The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

Well, no prizes for guessing who else didn't fancy embracing John's sensible philosophy.

As has been remarked before, Ben, what Iremonger has or has not is a totally open question

And it has a totally open answer. Sue Iremonger compared the three statement signatures from 1888 with Toppy's 1898 marriage certificate signature and came to the conclusion that they didn't match, as attested to by Paul Begg, Martin Fido and others. Of course, it shouldn't surprise anyone that you'd dismiss inconvenient evidence as "useless", but she most assuredly has the edge over Leander, having analysed the originals. As such, she has everything to do with the final verdict, and your insistence to the contrary is worthless, quite frankly.

Oh, and we live in a globalized world; Iremongers being British (Rule Britannia, Britannia rule the waves, Britons never, never never ...Oh, crap!) is something only an intellectual isolationist would stress.

I stressed her Britishness because another expert in this particular field has observed that document examiners tend to take on comparison tasks with scripts in their own language, the reasons for which should be pretty obvious.

Tallying signatures always spoke FOR a match, not against it.

Too bad they don't tally.

No, that would be the fact, apparently bolstered by TWO of Hu... , sorry Toppys sons, that Toppy spoke of being the witness.

Not much use, though, if one of the sons claimed that his father saw Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper and was paid silly sums to keep quiet about it.

how could I possibly follow you?

Easily, by the looks of things.

The more pressing question is how can possibly resist following me?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"No, I did not bring up that particular “Stride battle”

Same Ben, two pages back:

"...Announced Fisherman, with the same delusions of "rightness" that exposed him as the fussy zealot with an obsession with being "right" way back on the Stride threads."

Ooopla, Ben...! But you were of course referring to ANOTHER Stride thread...?

"I was referring to other aspects of the Stride murder in which you were expressed a futile and typically verbose determination to have your perceived “rightness” acknowledged by all."

Aaah! There it is! Now, letīs hear about it; what was the topic? Where and in what respect was I wrong? Frankly, Ben, to start blabbering about me being wrong without offering any information about how and why is not a very decent thing to do. So letīs hear it!

"A cutaway only becomes a cutaway in the conventional sense, as described in the dictionary, if it has tails at the rear. They needn’t have been elaborate “swallow tails” or the type of long frock coat that might adorn Fagin or the Artful Dodger, but in the absence of any form of tails or rear skirting, it’s not a true cutaway as described by the dictionary."

That amounts to shere thickness and nothing else, Ben. Canīt you fathom that the whole issue never is and never was about what it says in your dictionary?? What it is about is what kind of garment would be described as a cutaway by the Eastenders of 1888! And the most common cutaway in that context most emphaticaaly did NOT have tails of any sort or kind. It was a cheap, ordinary, unelaborate JACKET, lacking the lower parts on both sides of itīs front. They had been "cut away", see? And that is the ONLY thing you need to call a jacket a cutaway. It remains exactly the same thing today - if you look for cutaways in the fashion catalogues, you will find jackets with tails and you will find shortish jacket with NO tails. The reason they are being called cutaways is NOT that they have tails or that they lack them but ought to have had them - it is that the lower parts on the front have been you-know-what.

Two posts back, you wrote that I never forced you to realize that there were tailless cutaways. This you denied, which is why I dug up these illuminating posts by your hand:

”Oh, what nonsense! I've seen them wearing normal jackets (quite commonly the "loose-fitting" variety) which are not "cutaways". If they don't have tails, they are most emphatically not cutaways. Please don't tell me what I have or haven't seen. If William Marshall had seen a man in a jacket with nothing resembling a tail at the rear, he would not have called it a cutaway.”
”No tails = no cutaway. Fact.”
(Post 351, ”Whatīs the compelling feature” thread)

So, no tails = no cutaway at this stage. Which was why I stated that I would keep sending pictures that proved you wrong until you saw sense. To this you answered:

