The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

Well, this wasn’t predictable at all, was it?

Fisherman has contacted Leander for the 7th time. I mean, for crying out loud, this is getting to the point of resembling a hideous self-parody, since this was the very criticism that was levelled in Fisherman's direction from the outset. The question remains, though; how exactly was Fisherman seriously expecting Leander to respond when he bombarded him at length with the Magna Carta explaining, in detail, what a bastard I supposedly am? Were you seriously expecting him to respond with something like; “Oh, I just remembered. I did fob you off with a more Toppy-endorsing stance that the neutral one I first provided because you were getting on my nerves?”…?

Clearly, that’s ridiculous. Obviously you’re guaranteed to elicit the sort of response you received from Leander if you’ve spent an interminable post telling him what a bastard I am, and obviously, if he spent an entire fob-off post giving you the Toppy-endorsing stance you bombarded him into giving, he can’t back-track from it now. He’ll know full well that if he does, you’ll just re-establish contact with him again and demand to know why he radically changed his stance back to the initial neutrality. Here’s your clue, once again from his latest contribution:

“Hoping that the debate will come to an end!”

Which, when translated by Captain Subtext, equates to:

“Here’s hoping that you’ll finally leave me alone”.

How many more polite hints can a man drop? He’s a pestered man, Fisherman, and like all pestered men, the ultimate goal is to avoid a situation where he is likely to pestered again. Not everyone is like me, and has the stamina to engage with your nonsense on a nightmarishly regular basis. If I shared that aversion to being bombarded, I’d be the one saying, “Yes, Fish, Toppy is the witness – whatever you say. Leave me alone to die in peace”, but I’m not like that. Unfortunately, a person who had already fobbed you off can’t exactly backtrack on that fob-off, and if you’ve decided to paint me as the villain of the piece, you are once again influencing Leander in a negative way.

“So, Ben, Leander identifies you antics as exactly the same thing as I do, and dubs your efforts ”malicious interpretations”.”

Well, duh!

What else could you possibly have expected after you told him what a nasty man I am, and that I’ve accused him of lying? “Yes, he’s right, I fobbed you off”. Had he said anything along those lines, you would have bombarded him into eternity. I mean, can’t you have the self-scrutiny to envisage his reaction after seeing those frightening and familiar words:

“Hello again!

As you can see, I am once again asking you to help out in the question of the George Hutchinson signature”

Talk about the man’s heart sinking, and that’s weeks after he informed you that he didn't wish to elaborate any further. The fact of the matter is that Leander has been shown to have made statements that are impossible to reconcile with each other – in his first neutral post, he listed several differences between the signatures which have nothing to do with “amplitude”, but after being Fisherman’d into submission, he then declared that there were no differences other than those which involve amplitude. Now, I’m sorry, but that’s an irrefutable contradiction – fact. Thanks to your blitzkreiging, we now know for certain that he contradicted himself, and no amount of blathering about departments altering dictionary definitions is going to change that. To go from a neutral stance where non-amplitude related differences are specifically referred to, to an assertion that he’d be surprised if there wasn’t a match is irreconcilable, however much you want to fiddle with English definitions in an effort to argue otherwise.

He even sent you his manual which proves conclusively that his department use “cannot be ruled out” to convey a neutral stance, or when dealing with cases where there are "tendencies in one direction or the other".

“you give two judgements; one based on the quality and number of the investigated material, where you cannot stretch any further than to ”cannot be excluded”, and another judgement, where you tell us that the inherent likenesses in the lacking material you have been provided with, actually gives at hand that the signatures are still similar enough for you to say that a match is actually probable.”

Ah, interesting. So, it’s not as if you didn’t pick up on the whole “two judgement” thing yourself, only you’re just making it worse for Leander now by highlighting the very contradictions that were evident from his later posts. Basically, you’ve made him aware of his conflicting judgements, and are now encouraging him to go with the judgement that makes me look bad. A sort of “Go with Ben’s view if you want to, but just remember that he’s the one that’s been horrible about you, whereas I’m your friend”.

Slightly insipid tactic?

