The Leander Analysis

[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

[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

[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

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"I can see the attraction of a confirmed identity"

Just to put things clear, Jane; in my case, it is not any question of seeing the "attraction" in a confirmed identity that has governed my stance. Had this been the case, I could just as well have said that Fleming must have been the Ripper, based on the evidence - because I found the idea of identifying the Ripper "attractive". Iīm sure that there are those who like to do their homework in that manner, but I donīt recommend it.

My stance on the signatures is not about attraction at all. It is about factualities - the factuality that the signatures are very much alike (as supported by Leanders assertion that they belong to a grading that is best described as a comparison where the only discernable differences lie in the amplitude of the expressions), the factuality that, resonably, there were only a very small amount of George Hutchinsons about in that space of time and geography and the factuality that we have Toppys son on record, telling us that his father WAS the witness.

Others are perfectly free to disagree with all of these three parametres (although I will say that the protests more often than not contain thoughts that I believe would have been more fit in "Alice in Wonderland" than in this discussion - but that, once again, is of course just me...), but that does in no way mean that my thinking and assessment is in any way guided by me being "attracted" by the thought of finding an answer to the Hutchinson riddle. I can assure you that even when I include all the elements that - adjusting to your vocabulary here - are "unattractive", I am still left with the inescapable impression that anything but a genuine match would be sensational, no more, no less.
It is as honest an evaluation as I can make, and I think "honest" will prevail over "attractive" in any logical thinking, Jane. If other peoples logic lead them do a different stance, so be it. And it may be considered that it could be quite attractive for me to join these other people, in order to bring an end to what has sometimes been a very unpleasant debate.
I could see the attraction in such a move, believe me! But since I can see no logic in it, I will not take that step ON THE EXISTING EVIDENCE. Once I find evidence that urges me to reconsider my stance, though, it will be done in a jiffy.

The best, Jane!
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Hello Fisherman...

I'm sorry if my use of the word 'attractive' has offended you -I was referring to myself, not to anyone else.

I have made no comment on how you have reached your conclusions, and was really only speaking in general terms about debate - this one being in context.

I know what the arguments are, and I'm sure those who engage with them are not done yet. You are quite entitled to your view, Fisherman, as are we all - it's a feature of modern democracy.

I would advocate all respecting each other's views, personally - it's the best way by far to make progress imo.

Have a nice day!

Best wishes

jane x

[Ben]

Just to clarify for any newcomers. Those of us who are not in the Toppy as Hutch camp see all things combined, signatures, names, locations, relations, all things and putting them together come up with the conclusion that Toppy was unlikely to have been Hutch. We use unlikely 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 unlikely, or even very unlikely, but never a sure thing... yet.

Hi Fish,

the factuality that the signatures are very much alike

Please don't do this all over again. There's is no "factuality" involved in the above assertion. Did Leander ever suggest that his comments should be construed as a "factuality"? No, he said they should be construed as a "spontaneous comment", so it makes sense - and is only respectful - to treat them as such. Of course, Leander never stated that the signatures were "very much" alike, so it's all rather a moot point.

as supported by Leanders assertion that they belong to a grading that is best described as a comparison where the only discernable differences lie in the amplitude of the expressions

There are only so many times you can go on repeating this statement without explaining what it means.

Dictionary.Com gives the following relevant definitions for "amplitude":

1. the state or quality of being ample, esp. as to breadth or width; largeness; greatness of extent.
2. large or full measure; abundance; copiousness.
3. mental range, scope, or capacity.

It doesn't matter which definition you do with, but I'd encourage you to go back to Leander's original "spontaneous comment", look at the specific differences he listed and ask yourself how many of them have anything to do with "amplitude". I think you'll find that "the only discernable differences lie in the amplitude of the expressions" is a provably false statement.

although I will say that the protests more often than not contain thoughts that I believe would have been more fit in "Alice in Wonderland" than in this discussion...

...Which isn't a very courteous way of describing the arguments put forward by those who disagree with you, but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the people who usually level such accusations are the same people who claim that any emerging evidence somehow lends support for the conclusion that they insisted must be correct from the outset.

Best regards,
Ben

[babybird67]

although I will say that the protests more often than not contain thoughts that I believe would have been more fit in "Alice in Wonderland" than in this discussion...

(Fish)

...Which isn't a very courteous way of describing the arguments put forward by those who disagree with you, but I guess we shouldn't be surprised that the people who usually level such accusations are the same people who claim that any emerging evidence somehow lends support for the conclusion that they insisted must be correct from the outset.

Best regards,
Ben

Don't worry about it Ben. It's quite obvious Fish is the one more comfortable in the land of fantasy fiction...otherwise he would have taken the bull by the horns by now and at least attempted to answer some of the factual, logical points that i have put to him...instead of completely ignoring me and hoping the reality of the situation as regards Toppy/Hutch will just go away...

and here was me thinking these boards were for discussing things...dear oh dear...

