The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

“You mean you still didn't understand what I actually wrote? I'm not 'now' claiming that, and what I wrote and what I meant has not changed, and neither has my opinion.”

I’m not saying it has, which is a relief since you’ve never previously cast doubt on Iremonger’s findings, and I’d be deeply disappointed if you were to do so now. I’ve merely pointed out that you have made a “suggestion” – I’m not saying it reflects your opinion either than or now, or that you’ve radically changed your mind, but suggest it you most assuredly did. You’re now saying that you consider it a very bad suggestion, which, with the greatest respect, was not immediately clear at the time, while I don’t consider it particularly bad at all. Not my favoured explanation by a long shot, since I’m also inclined to your view that she “used only her skill and considerable experience on each occasion and got nothing wrong”, but I wouldn’t completely dismiss the alternative.

“To sum up, you are the one undermining the validity of Sue's professional opinions by suggesting she either got her page one sig comparison wrong (while you know better just using your own eyesight - being wrong is not one of your faults, is it? ) or she got it right but only because she had 'help' from another source but neglected to say anything.”

I’m not suggesting that she “got her page one sig comparison wrong” at all. I’ve said that if I were to look at the three signatures and chalk them up to the same source, only to be met with the views of a professional document examiner explicitly stating otherwise, I’d be the very first to relinquish my hobbyist first impressions and defer to her vastly more extensive experience. That’s not declaring her wrong at all, and it's the polar opposite of claiming that my eyesight counts for more. The notion that she was supplied with prior misinformation as to what had already been established pre-analysis isn’t probable necessarily, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely.

“…where I've expressed any opinions re Toppy, it's to say I'm on the fence but leaning, if anything, towards Sue's opinion. You are so trigger happy that you missed all this.”

Guilty as charged, most probably. Yours is a commendable view, but I can hardly be blamed for having misread you slightly when so many of your posts – even the ones in which you express agreement with me – are so perpetually peppered with negative insinuations about my character and motivations.

[caz]

...even if you're now claimingthat people can't be forgiven for assuming that Iremonger had been supplied with the pre-analysis piece of information that signature #1 wasn't written by the same person who authored signatures #2 and #3, you'd be wrong anyway, since anyone could be forgiven for arriving at such a conclusion, irrespective of their familiarity with the topic.

You mean you still didn't understand what I actually wrote? I'm not 'now' claiming that, and what I wrote and what I meant has not changed, and neither has my opinion. You are free to have your own opinion, but you are not entitled to change my words to match what you think, or what you think I really meant.

So please read my paragraph again for a full explanation of who I think might have been forgiven for wondering if (not 'assuming that') Sue's conclusion could have been based on something beyond her own expertise. The circumstances were also very specific, in that Crystal had advised people not to take experts seriously if they pronounced themselves 'definite' about a signature comparison. Had she (or he) not done that, I would have had no reason to say what I said. In short, newbies - exclusively - would have been unable to reconcile the advice of one 'expert' - Crystal - with the 'definite' conclusion of another expert - Sue. There is nothing for newbies to reconcile now if Crystal's advice was plain wrong.

The only reason for you to alter what I wrote would be to alter the meaning so you can challenge it. What the hell is the point of challenging your own misinterpretation?

Which of Sue's findings have I even attempted to invalidate? I said at the start that I had noticed Badham's H's were just like the one on the page one sig, and where I've expressed any opinions re Toppy, it's to say I'm on the fence but leaning, if anything, towards Sue's opinion. You are so trigger happy that you missed all this.

To sum up, you are the one undermining the validity of Sue's professional opinions by suggesting she either got her page one sig comparison wrong (while you know better just using your own eyesight - being wrong is not one of your faults, is it? ) or she got it right but only because she had 'help' from another source but neglected to say anything.

Don't drag me into it by twisting my words until they match with your own speculation. Personally I suspect Sue used only her skill and considerable experience on each occasion and got nothing wrong, but there you go. If you think otherwise, that's your affair.

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

one doesn't need a BSc in something-or-other to be able to point out the bleedin' obvious.

