Why Did The Police Discount Hutchinson's Statement So Quickly?

[Sam Flynn]

There are no other interpretations for "cannot be ruled out" other than "not impossible", unless of course, Leander was deliberately intending his comments to be deeply sarcastic. The justfication for hideously misappropriating such an unambiguous phrase to the extent that it takes on a completely different meaning to the one provided by the dictionary; "That's what we say in our department" just won't avail.

Hang on a mo', Ben. Speaking as someone with some training in statistics and the scientific method myself, the phrase "cannot be ruled out" simply does what it says on the tin. There's no hint of sarcasm or misappropriation implied - such statements are a fairly standard means by which a scientist observes a degree of objectivity and decorum.

A scientist who publicly stated that something "cannot be ruled out" might well believe it to be "100% likely" in private, but would be loth to say as much. I mean, even Darwin's Rottweiler, Richard Dawkins, only publicly admits to a score of 6 (out of a maximum 7) on his "Atheism Scale". Christopher Hitchens, a non-scientist, plumps for a full-on 7. That's the difference between a how a scientist views matters of judgment compared to a lay-person. They use words differently, too.

[Ben]

Speaking as someone with some training in statistics and the scientific method myself, the phrase "cannot be ruled out" simply does what it says on the tin.

Absolutely, Gareth; it's a clear-cut, unambiguous phrase that doesn't mean "probable", unless the term is being hideously misappropriated or used sarcastically. It's a fundamentally unenthusiastic form of positive commentary, or as the Swedes would have it, "the lowest hit on the positive scale". It means not beyond the realms of possibility - no more positive than that, and certainly not a declaration of a match. I absolutely disagree that scientists are accustomed to using such phrases to convey probability. If they wanted to convey likelihood, there's nothing preventing them from saying "I believe X or Y to be likely" without any fear of loss of objectivity or decorum.

But I'm afraid we're deviating quite considerably from "Why Did The Police Discount Hutchinson's Statement So Quickly?", and I know you're a stickler for topic-adherence (for good reason, I might add)!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

If they wanted to convey likelihood, there's nothing preventing them from saying "I believe X or Y to be likely" without any fear of loss of objectivity or decorum.

Please don't nit-pick Fisherman about what Leander said, Ben - it's nowhere near as controversial as you seem to think. Trust me - I'm a lapsed scientist myself, but still have the knack.

I know you're a stickler for topic-adherence

Indeed. I never leave the house without a choc-and-hazelnut bar glued to my face.

[Ben]

Please don't nit-pick Fisherman about what Leander said - it's nowhere near as controversial as you seem to make out.

I never had any intention of discussing Leander and the feckin' signatures if others weren't so insistent on bringing up the topic on what was so obviously an unrelated thread, Gareth. "Cannot be ruled out" does not mean "probable", and no more "nitpicking" than that is required to point out this obvious reality.

[Garry Wroe]

Like Sam, I too am trained in statistics and scientific research methodology. Whereas most analyses conducted in, say, psychology, are quantitative – tests involving the numerical scores of subjects attained under strictly controlled conditions – the handwriting analysis undertaken by (Mr?) Leander was qualitative in nature. Given the inherent subjectivity of the qualitative approach, responsible researchers tend to be circumspect when interpreting results.

Since I have no idea which specimens have been compared, I can offer no objective insight into the likely reliability of the results. But the reality of the qualitative test when undertaken by the conscientious researcher is that the results are often inconclusive – or, to put it another way, “cannot be ruled in; cannot be ruled out”. Ergo, in the opinion of the researcher, there is insufficient evidence to make a determination one way or the other.

As such, I’d like to think that Ben is big enough to perhaps reconsider his comments regarding Leander, and that Fisherman might be a little more judicious when next citing the said results.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

Ergo, in the opinion of the researcher, there is insufficient evidence to make a determination one way or the other.

Absolutely, and the above reflected my stance on Leander's observations when they were first divulged. His initial opinion was one of obvious neutrality, in the absence of the original documents.

All the best,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Exactly, Ben. But at least one of your earlier posts conveyed the impression to me that, as a consequence of Fisherman's argument regarding the signature comparison, you were questioning Leander's competence and/or integrity. I'll re-read the relevent posts tomorrow and you may rest assured that, should I be in error in this context, I will apologize unreservedly.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"when Fisherman tells me he is glad to let a particular issue drop, what he really means is that he's only prepared to let it drop if he gets the last word."

