Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"Had enough?"

Yes - and Leander and the "Science and justice" investigation were the ones who provided it.

Fisherman

Laughing

Did you see your name? I didn't.

And I didn't EVER say you were a liar. Stop suggesting that I did.

I haven't run out of arguments. You, on the other hand, don't really seem to have had any to begin with.

Had enough? Or shall we have more?

[babybird67]

fisherman

the x, y, z is just an illustration of what he said, it doesnt refer to specific things; i think it has been pointed out that Leander's meanings have had slightly different emphases in the various postings you have made.

You are missing the point of my posting, which is to point out to you that whereas you dismiss Iremonger because she may not have looked at the originals, you are quite happy to rely on someone who we KNOW for a FACT has NOT looked at the originals.

If you do not find such a position contradictory, there is no more i can say.

[Ben]

Then why do you think Leander tells us that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match? ALL hits on the positive side are probable matches, Ben

He didn't, initially.

He said the possibility couldn't be ruled out, and if he since upgraded that view to the point of insinuating that he'd be "surprised" if Toppy wasn't the witness, then he's contradicting himself to an extent that obliges us to revise how seriously we take this particular expert. You really haven't portrayed him in the best possible light. I wasn't calling him a buffoon, you'll notice. I only observed that he is being depicted as one by you. If you'd only let his initial observations stand, un-fiddled with....

Nope. You disagree with Leanders assertion that there is a scale on which the lowest, most careful hit on the positive side is expressed "cannot be ruled out".

I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the erroenous slant you've placed on it.

And the fact that we have signatures that match pretty well moves it even further away from any giggles, Ben

But they don't match "very well", as most of the people worth listening to have stated.

And just as I have already asked you, why would he, if this was correct, state that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match

Exactly - why would he have altered his initial stance to that extent?

I don't know. I have my suspicions, but it stinks like a mealy bottom-feeding tench.

Does his telling us that he believes that forthcoming evidence will ultiomately confirm his suspicions tell us that he has not made his mind up

This, too, is almost antithetical to what he said in his initial post. He gradually upgraded his views. They became more Toppy-endorsing as time went on, and I find that deeply disturbing.

Once again, Ben, there are no contrasts at all. He did say from the outset that we had a hit on the positive side of the sclae

Nope, he didn't say any such thing. He said that the differences weighed against the likenesses, but that they were insufficient to "rule him out". That cannot possibly be construed as arguing that Toppy as the witness is "probable". So if Toppy became "probable" later on, that means he must either have radically altered his perspective or used hideously inapplicable terminology. On both counts, there is cause for alarm.

Matters little, since Leander has been perfectly clear on the matter. It needs no further discussion

Don't keep discussing it then.

I'm going to keep disagreeing for as long as you bring up the subject, so it would be futile now for you to keep mentioning it if you think it doesn't need "further discussion", unless you wanted to win a war of repetition - which you won't.

Your saying "but that is not how I use the expression"

It's not how anyone uses the expression, since it's meaning is completely unambiguous. It you cannot rule something out, you cannot be dismiss it as impossible. That is what it means - factually speaking.

...but he said that he would be surprised if it was not so.

In his radical about-turn - yes.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"'Terminally Dim'

Just thought I'd say that.

Let's have it again.

'terminally dim'

Notice I don't need to shout.

Shhhhhh......"

Havenīt you got any arguments, Crystal? Are insults all you can come up with? Then why donīt you dub me ugly and fat while you are at it? And a liar, as you have hinted at before? There is so much that you could achieve on this line - and so very little on the true issue.

I really think you made a wise choice.

Fisherman

Hey Jen!

Where are my spurious arguments then? Oh, please don't leave them out for the sake of friendship my dear!

Kisses!

C

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Leander has said x, y, z"

Please elaborate, BB - when has he contradicted himself?

Fisherman

[babybird67]

i find the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in some of the arguments...

being presented here absolutely hilarious...a few examples:

no expert is needed as we all have eyes to see (pre Leander)

oh, one expert has said that it's probably a match (not what was said anyway, but even if said is totally irrelevant if top argument holds any water or significance);

another,

we can't accept Iremonger because we DONT KNOW if she used the originals

Leander has said x, y, z and he is an expert in the field (Who we KNOW for a fact didnt use originals yet this doesn't apparently debar him from having his opinion referenced as it appears to debar Iremonger...contrary position? i think so)

(neither expert should be referred to anyway by people who think a pair of eyes qualifies anyone to pass opinion, so Leander vs either Iremonger or Crystal is a straw argument)

i am sure everyone here is usually rational in thought and seeks to look as objectively as possible at items of evidence; that perception is subjective however is demonstrated by people with eyes coming to different conclusions about the possibility or otherwise of a match of sigs...in what other field of Ripperology or any serious study of a subject, would any one of us accept something as proven, "because i say so" ? I would argue none.

