The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

The reason for this is that it seems what Iremonger saw, what she said, what she grounded her opinions on and how sure she was, WAS NEVER RECORDED!

That's an inaccurate interpretation Fish, as Babybird points out. A great many more people know about the Iremonger comparison than they do about Leander's contributions. She even gave a lecture about it in which her findings were discussed, and several well respected authorities on the Whitechapel murders have attested to the nature of her findings.

I myself tend to dismiss her - that is what we generally need to do with non-existant material.

Well, of course you would.

She's an expert whose opinion flies in the face of the conclusion you jumped to with irrational certainty before you even contacted the expert who you now mistakenly believe is fighting your corner. No matter that Ms Iremonger is, to date, the only professional expert who has ever conducted a full analysis of the signatures, using the original documents and all three statement signatures unlike a few fiddled-with emailed images of the third signature that were sent to Leander (while the other two were deliberately withheld for no good reason at all), along with some misleading biographical data.

I did not accuse Leander of being either a “liar” or an “unethical researcher”. I speculated that Leander was susceptible to the all-too-human aversion to bombardment and beleaguerment, and that he appeased a nuisance accordingly. You can mutate that into a fallacious slur if you like, and use it to poison him against me: “Just look what a horrible bastard he is, Frank! Before you recognise any potential merit in his interpretation, just remember that he accused you of lying! I’d never do that, because we’re friends. Oh, and it is still Toppy, isn’t it?”, but most people should exercise enough circumspection to see right through it. No, I haven’t accused you of writing Leander’s posts. I only observed that his latest contribution seems to have embraced a certain propensity towards bombast and exclamatory language that seems eerily reminiscent of your own posting style.

“…it carries no resemblance whatsoever to a real, professional examination. That, of course, was something you yelled at the tops of your voices in order to play down the importance of Leanders words.”

I think you’ll find that it was Leander himself who did most of the “yelling” in that regard, urging you on numerous occasions to be mindful of the fact that he could not offer his “full expert opinion” in the absence of the original documents, and that a “spontaneous comment” was all he could offer. The person who has been most vocal in their efforts to “play down the importance of Leander’s words” is Leander himself. He even dropped you that subtle hint that he could offer no more on the matter when he told you that he did not wish to elaborate any further on the matter - a request that you didn’t accord much respect then you bothered him at least three more times. At no point did you have the self-scrutiny to cultivate an “Am I being a nuisance?” awareness.

“It was an informal exchange, remember? And in such an exchange, just like Victor has eminently and wisely pointed out to you, I am at liberty to handle the discussion in exactly the manner that I want to.”

And a wise method of handling the results of an “informal exchange” is not to invest them with any more significance that the “informality” of the exercise merits, and that includes resisting the temptation to bother him on a repetitive basis or swallow your own highly controversial interpretation of his opinions.

“The true reason for my choice of material was that Sam had provided a collection of the third police protocol signature, the marriage license signature, and the 1911 census signatures, and that was a collection I thought would be very suitable to get an answer from Leander”

Do you mean the montage where all the signatures were portrayed as being the same size, with the horizontal lines underneath removed (the ones that would have given an accurate impression of the angles of the signatures), which conspicuously avoided the first two signatures.

You copied and pasted that into an email and sent that to Leander?

…And hoped for an unbiased response?

Well, we’re all different I guess.

Gosh, there are revelations aplenty today. I seriously regret reading Garry's sensible first post too hastily.

“He even stated that "Lambeth George"īs signature was a closer match to the witness ditto than was Toppys, a misconception that Leander immediately brought him out of. So much for Benīs abilities to tell signatures apart!”

Oh, look, a personal attack. Thing is, Leander never examined Lambeth George’s signatures with the other two signatures attributed to the witness, so there’s no way that Leander could have disabused me of any “misconception” that he (LG) provided a better bet than Toppy.

