The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

“He feels the exact same thing on all levels, from deep down to the surface, and that is that Toppys signature matches with Hutchsī.”

Not according to his initial letter.

Given the conflicting nature of his stances, and the proven contradiction concerning “amplitude”, the issue of what he actually feels suddenly assumes a greater significance. If he honestly felt that Toppy’s signature “matches with Hutch’s” there was nothing preventing him from saying so. What had he to lose? He wasn’t under scrutiny from one of those dreadful lawyers he compared me to, and he was fully aware that the “meagre” nature of the material only permitted a “spontaneous comment.” As it happened, he mentioned both similarities and differences, observing that the latter “could be” (as distinct from “are”) explained by a number of factors, and that they were insufficient to “rule out” the possibility that they were written by the same person. Such a stance had all the hallmarks of obvious neutrality, and everyone reading it was more than entitled to infer as much from it.

You yourself even acknowledged that such an inference would constitute a “viable stance”, and unless Leander has serious communication problems, we might surmise that he too would consider it so.

I ask you then; what self-respecting expert provides a response that he must know full well would be interpreted as neutral by 99% of its recipients, when his actual view on the subject is anything but? What self-respecting expert deliberately communicates a stance that does not reflect his true feelings, and only provides the latter when someone asks for “clarification”? Not Leander, I feel sure. He provided his manual, which reassuringly informed us that the unambiguous phrase “cannot be ruled out/excluded” does not equate to an expression of “probability” as was argued previously. It is applied, quite logically, where there are “tendencies in one direction or the other.” This only serves to underscore the neutrality expressed in his initial post.

All that nonsense about the alleged “surprise” if we don’t have a match amounted not to a clarification, but an alteration – a contradiction, since it was worlds away from the neutrality which was so apparent in both his first letter and his “manual”. Such an alteration can only have three possible explanations as I see them: 1) He changed his mind without telling anyone, 2) He was guilty of the behaviour outlined in my third paragraph, or 3) He “upgraded” his initial stance after realising that he wouldn’t be left alone if his opinions, as initially conveyed, remained at odds with what you would prefer to be true.

Before any further self-righteous indignation is expressed over this, please remember that experts are not infallible, and where they both sense a bias on the part of the communicant and have no wish to elaborate further (and we know the latter was true in Leander’s case), you often have the key ingredients for what might politely be termed a conciliatory response, or more bluntly, a fob off. You strike me as being particularly susceptible to this response. Don’t get me wrong, you’re heart’s in the right place, and you’re an indefatigable detective in the world of “ripperology” but you’re also very bumptious and filibustering in your posting style, and your in-your-face approach renders you a big favourite for a “Yes, Fisherman, whatever you reckon, leave me alone” type of reaction.

I’m not suggesting that you deliberately engineered it that way, but by pestering him again and again despite his expressed wish not to be asked to elaborate further, you subconsciously communicate a subtext of “Yes, but I want it to be Toppy, so it IS Toppy, isn’t it?” That doesn’t make you the devil incarnate, and I’m not going to hurl any accusations of dishonesty in your direction (despite plenty of them being thrown my way), but it does make you imprudent and misguided to request clarification for what was perfectly clear already.

Nor would Leander be guilty of any nefarious behaviour or shoddy work ethics if my third option had more than a grain of truth to it. Casting directors and agents worldwide are regularly accustomed to dismissing young acting aspirants on the grounds that they’re not currently casting or looking to represent anyone new while assuring them that their details are kept “on file”. What this usually means is that they ARE casting, and that they ARE taking on new clients, but for whatever reason you don’t fit the bill. That doesn’t mean these professionals have shoddy work ethics, or that anyone who has ever resorted to the “Don’t call us, we’ll call you” must be coloured a villain.

So I favour option #3.

Sorry if you don’t like it, but there are no reasonable alternatives other than the ones that depict Leander in a very poor light, and I personally don’t but into those.

All the best,
Ben

[caz]

Hi Ben,

I don't dislike you (I've never met you), but I reserve the right to dislike the way you write, the way you argue, and particularly the way you misunderstand so much of what I and others write, and then, even when we tell you that you have misunderstood and explain what we actually meant, you prefer your own interpretation and refuse to accept any other.

I can't be bothered to take you through each and every wrong assumption you made when responding to my last post. You seem totally incapable of grasping from the context what I was getting at - one obvious example being that when I said the 'Geo' indicated to me spontaneity, familiarity and confidence, I meant 'familiarity' with the name itself, not 'familiarity' with making police statements. How cretinous would I have to be to have meant that, and how cretinous does one have to be to think that's what I meant? If it was meant to be a joke, give me a clue next time - you sounded serious!

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.

Are you sure you didn't misinterpret this too? How do you know Leander didn't mean that in certain cases there may be tendencies in a positive direction, while in other cases there may be tendencies in a negative direction. That would fit with his opinion that there is a possible match between the witness sig and the Toppy sigs, as opposed to a match being doubtful.

I envy you in a way, because if a doctor ever tells you, after seeing a photo of your leg, that they can't rule out the possibility that you have gangrene, but would need to examine you in person, I imagine you will see that as a strictly neutral stance, or perhaps even a sign that it's unlikely.

But I don't envy your penchant for accusing Leander of all sorts of unprofessional conduct. Since when did he have to 'fob off' anyone with even a single clarification of what he meant first time round? All he had to say to Fish was: "Sorry, but I've said all I can reasonably say at this stage, yours sincerely" and he could have made it even briefer if asked again. Tell me you're not speaking from personal experience of being fobbed off by casting directors, explaining patiently and at length that your details are still "on file", when what they really mean is "in your dreams, Luvvy Darling"?

Also, Leander could only work with what he was given: copies of some genuine Toppy signatures and one signature presumed to be by the witness. Sue Iremonger was able to work with original documents, but she only had two signatures that she considered to be by the witness and only one genuine Toppy signature was available to her at the time. So if you are going to object to the fact that Leander has only been given one witness sig to compare, you can't do so on the grounds that one example is not nearly sufficient, if you have already insisted that the single Toppy example was more than enough for Sue Iremonger to declare a probable mismatch.

This is the kind of contradiction I have come to recognise in many of your arguments, and it undermines your position more than it scores you any points against the opposition. It also insults the intelligence of anyone who is still paying attention to this subject.

And of course, I'm so totally obsessed with you that I can't wait for you to have to stop what you're doing to post another long response to what you think I'm really saying.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Okay, it seems Iīm stuck with this for eternity...! Here goes (and yes, I realize that I am intervening in an exchange between Caz and Ben, but since I have the answer to an important question raised, it would be improductive not to do so). So, from Cazīs latest post:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
"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. "

"Are you sure you didn't misinterpret this too? How do you know Leander didn't mean that in certain cases there may be tendencies in a positive direction, while in other cases there may be tendencies in a negative direction. That would fit with his opinion that there is a possible match between the witness sig and the Toppy sigs, as opposed to a match being doubtful."

