The Leander Analysis

[Victor]

There shouldn't have been any "picking" at all, Victor. That's the crucial point that shouldn't be overlooked.

Absolutely. And if it was blind it would be better still. Was the Iremonger opinion blind?

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.

Or the one most likely to be genuine? In Fish's opinion (not that I'm agreeing with it).

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.

But "Fish influenced Leander" (or even "tried to") doesn't mean that Leaner gave a more favourable answer because of Fish's behaviour. That would be a question of Leander's integrity in dealing with the information supplied.

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

Ben we are dolts! Garry nailed this in his very first post...

look, here:

Equally, the specimens themselves originated from here on the Casebook site as part of a list posted by Sam purely for illustrational purposes. Uppermost on the list was one of the three signatures appended by Hutchinson to his police statement. The other two were absent. Worse still, not a single one of the Toppy signatures included the William that we know to have been an integral part of his regular signature. In scientific terms, such omissions constitute a case of sampling error and are sufficient to invalidate the entire analysis.

Garry originally italicised this, but i have underlined and made it bold as well just to emphasise further. Garry goes on to point out that this is significant sampling error and furthermore invalidates the entire analysis.

This must be conceded by anyone interested in establishing the facts in a scientific, objective and non-biased way.

Apologies to Garry for overlooking this most salient and significant point...you were right in post one...why are we still arguing? Even Sam would have to agree with this, i am sure (please post Sam and let us know what you think).

And yet, for all of the sampling error and induced bias of which Frank was patently unaware, he was only able to conclude that ‘It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person’. .

Quite right Garry...none of the bias or sampling error was of Leander's making. All that lies squarely at the door of one poster here and that is Fish. I wish to make clear that i have the utmost of respect for Leander and for what he has said: it is not his fault that relevant information he has been led to believe has been included has been deliberately withheld from him. The flaws and failings of the Leander analysis have never been anything to do with Leander's abilities in his field whatsoever, but the defective samples and bias that has led a campaign to claim Toppy as Hutch based on working backwards from a position of certainty and trying to force the evidence then to fit the theory. That is not objective. That is not scientific. That is not acceptable.

Apologies once again Garry for not picking up on this earlier...i guess it was so certain in my mind that nobody could possibly withhold such vital information from an analysis of this kind.

[Ben]

But "Fish influenced Leander" (or even "tried to") doesn't mean that Leaner gave a more favourable answer because of Fish's behaviour.

It needn't necessarily mean that, Victor, and I personally hope it doesn't. I'm still firmly of the opinion that, for some reason, Leander has given radicaly contrasting views. In the interests of maintaining the peace, and out of respect for the individuals involved, I won't speculate further as to why this should have been the case, but I find it odd in the extreme, and I even provided an example where a contradiction was proven to have occured.

Ultimately, I think it would have been prudent to have allowed Leander's initial comments to stand without pressing him for additional "clarification", especially after he made it clear that he did not wish to elaborate further.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

Thanks, Beebs.

I'm amazed at my oversight from the outset, doubly so after Garry specifically referred to it. Quite numptescent of me, I must say.

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Where's Fish gone?

Does anybody know...?

Jane x

[babybird67]

oh my goodness

Or the one most likely to be genuine? In Fish's opinion (not that I'm agreeing with it).

Who is Fish to decide that? If we are going to decide which ones we think are genuine and then just ask experts to look at that and agree, what is the point of consulting a document examiner in the first place? What right has Fish to decide which one he thinks is genuine? He is not God. And if you are not agreeing with his opinion, you are doing a pretty good job of pretending you are by justifying selective materials being used as if this is not a problem and has no detrimental effect on the conclusions given.

But "Fish influenced Leander" (or even "tried to") doesn't mean that Leaner gave a more favourable answer because of Fish's behaviour. That would be a question of Leander's integrity in dealing with the information supplied.

Not at all Vic. Fish did influence Leander because he did not tell Leander there were two other signatures on the same witness statement for Leander to look at. Put it this way, say Leander came over to look at the actual documents. What do you think he would have done when faced with the statement? Do you think he would have looked at page one and decided on that signature alone that the differences outweighed the similarities? let's say he did his job and despite that he went on to look at signature 2...again, more differences? Might he then have thought, "Well i wont bother looking at the third signature. One or two will do. I have made up my mind."

