Hutch in the 1911 Census?

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"even if you truly believe that Leander hinted that he thought Toppy and Hutch might very well match"

I donīt believe that at all, Babybird - 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.

"he stressed himself that his view was not to be taken as a professional report or opinion which he stressed to you that he could not give without seeing the original documents.
In light of the above, you really need to stop using Leander as if he has submitted a professional opinion on the matter, because he has not.
He has kindly given you an off the record personal, note, he himself says, NOT professional opinion.
In such a case Leander's opinion should carry no more weight than mine, yours, Ben's, David's etc etc."

Well, you see, Baybird, when Leander said that his opinion was not a full professional opinion, I donīt 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.

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 canīt help but to wonder what will come next!

Fisherman

[Crystal]

Total, utter twaddle, Fisherman.

Almost entirely, from beginning to end. Well done! Barely a single rational word!

Good Effort.

But no.

Leander hasn't endorsed Toppy. And no matter HOW many times you say it is so, it will make not a whit of difference. He won't say it. He can't say it. He's a professional man, not some irrational blathering buffoon with Toppy-Dementia.

Ben hasn't slandered you.
BB hasn't lied about you.
You, on the other hand, have lied about them, haven't you?

See Fish-when I come back to the thread after I say I'll leave, I actually have something to say.

And here it is:

You want to fight?

Bring it on.

[Ben]

.Nope, he did not. And the question does ONLY relate to the exact thing Leander is saying - that he would be surprised if Toppy was not the signer.

Yes, he did.

He radically altered his stance in a suspiciously timely fashion. Whenever you tried to put words in his mouth, I referred you to the original translation where - by quoting his words verbatim - it was demonstrated that the words you put in his mouth weren't there. Then, all of a suspicious sudden, those very words suddenly appeared, and this time they're coming from Leander.

His alleged about-turn is downright suspicious.

I think we safely can conclude that this is not only his current thinking, but also his overall ditto, since he from the outset put the match on the positive end of the scale, as later proven by his wording on what "cannot be ruled out" stands for.

No.

Wrong.

Crystal's translation proves conclusively that he never said anything about Toppy belonging at the positive end of the scale, since "cannot be ruled out" or "hardly be excluded as possible" have clear an unambiguous meanings - meanings which don't ever mean probable. If there ARE people mangling those phrases to mean "probable" they are certainly not people worth taking seriously.

Believe me, Ben - it is VERY apt.

No, Fisherman. It is not.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"Well, no you're not, Fisherman.

You've just proved you're not, because you're responding to me."

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. 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!
Churchill responded to Hitler, but that did not mean that he was not sick of the guy, did it?

"The fact that she provided the translation a few posts thereafter is proof, as far as I'm concerned"

As nice a pointer as any to what you are willing to regard as proof, Ben. Thanks for providing that!

"If he really wrote all that you claimed he wrote, then he hasn't been consistent without"

Throughout, Ben. Throughout. And the proof is there, since he has explained his wording in later posts - the ones you, dislike, you know!
Interestingly, you tell me on the one hand that Leander has provided me with exactly what I want (you thought that "fishy", remember) - and on the other that Leander does not think the match a good one.
In order to do this, you must of course look away from the passages that DON`T suit you. But, hey, what the heck?

"Up for continutd hostilities if you are, Fisherman.
You who takes me so desperately seriously."

Oh, Iīll stick around and make sure that you never get away with your scam. I could have thought of better things to do, but there you are. Whenever you pop up, I feel pretty certain that the need for a good scrubbing and cleaning up will pop up alongside you, and I will do my fair share, for certain!

Now, go do something else, Ben - my main interest right now is to see what David has to say in answer to my questions.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

"Total, utter twaddle, Fisherman."

Were you not putting me on "Ignore", Crystal? Or was that something else you just light-heartedly made up?

Leander hasn't endorsed Toppy.

Well, saying that he would be surprised if Toppy was not the signer would go at least some way to prove that, would it not?

"Ben hasn't slandered you.
BB hasn't lied about you.
You, on the other hand, have lied about them, haven't you?"

Prove it - or discuss it with the administrators, Crystal. Those are your choices.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"He radically altered his stance in a suspiciously timely fashion."

No, Ben. What he did was to strengthen and clarify what he had said. But I can understand that you thought it untimely - but then again, what time would be good for you to be shown that your pet theory is in all probability wrong.
I canīt think of such a time - can you?

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.

[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.
Iīm 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

[Crystal]

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.

[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, Iīll 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.

[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.

[Fisherman]

Crystal:

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

Aha, Crystal! So THAT is why you think Iīve 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

[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 donīt 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 canīt 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.

[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.

[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 donīt think you may be overestimating your own good self just a little here, Ben?
I seem to remenber that youīve 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!
Donīt 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!