The Leander Analysis

[Fisherman]

Caz writes:

"for balance I would need to know Sue Iremonger's reasons for finding it unlikely. She does still have the edge in my view, assuming her verdict was based on a side by side comparison of the original documents - not copies of the originals."

Well, Caz, who would not want to know that? I agree very much. I would caution, though, against being too sure about what she actually saw! There is no definite confirmation around - but there is Leander, telling us that no dissimilarities exist other than in the amplitudes of the expressions.
To me, that suggests that we should treat Iremongers verdict with a large pinch of salt until further notice. It will take some real good motivation and substantiation to have her claim substantiated if you ask me! And although she may have had the possible benefit of using originals, she does have the distinctive disadvantage of remaining undocumented. That is a huge drawback.

Incidentally, if you find recovery painful after having shared in this thread, maybe you should take care with the "When does many become many"-thread...

The best,
Fishyp... Fisherman, I mean

[caz]

Hi Fishypoo!

Yes, I did read the whole thread thanks, in all its painful detail and repetition. I'm still recovering this morning.

Like Leander, I certainly can't rule out Toppy as Hutch on current information, but for balance I would need to know Sue Iremonger's reasons for finding it unlikely. She does still have the edge in my view, assuming her verdict was based on a side by side comparison of the original documents - not copies of the originals.

But don't worry - I'm not about to argue that Toppy was not the witness. The best way of doing that might be to find a better candidate. And as for GH not even being his real name, I'm not even going there because it's pure unsupported - and unsupportable - speculation.

Love,

Caz
X

[Fisherman]

Hi Caz!

This - among other things - is what you write:

"the man himself subsequently qualified his initial statement, making it crystal clear that it meant nothing of the sort. According to Fish, it was much more like: “I would be surprised if we do not have a match, and I suspect forthcoming evidence to confirm this”. There’s nothing to reconcile if Leander believes a full examination of the relevant original documents is only likely to confirm the possibility and increase the chances of a match, given the number and nature of similarities and differences he has already managed to observe."

All very true, Caz!
In fact - and I don´t know if you have picked up on this - using the manual Leander worked with (and he has very clearly stated what manual he used - I have a copy of it that Leander kindly sent me, and if you want, I can send it over to you if you PM me your address), there was no way that he could say "Toppy is your man". That owes to the fact that the manual clearly states that, and I quote (the translation is mine):
"In cases where no determined conclusion can be reached, regardless of whether this owes to the quality of the writing, the difficulties of judging observed similarities and dissimilarities, respectively, too few samples of the debated writing, too little or unappropriate comparison material or if only photocopies are at hand, the question must be left open".

And so we KNOW that Leander was not at liberty to say that a match was at hand, using this manual! It is clearly stated in the manual that when you for example work with photcopies, you MUST start the verdict by writing teh EXACT phrase "No certain statement can be made in the question of identity", and then you add one of three phrases if you do believe that a match is at hand, one of them being the now famous phrase "it cannot be ruled out", a phrase that Ben chose to state could only mean that Leander was undecided.
Since we have the manual, we know for certain that this is not the case - he subsequently elaborated on things, stating that we had a hit on the lower end of the positive scale. He also stated that in cases where he was inclined to believe that a match WAS at hand - or vice versa - the examiner could expand on the matter, which is exactly what he did in a later post.

I spoke to Leander a number of times, and there can be no doubt whatsoever that he always believed that the match was a very close one. He never expressed any doubt about the clear, clear possibility of a genuine match, and, just as you have discovered, he strengthened it by stating that he expected any forthcoming evidence to prove him correct on the point. The uncertainty that Ben believed he perceived after Leanders first post, was never grounded on any dissimilarity inbetween the signatures - it owed to the fact that the material examinedwas too small and photocopied. In such cases, the manual ruled that no certainty should be expressed.

Bens objections were mainly grounded on his belief that Leander never expressed any leaning towards any direction in his first post. This was not so - he used the professional manual, and that manual did not allow for a more positive verdict than the one he gave, owing to the nature of the material. After Leander had expanded and stated quite clearly that he was of the meaning that anything but a match would surprise him, Ben took the stance of disallowing Leander to say anything that did not solely support Bens own misinterpretation of Leanders original post, although we have all the evidence we need to show that that post expressed something quite different from what Ben would have it say.

This post will probably earn me a new collection of invectives and slander, and I will in all probability once more be described as a mad stalker, "hypnotized" by Ben, but to a man that has dived the length of the Pacific ocean already, one more shower of rain will not mean anything much.

