The Leander Analysis

[Fisherman]

Really, Jane! What IS this?

The name George is not uncommon in Sweden (George Rydeberg is one of our most renowned actors, for example), and the suffix -son is the most common suffix around in Sweden when it comes to surnames.

Besides, I would have thought that you would now have recognized that some Swedes are not at a total loss when it comes to using the British language! And Frank Leander is a man that travels a lot to conferences and such - generally given in English. Letīs hope he is not totally chanceless to pick up on things there...!

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

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

Absolutely, Jane, and perhaps chief amongst them is this one:

"even though they may be in the same language, features that are common in that culture could mistakenly be thought to be unusual".

This factor and the others cited may account for the fact that:

"Document examiners normally work on writings in their own language "

[babybird67]

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.

What's your point here Vic? That where there are three examples of a signature it is all right for someone to select the one that is most similar because they WANT to believe they are by the same hand and therefore just show that to the expert?

With-holding information is bias; bias is unprofessional; Leander did not have the full set of signatures to compare. How do we know what he might have concluded if he had? It's too late now. Leander's view is utterly useless.

That there is doubt about which of the three sigs are Hutch's is even MORE reason to include them.

Experts need the full picture, not copies, not selective sampling, not idiots skewing their results with unforgiveable bias.

[Fisherman]

Iīm off for a while now, but I will leave you all with the assertion that theorizing that the two unexamined signatures would have meant that Leander would have put Toppy in the clear, very much resembles the suggestion of a police force clearing a man for a stabbing murder in spite of his having a bloodied knife in one of his pockets - for the reason that the other pockets were empty...

Lenaders relevance lies not in what he did not see and what he did not say - it lies in what he saw and in what he said; that a match seems a probability.

The best,
Fisherman

[Victor]

In these cases, caution must be exercised so that what may be considered unusual is not given too much weight.

Oh, just "exercise caution" then because for example English people typically use "zed" whereas Americans use "zee", and someone might think it uncommon when it's not.

[Ben]

Iīm off for a while now

You mean you can resist posting for a whole "while"?

very much resembles the suggestion of a police force clearing a man for a stabbing murder in spite of his having a bloodied knife in one of his pockets - for the reason that the other pockets were empty

But by your logic, you wouldn't even have given the policeman the opportunity to look in the other pocket, thus preventing him from making the discovery that it contained a sachet of ketchup and a half-eaten hotdog, thus indentifying the breadknife's intended purpose. You wouldn't have allowed him to examine the CCTV camera that clearly showed that another man committed the crime.

Fundamentally, you deliberately withheld information that would have made the Leander analysis far less meagre, and could have influenced his findings in all sorts of ways. I'm astounded that I never clocked this before, but this is what happens when you have a self-confessed "need" for your prior conclusion to be correct.

it lies in what he saw and in what he said; that a match seems a probability

Oh, that's a shame.

Despite my friendly plea, he just repeated himself again, so I'm afraid we'll need that generic response again:

Once again - and a trillion more times if necessary - I utterly reject the professed "surprise" if it were not a genuine match since that view is in stark contrast to his initial neutral stance. He couldn't possibly subscribe to both stances simultaneously.

[babybird67]

precisely Ben

perhaps we should just look at the Kelly murder and discount all the other canonicals...after all, one's opinion is so much more informed when one ignores most of the evidence.

[Ben]

Indeed, Beebs.

I must say, I'm really surprised by my failure to notice all this before!

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Victor

Look - and you will see that these are not my words, but the words of a respected document examiner, who has written a book on the subject so far in its 3rd edition.

I put the passage up so that everyone could see it easily, but don't blame me if you don't like it - I didn't write it!

best wishes

Jane x

[babybird67]

me too....

i had assumed Fish had naturally supplied all the relevant information. It beggars belief that he did not. I wish we had known this six hundred and forty thousand pages ago...it would have been much clearer then that the Leander cannon misfired because of improper loading and a very damp squib!

utterly unbelievable!

[Victor]

What's your point here Vic? That where there are three examples of a signature it is all right for someone to select the one that is most similar because they WANT to believe they are by the same hand and therefore just show that to the expert?

The point, that more signatures would inevitably introduce more dissimilarities. You can allege that Fish chose the signature because it's closest, whereas he states he picked the most complete and likely one. In either case the question "Is this signature by the same person as this one?" has been completely answered to the best of his ability, but that's a different question to "Is this one the same as this one, and this one, and this one?" That's why the blind analysis would be better.