You cannot hope to elicit a non-biased conclusion from an expert if you raise their heckles with the following cack:

“The answer is that he means that you are lying in these later statements of yours”

You’ve poisoned the perpetually hassled man, and the hassled man now feels he has to defend himself against a perceived attack. What are you expecting from an ostensibly decent individual: “Yes, I did lie! He’s right! Now sod off!”. Sending people private emails about my perceived bad character and "dishonest" intentions is a biased answer waiting to happen, and if you employ the same tactic in your professional career as a journalist, then I’m afraid you’re in the wrong profession.

So the latest clarification also belongs in the reject bin, because my suspicions are only strengthened on the basis of the above – that you appeal to emotions to elicit the response you’ve already decided upon, and if you think that means me dropping the issue, I’m afraid you’re severely mistaken. The bottom line is that Leander’s comments, as quoted by you, contain statements that inescapably contradict each other. It is an indisputed fact that the words you claimed were implicit in his initial post mysterious appeared in later "clarifications" exactly the way you phrased them. Call me a bastard if you want, but any reasonable person is entitled to find that odd. His latest post even looks like one of your contributions, laden with a distressing rhetoric and bombast that was wholly absent from his initially circupsect post (but which characterize practically all of your posts), but that’s what happens if you paint your opponents in a negative light and expect a non-biased conclusion.

All this continues to demonstrate is that any worth in Leander's initial contribution (and those of his alleged later "clarifications") has effectively been eradicated.

[Fisherman]

...aaand as could be foreseen, Ben, there is nothing in your post I need to answer, for the simple reason that you are once again moving around in circles.
Myself, I have nothing more to add at this moment in time either; I set out to give Leander the chance of clearing his name of very malicious allegations made by you, and that is done by now.

The best,
Fisherman

[Victor]

Hi Ben,

All I can understand from your post is that you're a master of spin and have manoevered yourself into an undefeatable position. It just leaves me with the one question...What would you accept as clarification from Leander? Every time Fisherman tries you come back with "I'm not surprised he told YOU that."

KR,
Vic.

[Ben]

Leander's initial stance was neutral, Victor.

Irrefutably neutral.

He even provided the "grading system" that gives a list of expressions that are commonly used to convey a neutral stance, and included amongst them is the expression that appeared in Leander's first post - "cannot be ruled out".

To argue that the above stance requires any sort of clarification is just patronising. If that position advanced to a Toppy-endorsing view, I'm afraid that's a contradition, but such contradictions are proven to have occured in this case, as I've already demonstrated.

But by all means, keep fanning the flames if you think that's helpful.

[Jane Welland]

The Leander Analysis

Hi Fisherman

Thanks for posting Leander’s latest response – on consideration, I would make the following observations:

According to your post, Fisherman, Leander responded as follows -

”Sigh! It is sad to see malicious interpretations, but I am used to wrestling with solicitors who will stop at nothing to attack written statements....

Moving on, I have judged your meagre material in copy-form, where the material in many respects must be added to before it can be used for a full expert opinion.
After that, I have stated that I am of the meaning that your material is of such a character that I would not let go of it, but instead move along with it. In my judgement and according to the experience I have examining handstyles/signatures, it is not very credible that the likenesses involved are coincidental. There may of course be unknown factors in the errand that makes me ”overvalue” the material if you take my meaning, for example if George Hutchinson number one and number two went to the same school and learnt writing from the same teacher or something along those lines ....? But just how credible does that sound!
Hoping that the debate will come to an end!
Frank Leander”

Now, as remarked upon already, one could certainly read between the lines here – but since that requires an interpretation of what Leander thought, when responding to you, and not merely an interpretation of what he said – as provided by your good self, Fisherman, let’s concentrate on that, shall we?

‘Moving on’ – Pretty clear – means ‘moving on’ – in the context of his reply: no more talk of personal vendettas, please.

‘I have judged your meagre material’ – as you see, by your own translation, meagre.

What does it mean, this ‘Meagre’?

The Online Dictionary gives the definition as:

‘Deficient in quantity, fullness, or extent; scanty.’

So, Leander says, according to your own translation, that the material that he saw, and with which you, I understand, supplied him, was insufficient. There it is, in black and white.

So as not to stand accused of quoting you quoting Leander, out of context – i.e. not verbatim – here is the entire sentence:

‘Moving on, I have judged your meagre material in copy-form, where the material in many respects must be added to before it can be used for a full expert opinion’.

