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

[Ben]

I'll just address the latest round, and then I'll be more than content to follow Gareth's sound and timely advice.

Since we have no documentation of what Iremonger did, said, thought or argued, we cannot take your assertions of "overwhelming probabilities" for anything but desperation - find the goods, and letīs have a mutual look on it. Then we can conduct a serious discussion.

Well, with respect...no.

When I speak of overwhelming probabilities, what I'm really highlighting is A) The likelihood that Sue Iremoner did precisely what several reputable sources informed us that she did, and B) the total absence of any vaguely compelling or noteworthy reason to doubt that she examined the signatures mentioned by said reputable sources. You can demand for "definitive documentation" as often as you you like, but in the absence of same, I'm afraid you'd still be struggling for any decent or vaguely compelling reason to doubt Iremonger's findings.

Did he now? Whenever I read him, he says that he cannot present a full expert report with only electronic material. Nowhere can I see that he tells us that forensic document experts will be UNABLE to do their work using photocopies.

What's the difference?

Leander was supplied with "electronic material". If he printed that material, it would be photocopied electronic material, and you're not seriously arguing that electronic material is improved in terms of quality when it is printed? Or by "photocopies", do you mean direct copies of the original material? In which case, I find no evidence that Leander was supplied with these.

Think again, and think right this time. By offering his wiew, he shows us that he was perfectly able to make an estimation relying on the twodimensional copies, but added that he would need the originals to reach a full understanding

But he was anxious to point out that his comments could only be taken as a "spontaneous comment", and not a "full expert opinion" in the absence of the original documents.

Oh, but it WAS Ben - Leander was "Toppy-endorsing" from the outset, and the frustration was to be found in your camp, not mine.

No, he wasn't.

N-o-o-o-o-o-o wasn't.

His initial letter was neutral.

He didn't come down in favour of either side of the debate.

And that frustration took very strange shapes, since you repeatedly refused to realize that Leanders verdict could go against you

It didn't.

I know it didn't because I quoted him verbatim, so as to eradicate any semblance of doubt that I was putting my own spin on his words. Your frustration stemmed from the fact that his initial observations weren't Toppy-endorsing enough, so you attempted to bombard the poor man into submission.

Thanks Leander, but it's not quite Toppyish enough!

Bit more?

Ok, that's a little better.

Bit more?

Getting there.

One more try?

Thar she blows!

Whew! Finally! I'll leave you alone now!

Let me go on record that I have no doubt whatsoever concerning the honesty and professionalism of Leander, but all human beings have a limit, and I'm afraid your relentless zealotry - of the order than you display here - may have prompted him to fob you off. That's my take on matters. If you don't like that interpretation - fight me, and I'm see you in perdition's flames. There's no other explanation for Leander's radically contrasting stance on this issue. His initial post was circumspect. It was neutral. I agreed with it, and in agreeing with his observations, I sought to eradicate any possible doubt on my interpretitive abilities by quoting the man verbatim. This you refused to do, which is why you bombarded him five times thereafter.

It of course does not alter the fact that Leander clearly opted for a match

No, he didn't.

I swear to you on everything I hold dear that he DID NOT "clearly opt for a match" in his initial post. If he upgraded to declaring the signatures a match later, it means that he either changed his mind, didn't convey his true meaning, or, most likely, he became sick of being perpetually bombarded and elected, quite understandably, to fob the irritant off. I would!

I go for the third option.

That wouldn't make him a gullible idiot in the slightest. Remember that there really isn't much at stake here, considering that Leander was only offering his "spontaneous comment" and not a full expert opinion. Under these conditions, what does he have to lose by appeasing a nuisance? It certainly wouldn't detract from his expertise, but it might reveal his all too human distaste for bombardment and beleaguerment.

[Sam Flynn]

I have, however, very serious difficulties not to reply when I am being called an evidence-fitter and a man who uses my own bias to distort the views.

Indeed, Fish, and it's never nice when that happens. We've all been victims of it from time to time, myself and Ben included. I know we have it within us to be civil, so please let's keep it that way.

