Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[DVV]

How can they be, when examiners can pin 99,1 per cent using copies?
Fisherman

...in which case Frank Leander, if expert and knowlegeable (as he surely is), would have written:
"The scanned images I examined are definitely good enough for me to assert that..."
But he said exactly the contrary.
Indeed, a bit of doubt seems a (scientific) must at this stage.

Amitiés mon cher,
David

[Fisherman]

Ben again:

"He didn't say that either.

His stance was neutral"

It was not, as we learnt when he told us that "cannot be ruled out" is an expression that belongs to the positive side of the scale.
How many times do I need to say this, Ben? How many?

"it must be regarded as a near-certainty"

Ben, I think that when even you have to admit that we are dealing with a near-certainty and NOT a certainty, we must open up for the possibility that your guess is wrong. My own stance is that I do not think she examined the right signatures - the likeness inbetween them swears against it, as far as I´m concerned.
And so we are left with uncertainty. It is good that we both acknowledge this, albeit to differing degrees.

"It's a positive comment, but only just, and it certainly doesn't mean "probably"."

The positive end of the scale involves the opportunities when the examiner thinks it probable that the signature belongs to the man he is investigating, Ben. The negative side of the scale is reserved for the ones who he deems improbable.
And we know that Leander says that he would be surprised if it was not a match. That definitely means probable and nothing else.
The fact that he puts it at the lower end of the scale ,would mean that he would not get the biggest surprise of his life if he was wrong - there will be such cases that subsequentially fall, just as there will be cases when hits on the negative scale have to be moved up when further material is added.
But as it stands, Leander sees a probable hit.

"I'll hold you to that, but you won't resist."

I won´t - not as long as you don´t get it, Ben.

"You can use the lowest form of positive observation without intending that positive observation to mean "probably", because it usually doesn't."

ALL hits on the positive scale are probable matches. Some of them are MORE probale than others, but they are ALL probable. What Leander lacks to be able to either move the match further up - or down - on the scale is more evidence. His guess as it stands is that evidence added will confirm his suspicion that we have the right man. It is all there in his posts, Ben.

"This is the problem with picking and choosing the bits you like and discarding the rest. It immediately announces the agenda."

Aha! You mean like picking Leander´s posts number one and three and disregarding numbers two and four? Sort of?

Fisherman

[Crystal]

OH yes...

there is that.

The facts are simple, even if you are, to borrow Ben's lovely phrase - 'terminally dim'.

Leander hasn't said there's a match

Iremonger hasn't said there's a match

Nobody in the profession has YET said there's a match.

Iremonger said NO

Leander said MAYBE

(Which also means MAYBE NOT)

I say - POSSIBLE BUT UNCLEAR (similar to what Leander says)

What I say is less emphatic than what Iremonger said.

IN FACT

BUT THEN....

She did examine the originals.

AND HOW DO I KNOW THIS?

I don't.

Not 100%

BUT

I'm pretty certain

BECAUSE

of what she said about Badham...

GO FIGURE.

[Fisherman]

David:

"in which case Frank Leander, if expert and knowlegeable (as he surely is), would have written:
"The scanned images I examined are definitely good enough for me to assert that..."
But he said exactly the contrary."

...which tallies with what the investigators from "Science and justice" tell us - that there is an overfaith inbetween the experts when it comes to the originals.
Anyhow, the result of the investigation speaks for itself - 99,1 per cent is not a number you can argue with, is it, David?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crustal:

"Leander said MAYBE"

NO! Leander said that it cannot be ruled out. And he added that this expression tells us that he places the hit on the positive end of the scale! And he ALSO added that he would be surprised if further evidence proved that it was a mismatch. That is effectively NOT standing inbetween maybe and maybe not. That is standing on the PROBABLE side - but offering the insight that further evidence and a more thorough investigation could alter that stance. And that means that we DO have somebody from the profession telling us that we have a match on the positive side of the scale.
I really can´t see why you would deny this - and how you are going to go about it intellectually. It is not the best of matches he has seen - but that stems mainly from the fact that he needs more material, and not from a bad likeness. He says that AS IT STANDS he expects forthcoming evidence to confirm his suspicion, and that it would surprise him if this was not the case.

Since you have him on the phone, you could ask him, could you not, Crystal. I really can´t see why you don´t, if you refrain from it. Not that I need any further clarification at all - but it seems you may?

Fisherman

[Crystal]

NO!

'Cannot be ruled out' means 'Maybe' Fisherman.

It doesn't mean 'Yes'.

And no matter how many times you say it does, you can't make it mean the same.

[Ben]

It was not, as we learnt when he told us that "cannot be ruled out" is an expression that belongs to the positive side of the scale.

It certainly doesn't belong on the "probable" side of the scale, though.