Ah yes! That old Chestnut – the full expert opinion! Leander is telling us here, again, in black and white, that no full expert opinion is possible, has been possible, nor ever will be possible, on the basis of the material with which he has been supplied. It cannot happen, it has not happened, it will not happen.

There we are.

Moving on....

Leander next says:


‘After that, I have stated that I am of the meaning that your material is of such a character that I would not let go of it, but instead move along with it.’

Which means that taking the above into consideration, he does consider the signatures to be worthy of further attention and analysis.

He then says:

‘In my judgement and according to the experience I have examining handstyles/signatures, it is not very credible that the likenesses involved are coincidental. There may of course be unknown factors in the errand that makes me ”overvalue” the material if you take my meaning, for example if George Hutchinson number one and number two went to the same school and learnt writing from the same teacher or something along those lines ....?’

Now, if I read you correctly, Fisherman, this is the bit that leads you to apparent triumph. Jolly good – but, wait just a minute!

‘There may of course be unknown factors in the errand that makes me ‘overvalue’ the material if you take my meaning’ – Well, let’s see, shall we?

How about the fact that the witness statement used for comparison with the Toppy signatures in this debate – and the one which I presume (I stand to be corrected, of course) was the one you sent to Leander; is only one of three available signatures in existence?

As I gather (see Garry Wroe, above) the three are different from each other. Were these others sent to Leander? No?

Then with the greatest of respect, Fisherman, I’m afraid he hasn’t seen the full picture, has he?

In addition, as others have said, the signatures are of different sizes – which is certainly not clear from their presentation on these boards. Does Leander know this?

Leaving aside the thorny issue of originals vs copies (for which, again, see above) there are more than enough issues with what Leander has viewed to render his doubtless expert view dubious – through no fault of his own at all.

Fisherman – please, before you respond with antagonism, please listen:

It would seem that this matter is not so simple as has been assumed – if you are intent on determining an absolute answer from Leander (assuming he is still willing) then he should at the very least be in possession of all the facts – and that means all the signatures.

Because otherwise, this triumph of yours counts for little.

Best wishes

Jane x

[babybird67]

oh my...

....

Moving on, I have judged your meagre material in copy-form, where the material in many respects must be added to before it can be used for a full expert opinion.

Yes, here we are again. No full expert opinion tendered. So why do we keep coming back to Leander as if it has been? I've pointed out innumerable times that no expert opinion has been offered and so have other people who wish to remain circumspect about a Toppy identification. It's not a difficult issue to grasp.

"meagre material", "copy-form", material which "in many respects must be added to"...

Copies are not good enough. Nobody can tell what is missing from a copy without seeing the original. Nobody from the pro-Toppy camp has addressed this point to my satisfaction. How does Leander know what is not in the original that he can be missing, unless he sees the original? These points seem so obvious and simple to me, that i cannot understand why they are glossed over and dismissed as some kind of non-scientific way to proceed with evidence.

The sum total of what those who wish to quote Leander as Toppy-confirming are asking us to accept is that:

document examiners have no actual need to examine documents to arrive at their opinions.

This is ludicrous...laughable...ridiculous. Even Leander says he needs to work with originals to offer an expert opinion...apparently in that he is wrong, but in everything else he is right?

Insanity!

Anyway, in our quest for further knowledge regarding document examining, Ben came across this interesting information which he shared with me and i have been reading so i thought i would share it with everyone else, for interest:

http://tinyurl.com/n4rr9v

It urges caution whereby a document examiner is examining scripts of an unfamiliar nature...relevant in this discussion, i think.

The whole thing is very interesting...for example i have just come across a bit which states that document examining takes in things that are more than the eye can see, putting paid once again to the old chestnut that anyone with eyes can have as valid a view as anyone else. Either we respect professional training or we do not, and i respect the fact that Ms Iremonger saw the originals and was of the professional expert opinion, that she allowed to be published and attributed to her, that the signatures did not match.

I have the utmost respect for all but one of the people who are on the side of being convinced that an identification has been established. What is of constant disappointment to me is that the posters who have not yet been convinced of a match are more often derided for perceived failings in not capitulating what i, for one, honestly beleive, which is that no identification has yet been proven from the materials and the context of those materials.