That is spot on, Caz, and I have offered that knowledge before! It all lies in the manual! Here it is:
In a case where the evidence does not live up to the demands for a full examination (and that was the exact case here, since we have not ten signature samples of each writer and since we have not the originals, but instead photocopies), it must be ruled that " THE QUESTION IS LEFT OPEN" (I am using capital letters where the manual I am quoting from has underlined the text).
After stating that, it says in the manual that "in certain cases there may be pointers in the one or the other direction, in which cases the conclusion is worded "NO CERTAIN STATEMENT CAN BE MADE IN THE QUESTION OF IDENTITY"
which is followed by for example
BUT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE SPEAK MOSTLY FOR
BUT THE POSSIBILITY IS AT HAND THAT
BUT IT CANNOT BE RULED OUT THAT"

After this passage in the manual it says, and I quote again

"In cases of NON-IDENTITY corresponding expressions are sometimes used as in cases of identity, but it is more common to phrase it like
IT IS NOT VERY LIKELY
IT IS LESS LIKELY"

And to round things off, it is added further down that
"Apart from the gradings above, in certain cases further nuancing may be used"

And so, Caz, you are absolutely correct. The manual first lists the expressions used in cases of identity (and sometimes in cases of non-identity), three of them to be exact, and the grading Leander chose was the lowest grading ON THE POSITIVE SCALE - which still is a grading of identity, and the lower grading is not necessarily related to any discrepancies in the signatures - instead the fact that Leander only had few samples and only in photocopy version would have meant that he needed to be discerning and careful.

But we should keep in mind that he - in his first post - phrased himself "Ja, det kan knappast uteslutas" that we had a match. And that translates into "Well, it can hardly be ruled out" or "Well, it is not as if we can rule out", which to me suggests clearly that Leander spotted and recognized the likeness very much from the outset. But at the same time, describing the match using his manual, he immediately knew that he could never go beyond the "NO CERTAIN STATEMENT CAN BE MADE IN THE QUESTION OF IDENTITY" - but that did not owe to any lack in resemblance inbetween the signatures! He made that abundantly and overwhelmingly clear in his later posts where he firmly stated that the discrepancies involved could have many explanations, and that he would be surprised if any forthcoming evidence would point away from a match.
On a side note, when I added the information that there was only a handful of George Hutchinsons around in the area of interest at the time we were speaking of, he immediately agreed that this would make the possibilities of a non-match absolutely minimal. Of course, if George Hutchinson the witness was masquerading and hiding his real name this does not apply - but if this was the case, then just how odd it be if George Hutchinson the witness simply happened to have a signature that tallied so very closely to that of George Topping Hutchinson, so close, in fact, that it prompted one of the best in the field of forensic signature examination to speak of a probable match? How big was that chance? One in ten thousand? Absolutely not - we are speaking of much less of a chance than that!

This is why I would love to hear Iremongers reasons for ruling against a match. I feel certain that her verdict can be firmly dispelled when we finally can lay our eyes on it (if ever).

Of course, Caz, your being absolutely correct in your assumption that Leander was pointing in a positive direction in his original verdict, also means that he was acknowledging the probable match from the outset. We may like the way he phrased things or we may not - but when he reinforced his stance and put it beyond doubt, there can be no further doubt.
It is strange, it is weird and it is unforgivable that we still debate the topic, as far as Iīm concerned. Then again, it is not as if we are dealing with hoards of deniers, is it?

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[Sam Flynn]

if a doctor ever tells you, after seeing a photo of your leg, that they can't rule out the possibility that you have gangrene, but would need to examine you in person, I imagine you will see that as a strictly neutral stance

... "Hoppy"

[Ben]

Did anyone else have fun noticing the way Fisherman announced his intention to avoid responding to any more of my posts in typically dramatic fashion, but used the response of someone else as an excuse to have a pop at me, despite expressing his avowed his intention to avoid responding to me?

Of course you did. It was funny. It was predictable, and despite his avowed intention to avoid having anything to do with me, he’ll do it again. But more on that later…

Meanwhile:

Hi Caz,

I don’t dislike you either, but I genuinely don’t believe you have any problem whatsoever with the way I write or reason. I believe that whatever “beef” you may have for me stems exclusively from our conflicting views on the case, and your inherent dislike for boring working-class rippers. I may have read you wrong, of course, but that’s the impression you’ve conveyed from the outset, and it would neatly account for your grotesquely selective and often ill-informed and selective approach to discussing other serial killer cases. Again, that’s no reason to hate you, but your embarrassing and cloying ignorance is annoying at the very least, and is something that you ought first to be disabused of before resorting to the all-guns-blazes approach, which never works.

“…even when we tell you that you have misunderstood and explain what we actually meant”

Gosh, how I love the “we”.

Referring, as it does, to that oh-so-intimidating two-strong cluster of Ben-fixators, but then who else am I to rely on for my ceaseless amusement?

It’s hardly surprising that I don’t invest much emotional stock in anything the dynamic duo delight to hurl in my direction, especially when aggression is resorted to so often in lieu of clarity whenever you take the misguided decision to take me on and revive a long-buried and acrimonious thread. Ditch the long posts and combative tone next time – it doesn’t suit you, and it won’t work against me. You’ll end up looking ridiculous. Try making yourself a little clearer next time rather than chastising anyone who expresses bemusement or even umbrage at your often illogical “objections” or for failing to make sense of your confusing posts.

Take the issue of the writer’s familiarity for example: Yes, it would be reasonable to argue that a person named “George” might just abbreviate to “Geo” on occasions, but it is wholly unreasonable to argue that an individual who signed the same police document three times would alter his signature on the second occasion just for the hell of it. If you think there’s anything remotely familiar about that, give me a few examples of such a fascinating phenomenon - I know Fishy’s google search engine will be working overtime.

“Are you sure you didn't misinterpret this too? How do you know Leander didn't mean that in certain cases there may be tendencies in a positive direction, while in other cases there may be tendencies in a negative direction.”

We know this from his original letter – the one that a few contributors to this discussion would rather not exist - in which he alludes to tendencies in both a positive and negative direction, and since there was never any indication from that letter that either one outweighed the other in any respect, I am extremely confident that I did not misinterpret his comments, and that his working manual only served to reinforce the neutral observations that were so apparent in his first letter. It’s rather silly, incidentally, to argue that a “possible” match and a “doubtful” one are mutually exclusive, since you can easily express "doubt" about something that you may be reluctant to exclude completely even as a "possibility".

“I envy you in a way, because if a doctor ever tells you, after seeing a photo of your leg, that they can't rule out the possibility that you have gangrene, but would need to examine you in person”

Well, the “envying me” part would certainly tally with your approach to conducting any form of discussion with me, but as for your analogy, I’m afraid it just doesn’t work. If the doctor considered it likely that I had gangrene in my leg, he wouldn’t observe that gangrene “cannot be ruled out” because the latter expression does not mean “likely” unless the speaker/writer is resorting to a peculiar brand of sarcasm. If he considered it likely, he’d observe that there was a reasonable chance that I had gangrene, or synonyms thereof. Honestly, we’ve been through this so many times, and this was thoroughly and easily debunked first time around. It takes an extraordinary amount of petty, small-minded pugnacity to read through the thread and decide to dredge it all up again.

I’ll play, of course.

“But I don't envy your penchant for accusing Leander of all sorts of unprofessional conduct. Since when did he have to 'fob off' anyone with even a single clarification of what he meant first time round?”

