The Leander Analysis

[Garry Wroe]

Hello All.

Might I remind everyone that the present thread was initiated in order to address the claim that the analysis conducted by Frank Leander was scientifically robust and, in turn, provided empirical proof that Hutchinson and Toppy were one and the same. Since there is now a general agreement that certain methodological flaws militate against any such conclusion, I would suggest that, until new empirical evidence is forthcoming, we cut science out of the equation altogether and simply use our eyes and common sense to make future value judgements.

Best wishes.

Garry Wroe.

[babybird67]

Yes someone should have collated the lot, but no-one did, and now your hassling Fish for sending off what he had. Strange.

Fish chose to involve an expert. The onus was on him to supply that expert with objective material from which the expert could come to an INFORMED conclusion on the matter. Not only did he NOT supply the full information, he subsequently asserted that the expert had provided a "full and detailed" report on the matter, and claimed that therefore this must be accepted by all, even though the actual expert said precisely the opposite from the outset.

I am getting tired of arguing with you, Vic. It's like teaching monkeys ABC, only the monkeys would get it.

Yup, he selected the only sufficient compilateion that he had. Hobson's choice.

Wrong again i am afraid. Go back to the 1911 thread. There are plenty of visual examples there. Fish was perfectly at liberty to chose any of them, singly or multiply, to aid Leander's inquiry. He didn't. I think your questions would be better addressed to Fish to establish why he did this. Not me. I am only one of many of us who don't kow tow to being told we have a "full and detailed" expert opinion to which we must all defer, when the expert himself has told us he has given no such thing.

Being deliberately obtuse and misrepresenting my words again. Ah well.

Wrong again. You are showing quite a talent for being wrong Vic i am most impressed.

If you will notice i used the quote facility to quote you verbatim. I even agreed with you. If you meant something other than what you said, you will need to be clearer, as it is quite a clear fact that insufficient materials were provided, a fact which Leander has acknowledged multiple times, and which i have drawn attention to innumerable times. If you were trying to be sarcastic or funny, the use of an emote might help.

helpfully yours

[Victor]

Yep you are right. Someone should have montaged the whole lot of them imo. That wasnt done though. The full picture was never given. That's why many of us were arguing against Fish who continued to claim we had a "full and detailed" report, when even the man who contributed that report told him point blank it was no such thing. Onus is on Fish to have sent the right material, not me.

Yes someone should have collated the lot, but no-one did, and now your hassling Fish for sending off what he had. Strange.

Quite. I am glad you acknowledge it was Fish's choice. However, this would have been fine had Fish acknowledged what had been told to him by Leander and what had been reiterated by many of us, that we did not have a full expert professional opinion, but a ""spontaneous" and "personal" one. It is when Fish tried to overemphasise everything from Leander that some of us found issue with him.

Yup, he selected the only sufficient compilateion that he had. Hobson's choice.

Totally agree. Totally insufficient. So said Leander. So said Ben. So said I and a number of others...at least we are beginning to agree on something at last.

Being deliberately obtuse and misrepresenting my words again. Ah well.

[babybird67]

Apart from that one not having the 10 signatures needed. Try again.

Yep you are right. Someone should have montaged the whole lot of them imo. That wasnt done though. The full picture was never given. That's why many of us were arguing against Fish who continued to claim we had a "full and detailed" report, when even the man who contributed that report told him point blank it was no such thing. Onus is on Fish to have sent the right material, not me.

Sam selected them (for whatever purpose). Fish emailed off Sam's selection, he could have snet a different selection but didn't.

Quite. I am glad you acknowledge it was Fish's choice. However, this would have been fine had Fish acknowledged what had been told to him by Leander and what had been reiterated by many of us, that we did not have a full expert professional opinion, but a ""spontaneous" and "personal" one. It is when Fish tried to overemphasise everything from Leander that some of us found issue with him.

That selection was insufficient. Fish chose what to send, he opted to send Sam's selection\collection\montage.

Totally agree. Totally insufficient. So said Leander. So said Ben. So said I and a number of others...at least we are beginning to agree on something at last.

[Ben]

Apart from that one not having the 10 signatures needed. Try again.

Huh?

If 10 signatures were "needed" then it makes even less sense to send Leander just one when there was opportunity to send more. At least Gareth's montage, as quoted by Babybird above, included the other two signatures, as well as the horizontal lines beneath the signatures (used to convey differing angles with reasonable accuracy).

[Victor]

Sam's purposes in posting the montage was to show us posters here the perceived similarities. At no point did he select them to email to an individual for an appraisal. Sam is a scientist. I should think self-selecting such material in such a way would be anathema to him.

Fish chose to send that particular montage to Leander. So don't tell me i am wrong because i am not. Fish could easily have chosen to send Leander this montage, also posted by Sam i believe:

Apart from that one not having the 10 signatures needed. Try again.

Sam selected them (for whatever purpose). Fish emailed off Sam's selection, he could have snet a different selection but didn't.

As you can see, this would have given Leander the opportunity to see all three extant signatures and actually make an informed opinion about the matter. Fish chose what to email Leander...don't attibute that choice to Sam. Or anyone else.

That selection was insufficient. Fish chose what to send, he opted to send Sam's selection\collection\montage.

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

I was having a brawl with Ben, who categorically stated that the signatures were very much unalike

I'm not in the business of "categorically stating". I prefer to opine on the basis of the extant evidence. It all seems incredibly silly, upon reflection, that it should have led to a "brawl" when the more sensible option was to agree to disagree and move on. Your decision to contact Leander was perfectly admirable at the time, but the fatal error - to my mind - was your failure to allow his initial letter to stand unfiddled with.

[babybird67]

I'm just waiting for Fish to confirm that it was Gareth who chose the signatures or him, so you might be wrong here.

