A coincedence

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Martin's positive endorsement of Iremonger's character and abilities were interesting to say the least, but I'm much more interested in his observations insofar as they relate to what she actually did, not how well she did it. That's the crucial distinction for me.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Not wholly immaterial, Gareth. Martin Fido's commentary on Sue Iremomger's professionalism and findings could only have been buttressed by a close familiarity with her methods and the conclusions she arrived at as a consequence.

Martin might be closely familiar with what she did, Ben, but his not being a "world-renowned expert" in forensic document examination makes his endorsement of the merits of what he saw somewhat - ahem! - academic.

I have been mightily impressed by Prof Walter Lewin's lectures in physics on the internet, but - whilst I am scientifically literate - my knowledge of physics extends only to "A" Level standard. Even so, I'm quite happy to give Prof Lewin's online lectures my ringing endorsement... but please don't assume that my opinion on everything that he did entitles me to endorse everything that he said.

[Ben]

That's immaterial if the process being witnessed was beyond the area of expertise of the witnesses themselves, though, Ben.

Not wholly immaterial, Gareth. Martin Fido's commentary on Sue Iremomger's professionalism and findings could only have been buttressed by a close familiarity with her methods and the conclusions she arrived at as a consequence. Such comments should put paid, for example, to some of the more outlandish and unacceptable conclusions as to the nature of the material Iremonger had available to work with, unless anyone wants to argue that Fido himself would have confused a modern piece of a photocopied printer-regurgitated paper with an original document from 1898.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"That's immaterial if the process being witnessed was beyond the area of expertise of the witnesses themselves, though, Ben. If Martin, Bob or Stephen Hawking witnessed a witch doctor examining chicken entrails, they might be impressed by the spectacle, but it wouldn't lend the process any more weight."

Ben knows this, Sam - that is why he tells me that I would have no use in seeing Iremongers investigation, since I would not understand anything of it anyway.
Right, Ben?

The best,
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

Except inasmuch as they'd be more familiar with the nature of the material being scrutinized, and how the expert or practitioner has gone about assessing it.

That's immaterial if the process being witnessed was beyond the area of expertise of the witnesses themselves, though, Ben. If Martin, Bob or Stephen Hawking witnessed a witch doctor examining chicken entrails, they might be impressed by the spectacle, but it wouldn't lend the process any more weight.

[babybird67]

Nah, I'm just a down-to-earth bloke who, like the average mucker, is perfectly content to have his dressing room painted in salmon pink and their champagne served by buxom blondes from a shimmering white gondola. Those good ol' bare necessities!

Damn! I'm a brunette...off to get some hair dye...

Buxom though

hehe

nice to see you guys exchanging friendly posts again...that was my greatest regret over the Hutch issue. I hope it lasts.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

I wouldn't have thought that merely "being around at the time" lends weight to one's opinions on anything, Ben.

Except inasmuch as they'd be more familiar with the nature of the material being scrutinized, and how the expert or practitioner has gone about assessing it.

Luvvie Alert!!!

Nah, I'm just a down-to-earth bloke who, like the average mucker, is perfectly content to have his dressing room painted in salmon pink and their champagne served by buxom blondes from a shimmering white gondola. Those good ol' bare necessities!

Cheers,
Ben

P.S. I wish!

[Sam Flynn]

Martin's views warrant strong consideration chiefly because he was "around" at the time of the examination and was familiar with its key particulars. Bob Hinton is a magistrate, I believe, and he described Sue Iremonger as a "world renowned document examiner".

I wouldn't have thought that merely "being around at the time" lends weight to one's opinions on anything, Ben. And with due deference to Bob, I have to say that Sue Iremonger doesn't appear to be all that "world renowned" outside of our little community. I'm sure she's very good at what she does, though.

Incidentally, Stephen Hawking came to see my play in Cambridge, and although he has no pretensions to being any sort of barometer of theatrical merit, I was particularly chuffed by his endorsement: "It - was - fun".

Luvvie Alert!!! (That's just jealousy on my part )

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

Martin's views warrant strong consideration chiefly because he was "around" at the time of the examination and was familiar with its key particulars. Bob Hinton is a magistrate, I believe, and he described Sue Iremonger as a "world renowned document examiner".

Incidentally, Stephen Hawking came to see my play in Cambridge, and although he has no pretensions to being any sort of barometer of theatrical merit, I was particularly chuffed by his endorsement: "It - was - fun".

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I think you'll find that Martin's comments were chiefly in reference to the high esteem with which he regarded her abilities, which should speak volumes for his estimation of her reputation.

Much as I cherish Martin's considerable abilities, Ben, he is first and foremost a literary historian and lecturer. On that basis, I would afford no greater weight to his views on Sue Iremonger's work than I would to Stephen Hawking's endorsement of the poetry of WB Yeats.

[Ben]

And I am afraid that there is no way that I can take anything for granted when it comes to what she saw, Ben. I have already stated, eons ago, that the REASONABLE thing to surmise is that she saw the right materal

That's precisely what I mean, Fisherman.

Such is the overwhelming probability that she carried out her analysis precisely as several reputable sources stated she carried out her analysis that any alternative must be considered incredibly outlandish. That's not to say it wouldn't be useful and interesting to have access to her written report. If that's all you're arguing, you'll find no objection from me.

