The Leander Analysis

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland:

"Anyhow - what do I think? Well, to judge by your most recent account of his response to you, he has put the matter quite fairly, I think. I thought I had made that clear already? He has insufficient material. You say that he would always have such because there are not the requisite 10 samples on each side - and I accept that. What I don't accept is that his view can be accepted as being any more than it is when it is based on less than the whole number of samples available. His view would be worth more if he had seen them all. I'm sticking to that one, I'm afraid, as it is a matter of plain logic - I say again, if you don't have the complete picture, you have incomplete information - stands to reason."

Fair as it comes, Jane - couldn´t be more pleased with that answer.

"I accept what you say about your reasons for sending the final witness signature to Leander, but with the greatest of respect, Fisherman, in not sending all three you have run the risk of unduly colouring Leander's view towards a match - I do not say intentionally."

Look at it this way, Jane; if you pick keys from a pile of individually shaped keys in a barrel, and try them in a lock, then when you find the one that fits, it matters not if the same locksmith that shaped that key did not shape the others in the same fashion. The shapes of these keys do not - in retrospect - remould the first key you found. It remains the correct one.

In the same fashion, if we imagine a situation where only the signature Leander saw existed as he made his examination, then the sudden appearance on the stage of the two other signatures would not mean that he would change his meaning about the signature he first saw.
Weighed together, he may or may not have reached another result than the one he has handed down, that is only logical to deduct, but in the question of what the signature from page three represents visually, not a iota will change. It will remain the same graphic conglomerate of lines and curves as it always was, and THAT particular signature therefore also remains a probable match.

After that, we can go on for ages discussing the other signatures (that are also very much alike the third one in very many respects, as effectively shown by Sam on the 1911 thread), just as we can go on discussing whether I had any other intents than the ones I have already given you. Such discussions can result in heaps of things, but one of them is not the signature from the third protocol page changing in any respect.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Victor,

The problem here is that you cannot simultaneously convey a neutral stance AND a belief that the signatures register a "remarkable consistency", simply because the latter isn't neutral at all! Neutrality is what came across very strongly in Leander's first contribution. He listed some similatiries, but observed that "against these", there are differences. On balance, he observed that "it could not be ruled out" that we're dealing with the same person.

That, for the record, reflects my stance on the matter.

Personally, I don't consider it likely that Toppy was the individual we seek, but I wouldn't dream of "ruling him out" conclusively.

If Leander's neutrality needed any further reinforcement, he even provided a grading system, from which we learn that the expression he used, "cannot be ruled out", was applicable in the cases of neutrality. We've since learned that Leander was supplied with information that he ajudged to be "meagre" despite the fact that the "supplier" had the opportunity to make it less meagre by providing all three statement signatures, which is what Sue Iremoner was supplied with in the 1990s.

That can impact hugely on any judgement tendered. For instance, if he saw other signatures from the same individual that registered far less similarity with the Toppy entry, it may have increased the validity of the assumption that the perceived similarities were of a rather more coincidental nature, not that I personally detected much similarity.

All the best,
Ben

[babybird67]

That can impact hugely on any judgement tendered. For instance, if he saw other signatures from the same individual that registered far less similarity with the Toppy entry, it may have increased the validity of the assumption that the perceived similarities were of a rather more coincidental nature, not that I personally detected much similarity.

Precisely, Ben. How biased and unprofessional to de-select valid comparative materials on the basis that these materials might actually sway the examiner to place more emphasis on the differences than he otherwise might.

A spectacular own goal there by the pro-Leander camp. I am still in utter shock at the revelation that he wasnt provided with all the available materials myself. "Meagre" doesnt even begin to cover it.

[Jane Welland]

I ask again...

The following questions, to which, so far, I have received no response - let alone a satisfactory one.

1.Why, if the match between the signatures is as clear and obvious as some would have it, have the two experts who have seen those very signatures not concurred with that view?

2. Who are the 'anti-Toppy' camp? So far, I haven't witnessed anyone posting the words 'Toppy was not Hutch', whereas I have certainly seen the reverse. Raising concerns, asking questions - none of that amounts to opposition. Are we seriously suggesting that people should accept as truth and absolute fact the opinions of a few who believe in the identification without questioning that? Surely not.

3. How can Leander have provided an accurate appraisal of the signature material when he didn't have it all in the first place? Whilst it may have some merit - it must remain seriously flawed imo. Fisherman, you seem to think that you have sent Leander the best example in your view, but I'm afraid I don't think that was really the point. If you were prepared to let Leander make his own mind up about a match, or not, he should have been supplied with all three.

As it stands, I think 'analysis' is too strong a word for what Leander has done here.

Best to all.

