The Leander Analysis

[Fisherman]

Once again, Ben, you contribute nothing new, but instead choose to travel in endless circles, repeating your ever older arguments. When you offer something new, we´ll have a look at things again, but until that time: no.

But for one thing, that is: your repeated nagging about "his initial post was neutral". That is a stance that is, was and remains completely nonsensical, for reasons I have outlined a thousand times.
But since you persist, I have dug up YOUR initial post and YOUR initial reaction to Leander. In it, you commented on his work by saying that it was "most informative and reassuring".
Since that, you have changed your mind, but that counts for nothing, Ben, since you tied yourself to a belief that Frank Leanders work was "most informative and reassuring" from the outset. Therefore, yours was a reaction of complete confidence and faith, exactly the way we should treat evidence coming from an expert source. Let´s stick with that, shall we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

Leander has clearly said something like: The preponderance of extant evidence leads me to the conclusion that the signatures are likely to belong to the same man.

Not in his initial post, though, Mike.

His initial post was neutral.

He later provided a copy of his "grading system" which included a list of expressions used by the "SKL" to convey a neutral stance. One such expression was "Cannot be excluded" and it was used in relation to the Toppy debate. If that subsequently changed, then something Fishy clearly went on. Not such an outlandish suggestion, really, since we know for certain that all the Numpty-Dumptism involving some alleged "amplitude" was provably false.

So there is unlikelihood, rather than "possibility", on the basis of the judgement of document examiners who don't make irreconcilable statements, and "probable" is just a laugh.

I don't know how many people have taken the time to examine the link I shared with BB, but it includes a chapter entitled "Unfamilair Scripts", and highlights the problems implicit in examining documents in other languages. The author, Dave Ellen, assures us that it doesn't happen very often, and for good reason.

[Ben]

Nor was that the aim from the beginning. The one thing that led on my question to Frank Leander was Bens stating that there were more dissimilarities involved than similarities inbetween the signatures. I thought, Sam thought, Mike thought, Debra thought and a small host of others thought that this was not true

Not that tiresome numbers game again? Anything but that. I'd have no problem at all if you observed that a handful of people shared aspects of your viewpoint, since that would constitute an accurate statement, but it's when you start mutating that number into a "host" that you run the risk of irritating or misleading people, albeit not intentionally.

I even copied the witness signature number three on thin paper and lay it over the image of Toppys signature, thus confirming that they WERE very much alike. But none of this was accepted by Ben.

The fact that you got your crayons out and conducted an amateurish experiment "confirms" nothing of the sort, and it is frankly ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Do professional document examiners get out their tracing paper and attempt to establish handwriting congruity that way? No. So why assume that any weight should be given to your non-expert-endorsed experiment, especially when we know that a legitimate expert has concluded that the handwriting doesn't match? We know that the original samples weren't remotely the same size, thus eradicting any possible worth in that experiment. Hardly surprising, then, that none of that was accepted by Ben.

He could easily have accepted Leanders verdict

Oh, but I did accept Leander's indisputably neutral verdict, as I demonstrated by quoting him verbatim. Pestering a man into giving a biased conclusion and then informing that same pestered man that an independent observer - who must be a nefarious villain for even making the suggestion - has taken note of the pesterer's pestering antics is not the same as dismissing his verdict. I utterly reject the premise that Leander considered the match probable, though. It's ludicrous nonsense, as his initial contribution and subsequent "grading systerm" proved beyond any semblance of doubt. If he revised his mind, he either:

A) Changed his mind without telling anybody.

B) Didn't make himself remotely clear first time (highly unbecoming of a profesional in the field of document examination). Or..

C) He was bombarded into supporting an aggressively-phrased, Toppy-endorsing viewpoint.

Those are the only realistic options.

The claim that there are "no other dissimilarities involved in this comparison, other that dissimilarities in amplitude" is a proven falsehood, so why Fisherman should feel the need to keep repeating a statement that cannot possibly be true is beyond me. Fisherman doesn't even seem to know what it means, and yet he's embraced it like his favourite buzzword. Bottom line - Leander specifically referred to differences that did not involved "amplitude". Anyone who claims otherwise is either unfamiliar with Leander's first post or is deliberately suppling information known to be false. Despite all this, Fisherman still keeps bleating that we have a "genuine match" despite Leander cautiously avoiding such silly and OTT phraseology.