Absolutely not. He would have examined the document in its entirety, because that is how one comes to an informed, objective, scientific opinion. He was not given the opportunity to do this. He was supplied with a defective sample because Fish had already decided the only signature Fish wanted Leander to look at was the one which was most similar, which, if you refer to Garry's first post on this thread, was even considered by Leander as the signature which LEAST resembled the following signatures, which were by Toppy.

If Leander thought the most similar signature was the one that could least be matched to the Toppy examples, do you not think his opinion could have been different if he had also been given the opportunity to see and examine the other two much less similar Hutchinson signatures?

If you cannot see that withholding this vital information had the effect of influencing and manipulating the opinion Leander was able to come up with, through no fault of Leander's whatsoever, i do not know how else to explain it to you.

All i can suggest is that you PM me for a recommendation for good home insurance!

[Victor]

Who is Fish to decide that? If we are going to decide which ones we think are genuine and then just ask experts to look at that and agree, what is the point of consulting a document examiner in the first place?

Every right, he wanted an opinion and he asked for one. The point of asking a document examiner is to get an expert opinion to confirm Fish's amateur hypothesis. That's the entire point of experts isn't it?

If you cannot see that withholding this vital information had the effect of influencing and manipulating the opinion Leander was able to come up with, through no fault of Leander's whatsoever, i do not know how else to explain it to you.

Surely it's obvious that your signatures differ slightly from eachother, and the more you compare the greater the number of genuine natural variations will crop up. True a significantly large sample size should average out the natural variations and give a better conclusion, but when your talking about 1 or 3 samples then the "noise" could be significantly distort the results, so taking the best and comparing that makes some sort of sense. Just think of what would've happened if Leander said "no match", you'd all be whooping that Toppy definitely wasn't Hutch.

I still think "not impossible" is the best you're going to get.

Anyway, was the Iremonger examination blind? Does anyone know?

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

Every right, he wanted an opinion and he asked for one. The point of asking a document examiner is to get an expert opinion to confirm Fish's amateur hypothesis. That's the entire point of experts isn't it?

nope. Wrong. He had no right to portray Leander's response as professional when he knew full well he had skewed the sample. I'm sorry if you think otherwise. People can only give informed responses when they are enabled to do so by being provided with objective evidence. I find it difficult to accept there is anything remotely arguable about this point. Also, Fish was asking on behalf of everyone here...he had a responsibilty to ensure the expert he approached was supplied with all the relevant information, which he failed to do.

Surely it's obvious that your signatures differ slightly from eachother, and the more you compare the greater the number of genuine natural variations will crop up.

Nope. It's obvious that the greater number you compare, the greater experience you will have of how that particular person writes, what deviations there are, and what emphasis to put on the similarities vs the variations. How can you possibly argue that the lesser the evidence, the better the conclusion? What other field could this possibly apply in?

My hypothesis once was that Klosowski was the Ripper. I could have taken all the evidence that suggests this could be true, shown it to someone, and asked them if they thought Klosowski was the Ripper. Deliberately with holding from them all the other evidence that suggests he might not have been the Ripper would have skewed their understanding, wouldnt it?

Informed responses have to take account of ALL the evidence, not just select bits of evidence that appear to support a pre-conceived notion.

By the way i no longer think it was Klosowski....human beings are capable of learning, and that's what i did when i started to look at objective, rational evidence.

By the way, i agree that the identification is possible...not probable, not certain, but possible, but that's as far as the evidence can take us.

Anyway, was the Iremonger examination blind? Does anyone know?

I dont know Vic. I dont have the books she was published in. She stood on her professional credentials however in being published and she examined the originals, which would have mean comparing all three signatures which is obviously better than not doing so. I don't go as far as she does in discounting a match for sure. However i respect her opinion.

best wishes

[Ben]

Surely it's obvious that your signatures differ slightly from eachother, and the more you compare the greater the number of genuine natural variations will crop up.