”Don't you dare threaten me, you hateful subhuman sickening disgrace.
If you pathetically imagine you can "bombard" me, keep blustering away, and I'll "bombard" you with greater force as I always do. You are not pinning a "cutaway" on Schwartz's man with no evidence. Even if an expert turned up and told me that a panda costume counts as a cutaway, you still don't get to place a cutaway on the suspect because the evidence is 100% not there. Bad luck for you. Rotton beastly luck.
If a cutaway doesn't have tails, then a Victorian man observing it at a distance in darkended conditions will not refer to it as a cutaway.” (Post 361, ”Whatīs the compelling feature thread”)

...and, of course, after having realized that I was correct in saying that a cutaway need not have tails, you also realized that you were wrong, and so you poted this:

”It could have lacked tails, Fish, I grant ye” (Post 415, ”Whatīs the compelling feature” thread)

Today, you state that I never forced you to admit anything at all. But that was not true either, was it? ”No tails = no cutaway. Fact” ended up in ”It could have lacked tails, I grant ye”. And that was good – being able to see sense is always a good thing. Iīm sure you can do it again.

”as for technical elements that weren’t mentioned by Leander – try size”

That, Ben, sorts under ”proportions” - you know: larger-smaller and so on.

”But that isn’t what “amplitude” means.

Amplitude does not mean “general overall impression”.

Ehrm...no. And nobody suggested that either, come to think of it.

”I need to know what “amplitude” actually means”

Mmm – you do!

”I’m confident that people will be a lot less forgiving this time ”

What ”people”?

”Where have I ever argued that Leander “should not be respected”?”

That would be when you claimed that he would rather fob people off than act as a discerning expert.

”It really is incredibly silly to ask why anyone should “invest” anything in what I say when we know full well that people like you are investing it with inordinate amounts of time and bandwidth.”

Thatīs much the same answer you gave before, and it is not the answer to my question: Why would anybody want to choose to believe your unsubstantiated ”truth” over Leanders own, substantiated words? Answer the question, please! If you think I am buying any of it, you have misread me.


“And it will follow you all the way to perditions flames, Ben, to lend a little something from that high-strung vocabulary of yours.” (My words)
You follow me all the time, everywhere. It’s what obsessed people do, but at least you’re admitting to it now.(Your words)

Uuuh, sorry, Ben – it said ”it”, not ”I”. I was pointing out that your own behaviour on this issue will follow you to the bonfire. Me, I wonīt.

”Unless you’ve noticed that people can’t discuss ripperology with me without eating cereal grass, I’m pretty sure you meant “wry” smile.”

Correct. Thanks, Ben!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"Well, no prizes for guessing who else didn't fancy embracing John's sensible philosophy."

...you?

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

"it shouldn't surprise anyone that you'd dismiss inconvenient evidence as "useless""

I dismiss unexisting evidence as useless, Ben. You should too; itīs by far the healthiest attitude. I have stated before that Iremongers assessment may well be the eigth wonder of the world - but as long as we donīt have it, we donīt know.

Whan we get it, it may prove useful.
As long as we donīt have it - itīs useless.

"I stressed her Britishness because another expert in this particular field has observed that document examiners tend to take on comparison tasks with scripts in their own language, the reasons for which should be pretty obvious."

What if Hutch was a Swede, masquerading? Just joking, he was not - he was Toppy, remember? Really, Ben, just as Sue iremonger would be able to spot deviances between Swedish signatures, Frank Leander would be able to spot deviances in British ditto. In Sweden, around 20 per cent of the population have a foreign background. Your reasoning is just as foreign, thus.

"The more pressing question is how can possibly resist following me?"

Just as easy, Ben: Stop lying.

Fisherman

[Ben]

He's still on the bloody cutaways!

We're on a Hutchinson/handwriting thread, and you've decided you want to revitalise a long-buried row about Victorian fashion trends? Why? Because you would rather detrail a thread and alienate everyone else if it means pursuing your cherished goal of "proving Ben" wrong. That's obvious.

What a dangerously obsessed pathological lunatic you continue to reveal yourself to be.

Seriously.