You tell me that Leander has painted me as malicious, but what else could you possibly expect if you pollute a potentially valuable source by telling him that I've accused him of lying? Are you expecting him to make me a cup of tea, or what? "Ben the bastard thinks you're a liar, Leander. What have you to say to this charge? P.S. I love you" is a not a particularly laudable strategy if you're seeking a non-biased opinion, and if you're using it in mainstream journalism, that's a significant concern.

You still keep shoving that word "match" in his head, despite the fact that Leander himself never used that stinking word.

there is a signature around, purportedly by the Dorset Street witness that leads a renowned expert to say that it is so alike the Toppy signatures that he would be surprised if it was not by the same man.

Whoops, there he goes again.

Time for another dose of:

Once again - and a trillion more times if necessary - I utterly reject the professed "surprise" if it were not a genuine match since that view is in stark contrast to his initial neutral stance. He couldn't possibly subscribe to both stances simultaneously, so I'm inclined to the view that he fobbed you off a bit after you contacted him a few too many times.

Nobody will ever tire of disputing your oft puked-out nonsense, Fisherman, least of all me. You're even using such rhetoric laden-terminology now as "an almighty pointer in the direction of a match", as though you're trying to dupe people into believing that, despite being fully aware that Leander's first post - and subsequent grading system or instruction manual - conveyed no such thinking. All you're doing is portraying him in the worst possible light. Providing Leander with the opportunity to defend himself does not mean poisoning him against me to the extent of retarding any chances of him giving an unbiased conclusion, uncluttered with indignation over a perceived attack.

Lose a point, Fisherman, for resorting to inspid tactics, unbecoming of a sagacious journalist, and lose a point, Leander, for not having the sense to avoid falling into the silly unsubtle trap. That's all I'm criticising him for, whereas a more scurrilous person might have picked up on his complaint about lawyers attacking his written statements, and used it to illustrate a certain inability on Leander's part to clarify his true meaning. A sort of "phew, it isn't just me, then!" protest.

But as far as I am concerned, what we have is quite enough to satisfy myself that a match is beyond resonable doubt - there is not a chance in Utopia that one of the handful of Hutchinsons about wrote in the exact same fashion as did Hutch/Toppy

You can "satisfy yourself" of whatever you want, just as long as you don't insist on anyone else swallowing that unjustified "satisfaction" for nothing like good reason, and please try to avoid the usual Toppyite gaucherie of using exaggerated rhetoric-laden terminology to enforce your belief. "Not a chance in Utopia" doesn't even make sense.

or, indeed, that an imposter who had the exact same type of handstyle as Toppy, actually chose the alter ego "George Hutchinson" when he masqueraded on Dorset Street that night.

But nobody has ever claimed that Toppy had the "exact same type of handstyle" as the witness, apart from two of three irrational zealots, certainly not Leander. So the imposter hypotheses remains more than valid.

It defies all common sense, and remains very, very much unsubstantiated suggestions

But for the people who reject your perception of common sense (which should be most people who are familiar with your often confused posts), they will remain viable suggestions, whether fully substantiated or not.

That said, you may have noticed that I stay away from any exchange with Ben nowadays

Was that meant to be serious??

[babybird67]

Sorry, but I have to go back to the Toppy camp again.


Flip Flopper

Traitor. Although flip floppers make good presidents...i vote for Fiend!

[Jane Welland]

Really?

No Elephants in Sweden?

Well, you learn something new every day!

Jane x

[Fisherman]

I missed you, Mike; not that I´m going soft on you or something, but us Swedes are totally unfamiliar with how elephants look. You, on the other hand, seem to be pefectly able to identify them. Meaning that you may come in handy.
Welcome back.

Fisherman
relieved

[The Good Michael]

Leander has clearly said something like: The preponderance of extant evidence leads me to the conclusion that the signatures are likely to belong to the same man. I don't have everything available to me (no one ever will), and there could be extenuating circumstance such as the unlikelihood of the authors having had the same writing teacher, that may cause me to rethink things, but thus far, Toppy seems to be Hutch.

Is it 100%? Of course not. Nothing is. Is it enough, with all other 'coincidences' to make Toppy into Hutch. Not 100%, but there is probability rather than merely possibility. Anyone who can't see that, regardless of what the final outcome may actually be, doesn't know what an elephant is.

Sorry, but I have to go back to the Toppy camp again.


Flip Flopper

[babybird67]

Did I just hear an angelic trumpet of triumph? Yes, I am one of you now.