“the cards have been on the table all the time, although I could have chosen to lie and say that Leander had all three signatures and you would have been none the wiser”

I think if you’re honest with yourself, you were just covering your bottom there in the event that someone might have decided to make their own inquiries into the nature of Leander’s findings. Better to be honest about the nature of the material supplied to Leander just in case anyone decides to find out for themselves by contacting Leander personally. So it would not have been in your interests to lie, and it was a sensible move on your part not to.

“the fact remains that Frank Leander has helped us in identifying a probable - not possible, probable - match between the Dorset Street witness and George Topping Hutchinson”

But I still utterly reject that as utter nonsense, and I’ve asked you politely not to keep repeating a controversial statement that you know full well has been challenged many times. I know you like repetition wars better than strawberries and cream, but I’m generally more successful at that particular format in the long run, so it’s up to you if you think it’s worth your while persisting in that particular debating strategy.

“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.”

It’s grounded in blatant and proven contradictions, which is why it’s only fair to reject any claim that any forthcoming evidence would prove a match, since it originated from a source that also told us explicitly on more than one occasion (including in a manual) that his stance was neutral.

“Toppy is Hutch, almost certainly. And I mean it!”

I know you do, but then you have a fairly long history of “meaning” things that have made you look pretty ridiculous, so I don’t see why the above claim should be any different. It certainly doesn't become any more persuasive on the basis of your bombastic insistence.

“Show me her wordings, show me the material she looked at, and show me all the rest that belongs to a properly documented examination, and I will have a very interested look”

But that's in the absence of even a faintly decent reason for doubting the well-documented observation that she compared the original sources and all three witness statements, as attested to by several experts in the field. Even if you even found yourself presented with her full analysis, YOU would hardly be in a position to assess her assessment.

“At least I think so, since Ben stated from the outset that nobody would be happier than him if the Dorset streeet witness could be identified. So letīs rejoice, shall we?”

Nobody would be happier than me if the witness could finally be identified. I clung desperately to the hope, once upon a time, that Toppy would provide the ultimate solution in that regard, but – and this is so frustrating – the biographical details didn’t mesh up, and the only full examination of the signatures to date has yielded a non-match.

Such a shame, but it’s back to the drawing board, alas.

Fingers crossed we’ll find him one day!

[babybird67]

Victor!

Since you ask about what people know of the Iremonger examination, I think you shold prepare for disappointment. The reason for this is that it seems what iremonger saw, what seh said, what she grounded her opinions on and how sure she was WAS NEVER RECORDED!

Um, yes actually it was recorded, PUBLICALLY, in the relevant literature, in which Ms Iremonger stood on her professional credentials on the matter. Just because you don't have the books Fisherman doesn't mean they don't exist. If you or Victor are seriously interested in the issue, i suggest you get hold of copies of the books in which her opinion was referenced...it shouldn't be that difficult.

Since there is no substantiation for this, other than Martin Fidos assertion that Iremonger was a nice woman who made a good impression on her, I myself tend to dismiss her - that is what we gebnerally need to do with non-existant material.

This is insulting and disrespectful to both Martin Fido and Ms Iremonger. Non-existent material? Like you wish the other two witness signatures were you mean Fish? How convenient that would have been for you to create your own reality and draw your own conclusions from it. Unfortunately for you the rest of us inhabit the real world and will continue to remind you of certain things such as objectivity, rationality, science and logic. Vic, post 287 of the Hutch in the 1911 census debate has a quote from the book in which Ms Iremonger was referenced...you may note she is well renowned and was quite happy to have her opinion published and attributed to her for all to see.

http://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=2204&page=29

post 353 by Jonathan Menges is also enlightening. And post 853 for the same. And post 1055, if you have a specific question to submit to the authors who consulted her (thanks again JM)

It seems as there is a debate going on where for example Ben teels all and sundry that I "deliberately withheld" vital information from Leander. Well, well, that should tally nicely with the assertions that Leander is a liar and a totally unethical researcher, just as it should work nicely together with Bens hints that I may have written Leanders answers by myself!