Look at all the threads and articles on here: Klosowski is the Ripper because all the evidence is there, can't you see it? I see it so i say it must be true.

This could be replicated in every thread and the whole of humanity descend into a black hole of uncertainty and subjectivity...how does such a position advance knowledge? Plain and simple, it doesn't.

Something being true or proven "because i say so" is the least convincing argument for anything being true or proven.

The only sensible position to have on this sig matching is "identity possible but as yet unproven". To state anything stronger than "there is a possibility" is to fail to argue logically and with a basis on evidence, and i dont think any of us would ever want that to become the standard for anything being proven or true.

'Terminally Dim'

Just thought I'd say that.

Let's have it again.

'terminally dim'

Notice I don't need to shout.

Shhhhhh......

[Fisherman]

Ben, tireless:

"Note that Crystal, who also has appreciable experience in this particular field, wouldn't contemplate using "cannot be ruled out" as a synonym for "probable". She knows better from experience."

I fail to see that she works alongside Leander, using the terminology that is used at his department. I will lend one of your favourites, Ben - it is situation specific. How Crystal, you, me or Kermit the frog use the expression is totally irrelevant. You really ought to understand that.

"Hey Leander, are you really the hapless, indecisive buffoon you're being made out to be? Phew! Didn't think you were."

Nice approach to a man that has been totally consistent throughout, Ben - really, really nice!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"It certainly doesn't belong on the "probable" side of the scale, though."

Then why do you think Leander tells us that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match? ALL hits on the positive side are probable matches, Ben - that is why they are on the positive side.

"Whenever you say it, I'll be straight back to disagree with you,"

Nope. You disagree with Leanders assertion that there is a scale on which the lowest, most careful hit on the positive side is expressed "cannot be ruled out". And how you can do this, I fail to see. Maybe you used to work with Leander, and know the premises and tools better than him?

"that's giggle-stiflingly preposterous, isn't it?"

With respect, no. It is not. And the fact that we have signatures that match pretty well moves it even further away from any giggles, Ben. That urges us to give the matter some real hard afterthought.

"But positive in this context meant "cannot be ruled out", which doesn't mean "probable." It is only positive in the sense that it cannot be ruled out as impossible. That's still a positive observation, but barely so."

No, my friend - that is not what Leander tells us, is it? And just as I have already asked you, why would he, if this was correct, state that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match? Does that point us to a stance of his where he has not made his mind up whether it is a probale match or not? Does his telling us that he believes that forthcoming evidence will ultiomately confirm his suspicions tell us that he has not made his mind up?
Of course not. ALL the hits on the positive side of the scale are probable hits. That is why Leander would be surprised to see them disproven.

"In loopily stark contrast to what he claimed earlier, and because of that stark contrast, I'm afraid any worth in his initial observations has been markedly reduced."

Once again, Ben, there are no contrasts at all. He did say from the outset that we had a hit on the positive side of the sclae - he just phrsed it that we had a hit that "cannot be ruled out". After that, he tells us that "cannot be ruled out" is a pointer to a hit on the positive side of the scale.

Where are the contrasts, Ben? Where?

"I will never agree with the disgracefully flawed view that "cannot be ruled out" can ever be used as a synonym for "probable"."

Matters little, since Leander has been perfectly clear on the matter. It needs no further discussion. We are not dealing with simple semantics here, we are dealing with an institutionalized phrasing, meant to stand for certain qualities. The agreement with these qualities will differ from case to case, but the value of the phrase itself will always hold the same message. What you learnt in school - just like what I learnt in scholl - does not apply here. Your saying "but that is not how I use the expression" is extremely and totally futile.

"He never once used the word probable"

...but he said that he would be surprised if it was not so. And to make that stand for an undecided verdict, you will have to go through some serious semantic trouble. And I will not be surprised if you fail.
That means that I think it probable that you will do exactly that. Just to clarify.

Fisherman

[Ben]

But Leander can! And he has done it too. He has told us that "cannot be ruled out" traditionally is the exact and institutionalized expression used for a hit on the lowest, most careful positive side of the scale

It's the most positive thing he can say without ruling it out completely.