Well, not really, Ben - unless Fisherman is subjected to accusations of "fitting evidence" and "explain away" things. If you had refrained from such accusations, you would stand a very good chance of not being reminded that they are uncivil. Long as you can´t keep your fingers away from that bowl, though - no.

"there was no "prevailing trend" of English aristocrats and royalty being accused of the Whitechapel murders during Toppy's lifetime."

And this we know...how? My suggestion would be that we simply don´t know. What we DO know, however, is that such theories always tickles the fantasy of the man in the street, and therefore it is everything but implausible that such rumours WERE in swing way back.

"In which case, he was very wrong in saying so.
Being "adamant" about something so patently false doesn't detract in the slightest from its wrongness.
There are no other interpretations for "cannot be ruled out" other than "not impossible", unless of course, Leander was deliberately intending his comments to be deeply sarcastic."

I am well aware that this is how you would like things to be - but it is not the way things are, and that is what matters. You have a very obvious interest in casting doubt over Leanders judgement, and that has led you to some pretty tasteless and ungrounded remarks, Ben.

The fact of the matter is that when a renowned specialist researcher into forensic signatures tell us A/ That a match cannot be excluded and B/ that "cannot be excluded" is a term used at his department when they point to a positive hit on the lower end of the scale, then he has showed you very clearly that there CAN be another meaning of the phrase than the one you have invested in. And when he tells you this, I really find it both childish and uncivil to put your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes, wiggle your head and shout "NO! NO! NO!" Not to mention what I think about your calling Leander "patently false" when he uses the ackowledged terminology of his profession.

And what hope on earth could you possibly have that anybody would put any trust in YOUR assertions? Do YOU have the expert knowledge? No, you don´t. Are YOU familiar with the terminologies used at the SKL? I should say not - you have proven as much! Moreover, since the SKL uses that terminology, you could be pretty certain that very resembling terminologies are used at every other forensic signature research centre - they will at the very least be quite familiar with it. Leander has travelled throughout the world, giving lectures on his job, and I seriously doubt that the audiences of highly qualified researchers he has met have been left with the impression that he does not know what he is talking about.

Once and for all, Ben: the fact that you are of the meaning that "cannot be excluded" only points to an outward chance of a match is fine and dandy - but only up to the point where the expertise tells you that it has a different meaning to the professionals in the game.

I was of the exact same meaning as you were from the outset - that "cannot be excluded" was a vague phrasing. And I thought it tallied badly with the rest Leander told us, up til the point where he pinned the exact meaning of that phrase.
He is the authority here, Ben. Not you or me. And your dubbing him a liar, more or less, is a very sad thing.

"Cannot be ruled out" does not mean "probable".

Not to you in your everyday life. But that does not apply here.
Not to me in my everyday life either. But that does not apply here either.
Not to most people in their everyday lives either. But that is equally totally uninteresting, since it is NOT your, mine or the publics privilege to do the interpretation for Leander. How could it be?
That privilege is his, and his only. And he tells us, quite clearly and leaving no room for any deviating interpretations that "cannot be excluded" is a term that at his department describes a positive hit at the lower end of the scale! Furthermore, he bolsters this by saying that he expects further forthcoming evidence to confirm his belief that the writer was one and the same, and he tells us that he would be surprised if this was not the case. It is not in any way as if he has left us in the dark.
But that has not stopped you at all, has it? You - strangely - keep telling us that he is not at liberty to use the terminology he has always used in his job, and that what he REALLY meant from the outset was that he was unenthusiastic about the match. In consequence with this, you also tell us that when he reinforces his point that the match is a positive one, he is actually deviating from his original statement.
That he is not, Ben - he is deviating from YOUR PERCEPTION of the statement, but in no way at all from his own professional terminology. He does not NEED you to (mis)interpret him, Ben - he knows EXACTLY what he is doing, and that is where his reputation as one of the best in the game comes from.

Just like Garry tells us, any conscientious researcher will be careful in wording things, and that is exactly what we see in Leanders case. He chooses the lower end of the positive scale. But he does not do so because he finds the match a bad or lacking one. In fact, he finds it a very good one, but the material he has had at hand is not sufficient to reach a higher level on the scale. Still, he tells us that the diffences that are involved in the signatures could all have explanations to them, and he asserts us that he suspects that when/if more evidence surfaces, it will probably confirm his verdict.

