The Leander Analysis

[Jane Welland]

Yes, but...

If the signatures are the same (as each other) then Leander doesn't just have three signatures of the witness, right?

He has the three and all the others from the Census, and the Marriage Certificate, at least.

I believe that's more than 10?

If there is no substantial difference - as I know some think - between the witness signatures and those of Toppy, then what's the problem?

If it's just quality of material then can't he be supplied with better material? (for example)

It seems a shame to get so close to an answer and then find it's a dead end.

Jane x

[Jane Welland]

See?

I knew you'd have the answer Sam!



If Leander were willing, of course.

Jane x

[Ben]

Oh my giddy aunt.

It isn’t possible.

Has he really gone and pestered that poor beleaguered Swedish document examiner again?

He has!

Fisherman has asked Leander to clarify his perfectly clear stance for the sixth time, ladies and gentleman.

This is beyond ridicule, beyond obsession, but somehow predictable all the same.

But let’s do this all over again (you know me!), starting with:

“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”

Ah, but he did see discrepancies - if you cast your mind back to that circumspect first post of his, you'll recall that he listed several discrepancies that had nothing whatsoever to do with the “amplitude between the expressions” whatever the fookin’ hell that means. He referred to specific differences between the signatures; differences that militated against the similarities. However, according to Leander’s initial analysis, those differences were insufficient to "rule out” a possible match, which – here’s the funny bit – is a view with which I have concurred from the outset.

Once again we return to the bone of contention; “cannot be ruled out” does not mean “probable” or any synonyms thereof. 300 pages or so have elapsed since that patently nonsensical assertion, but it still doesn’t mean "probable". Nothing has changed, and secret departments still don’t get to to alter basic dictionary definitions. If Leander is claiming that “cannot be ruled out” means “I’d be surprised if that signatures weren’t written by the same person”, or anything vaguely resembling that nonsensical assertion, he is irrefutably wrong. Thankfully, he made it abundantly clear that a positive commentary isn’t necessarily intended to convey “probability”. Phew, just when I was beginning to doubt the man, he reminds us again of his irrefutably neutral stance.

It did indeed become a battle of semantics, but despite the righteous opprobrium that was levelled in Fisherman’s direction for bombarding a man who had already made his position perfectly clear, he took the extraordinary and eccentric decision to contract Leander again in pursuit of further “clarification”. It really is becoming a farce now, and Leander is showing amazing restraint in putting up with this nonsense. He reminds me of my dad.

But we needn’t become despondent.

Once again, Leander is cautious with his terminology and describes the “cannot be excluded" category thusly:

“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”

Doesn’t this just beautifully endorse the observations Garry Wroe made in his initial post to this topic? “No certain conclusions can be drawn” Absolutely, so I call upon Fisherman to relinquish his unwarranted “certainty” and embrace the circumspection that has characterised Leander’s contributions to date. “Too few samples” – exactly! Leander is absolutely spot on and with my faith in his abilities duly restored; I can only echo his wise sentiments.

“THE ISSUE MUST BE LEFT OPEN”

Such advice contrasts markedly with the “case-closed” mentality that has characterized the dogma of the arch-Toppyite. Listen to the experts who you believe are fighting your corner, and only then will you engage with their neutral stance.

“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.”

No.

False.

Gosh, fancy bringing this all up again, Fisherman!

This really won’t do.

He was not “surprised if the match was not a genuine one”. None of that sentiment was conveyed in the first post you provided in the 1911 thread, His stance was neutral, as I’m prepared to reiterate a trillion times if necessary, and as we’ve just learned from your sixth bombardment, his stance is still neutral. He has spelt it out for you: “Cannot be excluded” = “THE ISSUE MUST BE LEFT OPEN”. End of, surely? No more "Toppy is Hutch", "Proven beyond reasonable doubt" phuckwittery, surely?