How about the "life's too short" philosophy, Fisherman? You must be getting on a bit. Is this really how you want to spend your time? I tell you what, if I ever find myself setting down with a wife and kids, would somebody please keel haul and skin me if I'm still cyber ping-ponging with some obstinate ill-informed ninny on a serial killer message board at that stage? I cannot conceive of anything more painfully depressing.

Again, you said you weren't going to discuss this any further on this thread.

But here you are.

Whoever would have guessed?

Ooopla, Ben...! But you were of course referring to ANOTHER Stride thread...?

Ooopla, Fish...! (?) Yes, I was. The one entitled "Kidney - for and against". If anyone's bored enough, I'd encourage them to have a read through. They'll find your same hectoring and insipid posting style.

Aaah! There it is! Now, letīs hear about it; what was the topic? Where and in what respect was I wrong?

Specifically, you're incessant bleating about having forced some sort of concession about me as though it's your cherished stalkerish goal, which of course it is. You're also pretty foolish to argue that a common cutaway has no tails, since we know full well that a cutaway or morning coat is a type of tail coat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tailcoat

Look. Read. Digest.

That's not just "what it says in the dictionary". It's common knowledge. That's what a cutaway is, and a tailess cutaway is a variation, which is what I "granted" you, and which you're now pretending was some sort of admission that you were right, which is you either deluding yourself or lying, and possibly both. There is no evidence that the most "common" form of cutaway was anything other than what men and women have understood by the term since the early 19th Century, and that holds true whether they lived in the East End of 1888 of Belgravia in 1812.

A dock labourer looking at a tailless jacket from a distance in darkness would almost certainly have said "jacket" in the absence of a tail.

The reason they are being called cutaways is NOT that they have tails or that they lack them but ought to have had them - it is that the lower parts on the front have been you-know-what.

No.

No.

No.

A cutaway is another name for a morning coat, and a morning coat is a type of tailcoat, and a tailcoat - here's the amazing bit - is so called because it has a tail at the rear. Here's the definition again from the above link:

A morning coat is a single-breasted coat, the front parts usually meeting at one button in the middle, and curving away gradually into a pair of tails behind

End of.

You embarrassed yourself again.

And pretending that I was forced to admit you were right makes you a vainglorious, shabby liar.

That, Ben, sorts under ”proportions” - you know: larger-smaller and so on.

And proportions don't come under "technical"?

I think you're making it up as you go along.

Why would anybody want to choose to believe your unsubstantiated ”truth” over Leanders own, substantiated words? Ansewr the question, please!

They can believe the neutrality of his original stance if they want to. I'm not stopping them.

I was pointing out that your own behaviour on this issue will follow you to the bonfire. Me, I wonīt.

Yes, you will.

Why keep lying about this over and over again?

You WILL follow me.

Watch...

[Ben]

I dismiss unexisting evidence as useless, Ben. You should too; itīs by far the healthiest attitude. I have stated before that Iremongers assessment may well be the eigth wonder of the world - but as long as we donīt have it, we donīt know.

So it is of no significance whatsoever to you that Messrs. Fido, Begg and others have all attested to the fact that Sue Iremonger compared the three statement signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signanture and came to the conclusion they didn't match? Well, to each his own, but your dismissal can be "dismissed" in turn as worthless and unreasonable.

"What if Hutch was a Swede, masquerading? Just joking, he was not - he was Toppy, remember?"

No, I think a Swede masquarading is marginally more likely.

Really, Ben, just as Sue iremonger would be able to spot deviances between Swedish signatures, Frank Leander would be able to spot deviances in British ditto.

I'm not saying they wouldn't. It has simply been observed by people with more experience in this topic that us that native document examiners are preferred over foreign ones for what strike me as patently obvious reasons.

Just as easy, Ben: Stop lying.

Don't get me wrong. I don't want you to stop following me around. You're my obedient lap-dog, and I'd worry if you ever stopped sniffing round my ankles.

Here, boy!

[Victor]

Vic asks:

"You're not talking Balls again are you Fish?"