Whenever a scientific judgment offers room for deviating interpretations, there is always a need for somebody to point to that fact. And of course we are all welcome to make our own minds up on whether the signatures per se are very much alike or not (hopefully we may do so without entering a status where we are pointed out as less trustworthy "evidence fitters"). It is everybodys prerogative to do so.

But when a researcher words his judgement with a terminology that is professionally shaped and very exact when it comes to how it should be read, thereafter supplying us with a complete user´s manual of exactly how to read it, and furthermore bolstering it with a prediction of what forthcoming evidence will add, then I think we may need to step aside and say "Ah, sorry - I simply did not know that this was how you guys used the differing phraseologies professionally connected to these issues".

There is every chance that Leander knows his work better than you do, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes:

"I'll re-read the relevent posts tomorrow and you may rest assured that, should I be in error in this context, I will apologize unreservedly."

Then you have some catching up to do, and you are going to need a healthy bar of soap to wash your ears with - but I welcome it very, very much. I will lay my sword (well, pencil then...) down until then in this issue. Sharpened, though.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Well, who could have predicted this?

Fisherman assured me it was "useless" arguing with me, which, as it turns out, was complete nonsense. If he really considered it useless, he would have embraced his own advice to "gladly let the issue drop". Turns out he was only prepared to drop the issue if he was allowed to get the last word, which - let's be circumspect here - was never going to happen. Just don't bother saying those things anymore if you have absolutely no intention of taking your own advice.

If you had refrained from such accusations, you would stand a very good chance of not being reminded that they are uncivil

That's just a bad excuse for engaging be in prolific long-winded posting battles, I'm afraid. You brought up Leander and the signatures on a hideously unrelated thread, and I responded. You then counter-argued in depth and naively expected your comments to be the end of the matter.

What we DO know, however, is that such theories always tickles the fantasy of the man in the street

Firstly, we DO know that there was no "prevailing trend", in the early decades of the 20th Century, of English aristocrats being accused of committing the Whitechapel murders, or else we'd have heard about it, as the term "prevalent" denotes. It's a ridiculous coincidence that Reg just happened to provide a character from history that meshed perfectly with Fairclough's theory. Deduction? Toppy probably had nothing to do with any Churchillian references, and Reg made it up to appease Fairclough.

You have a very obvious interest in casting doubt over Leanders judgement, and that has led you to some pretty tasteless and ungrounded remarks, Ben

As I have observed from the outset, Leander's spontaneous commentary on the signatures was the very picture of circumspection and neutrality. He remained firmly on the fence, and was quite adamant in his assertion that a full expert opinion was not even "possible" in the absence of the original documents. I admired him for that and agreed wholeheartedly with his opinions. What occurred later was rather more problematic.

It was illustrated, by quoting your translation verbatim, that Leander conveyed no impression that a match was "probable". He mentioned that the similarities weighed "against" the similarities, but that the latter were insufficient to "rule out" or "exclude" Toppy as the witness. If he secretly thought the match was probable, he certainly didn't convey any such thinking in his initial post.

I don't know if you were dissatisfied with this neutrality, but your started to put words in Leander's mouth that didn't appear in his first letter. For example, you 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 you 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 you wrongly claimed appeared in Leander's first post suddenly appeared in Leander's "second" post? But that wasn't the only example. Shortly after publishing Leander's first letter, you argued that the letter spoke of an "overall likeness". I quickly pointed out that, as with the words "numerous and "many", Leander had said no such thing in his initial letter, so you re-established contact with Leander for a THIRD time, with the following result:

”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness, and it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it".

Leander had now elaborated on his initial comments using the very expression, "overall likeness", that you had erroneously attributed to him in his first letter.

Now, by post #4, one forms the very distinct impression that Leander is starting to tire of being asked to "clarify" over and over again, hence the observation: "I do not wish to embark on any further elaboration on the issue since I have only commented on a few pictures via mail". If people are incapable of detecting a certain "Please leave me alone, I've already told you what I think a billion times already" subtext into Leander's words, I'm incredibly surprised. True to form, you were not deterred, and so you asked Leander to "clarify" again. Unfortunately, the gist of his purported observations in post #5 (yes, that's how many times Fisherman asked Leander to clarify a message that was abundantly clear the first time) were radically different to anything he said in his initial post, effectively cancelling out any worth in any of his posts.

I'm not accusing you or Leander of any underhanded tactics, but I reserve the right to find the above incredibly odd at the very least. If you dislike the implications, I'm afraid you only have yourself to blame for initiating yet another Leander debate on an entirely unrelated thread.