[Fisherman]

Saw your posts only when I had launched my own, Sam and Richard. I agree with you both that it would be much better if a civil tone could be used (and if it could be used on the right thread - I made efforts in that direction earlier, but there you are...)
I have, however, very serious difficulties not to reply when I am being called an evidence-fitter and a man who uses my own bias to distort the wiews of responsible researchers like Leander - indeed that I whispered in his ears until he decided to please me only to get rid of me. These are grave, grave accusations, and thus I underprioritize dignity for the need to clear my name from such filth.
...but I will try, once again, of course. For sanitys sake. And I believe that I have made it abundantly clear that the accusations are totally ungrounded, to everybody but you-know-who.

So, here goes - it will last til the next time Iīm told that we have a very reliable report on the signatures by Iremonger, and one other report that was promising from the outset, but later tainted by the sinister hand of a biased evidence-fitter. Thatīs all I can promise.

Richard, as for your "one day the truth will emerge" - I really think that wait is over.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Thats an almighty post, there, ben!

Ill just work from the cue lines:

"Honestly, what are you trying to convince yourself of here?"

Itīs simple:
Since we have no documentation of what Iremonger did, said, thought or argued, we cannot take your assertions of "overwhelming probabilities" for anything but desperation - find the goods, and letīs have a mutual look on it. Then we can conduct a serious discussion.
It has nothing to do with how credible I find men like Martin Fido - who I found thoroughly charming and knowledgeable when we met way back - but it has everything to do with justified demands for exact and thorough documentation of whatever materal you wish to use in the discussion - and I think not even you will call Iremongers alledged examination exactly and thoroughly documented.

"Have you forgotten the nature of Leander's letter? It was a "spontaneous comment" that should not be misconstrued as a full expert opinion because the material didn't facilitate any such thing. You can describe that as "heaps of information" if you wish"

When it comes to what Leander said, it seems I have forgotten more than you learnt, Ben. Are you seriously telling me that he did NOT describe general style, writing skills, leaning and letter-by-letter comparisons ? If that has gone amiss in your computer, I can always send it over. And it did not come from his letter, it came from his letterS - plural.
And if you truly think that material meagre, then what shall we say for Iremonger...? Unexisting? Gone with the wind?

My wording:
"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"

Your wording:
"But Leander said the precise opposite"

Did he now? Whenever I read him, he says that he cannot present a full expert report with only electronic material. Nowhere can I see that he tells us that forensic document experts will be UNABLE to do their work using photocopies. In fact, if this was the case, why would he even take on the task the way he did, if it was useless from the outset. Think again, and think right this time. By offering his wiew, he shows us that he was perfectly able to make an estimation relying on the twodimensional copies, but added that he would need the originals to reach a full understanding. That full understanding, though, he expected to be a confirmation of his wiew that we have a match.
So when you say that Leander said the "exact opposite", you are misleading once again, are you not?

"the truth" (which, in an outrageous display of arrogance, you consider to be synonymous with your posts..."

Just how outrageous can it be, Ben. Either Toppy wrote the signatures or he did not. I think he did, you think he did not. That makes us both "outrageous" and awards us both (statistically) the same chance of slipping away from the gallows. Myself, I am much more outraged by posters calling renowned researchers totally unreliable without a scrap of proof.

"It would certainly explain why you try and pick fights with me"

Itīs not about you, Ben, much as youīd love to have it that way. If any other poster had come up with the same arrogance and misleadings as you do, I would have reacted in the exact same fashion.
Then again, the fact remains that you have thrown forward numerous untenable suggestions and tried to force them down a number of unwilling throats, mine included, so I can see why you have a tendency to confuse matters here.

"I am working from the basis of the letter first shared with is on t'other thread. I judge Leander's contributions on that basis, and not on his reactions to successive bombardments that only reflected frustration on the part of the bombarder that the first letter wasn't sufficiently Toppy-endorsing for his tastes."