Exacltly, which is why it makes every sense to include as many examples of the same handwriting as possible, and which is why all professional document examiners ask for precisely that wherever it may be available. The "natural variations" provide the very reason for including all three signatures in this case, since any one of the supposed similarities between sig #3 and the Toppy census entry could mistakenly be chalked up to an ingrained similarity that will aways be present whenever the individual write's his name, as opposed to what it really is - a "natural variation".

so taking the best and comparing that makes some sort of sense

But who gets to decide which is "best", or more precisely, how is anybody to know that sig #3 is more reflective of the witness' "normal" handwriting than the other two? That again is for the examiner to assess, once s/he's been supplied with all the material. For all we know, sig #1 may be more representative of the norm and sig #3 could be the "noise" that "distorts the results". Examiners don't request that the amateur decides which is best before sending them that sample and no other. They specifically request as many samples as possible, which was eminently "possible" in this case.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

for Victor

hi Victor

following the discussion earlier about script, i thought you might be interested in the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_alphabet

As you can see, there are three diacritics in the Swedish alphabet which arent in the English one.

I think it is common sense that examiners not working in their own native language are less able to be certain about their conclusions, and as the link i posted earlier shows, it is something accepted within the profession, so it must be important.

I live in Wales which also has a different alphabet (Sam is a Welsh speaker...i am sure he can comment on this)...if you check you will see that CH is a letter in the Welsh alphabet, but there is no J or X. There are also other letters like dd and ff and no k, v, or z.

Obviously if we had a Welsh document to examine, it would make sense to ask someone natively Welsh, who would be aware much more of how those unusual characters of script would be formed, and what were more likely to be significant deviations or similarities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_orthography

Hope you find this interesting.

best wishes

[Fisherman]

Victor!

Since you ask about what people know of the Iremonger examination, I think you should prepare for disappointment. The reason for this is that it seems what Iremonger saw, what she said, what she grounded her opinions on and how sure she was, WAS NEVER RECORDED! Thus, nobody knows, and the only thing you will find when asking is that Iremonger "must not be questioned", and that it is "beyond doubt that her examination was impeccable and thorough".

Since there is no substantiation for this, other than Martin Fidos assertion that Iremonger was a nice woman who made a good impression on him (and that goes some way, since Martin is a very nice guy himself!), I myself tend to dismiss her - that is what we generally need to do with non-existant material.

It seems as there is a debate going on where for example Ben tells all and sundry that I "deliberately withheld" vital information from Leander. Well, well, that should tally nicely with the assertions that Leander is a liar and a totally unethical researcher, just as it should work eminently together with Bens hints that I may have written Leanders answers by myself!

I think, before you go any further, that you need to realize that you have been pressing VERY hard all the time that Leanders examination was veeery informal and that it carries no resemblance whatsoever to a real, professional examination. That, of course, was something you yelled at the tops of your voices in order to play down the importance of Leanders words. But now it will work against you; you see, you cannot first say that it was all awfully informal and just a friendly, personal chat of no importance whatsoever, only to then turn around and demand from me that I ought to have behaved very formally and up to all scientific standards, supplying all the material and never uttering any opinion of my own.
Why would I do that? It was an informal exchange, remember? And in such an exchange, just like Victor has eminently and wisely pointed out to you, I am at liberty to handle the discussion in exactly the manner that I want to.
The true reason for my choice of material was that Sam had provided a collection of the third police protocol signature, the marriage license signature, and the 1911 census signatures, and that was a collection I thought would be very suitable to get an answer from Leander on in relation to the question "could all these signatures have been written by the same person?", and the reason I had for asking that question was that Ben insisted on the signatures being very much dissimilar. He even stated that "Lambeth George"īs signature was a closer match to the witness ditto than was Toppys, a misconception that Leander immediately brought him out of. So much for Benīs abilities to tell signatures apart!

And so, I still fail to see how you could fault me for having acted informally in an informal exchange, not to mention how baffled I am by the suggestion that I should have deliberately misled anybody.Well, not baffled exactly, as I have come to expect all sorts of things in this debate, but I can truly say that the suggestion was an unsavoury one.

Anyway, this is what applies, and in spite of all the indignated outcrys and in spite of the fact that I have never concealed anything - the cards have been on the table all the time, although I could have chosen to lie and say that Leander had all three signatures and you would have been none the wiser - the fact remains that Frank Leander has helped us in identifying a probable - not possible, probable - match between the Dorset Street witness and George Topping Hutchinson, and for that, Ben and I are forever greatful. At least I think so, since Ben stated from the outset that nobody would be happier than him if the Dorset streeet witness could be identified. So letīs rejoice, shall we?

