The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

Hi Victor,

I can't see there's a huge difference in the methodology used.

The difference in the methodology used was as follows:

Iremonger was supplied with original documents that included all three statement signatures, thus conforming to the guidelines explicitly preferred by document examiners who either request or seek to obtain as many examples of the individual's handwriting as possible.

Leander was sent a "montage" copied from a message board thread and pasted into an email, which gave no accurate impression of comparative size, and were not provided in the context of the rest of the pages to which they were originally appended. The two other statement signatures were deliberately withheld for no good reason, and contrary to the preferences of the document examining practitioners.

That's a significant difference in the "methogology used".

Best regards,
Ben

[Victor]

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.

Hi Ben,

I must have missed it when Fish posted that he'd done that, is it in this thread or the other?

KR,
Vic.

ps. I disagree, it doesn't matter what comparisons you draw, the two quoted questions are nothing to do with document examining.

[babybird67]

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.

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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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

[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?

[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

[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]

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?

[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!

[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

[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.

[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