A single clarification of what he meant the first time round was what he provided, at least with the first “clarification”. Fisherman himself even conceded that it was “viable” to infer neutrality from Leander’s initial letter. It was only in response to the fourth of firth email to Leander that the sentiments took on a sudden and marked Toppy-endorsing slant that was conspicuously absent from the first two of three replies. I think this was an attempt to appease a nuisance, personally, and again, if you think that smacks of “unprofessional conduct”, it’s about time you joined us on our planet, since we know it happens all the time there. It wasn’t as if Leander was used in a professional capacity when he offered his “spontaneous” comment. And no, incidentally, I am not “speaking from personal experience of being fobbed off by casting directors” and I’ll thank you not to lie about my professional activity on other message boards where I don’t participate.

“Also, Leander could only work with what he was given: copies of some genuine Toppy signatures and one signature presumed to be by the witness.”

And what he was given with a few fiddled-with signatures that gave the erroneous impression of being the same size and angle, which they’re not, and only one from the statement (the one deemed the most Toppyish by the Toppyites), despite there being ample opportunity to provide the other two. If you consider for one moment that this constituted better material than that supplied to Iremonger, you’re just hopeless.

“Sue Iremonger was able to work with original documents, but she only had two signatures that she considered to be by the witness and only one genuine Toppy signature was available to her at the time.”

And if she was supplied with the others from the 1911 census, she’d notice very quickly that the fundamental differences with the statement signatures remained different 13 years later, thereby cementing her original view. They certainly didn’t become any more like the three from 1888!

And you’re suggesting that I’m guilty of a “contradiction”?

Look, you’re in general agreement with me that Iremonger’s judgment has the edge over Leander’s on current evidence. Since your personal issues with me preclude you from acknowledging as much in a simple and straightforward fashion, you’re compelled to make the concession only after a volley of irrational criticism of both my reasoning and character, and that makes you look petty and immature. The idea that you hate my reasoning but accidentally came to the same conclusion just fails to convince, and until you desist from this, then whatever you may have of intelligence frankly deserves to be insulted.

[Ben]

But then in chimes Fisherman again, despite the post not being addressed to him.

“three of them to be exact, and the grading Leander chose was the lowest grading ON THE POSITIVE SCALE - which still is a grading of identity”

“Grading of identity”?

You’re misappropriating jargon that you don’t really understand again, just as you did with that “amplitude” muddle, but as I’ve explained to you many times (because you’ve brought the subject up many times), you can express a positive view without declaring anything probable. If you’re saying that Toppy COULD be the writer (i.e. that the possibility cannot be ruled out), then you’re expressing a “positive” view, technically speaking, and you can do that without suggesting that the Toppy-as-writer suggestion is in any way “probable”.

The manual makes this obvious.

“And that translates into "Well, it can hardly be ruled out" or "Well, it is not as if we can rule out", which to me suggests clearly that Leander spotted and recognized the likeness very much from the outset.”

Why would it “suggest” that to you, when we know full well that the expression “cannot be ruled out” LITERALLY means “not impossible", and definitely not “probable”? And why are we going through this again when it was discussed in painful detail before?

“He made that abundantly and overwhelmingly clear in his later posts where he firmly stated that the discrepancies involved could have many explanations, and that he would be surprised if any forthcoming evidence would point away from a match.”

But none of that does any good if his later “abundantly and overwhelmingly clear” (note annoying exclamatory rhetoric) later posts bore no resemblance to his first two of three emails AND his manual. No, he did not say that there were many explanations for the differences, and if he secretly meant it, that would make a linguistic disaster of his first letter, but y’know, give me the excuse I crave to go through this in painful detail all over again. Please.

“On a side note, when I added the information that there was only a handful of George Hutchinsons around in the area of interest at the time we were speaking of, he immediately agreed that this would make the possibilities of a non-match absolutely minimal.”

Then you fed him false information, since you cannot possibly know how many George Hutchinsons were “around in the area of interest” in 1888, can you? The fact that he was swayed by such a lazy and sweeping misstatement is very disturbing, but then again, he wasn’t operating in a professional capacity, so he had nothing really to lose by relying on your false information without checking his facts first. So Leander can be forgiven. You can’t. In fact, if memory serves, the expression you used was something like “relative dearth” which, for obvious reasons, is even more misleading and impossible to back up with evidence from 1888.

In answer to the “What are the chances of someone matching the handwriting better than Toppy?” question, the answer could be “very fair indeed” if we accept Leander’s first neutral post, his subsequent neutral “manual” and the fact that we are totally ignorant regarding the number of viable candidates in the area in 1888. People like Fisherman try to get round the problem by arguing that Leander considered the match “probable”, but since I will never ever refrain from pointing out that Leander’s first post conveyed no such impression, it’s up to him to decide how much time he wants to spend repeating that oft-challenged mantra long after the thread has died a celebrated death.

“I feel certain that her verdict can be firmly dispelled when we finally can lay our eyes on it (if ever).”

But in the absence of any basis for that “feeling”, your "certainty" is worthless, especially if you’re relying on the assumption that an expert forensic document examiner of several decades professional experience confused an 1898 historical document with a modern piece of paper splurged from a photocopier at the FRC. I’ve a sneaking, sinking feeling that you are, and that’s deeply depressing.

“Of course, Caz, your being absolutely correct in your assumption that Leander was pointing in a positive direction in his original verdict, also means that he was acknowledging the probable match from the outset.”

No, he wasn't.

He obviously wasn’t.

As I’m prepared to reiterate forever.

You even acknowledged yourself that if anyone inferred neutrality from his first letter, that inference would have been a “viable stance”.

“It is strange, it is weird and it is unforgivable that we still debate the topic”

I’d be more inclined to forgive you if you didn’t keep announcing your departure time and time again before chiming straight in again. One of these days, somebody might actually grow the balls to follow through with their “I’m out of here, Ben, I WILL resist you” swansongs.

But I hope not. I’d get very bored.

[Fisherman]

Ben:

"I’d be more inclined to forgive you..."

Olé, Ben! YOU would be more inclined to forgive ME?
Thanks, but no thanks!

Letīs get this straight, Ben. Picking one of your poisoned apples out of your basket, this is from one of your former posts:

"..the proven contradiction concerning “amplitude..”

Of course, since you are not honest in this exchange and since you have no case, logically, this must be wrong. And it is; there has never been any "proof" at all of any "contradiction" in this case - there has, of course, been a questioning of it on your behalf, but then again, you are the guy who questions Leanders right to know what he thinks...!

So, to begin with, letīs see that "proof", Ben, and once we have all realized that the "proof" amounts to no such thing, we can move over to the real issue - your disability to accept that Leander has PROVEN you wrong when he said that yes, he considered the signatures a match, and no, Bens interpretation did not amount to more than pure maliciousness. That is how proof works, Ben. That is how it looks.

As for the rest of your post, it adds strange ramblings about "growing balls", and until you have the decency to admit that you have been wrong all along and to apologize to Frank Leander for having made every effort possible to smear his good name, I think you need to change records, Ben. What you have offered so far has been a lot more about bollocks than balls.

