Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

David says:

"Should we maintain that Leander never said so ?
Knappast !"

Not sure what you are getting at, but it seems somewhat unconnected to the core issues. Pardon my French.

Fisherman

Hi Fish,

I'm sorry to see you don't appreciate my first steps in Swedish.
Then, without Swedish, i'm getting at the fact that Ben quoted F. Leander's words, and that can hardly be denied.

Amitiés,
David

[Ben]

That's better, Fish. More clarity.

He spoke of the details, and he said that the general traits of style and skill matched, toghether with a number of letters and not together with some others. But he was not as outspoken as he was in post two.

But then he mentioned the various differences that militated "against" the similarities, ultimately concluding that the differences weren't sufficient to rule Toppy out as the witness. A view with which I would heartily concur, since it's obvious that Toppy isn't an impossible Hutch, however unlikely I believe the proposal to be.

He remains steadfast at the two points:
1. The signatures may be a match
2. That is because they are obviously alike

See, again, you're trying to a put a pro-Toppy slant on what was obviously an inconclusive, lukewarm response to the suggestion that Toppy matched the witness. He doesn't say they're obviously alike in his first post. He said the possibility couldn't be ruled out. If he later upgraded to "obviously alike", I'm decidedly unimpressed by his radical about-turn.

I´m sure that David and Crystal will catch on! Three pretty parrots in a tree - that´s a sight for sore eyes!

You're more than welcome to make disparaing comments to me, Fisherman. It's nothing new, and it's water off a duck's back. I'd appreciate it, though, if you'd refrain from any further rude insinuations as to the motivations behind David and Crystal offering their views. You're starting to become a little hysterical now, which isn't particularly helpful to your cause.

Leander suddenly seemed to give my preferred wiew of the issue. Bloody annoying, is it not?

Nah, it's more suspicious than annoying.

Again, you claim that Leander made a comment in his first letter when a close inspection of the letter reveals that no such comment was made. I point this out, and you retaliate by wheeling on an alleged "next post" from leander where, all of a sudden, he's saying all the things that you erroneously claimed were in his first letter!

But I´m fine with "many" too - though he really should be spanked officially for changing his mind so drastically - it´s like comparing a hedghog to a...well, a hedgehog

Actually, it's more like comparing a hedgehog to a tuba, because "many" or "numerous" reasons were not mentioned in his inconvenient first post.

Where she worked, which were her more known cases, what education does she have and so on - since you lean heavily on her, you would know, yes? No?

If you wish to doubt Iremonger's credentials, you're welcome to do so. I'm not sure what I'm really supposed to do (care, perhaps?), or why you think your doubt should have an impact, but your biggest clue lies in the fact that Messrs Begg, Fido and Hinton were all in communication with her, and Martin Fido in particular was fulsome in praise of her abilities. Of course, if you want to argue that the gentleman in question were duped...?

Cannot be ruled out SINCE THERE IS AN obvious likeness. Ingenious, huh?

No, just tortured English, since "cannot be ruled out" does not mean "obvious likeness".

That is ... CORRECT! Pity, though, that I never said so - what I said was that he had access to more material than Iremonger did.

Um, no.

Iremonger examined the originals.

Leander offered his "spontaneous reaction" to some computer images, and couldn't offer his "full expert opinion" for that reason.

I´m the one who signs off with "looking for the truth". If anything, I´m hellbent on doing that.

Go and look for it then, instead of going round in endless repetetive circles with me.

[Sam Flynn]

Oh, and besides a bad temper, I have expert opinion in the form of Sue Ireminger that has actually examined the original documents on my side.

...did she, Ben?

I was under the impression that this had not yet been confirmed.

[Ben]

I don't want to go over old ground, Gareth, but I genuinely don't believe that any other explanation can be considered remotely realistic. I'd agree, though, that confirmation would be welcome for completion's sake.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I don't want to go over old ground, Gareth, but I genuinely don't believe that any other explanation can be considered remotely realistic.

The possibility that she looked at photocopies, scans, or even faxes is hardly "remote", Ben. Not that I think it makes a ha'porth of difference for the purpose of signature comparison. To paraphrase Basil Fawlty, all this stuff about originals being significantly better in this context is a "load of tommy-rot".

I'd agree, though, that confirmation would be welcome for completion's sake.