Not really, no.

The best, Vic!
Fisherman

Hi Fish,

Oh, I thought that's what you thought Ben had had cut away.

I'm with Richard "not proven" (slightly more positive than "not disproven")

KR,
Vic.

[caz]

...the fact that Sue Iremonger compared the three statement signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signanture and came to the conclusion they didn't match...

But Ben, Sue Iremonger didn't come to a firm conclusion that the witness wasn't Toppy, did she? She just said that in her opinion the two signatures she considered to be by the witness, and the single verified Toppy example, were unlikely to be by the same hand.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Yes, Caz. That's correct.

[Fisherman]

Still here, Ben? Remember how much you appraised Johns suggestion!

"We're on a Hutchinson/handwriting thread, and you've decided you want to revitalise a long-bured row about Victorian fashion trends? Why?"

Because you, Ben, started to speak about perceived shortcomings on my behalf in that department, and because you misrepresented what really went down.

"Yes, I was. The one entitled "Kidney - for and against". If anyone's bored enough, I'd encourage them to have a read through"

Yes, yes - but where specifically in that thread was I wrong? Demonstrably so?

"Specifically, you're incessant bleating about having forced some sort of concession about me"

But that has nothing to do with the Kidney thread, Ben - that reamins the "Whatīs the compelling feature" thread. You are messing things up again.

"You're also pretty foolish to argue that a common cutaway has no tails, since we know full well that a cutaway or morning coat is a type of tail coat."

Me oh my! Okay, okay, letīs get this straightened out:

Now, I am not saying that a COMMON cutaway always lack tails. The COMMON cutaway of the early nineteenth century HAD tails, but the COMMON cutaway on the COMMON Eastender in 1888 COMMONLY did NOT have tails. Moreover, that specific jacket had never read your dictionary, and so it could not possibly be blamed for not seeing the relevance of your argument.

"Here's the definition again from the above link"

Wikipedia, Ben? Really?

"a tailcoat - here's the amazing bit - is so called because it has a tail at the rear."

Mmmm - and a cutaway - hereīs amazing bit number two - is so called because it has had parts of the front cut away.

"And proportions don't come under "technical"?

No?

"I think you're making it up as you go along."

No.

"They can believe the neutrality of his original stance if they want to. I'm not stopping them."

Wrong answer again. Why WOULD anybody favour your unsubstantiated "truth" over Leanders own, substantiated assertion? That was the question.

"Yes, you will.
Why keep lying about this over and over again?
You WILL follow me."

You are deluding yourself, Ben. I will keep pointing you out for what you are, just as I will defend Leanders right not to be smeared and maliciously misinterpreted. But that is an overgoing stage.

Where you are going is something quite different. It is not towards "perditions flames" if that is what you believe. More likely, you will travel over sloping ground to a place where discerning Ripperologists will have nothing to do with you. The process is underway, and you started it yourself.

Of course, I may well be for some other reason regarded by those self same Ripperologists as something the cat dragged in. It lies in the future, and such things we cannot tell. Therefore, I may of course also end up on Ripperologyīs scrap heap. But it wonīt happen as a result of the Leander debate, Ben! And it will not involve any process of conscious "following" - but I cannot swear myself free from the possibility that I might just enjoy your presence at the same place.
I am but human - in spite of your conviction to the contrary.

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben, once more:

"So it is of no significance whatsoever to you that Messrs. Fido, Begg and others have all attested to the fact that Sue Iremonger compared the three statement signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signanture and came to the conclusion they didn't match? Well, to each his own, but your dismissal can be "dismissed" in turn as worthless and unreasonable."

It is of the significance I have already acknowledged - It goes to point to the fact that apparently Iremonger opted for a "No, sir!" But it is of no FURTHER significance. It does not prove that the originals were used - though it is credible that they were. And it certainly does not go to bolster Iremongers claim in any fashion. Thtīs why it remains useless up to the point that changes. If ever.

"No, I think a Swede masquarading is marginally more likely."