Oh, but it WAS Ben - Leander was "Toppy-endorsing" from the outset, and the frustration was to be found in your camp, not mine. And that frustration took very strange shapes, since you repeatedly refused to realize that Leanders verdict could go against you. When it did, it was the old put-your-fingers-in-the-ears trick again, to the extent that you suggested that we should listen to your interpretation of Leanders words only, disallowing his later posts that very clearly confirmed my stance and disagrred completely with yours. It was rotten luck on your behalf, Ben, and I donīt deny that. But there is only so much you can do - unless you choose to question the judgement of someone who is far superior to yourself and start spreading rumours that I secretely swayed Leander to the extent where I became a ventriloquist and he the puppet. Such things, of course, you can always do! It of course does not alter the fact that Leander clearly opted for a match, and it does not alter the fact that a man of his stature and reputation would not change anything to please anybody. And if you think that he did, you are really not at liberty to tell us that he was a discerning man as long as he provided you with a slim chance of survival, whereas he became a gullible idiot when I asked him to. You choose either or, and you donīt tell people that you "entertain no grave doubts as to the extent of his abilities and discernment" if that is not your true opinion. For if you think him gullible and easily swayed to abandon his own wiews for the benefit of those who discuss with him, you are very seriously questioning that ability and discernment. You canīt have it both ways, Ben. You canīt tell Garry that you agree that Leander is top notch, and then tell me that you consider him unreliable crap. Make up your mind - and try to stand by it REGARDLESS of who you are exchanging with. It will feel refreshing, once you try it.

"He went from a reputable authority who was happy to help, to a reputable authority who got sick of being bothered and acted in a manner that was likely appease the obvious biases of the botherer"

Was it you or I that spoke to him, Ben? He was quite happy to offer his wiew, he was never bothered, he took plentyful time to offer his wiew and he was quite amiable throughout. Plus, you must remember that a guy like Sam tells us that HIS wiew is that Leander was entirely responsible throughout the exchange. He seems not to see any dabbling on my behalf, but simply recognizes that Leander gave his wiew in a professional manner. But perhaps I was able to con Sam too, hiding my filthy work from him? Clever guy, I must be!
Like I said before, with a little effort you can find Leander and the SKL on the net. From that position, you can contact him and ask him if he feels that he was swindled into giving up his own convictions by me! It will cost you a minute or two, and perhaps the odd electronical penny, but really, Ben - donīt you find it worth the effort to finally be able to hang me out for the liar and con artist I am...? Actually, whenever you do take such actions, and whenever you produce Leanders admittance that he was lying through his teeth when he said that he would be surprised if it was not a match, I will merrily leave Casebook for ever.
That should be quite a carrott for you - should it not?

All the best from your stealthy con artist,
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I must second that Sam, one day the truth will emerge, hopefully in favour of Topping, but until we accept Reg hutchinsons account, we cannot move on, as I have stated on another thread , I am now all out in attempting to prove that Reg was on a radio programme in the early 70s, i spent along with my dear wife, and fab eldest daughter, looking through hundreds of Radio Times editions on wednesday, but because of a time limit, we were limited, and were unable to conquer first time, however Brighton University holds the answer in their archives, thanks to a late gentleman that donated every edition of that magazine from 1955-1990.
By all means, any of you that wish to get in first and find this Radio Broadcast, be my guest, just make a arranged appointment, [ Brighton Uni] and start searching from the relevant dates explained on my thread, and the pages to search.[that have not been vetted] I just want the truth not the glory
Regards Richard.

[Sam Flynn]

Can we please not discuss this further on this thread - nor on the "1911" thread for that matter. Given that all we seem to see is personal toing and froing between Ben and Fish going to extraordinary lengths, it might be better if it continued in PM-land, because it sure as hell distorts out of all proportion any thread on which the topic crops up.

I'm also getting depressed by the increasingly ad hominem nature of the debate, not to mention the aspersions being cast on the professional integrity of those who aren't even members of Casebook, and who cannot speak for themselves. This is extremely regrettable, indeed reprehensible, in my view.

[Ben]

Oh, for crying out loud.

Why, when you directed your posts to the other thread out of concern for derailing this one, are you still blitzing merrily here as though your life depended on it? To hell with the "public good" that you claimed to be so concerned about earlier. To blazes with "dropping the issue".