Splendid - but I think it's rather more a case of confirmation being welcome for the sake of accuracy.

[Ben]

It's extremely remote, I'm afraid, Gareth.

Document examiners study the originals wherever possible, and in this case, it was eminently possible to study them. Since she specifically volunteed her professional services, we can be reasonably certain that she examined the originals. Crystal has explained why analysis of the originals is infinitely preferable to copies, and our Swedish chum Leander is clearly of the same opinion, which he "strongly" underscores.

Best regards,
Ben

[Crystal]

I think it may have been Malcolm who observed that this thread had become too personal. I'm inclined to agree. I can't speak for others, nor would I try. However, I will say this: Fisherman, I have no wish to fight with you, albeit that I disagree with your stance in this instance. I don't take it personally and neither should you.

I would ask you please, to refrain from asserting my view in a misrepresentative manner. I have repeated it, consistently, several times now, which ought to be sufficient for all but the most limited of understanding.

I would also request that you do not make insulting and baseless assertions about the motivation and independence of my view in future. It is unecessary and unworthy.

You would have more credence here if you stopped implicating others in your ongoing feud with Ben.

I don't think serious debate is the place for personal attack: and besides, it undermines the validity of your argument.

[Romford Rose]

Hiya!

Yeah, I now, said I wasn't gonna do this, but well, what the hell? I can't help it!

Man, you lot go on! You boys gotta have one hell of a load of stamina to get off on this all day long, for like, months! YOu should get out more! Meet some girls!

But serious, though, What are you all on?

Yeah, them signatures could match, or maybe they don't - and you care - why?

Like, what'll it prove at the end of the day?

You aren't gonna know who Jack was, right? You want to know if this dude was a Plumber? Get a life!

It only makes sense if you think this dude was the killer, and where's your cue for that, then? Don't make sense to me.

Go on then, explain - I'm all ears!

Yeah, and I said hello to you all somewhere else but I can't find it now. Say hello back then!

Cheers!

Rose x

[Romford Rose]

Yeah, and another thing - Crystal Tips, whatever you call yourself - get on with it if you're doing it, cos all I can see it you talking about it, yeah?

Put your money where your mouth is, girl1

No offence, like.

Rose x

[Crystal]

Hey, Rose!

Rose

None Taken. Hello, and welcome to the thread from Hell.

I'm curious - did you seriously spend the time reading all this posturing rubbish?

I'm truly impressed if you did. I wouldn't have the patience.

I'm not having so much to do with this thread now, it's reached it's limit as far as I see - read back a few pages and you'll notice that.

But I'm sure the other combatants in this debate will have plenty to say in response to your lovely first post here.

See you around on the boards, Rose, and Welcome

Crystal Tips.

[Fisherman]

David writes:

"I'm sorry to see you don't appreciate my first steps in Swedish."

Oh, but I do - if everybody knew Swedish, a mistake or two would have been avoided on this thread.

The best,
Fisherman

[Romford Rose]

Posturing Rubbish, Love? Get a load of that! You including yourself in there then?

Only having a laugh Crystal Tips. Sure you right - all your mates on here can give me the low down - oh yeah!

See you on the boards too, and cheers for the welcome CT

Rose x

[The Good Michael]

Rose,

Good luck. It's hell in here. If you need a guide, I've been through the first several levels. I stopped when I got to the wrathful. I can take you that far, but after that, you'll need one of dwellers therein. You can tell who they are. They have long posts with sleep-inducing qualities.

Cheers,

Mike

[DVV]

Hi Fish,

thanks to your translation (and to the original in which we've all spotted the famous "knappast"), we have no problem with Frank leander.
He has observed matching and mismatching letters, said Toppy could hardly be ruled out, and that he couldn't provide us with a full expert opinion, since he didn't examine the original documents.

Now, let's wait... We'll have Crystal opinion soon, and perhaps, some day, we'll get the full report of Sue Iremonger.
For the time being, until new evidences, until new expert opinions, it would be sweet if we don't hear "case closed!" everytime - it's clearly not.

How would ripperology be considered if we all proclaim Hutch to be Toppy because our own eyes tell us so, though experts disagree ?

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Romford Rose]

Hello mIKE Mate! Yeah, tell us more1 And yeah, between you an me, I know who your on about...