Sam's purposes in posting the montage was to show us posters here the perceived similarities. At no point did he select them to email to an individual for an appraisal. Sam is a scientist. I should think self-selecting such material in such a way would be anathema to him.

Fish chose to send that particular montage to Leander. So don't tell me i am wrong because i am not. Fish could easily have chosen to send Leander this montage, also posted by Sam i believe:







As you can see, this would have given Leander the opportunity to see all three extant signatures and actually make an informed opinion about the matter. Fish chose what to email Leander...don't attibute that choice to Sam. Or anyone else.

Right, well you've been warned beforehand that if you ask those questions and get a dismissive answer then it's your fault and will do significant damage to your argument and conclusions.

Whatever.

[Fisherman]

Hi Victor!

Sam was the one who made the compilation, but he had nothing to do with what material was sent to Leander; he did not even know that it was done, until afterwards.

I was having a brawl with Ben, who categorically stated that the signatures were very much unalike,whereas I thought them very much alike.

I had earlier spoken to Leander in a related errand, and so I simply copied Sams compilation and sent it over, asking him if he would comment on whether he believed that all the signatures of the compilation could have been by the same hand. I was looking for some sort of verdict that would or would not prove me right in my belief that the signatures WERE very much alike.

I received Leanders answer, and published it with the addition of what material he had looked at.

And today, I am accused of all sorts of things, although I have from the outset placed ALL cards on the table for EVERYONE to see. If that does not sit well with some (and it would not...!), that is their problem, as far as I can see.

The best,
Fisherman
who will be off-line the nearest hours - at the very least

[Victor]

Vic...i have to believe you are being deliberately obtuse. Only one of three extant witness signatures was sent to Leander. All three were compared by Iremonger. Fish contacted Leander. He chose not to supply Leander with all three. He did this because the third signature was apparently the one that most match Toppy's signature. That is self-selecting evidence. Read Ben's post regarding methodology above. There are only so many times this can be explained to someone without the person explaining thinking they are wasting their time as the recipient is just resistant to receiving the information. No offence.

I'm just waiting for Fish to confirm that it was Gareth who chose the signatures or him, so you might be wrong here.

I'll ask Leander what i think is relevant, not what somebody else thinks is relevant. I'm a grown up. I can think for myself thanks. If you want to ask him something else, you know his email address. I wont tell you what to ask him though. I'll let you make your own mind up. Kindly afford me the same courtesy eh?

Right, well you've been warned beforehand that if you ask those questions and get a dismissive answer then it's your fault and will do significant damage to your argument and conclusions.

[Jane Welland]

hi All..

I’m not sure I think Leander should be sent any further material unless he has first indicated that he would be happy and willing to receive such. I personally feel that Leander has had his goodwill imposed upon quite enough already.

From what I can see, his initial response was quite adequate.

I would be unsurprised if he did declare himself unwilling to further engage with this debate, particularly since Fisherman saw fit to include his own personal and negative view of another poster in his last substantial communication.

Who could blame Leander, who, by Fisherman’s own contention - is one of Sweden’s foremost leading experts in his field – for thinking this debate a lot of childish nonsense when presented with that sort of pettiness?

Sorry Fisherman, but you wouldn’t like it if somebody did it to you, would you? Nobody likes being abused – it works both ways.

Regards to All

Jane x

[Victor]

Victor, the material sent to Leander was a compilation of the third witness signature, the marriage license signature signed by Toppy and nine signatures made by Toppy in the 1911 census listings. You find it, posted by Sam Flynn, on page 57 of the "Hutch in the 1911 census" thread!

Just checked it, thank you.

So was it Sam\Gareth who selected which of the signatures, and you just asked Leander to comapre them?

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

Well if you could actually confirm that any self-selecting happened, then I would agree with you.

I've never said the original query was biased or not, I said that he asked a different question to the one you wanted answering

And if you can't see that your utterly irrelevant questions are just going to wind up Leander and cause him to withdraw from further comments, then I can only assume that you are either doing it deliberately to then be able to crow "He won't even defend himself, we've won!", or that you are the stupid one. No offence.

KR,
Vic.

Vic...i have to believe you are being deliberately obtuse. Only one of three extant witness signatures was sent to Leander. All three were compared by Iremonger. Fish contacted Leander. He chose not to supply Leander with all three. He did this because the third signature was apparently the one that most match Toppy's signature. That is self-selecting evidence. Read Ben's post regarding methodology above. There are only so many times this can be explained to someone without the person explaining thinking they are wasting their time as the recipient is just resistant to receiving the information. No offence.

I'll ask Leander what i think is relevant, not what somebody else thinks is relevant. I'm a grown up. I can think for myself thanks. If you want to ask him something else, you know his email address. I wont tell you what to ask him though. I'll let you make your own mind up. Kindly afford me the same courtesy eh?

[Fisherman]

Victor, the material sent to Leander was a compilation of the third witness signature, the marriage license signature signed by Toppy and nine signatures made by Toppy in the 1911 census listings. You find it, posted by Sam Flynn, on page 57 of the "Hutch in the 1911 census" thread!

The best,
Fisherman

[Victor]

Thanks Vic but i prefer to trust my own judgement about whether what i am doing is useful or not...i especially don't defer to people who can't see self-selecting evidence is bias, as that is just plain stupid. No offence.

Well if you could actually confirm that any self-selecting happened, then I would agree with you.

I've never said the original query was biased or not, I said that he asked a different question to the one you wanted answering

And if you can't see that your utterly irrelevant questions are just going to wind up Leander and cause him to withdraw from further comments, then I can only assume that you are either doing it deliberately to then be able to crow "He won't even defend himself, we've won!", or that you are the stupid one. No offence.

KR,
Vic.