The Leander Analysis

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz!

This - among other things - is what you write:

"the man himself subsequently qualified his initial statement, making it crystal clear that it meant nothing of the sort. According to Fish, it was much more like: “I would be surprised if we do not have a match, and I suspect forthcoming evidence to confirm this”. There’s nothing to reconcile if Leander believes a full examination of the relevant original documents is only likely to confirm the possibility and increase the chances of a match, given the number and nature of similarities and differences he has already managed to observe."

All very true, Caz!
In fact - and I donīt know if you have picked up on this - using the manual Leander worked with (and he has very clearly stated what manual he used - I have a copy of it that Leander kindly sent me, and if you want, I can send it over to you if you PM me your address), there was no way that he could say "Toppy is your man". That owes to the fact that the manual clearly states that, and I quote (the translation is mine):
"In cases where no determined conclusion can be reached, regardless of whether this owes to the quality of the writing, the difficulties of judging observed similarities and dissimilarities, respectively, too few samples of the debated writing, too little or unappropriate comparison material or if only photocopies are at hand, the question must be left open".

And so we KNOW that Leander was not at liberty to say that a match was at hand, using this manual! It is clearly stated in the manual that when you for example work with photcopies, you MUST start the verdict by writing teh EXACT phrase "No certain statement can be made in the question of identity", and then you add one of three phrases if you do believe that a match is at hand, one of them being the now famous phrase "it cannot be ruled out", a phrase that Ben chose to state could only mean that Leander was undecided.
Since we have the manual, we know for certain that this is not the case - he subsequently elaborated on things, stating that we had a hit on the lower end of the positive scale. He also stated that in cases where he was inclined to believe that a match WAS at hand - or vice versa - the examiner could expand on the matter, which is exactly what he did in a later post.

I spoke to Leander a number of times, and there can be no doubt whatsoever that he always believed that the match was a very close one. He never expressed any doubt about the clear, clear possibility of a genuine match, and, just as you have discovered, he strengthened it by stating that he expected any forthcoming evidence to prove him correct on the point. The uncertainty that Ben believed he perceived after Leanders first post, was never grounded on any dissimilarity inbetween the signatures - it owed to the fact that the material examinedwas too small and photocopied. In such cases, the manual ruled that no certainty should be expressed.

Bens objections were mainly grounded on his belief that Leander never expressed any leaning towards any direction in his first post. This was not so - he used the professional manual, and that manual did not allow for a more positive verdict than the one he gave, owing to the nature of the material. After Leander had expanded and stated quite clearly that he was of the meaning that anything but a match would surprise him, Ben took the stance of disallowing Leander to say anything that did not solely support Bens own misinterpretation of Leanders original post, although we have all the evidence we need to show that that post expressed something quite different from what Ben would have it say.

This post will probably earn me a new collection of invectives and slander, and I will in all probability once more be described as a mad stalker, "hypnotized" by Ben, but to a man that has dived the length of the Pacific ocean already, one more shower of rain will not mean anything much.

By the bye: You are quite welcome to disbelieve that Toppy was Hutch, should you choose that stance. But before you opt for it, you are entitled to understand Leander and his working methods and ethics fully. Bens ditto; well, you have already picked up on them...

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[caz]

Hi Fishypoo!

Yes, I did read the whole thread thanks, in all its painful detail and repetition. I'm still recovering this morning.

Like Leander, I certainly can't rule out Toppy as Hutch on current information, but for balance I would need to know Sue Iremonger's reasons for finding it unlikely. She does still have the edge in my view, assuming her verdict was based on a side by side comparison of the original documents - not copies of the originals.

But don't worry - I'm not about to argue that Toppy was not the witness. The best way of doing that might be to find a better candidate. And as for GH not even being his real name, I'm not even going there because it's pure unsupported - and unsupportable - speculation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"for balance I would need to know Sue Iremonger's reasons for finding it unlikely. She does still have the edge in my view, assuming her verdict was based on a side by side comparison of the original documents - not copies of the originals."

