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

[Fisherman]

This, Babybird, was how he worded himself:

"I wish to strongly underline your wiew that comparing research into signatures must be done using the original material and I/we would not have the possibility to write a full expert´s opinion on the material supplied. Under the circumstances, however, I would like to express myself thusly:

It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person - there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters.
Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature.
The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things. The signature at the top is unquestionably the one that differs most at any rate.
In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!"

So, what he says is NOT that he was unable to give a professional opinion - he only stated that he could not give a FULL EXPERT OPINION. Of course, any opinion coming from a man like Leander has all the professionalism you could ask for attached to it.
I would also like to stress, since it was suggested on the 1911 thread, that there was never any question of Frank Leander meaning his statement only for my ears - he was fuylly aware from the outset that the material would be posted on Casebook, and he was quite happy to contribute.

If we have to go over all of this again, then please let´s stick with the facts as they emerged, Babybird.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

This, Babybird, was how he worded himself:

"I wish to strongly underline your wiew that comparing research into signatures must be done using the original material and I/we would not have the possibility to write a full expert´s opinion on the material supplied. Under the circumstances, however, I would like to express myself thusly:

and

In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!"

Which is what i said, Fisherman. That he was unable to tender a professional opinion in relation to signatures he had only seen by electronic copy.

so you can see Garry, why i no longer post to these threads...I've been called a liar before by Fisherman and i don't appreciate being called such names, especially since the time i was accused of it i was quoting Fish verbatim.

[Rosey O'Ryan]

Hi all,

This thread is deviating to that in sufferable nether region of "off topic", lets get back to the chase!
Rosey :-)

[Jane Welland]

I believe..

That this topic has a thread of its own - maybe that's the place for it.

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Maybe, Babybird, we should not get too entangled in who has called whom what, and instead try and focus on the issue itself. And on that issue, it is of relevance to realize that what Leander said was that he could not provide a full expert opinion, this owing to the fact that he only saw the material twodimensionally and that he would have liked to have more samples to compare with.
That does not mean, however, that his resulting opinion in any fashion lacked in professionalism. He used his training and experience to establish that what could be perceived from his material visually, was that he would be surprised if we did not have a match at hand.

A full examination of the originals may or may not provide insights that may or may not have changed his wiew. The same goes for added signatures.

I propose that Leanders examination is by far the best one we have on the issue. I fully concur with Garrys suggestion that we need to know for sure which samples have been compared, the levels of concordance, probability values, and so forth when it comes to an examination. In Leanders case, we have that knowledge to a significant extent, whereas when it comes to Iremonger, we have nothing like it. And, to go on quoting Garry: "These are the nuts and bolts of empirical evaluation, and in their absence any ‘scientific’ claims in either direction are entirely pointless."

That is what I have been saying all along, and that is what a number of posters have had all sorts of trouble swallowing down. Alongside that, all sorts of strange accusations have been thrown forward, one of them being that I misused a personal trust when I published Leanders contribution, something that was quite wrong from beginning to end.
I feel pretty sure, Babybird, that Garry is able to pick up on what has been going on on the 1911 thread, just as I think he will be able to come up with a verdict of his own about who has been calling whom what, and why. I feel no personal need to point out what I was subjected to myself, since it is totally unrelated to the core issue.
So let´s leave him to it, shall we?

The best,
Fisherman

PS. Jane is of course correct - I am moving the discussion to the 1911 thread, copying this last post of mine.

[Ben]

I´m afraid they DO get to do precisely what they WANT to do, Ben, regardless of your personal feelings.

They don't get to alter basic dictionary definitions to mean something completely different on the basis that they're professionals, and their department gets to do that. As it happens, I don't believe Leander did misappropriate the phrase, since the "lowest hit on the positive scale" is precisely what it is - the lowest form of positive commentary. It is positive, but only just, and it certainly isn't used to convey "probability".

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.

Ah, but doesn't this introduce another disturbing question?

If, as you acknowledge, the phrase "cannot be ruled out" means "not impossible" to the man on the street in everyday life, why on earth did Leander - who knew full well that his commentary was intended for Joe Public, and not fellow SKL colleagues - use that expression (with its different intended meaning) when he also knew full well that Joe Public have no idea about the secret, special definitions used only at SKL?

Either:

Leander deliberately used an expression that he knew full well would be misintrepreted by the recipients of his commentary. In which case, he's an idiot (Don't panic! I most emphatically do not favour this explanation!)

Or:

Leander, the reputable expert in his field, used the phrase precisely as other human beings use it - to convey the lowest from of positive commentary, and certainly not probability. In which case, he's far from an idiot.

Now, I don't know about anyone else, but I'd be the first to advocate the second option here.

