The Leander Analysis

[babybird67]

no knowledge has been added as far as i can see..

we are back where we were at the first post in which Leander's view that he could not establish anything without looking at the original documents was expressed...

we still know that no identification can be or has been established...

why is this so difficult to grasp???

[Fisherman]

Babybird writes:

"no knowledge has been added as far as i can see.."

But the full manual regarding the differing verdicts used by the SKL has been published - how could that represent "no knowledge"?

"we are back where we were at the first post in which Leander's view that he could not establish anything without looking at the original documents was expressed..."

He never expressed that nothing could be established, Babybird. Nothing that would hold up in court could be established, that is true - but that does not mean that he could not work from the copies and give his verdict on the likeness as assessed from purely two-dimensional material. He, in fact, was able to establish a grading on a scale, and to further add nuances telling us that the likeness was obvious enough for him to reach the conclusion that he would be surprised if the originator of the signatures were not one and the same.
Do you think that equals that nothing could be established? I don´t.

"we still know that no identification can be or has been established..."

Correct. It would not hold up enough for a court. It much resembles, though, the type of case where it is said that a "police solution" exists - but where the evidence involved is not enough to get a conviction.

"why is this so difficult to grasp???"

I could ask the same thing. It is quite simple really: There are two levels involved in Leanders verdict. The first is the one attached to the manual by which he works, and where he tells us that the material involved only allows for a verdict of "”No certainty can be reached in the question of identity, but it cannot be excluded that”, and the second one is the level where he tells us that this does in no way mean that he does not find the signatures alike. In fact, they are so similar to his eyes that he expects that WHEN the added evidence arives, it will confirm what he has settled on suspecting: That the Dorset Street witness and Toppy was the same man. Until that evidence arrives, though, he cannot firmly and professionally conclude it.
So yes, it IS simple enough.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

The fact that I added knowledge, Ben. I published the full manual used by the SKL in errands like this, and now any poster who wants to see how Leander works and with what tools, can do so

Thanks for that, Fish.

Slightly astonished that you contacted the man for the sixth time, but at least it has yielded productive results this time. All due credit to you for that, of course, but what you absolutely must not do now is start instructing all and sundry as to what Leander "means" and how it supposedly supports the theory that you subscribed to from the outset. Just don't bother, since all it does is lay the foundations for another repetetive debate.

”The lowest, most careful expression on the positive side in a scale" is syntactically rather odd, but that is doubtless due to a translation and certainly not the fault of anyone - you or Leander. It is also an acceptable synonym of the expression "cannot be ruled out", since you can be positive about something without declaring it probable. As for all this stuff about no differences being detected other than "amplitude", can I ask what this is intended to convey in this context? Because Leander was quite specific in his listing of the differences in his first letter.

and ”cannot be excluded” belongs to the three examples of identity.

Well, no.

"Cannot be excluded" belongs in the category described by Leander himself:

"In certain cases there may, though, be tendencies in one direction or the other"

This is a blatant lie, and it will be reported to the managers of the boards.

Go on, then.

I'll happily elaborate if I'm taken to task about it. You cannot inform Leander about the number of viable George Hutchinsons "in the area" at the time of the murders when you have absolutely no idea of that number. You may not have intentionally misled him or supplied bogus information, but erroneous it certainly was, and as such, it should not have been supplied to Leander.

Other than this I will only once again point out that it is a very strange attitude towards the gathering of knowledge to opt for no gathering at all

It isn't the gathering of knowledge that I object to.

I object to the pseudo-triumphalist claim that the knowledge gathered has somehow lent weight to the conclusion you already jumped to. Best to leave the "interpretation" to others rather than insisting what Leander meant. I have contacted Iremonger, but discovered that you had done the same thing almost simultaneously. I don't criticise you for this, since you weren't to know, but it's little wonder that our combined efforts scared her off. She didn't "rule out" a match to my knowledge - she simply expressed the opinion that they weren't written by the same hand.

Your pursuit of information is admirable.