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"I'm sorry if my use of the word 'attractive' has offended you -I was referring to myself, not to anyone else."

Ah, Jane - then all is good and well!

Ben, Babybird - Iīll leave you uncommented upon, for the obvious reason that we are once again moving in circles if we proceed.

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Jolly Good...

Although reading my post of this morning again, I'm not really sure why any would have taken umbrage in the first place?

I don't view it as inflammatory - rather neutral, if anything.

I hadn't said, but will now in passing - the easiest solution isn't always or necessarily the best or right one. I may find the idea of certain idenfication attractive, but that shouldn't mean that I accept it without scrutiny - I wouldn't dream of telling anybody else what to think or how to think it, but for myself, I'd rather be sure than go off half-cocked (so to speak)



Best to all

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Once again, Jane - all IS good and well! I am not of British descent, and my native language is Swedish. Maybe I somehow misinterpreted your post. The one thing I needed to press was that my stance on the signatures was never lead on by my finding it an "attractive" idea to see the Hutchinson riddle solved. Such a term lends itself very well to describing somebody jumping the gun when it comes to assessing the evidence involved, and too hastily opting for a decision.

You have declared that you never aimed to point anybody out in any respect, and that is more than enough to me. If I have misread you and if you think I have somehow misrepresented you, I am sorry.

The best,
Fisherman

[Fisherman]

Ben!

I just noticed that you once again bring up the subject of "amplitude". To begin with, I wish to state that the Swedish expression used by Leander was "amplitud", so he is using a word that we have lent from abroad, and there can be little or no doubt that my translation is correct: "amplitude" would be the exact word we are dealing with.

My interpretation of it in this context would be that Leander recognizes that we can identify two different types of differences inbetween the elements in two samples of handwriting. These types would be differences in A/ structure and differences in B/ amplitude. The former type (A) would point to differences that help us to tell two handstyles apart - differences that are hard to bridge, when looking for a match. One such thing would perhaps be if we have one writer who writes with a leaning to the left, and another that writes with a leaning towards the right; to me, that would tell me that we were in all probability dealing with different originators.
If there was just a slight difference, though, in the angle to, say, the left in two samples, then we would be dealing with a difference in (B) amplitude - basically we have the same thing but expression shows a difference just the same.

Now, Ben, you may disagree with this, and you are welcome to do so. But before you tell me that I am wrong - if that is what you are pondering telling me - I suggest that we never make it an issue at all. Instead, if you DO disagree, letīs ask Leander himself, and find out! And you are quite welcome to formulate the question yourself, if you donīt trust that I could do it in a satisfactory manner.

The problem we are going to have to deal with, Ben, is that you have over and over again stated that I should not try and interpret Leander, and you have time and time again stated that when I do so, I am wrong.
That, of course, means that I find it somewhat strange that you ask me about the meaning of "amplitude" in the context given - but since you did, I obliged.

Problem number two arises as we realize that we have before disagreed on what Leander actually have meant in a number of questions. For example, after his first post, I said that I was of the meaning that Leander was positive to the idea of a possible match, whereas you stated that he had been no such thing; according to you, he had been totally neutral.
We disagreed, and had a longish exchange of "He did", "No, he didnīt", "He did", "No, he didnīt", "He did", "No, he didnīt", "He did", "No, he didnīt", up til the point where I said "Okay, so letīs ask him". I asked him, but when he confirmed that he HAD been positive, you refused to recognize it. You stated that he could not be allowed to move away from his original stance of neutrality.
Interestingly, that neutrality was your interpretation of the post (and you ask me not to interpret...!), whereas I clearly said from the outset that I saw it in a totally different light.

So we were left with Leander confirming my wiew - and you disallowing his confirmation. You have even gone so far as to tell me that when he said that he DID think that the match was a good one (worded in the fashion that he would be surprised if it was not a match, and in the fashion that he expected that any forthcoming evidence would confirm his suggestion), he did so just to get rid of me.

That, among other things is where I mean we enter Wonderland, holding Alice firmly by the hand.
Other pointers in this direction is that when Leander said that he would be surprised if it was not a match, I was bold enough to say that Leander thought the match a probable one. This you would not allow - since he had never used the exact word "probable"...?!
But if we do not realize that probable is exactly what he means when he says that a non-match would be a surprise to him, then we are delving even deeper into Alicesīrabbit-hole - it all becomes a very twisted game with words, and it starts to defy logic, Carroll-wise.
I would like to take the opportunity to add that when I use the comparison with "Alice in Wonderland", I fully realize that it can be regarded as uncourteous, but to convey that impression is not my purpose. Instead I wish to point to my total and utter disbelief at some of the reactions that have followed on my reporting Leanders generous contributions.