You tell me that "cannot be ruled out" is a vague term. No, it isn't. It's a clear-cut, unambiguous phrase that means "not impossible, which, although representing a positive observation, certainly does not mean "probable". Then you remind me that Sam and Garry's scientific background "could have cleared the matter up", but as you should have noticed, Garry shares my view that Leander's post conveyed neutrality, in the absence of the original documents. I don't know whether Sam agrees or not, but he has also disputed that document examination even qualifies as a science!

never have I heard researchers call for a halt to the ongoing work out of fear of having matters further clarified!

No clarification was necessary in Leander's case.

His comments were circumspectly phrased and left no room for doubt. He only "clarified" in the sense that, yes, "cannot be ruled" out was used in its correct context.

of the meaning that what he said was pointing us very clearly in the direction of a very possible match

You can't have extents of possibility. Something is either possible or not, and I'd dismiss a hypothetical Toppy-as-Hutch as impossible, just not very probable.

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!

And where he started using the very phrases that you wrongly claimed were present in his first letter, most likely as a result of your failure to leave the man alone after he'd made his observation perfectly clear first time around. The obvious subtext "Go away, I've given you my opinion" was present in his later posts.

I´ll PM you my bank account number, and you can deposit the money there.

I think you'll find I've won the bet. Whevener you announce your intention to depart, or stop derailing a thread with repetetive nonsense, or lay down your sword, or whatever, I know you're never going to follow through with that intention.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

He used his training and experience to establish that what could be perceived from his material visually, was that he would be surprised if we did not have a match at hand.

Which was in incredibly stark contrast to anything he claimed in his first post, as you've just quoted above. He most emphatically never said anything that could be even vaguely construed as synonymous with "I'd be surprised if we did not have a match at hand". There is no convergence of the twain here at all. If he said one, but meant the other, I'm afraid he has a serious problem with conveying his true meaning.

I propose that Leanders examination is by far the best one we have on the issue.

And I reject that as utter nonsense, since we know from several highly reputable sources that Sue Iremonger examined the original documents and came to the conclusion that Toppy was not the witness. This was attested to by, amongst others, Paul Begg and Martin Fido, and it wouldn't have been a case of comparing on-screen images which convey no accurate impression of relative size, pen pressure or anything of that nature. To argue that Leander's comparison is "by far the best" when Leander himself observed that a full expert opinion was not "possible" given the material is completely unaccaptable.

I feel pretty sure, Babybird, that Garry is able to pick up on what has been going on on the 1911 thread, just as I think he will be able to come up with a verdict of his own about who has been calling whom what, and why.

If you're looking for adherents to your cause, that one won't work either, since we know Garry does not share your view that Toppy was the witness. He is also of the opinion that Leander's initial observations conveyed neutrality.

[babybird67]

indeed

i've replied there.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I think you'll find I've won the bet."

No, Ben - I stated that I would not reenter the discussioin on this particular issue until Garry had had his say, and I did not. The bank account is still open.

Incidentally, you are wrong on the other points too. Although it is interesting that you deny the SKL to use whatever vocabulary they want to, it is of course totally nonsensical and utterly useless. It´slike calling out to the moon that it has chosen a colour you dislike; you are entitled to your opinion, but it won´t change a thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"If you're looking for adherents to your cause, that one won't work either, since we know Garry does not share your view that Toppy was the witness. He is also of the opinion that Leander's initial observations conveyed neutrality."

You know, Ben, I think I would prefer Garrys words on what Garry thinks. He may well be every bit as well informed about that as you are.

"I reject that as utter nonsense"

...and you will be as wrong as you always are on the topic. Like Garry points out, we need to see IN DETAIL exactly WHAT she examined, and exactly WHAT ELEMENTS led her to her conclusions before we award her any real interest. Until we know that, she belongs to histories heap of unproven curiosities - and that, strangely, applies in spite of your assertions.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I stated that I would not reenter the discussioin on this particular issue until Garry had had his say, and I did not.

Oh, I see.

So you were "sharpening" your "sword" until Garry contributed, and took that as your cue to respond to my post and get thrusty with that mean old sword? What strange behaviour...

Although it is interesting that you deny the SKL to use whatever vocabulary they want to, it is of course totally nonsensical and utterly useless

I think so too. The idea that "We, the members of this department, have decided to radically alter dictionary definitions, but we will ensure that the public remain oblivious to these secret definitions unless one bright spark amongst them asks for clarification. Otherwise, they can persist in their ignorance that a spade really means a spade, and not a hippo."...doesn't bear scrutinty at all.

Didn't happen in the case of SKL, though.

...and you will be as wrong as you always are on the topic. Like Garry points out, we need to see IN DETAIL exactly WHAT she examined, and exactly WHAT ELEMENTS led her to her conclusions before we award her any real interest.

