The Leander Analysis

[Fisherman]

Okay, it seems I´m 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 Caz´s 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 I´m concerned. Then again, it is not as if we are dealing with hoards of deniers, is it?

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[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

[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 Hutchs´.”

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

[Fisherman]

Ben, again:

"Whatever Leander actually feels on the subject deep down"

Before I allow you to do what you need to do - step in and have the last word - I just cannot help but to point to this: "Whatever Leander actually feels on the subject deep down...."

That is nothing short of fantastic! There is no need whatsoever to speak of what Leander feels "deep down", trying to introduce some sort of mystery. He feels the exact same thing on all levels, from deep down to the surface, and that is that Toppys signature matches with Hutchs´.
He has said so numerous times, and what YOU feel that he conveyed to YOU does never enter the equation, Ben.

What he DID convey in his first post was the verdict that was professionally allowed to him, using the manual he works by. He has sent me the manual, and I have published what it says, and for those of us who are genuinely interested, it tells us that no matter if two signatures are EXACTLY alike, differing in NO WAY at all, if the compared material is made up by photocopies or if the material is not around in a satisfying amount (meaning a minimum of ten samples per writer), then ANY verdict given must STILL start out by saying that no certainty can be reached in the question of identity of the writer.

Therefore, Ben, if Leander wanted to work in the fashion he always does in his profession, using his manual, the MOST positive verdict he could give needed to be phrased in exactly the way he phrased it. And that would still allow for a perfect match of the visible elements involved in the signatures.

You, as we all know, took that discerningly worded verdict as a sign of undecidedness, and that remained a viable stance up to the point where Leander expanded on things, showing us that he - from the outset - had judged the material a hit on the lower end of the positive scale, or, rephrasing it: a probable match.
And when he expanded on things, he stuck with the original stance, guided by the manual: No certainty could be reached about the identity, BUT since he clearly saw the very obvious likeness inbetween the signatures, he added that although the material he had been sent was of a kind that barred the possibilities of using expressions that would have been open to him if he had had ten samples of each of the writers signature in original, the match was clearly there as far as he could see.

This is what I (and Leander) have been saying all along, and it is also - to my understanding - the exact same thing that the rest of the contributors to the discussion have all realized but for you, Ben. You are "prepared to reiterate forever" - and that will make you forever wrong. Which is why the ball is firmly in my court, as you so eloquently put it.
All you need to do to join me in that court is to learn to answer an experts´ assertion of "that was what I meant" with an "okay" instead of a "no, that is not what you meant, and I know that better than you". Such things will only serve to have you further ridiculed.

Now, since I do not have that singular stamina that you pride yourself of, I will not participate any more than necessary, but it seems I don´t have to either; other parties, yourself included, will in all probability tend to it. Just keep in mind, Ben, that no "stamina" in the world has ever had any influence at all on little things like the truth. It´s that Galileo-and-the-inquisition-thing again.

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! I have nothing more to add to the discussion between you and me, but I welcome any other input from any other poster, in which case I will gladly discuss the Leander issue. Chances are, though, that the rest of the posters feel that it would be wise to believe that what Leander has said is what he means instead of the other way around, and so there will be no further discussion.

But do not let that stop you, Ben! I won´t reply any more this time over, and so it´s an opportunity you really ought not miss!

Or ought you...? Some consideration, perhaps? No?

Fisherman

[Ben]

I'm afraid I'm not sufficiently interested, Vic.

You seem mightily glad that the thread has been resurrected for reasons I have yet to fathom, mind you.

[Victor]

But now here you are, ostensibly for the same purpose.

Hello Mr Paranoid.

You want me to explain my presence on a resurrected thread that I was actively participating in.

[Ben]

Now, let´s leave it there

As always when you make these statements, the ball is firmly in your court.

If you want to leave it there, be my guest. I'll cheerfully follow your sensible example, but we're not doing one of those absurdly predictable "let's leave it with Fisherman having the last word".

That isn't going to work, especially after your confidently phrased "you and me cannot have any further discussion about what Leander meant".

And yet here we are.

