very good position to "assess" her "assessment", would you?

You will admit, wonīt you Ben, that you do not have the answers to these questions - or any other question that could be posed about her examination.

You will find the answers to these questions in the post by Jonathan Menges ages back. The extent to which she was adament or uncertain is conveyed very well therein.

As it stands, and until any other expert with a name and face to him/her, combined with good credentials, tells us that we probably have a mismatch, the issue must be regarded as pointing clearly to a match.

Nope, that would be fallacious nonsense, Fisherman.

Since the majority of experts are of the opinion that Toppy probably wasn't the witness we seek. You'll notice, once again, that Leander was adamant that his views should not be taken as a full expert opinion as this was not even "possible" to acheieve with a couple of computer images sent via email. It's about the only thing he WAS consistent about!

[DVV]

Hi all,

where is SI's report to be found, at last ?
In a secret room of Khephren's pyramid, or at the top of the Burqan-Qaldun ?
I'm planning a trip to Egypt and Mongolia next automn, and I'd be glad to help.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Thanks, Mike. I felt it needed to be put in print, since no sane person would even ponder to take the time to plow through this hell-hole of a thread.

I am leaving the thread for some time (letīs not keep Ben informed of just HOW long...!), and this will serve as a sort of testimony on my behalf. God knows there will be reasons for a number of ressurections in the future, if my guess is correct, but as it stands I have had more than enough.

See you out there, Mike. Take good care!

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

"But you didn't think he meant probable, because he didn't say anything that could possibly construed as meaning probable in his first post, as you've acknowledged. If he said something that meant "probable" later, he clearly didn't say what he meant - or anything like it - first time around."

I have, from the outset, pointed out that my belief always was that Leander thought the match a useful one. Just HOW useful was hard to establish initially, given that none of us were familiar with the vocabulary on the SKL. That, however, has been duly handed down to us later, and has effectively dissolved any suspicion that Leander would NOT have thought the match a good one.

Of course, Ben, your initial stance was that Leanders wording pointed to rather a bad match. And that impression of yours was something you used to bolster your allegations that Leander was not consequent - you dissed him, saying that he had made a complete turn-around. And up til the moment when Leander expanded on it all and told us exactly what he meant when he said that the match could not be ruled out, there was in fact at least some sort of possibility that you were right.
One should, though, take into account that Leander never has said a negative word about the match. At no stage has he called it bad, poor or even indecisive. We know by now that this was because he never thought so - to him, "cannot be ruled out" is and has always belonged to the positive end of the scale, the end where he places matches that he tells us are so good that he would be surprised if they were not genuine.

We have all seen that you have used your own faulty conviction that Leander was gainsaying himself to try and bolster your claims when Leander has clarified his stance. When it has become apparent that he believes the match is a good one, you have stated that his clarifications have been turn-arounds, something that we know by now holds no water at all. You have also used it to try and imply that I have somehow been instrumental in swaying a mind that was never swayed.

It would serve good sense admirably if you admitted that you have been wrong all along to describe Leanders wiews as a set of turnarounds. And it would make eminent sense to admit that by now that the research into the possibility that Toppy was Hutch, actually has only one named and renowned expert involved, whose verdict is recorded in writing and of whom we know exactly what he investigated - and that is Frank Leander. Apart from that, we have the obvious probability that Sue Iremonger was of the opinion that Toppy probably wasnīt Hutch.
But we donīt know WHY she thought so.
We do not have her work to study.
We do not even know how she phrased her verdict. Was she adamant about it? Was she perhaps only saying that on balance, she thought that a little more spoke for an excusion than an inclusion? Did she say that there was no chance that they were by the same man?
You will admit, wonīt you Ben, that you do not have the answers to these questions - or any other question that could be posed about her examination.
We also have Crystal, and I think we must agree that her credentials remain hidden from us. The same goes for the names and credentials of her expert friends - including the one who thought it WAS a match.

As it stands, and until any other expert with a name and face to him/her, combined with good credentials, tells us that we probably have a mismatch, the issue must be regarded as pointing clearly to a match.

Fish,

I think this is a completely fair and unbiased assessment of what has been going on.

Mike

[Fisherman]

By now, I think the time has come to point to what has happened in the three errands raised to put me right and show the boards that I have been wrong and malicious from the outset:

1. A telephone call was made to Frank Leander two days ago - at least this is what we are told by Crystal - to check the veracity of my contacts with him.