Would that be considered "positive" in isolation, let alone probable?

Absolutely not.

Note that Crystal, who also has appreciable experience in this particular field, wouldn't contemplate using "cannot be ruled out" as a synonym for "probable". She knows better from experience. Anyone who does use them as interchangable is hardly worth taking seriously as an expert in anything more complex than written communication.

Just ask the man, for goodness sake!

Good idea. "Hey Leander, are you really the hapless, indecisive buffoon you're being made out to be? Phew! Didn't think you were."

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Cannot be ruled out' means 'Maybe' Fisherman.
It doesn't mean 'Yes'.
And no matter how many times you say it does, you can't make it mean the same"

You are right, Crystal - I canīt. But Leander can! And he has done it too. He has told us that "cannot be ruled out" traditionally is the exact and institutionalized expression used for a hit on the lowest, most careful positive side of the scale. Just go back and you will find the post.

That means that he has from the outset placed the hit exactly at the same spot. Furtehrmore, he elaborates on the fact that the reason he does not place it further up the yes scale is that he needs more evidence, and he tells us that he thinks that such evidence will confirm his suspicion of a hit when/if it arrives.

So - you - are - wrong. Wrong, Crystal. Just ask the man, for goodness sake!

Fisherman

The Birth of The Thread

I was just fondly reviewing the thread, seeing as it recently had a birthday, and I noticed a couple of first posts...

Ben - on page 1 - yes, that early! - said:

It might be worth running this one past a document examiner or two...

#8

Fisherman - not joining the fray until page 12 - said:

As has been pointed out, the Topping signature offers a few elements that are not totally consistent with all of the other three signatures, but that is of very little importance to me, since the overall impression remains one of consistency.

It seems to me that one could see where we were going with this, even then.

In summary -

Ben wants independent corroboration.

Fisherman doesn't care - since his own opinion is enough for him.

No?

[Ben]

It was not, as we learnt when he told us that "cannot be ruled out" is an expression that belongs to the positive side of the scale.

It certainly doesn't belong on the "probable" side of the scale, though.

If you rule something out, that's negative, but suggesting that something cannot be ruled out can never be construed as a declaration that a match is "probable".

How many times do I need to say this, Ben? How many?

As many as you like. Whenever you say it, I'll be straight back to disagree with you, and with more relentless a determination to do so that you can ever have for saying it over and over again. Remember what we discussed about which debating tactics were demonstrably flawed against me? Because the "I'll keep saying it and try to wear you down" approach clearly isn't working for you.

My own stance is that I do not think she examined the right signatures - the likeness inbetween them swears against it, as far as Iīm concerned

But that's giggle-stiflingly preposterous, isn't it?

You've invested so much unwarranted authority in your own opinion that you've now decided that it's so obvious that you must be right than any expert who disasgrees with you must have been looking at different signatures. Never mind how ludicrous the suggestion is. By all means highlight the distinction between "certainty" and "near certainty", but don't, for pity's sake, conjur up the most outlandish scenario imaginable for explaining away Iremonger's inconveniently anti-Toppy stance.

The positive end of the scale involves the opportunities when the examiner thinks it probable that the signature belongs to the man he is investigating, Ben.

But positive in this context meant "cannot be ruled out", which doesn't mean "probable." It is only positive in the sense that it cannot be ruled out as impossible. That's still a positive observation, but barely so.

And we know that Leander says that he would be surprised if it was not a match.

In loopily stark contrast to what he claimed earlier, and because of that stark contrast, I'm afraid any worth in his initial observations has been markedly reduced. This wouldn't have happened if you didn't keep subliminally encouraging him to upgrade his stance to make it appear more Toppy-endorsing than it was originally. If, all of a sudden, he's declaring the match probable in spite of his earlier comments, that is deeply suspicious.

I wonīt - not as long as you donīt get it, Ben.

Then don't tell me you don't wish to quibble on the subject any further, for feck's sake. I will never agree with the disgracefully flawed view that "cannot be ruled out" can ever be used as a synonym for "probable". Keep bringing the subject up, and keep repeating yourself if you think it'll make an impact. You know full well in won't, and that you're only obsessed with continuing a posting war. Fine by me, I can go around in circles forever if necessary.

ALL hits on the positive scale are probable matches. Some of them are MORE probale than others, but they are ALL probable.

He never once used the word probable.

He said "cannot be ruled out", which never means probable.