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

It's the lowest form of positive commentary, Fisherman, but positive commentary is not always intended to convey probability, and in this case, it wasn't, since there's no way that "cannot be ruled out" can ever mean probable. Do you really enjoy these repetitive discussions, or what? I mean, I just know you're going to repeat that "lowest hit on the positive" scale about a 100 more times, and I'm just as likely to challenge it that many times.

Doesn't it rather make a mockery of your claim that it's "useless" arguing with me? Most people aren't pathologically obsessed with dedicating as much time as possible to "useless" things.

The only options left open to you are that he misremembered, lied - or that he told us exactly what he meant.

Oh, the last option, of course.

And what he told us in his initial commentary did not, and cannot, mean "probable".

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.

But we have the overwhelming probability that she did precisely what several reputable authorities on the Whitechapel murders claimed she did, which was to compare the three statement signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature, and arrive at the opinion that they were not written by the same person. Since the chances of her having done anything other than what we're told she did by reputable sources are so hysterically slim to non-existent, the need for "definitive documentation" is effectively eradicated.

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.

So?

What flesh would you require?

What are the chances of Fido lying or forgetting about the nature of Iremonger's findings? Non-existent. Your doubts have no foundation, unless you're hell-bent on making truly irrational inferences, such as "Martin Fido didn't elaborate so therefore Iremonger must have analyzed the wrong documents"? Is that the sort of speculation that you feel is permissible in the absence of "definitive documentation"? Honestly, what are you trying to convince yourself of here?

On the other hand, we have heaps of information connected to Leander, where he breaks down the signatures element for element, general style, writing skills, leaning, letter-by-letter comparisons - all neatly presented

Okay, now you're being totally ridiculous.

Have you forgotten the nature of Leander's letter? It was a "spontaneous comment" that should not be misconstrued as a full expert opinion because the material didn't facilitate any such thing. You can describe that as "heaps of information" if you wish, but I feel certain that Leander himself would be the very first to disabuse you of such an obvious fallacy.

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.

Oh, but I have doubt on that matter - "heaps" of it in fact, the bulk of which stems from the fact that Leander's first letter conveyed not the slightest whiff of a suggestion that he would be surprised if the signatures didn't match. So please, please keep posting that extract and give me the excuse I crave to post my obvious objection to it.

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

But Leander said the precise opposite.

Doesn't that bother you slightly, since you've been claiming that your views mirror his in every particular? Not only does Leander flat out contradict the statement that "forensic document experts will be perfectly able to do their work using photocopies", he actually described it as "impossible".

Now, why am I - once again - telling you all of this? 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?

No, this reason doesn't work at all.

If you believed that every poster has the right to see "the truth" (which, in an outrageous display of arrogance, you consider to be synonymous with your posts), all you'd need to do is direct them to the 237 pages where this was thrashed out in detail before, wouldn't you? That way, you can illuminate the matter for those poor unenlightened souls that so desperately need your help to see them through the darkness before Ben gets to them. So that reason is patently bogus and clearly doesn't apply here. Let's look at another one:

Is it perhaps because I cannot refrain from fighting over the matter with you

This explanation would seem rather more compatible with the evidence, yes.

It would certainly explain why you try and pick fights with me concerning topics that were discussed in great depth before, and why you brazenly lie about wanting to drop the issue. Yep, I'd go with that explanation.

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?

I am working from the basis of the letter first shared with is on t'other thread. I judge Leander's contributions on that basis, and not on his reactions to successive bombardments that only reflected frustration on the part of the bombarder that the first letter wasn't sufficiently Toppy-endorsing for his tastes.

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

No.

He went from a reputable authority who was happy to help, to a reputable authority who got sick of being bothered and acted in a manner that was likely appease the obvious biases of the botherer.

[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 donīt 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

[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

[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.

[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

[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).

[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

[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. Itīslike calling out to the moon that it has chosen a colour you dislike; you are entitled to your opinion, but it wonīt change a thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

indeed

i've replied there.