The Leander Analysis

[Victor]

Right. So nobody can quote Leander whatsoever? Because none of us understand Swedish.

Hi Dave,
Wrong. Everyone can freely quote whomever they like, it's just that if you are going to quote them "verbatim" then you must do that. Verbatim means word-for-word or identical.

You may note that myself, and other posters, have been quoting Leander "verbatim" for many months now, on the basis that, none of us being able to speak Swedish, we rely on Fish for telling us what he had said.

Only Fish has quoted Leander verbatim, you have quoted "Fish's translation of Leander" verbatim.

Those are the words Fish has attributed to Leander. Those are the words Fish states Leander has used.

No they are not, they are Fish's English translation of Leander. Are you starting to get this yet, Dave?

If it makes you feel any better i shall ask Fish for the word which he translated into "meagre"...

You don't have to ask again, he already stated it earlier in this thread.

See above. If you are going to take every English translation of Leander's comments and divest it of any meaning, what is the point of even bothering to contribute to the discussion?

Wrong, I'm insisiting that if you use the word "verbatim" then you actually quote someone word-for-word.

Therefore, translation aside, the quotation of not only what Leander said, but what he meant, "meagre", was verbatim.

Absolutely and utterly wrong.

To try to argue otherwise is to take this whole discussion down into the realms of utter farce. And to argue otherwise means anyone other than Swedish speakers cannot refer to anything Leander said at all...is that what you want? I can assure you it isn't what Fish would want.

No to distort my argument, specifically that the word "verbatim" means "word-for-word", into something else just to create the impression of ridicule and thereby tainting the rest of my posts, is a low-down cheap dirty trick.

Nope... you are the one doing that, Dick. Hope you dont mind my nickname for you. Only fair if you have one for me, methinks. The only difference is, yours suits beautifully.

OK Dave, no problem with that, especially when Richard is my middle-name.

[Victor]

Anyone could find a reference if they realised it was an allusion; unfortunately, the way you express yourself is not particularly clear at the best of times. Why do you think some posters thought you were referring to me as a man? Because they didnt get your allusion. Neither did i. None of us wiki'ed it because nobody had a clue what you were going on about.

Hi again Dave.

Right, because you are too stupid to realise that...

And now you've turned into Papa Lazarou. Or are you his wife now, Dave?

..alludes to something else, you've decided to insult the way I express myself. Can I just ask how many other ways are there of interpreting that first sentence? What did you think I was implying that you'd turned into?

How could i identify myself as someone i have never even heard of? You can choose to insult me all you like, Dick. I know i can run rings around you and frequently do, and that's good enough for me. I can live with being alluded to as something i am not...as long as the allusion is clear.

Right, you're too stupid to look up a phrase you're not familiar with so you can coherently continue an argument, and that means you've "run rings around me".

Do you sell a dictionary where I can look up the meaning of phrases like "run rings around" that equates with what you've actually done?

Keep trying Dave.

[Fisherman]

I am starting a new thread on the "many" issue. You will find it under the Hutchinson material, and I hope that as many as possible will comment on it! I shall name it "When does may become many?"

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

If you must, but just ask the simple question and let others respond.

Don't write a 50-line post repeating the previous argument from "1911" and then ask the question.

[babybird67]

Hi again Dave.

Right, because you are too stupid to realise that...

Right. Because everyone else got the reference, right? Or are you calling Observer and AP stupid as well? Where there is multiple confusion, that usually lies with the fault of the person allegedly communciating with people. You are too stupid to express yourself clearly. I have managed to understand every other poster here, so that says something about whose "stupidity" it was, doesn't it?

..alludes to something else, you've decided to insult the way I express myself. Can I just ask how many other ways are there of interpreting that first sentence? What did you think I was implying that you'd turned into?

Haha. The irony. So, you make an obtuse allusion which is actually to insult the way I express myself, then complain when i return the favour? I really really have overestimated your intellect, and by quite a considerable amount. I must apologise to the monkeys.

I've pointed out that you confused a number of posters, Dicktor, not just me. Either we three of us are stupid and you expressed yourself perfectly, or you expressed yourself clumsily and had to clear the matter up by explaining what you meant. I think it is clear where the fault lies, Dicktor, and it aint with me.

