Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[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

[Sam Flynn]

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

Have any of them stated that Iremonger examined the originals, though, Ben? I didn't think they had.

[Sam Flynn]

Is Sue Iremonger genuinely "world renowned"?

Serious question.

[babybird67]

hi Mike

how can it be hearsay when it has been quoted in published works on the Ripper?

Are we to doubt absolutely everything in books now?

[Ben]

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

[The Good Michael]

World renown document examiner Sue Iremonger volunteered her professional services, and came to the conclusion that the differences were more significant than the similarities, and she almost certainly examined the original documents,

BB,

This is hearsay, of course, but it's Ben's truth. Believe it if you wish.

Mike

[babybird67]

1. That you subconsciously want to show solidarity to Ben and Crystal (NB: I'm not accusing you of side-taking, just of being nice );

well of course i am nice but i have as much respect for you as i have for Ben and Crystal, so why would my subconscious prioritise one side over another (especially as it hasn't, in that i have said i don't know at this point and remain to be convinced either way)

2. That you might be attaching too much importance to absolute differences in the signatures which aren't significant.

How can i decide if i am attaching too much importance to the differences? It is just as possible that you are attaching too much importance to the similarities (subjectivity again...damn that stuff gets everywhere! )

we seem to be skipping past eachother in this thread and the MJK one lol

(experimented with cutting up the quote here...hope it's right

[Ben]

Excellent points, BB.

World renown document examiner Sue Iremonger volunteered her professional services, and came to the conclusion that the differences were more significant than the similarities, and she almost certainly examined the original documents, which is precisely what Crystal intends to do.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

that there is no logical reason for this that you can see hopefully demonstrates to you that it is possible that subjectivity of perception is the only logical differential in this case (i have no interest in it being a match or a mismatch)

I don't think the differentiator is subjectivity, BB. I can see at least two logical differentiators that might be at work here:

1. That you subconsciously want to show solidarity to Ben and Crystal (NB: I'm not accusing you of side-taking, just of being nice );

2. That you might be attaching too much importance to absolute differences in the signatures which aren't significant.

It is the latter factor which characterises much of this debate.

[babybird67]

thank you Sam

I can't explain it, BB. To be honest, I am completely baffled when others say they don't see a strong resemblance when, to me, the resemblance is as immediate as it is overwhelming.

that there is no logical reason for this that you can see hopefully demonstrates to you that it is possible that subjectivity of perception is the only logical differential in this case (i have no interest in it being a match or a mismatch).

best wishes

[Ben]

Here we go again, with the timely nature of Leander's alteration of opinion.

It's truly astonishing.

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.

That's why it's difficult to invest any worth in Leander's views, which I've been trying patiently to invest with significance. If his initial words were left alone rather than having unaccaptable slants foisted upon them, he'd be taken seriously. The more contradictory accounts from "Leander" that are shared with us, the more they cancel eachother out, which is most unfortunate.

If you "can't rule out" the possibility of a match, there is no way you can possibly mean "I'd be surprised if it was not a match". This is not a question of overstatement versus understatement. They mean radically different things. Earlier today he was reinforcing the obvious reality that "cannot be ruled out" is the "lowest" positive observation to be made about something, but as soon as I point this out, Leander is suddenly surprised that the similaritiers could be explained on any other grounds than a match! If that sort of radical alteration looked highly questionable first time around, it looks doubly so now.

[Ben]

He wouldn't be what he is if he came out and said what we wished he would have said.

Why would you "wish" for him to a say a certain thing, Mike?

I am completely baffled when others say they don't see a strong resemblance when, to me, the resemblance is as immediate as it is overwhelming.

And I' baffled when anyone says there is one, Gareth, thus reinforcing the subjective nature of our individual perceptions.

Cheers,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"To be honest, I am completely baffled when others say they don't see a strong resemblance when, to me, the resemblance is as immediate as it is overwhelming."

Maybe this can help you out a bit, Sam. Not that I am having any trouble to see the likeness, but this post may go some way to reinforce what you are saying.

Okay, all, here we go again! Since the question (astonishingly) came up about what side of the scale Leander is situated at with the signatures, I simply asked him.
This was how I did it:

”Min uppfattning är att du i ditt senaste mail skriver att du tycker att likheten mellan signaturerna medför att du placerar träffen på den positiva änden av skalan, men att du skulle behöva originaldokumenten och fler namnteckningar för att kunna vara säkrare på din sak.
Är det korrekt uppfattat?”

Translated:

”My wiew is that you in your latest mail write that you think that the likeness between the signatures means that you place the match on the positive end of the scale, but that you would need the original documents and more signatures to be a bit more sure about it.
Is that a correct wiew?”

And here´s Frank Leanders answer:

”Ja, ungefär så, eller annorlunda uttryckt: I ett spaningsärende är det värt att gå vidare med den här personen för att - som jag i nuläget lutar åt - få misstankarna bekräftade* -*eller för att inse att likheterna* var tillfälligheter (vilket jag således i nuläget skulle bli förvånad över).
*Mvh
*Frank”

...which translates into:

”Yes, that´s about it, or put differently: In an investigation or a search for a wanted person, it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by).
Greetings,
Frank”

Now, I don´t know if this will make Ben tell us that this confirmation of my suggestion that Leander DOES place the match at the positive end of the scale, in reality is nothing else but a glaring 180 degree turn from his earlier posts. Nor can I free myself from the suspicion that I will be accused of having asked a leading question.
Not that I realize fully how anybody could reach any of these conclusions. I never have and I never will. But NOTHING surprises me anymore, so who can tell?

...and, of course, this post came every bit as timely as did Frank Leanders post number two, and that may of course be ”fishy” again...?

Unless any of these perspectives are applied, I can´t help but to think that Leander seems to mean that the match IS on the positive side of the scale, and that it would surprise him if it was NOT a match!

Oh, well – when Ben steps in and interprets this for us, we shall know!

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

If your eyes are as good as Iremonger's, then it logically follows that my eyes are as good as yours...yet i dissent.

How do you explain this?

I can't explain it, BB. To be honest, I am completely baffled when others say they don't see a strong resemblance when, to me, the resemblance is as immediate as it is overwhelming.

[babybird67]

did he say that?

i thought he said once again, inconclusive.