The Leander Analysis

[Ben]

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

Not that tiresome numbers game again? Anything but that. I'd have no problem at all if you observed that a handful of people shared aspects of your viewpoint, since that would constitute an accurate statement, but it's when you start mutating that number into a "host" that you run the risk of irritating or misleading people, albeit not intentionally.

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.

The fact that you got your crayons out and conducted an amateurish experiment "confirms" nothing of the sort, and it is frankly ridiculous to suggest otherwise. Do professional document examiners get out their tracing paper and attempt to establish handwriting congruity that way? No. So why assume that any weight should be given to your non-expert-endorsed experiment, especially when we know that a legitimate expert has concluded that the handwriting doesn't match? We know that the original samples weren't remotely the same size, thus eradicting any possible worth in that experiment. Hardly surprising, then, that none of that was accepted by Ben.

He could easily have accepted Leanders verdict

Oh, but I did accept Leander's indisputably neutral verdict, as I demonstrated by quoting him verbatim. Pestering a man into giving a biased conclusion and then informing that same pestered man that an independent observer - who must be a nefarious villain for even making the suggestion - has taken note of the pesterer's pestering antics is not the same as dismissing his verdict. I utterly reject the premise that Leander considered the match probable, though. It's ludicrous nonsense, as his initial contribution and subsequent "grading systerm" proved beyond any semblance of doubt. If he revised his mind, he either:

A) Changed his mind without telling anybody.

B) Didn't make himself remotely clear first time (highly unbecoming of a profesional in the field of document examination). Or..

C) He was bombarded into supporting an aggressively-phrased, Toppy-endorsing viewpoint.

Those are the only realistic options.

The claim that there are "no other dissimilarities involved in this comparison, other that dissimilarities in amplitude" is a proven falsehood, so why Fisherman should feel the need to keep repeating a statement that cannot possibly be true is beyond me. Fisherman doesn't even seem to know what it means, and yet he's embraced it like his favourite buzzword. Bottom line - Leander specifically referred to differences that did not involved "amplitude". Anyone who claims otherwise is either unfamiliar with Leander's first post or is deliberately suppling information known to be false. Despite all this, Fisherman still keeps bleating that we have a "genuine match" despite Leander cautiously avoiding such silly and OTT phraseology.

You tell me that Leander has painted me as malicious, but what else could you possibly expect if you pollute a potentially valuable source by telling him that I've accused him of lying? Are you expecting him to make me a cup of tea, or what? "Ben the bastard thinks you're a liar, Leander. What have you to say to this charge? P.S. I love you" is a not a particularly laudable strategy if you're seeking a non-biased opinion, and if you're using it in mainstream journalism, that's a significant concern.

You still keep shoving that word "match" in his head, despite the fact that Leander himself never used that stinking word.

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.

Whoops, there he goes again.

Time for another dose of:

Once again - and a trillion more times if necessary - I utterly reject the professed "surprise" if it were not a genuine match since that view is in stark contrast to his initial neutral stance. He couldn't possibly subscribe to both stances simultaneously, so I'm inclined to the view that he fobbed you off a bit after you contacted him a few too many times.

Nobody will ever tire of disputing your oft puked-out nonsense, Fisherman, least of all me. You're even using such rhetoric laden-terminology now as "an almighty pointer in the direction of a match", as though you're trying to dupe people into believing that, despite being fully aware that Leander's first post - and subsequent grading system or instruction manual - conveyed no such thinking. All you're doing is portraying him in the worst possible light. Providing Leander with the opportunity to defend himself does not mean poisoning him against me to the extent of retarding any chances of him giving an unbiased conclusion, uncluttered with indignation over a perceived attack.

Lose a point, Fisherman, for resorting to inspid tactics, unbecoming of a sagacious journalist, and lose a point, Leander, for not having the sense to avoid falling into the silly unsubtle trap. That's all I'm criticising him for, whereas a more scurrilous person might have picked up on his complaint about lawyers attacking his written statements, and used it to illustrate a certain inability on Leander's part to clarify his true meaning. A sort of "phew, it isn't just me, then!" protest.

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

You can "satisfy yourself" of whatever you want, just as long as you don't insist on anyone else swallowing that unjustified "satisfaction" for nothing like good reason, and please try to avoid the usual Toppyite gaucherie of using exaggerated rhetoric-laden terminology to enforce your belief. "Not a chance in Utopia" doesn't even make sense.

