Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Fisherman, let's be clear : you and the Casebook are not synonymous. I owe you nothing."

You are correct on one point - and wrong on another.

Me and Casebook are not synonymous! That is very correct. Casebook is extremely much bigger than any of us - it is a fantastic meeting place where people who have caught the Ripper disease may discuss and deepen their knowledge.
To be frank, me and Casebook are not even remotely alike - but then again, I would never state such a thing either.

You owe me nothing? Oh, yes, you do, Crystal. And I will have it. You have said that I have been demonstrably wrong in many cases, and I have asked you to provide the proof for it. If you fail to do so, you will make a very miserable character, Iīm afraid.
You owe the goods to Casebook - that you seem to treasure? - or an apology to me.

Itīs called decency, Crystal.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

Babybird, trying to confuse things:

i dont see how i can be trying to confuse things; the only confusion that is arising is from your own wildly changing views. Which i have quoted in full, in juxtaposition that the discerning reader might see WHO exactly is confused and confusing things.




[quote]I do believe that Toppy is Hutch.[\quote]

you're entitled to your opinion but stop trying to claim that you are circumspect in your appraisal by changing this to probably, and very probably when it suits you.

The evidence for it is overwhelming.

No it's not. It's distinctly underwhelming.

That has remained my stance throughout.

no it has not, as i have demonstrably proven by using your own words, exactly. In fact the only consistent thing about your posts is their lack of consistency.

I have just posted and told you that I regard it a 99 per cent plus chance. The remaining fraction of a per cent means that I am honest enough to admit that no absolute certainty can be reached as yet, but that owes mostly to the lack of more signatures.

Right. So we've moved from Toppy is Hutch at the beginning of this post to what? Toppy is very probably, i.e. 99% Hutch? There is your consistent inconsistency again.

I have never said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch.

Right. You never said:

I think I said "At present, Toppy is Hutch". That means that I concur with Leander

Funny how i am able to quote something you said, as you apparently now never said it.

If you want to point me out as not being steadfast, Babybird, then you really ought not fabricate things.

i am not dishonest Fish and i strongly object to this sentence, especially as i have been quoting YOUR OWN WORDS and in doing so have been able to establish that you do not maintain a consistent argument! I suggest you are man enough to apologise for trying to accuse me of lying or substantiate your claim, which you will be unable to do because i do not fabricate what i post.

Can I be much clearer? I donīt think so.

hahaha...that made me laugh so much!

In a fashion, you were also quite clear when you posted things that I have never said. It makes for quite a telling story too.

Fisherman

point this out or apologise; if you do not i will report you. I cannot abide liars.

Fisherman, let's be clear : you and the Casebook are not synonymous. I owe you nothing. What I owe the Casebook is immaterial.

In all seriousness, you might do well to take a step back from this row, stop obsessing over Ben - that's my job - and recover your dignity.

Nobody engaging with this thread could fail to notice your arguments, since you drive them into the ground with ceaseless determination.

Don't you get it yet? Some people disagree with you. All the posturing and shouting in the world won't change it.

And so what if they do? Why can't you accept it?

As this thread has devolved, so has your apparent ability to argue logically. You're not doing yourself any favours.

For your own sake, don't say things like 'Toppy Is Hutch'.
It makes you look ridiculous.

I don't mean offence, Fish. I'm just thinking maybe you're taking this all a bit too personally?

It's never a good idea.

[babybird67]

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.]

In this quote you are saying both you and Leander "concur" that "Toppy is Hutch." Equating things is saying they match 100%.

This contrasts with what you say here:

"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."

because in this quote (above) you say Leander says there is a "probale(sic)" match, and you go one better and say "very probable" because of the context.

In the juxtaposition of these two quotes IT IS CLEAR, very clear, that you are changing your mind seemingly almost every time you post a response up. Probable and very probable do not allow someone to identity one thing as 100% the same as something else; if it is your stance that there is a probable or very probable match, you cannot also have the contradictory stance that identification is certain. You keep using mutually exlcusive terminology and curiously expecting everyone else to forget the meanings of words and agree with you. Anyone who does agree with you does so at their own peril, because it is nigh on impossible to establish what you DO actually believe on your merry-go-round of disparate yet seemingly equivalent opinions.

