When does many become many?

[Jane Welland]

Acttually, I do have an answer...

Fisherman, and this is it.

Yes, of course, Leander was 'entitled' to express himself any way that he chose. He was never under any obligation to express himself at all, but he did, and what he said, as interpreted by yourself, was up to him.

In fact, freedom of speech applies equally to everybody in our society - and here, too. You are entitled to think what you like about Toppy, and to express that view here if you so choose.

Others are entitled to their own views, whether or not they concur with your own.

Everybody should be at liberty to express their own view on the matter without condemnataion, with the usual caveats, obviously.

A person who disagrees with you is not automatically an enemy - the exchange of ideas is the manner in which progress of thought is made - imagine if people had never disagreed with one another - who would ever have learned anything?

There is your answer.

Best wishes


Jane x

[Ben]

Fisherman,

I specifically pleaded with you not to write an unnecessarily long explanatory post on the issue, especially when you had the opportunity to provide a URL to the earlier discussion in which this was agonized over. I dearly hope this isn’t another one of your settlements again, since they generally demand that people either agree with you or embrace a position that you insist must be wrong. Terribly annoying, but par for this particular course, and since you’ve chosen to dredge up a previously disputed contention again, here goes:

“Fisherman referred to there being "numerous" or "many" explanations for the differences between the statement signatures and those of Toppy. After reminding anyone who needed reminding that the explanations for the differences were only “possible” ones (and not necessarily explanations that he felt actually DID come into play in this case), I was quick to draw attention to the fact that Leander used no such adjective. Nothing about "many", and nothing about "numerous". Back he went to Leander, who "clarified" with the following:

"It was just one of many possible explanations to the differences".

How odd that the very word that Fisherman wrongly claimed appeared in Leander's first post suddenly appeared in Leander's rather timely "second" post”

The word “Many” has an unambiguous meaning – it means “lots of” - but Leander stated that there were “many” explanations. Indeed, he listed a very small number of possible explanations to account for the differences, and never expressed the opinion that any one of those explanations actually did come into play in this case. You make the bizarre inference that his reference to “similar” things means that there were a whole myriad of differences that he mysteriously neglected to specify, thus validating the “many” reference, but a closer inspection of his words once again reveals a very different picture.

Let us firstly deal with the “similar things” observation. Well, for starters, it is important to observe that none of the cited possible explanations for the differences had any similarity with each other, and as such, it stands to reason that the other unmentioned explanations could only have mean “similar” to the last mentioned difference for the sentence to make sense, and the last mentioned difference was “function of the pen”. Now just what, one wonders, could be a “similar thing” to the “function of the pen”? Well, there are bound to be a few things, but certainly not an infinite number, and certainly not enough to validate the observation that there were “many” differences.

But, of course, I never had any desire to dredge up this nonsense again. I only do so now because Fisherman took the extraordinary decision to continue a long-buried argument by quoting a long post from yester-month. A very bad, imprudent decision if I may say so, Fish. No, there is no evidence that Leander said or meant that there were “many” explanations that could account for the Toppy/Hutch differences. Once again you’ve decided to construct your post in such a way as to ensure that those with an opposing stance to your own are portrayed in a negative light because they have a chance to arrive at any informed conclusion on the matter. A sort of “You must agree with me, because if you don’t, I’ve already made careful plans to insist that you are wrong.

[Ben]

Hi Stephen,

As far as I'm concerned, if George murdered Mary Kelly he would have to have been the stupidest murderer in the history of the world to walk into a police station and give that statement

Please don't think I'm being antagonistic or aggressive when I say this, but you'd be giving yourself a much better opportinity of disabusing yourself or such demonstrably false statements if you read up a little more on the actions known to have been resorted to by serial killers on occasions, and that includes the more organized and intelligent ones. Such research would only enrich your opinions, which you must surely agree is a good thing.

Serial killers are most emphatically not "stupid" to introduce themselves to police forces under false guises or when giving false statements.