Your insistence on what we must conclude from the information is altogether less so.

Best regards,
Ben

[Ben]

He, in fact, was able to establish a grading on a scale, and to further add nuances telling us that the likeness was obvious enough for him to reach the conclusion that he would be surprised if the originator of the signatures were not one and the same.

You see, this is the sort of thing I'd cut back on, since I've raised my valid objections to it on a number of occasions, chiefly on the grounds that Leander's first post conveyed no such impression, nor did his latest for that matter. You just keep repeating it over and over as though there was never any objection to it, and that's where the antagonism kicks in.

It much resembles, though, the type of case where it is said that a "police solution" exists - but where the evidence involved is not enough to get a conviction.

No, it doesn't.

It resembles the type of case where the judgement is squarely on the fence, where neither a match, nor a non-match is declared. Totally neutral.

In fact, they are so similar to his eyes that he expects that WHEN the added evidence arives, it will confirm what he has settled on suspecting: That the Dorset Street witness and Toppy was the same man. Until that evidence arrives, though

But again, Babybird and I (and anyone else) is entitled to reject that on the grounds that it did not reflect the neutrality of his initial viewpoint. It rather annoys me that you seem hell-bent on repeating the "Leander thinks we have a match" mantra after it has been thrashed out countless times already, with several people objecting to it everytime. Don't use the acquisition of information as an excuse for repeating previously challeneged assertions.

Please?

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

Babybird writes:

"no knowledge has been added as far as i can see.."

But the full manual regarding the differing verdicts used by the SKL has been published - how could that represent "no knowledge"?

Because, Fish, it has no bearing whatsoever on the facts of the matter which are that Leander was unable to examine the documents he would need to complete a professional analysis and give a professional opinion, which, he said, was NOT POSSIBLE...therefore he cautioned from the beginning to take his comments as "spontaneous" and "personal". The grading system of his PROFESSIONAL opinions is not relevant where he is specifically explaining that the opinion he is offering is a personal as opposed to a professional one. Furthermore, even if we look at the grading system, we can ALL see that where his comments would have been graded fit perfectly into his initial comments which stated quite clearly that there were differences/similarities and that it was his opinion that a match could not be ruled out. We are still at that point. The publication of the grading system has not changed anything. We are no further in identifying Toppy with Hutch...no new knowledge has been contributed since we are discussing the identification of Toppy with Hutch, not the pros and cons of the SKL grading system. I could post up the Boy Scout's Code of Conduct if you are after new knowledge...it wouldn't be relevant to the issue of whether Toppy was Hutch though would it?

He never expressed that nothing could be established, Babybird. Nothing that would hold up in court could be established, that is true - but that does not mean that he could not work from the copies and give his verdict on the likeness as assessed from purely two-dimensional material. He, in fact, was able to establish a grading on a scale, and to further add nuances telling us that the likeness was obvious enough for him to reach the conclusion that he would be surprised if the originator of the signatures were not one and the same.
Do you think that equals that nothing could be established? I don´t.

What has been established then Fish? Can we say with absolute certainty Toppy was Hutch? I don't think so. Do you disagree? I am trying to be so careful here...what do you actually think? Has an identification been established, in your opinion? Is that opinion based on Leander's "personal" "spontaneous" comments? As far as i know, we werent asking him to establish something that would stand up in court, unless someone is after digging Toppy up and charging him with something post mortem.

So...yes...in regards the fundamental issue we are all concerned with - can we establish that the witness Hutch was actually a man we can identify from the Census as George William Topping Hutchinson...NOTHING has been established, other than he could be, he could not be...WE DON'T KNOW. If you feel something contrary to this HAS been established, please say so plainly, so that we can discuss why you feel this has been established on the basis of the current evidence.

"we still know that no identification can be or has been established..."

Correct.

Yes Fish i know i am correct. I've been saying this consistently on this issue...over and over...yet still some people have a fundamental problem acknowledging this. This, however, seems to conflict with what you say above, in that you are saying something HAS been established...what, exactly, has been established in your opinion Fish? I really am curious to know.