But enough of this, now - as should be clear by now, I detest the thought of this issue going any laps further in the old circle-shape of the 1911 thread! I urge you, Ben, to formulate any question of yours that may explain any of the differing issues we are having problems to agree on, when it comes to what Leander said and meant. After that, if you feel that I would in any respect not be an appropriate messenger in communicating with Leander, I will provide you with his e-mail address in a personal PM, and you can ask the questions yourself. I will, of course need to see how you formulated yourself, and how Leander worded his answers. But since we will both have his address, we can both double-check what is said. I have offered this before, but you have so far not used it.

If, on the other hand, you feel that I - having spoken to Leander on numerous occasions - am a functioning source, I will be most happy to convey any questions you may have to him. You can have his address just the same, and so you can also double-check what goes down, and how I portray it.

Monday, though, is the first date available to us, since he does not work weekends, if not especially called for. The last time over I contacted him, he had just returned from a three-week vacation, so he should be in place come Monday.

This is as fair an offer as you are ever going to get when it comes to understanding what governed what Frank Leander said and what he meant by it. It is also a terrific opportunity to chat with one of the finest men of the trade of forensic document examination. He is a very friendly man, and though quoting him out here has brought my a good deal of headaches, I am quite pleased to have made his aquaintance.

The best, Ben!
Fisherman

[Ben]

Hi Fish,

Didn't think you'd be content somehow to leave my post "uncommented on".

My interpretation of it in this context

Kill the motor there, Fish.

"Interpretation" is precisely what has precipitated so many of these acrimonious debates over semantics, so let us avoid the fatal trap of deciding what Leander might have "meant" and examine the indisputed definitions of the words he actually used. Here, again, is what we get for "amplitude":

1. the state or quality of being ample, esp. as to breadth or width; largeness; greatness of extent.
2. large or full measure; abundance; copiousness.
3. mental range, scope, or capacity.

Now, let's return to the individual differences Leander listed in his first neutral post:

differences in certain liftings of the pen (?)

This has nothing whatsoever to do with amplitude, so already we've successfully refuted the statement you keep making that "the only discernable differences lie in the amplitude of the expressions". But in addition, we have:

the proportions of the tch-group

Well, that's a little closer, but he's arguing that the proportions within the "tch" group in the statement signatures are different to the proportions within the "tch" group in the Toppy signatures.

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.

Nothing whatsoever to do with "amplitude" and everything to do with structure, despite your assurance that there were no structural differences. That's if we're taking on board what "amplitude" actually means, rather than telling us that we have yet another example of a department changing age-old unambiguous expressions for their own ends and not telling anyone about it unless specifically asked for clarification, but you'll need to contact Leander for the seventh time if that card is to be played again.

But before you tell me that I am wrong - if that is what you are pondering telling me - I suggest that we never make it an issue at all. Instead, if you DO disagree, letīs ask Leander himself, and find out!

Not this again. Not the whole "If you disagree, don't bother posting, just let me have the last word on the issue" silliness, please. If that didn't work the last time, you really shouldn't be surprised if it doesn't fly this time either. The only reason I asked what you understood by the term "amplitude" is that I suspected it may have been a translation error. You've now assured me that no such error occured, and that "amplitude" was correctly translated. Fair enough, thanks for clarifying, but I'm afraid it means we can dispense with the suggestion that Leander detected no differences other than those concerning amplitude. That simply isn't the case.

I asked him, but when he confirmed that he HAD been positive, you refused to recognize it.

Well, no, that's your interesting interpretation (again) of events. As far as I'm concerned, he remained neutral throughout. The difference was that I was able to highlight his neutrality by quoting him verbatim while you were busy trying to convince us of what you thought he meant. It was most emphatically not the case that he confirmed the unnacceptably creative interpretations that you were placing on his words, and there wasn't the slightest hint that he considered anything "probable".

You have even gone so far as to tell me that when he said that he DID think that the match was a good one (worded in the fashion that he would be surprised if it was not a match, and in the fashion that he expected that any forthcoming evidence would confirm his suggestion), he did so just to get rid of me.

I don't need to go very "far" at all to arrive at that conclusion, since it's inescapable. You cannot be surprised if the match turned out to be genuine but at the same time register the unambiguous neutrality of his first letter. That is impossible, which is why I strongly suspect he fobbed you off. He even said at one point that he didn't wish to elaborate further, but you compelled him to do so anyway. He clearly picked up on the fact that you were so pro-Toppy that he'd only be left alone if he registered more enthusiasm for the idea, so he appeased a nuisance. I would do the same, especially if I had nothing to lose by doing so.

If you think there's anything remotely unusual or "Carrollian" about that, then I'm afraid it's you who might need to lay off the opium.