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.

But nobody has ever claimed that Toppy had the "exact same type of handstyle" as the witness, apart from two of three irrational zealots, certainly not Leander. So the imposter hypotheses remains more than valid.

It defies all common sense, and remains very, very much unsubstantiated suggestions

But for the people who reject your perception of common sense (which should be most people who are familiar with your often confused posts), they will remain viable suggestions, whether fully substantiated or not.

That said, you may have noticed that I stay away from any exchange with Ben nowadays

Was that meant to be serious??

[Ben]

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.

Not in his initial post, though, Mike.

His initial post was neutral.

He later provided a copy of his "grading system" which included a list of expressions used by the "SKL" to convey a neutral stance. One such expression was "Cannot be excluded" and it was used in relation to the Toppy debate. If that subsequently changed, then something Fishy clearly went on. Not such an outlandish suggestion, really, since we know for certain that all the Numpty-Dumptism involving some alleged "amplitude" was provably false.

So there is unlikelihood, rather than "possibility", on the basis of the judgement of document examiners who don't make irreconcilable statements, and "probable" is just a laugh.

I don't know how many people have taken the time to examine the link I shared with BB, but it includes a chapter entitled "Unfamilair Scripts", and highlights the problems implicit in examining documents in other languages. The author, Dave Ellen, assures us that it doesn't happen very often, and for good reason.

[Fisherman]

Once again, Ben, you contribute nothing new, but instead choose to travel in endless circles, repeating your ever older arguments. When you offer something new, weīll have a look at things again, but until that time: no.

But for one thing, that is: your repeated nagging about "his initial post was neutral". That is a stance that is, was and remains completely nonsensical, for reasons I have outlined a thousand times.
But since you persist, I have dug up YOUR initial post and YOUR initial reaction to Leander. In it, you commented on his work by saying that it was "most informative and reassuring".
Since that, you have changed your mind, but that counts for nothing, Ben, since you tied yourself to a belief that Frank Leanders work was "most informative and reassuring" from the outset. Therefore, yours was a reaction of complete confidence and faith, exactly the way we should treat evidence coming from an expert source. Letīs stick with that, shall we?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Morning All...

I don't know how many people have taken the time to examine the link I shared with BB, but it includes a chapter entitled "Unfamilair Scripts", and highlights the problems implicit in examining documents in other languages. The author, Dave Ellen, assures us that it doesn't happen very often, and for good reason.

(my emphasis)

As I understand it, Leander responded informally to Fisherman's initial request - as a personal favour, not an official analysis in his professional capacity. In fact, I believe that's exactly what Leander himself said.

Yet, since then, Leander's view has apparently become the final word on the matter for some. How does that work?

As to the above - the point is that it wouldn't have happened in this case, either, if Fisherman was not himself Swedish, and naturally contacted an expert in his own country.

I shouldn't think it likely that being Swedish has made any difference at all to Leander's ability to perceive differences and similarities between the form of the signatures. Actually, I think it says as much in that link posted by BB.

I do have concerns regarding the cultural elements of the signatures, however - Garry has observed, for example, that 'handstyles' (to use Fisherman's term) show a remarkable propensity for general similarity at that date in London - is Leander aware of this? Has he taken it into account?

I don't know, of course, but I think it's a fair question, as it may make a difference.

By all means, as I think I have said above, accept that Leander has had a look, as a personal favour to Fisherman, and doesn't rule out a match - I believe that is what he said?

But I think it must be seen as that, taking into account the indisputable facts that:

a) he has only ever viewed copies

b}he has not seen all the examples of signatures that exist to our knowledge

c}he may be unaware of cultural differences which may have a bearing on the comparision.

That, having read what everybody says, is how I see it at the moment.

It isn't the last word.

Not by a long way yet.

Best to all

Jane x

[The Good Michael]

Jane,

If you think he has become the final word, you haven't read the postings. No one is beyond the word 'probable' yet. No one has said that Leander's words leave room for doubt. Not a soul has intimated that. And no one is considering only signatures. Really, it is so much more than that that we are all tired of having to defend signatures when that is only the tusk.