I dont know if that was Ben, Fish. It certainly was me and there is no debate about it. You had three signatures of Hutchinson's...you CHOSE to exclude the two you felt would look most dissimilar to Toppy's; you CHOSE deliberately to do that, it wasn't an accident, it was deliberate. Leander is not the unethical one. You are.

I think, before you go any further, that you need to realize that you have been pressing VERY hard all the time that Leanders examination was informal and that it carries no resemblande whatsoever to a real, professional examination. That, of course, was something you yelled at the tops of your voices in order to play down the importance of Leanders words. But now, it will work against you; you see, you cannot first say that it was all awfully informal and just a friendly, personal chat of no importance whatsoever, only to then turn around and demand from me that I ought to have behaved very formally and up to all scientific standards, supplying all the material and never uttering any opinion of my own.
Why would I do that. It was an informal excahnge, remember?

You are the only person who never acknowledged this Fish. YOU were the one insisting we had a full and detailed examination of the materials from a renowned expert that we should all pay attention to: look at your post number 1301 on the census thread in which you said:

Well, Crystal, if you donīt want to award the wiews of one of the most renowned Swedish forensic document examiners any value, you are of course right.
On the other hand, when you realize that we for the first time have 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, you should perhaps upgrade your level of interest a bit...?

There are lots more examples where you have tried to overestimate the value of Leander's input, even when you have been reminded that he himself told you not to. But i am bored now.

I am glad at your renunciation of your misconception that we have anything other than a few informal comments from Leander, and that you now recognise, if belatedly, what we have been saying all along...that no such professional examination was possible by Leander.

Hallelujah...i do believe!

[Jane Welland]

Thanks, 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.

Well done Jane.

I do try!

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland:

"It has struck me from the first, and continues to do so, that neither Iremonger, nor Leander, has endorsed any view conclusively"

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.

"Iremonger saw what was available at the time. She saw the originals - almost certainly."

Itīs the "almost" that does not belong to any discussion where you need to claim certainty. Toppy is Hutch, almost certainly. And I mean it!

"If I understand correctly, she thought the two were unlikely to be a match - but did she not also say that she wouldn't be prepared to go further than that?"

I honestly donīt think anybody knows, Jane! I have a memory of reading somewhere that she worded herself: "On balance...", but NOBODY can verify that - or anything else beonging to that investigation.
Show me her wordings, show me the material she looked at, and show me all the rest that belongs to a properly documented examination, and I will have a very interested look - I have demanded it up on the table dozens of times.
And do not tell me that there is any disrespect involved in not buying what you cannot see!

"
"Leander saw examples selected by you. He did not therefore see all the examples available at the time. Thus, although he appears to think personally that there is sufficient correlation between the two for a match to be possible (in the positive sense) with respect, he cannot have made a balanced judgement because he did not have all the signatures in the first place."

He did not see a "possible" match, Jane - he saw a probable one. And oh, yes, he could make a totally and thoroughly balanced judgement of WHAT HE SAW - and THAT wasa signature from the police protocol, signed by the Dorset Street witness.

"Now, if you wish to proclaim that the whole thing was an informal exchange between yourself and Leander, then that is fine."

That pressing need has mostly ben felt by others than me, Jane....

" know that you are of the opinion that Toppy=Hutch, but others are not, and their view deserves respect just as much as your own."

And just when did I deny anybody that opinion...? The one thing I DO object to is allegations of lies and foul play - such things I do not respect. Do you?

The best,
Fisherman
off again

If I understand correctly, she thought the two were unlikely to be a match - but did she not also say that she wouldn't be prepared to go further than that?

In other words, she didn't think so, but she couldn't be certain beyond doubt. This may have been, in all likelihood, because there were insufficient samples - just as with Leander.

Leander saw examples selected by you. He did not therefore see all the examples available at the time. Thus, although he appears to think personally that there is sufficient correlation between the two for a match to be possible (in the positive sense) with respect, he cannot have made a balanced judgement because he did not have all the signatures in the first place.

Jane x

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.

Well done Jane.