We know what she examined - she compared the three statement signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature, and came to the conclusion that they didn't match. Since you're not qualified to assess her assessment (for that you'd need to be a document examiner with even more experience than her) it is only reasonable to deduce that she applied her extensive expertise to the analysis of the original documents and came to an informed opinion accordingly; the type of conclusion that isn't "possible" with computerized emailed images that convey the erroneous impression, for example, that the signatures were the same size (they're not).

[Ben]

Hi Garry,

I certainly take your comments on board. While I may have levelled various criticisms in Leander's direction during the course of the discussion, my initial reaction to his "spontaneous comment" was one of both gratitude and agreement. It was only later than I felt almost forced into taking a somewhat dimmer view, courtesy of later attempts to have him "clarify" what was so obviously a neutral stance. As it stands now, I remain in complete agreement with his brief analysis, and entertain no grave doubts as to the extent of his abilities and discernment.

Best regards,
Ben

[Garry Wroe]

Many thanks, Ben. I'll try to respond to other issues on the 1911 thread a little later if I can make the time. If not, sometime over the weekend.

Regards.

Garry Wroe.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"What strange behaviour..."

Hmmm - well, Ben, I am not all that sure that you have something I need anyway. Could do with the money, though.

"Didn't happen in the case of SKL, though."

Did not have too - just like Sam has pointed out, a verdict of "cannot be excluded" is often a discerning researchers manner of telling us that he/she is positive. And for the umpteenth time, Ben, we actually and thankfully KNOW that this was the case with the SKL, since Leander TOLD us so in a very clear manner. The only options left open to you are that he misremembered, lied - or that he told us exactly what he meant.
Myself, I think it would be much more productive to pop into a department of forensic signature research or two and ask them what lies behind the phrase "cannot be excluded" in their daily work, than to try and sway us out here that Leander did not mean what he said - or, rather, that you accept that he meant what he said the first time over but not the next times, as long as you are allowed to do the interpretation.
What good is it telling us that A cannot mean A, when we have first hand evidence telling us that it does???

"it is only reasonable to deduce..."

Oh, no, Ben. That it is not. We do not have the prerogative to "deduce" anything, just as we do not have any definitive documentation about what she compared. We do not know how adamant she was, we do not know WHY she was that adamant or unadamant, we have not a single word on file telling us anything about any single element involved in her investigation. What we have is what is commonly referred to as hearsay, more or less - what people tell us. "Deducing" things from such a large empty void of information is something we cannot do.
We have heard from Martin Fido, but he did not mention one single detail that had stuck in his mind, putting flesh on the Iremonger bones - not one.
On the other hand, we have heaps of information connected to Leander, where he breaks down the signatures element by element, general style, writing skills, leaning, letter-by-letter comparisons - all neatly presented together with his verdict of a probable match on the lower end of the scale - not because he is in any way unenthusiastic, but because the material involved allowed for no more. His enthusiasm was presented in the fact that he stated that he expected forthcoming evidence to confirm that we have a hit, so there is no room for doubt on that matter. Least of all by trying to kidnap his right to express things in a manner true to his education and everyday working tools.
Now, couple this to the empirically underbuilt investigation we have on record, telling us that forensic document experts will be perfectly able to do their work using photocopies, and then ask yourself which investigation carries weight, and which is lighter than helium.

Now, why am I - once again - telling you all of this?
Is it perhaps because I cannot refrain from fighting over the matter with you, and because I am secretely in love with you, stalking you whenever I can?
Or could it be because I feel that every poster on this site has the right to see the truth, which incidentally is a perfect counterimage to the farce you are trying to feed people?
Tough call, hmmm? Go figure out!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben, again:

"As it stands now, I remain in complete agreement with his brief analysis, and entertain no grave doubts as to the extent of his abilities and discernment."

Well, well! And to think all it took for you to go from a verdict of completely unreliable on Leanders behalf, to one of complete agreement and no grave doubts, all it took was one post from Garry Wroe...? That was one almighty turnaround, Ben. Tell me, does your respect involve Leanders telling us that he would be surprised if it was not a match, and that he expects forthcoming evidence to prove him right on the matter? Or is that part excluded? Dropped, sort of?

Because if you really think the man is a complete pushover in the latter posts, I don´t see why you should invest any belief in the first one. Did he go from top authority to drooling idiot in a few posts time, or am I to take it that you now concur with me that Frank Leander is a completely trustworthy, discerning, seasoned and competent forensic document examiner, and that we should trust his words on the WHOLE matter and not only on carefully selected bits and pieces that just so happens allow at least somewhat for your own theories on the Hutchinson affair?
You need to be very careful formulating your answer here, as you will realize, Ben.

The best,
Fisherman
in anticipation