Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Sam Flynn]

"I haven't seen a single compelling reason why copies wouldn't be good enough for the scenario we're discussing here"

Okay, but I have. Very compelling ones.

But, with respect, Ben, I don't think you have a background in science like wot I do. I've not seen anything - and certainly not any empirical data - that shows that using original documents is significantly different from using scanned copies, in terms of the basic comparison of signatures.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"And Fish, I don't want to doubt your word. You have cast that doubt yourself by changing what you say Leander said."

Exactly WHERE have I "changed" what I "say Leander said"? Pray tell me! I am not a sucker for being painted out as a biased liar, Crystal, so letīs get this overwith as soon as possible, shall we?

Besides, for one who donīt want to doubt my words, you are doing a good job hiding it.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Fisherman is so utterly entrenched in his own dogma, and so irrationally and undeservedly convinced of his rightness that he is prepared to accept that an expert who examined the documents personally must have been looking at "faulty" material."

If you can lower your voice and open your eyes for a moment, you will realize that there is no "must" involved. I said that my GUESS is that she may have examined faulty material, and that is because she seems to have mystically overlooked a very close match.

The entrenched guy here is you, Ben, who will listen to an expert like Leander only when his words are apt for a little distorting and misinterpreting. Once he puts you at a disadvantage by being quite explicit, you merrily swing the other way. If the evidence suits you - thank you very much! If it goes against you - somebody has been lying or is being quite unbelievable. It is a truly interesting performance youīre putting on - but you seem to have missed that you left your costume behind when you entered the stage.

Fisherman

PS. Your costume is the one with the funny hat and the striped clothes in red and blue, Ben! DS.

Ben, stop dishonestly lobbying for Hutch: I know what your words REALLY mean.

You're not fooling anyone here you know.

And don 't worry, I know how little I mean to you.

Lothario.

I'll get you for this. x

[Ben]

Crystal, you're a prize beeeeyatch!

And you know I'm only keeping you sweet because you agree with me about Hutch. The moment that stops, you're a gonner!

X

[Ben]

Firstly, because it's easier to send a scan, photocopy or fax, than it is to persuade someone to up-stumps and visit the archives

It doesn't matter what's easiest to acheive, Gareth.

Simplicity is not the crowning criterion. Professional document examiners analyze original documents. That is what they do, and in the instances where they volunteer their professional services themselves, you can guarantee that they would seek out the originals, otherwise - as all practitioners in this field appear to acknowledge - she would not have been doing her job.

I haven't seen a single compelling reason why copies wouldn't be good enough for the scenario we're discussing here

Okay, but I have. Very compelling ones.

Ooh! How exciting, Ben!

Tell you what, I'll fight you for it..

I go first -

BEN, you're nothing but a Hutch-obsessed zealot who wouldn't know a logical argument if he crashed into it at high speed.

Your turn... x

[Sam Flynn]

But the chances of that contribution reflecting the truth, or anything resembling it, are effectively zero

Well, Bob ought to know what sources she looked at.

the chances of an experienced document examiner volunteering her professional services to compare readily accessible originals (as outlined and required by her profession) must be regarded as a near-certainty.

I disagree. Firstly, because it's easier to send a scan, photocopy or fax, than it is to persuade someone to up-stumps and visit the archives. Secondly - it's possible that one or more of the documents might no longer exist in paper form. Thirdly - it doesn't really matter as far as I'm concerned, because I haven't seen a single compelling reason why copies wouldn't be good enough for the scenario we're discussing here.

[Ben]

But have you noticed the even more crucial milestone, Crystal?

We're just one repetetive spat away from the 2000th post!

Many Happy Returns?

Happy Birthday to the Horror Thread, which is now 200 pages long!

What say we ditch the half-baked nonsense for a while and get the baloons and whistles out?

[Ben]

When comparing the Hutchinson signatures, she used copies of the 1898 marriage certificate and Hutchinson's 1888 police statement, and did not handle the original paper documents."

But the chances of that contribution reflecting the truth, or anything resembling it, are effectively zero, Gareth, whereas the chances of an experienced document examiner volunteering her professional services to compare readily accessible originals (as outlined and required by her profession) must be regarded as a near-certainty.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

But almost certainly are.

If assertion without backup is fair game, Ben, here's my contribution:

"Sue Iremonger is just an ordinary, decent document examiner who is 'renowned' within the Ripper community largely because she's one of the few that any of us have ever heard of. When comparing the Hutchinson signatures, she used copies of the 1898 marriage certificate and Hutchinson's 1888 police statement, and did not handle the original paper documents."

I might be wrong, of course.

[Ben]

Leander was merely expanding on his views at Fisherman's request, Ben..

He wouldn't have been, Gareth.

"Cannot be ruled out" does not mean and can never mean "I'd be surprised if the signatures were coincidental". The terminology is such that it carries an entirely different meaning, and never the wretched twain shall meet. If you can't rule something out, it means you can't dismiss it as "impossible", and as Leander himself pointed out, such terminology is the "lowest" form of positive commentary.

What I find galling in the extreme is that whenever Leander's observations are made known in all their circumspect, non-Toppy-endorsing glory, those arguing for Toppy go straight back to Leander.

Not quite Toppy-favouring enough, Frank!

Bit more?

Better. Bit more?

Nearly there.

Bit more?

There! That'll do!

...With Leander's views mutating over time as he is bombarded, and as his views are effectively poisoned with misleading information as to the number of viable candidates.

"A match can't be ruled out [and I'd be] surprised if the similarities were coincidental".

But that would be a syntactically disasterous sentence, ill-becoming of any expert, for if you're professing surprise if the similarities were coincidental, you're saying in effect that the match is likely, and if you think a match is likely, you don't say that it "cannot be ruled out".

The parts underlined are assumptions that we don't know to be true

But almost certainly are.

Best regards,
Ben

Experienced based learning?

But Sam, I thought you had already discounted the validity of that in this context?

Do different rules apply for you, then?

Because the logical conclusion of accepting the validity of such is that expertise does count for something in this regard, isn 't it?

[Sam Flynn]

Which was in stark and embarrassing contrast to what he claimed before his views were corrupted, which was that the possibility of a match cannot be ruled out.

Leander was merely expanding on his views at Fisherman's request, Ben - one can hardly call that a "stark and embarrassing contrast".

Besides, since when was "match can't be ruled out" at odds with Leander's being "surprised if the similarities were coincidental"? The earlier statement uses the language of "scientific" pragmatism, as noted. The second reveals more forcefully the reason behind those views - namely, that he doesn't believe that a coincidental resemblance between the signatures is very likely. That is fully consistent with what he said before, which is obvious when you concatenate the two sentences together:

"A match can't be ruled out [because I'd be] surprised if the similarities were coincidental".

The words I've highlighted in red is the conclusion, and those coloured blue show part of the rationale behind that conclusion. They're not separate opinions at all - still less contrasting, "stark and embarrassing", ones.

The logical explanation behind Iremonger arriving at the opinion she did is that she is an expert in her field who examined the original documents.

The parts underlined are assumptions that we don't know to be true.