Jane x

[Victor]

The problem here is that you cannot simultaneously convey a neutral stance AND a belief that the signatures register a "remarkable consistency", simply because the latter isn't neutral at all!

Hi Ben,
Maybe that's where we disagree then, I think he's saying that he can't give a professional "definite match" becasue of the lack of sufficient sample size, but those provided do match.

If Leander's neutrality needed any further reinforcement, he even provided a grading system, from which we learn that the expression he used, "cannot be ruled out", was applicable in the cases of neutrality.

But "cannot be ruled out" is more positive than "cannot be ruled in" isn't it?

And finally, does script refer to language? Are French and English the same script whereas Mandarin is different?

KR,
Vic.

[Fisherman]

Victor writes:

"Maybe that's where we disagree then, I think he's saying that he can't give a professional "definite match" becasue of the lack of sufficient sample size, but those provided do match."

Exactly, Victor, and that should be pretty obvious to anybody with a talent for reading - but are you not afraid to fan the fire again? Ben HAS warned you not to disagree with him, mind you...!

Welcome aboard on the sane side, anyways. No fires around here!

The very best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Victor,

I think he's saying that he can't give a professional "definite match" becasue of the lack of sufficient sample size, but those provided do match

I'd have less trouble accepting this interpretation if he conveyed this impression - even by the vaguest of insinuations in the most guarded terminology - that he felt this to be the case. Unfortunately, this didn't happen.

But "cannot be ruled out" is more positive than "cannot be ruled in" isn't it?

Oh, absolutely.

The latter effectively means "impossible", whereas the former means "not impossible". Unfortunately, neither mean probable or any synonyms thereof.

In this instance "script" refers to the actual writing. At least, I'd imagine so.

Best regards,
Ben

P.S. To Fisherman: Victor wasn't fanning flames in expressing disagreement with me, at least not today anyway. Fanning the flames is making inflammatory comments intended to goad the opposition, and "Welcome aboard on the sane side, anyways" qualifies rather well on that score. Don't do it again, please. Most annoying.

[babybird67]

Hi Ben,
Maybe that's where we disagree then, I think he's saying that he can't give a professional "definite match" becasue of the lack of sufficient sample size, but those provided do match.


But "cannot be ruled out" is more positive than "cannot be ruled in" isn't it?

And finally, does script refer to language? Are French and English the same script whereas Mandarin is different?

KR,
Vic.

Hi Victor

there were three witness signatures on the statement of George Hutchinson. Fish now admits he self-selected which single one of these to send to Leander for comparison. Do you think that is a professional and scientific way to go about establishing facts? Do you not think that if Leander had seen all three signatures he would have been in a much better position to express an opinon, either way or neutral, on whether the signatures as a whole matched those made by Toppy? It is no good saying "those provided do match" when we now know that two thirds of the signatures available, most notably the ones which show most deviation from Toppy's examples, were deliberately withheld from the analysis. If you fancy basing anything definite on foundations like those, i'd advise you to treble your home insurance!

Script refers to actual characters of writing. Egyptian script is not the same as English script. Leander's original responses show that he is operating within a different script to English script. That is quite plain.



best wishes

[babybird67]

Victor writes:

"Maybe that's where we disagree then, I think he's saying that he can't give a professional "definite match" becasue of the lack of sufficient sample size, but those provided do match."

Exactly, Victor, and that should be pretty obvious to anybody with a talent for reading - but are you not afraid to fan the fire again? Ben HAS warned you not to disagree with him, mind you...!

Welcome aboard on the sane side, anyways. No fires around here!

The very best,
Fisherman

Fish, exactly how obtuse are you?

You cannot self select which signatures to send to someone...you have revealed your utter bias by not providing the signatures available and by manipulating the results of Leander's "analysis" by with-holding from him the information he needed to give us even a vaguely informed opinion.

You truly are an utter dolt! Utterly. Totally. Irrefutably.

Victor, i suggest you reappraise your position in the light of the FACTS. Leander's "comparison" was flawed from the start... Fish engineered it to be so. If he had wanted a fair, professional appraisal, he would have honestly offered all the relevant information, which means all the signatures on the witness statement.

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland:

"1.Why, if the match between the signatures is as clear and obvious as some would have it, have the two experts who have seen those very signatures not concurred with that view?

2. Who are the 'anti-Toppy' camp? So far, I haven't witnessed anyone posting the words 'Toppy was not Hutch', whereas I have certainly seen the reverse. Raising concerns, asking questions - none of that amounts to opposition. Are we seriously suggesting that people should accept as truth and absolute fact the opinions of a few who believe in the identification without questioning that? Surely not.