Mike

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland:

"Garry has observed, for example, that 'handstyles' (to use Fisherman's term) show a remarkable propensity for general similarity at that date in London - is Leander aware of this? Has he taken it into account?"

He mentioned in his last post that if George Hutchinson number one and number two both had attented the same school and had the same teacher, then there may be some reason to lift an eyebrow. So yes, he has commented on the issue. But he also added that the chance for this would have been very small.
It also remains to be concluded that Victorians of lower East end London DID write much alike each other. I have seen no substantiation for that in the shape of published research work - but I HAVE seen the wildly differing handstyles of the handful of George Hutchinsons of the correct time and space, published in post 18 of the "1911" thread. Have you, Jane? They vary very much, just as signatures always have done, regardless of time and society.

"Leander has had a look, as a personal favour to Fisherman, and doesn't rule out a match - I believe that is what he said?"

Why, Jane, do you not take into account that he worked from his manual, and therefore COULD NOT have given a more positive verdict? It is perfectly obvious that he was working with a material composed in a manner that never allowed him to give a verdict other than "No certainty about the signature can be reached, but ..."
And why do you not comment on the fact that the same manual allowed for nuancing, and that Leander DID nuance his wiew by adding that AS FAR AS HE COULD SEE FROM THE INSUFFICIENT MATERIAL PROVIDED, a probable match was at hand?

If you are not biased, as you so often press, then why do you use ONLY the part of his statement that - using an inappropriate interpretation that does not take the manuals advice into account - could be represented as unenthusiastic?

I use BOTH of these things: I point out that the "cannot be excluded" verdict relates to the manuals strict bid never to recommend any wording that could be intrepreted as a verdict of a certain match as long as the material involved does not allow for it, just as I point out that Leander makes a very far-reaching use of the opportunity provided to nuance, by saying that he expects any forthcoming evidence to confirm his suggestion of a genuine match.

Why is it, Jane, that an unbiased, thorough and discerning person like you seems to forget about this latter part in each and every post? I would welcome an explanation on that point very much!

As for you repeated claims that the exchange was informal, I still fail to see who has claimed the opposite, just as I fail to see who says the examination was a full one.

What Leander did, was to compare witness signature number three to Toppys signatures, using only the two dimensions provided by the photocopies.
He could not establish anything related to things that are only visible using all three dimensions. But, Like Sam has pressed so many times, such investigations are useful when you try to reveal a fraud, but NOT when you are trying to answer the question "Do these two signatures look alike?" - for then the verb "look" rules that we are dealing with a two-dimensional issue. And THAT is something we can ALL do! What Frank Leander specifically can do, is to add an all of his experience and all of his knowledge, and then have a look of his own and confirm that yes, the signatures ARE quite alike. That is what he can do, and that was what he did. Moreover, he could also use that experience of his to tell us that there were no differences involved in his two-dimensional examination that structurally led him to think that there were two writers about - instead he assures us that the only differences are differences in amplitude. In his very first post he said that there were possible explanations for all the differences involved.

All of this; his reluctance to grade the match on the higher end of his scale and the built-in reasons for this reluctance, his admittance that the examination was not a full one, his stating that there was a measure of informality in his exchange with me, the fact that he did not get the whole material, and the fact that he nuanced his finds by firmly stating that he thinks we have a probable match, Jane - all of this I discuss and acknowledge. But you settle for only saying that Leander found that a match could not be ruled out, although the implications are VERY clear that this is the manual speaking, whereas the PERSONAL musings by Leander speak of a quite probable match.
Why is that, Jane?

And why do you avoid answering the question I put to you about Leanders "lying" to accomodate me? If you agree with me that we should never treat any renowned, well-reputed researcher in such a manner, the question should be easy enough to answer. If you disagree, and think that Leander probably does lie every now and then when he needs to get rid of people, the question should be equally easy to answer. But you seem unwilling to do so.
Why is that, Jane?

The best,
Fisherman

[Jane Welland]

Hi Fisherman

I take what you say on board, yes - and I agree that the signatures look similar - quite honestly, where is the person who says there is no obvious resemblance?

There is clearly a resemblance.

To argue otherwise would be fallacious. I have two sticking points, though Fisherman, and they are these:

Leander has done the best he can with the material supplied - and we should all applaud him for that, imo. However, he has not seen all the signatures, so his comparison cannot be as accurate as it might otherwise have been, manual or not.

