The Leander Analysis

[Jane Welland]

Quite Reasonable

to conclude on the basis of the evidence one finds compelling - in this case, that Toppy=Hutchinson.

I think that's how people work - how else can we operate? And of course we have to rely on and trust our own judgements, otherwise we really would be up the creek without a paddle.

Obviously, though, people do see things differently. Nobody requires any example or demonstration of that - it's all around us, all the time, in our individual lives.

It strikes me that we have no definitive answer here, and maybe one isn't even possible, but that doesn't mean I'll stop hoping for one! It's an interesting debate, and one worth pursuing imo.

My personal view is that it is far from resolved, one way or the other. I'm not sitting on the fence, I just don't see that this argument is so far on - yet - as to be able to speak of probabilities.

But see above - we all see things differently. I can see the attraction of a confirmed identity - I think it would be great if that could be achieved.

Best to all

Jane x

[The Good Michael]

Just to clarify for any newcomers. Those of us in the Toppy as Hutch camp see all things combined, signatures, names, locations, relations, all things and putting them together come up with the probability that Toppy was Hutch. We use probable because, all things combined, the word 'possible' becomes insufficient. We have no agenda in doing this. It is the odds we are playing. No one here says it is cut and dried. It is merely probable, or even highly probable, but never a sure thing... yet.

Cheers,

Mike

[Ben]

the evidence goes beyond mere signatures to census/demographic data and other attributes of the Topping "case" that Leander is not even party to.

Although, of course, in the view of others, the "census/demographic data and other attributes of the Topping "case" only serves to reinforce the unlikelihood of Toppy being the witness, with the signatures providing additional support for the "probably not" take on the issue, Gareth.

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

Believers in Toppy = Hutch. That's what you are, it would appear - believers.

I deduce, I conclude - but I emphatically do not believe without good reason and evidence, Jane. In this instance, the evidence goes beyond mere signatures to census/demographic data and other attributes of the Topping "case" that Leander is not even party to. Together, these point to only one reasonable conclusion - and that's enough for me.

[harry]

It is generally said that all persons,as children at school,are taught to write the same.This is not strictly true.All are shown how to hold the writing implement,and this can be checked by the teacher.They can be,by demonstration,shown how letters should be formed.Finally however,no one but themselves can put the pen to paper,and that is where the differences begin.Each will in time adopt to their own preference.
Additionally,the position while writing,the speed of writing,and the reason for writing,would have some effect.
Personnly,I would be carefull in accepting any comparison,no matter the value placed on the examiner.I doubt there will ever be an exact duplication of two different examples of same person writing,at different time periods.It will be difficult to identify Toppy by the writing.

[Fisherman]

I see no use arguing with you any further, Ben - save to say that you are more or less wrong on more or less everything, as far as Iīm concerned. AND travelling in circles instead of moving forwards.

The best - you need it on this issue, Ben!

Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fisherman,

He didn't say "we have a match" because he clearly didn't think so. He didn't have his hands tied behind his back at all. He was communicating with you privately via email, not providing evidence at a trial in Swedish court. If he thought he had a match, he was most assuredly "at liberty" to say so. His "manual" told us that in cases where the evidence could point one way or the other, a reasonable judgement would be "Cannot be excluded", and the Toppy analysis fitted neatly into this category.

And, thanks to the encouragement of the manual to add nuances to the grading afforded to the comparison, we know that he was of that exact opinion.

Well, no.

In actual fact, the contents of the manual that you kindly provided only served to underscore Leander's initial neutrality. Nothing whatsoever about "probability" and not the slightest whiff of an insinuation that the "evidence seemd to point to a match". In fact, the word "match" never entered his vocabulary as far as Toppy is concerned, from my recollections.

But if they add nothing to a comparison made using two-dimensional material like copies - and that may very well apply - then they ARE actually as good, at least when it comes to determining a likeness.

Absolutely not.

Leander told us the opposite - that a full expert opinion isn't even "possible" in the absence of the original documents. If we're to take Leander's advice, it most assuredly follows that photocopies sent via email aren't nearly "as good" as originals.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Canīt resist answering your post here, Jane, as I think there are some interesting points made that I feel I need to comment on:

"Two expert document examiners have looked at the signatures, yes?
So, which one of them said 'Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a Match!'
What? Neither of them did?