Smug Refuter of Scientific Method

Yes, you heard my angelic instrument, but i wont "harp" on about it. At least my angelic status has some integrity to it, unlike that of a nerfarious incorrigible Hell Fiend.

(loves ya really )

[Fisherman]

"Supplying Leander with the full set of examples would have been better on this scale that not doing so - because, as you see, you have left yourself open to criticism for it."

Only if I had set out to claim that something aiming to look like a full examination had been made, Jane. And - once again - that I did not do, which I have also openly stated throughout. Since I have all the time said that I needed to know if a top quality researcher recognized the same thing that I do - that the witness signature I supplied him with is a very good match with Toppys ditto, it would be barking up the wrong tree to criticize me for not going about things the way other posters, with other possible aims in mind, would have done.

Of course, the dearth of signatures and the fact that they were copies mean that we will be left with no full assessment. But as far as I am concerned, what we have is quite enough to satisfy myself that a match is beyond resonable doubt - there is not a chance in Utopia that one of the handful of Hutchinsons about wrote in the exact same fashion as did Hutch/Toppy, or, indeed, that an imposter who had the exact same type of handstyle as Toppy, actually chose the alter ego "George Hutchinson" when he masqueraded on Dorset Street that night. It defies all common sense, and remains very, very much unsubstantiated suggestions, AT LEAST IF YOU ASK ME (and a couple of the best informed Ripperologists around on these boards, to the best of my judgement).

Therefore, I am quite content to work from the supposition that Hutch IS identified, and I will do so fortwith, just as I have said. Not doing so ON MY BEHALF would equal working from a supposition that the earth is flat, and I just won´t do things that swear utterly and totally against my convictions. I don´t work that way.

"as an aside, I would say, Fisherman, that perhaps you should care a bit less about what Ben thinks!"

Well, Jane, it´s not as much what he thinks as it is what he says. If you consider that he has called Leander, a man who has been very kind and generous to us on my call, a liar and an unethical expert (that´s the gist of things, as I am sure you must agree), and that he has implied that I may have written Leanders posts myself (as evinced by Bens musings that "even the language" is the same inbetween us - one would have hoped that Ben could have realized that I translated Leander, and so my language will colour his words), you may see why I have felt compelled to take Ben to task on the matter. You simply don´t do what he has done, and you simply don´t make that kind of allegations against discerning, generous, helpful, knowledgeable men like Frank Leander - it is far, far beyond any decency, as I am sure you will agree.

That said, you may have noticed that I stay away from any exchange with Ben nowadays, as least as long as I am of the opinion that the discussion is not brought forward by it. That is as best as I can do.

Incidentally, unless you feel awkward about it, do you mind answering my question whether you agree with Ben that Leander probably lied to keep me happy and get rid of me? It would be helpful to know your stance on that issue.

The best, Jane!
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Thanks Fisherman

for your response to my post.

The main point that I wished to raise is that Leander has seen a limited number of examples, even within what is available. This does matter, I'm afraid, because the three witness signatures display inconsistancies - sending the one that most resembles Toppy's signatures is a flawed approach because it creates a biased dataset. To fairly judge, Leander would have needed to see all the available material - yes, I take your point about there being insufficient material to begin with, but not supplying him with all of what there is doesn't help the situation. His view must therefore be treated with caution, however we, as individuals, see the potential match between Toppy and the Dorset Street witness.

He has, as I said earlier, not seen the full picture.

Leander has pointed out differences in the signatures as well, Fisherman, and I have to say that they are all pretty clear - now, I understand that there has been much debate concerning how those differences have arisen - whether it be through natural progression over time, or whether it be because the signatures were in fact penned by separate individuals - but those differences remain, like it or not. I would agree of course that it is quite possible for handwriting to evolve over time - why not? Many reasons occur to me as to why this should happen - through handicap, or age, for example. Here, it must be said, the examples of Toppy's handwriting that we know of show no such alteration - indeed, the Census signatures are so similar to his marriage certificate that they could have been written at the same time - instead of years apart as they actually were.

The signatures originate in three events - the witness statement, the marriage certificate and the Census - I think it wise to exercise caution when there is no discernible change between events 2 and 3, but there are differences between events 1 and 2. Just a note of caution, that's all - and a fair sample to begin with.

It's perfectly reasonable - and very much in the interests of anyone who wants to confirm something beyond reasonable doubt - to proceed in a manner that is not open to reasonable criticism. Supplying Leander with the full set of examples would have been better on this scale that not doing so - because, as you see, you have left yourself open to criticism for it.