That's simple logic, not biased in any or either direction. As you say, judging by his manual, he could never have made a full expert analysis in any event, because the actual quantity of material is insufficient - i.e. there are not 10 signatures on both sides. But that has no bearing whatever on the fact that he would have benefitted from all the available material, even if it was in copy form.

The methodology is at fault here - and I'm attaching no blame to anyone personally by saying so.

Please be clear, Fisherman, I have not ruled out a match. I have asked questions of those who are certain of a match, that is all - which, I might add, have at times been roundly ignored by all.

My second issue is of course with the certainty displayed by other posters in that we have a match between the signatures - because Leander has affirmed it. No he hasn't. Nor can he hope to, expert though he is, without the full sample available to us.

With an incomplete sample, he must emerge with an incomplete view. That implies no bias on my part, it is the product of rational debate.

I have no wish to enter into a personal row with anybody, Fisherman, I thought that was clear? I hope I treat all with due respect and consdieration, and accept the rights of others to hold views other than my own.

Now, you ask again, do I think Leander lied to you - How can I answer that? I have no idea, Fisherman - why do you ask?

I don't see how you can know, as if you ask him, and he was, he isn't likely to tell you, is he? If you want my view, I suggest that you take what you know of the man and ask yourself if you believe he would have done such a thing.

If your question is designed to determine whether I agree with Ben, or am on Ben's 'side' then I'm sorry, but I won't be drawn into that.

In fact, while we're on it - where is this 'anti-Toppy' camp that is so often referrred to? Who are they?I can see the 'pro-Toppy' camp well enough, but it seems to me that unless I'm missing something, the 'opposition' consists of those posters who advocate caution - which is hardly the same thing.

Now, let's be amicable, Fisherman - it cannot be ruled out that you will be shown to be correct - I think the matterr is far from over as yet - as I have said.

Best regards

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Jane Welland writes:

"Please be clear, Fisherman, I have not ruled out a match. I have asked questions of those who are certain of a match, that is all - which, I might add, have at times been roundly ignored by all."

I think, Jane, that nobody can be certain of a match, at least if we are speaking about 100 per cent certain. I myself may well be the one that has stretched the furthest of those who are "Toppy-endorsing" (donīt I just love that word!), since I have said that I work from the assumption that a match is at hand. We have no full examination and we canīt get such a thing, and therefore, some small doubt must remain, but my honest opinion is that the signatures combined with the surrounding circumstances tell me that I have passed the point of reasonable doubt. It would defy logic if it was not a hit, in my opinion - but sometimes logic IS defied, and that is why I think I need to keep the door ever so slightly ajar.
Anybody else who feels that this is wrong are welcome to that wiew and any other wiew they may hold, but the way things stand, I feel very comfortable about accepting the match.

The methodology may well be at fault, just as you say, Jane - but then we are speaking of traditional scientific methodology, and I never set out to use that, nor did I ever claim that I have done so - I needed substantiation for my conviction that the signatures were a probable match, and Leander provided that.
Incidentally, my own stance on the issue of which signatures are most credible to have been written by the witness and which may have been writen by Badham is that they were probably ALL written by the witness. But IF there is any doubt involved, the safest bet would be to believe that the witness signed the protocol at the end, at the very least - and that signature is the one I provided Leander with, and the one I was discussing at the time I contacted him.

And unscientific though the approach may be, what will always remain is the fact that this signature tallies with Toppys to an extent where Leander believes we have a probable match. And no matter if we add the other two signatures, that will not change the inherent qualities of this, the third witness signature in the least. Therefore, we have found that one of the witnessī signatures is a probable match of Toppys ditto, and that is quite enough to conclude that the two were one and the same, as far as I am concerned. The possibility that the match is a coincidental one is effectively microscopical to my mind, quite simply.

"Now, you ask again, do I think Leander lied to you - How can I answer that? I have no idea, Fisherman - why do you ask?"

Because I regard Bens suggestion as completely outlandish and an unforgivable insult, and I think that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with people who resort to such extremities with no substantiation at all. If you share that belief of Bens, it must very much impact my wiew of your work. I am totally uninterested about whether you stand on anybodys side or not, but much interested in where you draw the line for what can be accepted in a discussion with a renowned authority with an impeccable reputation.
That is why I ask.