By the bye: You are quite welcome to disbelieve that Toppy was Hutch, should you choose that stance. But before you opt for it, you are entitled to understand Leander and his working methods and ethics fully. Bens ditto; well, you have already picked up on them...

The best, Caz!
Fisherman

[caz]

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

I haven't started on the 'When does many...' thread yet, so some of my observations may be redundant, but I'm sure someone will soon tell me if that's the case.

Neutrality is what came across very strongly in Leander's first contribution. He listed some similatiries, but observed that "against these", there are differences. On balance, he observed that "it could not be ruled out" that we're dealing with the same person.

That, for the record, reflects my stance on the matter.

Personally, I don't consider it likely that Toppy was the individual we seek, but I wouldn't dream of "ruling him out" conclusively.

Hi Ben,

You claimed that you ‘wouldn’t dream’ of ruling Toppy out as GH the witness. But Leander stated quite clearly that Toppy couldn’t be ruled out, based on the material he saw, which means that in his current professional opinion Toppy could have signed that police statement.

We know that he meant that, and not anything along the lines of: “I don’t consider it likely, although it’s not totally out of the question”. How do we know? Because the man himself subsequently qualified his initial statement, making it crystal clear that it meant nothing of the sort. According to Fish, it was much more like: “I would be surprised if we do not have a match, and I suspect forthcoming evidence to confirm this”. There’s nothing to reconcile if Leander believes a full examination of the relevant original documents is only likely to confirm the possibility and increase the chances of a match, given the number and nature of similarities and differences he has already managed to observe.

Had Leander stated as much immediately following his initial statement, I don’t see how anyone could have had a major difficulty with it. It’s no more contradictory than if he’d said instead: “While a match cannot be categorically excluded at this stage, I sincerely doubt that comparing the original documents would strengthen the case for one, and is quite likely to undermine or rule it out by emphasising certain differences”. And Fish would have had to live with that, and you’d have been entitled to whinge if he had tried to impose a strictly neutral stance on Leander, with a view to pushing him from the negative side of neutral to the positive side. As it is, you have to digest what Leander said and not spit out the bits that taste too positive for your liking.

Having said all that, I accept that Sue Iremonger saw enough crucial differences in the original signatures to suggest to her that Toppy was unlikely to have been the witness. But she was also ‘definite’ that no GH (Hutch or Toppy) signed page one of that statement. 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.

The notion that she was supplied with prior misinformation as to what had already been established pre-analysis isn’t probable necessarily, but I wouldn’t rule it out completely.

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

As for me, I don't find her conclusion dodgy, nor do I think she would have arrived at it lightly, given the amount of similarity between the three sigs in question. On the contrary, if she had based her conclusion on anything other than her own experience and expertise, I imagine she would have wanted the source to be impeccable and would have said what it was.

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? Maybe that’s where her long experience with questioned documents gave her an edge: was she able to recognise and positively identify a disguised hand (in this case one that had effectively ‘forged’ GH’s sig on a page that was otherwise pure, natural Badham, including the distinctively curly H), while not being quite as confident when comparing apparently undisguised GH signatures written a decade apart and in very different circumstances?

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? In short, if one’s signature can act even a wee bit like a lie detector, it might be unrealistic to expect two such occasions to produce clone-like signatures, identical in every last detail, even without all the other factors that can influence things, like age, time difference, writing materials, personal style choices and so on.

I still don’t get why signing Geo on one page and the full George on another is in any way suggestive of using an alias. 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. If he chose George (and presumably practised writing George beforehand) why would he not write that each time on his big day? I always sign as Caroline outside of ripper circles. Away from the message boards I might sign occasionally as Caz, in a ripper context, but it depends on my mood and the circumstances. But it still feels a bit funny and unnatural, even after ten years of being Caz. So I’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 document.

...I can hardly be blamed for having misread you slightly when so many of your posts – even the ones in which you express agreement with me – are so perpetually peppered with negative insinuations about my character and motivations.

I reserve the right to express opinions on the case itself that can occasionally coincide with yours, and at other times differ wildly from yours. It’s up to you to recognise when I’m doing the former. This is a separate issue from the various problems we have with each other’s methods of expression and argument, or our attempts to rock the opposition. In short, sometimes one can lean towards one ‘side’, while finding the opposing team, and the way they play the game, far more appealing. If I were being intellectually dishonest I’d be with Sam, Fish, the Good Michael, Victor et al like a shot. I much prefer the way they reason, even if I can’t (yet) accept their verdict. I’m sorry if that’s a bit too brutally honest, but I can rarely see much logic in any of your own reasoning, frankly, whether our thinking takes us in a broadly similar direction or puts us poles apart.