If you rule something out, that's negative, but suggesting that something cannot be ruled out can never be construed as a declaration that a match is "probable".

How many times do I need to say this, Ben? How many?

As many as you like. Whenever you say it, I'll be straight back to disagree with you, and with more relentless a determination to do so that you can ever have for saying it over and over again. Remember what we discussed about which debating tactics were demonstrably flawed against me? Because the "I'll keep saying it and try to wear you down" approach clearly isn't working for you.

My own stance is that I do not think she examined the right signatures - the likeness inbetween them swears against it, as far as I´m concerned

But that's giggle-stiflingly preposterous, isn't it?

You've invested so much unwarranted authority in your own opinion that you've now decided that it's so obvious that you must be right than any expert who disasgrees with you must have been looking at different signatures. Never mind how ludicrous the suggestion is. By all means highlight the distinction between "certainty" and "near certainty", but don't, for pity's sake, conjur up the most outlandish scenario imaginable for explaining away Iremonger's inconveniently anti-Toppy stance.

The positive end of the scale involves the opportunities when the examiner thinks it probable that the signature belongs to the man he is investigating, Ben.

But positive in this context meant "cannot be ruled out", which doesn't mean "probable." It is only positive in the sense that it cannot be ruled out as impossible. That's still a positive observation, but barely so.

And we know that Leander says that he would be surprised if it was not a match.

In loopily stark contrast to what he claimed earlier, and because of that stark contrast, I'm afraid any worth in his initial observations has been markedly reduced. This wouldn't have happened if you didn't keep subliminally encouraging him to upgrade his stance to make it appear more Toppy-endorsing than it was originally. If, all of a sudden, he's declaring the match probable in spite of his earlier comments, that is deeply suspicious.

I won´t - not as long as you don´t get it, Ben.

Then don't tell me you don't wish to quibble on the subject any further, for feck's sake. I will never agree with the disgracefully flawed view that "cannot be ruled out" can ever be used as a synonym for "probable". Keep bringing the subject up, and keep repeating yourself if you think it'll make an impact. You know full well in won't, and that you're only obsessed with continuing a posting war. Fine by me, I can go around in circles forever if necessary.

ALL hits on the positive scale are probable matches. Some of them are MORE probale than others, but they are ALL probable.

He never once used the word probable.

He said "cannot be ruled out", which never means probable.

[Crystal]

The Birth of The Thread

I was just fondly reviewing the thread, seeing as it recently had a birthday, and I noticed a couple of first posts...

Ben - on page 1 - yes, that early! - said:

It might be worth running this one past a document examiner or two...

#8

Fisherman - not joining the fray until page 12 - said:

As has been pointed out, the Topping signature offers a few elements that are not totally consistent with all of the other three signatures, but that is of very little importance to me, since the overall impression remains one of consistency.

It seems to me that one could see where we were going with this, even then.

In summary -

Ben wants independent corroboration.

Fisherman doesn't care - since his own opinion is enough for him.

No?

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"Cannot be ruled out' means 'Maybe' Fisherman.
It doesn't mean 'Yes'.
And no matter how many times you say it does, you can't make it mean the same"

You are right, Crystal - I can´t. But Leander can! And he has done it too. He has told us that "cannot be ruled out" traditionally is the exact and institutionalized expression used for a hit on the lowest, most careful positive side of the scale. Just go back and you will find the post.

That means that he has from the outset placed the hit exactly at the same spot. Furtehrmore, he elaborates on the fact that the reason he does not place it further up the yes scale is that he needs more evidence, and he tells us that he thinks that such evidence will confirm his suspicion of a hit when/if it arrives.

So - you - are - wrong. Wrong, Crystal. Just ask the man, for goodness sake!

Fisherman

[Ben]

But Leander can! And he has done it too. He has told us that "cannot be ruled out" traditionally is the exact and institutionalized expression used for a hit on the lowest, most careful positive side of the scale

It's the most positive thing he can say without ruling it out completely.

Would that be considered "positive" in isolation, let alone probable?

Absolutely not.

Note that Crystal, who also has appreciable experience in this particular field, wouldn't contemplate using "cannot be ruled out" as a synonym for "probable". She knows better from experience. Anyone who does use them as interchangable is hardly worth taking seriously as an expert in anything more complex than written communication.

Just ask the man, for goodness sake!

Good idea. "Hey Leander, are you really the hapless, indecisive buffoon you're being made out to be? Phew! Didn't think you were."

[Fisherman]

"It certainly doesn't belong on the "probable" side of the scale, though."

Then why do you think Leander tells us that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match? ALL hits on the positive side are probable matches, Ben - that is why they are on the positive side.