I could ask the same thing. It is quite simple really: There are two levels involved in Leanders verdict. The first is the one attached to the manual by which he works, and where he tells us that the material involved only allows for a verdict of "”No certainty can be reached in the question of identity, but it cannot be excluded that”, and the second one is the level where he tells us that this does in no way mean that he does not find the signatures alike. In fact, they are so similar to his eyes that he expects that WHEN the added evidence arives, it will confirm what he has settled on suspecting: That the Dorset Street witness and Toppy was the same man. Until that evidence arrives, though, he cannot firmly and professionally conclude it.

Utter rubbish. You want to have it both ways. You want to agree with logic and sense and agree that actually NO identification has been made. Then you want to twist that further than the bounds of what meanings signify and what Leander actually said, into something along the lines of, although there hasnt been identification, there has been really, secretly, honest...and you cannot say "WHEN the added evidence arrives"...there may not ever be any new evidence. Thus, listen to Leander when he tells you HE DOES NOT KNOW! HE CANNOT CONCLUDE ANYTHING EITHER FROM THE QUALITY OR PARSITY OF MATERIALS.

Seriously Fish i worry about you.
So yes, it IS simple enough.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Go on, then. I'll happily elaborate if I'm taken to task about it. You cannot inform Leander about the number of viable George Hutchinsons in the East End at the time of the murders when you have absolutely no idea of that number. You may not have intentionally misled him or supplied bogus information, but erroneous it certainly was, and as such, it should not have been supplied to Leander."

The discussion that occurred between us at the time was one where we both agreed that IF we were dealing with a limited number of George Hutchinsons, then that would have a huge impact on how to read things.
The report has already been made. If it leads to a friendlier tone on your behalf, I am happy about it. If not, there is very little I can do about it but to report you again whenever you step over the line.

"It isn't the gathering of knowledge that I object to.
I object to the pseudo-triumphalist claim that the knowledge gathered has somehow lent weight to the conclusion you already jumped to. Best to leave the "interpretation" to others rather than insisting what Leander meant."

There is no pseudo- triumph involved, here, Ben - other than, perhaps, in your imagination. Nor is there any need to interpret the wording that Leander would be surprised if it was not a genuine match - it speaks for itself. What I am doing, however, is opposing your wiew that he leant to neither side from the beginning, for that he obviously did. The possibility to have that clad in words were few as long as he kept himself to the rules of the manual, for it only allowed for the institutionalized phrasin "cannot be excluded". But the nuancing he has provided afterwards - something that is opened up for by the manual, probably just because of the need to eradicate misconceptions - has been very clear in telling us that the likeness is there.

"I have contacted Iremonger, but discovered that you had done the same thing almost simultaneously. I don't criticise you for this, since you weren't to know, but it's little wonder that our combined efforts scared her off."

That was a combined e-mail effort, Ben - but there is always the phone number. If you call her, I won´t. Fido tells us that she is quite an amiable lady, so I fail to see why she should not offer something, at least. Maybe the WADE journal has something kept in their offices? Whatever, it would look tremendeously good on your behalf if you did not just sit tight and claim that Iremonger cannot be questioned, for Leanders investigation points to nothing else but the fact that se OUGHT to be. And if there is an easy solution to this endless row, let´s pounce on it! It could lie in the originals, though I much doubt that myself, and it could lie in using the wrong material, something I think is far more likely. And yes, that is only my personal wiew, and I fully know and understand that you dislike even the suggestion. That is why we should try and put an end to suggestions and rows and such by actually finding out.
It can also be said, Ben, and I know that you will realize the logic of it, although there is no need for you to like that logic, that it could look on your behalf as if you did not WANT to find out from Iremonger what applies and what does not apply. As long as you don´t ask, you can´t be faulted, and why take the risk?
That was a risk I took when the discussion about what "cannot be ruled out" surfaced; I thought Leander was telling us about a perceived match, and you thought he was merely saying it could be either way, and that he did not favour any leaning towards any side.
Icould have come up empty-handed that time over, but it would not have mattered to me, since I was after the truth, no matter which versionit supported.
Maybe the time has come for you to make the jump too, Ben.

