Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Crystal]

Hey Jen!

Where are my spurious arguments then? Oh, please don't leave them out for the sake of friendship my dear!

Kisses!

C

[Fisherman]

Crystal writes:

"'Terminally Dim'

Just thought I'd say that.

Let's have it again.

'terminally dim'

Notice I don't need to shout.

Shhhhhh......"

Havenīt you got any arguments, Crystal? Are insults all you can come up with? Then why donīt you dub me ugly and fat while you are at it? And a liar, as you have hinted at before? There is so much that you could achieve on this line - and so very little on the true issue.

I really think you made a wise choice.

Fisherman

[Ben]

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

He didn't, initially.

He said the possibility couldn't be ruled out, and if he since upgraded that view to the point of insinuating that he'd be "surprised" if Toppy wasn't the witness, then he's contradicting himself to an extent that obliges us to revise how seriously we take this particular expert. You really haven't portrayed him in the best possible light. I wasn't calling him a buffoon, you'll notice. I only observed that he is being depicted as one by you. If you'd only let his initial observations stand, un-fiddled with....

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".

I don't disagree with that. I disagree with the erroenous slant you've placed on it.

And the fact that we have signatures that match pretty well moves it even further away from any giggles, Ben

But they don't match "very well", as most of the people worth listening to have stated.

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

Exactly - why would he have altered his initial stance to that extent?

I don't know. I have my suspicions, but it stinks like a mealy bottom-feeding tench.

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

This, too, is almost antithetical to what he said in his initial post. He gradually upgraded his views. They became more Toppy-endorsing as time went on, and I find that deeply disturbing.

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

Nope, he didn't say any such thing. He said that the differences weighed against the likenesses, but that they were insufficient to "rule him out". That cannot possibly be construed as arguing that Toppy as the witness is "probable". So if Toppy became "probable" later on, that means he must either have radically altered his perspective or used hideously inapplicable terminology. On both counts, there is cause for alarm.

Matters little, since Leander has been perfectly clear on the matter. It needs no further discussion

Don't keep discussing it then.

I'm going to keep disagreeing for as long as you bring up the subject, so it would be futile now for you to keep mentioning it if you think it doesn't need "further discussion", unless you wanted to win a war of repetition - which you won't.

Your saying "but that is not how I use the expression"

It's not how anyone uses the expression, since it's meaning is completely unambiguous. It you cannot rule something out, you cannot be dismiss it as impossible. That is what it means - factually speaking.

...but he said that he would be surprised if it was not so.

In his radical about-turn - yes.

[babybird67]

fisherman

the x, y, z is just an illustration of what he said, it doesnt refer to specific things; i think it has been pointed out that Leander's meanings have had slightly different emphases in the various postings you have made.

You are missing the point of my posting, which is to point out to you that whereas you dismiss Iremonger because she may not have looked at the originals, you are quite happy to rely on someone who we KNOW for a FACT has NOT looked at the originals.

If you do not find such a position contradictory, there is no more i can say.

[Crystal]

Laughing

Did you see your name? I didn't.

And I didn't EVER say you were a liar. Stop suggesting that I did.

I haven't run out of arguments. You, on the other hand, don't really seem to have had any to begin with.

Had enough? Or shall we have more?

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"Had enough?"

Yes - and Leander and the "Science and justice" investigation were the ones who provided it.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

Hey Jen!

Where are my spurious arguments then? Oh, please don't leave them out for the sake of friendship my dear!

Kisses!

C

Shhhhhhh you thought-corrupting minx, or i shall be thought as under your spell!

[Crystal]

Too late for that, Baby...

You know how it goes!

[Crystal]

No. They didn't.

[babybird67]

i completely deny knowledge of you.

I will deny that i know you three times before the **** crows!

now i need to get this mud washed off me somehow, before it incriminates me...

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"i think it has been pointed out that Leander's meanings have had slightly different emphases"

Exactly - the same meaning but more emphasis! Iīm glad you caught on.

"You are missing the point of my posting, which is to point out to you that whereas you dismiss Iremonger because she may not have looked at the originals, you are quite happy to rely on someone who we KNOW for a FACT has NOT looked at the originals.
If you do not find such a position contradictory, there is no more i can say."

I am saying that she may even have looked at signatures that were never even written by Toppy! When Sam filed for the signatures and payed a healthy amount of money, he got a transscription; somebody else had filled the names in. If that was what Iremonger held in her hands, she could have been way off the mark!
So there are MANY possibilities involved here, and I am saying something quite different from what you suppose, Iīm afraid!
Also, I believe that we have to take the "Science and justice" investigation into account. If photocopies can be used to gain a 99,1 per cent accuracy, then that heavily militates against the notion that the originals are so much better. There is only a gap of 0,9 per cent left to enhance the picture!

And when (if) you compare the wrong signatures altogether, well ...

Fisherman

[Crystal]

Denial? Surely Not....

i completely deny knowledge of you.

I will deny that i know you three times before the **** crows!

now i need to get this mud washed off me somehow, before it incriminates me...

Go on then. You're in the right place for it!

Kisses! xx

[Fisherman]

Are we going to enter on a "No, they didnīt" - "Yes, they did" trail here, Crystal?

I think not. The material speaks for itself, and I have every faith that anybody with an unbiased mind will see that.

Fisherman

[Crystal]

If the material speaks for itself, how is it that you feel the need to constantly and repetitively speak for it?

Not to mention, for other posters on this thread as well?

Hmm?

[Ben]

I am saying that she may even have looked at signatures that were never even written by Toppy!

What the blazes are you going on about now?

Sue Iremonger is a professional document examiner. She examined the three statement signatures against the marriage certificate signature of George William Topping Hutchinson. The notion that a professional document examiner accidentally compared the signatures appended to the statement with a piece of paper filled out by a modern registrar is an outrageously insulting piece of desperate nonsense. That can safely be dismissed as impossible, since document examiners know full well where to obtain the original documents.

Also, I believe that we have to take the "Science and justice" investigation into account. If photocopies can be used to gain a 99,1 per cent accuracy, then that heavily militates against the notion that the originals are so much better

But your mate Leander says the originals are so much better, and that it would be impossible for him to arrive at a full expert opinion without them. Or are you asserting that your expert is wrong now?