I agree with Garry, you need to be more judicious with the results. All credit to you for establishing contact with Leander, but you really should have allowed his initial commentary to stand unfiddled with, rather than continually bothering him because his comments weren't Toppy-endorsing enough for you.

The fact of the matter is that when a renowned specialist researcher into forensic signatures tell us A/ That a match cannot be excluded and B/ that "cannot be excluded" is a term used at his department when they point to a positive hit on the lower end of the scale

Yes, he's correct to say so. That's precisely what it is. It's the lowest form of positive commentary, but you are aware, surely, that you can speak of something positively without declaring it "probable"?

But that is equally totally uninteresting, since it is NOT your, mine or the publics privilege to do the interpretation for Leander. How could it be?

I don't need to do any "interpreting". "Cannot be ruled out" literally means "not impossible", and "not impossible" does not mean "probable" unless the expression is being used sarcastically. Personally, I don't think he misappropriated the expression at all. Like Garry, I believe his intention was to convey neutrality. However, if he intended the expression to mean "probable" (which I don't believe for a moment), then he'd have been using the expression in an erroneous context, and I utterly reject the defense that "I'm a scientist and my department gets to change clear definitions of words - ha!" as complete nonsense. Sorry, but they don't get to do that.

In fact, he finds it a very good one, but the material he has had at hand is not sufficient to reach a higher level on the scale

So, in other words, he believed the match was "very good", albeit not good enough to describe it as any more likely than "not completely impossible"? I know other people can see the problem with this.

I was blissfully content to have all this nonsense consigned to the 237 page Hutch in the 1911 Census, but it appears, once again, that those with a fondness for combative terminology and "sharpened swords" are desperate to engage me in "battle" again. Ah well, gotta oblige I guess.

I will lay my sword (well, pencil then...) down until then in this issue

Bet you all my worldly goods you won't.

[Sam Flynn]

Like Sam, I too am trained in statistics and scientific research methodology. Whereas most analyses conducted in, say, psychology, are quantitative – tests involving the numerical scores of subjects attained under strictly controlled conditions – the handwriting analysis undertaken by (Mr?) Leander was qualitative in nature. Given the inherent subjectivity of the qualitative approach, responsible researchers tend to be circumspect when interpreting results.

Indeed, Garry. However, interpreting circumspection as a statement of "improbability", or even prevarication and inconsistency, is entirely another, which was the gist of what happened here apropos Leander. On the contrary, Leander was being entirely responsible.

[Garry Wroe]

Absolutely, Sam. But, in Ben’s defence, he wasn’t the one citing false-positives. Right, I’ve got some reading to do, so need to wash out my ears with a healthy bar of soap … ?

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Garry Wroe]

Hi Ben.

Having re-read the earlier posts, I have to say that, in my opinion, you were sailing a little close to the wind regarding Leander. I do, however, understand your frustration over the present issue. But, as Sam has already stated, the lexicon of science can often be more than a little abstruse to the average person in the street. That’s the nature of the beast, I’m afraid.

My advice is that, until such time as Leander’s report is published, you resist the temptation to engage in battle, as it were. Only then will we know for sure which samples have been compared, the levels of concordance, probability values, and so forth. These are the nuts and bolts of empirical evaluation, and in their absence any ‘scientific’ claims in either direction are entirely pointless.

Hope this helps.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Garry Wroe writes, regarding Ben:

"you were sailing a little close to the wind regarding Leander"

That´s an elegant way of putting it, I have to say.

Returning to Bens earlier post, I have three comments to make:

1. "if he intended the expression to mean "probable" (which I don't believe for a moment), then he'd have been using the expression in an erroneous context, and I utterly reject the defense that "I'm a scientist and my department gets to change clear definitions of words - ha!" as complete nonsense. Sorry, but they don't get to do that."

I´m afraid they DO get to do precisely what they WANT to do, Ben, regardless of your personal feelings. And since Leander in fact told us that "cannot be excluded" was NOT an undecided parametre on the scale used by the SKL, we need not loose any sleep over the matter. Clearly and concisely, we have been informed that Leander used the wording "cannot be excluded" because that was the manner in which the SKL described a match at the lower end of the POSITIVE scale.

