Tweet
Hi Fisherman.
Since many posters have become bored and not a little irritated by the present topic, I thought it prudent to initiate a new thread in order to address a number of issues relating to the signature comparison conducted by Frank Leander. Trusting to the material I’ve been able to locate on other threads, Mr Leander’s findings are as follows:-
In reality, however, this was a far from accurate assertion.
Since Forensics is the discipline chiefly concerned with the presentation of scientific evidence before the law courts, it is subject to the strictest of methodological protocols. As such, the information contained in Frank’s analysis falls way short of those exacting standards. At the very least, a scientific report would have contained a methodological explanation, a mathematical analysis and confirmation as to the probity of the specimens under scrutiny – which is why Frank was at pains to point out that ‘you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion …’
Equally, the specimens themselves originated from here on the Casebook site as part of a list posted by Sam purely for illustrational purposes. Uppermost on the list was one of the three signatures appended by Hutchinson to his police statement. The other two were absent. Worse still, not a single one of the Toppy signatures included the William that we know to have been an integral part of his regular signature. In scientific terms, such omissions constitute a case of sampling error and are sufficient to invalidate the entire analysis.
Interestingly enough, Frank noted that ‘[t]he signature at the top is unquestionably the one that differs [the] most …’ In point of fact, this was the signature from Page Three of Hutchinson’s police statement. And despite the reality that it is the Hutchinson signature that most approximates the Toppy samples, it was still identified as that which least resembled the other specimens. And yet, for all of the sampling error and induced bias of which Frank was patently unaware, he was only able to conclude that ‘It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person’. However, as I previously explained on another thread, “cannot be ruled in; cannot be ruled out” is science-speak for there being insufficient evidence to make a determination one way or the other. In other words, the null hypothesis has been upheld. No significant effect has been detected.
It might be argued that any such conclusion would be invalidated by the claim that Frank subsequently qualified his memo with the statement that the specimens were ‘a match at the lower end of the POSITIVE scale.’ But science doesn’t work like that, Fisherman. To begin with, there is the issue of the adulterated Toppy signatures coupled with the non-inclusion of the two Hutchinson signatures – which, as I have already indicated, amounts to a clear violation of accepted sampling protocols. Likewise, because Frank’s memo lacked anything in the way of methodological or mathematical information, there is an absence of context relating to the kind of scale or dimension he would have employed had he been formulating a scientific report. Consequently, ‘a match at the lower end of the positive scale’ might mean that the evidence was still insufficient to provide a positive result. Once again, therefore, as absurd as it may appear to the layperson, it remains perfectly possible that the null hypothesis would have been upheld even had a full scientific analysis been conducted.
But it wasn’t. As Frank made abundantly clear, he did no more than pass on his impressions with reference to material that was inappropriate for standard scientific testing. This being the case, Frank’s conclusions carry little empirical gravitas and in no way warrant the claim that they had ‘scientifically proved that Toppy and Hutch were the same man.’
Having trawled through the circularity and prolix that constitutes a significant proportion of the Toppy-related threads, my overwhelming impression is that you have consistently overstated the ‘evidence’ that appears to lend plausibility to the ‘Toppy was Hutchinson’ argument, whilst at the same time dismissing anything that fails to dovetail with your own beliefs. Indeed, one would be hard-pushed to find a better example of fundamental attribution error. At the same time, you have exhibited a tendency to be rude and even abusive to those posters whose opinions fail to accord with your own. Was it really necessary to brand Babybird a liar when all she did was quote your own words? Even when Ben reconsidered his position with regard to Frank, held up his hands and admitted that he had been in error, you embarked on a campaign of taunting and ridicule. As I have stated previously, Fisherman, it is more than possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Again, I have initiated this thread specifically to post the present response, not to engage in an ongoing war of words for which I have neither the time nor the inclination. I trust, therefore, that I have made my position perfectly clear.
Regards.
Garry Wroe.
Since many posters have become bored and not a little irritated by the present topic, I thought it prudent to initiate a new thread in order to address a number of issues relating to the signature comparison conducted by Frank Leander. Trusting to the material I’ve been able to locate on other threads, Mr Leander’s findings are as follows:-
I wish to strongly underline your wiew that comparing research into signatures must be done using the original material and I/we would not have the possibility to write a full expert’s opinion on the material supplied. Under the circumstances, however, I would like to express myself thusly:
It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person - there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters.
Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and 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.
The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things. The signature at the top is unquestionably the one that differs most at any rate.
In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!