The best, Jane!
Fisherman

[Victor]

Ben,

Where is the inconsistency in saying that his professional opinion is neutral, not enough information for an unambiguous statement that there was a positive match, but that he thought the signatures were remarkably consistent?

[Ben]

Fisherman, why can't you condense your posts a little more - make them more succinct? I means I have to do the same now! I thought I was bad enough, but you really take the biscuit.

He mentioned in his last post that if George Hutchinson number one and number two both had attented the same school and had the same teacher, then there may be some reason to lift an eyebrow

But that was in stark and radical contrast to anything he said in his irefutably neutral first post, so we can't possibly accept that both stances reflected his view simultaneously, because that's impossible. Best instead to recognise that his contributions have become so polluted as a consequence of more bombardments along the lines of: "Please say it's Toppy! It is Toppy, isn't it?", that his radically opposing viewpoints effectively cancel eachother out.

it also remains to be concluded that Victorians of lower East end London DID write much alike each other. I have seen no substantiation for that in the shape of published research work - but I HAVE seen the wildly differing handstyles of the handful of George Hutchinsons of the correct time and space

But then Garry Wroe, who it wouldn't take any stretch of the imagination to guess, has probably seen more signatures than you during the course of his research than you have, and his observations were that handwriting from the period is often so similiar that he would be surprised if there were not at least some degree of similarity between two signatures, irrespective of whether or not they'd been written by the same person, and the earlier examples from the 1911 thread tend to bear this out.

Why, Jane, do you not take into account that he worked from his manual, and therefore COULD NOT have given a more positive verdict?

I don't know if you accidentally misread the manual or are deliberely seeking mislead or what here, but the manual specifically stated that that the term "Cannot be excluded" is used in cases where there may be "tendencies one way or the other", which accurately describes Leander's first letter, in which he outlined both the tendencies towards differences (nothing to do with amplitude!) and the tendencies towards similarity in some aspects. Leander himself must have clung to the hope that by providing the manual, there would be an end to the pestering for "clarification", but that wasn't to be, and there's no better way to gain his attention to telling him that his credibility is under attack.

a probable match was at hand

Bullocks. He didn't say anything of the sort in his initial letter. We know that for a fact now, courtesy of his manual.

If you are not biased, as you so often press, then why do you use ONLY the part of his statement that - using an inappropriate interpretation that does not take the manuals advice into account - could be represented as unenthusiastic?

Probably because she realises that she cannot possibly accept everything Leander says, all at once, because his alleged observations contrast with one another so markedly. "Cannot be ruled out" warping into "suprised if not a match" was our first indication that something was seriously amiss, but in a more damning case of proven contradiction, he leaps majestically from listing non-amplitude related differences to claiming that there was no difference other than in amplitude.

That's a contradiction.

A proven one.

So it doesn't suprise me if Jane doesn't accept the whole caboodle. How can she, in light of the above?

just as I point out that Leander makes a very far-reaching use of the opportunity provided to nuance, by saying that he expects any forthcoming evidence to confirm his suggestion of a genuine match.

"Far-reaching"? That's one way of putting it! At least you've started to concede now that his intepretation and use of unambiguous dictionary definitions is "reaches" somewhat. No wonder this gentleman seems to have a problem with lawyers attacking his statements.

"Did he write it, Mr/Dr. Leander"?

"Well, it isn't beyond the remotest realms of possibility, but...

"So, it's unlikely, is what you're saying?"

"Oh no, I'd be astonished if he didn't write the thing"

"But but but...you just said..!!"

All joking aside here, it's either the case that he used the word correctly, but radically altered his stance later to appease a nuisance, or this particular expert has a genuine problem with clarity. All this after we've learned that foreign "experts" aren't the best candidates for making comparisons with scripts in the English language.

What Leander did, was to compare witness signature number three to Toppys signatures, using only the two dimensions provided by the photocopies.

Just signature #3? What about signatures #1 and #2?

If he didn't see the latter, we're in a hideous pickle, because Sue Iremonger compared all three witness signatures, and using original documents to boot. If he only saw the third signature, then I'm wondering why? Would that imply that you only sent him the signature that you felt resembled Toppy's handwriting? In which case, there's almost an argument that you arranged the material in such a way as to engender the conclusion you wanted him to give.