I should think i would deserve less respect if i did capitulate. For me, the identification remains a possible one, neither probable nor proven.


(As an aside, i find it reprehensible that Fish, you should bombard Leander seven times just to come to the same result...i.e., he cannot give us a professional opinion, and also reprehensible that you should portray the debate, and any perceived insults therein, as being a one-sided one, when the evidence on these boards is that you have been just as guilty of "malicious interpretations", not only of wordings but of posters' intentions.)

[Jane Welland]

Hi BB

I agree entirely - I understand that this debate has an emotional investment for some -

even so...

I do not think the 'This is right because I say it is' approach to debating is paricularly helpful - and I think is rather suggests weak argument.

Suggesting, implying, or otherwise contending that those who disagree with the certain identification of Toppy with Hutchinson are in some was lacking, deficient, or missing the point, strikes me as being a little feeble.

There is nothing remotely far-fetched or outlandish about the reservations I have seen expressed on these boards - to suggest otherwise is fallacious.

It grieves me to see this one-up-manship, which will achieve nothing more or less than hostility and resentment.

As we can all see from this afternoon's efforts.

Since this debate will clearly continue - how about some mutual respect?

Best to all

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"Fisherman – please, before you respond with antagonism..."

Why would I answer with antagonism, Jane? You have never given me any reason to.

"Because otherwise, this triumph of yours counts for little."

I think, Jane, that you are shooting beside the target here. I am not interested in or anticipating any "triumph" on my own behalf - once thruth prevails and "triumphs", I will be quite happy. I was not the one who dug up the signatures, and I will claim no fame in whatever result the may be awarded.

You have reiterated what Leander said about a "full expert opinion", and I have no beef with that; moreover, I have never had so. Please go through the posts I have made, from the beginning, and realize that it was me and nobody else that taught us that Leanders words did NOT represent a full expert opinion. I will gladly say it once more, if needed: the comparison he has made does not count as a full expert opinion, quite simply - and it never could have.
It would not have mattered if he had all three signatures, just as it would not have mattered if he had the originals. THAT STILL WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENT FOR HIM TO GIVE A FULL EXPERT´S OPINION!
What he would have needed to give such a full opinion would be 10+ examples of Toppys signature, 10+ of the witnesses´ditto and the originals. And this he did not have, and, as it stands and reasonably will keep standing, the wish for a full expert´s opinion ON ANYBODYS BEHALF remains useless.

So, let´s once and for all stop speaking about Leanders examination from that perspective; I think we ALL accept that it never WAS a full experts opinion!

Nor was that the aim from the beginning. The one thing that led on my question to Frank Leander was Bens stating that there were more dissimilarities involved than similarities inbetween the signatures. I thought, Sam thought, Mike thought, Debra thought and a small host of others thought that this was not true. I even copied the witness signature number three on thin paper and lay it over the image of Toppys signature, thus confirming that they WERE very much alike. But none of this was accepted by Ben.

THAT is why I turned to Leander and THAT is why I sent him the third signature together with the marriage and census signatures. I wanted to find out if it was legitimate, as seen by a true professional, to conclude that the witness signature WAS much alike the Toppy signatures. And yes, by now Leander has (repeatedly, thanks to Ben) confirmed that this is indeed the case. Moreover, he has asserted that there are no other dissimilarities involved in this comparison, other that dissimilarities in amplitude. And he has, over and over again, stated, in various wordings, that he believes we have a genuine match - judging by the twodimensional, meagre material he has seen!

But Ben, who in the beginning of the 1911 thread said that nobody would be more happy than him if it was a match, has in the choice of accepting that Leander genuinely speaks for a probable match and the choice of calling him a liar, opted for the second alternative, IN SPITE OF the earlier evinced eagerness to find the witness identity. And this applies, likewise, IN SPITE OF the fact that Leander tells us that his opinion could never be regarded as a full experts opinion, and IN SPITE OF Leander branding him malicious. He could easily have accepted Leanders verdict, and then moved on to say "but the evidence is far too small to reach any certainty", and that would have been something I would readily accept: It IS far too small an amount of evidence, and that applies fortwith. Plus he could have kept claiming that the signatures were not even remotely alike, if he wushed to -the one thing he cannot do, however, is to remove the right for Leander to present his evidence in the way he chooses to, and to be belived when he says he believes in a match as it stands.