Im just saying that regardless of who thinks he should be a suspect, now or then, there is nothing with which to support that allegation

Except for a knowledge of the Whitechapel murders and a knowledge of the tactics resorted to by known serial killers, Mike, and that should count for a great deal. None of that automatically warps hi into "Jack" of course, but he's certainly a suspect in the Whitechapel murders, and fares a good deal better than most in terms of legitimate suspicions.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

I meant:

"Once again you’ve decided to construct your post in such a way as to ensure that those with an opposing stance to your own are portrayed in a negative light before they have a chance to arrive at any informed conclusion on the matter."

[Roy Corduroy]

How odd that the very word that Fisherman wrongly claimed appeared in Leander's first post suddenly appeared in Leander's rather timely "second" post

He meandered.

Roy

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I specifically pleaded with you not to write an unnecessarily long explanatory post on the issue"

I dread to think, Ben, where we would have ended up if I was to listen to your advice. You have presented an untenable, undecent and intellectually corrupt argument on the issue of whether "five or more" could equate to "many", and so you are going to have to be faced with it.

Your argument this time goes like this:

"The word “Many” has an unambiguous meaning – it means “lots of” - but Leander stated that there were “many” explanations. Indeed, he listed a very small number of possible explanations to account for the differences, and never expressed the opinion that any one of those explanations actually did come into play in this case."

He listed, as you perfectly well know, three NAMED possibilities, and added that there may be similar things (plural) that could have played a role to. If I was to START on a list, it would read something like:

1. The leaning of the surface he wrote against
2. Possible physical restraints attaching to the writer at the time of the writing
3. Possible intoxication of some sort
4. Degree of agitation of the writer
5. Was he standing or sitting when writing
etc, etc, etc

These - if I am correct - would be some of the "similar things" Leander spoke of. Mind you, these are suggestions on my behalf, and I do not claim to be an expert, but it seems realistic enough to my eyes.

When, Ben, you say that he "never expressed the opinion that any one of those explanations actually did come into play in this case" you are making a worthless point. He said that these types of explanations were examples of what could have lain behind, and that is enough. He would many times be at a loss to decide exactly what had happened, but equally knowledgeable to see that one of many reasons could have caused the change - which is exactly what he tells us.

Like I said, I am no expert. Therefore I remain listening when it comes to what experts say. That, however, is something you do not apply. This is where you stand on the matter right now:

When I say that I need to see the Iremonger investigation to believe it, you retort:

“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".

So, since I am not a document expert, although I have read up on the subject and discussed it with my countries best known and reputed expert, I remain a fool.

But when you need to defend Martin Fidos right to have understood the same investigation, and Fido is a man who – just like me – is no document expert, but who may have read up on it – then you interestingly say:

“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”

I find this somewhat hard to reconciliate. On the other hand, I find it very telling of your methodology, Ben.

Now, who is the next fool around here? You are, Ben, of course! And why? Because you are just as badly read up on document examining as I am. That is why you humbly comment Leanders statement that the function of the pen can have an influence of the writing like this:

“Yes, this one was fairly amusing first time around, and hasn't lost its mirth value since. "Function of the pen" - as though it has more than one function besides writing. I suppose I can think of one other function that might be appropriate here if people want to keep repeating themselves from earlier debates. If we're talking about "similar things" to how a pen functions in order to to make up the imaginary number required to validate the "many" reference, I can't envisage them being particularly good reasons somehow.”

So, here we have you, Ben, laughing at Leanders suggestion! That is even more telling of your methodology!

Have you ever considered, when it comes to the function of the pen, that:

1.It may have been long and easy to hold – or very short, and hard to get a grip on.
2.It´s tip may have been loosely attached
3.It may have been made of harder or softer material
4.the outflow of the ink may have been restrained in a fashion that forced the writer to angle the pen to get it to flow properly, etcetera - all things attached to the functioning of the pen.