Now that we have sorted that out, letīs move over to you main headache, and dissect that problem in detail too:

The problem you are having accepting that Frank Leander is and always was of the meaning that Toppys signature and Hutchīs ditto match, lies in your misconception that Frank Leanders first post pointed to Leander being completely neutral on the issue.

Therefore, letīs take a renewed look at that first post of Leanders! This is how it looked:

”Hello again!

I wish to strongly underline your wiew that comparing research into signatures must be done using the original material and I/we would not have the possibility to write a full expertīs opinion on the material supplied. Under the circumstances, however, I would like to express myself thusly:

It can hardly be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person - there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters.
Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature.
The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things. The signature at the top is unquestionably the one that differs most at any rate.
In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!

Good luck with the hunt!

Frank Leander”

Letīs realize, to begin with, that when this post reached us, we did not know how the manual Leander was working by looked. We did not even know that there WAS a manual involved. Therefore, the phrasing ”can hardly be ruled out” could of course be read as a wording involving little enthusiasm. Sort of ”maybe, maybe not” - just as you interpreted things.

But if we had known that the manual was involved, and, furthermore, if we had known that the wording ”can not be ruled out” was a phrase that is professionally used to point to a match at the lower end of the scale, and – of course – if we had known that this was exactly the meaning Leander was trying to convey, then there could be no quibble: then we would have known from the outset that Leander regarded the signatures a probable match.

Since this information was not at hand, though, you were still in with a useful argument: In normal language, uncoupled to the professional use of signature examiners at the SKL, the phrase ”can not be ruled out” points to possibility only - and not to certainty in any degree.

As it happens, though, a number of us immediately identified Leanders post as pointing to a quite probable match in spite of all this.
Why was that, when he had used such an ”unenthusiastic” phrase?

It of course lies in the rest of the message. Leander presents a long list of commonalities: ”there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters” involving all elements of the text.”

After that, Leander adds that ”against these matches one must pose differences”. Here you interpret things as if Leander said that the differences outweighed the commonalities, but he never said any such thing, did he, Ben? He simply pointed to the unescapable fact that all discerning experts need to weigh in BOTH SIDES before judging: against the commonalities one must pose the differences.
So he lists these differences:
”certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and the perhaps most eyecatching differences in the shaping of some of the letters; G (the ground-shape), r and n at the end of the signature.”

After having presented the details involved in the case, he then moves on to the verdict.
It could have been ”in this case I find that the differences involved are too many and to flagrant for us to say that it could have been the same writer”.
It could have been ”The two groups of commonalities and differences are very equal in weight, and so it must be ruled that this is a clear-cut case of maybe, maybe not. No tendency outweighs the other.”

But Leander instead chose this wording:

”The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things.”

And where does that leave us? It leaves us with a summary that can be worded ”There were many commonalities, and that speaks for the writer being one and the same. Of course, there were also differences involved in the signatures, but these differences could all be explained”.

That, indeed, was exactly how I read Leanders post. Others did the exact same thing and came to the exact same conclusion:

”I'm not getting involved. I'm not getting involved. I'm not (Toppy is Hutch) getting involved.

Mike”

”I hope those who asked for other experts to be brought to bear on this matter aren't too disappointed with the result of their well-intentioned requests - the reaction was entirely predictable. Whilst Leander's analysis is very welcome, it's a symptom of human nature that some will tend to favour whichever expert opinion least disrupts their world view, and afford a lukewarm reception (at best) to any opinions to the contrary.

Kind regards, Sam Flynn”

In retrospect, if we all had been convinced that Leander had expressed nothing but a neutral stance from the outset, your suggestion that Leander changed his mind radically would have carried weight when Leander asserted that he was of the meaning that the match was a probable one and that he would be surprised to learn if it was not.
In such a situation, we would all have agreed that Leander would have appeared to go from unenthusiasm to enthusiasm inbetween posts.

But this scenario was never at hand: There was immediately a number of posters who all recognized Leanders post number one as bearing witness to a stance of a quite probable match.

In cases like these, when one part says A and another part says B, and both parts have at least some ground to stand on, having an expert that happily expands on things and explains his methodology is unvaluable. We were able to ask Leander what applied: Was your take on things – that ”cannot be ruled out” points to total neutrality – or was my take on it – that it was perfectly clear that Leander recommended to place a lot more emphasis on the commonalities than on the differences, stating that the latter would all have explanations – the correct stance?

We know how Leander answered the question: The seemingly lukewarm ”cannot be ruled out” was a phrasing on the manual he professionaly uses when deciding for or against a match, and in this case he identified the signatures as being a match on the positive scale; a probable match in other words. And there this issue should have come to an end, but it did not; you opted for believing that the rest of us were ALL wrong - those who had believed that Leander had been for a match were wrong, and Leander himself was wrong when confirming it! ONLY you, Ben, were correct - you had been correct from the outset, and therefore LEANDER must be the one to fault, in your opinion. That is how your "truth" looks, and that is the standard of reasoning by which all your future efforts in this field must be compared!

The match Leander described could have been better, in which case he could have used for example the phrasings ”but the observations made speak mostly for a match” or ”but the possibility is at hand that we have a match”. These two expressions both point to a probable match in a more emphatic manner than the expression he used: It cannot be ruled out that we have a match. The latter expression, though, is ALSO used to describe when an expert perceives that a match is probably at hand.

I would like to point to the fact that the ”inbetween” expression, ”but the possibility is at hand that we have a match”, also could be interpreted as being ”lukewarm” - it could be argued that a possibility is only a possibility and no pointer in any direction at all. But we know that the SKL USES that expression to describe a probable match – just as they do so with the expression ”It cannot be ruled out that we have a match”. Actually, the first, most positive phrasing, ”the observations made speak mostly for a match” could of course be read as bearing witness to a 50,0001 – 49,9999 decision, and as such more or less worthless in trying to establish a match. Semantics can do wonders for you, if you start twisting things and look away from the experts advice, Ben - but you know that full well already!

Concluding things, when you thought you were looking at a phrasing used the way we use it in everyday language, you were doing nothing of the sort. Instead, you were looking at one of the three descriptions recommended by the SKL manual for describing a probable match! You were, in other words, looking at a message from Frank Leander, telling you that Leander believed that the match was there.
That is what Leanders post number one tells us, and – not to forget – that is what Frank Leander confirmed in his additional posts.

And there you are, Ben. If all of us - or very many of us - or at least a significant amount of us, had shared your wiew that Leanders post number one was one of total neutrality, you would have had a just cause. But since this has never been the case, you are consequentially obliged to accept that you misapprehended things from the outset - and anybody can do that - and you are obliged to realize this and change your wiew - and anybody can do that but you, it seems.

Now, Ben, I will end this post in a slightly different fashion, by telling you that I hope that you will not provide us with another of your "come-with-me-to-perditionīs-flames-posts". Perditions flames do not enter this discussion. This is about a very trivial thing; you need to get your act together and admit that you have let your ego get the better of your intelligence. Straighten that out, and it will all go away. Promise!

Fisherman

[Ben]

You little liar, Fisherman.

What was all that about “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!”...?

What was all that about “Before I allow you to do what you need to do - step in and have the last word”...?

What was all that about “I have nothing more to add to the discussion between you and me”...?

