The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

The other two were suggested to be Badham's by an 'expert'.

Hmmm, don't think so, Mike.

From my recollections it was only signature #1 that was suggested to have originated from Badham.

[The Good Michael]

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

[babybird67]

hahaha what a shame...

i just received this private message from Fisherman.

Babybird!

My offer was directed to Ben, and not to you. It still stands in his case, although I am not thrilled by the prospect of subjecting Leander to him.
In your case, the thrill is an even lesser one, and the offer was never there. Unless you have noticed, I take great care to have as little to do with you as possible. That means that I need no helmet.

Fisherman

Well, there is confirmation that Fish is terrified of anyone independently contacting Leander. Need i say more?

Ben, the offer to you still stands...what do you say?



By the way, Fish, yeah i have noticed you can't answer my postings. That is because i am clever and confident, i have more intellectual prowess in my little toe than you have in your entire brain, and i quite enjoy it when someone parading as intelligent enough to debate with me, but without the guts to engage in it in actuality, runs away scared. It gives me the greatest pleasure imaginable.

If you grow a spine, i'll see you on the boards!

[babybird67]

BB,

Don't bother the man. Why not email Iremonger, send her all the signatures (maybe 16 of them), and simply ask her which ones are similar enough to be considered probably written by the same man, especially because they were written within close proximity of each other in time and place, and because they were both of the laborer class? That would be best I think because she needs a little stress in her life too.

Mike

Why not Mike? I am sure he would like to know there were two other signatures he could have used in his "analysis" that were with-held from him. I'd like to send him the copies and see if they change his mind about the issue. It's only fair he is put in the picture i think.

I have no need to contact Iremonger. She has been published. You are welcome to, though.

[babybird67]

Now, Babybird? You have had the information from the start. I always clearly state what belongs to my contribution to the different threads, and in this case, I have even offered the full exchange between Leander and me, in Swedish as well as in English. I have offered to share his e-mailaddress with Ben, but he was not interested.

Fish if you look at the date i joined this site you will see that it was in April of this year. Your posting was a good hundred pages into the Hutch thread. Are you expecting me to have read and absorbed every single detail and nuance on that thread and retain it like a computer? I'm afraid i didn't, along with every other member of this forum, as i am human...neither was I the only one not to pick up on the fact that you sent Leander a skewed Sam-ple (incidentally i have absolutely no doubt that Sam's montage was merely illustrative of the similarities he wished to demonstate...i have no doubt whatsoever that he would not have agreed with sending this montage to Leander for an official scientific appraisal...he is too intelligent for that).

I've re-read your posting, and yes, you did say at the time that you had sent Leander the montage of signatures that Sam had posted. Nobody at that time picked up on this, probably because at the beginning you were not insisting that we had what you were later claiming as:

a full and detailed statement by a true expert in the field, telling us that the features involved in the signatures may mean that we are looking at a match

If you had accepted what the rest of us were saying all along, which was that all Leander told you he could offer was a personal comment, the informality of the materials would not have taken on so much significance. However, you were the one who was at pains, laboriously, interminably, to overstress Leander's contribution, to argue that it was "full and detailed" where it could not possibly have been, since two thirds of the extant necessary material had not been submitted to the analysis, nor were the originals available to him.

It is extremely telling that you still cannot admit that you were in the wrong for skewing the sample, for submitting to Leander materials with which he was kept in the dark regarding the availability of materials, and instead have gone off into some kind of orgasmic delight in blaming us for failing to pick you up on your fatal error.

Ben and i have already apologised to Garry for not noticing his point before. Have you apologised for submitting a skewed sample and then trying to pass off a flawed and informal comment on that sample as a "full and detailed" picture of events? No. Why not? Because you have no facility for learning or self-reflection or personal or intellectual growth. You are an intellectual dolt. Debating with you is like trying to debate with an ironing board that hasn't had the benefit of a secondary education. Give it up. Look at yourself. Culture the desire to learn and improve yourself. Otherwise there is no point to your contributions here, nor any point to anyone else reading them.

It´s Seinfeld stuff. It´s Pythonesque. It´s more than I could have hoped for.