“That there are no differences inbetween the third signature of the Dorset Street witness and those of George Topping Hutchinson”

But that is utter filth.

Leander just disabused you of that nonsense.

Listen. Seriously.

He listed specific differences – specific ones, and observes that they militated against the similarities. Those differences had nothing to do with “amplitude”, they had to do with specific and readily identifiable differences within the friggin text. Fisherman, contact him 20 more times if necessary. I’ll be there every time. It’s fun. It’s easily refutable. It’s predictable. But one thing’s for certain – somewhere along the line I’ll be buying poor Frank a polypin barrel of finest ale for his interminable patience!

One fart joke and it all kicks off again – I dunno…

[babybird67]

for Sam

Sam i have the utmost respect for you as a person and as a poster here. Your contributions are usually incredibly sagacious, articulate and - most importantly - good humoured and witty!

I have to point out though that despite your kind offer of supplying yet more signatures, the problem would still remain that any professional examination of documents simply must be of original documents...there is just too much information lost in transformation so to speak.

I respect your own view that the match, for you, has been established as far as science can take us...it hasn't yet for me though because i don't believe we have enough evidence to conclude so.

Document examiners do it with original documents! Anything less is inherently unsatisfactory.

all my best wishes

[Sam Flynn]

“THE ISSUE MUST BE LEFT OPEN”

Such advice contrasts markedly with the “case-closed” mentality that has characterized the dogma of the arch-Toppyite.

Of course, the "case closed" mentality never ever afflicts the ire-mongers of this world, Ben

Listen to the experts who you believe are fighting your corner, and only then will you engage with their neutral stance.

pomdfaeruiou cwrqdaorn adfapicxnmgq...


Sorry - words failed me briefly, there. Normal service has now been resumed as soon as possible (© Basil Fawlty).

[Sam Flynn]

Document examiners do it with original documents! Anything less is inherently unsatisfactory.

Empirical research emphatically suggests otherwise, when it comes to the specific matter of signature comparison, Jen. You'll find the appropriate references on page 823,946 of the "Hutch in the 1911 Census" thread

[babybird67]

Empirical research emphatically suggests otherwise, when it comes to the specific matter of signature comparison, Jen. You'll find the appropriate references on page 823,946 of the "Hutch in the 1911 Census" thread

haha Sam...see, that is what i like about you!

[Ben]

Document examiners do it with original documents! Anything less is inherently unsatisfactory

Exactly, Beebs.

And guess who agrees?

Guess who tells us that a "full expert opinion" is not even possible in the absence of the original documents?

Yep!

Our man Frank Leander.

All the best,
Ben

[Jane Welland]

Oh I see...

Exactly, Beebs.

And guess who agrees?

Guess who tells us that a "full expert opinion" is not even possible in the absence of the original documents?

Yep!

Our man Frank Leander.

All the best,
Ben

You mean, Frank Leander, the expert?

Well then...

Jane x

[Sam Flynn]

Exactly, Beebs.

And guess who agrees?

Guess who tells us that a "full expert opinion" is not even possible in the absence of the original documents?

Yep!

Our man Frank Leander.

Just goes to show that the research demonstrating the contrary has only fairly recently been carried out.

Guess who was quite happy to categorically rule out a match on the basis of only two signatures?

Yep!

A certain "renowned expert" whose name I'm far too gentlemanly to mention.

[Ben]

Just goes to show that the research demonstrating the contrary has only fairly recently been carried out.

Meaning Leander's wrong, Gareth?

In which case we don't need to listen to what he says at all?

Unless we're picking and choosing which bits of Leander's commentary to endorse and which bits to discard, which would be "wrong" is all sorts of ways.

Me - I'm quite happy to accept his judgement that a "full expert" analysis isn't possible in the absence of the originals.

I also think it was a very bad idea on Fisherman's part to get this whole sorry ball rolling again.

