Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Ben]

My own guess is that her suggestion is based on faulty material

And this, of course, is beyond ridicule.

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. The sheer crassness of this suggestion is difficult to engage with, but it gets to the heart of people's obsessions. He tries to reduce the absurdity of the suggestion by reasuring us that it is just a "guess". Fair enough. It's an outrageous and outlandish guess.

Fisherman is basically coming up with the worst excuses conceivable for dismissing experts who go against his view, whilst bombrding other experts until they do "agree" with him, which speaks very poorly for both Fisherman and Leander.

But when an expert of Leanders caliber tells us that he would be surprised if it was NOT the same

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.

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. Leander urged caution that his views should not be construed as a "full expert opinion" because he was only looking at computer images.

[babybird67]

If someone denies an obvious similarity, then there's clearly something that needs explaining - and it's NOT my view on the matter.

hi again Sam

i'm not denying obvious similarities...i am questioning the relevance and significance of obvious similarities when taken as existing alongside obvious differences.

I dont think anyone here has denied there are both surface/obvious similarities and differences...it is subjective as to which of these one gives priority to.

[Fisherman]

Babybird writes:

"But Leander argues against trusting his informal view. He also says he would need to see original documents.

Once again, taking both expert views into consideration, there is not enough evidence to conclude that Toppy = Hutch; judgement reserved.

Why is this position so controversial?"

It is not controversial at all, Babybird - it is a perfectly legal position to take. I for one would very much like to have exact information about what Iremonger saw and what - EXACTLY - she said about it all. My own guess is that her suggestion is based on faulty material, but that is only a guess, and I would not press it any further. But when an expert of Leanders caliber tells us that he would be surprised if it was NOT the same writer, and when a number of us out here agree that it is a VERY good match, then one MUST take an active interest in what could possibly have prompted Iremonger to come up with a totally contradictory judgement. It would NOT have had it´s reason in the visual comparison, I guess, and so one wonders if there is something hidden in the originals. But I would find that every bit as surprising as Leander would.

The fact of the matter is that we do have differing expert opinions, and therefore your stance is a reasonable one. Finally, I concur with the wiew that we cannot close the case on the material we DO have. But I think we can come really, really close.

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

So if somebody disagrees with you they're wrong? And if somebody else agrees with the dissenters they do so for personal reasons?

If someone denies an obvious similarity, then there's clearly something that needs explaining - and it's NOT my view on the matter.

your stance is ever-shifting to accommodate your undoubtedly factual bias.

What "ever-shifting stance"? I have been perfectly consistent in everything I've said - something I try to achieve wherever possible.

The only "inconsistency" those with long enough memories might have detected is that, whereas once I was vehemently against GWTH's candidacy as the Dorset Street witness (I spent hours if not days trying to pin his tail on Ticker-Nicker George), I am now certain that the opposite is true. But then, that's not really "inconsistency", is it, but evidence-based learning.

[Ben]

She hadn't the materials to look at that Leander did. Can you get that?

The complete reverse, actually.

Sue Iremonger examined the original documents. Leander didn't. Leander's views were significantly compromised for that reason, as he acknowledged. She was therefore in a far better position to assess the likelihood of a match than Leander was, as even Leander would acknowledge!

You put forth, by omission, the idea that she examined all signatures that we are privy to.

That's because the alternatives are too nauseatingly preposterous to contemplate, for the same reason that the suggestion that Iremonger studied anything other than the original documents is also nauseatingly preposterous. "World renowned" was an observation made by Bob Hinton. If it troubles, you, I'm sure you can take it up with him.

You stand as the guardian of the Hutch the killer theory and nary a whit of common sense can shake you from it.

Show me a "whit of common sense" and I'll consider revising my stance.

Haven't seen much of that so far.

But then this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of whether of not Hutchinson killed anyone.

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"And Fish- be in no doubt, first thing tomorrow my friend Marat is phoning LEANDER to clear this up once and for all. Well, you said we didn't have to take your word for it, right?

What an unfortunate road this thread is travelling."

It is an extremely unfortunate road when people will not believe other posters words, Crystal. THAT is where a very unpleasant element enters what ought to be a fair discussion.
But you are most welcome to call Frank Leander and ask him if he has been misrepresented, Crystal. If you really think that is needed to clarify things, I welcome it in a sense.
Afterwards, Crystal, if you should be left with the impression that I have not lied or distorted anything - what will you do?

I´m just being curious, Crystal.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

yes Mike i get that

She hadn't the materials to look at that Leander did. Can you get that? She had only a few samples whereas Leander had many. No one has questioned her abilities, just the material she had to work with. In such an inexact science wouldn't it be best to have many samples to compare? She didn't.

Mike

But Leander argues against trusting his informal view. He also says he would need to see original documents.

Once again, taking both expert views into consideration, there is not enough evidence to conclude that Toppy = Hutch; judgement reserved.

Why is this position so controversial?

[babybird67]

Ms Iremonger ...

is listed on the uk experts site:

http://www.expertsearch.co.uk/cgi-bin/find_expert?2592

specialist in forsensic handwriting examination

I dont see what relevance her credentials should have though as we have already established one pair of eyes is as good as another.