I hold no grudge whatsoever against Sue Iremonger. Martin Fido liked her, obviously, and since he did, she must at least be a nice lady. That, I´m afraid, does not tell us anything about her reputation

I think you'll find that Martin's comments were chiefly in reference to the high esteem with which he regarded her abilities, which should speak volumes for his estimation of her reputation. You may or may not know that Iremonger was the document examiner whose participation was requested in the Maybrick diary debacle. While various graphologists were claiming that the personality and psychology match, Sue Iremonger herself busied herself with the task of actually comparing the handwriting, which she judged to be a mismatch with the real James' penmanship.

My respect for Leander consists of accepting his perfeclty clear stance of the Toppy issue as presented in April, which was cemented by the manual which he was kind enough to provide you with, and which you were kind enough to share with us.

I say that if everybody had agreed to believe, not that Toppy has been identified as the Dorset Street witness, but that Leander said and meant that he believed that the signatures he compared were quite probably a match, and that he was of the same opinion from the outset, then we would hopefully not have this inflamed situation.

If Leander had stated from the outset, or at the very least, conveyed the impression, that he considered the match "probable", I wouldn't have had the slightest problem. I'd still argue that his view is offset by Iremonger's contrasting view, and I'd still observe that Leander's material could only have been meagre, which was not ostensibly the case with the Iremonger comparison. However, I cannot responsibly claim that I believe that Leander has been consistent all along when I know that such a claim can't possibly be true.

I have learnt the hard way that it takes two to tango

And boy, can I hypnotise certain people into tangoing with me.

Seriously though, I'm all for decency and non-antagonism. I'm very much of the do-as-you-would-be-done-by, be-done-by-as-you-did school of thought, and if people are respectful to me, I'll cheerfully follow suit, which is why your last two posts here were so much easier on the eye than your recent Leander thread contribution, for example.

All the best,
Ben

[Fisherman]

"As with Mike, thanks for your response. Why don't we just set the Iremonger issue aside, start treating one another with a little more courtesy, and work to the principle that, just because someone disagrees with us, it doesn't automatically make them an enemy?

What do you say?"

What do I say? I say that I HAVE set the Iremonger issue aside for a long time now, for reasons outlined in my post to Ben five minutes ago.

I say that if everybody had agreed to believe, not that Toppy has been identified as the Dorset Street witness, but that Leander said and meant that he believed that the signatures he compared were quite probably a match, and that he was of the same opinion from the outset, then we would hopefully not have this inflamed situation. It is a matter od simple decency, nothing else.

And, finally, I say that anybody who suggest that we apply that decency, and who likewise suggests that we try and settle issues without making enemies, is a very wise man indeed. Just as there never was a good war, there never was a bad truce. But being married to a woman who very much enjoys dancing, I have learnt the hard way that it takes two to tango.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"But you'd be a fool to "comment on her competence" even if you were in full possession of her written analysis, Fisherman, since you don't have anything like the necessary expertise to "assess" her "assessment"."

Fool or not, ben; it would help tremendeously to actually hold her investigation in my hands. And I had no trouble at all understanding leander, so you may be underestimating me. Ever so slightly, of course.

And I am afraid that there is no way that I can take anything for granted when it comes to what she saw, Ben. I have already stated, eons ago, that the REASONABLE thing to surmise is that she saw the right materal, but another reasonable thing to surmise is that people do not go around cutting women´s necks and eviscerating them.

I hold no grudge whatsoever against Sue Iremonger. Martin Fido liked her, obviously, and since he did, she must at least be a nice lady. That, I´m afraid, does not tell us anything about her reputation, and even if it did, we KNOW that even the highest reputed people make the occasional mistake.

In other words, I do not - and I never have - question Sue Iremongers abilities. I do, however, very strongly question the relevance of a material that I cannot touch, see and read! Surely, Ben, that must be understandable! And it must also be likewise understandable that I find it very, very, very, very hard to accept that you ask for complete obedience when it comes to hailing a documentation that none of us have seen, whereas you find it completely legitimate to lead on that Frank Leander would state untrue things in order to fob me off!
That is a whole different leagu you ar playing in there, Ben! And if any respect is ever to arise again inbetween us, that approach to discerning researchers work must go away. Far, far away.

You are an intelligent man, and (sometimes deplorably) resourceful. I entered Casebook under the impression that you were one of the best guides around to the Ripper case; I have said that before and I do it again. I would have liked it very much to stay that way, but this has not been the case, and I am having serious trouble to see that the mess we are trodding around in can be cleared up. Patched up helpfully, perhaps, I don´t know. You tell me, Ben - you tell me...

The best,
Fisherman

[Garry Wroe]

Hello Mike.

Many thanks for your response. Hopefully, if a few more posters follow your lead, we can get back to some balanced, adult debate in the not-too-distant future.

Hi Fish.

As with Mike, thanks for your response. Why don't we just set the Iremonger issue aside, start treating one another with a little more courtesy, and work to the principle that, just because someone disagrees with us, it doesn't automatically make them an enemy?

What do you say?

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

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?

But you'd be a fool to "comment on her competence" even if you were in full possession of her written analysis, Fisherman, since you don't have anything like the necessary expertise to "assess" her "assessment". That much should be obvious. It ought really to be enough that several highly reputable sources have taken the trouble to share their experiences of the Iremonger analysis with us, most of them coming courtesy of Jonathan Menges' useful inquiries, from which we learn that they attested to the fact that she compared the marriage certificate signature with all three statement signatures.

You're very welcome to be "unenlightened" by that if you're insistent upon it, just as long as you refrain from some of the more outlandish assumptions as to what material she looked at.

Best regards,
Ben