What was all that about “I wonīt reply any more this time over”...?

For goodness sake, will you grow some testicles and either stick with your intentions or stop pretending you’re sodding off when you’re not. It only emphasises your weak inability to resist me. You’re far too predictable, and while it used to be funny, it now seems more than a little disturbing.

“Of course, since you are not honest in this exchange and since you have no case, logically, this must be wrong. And it is; there has never been any "proof" at all of any "contradiction" in this case”

“Not honest”? You’ve just exposed your dishonestly for the world to see – lying about your intention to leave a thread, but following it up with the magna carta, but as for Leander, yes, he contradicted himself regarding “amplitude”. That has been proven, and if that’s troubling to you, you only have yourself to blame for ignoring his none-too-subtle request to be left alone. He specifically referred to differences between the signatures that had nothing do with “amplitude” in his first post, but then in response to further bombardments from you, changed his tune completely and claimed that the only differences were the ones that involved amplitude.

That’s a proven contradiction. It’s on record. I even tried my best to get you off the hook by asking whether or not you had mistranslated him, but if it’s amplitude he meant (and let’s be honest, you didn’t really know what he was talking about at the time, did you?), that he most assuredly contradicted himself.

“and until you have the decency to admit that you have been wrong all along and to apologize to Frank Leander for having made every effort possible to smear his good name”

Well, you know full well that I will never, in a million years do any of those things, since I know for certain that I was not “wrong”, and that in the absence of any negative aspersions cast in Leander’s direction, I owe him no apology. So please, waste more of your dwindling time waiting for a "revised opinion" that will never, ever arrive.

“The problem you are having accepting that Frank Leander is and always was of the meaning that Toppys signature and Hutchīs ditto match, lies in your misconception that Frank Leanders first post pointed to Leander being completely neutral on the issue.”

Oh, good, we’re doing repetition – my favourite. If Frank was of the meaning that the signatures match, then he certainly didn’t convey as much in his first post AND manual, and a failure to make clear one’s meaning is simply not becoming of anyone purporting expertise. In fact, you expose the problem and defend it here:

“to begin with, that when this post reached us, we did not know how the manual Leander was working by looked. We did not even know that there WAS a manual involved. Therefore, the phrasing ”can hardly be ruled out” could of course be read as a wording involving little enthusiasm. Sort of ”maybe, maybe not” - just as you interpreted things”

Yes, thank you!

You’re absolutely correct. Progress at last. “Maybe, maybe not “ was precisely the impression conveyed in his first post. With this important concession in mind, do you really not appreciate the impact this would have on Leander’s credibility if he secretly meant anything other than “maybe, maybe not”? Let’s ask those unsettling and important questions again: what self-respecting expert provides a response that he must know full well would be interpreted as neutral by 99% of its recipients, when his actual view on the subject is anything but? What self-respecting expert deliberately communicates a stance that does not reflect his true feelings, and only provides the latter when someone asks for “clarification”? You’re right, we did not have a manual, and he knew full well we did not have a manual. He provided a stance that he knew full well would be interpreted as neutral by anyone who wasn’t already employed with the Swedish Handwriting Investigation Team. Think about, who else in the world would jump to the conclusion that “Duh! “Cannot be ruled out” means “lowest hit on the positive scale” or a similarly ludicrous and meaningless construct?

But you don’t seem to think there’s anything wrong with this.

You don’t seem to think there’s anything wrong with Leander only providing his true meaning when someone asks for clarification. You don’t seem to think there’s anything wrong with Leander using an expression (“cannot be ruled out”) that he knows full well would be interpreted as neutral by everyone. I particularly love the way you dig his own grave for him with that amusing distinction between “normal language” and “Leander’s world”.

“After that, Leander adds that ”against these matches one must pose differences”. Here you interpret things as if Leander said that the differences outweighed the commonalities, but he never said any such thing, did he, Ben?”

No, I never claimed that the differences outweighed the similarities, according to Leander. His comments permit no such inference. What his sentence does mean, however, in “normal language” is that the differences effectively neutralise the similarities, which isn’t the same as outweighing them.

“After having presented the details involved in the case, he then moves on to the verdict. ”The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things.”

What are you talking about? This wasn’t the “verdict”. That was a brief qualifier – an acknowledgement that certain factors could account for the differences. He’s not expressing a view one way of another as to whether or not these explanations actually did come into play – just that they could have done, and “could have” takes us to the reductive essence of his “verdict”. Toppy could have authored the statement signatures. It “cannot be excluded” as a possibility, but that doesn’t mean that he was conveying “probability”. It wouldn’t matter if he did, because in that event I’d just have fun highlighting the flawed nature of the material supplied to a foreign “handstilsexpert” and the fact that other signatures were deliberately withheld for no good reason (and probably for a bad one).

“It leaves us with a summary that can be worded ”There were many commonalities, and that speaks for the writer being one and the same. Of course, there were also differences involved in the signatures, but these differences could all be explained”.”

Perhaps in some terrifying fantasy nightmare, but in the real world, and in “normal language”, the acceptable interpretation is “There are similarities, but against them there are differences, so on balance, the possibility cannot be excluded”. By all means resort to your usual strategy of pretending there are hoards and hoards of posters all queuing up in desperation to voice their agreement with you, but all you’re doing is hoping to encourage them to participate now, and so fuel the delusion that I’m somehow being “ganged up” upon. It’s also because you lack the confidence to take me on alone without looking ponderous and comical, but don’t worry, I’m sure you’ll receive the help that you sorely need any time soon.

“your suggestion that Leander changed his mind radically would have carried weight when Leander asserted that he was of the meaning that the match was a probable one and that he would be surprised to learn if it was not.”

I’m not saying he changed his mind radically. I don’t think he changed his mind at all. I’m saying he fobbed you off to get rid of you once he recognised your refusal to acquiesce to his request to be left alone and not be asked to “elaborate further”. Now he realises he’s dealing with a zealot, which neatly accounts for the curt and abrupt emails that he has recently sent you. It means sod off, in both “normal language” and “Leander’s world”.

“But this scenario was never at hand: There was immediately a number of posters who all recognized Leanders post number one as bearing witness to a stance of a quite probable match.”

Oh yes, that veritable army of other posters - that awesome ferocity of the opposition. Fisherman, if your approach to debate consists of listing other people who agree with you and claiming victory by numbers, then your Tabram-scavenger theory ought really to be dispensed with – consistency and all that. An expert “explaining his methodology” counts for very little if that explanation amounts to “Glad you asked me that, because we at the Swedish Handwriting Investigation Team appropriate unambiguous age-old dictionary definitions, radically alter them, and don’t bother to tell anyone who seeks our expertise”.

Fun to hear you keep defending it, though.

“that it was perfectly clear that Leander recommended to place a lot more emphasis on the commonalities than on the differences, stating that the latter would all have explanations”

Nice try, but you’re not pulling that one off. “Would” indeed! You know full well that Leander never once argued that the differences “would” all have explanations. He said they “could”, and the distinction is a fundamentally crucial one.

“The seemingly lukewarm ”cannot be ruled out” was a phrasing on the manual he professionaly uses when deciding for or against a match, and in this case he identified the signatures as being a match on the positive scale; a probable match in other words.”