[Jane Welland]

Ah, Fisherman, there you are!

I wondered where you had gone!

Now, I don't have much to say - so let's be simple.

It has struck me from the first, and continues to do so, that neither Iremonger, nor Leander, has endorsed any view conclusively.

Iremonger saw what was available at the time. She saw the originals - almost certainly. Statements by you and by other posters which attempt to denigrate that effort are unworthy.

If I understand correctly, she thought the two were unlikely to be a match - but did she not also say that she wouldn't be prepared to go further than that?

In other words, she didn't think so, but she couldn't be certain beyond doubt. This may have been, in all likelihood, because there were insufficient samples - just as with Leander.

Leander saw examples selected by you. He did not therefore see all the examples available at the time. Thus, although he appears to think personally that there is sufficient correlation between the two for a match to be possible (in the positive sense) with respect, he cannot have made a balanced judgement because he did not have all the signatures in the first place.

This is not a sign that I have an agenda. This is the product of rational deduction.

Now, if you wish to proclaim that the whole thing was an informal exchange between yourself and Leander, then that is fine. But by doing so, you must allow others to treat it similarly, and not expect them to give his verdict undue weight.

I know that you are of the opinion that Toppy=Hutch, but others are not, and their view deserves respect just as much as your own.

Best wishes to you, Fisherman

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Oh, and just to show you what I mean when I say that the cards have been on the table all the time, this is how I worded it when I published Leanders first post:

"This response from the SKL was something I had not counted on - I did not know to what degree they would help nosy citizens prying into other countries criminal history. And so, I was happy to receive such a generous answer.
In fact, I was so encouraged as to copy Sams board of signatures from page 57 on this thread and forward it to Frank Leander, humbly asking if he could possibly ponder to ...??
And he did!"

So, you have it all in black and white, and far from any pointer to me "deliberately withholding" information, I think it says a lot more about how you do your homework. Brrrrrr...!

Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Victor!

Since you ask about what people know of the Iremonger examination, I think you should prepare for disappointment. The reason for this is that it seems what Iremonger saw, what she said, what she grounded her opinions on and how sure she was, WAS NEVER RECORDED! Thus, nobody knows, and the only thing you will find when asking is that Iremonger "must not be questioned", and that it is "beyond doubt that her examination was impeccable and thorough".

Since there is no substantiation for this, other than Martin Fidos assertion that Iremonger was a nice woman who made a good impression on him (and that goes some way, since Martin is a very nice guy himself!), I myself tend to dismiss her - that is what we generally need to do with non-existant material.

It seems as there is a debate going on where for example Ben tells all and sundry that I "deliberately withheld" vital information from Leander. Well, well, that should tally nicely with the assertions that Leander is a liar and a totally unethical researcher, just as it should work eminently together with Bens hints that I may have written Leanders answers by myself!

I think, before you go any further, that you need to realize that you have been pressing VERY hard all the time that Leanders examination was veeery informal and that it carries no resemblance whatsoever to a real, professional examination. That, of course, was something you yelled at the tops of your voices in order to play down the importance of Leanders words. But now it will work against you; you see, you cannot first say that it was all awfully informal and just a friendly, personal chat of no importance whatsoever, only to then turn around and demand from me that I ought to have behaved very formally and up to all scientific standards, supplying all the material and never uttering any opinion of my own.
Why would I do that? It was an informal exchange, remember? And in such an exchange, just like Victor has eminently and wisely pointed out to you, I am at liberty to handle the discussion in exactly the manner that I want to.
The true reason for my choice of material was that Sam had provided a collection of the third police protocol signature, the marriage license signature, and the 1911 census signatures, and that was a collection I thought would be very suitable to get an answer from Leander on in relation to the question "could all these signatures have been written by the same person?", and the reason I had for asking that question was that Ben insisted on the signatures being very much dissimilar. He even stated that "Lambeth George"īs signature was a closer match to the witness ditto than was Toppys, a misconception that Leander immediately brought him out of. So much for Benīs abilities to tell signatures apart!