Well, Caz, who would not want to know that? I agree very much. I would caution, though, against being too sure about what she actually saw! There is no definite confirmation around - but there is Leander, telling us that no dissimilarities exist other than in the amplitudes of the expressions.
To me, that suggests that we should treat Iremongers verdict with a large pinch of salt until further notice. It will take some real good motivation and substantiation to have her claim substantiated if you ask me! And although she may have had the possible benefit of using originals, she does have the distinctive disadvantage of remaining undocumented. That is a huge drawback.

Incidentally, if you find recovery painful after having shared in this thread, maybe you should take care with the "When does many become many"-thread...

The best,
Fishyp... Fisherman, I mean

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“Sorry Scotty, but I've just been catching up with all this and can't resist...”

Of course you can’t.

I’m here.

You’re another one (well, THE other one) who suffers from the Ben-botherer’s malady, characterized by both an inability to write anything less that a 60-line post and a burning desire to follow Ben around whenever he posts. By all means join their limited (two/three-strong) and easily refutable ranks if you like, but it’s your already very tenuous credibility at stake, and if it’s another round of fight-to-the-death you’re after (my favourite) then naturally my money’s on me having the last word. Again, not because I covet it or think it’s a particularly laudable or productive strategy, but because it’s the only way of hammering home the futility of the long-winded wear-em out strategy, especially when it’s the same tired, not-to-be-taken-seriously keyboard warriors trying, unsuccessfully, to take me on all the bloody time.

Try to engage it some circumspection. Have a read through your post, and ask yourself – honestly – if you’re really communicating anything more than a basic agreement with me, whilst acknowledging that I’m still a horrible bastard? I know we’ve had out spats, and I know you haven’t forgiven me for a few choice outbursts, but saying that you agree with me but hate my “reasoning” only smacks of sour grapes. A sort of “You’re probably right, damn it, but I still hate you!” protest. It doesn’t work. You support my view; you don’t believe that Toppy was the witness, but you’re prepared to engage in a verbose attack before you finally acknowledge this. Sad?

“But Leander stated quite clearly that Toppy couldn’t be ruled out”

Yes, he did.

Well done.

We’ve been through this a thousand times.

And if you argue that a match cannot be ruled out, you cannot also be arguing that a non-match would be surprising. That would amount to decidedly odd phraseology, since “cannot be ruled out” is conventionally applied in cases where a given entity is adjudged unlikely if not impossible. I wouldn’t dream of ruling out a Toppy match for that reason. It isn’t beyond the realms of possibility, but doesn’t appear to be likely. If Leander thought otherwise, he should have conveyed as much in his first post rather than expecting everyone else to “guess” as to what he secretly meant.

In fact, let’s just find the relevant section where this was thrashed out before, and save myself the bother of rewording it differently. It was illustrated that Leander conveyed no impression that he thought the match to be a "probable" one. He mentioned that the similarities weighed "against" the similarities, but that the latter were insufficient to "rule out" or "exclude" Toppy as the witness. If you argue that something cannot be ruled out, you're not declaring it to be "probable". If he secretly thought the match was probable, he certainly didn't convey any such thinking in his initial post.

By all means, go ahead and buy into whatever “subsequent clarification” you wish, but all you’re defending is his bizarre inability to make himself clear the first time. In which case, please keep defending it and please keep feigning ignorance to the glaring contradiction. Leander either changed his mind, did not make himself remotely clear the first time, or succumbed to pressure, and if anyone is seriously arguing that all experts are infallible to any of the aforementioned lapses (and that I’m a fallacious bastard for suggesting otherwise), it’s clear that the real world just isn’t for them. Or, for a more entertaining example of defending the indefensible, consider that his first letter specifically referred to dissimilarities that don’t concern "amplitude" before digesting his “subsequent qualification” post that stated that there were no differences other than those concerned with amplitude.

Please. It’s common knowledge to anyone who cares that you’ve got daggers for me and a chip on your shoulder the size of Wyoming on certain issues, but you’re not insane, and would surely not stoop to defend a proven contradiction such as this? But we can go through this all in painful detail all over again if you and certain other combatants are willing. I dearly hope they are.

“As it is, you have to digest what Leander said and not spit out the bits that taste too positive for your liking.”

I have no problem with positive.

I have big problems with a neutral stance that becomes progressively more positive in response to continued hassling, as we’ve been through a thousand times.