There you go; you CAN retort with some elegance and finesse! Bravo!

"I'd worry if you ever stopped sniffing round my ankles."

Havenīt found them ankles yet, Ben - your balls keep getting in the way...

Fisherman

[caz]

I may have read you wrong, of course…

Thanks for conceding that much.

…your embarrassing and cloying ignorance is annoying at the very least…

Really? I’m surprised. Why should you be embarrassed and annoyed by anyone’s ignorance but your own?

Ditch the long posts and combative tone next time – it doesn’t suit you…

It’s the one language I thought you would understand, being so fluent in it yourself.

Try making yourself a little clearer next time rather than chastising anyone who expresses bemusement or even umbrage at your often illogical “objections” or for failing to make sense of your confusing posts.

‘Anyone’? I suppose that must literally mean 'you', because you are the only one failing to make sense of my posts on the subject. Why don’t you try to elevate yourself to everyone else’s level of comprehension so you can actually understand what you are responding to before you respond to me next time?

Take the issue of the writer’s familiarity for example: Yes, it would be reasonable to argue that a person named “George” might just abbreviate to “Geo” on occasions, but it is wholly unreasonable to argue that an individual who signed the same police document three times would alter his signature on the second occasion just for the hell of it.

Ah, I think you misunderstand the rules of evidence too. If you want to speculate that George/Geo was not the name of the witness, you have to come up with wholly reasonable supporting arguments. For starters, why do you think the witness would have written two versions of a false name? Just for the hell of it? Because he thought it would appear more natural and spontaneous (as it seems to have appeared to everyone concerned at the time)? Or was it a silly mistake and yet another red flag that everyone has missed except Super Ben? Did Sue Iremonger say that the two versions looked forced or unnatural? Surely a rather significant factor in any handwriting comparison.

If the doctor considered it likely that I had gangrene in my leg, he wouldn’t observe that gangrene “cannot be ruled out” because the latter expression does not mean “likely” unless the speaker/writer is resorting to a peculiar brand of sarcasm. If he considered it likely, he’d observe that there was a reasonable chance that I had gangrene, or synonyms thereof.

So you seriously think that if a doctor warns a patient: “I’m afraid the possibility of (insert horrid condition here) cannot be ruled out and more tests will need to be done” he’s resorting to sarcasm if he actually thinks it likely but doesn’t want to scare the poor sod half to death - or give him false hope - until he can be absolutely sure one way or t’other? You have got to be kidding.

It was only in response to the fourth of firth email to Leander that the sentiments took on a sudden and marked Toppy-endorsing slant that was conspicuously absent from the first two of three replies. I think this was an attempt to appease a nuisance, personally, and again, if you think that smacks of “unprofessional conduct”, it’s about time you joined us on our planet, since we know it happens all the time there.

Of course it would be unprofessional conduct to revise one’s opinion in a certain direction to ‘appease a nuisance’. Just imagine if a doctor got so fed up with Mrs Sue Lightly telephoning every day for advice and reassurance that he suddenly went from: “it could go either way, so let’s wait and see, to: “don’t worry, it will probably be good news”.

If you consider for one moment that this constituted better material than that supplied to Iremonger, you’re just hopeless.

If? Don’t you know what I considered from what I wrote? I have always said that comparing originals side by side is the very best way. So you’re the one who’s just hopeless, and by your own admission. All I said was that you were quick to accept Iremonger’s verdict, which was based on a comparison with only one verified Toppy signature, but got your knickers in a right old twist because Leander was given only one witness signature. Either one signature can be sufficient to reach a useful verdict or it can’t. Neither expert has had access to all existing examples, but not through any fault of their own, and the reasons are quite irrelevant. If you are claiming that special expertise is required to reach a valid conclusion, you need written reports by two or more professional document examiners, based on all the original examples currently known to exist, or you’re just going round in ever decreasing circles trying to convince people of a mismatch. You don’t even have one such report yet.