That’s absolute nonsense. We know full well that the manual stated no such thing. In fact, it underscored the neutrality expressed in his first letter. In cases where there are tendencies in one direction or the other (and in the present cases, there were clearly tendencies in both directions), he had the option of picking one of a handful of suitable expressions to describe his verdict, and in the event he picked the most neutral, lukewarm expression of the lot – “cannot be ruled out”, which literally means “not completely impossible”. The Swedes call this “the lowest hit on the positive scale” which also equates to “the lowest form of positive commentary without completely dismissing it”. And no, it was most assuredly not “only me” that thought so, just as it is not “only me” who doesn’t believe that Toppy was the “witness” from 1888.

To claim otherwise is to embrace delusion.

“The match Leander described could have been better, in which case he could have used for example the phrasings ”but the observations made speak mostly for a match” or ”but the possibility is at hand that we have a match”.”

But since those expressions would have elevated his stance above that of neutrality, his sensibly avoided them, and opted instead for a “verdict” that described his true feelings on the subject – well, until he was Fisherman’d into submission of course, which is a form of torture for the unwary and uninitiated.

“It cannot be ruled out that we have a match. The latter expression, though, is ALSO used to describe when an expert perceives that a match is probably at hand.”

No it isn’t. Ever. Not in the real world, and not in Leander’s. Not in “normal language” and not in the language adopted by the Swedish Handwriting Investigation Team.

“I would like to point to the fact that the ”inbetween” expression, ”but the possibility is at hand that we have a match”, also could be interpreted as being ”lukewarm” - it could be argued that a possibility is only a possibility and no pointer in any direction at all”

Absolutely. It could indeed be interpreted as lukewarm, but in the event, Leander’s verdict was less enthusiastic even than that! If the above may be described as “lukewarm”, which it can, then Leander was effectively chucking in a bucket-load of ice on top of that, making it distinctly chillier than lukewarm!

“But we know that the SKL USES that expression to describe a probable match – just as they do so with the expression ”It cannot be ruled out that we have a match”.”

No, they don’t.

They still don’t.

And that useful manual is a testament to the fact that they don’t.

It really isn’t surprising that you envy my ability to make “semantics make wonders” for me, since you do tend to make a fool of yourself whenever you have a bash at it.

“Concluding things, when you thought you were looking at a phrasing used the way we use it in everyday language, you were doing nothing of the sort. Instead, you were looking at one of the three descriptions recommended by the SKL manual for describing a probable match!”

Wow!

So Leander wrote a phrase that he knew full well would be interpreted “the way we use it in everyday language”, i.e. as neutral, but allowed everyone to persist in ignorance until one bright spark decided to ask for “clarification”? Is this Leander’s World again? No, thankfully it isn’t, because the “SKL manual” only served to reinforce that neutrality. I just hope we’re up for another round of “Yes, it is, no it isn’t”. I tend to win at those, not because I like them, but because I enjoy beating obstinate people at the debating strategy they’ve obviously studied for years.

“And there you are, Ben. If all of us - or very many of us”

Oh, yes, that same intimidatingly large and imposing army of Fish-followers. Why do you keep clinging to these painful delusions? Why do you keep resorting to the “numbers” fallacy to bolster your failing arguments? There were never “very many of us” even participating in this mess of a thread, so what gives with the futile “Other people agree with me! They do! Hey guys, GUYS, help me out here, please?”

“This is about a very trivial thing; you need to get your act together and admit that you have let your ego get the better of your intelligence. Straighten that out, and it will all go away. Promise!”

I don’t want you or it to go away. Why would I deprive myself of free entertainment? I will never, ever revise my stance on the matters concerned me because I’ve been given no reason to. Every post you make restores confidence in my original view, and if that is to engender an obstinate, pugnacious, confrontation approach in you, so be it. I can’t wait.

Now, Ben, I will end this post in a slightly different fashion, by telling you that I hope that you will not provide us with another of your "come-with-me-to-perditionīs-flames-posts".

Oh yes! I almost forgot. Come with me to perdition’s flames, Fisherman. No more lying about leaving. Fight me forever. Make yours an even longer one than mine, and let’s allow Hutchinson threads to dominate once again.

Thanks for the reminder.

[Fisherman]

Ben:
"You’ve just exposed your dishonestly for the world to see – lying about your intention to leave a thread"

Oh no, Ben - I fully INTENDED to leave it. I never imagined you would have the enormous balls to pull your pants down in public once more. But youīre a brave man!

Iīm fascinated, Ben!

I will offer a small story in return. You may – or may not – recognize some of the story, and, indeed, the participants. Here goes!

Mr X and Mr Y have an argument; they have been looking at a painting, an African motive, purportedly painted by Edgar Degas. Mr X claims it is a fake, but Mr Y thinks the painting is genuine.

In order to have the dispute resolved, they contact professor W, and send him a photo of the painting. Professor W then writes a letter in response, saying:

”I wish to make it clear from the outset that since I have only seen a photo of the painting, I cannot give a full professional verdict on this, but informally, I would like to say this:
The possibility is certainly at hand that the painting it a genuine Degas – the brushwork, the colours, the composition are all very alike Degas work. There is a likeness in all technical painting elements involved.
There are of course a number of things that points in another direction: The choice of motive, the size of the painting and the seemingly poor portrayal of human limbs such as the hands of the man to the left in the picture. These things, though, may have had a number of reasons for being there; Degas young age at the time of painting the picture, the possibility of only large canvasses being for sale in the store on the day he bought it, a possible temporary interest in African landscapes and similar things.

Yours,
professor W”

This letter is read aloud in the six-member Degas club to which our two opponents both belongs, and five of the members, including Mr Y, immediately says: Well, then, thatīs that – it would seem it is a genuine Degas!

And what does Mr X do? We know that, do we not? He says. ”Hold on a minute! Professor W is totally neutral! When he says that the possibility is at hand that the painting is genuine, he does nothing more than what we all have done throughout – he acknowledges a possibility. The painting MAY be genuine and it may not, simple as that! He says that there are things speaking both for and against! I have never said that it could not be a Degas – the chance is there.

The five other members of the club are now slightly upset. They try to tell Mr X that one has to accept an expertīs word for what it is, but Mr X persists; he tells them that they have misunderstood, and that he himself has got things right.

Mr Y now decides to try and straighten things out. He once again contacts professor W, and tells him that there is a member of the Degas club that insists that professor W:s verdict was a strictly neutral one, and he asks professor W to either dispell or confirm this, in order to settle the disagreement. Professor W writes another letter to the club, wording himself:

”I myself am of the genuine persuasion that the painting you have in all probability IS a genuine Degas. In fact, I would be amazed to learn that if it was not. But since I feel that I have a reputation as an art expert to guard, I of course would not lay that reputation on the line after having seen a photograph only. I therefore used the type of expression that is commonly used in my line of work, and in that line of work we never say anything certain after having seen a photo only. Instead we use on of three expressions in cases like this:

-The material at hand speaks mostly for
-The possibility is at hand for
or
-It cannot be ruled out that

...when we describe a probable genuine painting. Of course, the poorer the quality of the material we look at, the less sure we can be in our verdict, and with a photo only to go by, I could never say that I KNOW that a painting is genuine. But of course, I am at liberty to expand on the formal verdict by adding my own feelings and impressions.