Best regards,
Ben

[Fisherman]

Right, I´ll take it from here:

"I also think it was a very bad idea on Fisherman's part to get this whole sorry ball rolling again."

So, Ben, you would prefer - although you have been told that Leander worked with a grading system, and although we had not been supplied with the details of that system - not to find out about how it was constructed at all?
You would prefer if Frank Leander never more commented on this issue at all? Makes sense.

But I will not take your hook, baited with expressions like "utter filth" this time over, though - if you feel you need to get rude, be my guest. My conviction remains that the MORE evidence and substantiation we can get, the more explanations to underlying processes of thought, the more manuals, the more information related to the case we can get, the better. Opting for a choice of post on Leanders behalf that we think serves our own purposes, and leaving the rest - the explanations, the manuals, the thought processes, the added nuances - behind, is not a very useful approach.

I was fully expecting this from your side, though, and I realize that we will have you asking "Anybody still up for a fight on the Leander issue? I´ll take you on any day in the week!" in the future too. And so I will waste as little time on your accusations as possible, and instead turn to posters who ask relevant questions.
I will only add once more that Frank Leander is a man that you can find on the net; you can contact the SKL any day in the week, and I urge you to do so if you feel that I am in any way manipulating this issue. Contact them, get in touch with Leander himself, and THEN tell him that he cannot be relied upon. I am sure he would be most interested to hear you opinion on his work, and what phraseology you are prepared to allow him!
Until you have used that opportunity, open to you and anybody else (though I would ask people not to drown Leander in posts if avoidable - he would have other things to do ...), I suggest that you stop implying any false game on my behalf or professional shortcomings on Leanders!

Jane Welland:
”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.”

It is of no relevance that ”mostly people” belive that ”cannot be ruled out” means ”possible, but no further confirmation”. What we need to look at is what ”cannot be ruled out” means to LEANDER and the SKL. And it is stated in the manual I just posted – there are three gradings open to use, and three only, when we are dealing with photocopies and insufficient material but have a case of identity. Once again, this is what the manual says:
”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”

The three first mentioned alternatives are alternatives of a perceived identity, whereas when identity is not perceived, the two latter alternatives are used. This means that if Leander is dealing with two signatures that are EXACTLY alike, totally similar in every aspect – but only photocopies – he will probably give the verdict ”No certainty can be made in the question of identity, but the observations made speak mostly for” - if he has a sufficiency of signatures to compare. If the signatures are exactly alike and totally similar, but taken from photocopies, and if he has not sufficient material to work with, he will say that ”No certainty can be made in the question of identity, but the possibility is at hand that” or ””No certainty can be made in the question of identity, but it cannot be excluded”.

This is how it works, and it does so for the reason that Frank Leander is a forensic document examiner – court verdicts are governed by what he says, and people go to jail because of it, sometimes for life. That means that the demands for a secure methodology are extremely strict – as long as there remains ANY doubt about a signature comparison, the accused party must be awarded the right to go free. Therefore, you cannot go to jail on grounds of a comparison between photocopied signatures, for example. Something may lie hidden in the originals in the shape of, for example, pen pressure, that could have changed the wiew of the examiner.
What is important to keep in mind here, though, is that this does not mean that an examiner is in any respect rendered unable to compare all the things that are evident in the two-dimensional shape of photocopied signatures – general style, level of writing skills, shaping of the letters etcetera. And that is what Leander has done, and which has led him to go by the book when it comes to the material supplied and it´s inherent qualities, placing the match on the lowest, most careful point of the positive scale, but which has also led him to add nuances – just as the manual tells us is common practice – telling us that the type of match we have is one where no perceivable differences are at hand, other than in the amplitude of the elements, and offering his wiew that he would be surprised if we did not have a match.
That is how simple it is: The inherent quality of the material is not sufficient for more than the ”cannot be excluded” judgement, but the similarities inbetween the samples we HAVE provided, is of so striking a similarity that Leander tells us that he expects any forthcoming evidence to prove him right in his suspicion that the writer is one and the same.