Anyhow - it remains unresolved, for a number of reasons. So on we go!

Since you raise the issue - as an aside, I would say, Fisherman, that perhaps you should care a bit less about what Ben thinks! Even if you can't get on, mud-slinging, cathartic as it may be, only breeds resentment!



Peacefully yours

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"Fisherman – please, before you respond with antagonism..."

Why would I answer with antagonism, Jane? You have never given me any reason to.

"Because otherwise, this triumph of yours counts for little."

I think, Jane, that you are shooting beside the target here. I am not interested in or anticipating any "triumph" on my own behalf - once thruth prevails and "triumphs", I will be quite happy. I was not the one who dug up the signatures, and I will claim no fame in whatever result the may be awarded.

You have reiterated what Leander said about a "full expert opinion", and I have no beef with that; moreover, I have never had so. Please go through the posts I have made, from the beginning, and realize that it was me and nobody else that taught us that Leanders words did NOT represent a full expert opinion. I will gladly say it once more, if needed: the comparison he has made does not count as a full expert opinion, quite simply - and it never could have.
It would not have mattered if he had all three signatures, just as it would not have mattered if he had the originals. THAT STILL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR HIM TO GIVE A FULL EXPERT´S OPINION!
What he would have needed to give such a full opinion would be 10+ examples of Toppys signature, 10+ of the witnesses´ditto and the originals. And this he did not have, and, as it stands and reasonably will keep standing, the wish for a full expert´s opinion ON ANYBODYS BEHALF remains useless.

So, let´s once and for all stop speaking about Leanders examination from that perspective; I think we ALL accept that it never WAS a full experts opinion!

Nor was that the aim from the beginning. The one thing that led on my question to Frank Leander was Bens stating that there were more dissimilarities involved than similarities inbetween the signatures. I thought, Sam thought, Mike thought, Debra thought and a small host of others thought that this was not true. I even copied the witness signature number three on thin paper and lay it over the image of Toppys signature, thus confirming that they WERE very much alike. But none of this was accepted by Ben.

THAT is why I turned to Leander and THAT is why I sent him the third signature together with the marriage and census signatures. I wanted to find out if it was legitimate, as seen by a true professional, to conclude that the witness signature WAS much alike the Toppy signatures. And yes, by now Leander has (repeatedly, thanks to Ben) confirmed that this is indeed the case. Moreover, he has asserted that there are no other dissimilarities involved in this comparison, other that dissimilarities in amplitude. And he has, over and over again, stated, in various wordings, that he believes we have a genuine match - judging by the twodimensional, meagre material he has seen!

But Ben, who in the beginning of the 1911 thread said that nobody would be more happy than him if it was a match, has in the choice of accepting that Leander genuinely speaks for a probable match and the choice of calling him a liar, opted for the second alternative, IN SPITE OF the earlier evinced eagerness to find the witness identity. And this applies, likewise, IN SPITE OF the fact that Leander tells us that his opinion could never be regarded as a full experts opinion, and IN SPITE OF Leander branding him malicious. He could easily have accepted Leanders verdict, and then moved on to say "but the evidence is far too small to reach any certainty", and that would have been something I would readily accept: It IS far too small an amount of evidence, and that applies fortwith. Plus he could have kept claiming that the signatures were not even remotely alike, if he wushed to -the one thing he cannot do, however, is to remove the right for Leander to present his evidence in the way he chooses to, and to be belived when he says he believes in a match as it stands.

Incidentally, the word "meagre" was chosen by me, Jane, to substitute the Swedish word "knapp". I could have translated it into "unfull", "thin", "somewhat unsufficient" or "slightly lacking" too, but I chose the word "meagre", because I am in no way trying to "push" the value of Lenaders verdict. It pushes itself, at least in the respect I was hoping it would; there is a signature around, purportedly by the Dorset Street witness that leads a renowned expert to say that it is so alike the Toppy signatures that he would be surprised if it was not by the same man. It is - whichever way we look upon it - an almighty pointer in the direction of a match, and that stands too, just as does the opinion that we can´t get a full assessment on the material used.

But the sole intention of my posts this time over, has been to show very clearly that Ben has manouvred himself into a completely untenable position on the weighed judgement of Leander; he is very much entitled to say that he thinks the match a probable one, and when he does so, we are all equally obliged, not to accept his verdict as true, but that he has given his honest opinion throughout!
It should never have been allowed to become a matter of contention the way I see it, but once Ben made it such a matter, there was little I could do but to offer Leander the opportunity to defend himself.