Cue long post from Fisherman.

Cue longer post from Ben.

It’s that’s what occurred, it would make Leander a human being, and certainly not someone with faulty work ethics. If anyone thinks otherwise, they need some serious and immediate instruction in basic humanity.

“If anyone thinks Sue wrongly identified this sig as a mismatch with the other two, they can’t then claim that she was probably right to judge these two a mismatch with Toppy’s - particularly as she admitted to being less than definite in the latter case.”

Agreed, although I speak as some who is by no means confident that Iremonger was “wrong” in identifying one signature as a mismatch with the other two. In order to pronounce with such confidence, I’d be in dire need of document-examining experience comparable to that of Sue Iremonger herself, and I’m not in possession of any such thing and nor is anyone else here. You’re right to identify the contradiction, but you’ll have to take it up with its originators – not me.

“I'm sure she would be comforted to know she has you on her side.”

Whilst cowering in the face of the awesome, invulnerable non-numptastic logic of her opposition, no doubt.

“Ah, so you do find Sue’s ‘definite’ conclusion regarding the page one sig dodgy, and you wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that she got it from an unreliable source and then passed it off as her own professional opinion.”

No, it’s blindingly obvious that I do not find her conclusion remotely dodgy, which is why I took great care to observe that the idea “isn’t probable necessarily, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely.” It was in the interests of embracing all possibilities, however improbable, that I made the above suggestion (well, it was your suggestion, in actual fact, despite your back-peddling willingness to “disown” it whenever I draw attention to it).

“Has nobody considered that Sue could have been correct about that page one sig, not because she saw a definite mismatch between that and the other two, despite their evident similarity to so many untrained modern eyes on these GH threads, but because that was the natural conclusion she was left with after recognising a definite match between the page one sig and the statement itself, in Badham’s hand?”

Yes, I considered that, and it makes a good deal of sense,

“Have you not considered the possibility of one GH - witness and bridegroom - whose signature underwent subtle changes, according to whether he was making a witness statement in his early twenties, that was a complete fabrication, or only loosely based on truth, or making a mature, honest and sincere commitment to his bride ten years down the line?”

Yes, I considered that too, but then I thought: no, this doesn’t make nearly as much sense. Why, if the “changes” in his 1898 signature were attributable to his “mature, honest and sincere commitment to his bride”, did he just happen to incorporate those same subtle alterations into his signature 13 years later when writing his census entry. Was it that same unique combination of maturity, honesty and sincerity kicking in again, resulting in the skyward pointing n-tails, for example, that contrasted so markedly with any of the real Hutchinson’s witness contributions? Come on. Don’t simply join forces with those who make flawed observations out of simply dislike for me. It’s utterly useless to use the imagined behavioural quirks evinced by the marriage certificate signature of Toppy to explain away the differences with the statement three of 1888, since it doesn’t account for how or why those same behavioural quirks came into play 13 years later. Emphasising “time difference” only compounds the problem since the differences with the statement three remained different (with the statement three) over a decade.

“If anything, using two versions of the same name smacks of spontaneity, familiarity and confidence, rather than two cautious stabs at signing a false name.”

“Familiarity” with signing an important police eyewitness document concerning the investigation of a serial brutal murders? He just fired off a couple of police statements a week? Come on. You didn’t really want to argue that. If you were an innocent witness with no murder-related eyewitness experience, I bet you that blind instinct would take over and prompt you or any functioning non-alias-using human to be as en regle as possible, and that would include a natural tendency towards consistency when penning your signature. I’ve no doubt that people abbreviate on occasions to offer some variety, but at the same time? On one document? A police document? I’d love to find other examples of this.

“So ’m not sure why anyone using a false name for criminal purposes would even think to bugger about with it, especially within the one very official”

Ah, but if he’s not thinking about it, and/or simply engaging in an awkward and mannered attempt to appear “casual”, the ploy is rendered more plausible. Not that I’m suggesting that the signatures immediately scream “alias” from the rooftops, but it’s a viable suggestion that has not been remotely discredited.