Just read this passage:

"again, Babybird and I (and anyone else) is entitled to reject that on the grounds that it did not reflect the neutrality of his initial viewpoint"

But that "neutrality" was something you interpreted, Ben! And you have just spent a whole post warning me about interpretations, since they may be wrong. And indeed, to interpret a total neutrality into Leanders first post WAS wrong, as effectively showed by the manual and by Leanders later additions.

Go for Iremonger, Ben - that is my advice, and I can see no god objections against it whatsoever.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Babybird!

You write:

"HE DOES NOT KNOW! HE CANNOT CONCLUDE ANYTHING EITHER FROM THE QUALITY OR PARSITY OF MATERIALS."

He does not "know", that is correct. He has not been provided with enough material and he has not seen the originals.
But he has looked at the photocopies, and that has enabled him to say that as far as they can provide a ground for judgement, that judgement on his behalf is that he would be surprised if we do not have a match.

Once again, his verdict is worded on the manual level AND on a more nuanced, personal level, as encouraged by the manual where there is a need for such nuancing. Neither of these parametres swear against each other.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

The discussion that occurred between us at the time was one where we both agreed that IF we were dealing with a limited number of George Hutchinsons, then that would have a huge impact on how to read things.

Well, I'm afraid that wasn't made clear the first time. I'm really not sure quite why you felt the need to "report" me, since I never accused you of deliberately supplying him with information that you knew to be false. I only observed that the information is "bogus and misleading", which it is, regrettably. Maybe I should report you for comparing me to Hitler or accusing me of "stepping on dead people"?

Nor is there any need to interpret the wording that Leander would be surprised if it was not a genuine match - it speaks for itself

Once again - and a trillion more times if necessary - I utterly reject the professed "surprise" if it were not a genuine match since that view is in stark contrast to his initial neutral stance. He couldn't possibly subscribe to both stances simultaneously, so I'm inclined to the view that he fobbed you off a bit after you contacted him a few too many times. I don't like having to make these determinations, but there's no rational alternative short of booting Leander out, and when you're so insistent on repeating the above mantra as though it were never objected to, it does rattle my cage somewhat.

I am doing, however, is opposing your wiew that he leant to neither side from the beginning, for that he obviously did.

You're spoiling for a scrap, Fisherman, is what you're doing.

You've already opposed my view over the course of 300 pages, and I re-opposed your "opposition" in turn. What could possibly be your motivation for repeating that argument again, unless you were looking for a fight? Don't pretend it's because you're only in pursuit of new information. If that was your sole intention, you could have provided the information and left it to others to "interpret". We're big boys and girls here, and don't need your help to do that. Instead you've chosen the rather more transparent tactic of "See? Just what I concluded all along!" and are now registering surprise that it's pissing a few people off.

But the nuancing he has provided afterwards - something that is opened up for by the manual, probably just because of the need to eradicate misconceptions - has been very clear in telling us that the likeness is there.

He also said that "against" the likeness, there are differences, but the differences were insufficient to rule the possibility of a match out. I mean, he couldn't be more neutral if you paid him.

If you call her, I won´t. Fido tells us that she is quite an amiable lady, so I fail to see why she should not offer something, at least.

I may do so, Fish, although I've privately been advised against it on account of her advanced age. If she wasn't inclined to respond via email, it might be a little brash and thrusting to avoid taking the hint and persist in putting her on the spot anyway, but we're all different, I guess. Personally, I found the collective observations of Messrs. Menges, Hinton, Begg and Fido to have been most informative as far as Iremonger's findings are concerned.

It could lie in the originals, though I much doubt that myself, and it could lie in using the wrong material, something I think is far more likely. And yes, that is only my personal wiew, and I fully know and understand that you dislike even the suggestion.