Informally yours,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Oh, and just to show you what I mean when I say that the cards have been on the table all the time, this is how I worded it when I published Leanders first post:

"This response from the SKL was something I had not counted on - I did not know to what degree they would help nosy citizens prying into other countries criminal history. And so, I was happy to receive such a generous answer.
In fact, I was so encouraged as to copy Sams board of signatures from page 57 on this thread and forward it to Frank Leander, humbly asking if he could possibly ponder to ...??
And he did!"

So, you have it all in black and white, and far from any pointer to me "deliberately withholding" information, I think it says a lot more about how you do your homework. Brrrrrr...!

Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Ah, Fisherman, there you are!

I wondered where you had gone!

Now, I don't have much to say - so let's be simple.

It has struck me from the first, and continues to do so, that neither Iremonger, nor Leander, has endorsed any view conclusively.

Iremonger saw what was available at the time. She saw the originals - almost certainly. Statements by you and by other posters which attempt to denigrate that effort are unworthy.

If I understand correctly, she thought the two were unlikely to be a match - but did she not also say that she wouldn't be prepared to go further than that?

In other words, she didn't think so, but she couldn't be certain beyond doubt. This may have been, in all likelihood, because there were insufficient samples - just as with Leander.

Leander saw examples selected by you. He did not therefore see all the examples available at the time. Thus, although he appears to think personally that there is sufficient correlation between the two for a match to be possible (in the positive sense) with respect, he cannot have made a balanced judgement because he did not have all the signatures in the first place.

This is not a sign that I have an agenda. This is the product of rational deduction.

Now, if you wish to proclaim that the whole thing was an informal exchange between yourself and Leander, then that is fine. But by doing so, you must allow others to treat it similarly, and not expect them to give his verdict undue weight.

I know that you are of the opinion that Toppy=Hutch, but others are not, and their view deserves respect just as much as your own.

Best wishes to you, Fisherman

Jane x

[perrymason]

If I understand correctly, she thought the two were unlikely to be a match - but did she not also say that she wouldn't be prepared to go further than that?

In other words, she didn't think so, but she couldn't be certain beyond doubt. This may have been, in all likelihood, because there were insufficient samples - just as with Leander.

Leander saw examples selected by you. He did not therefore see all the examples available at the time. Thus, although he appears to think personally that there is sufficient correlation between the two for a match to be possible (in the positive sense) with respect, he cannot have made a balanced judgement because he did not have all the signatures in the first place.

Jane x

To me that is a most satisfactory explanation of why the evidence in the form of qualified opinion is still "inconclusive". No arguments will change that.

Well done Jane.

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland:

"It has struck me from the first, and continues to do so, that neither Iremonger, nor Leander, has endorsed any view conclusively"

Depends on what you mean by conclusively - "I expect forthcoming evidence to prove the thesis that we have a genuine match" is pretty conclusive to my ears. But it is grounded on insufficient evidence, granted.

"Iremonger saw what was available at the time. She saw the originals - almost certainly."

Itīs the "almost" that does not belong to any discussion where you need to claim certainty. Toppy is Hutch, almost certainly. And I mean it!

"If I understand correctly, she thought the two were unlikely to be a match - but did she not also say that she wouldn't be prepared to go further than that?"

I honestly donīt think anybody knows, Jane! I have a memory of reading somewhere that she worded herself: "On balance...", but NOBODY can verify that - or anything else beonging to that investigation.
Show me her wordings, show me the material she looked at, and show me all the rest that belongs to a properly documented examination, and I will have a very interested look - I have demanded it up on the table dozens of times.
And do not tell me that there is any disrespect involved in not buying what you cannot see!

"
"Leander saw examples selected by you. He did not therefore see all the examples available at the time. Thus, although he appears to think personally that there is sufficient correlation between the two for a match to be possible (in the positive sense) with respect, he cannot have made a balanced judgement because he did not have all the signatures in the first place."

He did not see a "possible" match, Jane - he saw a probable one. And oh, yes, he could make a totally and thoroughly balanced judgement of WHAT HE SAW - and THAT wasa signature from the police protocol, signed by the Dorset Street witness.

"Now, if you wish to proclaim that the whole thing was an informal exchange between yourself and Leander, then that is fine."

That pressing need has mostly ben felt by others than me, Jane....

" know that you are of the opinion that Toppy=Hutch, but others are not, and their view deserves respect just as much as your own."

And just when did I deny anybody that opinion...? The one thing I DO object to is allegations of lies and foul play - such things I do not respect. Do you?

The best,
Fisherman
off again