That particular detail, Ben, owes to the fact that you stand as the sole defender of the thesis that Leander should be conceived as totally neutral in the question whether Toppy was Hutch or not

Whatever Leander actually feels on the subject deep down, his first post conveyed a neutral stance. Really, we can repeat and repeat and repeat, and copy and paste into oblivion, but neutrality was what he initially conveyed, and I will never revise that stance. All this talk about me being the "sole defender" is so obviously nonsense. You can't possibly know which argument the limited number of browsers to this topic actually subscribe to. You're positing the imaginary existence of a huge army of fascinated followers all eager to pick sides in a world where the loudest voices win, and it just doesn't work like that.

in spite of the fact that Leander himself has professed to being of the meaning that we have a probable match.

That's not what he conveyed in his initial letter, as I'm prepared to reiterate forever, despite the fact that we've been through this a million times. Don't always feel the need to respond to anyone and everyone's attempt to re-ignite an acrimonious thread. It's that simple.

So we'll leave it there.

Unless....

In fact, scrap that - see you on the 1000th post to this thread, Fisherman.

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"Fish responded by peppering his posts with my name."

That particular detail, Ben, owes to the fact that you stand as the sole defender of the thesis that Leander should be conceived as totally neutral in the question whether Toppy was Hutch or not - in spite of the fact that Leander himself has professed to being of the meaning that we have a probable match.
Somehow, explaining the odd twists and turns your reasoning has imposed on this thread is a very hard thing to do WITHOUT peppering the posts with your name. Actually, if that twisting and turning had not been about, it is my understanding that nobody else would ever have questioned Leanders right to be respected and appreciated for the valuable and discerning input he has contributed, and so you are to blame yourself to an overwhelming extent in this case.

As a consequence of all this, I think you need to prepare yourself for the very real possibility that your name may occur frequently henceforth in the Leander discussion, Ben. Take a look at the medieval inquisition that questioned Galileo - they were off the mark by miles, but it is kind of hard to explain what went down without mentioning them. That should explain the mechanism, I dare say.

Now, let´s leave it there, you and me, before one of us starts ranting any further about being stalked and followed around the boards.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Caz specifically addressed her post to me.

Fish responded by peppering his posts with my name.

I responded to what was obviously an attempt to goad me.

But now here you are, ostensibly for the same purpose.

Anyone else?

[Victor]

You’re another one (well, THE other one) who suffers from the Ben-botherer’s malady, characterized by both an inability to write anything less that a 60-line post and a burning desire to follow Ben around whenever he posts.

Er...Ben try the facts.

Caz resurrected a dying thread, Fish replied, and then you followed them about.

KR,
Vic.

[Fisherman]

´s that you, Caz? No?

Bugger.

Fisherman

[Ben]

Well, there we are, ladies and gents – he did it again! It´s perfectly obvious that I am totally hypnotic to Ben. He spends his sorry life waiting for my posts, and pounces on them immediately

Did you actually read my post?

It was addressed to Caz, not you, and were it not for the fact that she specifically questioned me - and in doing so revived yet another repetetive Hutchinson debate - I would never have got involved. Any suggestion that I'm the aggressor can thus safely be dispensed with, but it wasn't all that surprising that you should chime in yourself and mention my name in a disparaging context as often as possible.

You're ire-mongering, that's all. You didn't start it this time round, granted, but then that's why I responded to Caz and not you.

The single person who did not get it from the beginning was you, forcing Leander to express his sadness over the malicious interpretations you tried to peddle.

In reponse to: "Hey Frank, a nasty so-called ripperologist says you're a liar. What have you to say back to him? We're mates, though, right? And it was still Toppy, right?"

Right, Caz, where were we...?

You were discussing your mutual interest - me.

[Fisherman]

Well, there we are, ladies and gents – he did it again! It´s perfectly obvious that I am totally hypnotic to Ben. He spends his sorry life waiting for my posts, and pounces on them immediately, repeating his age-old useless arguments over and over again.

In short, I am being stalked. He cannot resist me for the life of him!