Um, no, dear. What is Pythonesque is a poster who claims that WHEN further evidence is forthcoming (when, not if, mind) it WILL (not might, mind) support his already demolished pre-conceptions. Are you serious? Most people actually wait to see evidence before they decide whether it supports them or not. Most people look at evidence objectively, or at the very least try to, and THEN make up their mind. It is a very queer fish that decides what the evidence will tell him before he even sees it...very queer indeed. Unless you are claiming psychic powers of course?

And, you are the one who spent the first hundred pages of the census thread trying to demolish Iremonger's view, based on the conjectures that we do not know what she looked at etc etc.

Well, we DO know what Leander looked at. He looked at "meagre" evidence that was "copy-based" and was unable to offer anything other than a "personal" and "spontaneous" comment.

Iremonger looked at the full witness statement and the marriage certificate and said she was of the opinion that they did not match.

So, people can make up their own minds who to lend more weight to, for sure. I have no problem at all with that. Most people think before they make up their minds.

[richardnunweek]

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.
If any one knows the simple answer, its your husbands family, all it would take is a short statement of comformation, and we can move on.
Obviously that wont happen , but I can only hope.
Regards Richard.

[The Good Michael]

BB,

Don't bother the man. Why not email Iremonger, send her all the signatures (maybe 16 of them), and simply ask her which ones are similar enough to be considered probably written by the same man, especially because they were written within close proximity of each other in time and place, and because they were both of the laborer class? That would be best I think because she needs a little stress in her life too.

Mike

[babybird67]

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.

What? What forthcoming evidence? How can you basis proving a thesis on evidence that you have absolutely no idea whether it exists or not? Are you on planet earth or away with the fairies? I see you have put this idiocy in quotation marks...who are you attributing this quotation to? Surely not Leander? How can anything be "pretty conclusive" when the extant evidence has been totally ignored, and you are assuming, without any good cause, that further evidence will a/ not only emerge, but b/ be of a type that confirms your own hypothesis???? Oh, i see, because IF any other evidence were to emerge in the future, you would just de-select those bits of it which didnt confirm your ridiculous hypothesis anyway. Now i see how it's done.

By the way, can you PM me Leander's contact details please? I'd like to correspond with him myself about this issue. Thanks.

Off to reply to one of your other posts...get your flack helmet ready.

[Ben]

Now, Babybird? You have had the information from the start. I always clearly state what belongs to my contribution to the different threads, and in this case, I have even offered the full exchange between Leander and me, in Swedish as well as in English. I have offered to share his e-mailaddress with Ben, but he was not interested.

Well, it was an oversight on mine and Babybird's part certainly, and we've both acknowledged as much on more than one occasion, but thank goodness it didn't escape the notice of Garry who had every right to question why such selectivity should have taken place. I'm not surprised you're now lashing out aggressively, having realized that several others finally picked up on the nature of the material you supplied to Leander, and I'm equally unsurprised that you'd resort back to triumphalist rhetoric and repetition, but the fact remains that you had an opportunity to provide all three statement signatures to Leander from the outset, but you only included the third one - the one you decided was the was the most Toppyish.

Attempting to ridicule Babybird for failing to pick up on your earlier selectivity won’t score you those points either, since oversights of this nature are likely to occur when the salient issues are lost amid a flurry of interminable posts. The following simply won't avail: “Haha, you’re all idiots for failing to notice how selective I’ve been all along””. Well, boy have you get me there, Fisherman, only I know which is the lesser of the two evils: hideous selectivity, or failing to notice that hideous selectivity?

“It is said that I should not expect anybody to lend any weight to Leanders verdict. I suggest that we allow each and everyone to make his or her own mind up on that.”

Let them, then.

But don’t, for pity’s sake, try to continue a repetition war where you insist on churning out your continuously challenged assertion that “Leander thought the match probable”, and I go on repeating my previous challenge that such a stance radically contrasted with his initial neutrality, and that since one cannot accept both stances simultaneously, they virtually cancel each other out. Not much use a “top force” when we’ve since become acquainted with the various pitfalls involved when a foreign examiner studies English scripts (which is why it doesn’t happen very often, we're reliably assured), and when that same examiner wasn’t even supplied with all three signatures when there was ample opportunity to provide him with same. I think we’ve somewhat diminished the argument that the “Leander analysis” was in any shape or form “scientific”.