But if we do not realize that probable is exactly what he means

That wasn't exactly what he means. He used the expression "cannot be ruled" out which is irrefutably neutral, and the rest of his letter registered that same neutrality. Indeed, after bothering the man for the sixth bloody time, he actually gave you his workings-out, where he made clear once and for all that "cannot be ruled out/excluded" is the appropriate expression for conclusions where there are "tendencies in one direction or the other". I mean, really, you use every opportunity to repeat these previously disputed claims, and I just keep giving you the same objections. If you're really so averse to going round in circles, then for pity's sake don't keep repeating them. It's not as if you don't know precisely how I'm going to react.

But enough of this, now

Okay. Sounds good. Unless....!

And thanks, but I don't need to contact Leander. I'd only need to do that if he didn't make himself perfectly clear (as befitting an expert) the first time, but blissfully, that wasn't the case.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Ben, you DO need to contact Frank Leander. You need to ask him a number of questions, one of them being:
"Frank, in your first post you wrote that a match could not be excluded. In a later post you wrote that you would be surprised if a match was not at hand.
I find these two posts hard to reconciliate with each other, and so I would like to ask you if you could elaborate on things and explain what I find inexplicable"

...and that is just one of the questions you need an answer to.

Frank Leander can explain what "amplitude" means in the context we are dealing with.

He can explain exactly what it is that governs what grade a comparison is given.

He can tell you if he is likely to start telling lies just to get rid of inquisitive people.

...and much, much more. He is there, he is at hand. He is a generous nature and he knows his job.

So either you stick with your INTERPRETATION of what he said, or you find out EXACTLY what he meant. If you donīt use this opportunity, it will look kind of odd, to me at the very least. It will look as if you had chosen to pick the bits and pieces you are more happy about, as if you prefer a total laymans (yours) perspective on things and as if you are afraid to hear Leanders version of things. Kind of like the same thing that applies when you make a guess that Sue Iremonger is so old and frail that she had better not been bothered with any questions at all.

So come on, Ben: ask away! Once you have had it verified that you were right all along, we can drop the issue for good. I am not opposed to such a thing.

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

I find these two posts hard to reconciliate with each other, and so I would like to ask you if you could elaborate on things and explain what I find inexplicable

They're not just hard to reconcile with eachother.

They're impossible, and if he became more Toppy-enhancing to appease you after you contacted him a few too many times - as I strongly suspect - is it rational to expect him to divulge as much to me if I quizzed him along those lines? No, and there shouldn't have been any additional posts of "clarification" from Leander. He's an expert, which is why he explained himself perfectly well the first time around; which is why no further clarification of his neutral stance was necessary.

Frank Leander can explain what "amplitude" means in the context we are dealing with.

It can only mean one of three things in any given context, as I demonstrated above (unless we're dealing with mathermatics or physics). We now know for absolute certain that there were differences, detected by Leander, that had absolutely nothing to do with amplitude. So again, contacting him would be pointless.

So either you stick with your INTERPRETATION of what he said, or you find out EXACTLY what he meant.

But that's precisely where you're going wrong; "interpreting" and making unwarranted assertions as to what he "meant". What I do is quote Leander verbatim, because in doing so, I'm effectively mimising the chances of a misinterpretaton. I have heard Leander's "version of things", thank you very much, so quite what I'm supposed to fear from anymore "clarification" is a mystery to me. He made himself perfectly clear, and as such, his views require no more interpretation. If I tell him I want to "find out what he meant", after post after post of wholly unnecessary "clarification", it all starts to resemble a piss-take, doesn't it?

Kind of like the same thing that applies when you make a guess that Sue Iremonger is so old and frail that she had better not been bothered with any questions at all.

I did contact Sue Iremonger, as I've already told you.

we can drop the issue for good.

You keep telling me that you intend to "drop the issue" but always fail to follow through with that. intention.

Hypnosis, I tell you!

[Fisherman]

Drop the issue I will do when we have reached a full understanding on what Leander meant, Ben. Not before. And since it is an issue where you, me and a lot of other posters totally disagree, we can easily deduct that there is need fur further clarification. Just think, Ben, there will be no more need for you to tell me not to "interpret" and make unwarranted assertions as to what he "meant". Once you have established that he meant from the outset that he did not lean to either side - in spite of the FACT that he told us that he did so very clearly in his later posts - from the outset, I will humbly accept defeat on this issue.
And that stage - much welcomed on your behalf, I should not wonder! - is only a post or two away. My meaning is that these questions must be asked, at the very least because of the extremely sinister allegations you are making against Frank Leander. You actually claim that he has violated his ethics by telling lies, in order to get rid of me. That is an almighty accusation, and surely you would not want to leave him without any possibility to comment on it?

Weīll get this straightened out, one way or the other, Ben - let me assure you that. After that, we can all move on, and I can drop the issue - just as I said.

The best,
Fisherman