I have reason to believe that Ben once more will fly into a rage over my post; he regularly does. Please understand why I may not answer to it, in such a case. My stance is that he has presented nothing new at all, but instead tried to evoke a maximum of irritation, and I have already had all the irritation I can take when he decided to brand Leander a liar and an unetchical researcher and expert. I have published my sentiments about it and I will stand by them fortwith, but I see no reason to argue about it with a man that has lost his footing so completely as Ben has - it will offer nothing useful at all. Whenever I identify anything that may BE useful in a discussion leading forward, I will return to the discussion with Ben - but not before that.

See, Jane - no antagonism there, was there...?

On a side note, when you write: "There is nothing remotely far-fetched or outlandish about the reservations I have seen expressed on these boards", would that include Bens assertion that Leander has lied to keep me happy and try to get rid of me, Jane? I hope not.

The best, Jane!
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Hi BB

I agree entirely - I understand that this debate has an emotional investment for some -

even so...

I do not think the 'This is right because I say it is' approach to debating is paricularly helpful - and I think is rather suggests weak argument.

Suggesting, implying, or otherwise contending that those who disagree with the certain identification of Toppy with Hutchinson are in some was lacking, deficient, or missing the point, strikes me as being a little feeble.

There is nothing remotely far-fetched or outlandish about the reservations I have seen expressed on these boards - to suggest otherwise is fallacious.

It grieves me to see this one-up-manship, which will achieve nothing more or less than hostility and resentment.

As we can all see from this afternoon's efforts.

Since this debate will clearly continue - how about some mutual respect?

Best to all

Jane x

[babybird67]

oh my...

....

Moving on, I have judged your meagre material in copy-form, where the material in many respects must be added to before it can be used for a full expert opinion.

Yes, here we are again. No full expert opinion tendered. So why do we keep coming back to Leander as if it has been? I've pointed out innumerable times that no expert opinion has been offered and so have other people who wish to remain circumspect about a Toppy identification. It's not a difficult issue to grasp.

"meagre material", "copy-form", material which "in many respects must be added to"...

Copies are not good enough. Nobody can tell what is missing from a copy without seeing the original. Nobody from the pro-Toppy camp has addressed this point to my satisfaction. How does Leander know what is not in the original that he can be missing, unless he sees the original? These points seem so obvious and simple to me, that i cannot understand why they are glossed over and dismissed as some kind of non-scientific way to proceed with evidence.

The sum total of what those who wish to quote Leander as Toppy-confirming are asking us to accept is that:

document examiners have no actual need to examine documents to arrive at their opinions.

This is ludicrous...laughable...ridiculous. Even Leander says he needs to work with originals to offer an expert opinion...apparently in that he is wrong, but in everything else he is right?

Insanity!

Anyway, in our quest for further knowledge regarding document examining, Ben came across this interesting information which he shared with me and i have been reading so i thought i would share it with everyone else, for interest:

http://tinyurl.com/n4rr9v

It urges caution whereby a document examiner is examining scripts of an unfamiliar nature...relevant in this discussion, i think.

The whole thing is very interesting...for example i have just come across a bit which states that document examining takes in things that are more than the eye can see, putting paid once again to the old chestnut that anyone with eyes can have as valid a view as anyone else. Either we respect professional training or we do not, and i respect the fact that Ms Iremonger saw the originals and was of the professional expert opinion, that she allowed to be published and attributed to her, that the signatures did not match.

I have the utmost respect for all but one of the people who are on the side of being convinced that an identification has been established. What is of constant disappointment to me is that the posters who have not yet been convinced of a match are more often derided for perceived failings in not capitulating what i, for one, honestly beleive, which is that no identification has yet been proven from the materials and the context of those materials.

I should think i would deserve less respect if i did capitulate. For me, the identification remains a possible one, neither probable nor proven.


(As an aside, i find it reprehensible that Fish, you should bombard Leander seven times just to come to the same result...i.e., he cannot give us a professional opinion, and also reprehensible that you should portray the debate, and any perceived insults therein, as being a one-sided one, when the evidence on these boards is that you have been just as guilty of "malicious interpretations", not only of wordings but of posters' intentions.)