“I’m sorry if that’s a bit too brutally honest, but I can rarely see much logic in any of your own reasoning”

Don’t be sorry. It takes testicls of titanium to admit, in so (far) too many words, that I’m probably right, despite the pain, obfuscation, and “remember, you’re still a bastard” that went into conceding as much. I know full well you don’t hate my reasoning. You love it. You secretly agree with it. You’re just old school, and because of irrational allegiances that possibly stemmed from when you first studied the case, you take a dim view of anyone who dares to suggest that such a famous and “interesting” serial killer was a boring, impoverished working class average Joe. That’s the reason for your irrational objections to any perceived Hutchinson “theory”, that’s why you’re both selective and often ill informed when it comes to other serial cases. It’s also why our spats often escalate to vicious brawls.

“And as for GH not even being his real name, I'm not even going there because it's pure unsupported - and unsupportable - speculation.”

What do you mean you’re “not even going there”? You’ve just been there, you silly sausage. Providing bad arguments for dismissing a perfectly valid proposal didn’t work the first time. There are indications that Hutchinson’s statement was discredited on account of its demonstrably bogus content. If you think he can’t possibly have lied about his name as well, you’re just not being very imaginative.

Resist next time.

[Ben]

There can be no reasonable doubt as to the nature of the material used by Sue Iremonger in the early 1990s.

We have had reputable sources attesting to the fact that Iremonger compared the three statement signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature, not photocopies thereof, and certainly not a modern piece of paper with the details filled in by a modern registrar. Even if we didn't have an answer to the question of whether or not the last option came into play, we can still reject it as an unbelievably outlandish suggestion. I jokingly compared it to "needing an answer" to the question of whether the moon was made out of cheese, but the serious point remains that the suggestion can be utterly dismissed. There is simply no credibility to the suggestion that a professional document examiner could have made such a mistake. They are fully au fait with the FRC's copying practice, and can certainly tell the difference between a modern piece of copier-fresh paper and a turn-of-the century historical document (!).

I don’t need to resort to any invective or slander to dispense with such an obviously fallacious concept.

I really don’t know what it is about certain people and their fanatical determination to dredge up blissfully dormant threads with more combative dogma, but it seems we’re discussing poor beleaguered Leander and his "manual" again (honestly, it becomes a case of “insert counter-repetition where applicable” around here sometimes). The manual in question reinforced what I had earlier understood from his first post: “In certain cases there may, though, be tendencies in one direction or the other” says Leander. Good, I’m with him so far, and that tallied with his earlier reference to both similarities and differences. In such cases, Leander uses the expression “cannot be excluded”. That also makes sense, and served to reinforce the fact that he used his manual properly.

That should have been the end of the issue, and it’s clear that Leander both hoped and expected it would be. We then got bombarded with very baffling linguistic constructs such as “lowest hit on the positive scale”, which, technically, was an accurate description of the “cannot be ruled out” judgement, but it took an alarming amount of convincing that “positive” does not always equal “probable”.

We’ve since learned that Leander was supplied with one signature where there was ample opportunity to provide all three from the statement. Even with the doubts surrounding the penmanship of sig #1, there was no compelling reason to withhold #2, unless it was because those submitting the material were aware it wasn’t Toppyish enough. The signatures were also depicted as being the same size and angle, which they weren’t. We’ve since learned that foreign document examiners are rarely used to compare scripts from another country and language for good reason, and we’ve always known that Leander contradicted himself when it came to the muddled issue of "amplitude", even if we gloss over his increasingly more Toppy-endorsing stance.

It is little wonder Caz observed that Iremonger has the edge. Of course she does.

And I will always reject the whole “I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a match” since it bears no resemblance to “cannot be ruled out” or indeed anything that appeared in his first post.

Glad "Fishypoo" has caught on though.

[Fisherman]

Well, there we are, ladies and gents – he did it again! Itīs perfectly obvious that I am totally hypnotic to Ben. He spends his sorry life waiting for my posts, and pounces on them immediately, repeating his age-old useless arguments over and over again.

In short, I am being stalked. He cannot resist me for the life of him!

Yeah, yeah, Ben – I know that I am being totally ludicrous here, but since these are the tactics you always employ, I thought Iīd have my fair share of avoiding the subject and discrediting the writer instead of whatīs written. I have to admit, it has itīs petty joys.

