Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[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

[Ben]

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

[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?

[Sam Flynn]

Is Sue Iremonger genuinely "world renowned"?

Serious question.

[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.

[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

[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

[Crystal]

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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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