If you do currently believe Toppy and Hutch are the same person, what a curious position to take: from the above quote, while we do not have "all the material we need" apparently to be absolutely sure that Toppy is Hutch, you appear to be claiming that you ARE sure that Toppy IS Hutch (definite position); you then go on to say, if this unknown material does surface which may cast doubt on the present certainty, established with such aplomb, you will move from a position of certainty to a position of uncertainty. Doesn't it make more sense to BEGIN with the position of uncertainty, since we have sigs which cannot be proven to match, and then move your position towards certainty, or at least greater probability, the more evidence emerges?

This is amazing...i just do not know how to counter such an illogical and ever-changing stance. Words cannot mean whatever they want you to mean Fish; saying something IS something else is not the same as saying something MAY BE something else. One is definite, the other is speculative and indefinite, and is the wise approach imo to take when the truth has not yet been established, as in this case.

Once again, the only logical stance to take, when basing identification of one thing with another based on a very inexact science, is to approach the matter with circumspection and not equate one thing with another unless 100% proven. If there is the smallest portion of doubt, even 0.001% of doubt, it is not wise to claim that something definitely equates with something else, because there is always that little bit of chance that may make them a mismatch.

Curiously, though, your position seems now to be, that Hutch IS Toppy. Then you say you said Hutch is Toppy because you concur with Leander; to my knowledge, Leander has never said Toppy and Hutch are one and the same. He has said he cannot rule out a match, that's it; that's a very big maybe with a lot of room to doubt.

Please, Fish, make up your mind. It's a pain having to work out which stance you are taking and then demolish it every time...at least if you keep your opinion consistent i can keep my bulldozer on standby and just cut and paste why you are still wrong! And if you were open-minded as you claim to be your mind would already be so open to the possibility that there isnt a match that you wouldn't have to keep saying "is a match", "is probably a match", "is very probably a match"; you could just say, I dont know, and leave it at that.

[Fisherman]

Babybird, trying to confuse things:

"You have quite clearly said at different points in the discussion, that Toppy = Hutch, that Leander states that Toppy = Hutch (not true at all), that you concur with me when i state you cannot "close the case" (or be 100% certain in other words) that Toppy does = Hutch, that Toppy is probably Hutch etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc..."

I do believe that Toppy is Hutch. The evidence for it is overwhelming. That has remained my stance throughout. I have just posted and told you that I regard it a 99 per cent plus chance. The remaining fraction of a per cent means that I am honest enough to admit that no absolute certainty can be reached as yet, but that owes mostly to the lack of more signatures. I have every faith that when such signatures surface, they will confirm what I say - that Toppy in all probability is Hutch.

I have never said that Leander has stated that Toppy is Hutch. It is semantically twisted to begin with, since Leander has never used any of these names. Furthermore, he has never - and would never, as a discerning expert - said such a thing. He speaks in probabilities and possibiliteis only, and if you have not yet seen this, I fear you will never do so.
If you want to point me out as not being steadfast, Babybird, then you really ought not fabricate things.

Leander has stated that he would be surprised if the man (Toppy) who wrote the wedding signature and the census signatures, was not the same man that signed the police protocol back in 1888. That means that he sees the match as a probable one, and he is careful to tell us that he puts the hit on the lower side of the positive scale.

Can I be much clearer? I donīt think so.

In a fashion, you were also quite clear when you posted things that I have never said. It makes for quite a telling story too.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

fish

your adroit use of doublespeak could have been lifted straight from the pages of "1984"! It's amazing and i see no logic can move you at all.

You have quite clearly said at different points in the discussion, that Toppy = Hutch, that Leander states that Toppy = Hutch (not true at all), that you concur with me when i state you cannot "close the case" (or be 100% certain in other words) that Toppy does = Hutch, that Toppy is probably Hutch etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc...

I asked you what was controversial about with-holding judgement that a match has been made, and you clearly agree with me, stating that the materials we have DO NOT ALLOW for us to conclude that a match has been made.

Then Mike pops up, and suddenly, Toppy is most definitely Hutch once again.

It makes me dizzy just contemplating it.

At least Mike has been consistent in his delusion that Toppy has been proven to be Hutch; you, however, say different things to different people, to try to make your argument sound reasonable when faced with the undoubted logical position that nothing has yet been proven regarding the identity of Toppy with Hutch.

It's very very clear.

And it's a very very silly way to argue.

[Malcolm X]

Flipping Heck

[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

[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]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[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

[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