Anyways, Ben, I was not discussing with you – I am having an exchange with Caz here. And I seem to remember that you lessoned me on not barging in when I commented on an ongoing exchange between you and Vic last time over. But maybe such things apply only to me, and not to you, like so many other things...?

There is not much sense in arguing with someone who disallows experts to hold opinions that do not tally with their own convictions – but who are ever so accomodating as long as that particular detail is taken care of. In short, you and me cannot have any further discussion about what Leander meant – he has already explained it on numerous (many) occasions. The single person who did not get it from the beginning was you, forcing Leander to express his sadness over the malicious interpretations you tried to peddle.

So thanks, but no thanks.

Right, Caz, where were we...?

Fisherman

[Ben]

Well, there we are, ladies and gents – he did it again! Itīs perfectly obvious that I am totally hypnotic to Ben. He spends his sorry life waiting for my posts, and pounces on them immediately

Did you actually read my post?

It was addressed to Caz, not you, and were it not for the fact that she specifically questioned me - and in doing so revived yet another repetetive Hutchinson debate - I would never have got involved. Any suggestion that I'm the aggressor can thus safely be dispensed with, but it wasn't all that surprising that you should chime in yourself and mention my name in a disparaging context as often as possible.

You're ire-mongering, that's all. You didn't start it this time round, granted, but then that's why I responded to Caz and not you.

The single person who did not get it from the beginning was you, forcing Leander to express his sadness over the malicious interpretations you tried to peddle.

In reponse to: "Hey Frank, a nasty so-called ripperologist says you're a liar. What have you to say back to him? We're mates, though, right? And it was still Toppy, right?"

Right, Caz, where were we...?

You were discussing your mutual interest - me.

[Fisherman]

īs that you, Caz? No?

Bugger.

Fisherman

[Victor]

You’re another one (well, THE other one) who suffers from the Ben-botherer’s malady, characterized by both an inability to write anything less that a 60-line post and a burning desire to follow Ben around whenever he posts.

Er...Ben try the facts.

Caz resurrected a dying thread, Fish replied, and then you followed them about.

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

Caz specifically addressed her post to me.

Fish responded by peppering his posts with my name.

I responded to what was obviously an attempt to goad me.

But now here you are, ostensibly for the same purpose.

Anyone else?

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Fish responded by peppering his posts with my name."

That particular detail, Ben, owes to the fact that you stand as the sole defender of the thesis that Leander should be conceived as totally neutral in the question whether Toppy was Hutch or not - in spite of the fact that Leander himself has professed to being of the meaning that we have a probable match.
Somehow, explaining the odd twists and turns your reasoning has imposed on this thread is a very hard thing to do WITHOUT peppering the posts with your name. Actually, if that twisting and turning had not been about, it is my understanding that nobody else would ever have questioned Leanders right to be respected and appreciated for the valuable and discerning input he has contributed, and so you are to blame yourself to an overwhelming extent in this case.

As a consequence of all this, I think you need to prepare yourself for the very real possibility that your name may occur frequently henceforth in the Leander discussion, Ben. Take a look at the medieval inquisition that questioned Galileo - they were off the mark by miles, but it is kind of hard to explain what went down without mentioning them. That should explain the mechanism, I dare say.

Now, letīs leave it there, you and me, before one of us starts ranting any further about being stalked and followed around the boards.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Now, letīs leave it there

As always when you make these statements, the ball is firmly in your court.

If you want to leave it there, be my guest. I'll cheerfully follow your sensible example, but we're not doing one of those absurdly predictable "let's leave it with Fisherman having the last word".

That isn't going to work, especially after your confidently phrased "you and me cannot have any further discussion about what Leander meant".

And yet here we are.

That particular detail, Ben, owes to the fact that you stand as the sole defender of the thesis that Leander should be conceived as totally neutral in the question whether Toppy was Hutch or not

Whatever Leander actually feels on the subject deep down, his first post conveyed a neutral stance. Really, we can repeat and repeat and repeat, and copy and paste into oblivion, but neutrality was what he initially conveyed, and I will never revise that stance. All this talk about me being the "sole defender" is so obviously nonsense. You can't possibly know which argument the limited number of browsers to this topic actually subscribe to. You're positing the imaginary existence of a huge army of fascinated followers all eager to pick sides in a world where the loudest voices win, and it just doesn't work like that.

in spite of the fact that Leander himself has professed to being of the meaning that we have a probable match.

