The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

Oh my giddy aunt.

It isn’t possible.

Has he really gone and pestered that poor beleaguered Swedish document examiner again?

He has!

Fisherman has asked Leander to clarify his perfectly clear stance for the sixth time, ladies and gentleman.

This is beyond ridicule, beyond obsession, but somehow predictable all the same.

But let’s do this all over again (you know me!), starting with:

“Frank Leander stated in one of his posts that this verdict was derived from a system used by the SKL, and that it represented “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”

Ah, but he did see discrepancies - if you cast your mind back to that circumspect first post of his, you'll recall that he listed several discrepancies that had nothing whatsoever to do with the “amplitude between the expressions” whatever the fookin’ hell that means. He referred to specific differences between the signatures; differences that militated against the similarities. However, according to Leander’s initial analysis, those differences were insufficient to "rule out” a possible match, which – here’s the funny bit – is a view with which I have concurred from the outset.

Once again we return to the bone of contention; “cannot be ruled out” does not mean “probable” or any synonyms thereof. 300 pages or so have elapsed since that patently nonsensical assertion, but it still doesn’t mean "probable". Nothing has changed, and secret departments still don’t get to to alter basic dictionary definitions. If Leander is claiming that “cannot be ruled out” means “I’d be surprised if that signatures weren’t written by the same person”, or anything vaguely resembling that nonsensical assertion, he is irrefutably wrong. Thankfully, he made it abundantly clear that a positive commentary isn’t necessarily intended to convey “probability”. Phew, just when I was beginning to doubt the man, he reminds us again of his irrefutably neutral stance.

It did indeed become a battle of semantics, but despite the righteous opprobrium that was levelled in Fisherman’s direction for bombarding a man who had already made his position perfectly clear, he took the extraordinary and eccentric decision to contract Leander again in pursuit of further “clarification”. It really is becoming a farce now, and Leander is showing amazing restraint in putting up with this nonsense. He reminds me of my dad.

But we needn’t become despondent.

Once again, Leander is cautious with his terminology and describes the “cannot be excluded" category thusly:

“In cases where no more certain conclusions can be drawn, regardless whether this owes to the quality of the text, the difficulty to assess observed likenesses or dissimilarities, too few samples of the text involved, too little or unappropriate material of comparison or that only photocopies are at hand, it follows that THE ISSUE MUST BE LEFT OPEN”

Doesn’t this just beautifully endorse the observations Garry Wroe made in his initial post to this topic? “No certain conclusions can be drawn” Absolutely, so I call upon Fisherman to relinquish his unwarranted “certainty” and embrace the circumspection that has characterised Leander’s contributions to date. “Too few samples” – exactly! Leander is absolutely spot on and with my faith in his abilities duly restored; I can only echo his wise sentiments.

“THE ISSUE MUST BE LEFT OPEN”

Such advice contrasts markedly with the “case-closed” mentality that has characterized the dogma of the arch-Toppyite. Listen to the experts who you believe are fighting your corner, and only then will you engage with their neutral stance.

“he settled for the “the lowest, most careful expression on the positive side” of the scale, and he added that the only discrepancies he could see were differences in amplitude, just as he added that he would be surprised if the match was not a genuine one.”

No.

False.

Gosh, fancy bringing this all up again, Fisherman!

This really won’t do.

He was not “surprised if the match was not a genuine one”. None of that sentiment was conveyed in the first post you provided in the 1911 thread, His stance was neutral, as I’m prepared to reiterate a trillion times if necessary, and as we’ve just learned from your sixth bombardment, his stance is still neutral. He has spelt it out for you: “Cannot be excluded” = “THE ISSUE MUST BE LEFT OPEN”. End of, surely? No more "Toppy is Hutch", "Proven beyond reasonable doubt" phuckwittery, surely?

“That there are no differences inbetween the third signature of the Dorset Street witness and those of George Topping Hutchinson”

But that is utter filth.

Leander just disabused you of that nonsense.

Listen. Seriously.

He listed specific differences – specific ones, and observes that they militated against the similarities. Those differences had nothing to do with “amplitude”, they had to do with specific and readily identifiable differences within the friggin text. Fisherman, contact him 20 more times if necessary. I’ll be there every time. It’s fun. It’s easily refutable. It’s predictable. But one thing’s for certain – somewhere along the line I’ll be buying poor Frank a polypin barrel of finest ale for his interminable patience!

One fart joke and it all kicks off again – I dunno…

[Jane Welland]

See?

I knew you'd have the answer Sam!



If Leander were willing, of course.

Jane x

[Jane Welland]

Yes, but...

If the signatures are the same (as each other) then Leander doesn't just have three signatures of the witness, right?

He has the three and all the others from the Census, and the Marriage Certificate, at least.

I believe that's more than 10?

If there is no substantial difference - as I know some think - between the witness signatures and those of Toppy, then what's the problem?

If it's just quality of material then can't he be supplied with better material? (for example)

It seems a shame to get so close to an answer and then find it's a dead end.

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

I'd be quite happy to give Leander scans of ten or more "Hutchinsons", and two extra "Georges", if he likes. Not that I want to abuse his generosity.

[babybird67]

And there it is! To begin with, we can observe that, just like Leander said, no full experts opinion could be offered from the material he was supplied with. He mentioned that he would need more samples of the witnesses´ signature and that he would also need the originals to reach a full expert opinion. And as we all know, regardless of the fact that the originals are about, there are only three signatures by the witness, and Leander would need ten or more before he could reach a full opinion.

Yes...i think i was one of the few pointing out these things and their implications from the get-go, but hey, three zillion postings and yet another correspondence with Leander later, at least now it is beginning to sink in to some of the die-hards brains...

The most interesting observation we can make, though, lies in the fact that the verdicts “very strong support”, “strong support”, “support” and “some support” were never open to Leander! Since he suffered from a combination of too few samples + only photocopies, there were three options only open to him: “No certain statement can be made in the question of identity, but the observations made speak mostly for”, “No certain statement can be made in the question of identity, but the possibility is at hand that” and “No certain statement can be made in the question of identity, but it cannot be excluded”.

Right. So, having so few options open to him definitely puts to bed the silly theory that we have the best, most wonderful, stupendous etc etc professional analysis on which to base our considersations of a match between Hutch the witness and Topping the man if the deficiencies of material don't even allow him to say he has "some support" for an identification.

Finally.

One is relieved. The 360 degree turnaround here in the interpretation of the extent of Leander's support for a match is most impressive. But i am glad this is at last getting through to some of us.

Some retractions may also be in order, since we were told quite often that photocopies were in fact not deficient in any sense as materials on which to base a document analysis. Even when the expert told us quite clearly that they were.