Hutch in the 1911 Census?

I doubt it Fish. Really.

I don't think Leander said Toppy was 'probably' the Dorset Street witness at all. I choose to believe instead that either you made it up, or that you're so utterly deranged that you actually believe it.

I really don't care which. Because, as anyone with a shred of rationality can see, your claims are entirely untenable.

If this thread is 'infected', then you're the one I blame.

[Fisherman]

David:

"As to Leander "being surprised"... very well... but then why did he say he has to see the original documents first?"

As for the agenda, I've never accused you of having one.
Your problem is that you can't bear contradiction, that's all.

Why does he say that he wants to see the originals? Because he has made no full examination. He clearly tells us that AS IT STANDS he would be surprised if they were not one and the same. But saying that, he also aadmits that things may change it. More surfacing signatures are one such thing - if they were to deviate in a manner that points away from a match, then Leander will move the hit from the positive side on the scale towards the negative one.
AS IT STANDS, though, Leander is of the meaning that Toppy probably was the Dorset Street witness. And it seems that your "very well" tells us you agree, which is fine.
I think we all need to remember that Leanders wiew does not prove that Toppy and Hutch were the same man. It strengthens the suggestion immensely, yes - but even if we were all to agree that Leander probably is right, it will mean only an agreement and not proof. This distinction seems to have gone lost along the way. And a few people out there (and you know who) seem terribly, terribly afraid to acknowledge the wiews of Leander, even to the degree that they refuse to accept the more outspoken posts, which is a disgrace in my wiew. It slanders Leander in a very unpleasant way.

As for me not being ableto take contradiction, I think and hope that you are being a bit unfair, David. I have conceded many a time that others have made points that have proven my stance not very tenable, and I do hope that I will do so again when this occurs, for occur it will. I have on many occasions stated that there are other posters on these boards that are more knowledgeable than me, and that my main objective is to share and to learn.

On this issue, however, we have a situation that is extremely infected. I honestly believe that the efforts that have been made to discredit Frank Leander have been utterly tasteless. I also believe that the stance that has been taken by some of those who represent the Flemchinson side has been deeply dishonest at times. And although this thread has lept up to over 2300 posts, I have not been busy defending millions and millions of points, and unwilling to give way in any of them. I have actually only fought for one point - tha the signatures are very much alike to my and Frank Leanders eyes, and that Leander has confirmed the strong feeling I, Sam, Mike, Malcolm and some otheres have had - that the signatures may very well be a genuine match.
But this is something that may not be said on the thread without meeting a furious opposition. And furious oppositions are fine by me, as long as they treat an expert like Leander with respect and allow a poster like me to choose my own occasions when I want to post and when I wish not to. But not even this has been allowed.

I am glad that you see the sense in recognizing that a man who says that he would be surprised if he did not have a match, quite obviously believes that he HAS that match. I would, of course, also like to know where it is you think I have misrepresented Leander or drawn too much on what he has said - but It can wait til tomorrow, as far as I´m concerned.

Can I also add that it is refreshing to have at least some opposed poster to deal with that can still conduct a reasonably courteous debate? I will try and take care not to let too much of the animosity from the posts inbetween Ben and me spill over to my answers to you. If that has already happened, you have my apologies.

Fisherman

Ok

Prove it. Go on. Let's see it.

Prove that Ben slandered you.
Prove that BB lied about you
Prove that I am biased in my personal regard for the above named.

I'll enjoy watching you try.

Although of course you won't. You'll just spout more poisonous nonsense, I expect.

Or will you prove me wrong?

[babybird67]

uh oh David

Fish,
once again, read your posts and compare them to Leander's words.
And do it yourself, please.
As to Leander "being surprised"... very well... but then why did he say he has to see the original documents first?

As for the agenda, I've never accused you of having one.
Your problem is that you can't bear contradiction, that's all.

Amitiés,
David

Be careful reminding Fish what he said. You tend to get called a liar even if you quote him verbatim. A sad tactic of someone who has lost the actual argument long ago, but small things please small minds.

[Ben]

Hi Ben! I hear you are a really nice guy!

Oh, good.

Yes, I am a really nice guy, but one who tends to respond with hostility what you accuse me of being completely dishonest, or having incredible bias, and of stepping over dead people "in order not to concede a point that goes against (me)". If you then claim that you have flies on your lavatory that you cherish more than me, I'm probably going to conceal my "nice guy" side, if only temporarily. What else were you expecting when you made those outrageous and slanderous observations?

So nice, in fact, that you are ready to say that I have used my son to portray Mary Kellys remains!