[Ben]

Well, Ben, in all honesty, I think you would have been better off if you had not persisted in questioning things that are quite obvious to most people who can read

I think it would have been better, Fish, if you hadn't continuted to bombard Leander once he'd made his initial views perfectly clear. Whatever good intentions you may have had, I'm afraid you may unwittingly have corrupted his views by feeding him the erroneous "truism" about the number of potential candidates. That is the nicest explanation I can offer for his alleged and seemingly radical alterations if his initial viewpoint.

It would surprise him if it was not a match! It cannot get any clearer that that, can it Ben?

Perfecly clear. Trouble is, that sudden opinion is in radical contrast to the views he offered in his first letter. There was this flagrant unwillingness to accept his observations as they stood.

But at present, he concurs with the wiew that the Dorset Street witness may have been found

May have been in the sense that we "can't rule it out", Fisherman, yes.

Sound familiar?

His radical alteration in perspective is decidedly suspicious, which is a great pity, given the circumspection of his initial letter. Either that or he has very serious problems with communication and saying what he actually means. Either way, his views are significantly compromised.

[The Good Michael]

A and yet the same people who are trying to argue against Iremonger .

She hadn't the materials to look at that Leander did. Can you get that? She had only a few samples whereas Leander had many. No one has questioned her abilities, just the material she had to work with. In such an inexact science wouldn't it be best to have many samples to compare? She didn't.

Mike

[babybird67]

Ben,

World-Renowned is hearsay. I guarantee that no one in Greenland, Korea, Fiji, or Papua New Guinea has heard of her. And the idea that she examined originals is unknown, so your emphasis is hearsay. You put forth, by omission, the idea that she examined all signatures that we are privy to. You stand as the guardian of the Hutch the killer theory and nary a whit of common sense can shake you from it. I suggest you take time off from this thread. It has obviously affected you.

Cheers,

Mike

And yet we KNOW for a fact that Leander didn't examine the originals and has more than once advised AGAINST taking his evidence as anything other than an informal view, in which he STILL did not endorse the Toppy = Hutch theory, and yet the same people who are trying to argue against Iremonger are perfectly happy to accept the comments made by Leander, who one would surmise is not world-renowned either.

No, you are right, it doesn't make sense does it.

[Ben]

They all reiterated the fact that Iremonger did not believe the signatures match, Gareth. Since professional document examiners assess original documents wherever possible, and since she volunteered her professional services in this case, it is almost impossible to accept than she examined a set of scans.

Best regards,
Ben

Right Sam

So if somebody disagrees with you they're wrong? And if somebody else agrees with the dissenters they do so for personal reasons?

Splendid! I conclude that further debate with you on this topic is futile, since your stance is ever-shifting to accommodate your undoubtedly factual bias.

And Fish- be in no doubt, first thing tomorrow my friend Marat is phoning LEANDER to clear this up once and for all. Well, you said we didn't have to take your word for it, right?

What an unfortunate road this thread is travelling.

[Fisherman]

Ben jokes:

"Leander says X. Fisherman thinks he says Y. I say no, he said X. Look at what he actually said. Fisherman then supposedly contacts Leander again, et voila! Leander now says Y! Besides the fact that Leander is starting to give the impression that he is tired of being continually bombarded by Fisherman after he has made clear that he can't give a full expert opinion in the absence of the original documents, we find once again that Leander is supposedly altering his stance as soon as objections to Fisherman's errant interpretation are made known."

Well, Ben, in all honesty, I think you would have been better off if you had not persisted in questioning things that are quite obvious to most people who can read. Leander did say just about the same thing in his former post, although not as bluntly. This time over, though, he leaves us with no questions at all, does he? It would surprise him if it was not a match! It cannot get any clearer that that, can it Ben?

Did you ever hear the Swedish proverb "Sour, said the fox about the sorb-berries"? No? I´ll walk you through it´s meaning some time, since it applies perfectly here!

Leastways, Ben, you have been taught a healthy lesson in how discerning experts go about their business. Just like Sam pointed out to you earlier, Leander has moved along the lines of such an expert linguistically throughout. He has been very consistent, and he remains absolutely steadfast in what he has said all along - we do not have enough to point Toppy out as the Dorset Street witness, since that would require more samples and a look at the originals. But at present, he concurs with the wiew that the Dorset Street witness may have been found - and he does it to such a degree as to admit that he would be surprised if this will not be confirmed if the lacking material should surface.

So, even if we cannot close the case on the main issue yet, we CAN close it on what Leander thinks by now, Ben.
And you know what? You were wrong about it all the time. Dead wrong, in fact.

Lukewarm ...Pthhhhh!

Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

And I guess Bob Hinton, Paul Begg and Martin Fido would have to have been my co-conspirators in this "hearsay", Mike?

Ben,

World-Renowned is hearsay. I guarantee that no one in Greenland, Korea, Fiji, or Papua New Guinea has heard of her. And the idea that she examined originals is unknown, so your emphasis is hearsay. You put forth, by omission, the idea that she examined all signatures that we are privy to. You stand as the guardian of the Hutch the killer theory and nary a whit of common sense can shake you from it. I suggest you take time off from this thread. It has obviously affected you.

Cheers,

Mike