Nope. And Leander explicitly stated that he was not at liberty to say so. His manual tells us that it would not matter how much of a match in style elements, indicidual letters, leaning of the text and writing skills the two sides were, he STILL WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SAY "WE HAVE A MATCH"!!! In that respect, he had his hands tied behind his back by the fact that the composition of the material he looked at - not the inherent liknesses inbetween the signatures, for that is another issue! - was not enough to speak of a certain match.
What we need to keep in mind here, though, is that the fact that his manual restrained him to a significant extent, did not mean that he could not be of the opinion that the second element - the likeness in style inbetween the signatures - seemed to point to a match. And, thanks to the encouragement of the manual to add nuances to the grading afforded to the comparison, we know that he was of that exact opinion.

"It should surely be quite apparent to everyone and anyone that originals are always preferable in terms of source material. Copies may 'do' but they will never be as good."

Yes, Jane, that is correct! Originals are the best source. But if they add nothing to a comparison made using two-dimensional material like copies - and that may very well apply - then they ARE actually as good, at least when it comes to determining a likeness. They will never, however, ensure that nothing is hidden in the third dimension, and for that reason, the originals are better. I do not dispute that, but I do believe that what can be found in the two dimensions of a photocopy comparison can be quite enough for an expert to determine if a match is probable or not.

The best, Jane!
Fisherman

[richardnunweek]

Hi,
I am proberly the longest believer of Topping on Casebook, I have never doubted it, i have always believed that Reg was being one hundred per cent honest when recalling his fathers memories of that night in history.
However It seems my eyes are not focusing , and clearly I [ amongst others] need new specs, as the signature comparisons appear not conclusive to many others.
Because of this I feel I should retreat, and await absolute conformation, from others more qualified then my eyesight..
I just want the truth , even if it hurts my pride.
Regards Richard.

[Jane Welland]

Evening All...

What fun you've all been having today! So, as Fisherman's first post of today was directed in my direction for much of the content, I think I would note the following in response, for what it's worth!

I see there are two 'camps' here - self-defined, defined by the other side, etc, whether they see themselves as 'camps', or not.

Believers in Toppy = Hutch. That's what you are, it would appear - believers. As far as I can tell, the case is unproven. Anyone who comes along and posts as if, or under the assumption that is has, is incorrect - and, since it hasn't -
unhelpful to the debate at hand.

There's much talk of 'agendas' around here - well, behaving as though the identification was a certainty - when it would appear that is far from being the case - is not indicative of an agenda? How so?

You know what they say about people in glass houses....

It could be so simple. Two expert document examiners have looked at the signatures, yes?

So, which one of them said 'Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a Match!'

What? Neither of them did?

Oh Dear. I would have thought, if the match was as strong as some would have it, that one, or both of these experts would have concurred.

Twist and turn it any way - neither of them did. Both seem, at the very least, to have expressed some doubt, although as far as I can tell, neither ruled it out, either.

Still, hardly a done deal, is it?

Now, we might argue that these experts know nothing, and we don't need experts. Well, maybe so. But if we take that stance we a) disagree with the majority of the document-examiner using population, who rely on their verdicts in legal cases, as Fisherman tells us (indeed, their verdict can send a person to prison); b} Risk looking ridiculous (see 'a').

Each to their own, but I always thought these people were called 'experts' for a reason - that being that they were experts? Presumably, they, much as any expert in any field, didn't get there overnight. Presumably, like Mr Leander and Miss Iremonger, they earned the right to be called experts by hard work and reputation.

Reputation, yes. We must conclude (in the case of Leander, for example)that either a} the Swedish population is endemically stupid and gullible to trust in Leander's expertsie; b} Leander does actually know what he's talking about.

Again, simple. Saying, or writing words to the effect of 'It is because I say so' gets us absolutely nowhere. And constitutes weak argument.

Fisherman, you at least, believe in expertise - you must, since you have asked the view of Leander more than once as I understand it.

Next - originals vs copies. This one is really simple. It should surely be quite apparent to everyone and anyone that originals are always preferable in terms of source material. Copies may 'do' but they will never be as good. You don't need to be a Rocket Scientist, expert, or anyone of particular note to see that. It stands, as they say, to reason.

And in fact, if people read how this current debate has developed, they will see it for themselves imo - problem is, a copy is effectively a translation - and it changes by virtue of being itself. That's a general observation, and applies to many things and areas of study, but no less to this, I would imagine.