And so, I still fail to see how you could fault me for having acted informally in an informal exchange, not to mention how baffled I am by the suggestion that I should have deliberately misled anybody.Well, not baffled exactly, as I have come to expect all sorts of things in this debate, but I can truly say that the suggestion was an unsavoury one.

Anyway, this is what applies, and in spite of all the indignated outcrys and in spite of the fact that I have never concealed anything - the cards have been on the table all the time, although I could have chosen to lie and say that Leander had all three signatures and you would have been none the wiser - the fact remains that Frank Leander has helped us in identifying a probable - not possible, probable - match between the Dorset Street witness and George Topping Hutchinson, and for that, Ben and I are forever greatful. At least I think so, since Ben stated from the outset that nobody would be happier than him if the Dorset streeet witness could be identified. So letīs rejoice, shall we?

Informally yours,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

for Victor

hi Victor

following the discussion earlier about script, i thought you might be interested in the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_alphabet

As you can see, there are three diacritics in the Swedish alphabet which arent in the English one.

I think it is common sense that examiners not working in their own native language are less able to be certain about their conclusions, and as the link i posted earlier shows, it is something accepted within the profession, so it must be important.

I live in Wales which also has a different alphabet (Sam is a Welsh speaker...i am sure he can comment on this)...if you check you will see that CH is a letter in the Welsh alphabet, but there is no J or X. There are also other letters like dd and ff and no k, v, or z.

Obviously if we had a Welsh document to examine, it would make sense to ask someone natively Welsh, who would be aware much more of how those unusual characters of script would be formed, and what were more likely to be significant deviations or similarities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_orthography

Hope you find this interesting.

best wishes

[Ben]

Surely it's obvious that your signatures differ slightly from eachother, and the more you compare the greater the number of genuine natural variations will crop up.

Exacltly, which is why it makes every sense to include as many examples of the same handwriting as possible, and which is why all professional document examiners ask for precisely that wherever it may be available. The "natural variations" provide the very reason for including all three signatures in this case, since any one of the supposed similarities between sig #3 and the Toppy census entry could mistakenly be chalked up to an ingrained similarity that will aways be present whenever the individual write's his name, as opposed to what it really is - a "natural variation".

so taking the best and comparing that makes some sort of sense

But who gets to decide which is "best", or more precisely, how is anybody to know that sig #3 is more reflective of the witness' "normal" handwriting than the other two? That again is for the examiner to assess, once s/he's been supplied with all the material. For all we know, sig #1 may be more representative of the norm and sig #3 could be the "noise" that "distorts the results". Examiners don't request that the amateur decides which is best before sending them that sample and no other. They specifically request as many samples as possible, which was eminently "possible" in this case.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

Every right, he wanted an opinion and he asked for one. The point of asking a document examiner is to get an expert opinion to confirm Fish's amateur hypothesis. That's the entire point of experts isn't it?

nope. Wrong. He had no right to portray Leander's response as professional when he knew full well he had skewed the sample. I'm sorry if you think otherwise. People can only give informed responses when they are enabled to do so by being provided with objective evidence. I find it difficult to accept there is anything remotely arguable about this point. Also, Fish was asking on behalf of everyone here...he had a responsibilty to ensure the expert he approached was supplied with all the relevant information, which he failed to do.

Surely it's obvious that your signatures differ slightly from eachother, and the more you compare the greater the number of genuine natural variations will crop up.

Nope. It's obvious that the greater number you compare, the greater experience you will have of how that particular person writes, what deviations there are, and what emphasis to put on the similarities vs the variations. How can you possibly argue that the lesser the evidence, the better the conclusion? What other field could this possibly apply in?

My hypothesis once was that Klosowski was the Ripper. I could have taken all the evidence that suggests this could be true, shown it to someone, and asked them if they thought Klosowski was the Ripper. Deliberately with holding from them all the other evidence that suggests he might not have been the Ripper would have skewed their understanding, wouldnt it?