3. How can Leander have provided an accurate appraisal of the signature material when he didn't have it all in the first place? Whilst it may have some merit - it must remain seriously flawed imo. Fisherman, you seem to think that you have sent Leander the best example in your view, but I'm afraid I don't think that was really the point. If you were prepared to let Leander make his own mind up about a match, or not, he should have been supplied with all three."

1. One of them have, Jane: Leander. I find it hard to interpret him in any other way when he tells us that he would be surprised if it was NOT a match.

2. Well, Jane, my contention is that Ben would not be opposed to participating in that "camp", and I can identify a few otheres how may contamplate popping in. I did not invent the epiteth myself, but I must say that I am having no trouble at all realizing that there are two sides in this issue.
I am not, however, suggesting that anybody should accept anything, with or without questioning it. I am, though, of the meaning that I shall be at least awarded the right to speak my own meaning without being accused of having persuaded Leander to lie on my behalf, just as I am quite unwilling to adjust to anybodys suggestion that I am shoving things down their throats. Thin whatever you want, but do not be surprised if I criticize thoughts that I find unrelated to reality.

3. Leander cannot give a full opinion whichever way you look at it, Jane.He can, however, and have also done so, state that he is of the meaning that the signature from the protocol he looked at and Toppys signatures are a probable match.
It would seem now that there is a wish that he had seen all three signatures, and that a wished-for negative verdict on behalf on signatures one and two would have "washed off" enough for him to say that Toppy could not have been the man...?

As I keep saying, Leanders examination remains an unscientific one in many respects. But we DO have a comparison made regarding the third signature, taken in isolation and therefore assessed by nothing but it´s own inherent qualitites, and that prompted Leander to recognize a probable match. No matter if he would have thought the other two written by Josef Stalin and the Shah of Persia, respectively, the fact remains that we have a probable match according to Leander.
That, and nowhere else, is where the all-important significance lies.

the best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

<takes great delight in handing Fisherman a spade>

...keep digging man...the next position you adopt must logically be that Leander didnt have to look at any signatures at all...he just knew by intellectual osmosis that they "could not be ruled out".

[Jane Welland]

David Ellen says...

I have looked at the link posted by BB - and here is what it says, verbatim, and anyone who wants to see for themselves can of course do so by following said link:

The relevant passage actually reads as follows:

Document examiners normally work on writings in their own language and have little difficulty recognising each letter; they can refer to their experience of variation found within writings of styles familiar to them. When writings originating from other countries are examined, even though they may be in the same language, features that are common in that culture could mistakenly be thought to be unusual. A greater difficulty arises when unfamiliar languages are encountered. Although many of the features found will be recognizable as atypical of writings with which the examiner is familiar, he will be unaware of which are common or uncommon in that style. In these cases, caution must be exercised so that what may be considered unusual is not given too much weight.

Scientific Examination of Documents: Methods and Techniques (3rd Ed.)

David Ellen, 2005.

I think there are several points there that could be considered 'salient', hmmm?

Best to all,

Jane x

[Victor]

Script refers to actual characters of writing. Egyptian script is not the same as English script. Leander's original responses show that he is operating within a different script to English script. That is quite plain.

Erm... Leander is Scandinavian isn't he, so therefore he is using the same script (alphabet) as English!

Victor, i suggest you reappraise your position in the light of the FACTS. Leander's "comparison" was flawed from the start... Fish engineered it to be so. If he had wanted a fair, professional appraisal, he would have honestly offered all the relevant information, which means all the signatures on the witness statement.

Surely all we're asking is, is this signature by the same person as this signature? And the answer is "not impossible". I've not stated whether I think Toppy is Hutch, and for the record I would have to answer "not impossible".

Including more signatures would inevitably introduce more dissimilarities, so maybe the first question would have to be, are the 3 original signatures by the same hand? Which I think Ben was hinting at in his blind\double-blind comments from yesterday.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

Victor

there are variations in the script if you read the untranslated text. Variations like that make a difference.

Would you like to comment on the fact that Fish withheld all the signatures from the expert? Why dont you think Fish trusted the expert with the full information? What possible reason could there be for not subjecting all the relevant examples to analysis? I'd be interested to know what you think.

Sam/Mike...i'd be interested in what you both think of this selective analysing as well...does it cut any ice with either of you?

[Ben]

I am, though, of the meaning that I shall be at least awarded the right to speak my own meaning

Nobody has denied you that right, Fisherman.

But you must also understand that other people disagree with that meaning, and that it's an exercise in futility on your part to keep repeating your originial claim "Leander saw a probable match" when you know full well that is has been challenged times. That is shoving a thing down people's throats, Fisherman. I'll resist the temptation to copy and paste a generic respose to this oft-repeated assertion. If you feel you are able to exercise a similar degree of restraint next time you decide to repeat the same previously challenged assertion, there will be a lot less repetition and considerably less hostility.

Best regards,
Ben