But you did.

That was a statement of fact.

And it was distasteful in the extreme, and you did it out of sheer desperation to score points over me.

I seem to remenber that you´ve made rather a poor figure in every exchange we have had?

Ah, but of course, if Fisherman tells me I've cut a poor figure, who I am to disagree?

[DVV]

Show me where I misrepresented Leander.

Tell me if you agree with me or not that when Leander states that he would be surprised if Toppys signature and that on the police report were not a match, he is in fact saying that at present he believes that Toppy WAS the witness?
If you reply in the negative, I want a motivation.

After that, you can aske me anything YOU would like to - I have nothing to hide and no agenda, so I can promise you a fair answer each and every time.

Can you do the same for me?

Fisherman

Fish,
once again, read your posts and compare them to Leander's words.
And do it yourself, please.
As to Leander "being surprised"... very well... but then why did he say he had to see the original documents first?

As for the agenda, I've never accused you of having one.
Your problem is that you can't bear contradiction, that's all.

Amitiés,
David

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"And you're a despicable, lying, disgrace to your profession who uses his own children as participants in experiments designed to score those desperately cherished points over me; getting your own son to emulate the mutilated remains of Mary Jane Kelly was utterly nauseating."

Hi Ben! I hear you are a really nice guy! So Crystal tells me.
So nice, in fact, that you are ready to say that I have used my son to portray Mary Kellys remains! That IS nice of you!
Of course, it could not have been worded that he served to prove how much could be seen behind a lying body on a bed? No?

"I'll just continue to crush you like I always do"

You don´t think you may be overestimating your own good self just a little here, Ben?
I seem to remenber that you´ve made rather a poor figure in every exchange we have had? But then again, it may be as Stephen said earlier on the thread; you are the man who can never be wrong, a true genius!

Let you in on a secret, my formidable friend: I am of the opinion that he was being ironic!
Don´t get me wrong, I have no proof of it! And he sure did not say so in his first post! So if he should do so in his second, we will have a complete turnaround!

Fisherman
leaving you, Ben - but not for good, I believe!

[Ben]

It is another thing altogether with you, Crystal. In your case, we KNOW that you lied about calling Leander. Why you did it is beyond me. Maybe you were trying to intimidate me?

So on the basis of that ludicrous deduction, I now refer to your repeated intentions to leave the thread. You never followed through on any of those occasions, so by telling us you were leaving you lied. Ergo, you're a liar, according the baromoter of truthfulness that you've appointed yourself when judging Crystal.

[babybird67]

oh my God Fisherman you have totally lost the plot

Well, you see, Baybird, when Leander said that his opinion was not a full professional opinion, I don´t think that what he meant was that he would have stepped down in professional judgment and experience. My contention is that what he was saying wsa that he did not leave his assessment in his official professional capacity, as a member of the SKL team.

Ahhhh...now i see, so when he said he wasn't giving you a professional expert opinion which he could not give considering the materials he was working with were not the original documents, he actually MEANT this is a professional opinion, please quote it far and wide, and paraphrase/add things far and wide until you have skewed my opinion so badly that even I wouldn't recognise it if i came across it? Is that really now your argument Fish? Can you not see how ridiculous your arguments look? Indeed, you have made more of mangle of Leander's views than the Ripper did with Eddowes so there is something to be proud of.

My, it IS interesting how many different scenarios you guys can come up with to try and invalidate and discredit the worth of the arguably best and most detailed investigation we have of the signatures! I can´t help but to wonder what will come next!

Fisherman

I have once again emphasised your own words Fish. YOUR OWN FRIEND LEANDER STATED THaT HIS VIEWS WERE OF A PERSONAL NATURE AND NOT TO BE TAKEN AS A PROFESSIONAL OPINION SINCE HE DID NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS TO WORK WITH.

Excuse me for shouting but i despair of getting through to you.

Leander's comments were in no way, shape or form to be taken as an official view given in an official capacity as he told you himself this would not be possible without seeing the original documents.

Honestly, there is something not quite right with you and your determination to keep on and on stating black is white. It isn't. Give up for goodness sake before your credibility gets up and commits suicide in despair.

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"Ben is in fact none of the things you accuse him of"

Aha, Crystal! So THAT is why you think I´ve lied about him? He is really a gentle, nice guy?
And the same goes for Babybird - but for the guy bit?

Is that what you mean?

But that would be a matter of taste, would it not? Do you really think that it gives you the right to call me a liar?