Incidentally, the word "meagre" was chosen by me, Jane, to substitute the Swedish word "knapp". I could have translated it into "unfull", "thin", "somewhat unsufficient" or "slightly lacking" too, but I chose the word "meagre", because I am in no way trying to "push" the value of Lenaders verdict. It pushes itself, at least in the respect I was hoping it would; there is a signature around, purportedly by the Dorset Street witness that leads a renowned expert to say that it is so alike the Toppy signatures that he would be surprised if it was not by the same man. It is - whichever way we look upon it - an almighty pointer in the direction of a match, and that stands too, just as does the opinion that we can´t get a full assessment on the material used.

But the sole intention of my posts this time over, has been to show very clearly that Ben has manouvred himself into a completely untenable position on the weighed judgement of Leander; he is very much entitled to say that he thinks the match a probable one, and when he does so, we are all equally obliged, not to accept his verdict as true, but that he has given his honest opinion throughout!
It should never have been allowed to become a matter of contention the way I see it, but once Ben made it such a matter, there was little I could do but to offer Leander the opportunity to defend himself.

I have reason to believe that Ben once more will fly into a rage over my post; he regularly does. Please understand why I may not answer to it, in such a case. My stance is that he has presented nothing new at all, but instead tried to evoke a maximum of irritation, and I have already had all the irritation I can take when he decided to brand Leander a liar and an unetchical researcher and expert. I have published my sentiments about it and I will stand by them fortwith, but I see no reason to argue about it with a man that has lost his footing so completely as Ben has - it will offer nothing useful at all. Whenever I identify anything that may BE useful in a discussion leading forward, I will return to the discussion with Ben - but not before that.

See, Jane - no antagonism there, was there...?

On a side note, when you write: "There is nothing remotely far-fetched or outlandish about the reservations I have seen expressed on these boards", would that include Bens assertion that Leander has lied to keep me happy and try to get rid of me, Jane? I hope not.

The best, Jane!
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Thanks Fisherman

for your response to my post.

The main point that I wished to raise is that Leander has seen a limited number of examples, even within what is available. This does matter, I'm afraid, because the three witness signatures display inconsistancies - sending the one that most resembles Toppy's signatures is a flawed approach because it creates a biased dataset. To fairly judge, Leander would have needed to see all the available material - yes, I take your point about there being insufficient material to begin with, but not supplying him with all of what there is doesn't help the situation. His view must therefore be treated with caution, however we, as individuals, see the potential match between Toppy and the Dorset Street witness.

He has, as I said earlier, not seen the full picture.

Leander has pointed out differences in the signatures as well, Fisherman, and I have to say that they are all pretty clear - now, I understand that there has been much debate concerning how those differences have arisen - whether it be through natural progression over time, or whether it be because the signatures were in fact penned by separate individuals - but those differences remain, like it or not. I would agree of course that it is quite possible for handwriting to evolve over time - why not? Many reasons occur to me as to why this should happen - through handicap, or age, for example. Here, it must be said, the examples of Toppy's handwriting that we know of show no such alteration - indeed, the Census signatures are so similar to his marriage certificate that they could have been written at the same time - instead of years apart as they actually were.

The signatures originate in three events - the witness statement, the marriage certificate and the Census - I think it wise to exercise caution when there is no discernible change between events 2 and 3, but there are differences between events 1 and 2. Just a note of caution, that's all - and a fair sample to begin with.

It's perfectly reasonable - and very much in the interests of anyone who wants to confirm something beyond reasonable doubt - to proceed in a manner that is not open to reasonable criticism. Supplying Leander with the full set of examples would have been better on this scale that not doing so - because, as you see, you have left yourself open to criticism for it.

Anyhow - it remains unresolved, for a number of reasons. So on we go!

Since you raise the issue - as an aside, I would say, Fisherman, that perhaps you should care a bit less about what Ben thinks! Even if you can't get on, mud-slinging, cathartic as it may be, only breeds resentment!