"Whenever you say it, I'll be straight back to disagree with you,"

Nope. You disagree with Leanders assertion that there is a scale on which the lowest, most careful hit on the positive side is expressed "cannot be ruled out". And how you can do this, I fail to see. Maybe you used to work with Leander, and know the premises and tools better than him?

"that's giggle-stiflingly preposterous, isn't it?"

With respect, no. It is not. And the fact that we have signatures that match pretty well moves it even further away from any giggles, Ben. That urges us to give the matter some real hard afterthought.

"But positive in this context meant "cannot be ruled out", which doesn't mean "probable." It is only positive in the sense that it cannot be ruled out as impossible. That's still a positive observation, but barely so."

No, my friend - that is not what Leander tells us, is it? And just as I have already asked you, why would he, if this was correct, state that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match? Does that point us to a stance of his where he has not made his mind up whether it is a probale match or not? Does his telling us that he believes that forthcoming evidence will ultiomately confirm his suspicions tell us that he has not made his mind up?
Of course not. ALL the hits on the positive side of the scale are probable hits. That is why Leander would be surprised to see them disproven.

"In loopily stark contrast to what he claimed earlier, and because of that stark contrast, I'm afraid any worth in his initial observations has been markedly reduced."

Once again, Ben, there are no contrasts at all. He did say from the outset that we had a hit on the positive side of the sclae - he just phrsed it that we had a hit that "cannot be ruled out". After that, he tells us that "cannot be ruled out" is a pointer to a hit on the positive side of the scale.

Where are the contrasts, Ben? Where?

"I will never agree with the disgracefully flawed view that "cannot be ruled out" can ever be used as a synonym for "probable"."

Matters little, since Leander has been perfectly clear on the matter. It needs no further discussion. We are not dealing with simple semantics here, we are dealing with an institutionalized phrasing, meant to stand for certain qualities. The agreement with these qualities will differ from case to case, but the value of the phrase itself will always hold the same message. What you learnt in school - just like what I learnt in scholl - does not apply here. Your saying "but that is not how I use the expression" is extremely and totally futile.

"He never once used the word probable"

...but he said that he would be surprised if it was not so. And to make that stand for an undecided verdict, you will have to go through some serious semantic trouble. And I will not be surprised if you fail.
That means that I think it probable that you will do exactly that. Just to clarify.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben, tireless:

"Note that Crystal, who also has appreciable experience in this particular field, wouldn't contemplate using "cannot be ruled out" as a synonym for "probable". She knows better from experience."

I fail to see that she works alongside Leander, using the terminology that is used at his department. I will lend one of your favourites, Ben - it is situation specific. How Crystal, you, me or Kermit the frog use the expression is totally irrelevant. You really ought to understand that.

"Hey Leander, are you really the hapless, indecisive buffoon you're being made out to be? Phew! Didn't think you were."

Nice approach to a man that has been totally consistent throughout, Ben - really, really nice!

Fisherman

[Crystal]

'Terminally Dim'

Just thought I'd say that.

Let's have it again.

'terminally dim'

Notice I don't need to shout.

Shhhhhh......

[babybird67]

i find the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in some of the arguments...

being presented here absolutely hilarious...a few examples:

no expert is needed as we all have eyes to see (pre Leander)

oh, one expert has said that it's probably a match (not what was said anyway, but even if said is totally irrelevant if top argument holds any water or significance);

another,

we can't accept Iremonger because we DONT KNOW if she used the originals

Leander has said x, y, z and he is an expert in the field (Who we KNOW for a fact didnt use originals yet this doesn't apparently debar him from having his opinion referenced as it appears to debar Iremonger...contrary position? i think so)

(neither expert should be referred to anyway by people who think a pair of eyes qualifies anyone to pass opinion, so Leander vs either Iremonger or Crystal is a straw argument)

i am sure everyone here is usually rational in thought and seeks to look as objectively as possible at items of evidence; that perception is subjective however is demonstrated by people with eyes coming to different conclusions about the possibility or otherwise of a match of sigs...in what other field of Ripperology or any serious study of a subject, would any one of us accept something as proven, "because i say so" ? I would argue none.

Look at all the threads and articles on here: Klosowski is the Ripper because all the evidence is there, can't you see it? I see it so i say it must be true.

This could be replicated in every thread and the whole of humanity descend into a black hole of uncertainty and subjectivity...how does such a position advance knowledge? Plain and simple, it doesn't.

Something being true or proven "because i say so" is the least convincing argument for anything being true or proven.

The only sensible position to have on this sig matching is "identity possible but as yet unproven". To state anything stronger than "there is a possibility" is to fail to argue logically and with a basis on evidence, and i dont think any of us would ever want that to become the standard for anything being proven or true.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"Leander has said x, y, z"

Please elaborate, BB - when has he contradicted himself?

Fisherman