So please don’t keep expressing this ludicrously forlorn hope that “most people” will swallow your controversial position, as though it would somehow increase the likelihood of it being correct.

“These Hutchinson threads have been the best threads ever on Casebook. Not only have they revealed, after 121 years of fumbling in the dark, that we have very good reason to believe that the Dorset Street witness has been identified”

There’s that triumphalist rhetoric again, dealt with swiftly by the following antithesis:

These Hutchinson threads have been the best threads ever on Casebook. Not only have they revealed, after 121 years of fumbling in the dark, that the initial indications that Toppy was not the witness have been strengthened in light of recent evidence.

Easy, and the only real antidote to that particularly strategy.

Just as easy as dealing with your tiresome personal attacks, such as the oft vomited-out accusation that some posters are harbouring an agenda. Which posters? Yep, that’s right, the ones that refuse to share Fisherman’s unwarranted certainty on certain issues. Here’s a better clue for establishing which posters harbour the agendas: Those who don’t identify Toppy as the witness have expressed the view that while the identification is unlikely on current evidence, it cannot be ruled out. The Toppyites, by contrast, have continued to espouse the ludicrous dogma that “Toppy is Hutch!” and assert that the chances of their theory being wrong are “microscopical”, or some other sympathy-eliciting attempt at rhetoric.

“That is an almighty pointer in itself. Anybody who knows Sams way of working, also knows that there is not a poster on these boards who is more no-nonsense than him.”

Well, of course, if I disagree with Sam, I simply must be the bastard in this equation, especially if I use robust terminology when doing so. I realise you’ve brought him up because you're aware that he seems more credible in contrast to you, but unfortunately, I disagree with him too, and doing so doesn’t automatically expose me as the villain. So the latest strategy – accusing me of having the audacity to disagree with somebody with more credibility than you - won’t work either.

“the unwillingness to let Leander nuance and add further information, the totally uncritical acceptance of Iremongers investigation with no written documentation at all”

You can allow him to clarify if you really felt it was required, but that doesn’t mean bombarding him seven more times in pursuit of further clarification. He even told you that he did not wish to elaborate further, but you didn’t show much respect for that when you continued to blitz-post him into submission. The nature of Sue Iremonger’s findings have been attested to be several leading experts. What doubts could you possibly harbour that would cast doubt on either the recollections or the credibility of these experts?

[The Good Michael]

PS. I will send you a large bucket of peanuts, Mike – you are going to need it!

Damn! I forgot to feed the elephant. No wonder people only can stand looking at its parts.

Mike

[Fisherman]

104 days ago, on the 15:th of April 2009, I published Frank Leanders first informal post on the signature comparison, stating exactly what material I had sent over to him.

104 days. That is three months. A full fifteen weeks.

Now people are trying to castigate me for doing so. Babybird even writes ”now he admits that ...”

Now, Babybird? You have had the information from the start. I always clearly state what belongs to my contribution to the different threads, and in this case, I have even offered the full exchange between Leander and me, in Swedish as well as in English. I have offered to share his e-mailaddress with Ben, but he was not interested.

So, Toppydissers, or what we should call you – you have spent months on end criticizing my exchange with Leander WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING WHAT IT WAS YOU CRITICIZED! You have been so eager to pounce at anything that even remotely suggested that Toppy could have been Hutch, that you have forgotten to read up on the most important part of it all – what was being discussed.

You did not know this. You never bothered to check. All the same, you were ready to go to extreme lengths to castigate what you had not checked. And, so much more amusing, you had the audacity to tell me that I had not gone about things in a professional manner!

It´s Seinfeld stuff. It´s Pythonesque. It´s more than I could have hoped for.