That's because it's a fallacious suggestion: that a document examiner accidentally compared a modern FRC registrar's handwriting with the Hutchinson statement. I've long since realised, though, that the suggestion is far too silly even for me to get my knickers in a twist when I hear it touted.

It can also be said, Ben, and I know that you will realize the logic of it, although there is no need for you to like that logic, that it could look on your behalf as if you did not WANT to find out from Iremonger

You can believe that if you wish, but it would be an odd rationalisation since I've already told you that I've contacted Sue Iremonger.

But that "neutrality" was something you interpreted, Ben! And you have just spent a whole post warning me about interpretations, since they may be wrong.

Yes, but the difference is that I don't generally kick-start debates again by reminding everyone what my interpretation is. You're entitled to your interpretation and I'm entitled to mine, and we've thrashed out those differing interpretations for pages and pages now. It's probably high time we agreed to disagree, but that will never happen as long as you keep making irritating remarks akin to:

And indeed, to interpret a total neutrality into Leanders first post WAS wrong, as effectively showed by the manual and by Leanders later additions.

No, it wasn't wrong. My interpretation was right, as borne out by Leander's first and latest observations. My respect for his integrity and professionalism was such that his initial neutral stance didn't need any further clarification.

that judgement on his behalf is that he would be surprised if we do not have a match.

Don't keep saying it, otherwise it just comes across as though your primary incentive behind reigniting this thread was to get an opportunity to repeat that nonsense, which I still reject.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"I'm really not sure quite why you felt the need to "report" me"

The you are entitled to an explanation, Ben. It lies in the fact that you used expressions like "That’s arse-paralysingly nauseating nonsense", told me that Leanders words were "grotesquely skewed" and followed it up by claiming that I allegedly "supplied him with bogus and misleading information", which, taken together, points very much to inappropriate behavior on my behalf.

What you refer to as "bogus" and "misleading" was that I told Leander that we would have a case of a very limited number of George Hutchinsons in the East end at the relevant time, and he agreed that if this was the case, it would become even more probable that the signatures were by the same man.

Now, Ben, we do actually know that the number of George Hutchinsons WAS limited - exactly HOW limited, we do not know. Sam speaks of a handful, maybe ten. Maybe it was in fact twenty. Allowing for a HUGE G H swarming that autumn, we could have been dealing with perhaps a hundred.
If so, it would STILL apply that it would have an almighty impact on any judgement on the signatures! And seriously, Ben - we both know that a hundred George Hutchinsons would not have been about at that time and place. It would be interesting to see how many they were in the kingdom as a whole - less, perhaps, than a thousand?

So, we were having a discussion on theoretical grounds, asking ourselves would it have an impact on the issue IF we worked from the assumption that there were not very many George Hutchinsons around, and Leander agreed with me that it would have a huge impact.

Such a discussion is a very relevant one, and saying that the number of Hutchinsons was limited was - very far from being "bogus" - quite, quite true.

That is why I reported you.

As for the rest of your post, it only takes us round in circles and I will not respond to any of it. I will, though, once again urge you to get on the phone to Sue Iremonger and find out all you can find out on the issue, thus perhaps enabling us to move forward instead of in circles.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I apologise for my "arse-paralysingly nauseating nonsense" remark, Fisherman. It was a bit OTT, I admit, although I thought it was an indelicately phrased attack on the theory, rather than your character.

What you refer to as "bogus" and "misleading" was that I told Leander that we may have a cese of a very limited number of George Hutchinsons in the East end at the relevant time

Ah, okay. It didn't read that way first time around, though. I had formed the impression that you had told Leander that the number of George Hutchinson's living "in the area" at the time was limited or that there was a "relative dearth" of them. Relative to what is not made clear, but I know from earlier census (mainly 1891) findings and trips to the FRC that there were certainly George Hutchinsons living in the East End whose names and signatures have not yet been found in 1911.

If so, it would STILL apply that it would have an almighty impact on any judgement on the signatures!