Jane again:

”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!”

If Leander has only photocopies, he MUST start his verdict – irrespective of the likeness inbetween the copied signatures he is examining – by saying ”No certainty can be made in the question of identity, but...”
Photocopies will NEVER hold up in any Swedish court, when it comes to passing a guilty sentence. That owes to the fact that photocopies only give an impression in two dimensions, and we cannot therefore reach total certainty, and in such cases, the accused party must be awarded the benefit of a doubt.
That does not mean, however, that photocopies in any way distort the twodimensional image to a level where it renders the examiner unable to examine these two dimensions! That is what research has shown; experts provided with photocopies of signatures, but NOT with the originals, did very well using ONLY photocopies when it came to establishing identity. And this research used a higher degree of difficulties than the one we are dealing with, since it concerned itself with deliberate efforts to falsify signatures. That did not matter very much, since the experts involved in the investigation were quite able to tell what was genuine and what was falsified USING ONLY PHOTOCOPIES. So the ABILITY on behalf of the experts is there, in spite of them not getting all the dimensions to examine. But that ability will be thrown out of court for reasons of justifiable demand for a total, three-dimensional examination.


Jane, once more:

”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?”

He did not say that there was any lacking quality in the photocopies he examined, Jane – it is mentioned, though, in the manual, that IF there is lacking quality involved, it will have an impact. As for the number of samples, we are stuck with the fact that the SKL will not give a full experts opinion without having access to at least ten samples of both the originators handwriting and, as well, ten samples or more of the comparison material.
I don´t know how this applies to Sue Iremonger – reasonably, there will be differenes in demands inbetween different countries. But IF Iremonger says that comparing the comparatively meagre material she would have had at hand was enough for a full experts opinion, all I can say is that it would not have stood up in a Swedish court of law.

Sam:

”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.”

Thanks for that, Sam! But, as you will have realized, there is no way we are going to reach a level where Leander says that he has enough for a full experts opinion – having only three witness signatures ensures that. The best we can get from Leanders side, is something we already have – his assertion that there are no dissimilarities involved between the signatures, other than in amplitude, and his addition that would be surprised if it was not the same originator. He also, as you will remember, agreed with me that if the signature was written by a genuine George Hutchinson and not an imposter, then the relative dearth of George Hutchinsons about at that time and in that area would put things as nearly beyond doubts as we could possibly hope for.

At any rate, as long as we use photocopies and have too little material deriving from the Dorset Streeet witness, we are stuck with a verdict that starts off by saying that no certain verdict can be reached in the question of identity. But that does not bother me very much, since what I set out to do, was to challenge the wiew that the signatures are dissimilar in a manner that speaks for a non-match. That is where Leander applies, telling us that one of the most experienced forensic document examiners agrees with us when we say that these signatures ARE very similar, and that this similarity is of such a character that it means that we are probably dealing with a genuine match, at least as things stand.

The best, all!
Fisherman

[Ben]

And here it comes all over again.

The interminable posts. The “battle” mode. The inability to condense.

Oh, what the hell - I'm playing.

What made you think it was a good idea to start the ball rolling again on this issue? Was it because you were a little concerned that your contributions weren't prolific enough the last time, or that you didn't have the last word last time or what? Dare we hope that this dispenses, once and for all, with your continued swansongs announcing your departure from the discussion that you never have any intention of following through with? I hope so.

I didn't mean to be rude. I apologise for that, but seriously, what an unfortunate decision to bombard Leander for a sixth time in search of unnecessary clarification. The grading system is all very interesting, but it only serves to underscore the neutrality that characterized his first post, which should have been allowed to stand as an accurate representation of his views, rather than pestering the source over and over with “I notice you said X, but please tell me that you secretly meant Y. Then I’ll shut up!”.