It is said that I should not expect anybody to lend any weight to Leanders verdict. I suggest that we allow each and everyone to make his or her own mind up on that. Some will never attach any value to it, for the simple reason that it does not sit well with their own theories. Others will criticize (fairly) that it was not a full investigation. Most people, I hope, will realize that a top force has investigated one of the signatures from the police protocol and come to the conclusion that it in all probability matches the signatures of Topping Hutchinson.
There is a rational approach, a methodological and ”scientific” approach – an an agenda-ridden, malicious approach.

These Hutchinson threads have been the best threads ever on Casebook. Not only have they revealed, after 121 years of fumbling in the dark, that we have very good reason to believe that the Dorset Street witness has been identified. They have also been productive in another fashion, since they have formed an invaluable source when it comes to assessing the credibility of a number of posters. We have been dealt a ”map”, more or less, of who will favour agenda over facts, and who will not touch such a methodology with a pair of pliers.

We have even heard Ben describe Sam´s stance as ”glib facility shamelessly espoused by people who used to know better” and assure him that his efforts ”only succeeds in irritating people”, adding that he was ”obviously wrong and fallacious”.
That is an almighty pointer in itself. Anybody who knows Sams way of working, also knows that there is not a poster on these boards who is more no-nonsense than him. I am not saying that he is always right – we have had disagreements on a number of things, but when we have had so, I have always been the one who has suggested the more ”fanciful” solution to an issue, whereas Sam has stuck with only the known facts.

Such is the methodology of Sam, and such is the position Ben has manouvred himself into by not recognizing this very obvious thing. But then, Ben has all sorts of problems recognizing where he is going. Now he tells us that he has never pointed Leander out as a liar, but since he has stated that Leander abandoned truth to keep me pleased, I see very little possibility to manouvre around it.

What remains about ”the Toppydissers” is an impression of very little honest intentions to assess the material fairly.

The allegations of me not having ”admitted” what material I sent Leander, the reoccurring distortions of what has been said, the leading on that Leander has been dishonest and not up to the ethical standards that could be requested of him, the totally unsubtle hints that I had written Leanders posts myself, the unwillingness to let Leander nuance and add further information, the totally uncritical acceptance of Iremongers investigation with no written documentation at all, the dishonesty, the sock puppets and the very strange demands on me to be scientific, coming from a group of people who never even bothered to check what was being discussed in the first place, is something I have experienced with sadness. It has been a sowing of dragon´s teeth, and those responsible for it will have to reap the form of harvest that belongs to it.
The first example is Frank Leanders pointing out that the criticism he has been subjected to has been governed by malicious interpretations of his efforts. I predict that there is much more to come.

The best,
Fisherman

PS. I will send you a large bucket of peanuts, Mike – you are going to need it!

[richardnunweek]

Hi Mike,
I agree about the 'Son'
Two accounts stick in my mind.
When he toured the east end during the blitz, and shouted out 'We can take it' replies echoed back 'Its allright for you mate, we live here.'
And what a scumbag .
At the height of the blitz, he used to receive information on where , and when a raid would take place, and always made sure he stayed at a friends country house on that date.
One afternoon whilst at a meeting at number 10, he had a call that a huge raid would hit London that evening, he excused himself, and went straight to his waiting car, and proceeded to the country.
A few miles on , his car phone went, and he was informed that the raid was to be elsewhere, he had the car turn back to London , informing staff at downing street, that a massive raid would hit London that evening , and he could not leave in the circumstances.
That evening he was pictured standing on a rooftop in the vacinity, waving his fists in the sky, screaming ' Come on then. we can take it'.
Incidently the raid that night was COVENTRY.
What a fraud.
Richard,

[The Good Michael]

The mustache is a bit carroty, and is that a bit of gold chain peeking out just above his cuffs? In fact, he wasn't such a bad sort, for a profligate stuffed shirt. It is son who wasn't such a nice guy.

Mike

[Jane Welland]

Mike, I think you're right...

With so much evidence to support that theory, there can be only one solution -



This is the man we've all been looking for!

Hallelujah! The Case is Solved!

Good work there!

Best regards

Jane x

[The Good Michael]

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.

You are correct with regards to signatures. Thank God we have so much more than that with which to base the only valid conclusion that Toppy is quite probably Hutch the witness. The elephant is just about complete.

Cheers,

Mike