With-holding information is bias; bias is unprofessional; Leander did not have the full set of signatures to compare. How do we know what he might have concluded if he had? It's too late now. Leander's view is utterly useless.

Asking fuller or more detailed questions doesn't invalidate the original question, you just need to be careful in the conclusions you draw from the answers, and avoid using the answer to the limited question to draw conclusions where you really need the fuller answer.

That there is doubt about which of the three sigs are Hutch's is even MORE reason to include them.

No, that's more reason to complete a double-blind examination where you throw in YOUR attempt at doing the signature too.

Experts need the full picture, not copies, not selective sampling, not idiots skewing their results with unforgiveable bias.

There was no bias, the question asked did not give the fuller answer you require. A fuller answer needs complete access to the information.

I think that allegations that Fish influenced Leander's opinion are ridiculously insulting to Leander's integrity.

KR,
Vic.

[Victor]

Look - and you will see that these are not my words, but the words of a respected document examiner, who has written a book on the subject so far in its 3rd edition.

I put the passage up so that everyone could see it easily, but don't blame me if you don't like it - I didn't write it!

Hi Jane,
I never said you did, and I'm not blaming you for anything, all I did was put my interpretation on what it says, hence the "zed"/"zee" analogy. I think that the passage you quoted is just a "cover your backside" get someone familiar with the samples comment, that is just common sense, akin to "get a plumber to check your plumbing, not an electrician".
KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

The point, that more signatures would inevitably introduce more dissimilarities.

How do you work that out? It would only give more opportunity for the expert to make up his own mind whether there were more similarities or differences, and what weight he should give to either. If the other signatures were more similar, they would have introduced more similarities, woudlnt they? They were deliberately excluded from the analysis by Fish because he thought they would introduce more dissimilarities because he wanted Leander to conclude the similarities outweighed the differences. That's not how science works. That's how bias works. Fish destroyed Leander, not me.

You can allege that Fish chose the signature because it's closest, whereas he states he picked the most complete and likely one.

Right. You are actually thinking about what you say arent you? So if someone thinks a signature is a "likely" match, but two others allegedly by the same person are correspondingly less likely, it is perfectly acceptable to de-select the pieces of information that might throw doubt upon the pre-conceived conclusion? Are you serious? It's a good job we don't approach the rest of Ripperology with the same disregard for objectivity...several suspects would have already been hung merely for being "most...likely" than others. That's not how it works, Victor. Not for sentient intelligent beings anyway

There was no bias

Utter nonsense. Selecting material you think best supports your conclsions is bias. Fish is guilty of that by his own admission. I could as easily approach an expert just supply signature 2...that would be just as biased. To avoid bias you objectively examine and analyse all the relevant material, not just what hasnt been withheld from you.

I think that allegations that Fish influenced Leander's opinion are ridiculously insulting to Leander's integrity.

Then you misunderstand me. Leander's integrity is not in doubt: Fish's integrity is, on the other hand, in tatters. Leander was not given a chance to give an informed opinion because his opinion was manipulated by Fish's selective sampling to be misinformed and flawed from the very beginning. Leander's views are worthless in this matter because of Fish: if you are looking for someone to blame for that state of affairs, you need to look further in the direction of his friend, Fish.

[Ben]

You can allege that Fish chose the signature because it's closest, whereas he states he picked the most complete and likely one

There shouldn't have been any "picking" at all, Victor. That's the crucial point that shouldn't be overlooked. In the early 1990s, Sue Iremonger obtained the original documents - the marriage certificate signature of Toppy, and all thee statement signatures. It is generally accepted that document examiners must be supplied with as much material as possible in order to increase the accuracy of their results. That didn't happen in the case of Leander. Fisherman admitted that he had a "need" for his earlier conclusion to be correct, and so he "picked" one signature to send Leander - coincidentally, the one he thought most resembled the Toppy entry.

There is no question that Fisherman influenced Leander's opinion. I'm not saying he did so through use of deliberately devious tactics, but "influenced" it certainly was. Even setting aside the signature "picking", there's the recent communication with Leander which amounted essentially to: "Ben has interpreted your words as follows, but before you agree with him, just remember that he has called you a liar". Appeal to the emotions of the expert, and you're guaranteed to engender a skewed response.

[Victor]

i had assumed Fish had naturally supplied all the relevant information. It beggars belief that he did not. I wish we had known this six hundred and forty thousand pages ago...it would have been much clearer then that the Leander cannon misfired because of improper loading and a very damp squib!

utterly unbelievable!

I've told you a million times, don't exaggerate.