Although it's handy to have an expert practitioner such as Sue Iremonger spell out just what the bleedin' obvious is in this case.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

In principle, you're quite right, but the people who "think she could be wrong" must first be in an adequate position to demonstrate superior expertise than the professional document examiner that Sue Iremonger clearly is

That doesn't necessarily follow, Ben - one doesn't need a BSc in something-or-other to be able to point out the bleedin' obvious.

[Ben]

Gosh, as soon as one keyboard warrior leaves, another one - yet more vacuous and aggressive - takes over almost immediately, and all in the interests of yet another ill-fated attempt to take me on.

I sighed because I caught you repeating an old lie of yours about my position, long after I had explained to you why it was a lie and advised you to quote me directly in future if you couldn't trust yourself to represent my position honestly or accurately.

If you think for one measly moment that you've "caught" me doing anything of the sort, then you're either a liar yourself or just plain delusional. Both would be my guess, but even if you're now claiming that people can't be forgiven for assuming that Iremonger had been supplied with the pre-analysis piece of information that signature #1 wasn't written by the same person who authored signatures #2 and #3, you'd be wrong anyway, since anyone could be forgiven for arriving at such a conclusion, irrespective of their familiarity with the topic.

What you think of the suggestion is irrelevant, quite frankly. You made it, and it has obvious merit regardless of the experience (or lack thereof) of whoever offered it, whether it comes from a newbee with no knowledge of Iremonger and her work, or a more experienced hobbyist. If you're so intent on downplaying the validity of the suggestion you made (whether you agree with it or not) then I'm baffled why you should have mentioned it at all.

Fundamentally, don't keep coming up with lousy excuses for invalidating Iremonger's findings. Your none-too-subtle implication is that Iremonger's view (whether the result of personal analysis or prior information - the former, most likely) on the first signature somehow detracts from the validity of her analysis as a whole, and that simply isn't permissible as a deduction, since our own interpretations of the visual stimuli don't trump hers.

Just stop lying and I'll stop sighing. Is that simple enough for you?

Sigh as often as you like. I don't care, but if you're intent on repeating these previously buried micro-arguments, go ahead. Please. I'm playing.

[caz]

Hi Ben,

I sighed because I caught you repeating an old lie of yours about my position, long after I had explained to you why it was a lie and advised you to quote me directly in future if you couldn't trust yourself to represent my position honestly or accurately. It's your own credibility at stake if you persist in misrepresenting me like this, because every time you do it another reader must wonder whether you are being blatantly dishonest or you're just simple. What would you put this unfortunate habit of yours down to?

You claimed I had: 'made the reasonable suggestion yourself that Iremonger could have been “informed” from the outset that Hutchinson was not responsible, thus accounting for her “definite” claim'.

But I have never claimed that I thought Sue could have been informed from the outset, nor did I claim it was a reasonable suggestion. In fact I have had to tell you on several occasions now that I don't believe this could be the case because I don't think it's reasonable for anyone who knows anything about Sue's work to think that she would ever give the misleading impression that she had used only her comparison skills to reach a conclusion if she had been given the information on a plate via other means.

If for some reason you have difficulty understanding the above paragraph could you just say so now and get it over with instead of repeating your mangled interpretation of it yet again at some point in the future. I don't mind you making a regular tit of yourself but correcting you does get a bit of a chore.

Just stop lying and I'll stop sighing.

Is that simple enough for you?

Love,

Caz
X

[Ben]

Don't "sigh" at me.

If you're having trouble staying awake, nobody's forcing you to contribute here, and if all you've got in your limited insult-based armoury is ponderous and belaboured comparisons with insects, then you are clearly wasting your own time (or more likely, trying to get me banned or suspended by encouraging me to respond with disproportionate hostility which, I'll admit, was a huge temptation).

they might have been forgiven for wondering if something other than her professional opinion had informed such a clearcut, no nonsense conclusion

It wouldn't have made a scrap of difference whether they had "no knowledge or preconceptions" when they "wondered" if Iremonger had been supplied with information pertaining to signature #1 prior to embarking on her analysis. They would still be forgiven for concluding as much, since it's so obviously a reasonable suggestion. As for my own views on the signatures, it would seem to my untrained eye that all signatures appended to the statement originated from the same hand, but you won't find me sticking my head in the sand like an ostrich or a hobbyist and claiming that an expect must be wrong because my eyes must be correct.