But, Like Sam has pressed so many times, such investigations are useful when you try to reveal a fraud, but NOT when you are trying to answer the question "Do these two signatures look alike?"

Back to the fallacy that pressing something a certain amount of times makes a flawed observation any more pursuasive. Still wrong, of course, since Leander knew full well that he wasn't dealing with a case of fraud, and yet he still "pressed" the observation that a full expert opinion wasn't possible in the absence of the original documents.

What Frank Leander specifically can do, is to add an all of his experience and all of his knowledge, and then have a look of his own and confirm that yes, the signatures ARE quite alike. That is what he can do, and that was what he did

I utterly reject that, though, since such a view couldn't possibly resemble his first contribution to the topic which, as we learn from his grading systerm, was inescapably neutral.

instead he assures us that the only differences are differences in amplitude.

But that statement has been proven to be false.

I've told you what "amplitude" means, and it clearly wasn't a word you were even familiar with. If you return to his first post - the one that you'd prefer to forget was ever made - you'll discover that he listed the differences, and most of them had nothing whatsoever to do with amplitude. I'm going to have great fun pointing this out whenever you think it might be a good idea to repeat the original objection as though it were never proven untrue.

...nuanced his finds by firmly stating that he thinks we have a probable match

Odd that for a such a "firm statement", we've never actually heard any such thing from Leander. I guess this is the bit where Fisherman contacts Leander for an 8th time, and elicits another responds where "firm statement" usefully appears on cue. Once again, we can have all sorts of jollies returing once again to the reality that "cannot be ruled out" does not mean "probable", as conclusively demonstrated by his manual, but that's entirely up to you.

[babybird67]

some facts through the eyes of a babybird...

1. Although this thread is called The Leander Analysis, the initial posting, and various contributions to this and other Hutch-related threads both before and since, has established quite clearly that Leander has not made an analysis. Leander has stated quite clearly that he has been unable to offer a professional opinion given the "meagre" materials he has been presented with, since document examiners cannot pass professional judgements on documents they havent even seen, and has merely offered a "spontaneous" and "personal" comment.

2. No document examiner worth listening to would attempt to come to any professional opinion on documents he or she had not seen. To do so would be, i would imagine, professional suicide, and i doubt any such person would be taken seriously within their field ever again should they do so. This is why every single time Leander has been pestered, , i mean approached for "clarification" , he has consistently reiterated this point...that he is unable to tender a professional expert opinion...the materials just do not allow him to do so.

3. Can we dispense with this ludicrious idea, therefore, that there is some kind of professional opinion carrying some kind of weight forthcoming from Leander, since he himself has consistently eschewed the contention that he has given one?

4. Leander has been said in his latest comments to have provided some commitment to the idea that Toppy was "probably" Hutch, if I am to take Mike's comments, in which he congratulates Fisherman on painfully torturing this information out of poor Leander at the seventh attempt, as correct. If he now thinks Toppy is "probably" Hutch, why did he not say this in his first to sixth responses? Should someone be pleased about such a judgement being forthcoming at a seventh attempt to obtain it? Should we not now be wondering exactly what Leander has based his change of opinion on? It would be perfectly easy to understand this apparently increased confidence in the Toppy/Hutch identification had he been influenced professionally, by examining evidence that had since come to light, such as the original documents, or other sample signatures from the witness (which we do not have)...then a change of stance would be rational and explicable.

But there has been no new evidence has there.

So we are left perplexed as to why he has changed his mind? It is not an evidence-based change of mind. One can only conclude with Ben that the dogged persistence with which he has been relentlessly pursued over this issue has worn him down and he sincerely wishes to draw a line under the episode and has said what he has said in order to effect that conclusion.

There is no other explanation for his change of (personal and spontaneous) verdict. Thus his opinion is now effectively worthless in this debate, because it has been changed by factors other than the examination of evidence, and has shown inexplicable inconsistency. I say this with the greatest respect to Leander himself, but we need to stop referencing his opinion as if it should have some greater bearing on our examination of the signatures than Iremonger's or anyone else's. It is a personal and spontaneous opinion and is interesting as such...it is nothing more than that.