Once again, I am not the expert, but these are things that I think could represent what Leander spoke of. I am sure he would have more to say, since he - not you, not I - has studied the topic for decades, and probably knows more about what impact the pen itself can have on the written text than 999,999 promille of the rest of the worlds population. Considering it is the tool with which one works when writing, I feel certain that a lot more can be said than what fools like you and me would know.

Have you noticed, Ben, that when you choose who gets to understand Iremonger and who does not, and who knows about the mechanisms involved in writing and who does not, it appears that those who bolster your idea of Hutchinson not being Toppy are the ones who – miraculously – understand Iremonger, whereas those who say that you are wrong are the ones who are “fools”? Did you ever reflect on that?
Also, in a comparison between you and Leander concerning who knows what will have an impact on the written text and what will not, I think Leander would get everybodys vote as being the better choice – if it had not been for one small thing; he speaks clearly for Toppy being Hutch. And that is where he looses the race to, ehrm, well, you know ... to you, Ben.

Now Ben, you tell me, am I being "irritating" now – or am I bringing up a point where you must be challenged?

Am I “fanning the fire”, or am I pointing out that you show a very remarkable bias here?

Am I "repeating myself" - or am I showing you why you need to other things than contribute to these boards until you get your act together in a way that allows for unbiased posting and respect for authorities?

Please observe that I do not – the way you do – call you “dim” or go to any sort of rudely worded personal attack. My purpose is only to quite courteously point out that you are going about things in a fashion that enables me to very clearly point out that there is a lacking logic about here. Therefore, I expect a likewise courteously worded answer that – hopefully – explains to me why you are conducting your debate like this, and why you allow yourself what is a very seriously flawed logic.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Sam writes:

"I fully agree with your understanding of what Leander said - it's just that I'd rather not get involved in another game of cyber ping-pong about it."

Thanks, Sam. I appreciate very much that you gave your answer, and I fully understand why you choose to refrain from getting involved in any further brawl about it.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jon Guy]

Hello Fisherman

I am but a simple man and the Meaning of Leander is far too deep for me to be able to answer your question. However, I believe the signatures match, and I applaud your efforts in contacting Leander.

[richardnunweek]

Hello,
On could discuss this ongoing issue till doomsday, and still not resolve it.
So lets just apply common sense.The signature comparisons to Toppings are to say the least favourable.
Lets call it 60/40 in favour.
If one adds that 4/6 shot, with the fact that a name has been given, that of Topping,[ incidently the only name of Hutchinson to have been released to the media since 1888] by his own family.
The odds shorten more.
If one adds the payment to Hutch issue,, equivilent to five weeks wages, only ever quoted in the 'Wheeling paper', and assuming that [ as many say] it was only 'gossip', then somehow GWTH, not only remembered that from many years prior, but was able to calculate a sum , which would indeed equal that amount, when telling his tale in the local, and whats more must have had a real intrest some forty years before in the case, to not only remember that he had the same name[ ie George hutchinson] as the witness, but also could remember the statement given.
Some might say that Topping never actually said all of that, infact it was Reg jumping on the 'Wagon'.
That is not a factor... I know from personal research that Reg knew absolutely nothing about the whitechapel murders, infact a younger member of the family lent him a book so he could educate himself on the subject.
I have tried to express common sense in this post, and taking everything in to calculation[ which is my proffession] I would confidently say that it is at least 90 per-cent certain that Topping ' is /was Hutchinson.
Regards Richard.

[Ben]

You have presented an untenable, undecent and intellectually corrupt argument on the issue of whether "five or more" could equate to "many", and so you are going to have to be faced with it

That was all discussed months ago, Fisherman, but you decided for some strange reason to dredge the issue up again by copying and pasting a post you made from yonks ago. It does rather give the game away that you enjoy these long-winded semantic debates. You stated your intention to start this thread to gauge as many reactions to the issue as possible from other posters, but it seems you are far more interested in going round in circles with me.

He listed, as you perfectly well know, three NAMED possibilities, and added that there may be similar things (plural) that could have played a role to.