It is another thing altogether with you, Crystal. In your case, we KNOW that you lied about calling Leander. Why you did it is beyond me. Maybe you were trying to intimidate me? God knows, but it was a very useless and unneccesary thing to do.

Now, tell me if I have got this right - you have no factual evidence for me having lied about Ben and Babybird, you just think that I am misjudging them, and you feel that gives you the right to call me a liar, is that correct?

Fisherman

[Ben]

Exactly - he said it in his fourth letter. In his first, though, he said that amatch could not be ruled out, and in his fourth letter, he expanded on the meaning of that phrasing

Nothing to expand upon, since the phrase doesn't need for its meaning to be "expanded". It can't, since "cannot be ruled out" has a clear and unambiguous meanng; a meaning which can never - in a million years - mean probable. If someone does use it as a synonyn of probable, that someone is simply misusing the phrase, and is certainly not worth taking seriously as an expert. The fact that he required a "fouth" letter is simply more damning evidence of your desperation to extract as Toppy-endorsing a stance from Leander as possible. The first wasn't good enough for you, so you bombarded and misled him until he succumbed.

Ben, what is there to be desperate about? Leander remains steadfast, and we have a good match

Er, no. Leander's all over the place, and we have a poor match.

[Ben]

Oh, you are misunderstading me, Ben! I am not fond of you - I genuinely feel that you are the worst aquaintance I have made on Casebook. You are completely dishonest, incredibly biased, and you will step on dead people in order not to concede a point that goes against you.

And you're a despicable, lying, disgrace to your profession who uses his own children as participants in experiments designed to score those desperately cherished points over me; getting your own son to emulate the mutilated remains of Mary Jane Kelly was utterly nauseating.

I have flies on my toilet that I cherish more than you, Ben, so I am blatantly honest when I tell you that I am sick of you!

But then you stalk me round the boards like the filthy smell that you are, despite reassuring us over and over again that you fully intend to leave the thread. But weak-minded individual that you are, you never have the bollocks to follow through. So no, you're not sick of me. You're positively obsessed with me - perhaps dangerously so.

Oh, I´ll stick around and make sure that you never get away with your scam

Wonderful.

Obviously I'll be here for eternity, so if you want to follow me around, I'll be there - always. Your writing style is so infuriatingly incomprehensible and ponderous that I NEED people like you to follow me around, simply to make me look better by contrast. Your general inabilities as a debator only serve to enhance whatever "cause" you believe I hold, so please stick around. If you're threatening to "pop up alongside me" whenever I post in the future, I'll just continue to crush you like I always do, like a cat playing with a shrew. I collect keyboard war-mongering doughnuts and chew them up for breakfast.

Er, No, Fish.

Ben is in fact none of the things you accuse him of: just as BB hasn't lied about you.

Your allegations against Ben do, however, resonate with me for another reason.

It's just how YOU have behaved on this thread.

Far from it being Ben who won't let it go: it is in fact YOU.

If Ben - or any other poster daring to disagree with you- should not respond to you, you just pursue them until they do.

It is you who's obsessed, Fish.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"But that is NOT WHAT HE SAID IN HIS ORIGINAL LETTER."

Exactly - he said it in his fourth letter. In his first, though, he said that amatch could not be ruled out, and in his fourth letter, he expanded on the meaning of that phrasing, telling us that it meant a hit on the positive end of the scale. He also added that he was of the meaning that he believed that the future would prove Toppy to be the witness - but he phrased it in other words.

"Oh, and now you really are getting desperate"

Ben, what is there to be desperate about? Leander remains steadfast, and we have a good match.
I´m fine with that.

"The above distinction clearly goes to Sue Iremonger, who personally examined the signatures after volunteering her professional services. She didn't think they matched."

No? Wow! How did she phrase that? I mean, just how sure was she? Pray tell me, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

I believe that he told us explicitly that he would be surprised if they were NOT a genuine match, and that we therefore can conclude that he believes that Toppy was the Dorset Street witness

But that is NOT WHAT HE SAID IN HIS ORIGINAL LETTER.

If he upgraded to expressing a belief that "Toppy was the Dorset Street witness", he drastically altered his view, effectively cancelling them both out. If you really didn't want us to stop questioning Leander's varying opinions, you'd be well advised to stop referencing his highly questionable later comments, since they contain an entirely different meaning to anything he said previously.

My, it IS interesting how many different scenarios you guys can come up with to try and invalidate and discredit the worth of the arguably best and most detailed investigation we have of the signatures!

Oh, and now you really are getting desperate. The above distinction clearly goes to Sue Iremonger, who personally examined the signatures after volunteering her professional services. She didn't think they matched.