The Leander Analysis

[Sam Flynn]

it seems unlikely in the public record, since people didn't sign very many public records in olden times.

Indeed, Jane - and another reason why being over-critical of small discrepancies in a set of signatures might be a bit unfair. One wonders how many opportunities a young East End working-class male would have had to sign his full name (missing middle initials notwithstanding.)

[Cap'n Jack]

Have a chat to her yourself, I just did.

Miss Susan Iremonger

Occupation: Handwriting Analyst
Qualifications: BSc
Explanation of
Qualifications: Bachelor of Science
Organisation: Documents in Dispute Ltd
Address: Strangford House
5 Downs View Close
North Chailey
Lewes
East Sussex
BN8 4HA
(View Location Map)
(View Aerial Photo)
Office Telephone: 01825 723017
Mobile: 07710 101870
Fax: 01825 724232
Email: (Click here)
Email to Fax: (Click here)

Google: Search Google UK
Legal references: (none at present)
Areas of Expertise: Forensic handwriting examination
Law Society:

[protohistorian]

Have a chat to her yourself, I just did.

Miss Susan Iremonger

Occupation: Handwriting Analyst
Qualifications: BSc
Explanation of
Qualifications: Bachelor of Science
Organisation: Documents in Dispute Ltd
Address: Strangford House
5 Downs View Close
North Chailey
Lewes
East Sussex
BN8 4HA
(View Location Map)
(View Aerial Photo)
Office Telephone: 01825 723017
Mobile: 07710 101870
Fax: 01825 724232
Email: (Click here)
Email to Fax: (Click here)

Google: Search Google UK
Legal references: (none at present)
Areas of Expertise: Forensic handwriting examination
Law Society:

Nicely Done!

[Sam Flynn]

Nicely Done!

Indeed, although I should point out that there is no such thing as a Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree awarded for document examination, at least not in the UK, and certainly not when the splendid Ms Iremonger were a lass. There was a bloke who set himself up as a hypnotherapist, who used to advertise in my local paper as "Mr ____, BSc", but you can bet your bottom yankee dollar that his hypnotherapy "qualifications" had nothing to do with the BSc he held.

[Cap'n Jack]

Doesn't she do trees, Sam?
I suppose that is paper.

[Sam Flynn]

Doesn't she do trees, Sam?

A different Sue Iremonger, methinks, AP.

[The Good Michael]

You know how many folks on television sell health products and they are announced as doctor so and so, but really hold PhDs in chemistry or literature, yet we believe they are medical doctors? You know? I'm not suggesting anything, but...

Mike

[Jane Welland]

It's true...

You know how many folks on television sell health products and they are announced as doctor so and so, but really hold PhDs in chemistry or literature, yet we believe they are medical doctors? You know? I'm not suggesting anything, but...

Mike

Like 'Doctor' Paul McKenna, for example - I'm not saying he's a confidence trickster or anything but....

But that's off topic.

Doctorates can be purchased (though I don't think in this country),

[Fisherman]

So what is the bid here - is the Lewes´ Iremonger not THE Iremonger....? And if she is not; who is (was)???

The best,
Fisherman

[Ben]

The Lewes Iremonger is definitely the right one, Fish.

(And no, everyone, her professionals credentials are not even slightly in dispute)

All the best,
Ben

[Sam Flynn]

For the record, I've no doubt that Sue Iremonger has a BSc... however, you can be sure that the BSc is not in Document Examination, so don't get too carried away by it.

[Fisherman]

In connection with the Leander analysis, much has been said about the phrasing "cannot be excluded". Frank Leander stated in one of his posts that this verdict was derived from a system used by the SKL, and that it represented “the lowest, most careful expression on the positive side in a scale that we have used in investigations of handstyles, and it serves well to underline when we cannot see any discrepancies other than in the ”amplitude” between the expressions.”