Right, you're too stupid to look up a phrase you're not familiar with so you can coherently continue an argument, and that means you've "run rings around me".

Told you already, i'll reiterate once more for you Dicktor. Not just me. Other posters too. Nobody can look up an allusion that they are unaware is being made through the clumsy expression of it, now, can they?

Do you sell a dictionary where I can look up the meaning of phrases like "run rings around" that equates with what you've actually done?

Well, i do have a dictionary, but the monkeys are onto basic spelling now, and i don't want to disrupt their progress by sending it to you. I am sure you aren't too stupid to purchase a Dicktionary on ebay, for your personal use.

[Victor]

Right. Because everyone else got the reference, right? Or are you calling Observer and AP stupid as well? Where there is multiple confusion, that usually lies with the fault of the person allegedly communciating with people. You are too stupid to express yourself clearly. I have managed to understand every other poster here, so that says something about whose "stupidity" it was, doesn't it?

Hi Dave,
There's no indication that Observer and AP didn't get the reference.

I must apologise to the monkeys.

You do that Dave, but make sure they don't confuse you. Oh but then you can always say they expressed themselves badly.

I've pointed out that you confused a number of posters, Dicktor, not just me. Either we three of us are stupid and you expressed yourself perfectly, or you expressed yourself clumsily and had to clear the matter up by explaining what you meant. I think it is clear where the fault lies, Dicktor, and it aint with me.

No Dave, you suggested that other posters were confused as well, but haven't yet established that as fact, therefore the foundations of your rickety old shack are unstable and everything you've built on top of it comes crashing down.

Not just me. Other posters too. Nobody can look up an allusion that they are unaware is being made through the clumsy expression of it, now, can they?

Here we go again, Dave, how else could those 7 words be interpretted? And 2 of them you didn't know, so what does a sane person do...could it be look them up?

Well, i do have a dictionary, but the monkeys are onto basic spelling now, and i don't want to disrupt their progress by sending it to you. I am sure you aren't too stupid to purchase a Dicktionary on ebay, for your personal use.

I have a dictionary Dave, but I wanted one that translates those odd things you say into English.

I notice that you've avoided admitting that you got the meaning of "verbatim" wrong, twas only to be expected. Seeya later Dave.

[babybird67]

Hi Dave,
There's no indication that Observer and AP didn't get the reference.


No Dave, you suggested that other posters were confused as well, but haven't yet established that as fact, therefore the foundations of your rickety old shack are unstable and everything you've built on top of it comes crashing down.

L...ets...take....this...real....slow, Dicktor.

If people assumed from your posting that you were insinuating i was male, which they obviously did, then they couldn't possibly have got the allusion you were trying to make, which was, apparently, to a female, who was called Dave. So i think we can safely assume they were pretty confused. As was I.

Here we go again, Dave, how else could those 7 words be interpretted? And 2 of them you didn't know, so what does a sane person do...could it be look them up?

1. your allusion wasnt clear. Make it clear, people can look it up, rather than jumping to hasty conclusions such as those jumped to by Observer and AP.

2. you dont interest me enough to have been bothered to look it up, even if you had expressed yourself clearly enough for me to realise it was an allusion to something else.

I notice that you've avoided admitting that you got the meaning of "verbatim" wrong, twas only to be expected.

Nope. I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. there's only so many times you can perservere with a monkey before you write it off.


Now, can we kindly stop arguing, and return the thread to it's original purpose, which was to discuss the Leander analysis?

[Sam Flynn]

It is diminished, without question, by the fact that Leander did not have the full number of examples known to exist, particularly in respect of the Dorset Street Witness.

Not irrevocably, Jane. As I've noted elsewhere, the "meat" in all three police statement signatures is the same. Much has been made of the "Geo" on one page and the quirky "H" on another, but I don't see that as in the least bit significant. Sometimes my "G"s (which, as the first letter of my forename, is pretty "standard" from my perspective) come out entirely differently on the same page.

[Victor]

If people assumed from your posting that you were insinuating i was male, which they obviously did, then they couldn't possibly have got the allusion you were trying to make, which was, apparently, to a female, who was called Dave. So i think we can safely assume they were pretty confused. As was I.