Yours,
Professor W”

Again, five members out of the Degas club exclaim: ”Ah, there you see, X – professor W was not neutral at all in his initial letter. He was simply discerning, as any genuine expert.”

And of course, now Mr X accepts that he had simply been mistaken, and h ... wait a minute ... whatīs this? Mr X actually refuses to accept professor W:s second letter, claiming that the good professor had obviously been of a different mindset in post number one.

”Come now, X”, say the five other members of the club – ”you cannot be serious? W has just explained both why he worded himself the way he did in the first post – which the rest of us thought was perfectly obvious in itīs accepting the painting as genuine in the first place – plus he has added that we were correct from the outset: He DOES think the painting genuine!

At this stage, MrX mumbles and grunts something from his end of the club couch.

”What was that?” ask the five gentlemen.

This question provokes more grunting from Mr X, but it is still impossible to interpret it.

”What on earth are you saying, X?” ask the five.

-HE SIMPLY FOBBED YOU THE **** OFF, YOU IDIOTS! I have never heard such utter filth before! That professor should not be listened to! Well, his first post was good, and that is something we need to acknowledge! That was what I call a totally neutral, discerning post! But after that, when you could not just settle for that clear post of his and accept that he never leaned in any direction, you simply had to contact him again, did you not, you, you ...!

Mr X is boiling with indignation by now. But he is not finished!

”You probably told him that I am a bad man! Yes, thatīs what you did! You made me out to look evil! You must have put words in his mouth: ”Come on now, professor, surely you think it IS a genuine Degas, donīt you? Remember that Mr X says that you are reeling from side to side in your judgement – this is a nice opportunity to put him straight! Weīll back you all the way, īfessor!”
Thatīs how you did it, is it not, you rotten, filthy, lying scoundrels?!
Wait a minute: Look how W phrases himself in this last letter of his – he writes in the same fashion a Y does. Ha! How conspicious is THAT! Oh, why did we ever let that damn Y into the club in the fist place? I told you that Romanians are not to be trusted! And that farting fake of a professor is just as Romanian too! What do Romanians understand about truth...? WHAT? HUH?

At this stage, Mr X catastrophically rising blood pressure puts him out of his misery. He slums down in the couch, stone-dead.

An eternity – or a split second, who knows? - later, he finds himself at a majestic door, surrounded by clouds. In front of the door stands a man, shrouded in white, with a book in his hand.

-Who are you, asks Mr X.
-I am St Peter, replies the man.

Mr X shivers. He thinks long and hard, and then he asks in the lowest of voices:

-Am I ... dead?
-That, answers St Peter, may well be the case.

-Right, Iīm going home, says Mr X. I wonīt listen to this filth anymore.

And so he turns, and starts to walk away. But St Peter grabs him by his collar and says:
-Oh, no, you donīt. You are going through this door, buddy. You are dead, you see.
-No I aint!
-Yes you are. I should know, shouldnīt I, being St Peter!
-That may well be, says Mr X – but your initial answer to my question whether I was dead was one of total neutrality!

Thus endeth this little morality of mine. Any likenesses inbetween the characters of the text and real people are fully intended.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

“Oh no, Ben - I fully INTENDED to leave it. I never imagined you would have the enormous balls to pull your pants down in public once more. But youīre a brave man!”

I realise that the mental prospect of my “enormous balls” is a major factor in certain people’s decision to stalk me around serial killer message boards despite their swan-song like and dramatic intention to depart, but all Fish-fibbing aside, you know full well that I was always going to respond, and you know full well that I wasn’t about to revise my stance, so yours was a feeble justification for pretending that your intention to leave when it wasn’t.

Either that, or you’re just weak.

“The possibility is certainly at hand that the painting it a genuine Degas – the brushwork, the colours, the composition are all very alike Degas work. There is a likeness in all technical painting elements involved.”

Of course, none of that is remotely comparable to anything Leander stated in his first post. Your professor is very obviously in favour of a likeness. “A likeness in all technical painting elements” is so obviously enthusiastic, and really, are you just pretending not to understand the difference between a possibility that “is certainly at hand” and a possibility that “cannot be ruled out”?

“all very alike Degas work”

Hmm, there again, we have a stark contrast with Leander who never used the expression “all very alike” in his initial letter, so comparison not apt there either.

“Degas young age at the time of painting the picture, the possibility of only large canvasses being for sale in the store on the day he bought it, a possible temporary interest in African landscapes and similar things.”

Although this professor does seem bent on using “and similar things” where it isn’t remotely applicable. Perhaps he was formerly employed with the Swedish Handwriting Investigation Team?

Seriously, Fisherman, you’ve invented a non-applicable comparison.

Professor W is not neutral, and Mr. X would be foolish to describe him as such. Had Leander used the expressions your invented Professor did, I wouldn’t have argued with you.

Had Professor W. said something like “There are differences that weigh against the similarities, but the former are insufficient to rule out the possibility that Degas dunnit” I’d be compelled to digest his neutral stance, just as I did with Leander’s. Of course, Mr. Y would end up the loser in this equation, having deliberately supplied the hapless professor with faulty photocopied material, and it would result in the following exchange:

Mr. Y (flustered): Sorry, we need clarification here, is this Degas or not? It really ought to be considering the relative dearth of other viable contenders for unknown examples of Degas work, and I’ve put a great deal of effort into arguing that this is the real deal. I may be a bit of a Johnny-come-lately to the Degas club, but I refuse to lose face in front of them, and.…and…

Prof W: Woah, woah, woah, Mr. X, Sardine Bloke, let’s just chill out for a moment. Slow down, you're hysterical and you're making me nervous. How do you know there’s a relative dearth of viable conte…?

Mr.Y: I JUST KNOW, DAMMIT! Now, that would change matters, wouldn’t it?

Prof W: Well, I…

Mr. Y: WOULDN’T IT!?!

Prof W: I guess, but..

Mr. Y: There! Thankyou! Finally! So, I’ll ask you again – is this a genuine Degas?

Prof W: Will you promise to leave me alone after this, and not keep insisting that I elaborate further?

Mr. Y: Well, that just depends now, doesn’t it? Look, I’m sorry, I’ll try to relax and explain – I’ve invested an inordinate amount of emotional stock in attempting to prove my nemesis at the club wrong, and I’m damned if you’re going to destroy my opportunity to do so.

Prof W: Well. I guess it could be….

Mr. Y: Good enough! It's Degas! It's bloody Degas! And your manual says so, anyway.

Prof W: Not really.

Mr. Y: YOUR MANUAL SAYS SO!! Good, we understand eachother, Professor. It's Degas. Oh, and that nemesis of mine? He slags you off all the time, so don't agree with him!

Then off trots Mr. Y to the club and bombards them with verbosity. A handful of fellow clubman share the sentiments of Mr. Y, but wince with embarrassment as he embarks, ponderously and aggressively, on his triumphant "revelation"

[Fisherman]

Hi Ben!

Now, where are you headed this time over? Letīs see, hmmmm:

“A likeness in all technical painting elements” is so obviously enthusiastic"

..and "there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters" is not? What other technical writing elements are there, Ben? Leander just did not phrase it "a similarity in all technical writing elements" - but it amounts to the exact same thing.