So, we have the semantic construction “cannot be excluded” describing a match that is good enough to be described as carrying no discrepancies other than in the amplitude between the expressions”. That would – if I am correct – mean that the general impression and the degree of writing skills, as well as the different style elements involved, are all of the same character, differing only in amplitude.
Therefore, it should not have come as a surprise when Leander said that he would be surprised if the match was not a genuine one.

As you will all know, the question was raised if one could say “cannot be excluded” in a post, and then follow it up with an assertion that it would be surprising if the match was not there. It became a battle of semantics, and it was stated that Leander could not be relied upon in his later posts, since they seemed to swear against the first one.

In an effort to have this sorted out as best as I can, I recently contacted Frank Leander again, and asked him if he could supply me with the full system of verdicts available to him. As usual, he graciously agreed to help, and offered to send over copies of the manuals involved. I received them by mail yesterday.
It turned out that there were two systems, one old and one new. The old one was still being used to a significant extent, and it was that system he used when assessing the Toppy/Hutchinson signatures. That is why I will concentrate on that one only in this post. The new system I have too on copy, and if anybody is interested, PM me and I will translate it and send it over.

But over to the old one now, and it´s contents! The translation is, as usual, mine, and I have done as best as I can to get as close as possible to the original meaning. Underlined text in the original is written in capitals in my translation. Here is what it says on the relevant parts:

“Declarations on investigations made by the handstyle section are delivered in the shape of either an INVESTIGATION PROTOCOL (sometimes illustrated with photos) or a DECLARATION (a somewhat simpler letter version). Irrespective of the form all declarations are based on the investigation of at least two experts and contain a listing of the investigated material, an explanation of the purpose of the investigation and a declaration and evaluation of the observations made. This last evaluation, whereupon the conclusion rests, is based upon the experience of handstyles on behalf of the investigators.

The grades of strength used in the conclusions are as follows:

VERY STRONG SUPPORT (GENERALLY THE STRONGEST)

STRONG SUPPORT

SUPPORT

SOME SUPPORT

These grades, relating to the identity of the originator, are accompanied by a “for an assumption that…”, which should be understood thus, that the laboratory have tried the hypothesis that is stated in the purpose of the investigation in an unbiased manner.
As an exception there is sometimes also ruled a grade of:

SEEMINGLY BEYOND DOUBT (used practically only about more massive amounts of text like longer letters, handwritten wills and such)

In cases where no more certain conclusions can be drawn, regardless whether this owes to the quality of the text, the difficulty to assess observed likenesses or dissimilarities, too few samples of the text involved, too little or unappropriate material of comparison or that only photocopies are at hand, it follows that

THE ISSUE MUST BE LEFT OPEN

In certain cases there may, though, be tendencies in one direction or the other, whereupon the conclusion can be formulated

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 EXCLUDED

In cases of non-identity sometimes corresponding expressions are used as those used in cases of identity, but it is more common that the conclusion is phrased

IT IS NOT LIKELY

IT IS LESS LIKELY

Apart from the grades given above, in certain cases further nuances can be added”

And there it is! To begin with, we can observe that, just like Leander said, no full experts opinion could be offered from the material he was supplied with. He mentioned that he would need more samples of the witnesses´ signature and that he would also need the originals to reach a full expert opinion. And as we all know, regardless of the fact that the originals are about, there are only three signatures by the witness, and Leander would need ten or more before he could reach a full opinion.

The immediate reflection that must be made here is that just as Leanders assessment remains unsatisfyingly underbuilt, so does Iremongers. In her case, it would seem that the originals may have been used, but we know that she had a lot less signatures by Toppy to work with, just as there were only the three witness signatures accessible to her.

The most interesting observation we can make, though, lies in the fact that the verdicts “very strong support”, “strong support”, “support” and “some support” were never open to Leander! Since he suffered from a combination of too few samples + only photocopies, there were three options only open to him: “No certain statement can be made in the question of identity, but the observations made speak mostly for”, “No certain statement can be made in the question of identity, but the possibility is at hand that” and “No certain statement can be made in the question of identity, but it cannot be excluded”.

