The Leander Analysis

[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.

[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.

[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

[babybird67]

hi Fish

i know what private means.

I still can't see it in the rules though. Can you? If you can, please point it out to me...i've edited my earlier post by the way regarding this issue, if you'd like to address the points i made therein.

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"HI Fish
can you point me to the part of the rules which state that members should not do this?
I can't see it myself but i might be missing it."

What, Babybird, do you think the word "private" stands for? I hope the managers of the boards can explain it to you.

Thanks, Jane, for reinforcing my request to give Frank Leander some space! Please, please consider this - most of all perhaps those who think that I have "bombarded" him into changing his mind!

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Thanks Fisherman!

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

[babybird67]

...and this is the complaint I just filed against Babybird:

"On post 241 of the "The Leander analysis" thread, Babybird publishes an e-mail that I have sent to her by personal PM.
I move that this character is banned from the boards for this breach of all decency, alternatively warned and asked to apologize publically before she is ever allowed on the boards again."

Fisherman

HI Fish

Was there anything in your message that was indecent to publish? I didnt think so. I asked on the boards for you to pm me Leaner's email. You could have publically refused. Alternatively, you could have pm'ed me saying, I'd rather not, babybird, as i dont think it is wise. Or you could have ignored me. The choices were yours. If you had specifically requested to keep the information contained within your pm private, as i do when i am communicating something which actually is private, i would have respected that. You did not.

can you point me to the part of the rules which state that members should not do this?

I can't see it myself but i might be missing it. Thanks.


On another note, I would like to apologise to you for becoming too emotionally involved in the discussion and for making some personal comments about you, which i shouldn't have done. You are human, too, and make mistakes. I do wish you could acknowledge yours though....embracing one's fallibility, being able to embrace it, truly is an enlightening feeling and you are missing out on so much.

Also, i would like to ask you to address the question i put to you earlier regarding who told you any forthcoming evidence would only support your case.

thanks

[Fisherman]

...and this is the complaint I just filed against Babybird:

"On post 241 of the "The Leander analysis" thread, Babybird publishes an e-mail that I have sent to her by personal PM.
I move that this character is banned from the boards for this breach of all decency, alternatively warned and asked to apologize publically before she is ever allowed on the boards again."

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

To begin with, Babybird, private posts are exactly that - private. You have no errand publishing them publically, and I will - of course - report you for doing so, and recommend that you are warned/expelled.

Now that the damage is done, I will tell you that I first of all wrote this to Leander, in translation:


Frank!

Just a few lines to tell you that some of the members of the website Casebook has dug up your e-mailaddress, and there is a great risk that you will receive a number of questions. I fully appreciate that this may cause you great disturbancies, and so I will plead with the posters and ask them to be as restrictive as possible.

Greetings

+++

I am not, as Babybird tries to lead on, "terrified" that you may contact Frank Leander - on the contrary, if it can eventually lead you to realize that he has not been in any way misrepresented, I would be very happy.
I am, though, extremely concerned that we do not cause him too much trouble, and therefore I will ask you to "synchronize" as much as possible before you contact him

The reason for not giving the address freely to Babybird was stated in my PRIVATE mail to her, and it still stands.

Leanders adress is not the one Jane Welland has given. It is instead Frank.Leander@skl.polisen.se and I sincerely hope that you have taken my concern about his working situation on board!

Fisherman

[babybird67]

Richard

Hi,
Will we ever get to the bottom of this?
JD, if you still read these threads you must be horrified at all this, and to suggest that your husbands grandfather was the most infamous killer in british history, must be so alarming to you all.

this thread is called The Leander Analysis, and it concerns whether the signatures made by a man called George Hutchinson on a witness statement in 1888 support the identification of George William Topping Hutchinson with the man who signed that statement, when compared with the latter's known signatures.

Nobody on this thread is discussing whether George Hutchinson the witness was the Whitechapel killer, nor, for that matter, whether Toppy was, especially since those of us on this side of the metaphorical fence are not convinced that they were the same man anyway.

[Jane Welland]

In fact..

I believe you may be able to contact him directly, at:

leander@skl.police.se

Perhaps Fisherman can confirm this for us?

You know, I'm just assuming his email address will follow the same format as the other employees of the SKL - I'm having trouble actually tracking Leander down - Fish, can you supply a link?

Best regards

Jane x

[Jane Welland]

The SKL

There you are, Jenny, the website link - enjoy!

http://www.skl.polisen.se/

Just click on Kontakta oss to see the contact details.

Jane x

[Ben]

Two signatures that were ruled out by an 'expert' would also have not seemed applicable.

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. I have no idea where you could possibly be going with Smyths and Titwillows but no such names were appended to the document or purported to be from the same source that authored sig #3.

[The Good Michael]

Whatever you want to call it, the intention was not one of deception, and that's what you are implying. He also didn't give Leander signatures of Smythes, Churchills, and Titwillows because they wouldn't have been applicable. Two signatures that were ruled out by an 'expert' would also have not seemed applicable. I would have sent them on at a later date after all is said and done, but at the moment, there was no intent to deceive or to misdirect in my opinion.

Mike

[babybird67]

You use the word withheld, but that isn't correct. The other two were suggested to be Badham's by an 'expert'. In that case, only one is left. Saying someone 'withheld' is insulting and the intention is absolutely incorrect.

Mike

Not providing all the statement signatures means information was with-held Mike. Deliberately. They could easily have been emailed to Leander.

I'm surprised at you. Not at Fish. But at you.