And that very explanation, provided by Leander in one of his later posts, is also extremely useful when we turn to the next point, as you will realize:

2."you really should have allowed his initial commentary to stand unfiddled with"

That would have been completely disastrous, as we found out when Leander elaborated on what relevance the expression "cannot be excluded" carries at the SKL. If no elaborations had come forth from Leander, we would have been left with a very incomplete picture. As I have told you, I am also of the meaning that "cannot be excluded" is a vague term, GENERALLY SPEAKING. And if we had not received the information on it´s professional meaning for Leander, his verdict of a probable match would have gone lost to us - well, maybe not, since it seems both Sam and Garry have the sort of scientific background and schooling that could have cleared the matter up. But you and me would have been left with a problem, would we not?
When Leander elaborated on the meaning of the wording in the professional context, we gained invaluable insights and knowledge, just as we did so when Leander stated that he would be surprised if it was not a match. And added knowledge and informative elaborations is exactly what we need to be able to move forward! Since the case is such an old one, it is something that is so frustratingly often denied us.
How many times have we not wished that we could have asked Killeen about the entrance holes in Tabrams body?
How many times have we not wished that Phillips could have elaborated on his thoughts on Eddowes´damages?
What would we not give to be able to ask Blackwell whether he really believed Stride was cut standing up, or Johnston whether he had his own hands smeared with blood examining her?

We search the contemporary sources and sift and finecomb and interpret what little we can find, and that is what we must do. Never have I heard such work called "fiddling" with the case, and never have I heard researchers call for a halt to the ongoing work out of fear of having matters further clarified!

With Leander, it´s all a different story; he provided the possibility to ask further questions, and he was happy to elaborate and clarify. Moreover, I was - from the outset - of the meaning that what he said was pointing us very clearly in the direction of a very possible match - that did not lie in the wording "cannot be excluded", but in the fact the way he listed the pros and cons, telling us that the differences involved all could have explanations. I would happily have settled for just the one answer, if everybody had agreed that he was more positive than negative to a match.
But you did not agree, Ben. Not at all. And that was your prerogative, of course. But when you started telling us that Leander had been very unenthusiastic about the match, we were faced with a situation where I believed A and you believed B - BUT WHERE WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK FOR A CLARIFICATION! That is one almighty bonus! And that, I´m afraid, holds true regardless of the fact that it will tell either the holder of opinion A or the holder of opinion B that he was wrong. Our own stances on the matter never enter the equation, since a discerning researchers´ obligations do not involve keeping laymen happy, not when choosing their way to decide, and not when choosing their vocabulary. And that goes for all of us. Therefore, you may need to change your own vocabulary ever so slightly and refrain from calling Leanders elaborations - led on and necessitated by nothing but your own doubts and misconceptions! - "fiddling", Ben.

Finally:

3. "Bet you all my worldly goods you won't."

I´ll PM you my bank account number, and you can deposit the money there. As for house and furniture and such, we will have to work something out. I´m a reasonable man, and I think we should be able to get it all overwith smoothly.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

hi Garry

My advice is that, until such time as Leander’s report is published, you resist the temptation to engage in battle, as it were. Only then will we know for sure which samples have been compared, the levels of concordance, probability values, and so forth. These are the nuts and bolts of empirical evaluation, and in their absence any ‘scientific’ claims in either direction are entirely pointless.

Hope this helps.

Garry Wroe.

Garry..

Not sure if you are aware of what was going on regarding Leander's involvement in the signature issue.

Basically, Fisherman sent to Leander via email electronic copies of the Hutchinson signatures...the Toppy marriage certificate one, the census ones, the witness statement ones, and asked him for his opinion.

Leander replied that his opinion was not to be taken as a professional evaluation because he was comparing copies, not the original documents, and that in not examining the original documents, no such professional opinion could be tendered.

His opinion was an off-the-record favour done for Fisherman. In fact, he specifically told Fisherman he was unable to give a professional opinion on the matter. In these circumstances, it is inaccurate to refer to Leander's position on the signatures, whatever qualifications it came with, as a professional opinion.

So, there is no report forthcoming. The matter for Leander was closed months ago with his off the record favour for Fisherman. There will be no details forthcoming, as there was no professional investigation into the signatures to report on, in the case of Leander.

I agree with you that debating this matter further in light of the above is completely pointless, which is why i stay out of these combatative threads (apart from sneaking back to post this one). For me, there are similarities and differences, and it has not been proven to my satisfaction either way at this present time...ie that Toppy was or was not the same person as Hutchinson the witness.

Hope this helps

Jen