Please observe that this would have applied even if the signatures had been exact matches! The reason for this lies not in the characteristics of the text, but instead in the quality of the material provided to Leander.
Furthermore, we are dealing with legislation here – it stands to reason that you cannot convict on grounds of to few samples of signatures or on grounds of photocopies. In such cases, the possibility remains that further samples of signatures had changed the wiew or that an examination of the signatures could had revealed something that the photocopies did not show.
It does not, however, mean that a useful assessment of the existing material could not be made! It would not hold up in court, but it would still involve the skills of a expert and it could be – just as the manual tells us – accompanied by “further nuances” in “certain cases”. Which was exactly the path Leander chose – he settled for the “the lowest, most careful expression on the positive side” of the scale, and he added that the only discrepancies he could see were differences in amplitude, just as he added that he would be surprised if the match was not a genuine one.

Concluding, what we have from Leanders side is an assessment that would not hold up in court, that means that no certain statement can be made in the case of identity owing to the insufficiencies of the material involved in his investigation (and the same would go for Iremonger and indeed ANYBODY who tried to assess this material, since there are only the three witness signatures about) – but also a verdict that tallies with the one that has been suggested by a number of posters: That there are no differences inbetween the third signature of the Dorset Street witness and those of George Topping Hutchinson, other than in amplitude, and that it would therefore be surprising if the authors were not one and the same.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Hi Fisherman..

Well done you - you are certainly persistent - I'll say that for you!

Sorry though, this time I really am confused - can you explain? In all seriousness! Ok - from what I can gather...

Um - I thought that Leander had said that a match 'could not be ruled out'? I think from what I understand that mostly people accepted that as 'possible' but that no further confirmation - one way or the other - was possible.

I also got the impression that he had said that whilst there were similarities there were also differences - and vice versa.

I can see that, in my humble opinion - so I can understand a balanced and reserved view.

I also seemed to think that the photocopies made no difference to the analysis? Isn't that what you said - sorry if it wasn't!

So how come now, Leander says it did make a difference and it was the quality of the images and the number of samples that made it difficult?

There's a lot of confusion here it seems to me - for me, at least. I just want to know -

Does Leander say it's a match, or not?

Best wishes to you, Fisherman!

P.S - sorry for rambly post - long day.

Jane x

[babybird67]

And there it is! To begin with, we can observe that, just like Leander said, no full experts opinion could be offered from the material he was supplied with. He mentioned that he would need more samples of the witnesses´ signature and that he would also need the originals to reach a full expert opinion. And as we all know, regardless of the fact that the originals are about, there are only three signatures by the witness, and Leander would need ten or more before he could reach a full opinion.

Yes...i think i was one of the few pointing out these things and their implications from the get-go, but hey, three zillion postings and yet another correspondence with Leander later, at least now it is beginning to sink in to some of the die-hards brains...

The most interesting observation we can make, though, lies in the fact that the verdicts “very strong support”, “strong support”, “support” and “some support” were never open to Leander! Since he suffered from a combination of too few samples + only photocopies, there were three options only open to him: “No certain statement can be made in the question of identity, but the observations made speak mostly for”, “No certain statement can be made in the question of identity, but the possibility is at hand that” and “No certain statement can be made in the question of identity, but it cannot be excluded”.

Right. So, having so few options open to him definitely puts to bed the silly theory that we have the best, most wonderful, stupendous etc etc professional analysis on which to base our considersations of a match between Hutch the witness and Topping the man if the deficiencies of material don't even allow him to say he has "some support" for an identification.

Finally.

One is relieved. The 360 degree turnaround here in the interpretation of the extent of Leander's support for a match is most impressive. But i am glad this is at last getting through to some of us.

Some retractions may also be in order, since we were told quite often that photocopies were in fact not deficient in any sense as materials on which to base a document analysis. Even when the expert told us quite clearly that they were.

[Sam Flynn]

I'd be quite happy to give Leander scans of ten or more "Hutchinsons", and two extra "Georges", if he likes. Not that I want to abuse his generosity.