Peacefully yours

Jane x

[Fisherman]

"Supplying Leander with the full set of examples would have been better on this scale that not doing so - because, as you see, you have left yourself open to criticism for it."

Only if I had set out to claim that something aiming to look like a full examination had been made, Jane. And - once again - that I did not do, which I have also openly stated throughout. Since I have all the time said that I needed to know if a top quality researcher recognized the same thing that I do - that the witness signature I supplied him with is a very good match with Toppys ditto, it would be barking up the wrong tree to criticize me for not going about things the way other posters, with other possible aims in mind, would have done.

Of course, the dearth of signatures and the fact that they were copies mean that we will be left with no full assessment. But as far as I am concerned, what we have is quite enough to satisfy myself that a match is beyond resonable doubt - there is not a chance in Utopia that one of the handful of Hutchinsons about wrote in the exact same fashion as did Hutch/Toppy, or, indeed, that an imposter who had the exact same type of handstyle as Toppy, actually chose the alter ego "George Hutchinson" when he masqueraded on Dorset Street that night. It defies all common sense, and remains very, very much unsubstantiated suggestions, AT LEAST IF YOU ASK ME (and a couple of the best informed Ripperologists around on these boards, to the best of my judgement).

Therefore, I am quite content to work from the supposition that Hutch IS identified, and I will do so fortwith, just as I have said. Not doing so ON MY BEHALF would equal working from a supposition that the earth is flat, and I just won´t do things that swear utterly and totally against my convictions. I don´t work that way.

"as an aside, I would say, Fisherman, that perhaps you should care a bit less about what Ben thinks!"

Well, Jane, it´s not as much what he thinks as it is what he says. If you consider that he has called Leander, a man who has been very kind and generous to us on my call, a liar and an unethical expert (that´s the gist of things, as I am sure you must agree), and that he has implied that I may have written Leanders posts myself (as evinced by Bens musings that "even the language" is the same inbetween us - one would have hoped that Ben could have realized that I translated Leander, and so my language will colour his words), you may see why I have felt compelled to take Ben to task on the matter. You simply don´t do what he has done, and you simply don´t make that kind of allegations against discerning, generous, helpful, knowledgeable men like Frank Leander - it is far, far beyond any decency, as I am sure you will agree.

That said, you may have noticed that I stay away from any exchange with Ben nowadays, as least as long as I am of the opinion that the discussion is not brought forward by it. That is as best as I can do.

Incidentally, unless you feel awkward about it, do you mind answering my question whether you agree with Ben that Leander probably lied to keep me happy and get rid of me? It would be helpful to know your stance on that issue.

The best, Jane!
Fisherman

[babybird67]

Did I just hear an angelic trumpet of triumph? Yes, I am one of you now.

Smug Refuter of Scientific Method

Yes, you heard my angelic instrument, but i wont "harp" on about it. At least my angelic status has some integrity to it, unlike that of a nerfarious incorrigible Hell Fiend.

(loves ya really )

[The Good Michael]

Leander has clearly said something like: The preponderance of extant evidence leads me to the conclusion that the signatures are likely to belong to the same man. I don't have everything available to me (no one ever will), and there could be extenuating circumstance such as the unlikelihood of the authors having had the same writing teacher, that may cause me to rethink things, but thus far, Toppy seems to be Hutch.

Is it 100%? Of course not. Nothing is. Is it enough, with all other 'coincidences' to make Toppy into Hutch. Not 100%, but there is probability rather than merely possibility. Anyone who can't see that, regardless of what the final outcome may actually be, doesn't know what an elephant is.

Sorry, but I have to go back to the Toppy camp again.


Flip Flopper

[Fisherman]

I missed you, Mike; not that I´m going soft on you or something, but us Swedes are totally unfamiliar with how elephants look. You, on the other hand, seem to be pefectly able to identify them. Meaning that you may come in handy.
Welcome back.

Fisherman
relieved

[Jane Welland]

Really?

No Elephants in Sweden?

Well, you learn something new every day!

Jane x

[babybird67]

Sorry, but I have to go back to the Toppy camp again.


Flip Flopper

Traitor. Although flip floppers make good presidents...i vote for Fiend!