[Jane Welland]

The Leander Analysis

Hi Fisherman

Thanks for posting Leander’s latest response – on consideration, I would make the following observations:

According to your post, Fisherman, Leander responded as follows -

”Sigh! It is sad to see malicious interpretations, but I am used to wrestling with solicitors who will stop at nothing to attack written statements....

Moving on, I have judged your meagre material in copy-form, where the material in many respects must be added to before it can be used for a full expert opinion.
After that, I have stated that I am of the meaning that your material is of such a character that I would not let go of it, but instead move along with it. In my judgement and according to the experience I have examining handstyles/signatures, it is not very credible that the likenesses involved are coincidental. There may of course be unknown factors in the errand that makes me ”overvalue” the material if you take my meaning, for example if George Hutchinson number one and number two went to the same school and learnt writing from the same teacher or something along those lines ....? But just how credible does that sound!
Hoping that the debate will come to an end!
Frank Leander”

Now, as remarked upon already, one could certainly read between the lines here – but since that requires an interpretation of what Leander thought, when responding to you, and not merely an interpretation of what he said – as provided by your good self, Fisherman, let’s concentrate on that, shall we?

‘Moving on’ – Pretty clear – means ‘moving on’ – in the context of his reply: no more talk of personal vendettas, please.

‘I have judged your meagre material’ – as you see, by your own translation, meagre.

What does it mean, this ‘Meagre’?

The Online Dictionary gives the definition as:

‘Deficient in quantity, fullness, or extent; scanty.’

So, Leander says, according to your own translation, that the material that he saw, and with which you, I understand, supplied him, was insufficient. There it is, in black and white.

So as not to stand accused of quoting you quoting Leander, out of context – i.e. not verbatim – here is the entire sentence:

‘Moving on, I have judged your meagre material in copy-form, where the material in many respects must be added to before it can be used for a full expert opinion’.

Ah yes! That old Chestnut – the full expert opinion! Leander is telling us here, again, in black and white, that no full expert opinion is possible, has been possible, nor ever will be possible, on the basis of the material with which he has been supplied. It cannot happen, it has not happened, it will not happen.

There we are.

Moving on....

Leander next says:


‘After that, I have stated that I am of the meaning that your material is of such a character that I would not let go of it, but instead move along with it.’

Which means that taking the above into consideration, he does consider the signatures to be worthy of further attention and analysis.

He then says:

‘In my judgement and according to the experience I have examining handstyles/signatures, it is not very credible that the likenesses involved are coincidental. There may of course be unknown factors in the errand that makes me ”overvalue” the material if you take my meaning, for example if George Hutchinson number one and number two went to the same school and learnt writing from the same teacher or something along those lines ....?’

Now, if I read you correctly, Fisherman, this is the bit that leads you to apparent triumph. Jolly good – but, wait just a minute!

‘There may of course be unknown factors in the errand that makes me ‘overvalue’ the material if you take my meaning’ – Well, let’s see, shall we?

How about the fact that the witness statement used for comparison with the Toppy signatures in this debate – and the one which I presume (I stand to be corrected, of course) was the one you sent to Leander; is only one of three available signatures in existence?

As I gather (see Garry Wroe, above) the three are different from each other. Were these others sent to Leander? No?

Then with the greatest of respect, Fisherman, I’m afraid he hasn’t seen the full picture, has he?

In addition, as others have said, the signatures are of different sizes – which is certainly not clear from their presentation on these boards. Does Leander know this?

Leaving aside the thorny issue of originals vs copies (for which, again, see above) there are more than enough issues with what Leander has viewed to render his doubtless expert view dubious – through no fault of his own at all.

Fisherman – please, before you respond with antagonism, please listen:

It would seem that this matter is not so simple as has been assumed – if you are intent on determining an absolute answer from Leander (assuming he is still willing) then he should at the very least be in possession of all the facts – and that means all the signatures.

Because otherwise, this triumph of yours counts for little.

Best wishes

Jane x

[Ben]

Leander's initial stance was neutral, Victor.

Irrefutably neutral.

He even provided the "grading system" that gives a list of expressions that are commonly used to convey a neutral stance, and included amongst them is the expression that appeared in Leander's first post - "cannot be ruled out".

To argue that the above stance requires any sort of clarification is just patronising. If that position advanced to a Toppy-endorsing view, I'm afraid that's a contradition, but such contradictions are proven to have occured in this case, as I've already demonstrated.

But by all means, keep fanning the flames if you think that's helpful.