5. If anyone had bothered looking at the link Ben shared with me, they would have seen that in the field of document examining, there is an acknowledged problem with examining documents which have been created in scripts/alphabets/writing which differ from the native script of the document examiner themselves. This is because there is naturally an unfamiliarity with similarities and differences that would be more apparent to someone natively accustomed to looking at that script. Thus within the field itself it is acknowledged that it is not advisable to have documents examined by examiners who are not familiar with the scripts contained in the documents themselves, and, that if they are so examined, much less weight should be given to the conclusions forthcoming from them. This is advice from the field of document examining itself! Leander is obviously not as familiar with English script as Iremonger would be. His opinion should therefore be approached with much more caution, as acknowledged by his peers, and as i am sure he would also acknowledge, since he has quite reasonably already understood that he cannot give his professional opinion, and also acknowledged that he has had "meagre" materials, "copy-based", not original, and also acknowledged that he himself may have been giving too much weight to the material he has seen (i cant remember the exact quotation, but that was my understanding of what he was saying).

So...factors which caution us against taking Leander's comments too seriously:

a, he told us himself he could not supply a professional opinion and could only comment in a "spontaneous" and "personal" capacity.

b, he has not seen the original documents. Nobody who has not seen the original documents can possibly know what factors within those originals could influence the outcome of the examination, since they haven't actually seen them.

c, he is working in a script with which he is unfamiliar. This has a bearing on whether or not he is best placed to recognise common similarities or differences that may be apparent to those examining in their native script.

d, he has changed his mind from the neutral one of "cannot be ruled out" to something which has been more positive, according to Mike, and this change of mind cannot be attributed to the examination of evidence, only to the influence of a certain pressure on him. This factor alone, unfortunately, means i am unable to take Leander's comments on the issue seriously any more, since integrity is central to this issue, and changing one's mind without clear, consistent, logical, evidence-based reasons, sadly affects the integrity of one's opinion. I understand why he has done so, because in essence it doesnt matter since he was only passing a personal comment, but trying to represent this as a professional opinion which must be revered and kow-towed to when it is quite demonstrably nothing of the sort is starting to wear very thin with me.


I am sure there is lots more i intended to say but i am aiming to emulate the Hell Fiend's admirable brevity ...only another minus 342,786 words to go!

[Jane Welland]

Hi Fisherman

You speak of an outlandish an unforgiveable insult - with the greatest of respect, not by me. I don't quite see how this is my business - I would have thought the whole 'He said this, He said that' affair was between you and Ben, frankly.

But you seem unsatisfied with the response I have so far given, which is that I cannot possibly know what Leander thought. If you look at my post above, you will note that I have consciously refrained from speculating on this very matter.

Anyhow - what do I think? Well, to judge by your most recent account of his response to you, he has put the matter quite fairly, I think. I thought I had made that clear already? He has insufficient material. You say that he would always have such because there are not the requisite 10 samples on each side - and I accept that. What I don't accept is that his view can be accepted as being any more than it is when it is based on less than the whole number of samples available. His view would be worth more if he had seen them all. I'm sticking to that one, I'm afraid, as it is a matter of plain logic - I say again, if you don't have the complete picture, you have incomplete information - stands to reason.

I accept what you say about your reasons for sending the final witness signature to Leander, but with the greatest of respect, Fisherman, in not sending all three you have run the risk of unduly colouring Leander's view towards a match - I do not say intentionally.

If you ask me why I think some posters have an issue with your communications with Leander, then I think this is one thing which has not helped. I hope you see my point, which I am trying to make as a point of principle, and not in order to point the finger of blame at anyone.

So for me, it isn't a question of Leander 'lying' to you, or not - I have no idea if he wants to get rid of you - I'm not the person you should be asking about that, as only Leander knows the answer to that one.

I do think, however, and have already said as much, that his view is of limited usefulness, for the reasons given above.

Now, Fisherman, I hope that will do for you - I really don't want to engage in a protracted argument concerning who has slandered who - in my view, it is regrettable that people are pushed to such tactics in the first place.

Best regards

Jane x

[Fisherman]

Ben writes:

"t's either the case that he used the word correctly, but radically altered his stance later to appease a nuisance, or this particular expert has a genuine problem with clarity"

But thatīs not what you said in your initial post, Ben. In that you opted for him being most informative and reassuring.

