A coincedence

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"The major problem with your 'surmise', Mike, is that Fisherman has consistently denigrated the analysis conducted by Sue Iremonger. Given his clear mistrust of her competency, therefore, why would he have trusted her conclusions relating to Badham?"

That calls for some clarification, Garry. What I have said - and what I will keep saying - is that it is regretful that I cannot find any form of substantiation that can allow me to assess her work. And since I cannot do this, I would be a fool to comment on her competence, would I not? For all I know, she could be the best in the business - or she could be the worst. Or somewhere inbetween.

I would like to see EXACTLY what she examined and in what shape it was before her eyes, just as I would like to know EXACTLY what she said about it and EXACTLY what led her to a negative verdict.

This, I think, is a very legitimate request. Until I see that material, I remain at the exact same stage of knowledge about the quality of Iremongers work - utterly unenlightened.

The best, Garry!
Fisherman

[The Good Michael]

Garry,

I agree, though the denigration of her work is a recent occurence. That doesn't excuse it, of course, but there has been deterioration as of late. In the beginning, I don't believe there was denigration. There was a desire to know what was said, and she had no published record that we knew of. I understand what you are saying, however, and I assure you that it is an obstacle for me as well.

Cheers,

Mike

[Garry Wroe]

The major problem with your 'surmise', Mike, is that Fisherman has consistently denigrated the analysis conducted by Sue Iremonger. Given his clear mistrust of her competency, therefore, why would he have trusted her conclusions relating to Badham?

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

It isn't surprising that the few most vocal Toppyites would pat eachother on the back and provide a ringing endorsement for even the most ludicrous of decisions, but this one is simply ridiculous even by those standards. It is completely irresponsible to withhold signatures when we know full well, or at least we should, that document examiners specifically request that they be supplied with as much evidence of the same handwriting wherever it may be available. They should have been provided in the context of the original document, they should have included the horizontal lines beneath them, and they should all have been provided.

Even if you were filling to defer to Iremonger's observations that signature one may have been written by Badham, that was absolutely no excuse for providing signature #2. You wouldn't have had anything to lose by including signature #1 either, since any non-match assessment from Leander could have been used, if necessary, to bolster Iremonger's conclusion that it wasn't written by the witness.

Fisherman and I (and others) were completely horrified that people could look at the signatures and say that they more more dissimilar than not

But we know your horror is completely irrational because the only expert who has ever conducted a full analysis have arrived at the opinion that the signatures didn't match. You have no sound basis for your "horror", especially if you've admitted to using Iremonger's views to dictate the material supplied to Leander.

The intentions behind the arrangement of the material sent to Leander may not have been intentionally "nefarious", but it was a very poor decision all the same.

[The Good Michael]

You are referring to signatures? One thought is that in teh early stages of this process, Iremonger and others (don't make me trawl) suggested that only one signature was Hutchinsons, or at most two. Sgt Badham was believed to have made the others. There is no withholding of information done, I'm afraid. It was an attempt to give Leander what we (many of us) believed was the one signature that was surely Hutchinson's. Some of us thought the others were similar, but we deferred to Iremonger's expertise about Badham. Regardless, the idea was to keep it simple for Leander as it was a favor. I'm sure Fish just wanted to have the answer yeah or nay without dredging up Iremonger's suggestions which would have complicated things, and may have caused Leander to shy away. This is all my surmise on it, but I assure you there was no intention on Fisherman's part to do something nefarious. No way. Had it been me, I would have done the same, and later, I would have passed on all the census writings as well.
Had I realized that the Badham thing wasn't a done deal, I would have asked Leander if he wanted to see those signatures as well, and I would have explained why they were omitted in the first place (per Iremonger's initial thoughts). Nothing was done by Fisherman to mislead. Fisherman and I (and others) were completely horrified that people could look at the signatures and say that they more more dissimilar than not. And to combine that with refutation of everything else, shows that one camp is either insane or lying, and it isn't mine.
Fisherman was acting with alacrity and integrity to save the vanishing elephant.

Mike

[Ben]

True, and just like his father, he was a laborer first, and then a plumber.

Possibly, Mike. George Sr. was labouring at the very age that plumbing apprenticeships were first issued - age 14. He couldn't possibly have been a fully qualified plumber at that age, but that would have changed once the apprenticeship had terminated. Could Toppy have laboured in his early teens pre-apprenticeship like his father? Not impossible, I guess. It would depend on his schooling.

if we were around at the time, ie, actually in 1888, or when Topping was relating to his experiences in company, during the 20s/30s

My guess, Richard, is that if we go back in time to the Toppy family in the 20s or 30s, and mentioned Jack the Ripper to any of them, nobody would have chimed in about any nonsensical Churchill sighting or seeing MJK or being paid silly sums. It was just an ugly blot on the history of London, and since mum and dad were alive at the time, they would have read about it etc.

[babybird67]

this bit Mike

Some people even think selecting only the evidence that supports a theory for analysis is scientific

I just wondered why you think it is all right to de-select bits of evidence that dont match up to a pre-conceived theory, and totally with-hold those bits of evidence from scientific analysis...


and we are the mad camp???

[The Good Michael]

The other half of the sentence? I thought it was clearly regarding the same group as the second half.

Mike

[babybird67]

Lord knows I've tried on these threads. They keep marching on, eyes heavenward, brains disengaged.

Mike

selective quoting? Care for an opinion on the other half of my sentence?


Anyway, dont be too hard on yourself...you succeeded long enough to enjoy a brief sojourn on a cloud with the rest of us...those of us, that is, that have no need to turn our "eyes heavenward", as we are already in heaven as it is.

[The Good Michael]

...still, you can't enlighten those led by blind faith, can you?

Lord knows I've tried on these threads. They keep marching on, eyes heavenward, brains disengaged.

Mike

[babybird67]

hmmmmm

I agree Richard. Once a seed is planted, and a bit of moisture is added, it usually grows. Look at Creationism now, especially in America. People think it's scientific.

Cheers,

Mike

Some people even think selecting only the evidence that supports a theory for analysis is scientific...still, you can't enlighten those led by blind faith, can you?

[The Good Michael]

I agree Richard. Once a seed is planted, and a bit of moisture is added, it usually grows. Look at Creationism now, especially in America. People think it's scientific.

Cheers,

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Mike,
The whole charade with Hutchinson, would proberly make more sense , if we were around at the time, ie, actually in 1888, or when Topping was relating to his experiences in company, during the 20s/30s.
Many members have a fixed opinion of Hutchinson, based on Bob Hintons 'From Hell', and see more sinister motives, when nothing could be futher from the truth [ in my opinion] .
Richard.

[The Good Michael]

True, and just like his father, he was a laborer first, and then a plumber. Imagine the secrets he discovered doing a bit of drywall or some painting. Plenty of unfortunates to uncover (as it were) I'd guess.

Mike

[richardnunweek]

Hello Mike,
Of course thats it...either that or Topping was Jack The Ripper' just think of all the houses he visited in his years of plumbing/ estimating, what a choice of victims he could have had?.
Richard.