Subsequently, you again contacted Mr Leander who, according to one of your posts, viewed the relationship between the Hutchinson and Toppy signatures as being ‘a match at the lower end of the POSITIVE scale.’ On this basis, you proclaimed that Mr Leander had ‘nailed it’ – had ‘scientifically proved that Toppy and Hutch were the same man.’It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person - there is a number of matches of a common character (character of style, degree of writing skill, the spreading of the text, certain proportions), and, as far as can be judged from the copy there are also a number of matches when it comes to the shapes of single letters.
Against these matches one must pose differences in certain liftings of the pen (?), the proportions of the tch-group and 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.
The differences could be explained by H. being relatively young at the first writing occasion, the surrounding circumstances as available writing space, function of the pen and similar things. The signature at the top is unquestionably the one that differs most at any rate.
In conclusion, you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion, since such things cannot be done from a material like this!
In reality, however, this was a far from accurate assertion.
Since Forensics is the discipline chiefly concerned with the presentation of scientific evidence before the law courts, it is subject to the strictest of methodological protocols. As such, the information contained in Frank’s analysis falls way short of those exacting standards. At the very least, a scientific report would have contained a methodological explanation, a mathematical analysis and confirmation as to the probity of the specimens under scrutiny – which is why Frank was at pains to point out that ‘you must see this as a spontaneous, personal comment from me and not as a full expert opinion …’
Equally, the specimens themselves originated from here on the Casebook site as part of a list posted by Sam purely for illustrational purposes. Uppermost on the list was one of the three signatures appended by Hutchinson to his police statement. The other two were absent. Worse still, not a single one of the Toppy signatures included the William that we know to have been an integral part of his regular signature. In scientific terms, such omissions constitute a case of sampling error and are sufficient to invalidate the entire analysis.
Interestingly enough, Frank noted that ‘[t]he signature at the top is unquestionably the one that differs [the] most …’ In point of fact, this was the signature from Page Three of Hutchinson’s police statement. And despite the reality that it is the Hutchinson signature that most approximates the Toppy samples, it was still identified as that which least resembled the other specimens. And yet, for all of the sampling error and induced bias of which Frank was patently unaware, he was only able to conclude that ‘It cannot be ruled out that we are dealing with the same person’. However, as I previously explained on another thread, “cannot be ruled in; cannot be ruled out” is science-speak for there being insufficient evidence to make a determination one way or the other. In other words, the null hypothesis has been upheld. No significant effect has been detected.
It might be argued that any such conclusion would be invalidated by the claim that Frank subsequently qualified his memo with the statement that the specimens were ‘a match at the lower end of the POSITIVE scale.’ But science doesn’t work like that, Fisherman. To begin with, there is the issue of the adulterated Toppy signatures coupled with the non-inclusion of the two Hutchinson signatures – which, as I have already indicated, amounts to a clear violation of accepted sampling protocols. Likewise, because Frank’s memo lacked anything in the way of methodological or mathematical information, there is an absence of context relating to the kind of scale or dimension he would have employed had he been formulating a scientific report. Consequently, ‘a match at the lower end of the positive scale’ might mean that the evidence was still insufficient to provide a positive result. Once again, therefore, as absurd as it may appear to the layperson, it remains perfectly possible that the null hypothesis would have been upheld even had a full scientific analysis been conducted.
But it wasn’t. As Frank made abundantly clear, he did no more than pass on his impressions with reference to material that was inappropriate for standard scientific testing. This being the case, Frank’s conclusions carry little empirical gravitas and in no way warrant the claim that they had ‘scientifically proved that Toppy and Hutch were the same man.’
Having trawled through the circularity and prolix that constitutes a significant proportion of the Toppy-related threads, my overwhelming impression is that you have consistently overstated the ‘evidence’ that appears to lend plausibility to the ‘Toppy was Hutchinson’ argument, whilst at the same time dismissing anything that fails to dovetail with your own beliefs. Indeed, one would be hard-pushed to find a better example of fundamental attribution error. At the same time, you have exhibited a tendency to be rude and even abusive to those posters whose opinions fail to accord with your own. Was it really necessary to brand Babybird a liar when all she did was quote your own words? Even when Ben reconsidered his position with regard to Frank, held up his hands and admitted that he had been in error, you embarked on a campaign of taunting and ridicule. As I have stated previously, Fisherman, it is more than possible to disagree without being disagreeable.
Again, I have initiated this thread specifically to post the present response, not to engage in an ongoing war of words for which I have neither the time nor the inclination. I trust, therefore, that I have made my position perfectly clear.
Regards.
Garry Wroe.
Comment