But the three explanations that he NAMED as possibilities were not "similar" to eachother, so it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to use the expression "similar" in the context of the possibilities explanations cited. The phrase "similar things" would only make sense if he meant "similar" to the last mentioned explanation, which was "function of the pen", and let's be honest here, there cannot possibly be "many" "similar" explanations to pen function, which was an odd thing to mention anyway.

When, Ben, you say that he "never expressed the opinion that any one of those explanations actually did come into play in this case" you are making a worthless point.

It's pretty valid, actually, and an important distinction to make. You stated earlier that the author's relative youth at the time did account for the differences, whereas in actual fact, Leander only stated that such an explanation could apply in this case.

So, since I am not a document expert, although I have read up on the subject and discussed it with my countries best known and reputed expert, I remain a fool

So Leander's the "best-known" and most "reputed" document examiner in the whole of Sweden. When did this revelation come to the fore, and how can you possibly know this? Are you sure you're not exaggerting the case, slightly? What exactly are you finding hard to "reconcilliate" here. I wasn't arguing that Fido's assessment of Iremonger's character and abilities counts for more than yours of Leander's. I'm saying that we should be able to trust his recollections of what exactly was compared.

Have you ever considered, when it comes to the function of the pen (Fisherman gives a list of non-applicable examples

Yes, Fisherman, but none of those listed explanations have anything remotely to do with the "function" of the pen. There is only one function of the pen that could possibly apply here, and that is to write. Either way, there couldn't possibly be "many" explanations that are "similar" to the "function of the pen" and certainly not an "infinite" number that you were suggesting earlier. This may explain why he didn't use "many" when writing his initial circumspect post.

has studied the topic for decades, and probably knows more about what impact the pen itself can have on the written text than 999,999 promille of the rest of the worlds population.

Except Sue Iremonger, of course, who analysed the original documents - including all three statement signatures - and came to the conclusion that they didn't match. Any chance you can avoid exaggerated over-the-top terminology again? As with your "miscoscopical" references, it's a bit too bumptious and irksome.

Have you noticed, Ben, that when you choose who gets to understand Iremonger and who does not, and who knows about the mechanisms involved in writing and who does not, it appears that those who bolster your idea of Hutchinson not being Toppy are the ones who – miraculously – understand Iremonger, whereas those who say that you are wrong are the ones who are “fools”?

I never suggested that you "didn't understand Iremonger", since there's nothing really to misunderstand. I've certainly never claimed that my understanding of Iremonger is superior to your own. I have stated that you wouldn't be in the idea position to assess her findings since you lack the expertise to pass critical comment, but that holds equally true for me. The only exception to thise is if she missapropriated dictionary definitions without telling anyone. In that situation, we'd be more than entitled to question it, rather than claim that words are allowed to change in "Iremonger's World".

I think Leander would get everybodys vote as being the better choice – if it had not been for one small thing; he speaks clearly for Toppy being Hutch

Not in his initial neutral stance he didn't, and not according to his official SKL grading system he didn't.

Now Ben, you tell me, am I being "irritating" now – or am I bringing up a point where you must be challenged?

You're being irritating.

You already challenged that point several months ago, which was fair enough. I found your stance confusing then, but it was a disagreement and nothing more. The "irritation" value lies in your astonishingly bad decision to puke it all up again entirely unprompted. So you can only be "fanning the fire". Anybody who tries their damnest to dredge up earlier semantic "battles" must, of necessity, be the sort of person who likes looking for a fight. He'll probably deny it, and I wouldn't blame him, but Gareth even dropped you a bombshell hint that your latest efforts are far from conducive for avoiding another round of cyber ping-pong. It reminds me of Leander's equally obvious hint that he didn't want to discuss the issue any further.

Please observe that I do not – the way you do – call you “dim” or go to any sort of rudely worded personal attack.