That's not what he conveyed in his initial letter, as I'm prepared to reiterate forever, despite the fact that we've been through this a million times. Don't always feel the need to respond to anyone and everyone's attempt to re-ignite an acrimonious thread. It's that simple.

So we'll leave it there.

Unless....

In fact, scrap that - see you on the 1000th post to this thread, Fisherman.

[Victor]

But now here you are, ostensibly for the same purpose.

Hello Mr Paranoid.

You want me to explain my presence on a resurrected thread that I was actively participating in.

[Ben]

I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently interested, Vic.

You seem mightily glad that the thread has been resurrected for reasons I have yet to fathom, mind you.

[Fisherman]

Ben, again:

"Whatever Leander actually feels on the subject deep down"

Before I allow you to do what you need to do - step in and have the last word - I just cannot help but to point to this: "Whatever Leander actually feels on the subject deep down...."

That is nothing short of fantastic! There is no need whatsoever to speak of what Leander feels "deep down", trying to introduce some sort of mystery. He feels the exact same thing on all levels, from deep down to the surface, and that is that Toppys signature matches with Hutchsī.
He has said so numerous times, and what YOU feel that he conveyed to YOU does never enter the equation, Ben.

What he DID convey in his first post was the verdict that was professionally allowed to him, using the manual he works by. He has sent me the manual, and I have published what it says, and for those of us who are genuinely interested, it tells us that no matter if two signatures are EXACTLY alike, differing in NO WAY at all, if the compared material is made up by photocopies or if the material is not around in a satisfying amount (meaning a minimum of ten samples per writer), then ANY verdict given must STILL start out by saying that no certainty can be reached in the question of identity of the writer.

Therefore, Ben, if Leander wanted to work in the fashion he always does in his profession, using his manual, the MOST positive verdict he could give needed to be phrased in exactly the way he phrased it. And that would still allow for a perfect match of the visible elements involved in the signatures.

You, as we all know, took that discerningly worded verdict as a sign of undecidedness, and that remained a viable stance up to the point where Leander expanded on things, showing us that he - from the outset - had judged the material a hit on the lower end of the positive scale, or, rephrasing it: a probable match.
And when he expanded on things, he stuck with the original stance, guided by the manual: No certainty could be reached about the identity, BUT since he clearly saw the very obvious likeness inbetween the signatures, he added that although the material he had been sent was of a kind that barred the possibilities of using expressions that would have been open to him if he had had ten samples of each of the writers signature in original, the match was clearly there as far as he could see.

This is what I (and Leander) have been saying all along, and it is also - to my understanding - the exact same thing that the rest of the contributors to the discussion have all realized but for you, Ben. You are "prepared to reiterate forever" - and that will make you forever wrong. Which is why the ball is firmly in my court, as you so eloquently put it.
All you need to do to join me in that court is to learn to answer an expertsī assertion of "that was what I meant" with an "okay" instead of a "no, that is not what you meant, and I know that better than you". Such things will only serve to have you further ridiculed.

Now, since I do not have that singular stamina that you pride yourself of, I will not participate any more than necessary, but it seems I donīt have to either; other parties, yourself included, will in all probability tend to it. Just keep in mind, Ben, that no "stamina" in the world has ever had any influence at all on little things like the truth. Itīs that Galileo-and-the-inquisition-thing again.

Now having once again supplied you with the facts in the case (and to what avail....?), I bow out and leave the stage to you, Ben! I have nothing more to add to the discussion between you and me, but I welcome any other input from any other poster, in which case I will gladly discuss the Leander issue. Chances are, though, that the rest of the posters feel that it would be wise to believe that what Leander has said is what he means instead of the other way around, and so there will be no further discussion.

But do not let that stop you, Ben! I wonīt reply any more this time over, and so itīs an opportunity you really ought not miss!

Or ought you...? Some consideration, perhaps? No?

Fisherman