Here, for example - from posts that precede this one - the originals were not apparently, the same size, but that was not clear in the material viewed by Leander. 'Breaks' in the signatures were not clear from the copies and were thus unknown to Leander.

What else?

Can't think - but that should be quite enough to demonstrate that a copy can be misleading, and thus, as a first principle, the original is preferable.

Best wishes all - I wish you luck with this one!

Jane x

[babybird67]

Fish

Iremonger's findings have been published. I suggest you get hold of the books if you are interested.

I am daring you to answer the questions i have put to you repeatedly. I do you the courtesy of answering yours. You avoid mine like the plague for some reason.

[Fisherman]

Is there really any need for all this hostility? Is there any need for Babybird to "dare me" to challenge her wiews? Any need for Ben to try and stop me from quoting Leanders assertion that he would be surprised if it was a non-match?

Have we not had more than enough of it?

Once again, it seems that peole arm themselves with sticks and stones and take to the street, instead of rationally considering each others arguments. It is a disgrace. I for one wonīt participate in such a thing - I have had quite enough of it.

I presented Leanders manual for judging signatures and handstyles, and the boards go berserk?

Please cool off and then return to the threads when there is something useful to offer - like, for example Iremongers findings. That would move us forward - nothing of the rest that is produced right now does. Itīs just more of the 1911 mess, and my hunch is that any sane person could do without it.

The best - hopefully from all of us!
Fisherman

[babybird67]

well done Michael

The beauty of all this is we need no 'expert' to tell us anything.

Now could you please explain this to Fish; that my opinion is as valid as Leander's since neither of us have had the benefit of comparing the originals. Since eyes are enough of a qualification.

Our eyes when not obscured by agenda, suffice for us to say that the similarities of signature create a level of probability that is undeniable.

I dont have an agenda, Fiend. If i did have an agenda it would be trying to restore sense and sanity to a discussion which has put far too much faith in some surface similarities as opposed to the surface differences. If you are saying the level of probability is undeniable, you are, are you not, saying that identification has been established in this matter? Do you not have any doubt? is there not even a .01% of you that would have to say, i may find this probable but i still do not know. Probability and certainty are not the same thing...probability and undeniability are not the same thing.

We who don't care about Hutchinson in any way except as a component of the Whitechapel murders, can see this.

i'm one of those and i cannot agree. Maybe my standards are too high (well, i am a woman ). I cannot accept "probability" as "proof". I just can't.

Fisherman needs to reel himself in.

Some hopes.

He knows. I know. Gareth knows. Observer knows. Richard knows. Many know.

No. You think you know. There is a difference.

It is simple and plain for those who look. Others... screw 'em.

Are you offering? Enlightenment by carnal pleasuring....hmmmm...it could catch on...

[Ben]

It’s that triumphalist rhetoric again!

We will triumph with awesome, invulnerable might! They will faint ‘neath the power we wield!

It’s a bit of an insipid debating strategy, though, you have to admit.

Have you noticed the triumphalists always “know”, and they always try to pass themselves off as the majority group? It is, of course, not particularly logical to argue that anyone who disagrees with another’s strongly held opinion must automatically have an agenda. For example, being vehemently opposed to the possibility of Hutchinson’s involvement in Kelly’s murder is certainly no less of an entrenched viewpoint than that which entertains reasonable suspicions against him, and even if it was, it certainly doesn’t impact upon the Toppy issue (and vice versa).

“suffice for us to say that the similarities of signature create a level of probability that is undeniable.”

No, it doesn’t.

I just denied it.

And a fellow “denyer” is document examiner Sue Iremonger.

I guess that would make her a rabid Hutchinsonite? Bummer.

[The Good Michael]

The beauty of all this is we need no 'expert' to tell us anything. Our eyes when not obscured by agenda, suffice for us to say that the similarities of signature create a level of probability that is undeniable. That is where we are and that is where we began. We who don't care about Hutchinson in any way except as a component of the Whitechapel murders, can see this. Those who suspect nefarious deeds, look with different, obscured eyes. It's simple. Fisherman needs to reel himself in. He knows. I know. Gareth knows. Observer knows. Richard knows. Many know. It is simple and plain for those who look. Others... screw 'em.

Mike