Hi Dave,
So 3 people who might have been confused and posted without looking it up, hardly a significant number, and it says more about their thoroughness than my lack of clarity.

1. your allusion wasnt clear. Make it clear, people can look it up, rather than jumping to hasty conclusions such as those jumped to by Observer and AP.

It was clear, don't try and hide your laziness, incompetence and lack of thoroughness by lashing out.

2. you dont interest me enough to have been bothered to look it up, even if you had expressed yourself clearly enough for me to realise it was an allusion to something else.

OK, so your only interested in your side of the argument, I call that morally bankrupt.

Nope. I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. there's only so many times you can perservere with a monkey before you write it off.

Here we go again, outwitted so you turn to cheap shots. After all the crowing and self-congratulatory twaddle about running rings round me.

Now, can we kindly stop arguing, and return the thread to it's original purpose, which was to discuss the Leander analysis?

Erm...the meaning of the word "verbatim" and your stupidity for using it wrongly is highly relevent to the interpretation of the analysis. The lack of acknowledgement of your complete failure on this point is hardly unexpected though.

Much has been made of the "Geo" on one page and the quirky "H" on another, but I don't see that as in the least bit significant.

I agree, the "Geo" is such a common and traditional contraction (there's a Fishmonger on St James St, Brighton that has "Geo. Watts & Son" on it's sign - see http://www.qype.co.uk/place/307228-G...s-Son-Brighton for a picture and that's not an isolated example) that it's not significant and the embellished H on the first is a flourish entirely consistent with the "embellished" description of Astrakhan Man in the statement, and is a lot less suspicious than if the first was plain and one of the others had the flourish.

Does anyone know if the 3 signatures were done one after another at the end of the statement taking or at the start, middle and end of the session, because the latter could help explain the inconsistencies.

KR,
Vic.

[Jane Welland]

Hi Victor

As to how the signatures were signed - I don't know, but I think it's the practice today to sign the pages at the end, the presiding officer having read back the statement to the witness first.

Perhaps the statement was taken, and then Badham read back the first page, Hutchinson signed it, Badham read back the second page - etc.

Maybe that took long enough for there to have been differences - and that explains it? It could do - we have no way of knowing what the time scales were in the processes of giving and taking the statement (well, within sensible parameters)

Or maybe, as I think Garry suggested, the witness was unused to sigining that name - it being an alias - and so he wavered

I'm speculating, of course, but it's an interesting question.

jane x

[The Good Michael]

Vic,

There was some speculation that Badham signed the first page and Hutch signed the second page and then he was told to write out George on the third. Yet, no one really knows if they were signed one at a time, or all at once. I don't think it can be proven one way or another. I do agree with the Geo. thing. After many hours of questioning, he simply may have been in a hurry to sign, but was told to make the last one proper.

Cheers,

Mike

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"maybe, as I think Garry suggested, the witness was unused to sigining that name - it being an alias - and so he wavered
I'm speculating, of course, but it's an interesting question."

It is, Jane! It is a very, very interesting question! But donīt you think that the question why a man who was NOT named George Hutchinson but still signed that name, coincidentally stumbled on a handstyle that according to Leander is very much alike one of the very few, ACTUAL George Hutchinsons that were about, and who, interestingly, also had as son who claimed that his father was the man who signed the protocol - donīt you think that question is even more interesting?

How on earth did that come about, Jane? Coincidence?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that a man who tells the police that he has known a murder victim for a number of years, and lives in the area, would use an alias.

[The Good Michael]

Personally, I find it very hard to believe that a man who tells the police that he has known a murder victim for a number of years, and lives in the area, will use an alias.

Jon,

Mind-numbingly stupid if you are a murderer. It's happened before, or since, but very, very seldom with regards to the numbers of murders committed throughout history, so the odds are way against it happening.

Mike

[Jon Guy]

Indeed, Mike. Although I still believe he should be viewed with great caution, as he`s a better shot at being the Ripper than 99.9% of the folks on the Suspect list.

My suspicion is that he was doing a Violenia, and I would not be surprised if he`d spent most of Sunday and Monday hanging around with the masses outside Millers Court or Shoreditch mortuary, parting periodically to let a select few inside.