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

It's the age kicking in, but was that Crystal, Rose, or Jane? Maybe another person? I'm just confused now.

Mike

[caz]

Hi Ben,

Sigh. As you well know (unless you have the memory and comprehension skills of a backward earwig), I made all sorts of qualifications regarding that particular 'suggestion'. Once again for the record, what I said was that if someone with no knowledge or preconceptions had come here and read that Sue had claimed Badham was definitely responsible for sig one, they might have been forgiven for wondering if something other than her professional opinion had informed such a clearcut, no nonsense conclusion.

You are free to find the suggestion a reasonable one, if you think Sue could have neglected to tell people how she could be so certain in this instance and let them think it was all down to her comparison skills.

Do you think Badham was responsible for sig one? I thought you agreed with Crystal that one person signed all three pages (Jack the Ripper using an alias, wasn't it?), but I apologise profusely if I have you mixed up another poster.

Love,

Constant Caz
X

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

Of course, as I've said before, if anyone thinks she could be wrong about this particular signature comparison, they would have to concede that she could also be wrong about the two witness sigs not matching the one from Toppy's wedding certificate

In principle, you're quite right, but the people who "think she could be wrong" must first be in an adequate position to demonstrate superior expertise than the professional document examiner that Sue Iremonger clearly is before dismissing her conclusions. Otherwise they run the risk of their dismissals being "dismissed" themselves. This ought to be acknowledged prior to casting any judgement on the matter, rather than picking and choosing which bits of Iremonger's conclusions they wish to endorse, which I'd be the first to agree in the step in the wrong direction.

You made the reasonable suggestion yourself that Iremonger could have been “informed” from the outset that Hutchinson was not responsible, thus accounting for her “definite” claim, but even if that wasn’t the case, a handful of a hobbyists arguing for the dismissal of an expert because they think “their own eyesight” tells them something different is hardly likely to cast any doubt on her findings or expertise. I’m not saying you’re one such hobbyist, but even if I personally felt that signature #1 matched the other two on the statement, the last thing I’ll do is claim that my judgement should be prioritised over hers.

Best regards,
Ben

[The Good Michael]

Caz,

It remains as you have said. First page Badham and the others Hutchinson. Nothing has been further clarified, and it seems she ain't talking.

Mike

[caz]

Iremonger's analysis should be tempered in light of two factors, Vic - firstly, that we still don't know whether she was looking at a copy of the original wedding certificate or an official duplicate, i.e. one completed by a clerk rather than Hutchinson himself. Secondly, her suggestion that Hutchinson might not have signed all three pages of the witness statement should give us significant pause for thought (compare my recent montage, which you kindly mentioned earlier).

The much-vaunted Sue Iremonger suggested that the witness statement signatures could have been written by different hands.

Hi Sam,

Quick pop in as I have not caught up properly with any Hutch threads lately.

Have we heard more from Sue Iremonger then? The last I heard was that she was definite that Badham had signed for the witness on page one, while pages two and three were both signed by the witness.

Of course, as I've said before, if anyone thinks she could be wrong about this particular signature comparison, they would have to concede that she could also be wrong about the two witness sigs not matching the one from Toppy's wedding certificate, especially as she did not express the same certainty over that one.

If people start to pick and choose which of Sue's opinions/conclusions they want us to go along with and which they don't, they must either be recruiting their own untrained eyeballs to endorse or doubt the work of a professional document examiner (which is downright cheeky if they are busy telling others they must trust and respect expert opinion and not their own eyesight!) or it's personal bias - and very likely both.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sam Flynn]

I could have phrased that rather better than I did.

So should I have phrased my response better, Jane I'll admit I was a bit touchy yesterday.

[Jane Welland]

Sorry Sam..

I could have phrased that rather better than I did. I'll leave the argument to those who know best from now on. Best regards, Jane x

[Jane Welland]

Sorry Sam..

I could have phrased that rather better than I did. I'll leave the argument to those who know best from now on. Best regards, Jane x