2. It was said that I was demonstrably wrong on a number of points.

3. I was reported to the administrators of the boards, by Babybird. The allegations and implications were, once again, that I was not playing fairly.

In short, the result of all this has been that not a word has been said about the phone call to Frank Leander. I suggest that this can only mean that Leander has confirmed that I have mirrored his wiews here on the boards in a fair manner. Not a point has been raised that has bolstered the allegations that I would have been "demonstrably wrong" in a number of instances - no examples provided, no substantiation given, no apologies supplied. Finally, I have not heard a word from the administrators. I take the liberty to interpret this as a clearance from the allegations made by Babybird.

My hope is that these three issues serve as a pointer not to make untenable allegations against me in the future. Tenable ones, of course, but I suggest we wait until they surface before we speak about them.
It should be added that I do not know how much time the administrators of the boards need to decide an errand like this, and the possibility therefore remains that I may hear from them. If this is the case, I will freely report what they had to say, and abide by their rulings. My conviction is, though, that if they share the material of this thread, they will find no reason to fault me.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"We have overwhelming likelihood in the absence of remotely credible alternatives."

WE, Ben? I donīt have anything that even remotely resembles any evidence at all - it seems all gone.

"But you didn't think he meant probable, because he didn't say anything that could possibly construed as meaning probable in his first post, as you've acknowledged. If he said something that meant "probable" later, he clearly didn't say what he meant - or anything like it - first time around."

What I thought is mainly a question for me to answer, though you sometimes try to do it for me.
I have, from the outset, pointed out that my belief always was that Leander thought the match a useful one. Just HOW useful was hard to establish initially, given that none of us were familiar with the vocabulary on the SKL. That, however, has been duly handed down to us later, and has effectively dissolved any suspicion that Leander would NOT have thought the match a good one.

Of course, Ben, your initial stance was that Leanders wording pointed to rather a bad match. And that impression of yours was something you used to bolster your allegations that Leander was not consequent - you dissed him, saying that he had made a complete turn-around. And up til the moment when Leander expanded on it all and told us exactly what he meant when he said that the match could not be ruled out, there was in fact at least some sort of possibility that you were right.
One should, though, take into account that Leander never has said a negative word about the match. At no stage has he called it bad, poor or even indecisive. We know by now that this was because he never thought so - to him, "cannot be ruled out" is and has always belonged to the positive end of the scale, the end where he places matches that he tells us are so good that he would be surprised if they were not genuine.

We have all seen that you have used your own faulty conviction that Leander was gainsaying himself to try and bolster your claims when Leander has clarified his stance. When it has become apparent that he believes the match is a good one, you have stated that his clarifications have been turn-arounds, something that we know by now holds no water at all. You have also used it to try and imply that I have somehow been instrumental in swaying a mind that was never swayed.

It would serve good sense admirably if you admitted that you have been wrong all along to describe Leanders wiews as a set of turnarounds. And it would make eminent sense to admit that by now that the research into the possibility that Toppy was Hutch, actually has only one named and renowned expert involved, whose verdict is recorded in writing and of whom we know exactly what he investigated - and that is Frank Leander. Apart from that, we have the obvious probability that Sue Iremonger was of the opinion that Toppy probably wasnīt Hutch.
But we donīt know WHY she thought so.
We do not have her work to study.
We do not even know how she phrased her verdict. Was she adamant about it? Was she perhaps only saying that on balance, she thought that a little more spoke for an excusion than an inclusion? Did she say that there was no chance that they were by the same man?
You will admit, wonīt you Ben, that you do not have the answers to these questions - or any other question that could be posed about her examination.
We also have Crystal, and I think we must agree that her credentials remain hidden from us. The same goes for the names and credentials of her expert friends - including the one who thought it WAS a match.

As it stands, and until any other expert with a name and face to him/her, combined with good credentials, tells us that we probably have a mismatch, the issue must be regarded as pointing clearly to a match. Frank Leander is as good an expert as we - or anybody else - are ever going to get hold of, and his verdict carries a tremendeous weight, a weight that is further added to by the investigation of the value of photocopied signatures for handstyle comparison, published in "Science and justice" four years ago.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

yes Sir!

<sadly hangs up wrestling outfit and slinks away, duly reprimanded...>