Look, you’re in general agreement with me that Iremonger’s judgment has the edge over Leander’s on current evidence. Since your personal issues with me preclude you from acknowledging as much in a simple and straightforward fashion, you’re compelled to make the concession only after a volley of irrational criticism of both my reasoning and character, and that makes you look petty and immature. The idea that you hate my reasoning but accidentally came to the same conclusion just fails to convince, and until you desist from this, then whatever you may have of intelligence frankly deserves to be insulted.

Iremonger only has the edge in my view because I am presuming that the differences appeared more significant to her when comparing the original documents side by side. I keep telling you that ‘personal’ issues don’t come into it. We are all judged here by the quality of what we write - there is nothing else to judge. If you think your writing and debating skills are so far above criticism that it must be personal when anyone begs to differ, then that’s your problem. No wonder you get so touchy and think your ‘character’ is under attack from ‘irrational’ criticism. Get over yourself and learn to take criticism for what it is - just that - instead of feeling mortally wounded every time and lashing out in imagined pain.

Once again, I haven’t come to any conclusion yet on Toppy, but if I do, and it matches yours, it will be down to much clearer evidence emerging, and it won't be remotely influenced by your own reasoning, which so often stinks. Case in point, you reason that if any two people independently come to the same conclusion, they are likely to have used the same reasoning to get there. So if you reason that the sky is blue because God chose a colour that would compliment your eyes, I'm likely to share your reasoning. Think again sunshine. Do try to apply some common sense to your thinking.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Vic writes:

"I'm with Richard "not proven" (slightly more positive than "not disproven")"

And thatīs just fine, Vic! It IS "not proven" if we listen to Leander too. But it is a bloody good bet...

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"Sue Iremonger didn't come to a firm conclusion that the witness wasn't Toppy, did she? She just said that in her opinion the two signatures she considered to be by the witness, and the single verified Toppy example, were unlikely to be by the same hand."

...and this is claimed by what source? Who? Is there more? I have - I think - somewhere read that she said that "on balance" she opted against, but I can find no reliable source anywhere. Which is the annoying thing with Iremonger!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Still here, Ben? Remember how much you appraised Johns suggestion!

Oh, I'll always be here, Fisherman.

I'm not the one who keeps pretending to bow out.

Because you, Ben, started to speak about perceived shortcomings on my behalf in that department, and because you misrepresented what really went down.

No, I wasn't. What's the matter with you? I wasn't talking about cutaways. I wasn't thinking about that ludicrous discussion. I was thinking of another thread entirely, and no, I wasn't accusing you of being wrong since I didn't care enough about the topic to warrant any in-depth investigation of all the ins and outs of each argument. What I found deplorable is your approach to debate, which generally consists of singling out an "opponent" for "battle", blitzposting them, and demanding that they admit defeat in the face of your awesome "rightness" when it's perfectly clear that the other poster doesn't consider you remotely right.

The COMMON cutaway of the early nineteenth century HAD tails, but the COMMON cutaway on the COMMON Eastender in 1888 COMMONLY did NOT have tails.

You never provided a single scrap of credible evidence for this, and as such, I think we'll listen to what everyone else says - dictionaries, encyclopedias, all sorts - that describe the cutaway as a type of tailcoat, and a tailcoat has tails, astonishingly enough.

Mmmm - and a cutaway - hereīs amazing bit number two - is so called because it has had parts of the front cut away.

But it also has a tail.

Hedgehogs are so called because they live in hedges. By your fascinating logic, we should start calling them "pricklies" or "spikies".

Why WOULD anybody favour your unsubstantiated "truth" over Leanders own, substantiated assertion? That was the question.

They can believe the neutrality of his original stance if they want to. I'm not stopping them.

I will keep pointing you out for what you are, just as I will defend Leanders right not to be smeared and maliciously misinterpreted.

Oh, music to my ears!

You've finally had the gonads to admit to your intention to follow me all over a serial killer message board like a crazed mutt on heat, as opposed to continually lying about leaving the thread. Champagne on ice for the stalker.