Yeah, yeah, Ben – I know that I am being totally ludicrous here, but since these are the tactics you always employ, I thought I´d have my fair share of avoiding the subject and discrediting the writer instead of what´s written. I have to admit, it has it´s petty joys.

Anyways, Ben, I was not discussing with you – I am having an exchange with Caz here. And I seem to remember that you lessoned me on not barging in when I commented on an ongoing exchange between you and Vic last time over. But maybe such things apply only to me, and not to you, like so many other things...?

There is not much sense in arguing with someone who disallows experts to hold opinions that do not tally with their own convictions – but who are ever so accomodating as long as that particular detail is taken care of. In short, you and me cannot have any further discussion about what Leander meant – he has already explained it on numerous (many) occasions. The single person who did not get it from the beginning was you, forcing Leander to express his sadness over the malicious interpretations you tried to peddle.

So thanks, but no thanks.

Right, Caz, where were we...?

Fisherman

[Ben]

There can be no reasonable doubt as to the nature of the material used by Sue Iremonger in the early 1990s.

We have had reputable sources attesting to the fact that Iremonger compared the three statement signatures with Toppy's marriage certificate signature, not photocopies thereof, and certainly not a modern piece of paper with the details filled in by a modern registrar. Even if we didn't have an answer to the question of whether or not the last option came into play, we can still reject it as an unbelievably outlandish suggestion. I jokingly compared it to "needing an answer" to the question of whether the moon was made out of cheese, but the serious point remains that the suggestion can be utterly dismissed. There is simply no credibility to the suggestion that a professional document examiner could have made such a mistake. They are fully au fait with the FRC's copying practice, and can certainly tell the difference between a modern piece of copier-fresh paper and a turn-of-the century historical document (!).

I don’t need to resort to any invective or slander to dispense with such an obviously fallacious concept.

I really don’t know what it is about certain people and their fanatical determination to dredge up blissfully dormant threads with more combative dogma, but it seems we’re discussing poor beleaguered Leander and his "manual" again (honestly, it becomes a case of “insert counter-repetition where applicable” around here sometimes). 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. Good, I’m with him so far, and that tallied with his earlier reference to both similarities and differences. In such cases, Leander uses the expression “cannot be excluded”. That also makes sense, and served to reinforce the fact that he used his manual properly.

That should have been the end of the issue, and it’s clear that Leander both hoped and expected it would be. We then got bombarded with very baffling linguistic constructs such as “lowest hit on the positive scale”, which, technically, was an accurate description of the “cannot be ruled out” judgement, but it took an alarming amount of convincing that “positive” does not always equal “probable”.

We’ve since learned that Leander was supplied with one signature where there was ample opportunity to provide all three from the statement. Even with the doubts surrounding the penmanship of sig #1, there was no compelling reason to withhold #2, unless it was because those submitting the material were aware it wasn’t Toppyish enough. The signatures were also depicted as being the same size and angle, which they weren’t. We’ve since learned that foreign document examiners are rarely used to compare scripts from another country and language for good reason, and we’ve always known that Leander contradicted himself when it came to the muddled issue of "amplitude", even if we gloss over his increasingly more Toppy-endorsing stance.

It is little wonder Caz observed that Iremonger has the edge. Of course she does.

And I will always reject the whole “I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a match” since it bears no resemblance to “cannot be ruled out” or indeed anything that appeared in his first post.

Glad "Fishypoo" has caught on though.

[Ben]

Hi Caz,

“Sorry Scotty, but I've just been catching up with all this and can't resist...”

Of course you can’t.

I’m here.

You’re another one (well, THE other one) who suffers from the Ben-botherer’s malady, characterized by both an inability to write anything less that a 60-line post and a burning desire to follow Ben around whenever he posts. By all means join their limited (two/three-strong) and easily refutable ranks if you like, but it’s your already very tenuous credibility at stake, and if it’s another round of fight-to-the-death you’re after (my favourite) then naturally my money’s on me having the last word. Again, not because I covet it or think it’s a particularly laudable or productive strategy, but because it’s the only way of hammering home the futility of the long-winded wear-em out strategy, especially when it’s the same tired, not-to-be-taken-seriously keyboard warriors trying, unsuccessfully, to take me on all the bloody time.