Nah, you just called me a "fool", which was the picture of courtesy. I don't particularly rate you as anything resembling a barometer of "logic". You're spoiling for a fight that has already been done to death, and I'm generally better at repetition wars than you, despite their being your preference for some odd reason.

[Ben]

So lets just apply common sense.The signature comparisons to Toppings are to say the least favourable. Lets call it 60/40 in favour

Let's not, Richard, because what you're describing as "common sense" isn't anything of the sort.

The signature comparisons "cannot be ruled out", and that is the very best we can say about it, and I'm sure the only expert who has ever conducted a full analysis on the signatures would be the first to agree. The fact that Toppy's son told a royal conspiracy theorist in 1992 that his dad saw Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper detracts from the Toppy-as-witness odds.

If one adds the payment to Hutch issue,, equivilent to five weeks wages

Please not this again. Hutchinson wasn't taking home a weekly wage, which means he would not have been entitled to five times that non-existent wage. That's not remotely compatible with a 100 shillings figure. I've explained this an absurd amount of times now. Yes, I share your doubts that Hutchinson was unemployed at the time, but the only thing we need to be aware of his that the police really believed he was unemployed, albeit initially, and it would have been the police who dished out any cash on offer.

100 shillings could not have been anything like "equivalent" to five times a non-existent weekly salary.

I don't intend any offense here, but I've explained all this to you a ludicrous amount of times now, and there still isn't a "coincidence" involving Reg's tall tales and and some demonstrably false American article headed "Gossip". I've you've tried to incorporate as much common sense into your post, then it's essential that you ditch the payment issue. It's completely meaningless, and if that's contributing to your 90% certainty, that's a siginicant concern.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

However, I believe the signatures match, and I applaud your efforts in contacting Leander.

I applaud those same efforts, Jon.

I just think it was a shame to have sent emailed signatures tht conveyed the wrong impression that the signauteres were the same size and angle. I think it was a mistake to include only one signature when there was an opportunity to provide all three, and I deeply regret the perceived necessity to keep contacting him after his first letter. We've since learned that document examiners generally stick to their own langauage when taking on handwriting comparisons too.

You are of course entitled to your own opinions on the signatures. I just wonder if you'd still feel that way if presnted with the originals, or at the very least, decent copies in the context of the whole page.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

The fact that Toppy's son told a royal conspiracy theorist in 1992 that his dad saw Lord Randolph Churchill the ripper detracts from the Toppy-as-witness odds.

It emphatically does not, Ben. What his son may or may not have said about Randolph Churchill ninety years after the event does not alter the odds of Topping having been the witness one iota.

[Ben]

Well, it certainly doesn't help, Gareth.

[Victor]

But the three explanations that he NAMED as possibilities were not "similar" to eachother, so it wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to use the expression "similar" in the context of the possibilities explanations cited. The phrase "similar things" would only make sense if he meant "similar" to the last mentioned explanation, which was "function of the pen", and let's be honest here, there cannot possibly be "many" "similar" explanations to pen function, which was an odd thing to mention anyway.

Hi Ben,
I think that's taking semantic pedantry to the limit. "Similar things" would include similar to any of those previously mentioned.

There is only one function of the pen that could possibly apply here, and that is to write. Either way, there couldn't possibly be "many" explanations that are "similar" to the "function of the pen" and certainly not an "infinite" number that you were suggesting earlier. This may explain why he didn't use "many" when writing his initial circumspect post.

"Function of the pen" is pretty similar to "way the pen functions" especially when translated from Swedish, and that would include the way the ink is stored, how much is stored and how often it needs to be dipped in the inkwell, how it flows to the nib, the way it is held particularly the angle, the type of pen. There's several suggestions, well on the way to "many" and I'm sure a professional dfocument examiner would come up with lots of additional ones.

Except Sue Iremonger, of course, who analysed the original documents - including all three statement signatures - and came to the conclusion that they didn't match.

Didn't she conclude that the 3 signatures on the statement didn't match eachother too.

KR,
Vic.