Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[babybird67]

hahaha

you made me laugh!

objective perusers are a myth

[The Good Michael]

Case proven by objective perusers, however.

Mike

[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.

[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%?

[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]

but Mike

But these were people with NO experience, not EVEN amateurs. Why employ document examiners... it may lend credence to a legal decision because they have a license perhaps. Why do people employ Faith Healers, and Mediums?

Mike

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

That way madness lies.

If that is true, nobody should give any more weight to one opinion over another, right?

You are asking me to have "faith" in your opinion, but to dismiss Iremonger out of hand...doesn't this seem at all contradictory to you?

[Ben]

Just like Leander tells us, at present, Toppy IS Hutch!

Oh dear, here it comes again - the triumphalist rhetoric. The all-too-Fishermanesque propensity towards bombast and exclamatory (!!!) terminology. Not worth taking seriously, but amusing to behold.

When I return, I will answer the same questions again, and again, and again, and again

Oh, I look forward to it. Let's face it, Fish. You won't be away for long. You'd be too anxious and paranoid about what I might be writing, and who I might be persuading. I can't help but be flattered by that.

Toppy really ISN'T Hutch.

Why employ document examiners... it may lend credence to a legal decision because they have a license perhaps

Because, as has been demonstrated, they have a greater likelihood of making an accurate analysis.

[Ben]

If somebody invited her and said "I´ll take the material out for you" and took the wrong material out, then it would happen.

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.

Mmmmmm - and then he added that he was expecting to have his suspicion (=faith) confirmed, and said that he would be surprised (=baffled by) if it proved not to be a match

Yes, that all came about during his suspicious about-turn and inexplicable change of heart.

[Fisherman]

Mike writes:

"Toppy is Hutch. Hutchy Krishna, Hutchy Krishna, Toppy Hutchy, Toppy Toppy. Everyone chant along!"

Well, Mike, I think you are in for a reluctant choir in some instances - but I will sing for you any day in the week. Just like Leander tells us, at present, Toppy IS Hutch! Whenever any new evidence surfaces that may reinforce it or weaken it, it is time to listen. But up to that time, I will sing my heart out.

incidentally, I cannot both sing and argue at the same time - so I will leave the thread to the wolves for some time. When I return, I will answer the same questions again, and again, and again, and again...and a...To...and agai...Toppy i... and a...Hutchy Krishna, Hutchy Krishna...Catchy Hutchy, Toppy Toppy ...!

Fisherman
singing

[The Good Michael]

we are not comparing a professional (Iremonger) with an enthusiastic and knowledgeable amateur. We seem to be saying anyone with eyes can have as authoritative opinion on this matter.

If this were the case, why would anyone ever employ professional document examiners?

But these were people with NO experience, not EVEN amateurs. Why employ document examiners... it may lend credence to a legal decision because they have a license perhaps. Why do people employ Faith Healers, and Mediums?

Mike

[Ben]

But since we now agree that photocopies ARE quite effective, we may also need to realize that Leander has dealt with very useful material

But that isn't what HE said, remember?

He said that his words should not be miscontrued as a full expert opinion in the absence of the original documents. Here, look:

I wish to strongly underline your wiew that comparing research into signatures must be done using the original material and I/we would not have the possibility to write a full expert´s opinion on the material supplied. In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this

So the difference isn't a small one, as Leander acknowledges. It's a major once, since he acknowledges that an expert comparison isn't even possible without the originals. He stresses this repeatedly. If you're claiming he's wrong about this, he could easily have been wrong about the other things you've claiming he said, and therein lies the major problem with picking and choosing which bits of an opinion you want to be true.

I have said it before and I say so again

Yep, that pretty much sums up your debating strategy.

It isn't a successful one.

Try another.

[babybird67]

but Mike

Yes, but many may have equaled them. In any case this is not forgery we're dealing with. Because someone labels themself an expert, doesn't mean they are better. The best hackers are amateurs and not professors who teach programming. Many stamp collectors don't earn any money from it, but know their stuff. Toppy is Hutch. Hutchy Krishna, Hutchy Krishna, Toppy Hutchy, Toppy Toppy. Everyone chant along!Mike

we are not comparing a professional (Iremonger) with an enthusiastic and knowledgeable amateur. We seem to be saying anyone with eyes can have as authoritative opinion on this matter.

If this were the case, why would anyone ever employ professional document examiners?

If this is the case, that all you need is eyes to see the truth, why is not your "truth" the same as my "truth"?

Toppy may well be Hutch but i remain for it to be PROVEN to me in empirical, evidential means; not by someone merely telling me he is.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"She had Toppy's marriage certificate signature to go by, and the inspid, laughable and libellous suggestion that a professional document examiner confused it with a modern piece of paper filled with modern handwriting can be dismissed as an total impossibility. There is no way that such a thing could have occured."

If somebody invited her and said "I´ll take the material out for you" and took the wrong material out, then it would happen. So, you see, Ben, saying that it is impossible just does not work.

"No, he said the possibility "cannot be ruled out".
Which doesn't mean "probable".

Mmmmmm - and then he added that he was expecting to have his suspicion (=faith) confirmed, and said that he would be surprised (=baffled by) if it proved not to be a match.
So you are right - he never said "probable". Good find!

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Yes, but many may have equaled them. In any case this is not forgery we're dealing with. Because someone labels themself an expert, doesn't mean they are better. The best hackers are amateurs and not professors who teach programming. Many stamp collectors don't earn any money from it, but know their stuff. Toppy is Hutch. Hutchy Krishna, Hutchy Krishna, Toppy Hutchy, Toppy Toppy. Everyone chant along!Mike

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"And it has been insufferable nonsense for ages."

Some of suffer it more lightheartedly than others, shall we say?

"The fact that photocopies have proven quite effective doesn't invalidate the necessity to target the originals wherever possible"

Correct! And that is exactly what Leander says too. But since we now agree that photocopies ARE quite effective, we may also need to realize that Leander has dealt with very useful material, and that the difference inbetween the quality of his material and that used by Iremonger - IF she had the originals in her hand - seems to be a very small one. Statistics, at least, tell us this. Then again, every sample wil have it´s own built-in qualities, and there may be something hidden in the originals. I have said it before and I say so again - but this time I say it against a background where we have another understanding altogehter on the quality of photocopied material.

"See, this is Fisherman's problem. According to him, he is never wrong..."

Oh, but I am! And when I am, I need to have it pointed out to me - and proven! That is why I am asking for that proof!

Fisherman