The best,
Fisherman

[babybird67]

Incidentally, my own stance on the issue of which signatures are most credible to have been written by the witness and which may have been writen by Badham is that they were probably ALL written by the witness. But IF there is any doubt involved, the safest bet would be to believe that the witness signed the protocol at the end, at the very least - and that signature is the one I provided Leander with, and the one I was discussing at the time I contacted him.

And unscientific though the approach may be

Oh my God! I don't usually read your posts Fish but this is priceless! So Leander wasnt even given the other two George Hutchinson signatures to compare???? You decided which one YOU deemed most similar, most likely to have been written by the witness, despite there being acknowledged doubt about whether Badham signed one or more, and which one or more, and you just sent him that one???


Oh it gets better and better. You dont think he should have had those other two signatures at all? Even since one of his problems was the lack of available comparable material? Yet we had three alleged Hutchinson signatures, but you only sent one? The one that didnt have half the name George left off? The one that it has been suggested was written by Badham?

Fish, honestly, to call this method unscientific is like comparing the Biblical flood to a teardrop splashing on arid ground.

You have single-handedly shown just how flawed and unreliable Leander's comments actually are, because you have contributed to undermining them and making them so.

it now has to be conceded that whatever Leander said even in his personal capacity is completely and utterly inadmissable within this debate. End of story.


(Mike...i kept your cloud warm for you, come join the angelic hosts who have been proven correct in treating Leander's view with circumspection all along...i cannot believe for a moment you would endorse providing just the one signature that we have from the witness statement to anyone for comparison...please tell me you dont)

[Ben]

More:

I think, Jane, that nobody can be certain of a match, at least if we are speaking about 100 per cent certain. I myself may well be the one that has stretched the furthest of those who are "Toppy-endorsing" (donīt I just love that word!), since I have said that I work from the assumption that a match is at hand

That's fine if you think so, but please avoid the usual trap of ramming your "near-certainty" down other people's throats, because she majority clearly don't share it. The nearest thing we've got to a full examination is that which was undetaken in the early 1990s by Sue Iremonger, as attested to by several experts in the field, and she came to the conclusion, after seeing all three statement signatures, that Toppy probably wasn't the witness. You're equally entitled to your opinion that it "defies logic", although it's a rather silly stance, since we know that Iremonger is an expert and you are not, and it also comes with the troubling inference that you're somehow the ultimate barometer of "logic".

I needed substantiation for my conviction that the signatures were a probable match, and Leander provided that.

Maybe after being pestered several times, but certainly not initially, as his first letter demonstrated. You must try to avoid the trap of admitting to "needing substantiation". Doesn't read very well. You should approach an expert with a clean slate, rather than harbouring some perceievd "need" for an expert to endorse the conclusion you've already jumped to. That tends to lead to skewed results, which isn't helped by the fact that you only gave him one signature, and related "information" about the number of George Hutchinsons in the East End in 1888 that you couldn't possibly have known to be true or false.

And unscientific though the approach may be, what will always remain is the fact that this signature tallies with Toppys to an extent where Leander believes we have a probable match.

Don't keep saying it, Fisherman. It doesn't add any more weight to a previously challenged position. I utterly reject that he came to the conclusion that "we have a probable match". If he really thought so, he'd have said as much from the outset, or at the very least conveyed that general impression. But he did nothing of the sort, and nobody should be expecting to swallow radically contrasting views.

And no matter if we add the other two signatures, that will not change the inherent qualities of this, the third witness signature in the least

That's nonsense. What if he compared the second signature, for example and decided that it could not have been written by the person who wrote either the 1911 census entry OR the third signature? Such comparisons are absolutely necessary, not least to determine the accuracy of Leander's own discernment. What are we supposed to make of his views, for example, if his discounted two signatures that we know for certain have a common source?

You can warp whatever he said into a conclusion that we have a match, and use silly rhetorical language when claiming that the alternative has a "microscopical" probabiluty of being correct, but you're saying so on the basis of having dismissed Ms. Iremonger's findings, despite the fact that that the compared all three original statement signatures, not just one that was sent via email. We've since learned that reservations are entertained about the validity of foreign documents examiners being used to compare non-native scripts.