However, if you’re hell bent on the Leander-bothering approach, you can at least avoid putting your own spin on his words and pretending they endorse the opinion you had already jumped to prior to contacting him. Once again, we’ve learned from Leander – this time from his grading system – that his stance on the Hutchinson/Toppy issue was one of obvious neutrality. I don’t need a “choice” of posts. I’ll stick with the first and, I dearly hope, the last. In one post, he explains his neutral stance, and cautions that the absence of the original documents is a serious hindrance to any meaningful comparison, and in the latest instalment, he let’s us know how he came to arrive at that neutral stance.

And, astonishingly, at last, we’re able to put to bed that extended game of semantic silly buggers:

“Cannot be ruled out” actually meant, “cannot be ruled out”, we learn.

So any doubts that Leander had hideously misappropriated a basic unambiguous phrase can safely be eradicated.

“I will only add once more that Frank Leander is a man that you can find on the net; you can contact the SKL any day in the week, and I urge you to do so if you feel that I am in any way manipulating this issue.”

No need. I don’t doubt Leander. He has made himself clear time and time again. Contacting the perpetually hassled SKL is the very last thing anyone should be doing, since the more we bombard them, the more we create the impression that their initial response was not the one we wanted to hear, and then we’re just a fob-off waiting to happen (as I strongly suspect it has in your case). Nobody has limitless patience, although Leander’s is certainly admirable.

“It is of no relevance that ”mostly people” belive that ”cannot be ruled out” means ”possible, but no further confirmation”. What we need to look at is what ”cannot be ruled out” means to LEANDER and the SKL”

The expression means the same thing to Leander and the “SKL” as it does to the man on the street and anyone else who understands English. It means "not impossible" - Yes, still! - and blissfully, Leander has confirmed as much. Just think how ludicrous the alternative is for one moment, i.e. if the expression meant “probable” to the boys and girls at the SKL: Leander deliberately uses an expression that he knows full well is going to be interpreted differently by the overwhelming majority of the population…?

Is that really a scenario you want to convince yourself of here? Because, if so, you’re not portraying Leander in the best light at all. Happily for the reality of the situation, he used the expression in its correct context.

“This means that if Leander is dealing with two signatures that are EXACTLY alike, totally similar in every aspect – but only photocopies – he will probably give the verdict ”No certainty can be made in the question of identity, but the observations made speak mostly for”

No, that doesn’t’ mean that.

How can you even say that having quoted verbatim from his letter?

If they were “exactly” alike, then Leander would place the material into the category where “Certain Statements” can be made. He has told us, a ludicrous amount of times now that the Hutchinson/Toppy comparison doesn’t belong in this category. Here’s how he described the category where Toppy belongs:

“In certain cases there may, though, be tendencies in one direction or the other”

There are, in this case, as he told us from the outset. Tendencies towards similarities, and tendencies towards differences, which can only invite that inevitable and logical conclusion:

“BUT IT CANNOT BE EXCLUDED”

If you actually analyse that letter, his meaning is perfectly clear, and wholly undeserving of all this unacceptable misinterpretation. You’re now seriously suggesting that “cannot be ruled out” is the expression they are accustomed to using for signatures that are “exactly alike”, which places you firmly in Cloud Cuckoo Land, since Leander never said anything of the sort. “Tendencies in one direction or the other” does not mean “Exactly alike”. Ever. Absolutely end of. Argument stifled for eternity on that score.

“This is how it works, and it does so for the reason that Frank Leander is a forensic document examiner – court verdicts are governed by what he says, and people go to jail because of it, sometimes for life.”

Inapplicable and irrelevant, Fisherman, since there’s no chance of anyone going to jail here, except perhaps me in consequence of hearing, one more time, that Leander has been pestered by you again. People can also go to jail on the basis of hideously misappropriated phrases, and I have no doubt that Leander would avoid that trap rather than pretending that “cannot be ruled out” can mean “exactly alike”. In this case, however, he had forwarded a personal email, and no dire consequences could ever result from it, so he was free to use the most appropriate terminology, and indeed he did, as we’ve since learn from his “grading system”.