That's if George Hutchinson wasn't an alias. If it was, the impact wouldn't be so nearly so "almighty" since the number of potential candidates can be expanded to encompass many thousands.

My terminology may have been excessively robust, but it still wasn't a good idea to use expressions such as "relative dearth" when communicating with Leander because that might imply that there was a dearth in relation to the average number of "George Hutchinson's" per district, for example.

I still think "reporting" me was a bit excessive.

Best regards,
Ben

[Jane Coram]

Hi,

Not going to get involved in the debate, but can I just ask a couple of questions that may have already been answered, but if so I can't find them in all the pages of posts!

Firstly, were all the signatures supplied to the examiner actual size? By this, I mean their original size, with no variation whatsoever in sizing.

Also were they supplied in the context of the original document - that is - in situ, so that the slope and angle could be compared with the page and the rest of the text.

Many thanks.

Jane

xxxx

[Ben]

Good to see you here, Jane!

The signatures submitted to the examiner did not reflect their actual size. They were presented as the same size, but in reality, the signatures appended to the Hutchinson statement were considerably larger than the 1911 census entries. I don't believe any of the supplied signatures were presented in the context of the full document, i.e. the rest of the page, but I'm happy to stand corrected if anyone knows otherwise.

All the best,
Ben x

[babybird67]

Babybird!

You write:

"HE DOES NOT KNOW! HE CANNOT CONCLUDE ANYTHING EITHER FROM THE QUALITY OR PARSITY OF MATERIALS."

He does not "know", that is correct. He has not been provided with enough material and he has not seen the originals.

Correct. So debate as to whether THE ORIGINAL MATERIALS would support a match, possible match, probable match, or otherwise, is redundant.

Therefore, we are left without any professional guidance from Leander whatsoever...what we are left with are "spontaneous" and "personal" comments, much in line with everyone else who has posted here.

Conclusion...we do not know.

Accept it. Embrace it. True knowledge is freeing.

[babybird67]

Good to see you here, Jane!

The signatures submitted to the examiner did not reflect their actual size. They were presented as the same size, but in reality, the signatures appended to the Hutchinson statement were considerably larger than the 1911 census entries. I don't believe any of the supplied signatures were presented in the context of the full document, i.e. the rest of the page, but I'm happy to stand corrected if anyone knows otherwise.

All the best,
Ben x

That was one of my concerns, Ben, that the signatures had been technically modified to perhaps enable a more positive interpretation of their similarities. I understand the size of the signatures is a significant difference. I am worried also about how any hiatus have possibly been minimised and whether the angles of the writing on the originals have been authentically replicated. Not forgetting Garry's excellent point about the omission of the middle names also.

(I'm not suggesting this has been done to deliberately mislead...it seems just to have been the effect of the efforts of assembling them in a comparable column)

[Fisherman]

Babybird:

"we are left without any professional guidance from Leander whatsoever..."

We are left with what Leander could make out of the two-dimensional copies, Babybird: and that involved a comparison of the general appearance, style elements, individual letters, level of writing skills etcetera.

If you want to regard such a comparison made by a top authority as unprofessional, you are welcome to that wiew. My guess, though, is that most people will read in an unprofessionality on your own behalf in it all, and settle for Leanders own verdict: No full examination can be made (by anybody, as a matter of fact) of the material, since it is too small, but he COULD use his vast knowledge to compare the appartion of the signatures in two dimensions, and that led him to the conclusion that he would be surprised if added evidence (such as the originals, for example, or more signatures) would change his mindset of a match. He clearly also added that his verdict went to show that there were no differences involved in the signatures he compared, other than in amplitude.

If you want to rule it useless, please go ahead, but please allow those who regard it sensible to listen to an authority like Leander, to lend weight to his judgement. There are those of us who think that when a man of Leanders position and knowledge comments on a signature comparison, weighing in numerous elements in his judgement, then that judgement will contain a whole lot of professionalism and experience. More, in fact, than any of us can offer, reasonably.

The best,
Fisherman