Try to engage it some circumspection. Have a read through your post, and ask yourself – honestly – if you’re really communicating anything more than a basic agreement with me, whilst acknowledging that I’m still a horrible bastard? I know we’ve had out spats, and I know you haven’t forgiven me for a few choice outbursts, but saying that you agree with me but hate my “reasoning” only smacks of sour grapes. A sort of “You’re probably right, damn it, but I still hate you!” protest. It doesn’t work. You support my view; you don’t believe that Toppy was the witness, but you’re prepared to engage in a verbose attack before you finally acknowledge this. Sad?

“But Leander stated quite clearly that Toppy couldn’t be ruled out”

Yes, he did.

Well done.

We’ve been through this a thousand times.

And if you argue that a match cannot be ruled out, you cannot also be arguing that a non-match would be surprising. That would amount to decidedly odd phraseology, since “cannot be ruled out” is conventionally applied in cases where a given entity is adjudged unlikely if not impossible. I wouldn’t dream of ruling out a Toppy match for that reason. It isn’t beyond the realms of possibility, but doesn’t appear to be likely. If Leander thought otherwise, he should have conveyed as much in his first post rather than expecting everyone else to “guess” as to what he secretly meant.

In fact, let’s just find the relevant section where this was thrashed out before, and save myself the bother of rewording it differently. It was illustrated that Leander conveyed no impression that he thought the match to be a "probable" one. He mentioned that the similarities weighed "against" the similarities, but that the latter were insufficient to "rule out" or "exclude" Toppy as the witness. If you argue that something cannot be ruled out, you're not declaring it to be "probable". If he secretly thought the match was probable, he certainly didn't convey any such thinking in his initial post.

By all means, go ahead and buy into whatever “subsequent clarification” you wish, but all you’re defending is his bizarre inability to make himself clear the first time. In which case, please keep defending it and please keep feigning ignorance to the glaring contradiction. Leander either changed his mind, did not make himself remotely clear the first time, or succumbed to pressure, and if anyone is seriously arguing that all experts are infallible to any of the aforementioned lapses (and that I’m a fallacious bastard for suggesting otherwise), it’s clear that the real world just isn’t for them. Or, for a more entertaining example of defending the indefensible, consider that his first letter specifically referred to dissimilarities that don’t concern "amplitude" before digesting his “subsequent qualification” post that stated that there were no differences other than those concerned with amplitude.

Please. It’s common knowledge to anyone who cares that you’ve got daggers for me and a chip on your shoulder the size of Wyoming on certain issues, but you’re not insane, and would surely not stoop to defend a proven contradiction such as this? But we can go through this all in painful detail all over again if you and certain other combatants are willing. I dearly hope they are.

“As it is, you have to digest what Leander said and not spit out the bits that taste too positive for your liking.”

I have no problem with positive.

I have big problems with a neutral stance that becomes progressively more positive in response to continued hassling, as we’ve been through a thousand times.

Cue long post from Fisherman.

Cue longer post from Ben.

It’s that’s what occurred, it would make Leander a human being, and certainly not someone with faulty work ethics. If anyone thinks otherwise, they need some serious and immediate instruction in basic humanity.

“If anyone thinks Sue wrongly identified this sig as a mismatch with the other two, they can’t then claim that she was probably right to judge these two a mismatch with Toppy’s - particularly as she admitted to being less than definite in the latter case.”

Agreed, although I speak as some who is by no means confident that Iremonger was “wrong” in identifying one signature as a mismatch with the other two. In order to pronounce with such confidence, I’d be in dire need of document-examining experience comparable to that of Sue Iremonger herself, and I’m not in possession of any such thing and nor is anyone else here. You’re right to identify the contradiction, but you’ll have to take it up with its originators – not me.

“I'm sure she would be comforted to know she has you on her side.”

Whilst cowering in the face of the awesome, invulnerable non-numptastic logic of her opposition, no doubt.

“Ah, so you do find Sue’s ‘definite’ conclusion regarding the page one sig dodgy, and you wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that she got it from an unreliable source and then passed it off as her own professional opinion.”