"are you just pretending not to understand the difference between a possibility that “is certainly at hand” and a possibility that “cannot be ruled out”?

Are you telling me that you would have reacted to a phrasing of "a possibility is certainly at hand" in any other way that by saying "He only mentions a possibility being at hand - but it remains a stance of total neutrality"

Are you, Ben? May I remind you of how you put it in your last post: "Absolutely. It could indeed be interpreted as lukewarm." Trip over your balls, did you?

But of course, if Leander had worded it "a possibility is certainly at hand" instead of "It is not as if we could rule it out", we would not be having this argument??? And to think you call me a little liar!

"Had Leander used the expressions your invented Professor did, I wouldn’t have argued with you."

Ben, you argue with me IN SPITE of the fact that Leander has shown you that I was right all along.

You little liar.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Fisherman, in tremendous haste to post, observes:

but it amounts to the exact same thing.

No, it doesn't amount to the same thing.

If Leander had said "there is a likeness in all handwriting elements", I'd realise straight away that he considered the match probable, as distinct from merely possible, and I would have been the first to concede as much in the 1911 thread. Obviously, it would still be a pity that he was not analysing documents in his native language as document examiners and encouraged to do, and even worse that he was supplied with fiddled-with and/or withheld samples, but if he worded himself in a similar fashion to your invented professor, I'd quickly dispense with the "neutrality" argument.

But he didn't.

So I didn't.

Are you telling me that you would have reacted to a phrasing of "a possibility is certainly at hand" in any other way that by saying "He only mentions a possibility being at hand - but it remains a stance of total neutrality"

How about you do me the courtesy of answering my question first, and then I'll deal with yours? I asked you whether you are able or willing to grasp the fundamental difference between a possibility that is "certainly at hand" and a possibility that "cannot be ruled out". In terms of "luke-warmth", I mean.

"Absolutely. It could indeed be interpreted as lukewarm." Trip over your balls, did you?

But there's lukewarm and there's freezing cold, and can you please think of something other than my balls for once?

Ben, you argue with me IN SPITE of the fact that Leander has shown you that I was right all along.

...Announced Fisherman, with the same delusions of "rightness" that exposed him as the fussy zealot with an obsession with being "right" way back on the Stride threads.

[Fisherman]

Ben:
"If Leander had said "there is a likeness in all handwriting elements", I'd realise straight away that he considered the match probable"

...and which elements is it that he did not mention? Hmmm?

"How about you do me the courtesy of answering my question first, and then I'll deal with yours? I asked you whether you are able or willing to grasp the fundamental difference between a possibility that is "certainly at hand" and a possibility that "cannot be ruled out". In terms of "luke-warmth", I mean."

Since I have the manual, that is easy:
Thay both point to a probable match, and the former phrasing is used when either the match is stronger or the material used to establish the match is richer.

"Can you please think of something other than my balls for once?"

But I was under the impression that you were so proud of them, Ben? Donīt suppress it, then - enjoy!

For those who are struggling to see the light in the almighty smokescreen you are producing, Ben, letīs not forget this:

”The overall and general impression is one of an obvious likeness, and it offers far too much of a handstyle resemblance to offer any reason to discard it”

”in ”my world”, the expression CAN NOT BE RULED OUT belongs to the same parish as THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS.”

”In an investigation or a search for a wanted person, it is worth to move on with this person because – as I am inclined to think at present – get the suspicions confirmed – OR to realize that the similarities were coincidental (which I at present would be surprised by)”

”Can not be ruled out” has earlier been used as the lowest, most careful expression on the positive side in a scale that we have used in investigations of handstyles, and it serves well to underline when we cannot see any discrepancies other than in the ”amplitude” between the expressions.”

Frank Leander

...just so we donīt loose our way! I am specifically interested in why you do not believe Leander when he tells you that in his world, "cannot be ruled out" belongs in the same parish as "there are obvious likenesses in some respects"? Exactly why is this, Ben? I know that you keep claiming that this is not true, but when the man TELLS you that this is exactly how it works and how he works, one would have hoped that it would have sunk in by now...?

Oh, and could you please pull your pants back up again? Those thunderous you-know-whatīs of yours are obsuring the wiew.

Fisherman

[Ben]

...and which elements is it that he did not mention? Hmmm?

If you think Leander was saying that there was a likeness in all handwriting elements, then we know for certain you're wrong. If that was the case, why on earth would he go on to mention specific differences concerning the handwriting elements? Please just think about it before.

Thay both point to a probable match, and the former phrasing is used when either the match is stronger or the material used to establish the match is richer.

Ah, but the manual never said any such thing, since "cannot be ruled out" is applied in cases where there are "tendancies in one direction or the other", and we know from Leander's first post that he discerned tendencies in both direction. I think I'm going to have fun repeating this whenever the topic comes up again. I just feel it.

But then you go on to quote his "clarifications". This one's my favourite:

”Can not be ruled out” has earlier been used as the lowest, most careful expression on the positive side in a scale that we have used in investigations of handstyles, and it serves well to underline when we cannot see any discrepancies other than in the ”amplitude” between the expressions.”

This is a "subsequent clarification", not his first letter, but notice the contradiction again. He's claiming this time that he didn't see any discrepances other than in the "amplitude between the expressions". Why, then, did the differences he specifically listed in his first post have nothing whatsoever to do with the "amplitude between the expressions"?

”in ”my world”, the expression CAN NOT BE RULED OUT belongs to the same parish as THERE ARE OBVIOUS LIKENESSES IN CERTAIN RESPECTS

I don't mind this one so much. Well, the "my world" concept is faintly ludicrous, but I wouldn't quibble with the suggestion that there are obvious liknesses in certain respects. But then there are equally obvious dissimilarities in certain respects.

Hmm, neutral.

[Fisherman]

Oh, by the way:

"...Announced Fisherman, with the same delusions of "rightness" that exposed him as the fussy zealot with an obsession with being "right" way back on the Stride threads."

Not that it matters in this issue, since every issue has to be assessed on itīs own merits, but this thread should be interesting for you:

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O78877/morning-coat/

It is a pic from the collections of the Victoria and Albert museum, showing a morning coat, also known as a cutaway. And, just as I have always stated, and as you denied fervently, it has no tails at all. It is also said that the term cutaway refers to the front of the garment only, just as I said on the Stride thread you are referring to.
What you fail to remember is that you fought a useless battle, trying to state that cutaways always had tails (Haha! Swallow tails on the Easteders of 1888!), and that you subsequently was forced to realize that I was right, telling you that cutaways need not have any tails at all. Interestingly, you worded yourself "I grant ye that they did not always have tails" which was hilarious - you are not in the position to "grant" me anything - I do my own homework, and I get it right. Which is why you can read once again on the Victoria and Albert homepage that cutaway refers to the front of the garment only and that nineteenth century cutaways without tails of any sort was and remains a reality.
So much for the...ehrm, "delusions", Ben. Rest assured that I will rub your face in any remark of this kind you find fit to post henceforth.

Fisherman
knowledgeable about cutaways - AND about what you had cut away