“What is important to keep in mind here, though, is that this does not mean that an examiner is in any respect rendered unable to compare all the things that are evident in the two-dimensional shape of photocopied signatures – general style, level of writing skills, shaping of the letters etcetera”

Ah, but what is even more important is that a “full expert opinion” cannot be tendered in the absence of the original documents. In this absence of which, the best we can hope for is a “spontaneous comment”. You see, this is what I love about these Leander debates. By quoting the man verbatim, I can absolutely guarantee that I’m placing no spin on his words. I’m not telling people what he secretly “means”, just what he says. It’s what is required here. If you don’t do that, this is the consequence:

“placing the match on the lowest, most careful point of the positive scale”

His words become grotesquely skewed. Nowhere did Leander use the expression “match” in association with the Toppy/Hutchinson comparison. He may have commented on the positive scale, but you can be positive about something without foisting it off as a “probability”. For an even less acceptable example of this trend, check out the following:

“telling us that the type of match we have is one where no perceivable differences are at hand, other than in the amplitude of the elements”

That’s Fisherman telling us, once again, what Leander meant as opposed to reproducing his actual words. It is, of course, complete nonsense as we discover by revisiting Leander’s original post where he specifically listed differences – differences that had sod all to do with “the amplitude of the elements”, which sounds like a bad Science fiction film!

“The inherent quality of the material is not sufficient for more than the ”cannot be excluded” judgement, but the similarities inbetween the samples we HAVE provided, is of so striking a similarity that Leander tells us that he expects any forthcoming evidence to prove him right in his suspicion that the writer is one and the same.”

That’s arse-paralysingly nauseating nonsense though, Fisherman. Once again, Leander never conveyed the slightest hint that he subscribed to anything resembling this view, if you return to his initial post and have the sense to quote the man verbatim. If he radically altered his stance to the above eye-poison, then he isn’t worth taking seriously. Unless of course, he was so sick of being hassled into giving a progressively Toppy-endorsing stance that he fobbed off the irritant. I know I would, and he certainly had nothing to lose by doing so. But it’s ultimately Leander himself who demolishes that piece of nonsense by providing details of his grading system in response to being hassled into “clarifying” his stance for the sixth awkward, painful time.

“Photocopies will NEVER hold up in any Swedish court, when it comes to passing a guilty sentence.”

But we’re not in a Swedish Court, so he is free to use expressions properly, and indeed he did.

“That does not mean, however, that photocopies in any way distort the twodimensional image to a level where it renders the examiner unable to examine these two dimensions!”

But what it does mean is that a “full expert opinion” is not “possible” in the absence of the original documents. That’s what Leander actually said, and if you’re listening to him properly, you’ll embrace that advice. Document examiners are fully aware of those studies and yet they all, without apparent exception, seek out the original documents. Now that should give you a very important clue as to how those studies impacted on the actual practitioners of document examination. Bear in mind that Leander declared a full analysis impossible despite the fact that he wasn’t determining the fate of a potentially guilty party in a Swedish court.

“He did not say that there was any lacking quality in the photocopies he examined, Jane”

But WE know they were lacking in quality, since they weren’t the same size for starters, despite the fact that the montages gave the impression that they were. Breaks in the signature were equally overlooked, I’ve noticed.

“But IF Iremonger says that comparing the comparatively meagre material she would have had at hand was enough for a full experts opinion, all I can say is that it would not have stood up in a Swedish court of law.”

It isn’t comparatively meagre. It’s comparatively better, since she would have been in possession of the original documents, which is more than can be said for Leander. Iremonger was irrefutably better equipped to arrive at an informed opinion on the subject, and if your latest strategy is to claim that Swedish document examiners are better or more thorough than their English counterparts, I’m afraid that must be dismissed with the contempt it richly deserves.