No, it’s blindingly obvious that I do not find her conclusion remotely dodgy, which is why I took great care to observe that the idea “isn’t probable necessarily, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely.” It was in the interests of embracing all possibilities, however improbable, that I made the above suggestion (well, it was your suggestion, in actual fact, despite your back-peddling willingness to “disown” it whenever I draw attention to it).

“Has nobody considered that Sue could have been correct about that page one sig, not because she saw a definite mismatch between that and the other two, despite their evident similarity to so many untrained modern eyes on these GH threads, but because that was the natural conclusion she was left with after recognising a definite match between the page one sig and the statement itself, in Badham’s hand?”

Yes, I considered that, and it makes a good deal of sense,

“Have you not considered the possibility of one GH - witness and bridegroom - whose signature underwent subtle changes, according to whether he was making a witness statement in his early twenties, that was a complete fabrication, or only loosely based on truth, or making a mature, honest and sincere commitment to his bride ten years down the line?”

Yes, I considered that too, but then I thought: no, this doesn’t make nearly as much sense. Why, if the “changes” in his 1898 signature were attributable to his “mature, honest and sincere commitment to his bride”, did he just happen to incorporate those same subtle alterations into his signature 13 years later when writing his census entry. Was it that same unique combination of maturity, honesty and sincerity kicking in again, resulting in the skyward pointing n-tails, for example, that contrasted so markedly with any of the real Hutchinson’s witness contributions? Come on. Don’t simply join forces with those who make flawed observations out of simply dislike for me. It’s utterly useless to use the imagined behavioural quirks evinced by the marriage certificate signature of Toppy to explain away the differences with the statement three of 1888, since it doesn’t account for how or why those same behavioural quirks came into play 13 years later. Emphasising “time difference” only compounds the problem since the differences with the statement three remained different (with the statement three) over a decade.

“If anything, using two versions of the same name smacks of spontaneity, familiarity and confidence, rather than two cautious stabs at signing a false name.”

“Familiarity” with signing an important police eyewitness document concerning the investigation of a serial brutal murders? He just fired off a couple of police statements a week? Come on. You didn’t really want to argue that. If you were an innocent witness with no murder-related eyewitness experience, I bet you that blind instinct would take over and prompt you or any functioning non-alias-using human to be as en regle as possible, and that would include a natural tendency towards consistency when penning your signature. I’ve no doubt that people abbreviate on occasions to offer some variety, but at the same time? On one document? A police document? I’d love to find other examples of this.

“So ’m not sure why anyone using a false name for criminal purposes would even think to bugger about with it, especially within the one very official”

Ah, but if he’s not thinking about it, and/or simply engaging in an awkward and mannered attempt to appear “casual”, the ploy is rendered more plausible. Not that I’m suggesting that the signatures immediately scream “alias” from the rooftops, but it’s a viable suggestion that has not been remotely discredited.

“I’m sorry if that’s a bit too brutally honest, but I can rarely see much logic in any of your own reasoning”

Don’t be sorry. It takes testicls of titanium to admit, in so (far) too many words, that I’m probably right, despite the pain, obfuscation, and “remember, you’re still a bastard” that went into conceding as much. I know full well you don’t hate my reasoning. You love it. You secretly agree with it. You’re just old school, and because of irrational allegiances that possibly stemmed from when you first studied the case, you take a dim view of anyone who dares to suggest that such a famous and “interesting” serial killer was a boring, impoverished working class average Joe. That’s the reason for your irrational objections to any perceived Hutchinson “theory”, that’s why you’re both selective and often ill informed when it comes to other serial cases. It’s also why our spats often escalate to vicious brawls.

“And as for GH not even being his real name, I'm not even going there because it's pure unsupported - and unsupportable - speculation.”

What do you mean you’re “not even going there”? You’ve just been there, you silly sausage. Providing bad arguments for dismissing a perfectly valid proposal didn’t work the first time. There are indications that Hutchinson’s statement was discredited on account of its demonstrably bogus content. If you think he can’t possibly have lied about his name as well, you’re just not being very imaginative.

Resist next time.