Informed responses have to take account of ALL the evidence, not just select bits of evidence that appear to support a pre-conceived notion.

By the way i no longer think it was Klosowski....human beings are capable of learning, and that's what i did when i started to look at objective, rational evidence.

By the way, i agree that the identification is possible...not probable, not certain, but possible, but that's as far as the evidence can take us.

Anyway, was the Iremonger examination blind? Does anyone know?

I dont know Vic. I dont have the books she was published in. She stood on her professional credentials however in being published and she examined the originals, which would have mean comparing all three signatures which is obviously better than not doing so. I don't go as far as she does in discounting a match for sure. However i respect her opinion.

best wishes

[Victor]

Who is Fish to decide that? If we are going to decide which ones we think are genuine and then just ask experts to look at that and agree, what is the point of consulting a document examiner in the first place?

Every right, he wanted an opinion and he asked for one. The point of asking a document examiner is to get an expert opinion to confirm Fish's amateur hypothesis. That's the entire point of experts isn't it?

If you cannot see that withholding this vital information had the effect of influencing and manipulating the opinion Leander was able to come up with, through no fault of Leander's whatsoever, i do not know how else to explain it to you.

Surely it's obvious that your signatures differ slightly from eachother, and the more you compare the greater the number of genuine natural variations will crop up. True a significantly large sample size should average out the natural variations and give a better conclusion, but when your talking about 1 or 3 samples then the "noise" could be significantly distort the results, so taking the best and comparing that makes some sort of sense. Just think of what would've happened if Leander said "no match", you'd all be whooping that Toppy definitely wasn't Hutch.

I still think "not impossible" is the best you're going to get.

Anyway, was the Iremonger examination blind? Does anyone know?

KR,
Vic.

[babybird67]

oh my goodness

Or the one most likely to be genuine? In Fish's opinion (not that I'm agreeing with it).

Who is Fish to decide that? If we are going to decide which ones we think are genuine and then just ask experts to look at that and agree, what is the point of consulting a document examiner in the first place? What right has Fish to decide which one he thinks is genuine? He is not God. And if you are not agreeing with his opinion, you are doing a pretty good job of pretending you are by justifying selective materials being used as if this is not a problem and has no detrimental effect on the conclusions given.

But "Fish influenced Leander" (or even "tried to") doesn't mean that Leaner gave a more favourable answer because of Fish's behaviour. That would be a question of Leander's integrity in dealing with the information supplied.

Not at all Vic. Fish did influence Leander because he did not tell Leander there were two other signatures on the same witness statement for Leander to look at. Put it this way, say Leander came over to look at the actual documents. What do you think he would have done when faced with the statement? Do you think he would have looked at page one and decided on that signature alone that the differences outweighed the similarities? let's say he did his job and despite that he went on to look at signature 2...again, more differences? Might he then have thought, "Well i wont bother looking at the third signature. One or two will do. I have made up my mind."

Absolutely not. He would have examined the document in its entirety, because that is how one comes to an informed, objective, scientific opinion. He was not given the opportunity to do this. He was supplied with a defective sample because Fish had already decided the only signature Fish wanted Leander to look at was the one which was most similar, which, if you refer to Garry's first post on this thread, was even considered by Leander as the signature which LEAST resembled the following signatures, which were by Toppy.

If Leander thought the most similar signature was the one that could least be matched to the Toppy examples, do you not think his opinion could have been different if he had also been given the opportunity to see and examine the other two much less similar Hutchinson signatures?

If you cannot see that withholding this vital information had the effect of influencing and manipulating the opinion Leander was able to come up with, through no fault of Leander's whatsoever, i do not know how else to explain it to you.

All i can suggest is that you PM me for a recommendation for good home insurance!

[Jane Welland]

Where's Fish gone?

Does anybody know...?

Jane x

[Ben]

Thanks, Beebs.

I'm amazed at my oversight from the outset, doubly so after Garry specifically referred to it. Quite numptescent of me, I must say.

All the best,
Ben