“his assertion that there are no dissimilarities involved between the signatures, other than in amplitude”

Nonsense, he specifically listed the “dissimilarities” in his first post, and they had nothing to do with “amplitude”.

“and his addition that would be surprised if it was not the same originator.”

…Which I utterly reject, considering he said nothing of the sort in his initial contribution.

“He also, as you will remember, agreed with me that if the signature was written by a genuine George Hutchinson and not an imposter, then the relative dearth of George Hutchinsons about at that time and in that area would put things as nearly beyond doubts as we could possibly hope for.”

If he agreed with you, it was because you supplied him with bogus and misleading information from the outset, which is an absolutely textbook no-no for anyone contacting a document examiner, since there was no “relative dearth” of George Hutchinson’s “about at that time and in that area”. You know literally NOTHING about the number of George Hutchinson’s in the East End 1888, and if you told Leander that you do, then it’s shame on you, quite frankly.

“But that does not bother me very much, since what I set out to do, was to challenge the wiew that the signatures are dissimilar in a manner that speaks for a non-match”

And you weren’t successful in that regard, expect inasmuch as you found a second expert opinion whose neutral stance was in contrast to Iremonger’s rejection of the match as unlikely.

“and that this similarity is of such a character that it means that we are probably dealing with a genuine match”

Awful, ghastly, dreadful nonsense.

His initial post conveyed no such impression. Not even close.

[babybird67]

He did not say that there was any lacking quality in the photocopies he examined, Jane – it is mentioned, though, in the manual, that IF there is lacking quality involved, it will have an impact.

just a quick point of logic that seems to have escaped this sentence...


how would Leander be able to tell what the photocopies were lacking without comparing them to the original documents? Or indeed how they differed at all from the originals without comparing them to the original documents?

[Fisherman]

Ben asks:

"What made you think it was a good idea to start the ball rolling again on this issue?"

The fact that I added knowledge, Ben. I published the full manual used by the SKL in errands like this, and now any poster who wants to see how Leander works and with what tools, can do so.

I will not go into too many details of your post, since I know full well where it leads. I have settled on two points only, one to exemplify and one to protest:

1. You write:

"Cannot be ruled out” actually meant, “cannot be ruled out”, we learn."

We have alla long had Leanders explanation to how the term applies: It is ”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.”
The manual also clearly shows us that when photocopy material or other material that does not go to reach a full verdict is used, the gradings that can be awarded are either referred to as cases of identity or non-identity, and ”cannot be excluded” belongs to the three examples of identity.

So much for that.

2. The other point I would like to bring up is when you write that I supplied Leander ”with bogus and misleading information from the outset”. This is a blatant lie, and it will be reported to the managers of the boards.

Other than this I will only once again point out that it is a very strange attitude towards the gathering of knowledge to opt for no gathering at all, and complaint about other posters who add knowledge and information to the boards and the discussion.
My advice to you, Ben, would be to – instead of protesting against the adding of useful information to the discussion – contact Sue Iremonger and make a useful contribution of your own. The telephone number has been presented on the boards and she should be easy enough to reach. Then maybe we could find some sort of solution to what I regard as something of a mystery – the stating that she found the signatures incomparable to such an extent as to rule a match out.
Making such a contribution on your behalf would be immensely better than trying to pick fights on this subject and making allegations that will have you reported.

Think about it, Ben; if you could pick up the phone and ask Killeen what he really saw when examining Tabram, find out where exactly the wounds were and ask him about his working manual – would you think that a bad idea?
It´s all about adding information, Ben – not protesting when you dislike it. To realize that you point out my sixth contact with Leander as something abominable and distorting is quite disturbing – if I feel that I can contribute valuable information, I will merrily speak to him a seventh, eigtht, nineth and tenth time, as anybody with a true interest of finding out as much as possible would do.

The best,
Fisherman