Love,

Caz
X

[Scott Nelson]

And with that let's put an end to this ludicrous thread.

Not gonna happen...damn.

I do.

Fisherman

Yes, but we know you like the fireless friction my friend.

Hope things are good in your corner Fisherman....cheers mate.

[Graham]

Oh, and Fisherman does.

Graham

[Fisherman]

I do.

Fisherman

[Graham]

Gareth, Ben,

I wonder: does anyone, apart from you two gents, still actually read this thread any more? I lost track of it in about 1929 (or so it seems).

Bon soir,

Graham

[Ben]

And empirical studies have demonstrated quite clearly that two-dimensional, Nth-generation, photocopies are perfectly good enough to make accurate decisions in the specific sphere of signature comparison

Well, they demonstrated that the document examiners used in the studies invariably made accurate judgments even in the absence of the originals, Gareth (which serves as a testament, more than anything else, to the abilities of the document examiners), and that the originals increased the likelihood of arriving at the correct conclusion. One might assume that the photocopies used in said studies were of good quality, conveying true size and context, which, through no deliberate trickery of anyone here, wasn't the case with some of the montages.

But I fear we're straying into done-to-death territory here!

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

No, not exactly two-dimensional. Document examiners have stressed the importance of analysing the original documents specifically because they are not two-dimensional

And empirical studies have demonstrated quite clearly that two-dimensional, Nth-generation, photocopies are perfectly good enough to make accurate decisions in the specific sphere of signature comparison, which is what we have here.

You're entitled to an opinion, of course, but from my own perspective it's a bit of a no-brainer when an professional in possession of the original documents is set against a non-professional in possession of computerized facsimilies.

You seem to place far too much faith in reputation, Ben. Longevity of service is no guarantee of accuracy, especially in the fringe sciences.

[Ben]

Hi Gareth,

It's a two-dimensional image we're talking about, Ben - almost exactly the same as that which would appear on the original page.

No, not exactly two-dimensional. Document examiners have stressed the importance of analysing the original documents specifically because they are not two-dimensional, and a difference in pen pressure can be detected for this reason. I dispute that any studies have demonstrated that photocopies are "perfectly good", and in any case, Leander seems to be of a contrary view. Some photocopies may be reasonably adequate if they convey true size and are presented in the context of the full document, and I'm afraid some of these montages fail to qualify on both scores.

b) She seems to have arrived at a demonstrably iffy opinion about the 1888 witness statement signatures.

You're entitled to an opinion, of course, but from my own perspective it's a bit of a no-brainer when an professional in possession of the original documents is set against a non-professional in possession of computerized facsimilies. That's not a put-down, since I belong in the latter category myself.

Best regards,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

I disagree in the strongest possible terms, Victor. I’m not sure how anything can be “clearly demonstrated” on the basis of the computerized material

It's a two-dimensional image we're talking about, Ben - almost exactly the same as that which would appear on the original page. Furthermore, empirical studies have shown that Nth generation photocopies are perfectly good when it comes to accurate signature comparison tasks.

especially when the demonstration is purporting to militate against a conclusion made by an expert practitioner using original documents.

Unfortunately...

a) We don't know that she used original documents (not that it makes much difference, as we've seen from scientific studies); and

b) She seems to have arrived at a demonstrably iffy opinion about the 1888 witness statement signatures.

[Ben]

I disagree in the strongest possible terms, Victor. I’m not sure how anything can be “clearly demonstrated” on the basis of the computerized material, especially when the demonstration is purporting to militate against a conclusion made by an expert practitioner using original documents.

Hi Gareth,

“Can't size and angle be determined from a scan?”

I’m sure they can, but only if the scans depict the true sizes, and if the signatures were reproduced in the context of the whole document (i.e. to determine angles). Neither of which occurred here.

All the best,
Ben

[Victor]

As such, Gareth’s interpretation cannot possibly be construed as “carrying more weight” than Iremonger’s, and they certainly don't undermine her findings.

Hi Ben,

It definitely does undermine her findings, because it clearly demonstrates the opposite of what she stated.

KR,
Vic.