The Leander Analysis

[Jane Welland]

Hi Fisherman, All..

To be clear -

I see no difficulty with people contacting Leander so long as they do so with respect and circumspection - I am sure they will. It is important to bear in mind that however the contributors to this debate feel personally about the issues, Leander has kindly volunteered his time from good will - he was under no obligation to do such. That's all.

Since his opinions have been put into the public domain by Fisherman, it is entirely reasonable in my view to expect others to ask for confirmation and clarification.

best to all

Jane x

[Ben]

Thanks, Jane, for reinforcing my request to give Frank Leander some space!

...Says Fisherman, after having contacted Leander at least 8 times.

Take a moment to engage with the irony.

[babybird67]

oh i shall

You would know best on that score, of course, having contacted him before. That's why I put the question above.

I also hope that people will be circumspect if contacting Leander. I'm sure he is a very busy man with much to do.

Best to all

Jane x

I shall address only the issues of whether his opinion could have changed had he seen the other two extant signatures. I think we owe him that much, to clarify this point.

[Jane Welland]

Excuse me?

Take a moment to engage with the irony.

Says the man with the Big Agenda!

Or so I've heard....

But this is no place for gossip...

Jane x

[Victor]

Mike, I've already explained to you that Iremonger did not rule out "two signatures". She believed that the person who signed sig #2 was also responsible for sig #3, thus dispensing of any valid reason for withholding signature #2 at the very least. It was still essential to include sig #1 to establish whether or nor Leander shared Iremonger's apparent view that all the signatures were not written by the same individual.

Hi Ben,

The above suggests to me that her analysis wasn't blind. Ah well.

...Says Fisherman, after having contacted Leander at least 8 times.

over 6 months, not by 4 people in 1 day.

KR,
Vic.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Says Fisherman, after having contacted Leander at least 8 times."

Yes, Ben - and six of them were led on by the fact that you said that white was black. If it had not been for you, it would have been TWO times.

Therein lies the only irony I can see.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Victor,

The above suggests to me that her analysis wasn't blind. Ah well.

Depends what you mean by "blind". If you mean she was supplied with the necessary material to conduct a decent analysis, then no, she certainly wasn't "blind" in that regard, and that's a good thing.

over 6 months, not by 4 people in 1 day.

Which 4 people are you referring to here?

Yes, Ben - and six of them were led on by the fact that you said that white was black.

I quoted him verbatim and used actual dictionary definitions to eradicate any need for interpretation, Fish, and that's even before that useful manual turned up!

[babybird67]

hi Victor

Fish contacted Leander in April. It's currently July here in Wales. That's three months, not six. Not sure if you need a new calendar.

Also, the only person who has asked to contact Leander is myself, which i will be doing. Who are the other three people you are referring to?

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I quoted him verbatim"

Then quote him verbatim: "I would be surprised if we do not have a match, and I suspect forthcoming evidence to confirm this".

Itīs not only what you say, Ben - it is also what you leave out when saying it.

But, as usual, you have nothing new to add but the age-old swaggering and animosities, and so I do believe that our dispute is over, once more.

Fisherman

[babybird67]

is that definitely what he said Fish?

That is one of the things i think i shall put to him when i contact him. I'd like to know how anyone can

a/ anticipate the emergence of new evidence when nobody knows if any even exists, and;

b/ can furthermore expect that any evidence which is forthcoming will support their current position on any matter.

So you are quite sure that is what he said, and that is what he meant?

thanks

[Ben]

Then quote him verbatim: "I would be surprised if we do not have a match, and I suspect forthcoming evidence to confirm this".

Did he say any of that in his first letter?

No.

Did he convey anything vaguely resmembling that impresstion in his first letter?

No.

Come to think of it, was any of that really verbatim?

I'll check, but I highly doubt it.*

and so I do believe that our dispute is over

I highly doubt you mean that either.

Edit: *I've checked, and have discovered that the Fisherman-quoted statement is not extracted "verbatim" from Leander as he claimed. Didn't think it was. I wonder why Fisherman should have claimed otherwise?

[Fisherman]

Do check, Ben - and then come back and quote him word by word - the gist of it will be the same, and it will be nice to hear you try and say it. Bet you canīt do it without hurting yourself....

Bye for now,
Fisherman

[Victor]

That is one of the things i think i shall put to him when i contact him. I'd like to know how anyone can

a/ anticipate the emergence of new evidence when nobody knows if any even exists, and;

b/ can furthermore expect that any evidence which is forthcoming will support their current position on any matter.

So you are quite sure that is what he said, and that is what he meant?

thanks

And those 2 questions definitely come under the category of pestering, because they are utterly unrelated to his area of expertise.

Fish contacted Leander in April. It's currently July here in Wales. That's three months, not six.

Well the 1911 thread has a load of stuff from February so I used that as a rough date.

And the 4 people, well that's just illustrative as to what could happen, although having his email address in plain text on a forum is likely to get him inundated with offers to have his genitals enhanced. Poor guy.

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

And those 2 questions definitely come under the category of pestering, because they are utterly unrelated to his area of expertise.

Hi Victor, neither of those questions really qualify as pestering when contrasted with, say, a post that outlines in depth what an unsavoury character a total stranger is supposed to be, and how that total stranger must not be listened to or agreed with because he supposedly accused the pesteree of lying.

[Victor]

Depends what you mean by "blind". If you mean she was supplied with the necessary material to conduct a decent analysis, then no, she certainly wasn't "blind" in that regard, and that's a good thing.

Ho ho.

If you are using the fact that Leander's analysis was basically "Does the signature from the 3rd page of the statement match that of Toppy's marriage certificate?" compared to Iremonger's "Are these 3 statement sigs the same as this marriage cert?" then I can't see there's a huge difference in the methodology used. Especially when Iremonger says the 3 statement sigs are inconsistent!

I agree that had Leander had the other 2 statement sigs then that would have been better - although he could still be supplied with them - Why don't you try that BB, that'd make your query actually useful.

KR,
Vic.